Talk:Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu Link Suggestion

Lost History-Sun Tzu & The Art of WarTokarski21 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sun Tzu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will in the process of reviewing the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   ON HOLD

• Image:SunTzu.jpg does not give it's source, date of original, thus PD status is disputed. Please fill the details.
• Sun Bin is stated to be a grandson(Biography) or son(lead) of Sun Tzu. Most Google books i used as ref, used "descendant", no results for "grandson". Does the reference really say that directly?
• "Related text" looks like out of context.
• 1-2 key quotes from "The Art of War" would be a nice addition. (NOT a GAC requirement)
• A section on the "Historicity" of Sun Tzu is required as this is one of the main aspects of Sun Tzu, covering different theories. Which Historians say is a mythical figure? why? which Historians consider him as real? which time period do they place him in?
• "In some histories, such as the biography written in the 2nd century BC by the historian Sima Qian," which are the other histories?
• The name "Sun Wu" is not mentioned.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I will address these points over the next few days. Thank you for the review. Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

On the image, I had previously found an academic site relating it as an ink print in the public domain. I am unable to find the reference again at the current moment, but I am both continuing to look and contacting another academic who used the image (and therefore may be able to verify its PD status to OTRS). The reference says Sun Bin is his grandson. The lead is an error. The "related text" section is drawn from a source on Sun Tzu and the Art of War. Regarding historicity, I will reconsult the sources and look for additional sources to ensure the article accurately represents the reliable sources on that point. I will look for a source regarding the name "Sun Wu". Vassyana (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute in the historians. Here Sun Bin is called the great grand son [1]. Google books give just 1 hit for "Sun Tzu" "Sun Bin" "grandson". [2]. I think "descendant" is a safer word, accomodating all theories.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot keep article on hold indefinitely. I will decide on pass or fail depending on the status of article on 30 Sept.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Historicity needs to cover both opinions: for and against for NPOV and also needs names. "skeptical scholars" is a too vague term.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources that even bother to touch on the historicity of Sun Tzu present the matter in these general terms, or some variation thereof. NPOV requires reflecting the body of sources accurately and since the clear majority of sources handle the subtopic in this fashion, we should handle it in that fashion. I can add a little more detail, such as the skeptical camp pointing out the lack of contemporary records and the traditionalist camp pointing to Sima Qian, but going further would be out of step with the sources. Vassyana (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA PASS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am putting "Sun Tzu" in philosophers.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was adding more about the points used by traditionalists and skeptics, as I noted above. While the particulars of who's who are not covered well, sourcing the general points they raise is not very difficult. I'll refrain from expanding much more to avoid unbalancing the article, but I think a reader can get a good idea of why each side feels the way they do. Vassyana (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from expansion, an expansion will probably enhance the article. Also, if you want, Template:Infobox Philosopher can be used into Writer Infobox, i added.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clearer, I meant that I would hold off on expanding the historicity section for now. Certainly, more expansion in general would be a good thing. I just believe that other portions of the article should be expanded first to avoid an imbalance. (For example, the biography itself could use more examples and expansion.) Vassyana (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Taoism

How is Taoism related to Sun Tzu? The article says nothing about it, nor does the template name him?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Recently added information covers this point.[3][4] Sun Tzu is listed in the template as Sunzi (as the template uses pinyin spelling). Vassyana (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is related because of one passage among others specificaly; to transmute, permutate oneself into "gold". And where the enemy goes left your go right etc.. Also the names Tze and Tzu seem to put forward a relation of kin. Deun

Heh. — LlywelynII 12:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question, because "Taoism" is basically catch-all for "generic traditional Chinese religion" and "culture", as opposed to the more systematic philosophies put out by the Legalists, Confucians, and Buddhists: anyone doing esoteric theorizing in ancient China basically gets lumped in. — LlywelynII 12:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dates unkown?

