Talk:Meng Huo

The Nanman King Meng Huo
At the time of the Wu and Wei battles, Zhuge Liang decides to launch a full assault on the Nanman tribes. After heading south to the lands of China, the Shu startegist captures and releases the Nanman King Meng Huo 7 times to force him into surrender.

If the Meng Huo and his forces outnumbered the Shu forces, how is it that Meng Huo was caught 7 times. Due to the terrain that the Nanman people lived in the Shu army should have encounter some difficults while traveling through the land. If Zhuge Liang did capture Meng Huo 7 times, what, if any, methods did he go about rather than meet the Nanman in head on battle and if Meng Huo would serve the Shu forces, how long would time permit him to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanman QED

Meng Huo's depiction
I don't think that the picture from Dynasty Warriors needs to be there. Think about if someone like Socrates, who we don't know the look of, had a video game character on his Wikipedia page. Also, I doubt that Meng Huo had metal claws. I say the photo should be taken off this page. --Riction 08:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The picture and the over-lengthy section on his appearance in Dynasty Warriors makes the article look like a joke, if you ask me. 67.46.0.13 11:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Not anonymous, firewall at my job won't let me stay logged in, user ID is Themill).


 * A joke? As opposed to another emotion you are attempting to invoke with that scribbled image at the top? The picture only cites the most modern reference to Meng Huo. If you have an image from the television series or something from another modern reference, then replace it.  Those claws are weapons, larger versions of the "cat claw" used throughout history by many Eastern warriors and assassins.  I don't see how modern references to historical individuals are a "joke," and I see that disdain for the video game medium is as alive and well as ever.  I wonder if you'd rubbish the section if it was derived from a book or movie instead. Gamer Junkie 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Meng Huo.jpg
Image:Meng Huo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Meng Huo
According to Zhang Hua Lan's article, "Discussion on Meng Huo," Meng was only a fictional character invented by later historians. Modern historians like Huang Cheng Zhong also pointed out Zhang's view represents the majority of the academics. Note that the the word "Huo" (獲) means "captured" in Chinese.EkmanLi (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where can I find this article? Is it on the internet somewhere? Plunged (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote on Pei Songzi's view over Xi Zaochi
Huang Chengzhong uses Pei Songzhi's accusation against Xi Zaochi of anachronistically inserting quotations in the biography of Wang Ling in his article, Did Zhuge Liang really Capture Meng Huo Seven Times? (諸葛亮真的“七擒孟獲”嗎？). At first glance it's easy for people to perceive it as a "textual manipulation done to cast meng huo as fictional." However, after I read the whole article of Huang Chengzhong, I can only logically believe he adopts that quote because he wants to show Xi Zaochi as the first one(s) who "make up" the stories like the "7 times freed."("如此言之类，皆前史所不载，而犹出习氏. 且制言法体不似于昔，疑悉凿齿所自造者也？")

Also, it should not be a "textual manipulation done to cast meng huo as fictional" at all, because Huang believes in the historicity of Meng Huo, and this fact has actually been pointed out in the main article before the quote.

EkmanLi (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While I am not qualified to argue with an historian, I merely wanted to show that Pei Songzhi let the "seven times freed" story slide without additional comment. Huang Chengzhong may use that quote in Wang Ling's biography to cast doubt on Xi Zaochi's methodology, but since Pei never explained what he had mind when he said "things like this quote" (如此言之類), referring to the Wang Ling quote, we can't make the article imply that Pei had any doubts about the Meng Huo story. Also, I never said Huang was manipulating the texts. _dk (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't specific anyone to be saying Huang manipulated the text (no offense, I just think people like me would have that feeling at first glance on his work), caz I was a bit confused. Alright, so who specifically did u say was "manipulating the text"?


 * Beijing Sci-Tech Report's edited Huang Chengzhong's research into an article (Huang is still the author, with another guy as the editor). Huang does mention Pei's view on Xi, and I already explained the reason. By the way, when I edited the "main article", I specially wrote Pei Songzhi had no comment on Meng Huo --> I never say Pei implied Meng Huo was not real (it's logically for ME to think others are a bit confused? If that's the case, then I apologize here)... On the contrary, Huang Chengzhong does imply and specially borrow Pei Songzhi's view to illustrate Xi Zaochi's fault, and his point can be arguable, why do u think you couldn't argue just because he is a historian?

EkmanLi (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not qualified to argue with an historian because I am not an historian, don't not have the credentials, and am not a proper expert (we're all just learning here, I assume he knows way more than I do). You're gonna have to help me out here, because I can't find in 蜀漢孟獲史實瑣談 anywhere where Huang takes Pei's quote in Wang Ling's bio and uses it to argue against Meng Huo's story, or maybe I just couldn't find the right version. I disagree that Huang was the author for the Sci-Tech report, since the article specifically thanked Huang for the material that the author referenced. ("本文主要資料來源於黃承宗先生發表在《四川彝學研究》上的《蜀漢孟獲史實瑣談》一文，特此致謝！"). Whoever I was referring to in that edit summary doesn't matter any more, now that the "textual manipulation" had been edited off. _dk (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just like those of Zhu Ziyan's （朱子彥） articles. Editors (no matter where he comes from,) can edit the paper, and can change the name of the article actually, but the author is still the author.
 * And if you wanna get the original research paper, you may try "downloading it from PROPER sources", and I don't wanna get into trouble -- so you gonna find a source to download whatever u want. But there's also another way to get access to those Chinese History research papers if you live in Hong Kong or Taiwan, you can ask a friend who is still studying university to check them out for you. Hope my suggestions help (again, I didn't suggest any illegal way to get them). EkmanLi (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, the only reason I asked u the "textual manipulation" thing is only because I was curious, no offense. I just happened to check previous editionS, and I don't really see that and the "edit off" thing, so I just logically thought u might be saying Huang did it (again, sry if I was wrong).EkmanLi (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was actually asking for an actual quote (and/or page number), heh. _dk (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * arr...that was the actual quote, how can it not be? Also, Beijing Sci-Tech Report published it in an online version, and if u wanna know the page number, then I can tell you it's page 1. But just to let you know the page number from the journal 《四川彝學研究》 of Huang's research will be different from that of the Beijing Sci-Tech Report's, and there may be other publishers, too (so, if you find other page number(s), it's normal). EkmanLi (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a quote where Pei doubts Xi's methodology, but I don't see one where Huang uses Pei's quote to argue against Meng Huo's seven times freed story. _dk (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can go to Huang's research posted in the journal. But I consider separating Pei's and Huang's view on the issue may be better (as I personally consider Huang's point a bit arguable). Although I listed their views separately in the first place, you are welcome to link them or do any changes appropriate. EkmanLi (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you willing to provide quotes for everything else you do, but shy away from this one that I ask for? Pei's view on Xi were about Wang Ling's quote, not Meng Huo's story. You claim that Huang Chengzong used Pei's quote to argue that the seven times freed story is false, and I asked you to show the quote where he did that, that's all I want. As of now we only have a quote from Pei Songzhi that is tangential to the historicity of Meng Huo, if the connection between this quote and Meng Huo can't be shown (the connection being, as you claim, Huang Chengzong using it in his paper), Pei's quote may have to be removed as original research. _dk (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I am not hired by you, and your attitude doesn't convince me to provide you with anything on this particular issue (you and I both knew you did certain mistakes in your prior edits on other articles, but I never assumed you had a personal agenda, so compare my attitude towards u with yours towards me). Second, you should check out Huang's work now, before throwing your assertion before me (the link I used doesn't work anymore, and you should not push other ppl to give u a link/source/book/watever -- there are reasons ppl can't provide you with one of them or others just don't want to do so). It's not like I shy away from this one, and I hope u do realize you shy away from more than one things, and it was my decision not to push people try explaining things like I'm the boss, as I somehow consider you a pen-pal. Third, I'm not sure if you are referring Pei Songzhi as the one doing original research, but his view on Xi Zaochi sounds logical. Listen, the main article talks about where Meng Huo's name first appears, and of course I would deem it relevant to Meng Huo. I do not see why you consider that irrelevant, but it really seems to me that you are losing your cool. EkmanLi (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All this time I don't think I am getting through to you. I've repeated many times that Pei only referred to that quote in Wang Ling's bio as unreliable, and we need something that connects that to Meng Huo. Without that crucial link (Huang Chengzong's quote if he actually said it) they are unrelated, and for you to present that quote to doubt Meng Huo's existence is an original research, more specifically an unwarranted synthesis of reliable sources. Let me make this clear: Pei Songzhi, Xi Zaozhi, and Huang Chengzong are all reliable sources; the only people who I can accuse of making original researches in Wikipedia articles are Wikipedia editors. The reason I am having this discussion with you and pressing you for an original quote is because I want to help you keep your additions. It'd be far easier for me to mark them as original research and delete them, but I haven't done that. Also, the point of citing your sources is so that readers can find the relevant quotes for themselves in a convenient way. I don't think it's a stretch to ask you for a link or a page number - it's the way we do things here on Wikipedia. Let's not get defensive about this, it's nothing personal, really. _dk (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear, I don't see any editors linking Huang and Pei in the main article. I strongly encourage you to check ALL the previous editions to see if that happened (one's memory can't be always that accurate). I can't help but noticing you repeated many times to say the main article linked them, and that is just your accusation (but Huang indeed uses that quote, believe it or not).
