Talk:Feng shui/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Feng shui compasses and geomagnetism"

This information was moved to Luopan discussion page -- it is irrelevant here. cb (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Geomagetism is very much a part of feng shui. Here is a reliable source that ties the two together. Publisher: Heian International, Inc., Second Edition 1989,.Author: Evelyn Lip Book title” Feng Shui A Layman’s Guide to Chinese Geomancy Chapter 1 What is Geomancy or Feng Shui? Moving this without discussion and agreement is inappropriate and does not follow Wikipedia policy.--216.19.43.241 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See the "For Sedonafengshui" section for challenges. A "layman's guide" isn't an academic source. cb (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You continue to state that Wikipedia has a standard of academic sources only however you have not shown exactly where it states this in the Wikipedia Policies. In the Reliable Sources page this is what is stated: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you repeated that again, because it helps explain why so much of the content you're trying to get into this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia: it violates NPOV and self-published sources. Plus the links policy and the no original research policy.

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Three Basic Schools of Feng Shui discussion

Claim: There are 3 basic schools or methods of Feng Shui: Form School, Compass School and Black Sect Feng Shui.Introduction to Feng Shui

Challenge: You have failed to account for the fact that a "school" is a technique. Why is Shen Dao not a school -- only because it is not listed in a commercial magazine (not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards)? cb (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

From traditional feng shui books (classics), there were only 2 basic schools. That were "Mountain Head" (Form) and "Qi Manipulation" (having directional computation but not really about Compass. So far "Compass School" is misleading) School. Compass was only a device to know direction. Original approach for precise direction measurement is using star at night or general speaking Chinese astronomy.

Qi in Feng Shui refers to Geographical Qi. There is "Human Qi" concept in acupuncture. There is "Sky Qi" for weather.

Dear all contributors, please try to read original classics to speed up your work. If you still based on present and common translated works in books or online text, it may take long time to finalize the Feng Shui section in Wikipedia.

TL 23:49 16 June 2008 (some good books can be found in kanyu writing as your site quoted)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.37.16 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all this is a discussion not a challenge.The Three primary schools of feng shui have been documented. I will agree with you that within each of the schools that there may be sub schools. For example in Compass School there are many sub schools that use the compass. If you would like to list all of the sub schools I am happy to look at it for discussion.

--216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your source is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. You don't know that a challenge is always issued to a thesis? You don't know that in Chinese, a "school" is a technique? Your comment "there may be sub schools" [sic] concerns me -- don't you know? All forms of traditional feng shui use a compass (even so-called "form school" has its own compass -- see books by Ole Bruun and Cheng Jian Jun, for some explanation). Why don't you account for this very basic information? You need to be able to account for the variance between the qualified primary and secondary sources and the material you want to include for the article to meet Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is based on consensus. Reconcile your material with what is already in the article. Reconcile the source materials you quote with the qualified sources provided in the article. That is critical to the process. cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is dedicated to Feng Shui not only Traditional Feng Shui so all schools/methods must be included. I am making a good faith effort to provide all content of feng shui not just one point of view.

Rather presumptuous of you, considering the quality of the work produced by other editors! You can best substantiate your claims by following the rules you love to repeat ad infinitum: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science" and "where there is disagreement between sources" you need to make that "clearly attributed in the text." Take some time to actually read the article -- because there are academic citations, which Wikipedia assumes have accurate information. If you can't find academic works that prove your claims, or the only "proof" you can muster is New Age/occult paperbacks and inadmissible websites for commercial interests ([which violate policy on Wikipedia:External links), take a moment to ponder why your favorite sources of information don't seem to agree with the other evidence (see verifiability of exceptional sources) cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not require that I reconcile my sources with what is already written. Consensus allows for changes or additions to a page. Again I am working to provide all points of view on this subject The sources that I have provided throughout this discussion board are verifiable sources. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your presumptions, because your material is consistently failing the very Wikipedia policies you love to repeat -- you know, NPOV, verifiability of exceptional sources), Wikipedia:External links, self-published sources, and no original research. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Form School

Origins of feng shui

Claim: This is the origin of Feng Shui and what is called Form School Feng Shui. It addresses the energies of the roads, rivers, mountains and placement of structures in relationship to them. Its premises are based upon the forces of Mother Nature. The History of Feng Shui Typically you will find that Form School is utilized with either Black Hat School or Compass school but not both Challenge: This is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Please quote academic sources. The material disagrees with archaeology. cb (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Wilipedia requires a verifiable source not an academic source. Please re-read the policy. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the page on reliable source, which is the standard I quoted. You need to be able to account for the variance between the qualified primary and secondary sources and the material you want to include for the article to meet Wikipedia standards. cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Reliable Sources portion of that page this is stated:" Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