Well, if the dates of birth and death are unknown, it would probably be appreciated if there were approxamate times of death.--Archeopteryx (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; done. Gary King (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His dates of birth and death are unknown because he did not exist. He was a made up person based on Sun Bin and Wu Qi. See my post under "History Created Myth, Myth Became History".--VimalaNowlis (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

His battles and wars?

Are there any accounts or supposed accounts of his military conflicts? I was looking for perhaps people who may have been his rivals or greatest enemies. --Cyberman (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no accounts of his battles because there was none because he did not exist. He was a combination of Suen Bing and Wu Chi. See my post under "History Created Myth, Myth became History".--VimalaNowlis (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems

The conclusions and views of Mark McNeilly are questionable. I particularly like the statement how Norman Schwarzkopf practiced Sun's principles. While uncertain (as I'm not a military officer) I certainly believe that most officers (Schwarzkopf too) read and study The Art of War besides many other manuals of strategy and tactics. They study the campaigns of all major warlords like Hannibal, Napoleon, Rommel, etc. However Schwarzkopf mentioned (praised) Hannibal and not Sun Tzu.

IMHO McNeilly seems to be seeing what he wants to see and the influence of The Art of War upon modern China seems to be exaggerated. Flamarande (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of our personal opinions, we simply report what reliable sources have said about a topic. --Vassyana (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Both deceased rap legend Tupac Shakur and NFL star Plaxico Burress have reported having read The Art of War during their prison sentences. This contributed, in part, to Tupac's Makaveli alter ego, as well as Burress' cultivation of a love of reading which he credits with providing him the balance he needed to successfully return to the NFL." I deleted this from the article, both were reported to have read The Art of War, not verified or linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.144 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As well as being dubiously notable or relevant (cf. wp:undue)... — LlywelynII 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

BCE/CE vs. BC/AD

There have been a number of changes from one system of dating eras and then back again. WP:ERA reads in part "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." This has occasioned disputes over which was the "original" system for this article; one editor changed it to the BC/AD model by arguing that the BCE/CE format had been introduced some months earlier.

Since WP:ERA permits this issue to be decided by reasoned consensus, I propose that we establish a consensus. I will get the ball rolling by stating my view that the BCE/CE system is preferable when discussing non-Western topics and when the academic practice in that field favors it. It is my understanding that Sun Tzu fits these criteria. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute whatsoever over which dating system is the the original (simply check the history of the article). This article has been BC/AD such since 8 October 2002 [5] and as far I could verify remained completely unchallenged for over 6 years until 25 January 2009 when User:Vassyana changed it [6] to BCE/CE. I restored the original dating system and Vassyana changed it again on 10 September [7].

I hope that you (RJC) can provide hard evidence that English-speaking academia truly favours BCE/CE. I also wish to point out that the reasoning that "BCE/CE system is preferable when discussing non-Western topics" is your personal point of view on the matter. There isn't a clear definition of "non-Western topics" to start with and I could find no policy or recommendation anywhere that states that such articles should use BCE/CE. This is the English language wiki and AFAIK the English language predominantly uses BC/AD. Flamarande (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For proof, you can read some current books and academic articles about this topic. Alternately, you may note that most museums now use the common era standard. Regardless, I'm not going to fight over this. Since it seems to matter significantly to some, let's leave it at BC/AD and focus on more productive issues. However, I must ask that you please do not remove cited information as unreferenced in the course of your edits.[8] The paragraph is cited and the claim can be found in the source referenced. A correction of the obvious typo/repetitious text would have been helpful though. Vassyana (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"... the BCE/CE system is preferable when discussing non-Western topics and when the academic practice in that field favors it." Although I do not fully agree with it, this is not an unreasonable point ... but it is one which needs to be made on WP:ERA, not here. Likewise, note that the policy is "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors", not "or consensus for the change". I do not see "substantial reason" for the change, and indeed am curious what would constitute a "substantial reason" for an issue which I personally consider rather trivial to begin with. Therefore, I agree with the above suggestion that we keep the status quo, in concurrence with WP:ERA and to prevent unnecessary edit wars. CES (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the wording of WP:ERA leaves what counts as a substantial reason to be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. In any case, if we are to take the suggestion to be "reason and consensus," there must be reasons that would warrant changing from one format to the other despite what was typed by the first person to make the distinction. I think the best candidate for that sort of reason has to do with the article's content. (As to the triviality of the distinction ... those who have problems calling Jesus "the Lord" or "Christ" tend to appreciate not having to refer to every date as "in the year of the Lord" or "before Christ." It is like correcting Christians when they neglect to put "PBUH" after every written mention of Muhammad.) RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute there. So if I'm understanding you correctly all (or at least most) written mentions of Muhammad in the English wiki should be followed by a PBUH? PBUH isn't and never was a common feature in the English language. The article Muhammad doesn't seem to use PBUH. In your opinion any subject not "belonging" to the Western world should use BCE/CE? Let me see (give you a example): Ancient Rome? Yeah it is as Western as they come... oh wait the Romans were polytheists. Polytheism is definitely a non-Western characteristic. Sorry, all articles about ancient Rome must use BCE/CE. Same goes with the ancient Greeks. Democracy? Well, it was invented by the ancient polytheistic Greeks, wasn't it?

You are simply forgetting that the English language is a product of the Western world, that noone is qualified to define what is a Western subject and what isn't, and to impose a so-called "neutral dating system" at the expense of the most common one is playing politics. Wikipedia shouldn't dable in politics at all.

I truly believe that the majority of those who have problems calling Jesus "the Lord" or "Christ" (i.e.: not-Christians) have no problems in using BC and AD. I'm an atheist myself and have no problems whatsoever. I do have problems with ppl who under the disguise of "wanting to protect other peoples feelings" are (IMHO) playing politics and waging a political correctness campaign in OUR (not-Christians) name. BC/AD is simple the most common dating system on this planet, nothing more and nothing less. Flamarande (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Muhammad should not be followed by PBUH, even though that is a relatively minor thing to do, can be done unconsciously, and doesn't even refer to him as a prophet (who doesn't wish peace upon the dead?). Similarly, AD and BC are relatively minor things to do and can be done unconsciously (though unlike PBUH they do refer to him as our lord or messiah). The West has been predominantly Christian, but this simply means that Christian tropes have seeped into English the same way that Muslim tropes have seeped into Arabic, Persian, and the like. My point is that BC/AD have the same status as PBUH, and we wouldn't consider insisting upon the latter … so why be opposed to opposition to the former? As to Western/Everything Else, you are correct. Yet, given that the guideline suggests that there do exist substantial reasons for preferring one format over the other beyond how the first editor to distinguish between eras did so, what could these reasons be, if not content specific? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Flamarande ... personally, I believe AD/BC have lost their literal meaning, in the same way that good-bye and bless you are not usually taken literally as statements reflecting religious faith (i.e. "God be with ye" and "God bless you") but simple conventions when parting or sneezing. Personally, I don't see why a "common era" which just so happens to coincide with the alleged birth of Jesus is any more applicable to the non-Western case than AD (i.e. what's so "common" about the common era?). Again, however, this is just my opinion ... just as your comments reflect your opinion. Because your arguments are generalizable to the whole of Wikipedia articles rather than isolated to the specific case of Sun Tzu, I again say that these arguments should be made at WP:ERA and not here. CES (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with CES; what RJC is proposing is an important change of WP:ERA. IMHO the English language predominately uses BC/AD. The English language is supposed to be English and NOT neutral. Just because she has Christian influences/origins doesn't mean that the language itself should be censored/neutralized. Furthermore one would be forced to apply the same so-called "neutral" rules to the other language wikis, and that would be completely impossible. Flamarande (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzkopf and The Art of War

