Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs/Archive 2

99% done! Any problems left?
...Well, as far as I can tell, anyhow. I want to personally express my appreciation for all editors involved...

I hope everyone will take one last long look at it to see if anything else needs to be changed in any way. I only see two three four questions left: Thanks! --Ling.Nut 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the John Woo film go in the lede or not?
 * 2) "...Cao Cao simply assumed that superiority in number would eventually defeat..." I'm not sure this is explicitly mentioned in the histories. Is it? I know that de Crespigny speculated that Cao Cao may have been intending to capture Jiangling &amp; control the Yangtze &amp; then force Sun Quan to come to terms...
 * 3) Oh I saw one sentence that might want to be referenced: "Cao Cao then retreated north to his home base of Ye, leaving Cao Ren and Xu Huang to guard Jiangling, Man Chong in Dangyang, and Yue Jin in Xiangyang." The "who did what" and especially "who commanded what" statements should be referenced because of the possibility of ROTK providing false commander names (you know, Zhuge, etc.).
 * 4) Oh yeah, should we give more details about the pre-battle analyses of the three advisors? I now think the answer is no, but others may disagree...
 * # 3 done Ling.Nut 11:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Man Chong left as "acting general in garrison in Nan commandery" de Crespigny 2007:663.
 * Xu HUang with Cao Ren at Jiangling as general de Crespigny 2007:905.
 * Yue Jin in Xianyang. de Crspigny 2007:1018. Ling.Nut 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more problems I see: ..I'm not so comfortable with sending this article to WP:FAC until these problems are resolved. _dk 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) There needs to be a "Cultural legacy" section detailing the battle's claim to fame over the centuries. I'll get to write it...maybe.
 * 2) The dispute on the location of the battle needs to be included.
 * 3) There is a lack of illustrations, any help in this regard is very much needed.
 * 4) There are very few sources in this article that are not by Rafe de Crespigny, and more importantly, no modern sources in Chinese. A trip to the library or the nearest Chinese bookstore might be needed.
 * A potential source I found, http://www.chinapage.com/red-cliff.html _dk 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have some good academic sources. We had already agreed to add the "where in the world is red cliffs?" section. I'll do it when I have time.... Im studying for prelims.... I don't think we need Chinese sources, sorry. This is the English Wikipedia. And de Crespigny is the premier English source. Ling.Nut 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some details, news, and analysis are only available in Chinese, like the recent archaeological find at Chibi. This subject is one whose study rapidly changes and is fiercely debated in China. We can't always depend on one author (who is already retired, by the way) and have this article NPOV. Also, surely there must be other western authors studying the battle? A glance at de Crespigny's references shows this. Also, take your time and study hard :) _dk 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This needs updating:
 * "A 2008 film, directed by John Woo and entitled Red Cliff,[7] will serve to showcase the Red Cliff legacy in the lead up to the 2008 Summer Olympics being hosted by China."


 * Aside from the Olympics being done, the film has opened to record box office (108 million yuan), and has become the first Chinese film to earn over 300 million yuan in domestic gross. see


 * http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/16/content_8554663.htm
 * http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/2008-08/12/content_6927197.htm

Bustter (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Better now, but it still attaches the film to the Olympics. This will require some revising when "Part Two" of Red Cliff is released in China in 2009. The full epic is expected to run 5.5 hours. An edited US version will run as a single 2.5 hour feature, or so the plan goes.


 * Also, the 300 million yuan figure has been far surpassed; it reached that milestone (larger than any other Chinese picture's domestic gross) after 42 days in release. OMDB currently estimates Y550 million.


 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425637/business
 * http://goldsea.com/807/08pm-cliff.html


 * [the above link says the full epic will be 5 hours, but that was the plan before Part One came in at 2.5 hours. Part Two is not likely to be much shorter, especially given Part One's tremendous financial success. There are sources with the 5.5 hour estimate, but I can't locate one at the moment.]

Bustter (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, check the description of Red Cliff from the xinhuanet link:


 * ""Red Cliff" revolves around the epic Battle of Red Cliffs in 208 AD, a decisive battle, immediately prior to China's Three Kingdoms period, between allied forces of the southern warlords Liu Bei and Sun Quan, and the numerically superior forces of the warlord Cao Cao."


