Talk:Confucius

Illegitimate Birth

The Records of the Grand Historian Shiji flatly state that Confucius was born as a result of a "wild union" between Shu Lianghe and a woman surnamed Yan. The Shiji makes absolutely no mention of a marriage, ceremonially defective or otherwise.

The Shiji's author, Sima Qian, remains famous after more than 2000 years for calling a spade a spade, rather than a metaphorical digging implement. Sima Qian clearly revered Confucius, but did not allow his feelings to interfere with the factual account based on the best evidence he found. Earlier edits mentioning a "marriage" that was deficient under traditional notions of ceremony (li) may be due to a misreading of the cited Chinese source. In fact, only the words rendered in blue are the actual Shiji - those in purple are (much) later commentaries.

Other editors have - correctly - pointed out that the Shiji was written hundreds of years after Confucius own time. There are, of course, countless (later) hagiographic versions of Confucius' birth, but it would be slipshod to attribute these accounts to Sima Qian himself. If any editor could locate and include a sampling of those alternative accounts (preferably with approximate dates), it would help balance the account.

Psychologically, the stigma of illegitimate birth makes perfect sense of a man whose life was spent considering deep issues of ritual propriety and how human relations should be regulated. WikiFlier (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Age at Death

Inconsistency. Footnote 19 is used to corroborate the statement that his age at death was 72 or 73. Why then does it appear as 71 or 72 in the summary side bar (or whatever it's called)?

Of course, I realise that it is difficult to establish a person's exact age without exact birth and death dates, which are absent here. Surely, however, the article should strive for internal consistency in giving these estimates.

Date notation (eras) — BC/AD or BCE/CE

There was a discussion, above, on the use of date notation (eras) for this article. All who spoke agreed that the MoS guideline for eras requires consistency throughout an article. The guideliine further states that there must be a good reason for changing the era notation. As with all articles there must be consensus of the article authors. Three people spoke to the issue and two of these preferred leaving the date notation as BCE/CE. Yet, inexplicably the notation was changed to BC/AD. The article had used BCE/CE notation for over a year prior to the change in May, 2006. actruly Confucius was born in (AD) There is good reason to restore BCE/CE notation in this article, IMO: the article is about a non-Christian subject in a non-Christian region of the world. As the article on Common era points out: "... most Chinese have used gōngyuán (公元) to mean AD/CE, gōngyuán can be literally translated as "public era" or "metric era." Many of the articles on Buddhism and Taoism use BCE/CE notation for dates.

In view of this, I am adding my vote for retaining the BCE/CE notation. I will restore that notation and urge that it be retained until such time as there is a consensus of authors to the contrary. Sunray 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is being proselytized.--Patchouli 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you arrive at that conclusion?. Sunray 08:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The above was merely a justification, as requested by the guideline. Fact is that there is a consensus to use BCE. One of the reasons given for the article not achieving GA status was "No consistent usage of BC/BCE." We need to respect the consensus and keep it consistent. Sunray 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand what BCE meant and had to look it up. Since Confucius was not Christian, I'm happy for it to be used. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I agree with the discussion (titled 'Vandalism?') at the top. Plus, I think that the 'Notes' section of the Confucius article has been vandalised too. I tried editing it, but the text won't appear for some reason. Could somebody throw a little light on the situation? RuthW 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Confucius say Ari Gold.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.253.44 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Failed GA

The Notes are all broken. They consist of links back to the article, except in some cases where what was apparently intended to be linked to appears as a second part.

No consistent usage of BC/BCE.

