Talk:Feng shui/Archive 1

Move page?

Is the "Shui" in Feng Shui supposed to be capitalized or should this paged be moved to the correct title?--Daveswagon 05:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to general usage, it should be as it is a noun. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 18:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not capitalize ordinary nouns in English. The question is whether it should be treated as a proper noun, which is capitalized. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard usage seems to be "feng shui". I've moved the page. Fireplace 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When it was reintroduced to the West (Americans), it started out capitalized. When qi was first introduced it was ch'i. People got tired of typing ch'i and didn't understand how to translate it into Pinyin so it became chi. Feng shui as a proper noun is capitalized. A lot of academics use it as fengshui, no caps. Most people these days don't capitalize it. Eva Wong (Shambhala Publishing) hyphenates it and uses it as a proper noun. 75.80.23.196 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

Combination of Statistics and Scientific

Thousands of years ago, the Lok She and Hall To predicted the success of the harvest each year. By the centre of Lok River, the ancient people have found the pattern of incidents of each crop. After a few thousand years, people found the old records of incidents were accurate, they then passed their knowledge to the followers.

There have been over 100 types of Feng Shui theory. But the most applicable is by practice. A lot of Feng Shui doctors hide themselves if they know much about it. It is harmful if people know its usage.

The basic theory of it is to utilize the 5 elements of earth and 8 elements of Gaw. The 5 elements of earth are Gold, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth. The 8 elements of Gaw are Kin, Tu, Fire, Chun, Shung, Water, Kun, and the Kwon. The combination of them could deduce the things to happen in a house, a region and any where of the earth. Edited by Josephine Lau at 10/Nov/2005 12:40

Feng Shui strikes me as a layer of astounding commen sense hidden in a layer of hocus pocus. Lest some outraged Fend Shui master send sha chi darts in my direction, I'd like to stress that this is my own personal opinion and only my opinion.

To me Feng Shui is not about cluttering your house with sad plastic frogs that mournfully report back that they have failed to bring money your way. Its about clearing space so that you can navigate freely through your environment. Its about drawing your eyes to pleasant harmonious images. Clearly, if you have to navigate around sharp corners, old stacks of newspaper and boxes of 1980s fashions, your motion will be crimped. Your mind thinks in metaphor. When your passage down a corridor starts to resemble Franklin's Last Voyage, you will begin to wonder if your course through life is also a failed expedition. Pictures of flowers and waterfalls channel your thinking in a better direction.

To me, thinking about the flow of chi is a more dynamic and summary way at looking at your environment than analyzing each and every possible accident. You want to tilt your odds towards easy navigation and away from accidents. Quantum physicists talk about probability waves. Cayte 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Cayte

While it is charming to think about probability waves, it is not so easy to reconcile what's actually going on in feng shui with something that happens below the Planck length. Qi is space weather, or at least that's the circumstantial evidence. Space weather's effects are largely Newtonian, not quantum. The computations in feng shui have more to do with the calendar than the quantum. I think it is best to stick with what is evidence-based, and update the material as the evidence rolls in. All the rest is fun speculation best carried out over cold beer. cb (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnoscience

What on earth is an ethnoscience? It wasn't in my dictionary, but I managaged to find a definition eventually. I don't mean what is the dictionary definition of the word, I mean who decided that the term ethnoscience is applicable here. What's wrong with Pseudoscience? Where are the criticisms of Feng Shui in this article? Where is the proof that it's not just an expensive pseudoscientific fad? --Gantlord 19:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's fairly covered in the "Overview" section where the article is fairly harsh about the new age versions. (That's the faddish variety, after all.) But "ethnoscience" doesn't seem to apply at all. Another name for it is "cognitive anthropology" (see [1]) so while Feng Shui practices might well be the subject of an ethnoscientific study, it's plainly not that itself.

In general this article is extremely uneven, and I for one can't make heads or tails of the recent addition which, for some reason, is duplicated above on the talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Needham ("Science and Civilization in China") first identified feng shui as an ethnoscience, which he defined as one culture's definitions for how the world works. For a more recent interpretation, see SciDevNet, where everyone is using TEK (traditional ecological knowledge). For me, that is a much better understanding of the material -- cb 16 May 2007

The Feng Shui of Computer Monitors?

The installation instructions for my computer monitor include a step saying "Set the front of your monitor to face the east if possible". Is this part of the Feng Shui of setting up a computer workstation? --Carnildo 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My only guess is that they're worried about glare from the sun. Since I assume most computer use is in the afternoon/evening rather than dawn/morning, making your monitor face east would mean that there's less chance of the sun causing glare on your screen. Nothing to do with feng shui, and a completely unsubstantiated guess, but still possibly an explanation for that instruction. --CoderGnome 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

it's not possible.

I don't know for sure that this is why the directions in the manual are such, but CRT type monitors(and TV's) can be effected by the eath's magnetic field, just like they can be effected by fridge magnets etc, and thus the orientation of the monitor relative to the earths poles can matter. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember reading that the main problem was if a monitor were used for a long time whilst it faced one direction, and then the direction of the monitor was altered at some point, that this could effect the picture.

You can't take a monitor made in the Northern Hemisphere and hope to use it in the Southern Hemisphere, or vice versa. That is also why there are three types of compasses: "universal" (the needle will behave appropriately in either hemisphere), and one for each hemisphere. Look at the Silva and Suunto websites if you don't believe me. -- cb 16 May 2007

Hong Kong Disneyland

I removed this sentence:

It is alleged that Hong Kong Disneyland applied feng shui to the layout of the park.

This sentence uses weasel words and does not cite its sources ("it is alleged"). There is only one sentence on the subject and it sort of cuts into the section. See my change over here. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence was flawed, although its remarks about Hong Kong Disneyland (alleged or not) were reliable, if you trust nytimes article as seen here:

link

If someone cares enough to restate the phrase in a different way (using the article or other reliable sources for support), it would be appreciated. Stealthymatt 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that it is relevant. So many buildings have had feng shui applied to them that this merely an annoying form of name-dropping cb 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)cb

Postmodernism

I think this section merits a serious rewrite, which I may do myself. While the title is "postmodernism," the section does not mention postmodernism once aside from the title, let alone explain what the events and ideas of the section have to do with postmodernism. It is also NPOV given the questionable link to pseudoscience (nothing is put forth as to how feng shui might be interpreted as pseudoscience). For some reason, this sort of cynicism towards "postmodernism" and "pseudoscience" seems to be everywhere on the internet (while few of the cynics even bother to define such vague terms; quite "postmodern" imho). Even so, you still have the responsibility of writing a cohesive paragraph. I will rewrite this sillyness if nobody else does.

New sections on the bottom, please. I've moved this one here. You can add a new section to the bottom automatically by clicking the "+" next to the "Edit this page" link. You will be prompted for a title and content.

It's labelled as a "pseudoscience" because that's what it is, at least the new-agey varieties. If it's about achieving a harmonious arrangement of design elements, then it's not a science at all but a valid technique. (Note the section on traditional feng shui describes it in those terms.) Possibly it can be a supersitition to the extent that "luck" or something similar is supposed to be affected by it. But as soon as you start talking about energy flows and so forth, i.e. effects that ought to be measureable and falsifiable, then it's a pseudoscience. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there had not been a single mention of "postmodernism" in the article itself, although "postmodernism" is the title of the article! So I rewrote it as to clarify. Little or no content was deleted, I simply added a few explanations and rearranged the paragraphs to make more sense.

