Talk:Zhuge Liang/Archive 1

message: Comment from a reader:  It is my understanding that "gliding horse" and "wooden ox" are names for various types of wheelbarrow, but I'm not bold enough to exchange the given text for my own without independent confirmation. -- Originally posted to article by  at 04:00, 17 Jun 2005 UTC
The Southern Expedition
it says that Zhuge Liang is sick during the campaign against Meng Huo, this is false. He is not sick at all. since he did not touch a drop of the poisonous water.
You know, I could swear that I was sick last weak, and I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the waters of Nan Zhong either. And you know, I could swear Zhuge Liang died of sickness and overexertion, and he didn't touch any poisonous waters in Wu Zhang. 74.12.7.56 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from 24.1.141.49 

message: Although Zhuge Liang is the best strategist that has ever lived during the fall of the Han, many other great strategists and advisors such as him  have come and gone. Even if the other mindful  men did not measure up to Zhuge Liang, please  give them the respect they deserve for having 
knowledge either about the land or the enemy  they faced.
* Xu Shu: Advisor of Liu Bei
* Tian Feng: Yuan Shao's Strategist
* Guo Jia: Cao Cao's Advisor
* Zhou Yu: Rival of Zhuge Liang and Strategist of Wu
* Sima Yi: Rival of Zhuge Liang and Strategist for Wei
* Lu Xun: Lu Meng's Successor and Strategist for Wu
* Li Ru: Dong Zhuo's Advisor
* Zhuge Liang: Liu Bei's Strategist
* Pang Tong: Advisor of Liu Bei
* Xu You: Advisor of Yuan Shao
--Zhang Liao 07:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Strategist of the Han! 

message: The "Zhuge Liang Complete Biography" and "Additional Commentary" sections appears to be a direct copy from this site (the site wasn't working at the time of writing this message, cached version available here). Thus, I have removed that section. Akamad 07:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  I didn't realize either it was a coypright violation.  (That is because, actually, the quality of those sections wasn't high, and therefore I assumed that a Wikipedian had attempted to write those sections him/herself.)  --Nlu 07:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: Zhuge Liang was great however He was actually a Politician not a stragetist as people mistakenly thought. This mistake is caused when people who have read the "Romance of the Three Kingdom" and mistakenly thought this book is a real history book.
---
*Correction - He was Shu's de facto strategist before the kingdom of Shu was established. Sans the Kingdom, he would have no court to run. Furthermore, the SGYY (The romanticized version which a lot of people do read) has a strong bias towards Shu, as the author did. This is why people get the interpretation that he was more than he was. HOWEVER (and keep in mind, SGZ is the right source to go to, as you've said), he in all points was their strategist for a large portion of time, from when Liu Bei gained Zhuge Liang in his entourage, until they took Cheng Du, and established Shu as their Dynasty. Furthermore, Zhuge Liang is known to have led several missions, that are verified as having taken place (Attacks in Nan Zhong, Against Sima Yi in the Wu Zhang Plains.) So while you may be right that he WAS a politician, do not overlook the fact that he was also their strategist, for a large chunk of time, and later times in the future, after Cheng Du was captured. On the topic of the battle at Red Cliffs (Chi Bi), I'm not sure where you got the idea that the fire attack was credited solely to Zhuge Liang. The last time I read, it was a joint venture between Zhuge Liang, Zhou Yu, and Huang Gai, who suggested the fire attack himself. 74.12.7.56 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All of you have a big mistake

message: It is true that Zhuge Liang did not hardly ever
participate in battles, but that did not mean he
was not a strategist of war.
When Liu Bei allowed him to take control of his
army for the first time, Zhuge Liang, which is
from the novel, manage to defeat Cao Cao at the
Ru Nan area known as the Bo Wan Po to halt their
attack on Liu Bei. Also, during the Nanman Rebellion,
Zhuge Liang went forth and ended Meng Huo's attack
using only simple tactics against him. (The ambushes
and winning over his comrads.) Now it is true that
Zhuge Liang failed much when he looked towards the
north to Wei area. The only mistake that he made for 
a commander is allowing Ma Su to be in charge of such
an important area. (Jieting)
More or less, Zhuge Liang to a degree or less was
a strategist regardless of who was better than him
at the time. The only reason why he is highly seen
as the best is he could foretell the events or ruses
being used in battle that would happen. Examples of
that would be his conflict with Zhou Yu and yes, all
of that is from novel. But beside the novel, can you
or I say who the real Zhuge Liang was?
--Zhang Liao 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhuge Liang: A Simpleton or Strategist 

message: If Lu Meng launched a surprise attack then Guan Yu's retaliation was not the reason the union with Sun Quan broke down, this comment is misleading. I understand that Lu Meng struck first and it was Wu that broke the alliance (considering Guan Yu was attacking Fan castle of Wei at the time). Unless I'm missing something? Feel free to correct me. Just thought I'd point this out anyway.--RBlowes 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The union with Sun Quan broke down when Guan Yu retaliated on the Kingdom of Wu in 219 after the surprise attack of Lü Meng. 