I suggest removing the sentence about General Schwarzkopf practicing Sun Tzu's principles until a better reference can be found. McNeilly offers no evidence that Schwarzkopf actually looked to Sun Tzu's teachings when developing his strategy; he just infers it (he also spells Schwarzkopf's name wrong). The military principles of "deception, speed, and attacking the enemy's weakness" existed in Western warfare long before anyone in the West had ever heard of Sun Tzu. Just because someone implemented those principles, which are pretty general, doesn't mean that it had anything to do with Sun Tzu. Ketone16 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Ketone16. Mark McNeilly doesn't seem to claim that Schwarzkopf looked to Sun Tzu's teachings. He merely blabbers that Schwarzkopf used the same principles. Let me offer a comparision: Shaka Zulu used the same principles as Hannibal (basicly the 'Horns of the Buffalo' is the same as the 'Cannae tactic' - "Surround the enemy force at the right and left, leaving no space to manuever, and then destroy it"). Flamarande (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct that the book makes an untenable claim, but it is published by Oxford University Press and so is a reliable source. That said, I don't think it needs a paragraph-long plug in the Legacy section (WP:UNDUE), and its conclusion about Schwartzkopf doesn't have to be stated as fact if there is a dispute about it (WP:NPOV). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

History created Myth, Myth became History

Chinese were very serious about history. They kept very detailed records. There was no comtemporary reference of Suen Wu (Sun Tzu). There were, however, records and contemporary references of Suen Bing and Wu Chi. Both were famous military strategists and wrote treatises on military strategies. They were sometimes referred to in combination, as Chinese often do, by their family names as Suen Wu. It is well known that Ching Shih Huang Ti burned all the books except religious and medicinal books and killed all the scholars except the Legalists. Some old books were hidden and later rediscovered during the Han Dynasty. It seems likely that, during this rediscovery, someone got confused and created a new person and name him Suen Wu and combined the remenants of Suen Bing's and Wu Chi's treatises and created the Art of War. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sun Zi Bing Fa, Sun Bin Bing Fa and Wu Qi Wu Zi are different books by 3 different authors. This is quite clear after Chinese archaeologists discovered a tomb at Linyi, Shandong Province in April 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.208.108 (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The contention that early records don't mention Sunzi (/Sun Wu) is not true: he is mentioned in both the Spring and Autumn Annals (of Wu and Yue) and in the Shiji (scholars generally give credit to Sima Qian as having very reliable sources). Please provide evidence for the creation of the Art of War via the synthesis of Sun Bing's and Wu Qi's work.Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pinyin Please

Isn't the use of what I take to be a Wade-Giles spelling a bit archaic? Shouldn't the name and title of Master Sun be rendered in Pinyin, with 'Sun Tzu' and other variants redirected to it? Only thus will the correct usage begin to percolate through the society. (I have seen the name alphabetized Tzu, Sun in a bibliography recently.) Oldpilot (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC-ZH says that "Chinese names should be written in Hanyu Pinyin unless there is a more common romanization used in English." I think that Sun Tzu falls into the latter category, especially if the purpose of renaming the article Sunzi would be to propagate a less common spelling. In general, "the encyclopedia should reference the name more familiar to most English readers." RJC TalkContribs 15:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should absolutely discontinue the use of the idiotic illiterate Wade-Giles system. I always use only the pin-ying system. Therefore it should not only be Suen Tze, not Sun Tzu, but Li Bai, not Li Po. If everyone is willing to let the Indians change Bombay to Mumbai and Calcatta to Kolkata, I don't see why we can't insist on correct Chinese ping-ying and refuse to acknowledge Tao or tofu because there is no such thing as Tao or tofu. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VimalaNowlis (talk • contribs)

Romanization systems are neither "correct" nor "incorrect" ... simply different. Wikipedia policy is on the side of RJC: keep at Sun Tzu. CES (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with CES Flamarande (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Not that it changes WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME, but Pinyin is certainly more correct than actual Wade... even better (for my money) than the mythical Wade of legend where people include the apostrophes and tone numbers. — LlywelynII 12:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that Pinyin system is better and should be used here. But it is not proper to condemn Wade-Giles system as "idiotic illiterate".

