Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taijitu

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taijitu

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

This article is a POV fork meant to advance a fringe theory about the importance of Roman iconography to taoist symbolism. The pertinent information about the taijitu largely duplicates information on Yin and yang and Taiji and should be merged into Taiji; the remainder should be discarded Ludwigs2 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History: This page was originally created back in 2003, but was variously a stub or redirect until january of 2009 [1] when it was expanded specifically to move material about Roman shield designs off of the Yin and Yang page (since they clearly had nothing to do with Taoist philosophy). Since then this page has been little more than an ever-expanding coverage of the work of a single author named Monastra who drew speculative conclusions about the visual similarities of a few Roman shield markings and the Taoist symbol. The argument has no academic support - not even Monastra is willing to make an affirmative statement that there is a relationship - and is not an established idea in any academic discipline or in popular culture. --Ludwigs2 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and reassert as redirect: Non-notable topic, with no academic support. --Ludwigs2 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ludwigs already cast his !vote to delete as the nominator. Warrah (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and immediate closure of AfD: Nonsensical request. There is an article on the swastika symbol, as separate from Buddhist philosophy, so why not one on the yin and yang symbol as distinct from Taoist philosophy? The problem rather is that Ludwigs cannot accept the fact that the yin and yang is, as much as the swastika, an international symbol used by a variety of cultures, not just Chinese Taoism. Actually, Ludwigs is a cannon on the loose who has been now working for over year to exclude all non-Taoist material from the page. The stratagema behind his AfD is clear: He wants to reintegrate the symbol back into the philosophy article so that he can remove there the ancient European symbolism on the grounds of WP:Undue. That is a lame childish game.

The irony is that he himself was enthusiastic of and instrumental in forking off the article on the symbol from the article on the philosophical concept in the first place. Quote: "That actually sounds like a very good idea; I have no idea why it didn't occur to me before. If GPM approves, I'd go for that" --Ludwigs2 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC). That he wants now his own action to be undone shows how strong he works and misuses Wikipedia guidelines to push his own agenda. He reverts wholesale material even though the inclusion of the European yin yang have found support in a RFC.

In the course of our dispute - throughout which the said user failed to contribute even a single noteworthy addition - I discovered more and more scholarly ressources from specialized scholarship which explicitly refer to Celtic, Etruscan and Roman yin yang symbols. Right now, there are 17 scholarly references in four different languages about these ancient diagrams. I could (and will) add more. There are discussion of 1 to 3 pages length explicitly discussing the yin yang in non-Taoist contexts. Cf., for example, L'art Celtique de la Periode D'expansion, pp. 62-64.

The inescapable conclusion is that we are dealing in fact here with a quite sizable corpus of scholarship about the occurrence of yin yang symbols in ancient European cultures. This needs to remain included in the article if it is meant to present a world-wide view which has always been one of Wikipedia main objectives. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now 20 scholarly references to Roman, Celtic and Etruscans yin yangs. I am working now to include pictorial material of Celtic yin yang symbols but this may take some time since copyright issues have to be settled first. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do review GPM's sources carefully. You'll find that almost all refer to a visual similarity between patterns in a 15th century manuscript of Roman shield markings (just three markings from one page out of assumedly dozens of different shield patterns) and the Chinese taijitu. None of them claim that the shield markings are taijitu; none of them claim that the Romans called the shield markings taijitu; none of them claim any scholarly connection between the Roman shield markings and the Chinese symbol. Not even Monastra claims that - he simply offers it as an 'intriguing possibility'. Some of these sources are google searches, one is a footnote in a museum journal... I've only once seen a clearer example of wp:synthesis, and that one was no where near as outrageous as this one. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been going around in circles for one year because of your persistent inability to understand one simple thing: the graphic sign which today goes by the name taijitu or yin and yang is a symbol variants of which have existed in numerous cultures. Just because its current name is of Chinese origin, does not mean that the Taoist symbol has some precedence to the point that all other sign uses have to be excluded. That, however, is your own thoroughly private POV position and has in fact led to all your fuss about the article. Scholars and people alike in fact refer to these non-Chinese signs as "yin and yang" exactly because of the close visual parallels. You have as yet failed to provide a single scholarly reference which rejects the identification of the Celtic and Roman symbols as yin yang.

