Talk:Laozi/Archive 1

Removed
Removed:
 * Lao Zi is the earlest philosopher in chinese history to suggest Islam ie,submission to God which as a Natural Force.Endown from Lao Zi chinese was pratice Islam in their own way.

This is completely incoherent; Islam did not exist in the 4th century BC... 161.142.2.11, if you were trying to say something relevent, please word it more clearly. --Brion 19:51 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)
 * This is not completely incoherent. The writer states Lao Zi's thought suggested (e.g. hinted at) the principles which would--unrelatedly--happen to be the main ones of Islam. As to the second sentence, the person may be stating either (1) By practicing Daoism, Chinese were anticipating Islam or (2) Chinese Muslims have a special "foundation" within traditional Chinese culture that harmonizes well with the teachings of Islam. --Dpr 02:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not incoherent at all. Islam means to surrender, submission. So even though it can be phrased in a better way, the meaning is correct.

- well "Islam", on the oxford principle of "meaning is use" definitely does not mean simply submission to god. i agree that it's incoherent. you open the koran and the first phrase is there is only one god allah and muhammed is his prophet. none of that is present in taoism. by the way you're arguing we can say lao zi also supported facism, communism, anarchism, and possibly any other philosophical school. 24.55.179.175 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Lao zi" or "Lao Zi"
Question on capitalization; should this page be Lao zi or Lao Zi? --Brion 20:39 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

I have been getting more irritated by the confusing nomenclature. The kinds of Lao Zi, Lao zi, Laozi and Lao Tzu, Lao tzu or Han Wudi, Han Wu Di, Han Wu di etc. have been creating many unnecessarily pages which should have been directed to the same page. Some clear-cut rules to unify all these naming convention should be on Wikipedia:naming convention. user:Ktsquare

Answers to your q. The page should be Lao Zi or Lao Tse or Lao Tze or Lao Tzu: all first alphabets should be capitalizated when the name is formally written. The likes of Lao zi, Lao tse, Lao tze, lao zi, lao tze and lao tse etc. should all be redirecting links only to faciliate contributors writing articles mentioning the philosopher. The choice of zi, tse or tze is yet another confusing example of Wade-Giles and Pinyin romanization. Tse and Tze appeared more in older English texts whereas zi is used more often nowadays. Still a lot of scholars use tse or tze or tzu today. user:Ktsquare


 * Okay, I've renamed the article. Who knows what this will do to poor Olivier's cache... :) --Brion

Well "Lao Tzu" seem to be the "traditional" translation. but really any one would be fine... no matter how you spell it no one is gonna get the pronouciation right anyway...

edit problems
''Having problems editing this page. Edits apparently not saved. Is anyone else working on it at the same time?''


 * Olivier, could you describe your problem in a little more detail? The article's edit history shows a great many edits from you, mostly minor tweaks to the formatting of the references to Taoism. Are you trying to do something else? Are you getting edit conflicts? Does reloading the page help? (Note that if you make no change at all, the software doesn't bother to save a new revision.) --Brion 23:21 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

I was initially just trying to add a link to Taoism at the end of the article. I encountered a problem when clicking on the link Taoism, and coming back to the article Lao zi through different paths. I made the change several times (adding the link at the bottom of the Lao zi article) to see if this inconsistency would disappear. It did not. So I was wondering if there was anything with the way Wiki manages edits that I do not know, or if the cache of my computer is creating this confusion, or if someone else was working on the same article at the same time. Bottom line: the link that I wanted to add anitially was not the big deal. At this point, I would rather understand what happened. - User:Olivier
 * Clicking on Lao tse in the Taoism article would redirect me to the Lao zi page with my addition of Taoism at the bottom.
 * Clicking on Lao zi in the same Taoism article woult take me to the Lao zi page without my addition of Taoism at the bottom.

I wasn't working on it until you mentioned about the "can't save" problem. So I should not be causing the problem. I just let you finish working it then I'll add some of my stuff. user:Ktsquare

Thanks. Just go ahead and add your stuff. I will work on it later. User:Olivier

thanx. I'll do it and go to bed after. KT


 * That sounds exactly like a caching problem -- clicking on Lao tse gives a different URL from that of clicking on Lao zi, so your browser (or you may be behind a proxy cache) would have fetched the page anew that way, even if it was sticking itself with an old version for the direct URL to Lao zi. If it had properly fetched the page, it would have received the new version via Lao zi just like it did via Lao tse. Try your browser's "reload" button, is it working now? --Brion

Done. Good night. KT when we first met

Tao
The definition of "Tao" given here: "He believed in "Tao" (also spelled Dao), which generally means nature." does not seem to match very well the one given under "Taoism". Could anyone resolve this conflict? - User:Olivier

Parts of this article have poorly constructed sentences which are difficult to read, the meaning is difficult to discern; e.g. "Laozi believed that violence should be avoided as possible," should this be rephrased as "Laozi believed it should be possible to avoid violence" ..??

another example: "...and that the victory of military victory rather to be mourning; due to the necessity of force against another livinghood; than an occasion of triumphant celebrations." Still trying to detangle the meaning here. Is it perhaps: "Military victory is something to be mourned rather than celebrated, as it means use of force against another living being." ..???

Any comments? Any able to tidy up the grammatical construction to make the meaning clearer in English?

Cannot be named
Well, the first line of the Tao Teh Ching reads "The Tao that can be Tao'ed is not the eternal tao". So, you really cannot explain what Tao is. It just is. I'm a practicing Taoist, and have been studying this for a while now, and that's the conclusion I (with the help of a few sages) have come up with. -M.

well i dont think there is an appropriate english translation for "tao". the tao te ching, in my opinion, is simply a book about government, leaning heavily toward modern liberalism. and is only later interpreted as some kind of religious/metaphysical text. in that context it simply means. there are no rules of thumb in governing the people. but the text are by nature vague, and one is free to apply it whatever one sees fit. without examples and defitions from the original author, there is really no basis on deciding what exactly he meant, the limit of the interpretation is simply "the -insert a noun- which can be -verb derived from that noun- is not the constant/eternal -insert a noun-.

Question marks
Someone has put a alot of questions marks in this article. Sometimes the question marks appear in groups of 3 or 4 consecutively, this smacks of unproffesionalism. If you don't know what it means don't throw in a bunch of question marks in brackets using more question marks doesn't make the words make any more sense then using just one.--Mikeroodeus 04:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) - Those are Chinese characters. Your browser is not displaying them properly. ~Jeff

Lao Zi or Laozi
How you guys feel about me moving this page to Laozi? It gets more hits on google, and, to me anyway, "Lao Zi" is an eyesore. - Nat Krause 09:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This had been discussed on Zhuang Zi. Imho, writing Laozi is like writing Oldmaster, not very nice. But i could like to say "the Laozi" as the name of the book he is supposed to have written. gbog 10:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it doesn't seem like you reached a very firm conclusion on Talk:Zhuang Zi either. This seems to me like something that should be discussed more inclusively, so I'll bring it up on Talk:Chinese Naming Standards sometime when I get a chance. - Nat Krause 09:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

