Talk:Taijitu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changed Order

Have changed the order of the article since I felt it gave too much precedence to the "Romans invented the taijitu" theory, and most Wikipedia searchers will be expecting to see an article about the Taoist symbol. Also trimmed some extraneous material from the lead which was duplicated in the main body, and added a line (needs expanding upon, if anyone fancies it) about the importance of the symbol in martial arts. Yunshui (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, clearly Gun Powder Ma has a bee in his/her bonnet about the importance of the (unattested) Roman use of the symbol, and has reverted my edits. Looking back over the history of this page, I see this seems to have been a bit of a habit, so rather than enter an edit war, I'm just going to back away. Have fun with your pet theory, Gun Powder. "For conjecture, there is the whole Internet, but Wikipedia is for facts" Yunshui (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the artcile is called Taijitu not Celtic symbolism (or whatever), I agree the Roman evidence is interesting but in the absence of any link between Roamns and the Taoist usage it does not merit the presentation here. Martinlc (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now Been Bold and made some changes. There should be abetter souce than the Italian artcile ?web published if this is indeed a well-known aspect of late Roman art.Martinlc (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am all for balance, but reducing the well-referenced Celtic and Roman part to highlight the Taoist part is the wrong approach. Why don't you expand the Taoist section instead of cutting out well-refenced material?

The Taijitu, just like the Swastika, is a universal symbol and, just as the Sanskrit name Swastika does not establish a prominence of the Indian use in the Wikipedia article, the Chinese name Taijitu should not establish a Taoist preeminence here, either. At least not by removing material related to other cultures. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Taijitu in the Notitia Diginitatum

There have been doubts to include the Celtic and particulary Roman symbols in the article on the grounds a) that the Taijitu should be restricted to Taoist symbolism and b) that these sources referring to the Celtic and Roman Taijitu symbols don't conform to WP standards for reliable sources.

Both is not correct, the criteria of WP:VERIFY and WP:SOURCES are satisfied:

• Contrary to what Martinlc said, the main source, Giovanni Monastra: "The "Yin-Yang" among the Insignia of the Roman Empire?", Sophia, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2000), is not a mere online article, but actually a transcript from a print journal.
• The second source which relates the Chinese and Roman symbols, Helmut Nickel (1991), The Dragon and the Pearl, Metropolitan Museum Journal, is published by the reputable Metropolitan Museum Journal.
• Another dozen reliable sources which do the same can be found here.

All these references make it clear that the Roman and Celtic symbols are actually referred to as Yin and Yang symbol, and they are discussed by the authors in the context of the Taoist symbols. This means, that, just as the Sanskrit name Swastika does not establish a prominence of the Indian use in the Wikipedia article, the Chinese name Taijitu does not establish a Taoist preeminence, either. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Museum article says nothing about Taijutu or Yin and Yang that I could see): could you povide a page reference and a quotation?Martinlc (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The exact page reference is provided in the article. The footnote runs:

Otto Seeck, Notitia Dignitatum (Berlin, 1876). Pamela C. Berger, The Insignia of the Notitia Dignitatum (New York / London, 1981). G. Freibergs, "T'ai-chi," n. 1. The complete title of the work is Notitia dignitatum omnium, tam civilium quam militarium. It is preserved in three 15th- and 16th-century copies (Munich / Paris / Oxford), after the lost 10th-century copy, Codex Spirensis, which probably was done after the original. The connection with the Far East of some of these Late Roman shield designs is made quite obvious by the fact that two of them, Armigeri (Oc. V, 78) and Mauriosismiaci (Oc. V, 118), are unquestionably the East Asian yin-yang diagram.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't spotted that. Martinlc (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The line that "there is no evidence that the symbol or its underlying philosophy was transmitted between cultures" sounds as if some scholar actually has done some - fruitless - research in this direction. But according to Monastra, the main source, the question has been so far simply neglected:

To our knowledge, none of the historians who study ancient Rome, even those attentive to Asian cultural influences like Franz Cumont, has raised this fact, in itself at the very least worthy of interest. ...In fact, scouring the principal literature devoted to cultural relations between Orient and Occident, we found nothing on this subject.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma: please don't start pushing this particular bit of synthesis again. let's look at your sources 1 by 1