Great, you posted that yet again; hope you can reconcile it with your posts. Your sources are from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects (not considered "major publishing houses" or "mainstream publications" by any stretch of the imagination), or commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources, questionable sources). At least if you cite academic sources, Wikipedia assumes they are as reliable as the current academic citations in the article. But if your sources aren't academic ones -- and you provided none that meet the standards you keep repeating -- then they aren't judged as favorably as those already in the article. Look at burden of proof. If your sources disagree with the academic citations already in the article, please follow Wikipedia guidelines to rectify the discrepancies (refer to your comment just above this one for the policy in question.) cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Form (Landscape) School: References: Form School Feng Shui, The Different Schools Of Feng Shui, Introduction to Feng Shui, Publisher: Arkana Penguin Group, Author: Sarah Rossbach, Title: Interior Design with Feng Shui chapter 4 Siting page 26, Publisher: Llewellyn Publications, Author: Richard Webster, Title: Feng Shui for Beginners, chapter 2 The form School page 21, Publisher:An Owl Book Henry Holt and Co, New York, Author: Master Lam Kam Chuen, Title: Feng Shui Handbook page 36, Publisher:Shambhala Publications, Inc, Author: Eva Wong, Title: Feng Shui - The Ancient Wisdom of Harmonious Living for modern times Chapter Landforms page 63 --Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You just stated "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" as "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. However, every one of the books are from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects and commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources plus the questionable sources test). At least if you cite academic sources, Wikipedia assumes they are as reliable as the current academic citations in the article. But if your sources aren't academic ones -- and you provided none that meet the standards you keep going on about -- then they aren't judged as favorably as those already in the article. Look at burden of proof. If your sources disagree with the academic citations already in the article, please follow Wikipedia guidelines to rectify the discrepancies (refer to your frequent quotes from the policies). cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Compass School

Claim: When you read about any specific compass direction i.e.; northeast, southwest, you are reading about Compass School Feng Shui and the Lo Pan. This school is based upon thousands of years of data and is a man made system. The history of the Lo Pan compass takes us back to the Chou dynasty (770-476 BCE), when emperor Shing combined the knowledge of the compass with that of the I-ching.The foundation of the I-ching is in the trigrams.

Challenge: This is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. In fact, it disagrees with archaeology! Please quote academic sources. cb (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Wilipedia requires a verifiable source not an academic source. Please re-read the policy. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the page on reliable source, which is the standard I quoted. You need to be able to account for the variance between the qualified primary and secondary sources and the material you want to include for the article to meet Wikipedia standards. cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You just stated "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" as "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. However, you rely on books from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects, and commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources plus questionable sources). At least if you cite academic sources, Wikipedia assumes they are as reliable as the current academic citations in the article. But if your sources aren't academic ones, then they aren't judged as favorably as those already in the article. Look at burden of proof. If your sources disagree with the academic citations already in the article please follow Wikipedia guidelines to rectify the discrepancies (refer to your frequent postings here of the policies). cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Components of a Luopan

Claim: The trigrams are the set of three broken and/or solid lines that you typically find around a Chinese mirror. “These eight trigrams determine the divination of fortune” “These symbols and lines of the Trigrams numerical system were derived by sages as early as 2860 B.C. to give indications of their expressions in Fortune telling” Challenge: The trigrams are only one ring on a feng shui compass; some have more than 30 other rings. Please explain why they are irrelevant to this discussion. Also, the book you used as a reference is not considered a [reliable source] by Wikipedia. Please quote academic sources. cb (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Wilipedia requires a verifiable source not an academic source. Please re-read the policy. The trigrams are on the compass and this content is relevant to how a compass is used in Feng Shui. I am open to reading what you have to say about the other 30 rings.--216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the page on reliable sources which is the standard I quoted. You have failed to explain why the material you are trying to introduce is so vastly different from the archeological evidence. You need to be able to account for the variance for the article to meet Wikipedia standards. The trigrams are only one ring on a feng shui compass; some have more than 30 other rings. Please explain why they are irrelevant to this discussion. cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You just stated "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" as "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. However, you rely on sources from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects and on commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources plus the questionable sources test). At least if you cite academic sources, Wikipedia assumes they are as reliable as the current academic citations in the article. But if your sources aren't academic ones -- and you provided none that meet the standards you keep going on about -- then they aren't judged as favorably as those already in the article. Look at burden of proof. If your sources disagree with the academic citations already in the article, please follow Wikipedia guidelines to rectify the discrepancies (you know, those policies you like to repeat). cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim: The history of feng shui began hundreds of years before the invention of the compass during the Chou Dynasty.

The geomantic compass is call the lo-pan and holds all the mysteries of the earth.

Challenge: This is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. In fact, it disagrees with archaeology! Please quote academic sources. cb (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Wilipedia requires a verifiable source not an academic source. Please re-read the policy. It does not matter if it disagrees with your references of archeology. It is not about who is right or wrong per Wikipedia content policy. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the page on [reliable sources], which is the standard I quoted. You need to be able to account for the variance between the qualified primary and secondary sources and the material you want to include for the article to meet Wikipedia standards. cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim: The geomantic compass is used to determine the front and back orientations of a building and is made up of many concentric rings broken up into specific segments."

"The ring that is used when working the feng shui of your home or office is the one representing the 24 directions. The 360 degree compass is divided into 24 15 degree segments representing the 24 directions. Due north is then lined up so that it is in the center of the 15 degree tzu segment. "Any misalignment will give you erroneous readings." The line of sight on the compass will then point to one of the 24 segments that determine the facing direction of the building.

