This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The result of the debate was no consensus. — Nightst a llion (?) 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Laozi →
Lao Tzu — Per
wikipedia:naming conventions (common names):
Google:
*
1,620,000 English pages for "Lao Tzu" -wikipedia
*
137,000 English pages for Laozi -wikipedia
Google Book Search:
*
19600 pages on "Lao Tzu" -wikipedia
*
8780 pages on "Laozi" -wikipedia —
Francis Schonken
13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a strong proponent of using English for English Wikipedia but "Lao Tzu" doesn't rise to the level of a true exonym. It's not a "traditional" spelling -- just a older ( Wade-Giles) transliteration of 老子. This is why Google hits are a poor measure of encyclopedic usage -- there is no temporal context for the hits. The Laozi form is denigrated above as "narrowly scholarly usage" but knowledge of Laozi among English speakers is not that wide outside of specialists or adherents. Mao Tse-tung, Peking, and Chou En-lai were dropped for Mao Zedong, Beijing, Zhou Enlai and these persons/places were far better known to average English speakers than Laozi. AjaxSmack 02:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's depressing that so many people are merely "voting" on the basis that "Lao Tzu" is more copmmon without paying any attention to the evidence to the contrary ("this is hoiw I know it, so it must be more common"...). Depressing, but oh so familiar. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think consistency is extremely important with Chinese names. Older academic publications used to use the Wade-Giles system, whereas recent publications have adopted hanyu pinyin as the standard. The tendency in favour of hanyu pinyin is clear, and I don't think anyone seriously interested in Chinese studies would dispute that fact. For example, the older Cambridge History of China books all use Wade-Giles whereas the more recent Cambridge History of Ancient China uses hanyu pinyin throughout. This is also true of most recent publications about Chinese history. What I find crazy about current usage in Wikipedia is the complete lack of consistency. No serious academic publication would ever use Laozi, Sun Tzu, Xun Zi, Zhuangzi and Mozi within the same text. And this is what Wikipedia does! I support using English names for Confucius and Mencius, because these are real anglicised names and not mere transcriptions. For the other "masters", I think we should conform to the hanyu pinyin standard: Laozi, Zhuangzi, Sunzi, Mozi, Xunzi, Leizi, Han Feizi and so on. -- AngelRiesgo 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions, "Laozi literally means "Old Master" and is generally considered an honorific." Wouldn't a more accurate translation of 老子 be "old boy?" I am more familiar with Korean and Japanese 漢文 so I could be wrong... Konamaiki 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very Wikipedia-ish to put such a great deal of emphasis at the start of this small article on a (probably) historical personnage on the claim that he didn't exist, or was simply a pseudonym for a less interesting figure. I mean, the only section really relating directly to him or his life is the section with that title, and about half of it is a series of possible explanations for the belief that he existed. About as much is not known about the life of, say, Jesus, but before any argument that he did not exist or was somewhat different to what people believe is made in that article, there is a body of text longer than this whole article on his "life and teachings based on the Gospels". Can we not get some perspective here? elvenscout742 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a little misleading to credit Lao Tzu with founding Taoism so I've taken that out. He is, as John Blofeld has written, "a compararive late-comer on the scene." The concept of yin and yang arising from the one (Tao) can be traced in the I ching, and it can be argued that there is much evidence of Taoist thought/behaviour, though no surviving texts, that predate the Tao Te Ching.
I proofed the article and made some (mostly) minor edits. I hope they were beneficial and did not detract from the article's emphasis. There was one (noted) place where I could not understand the intent of the sentence, so I avoided editing it to further obscure meaning. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I followed the link from the article on libertarianism, and as a libertarian, I found the article quite enlightening. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the parrallel with the traditionalist school is rather weak, whilst the parrallels with ancient Greek Stoicism are much stronger. (This unsigned edit was by 70.125.64.154 on 9 Sept 2006. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Greek culture regarded as "Western"? However, I do agree with the parrallels of Greek Stoicism, its a valid point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.165 ( talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and remove the section on controversies. It smacked of book report, and was unsourced and had been so for a while. I would suggest that if anyone feels like this section belongs here, they reconstruct it using sources rather than just reverting this edit and hoping someone else will come along and do the hard part later. -- Dmz5 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Should there be mention of the Pearl of Lao Tzu, as it was named after him and there is apparently a sculpture of his two friends and himself in it? The pearl also seems to be the largest in the world, something worth noting or to confirm his birth date. Thanks man Aeryck89 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, this article should be moved to Lao Tzu as this is BY FAR the most common ENGLISH transliteration. I teach selected religious studies classes from time to time, and I can tell you all from MANY years of personal reading/research that in most (contemporary) ENGLISH scholarly works (not to mention non-scholarly works) Lao Tzu is BY FAR the preferred usage (especially if the book is newish). I'm not going to move it myself though because I don't want to open that can-of-worms...I'll let someone else more familiar with the renaming debate (that occurred long before I ever got here) go ahead and take that plunge. -- WassermannNYC 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with many of the above post that Lao Tzu is the most common English spelling. However, what bothers me more is that the articles Sun Tzu; Mencius, Confucius; Laozi, Zhuangzi; Xun Zi; and Han Fei all use differing (name) spelling conventions. This is a problem with Wikipedia in general on no-consensus matters, because the status quo remains, even if it is worse. 129.199.159.36 ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering, most Wikipedia articles with Chinese names have the name in Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese, but for Laozi there is only one. Is the name the same in both, or is there one missing? abexy 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There is only one character for each of those words. Simplified Chinese characters are a set of characters that were simplified from their original forms in order to facilitate the learning and writing of those characters. Out of all extant characters, only about 2000 have a simplified form. So characters such as 人,木,老,子,etc. have only their original form because characters comprised of few strokes have no need for simplification. Sun da sheng 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit bothered by the image: [Image:Lao Tzu - Project Gutenberg eText 15250.jpg] of Laozi. He seems to be depicted in a Buddhist cloak which seems techncically and historically incorrect. -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the lede slightly to tighten it up. I did a complete rewrite of the Biography section, using referenced sources. I have reformatted the references and separated books not cited to a further reading section. I will be removing the names of Laozi infobox. If anyone objects to my edits, please let me know and explain why. I will be more than happy to accommodate any concerns. I plan on rewriting the Taoism section similarly. I also intend on sourcing and expanding the Influences section. Vassyana 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Some more on influences, that could be incorporated:
Textual authority derived from non-Confucian attitudes, in particular as expressed in the works attributed to Laozi and Zhuangzi, also provided some potential officials with justification for not serving any ruler at any time. "Zhuangzi ... aside from Confucius is the single most important figure in the history of Chinese eremitism." For Zhuangzi, "eremitism, properly understood, was the highest ideal to which a man can aspire" (pp. 55-56). Yet Vervoorn's treatment of the writings of Zhuangzi is somewhat perplexing. He expounds the ostensibly true purport of the (original) "Inner Chapters," which in his view do not advocate physical withdrawal: "hiding ... takes place within society rather than outside it .... The best way to hide ... is to be completely anonymous.... To be a hermit in Zhuangzi's sense is to be completely unknown.... Unfettered wandering ... is to be understood above all as an affair of the mind" (pp. 58-63). This may be true, and certainly contributed to the rationale behind "hiding at court", but Vervoorn cuts his discussion short, saying, "The outer and miscellaneous chapters of Zhuangzi ... contain a considerable amount of material relating to eremitism which cannot be examined in detail here" (p. 64). But it is precisely these chapters that contribute substantively to the portrayal of reclusion in later centuries, and Vervoorn's scant reference to them in his following discussions does not give them their due. He credits to the Laozi the influence during the Han and later times of the doctrines of selflessness and desirelessness, simplicity and quietude ("developed in the Laozi in relation to the ruler only"), but it is hard to accept his claim that "it was the Laozi rather than the Zhuangzi that became the most important source of such doctrines for any would-be hermits of later periods" (p. 67). Writings dealing with the topic of reclusion in later periods, and especially accounts of men in reclusion, do not seem to bear this out.
Incorporated. Nicely, it gave a context to merge the uncontroversial accepted knowledge from the uncited statement at the beginning of the section. I doubt anyone will dispute he has a huge impact on Chinese culture and history, or that he's Laozi's most famous follower. I changed the name of the section from Influences to Influence. Influences would be who influenced him, influence is the impact he has had. Things are coming along well. Vassyana 05:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten names completely to sources. I have moved unsourced claims to invisible comments. I will look for sources for these claims and either verify them with citation or remove them from the comments. I will be searching for references for the Taoism section over the next while to do a source based rewrite of that section next. What needs to be expanded? What else needs to be covered in this article? Any suggestions? Cheers! Vassyana 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this a vandal edit? The IP has vandalized other pages today. delldot talk 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the first few footnotes- note I took out FN#1 by Livia Kohn page-4 alleging Laozi was not a person. Discussion welcome, I re-read Kohn's chapter one several times in which he put up a valiant check of Laozi from Simia Qian against Lao Dan by other scholars including one by Angus Graham(who concentrated more on the dating of the Confucius meeting), later disputed to be someone else. This line of logic conceded Lao Dan might indeed be someone else at best but certainly insufficient to disprove Laozi existed in the biography of Sima Qian. ACHKC 09:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Can some editor please trim the external links since Goodshoped35110s ( talk · contribs) thinks I'm spamming by censoring and accuse me of being anti-taoist. On the contrary I am trying to clean the links of spam which have little to no information, information more information here, provide "classes" for a fee to be initiated, a directory listing. All these are listed as links to be avoided in external links help and for the record cleaning up links is essential to a worthwhile encyclopedia. StopTaoSpam ( talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Overall, the article looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions though:
Other than those somewhat minor points, I think the article is pretty good. I've put the article's GA nomination on hold, which gives you 7 days to take care of the above, at which point the article will either be passed or failed. Feel free to drop me a note if you have any questions or concerns. Drewcifer ( talk) 13:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have problems with this sentence: "According to genuine Taoist practitioners, the book contains specific instructions for Taoist adepts relating to Xiuzhen, and in veiled preachings the way to revert to the primordial state.[23]" Who is deciding which practitioners are "genuine"? Is there some kind of certification, as with USDA organic produce? The very concept seems un-genuine (is that a word?) to my understanding of Taoism. Who are the non-genuine practitioners? Msalt ( talk) 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the rewording, Vassyana. Much better. Msalt ( talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a line about the role of Taoism in the development of Zen Buddhism. Is there some reason this is not there? It seems to be a very well accepted and sourced connection. Msalt ( talk) 09:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, I love most of your edits, but wonder why you felt it necessary to remove this line without discussion. Since the very existence of Lao Zi as an historical person is in doubt, is there really an important distinction between the well-sourced role of Taoism in spawning Zen, and the role of Lao Zi? You don't actually dispute that the Tao Teh Ching's influence extends to Zen Buddhism, do you? I'm all for a more careful rewording but complete removal seems unnecessary. Msalt ( talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good addition. I am sure there are other contemporary authors that have explored Laozi. It would be interesting to develop a section on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless there's reason to believe otherwise, citations coming at the end of a paragraph usually support the entire paragraph. This is a common and standard practice. If there is reason to doubt the faithfulness to the source (or the sourcing of the paragraph in general) using the {{ verify source}} template would be appropriate. Points needing clarification can be tagged with {{ clarifyme}}. Vassyana ( talk) 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two image captions worth discussing here. Vassyana, your recent edit removed the description "founder of Taoism" and I agree that this is a potentially controversial statement best avoided. However, your replacement -- "depicted as the Taoist God" -- is itself potentially controversial. Is there a source for the statement that the picture depicts Lao Zi as a god? Do we know for sure that that is true? It's a very loaded iconographic assertion. I would prefer something like "Portrait of Laozi circa 544 AD", or whatever year or dynasty it was created during.
The other picture, in the lede, is captioned "Laozi leaves China on his water buffalo." Are we sure that the animal there is a water buffalo? I have always heard that legend as saying that he was riding a yak. The point is significant because yaks are famously difficult animals, like mules are in the United States, so the fact that he was riding one is a statement about his mastery of the natural world. Msalt ( talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)I have created a disambig page for ziran. I will be nice to have an article on this Daoist concept. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we ready to submit this to WP:FAC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Does any one knows who besides Herbert A. Giles questioned the historicity of Laozi? Or is it just Giles notable scholarship who gave weight to this assertion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
AKHKC, what is your source for the second book recorded by the sentry who legendarily recorded the Dao de Jing? I have never heard of that, and without a verifiable source, we need to remove it. Also, for the "only recorded origin" of the Dao de Jing. That seems to be demonstrably false, since we many modern scholars who have recorded an origin for the book. Do you want to suggest an alternate phrasing, eg that it is the only source from a certain era for that? Again, we would need a source.
Unless we can back these points up, I believe we need to remove them. Msalt ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have designed several Userboxes with both versions of the name, to show NPOV. If you want to use these just copy from the Edit page below and edit to your userpage. I trust the image is acceptable, if you want to change it let me know.
This user acknowledges the ancient Wisdom of, Lao Tzu. |
Logo links to this Article
This user acknowledges the ancient Wisdom of, Laozi. |
Logo links to this Article
Jagra ( talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Re; the statement in the lead, ""Laozi is considered the first libertarian, according to Murray N. Rothbard." Here is a link to the Rothbard article. The article does not say that this is what libertarians think, Murray Rothbard was not an expert on Chinese history, he did not literally mean that Lao was a libertarian, and inclusion of his comments is absurd. Please show evidence that Rothbard's comments have received any attention in mainstream writing, or even in libertarian literature. TFD ( talk) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Should the lead for the ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi (also spelled Lao Tse and Lao Tzu) mention that Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist, once wrote that he was a libertarian? Should it even be mentioned in the article? TFD ( talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has added the following text to the lead: "Laozi is considered the first libertarian, according to Murray N. Rothbard." Here is a link to the Rothbard article. Rothbard had no expertise in Chinese history or philosophy and his views on Lao are non-notable. Even if they were, he did not mean this comment to be taken literally. TFD ( talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(Arbitrary outdent) Uninvolved editor here via the RFC. I don't see how a 20th-century American economist's characterization of Laozi's political positions--a characterization that is of necessity anachronistic (and I do not mean that in any way as a critique of Rothbard's assessment, but as a statement of my strong belief that applying 20th-century political labels to philosophers of the 6th-4th centuries BCE is at best an interesting intellectual exercise)--is lede-worthy. The proper place for this material is the "Influence" section (where, I note, the same information also appears). Rothbard's comments on Laozi, interesting though they may well be to in-depth scholars of either writer, are simply not among the most notable things about Laozi; it would be like including a 20th-century novelist's comments on Shakespeare in the lede to the Shakespeare article (Nabokov, for instance, wrote some interesting things about Shakespeare but I cannot imagine anyone thinking that those comments should go in Shakespeare's lede).
IceCreamEmpress (
talk)
02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose inclusion of the Rothbard material in the lead, and probably in the article as a whole. There may be a place in the Influence section if multiple sources agree that Laozi has had demonstrable and notable influence on (not just comparison with) libertarian philosophy, but I don't see that now.
Also, Darkstar1st, adding article-markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page is not appropriate. I have removed the ones you added to Ratel's post. / ninly( talk) 14:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Rothbard part from the lead. I think, again, there is a solid amount of pre-existing consensus to leave it in the article itself, and I notice that #2 on the to do list at the top of this page says "Develop a section on influences in Western culture and philosophy." I think, rather than removing content, it would be a better idea to add additional content showing Laozi's influence on other forms of philosophy in addition to libertarianism. Torchiest talk/ contribs 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to cover items in proportion to the weight given in reliable sources. To have a position that is only supported by 1 author in the lead is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Active Banana ( talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite shocked that, overlooked in all of this squabbling over whether to mention libertarianism in the lead, that Lao Tzu's major achievement -- if not the only his only certain one -- is unmentioned: he wrote the Tao Te Ching. From this achievement come all of the other facts or assertions about him, that he founded Taoism, that he is considered a god by the Taoist Church, & that he is embraced by anti-authoritarian groups.
This is an oversight on the level of opening the article on Homer with a statement that he was an ancient Greek poet, that his existence is disputed, that he is very influential... but only somewhere into the article we bother to mention that Homer wrote the Iliad & the Odyssey. (Or some carefully-worded statement to that effect; I know the matter is more complex than that, but an introduction introduces, it does not toss the reader into the middle of a subject with no direction about how to understand the material.)
Such an oversight is enough to make me consider doing one of the following: (1) rewrite the lead to include a mention of the Tao Te Ching in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence; or (2) remove the "GA" rating from this article. Anyone object to either of these actions? -- llywrch ( talk) 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Secondary to this question, why is a western figure like Socrates almost never doubted to have existed as one prolific person, while Laozi is largely considered to have been many people? (by westerners) 173.24.46.98 ( talk) 05:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Cogsy1
It's a pretty big leap to define Lao Tzu as the avatar of a Dravidian tradition. While this may or may not be accurate, we'll need a lot better and more reliable source than the web page of an erstwhile universal martial art to add such a claim. I'm removing it again for now. I don't think this is vandalism exactly, but there is a good chance of POV pushing and possible conflict of interest here. Would the user who keeps adding this please explain themselves here? Thank you. Msalt ( talk) 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well, it is true that it is a big leap. And I am sorry that we couldn't previously have this discussion. Apart his already established presence in Southern India, there are several reliable sources which would support this, although I thought a couple would have been enough:
Do Xama Ao Premio Nobel, Todos Sao Filhos De Deus Ciencia E Espiritualidade Conceito do Leitor: Seja o primeiro a opinar Coleção: REPORTER ESPECIAL Autor: ARANTES, JOSE TADEU Editora: TERCEIRO NOME Assunto: COMUNICAÇÃO - JORNALISMO
Pages 50-51
Alchemy and Alchemists (Paperback) By: Sean Martin (Author) ISBN: 1903047528 WAPI (Tower ID): 109471135 Release Date: June 1, 2001 Page 91
The Yoga of Siddha Boganathar [Paperback] Vol 1 T. N. Ganapathy (Author) Publisher: Kriya Yoga Publications Inc (October 2003) ISBN-10: 1895383196 ISBN-13: 978-1895383195
The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India [Paperback] David Gordon White (Author) Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (December 1, 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 0226894991 ISBN-13: 978-0226894997 Page 61 esp.
Other sites: http://palani.org/bhogar-biography.htm quoting from their website: "Palani.org, the official web site of Arulmigu Dandayudhapani Swami Devasthanam, Palani, is published and maintained as an offering to Lord Dandayudhapani Swami by devotees with the consent and approval of the Office of the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Palani.
Text of Palani.org pages, unless otherwise noted, are drawn from Palani: The Hill Temple of Muruga published by Arulmigu Dandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani (Madras, 1975). Photos and text from the web site may be republished with permission only."
http://www.silambam.in/silambam.htm - another website endorsed by the State of Karnataka.
All of the above clearly show the Dravidian view, which is that the legendary alchemist Bogar was Bo-yang Lao-Tse. This is embedded in their culture and traditions. -- Avedeus ( talk) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I am not trying to redefine Lao-Tsu's identity, just thought I'd add another view of Lao-Tsu's origin.-- Avedeus ( talk) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)P.S. I myself am surprised having only recently heard of this from a friend; I, myself, am not a Hindu. Furthermore, this would help fulfill the 3rd article on our to-do-list for Lao-Tse.
I believe the Qin dynasty spanned from 221-206BC as said in the following entry: [ [1]]. Therefore, if Laozi was really born in the 6th BC century it cannot have been under Qin dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.48.20.245 ( talk) 10:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The result of the debate was no consensus. — Nightst a llion (?) 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Laozi →
Lao Tzu — Per
wikipedia:naming conventions (common names):
Google:
*
1,620,000 English pages for "Lao Tzu" -wikipedia
*
137,000 English pages for Laozi -wikipedia
Google Book Search:
*
19600 pages on "Lao Tzu" -wikipedia
*
8780 pages on "Laozi" -wikipedia —
Francis Schonken
13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a strong proponent of using English for English Wikipedia but "Lao Tzu" doesn't rise to the level of a true exonym. It's not a "traditional" spelling -- just a older ( Wade-Giles) transliteration of 老子. This is why Google hits are a poor measure of encyclopedic usage -- there is no temporal context for the hits. The Laozi form is denigrated above as "narrowly scholarly usage" but knowledge of Laozi among English speakers is not that wide outside of specialists or adherents. Mao Tse-tung, Peking, and Chou En-lai were dropped for Mao Zedong, Beijing, Zhou Enlai and these persons/places were far better known to average English speakers than Laozi. AjaxSmack 02:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's depressing that so many people are merely "voting" on the basis that "Lao Tzu" is more copmmon without paying any attention to the evidence to the contrary ("this is hoiw I know it, so it must be more common"...). Depressing, but oh so familiar. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think consistency is extremely important with Chinese names. Older academic publications used to use the Wade-Giles system, whereas recent publications have adopted hanyu pinyin as the standard. The tendency in favour of hanyu pinyin is clear, and I don't think anyone seriously interested in Chinese studies would dispute that fact. For example, the older Cambridge History of China books all use Wade-Giles whereas the more recent Cambridge History of Ancient China uses hanyu pinyin throughout. This is also true of most recent publications about Chinese history. What I find crazy about current usage in Wikipedia is the complete lack of consistency. No serious academic publication would ever use Laozi, Sun Tzu, Xun Zi, Zhuangzi and Mozi within the same text. And this is what Wikipedia does! I support using English names for Confucius and Mencius, because these are real anglicised names and not mere transcriptions. For the other "masters", I think we should conform to the hanyu pinyin standard: Laozi, Zhuangzi, Sunzi, Mozi, Xunzi, Leizi, Han Feizi and so on. -- AngelRiesgo 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions, "Laozi literally means "Old Master" and is generally considered an honorific." Wouldn't a more accurate translation of 老子 be "old boy?" I am more familiar with Korean and Japanese 漢文 so I could be wrong... Konamaiki 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very Wikipedia-ish to put such a great deal of emphasis at the start of this small article on a (probably) historical personnage on the claim that he didn't exist, or was simply a pseudonym for a less interesting figure. I mean, the only section really relating directly to him or his life is the section with that title, and about half of it is a series of possible explanations for the belief that he existed. About as much is not known about the life of, say, Jesus, but before any argument that he did not exist or was somewhat different to what people believe is made in that article, there is a body of text longer than this whole article on his "life and teachings based on the Gospels". Can we not get some perspective here? elvenscout742 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a little misleading to credit Lao Tzu with founding Taoism so I've taken that out. He is, as John Blofeld has written, "a compararive late-comer on the scene." The concept of yin and yang arising from the one (Tao) can be traced in the I ching, and it can be argued that there is much evidence of Taoist thought/behaviour, though no surviving texts, that predate the Tao Te Ching.
I proofed the article and made some (mostly) minor edits. I hope they were beneficial and did not detract from the article's emphasis. There was one (noted) place where I could not understand the intent of the sentence, so I avoided editing it to further obscure meaning. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I followed the link from the article on libertarianism, and as a libertarian, I found the article quite enlightening. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the parrallel with the traditionalist school is rather weak, whilst the parrallels with ancient Greek Stoicism are much stronger. (This unsigned edit was by 70.125.64.154 on 9 Sept 2006. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Greek culture regarded as "Western"? However, I do agree with the parrallels of Greek Stoicism, its a valid point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.165 ( talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and remove the section on controversies. It smacked of book report, and was unsourced and had been so for a while. I would suggest that if anyone feels like this section belongs here, they reconstruct it using sources rather than just reverting this edit and hoping someone else will come along and do the hard part later. -- Dmz5 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Should there be mention of the Pearl of Lao Tzu, as it was named after him and there is apparently a sculpture of his two friends and himself in it? The pearl also seems to be the largest in the world, something worth noting or to confirm his birth date. Thanks man Aeryck89 07:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, this article should be moved to Lao Tzu as this is BY FAR the most common ENGLISH transliteration. I teach selected religious studies classes from time to time, and I can tell you all from MANY years of personal reading/research that in most (contemporary) ENGLISH scholarly works (not to mention non-scholarly works) Lao Tzu is BY FAR the preferred usage (especially if the book is newish). I'm not going to move it myself though because I don't want to open that can-of-worms...I'll let someone else more familiar with the renaming debate (that occurred long before I ever got here) go ahead and take that plunge. -- WassermannNYC 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with many of the above post that Lao Tzu is the most common English spelling. However, what bothers me more is that the articles Sun Tzu; Mencius, Confucius; Laozi, Zhuangzi; Xun Zi; and Han Fei all use differing (name) spelling conventions. This is a problem with Wikipedia in general on no-consensus matters, because the status quo remains, even if it is worse. 129.199.159.36 ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering, most Wikipedia articles with Chinese names have the name in Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese, but for Laozi there is only one. Is the name the same in both, or is there one missing? abexy 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There is only one character for each of those words. Simplified Chinese characters are a set of characters that were simplified from their original forms in order to facilitate the learning and writing of those characters. Out of all extant characters, only about 2000 have a simplified form. So characters such as 人,木,老,子,etc. have only their original form because characters comprised of few strokes have no need for simplification. Sun da sheng 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit bothered by the image: [Image:Lao Tzu - Project Gutenberg eText 15250.jpg] of Laozi. He seems to be depicted in a Buddhist cloak which seems techncically and historically incorrect. -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the lede slightly to tighten it up. I did a complete rewrite of the Biography section, using referenced sources. I have reformatted the references and separated books not cited to a further reading section. I will be removing the names of Laozi infobox. If anyone objects to my edits, please let me know and explain why. I will be more than happy to accommodate any concerns. I plan on rewriting the Taoism section similarly. I also intend on sourcing and expanding the Influences section. Vassyana 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Some more on influences, that could be incorporated:
Textual authority derived from non-Confucian attitudes, in particular as expressed in the works attributed to Laozi and Zhuangzi, also provided some potential officials with justification for not serving any ruler at any time. "Zhuangzi ... aside from Confucius is the single most important figure in the history of Chinese eremitism." For Zhuangzi, "eremitism, properly understood, was the highest ideal to which a man can aspire" (pp. 55-56). Yet Vervoorn's treatment of the writings of Zhuangzi is somewhat perplexing. He expounds the ostensibly true purport of the (original) "Inner Chapters," which in his view do not advocate physical withdrawal: "hiding ... takes place within society rather than outside it .... The best way to hide ... is to be completely anonymous.... To be a hermit in Zhuangzi's sense is to be completely unknown.... Unfettered wandering ... is to be understood above all as an affair of the mind" (pp. 58-63). This may be true, and certainly contributed to the rationale behind "hiding at court", but Vervoorn cuts his discussion short, saying, "The outer and miscellaneous chapters of Zhuangzi ... contain a considerable amount of material relating to eremitism which cannot be examined in detail here" (p. 64). But it is precisely these chapters that contribute substantively to the portrayal of reclusion in later centuries, and Vervoorn's scant reference to them in his following discussions does not give them their due. He credits to the Laozi the influence during the Han and later times of the doctrines of selflessness and desirelessness, simplicity and quietude ("developed in the Laozi in relation to the ruler only"), but it is hard to accept his claim that "it was the Laozi rather than the Zhuangzi that became the most important source of such doctrines for any would-be hermits of later periods" (p. 67). Writings dealing with the topic of reclusion in later periods, and especially accounts of men in reclusion, do not seem to bear this out.
Incorporated. Nicely, it gave a context to merge the uncontroversial accepted knowledge from the uncited statement at the beginning of the section. I doubt anyone will dispute he has a huge impact on Chinese culture and history, or that he's Laozi's most famous follower. I changed the name of the section from Influences to Influence. Influences would be who influenced him, influence is the impact he has had. Things are coming along well. Vassyana 05:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten names completely to sources. I have moved unsourced claims to invisible comments. I will look for sources for these claims and either verify them with citation or remove them from the comments. I will be searching for references for the Taoism section over the next while to do a source based rewrite of that section next. What needs to be expanded? What else needs to be covered in this article? Any suggestions? Cheers! Vassyana 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this a vandal edit? The IP has vandalized other pages today. delldot talk 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the first few footnotes- note I took out FN#1 by Livia Kohn page-4 alleging Laozi was not a person. Discussion welcome, I re-read Kohn's chapter one several times in which he put up a valiant check of Laozi from Simia Qian against Lao Dan by other scholars including one by Angus Graham(who concentrated more on the dating of the Confucius meeting), later disputed to be someone else. This line of logic conceded Lao Dan might indeed be someone else at best but certainly insufficient to disprove Laozi existed in the biography of Sima Qian. ACHKC 09:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Can some editor please trim the external links since Goodshoped35110s ( talk · contribs) thinks I'm spamming by censoring and accuse me of being anti-taoist. On the contrary I am trying to clean the links of spam which have little to no information, information more information here, provide "classes" for a fee to be initiated, a directory listing. All these are listed as links to be avoided in external links help and for the record cleaning up links is essential to a worthwhile encyclopedia. StopTaoSpam ( talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Overall, the article looks pretty good. I do have a few suggestions though:
Other than those somewhat minor points, I think the article is pretty good. I've put the article's GA nomination on hold, which gives you 7 days to take care of the above, at which point the article will either be passed or failed. Feel free to drop me a note if you have any questions or concerns. Drewcifer ( talk) 13:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have problems with this sentence: "According to genuine Taoist practitioners, the book contains specific instructions for Taoist adepts relating to Xiuzhen, and in veiled preachings the way to revert to the primordial state.[23]" Who is deciding which practitioners are "genuine"? Is there some kind of certification, as with USDA organic produce? The very concept seems un-genuine (is that a word?) to my understanding of Taoism. Who are the non-genuine practitioners? Msalt ( talk) 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the rewording, Vassyana. Much better. Msalt ( talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a line about the role of Taoism in the development of Zen Buddhism. Is there some reason this is not there? It seems to be a very well accepted and sourced connection. Msalt ( talk) 09:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, I love most of your edits, but wonder why you felt it necessary to remove this line without discussion. Since the very existence of Lao Zi as an historical person is in doubt, is there really an important distinction between the well-sourced role of Taoism in spawning Zen, and the role of Lao Zi? You don't actually dispute that the Tao Teh Ching's influence extends to Zen Buddhism, do you? I'm all for a more careful rewording but complete removal seems unnecessary. Msalt ( talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good addition. I am sure there are other contemporary authors that have explored Laozi. It would be interesting to develop a section on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless there's reason to believe otherwise, citations coming at the end of a paragraph usually support the entire paragraph. This is a common and standard practice. If there is reason to doubt the faithfulness to the source (or the sourcing of the paragraph in general) using the {{ verify source}} template would be appropriate. Points needing clarification can be tagged with {{ clarifyme}}. Vassyana ( talk) 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two image captions worth discussing here. Vassyana, your recent edit removed the description "founder of Taoism" and I agree that this is a potentially controversial statement best avoided. However, your replacement -- "depicted as the Taoist God" -- is itself potentially controversial. Is there a source for the statement that the picture depicts Lao Zi as a god? Do we know for sure that that is true? It's a very loaded iconographic assertion. I would prefer something like "Portrait of Laozi circa 544 AD", or whatever year or dynasty it was created during.
The other picture, in the lede, is captioned "Laozi leaves China on his water buffalo." Are we sure that the animal there is a water buffalo? I have always heard that legend as saying that he was riding a yak. The point is significant because yaks are famously difficult animals, like mules are in the United States, so the fact that he was riding one is a statement about his mastery of the natural world. Msalt ( talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)I have created a disambig page for ziran. I will be nice to have an article on this Daoist concept. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Are we ready to submit this to WP:FAC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Does any one knows who besides Herbert A. Giles questioned the historicity of Laozi? Or is it just Giles notable scholarship who gave weight to this assertion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
AKHKC, what is your source for the second book recorded by the sentry who legendarily recorded the Dao de Jing? I have never heard of that, and without a verifiable source, we need to remove it. Also, for the "only recorded origin" of the Dao de Jing. That seems to be demonstrably false, since we many modern scholars who have recorded an origin for the book. Do you want to suggest an alternate phrasing, eg that it is the only source from a certain era for that? Again, we would need a source.
Unless we can back these points up, I believe we need to remove them. Msalt ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have designed several Userboxes with both versions of the name, to show NPOV. If you want to use these just copy from the Edit page below and edit to your userpage. I trust the image is acceptable, if you want to change it let me know.
This user acknowledges the ancient Wisdom of, Lao Tzu. |
Logo links to this Article
This user acknowledges the ancient Wisdom of, Laozi. |
Logo links to this Article
Jagra ( talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Re; the statement in the lead, ""Laozi is considered the first libertarian, according to Murray N. Rothbard." Here is a link to the Rothbard article. The article does not say that this is what libertarians think, Murray Rothbard was not an expert on Chinese history, he did not literally mean that Lao was a libertarian, and inclusion of his comments is absurd. Please show evidence that Rothbard's comments have received any attention in mainstream writing, or even in libertarian literature. TFD ( talk) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Should the lead for the ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi (also spelled Lao Tse and Lao Tzu) mention that Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist, once wrote that he was a libertarian? Should it even be mentioned in the article? TFD ( talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has added the following text to the lead: "Laozi is considered the first libertarian, according to Murray N. Rothbard." Here is a link to the Rothbard article. Rothbard had no expertise in Chinese history or philosophy and his views on Lao are non-notable. Even if they were, he did not mean this comment to be taken literally. TFD ( talk) 20:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(Arbitrary outdent) Uninvolved editor here via the RFC. I don't see how a 20th-century American economist's characterization of Laozi's political positions--a characterization that is of necessity anachronistic (and I do not mean that in any way as a critique of Rothbard's assessment, but as a statement of my strong belief that applying 20th-century political labels to philosophers of the 6th-4th centuries BCE is at best an interesting intellectual exercise)--is lede-worthy. The proper place for this material is the "Influence" section (where, I note, the same information also appears). Rothbard's comments on Laozi, interesting though they may well be to in-depth scholars of either writer, are simply not among the most notable things about Laozi; it would be like including a 20th-century novelist's comments on Shakespeare in the lede to the Shakespeare article (Nabokov, for instance, wrote some interesting things about Shakespeare but I cannot imagine anyone thinking that those comments should go in Shakespeare's lede).
IceCreamEmpress (
talk)
02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose inclusion of the Rothbard material in the lead, and probably in the article as a whole. There may be a place in the Influence section if multiple sources agree that Laozi has had demonstrable and notable influence on (not just comparison with) libertarian philosophy, but I don't see that now.
Also, Darkstar1st, adding article-markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page is not appropriate. I have removed the ones you added to Ratel's post. / ninly( talk) 14:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Rothbard part from the lead. I think, again, there is a solid amount of pre-existing consensus to leave it in the article itself, and I notice that #2 on the to do list at the top of this page says "Develop a section on influences in Western culture and philosophy." I think, rather than removing content, it would be a better idea to add additional content showing Laozi's influence on other forms of philosophy in addition to libertarianism. Torchiest talk/ contribs 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to cover items in proportion to the weight given in reliable sources. To have a position that is only supported by 1 author in the lead is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Active Banana ( talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite shocked that, overlooked in all of this squabbling over whether to mention libertarianism in the lead, that Lao Tzu's major achievement -- if not the only his only certain one -- is unmentioned: he wrote the Tao Te Ching. From this achievement come all of the other facts or assertions about him, that he founded Taoism, that he is considered a god by the Taoist Church, & that he is embraced by anti-authoritarian groups.
This is an oversight on the level of opening the article on Homer with a statement that he was an ancient Greek poet, that his existence is disputed, that he is very influential... but only somewhere into the article we bother to mention that Homer wrote the Iliad & the Odyssey. (Or some carefully-worded statement to that effect; I know the matter is more complex than that, but an introduction introduces, it does not toss the reader into the middle of a subject with no direction about how to understand the material.)
Such an oversight is enough to make me consider doing one of the following: (1) rewrite the lead to include a mention of the Tao Te Ching in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence; or (2) remove the "GA" rating from this article. Anyone object to either of these actions? -- llywrch ( talk) 16:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Secondary to this question, why is a western figure like Socrates almost never doubted to have existed as one prolific person, while Laozi is largely considered to have been many people? (by westerners) 173.24.46.98 ( talk) 05:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Cogsy1
It's a pretty big leap to define Lao Tzu as the avatar of a Dravidian tradition. While this may or may not be accurate, we'll need a lot better and more reliable source than the web page of an erstwhile universal martial art to add such a claim. I'm removing it again for now. I don't think this is vandalism exactly, but there is a good chance of POV pushing and possible conflict of interest here. Would the user who keeps adding this please explain themselves here? Thank you. Msalt ( talk) 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well, it is true that it is a big leap. And I am sorry that we couldn't previously have this discussion. Apart his already established presence in Southern India, there are several reliable sources which would support this, although I thought a couple would have been enough:
Do Xama Ao Premio Nobel, Todos Sao Filhos De Deus Ciencia E Espiritualidade Conceito do Leitor: Seja o primeiro a opinar Coleção: REPORTER ESPECIAL Autor: ARANTES, JOSE TADEU Editora: TERCEIRO NOME Assunto: COMUNICAÇÃO - JORNALISMO
Pages 50-51
Alchemy and Alchemists (Paperback) By: Sean Martin (Author) ISBN: 1903047528 WAPI (Tower ID): 109471135 Release Date: June 1, 2001 Page 91
The Yoga of Siddha Boganathar [Paperback] Vol 1 T. N. Ganapathy (Author) Publisher: Kriya Yoga Publications Inc (October 2003) ISBN-10: 1895383196 ISBN-13: 978-1895383195
The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India [Paperback] David Gordon White (Author) Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (December 1, 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 0226894991 ISBN-13: 978-0226894997 Page 61 esp.
Other sites: http://palani.org/bhogar-biography.htm quoting from their website: "Palani.org, the official web site of Arulmigu Dandayudhapani Swami Devasthanam, Palani, is published and maintained as an offering to Lord Dandayudhapani Swami by devotees with the consent and approval of the Office of the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Palani.
Text of Palani.org pages, unless otherwise noted, are drawn from Palani: The Hill Temple of Muruga published by Arulmigu Dandayudhapani Swami Temple, Palani (Madras, 1975). Photos and text from the web site may be republished with permission only."
http://www.silambam.in/silambam.htm - another website endorsed by the State of Karnataka.
All of the above clearly show the Dravidian view, which is that the legendary alchemist Bogar was Bo-yang Lao-Tse. This is embedded in their culture and traditions. -- Avedeus ( talk) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I am not trying to redefine Lao-Tsu's identity, just thought I'd add another view of Lao-Tsu's origin.-- Avedeus ( talk) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)P.S. I myself am surprised having only recently heard of this from a friend; I, myself, am not a Hindu. Furthermore, this would help fulfill the 3rd article on our to-do-list for Lao-Tse.
I believe the Qin dynasty spanned from 221-206BC as said in the following entry: [ [1]]. Therefore, if Laozi was really born in the 6th BC century it cannot have been under Qin dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.48.20.245 ( talk) 10:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)