Talk:Water Margin

message: ===To rewrite===
This section was put on the lead because it is a large chunk of the page that needs to be rewritten.  It details only the last few chapters of the book. The entire book needs to be detailed. The chapter outline is not detailed enough. Here is what was redacted from the page:
78-80 Gao Qiu's imperial assault (the fifth) on Liangshan Marsh
thumb|200px|
Marshal Gao Qiu is the commander-in-chief of the expedition against the Liangshan bandits. He summons Commander Liu Menglong, who is adept in naval warfare, and 10 commandants from the various provinces in the empire, to aid in the expedition. The Liangshan bandits, upon knowing this, prepare for battle by readying their weapons, horses, soldiers and rations. In addition, Lin Chong, Huyan Zhuo and Hua Rong are tasked with 2000 men each to make an initial challenge at the imperial force's castle. A few of Marshal Gao's generals are killed and he quickly withdraws his forces into the castle. This provides a great morale boost to the Liangshan bandits.
In order to conquer Liangshan, the imperial forces have to traverse the 800 li marsh. Commander Liu is in charge of the naval forces during this battle. However, the Ruan brothers of Liangshan manage to rout Commander Liu's forces when he is forced to split his boats in order to pass narrow creeks. Commander Liu is captured but released. Marshal Gao executes Commander Liu for the failure, and also due to him being redundant as all his men are killed or captured in the marsh.
The 10 commandants suggest that 100 paddleboats be built for another assault. This time, Gao Qiu leads the assault force by himself. However, the Liangshan bandits again win the battle by having their men diving under Marshal Gao's boats and making holes in them. Gao Qiu is captured and brought to the Liangshan stronghold.
81-82 The Outlaws are granted amnesty
Lin Chong, upon hearing of Gao Qiu's capture, grabs his weapon and is ready to execute him. However, Song Jiang prevents him from doing so, saying Gao Qiu would make it easier for the Liangshan heroes to be granted amnesty. Marshal Gao Qiu and his assistant, Captain Li are kept at the Liangshan stronghold for several days, with good food and lodging. Finally Song Jiang meets with Gao Qiu and proposes to release him together with Captain Li, on the condition that he help with persuading the Song emperor (Huizhong) in granting the Liangshan bandits amnesty. Gao Qiu readily agrees to the condition to save his own life.
When Gao Qiu is about to leave Liangshan, Lin Chong gets wind of his impending departure from Yan Qing and rushes to the shore with Lu Zhishen, only to see Gao Qiu's boat rowing away in the distance. Lin Chong vomits blood and faints, and becomes bedridden.
Gao Qiu, upon returning, feigns illness to avoid punishment by the emperor for his failure in the expedition. The Imperial Tutor, Cai Jing, comes to visit him for a discussion. He suggests that Gao Qiu recommend the emperor to grant amnesty to the Liangshan bandits, so that they can order the bandits to go after Fang La in the south, who has declared himself an emperor. This would greatly weaken the forces of Song's men so that the treacherous officials can more easily deal with them.
Song Jiang's men are finally granted amnesty, but some of the brothers decide to reject the offer of officialship and leave the Liangshan brotherhood. Lin Chong finally dies after his prolonged period in bed, regretting his failure to kill Gao Qiu.
 --Ghostexorcist 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be better to omit an extremely detailed, chapter by chapter summary of the book. It creates a very long and somewhat unorganized section or page. Instead, I think we should summarize the story through the  main plot points and events. Otherwise, we could also summarize the novel through biographies of the various main characters and their progression through the novel. 
--Technicolor852 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not archive!

message: This section was put on the lead because it is a large chunk of the page that needs to be rewritten.  It details only the last few chapters of the book. The entire book needs to be detailed. The chapter outline is not detailed enough. Here is what was redacted from the page:
78-80 Gao Qiu's imperial assault (the fifth) on Liangshan Marsh
thumb|200px|
Marshal Gao Qiu is the commander-in-chief of the expedition against the Liangshan bandits. He summons Commander Liu Menglong, who is adept in naval warfare, and 10 commandants from the various provinces in the empire, to aid in the expedition. The Liangshan bandits, upon knowing this, prepare for battle by readying their weapons, horses, soldiers and rations. In addition, Lin Chong, Huyan Zhuo and Hua Rong are tasked with 2000 men each to make an initial challenge at the imperial force's castle. A few of Marshal Gao's generals are killed and he quickly withdraws his forces into the castle. This provides a great morale boost to the Liangshan bandits.
In order to conquer Liangshan, the imperial forces have to traverse the 800 li marsh. Commander Liu is in charge of the naval forces during this battle. However, the Ruan brothers of Liangshan manage to rout Commander Liu's forces when he is forced to split his boats in order to pass narrow creeks. Commander Liu is captured but released. Marshal Gao executes Commander Liu for the failure, and also due to him being redundant as all his men are killed or captured in the marsh.
The 10 commandants suggest that 100 paddleboats be built for another assault. This time, Gao Qiu leads the assault force by himself. However, the Liangshan bandits again win the battle by having their men diving under Marshal Gao's boats and making holes in them. Gao Qiu is captured and brought to the Liangshan stronghold.
81-82 The Outlaws are granted amnesty
Lin Chong, upon hearing of Gao Qiu's capture, grabs his weapon and is ready to execute him. However, Song Jiang prevents him from doing so, saying Gao Qiu would make it easier for the Liangshan heroes to be granted amnesty. Marshal Gao Qiu and his assistant, Captain Li are kept at the Liangshan stronghold for several days, with good food and lodging. Finally Song Jiang meets with Gao Qiu and proposes to release him together with Captain Li, on the condition that he help with persuading the Song emperor (Huizhong) in granting the Liangshan bandits amnesty. Gao Qiu readily agrees to the condition to save his own life.
When Gao Qiu is about to leave Liangshan, Lin Chong gets wind of his impending departure from Yan Qing and rushes to the shore with Lu Zhishen, only to see Gao Qiu's boat rowing away in the distance. Lin Chong vomits blood and faints, and becomes bedridden.
Gao Qiu, upon returning, feigns illness to avoid punishment by the emperor for his failure in the expedition. The Imperial Tutor, Cai Jing, comes to visit him for a discussion. He suggests that Gao Qiu recommend the emperor to grant amnesty to the Liangshan bandits, so that they can order the bandits to go after Fang La in the south, who has declared himself an emperor. This would greatly weaken the forces of Song's men so that the treacherous officials can more easily deal with them.
Song Jiang's men are finally granted amnesty, but some of the brothers decide to reject the offer of officialship and leave the Liangshan brotherhood. Lin Chong finally dies after his prolonged period in bed, regretting his failure to kill Gao Qiu.
 --Ghostexorcist 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be better to omit an extremely detailed, chapter by chapter summary of the book. It creates a very long and somewhat unorganized section or page. Instead, I think we should summarize the story through the  main plot points and events. Otherwise, we could also summarize the novel through biographies of the various main characters and their progression through the novel. 
--Technicolor852 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: To rewrite

message: While I have not been vouchsafed what harm headings that I would describes as being "at the page" rather than lower in a "page", top section", secondary section", ... etc. sequence (down to a level where additional bracketing pairs of equal-signs stop having any effect on the hdgs' displayed forms (that I've noticed)) is wp:deprecated, my intended use of such was recently reverted. If some sections at especially deep levels on this talk page eventually become otherwise indistinguishable, carry on yourself, perhap reseacrhing what remedies are recommended but not deprecated. I ain'tcha mama.--JerzyA (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: (I.e. The quasi-romanization (maybe Wade-Giles?), via (IIRC!) representing each character's  syllable, coding its two vocal characteristics as, respectively, a roman-alphabet representation of its phoneme sequence, followed by an arabic digit coding one of a handful of intonation patterns.)--JerzyA (talk), (perhaps several saves, in the hour or so preceding 05:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Apparent confusion in the [[pinyin]]) 

message: *I cleaned up the "Fiction and Realities" section for style and grammar. If anybody can verify the Mao/Deng incident with a source or give more info, that'd be nice. Links to different versions of the story availible in translation would also be handy. Lampros 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I started on Chapter 78-80, as the TV show in my country has just finished showing that. Will try to fill in the rest when I have the time. Meanwhile, those of you who know the contents of the novel very well, feel free to fill in the missing chapters, or refine my contribution. Kiwi8 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah by all means. just create a new section with a plot synopsis and people would take it from there<Br>Chensiyuan 18:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests

message: :I remember reading in the water margin somewhere that a Taoist priest attached talismans to a fellow outlaw’s arms and legs, which allowed them to run very fast (provided they refrained from eating meat and drinking alcohol). Was this Taoist Gongsun Sheng or Pan Rui?
The reason I ask is because I feel it is note worthy to be added to either magicians’ article.(Ghostexorcist 11:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Dai Zhong. Thanks for the answer. The magic running info is already on his page. (Ghostexorcist 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Could we put a small block of text in all four translations (Buck, Shapiro, Dent-Young, J.H. Jackson), in WikiSource perhaps and link to it, so that a reader can compare the different translations? Or is this totally outside the scope of the "major" Wiki pages? 85.75.96.254 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea to me.  Bertport 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: Okay, I’ve got a question for those who have read the original Chinese version of the water margin. Apart from the 'Little Tyrant' Zhou Tong (周通), is there ever  a similarly named Zhou Tong (monk) (周侗) (different characters) mentioned in regards to Wu Song, Lin Chong or Lu Junyi in the book? The reason I ask is because the Zhou Tong in question is said, acording to popular chinese legend, to be the martial arts master of these three outlaws. 
General Yue Fei’s fictional biography (early - mid Qing Dynasty) explicitly mentions Lin Chong and Lu Junyi as Zhou Tong's students. However there is no historical evidence to support this as far as I know. That having been said, I believe that since the water margin was written well before Yue Fei’s fictional biography (which many take as historical fact), the original author fused elements from that book into his. Thoughts? (Ghostexorcist 07:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhou Tong 

message: :I moved this from the header box where it DID NOT belong.(Ghostexorcist 11:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's really a credibility issue. for e.g., 中 in Luo's name is clearly Zhong, not Zong. and it's 101% the "Ruan" brothers, not "Yuan" brothers. so when you keep editing otherwise, it seems your research is already suspect. Chensiyuan 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I just finished Sidney Shapiro's translation, and the synopsis for chapters 81-82 is off. Lin Chong -- according to Shapiro's version -- dies of illness late into the Fang La campaign, well after Gao Qiu is released, and never tries to kill Gao. Also, Gao and the corrupt officials do not explicitly send the bandits against Fang La to weaken them (in fact, the bandits petition the emperor to send them against Fang La, as they want to further distinguish themselves against the enemies of the emperor).
Could someone clarify if the synopsis is from a different translation, or is just wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.151.226 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes different versions tell it differently. Chensiyuan 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lin Chong -- Synopsis errors 

message: Shouldn't Eiji Yoshikawa's adaptaion be listed in the Japanese section? 70.55.84.13 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: 水滸傳 and 水浒传 should exist as native language redirects. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirects 

message: The Wade-Giles names should exist in the article and as redirects. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wade-Giles

message: === Recent edits ===
I am, as is often the case, grateful to editor Sevilledade for the dedication to detail and editing zeal, but I do not follow the reasoning in the Sept 14 set of changes, for which no sources are given. Sevilledade is too intelligent an editor to make changes without good grounds, but until we can see what they are, I feel justified in using the good points in the recent edits but restoring the basic content of the earlier one. I am away from my books and references, so please correct me if I am wrong.
The comment on the edits is
:The information regarding the first printed edition and other editions (70, 100, 120) is already mentioned below. This introduction is talking about when it was written. Also removed the duplicate reference (Yenna) that was cited twice.
The lede is not the place to go into great detail, to be sure, but Shui Hu Zhuan as we know it was not written in the 14th century, though important elements can be traced to this period. That is, the origins are 14th century, but not the present novel itself. Surely an honest description of the novel must mention that the first printed version we have is 1589, and that we have no firm evidence for authorship, whether to Shi Nai’an or anyone else.
The point which Yenna Wu makes, which Andrew Plaks established about the four great late Ming novels, synthesizing many earlier works, was that these novels were new creations using old material. As Plaks puts it,  “none of these 16th century editions is an entirely original literary creation” but “represents the culmination of a long prior and subsequent history of source materials, antecedent narratives, and alternate recensions.”[Andrew H. Plaks. The Four Masterworks of the Ming Novel : Ssu Ta Ch'i-Shu. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,  1987).   .  p.3] That is, there is no one authoritative text. The late Ming literati reworked earlier material to make what Plaks argues are decisively different from and a “significant advance over their hypothetical or extant antecedents.” [p. 5] Qing dynasty editors such as Jing Shengtan or Zhang Jupo later freely abridged or rewrote them into popular editions on which some English translations are based. This is why our readers need to know that there are 70, 100, and 120 chapter versions.
Plaks Chapter 4, “Shui-hu chuan: Deflation of Heroism (pp. 279-359) discusses the textual history in some detail.
Given these scholarly findings, the best thing for us is to simply state facts: the first extant printed edition is late Ming, using materials which go back to the 14th century.
Plaks shows that the late Ming literati versions are the ones we read today, and on which our translations are based. They established the model for what we call “the classical Chinese novel.” Plaks sums up:  “I will attempt to refute the common view that this genre is primarily an outgrowth of the popular tradition, relating it instead to patterns of composition, critical theories, and prevailing intellectual trends more characteristic of the literati milieu.” [p. 16]
This is more detail than we need in the lede, but neither we should not insert material which contradicts the standard scholarship.
If I have misunderstood, please correct, but with sources.
I am at a loss to understand why a passing reference in a footnote in Robin Porter’s book on a completely different topic is restored to two references while a standard treatment by a specialist in this field is removed (and called by her given name, not her family name). Robin Porter is an excellent scholar, but I would be flabbergasted if he claims to be an authority on the Ming novel.
Cheers in any case,
ch (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we date these works based on their first published version, then Dante's Divine Comedy would be considered a late 15th-century book?  Since there is no surviving original manuscript and the earliest published version came from 1472.  Water Margin is commonly attributed to  Shi Nai'an.  Is he the actual author?  We don't know, thus the complex textual history of the novel is addressed below.--Sevilledade (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section originally titled (in 2013 Sept) "Recent edits" 

