Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs/Archive 1

Proper names
Why the use of northerners over proper names for the forces involved? suggestive of writer's bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.167.212.67 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 17 May 2005   (UTC)

Zhuge Liang's role
Firstly, Zhuge Liang decided that fire was the best way to destroy Cao Cao's fleet. Secondly, what Cao Cao says does matter. It might be true, but it also shows Cao Cao's sense of arrogance, to claim that he had raised a force of 1,000,000 men. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.185.157 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cao Cao's arrogance has no place in the infobox. The number, however, can stay. Zhuge Liang suggested fire...ONLY in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, he did close to nothing in actual history except persuading Sun Quan to resist Cao Cao. Heck, nothing from RoTK should be taken seriously. If you don't mind I'm going to revert. deadkid_dk 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, did I mention most of the article is taken from RoTK and should be gotten rid of? deadkid_dk 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I dont want a revert war, so we should try to sit down and discuss this. Do you have IM installed in your computer? - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.185.157 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We can talk here, that's what this page is for. Here is my case from reading Sanguo Zhi: If you can prove me wrong using reliable sources (as in not anything derived from RoTK), I'm happy to let the page stay this way. deadkid_dk 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Zhuge Liang was not the commander for Sun Quan's fleet.
 * 2) Zhuge Liang's only historical role in Chibi was convincing Sun Quan not to surrender to Cao Cao, and ally with Liu Bei instead.
 * 3) Zhuge Liang was not the commander for Liu Bei's small ambush army in Wulin, Liu Bei was.

Yes, but our conversations are limited here
 * 1) Zhuge Liang suggested the use of fire rafts against Cao Cao's fleet
 * 2) Zhuge Liang also suggested using Pang Tong as a mole

Furthermore, Sanguo Zhi was the groundwork for the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, so material found in RoTK has some credibility, unless you would question the credibility of your own sources.

But seriously, tell me if you have IM or something along those lines, as this isn't the best way for us to communicate. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.185.157 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't feel comfortable giving you my IM. You can talk on my talk page if you don't like talking here.
 * And I'd like to point out neither of those happened. Pang Tong was not even in the battle.
 * Putting those aside, even if Zhuge Liang did suggest the use of fire and put Pang Tong into Cao Cao's forces, that does not make him commander, as he did not commmand any troops to do anything.


 * RoTK was based on Sanguo Zhi, yes. But Sanguo Zhi is accepted to be a historical record, while RoTK is nothing more than fiction. While RoTK contains some facts, it should not be considered a historical source. Much like you wouldn't consider the film Titanic as history, though it's based on the real sinking ship.
 * ps. Sign your comments with four tildes " ~ " - deadkid_dk 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You know that if you dont wish to talk to me on an IM service, you could merely block me or simply tell me. I am very reasonable.

And I never said that Pang Tong participated in the battle. Zhuge Liang suggested that he act as a defector to Cao Cao's forces. It was Pang Tong's idea to chain Cao Cao's fleet together. Furthermore, Zhuge Liang did control a less-than-sizeable division of Shu marines. -Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.185.157 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And told you I did.
 * You missed my point. I'm saying Pang Tong did no such thing, he wasn't even there. Cao Cao decided to chain the ships himself.
 * If we're supposed to list everyone who commanded a less-than-sizeable troop we'll have to bust that infobox. But the purpose of a commander field is to tell who was the general commander of the whole army, which we all agree is Zhou Yu, no? deadkid_dk 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

well, if you want to be difficult ... Sorry, but thats just not something Cao Cao would do. His tactics were more along the lines of a massive overrun and limber battle formations, so he wouldn't chain his ships together without some huckster there to tell him to do so. And the whole army of Shu was commanded by Zhuge Liang. Even though Shu and Wu were two allied forces, they flew different standards, camped in different areas, utilized different tactics, et cetera. Besides, I wouldnt dream of listing every officers, as there were probably several thousand, but Zhou Yu was not Field Marshal of the allied Wu-Shu (get it?) forces and all generals deserve a mention. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.185.157 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia allows no original research. I rely on historical sources while you speculate. ("that's not something Cao Cao would do" <- how would you know? even if it's true you can't back it up with reliable sources) And I've said this before:
 * Zhuge Liang was not the commander for Liu Bei's small ambush army in Wulin, Liu Bei was. And that includes all of Liu Bei's forces (as Kingdoms of Shu and Wu did not form yet).

deadkid_dk 03:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Check Sanguo Zhi if you don't believe me. I was trying to show, with common sense, what Cao Cao would do. And Zhuge Liang did control a Shu force, which was not garrisonned in Wulin. Technically, the Three Kingdoms were not established, but you know to who I reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.86.73 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that I think of it, who made Cao Cao chain his boats have no relevance to whether or not Zhuge Liang was a commander. Even if Zhuge Liang put Pang Tong into Cao Cao's forces, that wouldn't make him commander.

