Talk:Sun Bin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

there is a story about Sun Bin and Game Theory. i hope this is not viewed as website promotion, as the article is purely focused on Sun Bin's story and i believe adds to the content of Sun Bin. http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/06/sun-bin-crippled-strategist.html

I removed this below, doesn't belong in the article.--Confuzion 07:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

==Modern Inspiration==

A blog inspired by the work of Sun Bin applied to current events can be found at Sun-bin.blogspot.

I find this line "he was a member of the Sun family, a family famed for producing military strategists" out of place in this article. Of the Sun clan, the only great military strategists which really stands out are Sun Wu and Sun Bin, yet there are countless other brilliant strategists throughout the history of China with other clan names. This line is more of a generalization than a proveable fact. Master Liang 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The specific Sun clan was famous during the time for being one that produced military strategists; I don't have the book with me, but they would probably be more accurately known as "the Sun family from BLANK". They had a family tradition of being advisors in that role (Tian Ji also came from this family) - many males from this family went on to become military advisors/strategists in many states; whether or not this clan could really trace its roots to Sun Wu is a different story. This line isn't meant to imply that the Sun family name is one of great military strategists over other Chinese last names. They were famous for producing military strategists, not "great" military strategists, and the line doesn't make any implications on the greatness of the military strategists that the family produced in abundance--Confuzion 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you added "local" to that line, which adds clarification. Master Liang 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The line "Tian Ji also managed to convince the King to create a rule stating all commands given by Sun Bin had to be obeyed, even though the commands didn't have to be" is very confusing. I would edit it to provide more clarity, but I am unclear as to what is being said. Is the intent of this sentence to communicate that Sun Bin's rank normally implied no military authority, but an exception was made in his particular case? Gabhala 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sun the Mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II"

They are not accepted in historical circles. For example, a Google search for "Sun the Mutilated" yields only eight unique hits -- two of which were previous versions of the Wikipedia articles on Sun Tzu and Sun Bin.[1] In many ways, "Sun Tzu II" fares worse; as far as I can see, no source outside the book that was cited by 206.125.176.3 (talk · contribs) uses the term; all of the Google hits direct to the book -- reviews, bookstore sites, &c.[2] Further, its direct translation into Chinese -- "孫子二世" -- yields not a single hit that is at all relevant.[3] Further, the Chinese -- even to this day -- rarely used ordinals in referring to people's descendants, and I'd question (under WP:MOS generally and under WP:MOS-ZH) the propriety of using any epithets that do not have any applicability with regard to the individual in question in the culture in question. It would be like referring to George W. Bush as "George Bush II." --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, to the extent that suggestion was made that "Bin" == "Mutilated" and was the name given after his suffering, the suggestion is unsupported by ancient sources. The Records of the Grand Historian, vol. 65, for example, did not provide any such hints, as it referred to him as Sun Bin before his suffering. --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As you acknowledge this information was in the book that was cited. You are not an authority to supercede a published book; since it is referenced the information should stay. Also, you are close to arguing based on original research which is not sourceable. We are here to contribute information that is supported not delete information that we don't agree with. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when are established Chinese historical sources original research? And nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that we have to accept a single author's epithets for an individual blindly. These epithets don't make sense. I'm going to call for an RFC on this. (I also note that you do not make any attempts to factually refute my assertions above -- particularly the fact that "II" is not accepted usage in Chinese generally, not just in this case.) --Nlu (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on the inclusion of "Sun the Mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II" as alternative names

Whether "Sun the Mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II" are proper alternative names that should be included in the article.

First one might be ok, but the second one is a definite no. Sun Tzu wasn't a king, so there is no regal purpose for the "II", and It's not Sun Bin's name so it is improper to name him "Sun Tzu II" even if he is a descendant and a military stratagist. nat.utoronto 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Cleary a renound and well respected author published a book called "The Lost Art of War" and attributes the author to be "Sun Tzu II" or Sun Bin. I don't think any Wiki "Contributors" are more of an authority on this then Mr. Clearly. If anyone thinks they are do speak up and give everyone your credentials. (Info Below) 206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun Tzu II translated by Thomas Cleary (1996). The Lost Art of War. Harper Collins Publisher (Under HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-251361-3. This book by Thomas Cleary is a translation of the sequel to Sun Tzu's classic strategic manual.

Cleary may be a published author, but you still have given no authority for the proposition that his terminology is commonly accepted. The evidence is quite the reverse -- that they are not commonly accepted and are unique to him alone. Unless you have evidence that the scholastic community or the community at large has accepted these terms, they don't belong in the lead paragraph of the article. I would not mind if it is referred to separately in the text of the article as titles that Cleary used for him. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Cleary's title is just intended to stand out, the accepted title is seen elsewhere in pinyin or as Sun Bin's Art of War, never but a few wiki articles as Sunzi II or "The Lost Art of War". Sun the Mutilated doesn't seem any more accepted. 洋金 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (edited to make sense)