Talk:Records of the Three Kingdoms

Moving of page

i suggest moving this page to "Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms".

Although a search through Google shows up 177, 441 and 215 results for "Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms", "Records of the Three States" and "Records of the Three Kingdoms" respectively, i still believe that "chronicle" is the appropriate terminology for a historical record such as this. Please advise.

--Plastictv 12:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having seen the disambiguation page for Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms, i retract my last suggestion. --Plastictv 06:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Bao Xin

I added a {{fiction}} tag to Bao Xin because I wasn't sure if this was a fictional or historical figure. Perhaps someone who knows more about Sanguo Zhi could clear that up. --Fang Aili 17:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Title Edit

Shouldn't the title have "the" before "Three Kingdoms?"

I guess it depends on whether 三国志 is being interpreted/translated as: 1) three kingdoms' records (records that were kept by three kingdoms); or 2) the three kingdoms' [time period] records (which is the time period covered, so I'd imagine this one would be more proper).

"Records of the Three Kingdoms" anyone?

DranKof 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a technical request to move, I don't think anyone will object "Records of the Three Kingdoms". Quite common over the rarely-used, if ever, "Records of Three Kingdoms". --Cold Season (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

English Translation

Does anybody know of an English translation of Records of the Three Kingdoms, either available for purchase or online? Or, if not, is there anybody willing to attempt a translation for Wikisource? That would make the Three Kingdoms project far more accessible to English-speaking editors such as myself, and may decrease the incorrect use of Romance of the Three Kingdoms as a source for historical information. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a translation of the Records of the Three Kingdoms, but the historian Rafe de Crespigny has put his translation of the End of Han portions of the Zizhi Tongjian (which took material from the Records) online here (part 1) and here (part 2). For coverage from 220 to 280, you should look at the translation of Zizhi Tongjian by Achilles Fang, but unfortunately that's not available online. _dk (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I had heard of Zizhi Tongjian before, but never thought to look for a translation; thank you very much for the link, it should prove useful. Of course, it would probably be more useful to have a copy of the Records themselves than the Zizhi Tongjian (being the closest secondary source to the period), so I will keep looking for that. Benjitheijneb (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be curious to see a full English translation, as well. Tabbycatlove (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Can 184 be the Beginning of the Records of the Three Kingdoms?

As we can see at korean wiki, japanese wiki and chinese wiki of record of 3k, the record of 3k was believed to begin AD 184.

However the record only contains Book of Wei (魏書), Book of Shu (蜀書), Book of Shu (蜀書), and we know that Wei started at AD 220, Shu and Wu started later. Then HOW could the record of 3k start at AD 184?

184 year was the year of Yellow Turban Rebellion, and chapter 1 of the ROMANCE of 3k states that At this time in the county of Julu was a certain Zhang family, of whom three brothers bore the name of Zhang Jue, Zhang Ba, and Zhang Lian. Let's find Zhang Jue, Zhang Ba and Zhang Lian at Records of the Three Kingdoms. I can not find that names of this wiki page.

Also I could NOT find He Jin, Liu Xie (later became Emperor Xian), Liu Bian (later became Prince of Hongnong), Liu Hong(later became Emperor Ling), and these people are the Prime minister and the emperors of the later Han. (Though I can find Dong Zhuo)

If Records of the Three Kingdoms can be said to begin in AD 184, then certainly it should have the records of these people.

Therefore I have some doubt about the statement that Records of the Three Kingdoms covers covering the years 184-280 CE. REMEMBER I did not read the Records of the Three Kingdoms. I only read wiki page of Records of the Three Kingdoms.

New world encyclopedia said that The Records of Three Kingdoms (三國志, 三国志, Sānguó Zhì), is the official and authoritative historical record for the period of Three Kingdoms (189-280 C.E.), originally composed in the third century by Chen Shou ( 陳壽).

http://history.cultural-china.com/en/174History2028.html said that The Records of Three Kingdoms (San Guo Zhi, 三国志), setting the Wei Kingdom of the Cao family as the legitimacy, is the official and authoritative historical text on the period of Three Kingdoms covering from 189 to 280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese wikipedia states: "...就是從漢靈帝中平元年（184年），到晉武帝太康元年（280年）九十多年的歷史。" ("...jiùshì cóng hàn líng dì zhōng píng yuán nián (184 nián), dào jìn wǔ dì tài kāng yuán nián (280 nián )"), basically stating that the book starts with the first year of Emperor Ling of the Han dynasty(漢靈帝/hàn líng dì) in 184 to the first year of Emperor Wu of the Jin dynasty (晉武帝/jìn wǔ dì) in 280. The reference cited in the Chinese wikipedia indicates that in the Tang catalog, there are in fact 66 volumes of 三國志, covering the entirety of this period. siafu (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that 184 is incorrect, and that 189 is correct one. Though I never read it. So I have no knowdlege to determine which is correct one. I'd like to hear the opinions of those who have read the contents of the record of the three kingdoms. (Gauge00 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

The source says 184. Your opinion is not relevant, especially since you haven't read the original text. We have no reason to doubt the source here. siafu (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The source says 184 ==== Which source said that 189 was the beginning of the RECORD of 3k? My opionion is that beginning 184 is probably a consensus only within in wikipedia. Some Other encylopedia outside of wiki said that 189 was the beginning. There is possibility that Wiki could be wrong, they are right(Gauge00 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

Your opinion is not relevant, especially since you haven't read the original text. ===== Did you read the original context? If you did not read the contents of it, your reponse is not appropriate response(Gauge00 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

Your speculative opinion of when you believe the book should start based on what you believe should be in the book, which you have not read, is at best original research and not relevant to the development of this article. It could also be much worse, but I was, believe it or not, assuming good faith here. I can't find an ebook version of 三國志, but the simple way to answer this question is not to speculate and guess but just to go look it up yourself, perhaps at your local library. siafu (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The book opens with the childhood of Cao Cao, who was born in 155, but chronicles biographical events as early as the mid-Eastern Han. The Book of Shu begins with Liu Bei's ancestor Liu Yan (劉延), and picks up around the year 85. Remember, Records of the Three Kingdoms is arranged biographically, not annalistically. Chen Shou died in 297, which gives us an easy endpoint, although the he completed the book sometime before his death. It is the official history of the Three Kingdoms Period, but covers matters long before its beginning. No reason to change the dates, since the dates of the period are well-established. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are Cao Cao (155-220), Dong Zhuo(?-192), Lu Bu (?-199), Liu Bei (161-223) and Lu always called Liu Bei as "younger brother". Therefore Lu's birthday possibly be 155 the same year of Cao. Dong Zhuo was a stepfather of Lu. Therefore birthdays of Dong Zhuo and Ding Yuanis around 145? Birthday of Empress Dowager Dong could be 135, cause she gave birth to Emperor Ling in 156. However any above facts does NOT make the beginning of recrod of three kingdoms 155, 145, 135.

We all know the Yellow Turban Rebellion (184), and that conspicuos figures related to this rebel, which can be seen at Commanders and leaders of Yellow Turban Rebellion, are Huangfu Song, He Jin, Lu Zhi, and Zhang Jue, Zhang Ba, Zhang Liang, Bo Cai. These people do NOT exists in Records of the Three Kingdoms. By this we can, without any doubt, conclude that Records of the Three Kingdoms does NOT deal with the Yellow Turban Rebellion. By this we can conclude that 184 could not the begginging year of Records of the Three Kingdoms. Once again I'd like emphasize that some encyclopedia outside of wiki said that the beginning year was 189, not 184 (Gauge00 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

Your argument here does not make much sense, since a lack of completeness or quality on any scale cannot lead us to conclude a particular starting date. The book doubtless fails too mention many of the numerous figures in the events covered, but it would fallacious to conclude that therefore the event itself is not covered or included in the timeframe. siafu (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To say Records of the Three Kingdoms "does NOT deal with the Yellow Turban Rebellion" simply because it does not carry biographies for all involved parties is prima facie ridiculous. Records of the Three Kingdoms deals with the Yellow Turban Rebellion a number of times, the first one being literally page three. There is also no reason to "conclude" what is and is not contained in Records of the Three Kingdoms by means other than actually reading the actual book. Records of the Three Kingdoms is right here on wikisource; if you can't be bothered to check your deductions against that, it's probably inadvisable to suggest emending this article based on them. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Snuge purveyor said that This record does indeed deal with the Yellow Turban Rebellion. Do you really think so?. (Gauge00 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

At link, you may find an English translation of Cao Cao's biography in the SGZ. It clearly mentions Cao Cao's involvement in the Yellow Turban Rebellion. So if your argument is that the SGZ does not mention the Yellow Turban Rebellion, you are wrong. If you claim that Zhang Jiao/Zhang Jue's lack of a biography in the SGZ meant that he did not exist, then you are also wrong, since he is mentioned Sun Jian's biography. Ultimately, you cannot base the start of the era upon the omission of biographies from the SGZ. Bear in mind also that, in the strictest sense, the Three Kingdoms era may be referred to as 229-263 (the actual period in which three distinct states exist), and at the loosest, between 184 (the destabilisation of the Han's central authority) to 280 (the conquest of Wu). Nobody can prove or disprove that one is correct - I myself support the more strict definition of 229-263 - but on Wikipedia, these disputes are resolved through consensus. Snuge purveyor's opinion is the one in consensus, as most texts by Chinese historians deem the era to be 184-280. So Snuge purveyor is not "correct" per se, but is correct because that is how the consensus deems it. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

gauge00 I once again say to you that the person who changed 189 to 184 was Special:Contributions/Ordaz17. (Gauge00 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

gauge00 searched older version of Records of the Three Kingdoms. I found out that the versions before 1 June 2011 said that 3kRecords covers the years 189-280 CE; and that the versions after 27 July 2011 saud that 3kRecords covers the years 184-280 CE; Then who changed 189 to 184? The cuprit is Special:Contributions/Ordaz17. Then I'd like to ask the people of wiki, do you really think that Ordaz17 has the knowledge, wisdom, or something to change 189-280 to 184-280???? What on earth did you make no comments at that time when Ordaz17 did CHANGE 189->184? (Gauge00 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

In all honesty, with some of the baseless, unfounded and illogical arguments you've been trying to force on people, I think that he has more wisdom than you do. Ordaz17 changed it in accordance with consensus; the principle on which this entire wiki is built. Now re-read this and learn to accept that when consensus decides that it's 184 on Wikipedia, it is 184 on Wikipedia until the consensus changes. Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of academic consensus for Three Kingdoms Period start date

Although Gauge00 has proven himself poorly informed, extremely impolite, and impervious to reason, his main thesis does raise a valid question: is there consensus as to the years of the Three Kingdoms Period?

In the strictest sense, according to traditional Chinese historiography, the Three Kingdoms period does not exist at all: the Han ends and Wei begins in 220, with no interregna and no loss of dynastic legitimacy.