He Would Laugh
It should be noted that if Lao Tzu were alive today, he would laugh at people taking his words so seriously.
 * How do you know? Ajnewbold 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Lao Zi should be removed and replaced with Lao Tzu. The reason for this is that 90% of the time, Lao Tzu is the way the name is spelled, Lao Zi is a very uncommon spelling and I as well as anyone who is knowledgeable about taoism is more familiar with Lao Tzu and most have not heard of Lao Zi. I don't get how Lao Zi is the entry in wikipedia. Go to a library and look how all the scolars spell his name!. A search of Google of these names shows that Lao Tzu returns 280,000 references whereas Lao Zi gets only 86,400 references. Use the most popular spelling, note that the question is not which is the theoretically correct spelling but employ the spelling that is by far the most common so that it is easy to find in Wikipedia.
 * In fact "Laozi" is the most modern transliteration (Pinyin) of this Chinese name. This article should be named "Laozi", not "Lao Zi", and not "Lao Tzu" at all. The fact that these old versions still excist in old books shouldn't be a legitimate reason to hold on to out-of-date spellings. Get used to changes! Switisweti 11:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to disagree with the bull in the china shop who thinks his view is automatically the right view, but in this case Naming conventions (Chinese) does seem to agree with the anon. &mdash; Saxifrage | ☎ 03:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * What says that anon is that English native speakers are more familiar with Lao-Tzu. But many readers of this encyclopedia are using English for work or search infos, but they read books in their own language, wich may not be English and use pinyin translitt. Therefore, this "90%" may be wrong.gbog 16:02, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a silly argument. Native English speakers determine the English language, and this is the English wikipedia. While I realize that Laozi is somewhat closer to how the name should actually sound, few english speakers spell it that way, and therefore the correct english spelling is still Lao Tzu. --Benna 10:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As so often, the problem is that there's not one answer to the question: " what is the most commly-used spelling of the name?" It may be that the lay public who are aware of the name are most familiar with the old-fashioned "Lao Tzu", while it's certainly the case that "Lao Zi", "Lao-zi", and "Laozi" are by far the commonest spellings in the literature and among academics. (Google is of limited use, because it constitutes a differently selected group of sources.)
 * We shouldn't go along with mistakes simply because they're commonly made, though, so the choice should be between "Lao Zi" and "Laozi". A quick and unscientific survey of fairly recent reference books to hand, plus some Web-based texts:
 * Laozi
 * Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (edd Carr & Mahalingam)
 * A Companion to Wolrd Philosophies (edd Deutsch & Bontekoe)
 * A Companion to the Philosophers (ed. Arrington)
 * Eastern Philosophy: Key readings (ed. Leaman)
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * Chad Hansen's Philosophy Pages
 * Lao-zi
 * One Hundred Philosophers (Peter J. King}

"Lao Zi" doesn't appear anywhere, and "Laozi" is the clear front runner. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved to Laozi. That is indeed the correct transliteration. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely go along with Switisweti, the article should be about Laozi, nowadays pinyin should be used. --Junyi 13:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If I remember, the Wikipedia naming conventions state that Wade-Giles should be uses for persons predating the Chinese Republic, and that the common usage in English is the name that should be used (ie. Confucius). 132.205.45.110 18:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Date of birth
There is no way Lao could've been a contemporary of Confucious if he was born in the fourth century BC. Is there a mistake?


 * He probably didn't exist anyway, and if he did, there are so many contradictory stories about his life that it would be impossible to say which was true. The summary doesn't mention that (which it probably should), and the rest of the article could say more. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Many other sources seems to cite that Lao Zi was born in 6th century B.C., like the Dictionary.com, The American Heritage Dictionary, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Rhymezone; plus, if he was a contemporary of Confucius, who was born in B.C. 551, wouldn't his birthdate be 6th century B.C. instead of 4? 14 July 2005


 * I've heard it said that according to Confucianists, Confucius predated Laozi, and that according to Taoists, Laozi was many decades older than Confucius. Both are so far back in time and so surrounded with conflicting legends that a certainty might never be reached. - Tonymec 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think they were contemporaries. Consucius said to his students: "Birds can fly, Fish can swim, Animals can run, So they can all be snared or trapped. But Lao Tzu is like a flying Dragon, un-trappable." At least that's what the tradition says.


 * Except that tradition is obviously faked by Daoists. It praises Laozi and so is inherently suspicious. Lao Wai 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to translation
A link to the Legge translation was added on 14 March 2005, and Jough has now started deleting it, claiming that it's spam. He doesn't say why he thinks that, and he's reverted my replacement of it. Can we accept that, as I've placed it in the article today, it isn't spam (whoever placed it there in the past), and that it should stay? It's the only link to the Legge translation that we have, and even if it was spam to begin with, it seems a pity to cut off our nose to spite our face. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoever runs PoetSeers.org added a couple hundred links back to their site on any page that was even somewhat relevant. The same content usually exists in other public domain sites, like Project Gutenberg and other places, so there's usually no point in including it twice anyway. But if you feel it's relevant, then it doesn't hurt to include it. It just seems that there's a lot of duplicated content links being posted lately. --Jough 18:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found the source of the other available Legge translations, and have updated the link. This site also offers the text for download, and is available via a Creative Commons license. Better? --Jough 19:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Category
I've removed the category "Mandarin terms", because this isn't a term but a name (the person who added it also added it to other naems, equally inappropriately). Many names have meanings, but when they're used as names, they shouldn't be treated as phrases (or "terms"). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested Move
Discussion prior to 11 October 2005:

We introduce inconsistency by using the Pinyin name Laozi for this article and then Tao Te Ching for the title of a related article. We should use the Wade-Giles name Lao Tzu, because it is the most common usage in English. Language is inherently fluid and relative, it is true. However, common usage should be supported by encyclopedias (though not necessarily by individual authors) in order to assist with the general dissemination of knowledge. This may seem like hairsplitting, but if we get into the business of updating usage to suit sometimes arcane scholarship, for consistency we should then undertake this task throughout Wikipedia. So for example, in Judaism, the prevailing name Jehovah should be changed to the possibly more correct usage of Yaweh, and so on and so forth, to ever increasingly absurd and ultimately arbitrary changes to common usage. Let us not lose sight of, nor diminish the efficacy of Wikipedia in this manner. --Sdunnagan 02:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Read the discussion at . I would prefer to stick with Laozi, as per that discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Stick to Laozi. Switisweti 11:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Agree. Stick to Laozi and rename Tao Te Ching --> Daodejing instead. --Junyi 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just changed it all to Daodejing, but that was reverted again by Mel Etitis. Switisweti 10:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