Most references are to The Analects, which is not a reliable source. This is like referencing the Bible to support a claim that Jesus walked on water. --Ideogram 15:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to develop a plan for further improving this article. Anyone else what to work on this? Sunray 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Confucianism in Action

Can somebody explain how Confucius' philosophy describes the causes that lay behind the violence, war and chaos of his time, and any sort of practical ways he proposed to resolve or cope with these problems? And how do his ideas on this subject differ from those of the Daoists, such as Zhuangzi? Thanks. 68.181.230.101 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Confucius, the root of the trouble was the failure of propriety in the family. Confucius felt that is roles could be properly defined acted out, the world would be well governed. This is often referred to as rectifying names. This process must begin in the home as the child learns to behave from the example of the parents. If the parent acts as a parent and teaches the child what is expected, the child will grow up normally. Children will then be able to act appropriately in society in relation to superiors, friends and spouses. The heart of this is self-restraint.

Taoists generally beleive that the root of social unrest is grasping and greed. Confucius would not have disagreed, except that Taoists tend to view human society as an arbitrary collection of rules and traditions without substance. They tend to identify Reality with the processes of change observed in nature. While Confucius advocated a kind of ritual propreity, this propriety or Li was intended as an expression of underlying logic as opposed to a set of hollow actions. Taoists often argue against instances of corruption hiding under a good appearance, butn that is not really what Confucius was advocating. Confucius was also aware of the nature of social constructs but believed that without a common frame of reference, human beings could not relate well or even survive. He also thought that social changes were not arbitrary but were either progressive or regressive in terms of human well-being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.30.143 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

this article

don't highlight so many of the words because then it gets hard to read. Ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.29.252 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) KATIE ROCKS♥♥♥♥

厩焚。子退朝，曰：“伤人乎？”不问马。

厩焚。子退朝，曰：“伤人乎？”不问马。 should be chapter 10 verse 17 instead of 11 under the section "teachings" ASAP It does not mean he does not care about the horse, "不" in ancient Chinese sometime means "later". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.136.44 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 165.21.155.72 (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)hongsy

BBC Reith Lectures on Confucious

Don't know if they're of interest to anyone [1]. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Confucius wing"

"Confucius wing" needs to be mentioned in the Confucius#Disciples and Legacy part. -Sneaky Oviraptor18 (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be confused

On the top it says don't be confused with confusion, is this a joke or is it supposed to be like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.228.235 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Added by Hakseng: I agree with the previous poster - is there really any danger that anybody is going to confuse those two terms? If not, then why do we need the hatnote? It just looks plain silly!

@ lightsup55: I do know what a hatnote is for (although I never knew it was called that - thanks :-)). I'd also err on the side of caution, but seriously - who's going to get this mixed up? Following the logic, we'd have to add 'coiffeuse', and somebdoy better add 'confusion' to 'cold fusion' ... you never know who's forgotten his reading glasses today :-)

BTW: I'm psyched the article is semiprotected now - I remember coming here to edit the random vandalism out only to find it put back in the next day. Semiprotecting works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakseng (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hakseng: You can request for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (or WP:RfPP for short) and an administrator will protect it (if a valid reason is given to do so). --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightsup55: Thanks, that's good to know! --Hakseng (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't References Supposed to be traceable

Why are NONE of the references traceable? Isn't the whole purpose of having a reference so that the reader can obtain or verify information? Out of the 1st 15 I randomly tried not a single one works or is locatable... Normally references could refer to other documents cited in the article, however in this case, none of the articles appear to be cited with the exception of 2? Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Confucius was Korean nonsense

I've heard and seen many lies about how Koreans claiming Confucius was Korean, first of all, no Korean scholars and Korean government claimed such lies, this claims were originally made up by Japanese/Taiwanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Korean because Korean culture was deeply influenced and one of very few countries kept traditional learnings of Confucius. Even today there are dedicated schools for learning Confucianism and Korean culture heavily shows some of this elements, particularly dealing with elders in the family. Also, Korea holds some of the oldest temples and heritage sites dedicated to Confucius. However, Japanese and Taiwanese nationalists wanted to use this as Korea was claiming Confucius as "Korean" ethnicity. Which is totally nonsense because all of lies about Korean/Korea recently all have been fabricated & spread by Japanese & Taiwanese nationalists. We should this controversial claims from Japanese/Taiwanese nationalists at main article to show the wikipedia readers about the truths about these lies. --Korsentry 06:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Is there any reason for this touchiness? I just found out Capt. Kirk was Canadian and you don't see me going crazy! Gingermint (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