1. The Monastra piece:
   • The journal Sophia, while it seems fairly sophisticated, does not seem to be peer reviewed and is by its own mission statement a "journal in the field of traditional studies in the English language". It's a prose journal (not a research journal) that branches out into some philosophical speculation. it is not a reliable source for ancient Chinese or Roman history
   • Monastra's own words at the end of the article say: "All that holds scant interest for the "traditional" angle, given the timeless, transcendent, and universal conception of esoteric knowledge, derived from a Primordial Tradition that irradiated among all peoples, according to the teaching of Guénon, Coomaraswamy, and Evola. But it may form a small puzzle for those in the business of historical and evolutionist orientation. Here, we simply wanted to place the issue in the framework of the data within our acquaintance" showing the even he is not interested in the kind of bold assertions that you are making here, but merely outlining a puzzle.
2. the Metropolitan Museum article
   • this is author is making an offhand comment without scholarly substantiation in a footnote of an article about a 15th century manuscript. does not represent a notable or reliable source for... well... anything.
3. your remaining sources are actually a Google Scholar search for yin yang "notitia dignitatum" which returns 15 hits. By comparison, the search string yin yang "Where's Waldo" returns 7 scholarly hits. Shall we start discussing where to find Waldo in the taijitu diagram? This Google search only reaffirms the idea that the topic is non-notable.

Looking at it carefully in this way, I think we have sufficient grounds to say that the Notitia Digitarium and European uses are drastically overrepresented in the article, and need to be be trimmed back to regain NPOV. Do you have any better sources to offer, or shall I begin doing that? --Ludwigs2 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to make a Wikipedia:POINT. We then agreed to create an article of its own for Taijitu. And just as you were not perfectly happy with some of my edits, I wasn't with some of yours, but kept them nonetheless because I feel looking for common ground is an important part of editing. Your belated attempt now to discard these sources altogether as non-reliable is a bit too transparent. The Journal Sophia looks fine, just as the journal of the Metropolitan Museum is internationally renowned. "Overrepresenting" sounds like your own idiosyncratic concept, not based on any WP guidelines. Rather, it is evident that the Taoist stuff is heavily underrepresented and could actually run for many more paragraphs. Channel your energies there. I for one would like to read more about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

consensus changes as information changes. I didn't look closely at your material earlier (assuming that they were in fact all valid sources), but now that I have I am less sanguine than ever with the prominence European thought has in this article. You have effectively parlayed one unsubstantiated footnote and a lightly referenced speculative article into a prominent disciplinary opinion - this is practically a poster child for wp:synthesis. This point deserves at most a sentence or two near the bottom of the article - I'd be tempted to delete it entirely as a non-notable perspective and move the whole think back to yin and yang, but that might be a little extreme. so let's discuss the best way to revise this to bring the material back into proper NPOV perspective. --Ludwigs2 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple of sources, most notably the eminent medievalist Lynn Townsend White, which should put your qualms to rest. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your attempt to call Roman shield markings 'taijitu' - there is no evidence for or reason to believe they were ever called that by the Romans. aside from that, I don't have that particular book, but I can't see how it might apply to this problem. Professor Townsend specializes in medieval history, and is (I suspect) commenting on the ND. no one is arguing about whether the ND shows shield markings that resemble the Chinese symbol. what we need is some scholarly claim in an appropriate field that is making that connection as a matter of academic research. how do these references you've added do that? --Ludwigs2 23:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. we move the Taoist symbolism section to just after the lead, expand it a bit, and reduce the size of the European symbolism section by 50%. that should put the article back into balance with respect to the topic. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why cut the European section? There are now more reliable and scholarly references than ever stating that the Roman Notitia Dignitatum contains yin and yang symbols which is just another name for the taijitu. 3-4 of them even outright state that these are the very first known instances of these symbols. This means that your last edits actually fall short of what the references say. So what is now exactly your issue? Please put your reasoning on the firm basis of WP guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ - there are no reliable, scholarly sources in that section that relate to the taijitu. at best, you have a set of sources (many with questionable credentials, engaged in speculation rather than research) who claim that the Romans used a symbol similar (but not identical) to the taijitu, only they used it earlier. Anything beyond that is 'Chariots of the Gods' logic (e.g. the Egyptians and the Mayans both built pyramids, therefore they must have been sharing cultural information somehow). Are you going to suggest next that the taijitu symbolizes the alien spaceships that bound the Roman and Chinese cultures together?

also, could you leave the section headings in the edit summary (they look like this - /* Taijitu in the Notitia Diginitatum */ -at the start of the edit box). it makes finding what you wrote much easier. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, what have spaceships to do with it....? I strongly disagree about your judgement on the references. In my view you utterly fail to provide reasons why they don't conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that is why they should not be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required. And even you, who has shown so far only an interest in cutting back the European symbolism section, must acknowledge that exactly this section is by far and away the best referenced in the whole article.