End of discussion prior to 11 October 2005


 * I am completing Steve Dunnagan's WP:RM request, that was not properly formatted on this page. I did not make this request. 132.205.45.110 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I support this too. Most of the references in this very article use the traditional spelling and it will be more recognizable to more readers.
 * SUPPORT, common English names should always be used, like Confucius and Sun Tzu. Laozi is not the common English spelling. 132.205.45.110 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Votes by editors not logged in are often not given as much weight. Please consider creating an account if you don't have one (it's easy) and logging in to sign your comment. Jonathunder 00:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Support as per WP policy. Borisblue 23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment below. Alf melmac 23:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Lao Tzu appears to be the most common spelling in English by far, not just in the Google searches below, but in all the books I've seen, including the ones on my shelves. Jonathunder 23:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support : cf Sun Tzu. Quintusdecimus --- a sockpuppet, for evidence see here Stefán Ingi 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. In my experience, this person is more well-known as Lao Tzu. It appears from arguments here that much of academia has adopted a different transliteration, but I don't believe this has yet trickled down to the level of what is common among people who use encyclopedias. Dragons flight 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral Mel is prob more up to date with it than I am, as per below my view is only from what I've been fed, I have no active area of discussion on this topic with anyone I consider 'in the know'. Alf melmac 13:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose (see above); "Laozi" is overwhelmingly the most common spelling in modern books (I failed to find one that use "Lao Tzu"). The fact that many editors first used the old version, and so are more familiar with it, shouldn't force Wikipedia to resist the modern world. We're a twenty-first century encyclopædia, not an early-twentieth-century one. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The newest English translation of the Tao Teh Ching I could find is by John C. H. Wu, published in 2003 by Shambhala Publications (ISBN 1570629617). Both the hardcover and paperback spell the author as Lao Tzu on the cover. So does every other copy of the Tao Teh Ching on my shelves, and none of them are older than I am. Jonathunder 19:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Try looking for Dao De Jing instead, and I can assure you they will spell it as Laozi instead of Lao Tzu. Incidentally, Amazon.com carries 32 books with the title "Tao Teh Ching", compared to 310 "Dao De jing"s.--Huaiwei 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * [After edit conflict] Of the five on-line texts to which the article links, two either use only "Laozi", one use "Laozi" and gives "Lao Tzu" as an alternative, one uses "Lao-tse", one uses only "Lao Tzu", and one use "Lao Tzu" and gives "Laozi" as an alternative. (The more recent tend to use or prefer "Laozi".) Of the four other external links, two use "Laozi", one uses "Lao Tzu", and one "Lao Tse". I've given above details of all the relevant recent books on my shelves; none uses "Lao Tzu". In order to move the article to Lao Tzu, we need to show t that that's considerably more common than Laozi, because the latter is technically correct given modern transliteration practice. In order to keep it at Laozi, we need only show that that's not significantly less common than "Lao Tzu". I think that that's been done. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose (agree with Mel Etitis): "Laozi" is in line with modern transliteration practices; and "Lao Tzu", whether or not it be more common, is not overwhelmingly so. - Tonymec 23:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * support -it's more common. Krugs
 * Oppose for reasons I've stated on this talk page several times on several occasions (see Article name. Switisweti 08:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per points made on this page.--Huaiwei 09:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support using the more common usage. --Fire Star 09:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Lao Tzu is still more common in actual use, by far. The search of newsgroups is particularly telling, since that reveals what people use in conversation. CDThieme 13:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Lao Tzu has entered the English vocabularies prior to the invention of Pinyin. Unlike cities or provinces, the PRC government does not actually own the names and titles of historical figures and knowledges. Some mainland Chinese products are still branding themselves with the old-style romanisations, such as Kweichow Moutai and Lungkow Vermicelli. Why should we bother? I agree Wikipedia should be a reflection of the trend, but I'd doubt if the trend has gone so far that Lao Tzu has overwhemingly been displaced by Laozi, that few new works are using the former. &mdash; Instantnood 14:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support : Lao Tzu will be more recognizable by most ordinary readers. Laozi seems overly pedantic. Tree&Leaf --- a sockpuppet, for evidence see here Stefán Ingi 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is Lao Tzu which would appear pedantic to contemporary users, particularly to the hordes of ethnic Chinese who learn the English language on the side of the planet where the sun rises earlier. For the 1.25 billion people on Earth who know of it as Laozi since birth, suddenly having to realise some "old-time westerners" (I am stereotyping, of coz) on the other side of the planet have difficulty pronuncing "zi" and thinks "tzu" is easier to pronounce would perhaps think it is very pedantic indeed. Just off the record, but how would you read "tzu" btw? Drop the "t" sound? If that is the case, that makes him name sound like "old pig" in Mandarin.--Huaiwei 05:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will seriously doubt that Laozi/Lao Tzu was pronounced in any such manner using period Chinese. The fact that in Mandarin it is pronounced that way matters little, since the way the name is supposed to be pronounced is lost to the sands of time. Modern Mandarin pronounciation is not 2500 years old. 132.205.45.110 19:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont think I was refering to how his name was pronounced 2500 years ago either. I am refering to contemporary pronunciations and usage. Is the romanisation of "Lao Tzu" 2,500 years old? I doubt so.--Huaiwei 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I've found Lao Tzu to be more common. – Axman ( ☏ ) 06:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support . Use the English name. Via Egnatia --- a sockpuppet, for evidence see here Stefán Ingi 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no English name; "Laozi" and "Lao Tzu" are different ways of romanising the Chinese name. The debate concerns which should be used here, in large part on the basis of which is more common. That's not an easy question to answer (more common where? In old books? New books? On the Internet?), but evidence has been provided on both sides, indicating that, at best, "Lao Tzu" isn't significantly more common than "Laozi". As "Laozi" is used inh the overwhelming majority of modern scholarly works in English, I contend that it should be used here. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But "Lao Tzu" is more common in all my experience: Support . Longboat --- a sockpuppet, for evidence see here Stefán Ingi 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the more familiar spelling Lao Tzu. No Account 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC) --- a sockpuppet, for evidence see here Stefán Ingi 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Longboat and No Account; are we supposed to write articles on the basis of what's familiar to us personally, ignoring evidence of wider usage and familiarity? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor do I understand why you've apparently ignored the Google tests about what's more common in actual use. CDThieme 14:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is why a number shown on Google's site is any more meaningful than anything else? Google shouldn't always be allowed to be a determining factor just because it's Google. There is more non-digital information in the world than Google could ever hope to index. For the record, I don't have any preference on this move. I couldn't care less how anyone spells 老子 in English, and everyone will be able to find the article as long as Wikipedia provides redirects from the common spellings to whatever the main article is ultimately called. I'm just tired of the number of Google hits mattering when Google only provides a narrow glimpse of what's really out there. Ajnewbold 16:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Laozi because Pinyin is standard transcription today. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 11:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1.4 million pages for Lao Tzu, 150 thousand for Laozi (Google webpages): Google:Lao Tzu, Google:Laozi
 * 3.5 thousand posts for Laozi, 42.3 thousand for Lao Tzu (Google groups): Groups:Laozi, Groups:Lao Tzu
 * It seems obvious what the proper ENGLISH name is (even if the proper Pinyin name is Laozi, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Pinyin Wikipedia). 132.205.45.110 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Lao Tzu is how I know and refer to him also. Alf melmac 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon, pinyin is a standard recognized by almost everyone except a few staunch and very stubborn anti-PRC:ers. it's just not applied to all historical persons that were known long before pinyin was ever devised. Wade-Giles is no more than English than any other transcription system.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm basing my opinion on the fact that three books I have on my shelf all have Lao Tzu on the cover (Tao Teh Ching ISBN 0877735425, The Complete Works of Lao Tzu: Tao Teh Ching & Hua Hu Ching ISBN 0937064009 and Lao-Tzu's Treatise on the Response of the Tao ISBN 0060649569). Alf melmac 12:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the publication dates of those books?--Huaiwei 17:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Following the ISBN links Alf gave, it appears these were published in 2005, 1979, and 1994. Jonathunder 19:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The above google search conducted has to be taken with (more than) a pinch of salt. Searching "Lao Tzu" without specifying for the exact phase gives you 1.4 million pages. Doing so brings the number down to 967,000.