It's a pretty silly concept, but someone wrote a term paper on the subject. That's probably why it ended up here. cb 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)cb

Getty Center and Feng Shui

The image caption states, "The Getty Center in Los Angeles, allegedly an articulation of feng shui, though there is little evidence". Well, either it is or it isn't, and if we aren't sure, I don't really think such an ambiguous image/caption is really relevent to the article. Should it be removed? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. It was removed. cb 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)cb

Ethnoscience 2

Oxford defines ethnoscience as the study of the different ways the world is perceived and categorized in different cultures. So, Feng Shui is not an ethnoscience.

I replaced the term with "belief system", which may be too broad to be useful. However, there is precisely no scientific basis in Feng Shui. As such, if "belief system" is replaced with something more specific, it should not be reverted back to a term that gets cozy with scientific terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.0.34 (talk • contribs)

Or that simply misapplies scientific terminology.

I think this is going to be necessarily difficult to characterize briefly because it's applied in such diverse ways. From one POV it's a codification of certain aesthetic principles. From another it appears to relate to traditional Chinese astrology and folk religion. From yet another it's an odd combination of both of the above with an admixture of new-agey pseudoscience. "Belief system" may be the best that we can do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Belief system" can apply to what you hold dear: as evidence-based medicine becomes more prominent, we're all discovering how much of medical practice is built on belief and placebo effect!

There are several camps jockeying for the primacy of their vision: people who don't know anything about the subject but it looks woo and thus must be dismissed; people who don't know anything about the subject but know bad writing when they see it; people in the New Age camps who don't want "their" feng shui associated with what's in the archaeological/literary/architectural record; academia; people who know the traditional material and don't want "their" feng shui associated with the New Age garbage. -- cb 16 May 2007

Introdutction

I believe naming issues and etmology should have their own section. Instead, before the contents, I believe it should say what it is... It doesn't say what is Feng Shui... Is it a religion? An ethereal being?201.56.56.96 05:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed. It seems to be floor wax and dessert topping. cb 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)cb

Citation, Verifiability problems

No statements in this article are sourced. Because of the nature of the topic, the lack of everyday knowledge about it, and the lack of reliable English-language feng shui resources on internet, this is a big problem. I'm adding fact tags throughout the article, and barring improvement over the next week or so, I suggest reducing the article to a stub and starting over. Fireplace 16:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been almost a week and no efforts at sourcing the current version have been made. I did due diligence and tried to source them myself online, but everything led back to this article. I'm going to take a hatchet to the article and swap in a new, sourced version. Some of the new text is pretty good, some is REALLY bad (the Doctrine and Bagua sections). But it's a start. Fireplace 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I came back to this material and was appalled by the material. Incorrect information and techniques, appalling use of sourcing.

Sourcing this subject with consumer books is risky, as most of the trade books are known to be riddled with a variety of errors. Here's one of my faves: a feng shui book talks about the Heidelberg Principle (they wanted to say Heisenberg), which was subsequently mangled into the Deepak Chopra anthropic principle rather than the Uncertainty Principle.

Then there was the one source that was for a book that does not exist.

I've added sources (academic ones), which will enrage the New Age types. I've removed a LOT of bizarre, inaccurate material. 75.80.23.196 07:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

We have a spammer in the works. The person 203.33.199.7 keeps reverting to the inferior material and removing sourcing, etc. I am just as adamant that the term deserves to be weasel-wordless, well sourced, and clearly conveyed.

Research

Has there been any research into the validity of feng shui? Either cosmic or phsycological benefits of seeing something that is "appealing to the eyes", instead of a mess of pot plants and walls? JayKeaton 09:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been searching the internet for scholarly discussions of feng shui over the past week. On sites like JSTOR you'll find some historical articles about feng shui (very interesting), but I haven't found any psychological studies about its validity. Fireplace 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You are looking in the wrong places. Do a search on the sites that have masters theses and doctoral theses. A lot of very interesting reading. If you know what you're looking for, Highwire is another excellent source. "Feng shui" is the wrong search keyphrase. -- cb 17 May 2007

Arbitary changes?

Fireplace has made a lot of changes which do not seem to make sense... He/ She does not come across as a person who has even superfical knowledge of Chinese Metaphysics... e.g. there is nothing called "Compass School" and "Form School" in Authentic Feng Shui... all schools have to use compass (directions) and Forms (natural as well as manmade)... The real schools are San He (Three Harmonies) and San Yuan (Three Cycles. The former uses the unchanging to tackle the changing while the later uses changing to take care of the unchanging… I agree that some of the earlier content was not relevant… but you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water…—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhargo (talk • contribs) 00:29, July 28, 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bhargo. You're right, I'm a newbie to this stuff, and I encourage you and everyone else to make (referenced) changes and additions. As I explained above (Talk:Feng shui#Citation, Verifiability problems), none of the earlier material was sourced and I after a good faith effort I wasn't able to verify any of it from reliable sources (WP:V). Also, you're right, the material was disorganized and sometimes of dubious relevance. So that's why I made massive cuts. As for my new additions, I'm (slowly) searching through whatever acadamic or otherwise reliable sources I can find and building up from there (I am specifically not regarding the countless commercial feng shui sites on the internet as reliable). Please, source and contribute.

Also, remember to add new sections to the end of the talk page, and to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ . Thanks. Fireplace 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fireplace. Frankly there is not much published in Western World about Authentic Traditional Feng Shui. Except for 2 books (Complete Idiot's Guide to Feng Shui by Elizabeth Moran & A Master Course in Feng Shui by Eva Wong) i have yet to come across a good work in English on this subject. There are online articles by good masters like Joseph Yu, Joey Yap and Raymond Lo. But should we ingore it because it's on their "Commercial" website. I think it would be great disservice not to allow links to such artcles. There is no mention in this stub of Wu Xing or 5 Elements and hence I had put up an article which was removed. Feng Shui is part of 5 arts of China and we need to understand other aspect also. Referenced quotes for the same is not possible and hence people at large will never learn about it... very sad!!! Bhargo 05 Aug 2006

Has anyone thought to look at the academic material? There is so much research on feng shui that's been done in at least the last 30 years it would make your head spin. 75.80.23.196 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)cb 17 May 2007

Skepticism

The skepticism section reads as if mostly Westerners only consider Feng Shui to be pseudoscience. From the description on this page and on 風水 page of the Japanese Wikipedia (which is a rather POV stub, claiming e.g. that there's investigation of the relationship between geomagnetism and people in the Feng Shui of "modern science"), it certainly involves superstition (or religion or whatever it should be called to be politically correct). In that light, I find it hard to believe that skeptical view of it would be limited to Westerners only -- there are Eastern scientists and skeptics, too. If someone has knowledge about this, it would make the article less Western-centric. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 19:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can get to this eventually. First there is cleaning up the meat of the material. 75.80.23.196 07:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

Slowly adding to the material. If 203.33.199.7 doesn't toss it out and put in their spam again. cb 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)cb

Western Feng Shui?

I don't understand why this topic should be placed under "Architecture". Western people always associate Feng Shui with decorating and placement of objects in a house but I have never seen it used in this way in China. I have had friends in China who went to Feng Shui experts to find a good date to get married or a good time to go overseas or many other reasons, but nobody I have ever known in China has used Feng Shui to decorate their house. Has Feng Shui been adapted and changed when it came to the West? I've also always been confused as to why Feng Shui is taken as fact in Western countries whereas in China it is treated as superstition by most people.

