Talk:Wonderism

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Eastern 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

Language in the block quotations

These quotations seem to have been translated directly into English from a book in French by a non-native speaker. It doesn't seem that a quotation from a translated book would be in incorrect English like this, e.g. "anxious of novelty" in the first quotation, or the incorrect punctuation and grammar in the second. Evangeline (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Jixia Academy. -- DarkCrow^Caw 13:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacouperie's idiosyncratic term "wonderism" refers to the Jixia Academy. Shouldn't these articles be merged? Keahapana (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no reason to merge this article with the odd conjectures of a writer of 100 years ago, whose work on this subject is not taken seriously by modern scholars.

The only mentions of Lacouperie I can find in modern scholarly writing refer to his "peculiar argument," his "fantasies," his "strange and short-lived form of ... Orientalism" and calls him "eccentric" and a "self-proclaimed classical scholar." Other slighting mentions by modern scholars include: "Lacouperie copied Vissering copiously (including the errors), without acknowledgment" and "Had modern scholars scrutinized Lacouperie closely in the context..." and "Lacouperie's flimsy etymological exercise...." and "Lacouperie, who introduced the first faked evidence...." Lacouperie is also mentioned as "victim of a hoax" about a Formosan alphabet.

I could not find anyone associated with a modern university who cited Lacouperie in any way except as an outmoded or actually misguided scholar of long ago.

Does not sound like someone to be cited in a reliable article. Evangeline (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.