Talk:Laozi/Archive 2

Move discussion

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Laozi &rarr; Lao Tzu &mdash; Per 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 &mdash; Francis Schonken 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support (nominator) --Francis Schonken 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "Laozi" is more common in modern sinological literature. Kusma (討論) 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reason above and the reasons that Wikipedia uses Beijing rather than Peking. Google hits are not necessarily a good determiner of encyclopedic usage.  (Compare "fart" and flatulence.") AjaxSmack 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Lao Tzu is more common in regular books. 132.205.93.89
 * Oppose Wikipedia uses Hanyu pinyin. Consistency is important. Lao Wai 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons that I gave the last time this was suggested (and rejected). Googling is not a good indicator; published texts are better, and I gave a breakdown of a large number of academic and popular books showing that "Laozi" is by far the most common Romanisation. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - In ENGLISH, this is still the most common spelling. elvenscout742 22:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I am not convinced, especially outside narrowly scholarly usage, that Laozi is the most common; it may yet become so, but that requires proof. I reject all arguments on the grounds of consistency; we should not attempt to be more consistent than English. Thus, we use Beijing, but Hong Kong because English does. Septentrionalis 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Lao Tzu is a well known Chinese figure; I have never heard of Laozi. Common English names should be used regardless of uniformity of transcitpion. Eluchil404 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia does not use pinyin or any other system for all such names, it uses what is most common in English, especially for the most well-known ancient figures. Lao Tzu is a traditional Anglicised name and is still the most common in the books on my shelf, including ones printed this decade. Jonathunder 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should use pinyin except in cases where there is an overwhelming tradition for another transcription in English. Haukur 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: use the more common spelling, as is done for Confucius. Thumbelina 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Haukur, even though he drew the opposite conclusion, since this case in my mind represents the exception he's citing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose since hanyu Pinyin is used as standard transcription in Wikipedia, so it should be used here too for reasons of consistency. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lao Tzu is not an English name, but a Wade-Giles transcription of the Chinese name. It is important to be consistent and it is confusing to use pinyin for some names and Wade-Giles for others based, of all things, on a Google search. If you only consider academic publications since the 90s you will see that Laozi is definitely much more common. --AngelRiesgo 15:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments


 * Google gives 768 unique hits for Laozi and 620 for "Lao Tzu". Kusma (討論) 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you have to take into account the number of ethnic Chinese using pinyin on their English language websites, when they certainly do not make up the majority of English-speakers (i.e., the target audience of this encyclopedia). elvenscout742 22:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to the imperialistic pinyin-ization of Wikipedia. This is not the Pinyin Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia, and as such should in all instances use the common English romanization. If or when pinyin versions of names overtakes the traditional one, in COMMON SOURCES (not narrow sinology field sources) then a rename should occur. This does not prevent the mention of the pinyin version in the article, or a redirect sitting at the pinyin version. 132.205.45.148 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (In case anyone is wondering, I also object to the Germanization of English Wikipedia, where non-English letters are used)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Are you just making a personal attack against certain voters here for an entirely unrelated issue about Norse mythology? elvenscout742 22:15, 1 June 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)
 * But you're not looking at the big picture. Those spellings were dropped because the others are overwhelmingly more popular in the English-speaking world now. It has nothing to do with their widely-known-ness. Lao Tzu may not be well-known, but the scholars who know of him are not all fervent proponents of pinyin, and English-speaking ones in general are not. elvenscout742 11:28, 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)


 * I agree wholeheartedly --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not we used both of them and give certain explanation about that, this like indonesia language spell before EYD and after EYD. Before EYD (oe), after EYD(u) this a sample how letter oe become letter u. So we can use this before pinyin Wade-Giles been use and this after pinyin. i do not know  did you agree or not. this wikipedia certainly try give knowledges to reader isn't it   202.133.2.18 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Meaning of Name
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)
 * I think the characters in today's kanji would probably be better translated as "old boy". But I think back in Laozi's time, zi was an honorific. "古代对人的尊称；称老师或称有道德、有学问的人" from a chinese dictionary. if you could read it. Hanfresco 01:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alan Watts uses "Old Boy" and says it's a reference to the legend that he was born as a full grown man after 62 years gestation. pxxii  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because both characters describe status, is this truly a name, or only a title? Is it conceivable that he could be known to some country further west by some other name? Wnt (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read several pretty well-researched accounts, and I think it's safe to say "people have often wondered, no one really knows." Msalt (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?
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)


 * He probably didn't exist, in fact; the probability of his existence is roughly at the level of Homer. In the case of Jesus, there's next to no independent evidence of his existence, but little serious doubt that he existed; in the case of Laozi, there's a great deal of serious doubt. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see at least an alert visitor like elvenscout742 is raising queries on bias towards Laozi's non-existence. Once again to the editor Mel, I wish to include other descriptions and legends, duly described as such, to the Intro on Laozi, purely as narrative of what Taoists know for a fact [this will be another subject to be debated] that the scholars who thought they know about Taosim but actually don't.  It will probably run like this :
 * "According to legends(some in the Taoist Canons), although rejected by some scholars, Laozi had had 13 incarnates in the times of 3-sovereigns and 5-kings ......up to the Zhou Dynasty...." Will this be koshere?
 * And perhaps a small paragraph in the Taoism Section between "....managing and governing." and "As with most other....." to read:
 * "Central to Daodejing prescriptions to Man is the insignificance of the SELF in Man and this SELF is part of an overall pattern of the Universe. Rather than to assert ourselves over Nature, Man ought to recognize the modus operandi and participate in Nature, in a process the ancient Greek scholars called methexis." I will make sure the other canons of WIkipedia is not sidestepped, RSVP.  Alex26June06

Lao Tzu founder of taoism?
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.

Mostly minor edits
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&#39;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&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Parrallels with Western Philosophy
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&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To a large extent, the parallels are shared, and to the average reader, the parallels to western philosophy are more relevant. What&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 08:19, 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)

Cultural depictions of Laozi
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)


 * Excellent idea. I will work on that. We will then need one for Confucius too, as these two philosophers influenced the Chinese culture for the 2000 years after them. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section
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)

Pearl of Lao-Tzu or Pearl of Allah
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)

Page should be moved
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)
 * The above debate actually reached no consensus. I do, however, think that the article should use a consistent name throughout, since it even uses Lao Tsu at some points. abexy 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A matter of consistency
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)

Traditional and Simplified
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)
 * Thank you for the explanation. abexy 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image
I am a bit bothered by the image: 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)

recent changes
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)
 * About time someone took this on! What names you intend to remove from the infobox? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the infobox is a useful device, and it is used widely in such articles. Let's restore it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, what if we just put the Taoism infobox at the top, as is normal practice? Revert it if it's a bad change. I'll move the top image lower in the text. Vassyana 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox is useful, so I would prefer to have it there. I have also restored the "Names" section. I know it is unsourced, but the material there seems useful. Let's work in finding some good sources for that section, rather than deleting it altogether. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good without the infobox. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 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.
 * Bellamy, James A. B, ''Some Proposed Emendations to the Text of the Koran," The Journal of the American Oriental Society 113.4 (1993), citing work by Aat Vervoorn ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * The changes you've made look excellent. Thank you for the work, the article needed attention. abexy 06:44, 28 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)
 * I've also changed the referencing style slightly. I use break returns to keep a neat list while consolidating references into a single citation where multiple citations are used. This makes the article appear less cluttered with footnotes, while preserving the multiple citations. Vassyana 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal?
Is this a vandal edit? The IP has vandalized other pages today. delldot  talk  18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At first glance it is hard to say. That edit is definately incorrect and should be changed, but good faith is hard to determine. Of course, if the IP has done additional vandalism, I'd say yes. abexy 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References & Laozi
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)

