Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 27 December 2020

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feng shui article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feng shui article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Southern California/Ecological Factors in Design (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Request for rewrite and question about neutrality, moved from a template in the article

The following text was added in a rewrite template on the article itself by Aethelwolf Emsworth, but I believe it belongs on the talk page, especially since it also addresses the question about neutrality which has also been raised by the same editor. I am not endorsing this text, in fact I disagree with some of it, but I'm moving it here to make it possible to discuss the subject. --bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"The article is POV and mostly unsourced. First of all, feng shui is neither "metaphysics" (literally belief in transcendental things) nor "mysticism" (literally unspeakable knowledge), and these two definitions in the first lines are unsourced. Secondly, the emphasis on the definition of The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience and the skeptic movement in the lede is totally undue weight given to a specific viewpoint (so, POV to Misplaced Pages standards). Thirdly, all throughout the body of the text there continue to be entirely unsourced sections, and many of them provide wrong and superficial (and Western) interpretations of the philosophy and craft of feng shui. Ultimately, this article is very confusing and needs to be thoroughly rewritten according to academic Sinological sources."

The 'Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience' quote definitely needs to be in the lede. It's not POV by Misplaced Pages standards to reflect the consensus of physical scientists as fact - indeed, it would be POV for us to do otherwise. When science says that something is complete bunk, it's important for us to say so, and to be up front in doing so in the lede.

He might be right in saying that feng shui isn't metaphysics or mysticism; I'm not sure either of them are ideal, and it would be good to see an alternative word proposed and discussed.

I agree that more and better sourcing would be good; I'd like to see more sources from reliable physical sciences publications introduced to discuss whether any of the concepts discussed are detectable in any way. Sinology/sinological sources might be good to discuss philosophy, history and cultural relevance.Girth Summit (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Feng Shui is not part of the atheistic, mechanistic world view so the opinion of such persons is bunk when it comes to this topic. Their opinion is of zero value.You can of course include it. But as soon I see such unqualified opinions of people who know nothing of the subject pontificating on topics beyond their expertise I reject them. But go ahead.124.123.104.44 (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, feng shui is fundamentally a religious cosmology, and it should be treated as such. The opinion of the Skeptic Encyclopedia and the Skeptical movement is totally out of place and unduly emphasised. If you think it is not, then add the same "warning: the Skeptical movement thinks that it simply does not exist" to other articles about religious and spiritual cosmologies and ideas, starting from "Holy Spirit".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Aethelwolf Emsworth that feng shui is fundamentally a religious cosmology but also agree that in recent years it has been turned into a fad and a thing of commerce. Both elements need to be represented in the lede, but only in proportion.

I replaced the paraphrase with a quote and removed Note #3, -- Michael Shermer. The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 111–112. -- which appears to be mistaken second reference to the same article in note #2. There is no page 111-112 in Volume Two of the Skeptic Encyclopedia, while those pages in Volume One are in the Feng Shui article (here). I changed the dead url to a live one to the Google Book and corrected the reference.

I also removed the quote from a blog, since a blog is not a Reliable Source.

Cheers! ch (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Skeptoid is actually a useful source for a skeptical viewpoint and addressing WP:PARITY. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#skeptoid.com. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion, but no consensus was reached to allow an exception to the general policy that blogs are not reliable sources. In fact, the article Pseudoscience that was the subject of the discussion does not use that source or Brian Dunning, so any consensus was against its use.

In any case, the valid point that the claims of feng shui cannot be scientifically replicated should be in due proportion. The skeptical view takes somewhat short of half the space in the present lead, that is 125 of 279 substantive words. Brian Dunning's quote is polemical and not needed, the characterization of it as

I will cut the Skeptoid material in a few days if nobody opbjects.

Comparing this to other articles concerning spiritual belief, we see no mention at all of scientific disproof in Virgin birth of Jesus opr Resurrection of Jesus. Selecting topics at random from the Skeptic's Encyclopedia Table of Contents, the lede of Christian Science does not call it pseudoscience, Homeopathy lede strongly condemns;

Witchcraft lede does not mention pseudo-science, but Witchcraft#Concept says that “scientifically... generally believed to lack credence,” with “lack credence” linked to Pseudoscience. This seems a balanced way of representing both sides.

Cheers once again.ch (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear that you read the RSN discussion. There are other discussions, though most simply work from the conclusion that Skeptiod is reliable rather than discuss why. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've requested help at WP:FTN. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please help me to understand what the objection is to the language that was reverted, which represents what was in the sources cited, which the present language does not.

