Talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/Archive 3

Notes

The problems with dividing Chinese thought into schools is gone into by Nylan 2003 and Pines 2009. There's probably something there worth mentioning.

I think it was Creel that mentioned a Chapter of the Zhuangzhi as endorsing Wu Wei in government, but dismissing Shen Buhai's methods of personnel control, but I'll have to spot this again as I go through the book. I can throw it in my new section on the Fajia's relations with Daoism.

I have very little idea where Huang Kejian's From Destiny to Dao to Dao comes from apart from the original Chinese work's publishing by China Renmin University Press. Without object, and referencing him by name, unless I find something better I currently use him for summary in a sub-article section. Some of it's work on the subject is very excellent, if limited, and involves a commentary on other works.

One of it's noteable concepts is the tendency of the school to emphasize Fa and de-emphasize virtue would mean in part a limited potential for law beyond the Han dynasty penal in the first place, seeing as a more developed law involves a broader range of concepts like justice. Thus, it would tends towards Shu.FourLights (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Unaddressed materials

Creel suggests that Xing in Xing-Ming did not mean punishment, even though it was associated with it. I'd be inclined to take his scholarship on the matter, but I will have to review the sources.FourLights (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Creel what is Taoism page 90

Creel views Zichan as an antecedent to Shen Buhai. Regardless of this note, Zichan should take his place here in the pantheon of "Legalists", but I have more general work here before I can tackle it.

If I recall correctly, both the Mohists and the Fajia share a common utilitarian rather than retributive perspective, with the Fajia in particular aiming at wealth and power. In contrast to the Mohists, the Fajia's Standard is more oriented to the arbitrary. Off the bat, I can say Chad Handsen and Huang Kejian discuss these issues and can be expanded upon.

Discussion regarding Fa 法, shu 術, and shi 勢

These keep being translated incorrectly in this article. In the present version, someone says that they "literally" mean "law, method, and legitimacy," respectively. All three of those are wrong. Fa literally means "method" or "standard"; shu literally means "technique" or "procedure"; and shi literally means "situational advantage," i.e. the advantage that one enjoys as a result of one's position, whether on a battlefield or in society. All three have very different "literal" meanings from their common usage in Modern Mandarin. Indicating definitions of such terms without any references, especially when they're as inaccurate as this, is highly misleading to readers who don't know better.--98.114.178.63 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In corroboration with my understanding I agree with the definitions as given here by anonymous user and have changed the page. Fa preceded law and thus has a broader meaning, as discussed in sources on the page. Shi has broader implications than situation advantage, but is used this way by the philosophers Shang Yang and Shen Dao. I've given a couple sources discussing Shen Buhai.FourLights (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my inclusions or antecedents, it clarifies the Fa concept, which as my sources state is essentially identical to the Legalist usage.FourLights (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Now we're saying "tactics" for shu 術? That's seriously flawed. The point of shu is that they're systematic, repeatable, and, above all, applicable to any situation. Tactics are constantly changing as the situation changes--much more appropriate for a text like Sunzi.--98.115.255.240 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Although the term tactics is sometimes used in the west for Shu, and "Techniques" can certainly be used as tactics, I agree with you and will use the more common translation, Technique, as a standard of modern scholarship. The concept of Shu is based in Fa and is in line with this.FourLights (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I otherwise attempt to explain Fa and use it instead of law; wikipedia guidelines allow the use of technical terms without reductionism.FourLights (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Journals

Monumenta Serica, Journal of Asian History, Dao Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Journal of the American Oriental Society yet. Journal of Religion
Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Philosophy
Jianghan Tribune

Reviewed documents

THE MEANING OF HSING-MING. STUDIA SERICA: Sinological studies dedicated to Bernhard Kalgren
Representations of Childhood and Youth in Early China. Three uses.
Ideological Conflict and the Rule of Law in Contemporary China. Two uses.
Randall COLLINS 1998 p.148, THE SOCIOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHIES. Minor quotation.