Challenge: You have not provided information from what Wikipedia deems reliable sources. Please quote academic sources. Moreover, the material disagrees with archaeology, and fails to account for all the rings on a compass. Also, because there are 3 feng shui compasses, and they only have a couple of rings in common, you've failed to account for most of the material. Why mention only a couple of rings, conspicuously ones that are shared between the three types? cb (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Wilipedia requires a verifiable source not an academic source. Please re-read the policy. I am happy to discuss any additional content you would like to submit on the use of the compass in feng shui. It does not matter if it disagrees with your references of archeology. It is not about who is right or wrong per Wikipedia content policy. You are not the judge. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the page on [reliable sources], which is the standard I quoted. You need to be able to account for the variance between the qualified primary and secondary sources and the material you want to include for the article to meet Wikipedia standards. You failed to account for all the rings on a compass. Also, because there are 3 basic types of feng shui compasses, and they only have a couple of rings in common, you've failed to account for most of the material. Why mention only a couple of rings, conspicuously ones that are shared between the three types? cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No I did not miss the page. This is the exact quote from that page regarding reliable sources. This source is from a mainstream published book found in bookstores nationwide. This book is also found in the Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publishing Data.

--Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Being in the Library of Congress is no guarantee of veracity! You just stated "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" as "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. However, you rely on sources from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects and on commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources plus the questionable sources test). At least if you cite academic sources, Wikipedia assumes they are as reliable as the current academic citations in the article. But if your sources aren't academic ones -- and you provided none that meet the standards you keep going on about -- then they aren't judged as favorably as those already in the article. Look at burden of proof. If your sources disagree with the academic citations already in the article, please follow Wikipedia guidelines to rectify the discrepancies (you know, those policies). cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Sect School

Claim: The Black Sect school of Feng Shui uses what is called the Ba-Gua. When you occupy a structure it is important to create and set the electromagnetic field for that structure that you desire. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Challenge: Black Sect is registered as a church with the Internal Revenue Service, as of October of 1984 (see the preface to Sarah Rossbach's book). Black Sect School is therefore a religion / belief system. Moreover, the techniques that are employed -- such as affirmations, intentions, crystals, and red dots -- have no demonstrated effect on electromagnetic fields. cb (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you would like to include in the content that Black Sect is registered as a church I am open to reading that content for inclusion. However, the verifiable sources still view this as a school of Feng Shui. Please not that the reference you are using is not an academic source. This statement is your opinion:

Moreover, the techniques that are employed -- such as affirmations, intentions, crystals, and red dots -- have no demonstrated effect on electromagnetic fields. There are many who hold a different opinion. Nevertheless opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, whether you agree or not about the methods of the Black Sect School it is still a verifiable school.

• There is a reliable source already quoted about Black Sect registered as a church in the United States -- or did you write over that?
• What you call my "opinion" about the claims of the Black Sect is "verifiable" by any electrician. You can also search on Highwire for scientific journals to validate claims that Black Sect religious practices affect electromagnetic fields. I haven't found any articles about humans changing electromagnetic fields either. If you have scientific articles then by all means share them. Otherwise the statement by the church should be expressed as a belief or claim and expressed in skeptical terms (refer to the Federal Trade Commission's rules about environmental marketing, and ISO 14020).
• Black Sect is "verified" by its own claimants, not by independent sources without a profit motive (scholars, for example). So it's not really "verifiable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

By saying "opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia" are you signalling that you will cease and desist from adding material from your opinion piece "The Inaccuracy of Reading Degrees on a Compass"?

cb (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Sect Tantric Buddism is a registered church. Black Sect Feng Shui is a school of Feng Shui References provided below. There are enough verifiable sources that say it is a school. Just because your point of view disagrees does not make it so. All points of view must be included in the page on Feng Shui. The Different Schools Of Feng Shui, Publisher: Arkana Penguin Group, Author: Sarah Rossbach, Title: Interior Design with Feng Shui Glossary page XXV, Publisher: The Crossing Press, Author: Carole J Hyder, Title: Wind & Water, Your Personal Feng Shui Journey, page xi, The Black Sect Feng Shui Tradition, Understanding Black Sect, Black Sect Feng Shui Tradition, BTB Feng Shui - the Best Spiritual Feng Shui Style Today , Black Sect Tantric Buddhist Feng Shui, also called BTB Feng Shui, Black Hat --Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You just stated "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" as "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. However, you rely on sources from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects and on commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources plus the questionable sources test). At least if you cite academic sources, Wikipedia assumes they are as reliable as the current academic citations in the article. But if your sources aren't academic ones -- and you provided none that meet the standards you keep going on about -- then they aren't judged as favorably as those already in the article. Look at burden of proof. If your sources disagree with the academic citations already in the article, please follow Wikipedia guidelines to rectify the discrepancies.

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

A fundamental criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.”

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text

The sources that I have provided can be verified from respected mainstream publications and or government scientific organizations; Wiki policy clearly states that disagreement between sources should be included.

Quotes from the Burden of Evidence Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;[1] in practice not all material is attributed. The citation should state, as clearly, fully, and precisely as possible, how a reader can find the source material.

The burden of proof that you ask for is not a Wikipedia policy. There is a burden of evidence. Evidence is providing a verifiable reliable source which I have provided

Below are quotes from the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy:

“fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”

“The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.”

"Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.”

“The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".”

“NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. “

NPV policy clearly states all verifiable viewpoints by reliable sources be published and where multiple or conflicting perspective exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

What is important for this page is that we create a neutral article by including all of the content and sources as Wiki policy defines. I am open to revisions of this article page or a new article page that includes all of the sources in this discussion page, article page and new content that will create a comprehensive NPOV article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I'm not expert on Feng Shui but I believe that the title is meant to mean Smooth Atmosphere or Flowing Atmosphere, because isn't that what the principles of Feng Shui are based on? I know that Feng means Wind and Shui means Water but I think that it should it's meant to mean Smooth/Flowing Atmosphere. Of course I haven't read the entire article yet so it may mention something like this. Moocowsrule (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Bagua Section

It says the Bluegreen Dragon, the Red Bird, the White Tiger, and the Dark (Mysterious) Turtle, but aren't the four celestial animals the Azure Dragon, the Vermilion Bird, the White Tiger and the Black Tortoise, or were these titles made up to sound better? Moocowsrule (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

This section appears to be inconsistent with the articles on the four celestial guardians - the Pleiades are part of the White Tiger, not the Black Tortoise, while α and β Aquarii are actually part of the Black Tortoise. The positions of α Hydrae and Scorpionis are similarly reversed between their constituent asterisms. These reversals are deceptive in that the ascensions of the stars are arranged from lowest to highest, but that would suggest that the movement of qi proceeds in a counter-clockwise direction. Amperglyph (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask about the location of the rooms, toilets, kitchen and sitting in a house which we intend to buy, at the moment is under construction. Need a help to understand the location of the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.3.248 (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Chinese symbols is totally dependent on the dialect used. Eg 北京 Peking ( Cantonese ) Beijing ( Mandarin)

Feng shui (traditional Chinese: 風水; simplified Chinese: 风水; pinyin: fēng shuǐ; pronounced /ˈfəŋˌʃueɪ/ fehng-shway in English (Which dialect is this - Mandarin? or is this the accepted Chinese Pronunciation Protocol ?) shouldn't this be defined, with readers attention being drawn to the many Chinese dialects and therefore 3 or 4 ways of pronouncing Feng shui?

( Cf. Spoken Chinese (simplified Chinese: 中国话; traditional Chinese: 華語[1]) comprises many regional variants, the largest of which are Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, and Min. These varieties of spoken Chinese are, for the most part, not mutually intelligible. )

Microprofessor (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro section

The following intro are moved to the talkpage. It does not have sources. Some of it already repeats from the article. And some may not belong in this article at all. Benjwong (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Feng Shui also requires the calculation of a locations' life force energy or "Qi Level", as well as the numerical significance of a person including their birth-date, birth-hour, animal sign, and personal Gua number. In addition to this, the individual's destiny is calculated using Ba Zi or Chinese Star Astrology, where good luck stars and bad luck stars are based, and a Feng Shui audit is concluded. Many western enthusiasts have mistakingly interpreted Feng Shui as a form of geomancy that is only based on furniture arranging and wide display of Buddhist amulets---a practice that is heavily discouraged and resented by professional Asian Feng Shui masters. This is heavily promoted by the Black Hat Sect, which heavily relies on amulets and a wide arrange of symbolic displays as cures to Feng Shui problems. Other Feng Shui masters focus on one's destiny forecast based on the birthday and annual animal sign, while others concentrate on the geographic and landform sorroundings of a person's home or establishment to calculate a proper Feng Shui audit. There are three levels of luck in Feng Shui. The first type of Luck is called Heaven Luck (Tien Chai). Tien Chai is the luck that a person is born with, consisting of the destiny which cannot be changed or altered, such as one's destiny, Ba Zi stars, gender, birth-hour, birth-day, animal sign, and personal gua number. The second type of luck is called Earth Luck (Ti Chai). Ti Chai is the luck that is present in one's environment and sorroundings, and is primarily used for the application of correct Feng Shui. The third type of luck is called Man's Luck, or Ren Chai. Ren Chai refers to the luck that is by one's own personal efforts, such as sleeping on time, eating well, improving ones relationship with others, etc. All three types of Luck are taken into consideration when calculating accurate Feng Shui.

Pronunciation

I'm not an expert on IPA but as far as I can tell, the IPA given here (/ˈfəŋˌʃueɪ/) does not match the looser transliteration "foong-shoy". If we are going to keep the second one, shouldn't it be more like foong-shway? Lfh (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate POV in Feng shui#Feng shui today?

A {{POV}} tag was recently placed on this section without starting a discussion here. The asserted reason is the use of {{who}} to request that the vague phrases Many people and some people be made more explicit. Unless I am misunderstanding the motivation, this does not seem an appropriate use of the template, and I have removed the tag pending further justification. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 04:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole section (article?) needs working on. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

modern developments

The Boxer Rebellion doesn't belong in 'modern' developments, but I can't see where to move that bit to. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the whole 'modern developments' section is a mess. What is the 'Feng Shui compasses and geomagnetism' section doing in an encyclopaedia? I think it should be deleted. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. This article is not the place to explain variations in the Earth's magnetic field, nor to explain about the solar wind, neither of which are relevant to feng shui. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Academic" works

Jack Sweeney isn't a professor or scholar so his self-published books should not be listed with credentialed authors whose monographs are peer-reviewed. As you can see from his webpage Sweeney is just another purveyor of feng shui services. The newspaper clipping about cows tending to align with the main field isn't relevant to feng shui either. 24.24.170.205 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)cbramble

Legal or not?

The article says: "It is legal in the PRC today to register feng shui consultation as a business and similarly advertising feng shui practice is banned". Legal, yet similarly banned? Which is it? Jpatokal (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Does this article really need so many self-help books in the further reading section? I propose to take most of the self-help ones out, unless anyone objects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheesyBiscuit (talk • contribs) 09:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is Extremely Difficult to Understand

Dear Author-

I'm sure you have an infinite library on Feng Shui, as noted from the number of references listed on the webpage, but I have some constructive criticism for the article. I feel that the article has no direction, an awkward layout, no topic sentences are thoroughly supported by the following sentences, the article jumps from topic to topic and has a bare minimum description that makes no sense to a Feng Shui newcomer, and is difficult to read. I don't know much about Feng Shui, and thought that I would be able to gather a good base knowledge about what it is in an easy to read format, but I did not find that on Wikipedia. Can you re-write this article so people like myself can actually see if Feng Shui is something they want to pursue?

Some helpful items to include would be: - How to arrange my home? What are some key concepts that people who follow Feng Shui do for this? - Is there a way Feng Shui can be applied to your office space? - How is it applied in day to day life? - What are some objects people use in their home or office to keep the flow of positive Qi? - How can we get rid of negative Qi? - Follow one version of Feng Shui at a time rather than trying to compile all into one messy article.

Typical Section should include Version of Feng Shui 1) History - Origins, instruments, theories 2) Theories 3) Practice 4) Applications (can also have some historical data here) 5) How has it changed (developed) through the years?

Then you can end the article with criticisms, see also, etc.

Thank you, 38.97.84.18 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)MASSACHUSETTS, USA

I don't think we should turn this into an instructional or an advocacy page, there are plenty of other places for that. I do however agree that it is poorly written, or can I say, the article has bad Feng Shui.

• My first complaint is the page's poor grammar. I.e., Passive voice. Wordy. etc.
• My second complaint is a lot of opinion seems to have filtered into the article. A few of the beliefs of Feng Shui are treated in the article as fact. The term 'Belief' implies a possibility of error, yet there are sections in the article that seem to ignore the possibility of error and assume that any tenets of Feng Shui have been proven. I believe this to outside of the bounds of impartiality.
• My third complaint is that there seems to be a lot of terms like "Higher-level Feng Shui". Are there different levels? Why are they not declared in the article? Does the "lower-level" accept that term? This to me seems to be one school attacking another school. Again, this isn't a forum for a new-age cry fest.

I have a strong bias against new-agers. I suspect that they are the culprits who have ruined the article. (203.206.234.56 (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Needs some dispassionate authors, needs to be shorter

"It's NPOV, and I can prove it. See, I referenced a book about Qi and energy and flim flam and... it's a book so there." References do not equal neutrality. Some non-believers need to go at this article with some dynamite. There's a lot of inside baseball stuff here too, and we who are casually interested in this pseudoscience aren't going to sift through all of this "spiritual but not religious" nonsense just to get the the bona fide history and culture in it.

Someone who knows, please, get rid of the junk. Because, come on, there's no such thing as "Negativie Qi" "Ghosts" or "Santa Claus," and an Encyclopedia should be up front about it. Youdontsmellbad (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! (203.206.234.56 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm NOT getting any information here

What is it with western culture that encourages folks to censor absolutely everything that is "foreign" to us? Can we get some professionals in here, instead of cynical xenophobic white dudes labelling everything they are unfamiliar with as "pseudo-science" or "superstitious beliefs"? There's more so-called "scientific" criticism of the belief here than about the actual belief in itself.

Come on, people. From a Chinese point of view, Jesus could very well be seen as a ridiculous belief, an imaginary person made up by silly, superstitious white folk... but you don't see that article covered with "[citation needed]"s from cynics and xenophobics. 121.72.209.47 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a science. There are several reasons why it is not a science, but here's one: It doesn't have an hypothesis that can be falsified. Christianity is also not a science. They are beliefs and deserve to be documented as such. It's extraordinarily absurd that you personally attack readers and contributers for wanting nothing more than a source for the "impartial" articles claims.

(203.206.234.56 (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

anon 121.72.209.47, please take a look at the article you linked to. The Jesus article presents its subject from a secular scholarly perspective, not one of uncritical deference as the current feng shui article does. A believer in the divinity of Jesus would find a lot to get upset about at that article, and a believer in feng shui needs more to get upset about here.

I'd also like to point out that assuming people who disagree with you are just "cynical xenophobic white dudes" out to "censor absolutely everything that is 'foreign' to [them]" is--in addition to being childishly racist--a violation of WP:FAITH. Please have a serious discussion about improving the article, or bow out of the discussion. Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Elmo iscariot 100%. I also agree with 234.56 in so far as feng shui isn't a science, (however, scientific hypothesis do not need to be falsifiable). Of course, no religion, natural philosophy, popular culture, folk belief or superstition would be a science in the modern sense either (unless they make that claim, in which case, they would be "pseudo-science"). Obviously, there have been some american mc shui types that used pseudo-scientific language... I think because of 'qi' (a generic reference to any kind of matter or energy), the self-appointed skepti-cops jumped on the bang wagon when there was a "buzz" about feng shui and Qabala in Hollywood several years ago... They try to rubbish it by "debunking" their impossible pet theory of orgone, or Stonehenge, or whatever's handy; it's all the same to them. Typically, they don't bother to check facts with real scientists so it's a complete fiasco. Peen & Teller "sampled" (?) four people... another criticism "travelogue-type article" (what?) skeptic, Vierra, only mentioned feng shui in passing. He did not claim it was "widely believed" to be "pseudo-science".

It bears repeating that in no way does feng shui require scientific validation. Besides, for the WP article, it's scholars, not scientists, who would even be writing about it...

I can't imagine how Christian beliefs are relevant... There's abundant documentation of their beliefs on WP, including a lengthy article, A Christian reflection on the New Age on that 2003 booklet published by the Catholic Church which briefly mentions feng shui only twice:

2.2.2.  Harmony and Understanding: Good Vibrations

Phenomena as diverse as the Findhorn garden and Feng Shui represent a variety of ways which illustrate the importance of being in tune with nature or the cosmos.

7.2.    A Select Glossary

Feng-shui: a form of geomancy, in this case an occult Chinese method of deciphering the hidden presence of positive and negative currents in buildings and other places, on the basis of a knowledge of earthly and atmospheric forces. “Just like the human body or the cosmos, sites are places criss-crossed by influxes whose correct balance is the source of health and life”.

— Pontifical Council for Culture, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (3 February 2003). "Jesus Christ The Bearer Of The Water Of Life - A Christian reflection on the New Age". Internet Office of the Holy See. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

It's clear they mean to lump feng shui in with the rest of the "New Age" competition, nevermind it's much much older than Christianity (lullz); they do so brag about how they're the Old Age at 2000 years... There's just no telling exactly which lump(s) they're accusing of spreading the "wrong" love and harmony, which they imagine to be discouraging condemnation. (To reiterate, they say condemnation should be more commonplace). They know their stuff, my backspace key can't keep up with the condemnation they've inspired.

Alright, wrapping it up with the rest of the recently removed pseudo-science sources that seemed respectable at first glance, (Edwin Joshua Dukes, The Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1971, p 834) was actually first published in 1912, and based largely on the minister's earlier piece in Christian World Magazine republished in the "Bugbear" chapter of his 1885 book, Everyday life in China..., which, contrary to his encyclopedia article, does, at long least, claim feng shui is pseuo-science (but not widely said to be such; he says only a pamphlet and a magazine article even mention feng shui). Perhaps the minister thought of himself as a scientist? But with such a shameless zeal for bigotry at his command... who could deny he found his true calling:

It is difficult to gather any data by which to judge of the extent to which these men themselves believe in their miserable delusions, or whether they only make profit out of the follies of the populace who are so anxious to be gulled, and it is equally hard to form any opinion as to the degree in which they act upon the written theories of Feng-Shui in assisting their clients to select a tomb. One thing is certain, viz., that they find it much easier to procure repose for the dust of the poor than of the rich. The latter are often kept waiting for years, while abstruse calculations are made and heavy fees charged for every attempt to solve the weighty and mysterious problem.

Naturally, this distressing superstition is a stock subject with Christian preachers in speaking to the heathen. Sometimes the question is argued on scientific grounds, but more often by reference to the discrepancies between its professions and the facts. We remember on one occasion hearing the whole subject discussed by a very able preacher before a crowded heathen audience, when he related this story [ ...] There is no idea in the cranium of a Chinaman more difficult to uproot than this absolute faith of his in the almightiness of Feng-Shui. Argument apparently fails to loosen his hold in the least. He cannot grasp the elementary principles of a sound theory of natural science, for his prejudices are infinitely stronger than his reason. He listens with the courtesy that is part of his very nature; and ‘with a smile that is child-like and bland,’ he congratulates his opponent on his skill in argument and his extensive knowledge, but retains his old opinions intact. In nothing does he show himself more conservative. And even when grace has reached his heart, and he joins the Church of Christ, he too often clings to the rags of tradition, and tries to amalgamate and reconcile his superstition with his faith.

—Edward Joshua Dukes (1885)
Everyday life in China     or, Scenes along river and road in Fuh-Kien
Chapter VIII — ‘Feng-shui: The Biggest of all Bugbears’
pp. 156–158.

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "It bears repeating that in no way does feng shui require scientific validation"

-- Says who? Whenever any supposed "expert" claims to have the ability to harness "good energy", deflect "bad energy" (or whatever), and to have knowledge of ways to improve my life -- and expect me to shell out money for it (!) -- I most certainly do require scientific validation for it! Any rational person should.76.113.27.172 (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheist view

If you are a strong atheist, should you dismiss feng shui as superstitious mambo-jambo? --KpoT (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is very popular in China. What does that have to do with superstitious mambo-jambo? If your fiancée, wanted a proper wedding and a proper wedding meant you play along in some harmless way, would "strong" atheism require being a spoil sport? Wouldn't the smart atheists just think for themselves?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, in such a case you should probably go along with the finacee. But should an atheist actually BELIEVE in the effectiveness of feng-shui? Isn't it akin to believing in astrology? --KpoT (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than strong atheism, i.e., (atheists who maintain: it is not the case that there exists one or more gods), I believe you're thinking of Naturalism (philosophy) because an atheist could believe in astrology (or feng shui). If I remember correctly, Britannica includes a denial of "spiritual beings" (that's just ad hoc, arbitrary, and needlessly disenfranchising). Not that ancestor veneration entails a belief in ghosts, but even if it did, for example, that wouldn't be a problem in terms of atheism.

Astral projection, leprechauns, yeti, space aliens, Atlantis... all welcome; just no deities. I think someone who believes in astrology wouldn't place too much stock in a feng shui technique that uses eeny meeny on a Lo Shu square for flying stars.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Obviously, in such a case you should probably go along with the finacee" Agreed. To do otherwise would subject one to experience the "wrath of God" firsthand; Hell hath no fury like a bride pissed-off.