• "Historically and in today's East Asia" This is incontrovertable and sourced in Dunning, Puro, and the article.
• "From these logical foundations, however, feng shui has grown into what one writer calls "a vast and complex tapestry of proto scientific or pseudo scientific theories, fortune-telling, and superstition.” This is a close paraphrase and a direct quote, so what's not to like?
• "In the last half of the twentieth century feng shui became widely popular in the West but also rebutted as a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be replicated." Why remove that Feng Shui became a fad outside China, which is a major section of the article, what Dunning says, and that its claims have been rebutted. Again, please explain what's wrong with this.
• "it is considered by the scientific community...." I don't see this in Dunning, which is not an RS in any case. As he does not refer to any sources he would be simply asserting an opinion even if he had said it.

Is our difference that I want to recognize the historic place of feng shui in East Asian spiritual practice just as I do the concept of the Virgin Birth or Christian Science in Western spirituality? From the start I have agreed that the article should state that it is not scientific, which is not the same as saying it is bunkum.

I read through the entire discussion on Dunning at RSN and found no consensus. The Pseudoscience article does not cite Skeptoid.

Finally, the Fringe Theory noticeboard is not the appropriate forum because it prejudges that Feng Shui is fringe theory rather than Daoist spiritual practice.

Cheers once more! ch (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Feng Shui has an obvious pseudoscience aspect and as expected the relevant sources say so too, so WP:FT/N is appropriate as our core policy and guidelines apply here. Any attempt to get religion on the table to be used as some kind of ward against this would be problematic. Editors should remember this discretionary sanctions apply here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Misplaced Pages should state that its mission is to promote atheism and a mechanistic world view by suppressing other povs or putting them in a dim light.124.123.104.44 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Virgin Birth has mythical readings with no practical effect on modern life. Most Christians who believe in it wouldn't even try to argue that it wasn't outside the laws of nature (and so unscientific). Christian Science's faith healing can very easily be labelled pseudoscientific (especially when they were hardcore about "nope, don't need hospitals"). Young Earth Creationism is pseudoscience. Internal consistency (i.e. "logic") doesn't mean that something's not pseudoscience, either.

Witchcraft is a broad enough category that it is legitimately hard to label all of it as pseudoscience. "If I perform this magic spell with no mechanical connection to the desired result, I will still achieve that result" would certainly be (at best) pseudoscientific, but it's really hard to justify labeling "I'm worshiping the Lord and Lady" or "I'm communing with nature spirits for some vague and non-material benefit" as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response that leads me to clarify my thinking. I think that our difference is that I and historians of science do not think that pre-modern science is “pseudo-science” according to the definition at Pseudoscience. In its original context it did not claim to be “science” in the modern sense, which had not yet been invented and could not be confused with it. Chinese science before the modern period is neither Fringe Theory or pseudo-science. We agree that feng shui in the modern west can be called pseudo-science.

At the Fringe Science notice board I strongly objected to the report that I wanted to remove the Dunning reference without including that I actually restored it.

Please answer my above request to say what is wrong with my language above so we can have a fruitful discussion.

Alexbrn: Your admonition is unclear -- which editors do you mean? I do not see any who deny that fengshui has a pseudo-science aspect. What are "discretionary sanctions"? ch (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that premodern science isn't pseudoscience when it stays in the past. Modern Feng Shui practitioners, Chinese or laowai, continue to make scientifically testable claims that do not hold up to scrutiny, based on claims of Qi flow (a variant of long-dismissed Vitalism). There remains an industry for it to this day, and it still dramatically affects architectural practices in China, for reasons other than aesthetics or philosophy but for "health," "luck," and other testable claims.

I'll leave the discretionary sanctions template on your page for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson This is not WP:CIVIL. I have edited neither of the pages mentioned in the template nor have I taken any position but the one you say that you agree with. Remove the template. An apology from you is in order.ch (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@CWH: You asked what discretionary sanctions meant. If you read the template with the assumption of good faith, you'd realize that the template itself is not an action, merely a notification. Unless and until it is settled that there's no reasonable and good-faith way any aspect of Feng Shui could be called pseudoscience, this article does fall under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies -- I think -- but I assumed that a heading "Discretionary sanctions notification" was a notice of discretionary sanctions. If it is not one, please WP:AGF your good self, and remove. It would have been civil to give the link WP:AC/DS rather than give a false impression.

Meanwhile, I will note that civility would also involve answering my question above as to what is objectionable about the language that was removed.ch (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. I also assumed you wouldn't have an unreasonable panic attack over being given the standard introduction.

