Talk:New Confucianism

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Eastern / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Eastern philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

"The term itself seems to have been first used in the 1970's and was not found before the 1980's."

This is, at the least, very confusing. I don't enough to alter this to make sense, but I hope someone else finds this and has something valuable to contribute.

I think that's an understatement; I think it does not make any sense at all.—Gniw (Wing) 04:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid the original article was a bit of a mess. I rewrote it quickly, but I corrected several outright errors and (I hope) made it a bit clearer and more informative. --Bryan12603 06:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Erroneous characters deleted but correct ones needed

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

By the way: before I re-wrote the article, the characters for "New Confucianism" were written twice (with an "or" between them), and the characters for "Neo-Confucianism" were COMPLETELY wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know yet how to enter Chinese characters into Wikipedia, so I couldn't enter the correct characters for "Neo-Confucianism." --Bryan12603 06:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The section on Xiong Shili is written really well- I would suggest either a) paring down the amount that is written about his particular philosophy in general and adding it onto the page about Xiong Shili himself, or b) adding more about his views on how Confucianism should serve as a way to retain the cultural heritage of China in the face of Westernization. On a page about New Confucianism I feel as though this could be really beneficial to put everything into historical context. Mscarles (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The section about Xiong Shili is well done—especially the discussion of the Buddhist influences found in his philosophy. Including the historical context, or some kind of historical/political background would be beneficial just for the reader to get a sense of how and why this new style of developed in a very tumultuous political era. I would also include a section on the future of New Confucianism—how has the school evolved in the present (if at all)? Katyjames91 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)User: Katyjames91Reply

Thanks for commenting! I will provide more historical/political background for the page and a more current-events-relative input regarding New Confucian influences! sopamika (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC) User: sopamikaReply

Add topic