My wife is Chinese and placement of walls and doors according to compass points (ie the front door should face the south; there should not be a clear straight path from the front to the back - to prevent the Qi from being flushed out; etc) are often very important topics of conversation. Whether this is Feng Shui or not, I couldn't tell you.

Obviously the article needs to be written to explain what happened to feng shui when the New Agers found it marketable. You can't just state the facts without a lot of noise and drama from certain parties. This is a touchy subject for anyone who's into the Western/New Age variety. I have found that stating the timeline and events factually gets them very upset and irate.

Your wife has a good understanding of the basics and that is Feng Shui. The Western stuff is interior decorating. 75.80.23.196 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

Feng Shui Form School

To whom it may concern:

I have left a post on the Feng Shui Form School. My name is Candace Czarny and I am dedicated to educating people about Feng Shui and the benefits it can bring you. I would very much appreciate a link to my site www.artoffengshuiinc.com We provide a free Feng Shui E-course, many free articles a Q&A Section, a Case Study section and a Feng Shui Adventure where people learn about how to implement cures.

Thank you for your consideration.

Windwater 18:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The material was incorrect and not sourced appropriately, so I replaced it with information that is correct and academically sourced. It would be wonderful not to have the topic overwhelmed by commercial interests. 75.80.23.196 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

External Links

I'm having a very difficult time establishing that the links here meet Wikipedia's standards for external links: see Wikipedia:External links Several of the links were to sites that had very little in the way of resources or original information. Two of the links were to schools/training centers. If we linked to every school teaching or training in a given subject, I'd hate to see the external link section for, say, Psychology. At any rate, if your link has been removed and you're wondering why, please see the above reference I've linked. I'd love for someone else to look at the remaining links with a critical eye. I believe more, frankly, could be done.Snackycakes 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Having taken a longer look at the SmilingBamboo link that keeps reappearing, it really seems to be the Sears Catalog of Feng Shui resourses - virtually every article seems intended to guide you to purchase some "remedy" from them. Snackycakes 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Editor FengShuiExpert does nothing but add external links. I wonder if something can be done about it. --Voidvector 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a browse through the external links and removed those selling products (*most*) and those that dont add anything to the article re: Wikipedia:External links. I also placed spam warnings (see: Wikipedia:Spam) on the pages of users who have been making these changes. MidgleyDJ 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could User:211.228.120.82 please discuss the addition of external links prior to re-adding them to the article. They do not conform to the Wikipedia:External links policy. MidgleyDJ 04:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:218.153.67.107 has also been adding the same links and may be the same user. MidgleyDJ 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Serious article problems -- Cleanup

Let me expand on just the first two sentences to explain why this article is confused and needs serious clean up and citations.

Feng shui (pronounced "fung shway") is the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment. It appears it is also a modern practice. The use of ancient in this context introduces bias. It should state the date of first recorded use instead. The explanation is also unclear and unspecific. It should be struck.

It is environmetal science, or geoscience that studies how the surrounding environments would affect the human life. EnviroMETAL science! Is this a typo or a new science? If it is new it needs an explanation. If it is a typo it makes me wonder how serious the editors have been here - it's a link and no one wonders why it is broken? As an environmental scientist, Feng shui is certainly NOT an environmental science. Even with a reference this would be ludicrous. Strike it. It's a geoscience? Strike it. That's BS too.

It mainly focuses on the study of earth's magnetic-field (magnectic-flow or magnetic-current)and geo-structure in relation to effects to human life. The term "qi""氣" ("energy" or "flow of energy") is most likely referring to the magnetic-current energy, and air-current energy. The literal translation is "wind and water". "Mainly".. "relation to effects"... "most likely" vague weasley words. Try, "The literal translation is "wind and water" ". Leave the paragraphs as that.

This whole intro section is full of misspellings and punctuation mistakes, wildly unsupported claims and general confusion and even repetition. The rest of the article suffers from weasle infiltration (such as Many Westerners ...) It's clean up time soon ..... Candy 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's being cleaned up, but at least I know the subject matter and the source material. 75.80.23.196 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

I am sick of cleaning up this thing only to have the spammers back at it with more crap. 75.80.23.196 cb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.22.54 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the problem here

Once again we get the lowest common denominator from Wikipedia and no real understanding of the subject. Are you guys just going to edit out everything that westerners can't understand, how are people ever going to learn anything? There's more to life than citations yaknow, and dictionaries do not make a language either, they came after the fact. 'Feng Shui is about magnetism', absolutely ridiculous and there it is in the first paragraph. Feng Shui has been around for centuries before magnetism was ever invented by western science. --Chuangzu 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all Chuangzu, hello. Three comments from me.

1. That we are all male (guys). Whether we are or not makes no difference to our comments.

2."Western science" doesn't exist. There is science.

3. Magnetism wasn't invented. It is a property inherent in many materials/objects.

Candy 13:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your discussion title was irrelevant to what you wrote. Stealthymatt 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Changzu, points well taken. The stuff is a mess and I'm trying to get it into shape with relevant citations, explanations, etc. I DO know the material (academic side AND application side), I DO know the woo and skeptic angles ... it's as ridiculous to have someone who doesn't know the material have a go at this as it is to have someone who doesn't know the material have a go at explaining string theory and why it's not Kaluza-Klein. People who don't know the material provide the greatest help when they guide the subject matter experts to explaining better those areas that aren't written well. 75.80.23.196 07:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC) cb 17 May 2007

Changes - proposed: Please comment

I see no one commented on my older statement above about this article being poorly written. Please comment on the following as I am going to slash the intro soon if there is no good defence of it.

The intro seems to be too long. It contains details which are not needed (and if correct should be in the main article).

Feng shui (pronounced "fung shway") is the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment. The literal translation is "wind and water". Feng shui involves the use of geographical, psychological, philosophical, mathematical, aesthetic, and astrological concepts in relation to space and energy flow.[1]

Can anyone explain why it is defined in two differenet ways. Once as placement and arrangement of space and once as space and energy flow?

It is not simply a decorating style, ....

What is the reason for this defense? Has anyone claimed it was? It seems a non sequitir here.

... but a discipline with guidelines compatible with many different techniques of architectural planning.

Very vague. Probably needs removing or heavily supporting.

The source of the term is purported to come from the Burial Book written by Guo Pu (郭璞) in the Jin Dynasty (晉朝). Qi (氣), the energy of the universe, is carried in the wind and retained within water. Both elements were used as a way of directing Qi, thus giving feng shui its name. Wind is said to carry energy or Qi and therefore represents the principle of change and transformation in nature. Water is said to hold energy and therefore represents the principle of stability. When applied to human affairs, wind is also representative of action, fervor, and enthusiasm, whereas water is representative of internal strength, meditative qualities, and psychological power. By relating the holding and dispersing qualities of water and wind in nature to those in human behavior, feng shui also seeks to improve the human condition through the manipulation of physical space in a way that will impact on its corresponding qualities in humans.

Perportedly is a word to be shunned. Needs sourcing. Either way, this should be removed. It doesn't assist in the introduction.

An individual is usually not described as having bad or incorrect feng shui, but since the practice is linked to Qi, a persons energy can either deplete or add to the energy of his or her surroundings. The space can also effect the individual, especially in matters of luck, health, and prosperity. Feng shui is not only a practice that is related to physical space, but also to the inhabitors of the space it self, as both are interconnected.

Yet another defintion!

Feng shui (pronounced "fung shway") is the ancient Chinese practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment. The literal translation is "wind and water".

Maybe this is about the only useful part of the intro imho. Over to you all Candy 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"When applied to human affairs..."