Lynn White himself says that no monograph on the history of the yin and yang symbol, neither the Western nor the Taoist, has yet appeared (p. 12). This means that since WP consensus is that completeness depends on the current state of knowledge, the sources cited in "European symbolism" are very much sufficient for virtue of being the best available. If you still object, please find secondary sources which explicitly state that the European symbols are not the taijitu.

And balancing the article is anyway best done by expanding on the meager and unreferenced Taoist section, here for a start: The Yinyang Symbol. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I missed this longer post when I responded to the shorter one. re: spaceships - see Chariots of the Gods?. note how von Daniken uses correlations between architecture and ideas across widely separated areas of the ancient world to assert a common causal force (alien visitors) who provided mutual knowledge to all. a more extreme version of the argument you're making here, but the same logical error.

with respect to sourcing: reliable sourcing requires sources who are credible with respect to the topic at hand. If there where scholars specializing in ancient Roman and/or ancient Chinese history/philosophy/culture who use anthropological or archeological evidence to demonstrate that the symbols used in Rome somehow migrated to China (or conversely that the symbol originated in China and moved to Rome but was later lost in China) those would constitute valid primary and secondary sources. if there were sufficient secondary sources citing that kind of research that would be proof that the theory is notable. but you have neither - at best you have a handful of people working in literature and antiquities noting that the symbols are similar in form and speculating (without any scientific, historiographic, anthropological, or other kinds of evidence) that there might be some greater connection. If Lynn White says that no no monograph on the history of Yin and Yang exists, that's a pretty definitive sign that the idea may not be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia, and that if it is included it should only have a small, minor footprint.

You can complain about the sourcing on the rest of the article all you like (sourcing can always be improved), but most of the content there is purely descriptive, which has a much lower bar sourcing-wise. You want to advance a position here that is not purely descriptive; that requires conclusions that have to be found in reliable sources. --Ludwigs2 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For my response please see below. But there is one point I have never understood: Why do you constantly think I believe that the Romans symbols were transmitted to the Far East (or vice versa)!? Because nothing in the article actually suggests this conclusion, and it does certainly not reflect my personal opinion. Rather, my personal view is that the so-called yin and yang symbol is as universal and ubiquitous as the swastika, and independent invention occurred in differents periods and regions. But that is only my personal opinion, and the article text, as it is now, is careful not to make any suggestion in either direction (transmission or not), but leaves the question wisely open. Do you have a problem with that? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: For Lynn White, you are wrong and don't seem to care to read the internal links I provided. So, once again, this discussion makes it pretty clear that consensus is that an article is complete if it covers whatever the reliable sources do. Quote User:WhatamIdoing:

It depends on the details, but, speaking generally, if the article covers all of the territory that the reliable sources do, then it is "complete", even if you are left wishing that human knowledge were more advanced than it is....rticles are never incomplete simply because information that a reader would hope (or even expect) to discover there is not yet known. "Contains all the information that can be verified by a reliable source" really is the definition of completeness as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

Therefore, I feel vindicated that the current sources on the Roman taijitu in the Notitia Dignitatum are notable and sufficient. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The kind of reasoning that you quote above is the reason why I haven't been arguing to remove this material entirely. that aside, however, you certainly are pushing some kind of connection. I know this because (a) you consistently try to refer to Roman shield markings as 'taijitu' (which implies that the romans used that term (b) You consistently harp on the fact that the Romans used the symbol first (when in fact time is irrelevant for unconnected events) (c) you complained bitterly when I expanded the bit about other european groups that used the symbol (assumedly because that detracted from the uniqueness of the Roman/Chinese issue), and (d) you consistently push the details of roman shield markings ahead of the taoist meanings, when clearly the taoist meanings of the symbol are far more notable (only a few scholars even know about the ND; the taoist symbol is known across broad sections of the general population). what you have is a minor footnote of the "oh isn't that interesting" variety that you keep trying to magnify to something important. --Ludwigs2 00:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Leonardo Sacco: "Aspetti 'storico-religiosi' del Taoismo (parte seconda)" of 2003, a monograph on Taoism which also deals with the Notitia Dignitatum symbols. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GPM

1. I don't need a link to the word monograph (I know what those are). I need a link to the content of the monograph you're talking about.
2. this source appears to be in Italian (which I don't speak), so I'll need a translation of the appropriate section
3. PLEASE USE SECTION LINKS IN YOUR EDIT SUMMARIES

That being said, simply adding minor, tangential sources without discussion isn't going to help your case. if you cannot provide a reliable source that shows this is a notable topic in the next day or two, I will begin revising the article to reduce the importance of the European section. do you have any objections? --Ludwigs2 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough that the current version of the section European symbolism fully complies with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. You may want to request a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: And I hope you are not preparing an edit war, Mr. Tenacious. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

as I explained, that is not clear at all. and no, I will make the reversions I think necessary, and if you start reverting them I will start a 3O or an RfC and I will get other editors in here to help. I have full confidence that any reasonable editor will understand the extent to which you are inflating the importance of this point, and I cannot imagine any of them agreeing with you. ask people you trust to come and take a look if you don't believe me; this aint rocket science. --Ludwigs2 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

revisions

no response for a couple of days; beginning revisions. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I was clear enough to ask you for valid arguments against the use of the section which you still chose not to bring forward. I kept the reverse chronology (for now). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made my arguments above. the section as you wrote it is improperly sourced, using non-notable and off-topic sources, and it gives an exaggerated importance to what can only be viewed as a minor (if not actually fringe) perspective. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see arguments, only assertions of yours. I have asked you weeks ago to cite proper Wikipedia guildelines for your repeated assertion that the section on European symbolism is given undue weight. You failed and still fail to do that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, read wp:NPOV and wp:reliable sources for a start, particularly the sectionswp:NPOV#Neutral_point_of_view and wp:Reliable_sources#Academic_consensus. then let me point out that there is no academic consensus in any of the disciplines related to this matter that the Roman shield markings have any relationship to Chinese taijitu (your 'sources' consist of one speculative article that points out the possibility of a relationship, a museum journal that points out the visual similarity in a footnote, and a google search that mostly has references to these two articles). since this is an article about the taijitu, I could make a very good case that Roman shield markings have no place here whatsoever; I just happen to think it's an interesting coincidence that's worthy of notice.

Now, I'm reverting again. if you revert back, I will start an RfC, lay out the poverty of the sources that you are working with for others to read, and let other editors point out the errors of your position. do we understand each other?

What took you so long? That's what I already proposed on 22:55, 12 January 2010. I would like to see how other users react on how you condescendingly try to do away with a neutral, balanced and well-referenced section. It is time to make ourselves clear that there is no Taoist ownership of the symbol, but that it was just as ubiquitous as the swastika. PS: Since you are not interested in compromising, I reestablished the old chronology. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion on the talk page of another ubiquitous symbol, the swastika, requested, as this article appears to reflect well on the different cultural and religious uses of the symbol all around the world. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The swastika is ubiquitous, and it has well-documented meanings in India and Germany, and a well-documented relationship between the two usages. and you could have started an RfC yourself, if you are so eager to have it.

whatever, your loss. I'll start the process in a bit. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on European section

A dispute over the weight and sourcing of a section on European symbols similar in form to the yin/yang symbol of Chinese philosophy. 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

History

This article was created out of a similar dispute on yin and yang; the content of a European symbolism section on that article was removed and placed here. Please see the talk page archives of that article if deeper background of the dispute is desired.

Current dispute

trying out a new template - please leave suggestions for improvement on Ludwig2's talk page, or on {{inbrief}}

Reduction of European symbolism section	Retention of European symbolism section
I examined the sourcing that Gun Powder Ma had used for his original justification of this section more closely, and found that it consisted of the following: A speculative article by an author named Monastra in the journal Sophia. Sophia is a prose journal - a "journal in the field of traditional studies in the English language"; it is not (to my knowledge) peer reviewed, and not a journal in any discipline that would relate to ancient Roman or Chinese society or culture. further, Monastra himself sees his article as speculative, saying: "All that holds scant interest for the "traditional" angle, given the timeless, transcendent, and universal conception of esoteric knowledge, derived from a Primordial Tradition that irradiated among all peoples, according to the teaching of Guénon, Coomaraswamy, and Evola. But it may form a small puzzle for those in the business of historical and evolutionist orientation. Here, we simply wanted to place the issue in the framework of the data within our acquaintance." This barely qualifies as a reliable source for the topic, and self-admittedly does not reflect the common understanding of the material in any related discipline A footnote in an article of a journal published by the Metropolitan Museum it's a footnote, for heaven's sake, in an article describing a 15th century manuscript. it is an offhand comment without scholarly substantiation of any sort, in a non-notable publication. A Google Scholar search for yin yang "notitia dignitatum" this search returns 15 hits, most of which are references to the above two publications. By comparison, the search string yin yang "Where's Waldo" returns 7 scholarly hits. On that basis, I decided that the European symbolism section had way too much prominence (per wp:undue) in the article, particularly in its original form here. I cut it back to this which I thought was still excessive, but tolerable. However, the article was repeatedly reverted to the current version. To my mind Gun Powder Ma is trying to magnify what is by all scholarly standards a mere coincidence of form into some kind of argument about a presumed relationship between the Roman Empire and later taoist uses of the symbol, based on incredibly thin sources and a major does of synthesis. I'll leave it up to him to argue his side of the case.	Introduction As far as I understand Ludwigs2 has two issues with the section on the Celtic and Roman symbols, namely the quality of the references and the length of the section as compared to that on the Taoistic version. I will briefly demonstrate that neither criticsm has any basis: 1. Reliable sources First, the Notitia Dignitatum is a late antique/early medieval document of the utmost historical importance. All references to the Roman yin and yang like symbols in this document (footnotes 1-8 in the text) are taken from scholarly books or periodicals, that is they fully comply with WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCES and Wikipedia:No original research. Most importantly, the references cited explicitly refer to the shield patterns as yin and yang symbols respectively their equivalent. Specifically The Journal Sophia looks fine, and the author, Monastra, is cited by other scholarly works. The encyclopedia of Taoism (pp.934-36) explicitly refers to the Roman symbols in a work entirely devoted to Taoism. The credentials of the journal of the internationally renowned Metropolitan Museum in New York are beyond any reasonable doubt. Lynn Townsend White, Jr. is considered undisputably as one of the foremost medievalists of the 20th century. All other references are just as scholarly and do not in any way represent proponents of a "fringe theory" as Ludwig believes. 2. Section length and question of transmission Frankly, Ludwig's stance is quite beyond comprehension. Despite my repeated requests, he failed to cite any Wikipedia guidelines as to why the European symbols were "overrepresented" as he thinks. Rather, it is pretty obvious that the Chinese section is very sketchy and could be much expanded. As for the supposed transmission, the article text makes it crystal-clear that Scholarship is silent on the question of whether the symbol or its underlying philosophy were transmitted between the cultures.[1] No monograph has yet been published on the development history of the yin and yang symbol.[2] In other words, the question has simply not yet been raised, and the article makes clear just that. Conclusion As the swastika, a symbol found in many cultures and periods, modern scholarship amply shows that the yin yang symbol has also historically been an ubiquitous symbol. Therefore, the Roman and Celtic symbols have every reason to be included here, too. To reduce this well-referenced and neutral section on the basis of some supposed preeminence of the Taoist symbol is POV and OR. Rather, the brief and unreferenced section on the Taoist version should be expanded. I endorse this version.
Endorsed by: Ludwigs2	Endorsed by: Gun Powder Ma

--Ludwigs2 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not me dude. It's Gun Powder Ma. You got the wrong guy! — goethean ॐ 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

whoops, made the corrections - totally FUBARed that one. --Ludwigs2 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC discussion

I prefer the version edited by Pmanderson on 22 Dec 2009 (the version by Gun Powder Ma). That version needs some improvement (some consistency in spelling for one thing), but the version is much superior to the version by Ludwigs2. I do not find the complaint about references persuasive. I do not find that the disputed section has too much prominence. Gun Powder Ma is not creating a relationship between the Roman Empire and taoism. PYRRHON  talk   04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I found an explicit reference to the Roman symbols in a work entirely devoted to Taoism. It is, notably, included in a discussion of the history of the Taijitu in the The encyclopedia of Taoism, pp.934-36:

''As for the well-known spiral form of the taiji, called the “fishlike form”, it is not found in the Daozang; it seems to have first appeared in early Ming times and is common in *taiji quan milieux. An intriguing issue is the occurrence of the taiji figure, especially the fishlike one, in Roman emblems dating from the late fourth or early fifth century AD. (Monastra 1998).

In my view, this makes any further discussion of removing contents from the European symbolism section pointless. The Roman symbols are identified as Taijitu and they are notable. Even more, the quote establishes explicitly the temporal precedence of the ND symbols, whereas the most recognized taiji form only appears in China at the time of the Ming dynasty (after 1368). So, we have now finally the material which editors who were concerned with the brevity of the Taoist section, like User:Ludwigs2, can use to expand it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please - it's the same author that made the claim in the earlier, and intriguing issue is hardly a statement of scholarly assertion. I don't blame Monastra for trying to raise this idea and get it considered by other scholars; I do think that you are drastically overreaching the sources here to make a claim that is not a valid scholarly position.

I'll have to bump this discussion a bit - he only person who's responded to it is an editor who's following me around because he's mad at me. that just won't do. --Ludwigs2 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same author. Funny, first you complain about Monastra not being a reliable enough source and now you complain about a reliable scholarly publication like The encyclopedia of Taoism citing Monastra. This gives the term circular reasoning an entire new dimension.

And please don't talk about stalking, you followed me up on the Han vs. Rome deletion thread where you could not refrain - totally off-topic - from referring to our content dispute here. I am quite aware that you are great at stretching debates endlessly over talk pages, your history tells so, but there are now more than enough scholarly sources heaped on your shoulders to consider the case closed - unless you can provide sources to the effect that the Roman symbols were not equivalent to the taijitu. Which you utterly failed so far. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep personal discussions off of article talk space. if you have something to say about me that isn't relevant to the article, use my talk page. --Ludwigs2 06:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The three late Roman taijitu variants in another medieval copy to be added:

• Mauri Osismiaci
• Armigeri
• Thebei

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet another medieval copy in the same manuscript:

• Mauri Osismiaci
• Armigeri
• Thebei

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Added plenty of scholarly material, altogether eight references, about the widespread use of "yin yang" in Celtic iconography. It is now clear that the Yin and Yang pattern has a rich and varied history beyond Taoism which is recognized by modern art historians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

actually, no. none of your references even establish that the European iconography is even notable with respect to the topic (they are all minor primary sources from unrelated fields). There is no evidence that european iconography has any place here at all. --Ludwigs2 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi

Is the pepsi symbol also considered an example of a taijitu symbol?99.163.51.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

sections removed

I've removed references to European iconography per wp:undue. This material has a single scholarly source writing speculative primary work from outside any pertinent academic discipline - it is pure fringe theorizing that has no place on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 17 scholarly references which contradict your POV (plus the pictorial material) and I could add even more. Go edit here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

17 sources, all traceable to the same author and his unsupported theory. but as you like it. rather than fight with you I've nominated the article for deletion. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, if not an outright lie on your part. It is obvious you haven't even read one reference. The material actually comes from four different languages and those authors elaborating on the Celtic usage for the most don't quote those from the Roman one. We are dealing in fact here with a quite sizable corpus of scholarship which refers to Celtic and Roman signs as yin yang. Live with it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the article

A few weeks ago, the thesis of this article was this: Patterns which the Chinese call taijitu appeared in Europe hundreds of years before they appeared in China. (Then, the article was about all kinds of symmetrical patterns.)

Now, the thesis seems to be this: The yin-yang symbol—as speakers of English might know it—is much older than the idea of yin-yang. (Now, the article wants to be about the pattern that resembles the classical Taoist design. The discussion of shields has become inappropriate.)

The change in thesis has made a mess of the article. I suggest the lead be rewritten to correspond with the new thesis, and that the article be rewritten to correspond with the new lead. I suggest the new lead be this:

The design known to speakers of English as the yin-yang symbol is known to the Chinese as an example of the taijitu (Traditional Chinese: ???; Simplified Chinese: ???; Wade-Giles: T'ai Chi T'u; Rough English translation: “diagram of ultimate power”). The yin-yang symbol has an S-shaped line that divides a circle into two equal parts of different colors. The symbol may be the classic Taoist design (pictured here), which is black and white with a black dot upon the white background, and a white dot upon the black background, or the symbol may be some variation of that design. Some variations from the classic Taoist pattern include designs with one color, designs with multiple colors, designs with no dots, and designs with just one dot. The yin-yang symbol appears in Celtic art, in devices of the Western Roman army in Late Antiquity, and in Chinese iconography.

