Talk:Confucius

Adding title "educator"

Confucius was not just a philosopher, but also an educator. Should the beginning sentence be rewritten as "Confucius ... was a Chinese philosopher and educator"? Windywendi (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that a majority of secondary reliable sources describe him as an "educator", by all means add it. If not, then it is not appropriate addition – Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The section under Legacy/Disciples" specifically discusses Confucius' contribution as a teacher/educator. He is arguably the very first teacher to make education accessible for the commoners, which is previously a privilege of the nobles. I am going to pinpoint the sources supporting this statement and add it to the lead section as applicable. TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding what is needed here. Sources that merely describe his work in education are not sufficient for such a label. Plus, the article already says "paragon of Chinese sages"—a sage is someone who teaches, I don't see any need for further labels.

Either way, you will need to "demonstrate that a majority of secondary reliable sources describe him as an educator". Aza24 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I will continue to work on the sources. Meanwhile, I would like to add on that, unlike other sages such as Laozi or Zhuangzi, Confucius not only advocated private teaching for the commoners but also established a legacy of educational theories, methods, and principles through extensive teaching practice, which continue to exert far-reaching influence to this day. TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article status revisit

Fellow editors, I'd love to call for some collective efforts to upgrade the article rating and hopefully eventually achieve the good article status, would you kindly provide insights and recommendations. I am currently filling in citation requests as a kick-start. Thanks! TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the sources are just dumb websites instead of academically published sources, and for the books we do cite in this article, a lot of them are pretty old (Dubs and Creel, e.g.).

We don't have anything on the evolution of academic opinion on which of the classics he edited, his appearance as a character or voice in early texts postdating him by a few centuries, and present his Shiji biography as if it were unquestionable historical fact.

Off the top of my head, those are the big issues here, but I'm sure there are others. I'll try to add some sources to Further reading or on this talkpage, and try to incorporate them as I go; prima facie the article doesn't seem like it needs a complete rewrite from the ground up the way Confucianism does. Folly Mox (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We can continue to improve and update the quality of references to build a solid foundation, then work on the organization, copy-editing, and fact checking along the way. It will be of great help if you can post up good quality academic sources that all editors can refer to. TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies; this is still on my radar and todo list. It's been a difficult week. Folly Mox (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential sources

Apologies for the late response. Sourcing for an article with a topic like this one has posed a lot of organisational challenges, and filtering out sources that are more suited to Confucianism or Lunyu than to Confucius, checking for current TWL accessibility against the unavailability of Brill, and just finding appropriate sources amongst the hundreds or thousands that search strings return: it's been a difficulty.

So, in the spirit of "something is better than nothing", a disorganised mess of potential sources, which I intend to annotate better.

First is Eno 2018, already cited in the article, but could be employed more, and should be read by anyone attempting a rewrite.