I was avoiding this, but now I think I have to provide you with the original sources in Chinese: Sanguo Zhi,

From Chapter 32 (on Liu Bei) 先主遣諸葛亮自結於孫權，權遣周瑜、程普等水軍數萬，與先主並力，與曹公戰於赤壁，大破之，焚其舟船. 先主與吳軍水陸並進，追到南郡，時又疾疫，北軍多死，曹公引歸. Here "Liu Bei sent Zhuge Liang to ask Sun Quan for assistance, and Sun sent Zhou Yu and Cheng Pu. Together with Liu Bei, they battled in Chibi and burnt his ships. Then Liu Bei and the Wu marines persued to Nanjun, when a plague affected the Cao Cao forces, so Cao Cao retreated." Note that it makes no makes no mention of Zhuge Liang's contributions in the battle, if he had any.

From Chapter 35 (on Zhuge Liang) 權大悅，即遣周瑜、程普、魯肅等水軍三萬，隨亮詣先主，並力拒曹公. 曹公敗於赤壁，引軍歸鄴. Here "Sun Quan sent Zhou Yu, Cheng Pu, and Lu Su to follow Zhuge Liang to meet up with Liu Bei, and so together they defeated Cao Cao." Note that it does not state that Zhuge Liang participated in the battle, though this chapter is on Zhuge Liang.

From Chapter 47 (on Sun Quan) 備進住夏口，使諸葛亮詣權，權遣同瑜、程普等行. 是時曹公新得表眾，形勢甚盛. 諸議者皆望風畏懼，多勸權迎之. 惟瑜、肅執拒之儀，意與權同. 瑜、普為左右督，各領萬人，與備俱近，遇於赤壁，大破曹公軍. 公燒其餘船引退，士卒饑疫，死者大半. 備、瑜等復追至南郡. 曹公遂北還，留曹仁、徐晃於江陵，使樂進守襄陽 Here it says "Liu Bei sent Zhuge Liang to Sun Quan for help, so Sun Quan sent Zhou Yu and Cheng Pu. Many feared Cao Cao's forces but Zhou Yu and Lu Su resisted. Zhou Yu and Cheng Pu, as left and right commander, each led ten thousand men and met with Liu Bei. They met at Chibi and defeated Cao Cao. Cao Cao then burnt his remaining ships and retreated. Due to disease and famine, casualties were heavy. Liu Bei and Zhou Yu persued until Nanjun. Cao Cao fled back north, leaving Cao Ren and Xu Huang in Jiangling, Yue Jin in Xiangyang." Note no mention of Zhuge Liang in battle again, and Cheng Pu and Liu Bei, if anyone, should be listed in the commander box instead of Zhuge Liang.

From Chapter 54 (on Zhou Yu) 時劉備為曹公所破，欲引南渡江. 與魯肅遇於當陽，遂共圖計，因進住夏口，遣諸葛亮詣權. 權遂遣瑜及程普等與備並力逆曹公，遇於赤壁. 時曹公軍眾已有疾病，初一交戰，公軍敗退，引次江北. 瑜等在南岸. 瑜部將黃蓋曰："今寇眾我寡，難與持久. 然觀操軍船艦，首尾相接，可燒而走也. " 乃取蒙沖鬥艦數十艘，實以薪草，膏油灌其中. 裹以帷幕，上建牙旗，先書報曹公，欺以欲降. 又豫備走舸，各系大船後，因引次俱前. 曹公軍吏士皆延頸觀望，指言蓋降. 蓋放諸船，同時發火. 時風盛猛，悉延燒岸上營落. 頃之. 煙炎張天，人馬燒溺死者甚眾，軍遂敗退，還保南郡. 備與瑜等復共追. 曹公留曹仁等守江陵城. 逕自北歸. "Liu Bei was defeated by Cao Cao [in Changban], and met with Lu Su in Danyang. Liu Bei sent Zhuge Liang to Sun Quan, and Sun sent Zhou Yu and Cheng Pu back to Liu Bei, and encountered Cao in Chibi. Cao Cao's forces were already affected by disease, and was initially defeated, so he led his forces on the north side of the river. Zhou Yu and the others were on the south side of the river. Zhou Yu's officer, Huang Gai said, "The enemy's numbers overwhelm us, and we can't last long. I see Cao Cao's ships linked together, we can burn his ships." And so Huang Gai pretended to surrender to Cao Cao, and once he got close, he set Cao Cao's ship on fire. The wind was fierce then, and soon the fire spread towards the encampment on the north shore. Many soldiers were burnt or drowned to death, and Cao Cao fled to Nanjun. Liu Bei and Zhou Yu pressed on. Cao Cao left Cao Ren in Jiangling and went back north himself." Again, no mention of Zhuge Liang being a commander of anything.