Cleanup issues

As mentioned above, this article isn't a total rewrite, but still needs its furniture moved around.

• There are historical bits sticking out of all the wrong sections, obstructing the flow of ch'i.
• Similarly, entire sections – including the lede – are having their vital energy sapped by a morass of thoughtlessly-strewn hanzi. As the sages of MOS-ZH have shown us, linked names need no foreign characters and infobox characters don't need repeating in the mainspace.
• Similarly, pronunciations belong at wikt:feng shui.
• Collapsed infoboxes are far more auspicious than page-length ones.
• Without devolving into a how-to, we still need information on specific beliefs and practices.
• The straight line of laundry listing of schools – without any real background or explanation but with excessive italicization, bolding, and characters – invited evil spirits.
• Two words: koi pond.

— LlywelynII 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I waded into the Schools section, slashed and burned, did a bunch of new research. Rewrote about 50% and re-used about 50%. Lots of the references didn't seem relevant. Much of what was there was muddled, repeated, and some was even wrong. I'm not an expert, so those who are please verify that I didn't make any factual errors. I'm not interested in the contest over which form of feng shui is best, and I hope this article remains/becomes more non-judgemental. I agree with your points. Be bold :-) This article is the #1 search result for "feng shui" and it's a big mess. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanshan, David Ellis

There are multiple Hanshans in China. Can an editor more knowledgable in Feng shui disambiguate this referecnce. Also, who is David Ellis, and why would a reader want to see that article as well (as there are multiple David Ellis's in Wikipedia, and none of them look to relate to this topic). (It appears I never signed this). Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 12:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

HAUR Feng Shui section

The section of the article on HAUR Feng Shui and AURA Feng Shui reads like an endorsement or advertisement for that particular school. I don't think it really fits WP:NPOV. Unitg3d (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2013

release the padlock on 01 Feb 2013 LillianToo (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is scheduled to be unprotected on Feb 10. If you want to ask to have it done sooner, go to WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article is a synthesized, unbalanced mess that needs a major rewrite

I've moved this section (Feng shui practice today) from the article as it's a very poorly written section full of OR, synthesized content, and undue weight. If someone wants to fix it (preferably starting from scratch), the section should be re-titled as "contemporary feng shui practice". The history and foundation sections of the article look ok, but after that, the sections degenerate into a mess of OR and synthesized undue weight. This article is in serious need of some experts in Chinese history and who actually know this topic and the modern uses and can follow correct writing style, instead of having a bunch of improper, unbalanced content hashed together into this poor excuse of an article. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Feng shui practice today
Modern feng shui may have connotations of being a superstitious scam, which arose from improper usage and scams by New Age practitioners, but is not always looked at as a superstitious scam. Many Asians, especially people of Chinese descent, believe it is important to live a prosperous and healthy life as evident by the popularity of Fu Lu Shou in the Chinese communities. Many of the higher-level forms of feng shui are not easily practiced without having connections in the community or a certain amount of wealth because hiring an expert, altering architecture or design, and moving from place to place requires a significant financial output. This leads some people of the lower classes to lose faith in feng shui, saying that it is only a game for the wealthy. Others, however, practice less expensive forms of feng shui, including hanging special (but cheap) mirrors, forks, or woks in doorways to deflect negative energy.

In recent years, a new brand of easier-to-implement DIY Feng Shui known as Symbolic Feng Shui, which is popularized by Grandmaster Lillian Too, is being practised by Feng Shui enthusiasts. It entails placements of auspicious (and preferably aesthetically pleasing) Five Element objects, such as Money God and tortoise, at various locations of the house so as to achieve a pleasing and substitute-alternative Productive-Cycle environment if a good natural environment is not already present or is too expensive to build and implement.

Feng shui is so important to some strong believers, that they use it for healing purposes (although there is no empirical evidence that this practice is in any way effective) in addition to guide their businesses and create a peaceful atmosphere in their homes. In 2005, even Disney acknowledged feng shui as an important part of Chinese culture by shifting the main gate to Hong Kong Disneyland by twelve degrees in their building plans, among many other actions suggested by the master planner of architecture and design at Walt Disney Imagineering, Wing Chao, in an effort to incorporate local culture into the theme park.

Currently, one of the best known feng shui users is real estate mogul Donald Trump. After losing Asian clients a few years ago due to his properties' apparently bad feng shui, he hired a feng shui master to analyze Trump Towers. At Singapore Polytechnic and other institutions, many working professionals from various disciplines (including engineers, architects, property agents and interior designers) take courses on feng shui and divination every year with a number of them becoming part-time or full-time feng shui (or geomancy) consultants eventually. When the principles are appropriately applied, feng shui has been seen to elicit the profound experience of magic, mystery, and order in American life.

Master Aaron Lee Koch of New York, USA, established the Feng Shui Excellence Award, the first award for the achievement of outstanding feng shui. The Feng Shui Excellence Award is awarded to home and business owners that have achieved a high level of feng shui excellence and have experienced the results of the changes they have made.

