Talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

Encyclopedification

Although the page may be empty-ish at the moment with an emptying of it's figures, whose content is to be integrated with it's pages, and a lot of with academic gloss in the later sections, I already have a vision of where to take the page on a completely categorical basis, to revive it's dead subject.FourLights (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

FourLights, I recommend you find other articles to edit and let others edit this article. You've made thousands of edits here, most of them without edit summaries, and I think this is putting off others from contributing. I would have expected after that many edits and years that this would be worthy of at least Good article status, but the content is jumbled. You may not be seeing the wood for the trees any longer. Fences&Windows 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

hello, there was some several years where I did not much work on the subject, and several before I started the article. The article is a jumble now because I have just restarted it; although emptier, it would be unjumbled by this evening. Previously it was the figures themselves. It has been suggested before to divy out their primary material to their individual articles, which is what I will be doing. The idea now was to make a combinational concept article instead of personages. That is, unless a conceptual article would also be too much. I admit that I spent more of this year on the subject as exploratory work. If anyone wishes to take over for a period I will cooperat, but I assure you, getting a grasp of the subject was no easy task. I do not think you would be able to find anyone willing to work on the subject; take a look at the wu wei page. I wrote it. It needs fixing, but no one works on that page either.FourLights (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, although, if considered a good idea, Shang Yang is intended to be represented in concepts rather than a figure, the page is now less jumbled. Again, I can take feedback even if no one wishes to work on the page. I intended to formulate a concept pertaining to him, and it is regardless possible that some things discussed here, need not be. Otherwise, I certainly have other pages I can work on.FourLights (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The shared concept originating in Shang Yang I was going to formulate is wealth and strength. I already know at least two works that discuss the subject, and it is prominently represented in Pines Stanford Encyclopedia. If no one else works on the page, remember the I have done, even if a lot of it was useless and exploratory, contentbe integrated into it's pages to be improved, worked on and better organized and conceptualized. I.E. assume good faith.FourLights (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of context, the article can always be re-arranged.

The next step would be to compile a Shang Yangian section on wealth and power. I otherwise intend to expand fa commentary for clarity, while keeping the more tecehnical points the fa article. Unfortunately, without additional article support, apart from implementing details it would probably be a long time before I could rectify the fa article's introduction itself for substantive academic accuracy.FourLights (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I intend to shortly create a brief commentary from Benjamin Schwarz.FourLights (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on tag request, I will streamline the work and reduce some detail. When needed I will have to ask for feedback, but it is not needed at this point since the work has to be done first.FourLights (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I will be able to update the section Earlier classification as Huang-Lao, whose history is also relevant for the Wu wei page.FourLights (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I can probably make the "Creel's branches" section "less confusing", it is likely not all of it's detail is needed. Some extra detail will be in the notes.FourLights (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Having provided some leeway for non-existent users to take over the page (I appreciate the minor edits) while I expand the Gongsun Hong pages, before proceeding with larger work, I've come up with a simple change to divide the unwieldy section Creel's branches. I am working on this currently. I've divided into a new section for expansion and intend to make the former more plain.FourLights (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that the mid-to-late content needs work, and I still intend to make a Shang Yang related section. Integrating Shang Yang more generally will require research. After integrating school of names content into Shen Buhai, I will see about shortening it, along with addressing other sections.FourLights (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I am currently working on reviewing this.FourLights (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I will consolidate some misplaced material to better discuss Legalism. I intend to write an introductory foreward later. That should help clarify matters. Unfortuanately, while it would have addended commentary, it would be largely Creel based to start.FourLights (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be restructuring the introduction.FourLights (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC

I otherwise intend to expand commentary relating to Shang Yangs contributions that lasted into the Qin dynasty. This will also allow for improved restructuring FourLights (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Legalism

With the publishing of Tao Jiang in 2021 it will be possible to discuss "Legalism" in some capacity. Tao Jiang recalls Creel's acceptance of Shang Yang's as ancient China's Legalist school. Also attempting to find relevant content elsewhere, and giving notice of the discrepancies, Shang Yangs reforms can be discussed as relevant to manufacture a section.

