Talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/Archive 2

What is going on with this article lately?
What in the world is going on with this article lately? One editor,, seems to be on a crusade to change all references to "Legalism" to "Realpolitik", yet I see no evidence that this change has been effected in the reliable sources at large. Additionally, FourLights writes on his user page that he "took over" the Legalism article, but this is clearly impossible, as Wikipedia forbids ownership or "taking over" of articles (WP:OWNER). I think some reexamination needs to take place here.  White Whirlwind  咨   21:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ping some other active editors to see if I missed something.  White Whirlwind  咨   22:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, , , any idea what's been going on here?

When I said I "took over" I only mean that I'm the only one who works on it. If you want to contribute, that's fine by me. Not need to get touchy. I'm not on a "crusade". If you want some references as "Legalist" have them as "Legalist". But famous Sinologist Creel uses Realist, and as far as I can see, the term is out the window for any serious considerations of the topic. It is mostly lower quality studies that use Legalist. Now, if you want some more references, I can go down the University, where they've the volumes. Volume one of the Journal of Chinese Philosophy has a great treatment of the topic, in the Shen-Puhai article. But if you'll check the history, I am already putting plenty of effort into integrating material as it is, and these things take time. So set a reasonable timelimes for requests on me if you please. My sources on the terminology are not yet innumerable, but even Goldin is very thorough. As it says on the page: Fa-Jia is a term made up by Sima Tan, dubiously and narrowly translated as Legalism.

Tell me what you think is a "Legalist", rather than what I have researched. Look at all the pages that use the term! It is a term that was dislodged from any original meaning, and used to refer to everything and anything. Shen Buhai is called Legalist, even though he makes no use of law. Shen Dao is called Legalist, even though he only uses administrative protocol, and was pre rule of law. Even the Confucian Xunzi was called Legalist, because the other Confucians didn't like him! That is why academics began using the term Realist, to refer to the Realpolitikal tradition of the Chinese. To quote Goldin, who does Legalist accurately refer to except Shang Yang and Han Fei, the latter, too, being far more complex? And yet so much more was inaccurately included under the term. If you wish the term used, instead of more academic terms, it would oddly be at the same time as it's being inaccurate, and my sourcing it as such! whose treatment I make a top priority.FourLights (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the sourcing of the page, a lot of the history in it is just my bringing different wikipedia pages together, to form a central page.FourLights (talk)

It is not possible to single out the "Legalist" aspect of Chinese administrative philosophy because there is no such thing. Rather, Chinese administrative sciences were termed Legalism. What is called Legalism is simply Chinese administration, and it includes non-legal politic, it includes Guan Zhong, who is in fact mostly Confucian but disliked by Confucians as not orthodox enough for them. Go to the articles on the template I made. Most of them say Legalist. "Made up of Legalist philosophy" what is Legalist? Legalist is simply administration. Confucians want rule by virtue, deragotorially call rule by administration "Legalism".FourLights (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you aren't a native speaker of English or what, but you write verbosely and in a strange manner that is often difficult to follow. I recommend keeping your writings simpler and more concise.


 * What your research shows "Legalist" means is completely irrelevant to how we will refer to what the Chinese call fajia 法家 on Wikipedia: we follow the consensus of the reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources still use the term "Legalism". There has certainly been some discussion on possible improvements to the "Legalism" translation, but they are a long way from being consensus in the academic community.  Your writings are more suited to a research paper than to Wikipedia, as they involve your own opinions and theories, such as your last paragraph above.  We cannot use WP:Original research, we only say the consensus of the experts.  Your Wikipedia-wide change of instances of "Legalism" to "Chinese Realpolitik" are premature and should be reverted until reaching consensus.   White Whirlwind  咨   01:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Any article on Legalism will tell you, the use of the term Realpolitik may be accurately used to refer to any of these figures. For that matter, the term Realist is neutral - it has an English definition http://faculty.valenciacollege.edu/scrosby/realismidealism.htm. In detailing to development of "Legalism" i.e., Chinese administration and Realpolitik, one must also include the Mohists. I am willing to forgo changing the term throughout wikipedia. But if you wish to include the term Legalism more in this article, is there anywhere you would you like to put it? And considering my nice template, grouping foundational figures and texts. FourLights (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Legalism sub article

