Jump to content

Talk:Xunzi (philosopher)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image needed

[edit]

I need an image on Xun Zi.Also,we need to expand the article about him.-User:Agoodperson

Spelling

[edit]

RE: "the King Xiang of Qi (齊襄王) honoured him as a teacher and a libationer." King Xiang honoured him for his ability to pour drinks? I can't work out what might be meant - librarian maybe? Given Xun Kuang's philosophical position it is highly unlikely to be "liberator". Or perhaps he caught the regal gaze because he was just really good at serving tea.

I believe that proper Pinyin would be "Xunzi" for both the man and the book.

I agree. I think the rules of pinyin state that the "Zi" title, meaning "master", should be written together with the name in the previous syllable. See the rules at pinyin.info (section 2.3: Kǒngzǐ). I think it should be Xunzi, just like Zhuangzi, Laozi, Mozi and so on. It is not the first time I come across the distinction between "Xun Zi" for the person and "Xunzi" for the book, but there does not seem to be any justification for that in the rules of pinyin, and it results in a spelling distinction that, albeit useful, does not exist when the name is written in Chinese characters. --AngelRiesgo 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a fairly common convention amongst American Sinologists. I believe that Ames and Hall during their collaboration at the University of Hawaii created the distinction. So while I don't think that rules would exist for it in pinyin, nor does such a distinction exist in Chinese, but as a tool for discussion I think it is useful.

As an American Sinologist, let me assure the author of the above undated comment that it is not "a fairly common convention." The best way to distinguish between Xunzi the person and Xunzi the text is to use italics for the latter. And you can distinguish between the two in modern written Chinese by using 《》 for the latter.--108.16.230.212 (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty URL

[edit]

The external link to http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/teachers/HsunTzu.htm (second link) does not work. -- Anthee (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Xishan blog

[edit]

Is linking a humor site, albeit an informed one, as a source the sort of practice Wiki really wants to endorse? I mean, I love the Onion's biting satire, but I wouldn't source a George Bush article with a relevant article from the Onion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.135.75 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find humor about George W. Bush, but insightful humor about Xunzi is hard to find. I say keep it. Anything to get more people interested in Chinese philosophy is valuable.

I agree with the first commentator. It would be different if this were really "insightful homor" but it isn't; it's silly, sophomoric, very low quality, and it tells us nothing about Xunzi. It starts off as opinionated tripe (He was a Confucian--that's one major strike against him?) and then goes lower--he'd help you bury the hooker after a bachelor party? Seriously? It's disgraceful that Wikipedia is linking to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.50.214 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2015

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed; there remains no opposition. bd2412 T 18:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Follow the format as at Zhuangzi, Zhuang Zhou, and Zhuangzi. Relisted. —  AjaxSmack  02:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC) White Whirlwind  咨  20:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal above is unclear. I assume that you want split the info about the book into a new article called Xunzi (book) and then move Xunzi → Xun Kuang (Xun Kuang is currently a redirect to Xunzi) and then make room for a disambiguation page at Xunzi. (This is what you did with Zhuangzi/Zhuang Zhou with no discussion.) If so, then, ...
    • And it has worked very well for the Zhuangzi articles (nobody has complained?). The split is appropriate, given that use of the -zi honorific is less commonly used for the authors themselves in the Chinese encyclopedic sources, as it's a very useful convention to delineate between the traditional author and the work itself. As an aside, Xun Kuang's life is actually fairly well documented, particularly in the fact that his Shi ji biography is considered more reliable than those of Zhuang Zhou or Li Dan.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - White_whirlwind, if you're planning to split and expand Xunzi (book), as you did with Zhuangzi (book) (which was a fine job), just go ahead and do it. I don't think Requested Move is the right venue to discuss your plans, but I agree that the book should have its own article separate from its author. I disagree with AjaxSmack that not much is known about the author. Xun Kuang was actually one of the few ancient philosophers who took high positions in the government and much was written about him by his contemporaries and students (including such famous names as Han Fei and Li Si). -Zanhe (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conditionals.

[edit]

My recent edit has been reverted. I am about to change it back, but not before providing some explanation. It is a question of grammar.

"Xunzi holds that man is naturally inclined towards selfishness, and that if this inclination is not curbed, human societies would devolve into chaos."