Your use of civil seems to have very little to do with not being insulting and more to do with me doing what you want. I've stated my position, and it should be very clear how that applies to the phrasing you used. If you did not understand that, I can try to clarify it, but just asking me the same question multiple times is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Willi-willi: As the discussion above indicates, there is not a consensus for your repeated substitution of "geomancy, is a pseudoscience" with "is a Metaphysical Science". Some editors seem to want to avoid the pseudoscience label but a greater number of editors (including me) see relevance in calling it such rather than the misnomer of "Metaphysical Science", whatever that is. You are at two reversions and I've restored status quo ante. Don't make a third revision against consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

My view is that describing it as a pseudoscience is etic, whereas I think such articles should emic. Vince Calegon (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vince Calegon: This discussion was over almost a year ago. For claims that aren't scientifically testable, being emic is the preferred approach. But being extreme with being etic would destroy any pretense of accuracy when describing things like Alternative medicine, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Young Earth creationism, Climate change denial, or other crackpot ideas that some subcultures use as shibboleths to mark in-members. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Etic explanations are about the function a belief or cultural practice provides as seen from an external viewpoint, emic is about the internal cultural narrative explaining the belief or practice. Calling an aspect of another culture pseudoscience is neither emic nor etic, it is external to the culture, yes, but it is not explanatory. Jergas (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This talk page has been a lesson in dogmatism and intellectual imperialism! 82.15.160.19 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If one were to be wholly objective about something, you would also have to take the subjective elements into consideration. I request from the moderators to remove the definition of fengshui as a pseudoscientific ideology. Fearing the opposite, that is, considering writing of fengshui as a scientific methodology for attaining good luck is not apt either, but one would deny fengshui a few modicums of truth that might be hidden within. For instance, fengshui propagates a clean, minimalist setting inside living rooms. It is purely logical to suggest that in a chaotic setting, a person's psychology and lifestyle are likely to be hindered. A cluttered desk and a tendency to postpone setting the home orderly could influence how an individual performs in one's other activities in life. What fengshui propagates is mindfulness in placing things and organizing one's home. This is a positive character and is more likely to lead to a more resourceful, diligent and engaging way of approaching different facets of life. In order to usefully research a phenomenon, one needs to consider all of its aspects, positive and negative. One needs to study the mindset from which fengshui was born from and what it relied on. Placebo effect has a veritable influence on people. In the scientific research, the prime attitude towards anything is whether it is useful at all. To gain a holistic sight on that, one might need to investigate it from the point of view of the whole humanity or even from an universal POV if one wants to exit the confines of humanity in order to understand something from a larger scale. To properly research fengshui, one needs to cover people of all sorts related to the ideology, seek their motivations and how fengshui is a part of their life. What is its use. If one can describe something without sneering at it or arguing for it excessively (ignoring things the object of reverence is opposed to or distant from), one can say it is looking at these things objectively - having seen both the subjective and objective sides, emically and etically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.27.240 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Christianity and its practices are not considered pseudoscience but Feng Shui is, although it never claimed to be a science. Misplaced Pages has never been a free and neutral encyclopedia and probably never will be. 2804:14C:5BD7:AE55:F07A:C00D:5FFC:80A4 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, proponents of faith healing don't generally claim that what they do is "science" but Misplaced Pages still identifies faith healing as pseudoscience, because that is what it is. --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the term "pseudoscience" has a broadly perceived negative connotation outside of its literal definition. Could we maybe change "pseudoscience" to something more neutral that still conveys it is not backed by rigorous experimentation? We could just call it a "set of spiritual practices" or something similar. I think a number of articles would greatly benefit from taking this stance. Just because something is technically a pseudoscience doesn't mean it's devoid of value, and blatantly declaring it to be such in the very first sentence of your article on it tends to put a sour taste in peoples' mouths about the subject matter. @El C: @2804:14C:5BD7:AE55:F07A:C00D:5FFC:80A4: Fredo699 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute over photograph of Hong Kong building with hole in it

@Ronz:,@Ɱ: Regarding your recent reverts over the caption explaining the hole in the photograph of the building in Hong Kong. I've just read through the source that Ɱ referenced - it actually says that the hole in that particular building is to avoid blocking the views (you need to click on the photo gallery to find this - the part of the article where it talks about 'spirit dragons' is about a different building).

I think that both explanations (Qi and spirit-dragons) seem to be challenged by this source - it might be better to avoid using the photograph altogether on this page, unless more reliable sources can be found to support either suggestion.Girth Summit (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts too, so I removed the image. Seems to violate OR, SOAP, and FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re : Again, OR, SOAP, and FRINGE concerns with the presentation and sources. The blog doesn't appear reliable at all. The Vision Times ref relates local folklore and rumor. The video is a bit iffy, but they did consult with two local experts. Qualifying the caption by saying "allegedly" seems a good approach. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If we use the video (it would be better to find written accounts on the topic), we should be looking at first using the wider context, rather than using it to justify an image and its caption. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting to edit to provide concise clarification as to adhere to Misplaced Pages's Neutral POV

Hi, so I wanted to bring up a proposal to edit some wording in this article. I noticed that on the Vastu Shastra page, the wording is as follows:

"Vastu shastra (vāstu śāstra) is a traditional Indian system of architecture which literally translates to "science of architecture.""

