Jump to content

Talk:Feng shui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vince Calegon (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 26 January 2019 (→‎Request for rewrite and question about neutrality, moved from a template in the article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Feng shui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Feng shui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rewrite and question about neutrality, moved from a template in the article

The following text was added in a rewrite template on the article itself by Aethelwolf Emsworth, but I believe it belongs on the talk page, especially since it also addresses the question about neutrality which has also been raised by the same editor. I am not endorsing this text, in fact I disagree with some of it, but I'm moving it here to make it possible to discuss the subject. --bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is POV and mostly unsourced. First of all, feng shui is neither "metaphysics" (literally belief in transcendental things) nor "mysticism" (literally unspeakable knowledge), and these two definitions in the first lines are unsourced. Secondly, the emphasis on the definition of The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience and the skeptic movement in the lede is totally undue weight given to a specific viewpoint (so, POV to Wikipedia standards). Thirdly, all throughout the body of the text there continue to be entirely unsourced sections, and many of them provide wrong and superficial (and Western) interpretations of the philosophy and craft of feng shui. Ultimately, this article is very confusing and needs to be thoroughly rewritten according to academic Sinological sources."

The 'Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience' quote definitely needs to be in the lede. It's not POV by Wikipedia standards to reflect the consensus of physical scientists as fact - indeed, it would be POV for us to do otherwise. When science says that something is complete bunk, it's important for us to say so, and to be up front in doing so in the lede.
He might be right in saying that feng shui isn't metaphysics or mysticism; I'm not sure either of them are ideal, and it would be good to see an alternative word proposed and discussed.
I agree that more and better sourcing would be good; I'd like to see more sources from reliable physical sciences publications introduced to discuss whether any of the concepts discussed are detectable in any way. Sinology/sinological sources might be good to discuss philosophy, history and cultural relevance.Girth Summit (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feng shui is fundamentally a religious cosmology, and it should be treated as such. The opinion of the Skeptic Encyclopedia and the Skeptical movement is totally out of place and unduly emphasised. If you think it is not, then add the same "warning: the Skeptical movement thinks that it simply does not exist" to other articles about religious and spiritual cosmologies and ideas, starting from "Holy Spirit".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aethelwolf Emsworth that feng shui is fundamentally a religious cosmology but also agree that in recent years it has been turned into a fad and a thing of commerce. Both elements need to be represented in the lede, but only in proportion.
I replaced the paraphrase with a quote and removed Note #3, -- Michael Shermer. The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 111–112. -- which appears to be mistaken second reference to the same article in note #2. There is no page 111-112 in Volume Two of the Skeptic Encyclopedia, while those pages in Volume One are in the Feng Shui article (here). I changed the dead url to a live one to the Google Book and corrected the reference.
I also removed the quote from a blog, since a blog is not a Reliable Source.
Cheers! ch (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptoid is actually a useful source for a skeptical viewpoint and addressing WP:PARITY. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#skeptoid.com. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the discussion, but no consensus was reached to allow an exception to the general policy that blogs are not reliable sources. In fact, the article Pseudoscience that was the subject of the discussion does not use that source or Brian Dunning, so any consensus was against its use.
In any case, the valid point that the claims of feng shui cannot be scientifically replicated should be in due proportion. The skeptical view takes somewhat short of half the space in the present lead, that is 125 of 279 substantive words. Brian Dunning's quote is polemical and not needed, the characterization of it as
I will cut the Skeptoid material in a few days if nobody opbjects.
Comparing this to other articles concerning spiritual belief, we see no mention at all of scientific disproof in Virgin birth of Jesus opr Resurrection of Jesus. Selecting topics at random from the Skeptic's Encyclopedia Table of Contents, the lede of Christian Science does not call it pseudoscience, Homeopathy lede strongly condemns;
Witchcraft lede does not mention pseudo-science, but Witchcraft#Concept says that “scientifically... generally believed to lack credence,” with “lack credence” linked to Pseudoscience. This seems a balanced way of representing both sides.
Cheers once again.ch (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear that you read the RSN discussion. There are other discussions, though most simply work from the conclusion that Skeptiod is reliable rather than discuss why. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested help at WP:FTN. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me to understand what the objection is to the language that was reverted, which represents what was in the sources cited, which the present language does not.
  • "Historically and in today's East Asia" This is incontrovertable and sourced in Dunning, Puro, and the article.
  • "From these logical foundations, however, feng shui has grown into what one writer calls "a vast and complex tapestry of proto scientific or pseudo scientific theories, fortune-telling, and superstition.” This is a close paraphrase and a direct quote, so what's not to like?
  • "In the last half of the twentieth century feng shui became widely popular in the West but also rebutted as a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be replicated." Why remove that Feng Shui became a fad outside China, which is a major section of the article, what Dunning says, and that its claims have been rebutted. Again, please explain what's wrong with this.
  • "it is considered by the scientific community...." I don't see this in Dunning, which is not an RS in any case. As he does not refer to any sources he would be simply asserting an opinion even if he had said it.
Is our difference that I want to recognize the historic place of feng shui in East Asian spiritual practice just as I do the concept of the Virgin Birth or Christian Science in Western spirituality? From the start I have agreed that the article should state that it is not scientific, which is not the same as saying it is bunkum.
