Talk:Yan Liang

The Ferocity of Yan Liang

After reading over the fall of Yan Liang at Guan Du, Guan Yu caught Yan Liang off guard. Although Guan Yu receives some credit for killing one of Yuan Shao's strongest generals, Yan Liang did not even have time to defend himself from the assault of Guan Yu.

Both Yan Liang and Wen Chou would have made a great team if they both would have fought against Guan Yu together. I wonder how it would turn out? --Zhang Liao 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A Mind Too Narrow

At the start of the battle of Guandu, general Yan Liang was to be the advance gaurd for the assault of Baima; however, Ju Shou (As you guessed it) protested saying, "His mind is too narrow for such a post. He is brave but unequal to such a trust."

Yuan Shao, on the other hand, replied in a manner only fitting to the trust he has for his generals. "You are not the sort of man to measure my best generals," replied Yuan Shao.

Although Yan Liang was brave and good, he manages prove his worth by slaying Wei Xu and Song Xian before he met his end at the hands of Guan Yu. It is rather funny that Ju Shou saw the deaths of Wen Chou and Yan Liang as he spoke about them. --Zhang Liao 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Yan Liang.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yan Liang.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Yan Liang.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yan Liang has been active recently

Yan Liang has been active recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not misunderstanding you, Liang yan is alive in 2022.I googled and found no record of him still alive. Rastinition (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think what @Ngancheekean means is the Yan Liang page has been active recently and possibly wishes to discuss the editing disagreements? DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Cao Cao and Liu Bei were warlords under Yuan Shao. Yuan (surname) Ngancheekean (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

At varying times, yes (or at least in Cao Cao's case, a junior ally relying on miliatry and political support). Not sure how that helps the topic? DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Go read more on งันเหลียง & Nhan Lương. There are translated version of Yan Liang in thai and vietnamese, is it the same battle of baima that you are talking or is it still the battle of guandu. Ngancheekean (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I can read neither Thai or Vietnamese, google translate suggests the Thai version is using novel information but that could be google translate being weird. If they have good and accurate information in there then please do feel free to add them (with the proper citations from primary or academic sources). As with the Chinese wiki, if they have good and sourced information and the sources from elsewhere, feel free to add to it in the English wiki.

So the term battle of Guandu sometimes covers the entire camapign from when Yuan Shao begins to gather his force until Yuan Shao flees over the river so the battle of Bomo/Baima is part of that camapign. If referring to the specific battle rather then the camapign, that would be the one after Wen Chou's defeat when Yuan Shao attacked Cao Cao's prepared positions at Guandu. Usually though, I find people use it about the camapign DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You can also think of ways to deified Yan Liang. Ngancheekean (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean deify or defend? I suspect defend?

Neither seems to be the point of a wikipedia article? I wish to defend Yan Liang, there would be other places for me to do that. The article contains the facts and the comments of those of the time (in Ju Shou, Xun Yu and Kong Rong), not my place to put personal views. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe you mentioned in the past that you felt the article (which is now longer then De Crespigny's Biographical Dictionary entry) was inadequate so I have attempted to add to it. Given he doesn't have a historical biography and nothing, bar his reputation, from his time before his final camapign is known, the entry is always going to be somewhat short. What more do you want added to the substance of the texts? Not just links (and I'll be putting a next segment in this talk thread about Cao Zhi) but the actual text? DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cao Zhi/Yan Liang

So one of the recent editing disagreements is about Cao Zhi. Ngancheekean tends to put Cao Zhi in the links section with a focus on the famous Yuefu White Horse which Ngancheekean believes is connected to Yan Liang and points to Cao Zhi writing of Boma on other times. Then is puzzled why other wiki editors, including myself, remove it each and every time so hoping this will help explain and at least give a chance for Ngancheekean to provide wider sources that it was intended about Yan Liang.

