Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs

FA sweeps

Some cn issues, questionable sources: what makes chibi.com.cn or Monkeypeaches RS? (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find the sources for File:Battle of Red Cliffs 208 extended map-en.svg (based on another unsourced map: File:Chibizhizhan.png) and File:Battle of Red Cliffs 208 map-en.svg (based on another unsourced map as well: File:Chibizhizhanloc2.png).

The World History Encyclopedia re-uses the former but it's a backwards copy (it cites "User:Sémhur" as the source) so it's a case of WP:CIRCULAR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No, no, no. Chen 280 as a direct source. Really? De Crespigny 1969, 1996, 2003 and 2007 are straight translations of an 11th century Chinese history. Happily Pei 429 is listed but not used. The last two paragraphs are not cited and there are a couple of "citation needed" tags. Is the Xinhua News Agency a HQ RS? Fitzgerald 1985 is a travelogue and may not be RS and probably isn't HQ. Which leaves a heck of a job to salvage an article from the sources left. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If I may say so, De Crespigny 2007 is not a translation. Its his own work, based on lots and lots of different sources. Applodion (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite right. Struck. I got carried away. While, for example, To Establish Peace, 1996, is an annotated translation of the 1084 chronicle Zizhi Tongjian by Sima Guang. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Btw, just to be clear: I would support demoting the article. It clearly does not reflect up-to-date research on the topic, not even when excluding Chinese academia. Applodion (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments on sourcing. Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. Hog Farm _Talk 01:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Applodion, A455bcd9, and Gog the Mild: Do you still have concerns about this article's adherence to the FA criteria? If so, are you interested in fixing this up, or nominating this to WP:FAR? The other commentators have already reached their limit on how many articles they can bring to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I am insufficiently familiar with this period and area to undertake the major overhaul saving this would require. If it is indeed salvable, which I doubt. I have no objections in principle to nominating the article for FAR but my previous experience there has been that the procedure is complex and that the tolerance for mis-steps is small, so I am disinclined to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I still have concerns. I can bring the article to FAR if you want to, although I'm not sure what it concretely implies from me in terms of actual work. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Sorry that I did not respond to this earlier, as I saw it on my watchlist then forgot about it. I'm sorry that you had bad experiences at FAR; I cannot promise that other experiences will be more pleasant but if you want you can express your concerns on my talk page or by email and I can see if there's a better solution.

@A455bcd9: I am also sorry that I did not respond to you. Your role would be to give comments on your concerns with the article's adherence to the FA criteria, then provide additional comments if someone decides to fix up the article. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or concerns before or during the FAR. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Following up on this, are you still interested in bringing this to FAR? You will probably be better at explaining concerns than I am. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Z1720. My concerns are only about the lack of references for a few paragraphs and images. Otherwise, I don't know anything about the topic. I can still nominate it if you want to. I assume I only need to follow the instructions at WP:FAR? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Yes, if you follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, you will have successfully nominated the article. If there are any issues, post at WT:FAR and an FAR regular will respond. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720:  Done a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing issue deliberation (maps, etc.)

As Folly Mox has observed on the FAR nomination, some of the issues with sourcing the maps we presently have are not going to be resolvable. The question becomes: do we remove them, replace them with some other presentation, or what?
I am willing to experiment to create whatever new, adequately-sourced graphics are required, as decided by talks here, and am actually pretty excited to try if it improves an article as important as this one. Remsense聊 19:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've discovered the work of @DEGA MD, and I'm going to spend a bit familiarizing myself with the data and techniques they use, because a lot of what I was wondering how to best do is done very well by them. Remsense留 17:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Early map deliberation