message: I am, as is often the case, grateful to editor Sevilledade for the dedication to detail and editing zeal, but I do not follow the reasoning in the Sept 14 set of changes, for which no sources are given. Sevilledade is too intelligent an editor to make changes without good grounds, but until we can see what they are, I feel justified in using the good points in the recent edits but restoring the basic content of the earlier one. I am away from my books and references, so please correct me if I am wrong.
The comment on the edits is
:The information regarding the first printed edition and other editions (70, 100, 120) is already mentioned below. This introduction is talking about when it was written. Also removed the duplicate reference (Yenna) that was cited twice.
The lede is not the place to go into great detail, to be sure, but Shui Hu Zhuan as we know it was not written in the 14th century, though important elements can be traced to this period. That is, the origins are 14th century, but not the present novel itself. Surely an honest description of the novel must mention that the first printed version we have is 1589, and that we have no firm evidence for authorship, whether to Shi Nai’an or anyone else.
The point which Yenna Wu makes, which Andrew Plaks established about the four great late Ming novels, synthesizing many earlier works, was that these novels were new creations using old material. As Plaks puts it,  “none of these 16th century editions is an entirely original literary creation” but “represents the culmination of a long prior and subsequent history of source materials, antecedent narratives, and alternate recensions.”[Andrew H. Plaks. The Four Masterworks of the Ming Novel : Ssu Ta Ch'i-Shu. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,  1987).   .  p.3] That is, there is no one authoritative text. The late Ming literati reworked earlier material to make what Plaks argues are decisively different from and a “significant advance over their hypothetical or extant antecedents.” [p. 5] Qing dynasty editors such as Jing Shengtan or Zhang Jupo later freely abridged or rewrote them into popular editions on which some English translations are based. This is why our readers need to know that there are 70, 100, and 120 chapter versions.
Plaks Chapter 4, “Shui-hu chuan: Deflation of Heroism (pp. 279-359) discusses the textual history in some detail.
Given these scholarly findings, the best thing for us is to simply state facts: the first extant printed edition is late Ming, using materials which go back to the 14th century.
Plaks shows that the late Ming literati versions are the ones we read today, and on which our translations are based. They established the model for what we call “the classical Chinese novel.” Plaks sums up:  “I will attempt to refute the common view that this genre is primarily an outgrowth of the popular tradition, relating it instead to patterns of composition, critical theories, and prevailing intellectual trends more characteristic of the literati milieu.” [p. 16]
This is more detail than we need in the lede, but neither we should not insert material which contradicts the standard scholarship.
If I have misunderstood, please correct, but with sources.
I am at a loss to understand why a passing reference in a footnote in Robin Porter’s book on a completely different topic is restored to two references while a standard treatment by a specialist in this field is removed (and called by her given name, not her family name). Robin Porter is an excellent scholar, but I would be flabbergasted if he claims to be an authority on the Ming novel.
Cheers in any case,
ch (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If we date these works based on their first published version, then Dante's Divine Comedy would be considered a late 15th-century book?  Since there is no surviving original manuscript and the earliest published version came from 1472.  Water Margin is commonly attributed to  Shi Nai'an.  Is he the actual author?  We don't know, thus the complex textual history of the novel is addressed below.--Sevilledade (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Ruan brothers is a redirect to Water Margin, albeit not being mentioned there and being an English musical duo. -- Gohnarch░ 21:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ruan brothers]] redirects here and is not mentioned 

message: The Chinese title is rendered as "Water Margin", but what is it supposed to mean? Is it actually idiomatic English? 89.64.70.4 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hi 116.110.42.153 (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi