Jump to content

Talk:Yin and yang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

I've removed a link that seems to be plain old advertising: I saw a bit of content on the linked site that seemed generally informational (though I can't speak to its real relevance to this page or to the subject of qigong), but it all seemed to be leading you toward signing up for some workshops and/or buying some products. (Any site whose front page has "before" and "after" pictures . . .)

From what I've seen of Wikipedia and read on the help pages, I get the pretty clear impression that this is not the sort of thing that should be here. Apologies if I'm dead wrong.Iralith 22:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yin and yang chart

[edit]

I think it would be be helpful to add a chart showing various qualities that the yin and yang represent (for example: masculine in one column and feminine in the other) 2600:1700:5D50:CF80:F1E9:E84F:BA03:27C6 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be justified in sources, perhaps reflecting a chart already in an academic publication. We can't just arrange whatever information we want to give it whatever prominent presentation we want. Remsense 17:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italics for Chinese words

[edit]

Some words like taiji and qi are italicised in the article, whilst daoyin and qigong are not italicised. What is the overall guidance for the italicisation of Chinese-based terminology? 66.215.184.32 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same advice as with loanwords and non-English terminology in general: MOS:FORITA. Generally, I try to stick with what the article for the term is doing if it's at all sensical. Specifically here, qi should obviously not be italicised (I've fixed it on so many articles, so I just assumed I did at some point on this one); qigong probably shouldn't be either, as it's seen considerable English-language use. Taiji and daoyin have not imo, and should be italicised. Remsense ‥  06:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

The article has a lot of original research as indicated by the tags with "citation needed" written on them. Unless the tagged contents ever get verified, their authenticity and presence in the article are in question. 47.156.99.53 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all implicit in the existence of the 'cite needed' tags. Are you proposing something - perhaps to do the research and find the citations to verify the content? There are a great many of the tags, which means it's a lot of work for editors to sift through and verify. I'm generally a 'deletionist' WRT unsourced content that's been tagged for a long time, but in this case, there I don't see glaring issues with most of the entries as far as I can tell. I have limited time to devote to researching the matter, as do most editors. If you'd like to put in the work to clear the tags, by all means do so. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]