From Chapter 55 (on Cheng Pu) 與周瑜為左右督，破曹公於烏林 With Zhou Yu, as left and right commander, defeated Cao Cao at Wulin. Makes no reference to Zhuge Liang at all.

I believe I had established my case that Zhuge Liang was not a commander in this battle at all, and that Zhou Yu, Cheng Pu, and Liu Bei should appear as commanders in the infobox. I would also like you to make my life easier by providing actual proof from reliable sources instead of pure speculation and "proofs" from works of fiction when you present your case. Thank you.

(p.s. Yes, most of the whole article is RoTK bogus. The Chinese Wikipedia does a more accurate job in presenting this battle.)

deadkid_dk 01:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First, you're an uncredible and unimpressive translator. Second, I'm beginning to have serious questions about your blind loyalty to Sanguo Zhi, a piece that has been criticized almost as many times as ROTK. It is a biased chronicle composed so soon after the end of the Three Kingdoms Era that its contents may be mere memories of the author, instead of actual facts. Perhaps you should look at the objectivity of your sources more often. And sometimes, the greatest commanders are not the foremost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.250.190.252 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit I did a half-assed job of translating the sources, because I didn't want to translate them in the first place. Now I'm assuming that you understand the Chinese, so you can read the original text for yourself and decide. If you don't know Chinese, you're in no position to say I'm uncredible and unimpressive.

Well sir, at least Sanguo Zhi is not a blatant piece of fiction written a thousand years after the events happened. And you tell me that Sanguo Zhi is biased...compared to what? RoTK? Try again.

In defence of Sanguo Zhi, it is officially included in the Twenty-Four Histories of China, which is:

"...often considered an authoritative source of traditional Chinese history and culture, and is used for research on literature, art, music, science, military affairs, geography, ethnography and other subjects."

I have a very valid reason for my "blind loyalty" to Sanguo Zhi - I'm just trying to get this right. I'd like to ask you, however, to cease your blind loyalty to a dead Zhuge Liang whose abilities and contributions had been grossly exaggerated.

The problem is, the infobox is not for identifying who contributed the most, or who was the greatest commander in the battle, it is for listing, like you said, who was the foremost.

I'm tired of this, how would you like to solve this mess?

and please, sign your comments with ~, I'm tired of cleaning up after you. deadkid_dk 05:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My ability to translate chinese has no bearing on your credibility and objectivity. Furthermore, I have no loyalties to ROTK or Zhuge Liang, I just want to see factual accuracy represented. However, I do wish for an expidited and peaceful resolution to this, so I would propose that this argument be suspended indefinitely until a third party (i.e. not you or me using another username) contributes their knowledge. Until then, the 'factual accuracy' sticker will suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.86.73 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I wasn't asking if you could translate Chinese better, I was asking if you know or understand Chinese, which is a different matter.

I have asked for a third opinion here, so until that comes I'll cease my involvement in the arguement.