 * I don't intend to get involved in a long drawn out discussion on this but if as says "Legalism" is the term used by reliable sources then that is the one that should be used in all relevant articles. You need consensus before making changes in definitions, and since you don't have that, I suggest that you hold back on any further changes until other editors have had their say. Thanks.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep it as you like, but neutral point of view says I should discuss the terminology "from all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." And so far that includes Creel, Allyn RIckett and Paul Goldin.FourLights (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourLights (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus that the current title is both the more common term and a more accurate representation of the article's scope. Discussion about what the article should include, how it should be structured and if some of it needs to be split off can be continued further down the page in other sections. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy) → Chinese Realpolitik – Opening discussion following undiscussed move Philg88 ♦talk 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Strong oppose WP:COMMONNAME and REVERT to the state this was before FourLights started messing with the article. Realpolitik is not the same as the specific philosophy espoused during the Qin dynasty. It should not be covered in this article at all, since you are rewriting history to make it conform to your own viewpoint. You should have started a new article. Just because Legalism uses some realpolitik does not make it equivalents. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not rewriting history, I was simply using a neutral term that the user may be more familiar with. I also do not believe you have rights to revert sourced material. However, I can make a new page as you say. I would also discount anonymous users.FourLights (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And you're not being fair. I did not know how much I would expand the page when I started working on it. Your hostility is uncalled for.FourLights (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Google books results for "Chinese Realpolitik" are mostly about modern Communist politics and policy. Legalism is by far the most common term regarding the ancient philosophy. -Zanhe (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does not cover similar Military texts. I would like to cover Realist texts under one page, as a history. FourLights (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per my previous comments. I don't think incorporating a discussion of the Seven Military Classics into this article is necessary or desirable. A broader discussion of realist thought in Chinese philosophy during the Warring States period might be better suited to the article on Hundred Schools of Thought. Cobblet (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your support am trying to create a new article.FourLights (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly goes against the current consensus in the reliable sources, no matter how much is convinced it is an inaccurate translation.   White Whirlwind  咨   19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to renaming and continued rogue editing. In common English usage, "Chinese realism" customarily refers to artistic Socialist realism not Legalism. "Ancient Chinese Realism" is academic gobbledygook unsuitable for Wikipedia. Keahapana (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An academic term is needed for an academic consideration. You may go to the page for just such a considerationFourLights (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I welcome ideas for alternative naming conventions, I'm just not very creative.FourLights (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest "Political realism in China". That's a formulation that complies with WP:TITLE and is standard on Wikipedia: c.f. Democracy in China, Anarchism in China, Liberalism in China. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the findings of Kanguole below. The name and content of Wikipedia articles should be based on the conventions of the academic majority, not individual interpretations on what is correct. _dk (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The term Realist is an abstract convention used by major overviews, Sinologists like Creel, and translators like Allyn Rickett.FourLights (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – several authors remark on the shortcomings of the term, but it remains the usual name for this topic. As noted below, the citations produced do not demonstrate usage of "Realism" or "Chinese Realpolitik".  So we should follow convention and not be creative.  Kanguole 23:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I now cover more than this topic on the page I have created.FourLights (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I have reverted the page to the status quo ante state; as FourLights has created a new article for realpolitick/realism in China in general, and not Legalism in particular. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your support in the creation of a new page to help bring Chinese political thought to the lay political reader. I also intend to improve and better source this page, though as a stub to a greater project. I welcome input on such changes. FourLights (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Creation of new page
I could create a new page. I could make this page into an article about Sima Tan's term.

Specifically covering the political material espoused by the Ch'in dynasty is a good idea, but might take some work.

It will detail, in footnote, it's usage for a broad variety of things, but usually being in reference to Ch'in politic (while actually covering them on the main page?) Note: the original page was unsourced. Mine will be sourced, at least in the fact that it should be easy to source a Sima Tan definition. Therefore the page would only be about Sima Tan's definition, until the implemntation of said historical coverage.

Remember, Legalism is an Ancient Chinese term. It is not objective for us to overly use Legalism as a coverage of Chinese history, an ancient, and usually derogatory term used by the Confucians.

As Goldin tells me in a couple emails:

The problem is not just that "Legalism" is a bad translation of 法家, but also that 法家 itself is a partisan and an anachronistic term. Sima Tan invented Fa-Jia purely as a way of dismissing it, and it scarcely characterizes any philosopher other than Han Fei (not even the Shangjun shu, which is no less interested in military affairs than in administration).

I would like to cover Ancient Chinese Politik under a diferent page. To do this, I could use the ENGLISH definition of Realpolitik.

To note, this does cover not Confucian politic. which is why I used the term Realpolitik. what name can I use to cover Realist Chinese politic? will you accept Ancient Chinese Realpolitik?FourLights (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since our aim is to create an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, we should have articles on topics, not terms. The topic in question is the one that is covered by most surveys of Chinese thought in a chapter entitled "Legalism".  Such chapters usually mention that the term is problematic for various reasons, but the authors continue to use it because it is customary.  So should we.