I don't beleave that someone could possibly know that Confucius was born at 28th of September.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.212.170 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. Maybe this is the in Chinese Calender, but some clarification is needed.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Would you say its proper to include an external link to a fully translated Spanish version of the Analects? @ www.confucionismo.com/analectas

Thx--Bernini2 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Descendants

It is actually quite a well-known, accepted fact among genealogists and geneticists, as is mentioned in the references, that Confucius's descendants are THE longest still extant and fully recorded line in the world.

So please don't change to "one of the oldest." Evangeline (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

114.233.136.109 why were my additions deleted, what's wrong with the detailed info on Con's family and a link to the modern TV series?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.233.137.226 (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 

Confucious shared a common belief with the Roman Catholic Church as he did not believe in birth control. 81.159.180.70 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs Media section

This article needs a Media section, there are at least two Confucius film articles here on Wikipedia. One from 1940 and the other from 2009, and a 16 episode cctv series as well which is now on dvd. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs proofreading!

This article is full of grammatical mistakes. Could someone please get it cleaned up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.39 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Add ref

In the politics section there's a quote about shame. Here's the source of it: http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&rl=Lunyu&no=19 It would be nice were it incorporated into the article itself. Thank you. 85.76.37.56 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlock this article

It's a mess and desperately needs work. 85.76.37.56 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The lock is necessary, because this article is a vandal magnet. If you wish to contribute, I suggest you create an account and edit this article using it. _LDS (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

I am Starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. If Taiwan is included, then that would imply that Taiwan is separate from China, which would violates NPOV. There have been similar discussions in the past, such as at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_Asian_age_reckoning The concusses was to avoid mentioning Taiwan to maintain NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay...

One: Stating that Confucius has influenced Taiwanese culture does not mean Taiwan is a separate country. It simply means that Confucius has influenced the culture of those living in Taiwan. The sentence does not say "Confucius has influenced many countries such as Korea, Taiwan" etc. It makes no mention of states, sovereignty or anything else.

Two: Suggesting Taiwan is a country violates NPOV, but suggesting that they are the same does not? That is where your train of thought directly leads to.

Three: Tibetan Buddhism has influenced Tibet more, and in different ways, compared to other Chinese provinces, but of course it is okay to mention this!

Thanks. Rothery (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

One: If Taiwan is a part of China, then Confucius influencing Chinese thought would already include Taiwan. By excluding Taiwan from China you are already taking a side.

Two: The article never claims to list all cultures influenced by Confucius to begin with. Singapore is not mentioned, but nobody thinks that Singapore is a part of China

Three: The chinese naming convention already discussed Tibet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29

"In particular, some find a distinction between "Chinese" and "Tibetans" or between "Chinese" and "Taiwanese" to be objectionable and the terms "Han Chinese"/"Tibetans" and "Mainland Chinese"/"Taiwanese" are more politically neutral and use will depend on the context. For example, "Mainland Chinese businessmen look forward to meeting their Taiwanese counterparts" is more accurate and acceptable than with the word "Mainland" left out."

T-1000 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Confucius has influenced the culture of Taiwan to a different extent than China. As noted the list does not purport to list countries, merely cultures. These are different. Chinese culture is not equal to Taiwanese culture. Just as Australian culture is not equal to Aboriginal Australian culture.

But since Confucianism is quite important to Taiwanese history and culture it is misleading to leave it out. If Singapore has interacted with Confucius thought to a significant and unique extent it should be listed.

That does not address my point that it is valid to refer to various regions and cultures, whether they are seen as part of a whole country or not. Rothery (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You claim that Taiwanese culture and Chinese Culture are not the same, but that is only your point of view. There is the POV that Taiwanese culture is part of Chinese Culture. There is even the POV that Taiwan is the real China. With all these different POV, the NPOV policy does not allow us to take side, or to describe one POV as fact. T-1000 (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect paragraph

This paragraph at the bottom of "Descendants" is incorrect and should be deleted or revised:

"It is important to note that this only deals with those whose lines of descent are documented historically. Using mathematical models, it is easy to demonstrate that every human being alive today is likely to be a direct descendant of Confucius, even using mathematical models that assume an extremely small amount of cross cultural mating, since any human alive today would have had 1.5 sextillion ancestors alive at the time of Confucius, over a quadrillion times more than the population of the earth at the time, making descent from Confucius a mathematical certainty, even accounting for consanguinity and geographical and cultural barriers, as noted by Yale professor Joseph T. Chang[45]."

The reason this paragraph is wrong is because the "most recent common ancestor" (MRCA) could be any one individual; the chance that that one individual, the MRCA, happens to be Confucius is extremely small. Confucius didn't live far enough back in time to be a part of the "all or nothing" era, in which an individual was either an ancestor of every living human, or of no living human. The "all or nothing" era was quite further back than Confucius (at least 2000 BC, maybe 5000 BC or even further back). Read the referenced article for more details. Confu123 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have weakened the claim in line with your comment and what I think is supported by the source:

"Note that this only deals with those whose lines of descent are documented historically. Using mathematical models, it is easy to demonstrate that people living today have a much more common ancestry than commonly assumed, so it is likely that many more have Confucius as an ancestor."

William MacDougall 05:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation Error

In the paragraph which explains Confucius' political views, one of the Confucian quotes 知之為知之，不知為不知，是知也 was translated to "Knowledge is recognizing what you know and what you don't." This is not correct.

In common opinion of the study of ancient Chinese, the character "知" of "是知也" is different from the former four charaters "知". This character "知" is actually a borrowed character to temporarily replace the character "智", which means "wisdom". So the sentences should be translated to "Wisdom is recognizing what you know and what you don't." And this does make better sense. --Grahamiao (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "Knowledge is..." wording seems incorrect. Edited as suggested above. --SimonFlummox (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting {{In Our Time|Confucius|p00547k8|Confucius}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Why Are the Citations in this Article Nearly Useless?

Whoever has been adding citations to this article have added names only, without any referred texts, dates, pages or anything that is generally used in Wikipedia as a reference... In many instances, the URL referred to is entirely in Chinese - again it is quite useless to anyone reading an English-language encyclopaedia which this is purported to be... Can someone improve on this and add some form of legitimate citations to what has been said here? Otherwise, the article becomes pure speculation and opinion. Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by MNylan

MNylan came on #wikipedia-en-help, and asked how he could implement the following changes; unfortunately, technical errors meant that he was not able to receive a full explanation. Perhaps someone can judge the content of his suggestions, and implement them if appropriate?

mnylan: Let me give you one example: Confucius was NEVER said to have authored the Li ji, which is a Han dynasty text produced about 500 years after he died.

I don't know enough about the subject to judge this! DS (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous factual errors in the Wikipedia essay on Confucius. For example, Confucius was never believed to be the author of the <Liji>, as this was a Han-dynasty text, written about 600 years after the death of Confucius. For information, see Michael Nylan, <The Five "Confucian" Classics>, chapter 4. The information also is missing a number of important works relating to Confucius that have come out in recent years, including <Lives of Confucius> authored by Michael Nylan and Thomas Wilson. This essay is not accurate in many details nor complete. It needs much improvement. Mnylan (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to unprotect this for a few days and keep an eye on it - in fact will do so now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Better to Light a Candle Than to Curse the Darkness

Many sources in the Internet attributes the following quote to Confucius:

"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"

Can anyone verify this? What is the original quote in Chinese?

Thank you. (1.0.5.50 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC))