User talk:Seattle/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi,

You recently deleted my addition to the feng shui article. There is, in fact, no evidence that feng shui does anything. This is a true statement and should be stated clearly, lest people fall prey to "feng shui experts" and be separated uselessly from their money.

Either reinstate my post or produce scientific evidence showing that feng shui is actually beneficial in any way.

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.80.46 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You say it violates non-neutrality. How so? Stating that there is no evidence of feng shui actually having any effect on anything is factual. So please, how is stating the fact that there is no evidence of feng shui working, non-neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.80.46 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misapplying the policy. "Editors... should not promote one particular point of view over another" does not imply that facts should be ignored (which is the case, in fact, with your edit). Can you point to one scientific study that indicates feng shui does anything? There are none and as such my edit should be allowed. Please tell me what particular view I am supporting? I am not stating that people should disavow feng shui, I am just stating the fact that there are no studies indicating its efficacy (indeed, to support a view point, I would instead say feng shui is useless, which it is, but I am not going to add that to the article - the article is already biased towards an absurd belief in feng shui).

Again, can you point to one scientific study that indicates feng shui has any effect?

++++ I do think you're wrong again in terms of the Wikipedia:No original research rule. This is in fact the antithesis of original research. You may point to Wikipedia:Verifiability; however, the statement that I included is not likely to be challenged since there is no evidence of feng shui being useful. If you disagree, I'd also suggest deleting Chiropractic controversy and criticism - we both know that's hokum too but we also know it's impossible to prove the negative.

I am disappointed in your attitude. You appear to subscribe to the belief that the onus is on disbelievers to prove the negative (which is almost always impossible) rather than believers to prove the positive. Moreover, unbiased does not imply giving all sides of an argument equal say, it is about giving all sides equal say for their merit. There is absolutely no merit to feng shui empirically. This - and people that share your attitude - is why I don't edit on wikipedia (or trust it as a source). The same goes for CNN though :P

Sure; I'll take a look over Jackson. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish edit something on occult topics. Could there be any problems& smth? For example makin' some expansion of Alastair Crowley page. Also I edit Russian Wike, so is there some difference between two parts of Wiki?--Gaulish 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Gaulish