There is some content that would be relevant, only that I probably cannot say "this is Legalism". It may even be extraordinarily difficult to find a definition of Legalism. It can only be done on an academic basis. I believe that approximately half of scholars across all time have used the term, but if we want to talk about it as a subject and not just a convention. So we will have to see if anyone else talks about it as a subject besides Tao Jiang.

But it is still possible to otherwise make a relevant discussion without simply being archaic. Only that it will be the opinion of a subset of academia, while pulling historical content from elsewhere. If we only use it as a convention for Fajia that only half of scholarship in the past, some distant past, have used, then it cannot be discussed. FourLights (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Basic concepts section

The peer review published in January I didn't notice has requested a basic concepts section. I should be able to put one together, and I can be begin doing so right away.

I will sort out the references in On the Qin section and attempt to simplfiy it.FourLights (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You would have done well to actually read what was written. Where was the "request for a basic concepts section"? Where, more pertinently, was the request for an 800-word indiscriminate, unsourced, unintelligible mess? I can only assume that your goal is to make this subject completely incomprehensible to anyone who wants to know anything about it.

I will remove the entire section per WP:CHALLENGE. I beg you, go read pages like WP:MTAU and WP:BETTER, because your current understanding of what makes a good Wikipedia article is clearly far removed from what it needs to be. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I take the basic concepts idea as representative of the Britannica you linked. However, after reading these, I can put together something smaller and more basic. You could have still commented on some of the information itself however? While sources are not always easy to come by, if we have an idea of the information, I can potentially put something together.FourLights (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Or, even better, step away from this article and go edit something completely different for a few months. Since this edit in March 2023, you have edited the article over 10,000 times. It really should be FA-class by now. Instead, it is barely a C-class article. This shows, very clearly, that you have no idea how article development on Wikipedia should work and that you believe that your slow degredation of this article is somehow contributing to the project (hint: it isn't). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

While the entire article could be dumped and rework If you could step back I can tell you the actual problem. The Fajia are not a real school and they are not a Warring States school. They are category invented in the Han dynasty. It's figures are a smorgasboard of figures in the Han Feizi. Their category does not exist in the Warring States period. Shang Yang is located in the remote west in Qin state and has law but lacks administration. Central China does not even know about him. Shen Buhai in the Han state has administrative method but lacks law. Han Fei is a philospher in the Hann state who inherits Shen Buhai's administrative method and proposes Shang Yang's law. Shen Dao is a philosopher in chapter 40. There is no Legalists it's just people in the Han Feizi.

The school doesn't even exist, it's figures are actually out of the School of Names. The Qin dynasty wasn't Legalist either, it's a Han dynasty fabrication.FourLights (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The category doesn't even really exist in academia anymore. It's a question of what to talk about it and how to talk about it. We want to talk about the figures and subject, but the actual history of the subject is that there was no Legalist school, it was invented in the Han dynasty. If there was a Legalist it was Shang Yang, the others weren't Legalists.FourLights (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very good attempt at deflecting attention from your failures to the difficulties of the subject which you have apparently failed to resolve in 25,000 freaking edits. Again, to repeat: you have no idea how to improve a Wikipedia article and are under the delusion that you are somehow improving the project by consistently degrading this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no project, I wrote the article. There may be some good information in page, in the backlog, in the archives, and in my sandbox. But while I have failed thus far there is nothing to deflect, I am the only volunteer. While I may not be good at what I do, what I presented to you is the actual problem. If the article is dumped, it's dumped. It might be a hundred years before anyone worked on it again. If I am failing, which I am, I am only failing at my own work.FourLights (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no project, I wrote the article. There may be some good information in page, in the backlog, in the archives, and in my sandbox. But while I have failed thus far there is nothing to deflect, I am the only volunteer. While I may not be good at what I do, what I presented to you is the actual problem.FourLights (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the article If there is "an actual problem", it is that.