Mostly reviewed
Chad Hansen, 1992 p.349,352,359. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought https://books.google.com/books?id=nzHmobC0ThsC&pg=PA359
Monumenta Serica. The Legalist Concept of Hsing-Ming. John Makeham. Pages 111+ remain of interest.
Persistent Misconceptions. Reviewed once, though not it's sources. Pages 21+ remain of interest.
Erica Brindley, The Polarization of the Concepts Si (Private Interest) and Gong (Public Interest) in Early Chinese Thought.
Pages 21+ remain of interest. https://www2.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/file/1860ZBsPxaZ.pdf

Reviewing

The Significance of the Concept of 'Fa' in Han Fei's Thought System https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397699 Wang Hsiao-po and L. S. Chang Philosophy East and West Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 35-52 (18 pages) Published by: University of Hawai'i Press DOI: 10.2307/1397699 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397699

JOURNAL ARTICLE Han Fei Tzu: Management Pioneer Donald V. Etz Public Administration Review Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 1964), pp. 36-38 (3 pages) Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration DOI: 10.2307/973563 https://www.jstor.org/stable/973563

Autocratic Bureaucratism

JOURNAL ARTICLE Rhetorical Authority in Athenian Democracy and the Chinese Legalism of Han Fei Arabella Lyon Philosophy & Rhetoric Vol. 41, No. 1 (2008), pp. 51-71 (21 pages) Published by: Penn State University Press

Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy Author(s): Chad Hansen Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 435-488 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1399736 Accessed: 31-10-2018 01:33 UTC

STATE CONTROL OF BUREAUCRATS UNDER THE QIN: TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES Author(s): Robin D.S. Yates Source: Early China, Vol. 20 (1995), pp. 331-365 Published by: Society for the Study of Early China Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23351772 Accessed: 31-10-2018 01:36 UTC

unavailable

I tried to obtain these by interlibrary loan
History of Chinese Political Thought
the bureaucratic vision of han fei tzu

Trivia

The frequent western mistranslation of Fa as Law instead of Method lead to the martial art Kenpo or "fist method" being mistranslated to the silly "law of the fist", as stated by that page, the word Kenpo using the Chinese character Fa though using a different (Japanese) sound for it.FourLights (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Working pages

Xing Lu 1998. Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century, B.C.E.. p.264. https://books.google.com/books?id=72QURrAppzkC&pg=PA264

WAAIAC: https://books.google.com/books?id=8k4xn8CyHAQC&pg=34
Shang Yang https://books.google.com/books?id=HcNwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA21
Shang Yang https://books.google.com/books?id=MXDABAAAQBAJ&pg=PA70
Shen Tao https://books.google.com/books?id=kA0c1hl3CXUC
Han Fei and Mohism https://books.google.com/books?id=72QURrAppzkC&pg=PA265
Han Fei and Shih https://books.google.com/books?id=3QxGFZxghJIC
Mao Zedong and Legalism https://books.google.com/books?id=ppYRb4mHEEYC&pg=PA49
Han Fei misc https://books.google.com/books?id=FaGKCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT554

https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+legalism&safe=active&tbs=bkv:p,cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1900,cd_max:1/1/2004&tbm=bks&ei=uRqCWdTpPMaL0wKQ_q4Y&start=10&sa=N&biw=1333&bih=672&dpr=1.2

https://books.google.com/books?id=bATIDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA187
https://books.google.com/books?id=l25hjMyCfnEC&pg=PA50

Minor usage https://books.google.com/books?id=X0yKBAAAQBAJ

Basically extra workspace

Documents of interest

http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/Resources.html
books
The Book of Lord Shang: Apologetics of State Power in Early China

Cities of Aristocrats and Bureaucrats

Heritage of China: Contemporary Perspectives on Chinese Civilization

Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics: Zhengyuan Fu

Jia Yi Xin Shu

Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History

A History of Chinese Political Thought, Volume One

On shi 勢, see Roger Ames, The Art of Rulership,

Sources of Chinese tradition

A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

The Confucian-Legalist State

Philosophical_essays_of_Wang_C

Leadership and Management in China

The world of thought in ancient China

Chinese Law: Context and Transformation: Revised and Expanded Edition

T'ung-tsu Chu, Local Government in China under the Ch'ing

Papers
Hanfei and Truth: Between Pragmatism and Coherentism? https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/255618/201503-article1.pdf?sequence=1

LEGALISM: CHINESE-STYLE CONSTITUTIONALISM?

Search for modern nationalism

Neo-Conucianism and Neo-Laglism in T'ang intelectual life, the confucian persuasion

http://58.68.130.89:8080/DissertationDetail/388696

On Yin Wenzi and his Legal Philosophy Pattern of Taoism

Cultural Roots of Sustainable Management

Rational Choice Analysis

The Legitimation of Chinese Lawmaking (II): Chinese Legalism

The Evolution of Legalists’ theories of the Western Han Dynasty

Law and Morality in Ancient China: The Silk Manuscripts of Huang-Lao by R. P. Peerenboom

Law in imperial China. Exemplified by 190 Ch'ing Dynasty Cases. With Historical, Social, and Juridical Commentaries, Harvard Studies in East Asian Law, 1 by Derk Bodde, Clarence Morris and Hsing-an hui-lan

Landers, James R.: "Han Fei's Legalism and Its Impact on the History of China"; p. 101-112

China's Imperial Past

The Legalists and the Fall of Ch'in

The Legalist Philosophers - Chinese Thought

The Legalists and the Laws of Ch'in - Leyden Studies in Sinology

A Tentative Discussion of Pre-Ch'in Legalists

Taoist Silk Manuscripts and Early Legalist Thought - Sages and Filial Sons

The Ch'in Bamboo strip book of divination

The Legalist School and Shi-Huang Ti

Legalist School and Legal Positivism

A Comparison of the legltimacy of power between confucianist and legalist philosophies

the legalist school was the product of great social change

the crystalization of pre-chin legalist thought

the struggle for and against restoration in the course of the founding of the Ch'in dynasty - selection from people's republic of china magazines The Legalist Concept of Hsing-Ming

the fa-chia and the shang-shu

the reformers of 1898 and pre-chin legalist thought

which books did the first emperor

ancient chinese cosmology and fa-chia theory - exploration in early chinese cosmology

the early legalist school of chinese political thought - open court

the theory of law in the ching-fa

war, punishment and the law of nature in early chinese concepts of the state

Ch'in Shi Huang's bookburning

Chinese Legal Philosophy

The Legalists - Free China Review

On 'Legalism' as an Heuristic device

The book of lord shang. Probstain's Oriental Studies vol.xvii

Shang Yang's reforms and state control in china

In criticism of Shang Yang

The theory and practice of a totalitarian state - individual and state

Some reflections on Shang Yang and his political philosophy.

Shang Yang - Sinica 3

The Book of Lord Shang and the School of Law

Shen pu-hai: a misunderstood and wrongly neglected thinker

shen tzu - early chinese texts

on the transmission of the shen tzu

Shen Tao and Fa-Chia

Shen Dao - Tietze klauss

trauzettel rolf

Han Fei and the Han Feizi

The dialect of chih and tao in the han fei tzu

the political thought of han fei

han fei zi: the man and the work

a study of han fei's thought

han fei's principle of government by law

a concordance to han-fei tzu - chinese materials center, research aids no.13

taoist metaphyiscs in the chieh lao

learned celebrities: a criticism of the confucians

five vermin: a pathological analysis of politics

a reading of han fei's 'wu tu'

trauzettel rolf - han feizi

the philosophical foundations of han-fei's political theory

han fei's theory of the 'rule of law'

han fei's critikue and reconstruction

constrat of the concept of li

han fei tzu: management pioneer

the legalism of the han fei tzu

han fei tzu and nicollo machiavelli

Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese philosophy

http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h425/legalists2.htm

http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/ch/Substance-Function.htm

Han Feizi’s Legalism versus Kautilya’s Arthashastra

A Comparison of the Legitimacy of Power Between Confucianist and Legalist Philosophies

Xunzi and Han Fei on Human Nature

Rhetorical Authority in Athenian Democracy and the Chinese Legalism of Han Fei

Jurisculture china FourLights (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

TAOISM, LEGALISM AND THE QUEST FOR ORDER IN WARRING STATES CHINA FourLights (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Legalism vs. fascism vs. communism

How do legalism, fascism, and communism compare with one another? How are they alike? How are they different? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

They are alike in regards the expansion of the state, whose administration (albeit with a certain emphasis toward minimalism delegating to family, village and local magnate) defined post-Qin Chinese history up to the modern day. But in terms of rights, it is not like the feudal period of history was full of them; although not a major concept wouldn't say China was rights-poor compared to feudal Europe. It is a faulty comparison, except for those who wish to say "look, the feudal era, like Mussolini, had an authoritarian state, in those areas developed enough to have a state." Europe is not generally fond of Fascism, but the Chinese generally prefer their unified periods to their feudal periods, some loss of philosophical development to orthodoxy not withstandingFourLights (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The Fascist idea as applied in Italy consists in the incorporation of corporations into the high state, albiet unsuccessfully since the capitalists are disinterested in this and actually prefer the state be a separate entity (Italian corporations eventually boycotted the Fascist state). Albiet emphasizing farming at the expense of the merchant class, Legalism isn't necessarily anti-business, and granted of audience and office to successful business persons (more feudal states did not entertain merchants). Chinese dynasties would have state monopolies like salt sometimes run by business persons as attempts at economic management or taxation, though the usefulness of the attempt by this method is variable. While Fascism's relations with the capitalists were actually dubious and they ultimately wanted to be rid of it (probably only wanting it to manage labor problems for a time), I would say that the Absolutism of Chinese Legalism more definitely excludes such class interests in favor of that of the ruler, much as it tries to exclude any class interests of the bureaucrats.

