Talk:Zhao Yun

Main picture
Can we perhaps get a better main picture for Zhao Yun? He's a historical figure, not an aggregation of polygons from a video game. Such a ridiculously romanticised picture is suitable for the article on Lara Croft - not for Zhao Zilong.

SuperXW: He's a historical figure without any realistic pictures. Even the Qing dynasty's dispiction is just an imagination of that time. However, I do agree with you that not using a japanese's romanticised video game's picture as the main one. A screenshot from the CCTV drama should be ok. That one was based on most Chinese' traditional impressions of the figures. 203.198.224.143 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

comment
A man of China or of the Chinese decendent should follow this man on honour, gallantry and wisdom then he can called him self a man of China or Chinese descendent.

Zhao yun can be said a great warrior.I really wish to see him saving the young baby e dou at Changban.written by Angela Verita lin

Cleanup
Why is there an individual page called "Biography of Zhao Yun"? Part of the introduction text could also be moved down to the biography section. Please clean up. --Plastictv 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those who have Honor
Even now when Honor and devotion is more of a hard practice, Zhao Yun of the Three Knigdoms shows many people that bravery, respect to his or her lord, and willing to give his or her life means having the most honor on or off the battle field. There are also others who carried the same honor just as he did for his own kingdom.

Zhang Liao: Wei General of the top Five. Zhang He: Wei General of the top Five. Huang Gai: Veteran officer of Wu. Zhou Tai: Body Guard of Sun Quan. --Zhang Liao 04:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Zhao yun
Zhao yuns the man in the game hes awsome but man when i learned about this dude i liked the way he was and now i think hes even more cooler. JG

This article is rubbish.
"He charged into 1,000,000 of Cao Cao troops by himself"

Give me a break...Cao Cao didn't even have that many men. Not to mention that Zhao Yun would have been slaughtered.

There's just too much information taken from the novel (Not historical)


 * Perhaps you should try and correct it? --Nsevs 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * the article should be following history, but in history some generals did charge into a lot of men themselves in ancient china. But how it is written might be a bit biased Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it based on the novel. if in the novel ROTK says so, it's OK to say that. Anyway, Cao-Cao have that number of troops. --User:Rudy[Rudy 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you did know that many documents from the 3k period were lost in Mao's revolution right? So calling 1,000,000 men rubbish isn't a good idea when you considered not knowing the exact number of troops. I.E. How many member are there in the Chinese Communist party? You don't really know but you sum up the number right? So in war is the same way. Also why can't a man face against 1 million men? it's not like they're all compact into a single area, they could be behind him or in front of him or around him. So when Zhao Zilong faced one million men it isn't that they're all in one spot but they could be spreaded out. Also I remember some guy in WWI that took out a few hundred Enemies with his gun....(Clue he was against fighting before he went to war)- Randomguy 9 July 2007

It can be fixed easily
Just because someone added non-historical contents does not mean the entire article is rubbish. That error was removed once, but was added in by another individual. It can be removed again.

Zhao Yun's Bravery and Honor
"Say," said Zhao Zilong, "that I will seek the lost ones in Heaven or Hell, through good or evil. And if I find them not, I will die in the battlefield."

"I am Zhao Zilong of Changshan!" Quotes of Zhao Yun aka Zhao Zilong


 * What's up with these seemingly random thoughts about the Romance of Three Kingdom people? There's always one of those in every RTK article on wikipedia. The talk page isn't made for discussing the novel. And this could be just me, but I believe people would prefer the old ancient drawing of Zhao Yun that was removed to this ridiculous Dynasty Warriors picture. 80.227.100.62 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I don't think that's Zhao Yun in the main pic; it looks like Guan Yu.

It is indeed a picture of Zhao Yun from an old edition of "ROTK." There are different portraits (all of them imaginary) of Zhao Yun in various books, some look young and some look old. However, in Han Dynasty and the Three Kingdoms era, males with a well groomed beard (i.e., Guan Yu) were considered "handsome," while those without much facial hair were occasionally ridiculed. The picture shown here, though not a true reflection of Zhao Yun, should not be considered any less “accurate” than any other Zhao Yun portrait out there.

Heros in dynasty warriors
why insult images that they use from dynasty warriors? they do a much better job at putting them in a game then any of you do.

Merging Qin Gong article into Zhao Yun article
It has been proposed on the Talk:Qin Gong page that the information there be merged into a section on this page. I think that a section of information about his exploits in the novel should be added. The information on the Qin Gong page falls under this. As long as the information is labeled as fictional tales there shouldn't be any confusion with the historical information under the "Life" section. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

Source Citations
I'm no expert on the subject, but it seams to me that this article was written by some video game fan boys with little historic accuracy. It has a wealth of un-sourced material, and I think should be tagged as 'not verified' until they can be sighted. If they remain unsighted, they should probably be removed. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was quite demeaning. Besides the statement you added a citeneeded tag to, what else needs to be addressed? _dk 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry if I sounded rude. I didn't mean for that. However, I stand by the fact that it needs source citations. The entire page has 2 references, which are hardly even used. If the article is to be accurate, it should have a wealth of sources (considering its size). I was going to place citation needed tags in a lot of places, but I realized about 95% of the facts stated are unsourced. Realistically, I realize it shouldn't have citations after every single fact, but I'm just saying, it would be nice to have at least 5-10 sources, (preferably with footnotes). If you shoot for that, it'd probably be sufficient. Thanks for your help. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 03:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the "Life" section is based on the first source, because that is the only authoritative primary source there is on him. I'll add a source on the RoTK stuff. _dk 14:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good, but the first two sources are in Chinese. Seeing as this is English Wiki, I'm not sure that cuts it. I'll go ahead and remove the banner, but we really should be shooting for at least 5 legit sources. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Inline citations were given. And we have "biography" section instead of "life" section now, still we'll keep on to follow SGZ to enhance related articles from time to time.EkmanLi (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

About Chen Dao
Why did someone insist that some stories in ROTK about Zhao Yun were based on Chen Dao? This is pure speculation and not acceptable. This kind of speculation first arose in some internet chat rooms, it should not belong here.

In Chen Shou's San Guo Zhi as well as some other historical records, Chen Dao was mentioned only briefly and his life achievements remain unclear. To say that Luo Guan Zhong combined Chen and Zhao Yun into one character is not reasonable. Luo created many fictional characters and fictional deeds, but there is no reason to believe he decided to omit Chen Dao for the sake of enhancing Zhao Yun as a character.


 * Well, 2 speculations were discussed above. I don't think the first speculation is correct, but the second "speculation" is quite reasonable and acceptable to me. A few deeds, like assisting Liu Bei's retreat after the latter lost to Lu Yi, and protecting Liu in An'an palace, were achieved by Chen but given to Zhao in the novel. I also completed a major expansion and rewrite on Chen Dao's article in Wiki several months ago.EkmanLi (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Zhao Yun's Horse
In games and pictures, Zhao Yun rides a white horse.This horse is suposed to be a fast and fearless horse. Zhao Yun also has great horsemanship. Ma Chao also has great horsemanship. The horses saddle is red and gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.157.234 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Born in 168? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.120.68 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Zilong
I came here looking for Zhao Zilong but found Zhao Yun. I searched the article and he is referred to in a couple of quotes as Zilong "Zilong would never desert me!" but no where is it explained where Zilong comes from. Someone with ready sources want to add this secondary name in the leadin and where it came from? Please? 97.85.185.160 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Zilong" (子龍) is Zhao Yun's Chinese style name. It's not much different from a name given to any child by his parents. 暗無天日  contact me (聯絡) 06:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of a passage
皆 in ancient time had several meanings, but it should not be translated as "together" in Zhuge's dialogue (亮曰：「大軍在祁山、箕谷，皆多於賊，而不能破賊為賊所破者，則此病不在兵少也，在一人耳. 今欲減兵省將，明罰思過，校變通之道於將來；若不能然者，雖兵多何益！). First, in terms of its usage in Chinese language, "皆" used after the punctuation "," should not be translated as "together." Second, to take Zhuge's statements to be coherently logical, my translation would be: "Armies in Mount Qi and Ji Valley, were more than the foes..." Note Zhuge omitted Jieting, where Zhang He had more troops than Ma Su at this single point, so it's rather obvious how Zhuge used the word "皆". The reason I pointed out online articles' interpretation on this particular quote was that many people selectively chose the usage of this word without looking into the sentence structure and the whole meaning of the paragraph.EkmanLi (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we should devote time and space to debunk unscholarly online theories with an unpublished interpretation of our own. That is, unless we actually have secondary sources we can use that dealt with this supposed controversy. _dk (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that without a published interpretation on the ancient usage of "皆" in this particular passage, common translation should be acceptable. Otherwise, all articles have to be deleted (because they haven't been translated by authority word by word)! I left this note here is just a response to earlier opposition to Nick's idea of translating the word "皆" in one rare, ancient meaning. Of course, if citation of published work is given, I'll gladly change my stance. Before that happens, I deem current translation as accurate and sufficient to tell the details.EkmanLi (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese texts do not have Punctuation marks. If you go back to prints from just 100+ years ago, those texts do not have commas, periods, etc. The original meaning of 皆 is "all"/"together," (皆,俱词也. ——《说文>;《傳》皆，遍也. 與偕通; 偕,俱也. ——《说文》; 俱,皆也. ——《说文》 . ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew they did not have punctuation marks, that's why I pointed it out: published works put the punctuation marks THERE -- got it?EkmanLi (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can look for a published work which has its "," somewhere else, but I believe most authors would have the same common interpretation as I do. If you can present source with another perspective, we should have a deeper discussion. But before that, the previous edition is in accord with wiki's rules, and a nomination of deletion should be reviewed before actual deletion (I hope u notice this).EkmanLi (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do know "recent" published work put a comma there. :) There exist many contradicting materials among the surviving historical texts. Many mistakes can be found in Chen Shou's accounts as well. To emphatically single out one historical document as not being as "authentic" as others without providing convincing evidence, or any evidence at all, is not suitable. If you can provide concrete evidence that Zhao's decoy had more people than Cao Zhen's main force, then I have no problem with you putting the paragraph back. As for now, I think it better not to have that in there.
 * I can say I have tried my best to put different perspectives into an article by citing from different sources, how can you say I just "emphatically single out one historical document as not being as "authentic" as others without providing convincing evidence?" (check my works/contributions related to the project -- I never used a single source. When touching controversial stuff, careful inline citations would be given.)
 * No offense, but I think the idea "concrete evidence that Zhao's decoy had more people than Cao Zhen's main force" is wrong, because Chen Shou never said Zhao acted as a decoy (the novel might do), and I'd rather do a common translation as said. Also, the translation on previous edition is in accord with modern published work, and should remain there. Just for this article, my editions are more than several, but this is my first edit, which was "undo" without following wiki's protocol, I wanna know if it is me who "emphatically single out one historical document" or someone else? I'm not here to ridicule any specific person, but please place historicity as a priority when editing an historical figure (they are more than characters in a novel/game).EkmanLi (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chen Shou did specifically mention Zhao Yun was a decoy: 诸葛亮传第五: 六年春，扬声由斜谷道取郿，使赵云、邓芝为疑军，据箕谷，魏大将军曹真举众拒之. Zhao: 疑軍, decoy. 曹真舉眾: main force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see, you may be right on Zhao being a decoy. Here I also want to mimic you: 疑 can be translated to 副 (second/assisting) in ancient usage. Anyways, I'll use a common translation and put up an updated edit in accord with the above citation in the article.EkmanLi (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know whether your new edit is appropriate, since majority of your entry is not relevant here. Do you think it is more suitable for Battle of Jieting discussions? Again you mentioned that Zhao had more people, which is the whole point of contention. I am going to remove that part since it is still disputed. No offense. BTW, "As we can see, we can see..." should not be included in the main text. Such statements belong in discussions.
 * arrr... did u get what i said? We don't selectively choose sources or ways to translate passages (common translation unless cn is given), and my method is in accord with current wiki's rules. Let me give u a hint: instead of deletion, you should take a look in Zhang He's article. To say it straightly, you should add a "theory section" when you really need to raise statements without direct source. Please, follow the protocol, and don't exhaust me(and I don't really wanna say "as we can see from the records of the SGZ from Chen Shou during..." everytime) .EkmanLi (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to go back and forth with this either. But your persistence at including your own interpretations, which may be wrong, is not necessarily the best thing for Wikipedia. However, they are great for discussions. Here you can have your own interpretations, as many as you want, presented here, but please don't do that on the main page and force your interpretations on other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not my own interpretations as Wiki's rules dictate.EkmanLi (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There're no views from me but Zhuge himself, Chen Shou, and Xi Zaozi. I only included more sources into the article.EkmanLi (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You still insisted on using your own translations and interpretations. You picked translations that fit your agenda, which is again, as I stressed, not necessarily correct. This is a common practice among Three Kingdoms fans in chatrooms. Why not say, it is in dispute whether Zhao Yun had less men than Cao Zhen, however, it's stated that his force was weaker than Cao's. There, you have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The only source that is arguably dubious is 雲別傳. But it seems to me you didn't pick to say about that... and as I said, those are not my agenda or whatever, unless I were Zhuge or Chen Shou. Chen's work should be the primary source, and I couldn't believe you keep saying I'm picking them to fit an agenda... so what agenda am I having??? I talk about both sides of a historical figure, and by doing so remain neutral, THAT is my agenda.EkmanLi (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As the "Theory section" remains empty, I'm going to del it. If one wants to add it back or has anything to add into the main article, plz free feel to do so.EkmanLi (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

About 雲別傳
The only source that is arguably dubious is 雲別傳That's your opinion, not facts. Please give me 3 concrete reasons why you think 雲別傳 is dubious, and please don't cite He Zhuo 何焯, who was criticized for maligning historical figures and distorting facts.