Oh by the way, would you like to get an account? since it's hard to keep track of your edits on this page with your IP flucuating. It's to your benefit. deadkid_dk 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous, may I second deadkid_dk's request that you get an account, or at least sign your posts with ? You are not increasing your anonymity by refusing to do so.  You are just making the page harder to read. May I also ask that you not request to use IM to discuss this matter?  This article is of interest to other people besides yourselves and should be discussed publicly on Wikipedia. And may I also suggest that calling someone an "unimpressive" translator is rather uncivil and certainly unconstructive. —Veyklevar 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I might get an account. I dont know chinese, but since you are a belligerent party, you are a biased translator. And whats wrong with me wanting a feasable conversation with someone? And how is unimpressive unconstructive? By the way, here are your tildes. 69.95.86.69 17:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well... of the passages provided above, he pretty much did a word-for-word translation, so there's really little room for him to be biased. Of course, he didn't translate the whole SanGuoZhi, but I'm sure you can find a lot of English translations of it online yourself. I have some basic knowledge of Chinese, not enough to translate anything myself, but enough to detect blantant mistranslations. Also, SanGuoZhi is really the only thing you can go by here, because RoTK was intended to be, and is, a dramatic work of fiction, admitted to by the author himself. On the other hand, SanGuoZhi, while no doubt containing some unavoidable bias from the author, was intended to be, and is recognized as, a historical document, and is the only one that records the events of the time period with any amount of detail. 169.229.74.11 21:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. 69.95.86.69, now you're just being unreasonable. Since you don't know Chinese, you have no right to assume that my translation is biased (when another annoymous user pointed out that I am not). Please, assume good faith. Veyklevar already answered your question why you shouldn't ask for my IM: This article is of interest to other people besides yourselves and should be discussed publicly on Wikipedia. And calling someone's work unimpressive is uncivil, and being uncivil is being unconstructive. (I don't want to state the obvious, but those blue letters are links. We put them there so you can click on them and read them, we hope) deadkid_dk 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How am I unreasonable? Because you have one side in a bipartisanned argument, you can only be considered biased. I merely wanted to talk with you more quickly. 10 minutes on an IM conversations is about the equivalent of a month's worth of posts on a discussion page. But if you wish to discuss here, then that's fine with me. Furthermore, I apologize if you considered my comment rude; however because you can objectively translate chinese doesnt mean that you will translate it objectively and the mere ability to translate anything doesn't guarantee you any credibility. 69.218.226.195 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, please assume good faith, or at least give me the benefit of doubt when you read the translations. Still waiting for third opinion to come. deadkid_dk 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I give you any benefit of the doubt when you have given no such thing to me? 69.95.86.73 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't give you any because there is no place to apply it on you: I've asked you for sources, you've provided none. Also, your question has nothing to do with the task at hand, which is to check on the factuality of Zhuge Liang being commander. Please assume good faith (this is the third time), and do not respond if you just wanted to lash back at me to defend yourself, not your point. deadkid_dk 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I couldn't find my sources online; I do most of my research at libraries. I'm looking for online parallels, however. Furthermore, I find it difficult to assume good faith in you, as you've given me no reason to. Now, I think a suspension of this argument would be best. I will contain myself if you will do the same. 69.95.86.73 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: The guideline gives you every reason to assume good faith, no matter the situation. I'm shutting up until a third party comes along. deadkid_dk 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't wish to suspend this argument, then I will consent. All I ask of you is to assume the good faith in me that you wish me to assume in you. 69.211.142.141 14:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I can't keep my word so now I'm talking again. Mind you, I want to suspend this arguement, but something must be done to that "Zhuge Liang" entry in the infobox so I can take that dispute sticker off. I'm not sure what, due to a lack of consensus, so I suggest we wait for that to come before we continue arguing with each other (not that I like to, nooooo). I did assume good faith, or else I would throw meaner things at you. Though I admit I did get a little irritated back there. deadkid_dk 00:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't have the skill to translate SanGuoZhi myself, the following translated excerpts are from www.kongming.net. You can read them there yourself if you'd like, that they really have no reason to be biased. The following is from Zhuge Liangs biography:

''"Zhuge Liang persuaded Sun Quan saying: “All domains within the seas are in turmoil. You, my general, have raised troops to occupy Jiangdong and Liu of Yuzhou [Liu Bei] has also gathered his followers south of the Han, contesting the Empire with Cao Cao. Today Cao Cao has pacified great disorders, establishing peace in most areas. He has conquered Jingzhou and his prestige resonates to the four seas. Yuzhou [Liu Bei] has fled to this place because his heroes haven’t had an opportunity to exercise their might. If you, my general, calculate that you can manage the situation with your power; if you can oppose the Middle Kingdom by rallying the host of Wu and Yue, then it would be best to break off relations with Cao Cao in advance. If you cannot oppose him, then it would be best to demobilise the troops, discard your armour and submit to the north. At present you are seemingly compliant on the exterior, yet making indecisive plans within. You take no action in this critical situation, on the very eve of disaster!” Sun Quan said: “If it is as you, sir, say, then why hasn’t Liu of Yuzhou submitted?” Zhuge Liang said: “He is as Tian Heng, the heroic warrior of Qi, who defended justice and refused to be dishonoured. Moreoever, Liu of Yuzhou is a descendant of the imperial clan and a hero of his generation. Followers go to him as the rivers go to the ocean. If he is unsuccessful, then it is for the will of Heaven. He can never be subordinate to Cao Cao.” Sun Quan was furious and said: “I cannot take all the lands of Wu, a host of one hundred thousand and offer it for the rule of others. I have made up my mind! Other than Liu of Yuzhou there is no one who can oppose Cao Cao. But Yuzhou was recently been defeated. Can he still combat this menace?” Zhuge Liang said: “Even though Yuzhou’s army was defeated at Changban, the dispersed soldiers who have returned, in addition to Guan Yu’s elite marines, number ten thousand. The soldiers of Jiangxia assembled under Liu Qi also number no less than ten thousand. The host of Cao Cao have travelled from afar, and are weary and improvised. I have heard that to pursue Yuzhou, light cavalry travelled more than three hundred miles in a day and a night. This is what was meant in the phrase ‘when the bolt of the powerful crossbow reached its target, it could not pierce even the thin silk of Lu.’ Hence The Art of War warned against such action: ‘in a forced march of fifty miles, the commander of the van will probably fall.’ Moreover, the men of the north are untrained in naval warfare. Also, even though the people of Jingzhou have given in to Cao Cao, they were coerced by force and have by no means genuinely submitted. Today you can truly command your fierce generals in leading tens of thousands of soldiers and working in full cooperation and unity of purpose with Yuzhou, Cao Cao’s army will surely fall. After Cao Cao’s army is defeated, he will surely return to the north, the strength of Jing and Wu will increase, and a tripartite will form. The time to decide triumph or fall is today.’ Sun Quan was greatly pleased, and subsequently sent Zhou Yu, Cheng Pu, Lu Su and others with marines numbering thirty thousand, accompanying Zhuge Liang to pay respects to the Former Lord and to join forces to oppose Duke Cao. Duke Cao was defeated at Red Cliffs, and led his army back to Ye. The Former Lord then absorbed Jiangnan and made Zhuge Liang Army Advisor General of the Gentlemen of the Household, superintending the three commandieries of Lingling, Guiyang and Changsha, and collecting local taxes for military purposes."''

Zhuge Liang is credited with helping to persuade Sun Quan to fight Cao Cao, but no mention is made regarding any contribution he made for the actual battle. From Zhou Yu's bio:

"At that moment, Liu Bei was defeated by Cao Cao and he met Lu Su at Dang Yang. In the meeting, both devised plans for alliance against Cao Cao. Subsequently, Liu Bei stationed himself at Xia Kou. In addition, Liu Bei sent Zhuge Liang as an envoy to Sun Quan. Following that, Sun Quan dispatched Zhou Yu, Cheng Pu and other Wu generals to meet Liu Bei in order to consolidate their forces against Cao Cao’s army. The army of the Sun-Liu alliance engaged Cao Cao’s army at Chi Bi. During then, Cao Cao’s army was already having problems with many soldiers falling sick. As such, during the initial engagement, Cao Cao’s army was promptly defeated and retreated back to the northern shore of the river Yang Tze.

''Seeing that Cao Cao’s army was numerous, Huang Gai felt that it would be difficult to resist them for long. However, he observed that Cao Cao’s ships were linked together and he suggested to Zhou Yu that it was actually possible to repel the enemies if they launched a fire attack at them. The suggestion was accepted and preparations were made for the fireboats (boats stuffed with inflammable materials). Subsequently, a letter was sent to Cao Cao falsely claiming that Huang Gai intended to surrender. The ruse was successful and the soldiers of Wei were anticipating the arrival of Huang Gai. At that moment, Huang Gai arrived and set his fireboats on fire. Aided by the strong winds and the fact that Cao Cao’s ships were chained together, the fire quickly spread throughout Cao Cao’s navy and even to the naval camps on the shore. Within moments, the raging inferno resulted in heavy casualties in Cao Cao’s army. Cao Cao was forced to retreat and defend Nan prefecture against the victorious allied armies. Meanwhile, Liu Bei and Zhou Yu led their troops in pursuit. Nevertheless, Cao Cao himself had returned to the north after leaving Cao Ren to guard the city of Jiang Ling."''

