Talk:Confucianism

"Confucianism and other schools of thought" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Confucianism and other schools of thought has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31 § Confucianism and other schools of thought until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions

Hi Mia Madison Row! As some background information for Wikipedia's treatment of this topic that may be helpful for your assignment, I'll disclose first off that it's my position as an Early China person that this article could greatly benefit from a fundamental rewrite.

If you're writing about Confucianism from a religious perspective (already overemphasized in the article), you might want to keep in mind that there is no academic consensus that Confucianism should be called a religion. If you have Wikipedia Library access, you should be able to read this 2015 academic dual book review: Jochim, Christian (2015). "Reviewed works: Confucianism as Religion: Controversies and Consequences, written by Yong Chen; Confucianism as a World Religion: Contested Histories and Contemporary Realities, written by Anna Sun". Review of Religion and Chinese Society. 2 (2): 265–270. doi:10.1163/22143955-00202007. (If you can read Chinese, you might also want to check out Chinese Wikipedia's article section :zh:儒教 § 儒教是否宗教的各種觀點, "Various viewpoints on whether Confucianism is a religion".)

We do have two related articles Religious Confucianism and Confucian ritual religion (very underdeveloped!) that could benefit from a purely Religious Studies standpoint.

Last year, I took part in a conversation at Talk:Han dynasty § "Confucianism" as a religion during this period about the appropriateness of listing "Confucianism" in the infobox of that article. The conversation has some good background information (part of the problem is that the term "Confucianism" conflates three distinct but related Chinese words). I also posted a list of possible sources for improving the related article Confucius recently at Talk:Confucius § Potential sources, most or all of which should be accessible through the Wikipedia Library now that Brill is working again.

@Ian (Wiki Ed): for a course on world religions, the article Religious Confucianism might be a better target for improvement than Confucianism, which already overemphasizes religious aspects at the expense of political, philosophical, literary, and historical lenses. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

[P]art of the problem is that the term "Confucianism" conflates three distinct but related Chinese words actually understates it quite a bit: Makeham (2008) gives twenty-five examples of Chinese terms in the conceptual space that are or have been translated as "Confucian" or "Confucianis[m/t]". See Makeham, John (2008). Lost Soul: “Confucianism” in Contemporary Chinese Academic Discourse. Harvard–Yenching Institute Monographs, no. 64. Harvard University Press. p. 5–6 n. 11. doi:10.1163/9781684170487_002. ISBN 9781684170487.

For an extremely brief and much less technical overview of some of the domain issues inherent to a working definition of "Confucianism" – without even beginning to address the question of whether or not it can be a "religion" – have a quick look at Goldin, Paul R. (2011). "Introduction: What Confucianism is and what Confucianism is not". Confucianism. Ancient Philosophies Series. Durham: Acumen. pp. 1–6. ISBN 9781844654369. TWL link via Cambridge University Press. Folly Mox (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Whoops I guess I don't understand how Wiki Ed works. Pinging Gerdesk as instructor to review this choice of target article for a religious studies course (briefest: as a subject matter expert I recommend Religious Confucianism instead). Folly Mox (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2025

change anthropromorphized to anthropomorphized (typo) Choxner (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 03:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2025

Please add “The genetic line of Confucius are known to have played an instrumental role in making changes that brought us to this current world foundation.” Snehashree Mandal (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote a book. Please see WP:PROMO. Day Creature (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2025 (2)

Chinese and Confucius

Add after this line: In the Western world, the character for water is often used as a symbol for Confucianism, which is not the case in modern China. In fact, the Chinese and Confucius supporters believe he played an instrumental role in ushering this new age upon us. Snehashree Mandal (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per the response to your previous edit request above. Day Creature (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Fingarette citation inaccuracy

I would like to request permission to edit this page's citation (endnote 3) of Herbert Fingarette's Confucius–The Secular as Sacred.

The citation cites pp.1-2, but the actual excerpt cited lies on pp.2-3. Ksharishaman (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)