These verbs are incompatible. Both

"Xunzi holds that man is naturally inclined towards selfishness, and that if this inclination is not curbed, human societies devolve into chaos."

and

"Xunzi holds that man is naturally inclined towards selfishness, and that if this inclination were not curbed, human societies would devolve into chaos."

are correct, though not equivalent. The first emphasizes a presumed necessary implicature, and the second emphasizes that devolution into chaos is counterfactual to the observed reality. I think the first is better. At any rate, the sentence as I found it ("is not curbed… would devolve") is simply incorrect.

Regulov (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xun Kuang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As a response, I would like to add that I think the changes have been made and they will make a useful contribution to this article as a whole.

Mknicho5 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Madeline[reply]


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lost a position, but did he ever accept it?

[edit]

(Yes, my section title is a bit exaggerated.) In § Life (boldface added):

Later, Xunzi was slandered in the Qi court, and he retreated south to the state of Chu. In 240 Lord Chunshen, the prime minister, invited him to take a position as Magistrate of Lanling (蘭陵令), which he initially refused, but Lord Chunshen was assassinated In 238 BC by a court rival and Xunzi subsequently lost his position. He retired, remained in Lanling, a region in what is today's southern Shandong province, for the rest of his life and was buried there.

If he initially refused the position and subsequently lost it, evidently he must have accepted it between those events. But that's not mentioned, which makes the passage strange to read. It's as if a bio said "Harry proposed to Jane, but she turned him down. Five years later she divorced him." Reader reaction: "Huh? When did they get married?" --Thnidu (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did eventually accept the position (as the phrase "INITIALLY refused" implies).--108.16.230.212 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 August 2023

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xun Kuang → Xunzi (philosopher) – "Xun Kuang" is a name virtually unused by modern scholarship every single source in this article calls him "Xunzi". Furthermore, he is called "Xunzi" by the SEP, IEP, Britannica, China Knowledge, Oxford bibliographies etc. etc etc. I can almost guarantee you will not find a single source calling him "Xun Kuang" more often than Xunzi. It is the overwhelming Common name.

I'm assuming this name was chosen as a compromise because his writings are also known as the Xunzi, but I am not proposing that the Xunzi be changed from a disambiguation page. Xunzi will still redirect to disambiguation and Xun Kuang will still redirect here, the fact is: it is actively harmful to have this unused name at the top of the article. It should be "Xunzi (philosopher)" instead. Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Encyclopedia britanica?

[edit]

I should be working with my critic on this lede lol. Good decision on moving the moving the page though.FourLights (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

@FourLights, what is going on? You've moved so much out of the lead that you're creating entirely redundant and uncited sections. This "traditional biography" section, is the same as the life and career section. Can you please explain and propose your changes first, if they're going to be so systemic? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mythos, I believe that of Sima Qian. Is it relevant to the history of Chinese culture? Yes.

Was Xunzi the teacher of Han Fei? Not that can be discerned from Han Feizi, if "Han Fei" is the Han Feizi.
The Sources and context has the accurate statement: Some minor references

Does Sima Qian's mythos belong in introduction stated as a fact? You tell me.FourLights (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, I will go look for a Sima Qian reference. Nice and scholarly that way.FourLights (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down my friend. I don't think you understand why I reverted you. The lead is meant to summarize the article. Thus, everything in the lead is already in the article. When you took a paragraph out of the lead and put it into the body you're duplicating content.
I wrote this life section quite a while ago, and it certainly has many issues. If we want to turn it into a more "traditional-biography" focused account, that might be productive. I also certainly agree that we should be much more explicit that this information is from Sima Qian—but the way you went above this doesn't really work for a "live" article. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FourLights, I don't mean to be rude, but have you ever sat down and spent a night clicking through our WP:Manual of Style, or other related content guidelines? I feel it may clarify some of your particular issues you run into. Remsense诉 19:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not go about it the right way. I considered it more important to distinguish that this is traditional biographical information just to get it out of the way. I will look at your manual of style but it may take me some time to dig up a comment connecting Sima Qian and Xunzi anyway. Do you think we should not mention the specific Han Feizi chapter Nanshi? I do not object if you think we should not include this minor information statement. It was not my intention at this time to adopt Xunzi, but I could probably bring some information here some time.FourLights (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some information after all. I don't think all the information would be relevant. I may not look at it for a couple days.FourLights (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4318-2_8

Nonsensical sentence

[edit]

"Later in his life worked in the court of Lord Chunshen, whose death he died sometime after." Should be rephrased. 85.52.214.32 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xunzi_(philosopher)&oldid=1260741252"