Pronunciation (in English)

(FENG SHOO-ee) is, as I understand it, an inaccurate pronunciation even for an Anglicization. The first phoneticization, and the first audio example, seem dubious. The following two seem correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.89.28 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In English it is rendered FOONG-SHWAY. 2.31.162.30 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Seems to me it's less about criticism of Feng Shui and more about rebutting criticism by skewing it more toward persecution of Feng Shui Practitioners. It's not exactly objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.136.44 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is terribly written, is not neutral, has several references in Chinese

"Yang acting and yin receiving could be considered an early understanding of chirality" Is it mollecular chirality? Where is the study showing that?

"Often people with good karma live in land with good qi" Yes, four references is equal to proof, even if all in chinese...

Not to nitpick every ridiculous claim made in this article, but the problems pointed out by other users almost a year ago are still there. Will work on the parts that I can, but help is required by perhaps an anthropologist or a historian of religion/philosophy. Fernando Medina De la Torre (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Article is fundamentally ridiculous

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Accordingly, it deals in facts. There would be no problem with this article clearly articulating the history and beliefs relating to Feng shui AS history and beliefs, but when one reads it, it comes across as though the concept has some sort of factual legitimacy. I.e., it reads as though there is some basis for thinking that these beliefs are actually correct.

At most, it says that there is some skepticism about feng shui because the "evidence" that it works is anecdotal.

The article also carries a defensive tone, accusing historical critics of the practice as "ethnocentric".

The true position, of course, is that feng shui is a cultural/quasi religious practice and there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it works. This article needs to be rewritten from the ground up with that as its basis.

Either that, or Wikipedia needs to make clear that it is not based on a rationalist/scientific approach to reality, in which case people can stop referring to it as a source of factual information. 60.242.78.144 (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree enough that it's worth going through this article with a careful eye to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Looks like the biggest problem is that much is written in-world without indicating so. Qi has similar problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You and your facts. What will it matter when oblivion swallows you up, and eternity silences your pointless chatter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4034:9500:243D:E0A6:EF2C:F185 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

arctic~antarctic

should have information about poles like in pt-br.wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeSeaBlueDogJueyin (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Feng Shui as an Encyclopedic Article

I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual, unbiased encyclopedia. This article is loaded with bias, if not sheer hatred, which is an emotion based upon either a wrongdoing towards that individual or fear - conscious or unconscious - in that individual. See this referenced encyclopedia article to view a rational, unbiased, factual explanation of feng shui.<http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Feng_shui> With heavily slanted articles like this one being allowed to exist by its editors, Wikipedia continues to lose its credibility as a realiable source of information among educators as it becomes increasingly evident Wikipedia is being utilized as a propaganda platform. Isobel Chaveh (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Identifying specific policies and guidelines always helps. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The origin of that New World Encyclopedia article was this article here on Wikipedia and there does not appear to be a history link available to view what was changed (and why) to meet New World Encyclopedia standards. The only history link points back here to Wikipedia.

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, you are welcome to make edits that remove what you consider bias, hatred, or emotion-based statements. Please make yourself familiar with the past history of the article, since, as you say, the editors have allowed it to exist in its current form and the consensus of editors may not agree that it should read more like the New World Encyclopedia version.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Feng shui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060426162415/http://gwzz.blogbus.com:80/logs/2006/01/1854093.html to http://gwzz.blogbus.com/logs/2006/01/1854093.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

sourcechecked=true target of URL is in Chinese, but after Google translate, it seems likely that this is the correct reference.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fenshuinatural.com/en/schools.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.artofplacement.com/FengShuiSchools.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306142756/http://zjc.zjol.com.cn/05zjc/system/2005/01/14/003828695.shtml to http://zjc.zjol.com.cn/05zjc/system/2005/01/14/003828695.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509032825/http://fudan.edu.cn/new_genview/now_caidafeng.htm to http://www.fudan.edu.cn/new_genview/now_caidafeng.htm

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) 21:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620232203/http://kaiyun.china.com/zh_cn/geomancy/mr/11063443/20100613/15979672.html to http://kaiyun.china.com/zh_cn/geomancy/mr/11063443/20100613/15979672.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.waj.com.cn/fengshui/tglj7.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923142811/https://portfolio.du.edu/portfolio/getportfoliofile?uid=38863 to https://portfolio.du.edu/portfolio/getportfoliofile?uid=38863
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050227193557/http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1189&src= to http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1189&src=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.intfsa.org/IFSC2009writeup.pdf

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223065625/http://www.fengshuigate.com/qimancy.html to http://www.fengshuigate.com/qimancy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713043801/http://www.instituteoffengshui.com/fengshui.html to http://www.instituteoffengshui.com/fengshui.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212181644/http://home.blshe.com/blog.php?uid=326&id=90529 to http://home.blshe.com/blog.php?uid=326&id=90529
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223065625/http://www.fengshuigate.com/qimancy.html to http://www.fengshuigate.com/qimancy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608193103/http://ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10232/4817/1/thesis.pdf to http://ir.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/bitstream/10232/4817/1/thesis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304040204/http://newmind40.com/01_4/hxd2.htm to http://newmind40.com/01_4/hxd2.htm

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)

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)

My thoughts too, so I removed the image. Seems to violate OR, SOAP, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

FungShui not Fengshui

Please correct this mistake in the English translation, as it is NOT pronounced this way in Chinese ( Mandarin or Cantonese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waarkoola (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! It's not a mistake, it's official Pinyin. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"POV" pushing

@Grandpallama: So you've followed me here too? Alright. Elaborate on your revert? Telsho (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)