That is not all. Google crawls through predominantly mirrored sites, so if one actually flips to the last pages of the search results, google automatically attempts to remove all dublicated results. "Lao Tzu" therefore equals 821 search results, while "Laozi" yields 799. Hardly a convincing difference between the two figures compared to the statistics above.--Huaiwei 17:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This duplication argument is flawed at a technical level. Google never allows more than 999 results to be reported. And when removal of duplicates is enabled, it first selects the top thousand results and then removes the duplicates without adding any additional entries. So all these numbers establish is that among the top thousand results, uses of Laozi are slightly more likely to be percieved as duplications than uses of Lao Tzu. Dragons flight 03:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is perhaps directly useful as a reference in the above debate: Daoism-Taoism Romanization issue.--Huaiwei 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that that article is very helpful. To quote from it: "The concepts of Taoism were first widely studied in the West before the development of pinyin...Consequently, the Wade-Giles spellings are still generally used in most English language editions of the Tao Te Ching and other major Taoist works, and thus most commonly used and recognized by native speakers of English." We should use what is "most commonly used and recognized" in English for the article title. Jonathunder 20:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To also quote the next paragraph, however: "However, in academia and politics, there has been a strong trend towards using pinyin, which is recommended by the government of the People's Republic of China and widely used in teaching Chinese language. Joseph Lau's translation of the Tao Te Ching (pub. Penguin) has been renamed "Daodejing" in its latest edition; similarly, Burton Watson's translation of Chuang Tzu (pub. Columbia Univ. Press) is now titled "Zhuangzi" instead. Both texts have abandoned Wades-Giles in favor of pinyin." W-G may be the spelling familiar with English users before, but we have to move with the times. Persisting in using the word Peking runs contrary to general contemporary usage.--Huaiwei 08:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If so, then why is the university of Beijing still called Peking University in English, officially, by the government in Beijing! 132.205.45.148 17:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am more than aware of Peking University's situation, but it is an exception or the norm? Stating this fact does not mean the government is endorsing W-G over Pinyin, just as the Chinese govenment officially promotes the use of simiplified script, but that dosent mean the newly opened airport in Guangzhou cant prominently display its airport name in traditional script. What you should be asking yourself, is which system is in and which is out. The answer is plain clear.--Huaiwei 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But then there are exceptions to the rules. Just as people from Hong Kong should not be romanized using methods different from the way they themselves write their names, (who would know who they are then?) That traditional chinese should be used for anything predating the establishment of simiplifed script inside mainland china or Singapore, and still be used for anything from Macau, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and overseas Chinese communities. 132.205.45.110 18:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but since when is there a convention stating that all entities predating the introduction of Simlified script must be in traditional script, including entities in the PRC and Singapore where simplified script is preferred? I do not think we are talking about HK names either (btw, you might be relieved to know that plenty of people still know what their Mandarin names are, for instance), so your point being?--Huaiwei 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Should the utterances of Chinese politicians alter how we romanize spelling any more than the utterances of George W. Bush prompt us to adopt the spelling "nucular"? Whatever we decide, I hardly think it should be based on the decrees of bureacrats rather than linguists. I'd like to see the "gub'mint sez so" arguments left by the wayside. apotheon 12:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The name Peking isn't Wade-Giles anyway. It's an older "traditional Western" transliteration like Canton. Satyadasa 18:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Some seem to think Confucius is W-G too for some reason. Thank goodness Pei-ching and esp. K'ung Fu-tzu are not in widespread use today! :D--Huaiwei 18:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's sad (though not unexpected) that most of the new votes are supported by reasons that simply ignore the arguments and evidence. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Or that the old votes ignore common English usage (which is supposedly how Wikipedia is supposed to name things). Perhaps you'd like to rename Confucius and Sun Tzu into Pinyin next? 132.205.45.148 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think it is only a matter of time. Saying one should be renamed and thus mass renaming others is not quite the point here. Are you going to propose renaming Qin Shi Huang? Wang Zhaojun? Yue Fei? Hua Mulan? Qu Yuan? Perhaps my username as well?--Huaiwei 05:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If the "prevailing wind" says to use the PROC variant of Pinyin, then why not rename Confucius and Sun Tzu? But if the common English name is Lao Tzu, and it is, then the article should be there. When the common English name is Laozi, we should rename it back. Until such a shift in common usage is evidenced, the article should sit at Lao Tzu. Every Chinese name should sit at the commonly used English variant, with the article explaining a shift in naming taking place, or names in other romanization systems. 132.205.45.110 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Like what you yourself say, if Confucius and Sun Tzu becomes more well known as Kongzi and Sunzi respectively, then yes, they will be moved. As yet over here, you constantly claim that Lao Tzu is much more commonly known, yet you cant seem to proof that Laozi is not commonly known either. You cant seem to explain the greater usage of Laozi in contemporary texts, or the switch to Laozi by definitive texts today. Are you similarly able to demonstrate to us the most common usage amongst the Chinese community when discussing this topic in English? Talkgroups and google searches arent exactly going to demonstrate this, will they?--Huaiwei 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * With respect, Mel Etitis, I disagree the arguments and evidence were ignored. All were responded to. 1) You said you knew of no recent books which use Lao Tzu. I responded that all the books in my library do (others echo this) and I gave a citation for the most recent translation I could find (2003). 2) The Google evidence was discussed, and Dragons Flight gave a response (a good one, I think) to your analysis. 3) The link to the other page -- I certainly read that, and I quoted from it. There are other responses, too. The voting has taken place in the context of discussion, as it should. And if you have more arguments or evidence, I for one will be happy to read them. Jonathunder 04:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The claim that "Lao Tzu" is more commonly used is at best an oversimplification; at worst it's simply false. I've given more citations than everyone else put together, all of recent books, all using "Lao Zi" (with the one exception of "Lao-zi"). Besides, you're taking a comment about most of the new votes to be about all of the votes (and about yours in particular).
 * Incidentally, most of the supposed arguments from (especially anononymous) contributors seem to be merely political axe-grinding that has nothing to do with the issue. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Some say that some or other form is "more familiar", "more common in my experience" etc. Such assessments are subjective; and as has been said, unlike "Mencius" and "Confucius" which are Latinizations, "Lao Tzu" "Laozi" "Lao-Tseu" etc. are merely different transcriptions of the Chinese 老子 into the Latin alphabet. "Which one of them is better" depends on which criteria are used to rank the possibilities: on the one hand, the current trend in the romanization of Chinese words is to use the pinyin transliteration, in this case Laozi; on the other hand, authorities about English usage can be consulted: for instance, the "New Oxford Dictionary of English", in its edition © 1998-2001 Oxford University Press, lists this philosopher as: Lao-tzu /laʊ'tsu:/ (also Laoze /-'tseɪ/). So depending who you ask, "Laozi" or "Lao-tzu" is the "better" spelling. - Tonymec 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Decision
Page moved. Ryan Norton T 07:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually just closed this moved (which has been listed on Sept. 30 on WP:RM), but realizing that the discussion section here is only 3 days old, I am reverting that and going to leave it open for several more days, as per RM policy. Dragons flight 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops - that was a bizarre history merge too, LOL :). Two admins making the same mistake.... the same day no less :). Well.... should I reverse my move too? There seems to be a consensus anyway :). Ryan Norton T 08:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just explained my series of mistakes and confusion on Ryan Norton's Talk page. Suffice it to say that I reverted the move in ignorance of the new discussion. On the other hand, I agree with Dragon's flight that the discussion needs to be left open for a little longer (especially as I disagree with the consensus so far, as my arguments and evidence further up the page indicates and explains). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, incidentally, if the discussion does end in a move (as I hope it doesn't), the admin carrying that out should note the unusually large number of potential double redirects. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I count about a 58% majority in favor of moving. Radiant_ >|< 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is not normally accounted sufficient; we're looking for consensus for a move, not a bare majority vote (and 58% is a pretty bare majority). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I count 15 votes for renaming, 7 votes against, 1 abstaintion, 23 total votes : 65.217% for / 30.435% against / 4.348% no opinion. ; without the Neutral vote: 68.182% for / 31.818% against &mdash; 132.205.45.110 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, I have to remind, whatever the voting result actually is. And I do find it a slight irritation dealing with individuals who choose to participate in talkpages anonymously.--Huaiwei 04:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a democracy. So who decides? You?
 * Not a democracy? What is it, a dictatorship? I find it very elitist of "registered" users who treat anonymous people like dirt, when the anon does nothing unbecoming. Having a "name" means little since anyone can register a name anytime and use it once. 132.205.45.148 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is an official policy on wikipedia. Please get to know wikipedia's policies and guidelines better before deciding to break out into emotional retorts like this. It is not that "registered users" want to "treat anonymous people like dirt". The above behavior just gives an excellent example of why this happens.--Huaiwei 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, if registered users treat anonymous users like dirt, then anonymous users should not feel anything at all? If registered users are ticked off at anonymous users because they are anonymous, that isn't a very good reason. As you can be a serial-registerer, being a registered user means very little. Registered users do exhibit an elitist attitude, in the general case. If registered users are ticked off at anonymous users because of "stupid comments", there are alot of registered users who make those as well. and some people who just serially register accounts. There is little difference between anonymous and not in many cases, so why should it matter to you if I'm registered or not. Would your rather have 50 trillion accounts used two or three times instead? 132.205.45.148 21:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Registering a username is often a sign of greater commitment; it also allows easier recognition. Most users are on a dynamic IP address: this means that their dotted-quad is not always the same; also it is easier to recognise "John Dalton" or "Patrick O'Callaghan" than "123.45.67.89" or "217.136.71.175". - Tonymec 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If I read things correctly, 132.205.45.148 appears to be an assigned IP, not DHCP. At any rate, User:132.205.45.148 does have some history, not only of contributions but also a talk page. Wikipedia does have some longstanding and valued contributors who, for whatever reason, edit from IP addresses only. In a way, someone who always edits under an IP, especially if it's the same IP, may be less anonymous than someone who takes a user name. Someone who knows how can easily look up quite a bit about where this editor comes from. A benefit of a user name is privacy. There are other benefits, too. I would echo Tonymec's gentle encouragement to get an account and log in. Jonathunder 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not even really consciously pick on individuals who refuse to register. The content of an editor's comments usually gets read first before the signature anyway, and I respond according to content rather than according to whether it is an IP or not. This is the first time I have ever heard of an anon user making sweeping remarks like these btw. Do you, whoever you are, represent the views of the anon community, or is it more reflective of your own sensitivity or even insecurity?


 * Registered users are actually more anonoymous than anons, as an anon user parades his IP for all to see, while a registered users gets to contribute under any name he prefers. Of coz exceptions exist. My username, for example, is my real firstname. It speaks volumes on how accountable a contributor wishes to be in wikipedia, and yes, I even refer my lecturers and potential employers of my contributions to wikipedia by informing them of my user name.--Huaiwei 11:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Request not fulfilled; no clear consensus. Rob Church Talk 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By any reasonable measure, there is stong support above to use the traditional spelling Lao Tsu. I've see other pages on requested moves that were moved with much closer votes; this one was not close. No Account 00:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It did appear the customary threshhold was met in this case. Jonathunder 03:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But clearly the policy "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is being applied here. Admins do make exceptions when the argument appears equally valid from both camps despite the vote results.--Huaiwei 11:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I still really suggest to use: "Lao Tzu" because it is more correct than "Lao Zi" this because alot of chinese words like: "Tzu jan" are like this and not: "Zi jan" So i am not satisfied with "Lao Zi" which can give people a wrong understanding.

213.93.32.246 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Jungsonn


 * Why more correct? Ask a Chinese how to trancribe 老子 and I assure you you will get Lǎozǐ (or with spatium: Lǎo Zǐ) not Lao Tzu. As I see it it would be much easier if we would use just one transcription not many of them. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 11:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I don't understand why "Lao Tzu" instead of "Laozi" is used constantly in this article titled "Laozi". I understand there was a lengthy debate about the title of the page, which may have led to weird things, but surely the article should not disagree with the title about the correct spelling, but be consistent and conform to the spelling of the title. Kusma (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming opinion in that debate above was to keep the more widely familiar spelling "Lao Tzu" and it is still pending in the Requested Moves backlog to move it back. CDThieme 18:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure if its "overwelming". Meanwhile, it may be good to change all the names to reflect that of the article title, since they can always be changed back if needed in future.--Huaiwei 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why wasn't the entry moved immediately when the decision was made? &mdash; Instantnood 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * RM often has a backlog, and sometimes pages have to wait to be moved for technical reasons. In any case, I don't see the point of changing all the instances of name now just to be changed again. The intro already has multiple forms of the name. CDThieme 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only was the spelling in the article inconsistent with the article's title, but it varied within the article (mostly "Lao Tsu", occasionally "Lao Tzu", and the Dao De Jing was spelt in two different ways with a couple of sentences, virtually alternating with "Tao Te Ching" through the text. I've made the spellings internally consistent, and consistent with the title. If there is consensus to move the article (and, pace CDThieme, that hasn't happened yet), the article can be changed in line with the new title. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history, the spellings in the article have mostly been the traditonal English "Lao Tsu" for quite a long time. There was sufficient support for titling it that, as I see it, and I think it is time that should be done. Jonathunder 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The suggested move was rejected. There's no objection to suggesting it again, and seeing what support there is (except that that's likely to attract – again – a number of people whose views are politically motivated). I still think that it's a bad idea, and would argue against any such move, of course. Whatever happens, though, the spelling in the text should be consistent with that in the title. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was far from rejected and I see only a couple of "political" comments, mostly from an opponent of the move. Jonathunder 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This process for arriving to the decision to move was not done in consensus A vote is not the wat to do things in Wikipedia. We discuss things, we present arguments and we arrive at consensus, or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For those that decided to run a straw poll and then use that as an excuse to move the article without arriving to consensus, please read: WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Illicit move
Jonathunder, after the above discussion, simply moved the article unilaterlally. I've moved it back; if it's moved again, I'll have to get the article protected, and raise the matter at W:AN/I. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Laozi Page-improvement
Mel, I was hoping to make improvements to this page on Laozi together with the Taoism page. Understandably the changes made was reverted. I will include an edit-summary with the proposed changes hopefully it will be accepted- Alex.