message: Sun Quan had long for the return of the Jing Province which Guan Yu guarded. It is true that the Wu ruler did break the alliance of the
Wu and Shu treaty; however, the only reason why Sun Quan sent Lu Meng to attack Jing is because (If you read over the battle of Chi Bi and the
events leading up to Guan Yu's assault on Fan Castle.) Liu Bei with Zhuge Liang's help manage to take over the Jing Province right when Zhou Yu,
Commander-In-Chief, manage to send Cao Ren fleeing from the Nanjun territory. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
After Jing was still in control of Liu Bei's rule for quite some time, Sun Quan was still ever so upset that Liu Bei would not return the province even after Zhou Yu with Zhuge Liang's aid sent Cao Cao's forces back to Xu Chang. More or less, Sun Quan had only wanted Jing back, but due to Zhuge Liang's deft speaking and ability to understand people, the kingdom of Wu would had never gotten back Jing had Lu Meng and Lu Xun not decided to attack Guan Yu from behind.
--Zhang Liao 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Event of Fan Castle 

message: Apparently someone wants to merge this with Dong Jue. I don't believe it should be done, because they are not the same person. Cao Wei 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am mildly against it, but it should be noticed that merger would be from Dong Jue into this article; in other words, what the editor was proposing is to effectively delete the Dong Jue article (apparently believing that Dong is not sufficiently notable?) and insert a couple lines in this article about Dong.  --Nlu (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, perhaps put a  and  flags on Dong Jue and Jiang Wei respectively?  I don't think Dong Jue should be deleted because he is sufficiently notable as a general of a historical state, in my opinion -- far more notable than some of the junk biographies that somehow survive AfDs, for sure.  --Nlu (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Crap!!! I accidently overwrote the original image of Zhuge Liang! Can somebody restore it?! Gamer Junkie 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking how come we have replaced the original image with the one from the game.... --Cyktsui 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that.  I tried going back, but the image is already gone! Well, at least the game Zhuge looks almost identical to the real Zhuge... Gamer Junkie 02:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks okay to me. Doesn't seem to have  any problems - the game pic looks really nice, though. Thanks for putting it in! –-  kungming·2 (Talk) | Review 06:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted the picture, you have to reupload the game image under a different name. _dk 07:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, dk.  Kungming2, I'll re-upload the picture, and this time I'll pay closer attention. Gamer Junkie 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original image

message: There is always much debate behind Zhuge Liang and much is always said about the methods he used in battle. One of his methods is his deft
rhetoric that he used during his conversation with the military officers of the South Land.
Although they each tried to bait him, every word that they breathed was well approached by Zhuge Liang. The best knowledge he showed
was during the attack of the South Land by  Cao Cao. At the time, Zhou Yu was trying his best to eliminate him with every ruse he could think of. Zhuge Liang overshadowed his every attempt and was always well prepared
for the next.
The hardest thing that is still debatable today is wondering how did Zhuge Liang call forth the South-Eastern Winds for the fire attack he and Zhou Yu had planned on. Some people say he knew when it would blow from talking with the sailors or fishermen; some believed it was magic and
many did not even say.--Zhang Liao 06:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of him vs Zhou Yu is a ROTK concoction, as Cai Mao and Zhang Yun were not recorded to be even present in the battle, and that 100K arrows on 20 ships is impossible by law of physics (the method used is ridiculous). His calling the winds is often attributed to magic of just being very able to predict the weather due to his experience as a farmer.Annihilatron (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Greatest Mind under Heaven 

message: Hmmm? No Empty Fortress? No Borrowing Arrows? I haven't read the whole Romance of the Three Kingdoms yet, but am familiar with those stories and others... was there a conscious decision to exclude them? --Ling.Nut 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because none of them happened. And no one bothered to write a section about his almighty powers in the novel yet. _dk 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, the Holocaust never happened either, but there are articles about that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedchikinz (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for that.  pull it into line. Gamer Junkie 00:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tactics..? 

message: There's a place called Wu Hou Ci in the province of Sichuan. It's mostly in memory of Zhuge Liang, so I think this page should mention it somewhere. It's pretty famous :]Treecake88 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this place represent in regard to Zhuge Liang? Make sure you state this.  Photos and references regarding this place would also be good. Gamer Junkie 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wu Hou Ci 

message: I noticed that there is no mention of said primary source in either the article or here on the discussion board, which is rather ironic, especially to those who very self-righteously accuse and ridicule others of not refering to the right source. Perhaps introducing Chu Shi Biao can shed a bit more light over the debate of how much of a strategist/advisor Zhuge Liang was/could have been. In any case, I think there should be at least a link to Chu Shi Biao in the article, if not a whole section dedicated to it. --64.180.11.169 06:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qian Hou Chu Shi Biao 

message: I saw in a documentary many years ago that his descendants are still alive and living in China. Anyone's got a clue? Chensiyuan (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He lived some millennium ago, of course he has descendants if he had children, and I am sure his direct descendants are many.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.37.191 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Descendants

message: He is credited with creating or developing Ba Xing. Can somebody include information about this series in this article? GenuineMongol (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ba Xing (Eight Dispositions) 

message: The "borrowing arrows strategem" section on this article makes the assertion that the feat was not actually accomplished by Zhuge Liang, but by Sun Quan.  What is the basis of this assertion?  What we can only know from the Romance is that the Romance records the strategem as being accomplished by Zhuge Liang.  Short of going back in time using a time machine and ascertaining the truth with our own eyes, the most neutral statement we can say is that "Zhuge Liang is recorded in the Romance as having performed the borrowing arrows strategem", period.
Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.  It isn't a place for pet theories and attitudes.  The fact we have is that the Romance does record Zhuge Liang as having performed the borrowing arrows strategem.
Keep your attitude to yourself, and let it not contaminate neutral dissemination of knowledge.
--Archestrategos (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Borrowing arrows and Sun Quan

message: It is asserted in the article that several feats which are not actually performed by Zhuge Liang has been instead ascribed to him to increase his greatness.  What is the basis of this assertion?
Until a citation or reference can be provided which proves such assertion, it does not belong in this article.
--Archestrategos (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you first read the relevant articles at Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Records of the Three Kingdoms carefully and then come back if you still have outstanding questions. Thank you. _dk (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: You bring up a good point, all assertions made on the articles should be backed up by sources. Further efforts are necessary to reach that goal. But I can say this: the Romance is said to contain 30% fiction, therefore anything included in the novel but not in the Records should be treated as less reliable. I also believe Luo Guanzhong did not mean to revise history, he merely wrote a novel based on history. _dk (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So what Archstrategos is saying, as far as I can tell, is that the historical texts should be brought into question by us 2000 years down the line and written in here at Wikipedia as possibly/likely incorrect? I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at such blatant gall. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Romance of Three Kingdoms, Folklores, Pseudohistories, Chinese Operas, and Zhuge Liang fanfiction

message: According to Zhang Hua Lan's article, "Discussion on Meng Huo," Meng was only a fictional character invented by later historians. Modern historians like Huang Cheng Zhong also pointed out Zhang's view represents the majority of the academics. Note that the the word "Huo" (獲) means "captured" in Chinese.----EkmanLi (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all very interesting, thanks for brining them up. Can you provide full citations (including where the articles can be found, the publish dates, and page numbers) so we can read them ourselves and word them into the relevant articles? I also advise against saying that the character of Meng Huo was completely fabricated, it might be better to say that it was convincingly argued that was the case. Also, there might be scholars that hold different views about Meng Huo's historicity. _dk (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not books, but eassys (I was told that if an article is posted online, it's regarded as published at the date it went online), still I will try giving out when they were included/published in a magazine (mostly university press). "Discussion on Meng Huo"《孟獲辯》is archived in the library of Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. Tan Xiaoliang expressed his view in《諸葛亮“七擒孟獲”質疑》, and the article was published in a university press,《雲南師范大學學報》, at 1985. Huang's article《蜀漢孟獲史實瑣談》was published in 《四川彝學研究》. In April, 1983, Miao Yue expressed his view during an academic discussion (formally the First National Romance of the Three Kingdoms Discussion) concerning the content of the novel, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms."----EkmanLi (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Yup, there are scholars who hold different views about Meng's historicity, and I will present their views in respective articles soon (after my dinner).----EkmanLi (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Meng Huo

message: Is the height reference correct?
"According to historical texts, Zhuge Liang was eight chi tall, roughly between 1.85 metres (6 feet and 1 inch) and 1.95 metres (6 feet and 4.75 inches)."
Since a unit of chi has had a number of different values over time...  
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_%28unit%29#Historical_values
"during the 2nd century BC to 3rd century AD the (Qin Dynasty to Han Dynasty to the Three Kingdoms period), the value of the chi varied between 23.1 to 24.3 cm."
"In the 19th century, the value of chi, depending on the part of the country and the application, varied between 31 and 36 cm."
Where and when did the 8-chi tall reference come from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.173.51 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life (height)