 * That's just made my day. Gamer Junkie  T /  C 03:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

'''*** I do see a problem with the numbers given for Cao Cao's army size in the "Strength" section in the summary box on the top right-hand side of this article. ( Please see my comments on point 13 below ).''' Wild Panda888 (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Inline referencing
There's a total lack of inline referencing in this article. I guess whether or not the article makes it to GA status depends on the reviewer, but it most definitely needs inline referencing if it is to make its way toward FA status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Harvard referencing. Or are you saying footnotes are better? _dk 07:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, footnotes. I'm 99% sure that FA reviewers will be asking for those, if this article ever goes through FAC.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Nope. See the WP:FA article Taiwanese aborigines. Ling.Nut 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. By the way, good job creating the new Three Kingdoms WikiProject.  I might consider joining myself, but most of my Chinese history reading have been on modern Chinese history and don't know if I can make much useful contributions.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words &mdash; but it's been a joint effort with several people (see the names on comments on WT:3K).
 * You are extremely welcome to join. As for knowledge, I have a confession. I only became interested in Three Kingdoms extremely recently, and I am learning as I go. If you can read, type, and have access to library books on the subject, you can be a huge help! Ling.Nut 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually I've been feeling that there are too many WikiProjects around, and not enough contributions. Take a look at WikiProject China/Workgroups, a number of child WikiProjects exist under WikiProject China, and most of them are inactive.  Notably, there's a WikiProject Chinese history already, and Three Kingdoms topics could have been under its jurisdiction.  But now that the Three Kingdoms one is created, I hope you can garner some activities.  I know there are definitely enough articles that would fall under its scope.  As for me, most of my WikiProject participation is at the Hong Kong WikiProject.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed
I have passed this article for GA, though I have one plea and one comment. My plea is that if possible, could someone add more images? Depictions of the battle, engravings, tapestries, paintings of the battle or people involved, if you can get them it would help break up the text and make the article more readable.

Regarding the harvard cites, I'm afraid that I agree with HongQiGong that inline footnotes would be idea, and they specifically place each comment to a page number of a book, and more so than harvard cites they allow a reader to work backwards from the footnote to the text, instead of the other way around, it's something to keep in mind thats all. A good, well written article.

Oh yes, one other issues is that there are a couple of sweeping statements, judgments and conclusions drawn in the prose that rest uncited, these need to be carefully cited closer to the actual comment than some of the current citations lie, just to ensure no one suspects original research. The article has made GA, but I have to say the references cut it a little close in my opinion.

Good luck with the article. SGGH speak! 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PC game
There's a PC strategy game called "Dragon Throne: Battle of Red Cliffs". Should it be mentioned? Sarazyn &bull; 丁人LK &bull; DE 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A one liner perhaps of similar ilk as the one refering to the 2008 film. SGGH speak! 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...but don't put it in the WP:LEDE. The bit about the movie may still come out of that section... Ling.Nut 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can squeeze out a section detailing the battle's occurances in modern culture...there are loads of them. _dk 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yes. But I don't wanna hose up the article by starting a new section that will be "Under Construction" for the next three weeks. We could start the section as a workpage in someone's user space, then move it fully-formed (like Minerva) into this article.. which would be easier if no one starts a "discussion" page for the userpage version, 'cause then we'd have to merge both the article stuff and the Talk stuff according to GDFL... Ling.Nut 23:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Man Chong not acting general in Nan Commandery
"太祖...以宠为汝南太守...建安十三年，从太祖征荆州. 大军还，留宠行奋威将军，屯当阳.孙权数扰东陲，复召宠还为汝南大守" (San Guo Zhi-Bio of Man Chong). trans:"Cao Cao assigned Man the governor(太守) of Runan...Jian An 13th year(AD 208),Man followed Cao Cao to the Jingzhou campaign. The army then (was defeated and) withdrew. Man Chong is left garrison in Danyang as acting Fengwei General(lit."General who exerts might"). Sun Quan harassed the eastern front serveral times, Man was then reassigned to the governor of Runan." We see Man was left in Danyang, which is a prefecture under Nanjun(Nan Commandery).And in the same time, Jiangling was the capital(I can't pick a better word) of Nan Commandery, afterwards become capital of Jingzhou (this can be a little complex, since techologically the capital of a Zhou should be where the 牧 - Grand Administrator is, but at that time Jingzhou was divided between Cao,Liu,and Sun) (see external [1]). And there is no imply that he is in charge of Nan Commandery's military force. In fact,in Zhou Yu's following "invasion against Nan Commandery"(as described in Sanguozhi),the main ememy he fought and defeated was Cao Ren(garrisoned in Jiangling),through Zhou did not take the entire Nan Commandery but the southern part of it, which was later "lend" to Liu Bei by Sun Quan, and ultimately,cause the territory dispute between Wu and Shu,led to Guan Yu's death. I've read other person's bio involved in the Battle and its aftermath,about the same fact.Based on this Man Chong should be described as acting gerneral in Danyang,not the larger scale of Nanjun, and we need to sort some geographic conceptions.

An article concerning relationship of Jingzhou,Nanjun and Jiangling,especially the errorous usage in RoTK. it's in Chinese.If needed I shall try translate it later. [] 沈伯俊 People's Dairy Overseas edition,Oct.06.98 A map of Jingzhou(sorry,again in chinese and unclear.black font is geo-name of Sanguo period)

Sorry for I being an unimpressive translator, hopefully you could get it:).

trained on lakes; mengchong doujian; location section

 * (This section copied from User talk:Deadkid dk)

Can you find the bit where Cao Cao trained his men on lakes before the Battle of Red Cliffs? I think your link to the Sawyer discussion mentioned it, and I think I remember seeing that training period mentioned back when I had books from the library... but I suspect it may have been in "Romance" instead of anything reliable... I don't have those books now... if the troops trained for months, this time period also makes schistosomiasis a possibility, as the Chinese wikipedia says (and has a good reference for :-) ) Ling.Nut 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not in either Sanguo Zhi or Zizhi Tongjian, it could have been in the (still reliable) unofficial histories, but I'm not aware of them. _dk 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cr*p. The "artificial lake" bit was quite interesting. But it does sound... suspicious. Thanks! BTW, I uploaded the mengchong doujian (蒙冲斗舰) image under a PD-China License. Ling.Nut 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yes he does. There's a long discussion, pp. 266-268. He says they're mengchong doujian on 266.. first translating it as " a general description for vessels of war" but later giving more details... "ships covered with raw ox-hide"; "breaking the enemy line" etc. Ling.Nut 01:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read carefully, he's only describing the mengchong there. _dk 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct &mdash; but he completes the circle later:

One may be reading too much into these scattered and often generalised references, but it seems reasonable to regard the essential division of responsibility among the major ships of these river fleets as being between those which served as fighting platforms for spearmen and archers to engage in close combat, and those covered with some form of protective material, which could be used to break the enemy line of battle and perhaps to damage their ships and men with a ram or by projectiles. In that sense, the phrase mengchong doujian would then describe both the specialised functions of the capital ships at that time.
 * Thus a "mengchong doujian" is a ship that has the functions/attributes of both a mengchong and a doujian. Ling.Nut 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That last phrase is quite open to interpretation, I see it as saying a capital ship can be either a mengchong or a doujian (and not both). And the reason I swiped that sentence out completely is that it is misleading to say the fire ships were mengchong doujian when every ship that participated in the battle are mengchong and doujian. _dk 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Zhang (2006) says: "leather-covered assault warships (mengchong doujian 蒙冲斗舰)" Moreover, de Crespigny specifically says they are mengchong doujian; he just discusses the meaning of the term... Ling.Nut 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the argument here is whether mengchong doujian is one type of ship, or two. My view is that the fleet is composed of mengchong and doujian, thus mengchong doujian. Zhang only provided a literal translation and combined the two meanings together. _dk 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Your Chinese is much better than mine. Is it possible in Chinese to omit a conjunction such as 和 or 跟 and let a string of two successive nouns refer to a set of two objects? Ling.Nut 02:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially in Classical Chinese. _dk 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. I hate to be a pain in the neck, but even still, Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not Truth. We can report what Zhang and de Crespigny said, making sure to cite them. If you wanna add your own view, perhaps in a footnote, you could... but it would be bordering on WP:OR. Ling.Nut 04:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying de Crespigny is wrong, I just have a different interpretation of de Crespigny's text (those which you quoted above) than yours. Since he goes into great depths explaining the difference between the mengchong and the doujian, while saying the phrase is "a general description for vessels of war" (like how the word "fruit" is a general description for "apples and oranges"), I believe he's saying that this phrase: "In that sense, the phrase mengchong doujian would then describe both the specialised functions of the capital ships at that time" - does not refer to one type of ship only. _dk 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Why don't we ask him, then? :-) But actually, unless he gives us some references to printed stuff, even his opinion is WP:OR... mmm, I don't mean that his opinion about the meaning of his own text would be OR; that would be clarification. But if he expands on the idea and presents unpublished info such as thoughts &amp; opinions, then it's OR Ling.Nut 13:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can ask first, then worry about OR later :) _dk 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, I wanna ask about Chibi City, and whether that's the same as a vague reference to "Near Jaiyu." :-) Ling.Nut 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask away~ _dk 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'll write an email but post it here before sending it, to be sure I have your position stated correctly. Later... Ling.Nut 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also see To Establish Peace, Volume 2, part 3, footnote 78 of 208 AD. "The combined phrase mengchong doujian may be interpreted as a general description of ships of war." _dk 10:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The only way out of this problem, as I see it, is to quote absolutely everyone. we can't favor one interpretation over another. That raises the question: separate section in "Red Cliffs"; long footnote (probably my favorite option), or separate article? If it were a separate article, it would be pretty stubby.
 * I'm having similar qualms in my gut about the "Location" section. I think it may be wrong. For one thing, I think the whole Jiayu/Puqi(Chibi City) question may be moot. I am beginning to suspect that many scholars are kinda waving their hands vaguely at location somewhere southwest of Wuhan and somewhere northeast of Baqiu and saying, "Here-ish." For that reason, I'm not sure Jiayu and Chibi City should be considered two distinct options (although they are distinct places). Maybe they should be lumped together in a here-ish option. I'm not sure. I'll keep thinking...
 * Maybe we should copy/paste all this to the talk of the article... Ling.Nut 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I think we're making an argument out of nothing... The scholars certainly aren't arguing about what the ships really are (and I think it is already made clear that the mengchong and the doujian are different kinds of ships, since it wouldn't be logical to go to battle using only one type of ship). Maybe I'm just being stubborn, but I think this is such a minor issue it's not worth the effort.
 * As for the "Locations" section, I think the main argument between Jiayu and Puqi is that Puqi is the designated tourist spot as it claims to be the site, and Jiayu proponents want to steal that designation from them. So, to those cities, the question certainly isn't moot. (Chinese municipal politics, meh) _dk 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect to mengchong doujian, I'm gonna put Zhang and de Crespigny in a footnote right now. I'll see if I can get something from Needham the next time I go to the library, and add it in a day or three. Ling.Nut 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, Google Translate translates mengchong doujian (蒙衝鬥艦) as "Mongolia-Doo-ship". --Auric (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

kingdoms &amp; empires
I've seen this line of argument that the three kingdoms weren't kingdoms but empires, WHILE the period is still called Three Kingdoms period (even by historians) simply to retain established usage... we need to find sources for that assertion... Ling.Nut 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For which assertion? There is no question that the states weren't kingdoms, since kingdoms are headed by kings, not emperors. _dk 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that it would be correct to refer to them as kingdoms after their leaders proclaimed to be kings but before they went on to become emperors. _dk 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the kingdoms bit, it was already there, but they can't be dynasties because, officially, Han was succeeded by Jin. Also, an empire is technically a group of kingdoms/countries united under a single banner. Don't know if that's accurate, either. And I don't know if Sun, Cao or Liu could officially be emperors, as simply claiming the title doesn't make you the Emporer.  Isn't this what Yuan Shu did? Yet he is not recognised as such. Gamer Junkie 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of the above is sorta what I mean. It's confusing...If I'm Joe Blow walking in off the street, and I see that the age is called "three kingdoms," I'm gonna assume there are.. you know... three... kingdoms... SO we need to state that fact (arguably, not in this article). It also needs to be backed up with a good source. Ling.Nut 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that this issue does not exist in Chinese and is purely an English translation issue, since the Chinese character 國 in 三國 refers to a political entity instead of strictly defined terms like "empire", "kingdom" or etc. Therefore I prefer to use the ambiguous term "state" like in Warring States. Well, Yuan Shu was finished off so quickly there isn't much point to say he was legitimate; plus, the real legitimate emperor, Emperor Xian was still reigning. There is a difference between any emperor and the legitimate emperor, the one which held the Mandate of Heaven, but during the "Three Kingdoms" period there was no real legitimate emperor (the one to rule them all, so to speak). _dk 12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. However, I think it's a good point to elaborate upon in the Three Kingdoms article, as opposed to a branching article related to the Three Kingdoms like this one. Gamer Junkie 11:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Agreed. My mind is totally made up, as of this morning: after we get this one to FA October-ish-ly, whenever we revisit the "Wadda we do next" discussion, I'm gonna vote for the top-level articles (Three Kingdoms &amp; Romance of the Three Kingdoms) rather than any battle or individual... well, backtracking, I guess a strong case for Zhuge might sway me.. but I would either wanna do a top-level article or one of the most famous characters (that would be Zhuge, the three brothers, or cao cao). But the top-level ones are my strongest vote. Ling.Nut 11:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to think of a way to reference the DW information on the character articles. It's all verifiable should somebody decide to play the game, but I'm not sure that'll hold up as a reference. But the two other articles would be a good choice for our next work.  Speaking of getting this FA'd, anything else we need to do with this one? Gamer Junkie 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we retreat back to the WikiProject talk page? We've gone way off topic here. I'll try to write some more cultural stuff here soon. _dk 12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I added the section about what else this article needs before we can FA it. Gamer Junkie 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) for this article, the poor "location" section has gaping holes 'cause we can't track down the Chinese-language refs for some of the assertions. If they were challenged in FAC, we'd have to delete entire prargraphs, which would not make us look good. ... :/ Ling.Nut 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming we'll need books outlining the location and such. Is that what we're waiting on? Gamer Junkie 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Lu Bu?
His power was maximum, even nine years after his death. --NEMT 15:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I realize that the article is currently at FAC, but it is still important to determine if the article at least meets the requirements of the GA criteria. Based on my review, I believe the article should continue to remain a GA. I made a few minor corrections concerning punctuation, please look them over and correct them if necessary. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 09:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fallen Han dynasty?
Does it make sense to describe the Han dynasty as fallen 12 years before its end? john k 16:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Han Dynasty had lost all power and authority long before then. It's existence for those twelve years (and many more before those) was little more than as a puppet government for the controlling warlords to do as they pleased in a more "official" manner by acting in the Han's name. It would be like suggesting that the royal family still maintains absolute control over England and the Commonwealth. Gamer Junkie  03:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I removed words like "former" and "fallen" as they are ambiguous in this case and can lead to confusions. _dk 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I forget that people who know little or nothing about the period also read these articles, and that it would seem vague to me as well if I didn't already know what it meant. Have to learn to keep that in mind. Gamer Junkie  06:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the Han had no effective power in 208, but it still seems misleading to refer to them as "fallen" or "former," as Deadkid says. john k 07:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the "crumpling" Han Dynasty? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good, although the word is "crumbling." john k 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Ok, let's put that in if we can get concensus for it.  I think it's important here that we convey that the Han Dynasty was dying at the time.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also suitable words might be "failing", "in decline", or my choice: "fragmented". _dk 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) My vote is "pooped out." Ling.Nut 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I support "pooped out". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ling.Nut, you genius. *shakes hand* _dk 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If we wanna keep this article FA, the obvious choice is "FUBAR". Gamer Junkie  03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Duration
There is no indication here whether the battle lasted hours or days. Does anyone know? Grant |  Talk  12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The ancient sources don't say, but Rafe de Crespigny estimated that it must have lasted for days, considering the stalemate. _dk (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Added detailed historical accounts for a overly simplified battle
The battle of Chibi was actually a campaign that was consisted of many battles, most of which are not mentioned in the article. Detailed accounts in a wide range of historical (Not literary) works (in Chinese) are are added, and additional references are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.99.243 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering this article is a Featured Article, you probably should have discussed here before you went to add something so huge in the article. This article has some rigid standards to adhere to, among which is the completeness of citations. Although you have added sources, you did not provide citations which makes it difficult to maintain this article's featured status. May I suggest that you discuss your additions before you add them back in again. _dk (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize there may be some confusion as to what this article's supposed to be about: the article in its old FA state mostly covers just the confrontation at Wulin, while the IP editor wants to add information about the whole campaign, which includes other battles in Jiangling and Yiling. I suggest that if that's the case, we should create another article that covers the whole campaign and we can move the IP's addition there. The premise for this is, of course, if we can verify that all this information is correct. _dk (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see another article has popped up as Battle of Yiling (208). _dk (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And here we have the article which I have the most problem with: Battle to the Southwest of Xiakou. Looks like a long essay without much evidence from primary sources...._dk (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Strength" section (220,000 - 240,000) on the Cao Cao side is NOT correct
The numbers given in the "Strength" section (220,000 - 240,000) on the Cao Cao side is NOT correct.