In a less strict but more pedantic sense, the Three Kingdoms could only span the years of 220-263. The usual Three Kingdoms sensu strictu is 220-280, but more variation creeps in when loss of Han central authority is factored in.

Many online sources, such as baidu and zh:三國 give multiple definitions, with valid starting dates of 184, 190, 208, and 220.

Published sources are equally varied. In 中國斷代史系列 魏晉南北朝史 (上海人民出版社, 2003) author Wang Zhongluo (王仲犖) takes the dissolution of Han central authority to be a smooth rather than stochastic process, and spends his first chapter discussing the fall of the Han beginning with Emperor An of Han in 107.

The popular history 千秋興亡 (Guo Jian (郭建), 長春出版社, 1999) gives 184. A recent book by Jiang Lang (姜狼), 184-280:三國原來這樣 (現代出版社, 2011) gives the 184 date right in the book's title. 中國文學批評通史 魏晉南北朝卷 by Wang Yunxi (王運熙) and Gu Yisheng (顧易生) (上海古籍出版社, 1995) begins with Cao Pi in the 210s.

Most other books lie in between these dates. Of the nine other books in my library periodised with a stopping point after the Han, four dates are used. 185: (魏晉南北朝史綱, Han Guopan (韓國磐), 人民出版社, 1983); 189: (魏晉南北朝政治史, Zhang Binsheng (張儐生), 中國文化大學, 1982; 中國經濟通史 魏晉南北朝經濟卷 Gao Min (高敏) ed., 經濟日報出版社, 1998); 190: (中國軍事通史 三國軍事史, Luo Kun (羅琨) et al., 軍事科學出版社, 1998); and 196: (魏晉南北朝社會生活史, Zhu Dawei (朱大渭) et al., 中國社會科學出版社, 1998; 中國魏晉南北朝軍事史 Zhang Wenqiang (張文強), 人民出版社, 1994; 中國風俗通史 魏晉南北朝卷 Zhang Chengzong (張承宗) and Wei Xiangdong (魏向東), 上海藝文出版社, 2001; 中國魏晉南北朝政治史 （百卷本國全史第7）, He Dezhang (何德章), 人民出版社, 1994; 中國農業通史 魏晉南北朝卷 Wang Lihua (王利華) et al., 中國農業出版社 2009).

There always will be a lack of consensus around fuzzy boundaries like this one, and the boundary will be different for different spheres like (as above) politics, economics, agriculture, social relations, and literature.

All of this is tangential to the fact that, whatever the Three Kingdoms period is defined to be, Records of the Three Kingdoms as a history does start before the Yellow Turban Rebellion. I repeat my initial point that it is not an annalistic history and bounding its beginning with dates derived from political realities is not going to be a productive exercise. Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Jin is an official Chinese historical text covering the history of the Jin Dynasty (265–420) from 265 to 420. All though The first chapter of the book of Jin contains the story of Sima Yi(179-251), wiki page Book of Jin said that it covers from 265 to 420. If you were to write that wiki page, you surely stated that book of Jin covers from 179 to 420. Do you have any ideas of the intersection set and union set of given two sets? (Gauge00 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Since this isn't an annal, as you've (Snuge purveyor) mentioned, we should not expect the book to be an exhaustive description of all historical personages or events during the period that is discussed. As such, it seems most sensible to me to start with the earliest dates that are discussed in the book, which you investigation indicates that this would be events in the Yellow Turban rebellion. 184 seems like the best choice. siafu (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember this discussion on another talk page (or possibly even the same talk page in an earlier revision?) which concluded at 184; I will try to find a link to it. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It was at the old talk page, but unfortunately, it was not a discussion, since mine was the only answer. However, what I pointed out was fairly unusual: I cited Mao Zonggang, a commentator on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (SGYY) for a matter concerning the latter limit of the Three Kingdoms era (280, when the last of the Three Kingdoms was destroyed, as opposed to in 263 when one kingdom was conquered to leave 2). But upon rereading Mao's notes on Cap. 120 of the SGYY, as I have recorded in my Moss Roberts copy, he says "The three kingdoms formed when the Han royal house declined. The Han royal house declined when the eunuchs abused the sovereign and officials subverted the government."

Since Cao Jie (one of the Ten Eunuchs) first displayed authority and manipulation of Emperor Ling in 168 (when he had Regent-Marshal Dou Wu and Imperial Guardian Chen Fan executed, a la their own articles), Mao's definition suggests that the Three Kingdoms era began even earlier than 184, in 168. His definition may be weakened by the fact that he is commenting on the SGYY (a pseudo-historical text at best), he does comment on the text's time period rather than the text itself, so his views may be seen as concerning solely the historical aspect of the SGYY rather than the fictional. Thoughts? Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mao's definition may also be interpreted as marking the start of the Ten Eunuchs as a recognised group; can anybody reliably date that? Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just realised that the exact definition is irrelevent, since Wikipedia guidelines on sources state that when differing sources propose conflicting points of view on a topic, their views must be presented; it is not for we editors to decide what is the correct or incorrect date (for an example of this, see the Original Research from reliable primary sources for exclusion, not inclusion section on the talk page for original research); therefore, all starting dates should be mentioned at least SOMEWHERE on the article. Should we seek, as a compromise, to create a section within the article stating the varied opinions on the time period? I will start this section, and see your response. Snuge purveyor, if you agree with the idea, please add your sources to it, since I cannot translate or read Chinese. Regards, Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll start putting something together for the Three Kingdoms period page, which at time of writing gives only a "strict" (220) and "unofficial" (184) beginning point. However for this article, any academic periodisation is actually irrelevant, since it is the content of Records of the Three Kingdoms begin described, rather than the dates of the period itself. I think an extra paragraph with different beginning dates and citations for those dates in the Three Kingdoms period article is a good place to display conflicting points of view, and maybe for this page I'll add a paragraph following zh:三國 that states where the action in the book picks up, and then maybe we can leave out the dates in the opening paragraph altogether. Snuge purveyor (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this is not relevent to the Records of the Three Kingdoms, let's move this conversation to Talk:Three Kingdoms period for further discussion. In the meanwhile, I've added a small rough section with need for vast improvement; please contribute to that when possible. I will leave the opening paragraph until the section has been better shaped. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In this talk page, someone used so unofficial terms, like SGZ or SGYY; I never met such SGYY phrase before. For me SGYY is like a baby talk; For those who did not know the SGYY, ley me clarify. SG is 三國(Three Kingdoms); SGZ means 三國志(Records of the Three Kingdoms); SGYY means 三國演義(Sanguozhi Yanyi;Romance of the Three Kingdoms) I think that removing all ambiguity is most important thing in wikipedia, however it seems that others think different(Gauge00 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Cao Cao section of Records of the Three Kingdoms

Someone gave a link of Cao Cao (武帝紀) at http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/三國志/卷01; I translated Cao's 184 (yellow rebellion years) to 189, the days of Dong Zhou.

光和末，黃巾起 (last years of 178-183), yellow rebels broke, Cao made punitive campaigns against rebel at 潁川. Cao was promoted to 濟南相; There is bad officials somewhere, Cao striped off eight of them. Cao did strict rules, that town became calmed down.

久之 ... ===== Afterwards, Cao was promoted to 東郡太守, but Cao came back to hometowen declining it feigning his illness.

頃之 .... =====Afterwards, 王芬, etc plotted to replace 靈帝 to 合肥侯; and they informed it to Cao, Cao rejected; Their plot failed;

金城邊章 .... ==== An official 韓遂, of 金城 town, rebeled; their soliders became 10k; whole world fluctuated; Cao became 典軍校尉, Emperor Ling(靈帝) died (189), prince became Emperor; 太后(Emperess He) became regent; 大將軍何進與袁紹謀誅宦官; 何進(He Jin) plotted to kill eunuches with 袁紹(Yuan Shao), but Empress He rejected He Jin's plan; Then He Jin summoned Dong Zhuo to intimidate to Empress He;

卓未至而進見殺 ... ==== however before Dong reached, He Jin was killed; After Dong reached Capital; Dong dethroned Emperor; and issue new Emperor Xian; Capital became chaos; Dong tried to make Cao 驍騎校尉 and to use him as Dong's official; however Cao changed his name(變易姓名); went to east;

出關.... ==== Cao was caught by suspicion of 亭長; but someone knwe Cao and asked; Cao released(解);

卓遂殺太后及弘農王 ===== Dong killed Empress(太后) and former Emperor(弘農王); Cao gather his property(家財) and make soldier(合義兵); and revolted; It was time of 5th year(己吾) of 中平(184-189); that is 189. (Gauge00 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

袁紹(Yuan Shao) section of Records of the Three Kingdoms

袁紹(Yuan Shao) ---- Main campaignes of Yuan Shao began in 189, not in 184, on the contrary of the wishes of some wiki incompetant scholars.

http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki三國志/卷06 董卓(Dog Zhuo) 袁紹(Yuan Shal) 袁術(Yuan Shu) 劉表(Liu Biao)

袁紹字本初，汝南汝陽人也。高祖父安，為漢司徒。自安以下四世居三公位，由是勢傾天下 (Yuan's private name is 本初 and from the town 汝陽 of 汝南 prefecture. His ggfather 袁安 was 司徒 of Han dyansty. 3 generations of his f after 袁安, for 40 years, they ranked at 三公; by that their power could shake the world.

紹有姿貌威容，能折節下士，士多附之，太祖少與交焉。以大將軍掾為侍御史 === (His body looks great amd pompous and prestiguous; He was polite and decent such that he usually bowed to any his lower officials(下士); Many individuals gathered arround him; 太祖(Cao Cao), when young, had friendship with him; Yuan Shao became 侍御史 by the connection of 大將軍(He Jin).

稍遷中軍校尉，至司隸 --- Afterwards Yuan Shao became 中軍校尉, and rechead the position to 司隸.

靈帝崩，太后兄大將軍何進與紹謀誅諸閹官 --- When 靈帝(Emperor Ling) died in 189, 何進(He Jin) of the brother(兄) of Empress He (太后) plotted to kill many(諸) eunuches(閹官) in coperation with 紹(Yuan Shao).

太后不從。乃召董卓，欲以脅太后。常侍、黃門聞之，皆詣進謝，唯所錯置。時紹勸進便可於此決之，至於再三，而進不許。令紹使洛陽方略武吏檢司諸宦者。=== Empress He rejected their scheme; They summoned 董卓(Dong Zhuo) to intimidate(脅) her. Ears of 常侍 and 黃門 heared this, these eunuches went to 進(He Jin) to petition, and they submitted to him; At his point 紹(Yuan Shao) said to He Jin that this is the oppurtunity to wipe out the eunuches; and asked him several times; He Jin did not listened; Instead He Jin ordered Yuan Shao to detain 諸宦者(the enuches), using the forces(武吏) of Capital(洛陽).