 * The following passage is quoted from the main article: "The name Meng Huo first appeared in the Spring and Autumn Annal of Han and Jin Dynasty, written by Xi Zaochi (習鑿齒) of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, whose works the Liu Song Dynasty historian Pei Songzhi found unreliable at times. Pei does not specifically comment on Meng Huo's historicity, but points out elsewhere that Xi writes history not found in earlier records."
 * The passage mentions 2 things: (1)Spring and Autumn Annal of Han and Jin Dynasty mentioned Meng Huo, and (2)Pei's view on the book's quality. For me, to hold a neutral view is to deem these information relevant. And I don't quite see why they are irrelevant (unless you somehow get emotional onto this issue).
 * Now, I suppose you have checked ALL the previous editions, right? Can you tell me if there's anyone linked Huang and Pei in the main article (not to discuss if Huang uses the quote For Now). Is there any editor synthesized an original research? I knew the rules, and we knew what belongs to the discussion page and the main article page. Here's something personal -- I personally think you lost your cool and need to investigate this issue in an objective way.EkmanLi (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My tune maybe a bit strong for last post, but I just don't have the talent to pretend I was a gentleman, so do forgive me pal.EkmanLi (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how well you can appreciate subtlety, but by throwing in Pei's doubts about Xi's work on Wang Ling in an unrelated person's article we are implying that we shouldn't trust what Xi says about Meng Huo too. Of course, people can arrive to that conclusion and believe that if they want; but if not one reliable source brought up Pei's challenge to Xi when talking about Meng Huo, why are we bringing it up in the article? I know full well what is on the main article: you and I both contributed to that paragraph (somewhat as a compromise on my part, I admit). The issue is not whether or not Huang brought up Pei or not, it is about whether we have something, anything, that connects what Pei said about Xi in Wang Ling's bio to Meng Huo. At this moment we don't, and bringing up Pei's doubts on Xi here can be considered synthesis, since we're implying something that the reliable sources didn't say. No offense taken or meant. _dk (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm trying to say is this: do we have to, or should we, add a disclaimer sentence saying something like "Xi Zaochi's work isn't reliable because Pei Songzhi found out that Xi messed up in Wang Ling's bio" in every article that referenced Hanjin Chunqiu? _dk (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on your view that we don't need to say that every-time (my personal belief). Perhaps I just overreacted a bit, caz I don't feel like being implied as making a link or whatsoever (if u consider the passage in the main article possesses any power of implication, then I would consider your earlier saying would imply things better.) I'm going to visit a friend who's still in school today, since we will meet at the library, I guess I can ask if the library archives any of the related work(s). As I am in Californian, I wouldn't guarantee anything, but I'll come back and share watever I'll find...EkmanLi (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I checked out Fong Guoyu's 彝族史稿 from the library of the University of California (I couldn't find Huang's works, but I guess people in China or Hong Kong can try local libraries for them). Fong Guoyu also specially uses the same Pei Songzhi's quote (I guess my understanding of Pei's saying is correct, and I guess it's not a mere coincident the researchers choose the same quote). Let me directly type the quote from Fong Guoyu's work (P.124): “習凿齿的記載， 往往臆造， 裴松之已批注過， 如《三國志·魏志王凌傳》注引 《漢晉春秋》后说：“如此言之类，皆前史所不载，而犹出习氏. 且制言法体不似于昔，疑悉凿齿所自造者也？”[...]足見習凿齿之言不必可信. ” Fong Huoyu concludes Xi Zaochi's records are often "created on his own imaginary (習凿齿的記載， 往往臆造)"
 * Also, as a matter of fact, back at the moment when you said: "At this moment we don't (have reliable sources), and bringing up Pei's doubts on Xi here can be considered synthesis", I had already pointed out that quote was used by Beijing Sci Report, so your accusation has been always invalid. The only reason I got to the library and went through all this trouble is that I wanted to show you how researchers interpret the quote out of good-faith. EkmanLi (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

the paragraph added in this edit is sourced to a fandom wiki? That is user-generated content, and even called out as a specific example on the linked policy page. I see your edits usually being correct all over the topic area and you seem like you read real histories, so I'm a little confused and concerned you've chosen such an unreliable source to support this claim. Please improve your sourcing here 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I found the two counter arguments. About other individual names (Liu Bei and Liu Shan) having later signification and the transcription from a foreign name to a Chinese name relevant therefore I added them. Since I found those arguments on this site and because this page is based on historical research, I also added the link. I will redirect the link so it is precisely on the relevant passage (About Meng Huo).TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)