| Revision as of 20:28, 28 January 2007 editProsfilaes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,473 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:07, 4 February 2007 edit undo81.107.203.67 (talk) WP:3RR warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| : I replied to directly to MKoltnow; since they were put on this page to annoy me, I continue to delete them.--] 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | : I replied to directly to MKoltnow; since they were put on this page to annoy me, I continue to delete them.--] 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you are doing in ]}}. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> | |||
Revision as of 14:07, 4 February 2007
Selective archive (use the history button for the rest)
Sun Tzu birth and death dates
I came across an ongoing discussion about Sun Tzu today and wanted to throw my two-cents in...
I find it interesting that people have started the debate as to who on here are "amateurs" and who are "experts." Of course, anyone can have access to this as it is a Wiki and that is the nature of this sort of online project. Some people have 4-year degrees (or higher) in related areas (such as myself), but even without that one can still be an "expert" in a particular field.
As such, when considering the life of Sun Tzu (or Sun Wu, if you prefer), it is hard to "pin down" an "exact date" of birth (or death, for that matter) for him. Samuel Griffith brought up an interesting point in his edition of The Art of War when he set the time period of, "possibly," 400-320 B.C. Griffith pointed out that in 320 B.C. cavalry were introduced by Wu Ling of the Chao State, and thus the author would have most certainly noted this in his writings. Similarly, Griffith pointed out that it must have been written after 400 B.C. due to the numerous references to the crossbow, a weapon introduced around that year (and, for example, seen at the Battle of Ma Ling in 341 B.C.). Griffith throws out the idea that Sun Pin may have been the author of the Sun Tzu Ping-Fa, but that is uncertain. We do know what Griffith and his consultants point out, however, which is that during that era (the Warring States, or after the Spring and Autumn), authors would often attribute their work to men of previous eras in order to boost their own credibility. To quote Fung Yu-lan: " was not at that time looked upon as requiring any distinction and hence today cannot for the most part be distinguished any longer." --Yahweh 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since you wanted some specific examples, when looking at Griffith's translation, in Chapter II, verse 14 we see "As to government expenditures, those due to broken-down chariots, worn-out horses, armour and helmets, arrows and crossbows, lances, hand and body shields, draft animals and supply wagons will amount to sixty per cent. of the total" (Griffith notes in the footnote that "Here Sun Tzu uses the specific character for 'crossbow').
- In Chapter V, 16 we see "His potential is that of a fully drawn crossbow; his timing the release of the trigger." (Griffith notes that "Here again the specific character meaning 'crossbow' is used").
- As for the issue of the cavalry, the author does not mention them, so the only reference to this idea is in the commentary (most of which is from the 11th-Century A.D. or earlier). --Yahweh 04:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding reversions made on January 25 2007 to Unwinnable
The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You have removed several user warnings from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. Thank you. MKoltnow 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I replied to directly to MKoltnow; since they were put on this page to annoy me, I continue to delete them.--Prosfilaes 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding reversions made on February 4 2007 to Unwinnable
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.