又令紹弟虎賁中郎將術選溫厚虎賁二百人，當入禁中，代持兵黃門陛守門戶。中常侍段珪等矯太后命，召進入議，遂殺之，宮中亂 === And He Jin ordered also Yuan Shu, an Yuan's brther, official of 虎賁中郎, to aggregate 200 soft tempered soldiers of Shu's own; and these soldiers entered Capital; kept the gates and doors of the Capital. 段珪, a official of 中常侍, and others, using the order of (太后) Empress He, ordered He Jin to come; and they killed He Jin; Capital fell into disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. You found an individual from the Records of the Three Kingdoms whose biography doesn't start in 184. What does that prove? That some people did pretty much nothing during the Yellow Turban Rebellion. That provides no evidence whatsoever to the definition of the Three Kingdoms era; the starting point of a single character's does not have any relevence. Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You should research Special:Contributions/Ordaz17. Please do. Ordaz17 did change 189 to 184without any consensus. Please visit Special:Contributions/Ordaz17 and see the line of 27, July 2011. Before 2011 the beginning year was 189. Do you really think that Ordaz17 changed it by a consensus? .(Gauge00 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

Yes, we do think so. And before you again call other editors "incompetant", I strongly urge you to review WP:NPA. siafu (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask to you. And now I ask you to read Special:Contributions/Ordaz17. I can understand your being stubbon. Anybody has some being stubborn Who are pleased when their opionion is proven false? (Gauge00 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

Accusing people of "being stubborn", especially in bold letters, is only repeating the same error you made earlier. In case it's not clear, personal attacks of any sort are not at all acceptable on wikipedia. siafu (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Benjitheijneb That some people did pretty much nothing during the Yellow Turban Rebellion === gauge00 Make a list of those who did pretty much something in the Yellow Turban Rebbion. (In appedix, you should realized that the year of the revolt of the Ten Attendants is 189 and that their revolt is a type of Wars of succession in a manner of speaking. (Gauge00 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

Click This. Anyone can see how 189 was changed to 184. (Gauge00 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

I can see. It was a good change. Well done, Special:Contributions/Ordaz17 - thank you for correcting the date to the consensus-decided date of "184". By that token, the Yellow Turban Rebellion has been considered BY CONSENSUS to be the start of the wars of succession, not the Ten Eunuchs incident. And I suppose we are stubborn, if stubborness means acting in defense of the consensus-decided date against your singular opinion which can be supported neither with consensus nor with valid evidence. Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

However gauge00 did make hard time of making translations of Cao Cao, Liu Bei, Yuan Shao to prove that 184 could NOT be the beginning. On the contraray some stubbron imcompetent indivisuals did nothing to disprove me. And you Benjitheijneb are NOT of chinese origin, then you seem that you have NOT read any Records of the Three Kingdoms, then why are acting like you are specialist on chinese history? Is your major the acting? Did you said that Yellow reb has been considered BY CONSENSUS to be the start of the wars of succession? You gave me too much amusement. Do you really think that the incident as a wars of succession??? Funny.. I should once again instruct to you that (1) Emperor is near death (2) Dowager wanted second son to succeed (3) He Jin is a relative of first son (4) One enuch wanted to kill He Jin because Jin was obstacle of making 2nd son Emperor (5) Emperor died (6) He Jin made first sone Emperor and tried to kill eunuches. (8) eunuches find safe place under He Jin's sister (9) He Jin could not kill them by his sister (10) He jin caled DOng zhuo to intimidate his sister (11) Enuchs summoned He Jin using He Jin's order (12) He Jin arrived and was killed (13) Dong arrived (14) Dong replace Empeor, (15) 2nd son now became (16) Dong ZHuo killed 1st sone and his mother, the sister of He Jin... Do you really think this series is a war of succesion?? Can you distinguish battle, campaign, fight, skirmish, and war???(Gauge00 (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Chinese wiki of 三國志 said that 184 is the beginning year. However before 28 April 2008, it said that 220 is the beginning year. Who changed it? We can see the man who did this change 220->184 And I speculate that the user User:Siafu is probably of the chinese origin, and this fact is the reason why he is insisting that 184 is correct. It seems that he just wanted the chinese wiki to be correct. My speculation could be wrong though. (Gauge00 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Could be! siafu (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

劉備(Liu Bei) section of Records of the Three Kingdoms

三國志/卷32 先主 劉備

先主姓劉，諱備，字玄德，涿郡涿縣人，漢景帝子中山靖王勝之後也。勝子貞，元狩六年封涿縣陸城亭侯。坐酎金失侯，因家焉。 先主祖雄，父弘，世仕州郡。雄舉孝廉，官至東郡範令. === Liu Bei, name is Bei, personal name is 玄德; he is from 涿縣 of 涿郡 prefecture. He is a descendent of 中山靖王 named 劉勝, a son of 漢景(Emperor). 劉勝's son 劉貞; he was promoted to 陸城亭侯 in year of 元狩6th year. By 酎金, he was divested of his office and came home. Great father of Liu Bei was 雄; father was 弘; they lived at their hometown. Father 雄 was promoted to 孝廉; his rank reached to 範令.

先主少孤，與母販履織蓆為業。舍東南角籬上有桑樹生高五丈馀，遙望見童童如小車蓋，往來者皆怪此樹非凡，或謂當出貴人 === Liu Bei was orphan at young age, living with mother; He got his living by selling straw sandals and weaving grass mats. Near the house stood a huge mulberry tree, and seen from afar its curved profile resembled the canopy of a wagon. Noting the luxuriance of its foliage, a soothsayer had predicted that one day a man of distinction would come forth from the family

先主少時，與宗中諸小兒於樹下戲，言：「吾必當乘此羽葆蓋車。」叔父子敬謂曰：「汝勿妄語，滅吾門也！」===When young; he usually spent time playing with family childs under the tree, he said that "I shall ride on Emperor charriot". Uncle 子敬 said frightened that; you shut up; are you goint to extermiate all the family?;

年十五，母使行學，與同宗劉德然、遼西公孫瓚俱事故九江太守同郡盧植。德然父元起常資給先主，與德然等。元起妻曰：「各自一家，何能常爾邪！」起曰：「吾宗中有此兒，非常人也。」而瓚深與先主相友。瓚年長，先主以兄事之。先主不甚樂讀書，喜狗馬、音樂、美衣服。身長七尺五寸，垂手下膝，顧自見其耳。少語言，善下人，喜怒不形於色。好交結豪俠，年少爭附之。中山大商張世平、蘇雙等貲累千金，販馬周旋於涿郡，見而異之，乃多與之金財。先主由是得用合徒眾。

When he was 15; Mom made him play with a relative 劉德然, 公孫瓚(Gongsun Zan) of 遼西; and 盧植 a same hometown man and had been 九江太守. 元起, the father of 德然, usually gave money to Liu Bei, the same amount of his son. One day wife of 元起 said that Liu is not my family; why did you gave him money; At that 元起 said that Liu is one of relatives and that he is so special; 瓚(Gongsunzan) got dep friend ship with Liu and he is older so that Liu calle him "brother". Liu has no fond of reading; his fond was playwing with dogs, horses, playing music; and liked decent clothes. His height was high and his hands touches knee; His eyes could see backward past his ears. Liu Bei remained solemn and displayed little emotion. He liked to make friends ship with 豪俠. Though he was younger than others, others were eager to be friedns with Liu. Great merchants of the 中山 named 張世平 and 蘇雙 were great riches and they usually went town and town to sell horses and one day they reached Liu hometown; thinking Liu was so prospersous; they donated large money; and Liu by reasons could gathers large followers;

靈帝末，黃巾起，州郡各舉義兵，先主率其屬從校尉鄒靖討黃巾賊有功，除安喜尉 ==== At the last years of Emperor Ling, Yellow TUrban Rebellions began; Against this every town arised voluntary punitive soldiers. Liu also volunteered; followed 鄒靖 (ranked 校尉) and made punitive campaignes aginst rellvions with good achievemt; for this reason Liu became 安喜尉.

督郵以公事到縣，先主求謁，不通，直入縛督郵，杖二百，解綬係其頸著馬枊 === A official 督郵 arrived Liu's resident, so Liu asked him to meet; His ask was denied that Liu directly penetrated to 督郵's camp and beet 督郵 200 strokes and bound 督郵 on a stroke, Liu throw up his public office and ran away.

頃之，大將軍何進遣都尉毌丘毅詣丹楊募兵，先主與俱行，至下邳遇賊，力戰有功， 除為下密丞。复去官。後為高唐尉，遷為令=== Afterwards, 大將軍 何進(He Jin) sent 都尉毌 丘毅 to 丹楊 and ordered him to collect soliers there; Liu Bei was volunteeared and joined; The soldied arrived at 下邳 and met with yellow rebellions; Liu achievemtn was good that he was promoted to 下密丞. However he again throw that office(??) and afterwards he became 高唐尉, and was promoted to 令.

為賊所破，往奔中郎將公孫瓚，瓚表為別部司馬，使與青州刺史田楷以拒冀州牧袁紹。數有戰功，試守平原令，後領平原相。 郡民劉平素輕先主，恥為之下，使客刺之。客不忍刺，語之而去。其得人心如此。=== He was defeated by enemy and ran away to 中郎將 公孫瓚(Gongsunzan). 公孫瓚 asks Emperor to make Liu be ranked at 別部司馬; and along with 田楷(Tian Kai), a officer(刺史) of 青州 region, to attack Yuan Shao(袁紹), the 牧 of 冀州 region. Liu acchievemtn is good; Liu was got to posion of 平原令 briefly, after was promoted to 平原相. A country man named 劉平 made little of Liu Bei, and thought it was disgrace to serve under the Lie Bei, so he sent his military guest to Liu and tried to Liu. The guest failed his duty and nstead said his mission to Liu and left. THis show how Liu fame is in his town.

袁紹攻公孫瓚，先主與田楷東屯齊。曹公徵徐州，徐州牧陶謙遣使告急於田楷，楷與先主俱救之。 時先主自有兵千馀人及幽州烏丸雜胡騎，又略得饑民數千人。既到，謙以丹楊兵四千益先主，先主遂去楷歸謙。謙表先主為豫州刺史，屯小沛。=== Yuan Shao attacked Gonsun zan, then Liu went east along with 田楷, encamped on 齊. Cao Cao attack 徐州; 陶謙(Tao Qian), 牧 of that region, sent messenger to 田楷 and said his critical condition; 田楷 and Liu sent releaf force to Tao. At that time Liu has 1,000 solders and also some barbaric solders including 烏丸 tribe of the region 幽州, and has tousands famine civil followers. At Liu's arrival, Tao added 4,000 soldes of 丹楊兵 origin, afterwards Liu left 田楷 to join Tao, and lived under Tao. Tao asked Emperor to make Liu to be promoted to an office 刺史 of regin(豫州), and Liu camped on Xiaopei

Translated by (Gauge00 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)). This translation could NOT be used at a reliable one, since I am not special at this type of work.

Siafu's accusation against Gauge00

Since we seem to be getting nowhere with this discussion, I've decided to request some wikiquette assistance. siafu (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance

Siafu laied accussation against Gauge00, saying that,

start While much of this dispute seems to be inflamed by the apparent language barrier (Guage00 seems to have limited facility with English), there is an ongoing discussion about the range of years covered by the Records of the Three Kingdoms, a classical Chinese work. Gauge00 is convinced that the beginning year in the article, AD 184, is incorrect, and to support his position he has been arguing that the book fails to mention certain events prior to 189 that it "should contain" ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24]).

Three different editors (myself included) have pointed out that this is an illogical argument([25],[26],[27]), constitutes original research ([28]), and that wikipedia operates by consesus (see previous diff [29]). Gauge00's response, despite repeatedly admitting that he has not read the source text([30],[31],& others), has been to assert that the particular editor who made the date change in the first place must have been at fault because a previous version said something else ([32], [33]), that his interlocutor's are "incompetant" ([34],[35]) and "stubborn" ([36]), and has also focused on his belief that I'm advocating the consensus position because he believes I'm Chinese ([37] -- for the record, "siafu" is a swahili word).

I tried to remind him to WP:NPA twice([38],[39]), but he made no acknowledgement, and continues to argue on the same lines. My personal belief is that this dispute is being fueled both by a lack of familiarity with wikiquette, and a failure in communication due to Gauge00's lack of fluency with the English language, but I honestly don't know how to proceed here.

The dispute has not really risen to the level of an edit war, as yet, but could, and I'm hoping that outside help could resolve the situation better than I and others have been (not) able to thus far, and especially some advice on how to deal with editors unfamiliar with wikipedia policies and with limited command of English would be appreciated. siafu (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) (the end)

gauge00's defense

(1) It is interesting that even after he came to know the fact that gauge00 put gauge00's own translations of the source text, siafu still thinks that gauge00 has not read the source text; How could a man not read something in the course of translating itself?? So shoking that a half rotten skeleton of a graveyard would came outside of his tomb to see what this is about.(Gauge00 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

(2) Even though siafu said that the dispute is being fueled both by something and that it is in disorder, it should be known that the dispute is in the appropriate and proper course because gauge00 tried to hard to translate source text in his own ative endeavor, in spite of the fact that gauge00's first language is not chinese(Gauge00 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

(3) The most important fact: (siafu), (Benjitheijneb), (Snuge purveyor) do seem to have no appropriate knowledge of Records of the Three Kingdoms, a prerequisite of this dispute. (Gauge00 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

(4) Siafu said the Chinese wikipedia states: "...就是從漢靈帝中平元年（184年），到晉武帝太康元年（280年）九十多年的歷史。" , basically stating that the book starts with the first year of Emperor Ling of the Han dynasty(漢靈帝) in 184. ======= Here siafu is incorrect!! Emperor Ling(漢靈帝) reigned 168-189. Thefore 184 can not be the first year of Emperor Ling. 184 is the first year of the era 中平 of the Emperor. The Emperor has four era names, 建寧(168–172), 熹平(172–178), 光和(178–184) and 中平(184–189). 184 is the starting year of Yellow Turban Rebellion also. gauge00 do not know whether it is just a coincident or not. (Gauge00 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

In Book of the Later Han has one line 以黃巾既平，故改年為中平; this line means that in December of 184 we have supressed all the yellow turban rebels we now were to change the era nameto 中平. (Gauge00 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

(5) Emperor Ling(漢靈帝) reigned 21 years (168-189), and the Record of the Three Kingdoms contains NO section of this last Emperor. How could a history book could be said to begin in 184, even the Emperor of this period has no entry??? But, anyway, just for information, Pei Songzhi's annotations of this book has an entry of Emperor Ling in the last section, though. (Gauge00 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

"My opinion is that 184 is incorrect, and that 189 is correct one. Though I never read it. So I have no knowdlege to determine which is correct one. I'd like to hear the opinions of those who have read the contents of the record of the three kingdoms."

And you honestly have the nerve to tell US that we do not have appropriate knowledge of Records of the Three Kingdoms? Omission of a biography does not prove anything. The fact that Emperor Ling does not have a biography would make absolutely no difference to the date of the era whatsoever.

The fact that Emperor Ling does not have a biography would make absolutely no difference to the date of the era whatsoever ====== Without mentioning Obama, you can not write the US history of 2012. Maybe you can write on your vacation of this spring 2012, however that does not make your book a US history book of 2012. (Gauge00 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

You certainly CAN write a book about 2012 USA without Obama. It may be less complete as a result, but it's quite simply not possible to mention EVERY person alive and active in an era in the same text. If you think that you can compile a book with everyone who's done ANYTHING in 2012, please do, but don't expect it from historical sources; there's only so much Chen Shou could write. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dont change my sentence. I said that you certainly CAN NOT write a history book about 2012 USA without Obama. I mean 2012 US history book. I do not care about your 2012 personal books. (Gauge00 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Again, you CAN write even a history book on 2012 in the USA without mentioning Obama. It wouldn't be complete, but no history books are (because, again, you can't have ALL personalities from an era in a history book.) In the same way, Records of the three Kingdoms ISN'T complete, because it does lack the emperors' biographies. Many historians will argue that it's a poor source (due to lack of completeness and verifiability, being almost the only surviving primary source), but that changes nothing about the era's definition, and certainly nothing about the era the Records cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjitheijneb (talk • contribs) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you writed something on wiki talk, you time to time used the brassy words like 'historical' or 'historian'; it seems that you are eager to be received as a historian. Whyen young, if I used the 'philosopically word', sometimes I felt I became a philosopher really, but every one knows that I was not philosopher. For you I kindly to give a life's hint. Saying 'historian etc' words does not make you a historian. And please do not say anymore about ALL personalities in a history book. Everyone knows that no history book could contain all the personalities. Do you think you are the only one who knows this simple fact? (Gauge00 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