This statement is ridiculous and unnecessary. I'm leaving this part out of the sentence so it will read, "Wind is also representative of action, fervor, and enthusiasm, whereas water is representative of internal strength, meditative qualities, and psychological power."

Also, almost every online introduction to feng shui has had the literal definition "wind and water" in its opening lines. This gets annoying, and it could be moved somewhere else besides the opening paragraph. Stealthymatt 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole thing is garbage. "Wind and water" is shorthand for a particular passage from Guo Pu. Feng Shui has several names, an older one being kanyu. The definitions aren't accurate either. Why not list the three usual names, their shorthand, and the relevant source?

Most of the problems everyone has with the concepts section are because the definitions come from New Agers. Academically, technically, even academic-techy-skeptically, the definitions are precise.

Southern Hemsiphere Feng Shui

What alterations (if necessary) are required to the interpretation of Feng Shui in the southern hemisphere? The equator and plane of the sun in the southern hemisphere are towards the North. When facing the equator the sun rises from the right and sets to the left. The sun also illuminates the North wall of a dwelling. Are Yin and Yang reversed for North and South? What happens to the Bagua directions and elements? Have any books been written specifically for the southern hemisphere? John from Oz 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As you know that the earth is round. So,Anywhere earth can use PaeChul(佩鐵-패철,Bagua) is measure direction. And PoongSooJiRee is compound to "Tomb PoongSooJiRee" (EumTaek:陰宅-음택) and "Residential PoongSooJiRee"(YangTaek:陽宅-양택).

Southern Hemisphere feng shui is a crank concept that was debunked about ten years ago because it's totally at variance with physics (especially the nonconservation of parity) and astronomy (Chinese or anybody else's). But like the Flat Earth Society, some people just can't be bothered with the facts. It might be relevant to add a comment about being debunked in 1998 and a link to the entire series of articles. cb (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PoongSooJiRee - a master´s degree

http://www.cyworld.com/fengshui. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twohana (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Luopan

Would someone like to help me put together an article on the Lo Pan or Luopan (it seems viable to me, IMHO for encyclopedic discourse and hence a new article. I am surprised there isn't one.) Which transliteration is most standard? I figure "luo pan" would be best approximation. Johngagon 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone started a Luopan article at Loupan. If I could change the misspelling I would. cb (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased summary of citations?

I see many pieces of "information" in this article that I would be inclined to question. For the most part, they are referenced by citation, but the source material is not accessible. A prime example: "The hospitality industry has documented the expensive retrofits members must undertake when accommodations were not designed with feng shui principles in mind.[51]"... this is a poor summary. It does not make clear WHY the retrofits "needed" to take place. Was it the lack of feng shui that caused problems due to the "reality" of feng shui, or is it that there's a large enough portion of the clientèle that BELIEVES in feng shui that hotels "need" to keep that in mind in order to stay competitive? Most of the summaries seem to come from a pro-FS POV, and that seems inappropriate to me. Anyone have access to the sources and care to clean up the article? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have cleaned up several times, and sourced appropriately. But the spammers keep putting in their POV. I'm tired of fixing it. 75.80.23.196 cb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.22.54 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Qi

Qi is difficult to explain Qi is not difficult to explain Why is this here? Has someone just added that to mock it?Domsta333 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Qi sounds to me like what I call "air communication" which is the benefit I get from having windows open and getting fresh air. It's a feeling of being full of something positive and being connected to and in communication with the larger world out there beyond one's windows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.139.19.131 (talk) 19:29, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

An amusing idea, but a feeling or perception is not what is intended by the actual term. cb (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental Techniques

Hi--fyi, I have deleted the link and translation of "Bai Zhai" with the "Four Pillars of Destiny." Bai Zhai means 8 Mansions in Chinese and is a FS technique. Bai ZHI is the Four Pillar of Destiny, which is a technique for reading into a person's life destiny, similar to fortune telling, palm reading, etc. (Four Pillars also use the five elements interactions as a principle concept, but for definition purposes, we should not confuse it with feng shui methodologies discussed in this article.) Thanks.Sincere26088 19:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)sincere26088

Gobbledegook

Removed the oxymoron "scientific" from "inexplicable scientific factors" which is simply (imho) a vast perversion of reality.

I am also very concerned about the statement "Chinese often used the celestial pole determined by the pole stars to determine the north-south axis of settlements." As you can't see the southern pole star from China (or previously know Chinese areas of influence or in fact from the northern hemisphere at all) I am bemused by this statement (and then of course the following supporting statements). Could it be that this is incorrect? Candy 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Step outside some night. If you are watching meridian transits you don't need pole stars, you need only decide which marker you want to observe! And thanks to precession there have been a succession of pole stars. Chinese astronomy is very old, and they watched meridian transits among other things. Chinese may have been the ones who first understood precession -- read "From Deluge to Discourse" for starters.

There are some lovely books on Chinese archaeoastronomy that were sourced in the article at one point, and the comments made a whole lot of sense before the spammers got in and mucked up the article. 75.80.23.196 cb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.22.54 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Feng shui in the modern People's Republic of China

I remember reading mainland Chinese antedocal notes that feng shui had been savagely attacked in China after 1949, and particularly during Cultural Revolution where the "abolishment of the Four Olds" listed feng shui as a "feudalistic superstitious practice" to be wiped out. Even today the official Communist attitude towards feng shui is discouragement albeit toleration and HK-produced movies and TV series that promote magical feng shui masters' powers are banned on the mainland. From time to time the "mainstream" (i.e. officially approved) narrative of the PRC is that feng shui is a "feudalistic superstitution" with articles attacking feng shui from the deterministic materialist perspective like such: http://zjc.zjol.com.cn/05zjc/system/2005/01/14/003828695.shtml )

Notwithstanding the current revival after the death of Mao Zedong, current reports show only 35% of PRC Chinese believe in feng shui and perhaps in single digits for urban PRC Chinese, while the figure for HK Chinese and Taiwanese are likely to be at least double that. Should this be added to the history of feng shui? --JNZ 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I searched more about feng shui in China post-1949, and apparently there is a decree in the People's Republic prohibiting registration of feng shui consultation as an occupation, and use of feng shui in advertisement. ( http://blog.csdn.net/taoshilong/archive/2006/04/03/649650.aspx ). The decree is apparently still current circa 2007 and are cases of official Communist authorities forcing feng shui consultants' offices to shut down, such as this one in Qingdao in 2006 ( http://gwzz.blogbus.com/logs/2006/01/1854093.html ). Should we add this into the main article? --JNZ 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was a salary estimate of how much money can be made being a feng shui consultant in relation to the average salary. It wouldn't surprise me if mainland China comes in dead last. I have also heard feng shui can no longer be accurately done in mainland because of simplified Chinese. But I am not sure if this is really true. Benjwong 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been very few literatures on the impact of Simplified Chinese and feng shui, but aren't the feng shui practitioners, when they do it behind the officials' backs, still using Traditional Chinese? I think caligraphy is still done in traditional Chinese. --JNZ 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. Are they? Cause this really applies to a number of similar arts. Supposedly the most basic 木金火水土 was left the same in both format. But what happens once they go two or three levels deep into characters with more strokes? Could this be the reason why so many people outside of HK and Taiwan claims feng shui is BS. Cause the art is already self destructing as we speak. Benjwong 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so, and I personally think feng shui is little more than snake oil and worse. Having said that, though, the Communist means of suppression is not the way to eradicate the superstition. of course this is outside the scope of Wikipedia. --JNZ 03:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You can perform feng shui with a western compass, if you know how to interpret it as a Chinese compass, and without knowing a character of Chinese -- the argument about Chinese characters is moot. cb

Article lead kinda sucks

The lead at this point is pretty much only etymology. After nearly 10 lines of text, I still have no idea what feng shui is or how it's used today. Move the etymology and stuff into the article content as a section. Scott Ritchie 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Universal Positioning

Universal positioning is the practice of orienting oneself with the planet and the universe by facing toward the sky rise (at least at first) which would be facing east if you're at the equator. The sky rise includes the sun rise, moon rise and star rise. In the polar regions the sun more goes in a circle above the horizon. If you're near a pole (north or south) probably also face/orient yourself some toward the other polar hemisphere from yours with it's different stars. Someone near the north pole might face mostly south. Naerer the equator in Miami, FL where I am I face about southeast I do it for example often when I want to think and it could be good for bed/sleeping position too. The sky in the south hemisphere has the best view of the center of our Milky Way galaxy because it can be seen in the direction of the stars known as the constellation of Sagittarius, which are located such that the 25th latitude passes directly beneath them. The 25th latitude is located for example in Australia and Brazil, so in those areas Sagittarius can be seen passing at least close to directly overhead. Sagittarius and the Milky Way are also visible from the southern part of the north hemisphere. The idea of positioning yourself and maybe other things in harmony with the univers seems to me to be similar to what Feng Shui is saying in the part about heaven (astronomical) and earth (geographic) importance. I'd like to try and find a place to include this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.193 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Universal Positioning is out of scope, has nothing to do with feng shui. Should have its own topic most likely. cb (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Art or science?

This article seems to carry a sense of skepticism, based on the idea that there is no scientific basis for feng shui to provide specific positive benefits. However, if it is viewed as an attempt to create a more aesthetically pleasing landscape, then arbitrary rules can be excused as the conventions of an artform. It is difficult to address this question directly, however. For example, what does a source mean if it says that feng shui is "both an art and a science"? Painting is an art and a science, because the color stability of varnishes and the metallurgy of pigments needs to be considered; so is the creation of transgenic mice, where one of many thousands of similar possible genetic constructs is settled upon as the "clearest" way to test a hypothesis.

After all, in America there is an a sort of "feng shui" practiced - a building may not be permitted if it blocks the sun from reaching another, or the view of a lake or even some landmark like a state capitol building. There is also at least rudimentary concern for soundscapes in some places. Americans view this as entirely rational, but an outside observer might think that they denied a building because it blocked the mirage satyrs from reaching the imperial standard. I hope that those familiar with feng shui practice will address the interpretation of art and science for this article in some detail. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A fantastic idea -- sad that so few practitioners can even grasp what you're implying (they are usually not scientifically literate by any stretch of the imagination). That being said, you've given me some ideas and now I have to go off and develop them -- so there will be another reference sometime in the future. Thanks! cb

For Sedonafengshui

You have succumbed to how cranks think, not how writers or editors think! Adding content from your pet theories, favorite commercial websites, and occult and New Age books JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE IMPORTANT, and because this is YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM and HOW YOU MAKE A LIVING shows your total lack of perspective. Including material that only you can appreciate doesn't make this article "neutral" -- it makes it a mess.

You should have some inkling by now that editors will do the best job they can to sort wheat from chaff. They will not permit someone to intermix occult/New Age versions with what can be verified by archaeology and primary sources. It should not shock or outrage you that this is the purpose of Wikipedia. The editors have spent years removing biases and sources like the ones you keep trying to introduce. When you move on, the work will begin again. Until then, anyone who reads the notification at the top of this article knows it's a mess again, and why. cb (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will reiterate, 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 Neutral Point of View article page.

Although the sources I have provided don’t meet with your requirements, they do meet with all of Wikipedia requirements. The work can begin again when we come to consensus as required by Wikipedia.--Sedonafengshui (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not going to ever come to a consensus because of your belief system. For example: the comments by other editors regarding your "Compass School" theory (see this page) refute you. For another: your inability to absorb the technical information regarding geomagnetism. I'm sorry you can't quite understand the how magnets work or grasp right-hand rule in physics and how they apply to your pet theory, but adding your ideas about the compass is condoning scientific illiteracy. Go talk with someone who flies airplanes and ask them about compass swing and how people fly on instruments.

"Neutral" is not what you are striving for. cb (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the “pot is calling the kettle black”. The scientific data is clear. If it is that consensus never comes it will be because you choose to control the information provided to only that which supports your theories. I choose to have all of the information included. The public has the right to have it all.

Again, what is important for this page is that we create an article 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 Neutral Point of View article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC) --216.19.43.241 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "scientific data" is clear, but you aren't seeing it clearly. One read of a good book on geomagnetism and you'd embarrass yourself. I suggest you start with Wallace Hall Campbell's "Earth Magnetism" as it talks about feng shui and the luopan, and it is written plainly enough that I think even you would not misunderstand.

You might also explain your theory to someone who's a pilot (they have to know how to fly by the compass), or a physics professor. You can bet the idea is considered a joke by anyone who knows how to use a Luopan -- primarily because it is obvious you don't know how to use one.

Shall we agree that Wikipedia need not be made to look foolish in this regard?

You want this article to include all sorts of ideas you got from reading your favorite books, but I'm not the only editor to point out their information is flawed. Editors have removed other myths and fairy tales from this article; those you mention have already been removed a few times. You might want to actually read the other editors' comments to learn what they've taken out before. Sure, you could add your favorite content to this article; but at some point an editor is going to notice it is there and remove it -- because the material is flawed, or they've got better sources (primary sources or academic sources). Or it simply contradicts the good sources that are already in the article.

What will you do? Cry "vandalism" or "censorship" yet again, when the editors are only doing their job?

Again, shall we agree that Wikipedia need not be made to look foolish? 76.95.129.132 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep mentioning other editors, however, the greatest percentage of content on this page has been provided by you. As long a Wiki policies and procedures are followed content can and will be added to this page.

The "scientific data" is clear, but YOU aren't seeing it clearly. Just because you disagree with the sources and references (that meet Wiki policies) that I supply does not make the information wrong. You continual objection to including current data from NASA, other scientific organizations and experts in this field make it appear that you have other motives.

This page is for everyone to learn from and not to be dictated by one persons perspective. That is why Wiki has policies and procedures so that content can not be manipulated.

I will reiterate, 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 Neutral Point of View article page. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What's with the red herrings and straw men? Is it that difficult for you to stay on-topic?

You cannot put your little pet theory on this page because it violates Wikipedia policy: you invented it, it benefits your business; those facts are primary, eclipsing the fact that it's pseudoscience. If you -- rather than a whole lot of physicists and earth scientists -- uncovered this earth-shattering truth about the compass (which is used by pilots, ship captains and Boy Scouts among others to navigate the planet), then you should expect it's going to get heavily scrutinized. The same things that affect the compass affect GPS. Should we therefore abandon GPS the same way you advocate we abandon all compasses? Preposterous. And you have no credibility among the science literate for even suggesting your quaint notion, just as your "feng shui" has no credibility because you don't know how to use a Luopan.

For all I care you can quote "Goodnight Moon" to bolster your feng shui belief system, but editors are already at work on the document since the ban on editing was lifted a few days ago. Are you going to keep hollering "vandalism" and "censorship" every time they make an edit for a POV that doesn't address your beliefs and business tactics? That's where your projections about "not one persons [sic] perspective" ring hollow. cb (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you.

The items that I find questionable are unencyclopedic and not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They fail Wikipedia's core content policies:

• Burden of Proof
• No original research (NOR)
• Verifiability
• WP:RS -- reliable sources
• NPOV

Burden of proof is a page on Wikipedia but it is not a content policy. Just because you think that they are unencyclopedic and not acceptable does not make it so 216.19.43.241 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry this was difficult for you. Here is the correct link to burden of proof. You keep mentioning verifiability as your gold standard, so let's look at those requirements a little more closely. "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. ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Please explain how the materials you use as citations -- which aren't "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" -- meet the standard. cb (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the Burden of Proof Page that you cited, below please find the content from that page: "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion."

So the reference you have given is not applicable. Burden of Proof is not a Wikipedia Content Policy: Below please find the three Wikipedia content policies:

No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are neutral point of view (NPOV) and verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

Verifiablity is not my gold standard it is Wikipedias.

If you hope to contribute to Wikipedia this must also be your gold standard for entering content. cb (talk)

The blockquote you posted: "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. ... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." has no reference to Wikipedia and had no validity on this Wikipedia page.

You say the quote "has no reference to Wikipedia and had no validity on this Wikipedia page," but this is in the "Burden of Evidence" section of Verifiability, which you just said is one of the "three content policies" that "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another." You might want to read the article. cb (talk)

I have pasted the the Media:Burden of Evidence from the Wikipedia page: "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] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." 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 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." This segment does mention academic sources where available however, material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

Thank you for quoting again that "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" are "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. There are academic citations in the article -- but you added material that doesn't agree with "usually the most reliable sources." And you didn't follow the "burden of evidence" guidelines: that responsibility "lies with the editor who adds or restores material," and the quote you provided on "where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Why didn't you follow the guidelines you just quoted? cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. This part of the reliable sources policy clearly states that when there is disagreement that all views should be clearly attributed in text. Although our views are different both should be included with verifiable sources as called out by Wikipedia policy.--Sedonafengshui (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This material must be acceptable according to Wikipedia policies, as you keep reminding. There are academic citations in the article -- but you added material that doesn't agree with "usually the most reliable sources," and you didn't follow the guidelines for disagreement between sources. I guess you aren't reading what you keep copying? 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) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Folk Feng Shui"

The section on archaeology has a lot of qualified primary sources. Your edits don't agree with that material, and your source is a book that is not qualified even as a tertiary source. Why didn't you add material from academic sources? Why do you insist on the validity of what Wikipedia deems unacceptable sources?

Folk feng shui has been discussed in many published sources. Academic sources are not required by Wikipedia only verifiable sources. The voice that you choose is not the only voice on the subject. Why do you insist on requiring sources that Wikipedia does not require? --216.19.43.241 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please name three reliable sources that define "folk feng shui" -- and please explain why your sources don't match what archaeologists have found. You still have not explained why you insist on sourcing materials that do not meet Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. cb (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)defines the adjective Folk as 1. Traditional in community - relating to the traditional culture passed down in a community or country.

Quoting the dictionary on "traditional" is irrelevant. I guess you didn't understand I was asking you to cite three reliable sources that use the exact phrase "folk feng shui." cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Publisher: Arkana Book, Author, Sarah Rossback, Title: Feng Shui The Chinese Art of Placement page 7
• Geomancy/Feng Shui Education Organization
• Publisher: Shambala Boston & London Distributed in US by Random House, Inc. Author Eva Wong Title:Feng Shui: The Ancient Wisom of Harmonious Living for Modern Times, Page 13
• Publisher: The Crossing Press, Inc. 2004 Author Cassandra Eason Title: Alchemy at Work: Using the Ancient Arts to enhance Your Work Life, Page 125

My sources do meet Wikipedias Reliable Sources content policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedonafengshui (talk • contribs) 19:46, 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, the "Rossback" book doesn't have a correct or complete citation, and every one of the books are from minor imprints dedicated to New Age/occult subjects. A book from a major publishing company (Harcourt, Black or Elsevier, for example) is typically what is meant by respected publishing houses -- not commercial websites for feng shui (violation of NPOV, Wikipedia:External links and questionable self-publishing sources) and New Age, occult, or religio-spiritual books (at a minimum violating NPOV and 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). Which sources use the exact phrase "folk feng shui" and can pass the rules you keep reciting? And if they don't meet the disagreement policy, would you please follow its guidelines to rectify the discrepancies? 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) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Three Schools"

Why do you think there are three schools? Why do you think Shen Dao isn't a school? I challenge you to take the techniques listed in the article and categorize them according to your "school" system, and justify your choices.

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) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, no red herrings: Why do you think there are three schools? Why do you think Shen Dao isn't a school? I challenge you to take the techniques listed in the article and categorize them according to your "school" system, and justify your choices. cb (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Below please find sources for each school of feng shui that I have identified. As I wrote before if you feel that there are more schools that should be included submit your sources for inclusion in this discussion. I did not say that Shen Doa was not a school but if you think so please provide your sources for inclusion in the discussion.

Form (Landscape) School:

• Form School Feng Shui
• The Different Schools Of Feng Shui
• Introduction to Feng Shui

All of these fall under Wikipedia guidelines for questionable sources. Could you please find sources that meet the criteria you quoted earlier. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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

As you keep repeating, "academic sources where available" and "academic and peer-reviewed publications" are "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available. There are academic sources cited in the article. Wikipedia assumes they are the reliable sources. Your edits to the article don't agree with the academic sources, and you got your information from minor imprints that handle occult, New Age, and religio-spiritual material, plus commercial websites for feng shui. Wikipedia assumes the "most reliable sources" are already in the article. Please explain your insistence on adding material with sources that can't pass NPOV or any of the other policies you keep repeating. Follow the disagreements policy for handling discrepancies. 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) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Sect School

• 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

You 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. There are academic sources cited in the article, and Wikipedia says those are "usually the most reliable sources." Your content doesn't agree with sources Wikipedia assumes are accurate and reliable. Your citations are from minor imprints that handle occult and New Age books -- these are not considered as reliable as works from major publishing houses. Why insist on adding contradictory and unreliable information? cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Different Schools Of Feng Shui
• 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

All of these websites fail Wikipedia verifiability guidelines for questionable sources. Could you please find sources that meet the criteria you quoted earlier, or consider this as having failed the burden of proof policy you quoted earlier. 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) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Compass School I think that you have enough references of your own that classifies Compass Feng Shui is a school. If you do not I will be happy to supply them, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedonafengshui (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the article it says that all forms of traditional feng shui use a compass. This claim is backed up by academic citations, which (quoting Wikipedia) you said were "usually the most reliable sources" for "history, medicine, and science" and should be the primary citation references where they are available." The academic citations don't mention the form-compass dichotomy you insist upon. As you said, the rules are "neutral point of view (NPOV) and verifiability (V)" that "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles." However, the only sources you use to prove your point are commercial websites for feng shui, which violate the NPOV policy and the questionable sources policy (part of verifiability, and the policy against self-published sources.

Wikipedia assumes that because the article has academic citations the article already has accurate information. The material you want to add doesn't agree with what Wikipedia assumes are reliable sources, and your sources aren't assumed to be reliable like academic ones because they don't meet Wikipedia standards . So what is the point of adding this content? If you can't find academic works that prove your claims, or the only "proof" you can muster is New Age/occult paperbacks and commercial interests, you shouldn't be adding the content (see verifiability of exceptional sources):

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Reply:

The title of this page is Feng Shui not Traditional Feng Shui. This page is dedicated to the entire subject of Feng Shui not just Traditional Feng Shui.