 * Please see the comment on your Talk page and at Talk:Taoism. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is more comfortable with the spelling they are used to, and since spelling is arbitrary (see ghoti) there is no rational reason to choose one spelling over another. There is, however, a very rational reason for Wikipedia to be internally consistent -- it makes it easier to link articles and avoids redirects. No matter how long this is argued about in individual articles, the whole transliteration question will not be settled until the Wiki gods had down a ukase and settle it. Wiki gods, are you listining? Would a small sacrifice be in order? Rick Norwood 22:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree up to a point, there is some rational ground for usage choice: the standard current usage in reputable publications. See above for debate over that (unless it's been archived, in which case, see above for a link to that debate). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other factors to take into account as well. For instance, the fact that the first Romanized character in tao/dao is more properly an unaspirated T sound than a D sound might be something worth considering in terms of most closely approximating native pronunciation. The fact that most American ears can't (or won't be bothered) differentiating between an unaspirated T and a D leads to unfortunate assumptions about the purpose behind Wade-Giles transliteration style, but I digress: my point is simply that there are other things to consider than mere popularity in whatever circles a given person considers most authoritative. apotheon 12:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Traditionalist School"
I doubt that the statement "The essence of Taoism finds the closest parallel in the Traditionalist School specifically in the works of Ananda Coomaraswamy and Rene Guenon." would find the approval of most scholars on either western or chinese philosophy. With all due respect to the followers of the "Traditionalist school" - this sentence shows a strong bias. I propose removing it.


 * Whoever you are, I'd go along with that. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought any addition or omission requires an understanding, rather than a facile interpretation of whether that sentence is biased in expression. "Whoever" is making a biased assertion of disapproval by western + chniese scholars in itself....AlexMar06


 * I have a very good understanding of Taoist Philosophy and a fair understanding of the Traditionalist school. I support the removal of that comment. To put it simply, they are significantly different. Different enough that I would say that comparing thier "essence" (I'm interpreting this as "core beliefs", "primary tennants", etc.) would show major differences. In fact, I can't understand why this sentence is even in an article about Laozi/Taoism. The only relation is that the Tradionalist school claims to derive some of it's ideas from Taoism, as well as from a variety of other philosophies and religions. I can understand linking back to Taoism from the Traditionalist's article, as it is dependent on and derivitive from Taoism. I could also understand a mention of the Traditionalist School in the section "Relations with other religions and philosophies" in the general Taoism article. In my opinion there is no sense in directly linking out from Laozi to the Traditionalist School. Shoudl we start including links to every person or group that has ever been influenced by Taoism? That would be quite a long list, and who is to judge which one is closer to the "essence" of Taoism? I see the wording has been changed slightly since this discussion began to say "some people think..." which is more diplomatic. However, some people think Taoism is the work of the devil . Should we include that opinion as well? Is Wikipedia an acceptable venue for dispersing opinions? In my opinion it is not. Please review the "Five Pillars", specificly, pillar one. Thanks, illium37 (may06) Illium37 20:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis's claims of information
Hi, the date of birth for Sima Qian was given by Zheng Shoujie commentary under Shiji, 130 to 145 BC (calculated from his age at 41 given at 104 BCE), so it was an attestation within primary sources, his date of death was however unknown, most scholars believe he died around 80s, so its ludicrous for you to state a circa date 145-90, this is wrong, it should be stated as 145-80s BCE. About Laozi, Sima Qian has given us an account that he was a senior of Confucius, so it is prattle to said that scholars would have placed him in around 4th century BC, not unless it is sourced, btw, both date of birth and death of Confucius came from Shiji, 47 and Chunqiu. 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which chapter of Shiji is this from? --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which are you refering to? 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You said that your source is the commentary to Shiji -- but to which chapter (卷)? That way, I can verify it.  --Nlu (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Shiji, 130 （史记正义） 02:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Mel, I think that's enough of a citation to let it stand. Mr./Ms. Anon, go ahead and change it back.  Mel, if you disagree, maybe call for a RfC?  --Nlu (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside his incivility, this isn't sufficient. He cites an ancient (c. 1st century BCE) history against all the modern scholarly sources that I've been able to find. A common feature of ancient sources is that they pretend to a precision and certainty to which they're not entitled.

With regard to Laozi, the anon seems again to assert that Sima Qian is infallible. A common view is that Laozi didn't exist at all, and even if he did, the question as to his chronological relationship with Confucius is far from clear. The dates given in the Laozi article are cited (see the References section).

Some of the problem – including, perhaps, some of the incivility – probably stems from the anon's unfamiliarity with English, and with Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what's makes you think you're in a position to judge or even to make a dubious grounds on other, do you even read modern or classical chinese like modern scholar Wang Guowei? With regard to Laozi, most scholars do believe that he did existed, I had no idea of what did you meant by a common view, a common view of yours I suppose, he was only mythicise by the later Taoist, in the work of Sima Qian, he wasn't even a mythic figure at all. Furthermore, what makes you think that you could assert the incredibility on Shiji, do you even read Shiji, it is a measure of the thoroughness of his predecessors that Sima Qian can give accurately the names of Shang kings more than 1000 years before his time (modern scholars assume these details to be legendary, until they are confirmed by inscriptions on the Shang oracle bones). I can play this little game of yours until I'm dead. 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The dates given in the Laozi article are cited (see the References section)." Leaving aside his ignorance, this isn't sufficient. I'm afraid none of those references even placed him from the 4th century BCE on the section. It is not UP to you to decide, unless you could quoted some of those references (note that it state many scholars under the edits, so it must be five to ten of them that supported his view). 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "I've checked a large number of Web pages, and most of them are even vaguer about his dates than the article." "He cites an ancient (c. 1st century BCE) history against all the modern scholarly sources that I've been able to find." I believe this guy has still not read any of these records. Trawling through the internet for possible clues is always easier, but how reliable are they. Scholarly sources from google, or just your assumption? 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mel, leaving aside the alleged incivility, I think a primary ancient source is likely to be more, not less, reliable. --Nlu (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

--Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "Alleged incivility"? Do you take "prattle" to be civil? "I can play this little game of yours until I'm dead"? "Leaving aside his ignorance"? The edit summary: "Rv; Mel Etitis's usual garbage"?  What do you take incivility to be?
 * 2) Why do you think that ancient sources are more reliable? That's almost never the case, in any culture, for all sorts of reasons (local politics, confusion of myth and history, poor scholarship, etc.).  Primary sources are often useful in determining dates, but they're also often very misleading.  Note that modern scholars are aware of the ancient sources, and still say that Sima Qian's dates are unclear.  The anon is reduced to sneers and vague statements about my knowledge, which should give a hint as to the strength of his position.
 * 3) As for Laozi (and why we're discussing him here I'm unclear) &mdash; some citations just from backs to hand on my own shelves:
 * 4) *"the 'founder' of philosophical Daoism is the quasi-legendary Laodan [...]. According to tradition he was an older contemporary of Confucius, with dates ranging from 580 to 480BC.  Zhuangzi [...] has a more solid historical status" (Charles Wei-hsun Fu, "Daoism in Chinese philosophy", in Carr & Mahalingam [edd] Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. Routledge, 2001; p. 553.)
 * 5) *"the early third-century BCE Tao-te ching [...] also known as the Lao-tzu after its eponymous 'author', Lao Tan" (Daniel L. Overmyer, "Chinese religion", in Kitagawa [ed.]The Religious Traditions of Asia. Macmillan, 1987; p.265)
 * 6) *"Lao-zi: c.570–490BCE?. Like the Greek bard Homer, it is not clear who Lao-zi was, or even if he existed." (Peter J. King, One Hundred Philosophers. Barron's, 2004)
 * 7) *"Laozi (dates uncertain; speculation ranges from 600 to 200 BCE) is, we assume, the author of the Daode Jing [...] The figure of Laozi has always been shrouded in mystery" (details of scholarly disagreement over dating of text) "Many scholars, however, dismiss Laozi as mythological or use his name as shorthand for 'the author(s) of the Daode Jing." (Chad Hansen, "Laozi", in A Companion to the Philosophers. Blackwell, 2001; pp77–78)