Another thing is the name of this topic, it should be "Pinyin" not "Ping Ying".  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.159.235 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the pinyin system is better - Wade-Giles is a fine system but it is no longer the system used in teaching Chinese so ít has become a relic of an older day. It also requires you to distinguish between p and p' - although these are closer to the sound system in a phonetic way - pinyin is now widely known - I searched for Sunzi and was irritated to find it came up Sun Tzu - the redirection should go the other way. leatherbear (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wades-Giles spelling is still used in Taiwan today, just look at Taipei (Taibei), Kaohsiung (Gaoxiong), Ma Ying-jeou (Ma Yingjiu) and so on. And yes, it's quite frustrating for people who are accustomed to reading Hanyu Pinyin. So does anyone want to propose moving this article to Sun Zi or Sunzi? LDS (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not that it's relevant as this is English Wikipedia and not Taiwanese Wikipedia, they've introduced a variety of Pinyin in Taiwan nowadays. It hasn't yet taken over with placenames, and personal names are decided on an individual basis.87.231.185.251 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

+1 for the move to Sun Zi. Pinyin is now in use, researches and new publication now use Pinyin, let's do the same.--Yug (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

=2 for the move to Sunzi. The contributors above who suggest that Sun Tzu is more commonly recognised give no evidence to support their assertions. I suspect they have none - it may once have been the case but no longer. No-one is suggesting Mao Zedong be changed back to Mao Tse-tung, for example. Pinyin has taken over.87.231.185.251 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we look to books, Sun Tzu returns 52,000 Google Books hits, Sun Zi 6,500. If you will say that many of those books are old and so privilege out-of-date spelling conventions, Amazon returns 1,141 for Sun Tzu, 191 for Sun Zi. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor improvement, the Amazon search above was done in all departments. If we restrict the search only to books we get 881 results for Sun Tzu and 142 result for Sun Zi, and it seems to me that a substantial portion of the results of the second search use 'Sun Tzu' in the cover. Flamarande (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The suspicion of 87.231.185.251 is thereby proven wrong and while Pinyin may be increasing in popularity it has not taken over everything yet. Let us wait and see, it took more or less 20 years to change 'Peking' to 'Beijing'. Perhaps we will have to wait another 20 years (or even longer) for 'Sun Zi'. Flamarande (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunzi. But, yes, while Mr. Wade himself would have called this guy Sun-tzu, the article stays here for now. — LlywelynII 12:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sun Tzu is a typo due to pre-standard romanization and nothing more. it sound nothing like his actual name and serve only to confuse people. the purpose of wikipedia should not be to misled or confuse other, people have a hard enough time of figuring out chinese name without random adoption of incorrect spelling. this stupidity must end, argument that the bulk of the book are stupid therefore we should be too is irrational. 222.165.83.149 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Team fortress 2 (game) interpretation

From the Team Fortress 2 "meet the soldier" video. It mentions Mr. Tzu. (in a quite misinformed manner)

Soldier: "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money...

[The Soldier unhooks two grenades from his belt, one in each hand.]

Soldier: ...to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat...

[The Soldier demonstrates by using the grenades, moving them in a walking motion.]

Soldier: ...and then he beat the crap out of every single one."

[The Soldier bangs the two grenades together repeatedly.]

Soldier: [Laughs to himself] "And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a 'zoo'! ...Unless it's a farm!"

Not exactly relevant, but entertaining nonetheless. 72.77.81.188 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying he's a liar Maggot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.39.248 (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Occupation: Middle class prostitute? really?

I'm no expert on Sun Tzu's life but the occupation cited in the box seems... rather implausible. Is someone aware of something I'm not, or is this a sad attempt at stealthy wiki vandalism?Paireon (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sun Tzu/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Following the nomination of this article for Good Article Reassessment, I shall review it against the good article criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[9] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I reformatted a few citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I can find no good reason why this article should have been listed for reassessment, and no reason was provided by the nominator User:P. S. Burton. Maintain GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese name advice incorrect in this case

I'm guessing that the note about Sun Tzu being a Chinese name and therefore the first part being a family name was added by a Bot? At any rate I don't think it's very helpful as in this case it's not correct - the term Sun was an honorific applied to many of the great Chinese scholars of the period and translates (more-or-less) as Master.

