Talk:Guan Yu

Make it a good article

Look i've never edited on Wikipedia and don't know how it works, but I think through reading this article it is of significant quality, maybe should even be a featured article. This is just my opinion. IF theres anyone that knows how to start a talk to make it a good article again, let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.91.18.157 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend engaging with the actual Good article criteria. Unfortunately, it's pretty immediately clear to me that this article is pretty far from meeting them: length and particularity do not make an article good. Many paragraphs are totally uncited, and many more rely entirely on primary sources, and the article structure and prose are extremely messy in many places. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article follows the tale of Guan Yu given in Luo Guanzhong's "Romance of the Three Kingoms" and makes little effort to reconcile this fictional account with the historical account given in Chen Shou's "Sanguo Zhi".

Yeah, but, Luo Guanzhong's "Romance Of The Three Kingdoms" couldn't have changed changed and exagurated that much. Besides, Guan Yu was an amazing man, and I believe that Guan Yu could've done all the things in The "Romance Of The Three Kingdoms", except maybe his after life tales like the killing of Lu Meng and fatal illness of Cao Cao.

"Could've" is more in the realm of fiction, not history. Encyclopedic entries usually don't contain information about what an individual could have done. --Jie 00:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While Sanguo Zhi isn't the absolute correct source of historical facts, Luo's RotTK is most certainly NOT a reliable source. Much of the myth around Guan Yu is perpetrated by the portrayal in that book, and it's downright juvenile to assume Guan to be the "amazing man" that Luo makes him out to be. --Uly 16:12, 31 Dec 2004 (U

Entitling

In section 1 paragraph 1: he fled to the northern frontier town of Zhuo, where he joined Liu Bei, a local notable. What's a "notable"? Is it supposed to be "noble"? From what I understand, though Liu does trace his bloodlines to an already distant branch of the imperial family, the connection is so distant that he could hardly be considered nobility. (Not to mention that he was described as a strawhatter in the RotTK -- albeit one that's literate.)

Liu Bei was known in his commandery as a man of importance. He had a large group of followers and merchants were willing to offer him capital. Hence he is described as a "notable". --Yu Ninjie 14:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is supposed to be noble- Azi Dahaka

Revamp

Hi fellow editors. i've made several major changes to this article over the past few days. Among these were the movement of contents from Guan Gong to here, as well as rewriting of most stuffs originally here. The latter is a matter of style and up to individual liking, but i'd like to point out three factual corrections i had made.

• Firstly, the county in which Guan Yu was born is pronounced as "Xiè" and not "Jiě". And it is in Shanxi, not Shaanxi.

• Secondly, Guan Yu was not enfeoffed as Marquis of Hanshouting, but rather Marquis of Hanshou. "Tinghou" is the lowest rank of marquis at that time.

• Thirdly and most importantly, the killing of five officers to reconcile with Liu Bei did not happen in history. It was a romanticization in popular culture. Please let me know if i'm wrong about this.

That's all for now. i'd be doing more reorganizing for the remaining sections in the days to come. Hope you guys like it. :) --Plastictv 10:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe "Guanneihou" is the lowest rank of marquis at that time, instead of "Tinghou" ("Tinghou" is different from "Dutinghou", and is higher in rank than the latter as I can recall). EkmanLi (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

This was added by an unregistered user (IP address: 165.21.154.10). It seems to be a quote by Guan Yu from a Buddhist scripture. i removed it because: 1. the information is not relevant; 2. it is not sourced; 3. it is not translated.

帝君曰﹕人生在世﹐貴盡忠孝節義等事﹐方於人道無愧﹐可立於天地之間﹐若不盡忠孝節義等事﹐身雖在世﹐其心已死﹐是謂偷生﹐凡人心既神﹐神既心﹐無愧心﹐無愧神﹐若是欺心﹐便是欺神﹐故君子三畏四知﹐以慎其獨﹐勿謂暗室可欺﹐屋漏可愧﹐一動一靜﹐神明鑒察﹐十目十手﹐理所必至﹐況報應昭彰﹐不爽毫髮﹐淫為萬惡首﹐孝為百行先﹐但有逆理﹐於心有愧者﹐勿未有利而行之﹐凡有合理﹐於心無愧者﹐勿謂無利而不行﹐若負吾教﹐請試吾刀。 敬天地﹐禮神明﹐奉祖先﹐孝雙親﹐守王法﹐重師尊﹐愛兄弟﹐信朋友﹐睦宗族﹐和鄉鄰﹐敬夫婦﹐教子孫。