I think the current (unsourced) map of the possible locations handles this pretty well, although obviously it needs to be sourced. When it comes to something like troop movements, I could envision multiple possibilities / theories sharing the same map, with some sort of visual indicator as to which narrative fits each set of reconstructed lines, like have some in dashes or dots or whatever instead of solid. If new graphic work is required (and thank you Remsense for volunteering!) MOS:ACCESS or MOS:COLOUR or whichever set of uppercase letters applies. Folly Mox (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) yes! i am picturing showing (perhaps partially, if it gets too crowded) different reconstructions of the battle with different weights of lines on arrows, etc. Remsense聊 22:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Ok, well it turns out, like how I misremembered reading Imperial Warlord "last spring" when it was actually midsummer, I misremembered the consensus about the historical reconstruction of events, and happily there is one. Cao Cao's biography in 三國志 places Red Cliffs chronologically after Battle of Hefei (208). Sun Quan's biography inverts that arrangement, and has been accepted as the overall course of affairs as early as Pei Songzhi. So there should be no worries regarding the potential order in which different forces moved around. Not sure why I thought this was up for debate, although it's possible we could find some modern sources that use Hefei→Chibi ordering, which we could mention as refuted. Folly Mox (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Something we might have trouble sourcing for a map of your own creation is the movement of Liu Qi (Liu Biao's son), whose numbers were on par with Liu Bei's, but who died a few months after the battle and never became a famous hero. I'll have to do some rereading (see "misremembering" above) regarding his place in the southern alliance, but wait do our maps even have arrows for anyone other than Cao Cao? No one was really "on site" to begin with, no matter which site was the actual site, except maybe Lu Su? Would be neat to show the different commanders as converging onto a zone of irreconcilable imprecision, even if most of the arrows still belong to Cao Cao's invasion force. Folly Mox (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC) (I'm trying to see if I can get a sign-off regarding getting the relevant clips from the John Woo movie relicensed CC BY-SA 4.0, so I can maybe put a minimap in the corner.) But hmmm. I do think we have to be flexible regarding the potential scope of information available: the good part about SVG is, if we find a better source at some point, it's very easy for me (or maybe even someone else, as long as they don't hack at it with Inkscape cavalierly) to go in and readjust and elaborate on what's already there. So, presently, keeping all my plates in the air, I'm potentially thinking a schema of: Node shape (squares, filled circles, triangles, open circles, what have you) carrying the commander information singularly, reinforced by small textual labels running along the movement lines like rivers are labeled, so that even if this is faxed on the worst xerox ever, it will still be helpful. the pattern of the connector lines (solid, dashed, dotted, etc.) to represent a particular source, if sources differ? probably just circled numbers to indicate the relative order of events. maybe the color of the lines and nodes can serve as a redundancy for the commander information, or maybe just have three colors assigned to who is loyal to cao/sun/liu—once you start coding more than three colors you really can get into trouble—but now I'm pondering how to encode levels of ambiguity, rather than just having a cloud of ?s over an area. I guess it depends on what the information looks like once we collate it. Remsense留 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC) (Very silly looking and maybe not all that helpful, but I decided I had to quickly mock up what I was just warbling about, else we just have the warbling.) Remsense留 13:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Well, the good thing is that specifics for movements, if I recall correctly, which I probably don't, are pretty thin. Cao Cao secured Liu Cong's surrender, hunted down Liu Bei in what must have been a very strenuous overnight horsey chase, then was at Chi Bi, wherever that was. Liu Bei was at pretty much the same spots with a break at Hankou / Xiakou / Miankou before the main fight. Liu Qi was in a place and then Chi Bi. Guan Yu did the same, with a different starting point, I think. Zhou Yu came upriver from Jiankang and exploited the victory by besieging Cao Cao's forward garrison after the main army went home. Lu Su I don't remember. I think that's all the main commanders involved in the battle, summing to five, or six if you count Lu Su. Something I'd like to do with this, if you're able, is to signpost the various nature of the southern alliance. Guan Yu, Liu Qi, Liu Bei, and Zhou Yu all showed up independently from different starting points. Sun Quan of course gets points for approving the Wu's participation in the alliance (at a time he was nominally allied with Cao Cao), but he stayed home. I'd also like to kinda rehabilitate Zhou Yu, who gets snubbed in this article, which is about his claim to fame. He was the "hero" of the Chi Bi story for over a thousand years, until Luo Guanzhong gave it to Zhuge Liang. (Of course, I can take care of the prose and sourcing bits for that effort; don't know why I'm putting it in this comment other than I was already here.) Folly Mox (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC) And in terms of who is allied with whom, I don't think we even need three colours. Guan Yu was Liu Bei's commander, sure, but Liu Qi was kind of an uneasy partner in the alliance, just tryna reclaim his patrimony, and had very recently been an enemy of Eastern Wu. I don't think it would be an oversimplification just to use one colour for Cao Cao and one colour for the alliance. Folly Mox (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) From a graphical design perspective, arrows can serve the same purpose as numbers, with less clutter. And really, the only sourcing differences I'm currently expecting to find are: where Liu Bei took his break at, and maybe whether Cao Cao went to Hefei en route. So we may only need a few dashed lines or whatever the design choice is. The "battlefield locator" map is good as a second image, like it is now, since three or four or however many possible locations with toponyms attached overlaid atop reconstructed river courses is already sufficient clutter without having to worry about which direction each body of troops came from. They all made it, so we can leave that part unsaid, or unlined. Folly Mox (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Oh, sounds good! I'm thinking directed arrows along the body of the lines, so that the nodes can be used to carry commander information. Remsense留 16:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) I like that idea, and sorry I forgot to reply earlier. I have a screencap of the Red Cliffs map from Imperial Warlord (p 267), which shows only Cao Cao's movements, and nowhere to upload it since it's copyright, but TWL access. I also found this map from Generals of the South, but it's too broad, and doesn't show anyone's movements: just a lil crossed sabres icon at the battle site. I wish I still had Tan Qixiang's The Historical Atlas of China. For clarity, I still haven't done my part of this. It was – as always – a busy week. I've just been trying to source things as I find them. Folly Mox (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) There's also this charming map (c. 1991) from one of our cited sources. Folly Mox (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Folly Mox, certainly! I enjoy the pace at which we are going, you know I have many other things I'm working on, so I am neither waiting or overpressed in the slightest. :) I will organize all the relevant sources for planning graphics for this article. Remsense留 20:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Remsense, how would you feel if I changed the de Crespigny shortened footnotes from author-date to author-title? I'm starting to get pretty confused since we cite like six different publications of his, and I just added more, and have a further one as well. He's basically the only modern English language historian on the era. Maybe that's why I've temporarily shifted into reading up on the cultural impact and legacy pieces. Folly Mox (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC) I think that would be a great idea. Remsense留 19:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) I just realized, for the first map (the one that just plots possible sites—I could just use {{Location map}}, and maybe even include it in the infobox itself. Remsense留 23:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Regardless, I have now initially rendered the map field I think I'll be working with. Using modern coastline data, but that will not be difficult to omit or alter as needed. Remsense留 04:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Are there any GIS datasets that model reconstructed ancient waterways? I found this and this (probably related) but they seem to be restricted to toponyms rather than hydronyms. Also I know essentially nothing about modern cartographic methods, so. I was able to find some low-quality scans of ⟨⟨中國歷史地圖集⟩⟩. This map in particular probably shows the area we'll want to be displaying, but the words are so blurry it's difficult for me to make anything out. I can see 襄陽 around what I think are labeled 32°N 112°E (top middle), and a ways downstream from that 江夏 around what appears to be 30½°N 115°E (top right, but not the corner), with the modern city of 武漢 overlaid in red a little ways northwest of it, across a lake (modern place names and watercourses in this atlas are set in brown-red, with period appropriate places in black and waterways in blue). I think our target area is in between those bits, but the scan is super muddy, so I'm not really able to identify much of anything in there apart from what I guess is a second possible location for 江夏? Anyway no idea if any of this is helpful, and also I have to go to work. Folly Mox (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Folly Mox, this is all very helpful! Worst-case scenario, we will omit every feature that is not sourceable. Remsense留 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR redux

I suppose it's fair that this pops up again on my watchlist. After my return from being injured and everything I haven't really touched this at all.

I did redownload some sources from Brill prior to its untimely death. Do I just email these to anyone interested in editing / verification? One source which seems certain to be useful for the § Cultural impact is Tian, Xiaofei (2018). The Halberd at Red Cliff: Jian'an and the Three Kingdoms. Harvard–Yenching Monographs, vol. 108. Harvard University Press (published 2017). ISBN 9781684170920. Particularly pp. 283–345. I might have already cited this last winter. The pdf is a chonkin 46MB, so I can't just email it, and I've noticed that google drive does some very annoying DRM checking on certain file formats, including pdf, that prevent me from sharing files uploaded there.

Pretty sure another useful source would be Egan, Ronald C. (1994). Word, Image, and Deed in the Life of Su Shi. Harvard–Yenching Monographs, vol. 39. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9781684170197., at an even heftier 119MB.

I also seem to have Wang Wenjin (王文進) (April 2010). 論「赤壁意象」的行成與流轉—「國事」、「史事」、「心事」、「故事」的四重奏. 成大中學報 [National Cheng Kung University Journal of Chinese Studies] (in Chinese). 28: 83–124. I have no idea where this came from; probably NCKU itself.

I don't think I ended up with much else; as indicated somewhere here or the FAR page, de Crespigny has a near-monopoly on English language historical studies of the period.

I saw somewhere just this morning a comment that the § Fictionalised account section only talks about Sanguo Yanyi, which means we haven't made sufficiently clear that even the accounts carried by Annotated Records of the Three Kingdoms are already at odds with each other (I feel like this was what I was reading about in 《三國志集解》 right before this fell off my radar in like December; de Crespigny also touches on how Zhuge Liang came to end up with all the credit in stories where Zhou Yu or Sun Quan was the original hero, although which of his books talks about this, I couldn't say from memory).

Just woke up, Folly Mox (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)