• Goldin, Paul R. (2011). Confucianism. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781844651771.
• Loewe, Michael (2012). ""Confucian" Values and Practices in Han China". T'oung Pao. 98 (1/3): 1–30. JSTOR 41725973.
• Nylan, Michael (1996). "Confucian Piety and Individualism in Han China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 116 (1): 1–27. JSTOR 606369.
• Nylan, Michael (2009). "Kongzi and Mozi, the Classicists (Ru 儒) and the Mohists (Mo 墨) in Classical-Era Thinking". Oriens Extremus. 48: 1–20. JSTOR 24047998.
• Galambos, Imre (2018). "Laozi teaching Confucius: history of a text through time". Studies in Chinese Religions. 4 (4): 355–381. doi:10.1080/23729988.2018.1560777.
• Denecke, Wiebke (2010). The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi. Harvard–Yenching Monographs, vol. 74. ISBN 9781684170586. Brill
• Kern, Martin (2011). "Early Chinese literature, beginnings through Western Han". The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature. pp. 1–115. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521855587.003.
• Andreini, Attilio (2022). "Through the Lens of Archaeology: Data Cross-Referencing between Received and Manuscript Sources Related to Confucius and the Lunyu 論語". In Andrea Balbo; Jaewon Ahn; Kihoon Kim (eds.). Empire and Politics in the Eastern and Western Civilizations: Searching for a 'Respublica Romanosinica'. Roma Sinica, vol. 2. pp. 67–82. doi:10.1515/9783110731590-006.
• Goldin, Paul R. (2005). After Confucius. University of Hawai'i Press. ISBN 0824828429.
• Paul R. Goldin, ed. (2017). A Concise Companion to Confucius. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, vol. 65. ISBN 9781118783832.
• Rainey, Lee Dian (2010). Confucius and Confucianism: The Essentials. Wiley. ISBN 9781405188418.
• Yu, Jiyuan (2015). "Confucius (551–479 BCE)". In Michael T. Gibbons (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118474396.webpt0194.
• Wilson, Thomas A. (2002). "Sacrifice and the imperial cult of Confucius". History of Religions. 41 (3). University of Chicago Press: 251–287. doi:10.1086/463684.
• Hunter, Michael (2017). Confucius Beyond the Analects. Studies in the History of Chinese Texts, vol. 7. ISBN 9789004339026. Brill
• Chard, Robert L. (2021). Creating Confucian Authority: The Field of Ritual Learning in Early China to 9 CE. Sinica Leidensia, vol. 152. ISBN 9789004465312. Brill (obvs)
• Nylan, Michael (2009). "Classics without Canonization: Learning and Authority in Qin and Han". In John Lagerway; Marc Kalinowski (eds.). Early Chinese Religion, Part One: Shang through Han (1250 BC–220 AD). Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Four: China, vol. 21-1. pp. 721–776. ISBN 9789047442424. Brill
• Shi Jian (2022). "The way to the White Tiger Hall Conference: Evidence gleaned from the formation process of the Baihu Tong". Early China. 45: 303–339. doi:10.1017/eac.2022.16.
• Knapp, Keith N. "Borrowing Legitimacy from the Dead: The Confucianization of Ancestral Worship". Early Chinese Religion, Part 2: The Period of Division (220–589 AD). pp. 143–192. ISBN 9789047429296.
• David R. Knechtges; Taiping Chang, eds. (2010). Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature (three volumes). Handbook of Oriental Studies, vol. 25. ISBN 9789047444664. Brill
• Smith, Kidder (February 2003). "Sima Tan and the Invention of Daoism, "Legalism," et cetera". The Journal of Asian Studies. 62 (1): 129–156. doi:10.2307/3096138.
• Waring, Luke (2022). "Who said there was a Classic of Music?". Early China. 45: 467–514. doi:10.1017/eac.2022.3.
• Nylan, Michael (2021). "The Documents Classic as Guide to Political Philosophy in the Early Empires". Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 48: 40–55. doi:10.1163/15406253-12340003. Brill
• Ess, Hans van (2022). "Ban Gu's view on the "second victory" of "Confucianism" and the fall of the Former Han". Early China. 45: 15–49. doi:10.1017/eac.2022.13.
• Csikszentmihalyi, Mark (2022). "The Haihunhou capsule biographies of Kongzi and his disciples". Early China. 45: 341–373. doi:10.1017/eac.2022.18.
• Ariel, Yoav (1996). "Appendix II: Six Genealogical Tables of the K'ung 孔 Family". K'ung-ts'ung-tzu: A Study and Translation of Chapters 15–23 with a Reconstruction of the Hsiao Erh-ya Dictionary. Sinica Leidensia, vol 35. pp. 168–176. ISBN 9789004482722. Brill
• Ge, Zhaoguang (2014). An Intellectual History of China, Volume One: Knowledge, Thought, and Belief before the Seventh Century CE. Brill's Humanities in China Library, vol. 6. Translated by Michael S. Duke; Josephine Chiu-Duke. ISBN 9789047425076. Brill
• Michael Hunter; Martin Kern, eds. (2018). Confucius and the Analects Revisited: New Perspectives on Composition, Dating, and Authorship. Studies in the History of Chinese Texts, vol. 11. ISBN 9789004382947. Brill
• Loewe, Michael (2011). Dong Zhongshu, a 'Confucian' Heritage and the Chunqiu fanlu. China Studies, vol. 20. ISBN 9789004214866. Brill
• Crone, Thomas (2022). "Confucius Repeats Himself: On the Nature and Sources of the Lunyu 論語 (Selected Teachings)". T'oung Pao. 108: 289–318. doi:10.1163/15685322-10803005. Brill, although jstor might have it depending on embargo duration
• Csikszentmihalyi, Mark; Nylan, Michael (2003). "Constructing Lineages and Inventing Traditions through Exemplary Figures in Early China". T'oung Pao. 89 (1/3): 59–99. JSTOR 4528923.
• Cook, Scott (2015). "Confucius as Seen through the Lenses of the Zuozhuan and Lunyu". T'oung Pao. 101 (4/5): 298–334. JSTOR 24754938.
• Sanft, Charles (2018). "Questions about the Qi Lunyu". T'oung Pao. 104 (1–2): 189–194. JSTOR 10.2307/26566287.
• Vogelsang, Kai (2010). "Beyond Confucius: A Socio-historical Reading of the Lunyu". Oriens Extremus. 49: 29–61. JSTOR 24047736.
• Stumpfeldt, Hans (2010). "Thinking Beyond the "Sayings": Comments about Sources Concerning the Life and Teachings of Confucius (551–479)". Oriens Extremus. 49: 3–27. JSTOR 24047735.
• Zhang, Hanmo (2018). "The Author as the Head of a Teaching Lineage: Confucius, the Quotable Author". Authorship and Text-making in Early China. De Gruyter. pp. 93–174. doi:10.1515/9781501505133-004. JSTOR j.ctvbkk21j.7.