This version dates from 20 May 2014. I have no doubt that it contains all manner of simplifications, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations. But I would support reverting to it every single day of the week, because it remembers what you are oblivious to: Wikipedia is meant to be read by other people. So, let us revert to it, and see if it takes anyone a hundred years to start improving it. Can't be worse than what we have now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't object, but I would appreciate it you would be able to get anyone to try and work on the subject with me, I would a good guide even if I am not a good writer. I would point out that what you are reverting it to is a simplification of what would be contained in my "basic concepts" section, even if I didn't immediately have comprehensive sourcing.FourLights (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

FourLights, I suggest reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As someone also working in the Sinosphere on Wikipedia (see Cai Lun or List of Chinese monarchs), I understand the frustration of colliding historiographical models on a very dynamic tradition. However, we both know that there is an orthodox and certainly still prevalent way to describe the fundamental tenants, history and practices of Legalism. That is what this article should fundamentally reflect: the general consensus of reliable sources. Looking at the "On the Qin" section, I'd say you do this somewhat well, but lessen the focus on specific sources. Why does a general reader need to know that these discoveries were "Based on the archaeological discoveries represented in the Cambridge History (1986,1999)"? And where is the citation for "the Qin empire's laws were primarily administrative, concerned with such items as weights and measures"? These are the kinds of things you should be addressing.

Remember that this is a summary, not an overview. We don't need to hear every individual scholar's name and view. We need to here the consensus, and then notable names for notable opinions. Take a look at the Shinto article where this is done; it's much more readable and comprehensive (without being overly detailed). Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The "the Qin empire's laws were primarily administrative, concerned with such items as weights and measures" is a combination of the Bo Mou Routledge and the 1986 Cambridge. The Routledge is this case essentially reiterates the earlier statement of the Cambridge 1986; it is not a preferable document, but rather, important in the history of Sinology as a retrospective, and hence, to my work on the back-end. More work on the Qin is certainly needed, later sources, which in this case would also start with later work by Michael Loewe on the Qin. The main reason I ended up starting with the Cambridge 1986, in my own work, is because it was a pivotal document for the subject as a first release of the information, which makes it relevant in understanding the history of the subject in Sinology, even if I have to look into later source.

Legalism as a subject presumably goes into decline partly because it does not match the information contained in 1986, although relevant information is also contained in Creel in Hansen. The only good, and one of the few documents that takes "Legalism" as a subject, if flawed, in the following decades after, is Kairyn Lai 2008. While the Stanford Encyclopedia has an article, it doesn't combine with the Mohists for instance like earlier thinkers do. While there is a work, "Adventures in Chinese Realism", and there are works talking about the individual people, the subject goes into terminal decline, because there was no Legalist school, and thus sees a decline in work as a category. Pines isn't perfect either, contains some contradiction, although I can make perfectly good sense of him. While I need to read Adventures, a problem is a both the lack of a good modern guide and a paucity of work on the subject itself, although there is still some I need to look into. The earlier works are imperfect, and cannot serve as a perfect guide, but clarify the later work.FourLights (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will work on rechecking and tidying up the weights and measures statement to something closer to the Cambridge.FourLights (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If possible, I could bounce work off of you or someone else, unless AirshipJungleman29 would like to volunteer to receive writings.FourLights (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Although niche article sources are likely needed, nobody would actually need to read my sources to start. I have extraordinary knowledge of the subject. Me and someone else merely need to discuss writings to start.FourLights (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to run drafts by me; perhaps these things would be better experimented with in your sandbox, and the moved to the main space.

I'm glad to hear about your citation rationale. Moving the reference closer to the text is an improvement; another one would be giving a page number, or at least a small page range for the Cambridge source. Keep in mind that there are three general components of referencing: Reliability, Verifiability and Formatting. The Reliability of your sources is strong, the verifiability and formatting could use a lot of improvement. I would focus on verifiability for now (putting appropriate and specific citations near the text they're citing), we can do formatting later. Aza24 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My current reading in Cambridge 1999 doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and thus need to look at other sources for the section, but I have already tidied up the On the Qin section for the few existing sources. If it happens to be available for you, the links are to the most important pages.FourLights (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Although I will otherwise put in a review question for it, we need to consider what if any content currently in the Contemporary Predecessors belongs on the page, what might be moved to a later section other work or rewriting aside, or otherwise belong on the fa page. In terms of source, while there may be some question, it's only the most theoeretical component is more questionable; specific high level details aside, it's broadly accurate.FourLights (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC).

