Talk:Feng shui

Talk:Feng shui
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Feng_shui".

content

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject China (Rated Start-Class)

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

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.

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 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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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:

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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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)

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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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.^[1] 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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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 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)

"Feng shui compasses and geomagnetism"

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

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

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

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

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

Reply:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:

Quotes from the Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

For Sedonafengshui

The burden of proof is on you.

"Folk Feng Shui"

"Three Schools"

The "invalidity" of the compass

Challenge #1

Challenge #2

Challenge #3

Challenge #4

"Feng shui compasses and geomagnetism"

Three Basic Schools of Feng Shui discussion