時行方便﹐廣積陰功﹐救難濟急﹐恤孤憐貧﹐創修廟宇﹐印造經文﹐捨藥施茶﹐戒殺放生﹐造橋修路﹐矜寡拔困﹐重粟惜福﹐排難解紛﹐捐資成美﹐垂訓教人﹐冤讎解釋﹐斗秤公平﹐親近有德﹐遠避凶人﹐隱惡揚善﹐利物救民﹐回心向道﹐改過自新﹐滿腔仁慈﹐惡念不存﹐一切善事﹐信心奉行﹐人雖不見﹐神已早聞﹐加福增壽﹐添子益孫﹐災消病滅﹐禍患不侵﹐人物咸寧﹐吉星照臨。

若存惡心﹐不行善事﹐淫人妻女﹐破人婚姻﹐壞人名節﹐妒人技能﹐謀人財產﹐唆人爭訟﹐損人利己﹐肥家潤身﹐恨天怨地﹐罵雨呵風﹐謗聖毀賢﹐滅像欺神﹐宰殺牛犬﹐穢溺宇紙﹐持勢欺善﹐倚富壓貧﹐離人骨肉﹐間人兄弟﹐不信正道﹐奸盜邪淫﹐好尚奢詐﹐不重勤儉﹐輕棄五轂﹐不報有恩﹐瞞心昧己﹐大斗小秤﹐假立邪教﹐引誘愚人﹐詭說昇天﹐斂物行淫﹐明瞞暗騙﹐橫言曲語﹐白日咒詛﹐背地謀害﹐不存天理﹐不順人心﹐不信報應﹐引人作惡﹐不修片善﹐行諸惡事﹐官詞口舌﹐水火盜賊﹐惡毒瘟疫﹐生敗產蠢﹐殺身亡家﹐男盜女淫﹐近報在身﹐遠報子孫﹐神明鑒察﹐毫髮不紊﹐善惡兩途﹐禍福攸分﹐行善福報﹐作惡禍臨﹐我作斯語﹐願人奉行﹐言雖淺近﹐大益身心﹐戲侮吾言﹐斬首分形﹐有能持誦﹐消凶聚慶﹐求子得子﹐求壽得壽﹐富貴功名﹐皆能有成﹐凡有所祈﹐如意而獲﹐萬禍雪消﹐千祥雲集﹐諸如此福﹐惟善可致﹐吾本無私﹐惟佑善人﹐眾善奉行﹐毋怠厥志

--Plastictv 11:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Further improvements

i've roughly completed my work on Guan Yu. However, it is still far below satisfactory. i'd like to add more info on Guan Yu worship as well as Guan Yu in operas but the issues are complex and my knowledge in these areas is utterly hopeless. Anyone who is an expert in this please help? i'd also like to make the article more concise without losing important details but didn't seem able to do so... --Plastictv 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe there should be redirects for the cantonese spellings of words (ie: General Kwan->Guan Yu) As a practicioner of Hung Gar, I am more familiar with cantonese pronouciacion of Kwan Do and General Kwan, and it took me alot longer than it needed to to find this article.

Sword or guandao

The reason why Guan Yu as Sangharama wields a sword is that guandao did not exist at the time Guan Yu was deified in Buddhism. The idea of guandao probably came much later in Yuan Dynasty or even Ming Dynasty, appearing in operas and, of course, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. i also put "Sangharama Bodhisattva" in parenthesis because it is not Guan Yu Buddhists are worshipping, but rather Sangharama (just like a monk adopts a faith name and abandons his mortal name when he enters the faith).

It is also arguable whether we should transliterate his famous weapon as Guan Dao, Guan Dao, guandao or perhaps something else. i'd support guandao, though. --Plastictv 15:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a Chicken and Egg problem. After the egg is hatched, should you call it an egg or chicken? Likewise, if you are describing how the egg is laid, you wouldn't call it a Chicken, would you.  :-) Kowloonese 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not a "chicken and egg problem." Guan at least used a spear, which was placed inside his tomb... but, Guan had 3 tombs built by Cao Cao, Sun Quan, and Liu Bei respectively, and I don't know if there's a sword or knife inside his other 2 tombs, so I can only say Guan probably had a spear as his weapon...EkmanLi (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fact and fiction

i removed the following text addded by the previous editor because it gives a fictional account of Guan Yu's departure from Cao Cao, which is already covered in the "Guan Yu in Romance of the Three Kingdoms" section. There is a difference between historical record and historical novel.

However, under the prompting of some of his subordinates, Cao soon realised what a threat Guan presented if he should unite with Liu Bei. Many generals, some acting under Cao's instructions and some on their own accord, pursued Guan as he passed through the gates. Some were slain in the process and eventually Cao personally endorsed the departure of Guan.

Hopefully with this explanation, nobody gets offended by the removal. :) --Plastictv 15:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Re. folklore 21 December 2005 Folklore about Guan Yu is part of the tradition. One would not delete fictional accounts from an article simply because they are not historical. Rather, one can distinquish folklore that is probably fictional from what seems to be more certain historically in an article.

Green Dragon Crescent Blade

User 69.231.246.224 changed the text "Green Dragon Crescent Blade" to "Blue Moon Dragon". I posted the following on their talk page:

Hi there. :-) I note that you've replaced all references to "Green Dragon Crescent Blade" with "Blue Dragon" (specifically on pages Guan Yu, Green Dragon Crescent Blade, and Guan dao). I wondered what your motivation is for this? I ask this in particular since the page Green Dragon Crescent Blade does reference the alternative name in the second paragraph: "It is also sometimes referred to as Blue Dragon...". Further the Chinese characters "青龍偃月刀" mentioned in the Guan dao article (in the first paragraph of the History section) do actually mean "Green Dragon Crescent Blade". Finally, in replacing the name with "Blue Dragon" you have removed all of the links to the page Green Dragon Crescent Blade. I thought I'd ask you first rather than undoing your changes without talking to you.

Stelio 23:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Having not heard anything from them, I have now restored the text to "Green Dragon Crescent Blade". Stelio 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

in wiki's chinese myth pages,青龙 is translated into "Azure dragon". However, i prefer the "green" idea, since traditionally Guan Yu is linked to green color.( perhaps the green robe Liu Bei gave him in RoTK? )(btw,green is adopted as national color of Shu in Koei's Dynasty Warriors series) Ybfelix 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

青 was referred to the color of blue or black during Han Dynasty.EkmanLi (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in a non-classical context, 青 is probably more accurately referring to blue. I don't think Koei enters into historical discussion, but most likely you are right regarding green, as this is closest to accepted parlance. WatersD (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I have absolutely nothing negative to say about this article. It is long, detailed, and thorough, and even includes a good number of pictures. I especially like the top one, which is of great quality and clarity, and of a good, impressive size, without infringing upon the text at all. The article treats not only the historical Guan Yu, but also the fictional Guan Yu from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, along with the portrayal of Guan Yu in gaming, and the worship of him in various places and faiths. I am nominating this for "Good Article" status, and, I don't see why not, for A-class status as well. If there is anything to be improved here, it is the general clean-up and maintenance that any article requires - nothing's 100% perfect. LordAmeth 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article=

This is not a good article. Work on including footnotes. If you have no footnotes, do not bother nominating it as a Good Article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An article should not need in-line footnotes as long as the content is good and references are listed. As I said above, this article has excellent length, detail, and choice of content, as well as some very nice pictures. LordAmeth 11:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Disparity

On the Guan Yu page it says:

"Also according to folklore, Guan Yu's weapon was a guandao named Blue Dragon Crescent Blade, which resembled a halberd and was said to weigh 82 jin (41 kilograms using today's standards)."

On the Guan Do page it says:

"Guan Yu's guan dao was called "Green Dragon Crescent Blade" (青龍偃月刀) which weighed 82 Chinese jin (estimated 49 kg.)"

Which is correct?