Notice that Zhuge Liang was an envoy, diplomat. Not a commander. The commanders were Zhou Yu/Cheng Pu, as well as Liu Bei.

Also, I couldn't find anything non-RotK regarding Pang Tong and ChiBi. 169.229.74.11 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is very little factual evidence to suggest that Zhuge Liang was anything other than a diplomat at Red Cliffs. Outside of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and other works of fiction and folklore, there is no historical proof that mentions him advising for the battle, commanding or serving as a millitary officer under either Liu Bei or Sun Quan during that time. The chaining of the ships should be seen as a tactical blunder by Cao Cao, rather than a ploy of either Zhuge Liang's or Pang Tong's. The fire ploy was also concieved by Sun Quan's officer Huang Gai, possibly with aid from Zhou Yu and others.

An interesting notion from the Sanguo Zhi (quoted from a previous comment by deadkid_dk):

"Cao Cao then burnt his remaining ships and retreated."

According to the Sanguo Zhi, Cao Cao must not have lost his entire navy from the actions of the allies. Instead, we can assume that after recieving casulties and losses of ships, he decided to destroy his remaining fleet, possibly to stop them from falling into the hands of Liu Bei or Sun Quan. I never thought about his before, and it lessens the impact of the allied fire attack, suggesting that at least some of Cao Cao's ships were intentionally burnt by his own men.

UberGaz 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion
With no reliable sources and with nothing besides inferences and OR to back up his importance, I have to say that Zhuge Liang's should not be inlcluded in the infobox as a commander. The personal attacks that have occurred above are unacceptable, the Wikipedia community does not tolerate them, so please remember to be civil. --Hetar 01:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandelism!
vandelism Im reverting

SelfStudyBuddy 23:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Events of Chi Bi Before, Duing, and After
As many of you know, the ROTK novel points out how things went accordingly from its own P.O.V. It is true that Zhuge Liang was around at the time, but I would hardly say he did any military action except provide the South Land Army with the South-East Wind and the Arrows. More or less, Zhuge Liang only stirrs Zhou Yu and Sun Quan into action rather then have them submit to Cao Cao. (All from the novel's P.O.V.)

Zhou Yu, on the other hand, he would have been willing to submit; however, if Zhuge Liang did not bring his wife into the matter then Chi Bi would have never existed. The only funny thing was is that Zhou Yu and Lu Su saw how easily the South Land was used to do the work of fighting against Cao Cao and sending his army back to Xu Chang. Thus, with that happening, Zhuge Liang would be able to expand Shu's border lines and gain Jing in the process. (Once again, from the novel but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

For those of you who have read the novel as I have, remember this: It is only being based on inaccurate events, but everything that happened I'm sure was real enough. Get back to ya about it later on.--Zhang Liao 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Even from the novel it is quite apparent that Zhou Yu is teasing everyone by constantly flip-flopping his stance on war or peace. And in SGZ Zhou Yu was pretty much set on fighting from the start. 67.121.241.18 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add I've removed references to Wu and Shu since those Kingdoms came to exist after the battle and instead opted to refer to them as Sun and Liu, respectively. I didn't want to change it without discussion, but for consistency's sake, I think we should either refer to Cao Cao as Cao, or add full names for Sun Quan and Liu Bei. Otherwise it seems to be biased.