Just adding more: Zhang He was sent separately by Cao Rui directly from Jingzhou (荆州) to the front at Jieting. 加郃位特进，遣督诸军 He was not being commanded by Cao Zhen, who was in command of the army that was already in place in Mei. 诸葛亮围祁山，南安、天水、安定三郡反应亮. 帝遣真督诸军军郿，遣张郃击亮将马谡，大破之. Wei threw a lot of men into the whole campaign. Your statement that Wei put more emphasis on Wu thus not having prepared for the battle may be true at the beginning of the campaign, but it did not stay that way throughout.

Chen's work should be the primary source-Nowadays no studies on Records of the Three Kingdoms can be considered complete or even legitimate without Pei's annotations. Your point being?


 * I knew this topic would be raised sooner or later, but I'm watching a movie in home, so I'm not sure if I can give u a quick response on the issue. But I think you probably notice or should understand this: I don't biased against Zhao, on the other hand, a professional may even argue I'm a bit in favour of him. Anyways, I'll try to remain neutral. In brief, He Zhuo (何焯) had sufficiently addressed the issue, and I can't agree to not cite him. But if you don't want him in this informal discussion, then we can forget him. "The only source that is arguably dubious is 雲別傳That's your opinion, not facts." Not really, despite He Zhuo, Chen Shou did not include materials from <<雲別傳>>. The compilation of SGZ of Shu people included folklore from Shu regions, but it is not seen in SGZ, so 雲別傳's records are literally "dubious." And, about Zhang, I'll come back to the issue. (By the way, I don't get paid from you, so I'm only giving u a general answer as of now.)EkmanLi (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My input to your second question about Pei's annotation is that I would like to have it, but without it, Chen's SGZ is by itself legitimate.EkmanLi (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chen Shou's SGZ is legitimate but incomplete, contains conflicting accounts by itself, obvious mistakes and blatant omissions of sensitive materials. Without Pei's annotations, we could not have found out Chen Shou's work was incomplete or even incorrect, could we? As for why Chen Shou did not include materials from 雲別傳, whether he had seen the document (was it written before his time?) or whether he was aware of those deeds is not known. Chen Shou wrote SGZ in Luo Yang, far away from Shu, and the Kingdom of Shu happened to not have an official state record, unlike Wei and Wu. Was Chen Shou able to research thoroughly and diligently enough to cover everything? Obviously not. Most biographies in Shu section are short, lacking details, especially those not from 川. And some of later Shu officials had no entries whatsoever. Prior to writing SGZ, Chen Shou collected information on famous people, mostly intellectuals, in Sichuan, which formed a basis for SGZ. That's why many biographies of local Chuan people are better presented in details.

In brief, He Zhuo (何焯) had sufficiently addressed the issue, and I can't agree to not cite him. I was hoping that's not where you got your "proof" that 雲別傳 is dubious. Instead of taking his words at face value, why not dig a little deeper and see that his entire logic is flawed? I am praying Wikipedia does not become a haven for people like He Zhuo.

his huge army at Qi Mountain and Zhao's army in Ji Valley, were both larger than that of the enemies."Both" is your own interpretation. Like I said, you cannot put disputed interpretation in there.

Not realizing the truth that Wei actually devoted most of his forces to fight Wu, some dilettanti asserted Zhao had less troops than Cao.--Zhang He was sent separately by Cao Rui directly from Jingzhou (荆州) to the front at Jieting. 加郃位特进，遣督诸军 He was not being commanded by Cao Zhen, who was in command of the army that was already in place in Mei. 诸葛亮围祁山，南安、天水、安定三郡反应亮. 帝遣真督诸军军郿，遣张郃击亮将马谡，大破之. Wei threw a lot of men into the whole campaign. Your statement that Wei put more emphasis on Wu thus not having prepared for the battle may be true at the beginning of the campaign, but it did not stay that way throughout. From the records, Zhuge had taken the crack troops for his favorite, Ma Su, and himself; Zhao was only given plenty of weaker soldiersagain, speculation on "weak" vs. "less". "crack" can be changed to "elite".