Regarding plutocracy, it's implied that one trades the option of the larger monetary sums offered for the higher offices, as one and the other are separate rewards. The state's entertaining of the merchants was a profound innovation for the aristocratic, warring era, and in the philosophy of the Fajia a merchant, or anyone found to be beneficial for that matter, might be able to take reigns as a state function, but the functions of the office and the person must be clearly defined and it is recommended that they be particular.

2. Bolshevism emphasized central planning. Obviously the Qin became very centralized, but Shang Yang Legalism doesn't consider the predominance of the private sphere a threat at lower levels, giving land to those who make the most successful use of land. Han Fei recommends the product be stored in public granaries, something that seems to have been carried out. Regarding Communist concepts, in some ways Legalist practice actually "fades away" the state (i.e. the bureaucracy) more successfully than Bolshevism, in the sense of passing responsibility for implementing law onto the family and village. Though historically the Chinese state was pervasive, it was also defined by this decentralization/minamlism, less legalism post-Qin. FourLights (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Too many citations

The summary paragraph at the beginning has way too many citations to read comfortably (per WP:OVERSITE). It'll probably take a while to fix this; just thought I'd point this out. Llightex (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've truncated a few but I'll have to dig through bot truncated sources to more fully merge them. Let me know if you have any additional citational criticism or other.FourLights (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

dig deeper

The note about being "incorrectly translated" with its accompanying ref is disjointed and distracting and should be brought up later in the article. The phrase "usually translated..." gives the readers a hint that there may be something more about the translation. The intro shouldn't read like a debate. Dig Deeper (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these refs appeared. Please disregard stuff below.Dig Deeper (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, let me know if you have any other recommendations.FourLights (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Making general grammar and flow edits

I'm going to go through the article and make some changes in grammar and flow. I know nothing about this particular topic except what is here in the text, so if I change the meaning, don't hesitate to change parts of it back. I hope this proof reading is helpful. Dig Deeper (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed up the lead. The lead should not be too detailed or technical, but provide an easy to understand summary of the article.Dig Deeper (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The narrative is a little hard to follow. A chronological approach might be best. Not sure the intro is required at all. The article needs to be simplified so that a person such as myself, who knows nothing about this subject can quickly learn. See WP:TECHNICAL. As I struggle through it it seems that this Han Fei and his writing are quite important, though this was not apparent at first reading. I think it is a bit better. The intro and rest need some simplifying.Dig Deeper (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your recommendations and will try and reorganize the article chronologically, and move material from the introduction. I can only go so far using my own viewpoint, to make it more readable for the lay person, so your contributions and commentary are appreciated. Maybe some of the material in the introduction should just be a footnote at the end.FourLights (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad my comments and edits were helpful. It's very important not to stray too far from the main topic of the article. Too much information (also called data hoarding can bring confusion. Footnotes are a good place to put extra detail you don't want to delete, that's a good idea. You can also move the detail to another page (for example the page on Han Fei or Han Feizi) or perhaps save it for a future page creation.Dig Deeper (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Any link between legalism and corruption? Comment

Reflecting on legalism, with its amoral and "get the job done" philosophy, I couldn't help but wonder if corruption and bribery etc were a result of this. If so perhaps it should be mentioned.Dig Deeper (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I can only mention things that I have sources for. I can make some comments on the issue. One, as I mentioned in the article, Legalism restricts the freedoms of ministers, while Confucianism deregulates. Two, for much of Chinese history, for instance under the Ching, administration was less formal.

Legalism formalizes administration. which is generally a good thing. If you read the xing-min related material, the Shu aspect of Legalism focuses on legal contracts. It is sometimes seen as a solution these days for this very reason, as I have articulated a little in the modern section.FourLights (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Object preceding subject

Having the object precede the subject is OK occasionally, but doing it constantly is distracting and confusing to the reader. For example...

Grouping thinkers crucial to laying the "intellectual and ideological foundations of the traditional Chinese bureaucratic empire",[4] it emphasizes political reform through fixed and transparent rules and a realistic consolidation of the wealth and power of the state, with the goal of achieving increased order and stability. Largely ignoring morality or questions on how a society ideally should function, it examines the present state of the government.[5]

That there is any evidence at all in the ancient world for a field of management is notable.[6] Including possibly the first, if not highly centralized bureaucratic state, and earliest (by the second century BC) example of an administrative meritocracy based on civil service examinations,[7] it may well be said to have originated in ancient China.

better...

Legalism groups together society's thinkers, believed to be crucial for laying the "intellectual and ideological foundations of the traditional Chinese bureaucratic empire". It emphasizes political reform through fixed and transparent rules and a realistic consolidation of the wealth and power of the state, with the goal of achieving increased order and stability. Legalism also examines the present state of the government, while largely ignoring morality or questions on how a society ideally should function.

A copy edit request (tag) may be wise after your editing is complete.Dig Deeper (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow.FourLights (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing organization

Having re-read this article several times, I must say that it suffers from poor organization. Unlike other articles on philosophies which distinguish sections for history and the principles and doctrines, its explanations and analyzes on the latter is scattered all over the place. The section "Administrative realpolitik" is grouped under "Historical background", but honestly seems to deal more with the fundamentals of Legalism rather than the historical development of it. Then this is followed by sections on the main contributors to Legalism, such as Guan Zhong, Mozi, Shen Dao, and Han Fei, but they are all top-tier sections which put them on the same level as "Historical background" when arguably, they can be grouped together under one section identifying the different contributors or main branches. Exacerbating this is the fact that there is a section on "Branches" which deal with "Shang Yang" and "Shen Buhai", two other major Legalists and yet Han Fei is excluded from this section and given his own top-tier section. As a matter of fact, I think that the section on Guan Zhong and Mozi might better fit under "Historical background", a section on the development or precursors to Legalism. Finally, the last sections from "Fall" to "Modern" would appropriately be grouped under a section titled "History" which can be distinguished "from Historical Background" in dealing with the history after it came into fruition if one so wishes.

All in all, I found this article to be a nightmare to navigate in spite of providing a lot of helpful information. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Issues as of July 2019

The article is in better shape than when Sol Pacificus posted above, but I think it still needs some substantial cleanup. Some specific issues:

• The use of "Fa-Jia" is odd—based on the references, the hyphen seems to have been taken via sources using Wade–Giles, which uses hyphens to delimit Chinese syllables, but in pinyin it should be either "Fajia" (fajia) or "Fa Jia" (fa jia). Generally the transcription does not appear to be capitalised in modern sources. I am also not sure in the context of Wikipedia that the predilection for "Fajia" over "Legalism" is helpful for English readers: the name "Legalism" and its potential issues are discussed in the article. Once those caveats are given, there's no reason to insist on an unfamiliar Chinese term and I think it's problematic to one-sidedly promote Goldin's statements on the issue.
• There's a general mixing-up of pinyin and Wade–Giles: e.g. "Shih" should be "shi" in pinyin. Pinyin should be used consistently per WP:CHINESE.
• There are syntax (and occasionally grammatical) issues which result in quite a few confusing or ambiguous sentences. For example, "Usually disregarded by the Fa-Jia, Shen Dao considers moral capability useful in terms of authority." What is usually disregarded by the Fajia: Shen Dao, his theory of moral capability, or moral capability itself? Logically I assume the third, but on reading the sentence I initially interpreted it as the first.
• Difficult to be specific on this point but the style needs improvement in many places.
• Citations are in a non-standard style and difficult to follow up: e.g. what is "Emerson. Shen Dao: Text and Translation" supposed to be and how can I verify it?
• Some of Sol's concerns about the structure of the article are still valid. I am not sure that the large section on antecedents contributes proportionally to the article, and it makes sense for it to be considered "historical background".

Beyond the issues I maintenance-tagged:

• Some important statements in the article are unsourced or fail verification. I tagged one instance in the lede (edit: fixed this one with a source); I also tagged a couple of others I found e.g. the claim that Han Fei was "Intending to abolish philosophy" was not given in the citation. I haven't gone through the references systematically so I'm not sure if this applies to much of the article, but given that out of the 6 or so I checked half failed verification it's a fairly serious potential problem area.
• Various of the images are used without citation and imply connections to legalism which need to be justified. For example, the images seem to be used to claim that Deng Xiaoping and the Communist Party are Legalist, which needs to be supported.