Unless someone objects I propose removing it and replacing with a more useful statement explaining the general case that the family name comes first and the specific that here it is an honorific.Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for a separate name section... Sun is his Chinese name and Tzu is the honorific. — LlywelynII 13:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Got Info!

If anybody here reads Chinese and is willing to update this wiki page, please look at this site: [10]

It has good info, but I can't read it...xD

--Fuzzyhair2 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Influences: The universe?

I guess it's probably similar to the "middle class prostitute" - if not, the meaning should be clarified somewhere. I searched the history, and this changed back and forth a few times. However, neither when it was introduced nor when it was removed, the revision comment showed any insight into that particular entry. 188.23.188.92 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that listing 'The Universe' under influences is necessary or beneficial, seeing as everyone is influenced by the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.154.51 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's (admittedly rather cute) vandalism. Just fix it as it comes in and alert the mods to block the guy's IP if they come by. — LlywelynII 12:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Per WP:ERA, this edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD pending any strong consensus to the contrary. The lack of consensus above means the use should kindly be maintained.

[If this post starts another discussion of the point, my vote is against adding an extra (distractingly POINTy) letter to the dates. Regardless, kindly avoid edit warring over the issue until a new consensus has been established.] — LlywelynII 11:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Name

(a) Personally, I think this is already well-covered by the article and my addition of a Chinese infobox may have fixed the problem, but people still seem to not quite understand how this name works. It's not a western name; it's not a Chinese name, per se; and it's not a well-formatted Wade name. (That would have been Sun-tzu). How do people feel about having a Name section to walk people through this?

Turns out his Old Chinese title was basically identical – *sˤun-tsəʔ (Sun-tsuh) – but his personal name changed quite a bit: from an original *sˤun *maʔ (Sun Mah) to Sun Wu and from *traŋʔ *C.qʰraŋ (Trang Krang) to Changqing. Since the infobox currently can't display that, a name section would give the info some place to park.
(b) Since his personal and style names are so relatively unimportant, I'm going to move them down to the history section from the lede, where including them seems to violate the spirit of WP:UNDUE.
(c) I generally deplore pronunciation guides here instead of at Wiktionary entries and anyone trying to get it seriously right is going to figure out the pinyin anyway, but shouldn't we include an English IPA to get across the basic idea that it should be Soon instead of Sun?
(d) Do any of the sources disputing his existence make the point that his name (Sun Wu) is literally "Martial" / "Warrior Grandson"? Sure, it's a fine Chinese name, but it also reads pretty close to a style name/alias given what his subject matter is. — LlywelynII 14:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sponsored content vandalism?

Just wanted to point out to the powers-that-be that there has been vandalism on this page recently. I can't figure out how to delete that box unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.60.51 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging it. Now resolved. Span (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Science of Strategy Institute worth mentioning?

The Science of Strategy Institute site evaluates several translations of Sun Tzu's Art of War. Is the site worth referencing in the links section?--2606:A000:7D44:100:6080:AD2C:D25B:8337 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Tzu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425064509/http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207 to http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_3_83/ai_109268913/?tag=untagged

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sun Tzu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195157/http://www.sdwenbo.com/art.asp?id=26&type=6 to http://www.sdwenbo.com/art.asp?id=26&type=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Revised Art of War

Hello Sun Tzu editors,

I am new to Wiki. I have produced a revision of The Art or War, called The Revised Art of War (naturally).

For full details see this link: <https://keiranproffer.weebly.com/the-revised-art-of-war.html>

A revision has been produced in Chinese, I understand, but mine is the first revision in the English language.

I have been told I may not add this information to the Sun Tzu wiki page myself. Is it acceptable to ask any other Wiki members to do it?

Cath Writer (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

New information: Soldier Magazine reviewed The Revised Art of War in August 2018. They gave it 4 stars.

See <http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/8c19e238#/8c19e238/64> (Page 64).

Does this justify adding the book to the Sun Tzu page under "Legacies"?

Cath Writer (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Victoryoverwar and Sonshi.com

Back on 19:27, 3 March 2020‎ Sonshi.com was removed "Removed 2 commercial links (Sonshi.com) that sell Sun Tzu books if you click on them. Wikipedia is not for selling your editions of The Art of War to the readers." and yet victoryoverwar which also has its own version editions of The Art of War to sale to readers is retained.

The only real differences are Sonshi.com allows an option to buy a hard copy of their FREE online version while victoryoverwar directs you to a book store AND is far more "commercial" offering "Keynotes for meetings and conferences Workshops, from half-day, full day, two day, Project-based consulting and One-on-one counseling and coaching". As far as I can see there are few to no quotes from the Art of War anywhere on that web site.

Since the IP is effectively anonymous it could have come from someone who prefers victoryoverwar's version over Sonshi.com (or worse someone who worked for victoryoverwar; we simply don't know). If a link is removed for "commercial" reasons then ALL sites that do the same thing should be removed at the same time. Otherwise it gives the appearance of someone pushing one "commercial" site over the other...especially when the one retained doesn't offer any free versions of their work.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

On a side note I have checked and Sonshi.com is working fine. If anyone has problems it is thanks to their ISP and not the website. This can be confirmed via Is it down right now and/or Is Your Website Down Right Now? I have also removed victoryoverwar for its blatant commercialization (if Sonshi is removable on those grounds then victoryoverwar is as well. We can't play favorites)--174.99.238.22 (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Again Sonshi.com provides a FREE online version of their translation and assess (not sales) other translations excluding their own in the interest of impartiality. The only commercial aspect of the site is a plain text print version of their online free translation, an Autographed hardcover version, and a full year program going over 351 lessons in the the Art of War. Everything else on the site is free. For those three things we exclude this site?!? Get real.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

For some reason the link is going to Google's main page and Internet Archive doesn't have a back up. Thankfully archive today does have a backup.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sonshi.com has been bought by someone else. The archive today link is the only valid reference.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's MUCH better to write for the general reader instead of for scholars

Or if you must use words like "historicity" then please define them the first time you use them.

I had to look this word up, and it means "actual existence". Is that what you meant by it?

Because that is very difficult to extract from the context in which is it used. 2601:200:C000:1A0:B091:A3C7:A63E:212 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Focusing more on on alternatives to battle and war?

As of 2022-12-04 the third sentence reads, "It focuses much more on alternatives to battle and even to war than on war itself, such as stratagem, delay, the use of spies, the making and keeping of alliances, the uses of deceit, and a willingness to submit, at least temporarily, to more powerful foes.<ref>''Ancient warfare'' edited by John Carman and Anthony Harding, page 41</ref>"

I have two problems with this:

1. I cannot find "Ancient warfare edited by John Carman and Anthony Harding". This is NOT a complete citation.
2. This claim seems questionable from my cursory review of the section on "The 13 chapters" in the Wikipedia article on The Art of War. Chapter 13 is about spies. The first 12 seem more about tactics and strategies for warfare suitable for different situations, and does NOT seem focussed "much more on alternatives to battle", as claimed.

What should be done with this? I'm deleting this sentence. If you think it belongs, please provide a replacement with a complete citation that someone can actually find. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Might you have time, interest and ability to comment on the above reference to <ref>''Ancient warfare'' edited by John Carman and Anthony Harding, page 41</ref>, which I deleted for reasons cited above? I'm asking you, because (a) you've edited this article before, (b) your User page says you "write about military history", and (c) I might be able to use that claim elsewhere if it were accurate. For example, it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on The Art of War if it were accurate.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fake Quotes

Shouldn't there be at least some reference/elaboration upon how Sun Tzu is frequently falsely quoted to troll people/as a joke? There's literally a generator available online to do this: https://suntzu.noahvdaa.me/ Socialworker2022 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)