I would suggest, normally, what would be more helpful then just a link to Cao Zhi would have been including in the article something about inspiring Cao Zhi or the connection. However in this case, the connection between Yan Liang and Cao Zhi is non-existent as far as I can tell. The poem says nothing of Yan Liang, it doesn't mention his name and there are no indicators that it is about Yan Liang or indeed anyone from Yuan Shao's army. The signifier of the man in the poem are a figure from the errantry (Yan Liang not known as an errant) of the You-Bing traditions, left home town and served on frontier (no indication he did so) where he made a name for himself (again, no indication that is where Yan Liang got his reputation from, more from service under Yuan Shao), his archery skills (no indication Yan Liang was noted for that), brave (certainly with Yan Liang) and agile (see archery), fighting the Xiongnu and Xianbei (Yan Liang isn't mentioned fighting any of them). Leaving aside the problems Cao Zhi writing about generals his father had destroyed given Cao Zhi's political situations, nothing in the poem indicates it is talking about a Yuan Shao miliatry figure, let alone Yan Liang.

In "The Incident at the Gate: Cao Zhi, the Succession, and Literary Fame" by Robert Cutter (who has written a few times on Cao Zh and is an expert on early medieval Chinese literature), Cutter talks about it (with citing from James J. Y. Liu and Guo Maoqian) from page 242-244 amidst wider talk of Cao Zhi's theme of patriotic poems and his wish to be of service including in a miliatry sense which again is part of other poems he writes. Now there may be an argument from other academics that is Yan Liang but that hasn't been provided as yet.

On the Boma issue, there is one that Sun Sheng records where Cao Zhi writes for his beloved brother Cao Biao, holding the rank of Prince of Boma, as they depart. That would only be relevant to Cao Zhi and Cao Biao's wiki's (or possibly one involving Wei's policy on imperial family members), it has nothing to do with Yan Liang or even Boma.

So until there is an explanation on why Cao Zhi's poem is relevant to Yan Liang and why the interpretations of others should be laid aside, I don't think attempts to link Cao Zhi should be included. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You should focus more on the Romance of Three Kingdoms. Ngancheekean (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant that for the "what do you wish to see in the text" rather then Cao Zhi comment? Feel free to add a bit more colour from the romance or detail about those who mention Yan Liang post his death but not sure there is much more I can add. If you can, feel free. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the text has not showed up yet. Yan Liang has to wait. Ngancheekean (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Gamers have been killing Yan Liang many times in the game, Dynasty Warriors. Ngancheekean (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. That isn't really related to Cao Zhi segment or what we put in wikipedia though. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Why can't you put in Yan Liang's character in Dynasty Warriors. Any specific reasons? This is a historical character article though. Ngancheekean (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't run the Dynasty Warriors franchise and I have not brought up Dynasty Warriors, you did. As I said, not related to Cao Zhi or what to put in wikipedia

I'll get to the Baima thing tomorrow. Might I suggest trying to organize your posts better or editing in? Since my last post you have created seven posts (some of them a little unclear) and three sections, going to make it difficult to keep track tomorrow. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Even Cao Cao appeared In Popular Culture section, Video Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not surprised. Cao Cao has been the subject of many a tale down the centuries, is a major figure in plays, TV, films and in games. Not a big suprise given his role as a major figure in a popular civil war. Yan Liang is not such a prominent figure unsurprisingly DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Baima

Since you already defended Yan Liang then DongZhuo3kingdoms was right on this part. (The additions of "who was killed by Sun Quan's forces" after every mention of Guan Yu was not relevant or helpful. Removed them.) I did not take the context from historical text to justify it just link a chinese 顔良. There was just no time for me to defend, so you should defend Yan Liang with.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize this may be an English language thing but I have not defended Yan Liang, the term is the wrong one to use. It would be inappropriate to turn a wiki article into a opinion piece about Yan Liang, it is provide the facts using primary sources and academic sources for those seeking to learn. There are other places people can go to discuss and debate a figure. All I did was flesh out the article.

I would maintain Guan Yu being killed by Sun Quan forces was not relevant to an encolpyedia article about Yan Liang (just as writing about how Yuan Shao died or Cao Cao and Zhang Liao died would also be irrelevant) and doing so multiple times was a little odd. If it was to be included (and again, I would suggest Yan Liang's entry is not the place for that), it would only need to be mentioned once

If there is stuff in that wiki that is accurate and would add useful, in context, information to the English wiki then add it. Bit by bit or create a draft page (just don't remove the main Yan Liang wiki) with proper citations. Just going look at this link and not doing the work isn't actually helpful DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of Baima (白马)? It should mean white horse, so do you have any lead from here. White Horse Temple (Chinese: 白马寺) is a Buddhist temple in Luoyang, Henan that, according to tradition, is the first Buddhist temple in China, having been first established in 68 AD under the patronage of Emperor Ming in the Eastern Han dynasty. The place Yan Liang died in Battle of Boma is Hua County, Henan. Can you relate any of this? Ngancheekean (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Baima meaning white horse doesn't mean every reference of the era must mean Baima. Or referencing the white horse sacrifices (as done by Jiao Chu and Cao Ren), Pang De (known for riding a white horse), Zhang Cheng (also known for white horse) or the white horse force of Gongsun Zan. It can just mean the hero of the poem rides a white horse rather then an attempt at world play or a specific nod (to figures with more of a connection to white horses then Yan Liang). Nothing in the text of the poem has been taken as Baima reference and for it be to Baima goes against the general themes picked up by academics (also including Stephen Owen and Wendy Swartz)

That Temple, though claimed in the third century to been created by Emperor Ming, can only be placed as having existed from 289 onwards (sources The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China by Erik Zürcher and Fire over Luoyang by Rafe De Crespigny). Now there was Buddhism in China but I have seen no work that associates Cao Zhi with Buddhist beliefs or interests and nothing in his poems using Buddhist terms or language as part of his writings.

So no I don't believe the poem has any connection with the temple or Cao Zhi. However in wikipedia terms, our individual opinions on the poem or Yan Liang don't matter. What matters are the facts. To insert Cao Zhi's poem, you would need to cite academic figures that the poem is about that. I have cited academic figures about the poem's themes of patriotism and desire for service, you need something on those lines. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should put in Taoism section or any religion beside Confucianism, since i began to suspect the argument of yan liang (which he is not a handsome guy, some critic put in ugly description for yan liang). As usual, Kong Rong defended Yan Liang but it was as usual for you, and on Cao Cao's side was Liu Yan during Battle of Boma. The article is written with no working experience, which I think i will delete it if its not satisfactory. Read more on the japanese article too 顔良. 顔 (japanese) which means face, so you been warned. Cao Zhi poem on white horse (reason no connection between cao zhi and yan liang) link not allowed, also White Horse Temple link should put in the article too, to broaden the scope of the article. Ngancheekean (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yan Liang isn't a noted figure in Taoism and someone going off to read Taoism section won't learn anything about Yan Liang? I can't say the debate about Yan Liang's looks hasn't reached the west (partly as the sources don't speak of his looks) but if there is a reliable source you can cite (some critic is unhelpfully vague) then you add it in.

I added Kong Rong and Xun Yu's lines becuase they directly reference Yan Liang and it added just a bit more to the article.

You can, of course, apply for the article to be deleted though I would be surprised if that goes anywhere. You keep saying it isn't satisfactory do nothing to alter the main text (bar the Guan Yu killed by Wu lines) and add things not connected to Yan Liang with no citations which isn't helpful. Neither is just putting links to wiki and saying we should do stuff from that rather putting in the work to put any useful information (again, properly cited) onto the English wiki

I do not think putting in a temple that didn't exist at that time, has no connection to Yan Liang in any way shape of form is helpful for readers seeking to learn about Yan Liang. I do not think putting in a poem that has no connection to Yan Liang in any academic text (that I'm aware of) and is only connected based on a wiki editor's opinion is sufficient justification for putting in the poem. If you can find a proper source to back you in the poem being about Yan Liang, then (along with putting it in main text rather then just a link) that would be a basis for adding. Not your, or my or any other wiki editor, opinion's on the matter. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Cao Cao was very reluctant to use Guan Yu against Yan Liang which he believes he will leave once he repay kindness to Cao Cao, Guan Yu (no idea what that Guan Yu means) then did leave and went back to Liu Bei. Cao (Chinese surname) (reason yan surname link already in the article which i think cao surname should put in it to broaden the perspective, which this is a historical character article) link also not allowed? My reason is actually to wider the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The novel reluctance for Guan Yu to be used is little to do with Yan Liang himself, more about Guan Yu and Cao Cao so personally, wouldn't consider it relevant.

Why does Cao's surname have to do with Yan Liang?

The scope of the article is Yan Liang. The facts about him. In some cases in the civil war, we do not have a large amount of information and yes that is frustrating but all we can do is work what we have. Not add strands that aren't connected DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In the end, Yan Liang lost the head. There isnt much different for Yan Liang in Romance of Three Kingdoms. If you know the story, you should know he be killed sooner than later since he is a military general. So White Horse Temple，Cao Zhi and Cao (surname), should be included in the article. Ngancheekean (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure what the point is of the first bit? In fairness, plenty of miliatry generals (Zhang Liao for example) survived to die of natural causes (though the romance has him killed off)

A temple that didn't yet exist with no noted connection to Yan Liang, a poet who was a child when Yan Liang died who never mentions Yan Liang and the surname of the Cao family when Yan Liang is not from those family aren't relevant. Now if you can proper sources for the temple connection, for the poetry other then you personally believe it be so then a case to put those in starts to appear but wiki editor is not a sufficient source to go against academic work or counts as a fact. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Guan Yu is a worship figure, so you will be asked about Yan Liang now and then, since Guan Yu is famous for its repay its kindness to Cao Cao by slaying Yan Liang, because Yan Liang has been recklessly slaying soldiers. I wont say much racist sentences, also I cant argue much, since I didnt do research much on Yan Liang, not even read the texts available. It's just more on my personal opinion which maybe a help to the article. Ngancheekean (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There isnt much information on Yan Liang on Baidu too. Maybe the article has reached a limit. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%A2%9C%E8%89%AF/5431 Ngancheekean (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

How to delete this article

I'm finding reasons to delete this article. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: G10 has been rejected by User:Firefly. It is also by written by non-registered user, 81.103.217.69 Ngancheekean (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ngancheekean - just noting that I declined the G10 as I could not see any way that the article met the standard of "[pages that] disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". Can I ask what you mean by "finding reasons to delete this article"? firefly ( t · c ) 10:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Should i Wikipedia:Proposed deletion first? So i should write {{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = reason for proposed deletion |timestamp = 20220312105517 |nom = Ngancheekean |help = }}, but what reason can i give aside G10? Ngancheekean (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Double check the rules

"PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD.

A nominated page is marked for at least seven days. If nobody has objected during this time the page is considered by an uninvolved administrator who reviews the page and either deletes it or removes the PROD tag. Any objection kills the PROD procedure, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present. Even after the page has been deleted, anyone may have a PRODed article or file restored through a request for undeletion."

You tried Prod first I believe and it failed so you can't use it again. You know there is opposition (including mine) so you can't use it (and probably shouldn't have done in the first place). You can try the WP:AFD process

DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Ngancheekean (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Cao surname. It came back to the same arguement again. Yan Liang and Cao Cao are not related but the surname is, that is no original thought, is a fact, which editors keep blocking. The link is there since 6 August 2021 but removed by Underbar dk on 6 March 2022. I considered it an attack too, to break the link between Cao and Yan, so what connection between Cao and Yan is not up to editors to dispute the fact. Aside that

Not to be confused with Cao (Chinese surname).

should be put in, i think, because it came from the same surname, thats a fact, is it a help for the english site, then why do they even blocked the connection. Thats not for promoting the surname, is a fact. I will even considered wikipedia was enthusiastically promoting Three Kingdoms stories without considering about Yan Liang. Ngancheekean (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to delete the article but editors will disagree. the article just says Yan Liang is a narrow-minded person...the tone was already harsh. Also it was because Cao Cao was attacking the rear camp of Yuan Shao, so Yan Liang was left to fight alone without support. I dont wish to argue more since it is a chinese history, and have many arguments about it, also is an english site. :I still have not give up deleting the article. Ngancheekean (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I told you how to apply for the deletion, up to you if you follow the set procedures on how to do so (having failed to do so the first two times). Then if you do choose the route I have highlighted, up for other editors to make the case why it shouldn't be deleted so both sides are heard. You have seemingly decided the case on which you will argue for deletion and others like myself will have the right to make a counter-argument, then another figure will decide. If you want the deletion to happen, you will have to put the work in and at least make the case within the process rather then declare you don't to argue more.

" I will even considered wikipedia was enthusiastically promoting Three Kingdoms stories without considering about Yan Liang"

For when you apply for deletion, this line is unclear so you may wish to work on making that one clearer. DongZhuo3kingdoms (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)