The Chinese character 青 can mean either blue or green. The proper translation into English depends on the context.Javiskefka 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The unit of weight "jin" is currently standardized to be exactly 500g. But throughout the history of China, the quantity of this measurement fluctuated a great deal. (Much like how "chi" is. This unit of length s 33.3 cm by today's standard, which would make Guan Yu a 3 meter giant). Since we cannot pinpoint the year, or even the dynasty of Luo's authorship (or has that been officially determined?), there is no way to know for sure how much a "jin" was to Luo. Personally, I would go with the heaviest estimation. --64.180.11.169 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the Chinese character 青 can refer to either green or indigo, which is not technically blue. In fact, it can also refer to black, which has been a point of heated debate over the colour of Bai Juyi's garment in one of his poems. However, in this case, without extensive research, i venture to suggest that the correct translation for the weapon is "Green". Dragon has often been associated with the colour green because the four creatures used to represent the four directions, namely Dragon, Sparrow, Tiger, and Turtle, are also associated with the four seasons. And each of these seasons has been associated with a colour: Spring with Green, Summer with Red, Autumn with White, and Winter with Black. This is why in fengshui terminology one often hears "Green Dragon on the Left, White Tiger on the Right, Red Sparrow in the Front, Black Turtle in the Back".

It is also true that the exact amount of Chinese units of measurement in today's terms vary across history (and even across different regions). And until further researches, i cannot answer as to what conversion should be used in this case.--Plastictv 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

During Han Dynasty, the word 青 was mainly referred to black (or blue/indigo). Note that during Qing Dynasty (the time Mao's 120 chapters Sanguozhi yanyi came to this world), the word 青 was usually referred to blue (indigo), or green. --EkmanLi (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Choice of wording

On the Guan Yu page it says:

"In 199 Liu Bei assassinated the Governor of Xu Zhou appointed by the rising warlord Cao Cao"

It is barely of any concern for the reputation of Guan Yu at first glance. But there is no indication from either the Romance or the Chronicle that the method of Che Zhou's demise was assassination, which implies unhonorable behavior on the assassin's part. Seeing how the Romance tells of Guan Yu meeting Che Zhou in broad daylight, fighting for a short while, then killing him as Che Zhou tried to run away, I think it is rather important that we discuss the legitimacy of Liu Bei's claim to the rulership of Xuzhou so that Guan Yu would not be accused of murdering an Imperial government official. --64.180.11.169 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Chronicles says "先主之袭杀徐州刺史车胄", which doesn't imply assassination. My bad. --Plastictv 07:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, 刺 is in the title, not in the action of killing. --64.180.11.169 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

i cannot remember exactly why i chose "assassinated" when i wrote the article, maybe from impression i got from another section in Chronicles. i have no way of verifying that right now as i'm overseas, but i will soon be back and will do a thorough check then. And of course i'm aware that 刺史 is the governer's title. :) --Plastictv 00:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe it's because of the saying that Guan Yu taked Yan Liang by suprise:) Ybfelix 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Han Laws, the word "murder" should be used. I don't intend to make the change, but I need to tell you this: Che Zhou was assigned by Han court to rule Xu Province, Liu Bei couldn't just kill him because he used to be the warlord thereEkmanLi (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I never thought Liu Bei needed to follow the laws. By the way, which powerful warlords would follow the laws of a collapsing empire?EkmanLi (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Surrender to Cao Cao

On the Guan Yu page it says:

"that the surrender was to the Han emperor and not Cao Cao"

So how come the section title is still called "Surrender to Cao Cao"? If Guan Yu had surrendered to Cao Cao, he would most definitely have not been deified and revered as a household god. The technicality of this surrender is very very crucial to his reputation. Guan Yu understood, Zhang Liao understood, Cao Cao understood. Surrendering to Cao Cao is an act of defection. Surrender to Han is acceptable because both Cao Cao and Liu Bei were holding offices under the Han regime. --64.180.11.169 05:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You made a good point. How do you suggest we make it better? In fact, you seem to have a good understanding of these topics. Why don't you register? It's fast and free and makes editing and interacting much easier. :) --Plastictv 00:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the corresponding title under the historical section is very impartial and quite appropriate for the Romance section. --64.180.233.181 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Plastictv 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Replying to above statements...If we consider Guan Yu and Liu Bei loyal subjects of Han, then they should ask Cao Cao or Emperor Xian to give them the "legitimacy" to rule Xu Province (technically, they should not even ask for it, caz positions can only be granted) instead of killing Che Zhou in the first place(actually it's a murder if we follow the your logic). I don't mean to offend you, but in my point of view, surrendering to the Han court controlled by Cao Cao is no different than surrendering to Cao Cao at the moment Guan Yu was captured. I would say Guan Yu's loyalty lies with Liu Bei than the failing Han Empire.EkmanLi (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Han Shou Tinghou

This is the title Guan Yu earned after defeating Yan Liang. It is all quoted correctly in the article and all, even with a short insert about the relative hierarchy. The English translation of this title in the article is Marquis of Hanshou, which is not quite linguistically correct. The rank of this title is Tinghou, that much is clear. However, the name of this title is Shou, and Shou alone. Han is the name of the regime that gave Guan Yu this title. It would be like, Lord Tennyson of England, rather than Lord England Tennyson. The Chronicle contains a personae, which the Romance copies directly, that lists Shou Tinghou under Guan Yu.

And while we are at this, in the fanatic spirit of historic accuracy, I don't think the Chronicle talks anything about Guan Yu killing Wen Chou. In Guan Yu's account, Wen Chou was never mentioned. In Cao Cao's account, Guan Yu only appeared in the sentence about killing Yan Liang. --64.180.233.181 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there was no historical evidence that Guan Yu slew Wen Chou. In fact, someone made a major change to what i wrote. The follow is the original text as i wrote it:

Upon reaching Baima, Guan Yu saw from afar the standard on Yan Liang's chariot and urged his mount towards the latter. He speared Yan Liang amid the enemy troops, and brought back his severed head. Thus Yuan Shao lost an important lieutenant and the siege of Baima was unravelled. Guan Yu was then enfeoffed as Marquis¹ of Hanshou (漢夀亭侯). After doing Cao Cao this favor, Guan Yu declined further gifts from the former. Leaving behind a letter, he left for his former lord, who was still in the camp of Yuan Shao. When some of his subordinates wanted to pursue Guan Yu, Cao Cao stopped them, saying, "To each his own."

i feel that it'd be more appropriate for you to replace the current text with what i originally wrote if you find the latter without error, besides your point on the correct translation of his title of course. Or you're most welcomed to correct the current version yourself. --Plastictv 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. I changed some wording to reflect the fact that Guan Yu did indeed receive the gifts from Cao Cao, since it is very impolite to refuse gifts. I wasn't so sure about the chariot part, seeing how the Chinese abandoned chariots as a war vehicle after the Zhou Dynasty.

Perhaps there should be a section detailing Guan's virtues, as seen from each of the three major religion/belief systems in China. A person who is not so familiar with the Chinese Culture could easily miss the reasons why Guan was erected as a household god. It's not enough to state words like "loyalty" or "brotherhood". Accounts and examples should follow. As a crude example, we can quote the incidents describe above as displays of Guan's Confusian virtues. He maintained his loyalty when he prescribed the terms of his surrender. He maintained his honour by repaying Cao Cao in battle. He maintained his chastity by putting away the gifts. Of course, since the general public was more familiar with stories collected to form the Romance, and since Guan's deification was mostly based on those stories, we can stick exclusively to the Romance as a source. --64.180.233.181 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to say that 漢夀-亭侯 or 漢-夀亭侯 is still debated( it is said this argument starts from southern song dynasty ),ex:[1](need to pay to see the full text:( i will try download at college library later),[2].

from what i've seen, seems the former,漢夀-亭侯, is held by larger portion of historians as the right one. Qing literati 毛宗岗 commented, in his edition of RoTK with commentary, "今人见关公为汉寿亭侯，遂以“汉”为国号，而直称之曰“寿亭侯”，即博雅家亦时有此。此起于俗本演义之误也。俗本云：“曹瞒铸寿亭侯印贻公而不受，加以汉字而后受。”是齐东野人之语，读者不察，遂为所误。夫汉寿，地名也。亭侯，爵名也。汉有亭侯、乡侯、通侯之名，如孔愉为余不亭侯，钟繇为东武亭侯，玄德为宜城亭侯之类。<蜀志>：“大将军费祎会诸将于汉寿。”则汉寿亭侯犹言汉寿之亭侯耳，岂可去“汉”字而以“寿亭侯”为名耶？鸡笼山关庙内题主曰：“汉前将军汉寿亭侯之神。”本自了然。余则谓当于外额亦加一汉，曰“汉汉寿亭侯之祠”，则人人洞晓矣。俗本之误，今依古本校正。" ( well,I won't translate this one,:) ),but, it's just his personal opinion of course.and this can be open to debate Ybfelix 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree with Mao, so i suggest adopting this view for the article at this stage, i.e. "Hanshou Tinghou" or "Marquis of Hanshou". Let me also translate a gist of Mao Zonggang's commentary for those who don't read Chinese. Mao wrote that "People of today sees that Guan Yu was enfeoffed 'Han Shou Ting Hou', and thought that 'Han' was the dynasty name, so they call Guan 'Shou Ting Hou'. However, 'Han Shou' is a geographical location and 'Ting Hou' is a title. Therefore, 'Han Shou Ting Hou' refers to the 'Ting Hou' of 'Han Shou'." --Plastictv 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mao was a very controversial critic. He has already plagued the majority of printed Romance in circulation. His opinions have been deemed very radical and extreme by his modern peers. Personal credibiliy attacks aside, since this is wiki, we can put up both versions of the translation for a completely unbiased presentation.