 * The sources cited in the lead to support the claim that Legalism is actually called Realpolitik or Chinese Realism do not substantiate the claim. Reference [1] (also cited as [3]) cites Martin Wight describing Confucianism, Daoism and Legalism as rationalist, revolutionist and realist respectively, but then goes on to use "Legalism" or "Legalist" in the rest of the article.  Reference [2] similarly fails to support the claim.  Reference [4] is some college notes that mention neither China nor Legalism.  Reference [5] refers specifically to political parts of the Guanzi, and contrasts them with Legalism proper.


 * I have concerns about whether the material added since June 2014 constitutes a recognized topic rather than synthesis, but I think the first priority should be to restore this article to a coverage of the original topic. It seems the best starting point would be its state before those additions, though that version needs work on the references, and needs to mention misgivings about the name.  Kanguole 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Additions / Amendments by FourLights
Based on some of the comments above, there seems to be a consensus that as well as keeping the article at its current title, contributions by should be reverted, taking us back to the version linked by  above. Please would interested editors indicate below whether they are in favor of such action. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 05:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This was already done. I have added two references. Kanguole has also addeded a reference. If you wish the examine them, there is plenty in them that can contribute to the article, though I would question how large the article should be (the article I made focuses on expansiveness, but for the sake of reader's interest maybe it is best not, at first, to discuss everything that has been called Legalism. What I mean to say is, it may be the core philosophers that get people interested in the subject. This may be considered a possible benefit of having two articles).

No disrespect intended to you, but if you don't like some other modification, then that is what you should be discussing. Not extraordinary actions. You're welcome to discuss changes, as I intend any changes to be beneficial. Therefore feedback is welcome. But I'm not given to understand that you have any rights to keep the article as it was full stop, let alone for sourced contributions. I apologize if you feel sour towards me. I am autistic, so my social graces are unenlightened. But please understand that my only desire is to provide coverage for otherwise unknown subject. That's why I tried to change the name; for the possibility that it might reach a larger audience. Discussing early Chinese history in relation to Realism gives the subject area room for expansion, which may not necessarily be appropriate here.FourLights (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One change I made was to talk about Shang Yang in the second paragraph. I could probably source it. But in any case, if you don't think it's best to discuss him there, then I don't mind it being removed. I put it there because Shang Yang is discussed in the first paragraph, and is also the primary example of an actual rule by law. Therefore I thought it best to discuss him in the second paragraph. But I apologize if you did not like this change.FourLights (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not done and please stop posting walls of text. Every time you do this it makes it increasingly difficult to follow what is going on. I have nothing personal against you, but Wikipedia operates on consensus, which you clearly don't have for many of your changes. Philg88 ♦talk 12:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Two days ago, FourLights moved most of the new content to a new article, now called Realism in Ancient China, after which 70.51.44.60 restored this article to its state in 2014 (before FourLights began work on it). Since then, FourLights has made over 50 edits to this article, radically transforming it.  This makes it difficult to see what's going on, but he/she seems to be reintroducing his recasting of the topic as "Realism".  The 2014 state of the article had many flaws, but I don't believe these changes have made it more coherent.  There is extensive use of college notes, and synthesis associated with the "Realpolitik" presentation.
 * FourLights has also been adding to many articles, but I suspect this topic is an original invention, and this classification is inappropriate.
 * I think the article needs to be rebuilt based on direct treatments in published secondary sources. I'm not sure what structure would be best, but perhaps Texts and themes / Legalism in practice / Later influence would work.  Kanguole 13:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many Sinological studies consider the old Realpoitik on relation to that like Machiavelli. But more it is just the only means I thought of to treat a larger history including the Mohists and the Zhou. As I said, I welcome alternative conventions, I'm just not very creative. I can't do "Administrative history" because I haven't treated Confucian thought in relation to it.FourLights (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I could rename the article I made into "Administrtive thought" or "Administration" in early China but people would have to overlook the fact that I don't cover Confucian contributions, which I don't currently have much knowledge of. It'd be easier for me to get this book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765805685?*Version*=1&*entries*=0FourLights (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates under WP:BOLD. Regarding consensus, though sources are superior, I certainly offer input as per my wish for a better article, but few people have any interest in participating. No one said anything at all during the year of my edits. That indicates to me that they were either fine with it's development or just didn't care. The only trouble was when I tried to move the page, instead of thinking to make a new one. I am not a trouble-maker, I just made a thoughtless mistake.FourLights (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)