Sources, please
This article doesn't cite a single source, and I have a hard time accepting that it should be classified as B-grade status. It throws around numbers with no justification at all. The article needs a serious cleanup before anyone could take it seriously. These words may seems harsh, but I think the complete lack of sources (even in Chinese) is a major strike against the quality of this article. -- Exitmoose 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

GA, FA
I'm busy with tests at the moment. Over the next couple weeks I hope to take this article to GA. Then.. who knows how long it will take.. to FA. Anyone who wants to help, please join in... Ling.Nut 12:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"goal of eliminating his main rivals to the south."
Not sure his goals were explicitly given, outside ROTK perhaps. de Crespigny thinks he may have been there to make a show of force and negotiate terms, as well as creating a line of defense for himself via key garrisons, rather than crush his opponents.... Ling.Nut 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

alternate image?
...so following in the footsteps of deadkid_dk, I've made an English version of the map of Chibizhizhan: Image:Chibizhizhan eng2.png. OK to replace current map?

thanks Ling.Nut 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Zhuge Liang a Commander?
Was Zhuge a commander in the hstorical accounts, or only in ROTK? If only in ROTK then he needs to be removed from the infobox, and his commandership in ROTK noted in the "Fictional account" section.... thanks! Ling.Nut 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a woeful discussion with an anonymous user about that topic on this very page, let it be known that he was no commander. _dk 00:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * that's what I thought, but don't have access to the books today.. thanks! Ling.Nut 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article
Undecided. The article certainly was improved during the last weeks but lacks structural consistency. Why seperate the sections "Analysis" and "Significance" by the section "Aftermath"? I propose merging analysis and significance (and also distinguish the section from "Aftermath") and putting aftermath right behind "Battle". Also, the battle's adaption by the novel and its featuring in that film by John Woo should be merged in a section called "Adaption" or "Later reference" or something like that. In other respects the article is fine (exhaustive, great sources, integrity). Sarazyn &bull; 丁ALK &bull; DE 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarazyn, and thanks for the comments! Are you working under the auspices of WP:GA, or just adding your personal comments? Both are fine of course. But I have to say, if it's the former, then wow that was much faster than I expected. :-)
 * Yeah the whole 'analysis' thing is a tangle of twine for sure. I commented about this on the peer review page on MILHIST, which hasn't attracted many comments :-( I should probably copy/paste those comments here (so I will):