GA Review
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 believe that articles with the Chinese Language template typically have it in the begginning, not the end.
 * I see one crucial flaw with the biography section: although it's apparently impossible to tell what's truth vs fiction, much of this information begs for a source. To be more precise, where legend is quoted, mention exactly what legend.  If a historian is quoted, say so.  Is this information form Sima Qian?  From modern-day historians?  The only way to clarify exactly what is being said, and to allow the reader to take it in the appropriate way, is to specify were this information comes from.  For example, the sentence that says he was 160 is treated in exactly the same nature as everything else: obviously this is fiction, but it's treated at face-value along with everything else.  Things like "Laozi is said to" is just too vague.  Hopefully I'm making sense here.
 * T'ang Dynasty should be wikilinked the first time it is mentioned (in the Biography section), and therefore should be wikilinked all other times (in all other sections).
 * "Laozi grew weary of the moral decay of the city" what city would that be? Or do you mean of citylife?  Be more specific.
 * In general the writing is decent, but it would benefit greatly from a thorough copyedit. Nothing series, just minor language things here and there.  Mainly, many thoughts are awkwardly broken up between too many sentences, were a few commas and longer sentences would suffice.  For example "The Tao Te Ching, often called simply the Laozi after its reputed author, emphasizes the Dao. In the text, it is the source, and ideal, of all existence. It is unseen, but not transcendent, being the root of all things." could be changed to "The Tao Te Ching, often called simply the Laozi, emphasizes the Dao, the source, and ideal, of all existence: unseen, but not transcendent, being the root of all things."  And "The concept of wu wei is very complex. It includes the concepts that value distinctions are ideological and ambition of all sorts originates from the same source." could be changed to "The concept of wu wei is very complex, including the concepts that value distinctions are ideological and ambition of all sorts originates from the same source."
 * "Laozi's work, the Tao Te Ching, is one of the most significant treatises in Chinese philosophy. It is his magnum opus," There's alot wrong with that sentence, namely that it's not nuetral POV.
 * Tao Te Ching, as well as any alternate titles, like The Laozi, should be italicized whenever mentioned.
 * "such as the "sitting in oblivion" found in the Zhuangzi." makes no sense to someone unfamiliar with Taoism.
 * I'm not sure what the relevance of the Taoist dragon picture is...
 * "citing work by Aat Vervoorn" what does that mean?
 * Per WP:Lead, the lead should summarize the entire article. So, some mention of Laozi's influence should be in the lead.
 * Thanks for the review. I will address the criticisms over the next few days. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Revisions made. Vassyana (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything looks pretty good, so I'm happy to pass its GA nomination. Good work!  Some additional suggestions I have would be to mainly clean up some of the language.  Much of the prose is reads much better, but it is still a little awkward in some places.  A thourough copyedit by a 3rd party might help alot.  But for now it definitely fits the GA criteria, so well done! Drewcifer (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Genuine Practitioners?
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)

Influence- Zen
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)


 * It doesn't really have anything to do with Laozi or his recognized works or successors. I fail to see its relevance to this article. However, if we could find a source that details the Tao Te Ching's influence on Buddhism (or some kind of veneration of Laozi by Buddhists) that would be perfectly appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would this source be useful? Iam not familiar with the subject to make a grounded assessment  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jossi. Of course my insertion was sourced as well, to Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005). Zen Buddhism: A History. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom. ISBN 0-941532-89-5. In fact, I got that source from the Wikipedia Zen page, which discusses the link between Taoism and Zen in both the lede and Early History sections. Msalt (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By no means do I dispute the heavy influence of Taoism on Chinese Buddhism. I simply do not understand how absent a direct link to Laozi such information would be relevant to this article. If everyone else thinks it is appropriate, I'm not going to hold up consensus. Vassyana (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. Given that Lao Zi is considered by many to be a mythical figure who represents the collective authorship of the Tao Teh Ching, how do we separate what should be in the articles Laozi, Tao Teh Ching and Taoism? I have no clear answer.  It's possible that an Influence section may not belong in this article at all.  What is the influence of Laozi independent of the Tao Teh Ching?  Just as a mythical figure? I guess if I really examine my unconscious thoughts, I take him and the Tao Teh Ching as exemplars of what some would call "pure" and what Watts calls "contemplative" Taoism, as opposed to the "religious" or "magical" Taoism.  But that's just me. His influence as an icon is probably mostly with the more "corrupt" branch of Taoism, with immortality potions and such. Msalt (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Watts
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)

Sourcing
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)
 * What about a situation, such as in the paragraph about we-wei that I think we are both talking about, where a paragraph contains different points that might have different citations? That paragraph contains (to my eye) 7 completely different and significant assertions about Wu-wei.  My mid-paragraph citation about the different meanings of the word is specific to those meanings (and I will probably have other citations to add later.)  The political implications of wu-wei are a distinct point.  Should the references at the end of a paragraph include text making these distinctions?
 * I also see intra-paragraph citations fairly often. A paragraph as complicated as this one seems like it could benefit from intra-paragraph citations (or maybe better yet, should be broken into multiple paragraphs with specific points.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be best to try and separate such claims from each to preserve sourcing. Alternatively, if a mid-paragraph insertion is necessary, simply ensure that the previous citation is applied before the insertion with an editor note (like ) explaining what text portion is covered by the citation. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Captions
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)