As a courtesy, I have not suggested anything that is neither TWL-accessible nor stored locally in my library. Anyone wanting access to the materials listed above tagged as Brill, Special:EmailUser me to request a copy. Folly Mox (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I might also mention:

• Durrant, Stephen; Li, Wai-yee; Schaberg, David, eds. (2016). "Introduction". Zuo Tradition. Zuozhuan. 左傳: Commentary on the "Spring and Autumn Annals". University of Washington Press. pp. xx–xxiii. ISBN 978-0-295-999159.

Folly Mox (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh right maybe these as well:

• Amy Olberding, ed. (2014). Dao Companion to the Analects. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol. 4. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7113-0.
• Vincent Shen, ed. (2014). Dao Companion to Classical Confucian Philosophy. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy, vol. 1. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2936-2.

Folly Mox (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Csikszentmihalyi's SEP article (revised just this year) is rather elegant at presenting the many identities of Confucius. Two scholars I see missing are Philip J. Ivanhoe (2013) and Roger T. Ames (many, e.g. 1987) Aza24 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh I've guaranteed missed some top tier sources: this wasn't an investigation into any academic bibliographies, nor even an exploratory search of TWL space. This is what I have in my library, ordered by whenever I renamed the file most recently. Folly Mox (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2024

Where: Life>Political career. Second paragraph. The start of the fifth sentence.

What: A space is required before the first word Farhadk77 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

East Asia

Right: Confucius was born in East Asia, but the Buddha lived in India, not South Asia: Talk:The Buddha#South Asia. Talking about double standards. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear what point is being made here. I generally think it's odd to use "East Asia" when discussing the region in a premodern context, though. Remsense ‥ 论 11:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the edit in question has already been reverted. If we wanted to be super technical in the opening sentence of a generalist encyclopaedia article on a major historical figure (we don't), we could consider China to be anachronous pre-Qin, or even pre–Roman-contact, depending on which type of pedants show up.

But unlike say the Shang dynasty and antecedents, there's really nothing super incongruous about calling the late Springs and Autumns period China. Although some cultural markers were already foreign and misunderstood by Han dynasty writers only a few centuries later (blood oaths, the written language, manuscript culture, aspects of anthroponymy, certain mantic practices, et al), most of the culture carried through and was remembered.

For Confucius in particular, later developments include such deep intertwining of the concepts of "Chinese culture" and "Confucianism" that treating them as separate phenomena involves a lot of parsimonious redefinitions, so removing Chinese from Confucius makes extremely little sense.

Not sure what exactly this has to do with the discussion at Talk:The Buddha § South Asia. Maybe Divinemomentever has some idea. Folly Mox (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your enlightenment. My humble point is that while apparently we see rightly Chinese in Confucius, we seem unable to show the same courtesy to Buddha by rightly acknowledge him as someone from ancient India. This is all more relevant when we know that South Asia is a much more political term, than east Asia, having a clear intent to erase the notion of Indianness from Buddha by placing him in Asia rather than Indian subcontinent. Just as East Asian Confucius sounds odd, south Asian Buddha sounds even more odd. Divinemomentever (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I misjudged you. Please accept my apologies for the shade I threw in the edit summary of the historical linguistic note I placed in the other discussion. I see here you can communicate quite reasonably. I don't have subject matter expertise on Buddha, and I agree that "south Asia" sounds unnatural in the context of his origins. Changing Chinese to from East Asia at this article could be viewed as WP:POINTY, and is not best practice when trying to convey an illustrative example in a separate conversation. Best of luck locating sufficient reliable sources to convince your interlocutors at Talk:The Buddha that India is preferable over south Asia. I mean that genuinely, and I expect you'll have greater success arguing your position if you're able to communicate calmly like here, and avoid accusations of prejudice. Blessings, Folly Mox (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You are very right. I’m a bit novice when discussing facts unfortunately and sounded aggressive but I will definitely follow your kind suggestion. I am very much in favor of Chinese Confucius when Buddha is let to be of ancient India too. I try to convey this point in my discussion on lord Buddha’s Divinemomentever (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks anyway. Divinemomentever (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)