Talk:Sun Bin

message: there is a story about Sun Bin and Game Theory. i hope this is not viewed as website promotion, as the article is purely focused on Sun Bin's story and i believe adds to the content of Sun Bin.
http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/06/sun-bin-crippled-strategist.html
:I removed this below, doesn't belong in the article.--Confuzion 07:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: ::A blog inspired by the work of Sun Bin applied to current events can be found at Sun-bin.blogspot.
I find this line "he was a member of the Sun family, a family famed for producing military strategists" out of place in this article. Of the Sun clan, the only great military strategists which really stands out are Sun Wu and Sun Bin, yet there are countless other brilliant strategists throughout the history of China with other clan names. This line is more of a generalization than a proveable fact. Master Liang 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific Sun clan was famous during the time for being one that produced military strategists; I don't have the book with me, but they would probably be more accurately known as "the Sun family from BLANK". They had a family tradition of being advisors in that role (Tian Ji also came from this family) - many males from this family went on to become military advisors/strategists in many states; whether or not this clan could really trace its roots to Sun Wu is a different story. This line isn't meant to imply that the Sun family name is one of great military strategists over other Chinese last names. They were famous for producing military strategists, not "great" military strategists, and the line doesn't make any implications on the greatness of the military strategists that the family produced in abundance--Confuzion 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed you added "local" to that line, which adds clarification. Master Liang 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Inspiration 

message: They are not accepted in historical circles.  For example, a Google search for "Sun the Mutilated" yields only eight unique hits -- two of which were previous versions of the Wikipedia articles on Sun Tzu and Sun Bin.  In many ways, "Sun Tzu II" fares worse; as far as I can see, no source outside the book that was cited by  uses the term; all of the Google hits direct to the book -- reviews, bookstore sites, &c.  Further, its direct translation into Chinese -- "孫子二世" -- yields not a single hit that is at all relevant.  Further, the Chinese -- even to this day -- rarely used ordinals in referring to people's descendants, and I'd question (under WP:MOS generally and under WP:MOS-ZH) the propriety of using any epithets that do not have any applicability with regard to the individual in question in the culture in question.  It would be like referring to George W. Bush as "George Bush II."  --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, to the extent that suggestion was made that "Bin" == "Mutilated" and was the name given after his suffering, the suggestion is unsupported by ancient sources.  The Records of the Grand Historian, vol. 65, for example, did not provide any such hints, as it referred to him as Sun Bin before his suffering.  --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when are established Chinese historical sources original research?  And nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that we have to accept a single author's epithets for an individual blindly.  These epithets don't make sense.  I'm going to call for an RFC on this.  (I also note that you do not make any attempts to factually refute my assertions above -- particularly the fact that "II" is not accepted usage in Chinese generally, not just in this case.)  --Nlu (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sun the Mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II"