 * "Founder of Taoism" is incorrect IMO. Laozi did not found a religion. He was what he was, and Taoism developed much later. I am not sure about the "water buffalo" reference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked and there are numerous sources that describe a legend about Laozi and his water buffalo. One source: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The source of the image describes it as iconography depicting Laozi the god. Regarding the other, there are numerous variations of the image abounding, almost all attributing the animal as a water buffalo. I have never heard of a variation stating he rode on a yak, while leaving on a water buffalo is a quite common account. Vassyana (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, Jossi. My question for both images is very narrow; are we sure the images are depicting what the captions say they do?  Vassyana answered my question about the "God" one.  I could provide citations for the animal he rode being a yak, but it doesn't really matter; the issue is what animal this particular image is depicting. Sorry if this seems picky. Msalt (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the original sourcing information for the water buffalo image was deleted from bg-wiki. I can see if another image is available, or if I can find the same image with more information is available elsewhere. However, I should note that yaks are long-haired and have horns curving backwards, while the image displays an animal with outward-bowed inward-curving horns and short hair (which is consistent with Asian Water Buffalo). Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me! Msalt (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ziran
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)
 * Some help with the stub Ziran would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Just realized that's an alternate spelling of Tzu-jan, which I just promised elsewhere (in the Taoism template, I think) to start a stub on.  As soon as I get some time, I'll be glad to help. I was obviously just struck by the absence of this one myself. Msalt (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready for FAC
Are we ready to submit this to WP:FAC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think we need to cover Laozi's religious and cultural presence/image in Asian culture in better depth. He is also a very popular figure in the West and we should probably include more information about that as well. A bit more about the various scholarly theories regarding his existence would also be required, in my view. In general, we have a good article here, but for FA standards I believe we need to cover the subject with more depth in a few key areas. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a todo with these tasks at top of page. I will get started with the historicity aspects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Historicity
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)
 * First, excellent revisions in this section! Second, isn't the third paragraph ("According to Fowler and Robinet") now redundant as a pale echo of the first? Third, I will actually answer your question.  :)
 * - David Hinton, translator, Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters, introduction pX.(Counterpoint: NY) 1998 "Unlike Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu probably did exist, though historical evidence for his existence is sparse."


 * - Burton Watson, "Complete Works of Chuang Tzu", in Unesco Series of Representative Works: Chinese Series, Columbia Univ. Press: 1968, Introduction, p8 -- "Most scholars now agree that it is impossible to say Lao Tzu ever lived, or, if he did, to determine exactly when."


 * - Alan Watts, cited above, pxxii-xxiii "Until relatively recent times, it was generally believed that Lao Tzu was an individual (otherwise known as Lao Tan or Li Erh) who lived at the time of Confucius (K'ung Fu-Tzu), that is to say in the -6th and -5th centuries... In the last fifty years, Chinese, Japanese and European scholars have, by minute textual criticism, come more or less to the consensus that the Lao-Tzu book, the Tao Teh Ching, is a compilation of Taoist sayings by many hands originating in the -4th century, during and even after the time of Chuang-Tzu, who, according to Fung Yu-lan, must have flourished somewhere between -369 and -286."


 * However, he goes on to push back against this consensus. "I am in some doubt as to how seriously this debunking of the Lao Tzu legend should be taken." He goes on to say that it is fashionable to cast doubt on the historicity of "'legendary'" figures, "especially if they are of the religious or spiritual type", and says we probably won't be able to judge clearly for years, if ever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent.... now summarize that is a couple of sentences... and that would be a great addition. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, gave it a shot. I also reworded that first sentence, which I found confusing.  Please fix either.... Msalt (talk) 06:03, 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've reverted the good faith edits, as they are not supported by the sources cited. I will see what I can find in sources about Xishen Jing and Yinxi. Vassyana (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Not having heard of this other work before, I have a concern about undue weight. On the other hand, if there are other works reliably attributed to Laozi, they should probably be mentioned in a different place in the article, perhaps more prominently.  If they are of dubious authorship, then of course that should be noted as well.  Msalt (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm developing a section about Yinxi at the moment. For now, I am focusing on the relationship between Lao Tzu and Yin Hsi, as the sources I've looked over do go over this in some detail. I will continue to look for reputable sources detailing the Xishenjing and it's relationship to Laozi. Vassyana (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good stuff, Vassayana! I will look to see if I can add some material on this subject as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
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.

