Talk:Feng shui/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

"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)

Feng Shui is not part of the atheistic, mechanistic world view so the opinion of such persons is bunk when it comes to this topic. Their opinion is of zero value.You can of course include it. But as soon I see such unqualified opinions of people who know nothing of the subject pontificating on topics beyond their expertise I reject them. But go ahead.124.123.104.44 (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've requested help at WP:FTN. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

It seems that Wikipedia should state that its mission is to promote atheism and a mechanistic world view by suppressing other povs or putting them in a dim light.124.123.104.44 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Vince Calegon: This discussion was over almost a year ago. For claims that aren't scientifically testable, being emic is the preferred approach. But being extreme with being etic would destroy any pretense of accuracy when describing things like Alternative medicine, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Young Earth creationism, Climate change denial, or other crackpot ideas that some subcultures use as shibboleths to mark in-members. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Etic explanations are about the function a belief or cultural practice provides as seen from an external viewpoint, emic is about the internal cultural narrative explaining the belief or practice. Calling an aspect of another culture pseudoscience is neither emic nor etic, it is external to the culture, yes, but it is not explanatory. Jergas (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This talk page has been a lesson in dogmatism and intellectual imperialism! 82.15.160.19 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If one were to be wholly objective about something, you would also have to take the subjective elements into consideration. I request from the moderators to remove the definition of fengshui as a pseudoscientific ideology. Fearing the opposite, that is, considering writing of fengshui as a scientific methodology for attaining good luck is not apt either, but one would deny fengshui a few modicums of truth that might be hidden within. For instance, fengshui propagates a clean, minimalist setting inside living rooms. It is purely logical to suggest that in a chaotic setting, a person's psychology and lifestyle are likely to be hindered. A cluttered desk and a tendency to postpone setting the home orderly could influence how an individual performs in one's other activities in life. What fengshui propagates is mindfulness in placing things and organizing one's home. This is a positive character and is more likely to lead to a more resourceful, diligent and engaging way of approaching different facets of life. In order to usefully research a phenomenon, one needs to consider all of its aspects, positive and negative. One needs to study the mindset from which fengshui was born from and what it relied on. Placebo effect has a veritable influence on people. In the scientific research, the prime attitude towards anything is whether it is useful at all. To gain a holistic sight on that, one might need to investigate it from the point of view of the whole humanity or even from an universal POV if one wants to exit the confines of humanity in order to understand something from a larger scale. To properly research fengshui, one needs to cover people of all sorts related to the ideology, seek their motivations and how fengshui is a part of their life. What is its use. If one can describe something without sneering at it or arguing for it excessively (ignoring things the object of reverence is opposed to or distant from), one can say it is looking at these things objectively - having seen both the subjective and objective sides, emically and etically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.27.240 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Christianity and its practices are not considered pseudoscience but Feng Shui is, although it never claimed to be a science. Wikipedia has never been a free and neutral encyclopedia and probably never will be. 2804:14C:5BD7:AE55:F07A:C00D:5FFC:80A4 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, proponents of faith healing don't generally claim that what they do is "science" but Wikipedia still identifies faith healing as pseudoscience, because that is what it is. --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the term "pseudoscience" has a broadly perceived negative connotation outside of its literal definition. Could we maybe change "pseudoscience" to something more neutral that still conveys it is not backed by rigorous experimentation? We could just call it a "set of spiritual practices" or something similar. I think a number of articles would greatly benefit from taking this stance. Just because something is technically a pseudoscience doesn't mean it's devoid of value, and blatantly declaring it to be such in the very first sentence of your article on it tends to put a sour taste in peoples' mouths about the subject matter. @El C: @2804:14C:5BD7:AE55:F07A:C00D:5FFC:80A4: Fredo699 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting to edit to provide concise clarification as to adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral POV

Hi, so I wanted to bring up a proposal to edit some wording in this article. I noticed that on the Vastu Shastra page, the wording is as follows:

"Vastu shastra (vāstu śāstra) is a traditional Indian system of architecture which literally translates to "science of architecture.""

"Vastu Shastras incorporate traditional Hindu and in some cases Buddhist beliefs."

"For example, in Saurastra tradition of temple building found in western states of India, the feminine form, expressions and emotions are depicted in 32 types of Nataka-stri compared to 16 types described in Silpa Prakasa."

I bring up this, though it is related to a different page because I noticed that the wording regarding Feng Shui is not written with the same wording, even though they are both traditional concepts of cultural and religious traditions and beliefs.

It is with my best judgement, unbiased and for the intent for clarification and consistency egarding traditional customs and concepts, that I'm asking for the wording of the Feng Shui article to better reflect a more consistent POV. I do however understand the reasoning for why the editors have chosen certain wordings, but I would love to hear any feedback and hope that you will consider my revision. Examples of the revisions: (taken from past and current edits)

1. Feng shui (Chinese: 風水, pronounced [fə́ŋ.ʂwèi] (About this soundlisten)), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a traditional practice originating from ancient China, which claims to use energy forces to harmonize individuals with their surrounding environment. The feng shui practice discusses architecture in terms of "invisible forces" that bind the universe, earth, and humanity together, known as qi.

2. "Feng shui (Chinese: 風水, pronounced [fə́ŋ.ʂwèi] (About this soundlisten)), also known as Chinese geomancy, is an ancient practice originating from China"

3. " Traditional feng shui instrumentation..."

4. "Historically, feng shui was widely used to orient buildings—often spiritually significant structures.."

Note: I don't personally use Feng Shui, I am just a nerd who loves language and learning

DNocterum (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Vastu Shastra, problems in other articles do not justify repeating those mistakes in this one. I've fixed the problem in that article.

Regarding my best judgement, unbiased -- OMG, that's like bragging "I'm *SOOO* humble." Everyone has biases, which is why we rely on sources and consensus.

Feng shui is based scientifically testable claims -- claims that when tested come up negative. Therefore, it is pseudoscience. Simply being old doesn't mean it gets grandfathered in. We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Feng shui is based scientifically testable claims - such as? What scientifically testable claims does feng shui supposedly make? I will allow the benefit of the doubt until I am shown a specific example(s). It needs to be verified with a traditional Chinese source, too. Why? Because professional pseudoscience hunters make shit up about whatever it is they're 'debunking', and they don't have to verify any claims they make. (Their methods are honestly not much better than REAL pseudoscience conspiracy theorist alt-right folks, or religious charletons). Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am really confused by your agression. I am simply asking to respect the cultural view of the Chinese people. I would propose including "traditional folk practice" or something of the like, regardess of the use of the word pseudoscience, which I understand is the consenus for the modern use of Feng Suai by western people. Either way.

Regarding my use of the term "my best judgement", this has nothing to do with bragging about humility, so I am not sure where you got the idea that that is what I was trying to portray.

I am hoping we can come to a compromise, that is to include the word or similar term of "tradtional practice". I am not opposing the term pseudoscience, simply proposing a term that will make sure that the reader understands that the practice is one of historical and cultural context. (talk • contribs) 02:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC) DNocterum (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@DNocterum: I don't understand why you're assuming aggression. A traditional folk practice that makes scientifically testable claims that come up false is still pseudoscience. Alchemy, if practiced now, would be pseudoscience. Humorism, if practiced now, would be pseudoscience. Astrology, coming back in popularity, is still pseudoscience. If anything, age makes pseudoscience worse because we've had plenty of time to know better.

If you want to respect Chinese people, expect them to have the same capacity for scientific thinking you'd expect non-Chinese people to have (no more, no less), instead of asking us to downplay the pseudoscientific aspect of Feng Shui just because it's not western. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for the inclusion of the phrase "traditional practice" like I said, I don't care if you also put in that it is regarded as pseudoscience, but I am asking that the acticle ALSO contain some type of indicator of the hictoric use. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNocterum (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Remarks by a passer-by

The article should be about feng shui, but is mostly about "how fake is feng shui". It would be interesting to have factual examples of how certain tombs or palaces were built, in China, in Korea or in other countries. Moreover, in some cases the "rules" have been distorted because rivers, mountains, etc. are hard to move. Moreover squared: the motto "they monopolize all the propitious sites" was a recurring theme of social unrest in the past. Pldx1 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear User: Favonian. I'm not sure if you have really read the reference you seem so keen to add. But Vyse, Stuart (May 2020). "Superstition and real estate". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 44, no. 3. pp. 26–28. is not about feng shui. This article explains why one should better buy an x-8 numbered house rather than an x-4 numbered house, because x-8 houses will sell better than x-4 houses. This is a massive fact, backed up by scientific statistical study. So what? In any case, this phenomenon is irrelevant to feng shui, since feng shui consists in choosing a place to live according to its relation with the surrounding landscape. Nothing to do with what can be deduced from some numbers. Maybe you should back up your claim to be the real voice of the real science ... with better references! Pldx1 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Pldx1, Favonian hasn't added any sources to this article (at least not in the last few months), he just reverted an IP who removed a bunch of content and sourcing. If you want to make a suggestion for changing the article, make a clear statement about what you think should change, and why, without directing snarky comments at anyone. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Bonadea. You have re-added the Vyse, Stuart (May 2020). "Superstition and real estate". Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 44, no. 3. pp. 26–28. reference... as a proof of how unscientific feng_shui could be. But this article is irrelevant to feng shui, since feng shui consists in choosing a place to live according to its relation with the surrounding landscape. Using such unscientific method to argue against feng shui could only undermine your opinion. Moreover not using the Dream of the Red Chamber to criticize Taoism seems rather strange. Pldx1 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

IPA Topique

Why don't use “[fə̋ŋ.ʂwèi]/[fəŋ˥.ʂwei˨˩˦]”? Juidzi (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What a shameful lede

1. Feng shui (Chinese: 風水), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a pseudoscientific[1][2][3] traditional practice originating from ancient China. Something dating back to past millenials, i.e. largely before the invention of the science cannot be pseudo-scientific.
2. which claims to use energy forces to harmonize individuals with their surrounding environment. Feng-shui is not about individuals, but mostly about enlarged families, palace compounds and even whole towns. And the aim is not to shape/harmonize the people, but to find places that fits people.
3. The term 'feng shui' literally translates as "wind-water" in English, and is a cultural shorthand taken from the passage of the now-lost Book of Burial recorded in Guo Pu's commentary.[4][5]. What a pathos, as clear as the Bad to the Bone article. First, Book of Burial is the name of the Guo Pu's comment (4th or 5th-century AD). The lost book was titled Classic of Burial. Shorthand taken by whom and when ?
4. Feng shui is one of the Five Arts of Chinese Metaphysics,. But the link leads to an article quite only devoted to Western metaphysics. The ten lines about China are only saying there were several Chinese Metaphysics, and not a single one sliced into Five Arts. In fact, not mention of the so-called Five Arts.
5. classified as physiognomy (observation of appearances through formulas and calculations). How inventive! The physiognomy article given in reference is only devoted to Western face reading. Absolutely nothing about evaluating a place to stay.
6. The feng shui practice discusses architecture in terms of "invisible forces" that bind the universe, earth, and humanity together. How inventive again! Read the sources! They are saying "qi has a cosmic significance as the universal fluid, active as Yang and passive as Yin, out of which all things condense and into which they dissolve". What is assumed is not a trinity "universe--earth--humanity" and qi as an external bind. What is assumed is a single ubiquitous principle. "This is why, when Copper Mountain collapsed in the west, the palace bell tolled in the east".
7. Historically, feng shui was widely used to orient buildings—often spiritually significant structures such as tombs, but also dwellings and other structures—in an auspicious manner. But better read another article if you want to know how this was done.

• To summarize: this lede looks like a great pseudo-scientific exhibition of ignorance. Pldx1 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR and WP:BATTLE. --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A demarcation limited in time ... The practical demarcation of science cannot be timeless, for the simple reason that science itself is not timeless .... However, it was not until the 20th century that influential definitions of science has contrasted it against pseudoscience. Quoted from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science. Using the term "pseudo-science", with a pejorative intent, when dealing with the proto-sciences of the past millennia is misleading. And saying that is surely not Original, but only the result of a Flat Google Search among the reliable sources. Pldx1 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any policy-based comments for improving this article? Using the format of an edit request always helps. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Stuart Vyse, is a psychologist, teacher, speaker and *columnist* at the SkepticalInquirer, while the magazine itself describes its authors as experts in science, skepticism, medicine, media, activism, and advocacy, all devoted to the cause of.... The January 2020 column tells the reader that the said month, he (S.V.) did buy six feng shui coins tied with a red string. And that he has *not* put them in the southwest corner of his home. Nevertheless, the world hasn't crumbled down (at least for now). Perhaps this was due to the invocation of the revered name of Matthews 2018. Perhaps this was due to the poor quality of the article published 2019 in the New York Times by the Los Angeles snake oil expert Carol Assa. Moreover, many Chinese restaurant are featuring the lucky color red, while many Taiwanese families are burning “ghost money” at some temples to honor the deceased. What a poorly argued column! And using it as a flagship against a multidisciplinary study of Feng Shui as an historical process, across countries and millennia is either strange... or revealing ! Pldx1 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

An abandoned bibliography

The poor condition of the bibliography speaks volumes about the poor condition of the whole article. As usual, POV warriors didn't care about sourcing. And so many references were requiring some rescue. There are four left. Several academic sources are only used to "prove" weasel claims. Many interesting sources are only used to stack the numbered brackets, without any real description of their contents. In addition, obvious snake-oil sellers are used as sources in good standing. Sorting out this mess appears as a necessary step before doing anything else. Pldx1 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you first rewrite your comment to be civil and collaborative. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:Hipal. Are you that sure that the cnn article: hong-kong-skyscrapers-with-holes is not a reliable source concerning the very existence of skyscrapers-with-holes in hong-kong, and their alleged relationship with Feng Shui beliefs? Pldx1 (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're referring to. Please provide diffs. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

simple test (1): https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/hong-kong-skyscrapers-with-holes/index.html

simple test (2): https://www.cnn.com/style/article/hong-kong-skyscrapers-with-holes/index.htm

A great instance of the "referrer trick". Copying (2) in the bar address of a new window, produces a redirect to (1), while clicking on the link (2) only produces an error. But a click onto (1) leads to the right page. And the question remains about this article. Pldx1 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't understand either of your responses here. You seem to be working from assumptions that you have yet to explain. --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization of the second half of the article

Dear all. While reorganizing the second part of the article, i.e. criticism and modern days, I have done my best to not change the balance of the article. Don't launch fire on me if you disagree !

Moreover, it remains four sources requiring to be rescued, but I have no clues for that. Kill and replace could be a possibility, but I am reluctant.

Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

What a poor choice of the leading picture !

It appears that the 'historical' leading image of this article is nothing but the advertising image for the "FengShuiGe 5.3 Inch Feng Shui Compass Luo Pan/Chinese Ancient Chinese", that is sold

5.3 Inch: $11.99

6.2 Inch: $14.89

7.3x7.3x0.4 inch: $16.98 ; 18.5x18.5x1cm

at amazon.com. here is the picture I am not sure that a further discussion is needed for a replacement. Pldx1 (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of massive, idiosyncratic changes

Thank you @Pldx1: for your hard work, which is clearly in Good Faith, but even the best intended of edits must follow Wikipedia Guidelines.

Specific points:

• the major changes made here were only explained as “Rescuing the bibliography,” which was a major change without discussion, much less consensus.

WP:CITEVAR advises “Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.”

• The resulting “Sources” section was not organized according to any standard principle (where else is there a section “to be rescued” or “books from the past” etc?) Also section headings should be capitalized, but that’s the least of it.
• The edits of 24 July here, “explained as “full reorg of everything after 1900" produce idiosyncratic section headings (“Confirmation bias”, “Haruspex...” How many larks in the lark pie,”)
• these edits are poorly sourced or unsourced:

under “Confirmation bias” the source for the first sentence is “(main land China, 1996)

also under “Confirmation bias” is an anecdote that the source cited does not label confirmation bias, so this claim is once more OR.

• Original research:

Haruspex “the case against divination” has no source or connection to feng shui

How many larks in the pie” has no explanation at all, much less any connection to feng shui; the matrix is not shown to be a criticism

”Some other critics” (section)

Feng shui can turn into a double-edged sword, is sourced to a blog, which does not mention this

• Irrelevant material:

U.S.A. (Section) replace an encyclopedic style paragraph organization with

unreferenced, OR lede sentence

studies of creationism in Ohio

I could go on, but these points are enough to justify reversion.

I remain thankful for your energy and initiative, and willing to discuss individual points. ch (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Where else is there a section “to be rescued” ---> where else are there so many references needing some rescue? For example {{template |cite web |last1=Tao |first1= Shilong |url=http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2005-12/14/content_1217874.htm |title= 风水，帝王权贵的烫手山芋|trans-title=Feng Shui, a hot potato for emperors and nobles |date=2005-12-14 |work=people.com.cn|ref={{harvid|Tao Shilong|2005}} }} was in its poor state from 2008.

• Feng shui can turn into a double-edged sword, is sourced to a blog, which does not mention this--> Lets use the fact that {{sfn|Tao Shilong|2005}} has been rescued. One can Google translate and read:

According to the Chinese concept of the unity of man and nature, a person who can become an emperor is the destiny of heaven. In particular, Zhu Yuanzhang was born in Hanwei but became emperor because his father was buried in a feng shui place. It is easy to get people's approval when using this argument. Among the emperors of the past dynasties, there are also many feng shui legends about Zhu Yuanzhang. However, Feng Shui was also a heart disease for the emperor's dignitaries. Because, if Feng Shui really has such a big effect, there would not be only one piece of Feng Shui treasure land that can be used to become the emperor. If others buried their parents in such a treasure land of Feng Shui, shouldn't they become the emperor?

and therefore, it seems that the source mentions Zhu Yuanzhang, the Ming emperor, and his change of mind after his accession. Moreover, the point is not if "Tao Shilong 2005" is sufficiently prestigious as a source, but if the assertion is branded as an "extraordinary assertion needing an extraordinary proof" or as a simple and ordinary assertion.

CH comment: If there was a question about an item, it would have been better to mark it with “deadlink” or some other appropriate template. Starting a section “to be rescued” is both unintelligible to a reader and without basis in MOS.

Blogs can be RS, but this one does not mention "double-edged sword" or imply a criticism of feng shui, only an irony.

• In the same vein, saying that Haruspex “the case against divination” has no source or connection to feng shui looks strange. The citation is sourced to Cicero. You know, the de Divinatione by the Cicero, and the context (Denyer 1985) is given. Asking what could be the connection between "feng shui" and "divination" looks as not trusting the 2019 edition of the Gospel according to St Matthews.

CH comment: As to Haruspex..., the phrase is quite unnecessary; must be translated; Denyer mentions nothing about feng shui; the following examples in one sentence paragraphs have nothing to do with it in any case (the final one, “The present state of affairs is ludicrous....” is especially puzzling, as it seems to be an unattributed quote).

This is not a matter of res ipsa loquitur, it must be sourced. Quis custodiet ipsos editores: “St. Matthews” (sic) is not a RS for feng shui.

• The fact that a whole reorg was long overdue has been discussed at length in this talk page. But, as already prophesied 2021-06-22 at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), note that the complaints have resulted in a more favorable treatment of the subject exactly zero times. Pldx1 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the long discussion at Village Pump, but looking through the archive for this page I do not see a discussion of a whole reorg. I think we agree that the article needs reorganization but replacing organized edits with disorganized and idiosynratic ones is not a help.

CH comment: I should have recognized that the “Sources” section modified on July 10 here was a working draft, including such notes to yourself as “# 14" , “# 91, blog about bamboos” and “# 77, blog, so what ?”, among others.

Then the succession of edits of 24 July here re-introduces the problematic organization (“to be rescued,” “”books from the past” et al. are not helpful and not even capitalized), and random comments (such as “rem: (Kaogu)=Archaeology” and “pages given could be relative to the 1st ed., not to the 2nd. To be checked”) are best used in a sandbox version.

FINAL CH comment Thanks, @Pldx1:, for the specific answers, though there are others not yet answered.

---

Dear User:CWH, here is another set of specific answers.

• According to the merriam-webster, a double-edged sword is something that has or can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences. And therefore, when reading the paragraph

Feng shui can turn into a double edged sword. It was said that Zhu Yuanzhang became the first Ming emperor because his father was buried in a feng shui place. After that, Feng Shui became a heart disease for the emperor's dignitaries. Because, if Feng Shui really had such a big effect, there would not be only one piece of Feng Shui treasure land that can be used for the emperor. If others buried their parents in such a treasure land of Feng Shui, shouldn't they be the emperor?

Tao, Shilong (2005-12-14). "风水，帝王权贵的烫手山芋" [Feng Shui, a hot potato for emperors and nobles]. people.com.cn.

the attentive reader should understand that this paragraph does not say that Tao Shilong used the expression "double-edged sword", since the [1] is not at the end of the first sentence. On the contrary, this paragraph says that Tao Shilong said that Zhu Yuanzhang and his dignitaries feared that this whole feng shui story could become "something which has or may have both favorable and unfavorable consequences". Hint: the [1] is at the end of the last sentence. How could this be a criticism of feng shui? It's very simple: Zhu Yuanzhang killed as many practitioners as he could, in order to be sure.

CH Comment: The section is headed “Some other critics.” “Double edged sword,” even if it were in the sourced reference, which it is not, is not a criticism of feng shui, since it is “something that can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences.” The anecdote is delicious but itself points to an irony. It is a bad sign for an text to require this much time to explicate.

I do not understand what's "very simple." Is it that Zhu criticized feng shui? That... who criticized it?

• I agree that "St. Matthews" (sic) is not a SR for feng shui, despite the fact that two epistles by the said author are used to support the epithet "pseudo-science" in the first main sentence. But it seems that Matthews is a reliable source to explain the craze around Feng Shui in the United States by the extraordinary illiteracy of the American general public in the field of science. And since this had to cover the 1972-2021 period, the 1995 proportion 13%-30%-50% is relevant. But I agree that providing also more recent figures could be useful. Don't hesitate !

Matthews, Michael R. (2019). Feng shui: teaching about science and pseudoscience. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-18822-1. OCLC 1109957069.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

• How many larks in the pie” has no explanation at all, much less any connection to feng shui; the matrix is not shown to be a criticism. The corresponding paragraph is (caveat: the five red brackets were added later, using {{!bxt}} to assert their "should have been" status):

In the West, Feng Shui is advertized as a practice by geomancers trained in the ancient traditions of Chinese wisdom[?]. But more often than not, Feng Shui is written only on the packaging, and what is really sold to the customer is just cheap, “one size fits all” numerology[?]. A two steps Ba Zhai (八宅 Eight Mansions) recipe is as follows [3]:

Let $X$ be your year of birth. Use $n=(x-5)\mod 9$ if you are a woman, and $n=(11-x)\mod 9$ otherwise [3].

Let $(x,y,z)$ be the three digits of the $n$-th trigram (Luoshu order). Use them to scramble the trigrams of the Eight Directions according to $\Phi :\left[{\begin{array}{c}x\\y\\z\end{array}}\right]\mapsto \left[{\begin{array}{cccccccc}1-x&1-x&x&x&x&1-x&1-x&x\\y&1-y&1-y&y&y&y&1-y&1-y\\z&1-z&1-z&z&1-z&1-z&z&z\end{array}}\right]$[3]

This tells you the directions to live, to work, to sleep, and to avoid. You can even do the same with your house and your significant other. In other words, the real product sold to the consumer is not a 4000 years old wisdom, but an unexplained $3\times 8$ matrix.

Moran, Elizabeth; Joseph Yu; Val Biktashev (2002). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Feng Shui. Pearson Education. Retrieved 21 June 2021.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link), length xxii+406 pages

I agree that it would be better to link each of the first two sentences to a reference taken from the "haruspex haruspicem" section of the bibliography, providing the two [?]. Nonetheless, it seems that even a sleeping reader should perceive that a paragraph using the words Feng Shui , geomancers , Chinese wisdom traditions , Feng Shui , numerology , Ba Zhai (八 宅 Eight Mansions) , trigram (Luoshu order) , Eight Direction trigrams , 4000 year old wisdom ... could be related to fengshui. I also agree that the three red [3] could be added to explicitly state these formulas were taken from Moran, op. cit.

And the criticism is there: while Moran uses the 40 cited pages to describe her $3\times 8$ matrix, there is no explanation at all for choosing this permutation matrix rather than another: this is completely unsourced. In other words, instead of a piece of wisdom taken from a glorious past, you are sold a random $3\times 8$ matrix, exactly the same for each customer, and applied to your date of birth, taken modulo nine. Will believers perceive this as a criticism of their beliefs? Great question. But the answer is probably "by definition a believer believes". Pldx1 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

CH Comment: The reference to Moran for this section should specify the page number as 110, not just p. 111-150 – you owe me a cup of coffee to compensate for the time I spent to find it!

But the important point, very important, is that Moran and friends say

1) Nothing about “How many larks,” a phrase that is meaningless. Even a Google search for the phrase comes up with nothing: here

2) Unless I missed it, which a proper reference would have avoided, nothing remotely resembling the sentences “In the West, FS is advertized .... more often than not FS is written only on the package... numerology.” This is editorializing, not OR or even [[:WP:SYNTHESIS].

This is well-intentioned but impermissible.

CH FINAL (hopefully) COMMENT: @Pldxl: I think you would enjoy Wikipedia:Writing better articles, an advisory article with good sense.

For instance, WP:TONE advises:

Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader...

WP:PERSUASIVE says

Especially avoid bombastic wording, attempts at humor or cleverness, reliance on primary sources, editorializing....

I notice that in two Talk Page edit summaries where my phrase was “massive, idiosyncratic changes, yours was “massive, free-spirited changes.” If we were to sit down for that cup or glass of whatever, I think we would hit it off because we have the same sense of humor. But the "free-spirited" humor of Haruspices and Larks is not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is by policy written for readers who may not be "attentive." Most important, Wikipedia requires that editors, no matter how "free-spirited" follow the rules.

References

What are the odds to converge towards an encyclopedic article ?

As already prophesied 2021-06-22 at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), note that the complaints have resulted in a more favorable treatment of the subject exactly zero times. The main problem in this article is probably not the ability of such and such reader to obtain Bought for a Song: The Story of Germany’s Fabled Lark Pie as the first result of a Google Search for How many "larks" in the "lark pie" ?.

Nor can it be ruled out that having a flat advertisement for the FengShuiGe 6.2 Inch: $14.89 Luopan as the eight years witness of the "pseudo" or "not pseudo" quarrel was also due to some lack of Google Search ability. But --hopefully-- wait and see if the Knight of the Rule will try to fix the first part of the article, which is also pitiful. Be pity full ! Pldx1 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, @Pldx1: for the link to the Village Pump discussion, which is a classic case of Too long, didn't read. Could you state your position in a few sentences?

I was involved in a discussion of feng shui as "pseudo-science", archived here, which is also TLDR, so I will summarize my position. It was and is that I follow consensus but find "pseudo-science" an imprecise and unhelpful term. Here and at Traditional Chinese medicine I suggest that the traditional forms are part of a Chinese philosophical tradition of pre-modern science, as in Traditional medicine, while present day forms can be labelled "pseduo-science" because of a legitimate fear of Wikipedia being used to promote them.

Let's bear in mind the admonition at the head of this page,"Be polite and avoid personal attacks," even attacks on "the ability of such and such a reader." The Google search algorithm takes into account one's earlier searches; since you have made this search before, you will get different results from someone who has not. In any case, no Wikipedia reader should have to make such a search. ch (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear User:CWH. When I Google Search for How many larks in the lark pie, the search algorithm tries to enforce the replacement of larks by parks. And therefore, I had to poison this replacement by using some quotes and search for How many "larks" in the "lark pie", obtaining the Lerche page, as the first result. Are you seeing the same behavior (1) without quotes (2) with the four quotes ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Another TalkPage admonition: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feng shui article." ch (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience"

I have removed the term "pseudoscience" as its use is not appropriate in this context. Of course, the beliefs of Fengshui are obviously false, and no one who truly believes in it would ever expect to be taken seriously in a scientific context. The vast majority of people in China, Taiwan, etc today do not believe in Fengshui the same way that most Christians don't believe the world was created in six days. The point is that Fengshui is a *traditional* and *cultural* practice, and it really should be clear (from *context*) to any reader of this article that Fengshui is NOT science. The word "pseudoscience" has strong negative connotations and is not needed to describe cultural and religious practices. After all, countless cultural practices and beliefs around the world are equally scientifically unsound and yet are not labeled as pseudoscience. The use here really reeks of racism and sinophobia. Topotrivl (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Topotrivl, I have reverted your removal - this content is sourced, and has been in the article for a long time. I don't accept that this reeks of racism or sinophobia - we have plenty of articles about Western pseudosciences, we're not singling out Chinese ones. Please take care to avoid suggesting such unpleasant motives of your fellow editors. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done the same. We don't remove content we personally disagree with. Continuing to do so will result in a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The term pseudoscience is unnecessary to mention in the first sentence of the lead and short description. The part ' traditional practice originating from ancient China, which claims ' doesn't give any impression of this being some sort of science, at this point 'pseudoscience' becomes POV pushing, there is no POV in the lead claiming that it is scientific. Since it is well-sourced it obviously can remain in the body text. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you reread WP:LEDE and WP:POVPUSH, then work to gain consensus.

While it may be UNDUE as presented, removing it completely from the lede looks like whitewashing. A better summary of the criticisms seems necessary for the lede. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

True, the issue I have is not with the inclusion of 'pseudoscience' but with how it is presented. How can a topic be described first of all as 'not a science'? The short description and first sentence of an article should describe what the topic is, not what it isn't. The source cited for this pseudoscience description introduce the topic without any further qualifications, so the current lede strays into WP:WIKIVOICE territory. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

We aren't describing it as not a science. --Hipal (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and @Hipal, maybe we should be describing it as a collection of superstitions, rather than a pseudoscience. I checked JSTOR, and "superstition" is mentioned in 267 potential sources, whereas "pseudoscience" is mentioned in only 19. The exact quoted phrase "art of feng shui" appears in more potential sources than anything about pseudoscience. Superstition is mentioned multiple times in the article, too, and there is only one sentence outside the lead about pseudoscience.

That sentence, by the way, had three sources, but one didn't support the whole sentence. I removed it rather than clarifying; it's unnecessary if the others support the sentence. The other two are both written by the same author, and that author documents all the ways in which feng shui does not claim to be a science, e.g., by never publishing anything in scientific journals, never being studied by the field of history of science, etc.. This suggests that he's using a definition of pseudoscience that doesn't align with our article, which begins "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." He says that it doesn't pretend to be a science; therefore, it can't be a pseudoscience in the common definition.

Matthews also explicitly says that feng shui is not commonly listed as a pseudoscience by authors He is acknowledging that his view is a minority viewpoint, and we need to treat it as a minority viewpoint. I think we've got this wrong, and we need to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I wouldn't be averse to changing it along those lines. I do think that we might rely too heavily on the term 'pseudoscience', when 'superstition' might sometimes be a more apposite descriptor. If you were to propose a reword along those lines, I expect that I'd support it. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

A couple of bullet-proof sources for "superstition" would be handy. Other people seem to see it as a cultural thing or an art form, and we should give due weight to those understandings, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence (sans refs, for convenience) currently is:

Feng shui (Chinese: 風水), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a pseudoscientific traditional practice originating from ancient China, which claims to use energy forces to harmonize individuals with their surrounding environment.

Maybe (exact wording depending on the sources we find) the easiest way to handle it is to take out "pseudoscientific" and add another sentence, approximately along the lines of "It has been described as a superstitious practice and as a Chinese art form". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think that people might be a bit wary of language along the lines of 'has been described as' - I mean, it is a superstitious practice, I don't think we need to distance ourselves from that. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've only got a moment, but it looks like there may be hundreds of sources on "feng shui" "Christian" and "feng shui" "Islam". (I'd been wondering whether it was widely condemned by Western religions. If we're going to talk about its classification, it makes sense to consider multiple ways of classifying: culture, art, religion, politics, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Feng Shui: Teaching About Science and Pseudoscience should make it clear enough that the label is appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  That book (have you read it?) explains that every major publication he could find about pseudoscience declined to name feng shui as a pseudoscience. He thinks they're all wrong, but he found no reputable publication on the subject of pseudoscience that agrees with him. In addition to the quotation I've provided, he has a long footnote naming even more books. It's practically a who's-who listing of pseudoscience scholars. When an author carefully proves that his view is a minority viewpoint not shared by most reputable sources, I think we can trust that the author is reliable on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

So far, the only source for 'pseudoscience' is Matthews, and while Matthews is a reliable source, his view is not the academic consensus: "I very much appreciate Matthews’ argument for scientific realism as a prism for criticising the ancient Chinese practice of fengshui and the pseudoscience of those who purvey goodluck. (...) However, not all present day fengshui advocates see their practice as scientific." "It is also hoped that the present-day practitioners of such systems take Matthews’ arguments into consideration." (emph. mine) In other words, Matthews gives his personal view based on his own research and analysis, but he is not the only authority, so presenting his view as a fact is undue. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all OR in an attempt to undermine a reliable source. --Hipal (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A direct quote from a book review, published in a peer-reviewed journal, about the source at hand, is not original research under any possible definition. And no one is undermining Matthews as a RS here. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not the quote that's OR. --Hipal (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• A practice is not pseudoscience if the practitioners do not claim it to be science or based on scientific principles. There are a range of categories of non-science, and pseudoscience is the one which claims to be science but is not science. The others which are not science and do not claim to be science are, by definition, also not pseudoscience. It is not a difficult concept. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  This appears to be OR in an attempt to undermine a reliable source. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. That source is definitely reliable for a statement that its author says feng shui pseudoscience, but it's not reliable at all for a statement that this is a typical view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's OR as well, and ignores why we have POV and FRINGE. --Hipal (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Have you read the source? The source devotes hundreds of words directly to the specific subject of feng shui's inclusion/exclusion from other sources about pseudoscience. Have you read what the source says on this point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't plan to in response to what appear to be straw man arguments, original research, and arguments that ignore POV and FRINGE. Please provide arguments that look like something other than those that resulted in the creation of FRINGE. --Hipal (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm going to interpret that as "No, I haven't read the source that's being discussed". If you need help accessing the source, please e-mail me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  As long as this looks like the typical case of FRINGE being ignored, I'm not wasting my time. --Hipal (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hipal, You responded This appears to be OR in an attempt to undermine a reliable source. What exactly is it that you claim is OR about my statement immediately preceding your claim of OR, and how do you construe it to be intended to undermine a reliable source? Do you deny that there are rational and measurable criteria for determining whether something is pseudoscience, or do you deny that the criteria I quoted are necessary and sufficient? If this is the case do you accept any criteria beyond an appeal to authority? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  We should be making sure that article content is verified directly and presented neutrally. We shouldn't be wasting time with questions like do you deny that there are rational and measurable criteria for determining whether something is pseudoscience. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  If we ignore the need to test whether we are making justifiable and reasonable claims in Wikipedia's voice we run the risk of making biased claims, thereby failing neutrality and or weight/relevance. You are not obliged to answer questions about your reasoning, but if you do not, you run the risk of readers assuming that perhaps you cannot. Quoting a shortcut without any explanation of how the content of the linked material is relevant is not a valid argument, though it is quite a popular one.
  Your claim this looks like the typical case of FRINGE being ignored fails to explain how WP:FRINGE is relevant when the point under discussion is whether the criteria for Pseudoscience are met. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Please WP:FOC

  Use of Wikipedia's voice is another issue completely as far as I have seen from this discussion.

  ArbEnf applies. If you don't understand FRINGE at this point, you're wasting everyone's time while putting yourself at risk of a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's pretty clear that if it doesn't claim to be science that it can't be pseudoscience. So in essence it says "claims to be science but isn't" and the false claim aspect is what makes it a pejorative. Further, from an article quality and informativeness standpoint, IMO use here would be non-information value-laden misleading characterization. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That's OR to undermine reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I do see some issues with your wiki-arguments. Sourcing or sourcability is a requirement for everything in article space. It is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. You seem to be arguing that merely meeting that universal requirement gives it special status as a force for or mandate for inclusion. And you are also implying that an argument against inclusion is "undermining the source" and that such is wiki-misbehavior, IMO neither is true. Finally, "W:OR" is a word to define something that can't be put in article space. It is the norm for talk pages. You are implying that such on a talk page either makes the point illegitimate or represents mis-behavior. That is simply not the case. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

We start with verification, and we don't dismiss references because individuals don't like what they happen to say. Editors should avoid duplicating behavior that was identified in applicable arbitration decisions. --Hipal (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been making a lot of unfounded (and IMO false) explicit and implicit accusations against a lot of people. And missing WP:AGF by a long ways to the extent of inventing bad faith. I suggest that you mellow out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and work collaboratively with others as required. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Please look into a mirror and repeat that to the person who actually needs it. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not focusing on content. Please stop disrupting this talk page. --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite Hipal chasing away the editors that don't want to engage in a battle or spend the time to take them to wp:ani regarding their false accusations against editors,, to say the least there are very strong arguments to not call this "Pseudoscience". The recent reverts claiming that "pseudoscience" is a consensused version are wrong, to put it mildly. I think that there are a lot of folks like me who consider Feng shui to be a false set of beliefs which we wish to identify as such. To myself I'd probably even call Feng shui "BS". But as Wikipedia editors, our job is not to make sure that that we weigh in for using every possible negative word for it. And "pseudoscience" means "claims to be science" and is not a warranted or correct word to describe Feng shui. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"pseudoscience" means "claims to be science" No, it does not mean that. It means that it makes scientific claims (such as reality consisting of five elements, or that humans are affected by energies in our surroundings, which can be manipulated by orienting buildings in a particular direction), claims which are either impossible to investigate with scientific methods, or are simply counterfactual. Feng shui does have roots in religion/folk beliefs, but modern feng shui certainly qualifies as pseudoscience. A "clarification needed" comment in the article, which I have just removed, said "making claims about the functioning of the world which are not amenable to testing with the scientific method is not exclusive to pseudoscience, it is common in religion, superstition, and other non-sciences which are not classified as pseudoscience as they do not claim to be science" – but that is not a valid argument. A claim that "A is B" is not invalidated by "C is B and C is not A". In addition, there are plenty of other fields that are pseudoscientific even if the practitioners themselves don't call it a science: faith healing, for instance, or pseudoarcheology. --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea But that's not what that asserts. The refutation goes more like this: The initial argument is essentially " "A" is "B" because Rule #1 is definitive and says so." And then someone gives many examples where rule #1 is false, thus invalidating the initial argument. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And of course, editors are not allowed to do that thing where they say, "hey! this reliable source says A is B, but I happen to know for a fact that B is defined as C, and A is clearly not C. So, the reliable source is wrong, and we need to disregard what it says!"

@North: Please read WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Quit the crap. You have obviously not read it or else fundamentally misunderstand it, not understanding the difference between talk page discussions and material put into articles. You also fundamentally mis-stated what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Quit the... If there was a misstatement, clarify rather than disrupt. ArbEnf applies. --Hipal (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

And "pseudoscience" means "claims to be science" and is not a warranted or correct word to describe Feng shui. So, as I said, you are saying B is defined as C, and A is clearly not C, therefore we should not say A is B (ignoring that reliable sources say A is B). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

You are again mis-stating mis-characterizing what I said. I think I am going to leave this page for a while as many others have and let somebody else get assaulted by false accusations and mis-characterizations by you two. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As Hipal said, If there was a misstatement, clarify rather than disrupt. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, let's get more current, your falsely implying that my post was disruptive is similar bad behavior. North8000 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Feng Shui, the Boxer Rebellion, and "pseudoscience"

As it stands, the first sentence of this article is wildly inappropriate Orientalism. Western violation of feng shui was one trigger for the Boxer Rebellion. Quick & dirty, here's one source: [1]

Encyclopedias have conventions. Due emphasis is one of them. We shouldn't talk about Christianity or capitalism as pseudosciences, either. Compare the following sentence, both indisputably true and equally tasteless: Alexander Pope (21 May 1688 – 30 May 1744) was a poet and satirist of the Augustan period and a humpbacked dwarf. Billbrock (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, with a slightly different basis, which is that applicability of the term requires a claim to be science. There has been abusive behavior on this talk page...incessant false accusations of mis-behavior against anyone who expresses that opinion which has chased people away and stymied discussion of that matter. It's probably going to take a trip to WP:ANI to allow that dialog to restart/proceed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

In short, IMO this article should not identify it as a "pseudoscience" because it does not purport to be science / scientific. Or at least not in the voice of Wikipedia. If necessary (or as a compromise) to include this possible characterization, it would be with attribution type wording. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

We report what the references say, and we aim to make this a respected encyclopedia. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you implying that that me advocating (in this case) adding attribution to such statements is advocating against Wikipedia being a respected encyclopedia? North8000 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Sorry if my comments might have suggested that. --Hipal (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Defining feng shui as "a pseudoscientific traditional practice" in the opening sentence of the article is more likely to make the encyclopedia a laughing stock than respected. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

There is just one independent author supporting that claim, which by itself shows that it is a rather fringe point of view. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, how many sources are there that don't define it as a 'pseudoscience'? Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In answer to the question, the first sections of "Sources" have a number of serious, that is, peer reviewed, academic studies of Feng Shui in traditional times. If any of these scholarly studies calls Feng Shui "pseudoscientific" I'll buy the next round of drinks! That is, FS was then "pre-" not "pseudo-" scientific.

As I said in the section above, in "traditional" China, as in the rest of the world, there was not a distinction between what we now call "science", on the one hand, and religion/ philosophy, other. The same goes for medicine, astronomy, alchemy, magic etc. and so forth. It is wrong to call this traditional system "pseudoscientific" before the concept of modern science appeared. There are problems with the word "traditional," but it does make that distinction. "Pre-modern science" has its problems as well (why define something by what it comes before?).

On the other hand, when taken out of that traditional context, Feng Shui, like Traditional Chinese Medicine becomes pseudoscientific. But the lead sentence describes the original form. "Pseudoscientific" is a vague scare word, which I would prefer not to use, but Wikipedia does have the responsibility of representing the concept. People who share my aversion to "pseudoscientific" have the responsibility of coming up with a better way of expressing the truth behind it.ch (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to the word itself, but it really doesn't apply here. And the absence of the word in sources that cover it is indicative from a sourcing standpoint. Asking for something more than that (e.g. one that says "Feng shui is not pseudoscience") is not valid. Sources don't describe what something isn't. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there some compromise wording everyone would accept? Looking at the sources we're currently citing, they tend to call it a superstition as well as a pseudoscience. How about "Feng shui (Chinese: 風水), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a superstitious traditional practice originating from ancient China, ..." - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I really have only two objectives here. One is to help assure that a discussion on this topic doesn't get stifled. And secondarily to help assure that patently incorrect words (e.g. pseudoscience) do not get used in the voice of Wikipedia. So all of other potential compromises are fine with me. I would tend against "superstitious" because we don't use that word for other belief systems, but it would be OK with me. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, North8000, agreed. I think in this context "Feng shui (Chinese: 風水), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a traditional practice originating from ancient China, ..." or even better "Feng shui (Chinese: 風水), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a set of beliefs and practices originating in traditional China, ..."

That is, "traditional" is a neutral but meaningful way of saying, "hey people," this is not modern science. Do not try this at home." There might well be a more explicit explanation in the second paragraph about Feng Shui in modern contexts.ch (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no need for any adjective in the first sentence. Describing traditional beliefs as pseudoscientific just doesn't make much sense inherently. The fact that some people may have described it as pseudoscientific is nowhere close to being the most important thing about it. PhysicistZ (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and agree with your recent edits. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also agree. Unfortunately they have been reverted. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored my edits as I did not think the reasons given by User:Hipal for undoing them were reasonable. Their edit summary of "blanking" does not even make sense. If two editors besides myself do think my edits improved the article, then I think that User:Hipal needs to explain in more detail why they disagree. PhysicistZ (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest you take the advice I gave you on your talk page.

In both cases, it is referenced information in the lede on a well-maintained article on a controversial topic that's under sanctions. In the case of "pseudoscientific", we have this open discussion. Please don't revert again.

I have no problem moving "pseudoscientific" to another place in the lede.

"Geomancy" seems a basic, descriptive category.--Hipal (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What I see on this talk page is a number of editors agreeing that "pseudoscientific" should not be in the first sentence, and one single editor who wants to include it. If you want to include it somewhere else in the lead, you should make the relevant edit. You should not revert edits supported by consensus. As for "also known as Chinese geomancy", that is not a "basic, descriptive category", it is a factually incorrect claim. Contrary to your claim above, it is not "referenced information". PhysicistZ (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be a pretty strong consensus to not have "pseudoscience" in there, and pretty solid arguments to that effect.North8000 (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not enthusiastic about the word, but Wikipedia should not be seen as endorsing Feng Shui's claims, only reporting on them, and due weight does suggest that "pseudoscience" should be there someplace. How about adding a lead sentence to the third paragraph, something like:

“In the late twentieth century, Feng Shui became popular in North American and Europe. Because claims for its power cannot be proven, it is classified as pseudo-science.

That third paragraph should add a few more details on the spread in any case. Thanks to all for the useful discussion.ch (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

'Pseudoscience' doesn't belong anywhere in the lead as long as there is only one author claiming that. There appear to be enough independent sources that label it as a superstition, that would be more appropriate. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that some folks are concerned that we need to place some type of negative term in order to avoid the appearance of validating the claims of Feng shui. For me that is a secondary question and I'd be open to any compromise there. The concrete issue of the moment is that the term "pseudo-science" includes "claims to be science" which is not the case. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think some folks are forgetting that this article is under sanctions and that editors should focus on content and assume good faith.

