Talk:Legitimacy of Chinese philosophy
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Strongman13072007 in topic What the heck is with this trash?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Legitimacy of Chinese philosophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legitimacy of this article
editWhy does article even exist? Would Wikipedia allow an article called "Legitimacy of Christianity as a religion"? It's a bigoted subject and its existence doesn't reflect well upon Wikipedia. 216.252.152.164 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with the comment above. The lack of a scholarly voice in the article betrays an agenda rather than an effort to engage with a complex topic. I should hope there is an adjustment in the near future. 3mpedocles (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The citations section is, perhaps, the greatest reveal over the lack of neutrality in the writing. Only two sources dominate the citations. 3mpedocles (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The article Criticism of Christianity does exist. The name is based on the employed term in the used sources. Dege31 (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't find the comparison to "Legitimacy of Christianity as a Religion" compelling because I don't live in a place where that is ever questioned. Whether Chinese philosophy is philosophy is a thing I hear questioned, but only by White supremacist talking heads and Groypers.
- I do agree that this article is a heinous and fallacious white supremacist talking point that cites the same publication 47 times and a quick look at that publication makes it clear that its purpose is to push the narrative that Chinese philosophy is not philosophy, using the same talking points you'd hear from an Ivy-educated white supremacist.
- The only people calling into question whether Chinese philosophy is philosophy are white supremacists. The existence of this article on Wikipedia makes me question what Wikipedia is teaching and whether it is a place I want to learn from. 76.20.184.116 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. Considering almost all the sources linking to the same publication, this reads like an opinion piece based on said publication. I seriously doubt that anyone (except, as mentioned above, white supremacists, because well.. they likely do) thinks that Chinese philosophy is not philosophy, let alone that debates occur on the subject extensively. Otherwise, there'd be much more sources on this article. Due to lack of notability & the nearly unfixable non-neutrality, I call for deleting this article. There is practically no debate on this. Axtrips (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Link*, not linking. I'm sleepy. Axtrips (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. Considering almost all the sources linking to the same publication, this reads like an opinion piece based on said publication. I seriously doubt that anyone (except, as mentioned above, white supremacists, because well.. they likely do) thinks that Chinese philosophy is not philosophy, let alone that debates occur on the subject extensively. Otherwise, there'd be much more sources on this article. Due to lack of notability & the nearly unfixable non-neutrality, I call for deleting this article. There is practically no debate on this. Axtrips (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What the heck is with this trash?
editI see that the article is full of biased language and does not reflect anything at all. And there is NO debate I've even heard of at all. I read many works by Western, Japanese and Chinese sinologists alike and no one among them ever bring this question up. Strongman13072007 (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)