I'll simplify it regardless.FourLights (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Although I am not finished sorting references as requested, and I am not sure how enlightening and specific it will be, I will read the style manuals presented. That I haven't read them before is because the wikipedia back-end isn't actually well designed; I have no idea where anything is.FourLights (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. You probably need to inspect the Manual of Style and the editing guidelines first. Also, people have been linking you to the style manuals for years, so while I guess you could blame your unfamiliarity on bad design, I think your selective reading is probably a better shout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

xkcd 2501 is also relevant for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have done a quick skim of references and bibliographies; here is a suggestion of how to organise the article per WP:SS, WP:MTAU, and MOS:LAYOUT, based on Oxford bibliographies:

==Nomenclature and scope==
Discuss: "Faija" as a word, and "legalism" as a translation of it; is "legalism" a good translation? does "faija" even mean anything concrete? when did the term appear? is it useful? 
Example citations: Creel 1970, Vandermeersch 1987, Xu 1995, Fu 1996, Smith 2003, Goldin 2011,

==Historical thinkers==
===Background===
Short. The current five paragraphs is far too lengthy and vague.

===Shen Dao===
Discuss: "Positional power", interest in "fa".
Example citations: Xu 1976, Thompson 1979, Chen 2001, Harris 2016

===Shen Buhai===
Discuss: administrative techniques, state bureaucracy
Example citations: Creel 1974, Chen 1997, Lau, et al. 2000

===Shang Yang===
Discuss: Importance of a legal system with punishment and rewards
Example citations: Li 1977, Zheng 1987, Yoshinami 1992, Zhang 2012, Tong 2013, Pines 2017

===Han Feizi===
Discuss: "analysis of political and social organization from a social scientific perspective"; incorporates some of above thinkers' ideals along with others'
Example citations: Wang and Chang 1986, Lundahl 1992, Zhu 1992, Lau, et al. 2000, Watson 2003, Goldin 2013, Sato 2013

Discuss (minor): are the Han Feizi commentaries on Laozi authentic?
Example citations: Lau 1989, Sarkissian 2001, Kim 2010, Queen 2013,

===[Insert other major Legalist thinker]===
etc.

==Concepts==
===Morality and "Fa"===
Discuss: amoral political theory, yes or no? discussions of morality; also what is the purpose of "fa" in the political theory?
Example citations: Wang 1977, Schwartz 1985, Graham 1989, Winston 2005, Bárcenas 2013, Harris 2013, Yang 2013

===Xingming===
Discuss: what? performance and title? statutes and penal codes? development of Confucian zhengming?
Example citations: Creel 1970, Wang and Chang 1986, Makeham 1990, Levi 1993, Yang 2010

===Rulership===
Discuss: support for totalitarian rulers (?) and resulting paradoxes
Example citations: Rubin 1976, Mou 1983, Song 2010, Galvany 2013, Pines 2013

===Rhetoric===
Discuss: role in broader political thought
Example citations: Zhang 1997, Lu 1998, Lyon 2008, Pines 2012, Hunter 2013

==Philosophical relationships==
===With Confucianism===
Discuss: was Han Fei a student of Xunzi at all? were they linked? where did the agreements/disagreements lie?
Example citations: Kaizuka 1982, Hutton 2008, Flanagan and Hu 2011, Bárcenas 2012, Sato 2013, Van Norden 2013

===With other thinkers===
Discuss: Huang-Lao (Jan 1991, Wang 2007/2012), Zuangzi (Vervoorn 1981), Mozi (Zhou 2008), Laozi (Wang and Chang 1986), Mozi and Laozi (Ivanhoe 2011)