How about we move "pseudoscientific" from the first sentence to another location in the lede? --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I see a lot of discussion in this section about editors' opinions on what is and is not pseudoscience, without corresponding support from the sources. In addition to the sources already in the article, here are a couple more:

• Feng shui is commonly considered to be non-scientific and pseudoscientific by both philosophers and scientists. (citing 6 footnotes by 4 separate authors)
  • Fernandez-Beanato, Damian (23 August 2021). "Feng Shui and the Demarcation Project". Science & Education. 30 (6). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 1333–1351. doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00240-z. ISSN 0926-7220.
• Feng shui is a paradigm example of pseudoscience.
  • McCain, K.; Kampourakis, K. (2019). What is Scientific Knowledge?: An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-33660-4. Retrieved 18 December 2021.

I can see several other good candidates just from a few basic searches. Sunrise (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to our discussion, Sunrise, with special thanks for your pointing out the Sockpuppet and expanding the sources and section on pseudo-science. As you will see, the discussion above is TLDR, but we were working towards a compromise. To recapitulate, I and a number of others agree with you that the article must make clear that feng shui is not modern science (no need for further sources to make a point already well taken), but we also have many who object to the word "pseudo-science." (I find it imprecise and not used widely among scholars of the history of Chinese science, but nevermind). You remark that editors' "opinions" are "without corresponding support from the sources," but it is not usual practice to give notes on the Talk Page. Our views are informed by sources listed in the article, which make a distinction between feng shui in traditional times and feng shui in recent times. That is, to use imprecise terms, feng shui was "pre-modern" or "traditional science", but its modern practice is "pseudo-science."

The Puro, article, to take one example, makes this distinction pp. 111-112. Henderson's article on Han dynasty cosmology, likewise, as do other works on pre-modern science. Michael Paton observes in the Introduction to his book of translations that in both East and West the “history of science has been entwined with that of, for want of a better word, magic... up until the modern era scientific endeavor has gone hand-in-hand with what would now be called pseudo-scientific.” {p=3) You might be interested in a more general article, Lisa, Raphals (2020), "Science and Chinese Philosophy", in Zalta, Edward N (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The difference in the points of view is partly that people who are from a background in Chinese history, like me, start from a definition of feng shui as Chinese cosmology, pre-modern science, that got appropriated and transformed, and those who start from the contemporary use see it as pseudo-science without reference to its quite distinct origins. For the most part, the "pseudo-science" people are not China scholars. BTW, many if not most popular writers give the quite wrong impression that there was a unified tradition or coherent theory, which makes much of this article quite misleading -- but that's a question for another day!

The compromise I suggested above is that the lead sentence should refer explicitly to the traditional form, followed by a paragraph on the later appropriation as pseudo-science.

Hope this helps.ch (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The OP’s point was not about whether or not Feng Shui is a pseudoscience, it was a comment on the inappropriateness of defining it that way in the first sentence of the article. Other comments have been along the same lines: that feng shui in its traditional form(s) is pre-scientific and that practitioners neither would nor could have claimed that it was based on the scientific method. It had significance in relation to its historical and cultural context, so it was a traditional practice, not a “pseudoscientific traditional practice”, which is a really stupid phrase. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think we're disagreeing much on what the article should actually look like. I'm fine with the idea that it was initially a pre-science, and with discussing it historically in that context. However, I would emphasize that this must not detract from the point that anyone who practices it today (or otherwise claims that it works) is practicing pseudoscience. This refers to its pre-science components as well, which we now know to be invalid, to the extent that they make testable claims. I don't see this as being different points of view, but rather a historical evolution. The field of Chinese history, while an important subject and of high relevance to this article, is not relevant to its validity - it is not a different "point of view" in this respect. This also means one would not expect scholars of Chinese history or culture to address the topic (and those are not the relevant fields of expertise regardless). Similarly I would consider appropriation to be a separate issue, since again that does not touch on whether the practices actually work.

I don't particularly have an opinion on whether it's called a pseudoscience in the first sentence, as long as it's still in the lead. For an analogous case, I would look at the Astrology article, which I would consider to be neutral and well-written, and which has had extensive discussions on this topic. In that case it has been determined that it should be in the first sentence, despite the topic's long history as a pre-modern practice. I would note that a practice doesn't need to claim to be science, merely to make scientific claims.

Personally, this is my primary interest in the article, due to the continuing real-world harm (e.g. significant expenses) caused by such practices. So I would emphasize that any statement about the status as pseudoscience being historically contingent, while trivially true, causes neutrality problems if presented without context, because that can be interpreted as being relevant to its validity. Sunrise (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Astrology is different because in some respects it does claim to be science or have a scientific basis. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My main interest is to not use a wrong/misleading word in the voice of Wikipedia. "Pseudoscience" means "claims to be science" which is a false statement. Now if you want to say something like "Feng shui is baseless bullshit" I'd be fine with that.  :-) North8000 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I was joking in order to make my point. It's not about being for or against the practice, it's about not using an incorrect word. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Say it like you mean it

Is that the worst transliteration I ever came across? Who the hell came up with this sh... --Alien4 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Introduction (Bias)

If you're going that route, I'd prefer you equate it to "some people like to go the christian religion believes", instead of the "fortune teller". For me, that would be more honest. If you want to shit on someone / shit on believes, then do it properly, please. --Alien4 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"Chinese geomancy"

According to google ngrams, "Feng Shui" is about 75x more commonly used than "Chinese geomancy". As such, I do not think that "sometimes called Chinese geomancy" is accurate. It is very rarely called that. Æñøï (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You bring up a good question that the article should deal with. As my edit summary said, Wilkinson Manual (2018) Section 33.1 says geomancy is divination using signs from the earth, which is different from feng shui. But he gives Bruun (2008) as his first authority, which uses "geomantic" in the subtitle as a synonym for feng shui. Bruun discusses the question on p. xii and has (92 further uses of "geomancy". He agrees that "geomancy" is problematic, but concludes that it's necessary.

But the strongest argument is that "geomancy" is a standard term among Reliable Sources. At least six sources for our article use "geomancy" in the title, and a quick search of others find that the Henderson article uses it in the text as a heading. There are other sources not in the article, many found in a Google Books search, which finds dozens and dozens of hits: "Chinese geomancy"

So "is sometimes called geomancy" seems a good compromise. That is, not to say that it is geomancy, but that the usage is common in Reliable Sources. For another thing, there is a Redirect from "Chinese Geomancy."

I am looking for a place in the article to insert this explanation. The Bennet (1978) article is a good place to start (it's old but has been recently cited and endorsed). Please bear with me as I pull this together, as I think it will meet your objections.

Cheers in any case ch (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternative pronunciations

The article should include alternative English pronunciations for feng shui, namely /fʌŋˈʃweɪ/, /fʊŋ-/, /fɛŋ-/

I say it like that /fʌŋˈʃweɪ/ and many people say it one of those ways.

Source: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/feng_shui 2806:2F0:6400:71:7D64:D2A4:F70:52DD (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Main books?

No list of main books mentioned?

~~Williams~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:7456:8AC0:769F:982 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)