Logo links to this Article

Logo links to this Article

Jagra (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism
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)
 * The encyclopedia of libertarianism By Ronald Hamowy page 282 Darkstar1st (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, I'm afraid you're off the mark on this one. If you had looked over the article carefully, you would have seen that the information you're trying to remove from the lead has been in the article itself for almost four years.  Rothbard is a WP:RS, a major libertarian philosopher, not at all fringe, and I don't think his statement about Lao Tzu is up for much interpretation.  He called him a libertarian.  That he wasn't literally a libertarian is immaterial, as the cohesive philosophy didn't exist yet.  The point is that he espoused libertarian/individualist values.  Having said that, I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it in the lead, as it is explained well in the article itself.  A more general statement about it might be appropriate, but I think further discussion would be well advised first. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusion in the article is highly questionable, but inclusion in the lead is absurd. Lao is not remembered because Murray Rothbard wrote about him, except for people get all their information from the Mises organization website. I will invite wider input into this discussion.  TFD (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming Lao is remembered because of Rothbard. The claim is that he is significant to libertarian thought, and notable libertarians have said as much.  I'd also like to point out that this article had a peer review and passed a GA review, which means there are at least half a dozen editors (myself, Darkstar1st, Pulpculture (who added the original Rothbard material), as well as all the reviewers and editors who worked to get this to GA status) who think the Rothbard part should remain in the article body. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC: should lead state mention Libertarianism?
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)


 * Murray Rothbard is a notable libertarian philosopher. One need not be an expert in Chinese history of philosophy to read the quotes in the article you linked, which include a lot of very straightforward anti-government sentiment.  I agree putting it in the lead is probably a bit much, but it should definitely not be removed from the article itself.  Your statement: "he did not mean this comment to be taken literally" is your own opinion on the matter, not a fact.  We can only go by what the source says.  The influences section of the article is detailed, and discusses Laozi's anti-authoritarianism in general.  The libertarian remarks are appropriate in that context, and there is a balanced viewpoint in that section including an opposing view from Roderick Long, who discounts the ideas put forth by Rothbard and David Boaz, another notable libertarian.  I'd advise reading the entire thing. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that these views are shared by experts on the Tao te Ching, Daoism or Chinese history or philosophy? Or is this just a case of someone picking out a quote they like?  The Tao is often ambiguous.  TFD (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD, how long have you had an interest in Daoism? I was convinced you simply followed me here after you were over-ruled on the immigration to mexico deletions and edits by me?  If you would like to discuss quotes, I suggest the singular quote cited in the "left" ref to libertarianism was a mistranslation of the French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque, "libéral et non LIBERTAIRE" (liberal but not libertarian).  IMHO, Dejacque was forming the French version of the term defined as "one who subscribes to the philosophy of liberty.  Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.  Classical liberalism, as understood in the time of Joseph Déjacque, is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in Western Europe. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.  Today the term has been linked to income redistribution and "anti-property" rights, a term I reject.Darkstar1st (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rothbard was an expert on libertarianism. He had the written word of Laozi.  We have those quotes as well.  Rothbard (as a notable, reliable source) stated his view.  We're reporting it here, appropriately.  What you're suggesting is infinite interdisciplinary cross-referencing of all subjects, which is impossible. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Darkstar1st, it has been a long time since I read the Tao te Ching, but I cannot remember anything about "freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets". Perhaps you could explain where this is discussed.  TFD (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are confusing my explanation about the primary source of "left" libertarianism, a solitary mistranslated, misinterpreted quote by Joseph Déjacque. "Freedom of...markets" was an attempt to explain Joseph Déjacque thinking.  But, you have not addressed your recent interest, which I suspect was only because I had made an edit here.  I will continue edits on different subjects, then we will all know if you follow me to other articles.  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may do whatever you want but please do not use these pages to make personal attacks and accusations. TFD (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could explain what drew you to this article, as well as, "libertarianism", if not to critique/undo specifically, my edits, which you have attempted without success? At some point, when a WPian is over-ruled continuously, yet insists on undoing a specific person's edits, it becomes tiresome. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, could you please stop using talk pages for personal attacks. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but only so you can have a victory in our "edit war" as you called it, when you accused me of being a sockpuppet. You determination is admirable, but your delivery is transparent, and pathetically inept.  Using your influence to silence WPians, which you do not agree, is sad.  Following them from page to unrelated page, is borderline creepy.  "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libertarianism.  Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case."  Darkstar1st (talk) 01:57, 12 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)
 * Do you consider Laozi as even having a political position/philosophy/party, if so, which? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not personally see the utility of matching 20th-century political labels to the positions of philosophers who wrote 2,400 - 2,600 years ago, but I understand the argument Rothbard was making and do think it's potentially of article-level interest, though not of lede-level interest. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The article was fine as it was before we all came along, and doesn't need the addition to the lead.  I think Darkstar1st was acting in good faith, but failed to notice that the article already contained the content he wanted to add. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Please do not inject modern conservative propaganda into articles about ancient philosophers. This titbit of info on the views of Rothbard has no place here. I have read Tao Te Ching and other Taoist works, eg Chuang Tzu, and it has nothing to do with Libertarianism. OMG, I see that someone has inserted a section on Rothnard's views into the Chuang Tzu article as well! POV pushing going on here. ► RATEL ◄  04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think saying Rothbard considered him an anarchist with a proper citation is okay, but there is way too much other material that shouldn't be in there. I'm going to fix that.  Thanks for the heads up. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Revision as of 17:49, 6 November 2009 Chuang Tzu, and prolly way before had Rothbard. Ratel, you are at least 6 months behind here.  If anything was "inserted", it was before rip van winkle took his rest.  Darkstar1st (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * please start here: Chinese_philosophy if you wish to remove "modern conservative propaganda" in WP about, "ancient philosophers". Words like  democracy, republicanism, and industrialism, as well as, marxism and communist litter this article, as well as all other philosophy tidbits in WP.  Rothbard specifically said, Libertarian, anarchist does not appear in his writ.  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It's sufficently relevant to the present to have a sentence, if all three or more refs to this so far mentioned on the Libertarianism talk page. But not in the lead unless libertarians worldwide adopt the Taoism symbol and start putting his picture on all their web pages. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment--Oppose This characterization of Laozi does not belong in the lead and seems also out of place in the "Influences" section. I'm not saying it can't be in the article but not sure where it belongs. The lead is a summary of the article, not a collection of misc info about the subject. Whereeve it ends up. I don't like the current wording since Laozi has no birth and death dates and is considered by some to be mythical. In addition, I believe he lived long before the concept of Libertarians. So wherever the info is placed it needs to be reworded to reflect the context of the comments by these authors that say the subject is the "first Libertarian".-- — Kbob</b> • Talk  • 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I found an example of a philosopher who founded a political philosophy before it was invented also. His achievement is mentioned in the 1st sentence:  Karl Marx was a German philosopher, ..., whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism.  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC Follow Up Comment: That's a better way to phrase the info ie. "Laozi's philosophy is said by Rothbard to form the basis of Libertarian thought", assuming that's accurate with the source. However, it still doesn't belong in the lead as it is not a significant subtopic in the article.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 13 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)


 * Ninly, the correct term is, "template message", and I am unable to verify your claim after re-reading the:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#General_sources Darkstar1st (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Call them what you will, but review the information at WP:TPO about editing the comments of other Wikipedians. /ninly(talk) 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I call them what WP calls them. I do not see any information about template messages on the WP:TPO?  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the main point is that it is improper to amend other editors comments. And I would agree that adding after selected sentences is not helpful to the discussion. I assume that that you did this in good faith but now you hopefully realize its not appropriate. However you should feel free to respond and question other editors comments in your own posts. Thanks! :-)--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree, I do feel it is appropriate, but have agreed to stop until a more elegant method of asking for a citation in discussion can be created. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:33, 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. <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Torchiest regarding both exclusion from the lead and §Influence on Western culture. Modern bias and Western bias are factors that need special consideration...Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 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)

Further criticism of the lead
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)
 * Please go ahead and do 1). First sentence of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are only western historians listed in the bibliography?- Ie lead criticism
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
 * I'm not sure this is the place to discuss historiography, or philosiography, or whatever you would call that metacriticism. Wikipedia sticks to reliable published sources; it's not really our place to "correct" them, especially not all of them.  One thing is, on English wikipedia there is a strong preference for sources in English; otherwise one editor could cite a bunch of sources that few could verify even reading them.
 * You seem to be implying that Chinese or non-Western sources have a different conclusion about the historicity of Laozi. Do you have any evidence of this?  It's not like translations are uncommon.Msalt (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dravidian tradition?
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.
 * Very interesting, thanks for the links. I'm intrigued by the term "Medeival" in one of the books.  When is Bogar said to have lived?  Is he a later figure considered to be a reincarnation of Lao-Tse?Msalt (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

time of birth
I believe the Qin dynasty spanned from 221-206BC as said in the following entry: []. 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)