Difference between revisions of "Talk:Yin and Yang"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Blackjuice (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This page is very New Age-y. It's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia, really. It also appears that the original writer of the piece doesn't know too much about pre-modern Chinese science or Daojiao - and definitely not Daojia. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 05:52, 4 June 2007 (EDT) | This page is very New Age-y. It's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia, really. It also appears that the original writer of the piece doesn't know too much about pre-modern Chinese science or Daojiao - and definitely not Daojia. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 05:52, 4 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : In response to your comments: One of the originators of this article was Aschlafly. Since this project (Conservapedia) is his creation, I would defer to his judgement for what is appropriate. Your edits seem confusing, I am reverting because I believe the prior wording was more concise, clearer. It isn't really necessary to go into "pre-modern Chinese science" to define yin and yang - maybe that should be an article by itself? Also, Taoism/Daoism are interchangable terms, either are acceptable. --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 13:15, 4 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:15, June 4, 2007
Minor edit to remove the link to "Qi" page. The "Qi" page currently talks about a British Television show and has nothing to do with Yin & Yang. --Taj 17:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
This page is very New Age-y. It's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia, really. It also appears that the original writer of the piece doesn't know too much about pre-modern Chinese science or Daojiao - and definitely not Daojia. Blackjuice 05:52, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
- In response to your comments: One of the originators of this article was Aschlafly. Since this project (Conservapedia) is his creation, I would defer to his judgement for what is appropriate. Your edits seem confusing, I am reverting because I believe the prior wording was more concise, clearer. It isn't really necessary to go into "pre-modern Chinese science" to define yin and yang - maybe that should be an article by itself? Also, Taoism/Daoism are interchangable terms, either are acceptable. --Taj 13:15, 4 June 2007 (EDT)