Talk:Laozi/Archive 2

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Meaning of Name 

message: 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's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly minor edits 

message: 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's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To a large extent, the parallels are shared, and to the average reader, the parallels to western philosophy are more relevant. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parrallels with Western Philosophy

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Laozi]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pearl of Lao-Tzu or Pearl of Allah

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page should be moved 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A matter of consistency 

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

message: I am a bit bothered by the image: [Image:Lao Tzu - Project Gutenberg eText 15250.jpg] 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: About time someone took this on! What names you intend to remove from the infobox? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  Looks good without the infobox. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The changes you've made look excellent. Thank you for the work, the article needed attention. abexy 06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: Is this a vandal edit?  The IP has vandalized other pages today.  delldot talk 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandal?

message: 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)
thread_title: References & Laozi

message: Overall, the article looks pretty good.  I do have a few suggestions though:
*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.
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)
replies: text: Thanks for the review. I will address the criticisms over the next few days. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Revisions made. Vassyana (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genuine Practitioners? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Would this source be useful? Iam not familiar with the subject to make a grounded assessment   ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Influence- Zen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Watts 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Good enough for me!  Msalt (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Captions 

message: 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)
replies: text: Some help with the stub Ziran would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [[Ziran]] 

message: Are we ready to submit this to WP:FAC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Added a  with these tasks at top of page. I will get started with the historicity aspects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we ready for FAC 

message: 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)
thread_title: Userboxes

message: 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)
replies: text: The encyclopedia of libertarianism By Ronald Hamowy page 282  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

text: 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. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 19:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Again, could you please stop using talk pages for personal attacks.  TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Do you consider Laozi as even having a political position/philosophy/party, if so, which? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: 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. <B>Torchiest</B> (talk | contribs) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RfC: should lead state mention Libertarianism?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dravidian tradition? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  time of birth