it is rather rare to see Han in front of any title from the Chronicle and Romance. From Xiahou Dun's incident, we know that both Xiandi and Cao Cao had the authority to grant these titles. Mao deleted a whole section about Guan Yu declining the title until Cao Cao added Han in the seal in his edition of the Romance.

Given the unique circumstances, it is conceivable that Cao had to add the Han to keep Guan's virtue intact. I am slightly concerned that Hanshou is a bit far from where all this was happening (Wuling prefecture). Even though no place called Shou has turned up in any document, I did find a place called Shou'ting. Hou by itself is assumed to be a xianhou. So it could even be Marquis of Xianhou of Han.

edit: scratch that, Shou'ting wasn't coined till sometime in Tang. --205.250.216.86 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

The page has been vandalized by some idiots who posted "roflmao" or something like that. Request that a moderator locks this article and use a designated editor.(Psychoneko 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Featured article

Being a very popular deity, I am surprised that there has been no joint effort to improve the scholarly level of this article up to FA status. I personally don't know enough about the subject, otherwise I would do it myself. I actually copied this articles layout--"History", then "Fiction"--for my Zhou Tong (archer) page. Now I know if I can get Zhou Tong to FA status, someone should surely be able to do it to this one.

The one major problem I see is that many editors have a hard time distinguishing between history and fiction, despite there being an obvious split in the formatting. They believe what they read in Romance of the Three Kingdoms to be true history and consequently try to edit the "history" section as such. Then it gets reverted. I'm sure there are some scholarly books and papers out there that would greatly help improve upon this article and help broaden the line between history and fact. I would like to see a scholar's take on how Guan Yu's part in Romance has influenced Chinese society. I know he was one of Song Dynasty General Yue Fei's idols. I need to add that bit to the page.

Anyway, I hope to see this on the main page someday. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fictional biography of Guan Yu

I find that Guan Yu's fictional biography in Romance of the Three Kingdoms is far too detailed compared to his historical biography. I've attempted summarising and reorganising it but I'm rather confused on what should be excluded or included. I've removed some additional information which is not part of the biography, such as how the oath is linked to modern secret societies and so on. Also, I find that the biography is written in a biased tone so I've also attempted to make it sound as "neutral" as possible, although the fictional biography need not necessarily sound "neutral". Hopefully my efforts bring the article closer to FA status. Please discuss on how to improve on writing Guan Yu's fictional biography. I'm considering having a separate page for it, if it's going to be very long. Lonelydarksky (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The "In Romance of the Three Kingdoms" section shouldn't be a fictional biography, it is only supposed to detail significant differences and additions from the historical records. In Guan Yu's case, however, there are simply too many fictional stories and most if not all of them are important in constructing the Guan Yu people celebrate today. Perhaps the significant episodes (千里走單騎 comes to mind) can be made into a new article. There is also the List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. _dk (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Red Face

I once heard a story that the idea of the red face came from a story where Guan was being chased and washed his face in a blood filled river. The blood stained his face red and meant his pursuers couldn't recognise him. Any info on this tale? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Guan Yu's Birth

Guan Yu was said to have killed Lu Xiong at the age of 23 and 5 years later met Liu Bei and Zhang Fei. Now the Rebellion took place in 184AD so Guan Yu would have been 28 at the time he joined the volunteer force. going back 28 years would put Guan Yu's birth around 156AD, meaning Guan Yu was in fact older than Liu Bei which is quit the opposite to what Lu Guan Zhong has written in the novel "Romance of Three Kingdoms". Luo portrayes Liu Bei as the older brother. a debatable subject but it makes sense according to what this article page says about Guan Yu's early life. —Preceding KingDavid47 comment added by 68.190.121.79 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because ROTK is a fiction. You can't take Chinese fiction at face value. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How far away from Good Article... and Featured Article?

I think one of the very outstanding "features" of this article is that the fictional biography of Guan Yu is longer than the actual historical biography. Some of the events in the fictional biography have already been mentioned in List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Adding them here again might seem repetitive. Why not just remove those "stories" and put a

See also: List of fictitious stories in Romance of the Three Kingdoms

tag there? _dk suggested above that we just highlight the differences between Guan Yu's fictional and historical biography in the fictional section. That's another way to do it, instead of writing an entire fictional biography. In terms of language, I think this article is generally fluent and free of grammatical or spelling errors. Another suggestion, how about splitting the worship of Guan Yu part into another separate article? Any ideas on how to promote this article to FA status? I think we should consolidate the ideas for improvements in this section instead of having them scattered all over the talk page. There are some good ideas above, such as this one by Ghostexorcist. _LDS (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the nature of this article???

Is this article a biography about a historical figure, or a research of Guan Yuan's folklore and worship??? If someone answers both or finds the above question hard to answer, it's because the article involves much information without a coherent focus (resulting from the difference between a failed general in real-life and a perfect deity in folklore). Therefore, in order for this article to move towards the Good Article status, some aspects of it must be separated out to form another page. Also, by doing so I will be able to provide the cn in a "folklore page" of Guan (I am not going to give cn from an obscure origin, or even add folklore stuff in a historical page caz it's unpofessional and technically strange to do so). ----EkmanLi (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have one singular focus in an article? There are at least four aspects of the subject of Guan Yu: the historical biography; his depiction in the novel; his deification from folklore, opera, and the novel; and finally his modern image in popular culture based on all of the above. The current structure allows a narrative flow that leads the reader through the stages of the transformation of Guan Yu's image, and also present all aspect of "Guan Yu" in a neat package. Unless your proposed additions would greatly inflate the size of the article, my preference would be holding off the split until we have enough material to do so. _dk (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A coherent focus doesn't necessarily mean one singular focus, but I do agree that a single focus is highly priced. Let me clarify this, when I said earlier that "some aspects of the article could be split to form another page," I was thinking about moving the worship part out, caz that part can definitely be established on its own. There will not be a length concern for the worship article; if you just do copyedit, there're tons of researches done on very particular aspects of Guan's worship (virtually you can control the length very easily - even trivial things like Guan's role in Beijing opera can readily be translate-edited or copyedited into a dozen pages long if one wants to; though I personally think that would be boring). Since I avoid writing anything about religious stuff, I'm only proposing the idea; but I can give out links to some research papers (online edition) to copyedit upon, after 10/28, if anyone is interested to contribute to the issue. ----EkmanLi (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, splitting off the worship isn't such a bad idea. I only ask that if that happens, we leave a short summary of the worship on this page and give a link to the main article. The name of the new page can be something like Worship of Guan Yu or even Guan Di, hmm. _dk (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cattie

I thought a cattie is rounded to 1/2 kg, so Guan's sword of 82 cattie is about 40kg, and not 40lb. If no objections, then I'll change the number given in article. 213.1.15.144 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

262 ft statue, 2010

Maybe this huge statue in his birth city Yucheng should be mentioned: http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/05/landscapes-altered-by-the-worlds-largest-statues/ Lastdingo (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Taiwan 2009 JinGuaShi Historic Gold Mine Valley View Left Page FRD 8822 Giant Statue of GuanYu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

RV

@Underbar dk, I could've explained better, apologies. My problem was with form and structure, not content. I don't think a list like that is a very elegant placement in the middle of an article. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right, this article had a long-winded plot "summary" of everything that Guan Yu did in the novel, which, as you can imagine, got out of hand very quickly considering his role in the story. The list was what was left after an effort to spin that content off to other places. Although I can sympathize with the view that the section should contain a summary in prose (and ideally a discussion of how those fictitious tropes developed), I don't think it is right to eliminate the whole section just because it does not look elegant. _dk (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)