On the plus side, apart from the unsourced statements these could generally be fixed by a thorough copy-edit of the article. I'll maybe try to have a stab at this at some point myself but it's a big article so I can't promise anything—hence writing this up. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

After finding another statement—in the lede—that failed verification upon comparison with the cited source (namely "The correlation between Shen's conception of the inactive (Wu wei) ruler responsible for examination into performance, claims and titles likely also informed the Taoist conception of the formless Tao", which I couldn't find a better source for either) I have tagged the article for potential original research. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am busy at the moment, but will look over your statements here. The term Legalism is frequently derided by scholars in general, not only by Goldin, even if they still end up using it sometimes, and I could probably collect sources here in the talk doing so to form a small article. I do not specifically know Pinyin distinctions, and have changed it to the more-modern Fajia at your recommendation. I would point out that terms like Confucianism and Taoism are Chinese-ish, so the use of Chinese terms is not unheard of. I have fixed the Shen Dao sentence mentioned. Although I would like to assure that I have no tried to do any original research here, and try to do exhaustive sourcing, I recently re-acquired the book regarding Shen Buhai and can try improve matters on that front.FourLights (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of the antecedents clarifies the Fa concept utilized by the Fajia, and as being virtually identical between it's earlier usage and later usage by the Fajia. I consider it an objective report as detailed in the article and by my sources.FourLights (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Though I believe my sources would indicate a definite undercurrent or philosophical background, I removed a caption which seemed to imply too much connection between the Fajia and the Communists, as you suggested. Regarding other images: I am open to additional specific criticism and removal requests at the cost of the images. Perhaps some might not be "related" enough, I included images to decorate the article and make it less "barren", as psychology indicates that readers, well, pay more attention if there is an image, than they would with just bare text. People are much more likely to read something if it has pictures. FourLights (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Emerson text is simply a translation. I only utilize it as a source when making a direct quote of the original Chinese text itself, namely so that you can go and read it if you wish. I do this with Han Fei as well. There may be, and usually (possibly always) I quote a book that makes the quote, but then I include the original Han Feizi as a source so that you can go read it if you want.FourLights (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The current citation format I am using I adopted after Llightex's comment in 2016. I am open to transitioning my citation to something better but I adopted it because it doesn't require much knowledge of wikipedia coding. I just type ref and /ref and put the sources in it. If someone wishes to instruct me how i should improve the citations maybe I can pick it up.FourLights (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It would help to summarize the subject here: perhaps "law and morality in ancient Chinese philosophy".

The article concludes presently, 11 April 2020, with seeming acceptance that "Legalism", fajia, is amoral: Finally, as late as late as 2011, the Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy paints the Legalists as Realists, stating that "What linked these men is that all were theorists or practitioner's of a realistic amoral brand of statecraft aimed at consolidating and strengthening the power and wealth of the state and it's autocratic ruler. Their thought was realistic in being premised on what they took to be brute facts about how people actually behave... It was amoral in that they were utterly unconcerned with whether the institutions and methods they advocated were morally justified."[376] (end of excerpt) To summarize in terms of law and morality would require a definition of each. If law is fa, meaning a method or standard, this would correspond to the European idea of rule, which is a statement of procedure. In a word, a yardstick. That is, a symbol used to verify something. Morality, then, would have to be something that is not a yardstick. Let me propose that morality is a "when all is said and done" consideration, a sort of "well, I've done all I could: how do you like it so far?" The point would be that language reaches only so far. If we stop to program everything we do, we'd never even draw a breath: "Diaphragm, stand by to contract; check mouth and nose for obstructions; ascertain if ambient air is safe; consult all other relevant considerations . . ." I like the remark by an economics professor who'd been to law school: a STOP sign is an example of a good law: you know what to do, it's cheap, it's fair, etc. And yet a STOP sign in the wrong place can do great harm. Who decides where the STOP sign goes? In the ancient Chinese context, when there was not one China, or indeed today, after China has been under concerted European attack for centuries, a strong nation was and is the highest morality, one might say: if there were signs on the Shanghai waterfront saying "No dogs or Chinese" enforced by US Marines (?), could anything wonderful happen anywhere in China? I offer a truism: martial law is indicated in national emergency. Is this an emergency? You pays your money, you takes your chances. If you try to enforce martial law when the situation, the shi, does not require it, you will pay the price eventually. So I leave law and morality as I distinguish them under that third consideration--eventually.Chrisrushlau (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Chrisrushlau (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Chrisrushlau, I appreciate your input, though I don't understand a lot of it, but I only reorganize and report what my sources say, albeit using some judgement such as, if one scholar is more recent than another one and more importantly has better scholarship representing a more accurate viewpoint closer to the truth. I can't interject a definition of morality unless one of sources does that in a way pertaining to the Fajia, though even then may it constitute a commentary (so that I'd have to language it as such referencing them). If you find a source discussing legalism that does that (defines morality) I can include such a commentary in my article referencing said author (I'll try and keep it in mind, in case I come across such a thing). But to comment on some of what you said, the Mohists did indeed use the sun as a moral exemplar, the Confucians their sages etc, and the Legalists wrote up "laws" or rather models (Fa) as their "yardsticks." This isn't a forum, and while it doesn't bother me personally, wanting to debate the nature of morality serves no purpose here, I only report what my sources say.

However, maybe the article I wrote is unclear in a respect you mentioned. The "Realists" section is not a "conclusion", it was simply intended to be a subsection about how 1900's western scholarship interpreted the Fajia, which has continued to an extent but with more criticism (i.e., modern scholarship doesn't all consider the Fajia entirely amoral). Maybe I can make this more clear, and reference a counter-arguement.FourLights (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many citations in the lead

I have added the excessive citations tag, since the lead of the article (and not only) seems to have WP:CITEKILL. I believe that some of them (half, if not more) should be removed, however I don't want to remove them myself because it might cause issues or because some editors might disagree. What do you think? Karl Krafft (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, the citations can be merged. Karl Krafft (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I probably had them merged in the first place. Others have since taken it upon themselves to put it in the current format. I do not want any sources removed, personally, but if you want to change the formatting I don't care, I don't like the way it's done currently, I'm just not arguing about it. FourLights (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I believe that they shouldn't be deleted as well, since the bibliography in this article is great. I'd prefer if they were merged instead. Karl Krafft (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It was one thing I tried to do well, though I'd take arguments that some sources might be less relevant. I don't expect that to happen since I am more or less the only one to give the article attention, and I haven't had much time in years.FourLights (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, if some sources were argued to be less relevant, I could still take note of them here and take them out of article. If someone think it would matter anyway in a merged format.FourLights (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look at it when I have the time, it could be a month. I see no reason the citation formats cannot be potentially combined. FourLights (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Me neither, however the article looks a bit messy now which is why I tagged it and opened this discussion. Karl Krafft (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the potential formats. FourLights (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unlikely anyone else would address it for a long time. FourLights (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a terrific article but the lead does not follow the advice in WP:MOSLEAD, and readers would much appreciate using short references, as described in WP:CITESHORT or the main article Help: Shortened Footnotes. I will make a few edits, but don't want to interfere. ch (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can potentially make something of your interference whether I agree with it wholesale or not. I will finish reading the article given and I think that there is room to try to make it more "nutshell and cultivates interest in reading" than my academic style for some reorganization. But that it is a "philosophical belief originating in ancient China that humans are inclined to do wrong and require strict laws to help them control their selfish impulses" is too generic for accuracy.

Han Fei was in fact probably the one who originally combined the philosophers under a heading becoming known as Fajia, before Sima Tan did it. I go over this when I talk about Han Fei, and I go over this in the Branches of the Fajia. If you believe that it should also be mentioned in the introduction, then I will try to somehow briefly incorporate it.FourLights (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good. Then I will go ahead and slightly rearrange the material in the lead to consolidate and clarify without losing the points on Han Fei and Sima Tan that are there.ch (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New Lead

Given input, lead was reorganized into something flashier on this date with Han Fei as it's basis. More academic style content was relegated to the second paragraph, with realist content moved to the realist section, which would have to be rewritten examining sources. I then recombined the academic second paragraph with this for more description, and separated Han Fei into its own paragraph again.FourLights (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks once again for quick work, but I still see some problems:

• According to WP:MOS:LEAD “The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.” To say that Legalism is one of a Han dynasty scholar’s schools of thought does not do so. The sentence should briefly say what Legalism is and when it started.
• it is not helpful to say the thinkers were synthesized in Han Fei, a work that is not identified for readers.
• The sentence “Commonly thought of...” does not make sense. As it now reads, gramatically, what is “Commonly thought of” and what “is believed to contain...” is “the First Emperor of Qin.”
• The MOS also specifies that the Lead should normally be four paragraphs, so I will consolidate the material into a chronological paragraph.
• There are still too many citations. WP:WHENNOTCITE advises: "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead.
• It would be better to have descriptive edit summaries.