Just compare the swastika article. The Indian name notwithstanding, the article discusses all sign uses in various epochs, cutltures and countries in chronological sequence. So should the taijutu article. I have given a more detailed rationale for some of the main sources here. Since then, a dozen or more have been added. They speak for themselves. This Afd should be closed immediately, being completely insubstantial. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it differently: the most recognized form of the taijitu or yin yang is a symbol which consists of a pair of inverted commata revolving in an enclose circle with or without two dots. Since the Roman and Celtic conform to this visual pattern, they are accordingly referred to by scholarship as "yin yang" or taijitu. And since the scope of Taijitu is the graphical symbol (not the philosophy which it represents!), it warrants the inclusion of the Roman and Celtic variants there. To point to the use of the yin yang pattern in different cultural traditions has nothing to do with synthesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gun Powder. It seems clear that the symbol exists and it is notable also in non-Taoist contexts. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Both Ludwigs2 and Gun Powder Ma make some good points. The article should be kept. It can be fixed. PYRRHON talk 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and reliably sourced. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just pro forma: have you looked at these sources? I mean, from my view there is not doubt that this is synthesis from a bunch of very weak, non-competent sources. If this article falls in the 'who the fuck cares' category, then I'm happy to abandon it (except that I will continue to remove the consistent attempts to GPM to refer to Roman shield markings as Tiajitu - that's a complete fabrication with no basis in historical research). but it does irk me a bit to see this kind of nonsense legitimized. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You still do not understand. The Roman shield markings, just as the Celtic symbols, are referred to as yin yang because of their similar visual pattern, not any intrinsic relationship with the Taoist philosophy. The use of swastika as a symbol by religions and ideologies as diverse as Buddhism, Hinduism and Nazism is discussed within one and the same article, so why can't we discuss the use of the taijitu as a symbol by cultures as diverse as the Celts, Romans and Chinese within the same article? Your stance to retain the Chinese material at the exclusion of all other traditions is pure POV and actually quite a bit presumptuous. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you as a rule, except that (a) no one does that except for a small contingent of non-authoritative scholars, and (b) the way you use these minor sources consistently implies that the chinese taoist symbol comes from an early Roman symbol called a taijitu. Now, if you made it clear that:

the Romans (and celts) didn't call it a taijitu,
there is no scholarly, historical, anecdotal, or other connection between the Roman shield patterns and the later taoist symbol
The symbol is primarily and overwhelmingly known for its reference to the taoist symbol (and the Roman shield patterns are entirely incidental to that use)

Then we wouldn't have a problem. however, when I try to make those changes or argue these points to keep the article focused on the prominent use of the symbol, you revert it and reassert the roman usage as though it were primary. why do you do that? do you disagree with these three points?

I'll tell you frankly - I nominated this article for deletion explicitly to get feedback from uninvolved editors - RfC didn't work, personal requests didn't work, I couldn't get anyone else to look at the stupid page, and I am sick to death of arguing with you by myself, because you bitch and you moan and you scream but never respond to a damned thing I say. If you'd get out of your own fucking head and talk to me like a normal person we wouldn't have this problem. get it? --Ludwigs2 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion policy states "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Ludwigs2 has admitted that he is using this application-for-deletion to circumvent the outcome of a Request for Comment. In other words, he is using the deletion-process to overcome his setback in the dispute-resolution process. Using the deletion-process in this way is blatantly inappropriate and deserves censure. I suggest that Ludwigs2 make amends by apologizing to each of the learned and distinguished editors here for his tiresome misbehavior.

I have posted a comment at Talk:Taijitu about how the article might be fixed. PYRRHON talk 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gun Powder Ma—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-Philosophical importance of the iconography. Sadads (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.