I'm not an expert, but that seems much better organised than the current jumbled mess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that FourLights has chosen not to reply here for reasons known only to themselves; instead, they have chosen to engage at my talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not see this. The notifications only informed me of the lede change.FourLights (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You are requesting something closer to what I had originally, with the individual figures, but condensed. I could simply revert back to that version of the page, and work on condensing and improving the information. I was under the impression that people did not want it that way, but I have no objection to it. Perhaps it only needs to be more succinct in that regard. But I admit even the figuree themselves still need some work, and it is correct that some of it could be split off into a concepts section. Overall I think it's a good idea, if thats what people want.FourLights (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI Shen Dao is only a minor figure.FourLights (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I will look for the older version of the page without objection, and storage the material here for later work. Keeping in mind that it's not complete, it can probably conform, at least as a draft, to the idea you have here.FourLights (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have sufficient material to condense Han Fei. If you revert to the original page, I can combine commentaries on the concepts, which will also include the figures. The figures only exist as concepts, some of which are shared. Not all of the concepts are shared.FourLights (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I will revert the page and work on digging up and putting together a section on Fa. Shu is a kind of fa, so I'd just talk about the distinctions. I can talk about shi, which is only a minority concept. Then we can talk about other concepts.FourLights (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll put together a clarifying introduction.22:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is "While Shang Yang was a major figure for the Qin, the major administrative concepts found in Shen Buhai and his successor Han Fei also have an least probable influence in Qin dynasty administration." This is immediately incomprehensible to an uninformed reader. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated it more briefly into the introduction.FourLights (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You could request that I provide more information on the figures than is present in the introduction, but it would essentially go through the individual figure's pages before it makes it here. You could tell me what kind of information you would like, but I would have to locate quality sources of information first.FourLights (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is better now. Please try to familiarise yourself with the footnote system I have begun to implement (see Help:Shortened footnotes); stubbornly trying to reintroduce your old, half-baked style is helpful for no-one, and the article least of all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I can try to pick it up, but could you provide a link for instructions on the use of your footnote system? Also, could you provide feed back on "Han Fei's system allowed ministers to 'bid' for office on the basis of their own proposals." I can look into expanding explanation, but this is a component of Han Fei's system demanding performance in accordance with the office (as opposed to ministers just doing whatever they like.)FourLights (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have modified Goldin's page numbers; is your document using different page numbers? The document is available freely online, it was using the page numbers I had for it. https://ealc.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/bio/%5Buser-raw%5D/papers/Persistent%20Misconceptions%20about%20Chinese%20Legalism%202016.pdfFourLights (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If you had read my comment, you would have seen the link. Goldin's page numbers have indeed been adjusted, to match the version that was actually published in the Journal of Chinese Philosophy. The problem with the "Han Fei's system..." is that one has no idea what the previous sentence means. What performance? What ministers? What office? What is "bidding" for office? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, as long as the article's title is "Legalism", you will need to be using that word in the body, instead of "Fajia". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I could propose to change the name but what you're talking about would be far be less practicable even if we discard accuracy; Legalism is a translation of fajia, and Legalism and Fajia are discussed as different things in academia where Legalism isn't used as a convention. Creel divides Shang Yang and and Shen Buhai as Legalist and administrative branches, which is itself a clarification; while Creel is old, he has a great deal of accuracy, and is essentially a prominent figure in almost every modern western work on the subject, and even works written by asians. His model has itself been commonly used, including in old works like A.C. Graham and the Cambridge history. I didn't choose him randomly.FourLights (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to review the works on xing-ming or Han Fei more broadly before I can propose a better mini-introduction; as an introductory statement, it was intending to avoid too much technicality.FourLights (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it was originally published in the Journal. Where are you reading it?FourLights (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that "Faija" is a better name for what the article talks about, start a WP:Requested move discussion to change it. Until then, the article has to address its title, not what its title isn't. I agree that Creel is a prominent academic who should be extensively used; you just aren't explaining what he says very well. Remember, Wikipedia:Make Technical Articles Understandable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The current section is more based around Sima Qian and a discussion of Fajia and it's history without getting too nitty gitty, which is kind of what i figured you might like for that. I could try to think of a way to incorporate Creel more, and I do have his Shen-Pu Hai, but apart from being centered on Shen Buhai he is also very historical, and I figured we were trying to cover some basic historical highlights while including philosophical elements for it's Han dynasty introduction. There are some other relevant historical points, like the establishment of the Academy. Later I was going to discuss them in other categorical ways, like Shang Yang and Han Fei's emphasis on a rich state and army, with it's history. Creel discusses things like, Shen Bugai was early recieved only in terms of bureaucracy, and Shang Yang ultimately only in terms of penal law.FourLights (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You yourself suggest that we talk about Fajia, and at the moment I've only covered one portion of it. Although it would take some work, I do think it could be expanded on, in a practical, philosophical way, and not just a categorical historical dissection. Given that it's name is Fajia, while the Stanford is Fa tradition, they already include some of the same topics, and Goldin talks about Fajia philosophically also. Legalism could potentially be discussed as a category seperately too, but you have to keep in mind, it's a deprecated category, might requiring finding some more nitty gritty articles - I always considered Winston high quality as a philosophy about Legalism, but I don't know that anyone has referenced him besides Tao Jiang.FourLights (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you requested an at least slightly technical/historical discussion more in depth than I have now. It might also be productive to speak with wikipedia China, but you have to keep in mind that we receive limited attention, it may take some time to get a response.FourLights (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've submitted a request to the wikipedia china to discuss introductions.FourLights (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to discuss the term itself right now, and I don't need to use it either; generally I wouldn't anyway apart from discussion of the term itself. I can move mention of it back up to the lede and still discuss the history.FourLights (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Reward and punishment

Apart from resurrecting older material, I'll be able to put together a section on reward and punishment using the encyclopedia of Chinese philosophy, which includes commentary on the Guanzi. Including an expanded comment on the Qin, this effectively creates more of a timeline for the idea. Airship considered it an important discussion, though he may not like the first draft.FourLights (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for being absent from work on this article, and I am glad to see you still making progress on it. By the way, I've created the redirect Xingming to this article, pointing to a #Xingming section that does not yet exist—it's fine for the moment, but someone might be confused in the future. Remsense诉 08:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I understand the confusion since I earlier did not have knowledge of xingming. But while Xingming comes to fruition in the Shen Buhai-Han Fei, you should know that Xingming has a broader earlier mileu in the school of names, which is literally called Xingmingjia. Xun Kuang etc also has a Xingming method, in line with the Confucian rectification of names. Some day a page will have to be created for it, if sufficient connective material exists.FourLights (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend focusing on writing coherent sections first. The first two paragraphs of the "Han Fei's lineage" section are near incomprehensible to an uninformed reader. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Article changes

@FourLights, I think the article is starting to slowly grasp a better approach. I would highly recommend consdiering the outline given by AirShip above, I think it would help a lot with simplifying the article.

Also, I might reconsider the opening; including Sima Qian and the "six classical schools of thought" may be too specific for an opening line. Britannica does "Legalism, school of Chinese philosophy that attained prominence during the turbulent Warring States era (475–221 BCE)" — something like this would work better, focusing more on the time period it originated, than the writings of Sima Qian. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I can work on the lede, but It didn't exist as a school of philosophy during the Warring States period. That includes Shang Yang: he has some influence for the Qin dynasty. He does not have prominence for the Warring States period, except insomuch as he contributed to Qin mobilization. There may not be anyone in central China on record who even knows about him before Han Fei. Mencius may know something about the Qin, if that deserves commentary.FourLights (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Han dynasty can be discussed later in the page if that is people's preference. It is simply what is present at the moment. I mentioned what I would be attempting to construct next in the previous paragraph, unless there's any objection.FourLights (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that as usual you aren't seeing the wood for the trees. The objection was not "the Warring States era should be mentioned", but "the opening line, which should match the guidelines at MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, is too specific". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Guan Zhong is from the spring in autumn period, but how about "mainly warring states period", like I have it now.FourLights (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Shang Yang request

I have a lot of sources I can go through, and might find something myself or in the Cambridge history. But as it stands, I could probably still use more sources on Shang Yang as an individual, which would also benefit the Shang Yang page. It may still be difficult to find something on Google books.FourLights (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I must request that you clarify what "the Cambridge history" refers to—there are rather a lot of them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please also install the User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors script so that you can see and identify problems with your chaotic citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have multiples of the Cambridge History but I imagine Shang Yang is in one of the earlier ones (1988?), probably the first one, since that is where other work on the Qin is located. I will verify this for you, and hopefully it could be used for the Shang Yang page.

Although there are more sources I have two sources I will be reviewing for the section on reward and punishment that you suggested. I also have a book I need to review for the Qin dynasty, if I can locate it. I otherwise need to look at doing taxes in the next couple days etc.FourLights (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, please answer the question. What does "the Cambridge History" refer to? Here are some ideas for you to choose from:

• The Cambridge History of China
• The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature
• The Cambridge History of Ancient China

Or perhaps something else? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have on hand cambridge histories of China vol 1-13+PRC 1-2, and Ancient China, Origins - 221BC. Although I would some time anyway, I could attempt to look at the other ones some time depending on priorities. I'll attempt to do a cursory review of what I have on hand.FourLights (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your Trappist program appears to be functioning, at least given a glance at it's test page. It is getting late, but I will have some minor commentary I can add from the Cambridge History of Ancient China Origins - 221BC - but it's still Fajia commentary. It will have some other relevant commentary for forming other sections, but more relevant commentary may be located in the Cambridge History proper.FourLights (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of the minor commentary in the Cambridge Ancient China can contribute to a section on "a rich state and a powerful army” (maybe some would also be split off). The category is discussed in Pine's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. Although this section would include several references, it is a relatively prominent important concept and relatively easy section to produce. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-legalism/FourLights (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@FourLights, I don't think there is much English-language scholarship on Shang Yang. The only book I'm aware of is this one, which should have plenty of information. I see you already have Pines cited; it looks like they wrote a Shang Yang-dedicated book in 2017 (see here), which I imagine is an authoritative source by now. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be English language if we could determine it to be authoritative, I can use chat gpt and a couple dictionaries. FourLights (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wealth and Strength

Robert Ash associates the wealth and strength doctrine with the Self-Strengthening Movement of the opium war and taiping rebellion. Even Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin's reforms can be taken as motivated by it's goal. Additional sources will make commentaries contemporary to the warring states period, but still involve these kinds of associations. https://www.google.com/books/edition/China_s_Integration_in_Asia/49JcAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

It would be adopted by Japanese militarists during the Meiji Restoration as Fukoku kyōhei. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Discourses_of_Race_and_Rising_China/ht-GDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fuqiang+%E5%AF%8C%E5%BC%BA,+strong+and+powerful&pg=PA254&printsec=frontcover

FourLights (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Copy-pasting from above: I would recommend focusing on writing coherent sections first. The first two paragraphs of the "Han Fei's lineage" section are near incomprehensible to an uninformed reader. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I can start by removing the first paragraph because it's ideas will go into a different section anyway. But, I am glad to hear that I can slow down for a moment, I will make time to take another look at the writing. I can re-examine the style manual and run the writing through editing programs.FourLights (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Cambridge Ancient China 1999 has a bit more content that can improve the introduction, but some of it should go into the Legalism section I believe. The section I am otherwise writing will also help introduce them, which will presumably aid understanding.FourLights (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Introductions are good. Keep WP:MTAU in mind. The lineage section has improved slightly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

it could end up being reformed and scrapped, with some of it's material discussed at an earlier date. Some of it's material is introductory, some of it less introductory. I think that it is necessary to discuss Sima Qian some because, although they were so divided, precede Daoism and lack metaphysical elements, apart from Shang Yang they were taken as roughly proto-Daoistic thinkers, so I should expand on that on that and talk briefly about similarities and differences.FourLights (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

A critical introduction based in Michael Loewe should be out shortly, but it did not end up being the primary work of the evening.FourLights (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Individual figures

although verbal communication rather than just tags would be helpful, based on his feedback apart from fixing references which I have started working on I believe airship would like me to focus work on making brief descriptions for the Warring States period individual figures even though they have some work on their pages. This is actually surprisingly rare, let alone in depth, and will require some reading, but I will try to do this. And fixing up the other sections of course. In terms of the Warring States period I will have to determine what it's high quality source hierarchy is. FourLights (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2024

Legalism (Chinese philosophy) → Fajia – this attempt to construct the page has not got off the ground yet although I think next I would make brief descriptions of the figures.

I do not care about changing the page name on a personal level it's not my main inquiry. Name change critique is actually based on critique by user airship, that the term Legalism cannot be defined. Same discussion occured in scholarship. Both Fajia and Legalism are anachronisms and should not be used in the page in reference to the figures. They're not used in critical scholarship, and it begs the question who much uses them anyway. I don't actually much know who this conventional scholarship is who supposedly uses the term Legalism.

However, the historical term Fajia can and ought to be defined and discussed at some point even if not used as a general moniker, which I don't think generalizing monikers should be used for then. The term Legalism cannot be defined. Where it's actually been used in the past it is used differently. One person defined it as Shang Yang and Han Fei having punishments but he is just one guy from 2005.