"Question: Three advisors described the military situation before the battle; their assessments were flawless. At least one of these assessment stories may be apocryphal. Should the details of the assessment be scattered throughout the article & not specifically attributed to the advisors (that is the present format), or a separate paragraph or two be dedicated simply to their assessments & then the assessments revisited later (e.g., 'all of the assessments turned out to be correct...')? If we move the assessment to its own chunk, the current 'analysis' section will look a bit gutted..."
 * You're right about "Significance" and "Aftermath" as well... we need to think through the near-term and long-term consequences, and decide how to categorize/describe them..
 * If you're saying the sentence about the John Woo film should come out of the WP:LEDE, then I disagree. Frankly, there's no need to mention anything at all further about this film within this article... but it is significant enough to warrant mention and a hyperlink. Maybe you'll say the lede should be a summary, and I would agree... but this one little fact represents an exception to that rule. It is too significant to shove it within a "see also" or similar section at the bottom... File this exception to the rule under "minor instances of WP:IAR."
 * I'm really hoping to get input from several editors on the whole question of organization (hello Gamer Junkie, deadkid, Nlu, etc.) :-) It's a fundamental issue within all Three Kingdoms articles and I hope we can clear it up via discussion within the proposed WikiProject.
 * Ling.Nut 15:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the our proposed structure regarding Three Kingdoms individuals should also extend to battle articles as well. First and foremost, historical accounts, followed by ROTK fiction, followed by modern/pop culture references.  This could be standardised for all Three Kingdoms-based articles.  As it stands, it's very difficult to identify what is real and what is not, remedying this is the most important ambition of our proposed project, in my opinion. Gamer Junkie 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely true &amp; I totally agree. But. :-) We need to figure out what to do with the "Aftermath", "Analysis" and "Significance" sections of this article. :-) Ling.Nut 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find all of the information relevant and I don't see any real problem with the current layout. It's clear, to the point and well written, and doesn't need change simply for the sake of change.  However, the abovementioned sections could be merged into each other very easily, if removing one of the sub-headers is the goal here.  I can't see this dramatically improving or lowering the article's quality in any significant way, so I'll simply say that I'd be quite happy with either option. Gamer Junkie 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I thank you, Ling.Nut, for your regard of my annotations. Since I'm not familiar with the customs of nominating and discussing GA I tell my judgement humbly in hope that more experienced editors might find it useful. I agree with you keeping the mention of the film in the lead section, since it's what we at de.wp call a "Glaskugel" (crystal ball)... I think this article has the guts to become featured one day, but GA is a great start for working it over. Sarazyn &bull; 丁ALK &bull; DE 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I, for one, don't think the John Woo film should be placed in the lead. That would be giving the film too much attention when the film is not important to history. The Battle of Thermopylae article didn't put 300 (film) in its lead either. _dk 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't do that, because the movie and the comic strip both fit perfectly in the section "adaption". But since Battle of Red Cliffs doesn't have a comic strip pattern but plays an important role at the Summer Olympics I figure it may be placed on top. Sarazyn &bull; 丁ALK &bull; DE 19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The John Woo movie is just one sentence. When we're done with everything else, we can have a duel with cow patties, ten paces at dawn, to decide its fate :-) Meanwhile, what about the other sections? Keep them as they are? Consolidate them somehow? Give more details about who said what in prediction/analysis of the battle? Ling.Nut 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jingzhou – a little help, please
Hey, I'm looking for verification of the several statements about Jingzhou in the "Aftermath" section, and at least in the initial search have come up empty-handed... Ling.Nut 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Cao Cao never was in possession of the whole Jing province. He defeated Liu Biao and drove away his subject Liu Bei. After being defeated at Red Cliffs by the joint forces of Liu Bei and Sun Quan, both Sun Quan and Liu Bei conquered the Jing province while Cao Cao licked his wounds. Liu Bei was known to the local administrators and, at that time, more a subject than an equal to Sun Quan. Later, Jing province was devided and quarrelled about, as you all know. Take a look at Generals of the South, ch. 4 & 5. Sarazyn &bull; 丁ALK &bull; DE 11:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Liu Biao died of sickness before Cao Cao's armies ever marched on Jing. His second son, Liu Cong, surrendered Jing to Cao Cao because he believed that, even if they could defeat him, Liu Bei would eventually turn on him anyway. Gamer Junkie 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but my point/question specifically regards the discussion of the place "Jingzhou." I would like to see references to back up the assertions made in discussion of that specific city, so that we will know it's not from ROTK, KOEI or ROTFL. I would also like to see a reference (with a page number, preferably) regarding Sun Quan's jealousy; that sounds pretty ROTK-ish. I may be able to look some up sometime this week. We'll see. But if anyone else can nail them sooner, please do. Thanks! Ling.Nut 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm seeing where this confuses me. The Aftermath section is referring to Jingzhou as a "fortress." That made me think it was a city within Jing Province... but I think the section is in fact referring to Jing Province itself. Why it's called a "fortress" is beyond me... should be changed... Ling.Nut 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jing was the territory that Sun Wu believed was rightfully theirs and which Shu Han refused to return. To retake the territory, the Sun Wu army snuck in through Jiangling, which is apparently in Jingzhou, while Guan Yu was occupied at the Battle of Fancheng. I have little doubt that this "Jingzhou" is Jing Province. Gamer Junkie 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the ambiguity of "fortress" and the inconsistency in the use of "Jing Province," but didn't check to see if it flows well. Can copyedit tomorrow... Ling.Nut 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now tha I look at this again, it appears as though I'm saying Jing Province is the current Jingzhou, which I'm not, since I wouldn't know. What I am saying is that the editor who wrote the section is probably incorrectly referring to what is supposed to be Jing Province as Jingzhou.  Just thought I'd clear that up. Gamer Junkie 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) don't worry, I removed all mention of Jingzhou. Ling.Nut 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

aftermath
"Sun Quan was extremely bitter over his claims that Jing Province belonged to him, and all ties with Liu-Sun were severed. While Cao Cao retreated to reform his army and retrain his troops, Liu Bei and Sun Quan continued to squabble over the control of Jing Province in the south. Although eventually most of the entire Jing Province was ceded to Wu, it almost torn the Sun-Liu alliance sunder irreversibly and permanently when Guan Yu was executed by Lu Meng." Two different events cited as breaking the Liu-Sun alliance; not sure either is really a deciding factor, plus I'm not sure that the latter is directly related to Red Cliffs. I'm just gonna delete that last bit about Guan Yu/Lu Meng, but help here would be appreciated. --Ling.Nut 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, Cao Cao didn't retreat to reform his army and retrain his troops; he retreated to concentrate on another region... I'm just gonna delete this whole paragraph.PLease feel free to replace it with better info. --Ling.Nut 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)