Template talk:Chinese Legalism
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I'm wondering why Fengjian is considered a "relevant article" in the Legalism series. Legalism is only mentioned in the article in the context of "it is often conflated with Confucianism and Legalism".
Let's lean into the anachronism and pretend for a mome that Legalism was a coherent political philosophy contemporaneous to the fengjian administrative system. If anything, they're oppositional: it's the political outcomes related to Legalist positions, chiefly the central concentration of power, that leads to the decline of fengjian, which was overarchingly aristocratic. It's the most Legalist states that get us to the junxian system. Leaning back out of the anachronism, by the times of the founders of Legalism (which, leaning back out of that anachronism, was coined by Sima Tan), fengjian was already in decline. The two concepts do have some interrelation, but a. not to the point where fengjian belongs in the Legalism template, and b. not in the way where fengjian belongs in the Legalism template.
Very tempted to remove and will probably do so soon barring objection. Folly Mox (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't always aware of the anachronism, it takes time to soak in, and it's not an easy subject to learn. I don't find the wikipedia interface easy to use, and simply had this template off the page for awhile. Someone else has restored it, so I've taken the time to look it up and edit it. I wish everyone appreciated anachronism as much as you do.FourLights (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)