Zhuge even fantasized that number along would help him prevail over his rival-I doubt he fantasized that. Wei's army was way more seasoned and experienced, and Zhuge knew it. He attacked the region that was not well defended, precisely because he was reluctant to engage with Wei's main forces at the early stages of the campaign(see also the conflict between Wei Yan and Zhuge Liang). The surprise came when Wei soldiers showed up en masse and defeated Ma Su swiftly at Jieting before Zhuge's main force could settle in.

the honor of being the van fell into the hands of Ma Su, instead of Zhao Yun. People of the time were surprised by Zhuge's decision on human resources. Zhao Yun was sent to Jigu prior to Ma Su's appointment. Zhuge Liang could not send Zhao to Jieting even if he wanted to at the time. Zhuge promoted Ma Su over Wei Yan etc., in spite of the objections from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nck88 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You were wrong at the beginning, which rendered the this discussion meaningless -- I said the only source I used is "arguably dubious is 雲別傳. (07:14, 26 March 2011)" But you changed my words into I said "雲別傳 is dubious" in your reply. Similar acts were done in another topic. I want to point this out: If you constantly distort my original meaning, I have no way to conduct a meaningful discussion with you (and as a basic manner, you should not do so). As you request to give reasons for 雲別傳 to be dubious, I can say it is literally "dubious", caz the word "dubious" suggests unclear origin (but again, I am saying it upon request). And your personal view on He Zhuo (何焯) is not mine.
 * I quote you, "Let me clarify this: 漢晉春秋 is a dubious source, yet it's significantly more trust-worthy than than 雲別傳." But you failed to provide any proof to back up this statement. Such statements can be frequently seen in dubious chatroom discussions. Some contemporary scholars of He Zhuo were critical of He Zhuo's methods of analyzing historical texts, so my "personal" view is both based on his flawed arguments and other people's comments. Many of He's arguments are Zhuge-centric, i.e., "Since Zhuge did not do this, nobody else was capable of doing this either. So a document that says other people did something must be wrong", which flies in the face of logic. Nck88 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Speculation and translation are two things... Your theory of going against common translation is beyond my comprehension. My translation is adequate even in the academic world, as far as I know, for a G.E. class (at least in UC Berkeley), you can use a modern dictionary to translate Chinese into English for an Asian-history paper.
 * Using Modern dictionary and vocabulary is OK to translate "modern" Chinese works into English. But the Chinese language has evolved and changed significantly since ancient times. You have to be very careful when applying modern dictionaries to ancient texts. There are many published versions of translated SGZ. Often they disagree with one another, and many contain incorrect (sometimes ridiculous) translations. Different translations of one single word can result in completely different interpretations. That's why I think it wrong to state something as facts, especially when it's based on one particular translation of a single word while the word itself has multiple meanings, without giving a certain thought. Nck88 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The description of Wei's stance against Wu of course is about its initial deployment. Check out mobilization. The one side arrives force concentration quicker than the other usually has a better chance to win. And I believe Zhang had more troops than Ma (which reflects Wei's better concentration of force and HR) as I pointed out in prior discussion. NOW, THIS is a speculation of mine.EkmanLi (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Situations in war change by the minute, and the moment Zhang He arrived from Jingzhou at Jieting, the balance of power started to shift. Ma Su arrived in Jieting before Zhang he, and as Zhang He was in command of several Wei armies, one can only speculate Ma Su's vanguards were greatly outnumbered and overwhelmed by Zhang He's troops as well. Whether Zhuge had more troops than Ma is not the point, because they were not at Jieting but stationed in different towns/areas. Many of his troops were subsequently cut off and overrun by Zhang He. Zhuge's main force had no time to reorganize and assemble, and at any moment or spot of the battle, the number of his troops in action was not superior to that of Zhang He's. However, it is admirable that Zhuge took full responsibility for the loss, even though the outcome was inevitable once Ma Su failed miserably to delay Zhang He's advance.

Again, all these are my speculations, thus they belong in discussions, or in a section specifically dedicated to "speculations". :)Nck88 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ... u merged my comments into yours... I suppose you did not do it on purpose, but that distorts the discussion. Alright, there's a "signing comment (4 ~)" function so ppl can distinguish what you think and what the others think, and this way the discussion can be kept smooth and clear. Putting things in-between different people's comments will automatically leave your "sign" at the end of the large chunk of stuff you touch, making the conversation blurred. (BTW, I believe u quote me from the main article? Contents presented there are straightly under wiki's regulation. And works without clear origin, i.e. author name, publisher (modern works), etc fall under the category of "dubious source," that rule aligns with academic norm, and I just followed protocol to leave a note there. In the talk page, points I present would be more flexible.EkmanLi (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

= Family = Children
 * Sons:
 * Zhao Tong oldest son
 * Zhao Guang second son

File:Zhao Yun TV Serial.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * @ 2600:1700:6430:F01:983D:AF07:FDE9:2768 (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)