Talk:Yin and Yang

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)

"Daoism" is the currently accepted form - this is my field of expertise, I promise you. It more accurately reflects pronunciation. The revert would also be a misjudged idea, because the old version was actually incorrect - things do not exist as "either yin or yang". A thing is yin or yang in relation to another thing, not in and of itself. Using the example I used in the edit, a rainy day isn't "yin". It is yin in relation to a sunny day, and yang in relation to a stormy day. And yes, it is necessary to go into pre-modern Chinese science to define yin and yang, in the same way that it is necessary to talk about European science when discussing concepts of gravity and what it is. Should there be an article on Chinese science in the pre-modern period? Yes, but I am probably not the one to begin it, because my expertise is classical Chinese literature, philosophy and history, not technology. I could read up on my Joseph Needham for that if you like, but that's a level of commitment that I'd find quite difficult at the moment. Anyway: It is always tempting for western folk to look at China and Chinese things as a mystical other, and that all things coming from China must be esoteric and hard to comprehend. This article is a product of that, and it won't help anyone. You can keep it as you want to, but in the present form, it is incorrect. The entirety of what I do on this site is the editing of articles on China and Chinese things to ensure that they are factually accurate - because that is what I know. Should Aschafly be able to simply take out things he doesn't know? Of course not, and despite his undoubted wide-ranging knowledge, this article is inaccurate.