Talk:Laozi

Archives

Untitled

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

some mention of the pronounciation?

zi is pronounced dzuh and i think that's notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.27.25 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And how would one pronounce 'dzuh'? Is it /dzu/, /dza/, /dzə/ or /dzɑ/? From my knowledge of Mandarin (which is admittedly little, all I know is some phrases and words and how to count), I think zi is pronounced most like /dzə/, at least if one had to go with sounds found in the English language (I don't know how similar or different Mandarin vowels are to English vowels). Dzuh is ambiguous, while the IPA transcriptions I showed you are not. Therefore, it's not "notable". saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Mandarin is a tonal language you can't write it own like 'dzuh' since it contains no information about the tone. This is a third tone character, though context usually alters the actual pronunciation as you move from one character to another. See http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E5%AD%90/57091 for examples of actual Chinese pronunciation in modern standard mandarin (though who knows how it would have been pronounced over the ages and in different parts of China). I should add that IPA transcriptions do not contain tonal information, which is absolutely necessary in mandarin - there are 5 separate ways of pronouncing 'zi' in standard mandarin all /dzə/ in IPA. Even this character has 2 different pronunciation depending on context (third tone and neutral tome) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.76.132 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (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 • 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.-- — Kbob • 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! :-)-- — Kbob • 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. Torchiest ^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?

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