 * Ancient sources are more reliable, as far as chronology is concerned, because they are made closer in time to the events in question. The situation here is analogous to, ironic enough, Shijis dating of Warring States period monarchs compared to the Bamboo Annals, in my opinion -- which was only discovered (specifically, removed from an ancient tomb) in the Jin Dynasty but was immediately recognized for its ancient origins.  Historians generally acknowledge the dating in the Bamboo Annals to be more reliable than that in the Shiji.  No, ancient sources aren't always more reliable, but as far as the dating is concerned, I'd say that they're likely to be more reliable.  --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The general claim simply isn't true, I'm afraid, as ancient historians would all confirm. The discipline is full of cases in which ancient sources either get wrong or simply misrepresent the facts. (As you don't rrespond to all my other points, doi I take it that you now accept them?) --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"As you don't rrespond to all my other points, doi I take it that you now accept them?" There is nothing clear and straight on your points, much less to accept it. Your inability to clearly give a reason for your argument shows that it doesn't have a solid base to back up. For you had done nothing but rats, why don't you care to explain about your points. The general claim of that is certainly true, I'm afraid none of your claims are worth replying for the other. 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Speaking of civil, I consider you to be rude for reverting edits that other had provided. For reasons you couldn't even verify the citation I had given even as you insists you're right.
 * 2) To be fair and objective I had read, most modern scholars are aware of the ancient sources, and still say that Sima Qian's dates are clear. Scholar such as Wang Guowei had no disagreement to the date that I given, since there is ground for making the dates more precise and definite, its not something that needs to be reevaluated, primary sources are often useful in determining dates, they're only misleading when there is diffuse of varied range of dates within, which is not the case for the date of birth of Sima Qian. The ancient sources are more realible for as much as all secondary sources are based upon them, they would have lay no claim to historical objectivity if they don't. Since those records are our only evidence of what happened in the past, any claims of what happened then need to be supported by evidence from those records or any convincing scientifically method. Or else someone like myself can easily make the argument on some nonsensical testimony, and nobody can prove me wrong. The varied date of Sima Qian thoughout a large number of Web pages are because they're unreliable, not because they were vary from the original sources.
 * 3) As for Laozi, apart from his work, almost all four sources you provided seem to consider Laozi was an older contemporary of Confucius, and why we're still disputing him I'm unclear, be it historical or mythical figure.


 * Civility. Your most recent edit summary also violates civility. As you've already been blocked for other reasons, I'll leave this for the moment.
 * Modern scholarship uses ancient texts, but often corrects them (and they're certainly not our only evidence for what happened in the past, as archaeologists and ancient historians would confirm).
 * You denied that many scholars believed Laozi to be mythical, and the citations demonstrate that you're wrong on that. Moreover they make clear that the notion that he was a senior contemporary of Confucius is merely what tradition says – they don't accept it as fact – and none of them places him in one particular century. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is coming from someone who has the guts to comment on Sima Qian when he can't even verify the citation I given?
 * You had based off upoon your insufficient knowledge regarding to Sima Qian, when it came to ancient sources, modern scholarship corrects them with specific reasons, not just mere intuition, I never dismiss the archaeological facts. But since we're talking about the precise and definite dates of a particular individual, its not something that archaeologists would have confirm, neither do the carbon dating is good enough.
 * Wrong, since when did I denied that, he's somewhere in between historical and mythical. Before you propose anymore of your unsupported rubbish, at least get a clue on that. Your narration demonstrate that you're wrong on that, they make clear on the notion that he was a senior contemporary of Confucius from the tradition tells, what they don't accept it as fact is not the issue here, and certainly placing him from 4th century BC and not backed by sufficient facts is something that's without a good reasoning. In case you didnt aware of it, almost all three sources you provided placed him in one particular century.

03:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Why do you find it impossible to discuss this matter without descending to childish insult?
 * 2) You said: "With regard to Laozi, most scholars do believe that he did existed, I had no idea of what did you meant by a common view, a common view of yours I suppose, he was only mythicise by the later Taoist, in the work of Sima Qian, he wasn't even a mythic figure at all." When I cited sources indicating that many scholars don't believe that Laozi existed, you say: "since when did I denied that, he's somewhere in between historical and mythical".
 * 3) It's difficult to follow some of what you say, but none of the (four) sources that I cited place Laozi unequivocally in the 4th century BCE (1. "according to tradition" 580–480; 2. early 3rd century; 3. c.570–490BCE?; 4. 600 to 200 BCE).   --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I found it impossible to discuss this matter with you beacuase of your insufficient knowledge regarding to my previously citations I provided.
 * 2) "When I cited sources indicating that many scholars don't believe that Laozi existed" Your sources never state that he doesn't existed, and they certainly doesn't placed him from the 4th century BC. You said "You denied that many scholars believed Laozi to be mythical" and I replied "Wrong, since when did I denied that" and added he's somewhere in the middle of historical and mythical, what's wrong with that. Why don't you say something about Sima Qian dating by the way.
 * No, I said all of your three sources, but now I see it should be two of them (dates ranging from 580 to 480BC; c.570–490BCE?), the point is that your sources doesn't supported your claim about Laozi dating to the 4th century BC, and even if they did it must has some reasoning. 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sima_Qian")

Anon's removal of information
An anon, who has been waging a similar campaign at Sima Qian, insists on removing refernce to modern scholarship concerning dates. His position is that ancient sources are to be regarded as correct, though he also claims that modern scholars don't disagree with the ancient sources and Chinese tradition ("About Laozi, Sima Qian has given us an account that he was a senior of Confucius, so it is prattle to said that scholars would have placed him in around 4th century BC, not unless it is sourced"; the style and attitude are mild compared to most of his comments). He also claimed: "With regard to Laozi, most scholars do believe that he did existed, I had no idea of what did you meant by a common view, a common view of yours I suppose, he was only mythicise by the later Taoist, in the work of Sima Qian, he wasn't even a mythic figure at all"; again, Sima Qian is taken to be the infallible source, and clear facts about modern views are simply denied and/or brushed aside as irrelevant.

I gave references at that Talk page, which I'll reproduce here:
 * "the 'founder' of philosophical Daoism is the quasi-legendary Laodan [...]. According to tradition he was an older contemporary of Confucius, with dates ranging from 580 to 480BC.  Zhuangzi [...] has a more solid historical status" (Charles Wei-hsun Fu, "Daoism in Chinese philosophy", in Carr & Mahalingam [edd] Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy. Routledge, 2001; p. 553.)
 * "the early third-century BCE Tao-te ching [...] also known as the Lao-tzu after its eponymous 'author', Lao Tan" (Daniel L. Overmyer, "Chinese religion", in Kitagawa [ed.]The Religious Traditions of Asia. Macmillan, 1987; p.265)
 * "Lao-zi: c.570–490BCE?. Like the Greek bard Homer, it is not clear who Lao-zi was, or even if he existed." (Peter J. King, One Hundred Philosophers. Barron's, 2004)
 * "Laozi (dates uncertain; speculation ranges from 600 to 200 BCE) is, we assume, the author of the Daode Jing [...] The figure of Laozi has always been shrouded in mystery" (details of scholarly disagreement over dating of text) "Many scholars, however, dismiss Laozi as mythological or use his name as shorthand for 'the author(s) of the Daode Jing." (Chad Hansen, "Laozi", in A Companion to the Philosophers. Blackwell, 2001; pp77–78)

All four state or imply doubts about Laozi's existence; none of them agrees with a definite date of 6th century BCE. More sources concerning dates would be useful, but as things stand the anon has given no grounds for removing information from this article except his undue reliance on ancient sources. At Sima Qian he has found an admin who agrees with him concerning that reliability, and the article has been protected in the anon's version (including a vandalistic removal of half the article, including all the references, external links, categories, interwikis, bibliography, etc.). I'm hoping that the same doesn't happen here. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon. has just deleted the above comment, replacing it with a cut-and-paste of the discussion from Talk:Sima Qian. I've reverted it, but it indicates his approach to the question of discussion. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "An anon, who has been waging a similar campaign at Sima Qian, insists on removing refernce to modern scholarship concerning dates." There are holes in your false inferences, which dating are you talking about, as the matter of fact you had yet fail to show any of those scholarly references to modern scholarship concerning dates on your claims. 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "His position is that ancient sources are to be regarded as correct, though he also claims that modern scholars don't disagree with the ancient sources and Chinese tradition" No; I've pointed out that ancient sources are more correct because they are closer in time to the events in question, which you don't seem to have the slightest understanding of it. IF you insists that many scholars had placed him from the 4th century BC instead of an older contemporary of Confucius, you should had provided your sources, not just mere nagging. There wasn't any of my claims that state modern scholars don't disagree with the ancient sources and Chinese tradition. So I guess this part is just from the naive nonsense you've just posted above. 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sima Qian is taken to be the infallible source, and clear facts about modern views are simply denied and/or brushed aside as irrelevant." Its relevant because scholars generally agreed, since he can give accurately the names of Shang kings which had been confirmed by archaeologists and ancient historians. I don't know what did you meant by modern views simply denied or brushed Sima Qian 's source aside as irrelevant. Even most of what we know about Herodotus's life comes from a late tenth century Byzantine lexicon (which was not a biography to be exact), scholars don't generally dismissed him as mythological, despite how the latter know about his life 1500 years apart from his times is beyond other. Not to mention that Sima Qian even had a biography for Laozi dated from the 2th century BC, plus a few excavations of his tradition work Daodejing dated as early as 300 BC. 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "All four state or imply doubts about Laozi's existence" No, it shown only one of them doubts about his existence (it is not clear who Lao-zi was, or even if he existed). 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "none of them agrees with a definite date of 6th century BCE." Yes they do, in fact two of your sources had already provided a definite date of 6th century BCE for Laozi (ranging from 580 to 480BC;c.570–490BCE?). 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "but as things stand the anon has given no grounds for removing information from this article except his undue reliance on ancient sources." As for the other big claim about my grounds for removing information from this article, it applies to the facts that since you're the one who claims on many scholars had placed Laozi from 4th century BC, you should be the one that show us your sources, and thus not me. 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "At Sima Qian he has found an admin who agrees with him concerning that reliability, and the article has been protected in the anon's version. I'm hoping that the same doesn't happen here." Well, this could be another way round, I didn't found the admin by the way. And how the article has been protected twice in the my version is beyond me. 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlock
There doesn't seem to be any disputes going on lately. How about unlocking the thing so we can edit it? RJII 19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I unprotected it. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Display problem: I can read Chinese. However, I've downloaded every possible font and I can't get my browser to display the font/chinese characters correctly. Question: which font is needed to make the characters display? I've tried traditional, GB23112 and simplified HZ and none of them work.
 * See: Enabling East Asian characters -- W h y B e N o r m a l ?  c ·  t  ·  m  19:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

AD / CE
Per WP:DATE, it is neccesary to use only one method of dating notation per article. This means that there shall not be a split usage of BC, BCE, CE, and AD. Only AD/BC or CE/BCE should be used within one article space. When I arrived at this article, it used both BC and BCE. Though BCE was used mainly in the opening paragraphs, BC was used later in the article (this is before my edits). In accordance with the above Manual of Style excerpt I provided, only one is acceptable. Since I cannot single-handedly decide which era notation is to be used, it is customary (see Jesus) that both era notations be placed as neutrality until a consensus can be made on one era usage. Now if someone simply reverts my latest edit, this is a violation of the MOS; if someone simply reverts my edits and replaces all the "BC"'s with "BCE", that is again against Wikipedia standards as we need to arrive at consensus prior to a decision. I invite all to discuss which notation shall be used below. &mdash; C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Era notations

 * Discuss here.
 * The article has nothing to do with Christianity, and most modern academic and other serious texts use the BCE/CE form. For reasons of NPoV and good practice, it shoudl be BCE/CE. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With your logic, "This article has nothing to do with Christianity", then we aught not use the BCE/CE system either. For apon visiting the link "Common Era", you'll see that in the first paragraph it is mentioned that this method of numbering is based on the birthdate of Jesus Christ. Besides, WP:DATE, from the Manual of Style, indicates that BCE/CE is not at all superior to BC/AD in Wikipedia standards. Both styles are completely acceptable and Wikipedia does not assume the BC/AD is associated any further with Christianity than BCE/CE (likely because they are both equally associated with the religion). Until another religious-neutral era (i.e. - the "Beginning of the Earth Era" or similar) can be formed, deceptive language such as "BCE/CE" should not be used to pretend we aren't dividing time by the birth of Jesus Christ. &mdash; C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * BC/AD explictly refer to a religious figure in terms of his rôle (as "Christ" and as "Lord"); BCE/CE don't. hence they're NPoV.  That the latter system is traceable to the Christian system is no more significant than that "goodbye" and "silly" can be traced to religious terms. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny how we never see such Common Era enthusiasts contemplating the alteration of the religious weekdays such as Tuesday, Wednesday, etc due to their "POV". I assume you're more comfortable asserting Wednesday as the "day of the God Woden" than asserting 2006 as "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"? What is the difference if you don't believe in the divinity (or even existence) of either "God"? I can understand that Christianity has more influence than Nordic religion in the 21st century, which may make you more uneasy about Christian-related terms, but it is hypocritical to choose Christianity as the target. Also, I believe "Common era" is just as or more POV than AD/BC because it asserts that the "common era", essentially the era beginning with Jesus, is used by everyone. It in no way dissociates Jesus from itself, "Current era" would do a better job of that. &mdash; C RAZY `( IN )`S ANE 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)