This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Romance of the Three Kingdoms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to add more information about some of the events like "The Yellow Turban Rebellion", "Dong Zhou's reign of terror", and other topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tio Oso ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Sadads:
We've gone back and forth on this, but the best compromise seems to be to say "attributed to Luo" but "published in the Ming." Roberts "Afterword" seems to be the most reliable source, which says that the authorship has been "traditionally assigned to the late Yuan-early Ming" and that "many accept this approximation, if only because the presumed author Luo Guanzhong lived at that time..." but that "there is a gap of about one hundred years between the presumed date of Luo's death and the 1494 preface" which is the first mention of any association between him and the novel, and "there is no record prior to this" connecting Luo to it. Thus, he goes on, "at the present time, a Ming author and a Ming audience ... seems likeliest." (Roberts "Afterword" pp. 938-939). The more detailed study by Andrew West (see External Links) also backs it. Roberts later refers to the "unsolvable problem of the author" (p. 963), and this is before we even get to the problem of the Mao Zonggang recension and what constitutes the text, which probably should be mentioned in the lede as the text used in all English translations, but I'm not sure how. In any case, "attributed to" still seems the best, esp. since it is a phrase used in the body of the article. ch ( talk) 02:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I replaced "It is a general truism of this world that anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide." This translation is from [ Wikisource ROTK], Initially translated by A-cai] but as far as I can tell left off after a few years. This translation misses the mark by saying "anything that is divided." Brewitt-Taylor's translation has been widely quoted: "Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce." This makes it seem like a general principle. Roberts has it "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." (p. 5) Roberts seems preferable because "the empire" is singular, implying that it is the "Chinese" empire that is at stake, not empires in general, and thus more applicable to the Ming/ Qing dynasty. I will also restore the note that whoever wrote the earlier version, Luo or not, this sentence was added by Mao. ch ( talk) 02:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone clear up whether this is Classical Chinese, some sort of Mandarin, or what? Thanks!
Fdezcaminero ( talk) 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The storyline should be a summary, not such a long section with 54 sub-sections. Perhaps there should be a consensus on how detailed the storyline is. Jenxi ( talk) 04:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Romance of the Three Kingdoms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to add more information about some of the events like "The Yellow Turban Rebellion", "Dong Zhou's reign of terror", and other topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tio Oso ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Sadads:
We've gone back and forth on this, but the best compromise seems to be to say "attributed to Luo" but "published in the Ming." Roberts "Afterword" seems to be the most reliable source, which says that the authorship has been "traditionally assigned to the late Yuan-early Ming" and that "many accept this approximation, if only because the presumed author Luo Guanzhong lived at that time..." but that "there is a gap of about one hundred years between the presumed date of Luo's death and the 1494 preface" which is the first mention of any association between him and the novel, and "there is no record prior to this" connecting Luo to it. Thus, he goes on, "at the present time, a Ming author and a Ming audience ... seems likeliest." (Roberts "Afterword" pp. 938-939). The more detailed study by Andrew West (see External Links) also backs it. Roberts later refers to the "unsolvable problem of the author" (p. 963), and this is before we even get to the problem of the Mao Zonggang recension and what constitutes the text, which probably should be mentioned in the lede as the text used in all English translations, but I'm not sure how. In any case, "attributed to" still seems the best, esp. since it is a phrase used in the body of the article. ch ( talk) 02:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I replaced "It is a general truism of this world that anything long divided will surely unite, and anything long united will surely divide." This translation is from [ Wikisource ROTK], Initially translated by A-cai] but as far as I can tell left off after a few years. This translation misses the mark by saying "anything that is divided." Brewitt-Taylor's translation has been widely quoted: "Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce." This makes it seem like a general principle. Roberts has it "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." (p. 5) Roberts seems preferable because "the empire" is singular, implying that it is the "Chinese" empire that is at stake, not empires in general, and thus more applicable to the Ming/ Qing dynasty. I will also restore the note that whoever wrote the earlier version, Luo or not, this sentence was added by Mao. ch ( talk) 02:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone clear up whether this is Classical Chinese, some sort of Mandarin, or what? Thanks!
Fdezcaminero ( talk) 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The storyline should be a summary, not such a long section with 54 sub-sections. Perhaps there should be a consensus on how detailed the storyline is. Jenxi ( talk) 04:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)