"Vastu Shastras incorporate traditional Hindu and in some cases Buddhist beliefs."

"For example, in Saurastra tradition of temple building found in western states of India, the feminine form, expressions and emotions are depicted in 32 types of Nataka-stri compared to 16 types described in Silpa Prakasa."

I bring up this, though it is related to a different page because I noticed that the wording regarding Feng Shui is not written with the same wording, even though they are both traditional concepts of cultural and religious traditions and beliefs.

It is with my best judgement, unbiased and for the intent for clarification and consistency egarding traditional customs and concepts, that I'm asking for the wording of the Feng Shui article to better reflect a more consistent POV. I do however understand the reasoning for why the editors have chosen certain wordings, but I would love to hear any feedback and hope that you will consider my revision. Examples of the revisions: (taken from past and current edits)

 1. Feng shui (Chinese: 風水, pronounced  (About this soundlisten)), also known as Chinese geomancy, is a traditional practice originating from ancient China, which claims to use energy forces to harmonize individuals with their surrounding environment. The feng shui practice discusses architecture in terms of "invisible forces" that bind the universe, earth, and humanity together, known as qi.

2. "Feng shui (Chinese: 風水, pronounced (About this soundlisten)), also known as Chinese geomancy, is an ancient practice originating from China"

3. " Traditional feng shui instrumentation..."

4. "Historically, feng shui was widely used to orient buildings—often spiritually significant structures.."

Note: I don't personally use Feng Shui, I am just a nerd who loves language and learning

DNocterum (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Vastu Shastra, problems in other articles do not justify repeating those mistakes in this one. I've fixed the problem in that article.

Regarding my best judgement, unbiased -- OMG, that's like bragging "I'm *SOOO* humble." Everyone has biases, which is why we rely on sources and consensus.

Feng shui is based scientifically testable claims -- claims that when tested come up negative. Therefore, it is pseudoscience. Simply being old doesn't mean it gets grandfathered in. We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Feng shui is based scientifically testable claims - such as? What scientifically testable claims does feng shui supposedly make? I will allow the benefit of the doubt until I am shown a specific example(s). It needs to be verified with a traditional Chinese source, too. Why? Because professional pseudoscience hunters make shit up about whatever it is they're 'debunking', and they don't have to verify any claims they make. (Their methods are honestly not much better than REAL pseudoscience conspiracy theorist alt-right folks, or religious charletons). Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am really confused by your agression. I am simply asking to respect the cultural view of the Chinese people. I would propose including "traditional folk practice" or something of the like, regardess of the use of the word pseudoscience, which I understand is the consenus for the modern use of Feng Suai by western people. Either way. 

Regarding my use of the term "my best judgement", this has nothing to do with bragging about humility, so I am not sure where you got the idea that that is what I was trying to portray.

I am hoping we can come to a compromise, that is to include the word or similar term of "tradtional practice". I am not opposing the term pseudoscience, simply proposing a term that will make sure that the reader understands that the practice is one of historical and cultural context. (talk • contribs) 02:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC) DNocterum (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@DNocterum: I don't understand why you're assuming aggression. A traditional folk practice that makes scientifically testable claims that come up false is still pseudoscience. Alchemy, if practiced now, would be pseudoscience. Humorism, if practiced now, would be pseudoscience. Astrology, coming back in popularity, is still pseudoscience. If anything, age makes pseudoscience worse because we've had plenty of time to know better.

If you want to respect Chinese people, expect them to have the same capacity for scientific thinking you'd expect non-Chinese people to have (no more, no less), instead of asking us to downplay the pseudoscientific aspect of Feng Shui just because it's not western. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

All I'm asking is for the inclusion of the phrase "traditional practice" like I said, I don't care if you also put in that it is regarded as pseudoscience, but I am asking that the acticle ALSO contain some type of indicator of the hictoric use. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNocterum (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

FungShui not Fengshui

Please correct this mistake in the English translation, as it is NOT pronounced this way in Chinese ( Mandarin or Cantonese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waarkoola (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! It's not a mistake, it's official Pinyin. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"POV" pushing

@Grandpallama: So you've followed me here too? Alright. Elaborate on your revert? Telsho (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Architecture articles
• Mid-importance Architecture articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles