Talk:Conquest of Shu by Wei

Guancheng and Guankou; Fu Qian and Jiang Shu
Previous edition of this article states Fu was the area commander defending Yang'an Pass, but I disagreeded. Before the changes, I attempted to search for records regarding the issue, and was unable to locate sources justifying the claim the previous edition made. Regarding the changes I made in the article, I may need to address the issue here.

I believe that Fu was not the Area Commander responsible for Yang'an Pass, but the commander of Guancheng. The word "Guangcheng," meaning the City of Guan, appeared in SGZ, Biography of Zhong Hui, and the word "Guankou," meaning entrance of Guan, appeared in ZZTJ chapter 78. If one observes closer, he would be convinced the two are very similar and could be regarded as the same. My view is that Guangcheng was a city protected by a pass (due to geography reason), which was called "Guankou," and its defenders were Fu Qian and Jiang Shu.

Also, Fu didn't assume Jiang's previous position as the previous edition suggested. Jiang hold the position of Commander of Wuxing (ZZTJ chapter 78). But Fu was made the Commander of Guanzhong (actually I suspect it might be commander of Guancheng), a position deemed more important than Jiang's. As there's no records about Fu's change of title, we should assume he still carried that post when Wei forces invaded. EkmanLi (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is not well-written
This article contains grammatical errors and awkward constructions. Is it possibly translated from another language?

Some examples under Zhong Hui's advance:

Example 1: Both Shu commanders proved to be incapable as to follow Jiang Wei's dull orders to just defend the city and let the main force of the enemy go.

The meaning of this sentence is ambiguous. Were the Shu commanders incapable of following Jiang Wei's orders? Or does the author mean to imply these commanders should have showed some personal initiative instead of following Jiang Wei's "dull" orders? Possibly the author implies the commanders should have hindered the enemy's main force instead of merely letting them go? Also, the sentence reads awkwardly, as if it were translated.

Example 2: That was against Jiang Wei's view to reinforce Yinping (陰平), because Liu Shan's first priority was to get Jiang Wei out from possible annihilation.

The use of the word "view" implies it was translated from another language. Typically in English we would say it was against Jiang Wei's strategy or desire to reinforce Yinping, not his view (in this military context). Also, the phrase "first priority was to get Jiang Wei out from possible annihilation," reads a bit oddly. We would probably write, "first priority was to prevent the annihilation of Jiang Wei's forces." or just "first priority was to prevent Jiang Wei's annihilation."

Example 3: Jiang Wei's force, despite suffered some defeats from Wei generals Wang Qi (王頎) and Yang Qu (楊趨), was able to avoid total destruction by his own ingenuity.

This sentence contains a simple grammatical mistake. The phrase "despite suffered" should be "despite suffering" or "despite having suffered".

I could go on, but I feel these examples are sufficient to indicate that the article is not well-written. It contains both semantic ambiguity and grammatical errors. I would offer to re-write the article, but unfortunately I am not well-versed with the events concerning the Conquest of Shu by Wei. 2001:4898:80E8:5:0:0:0:7C7 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC) K Chang

Title of the article
Should this article not be called "Wei conquest of Shu"? It would be in line with every other article on conquests. See Ming conquest of Yunnan, Roman conquest of Britain, French conquest of Algeria, Mongol conquest of Western Xia, etc. The same should be done for Conquest of Wu by Jin. —General534 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)