The Stanford Encyclopedia calls them the fa tradition but I don't think that's all that relevant. Fajia is one of Sima Qian's six schools of thought in Chinese philosophy, that's what the page is supposed to be about. The Book of Han defines it as a Masters Texts tradition.

Shang Yang and Shen Buhai are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine (edit: Shen Buhai has administrative method but not organized law and disadvises punishment, Han Fei has Shen Buhai's method but advocates law, Shen Dao has an administrative technique: They are not Legalists.). They have some several categories I can talk about, but they aren't The Legalist School. Along with a little Shen Dao and a little comparison with other schools, they're some several influential thinkers with different philosophies that connect along some several lines, but not mutually between all of them..

At any rate, I don't care a great deal about a name change, but discussion of the term Fajia, if it is fit in relevantly, ought to be allowed, even if I actually advocate against using it as a general moniker. The figures in general don't really fit under much under a generalizing label except maybe realists but I advocate being historical.

The goal here is an introduction with some kind of historical context. Fajia is a Han dynasty term it only makes sense in that context. It should only be discussed technically in brief for that context, even it requires multiples of critique to get it right.FourLights (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONAME. Wikipedia is written for the general public, not for critical scholars. Walrasiad (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, but Legalism in Chinese philosophy (per SEP) might be better than the current title. Like the recent Genghis Khan RM, this is a case where the title should stay put but it's fine if the article body mostly uses fa or fajia, so long as it is introduced properly in the intro (as the SEP does). Srnec (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is possible to make discussion of Legalist interpetations, and a section of the small degree to which they relate with law, but the term itself cannot be defined. Legalism in Chinese Philosophy isn't actually any better because it isn't the bulk of their philosophy.

  I appreciate Smec's position. Again, I do not actually much about the name of the page name itself. I do not believe the term Legalism should be used as a gloss for the figures, not simply because it is inaccurate, but because the figures themselves have differences between them beyond the fact that they largely are not Legalists in the sense of law. Even if they did, I do not believe Fajia should used as a gloss for them either because it is a Han dynasty term. I do not consider the glossing terms desirable in general. I only desire to introduce or discuss Fajia for it's historical and philosophical components. It's invention by Sima Qian itself predates the glossing of the figures under it, and is not entirely connected to them; it is only a category they were placed in.

  I would at some point question whether Legalism is still actually the common name - it likely is, but I do not know how this would be determined. I am capable of some survey myself. It probably likely is, but is otherwise only about half of works. At any rate, while it is to some extent true that Fajia came to mean something like Legalism in the Book of Han, I am not able to say it because the term Legalism is not defined - it's usage is opposed is modern scholarship. Historically, it would be the case through association with Shang Yang.FourLights (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a gloss and was never intended to be; it's a translation. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal per WP:UCN/WP:UE; oppose Legalism in Chinese philosophy because the topic is not "legalism as understood in Chinese philosophy", but a distinct school of thought. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again, I have no concern for the term as a title, but the term Legalism if used more broadly in the article does inaccurately gloss Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, Han Fei and to an extent even Shang Yang. (Edit: You can have multiples of Standford derived articles on it as desired). On other matters, although I probably don't have the brainpower for it tonight, I would like to incorporate introductory commentary from the Stanford Encyclopedia defining the current. Michael Loewe has relevant older commentary and it otherwise ties in more broadly.

  I agree with AjacSmack's second statement, to the degree that it became a distinct school of thought. There are some commonalities between some figures, not to the same degree for all of them. Shang Yang is entirely missing Shen Buhai and Han Fei's concept of management. They are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine, and only one of them is focused on law, as even A.C. Graham 1989 reiterated p268. The 'school's Han dynasty Chinese name is Fajia. Legalism in Chinese Philosophy or about Chinese philosophy is something else entirely, even if it has possible intersection with the discussion.FourLights (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Shang Yang cambridge history

I have located Shang Yang's content in the Cambridge History, I will use it to provide reference for the Shang Yang page (which I did not originally write), but the content would be done there before it makes it's way over here, also that not all the content there is supposed to be here. I don't know, I have to do it and then think about it.FourLights (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, I need to complete reading of Kidder Smith's work, but I will also simply reading and look more into "style" documents.FourLights (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)