Hope this helps!ch (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, then I won't mention Sima Tan in the first sentence, but it literally is just a category he made up with Han Fei as precedent.FourLights (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Aright, I've added a "When did it start". Since I drew it from the article, I didn't bother to source it in the lede.FourLights (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Needed corrections in references to articles in edited volumes

There are references to articles in edited volumes that refer to the editor(s) and the title of the volume, not the author and title of the article. For instance, "Twitchett and Fairbank" are editors of the general series, not of this volume, which is edited by Twitchett and Michael Loewe. More important, the reference must be to the chapter and author being referenced, just as a journal article should not be credited to the editor of the journal.

I made a template that could be useful in future work by just inserting the proper new values:

{{encyclopedia|title=The Cambridge History of China Volume I: Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. -- A.D. 220 |editor1-first=Denis|editor1-last=Twitchett|editor2-first=Michael|editor2-last=Loewe|last=Bodde |first=Derk|chapter= The State and Empire of Ch’in|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Cambridge_History_of_China_Volume_1/A2HKxK5N2sAC?hl=en&gbpv=1 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1986 |pp= }}

Which produces: Bodde, Derk (1986). "The State and Empire of Ch'in". In Twitchett, Denis; Loewe, Michael (eds.). The Cambridge History of China Volume I: Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. -- A.D. 220. Cambridge University Press.

Likewise

{{encyclopedia|title=The Cambridge History of China Volume 11: |editor1-first=Denis|editor1-last=Twitchett|editor2-first= John |editor2-last= Fairbank|last= Smith |first= John|chapter= chapter title|author-link= |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year= 1644 |pp= TBA }}

produces:

Smith, John (1644). "chapter title". In Twitchett, Denis; Fairbank, John (eds.). The Cambridge History of China Volume 11:. Cambridge University Press. pp. TBA.

Then a short reference can easily be produced: {{sfnb|Bodde|1986|p= }} or {{sfnb|Smith|1644|p= xx}}, that is, and , which will show up in the reference section as below, clicking on which will lead to the formatted reference.

.

Your code formatting looks like a good idea. If you can do that, that would be great. If you're suggesting I need to dig up the author and chapter names, I expect I would have time visit a college again this year that probably has the volumes.FourLights (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Portrait of Han Fei.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unusual images

This article includes a number of unusual images that don't really belong here. Han Xiangzi is a character from the Tang dynasty and has nothing to do with Legalism. A photo of an abacus is included despite the article not mentioning the abacus. A picture of a painting that shows a spinning wheel is used to illustrate Han Fei talking about a chariot wheel, which aren't the same things. A Korean painting of a mythical white tiger very tendentiously linked to Qin Shi Huang. Juyong Pass is not mentioned in the article, but there is a photo here - it would be more appropriate for a history article. The grave goods from the Han are slightly less random, but still are not really illustrating anything. In my opinion, all except the grave goods should be removed. I'm willing to listen to other opinions before I do so, however, so let me know if you disagree. Retinalsummer (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I illustrated the article to try to entertain unintelligent people, but I won't object if you do the work of removing what you think it best to remove. For that matter, if you have other ideas to illustrate it, do that.FourLights (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

With Han Xiangzi I suppose the point would be that it feels like you have a sharing of concepts here.FourLights (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "entertain unintelligent people", but I'll have a think about appropriate replacements before removing anything. But regardless, I don't think picture captions are the place for quotes in an article. By the way, when you reply to comments on talk pages, you should put a colon (:) at the beginning of your reply so it indents and is easier to follow (I've put them in for you, hope you don't mind). See WP:TALKREPLY for more info. Retinalsummer (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

if you read psychology articles people are more likely to read if there are pictures. I won't object, that's just why I did it. FourLights (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok fine, but the manual of style says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Also, as I said please sign your comments with the right number of ":". Retinalsummer (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

recent additions

This article has recent additions by GoutComplex which I would have to review. A good portion of it looks like a suitable addition to me. However, I do not believe that the question of the Fajia's orientation towards spirituality belongs in the leading paragraphs, and mostly cities only one person. I have similarly discussed the modern western perception by the west of the Fajia as "realists", but have moved the material in question to a new section in the introduction, which I titled "atheistic orientation". I believe that the topic deserves it's own coverage separately from my discussion of modern perception, but it will require a great deal more work to cover it in a more scholarly way.FourLights (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"There has been discourse on what beliefs count as part of a unified Legalist tradition, if any"

References