I cannot be bothered to deal with your eccentric ideas anymore. I have editing and contributing to do elsewhere, and the discussion seems to have closed, as the issue of the era covered is no longer relevent; you are now making an argument for the sake of it. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It was the dawning of a glorious day, there were three kingdoms of con_of_Snuge_purveyor,con_of_siafu andcon_of_Benjitheijneb, they now united and made a joint campaign at the battle field of assissanations plots and made a combined forces in a fruitless accusation on gauge00; even now they are tempted to insist this talk page got A consensus; Being united forces, without no question these three kingdoms could reach a consensus without any trouble in a seconds; Some day they will flock together in a corner of a shabby market singing the three kingdoms have vanished as a dream and selling straw sandals and weaving grass mats.(Gauge00 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

Once it was determined there was no academic consensus on periodisation, we had no need to come to consensus here, since WP:SYNTHESIS dictates we need to include all reliable, expert points of view. Now as a result of your instigation both the Three Kingdoms period article and Records of the Three Kingdoms article have been updated with edits increasing their accuracy. Barring inclusion of more cited, published works that advance some theory of periodisation or another, I consider the matter closed. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to translate sources, see Wikisource. That's a great effort to have. It doesn't mean that you are suddenly more competent at the text you are translating than anyone else, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to attack editors. Benjitheijneb (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to lacking a biography for Emperor Ling of Han, the Records of the Three Kingdoms carry no biography for Emperor Shao or Emperor Xian of Han. None of the Han ruling house have biographies in the book. By your own logic, gauge00, this means the Records of the Three Kingdoms cannot be said to start until 220, which is clearly false. I will state again that carrying a person's biography is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for recording events that occurred during their lifetime. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. (Gauge00 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

Not sure I should bump in here, but Records of the Three Kingdoms is all about the Three Kingdoms period. The first of the three was founded in 220. The main reason Sanguo zhi goes back to before 220 is to show the history of the foundation of the three kingdoms. For example Wu was founded by Sun Quan, so it goes back to Sun Jian, who was the father of Sun Quan, made the name Sun famous, created a following for the Sun family and perhaps tought his sons a thing or two. So, basically, that's where the road to the foundation of the Kingdom of Wu began, and that's what's Sanguo zhi is all about, no? On the other hand, I woudn't really say Sanguo zhi begins in 220. I dont think you can really say it begins with a certain date, but I do think you can talk about a main focus. 195.169.9.196 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lu Bu of Book of Later Han

三國志/卷07 吕布, 张邈, 陈登, 臧洪 contains Lu Bu, Zhang Miao, [Chen Deng]], Zang Hong of the Book of the Three Kingdoms

後漢書/卷75 劉焉袁術吕布列傳 DOES NOT contains 劉焉, 袁術(Yuan Shu), 吕布(Lu Bu) of Book of the Later Han. (WARNING zh.wikisource.org/wiki contains wrong content. 75 contains 74).

Anyway I'd like remind you that biography of Lu Bu exsist both at Records of the Three Kingdoms and at Book of the Later Han. However the biograpy at Book of the later Han is longer than that of Book of 3k.

Interestingly Record of the Three Kingdoms was said to covers 184 to 280, while Book of the Later Han said to cover from 6? to 189. Lu Bu lived 155(?) to 199. Why could Book of Later Han, which contains more detailed biography of Lu Bu, NOT be said to cover 6(?) to 200 or 220? (Gauge00 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

Records of the Three Kingdoms in Plain Language

Any reason why we don't include Records of the Three Kingdoms in Plain Language in the translations section? Tooironic (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it's a translation of earlier Sanguozhi pinghua (thirteenth century CE) and not Sanguo yanyi by Luo Guanzhong?, Guss (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Guss Sanguozhi is the topic of this article, not Sanguo Yanyi. My guess is that none of the major contributors knew about the translation. Tooironic if it calls to you, throwing in a sentence or two in the translations section seems like it would be appropriate, but not in the scholarly table, and not the amazon external link. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite the similar names, Records of the Three Kingdoms in Plain Language (Sanguozhi Pinghua) is not a translation of Records of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguozhi). It is a piece of fiction considered to be a precursor of the Sanguo Yanyi. It was deliberately excluded, perhaps we should add a note in the article saying why. _dk (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks! Good to know Folly Mox (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Claim about where Chen Shou got Shu-Han history

"However, since the state of Shu lacked documents about its history, the Book of Shu in the Records was composed by Chen Shou himself based on his personal memories of his early life in Shu and other primary sources he collected, such as the writings of Zhuge Liang."

The source from this is from the translator Moss Roberts (who doesn't cite a source for his claim that is where Chen Shou got the records from). As far as I can tell this doesn't sit with any of the work of historians when discussing the era or that Chen Shou served in Shu-Han's record department. I think the issue of Shu-Han's poor records should indeed be addressed but this might need reworking and moving away from Moss Roberts claim? DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Dong Zhuo. I think this an exaggeration of Chen Shou own exaggeration and shouldn't be spread around. It is on the same level and often paired with "Zhuge Liang wrote the history of Shu" which is also suggested in this sentence. Chen Shou and the forgotten Shou Liang compiling Zhuge Liang's works is another project entirely and shouldn't be mixed with the SGZ.TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)