--Sedonafengshui (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The "invalidity" of the compass

Why must this content be only on the feng shui page? Why not the geomagnetism page, the north magnetic pole page, the compass page and the Luopan page? And you link to your feng shui business website! The impression is that you are hoping to drive your business by posting this content.

• Spam is unacceptable.
• Original research (excerpts from your unsourced article on the compass) is unacceptable -- all the more because it appears to be an [original synthesis].
• Unsourced ideas from the fringe are unacceptable except in very narrow circumstances, which your usage does not merit.

• First this content does not only have to be on the feng shui page but it has to be on the feng shui in addition to other pages. If you would like to post it on other pages feel free.
• Second I referenced my site so that readers could be more information. I do not have a problem removing the link. But remember that any other links that reference articles of personal attack must be removed.
• Third: please explain spam is unacceptable
• Fourth: I have referenced verifiable sources on the subject of the compass
• Fifth: Who are you to determine what ideas are from the fringe? Please remember that Wikipedia has a code of conduct.--216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I question your motive for only adding it to this page, and the rigor in defying Wikipedia rules to push your agenda. Lapsing into red herrings doesn't help you make your point.
• "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." (from the Guidelines)
• Linking to your business website fails several Wikipedia rules: First, neutral point of view (it is your POV), no original research (you wrote the article from research you did, it is your opinion published on your website); linking to your business along with the submissions violates Wikipedia conflict of interest rules
• Please read the material on spam.
• Fifth is a red herring. Wikipedia's interpretation: "Ideas, individuals, organizations, cultures and movements viewed as marginal or extremist by the mainstream." Feng shui isn't rocket science.

cb (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• My motives in adding content to the Feng Shui page is to include ALL information relative to feng shui not just one point of view. The reader should have all of the information available to read and make their own decisions. You accusation of red herring is misplaced. The content added does not mislead the reader it only informs them. Although I may disagree with some of your content and references I have not deleted them because the reader should see all view points.

You quoted the Wikipedia guidelines earlier: "No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are neutral point of view (NPOV) and verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." Why keep repeating the rules if you aren't interested in following them? cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• When a reader comes to the Feng Shui page they are looking for all the information on Feng Shui. What it is, how it is done, what tools are used, including all view points of feng shui.

Within Wikipedia guidelines most of your content is inadmissible, which should be rather apparent by now. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry you missed my statement in the last reply I will post it here again for your reference: "Second I referenced my site so that readers could have more information. I do not have a problem removing the link. But remember that any other links that reference articles of personal attack must be removed."
• Please read my last reply and item #3 above. My reference to an article that I wrote was intended to educate. If you feel it is inappropriate I will agree to remove the link.

Your "inaccuracy of the compass" material is not acceptable content for Wikipedia. It fails the no original research policy. You published that article on your business website, where you hope to profit from the material -- a clear violation of self-published sources and NPOV. Adding any of that content to Wikipedia, or even hinting about it or linking to it, also violates the no original research policy. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the Geological Survey of the Canadian Government is not a red herring.

Whatever. Your content fails the core Wikipedia policies so it doesn't belong here. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a specific view point that you would like to discuss and come to an agreement on please post it. The repetitive comments and accusations do not get us anywhere --Sedonafengshui (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Red herring; ignored. 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) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #1

I searched on Highwire and Google Scholar. I looked in the encyclopedia. I looked on Wikipedia. I looked at books on the compass, and on geomagnetism. Nowhere except on fringe websites do I find anyone who states flatly that compasses are unusable for the reasons you mention. Where did this idea originate?

---

Again, Who are you to determine what content is on the fringe? The content policy states verifiable sources.

Ad hominem; ignored. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said the compass was unstable that is your word.

Review the content links provided from the Canadian Government, they clearly explain that magnetic north is in constant movement. Your reference to the verifiable source how a compass works shows that the compass needle follows magnetic north.--216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian Geological Survey agrees with the right-hand rule of physics:

At the North Magnetic Pole the Earth's magnetic field is directed vertically downward relative to the Earth's surface. ... The magnetic field is directed downward in the northern hemisphere and upward in the southern hemisphere. This implies that the magnetic pole in the Canadian Arctic is really a "south pole". However, by long custom and because of its geographical location it is called the North Magnetic Pole.

I'm sorry you seem to have missed that page.

And the CGS doesn't back up the claims you make in the article on your website:

• The Inaccuracy of reading degrees on the Compass

This is the title of your article, which at face value says you do not think a compass is a precision instrument.

• The addition or subtraction of the Magnetic Declination to your compass reading will give you a close reading, however, it will not be accurate degree because magnetic north is in constant movement.

This is your opinion (NPOV!) because the CGS doesn't say this. Anyway declination applies primarily to navigation (who does feng shui on a moving building?).

• The constant movement of Magnetic North dilutes the accuracy of reading degrees on a compass. In today’s solar environment, obtaining an accurate reading of your fortune using degrees of the compass is like telling the earth to stand still. This information does not impact interpretations based upon generic directions.

This is your opinion, because the CGS doesn't say this. Morever there's no such thing as "generic directions" (see Wikipedia explanation). Your opinions show that you believe the compass is not stable or a precision instrument, and your opinions are what you are trying to introduce into this Wikipedia article. That violates the NPOV rule, the original research rule, and the conflict of interest rule. cb (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for your reference: In this NASA source below you will see that they also quote the Canadian Geological Survey. Our planet's magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are beginning to understand how it behaves and why. The magnetic field referenced by NASA is directly related to the compass which reads Magnetic North. This content is definitely relative to the practice of Feng Shui. It is scientific. I don't think NASA is on the New Age Fringe. "Considering that ships, planes and Boy Scouts steer by it, Earth's magnetic field is less reliable than you'd think. Rocks in an ancient lava flow in Oregon suggest that for a brief erratic span about 16 million years ago magnetic north shifted as much as 6 degrees per day. After little more than a week, a compass needle would have pointed toward Mexico City. When North Goes South The origin of solar-terrestrial physics is generally traced to Sabine's recognition in 1852 that geomagnetic activity paralleled the recently discovered sunspot cycle. Solar Activity and Geomagnetic Storms: The First 40 Years Adding to the difficulty, the elements of the Earth's magnetic field (declination, horizontal force, vertical force) at any given station exhibit both daily and storm variations that are primarily due to the Sun's ionizing-electromagnetic and corpuscular emissions, respectively. Solar Activity and Geomagnetic Storms: The First 40 Years

"Magnetic declination has a very important influence on air navigation, since most aircraft instruments are still designed to determine headings by locating magnetic north through the use of a compass or similar magnetic device. Charts and databases used for air navigation are usually based on magnetic bearings rather than true bearings, and the constant and significant change in the actual location of magnetic north and local irregularities in the planet's magnetic field require that charts and databases be continually updated to reflect changes in these bearings."Magnetic DeclinationHere are several verifiable sources that answer your questions. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to support your claims about the alleged "inaccuracy" of the compass? You quote a source that refutes you: "Considering that ships, planes and Boy Scouts steer by it..." A compass is accurate enough for ships and planes to use, and for Orienteering Boy Scouts, but not for feng shui? And just how is it possible that a compass works just fine except for feng shui, when it's often the same compass? You have yet to logically explain your premise, but you've made it clear that you are struggling with the science.

Publishing your pet theory in this article violates NPOV and self-published sources. Incorporating any content here -- even the basic idea behind your pet theory -- violates the no original research policy. cb (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

This is no pet theory is is fact as determined by NASA and the Geological Survey of Canada

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) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #2

Consider Suunto and Silva. If the compass is useless as a precision instrument, why is there a multibillion-dollar global compass industry?

---

I never said that the compass is useless as a precision instrument. The only edit that is on the site around this subject is the reference to how the compass is used in feng shui. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are conflicting. The title of your original writing, and its claims, clearly indicate that you believe the compass is not stable or a precision instrument, and your opinions are what you are trying to introduce into this Wikipedia article. Any one compass works like any other, whether it's a Brunton Universal or a zhinan zhen. Anyone can use a modern compass (like a Suunto) for feng shui, if they know how to convert the readings to the Chinese system. You still haven't answered the question. Your opinions do not belong in a Wikipedia article. cb (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will state again because it appears that you did not see this in my last reply. I never said that the compass is useless as a precision instrument. This is your opinion of my edits. I have addressed this issue in your first challenge. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the material you hoped would support your pet theory agrees with your conclusions. You can't even find a source that says a compass is inaccurate, though that is the title of your article and your primary claim. You quote a source that refutes your premise! You have failed to answer why a compass is accurate enough for ships and planes to use, and for Orienteering Boy Scouts, but is "inaccurate" for feng shui. But that is beside the point. The point is that this material is not appropriate for Wikipedia because it violates core values and 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) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #3

According to the right-hand rule in physics, the north magnetic pole of Earth is at the south geographic pole. It's just a convention to call the geographic north pole the geomagnetic north pole. This is well stated in the article for the north magnetic pole on Wikipedia, if you'd care to read it. A compass aligns to the local geomagnetic field, which varies in a complex manner over the Earth's surface, as well as over time. (Quoted from the same article.) Because a compass indicates local magnetic field intensity and dip, I'd like you to explain how the compass is invalid due to fluctuations in the magnetic pole in the northern hemisphere. Then please explain why you believe traditional feng shui use of the compass is at variance with what science knows about how a compass works. cb (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Review the content links provided from the Canadian Government, they clearly explain that magnetic north is in constant movement, it's location and it's movement in that location. Your reference to the verifiable source how a compass works shows that the compass needle follows magnetic north. We don't need to argue about this the content speaks for itself and the reader can make their own decision as long as the content is not censored. This is not about who is right. It is about providing verifiable content for the reader to digest. Just because you come from one point of view does not mean that this is wrong. Please remember that there is a neutral point of view policy on Wikipedia --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian Geological Survey agrees with the right-hand rule of physics:

At the North Magnetic Pole the Earth's magnetic field is directed vertically downward relative to the Earth's surface. ... The magnetic field is directed downward in the northern hemisphere and upward in the southern hemisphere. This implies that the magnetic pole in the Canadian Arctic is really a "south pole". However, by long custom and because of its geographical location it is called the North Magnetic Pole.

If this is truly about "providing verifiable content for the reader to digest," your own contributions failed that test. Your conclusions do not agree with the only reliable source you quote, and you are trying to insert your opinions into a Wikipedia article. cb (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for your reference: In this NASA source below you will see that they also quote the Canadian Geological Survey. Our planet's magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are beginning to understand how it behaves and why.NASA] The magnetic field referenced by NASA is directly related to the compass which reads Magnetic North. This content is definitely relative to the practice and information on Feng Shui. It is scientific. I don't think NASA is on the New Age Fringe. "Considering that ships, planes and Boy Scouts steer by it, Earth's magnetic field is less reliable than you'd think. Rocks in an ancient lava flow in Oregon suggest that for a brief erratic span about 16 million years ago magnetic north shifted as much as 6 degrees per day. After little more than a week, a compass needle would have pointed toward Mexico City." When North Goes South ... Here are several verifiable sources that answer your questions. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be struggling to understand the science and that's why you keep throwing in material that is off-topic. Wallace Campbell of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says, "The northward-pointing pole has been named the magnet's north pole. That means the Earth's pole in the northern Arctic region is really a magnet's south pole because it attracts the compass magnet's north pole. But if it were given that name, there would be even greater confusion." (Wallace Hall Campbell: Earth Magnetism: a Guide Tour Through Magnetic Fields. Harcourt Academic Press, 2000; page 3.) He also says, "The strongest part of geomagnetic fields varies so slowly over the years that we call it the main or steady field. ...Stronger fields seem to be generated by sources that are spread over greater distances. ...what we measure with our field instruments is a summation of all the natural fields that are at the place of measurement." (page 12). On page 23: "...our measurements of the principal field that moves our compass needles, the main field of the Earth's surface, is actually a summation of a field from sources inside the solid Earth and another field that is caused by field sources away from Earth's surface. ... Natural currents, flowing in the Earth's surrounding space, are a major source of variations observed in the surface measurements of magnetic field. These external fields induce currents to flow in both the conducting Earth and in man-made conductors such as storage tanks, pipelines, and electricity transmission lines."

As you can see, a compass isn't pointing at a pole per se, it is indicating local magnetic field intensity and dip. That's why the fields vary with latitude, especially in auroral zones and at the equator. Going on about declination, etc., and the wandering north pole (which compasses don't point to, anyway) shows you aren't quite understanding what you are claiming and why your sources aren't agreeing with you -- like the "Considering that ships, planes and Boy Scouts," which refutes your premise about the compass being "inaccurate" for feng shui but nothing else.

This compass idea of yours violates NPOV and self-published sources. Incorporating any content here -- even the basic idea behind your pet theory -- violates the no original research policy. If you want to call it censorship, take it up with the Board. 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) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #4

Airport runways are generally numbered according to their magnetic heading (the takeoff direction it is "pointing towards"). The runway number is the whole number nearest one-tenth the magnetic azimuth of the centerline of the runway, measured clockwise from the magnetic north. You say the compass can't be trusted for degree readings. How do you explain the presence of the compass in the design of airport runways? cb (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

First I do not have to explain the design of airport runways. Again this is not about who is right or wrong. If you want my thoughts I am happy to give them to you but that is irrelevant because they do not apply to content policy. Again, content policy only requires a verifiable source. For your information here is my thought on this subject. Please re-read the content I added about how a feng shui compass is used. The important element here is that using the 24 directions requires the compass reading to be exact to the degree because the dial is broken up into 24 segments. The only thing that divides each segment is a degree. If magnetic north is in constant movement and the compass needle follows magnetic north, how can the compass be accurate to the single degree? This does not make the compass unusable or unstable for use when finding a generic direction but when you must find a specific degree it is in question. The content references from the Canadian Government are relevant to the subject of feng shui compass school and how a compass is used in Feng Shui. The reader can make their own conclusion. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more the red herrings! It's obvious you will not provide sufficient logical arguments to defend your submissions. Because this is your POV, from your article on your commercial feng shui website, it fails Wikipedia guidelines. The conflict of interest also makes the content inadmissible. If you think Wikipedia guidelines are "censorship," please address your concerns to the Board. cb (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reference for Air Navigation and the constant and significant change in the actual location of magnetic north:

since most aircraft instruments are still designed to determine headings by locating magnetic north through the use of a compass or similar magnetic device. Charts and databases used for air navigation are usually based on magnetic bearings rather than true bearings, and the constant and significant change in the actual location of magnetic north and local irregularities in the planet's magnetic field require that charts and databases be continually updated to reflect changes in these bearings. Magnetic Declination Air Navigation

Your material violates NPOV and self-published sources. Incorporating any content here -- even the basic idea behind your pet theory -- violates 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) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)