I read through the entire discussion on Dunning at RSN and found no consensus. The Pseudoscience article does not cite Skeptoid.
Finally, the Fringe Theory noticeboard is not the appropriate forum because it prejudges that Feng Shui is fringe theory rather than Daoist spiritual practice.
Cheers once more! ch (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Shui has an obvious pseudoscience aspect and as expected the relevant sources say so too, so WP:FT/N is appropriate as our core policy and guidelines apply here. Any attempt to get religion on the table to be used as some kind of ward against this would be problematic. Editors should remember this discretionary sanctions apply here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Birth has mythical readings with no practical effect on modern life. Most Christians who believe in it wouldn't even try to argue that it wasn't outside the laws of nature (and so unscientific). Christian Science's faith healing can very easily be labelled pseudoscientific (especially when they were hardcore about "nope, don't need hospitals"). Young Earth Creationism is pseudoscience. Internal consistency (i.e. "logic") doesn't mean that something's not pseudoscience, either.
Witchcraft is a broad enough category that it is legitimately hard to label all of it as pseudoscience. "If I perform this magic spell with no mechanical connection to the desired result, I will still achieve that result" would certainly be (at best) pseudoscientific, but it's really hard to justify labeling "I'm worshiping the Lord and Lady" or "I'm communing with nature spirits for some vague and non-material benefit" as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response that leads me to clarify my thinking. I think that our difference is that I and historians of science do not think that pre-modern science is “pseudo-science” according to the definition at Pseudoscience. In its original context it did not claim to be “science” in the modern sense, which had not yet been invented and could not be confused with it. Chinese science before the modern period is neither Fringe Theory or pseudo-science. We agree that feng shui in the modern west can be called pseudo-science.
At the Fringe Science notice board I strongly objected to the report that I wanted to remove the Dunning reference without including that I actually restored it.
Please answer my above request to say what is wrong with my language above so we can have a fruitful discussion.
Alexbrn: Your admonition is unclear -- which editors do you mean? I do not see any who deny that fengshui has a pseudo-science aspect. What are "discretionary sanctions"? ch (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that premodern science isn't pseudoscience when it stays in the past. Modern Feng Shui practitioners, Chinese or laowai, continue to make scientifically testable claims that do not hold up to scrutiny, based on claims of Qi flow (a variant of long-dismissed Vitalism). There remains an industry for it to this day, and it still dramatically affects architectural practices in China, for reasons other than aesthetics or philosophy but for "health," "luck," and other testable claims.
I'll leave the discretionary sanctions template on your page for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson This is not WP:CIVIL. I have edited neither of the pages mentioned in the template nor have I taken any position but the one you say that you agree with. Remove the template. An apology from you is in order.ch (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CWH: You asked what discretionary sanctions meant. If you read the template with the assumption of good faith, you'd realize that the template itself is not an action, merely a notification. Unless and until it is settled that there's no reasonable and good-faith way any aspect of Feng Shui could be called pseudoscience, this article does fall under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies -- I think -- but I assumed that a heading "Discretionary sanctions notification" was a notice of discretionary sanctions. If it is not one, please WP:AGF your good self, and remove. It would have been civil to give the link WP:AC/DS rather than give a false impression.
Meanwhile, I will note that civility would also involve answering my question above as to what is objectionable about the language that was removed.ch (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did assume good faith. I also assumed you wouldn't have an unreasonable panic attack over being given the standard introduction.
Your use of civil seems to have very little to do with not being insulting and more to do with me doing what you want. I've stated my position, and it should be very clear how that applies to the phrasing you used. If you did not understand that, I can try to clarify it, but just asking me the same question multiple times is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Willi-willi: As the discussion above indicates, there is not a consensus for your repeated substitution of "geomancy, is a pseudoscience" with "is a Metaphysical Science". Some editors seem to want to avoid the pseudoscience label but a greater number of editors (including me) see relevance in calling it such rather than the misnomer of "Metaphysical Science", whatever that is. You are at two reversions and I've restored status quo ante. Don't make a third revision against consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that describing it as a pseudoscience is etic, whereas I think such articles should emic. Vince Calegon (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over photograph of Hong Kong building with hole in it

@Ronz:,@Ɱ: Regarding your recent reverts over the caption explaining the hole in the photograph of the building in Hong Kong. I've just read through the source that Ɱ referenced - it actually says that the hole in that particular building is to avoid blocking the views (you need to click on the photo gallery to find this - the part of the article where it talks about 'spirit dragons' is about a different building).

I think that both explanations (Qi and spirit-dragons) seem to be challenged by this source - it might be better to avoid using the photograph altogether on this page, unless more reliable sources can be found to support either suggestion.Girth Summit (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too, so I removed the image. Seems to violate OR, SOAP, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re [1]: Again, OR, SOAP, and FRINGE concerns with the presentation and sources. The blog doesn't appear reliable at all. The Vision Times ref relates local folklore and rumor. The video is a bit iffy, but they did consult with two local experts. Qualifying the caption by saying "allegedly" seems a good approach. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we use the video (it would be better to find written accounts on the topic), we should be looking at first using the wider context, rather than using it to justify an image and its caption. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feng_shui&oldid=880293680"