There were 2 figures given for Cao Cao's army size: one from Cao Cao himself (800,000), the other from Zhou Yu (220,000). Both numbers cannot be correct.


 * (1) Cao Cao's figure cannot be believed because he was trying to scare the other side into submission, and therefore has clear motive to give a much larger number to frighten the other side into submission.


 * (2) Zhou Yu's figure cannot be believed because:
 * There were 2 opposing sides on Sun Quan's camp: one advocating surrender, the other advocating war, and that Zhou Yu was part of the side advocating war. One of the main reasons the 'peace' camp advocated surrender was because of Cao Cao's huge army.  This means that Zhou Yu had every reason to understate Cao Cao's strength in order to neutralize the other side's arguments.  Given that he was the effective army commander-in-chief, no-one on the opposing side would be in a position to challenge his 'estimates'.


 * Clearly, given the small number of soldiers Sun Quan had, even if you half the number (of 800,000), you would still end up with a number that does not support a call for military confrontation. That means Zhou Yu would have to give an almost-ridiculous 'estimate' to shut the other side up.

We can therefore safely conclude that Zhou Yu's 'estimate' is NOT any more believable than Cao Cao's delaration. In other words, the true figure is somewhere between 220,000 and 800,000, but definitely nowhere near either end of the extremes.

(PS. Your chance of getting it right if you believe Zhou Yu's number is just the same as if you believe Cao Cao's number. If you say Cao Cao's strength was 220,000 - 240,000, you could just as well say it was 780,000 - 800,000.  Could someone fix the numbers)

Wild Panda888 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wild Panda888, please take a few moments to very carefully read over the relevant Wikipedia policy: No Original Research. Thanks Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks Ling.  But is it really worthwhile presenting Zhou Yu's figure in Wikipedia as facts? Wild Panda888 (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can only use what we have. The text does say it is an estimate: "Although Cao Cao had boasted that he had 800,000 men, Zhou Yu estimated Cao Cao's full troop strength to be closer to 220,000, but this total included 70,000 troops from the armies of the recently defeated Liu Biao, so the loyalty and morale of a large number of Cao Cao's force was uncertain (Eikenberry 1994:60)." The only thing we might do further is put est. in the infobox. In fact, I'll do that. Thanks again. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 15:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only choice here is to use the number described in the Sanguo Zhi. Regardless of right or wrong, those records are presented as fact, and until somebody comes up with footage from Cao Cao's camera phone of the Battle of Red Cliffs and posts it on YouTube, that's not gonna change. The saying goes "history is written by the victor" for a very good reason. Gamer Junkie  T /  C 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)