Nothing suggests that the yin-yang symbol had, for the Celts or Romans, anything like the significance it holds for Taoists today. The article must avoid any insinuation that the Celts or Romans designed the symbol to represent the idea of yin-yang. PYRRHON  talk   21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But please only on the strict basis of published scholarship. Unfortunately, you removed exactly those parts:

Scholarship is silent on the question of whether the symbol or its underlying philosophy were transmitted between the cultures. No monograph has yet been published on the development history of the yin and yang symbol.

Unfortunately, yinyang is a concept even more closely associated with Taoist philosophy than the word taijitu - the symbol and the terms are not 'known' to English speakers; they are 'borrowed' from chinese philosophy for use in English. This would be the equivalent of noting that the ancient Hindus used the symbol of a cross with a raised bar 1000+ years before Christianity started using it (true fact). Can I logically conclude, thus, that Hindus were using crucifixes as religious symbols ages before the Christians thought of the idea? --Ludwigs2 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Taoist use of the yin yang symbol is definitely the most important one, but as long as you stretch your premise of a preminence of Taoism to the point that all other uses should be only treated negligibly or even removed altogether, editorial progress will not possible. When there were three sources for non-Taoist uses, you bitched about them. Now there are twenty, and you still bitch no less, even though in all cited sources the non-Chinese symbols were addressed as "yin (and) yang". And after more than a year, you still have not provided not a single scholarly reference which explicitly rejects the view to call the Celtic and Roman symbols like that. But this will be the only thing to strengthen your case, and to impress other editors. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

quantity of sources does not outweigh quality of sources. Only one source here (Monastra) tries to say anything more than "Gee isn't that interesting", and s/he is very careful not to make any authoritative claim that there is anything more than a visual coincidence. I think it's an interesting coincidence too, but there is no academic research showing that the roman shield patterns have any relationship to the taoist symbol. The vast majority of readers (and by vast, I mean something like 99.9% of them) will have encountered the symbol or the word taijitu in the context of taoism, the information they are going to want to know is about the meaning of the symbol (which is entirely taoist), and yet when they get to the page they find an article that is primarily about Roman shield patterns, which is misleading and uninformative. when we moved this page away from taoism I thought it would help balance things out, but instead it's just gotten worse - now a very minor scholar (no offense to Monastra) has implicitly become the leading voice on the taijitu (when, in fact, there's no evidence that s/he is a scholar in any field related to chinese symbolism.

are you seriously telling me that you can't see how overwhelmingly out of proportion this presentation is to the actual impact this idea has on scholarly thought? --Ludwigs2 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You won't listen to me anyway, but you could start recognizing that no-one from the Rfc and Afd has followed your interpretation, either. Can we come to an agreement that, if the Afd of yours fails again to mobilize users sharing your view, you let the section on European iconography in peace? Take a look here, you are alone in your stance. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC to date has attracted two editors who are in disputes with me elsewhere, and one person who (I believe) didn't actually do more than glance at your citations. if I get a decent showing of editors who are otherwise uninvolved (decent meaning three or four) who look at your sources carefully and agree with you, then obviously I'd drop the issue. But I'm not going to take the word of Pyrrhon (who only showed up here because he's angry at me for carrying out a merge and revise on an article he wrote, based on an AfD that I didn't even start). You get 3 or 4 (or more) decent, uninvolved editors who will carefully examine your sources and the issues involved, and I will certainly abide by whatever they decide. will you do the same?

I'll point out, incidentally, that I asked you a question just above, and three questions on the AfD page, which explain my objections to your additions. You failed to answer them. WHy is that? if you have good answers to those questions, that would go a long way to enabling us to work out the problems on this page. if you don't have good answer to them, then maybe it's time you started admitting that there are weight and balance issues here, so that we can address them in a way that satisfies them both. --Ludwigs2 11:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, what is this question of yours? I agree with you that the Taoist use is the most prominent and recognized by far, but I disagree about what this should mean for the article's contents and structure. My view is that if we give the non-Taoist uses, say, 15-25% of the theoretical 100 KB upper limit, then the remaining ca. 80 KB for the Taoist symbol are absolutely enough to give it also 'visually' and 'quantitatively' enough weight. That is a fair balance. You cannot held the European section forever hostage for the Taoist one being only a stub! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon8, what do you think about moving the title to "Yin yang symbol" or "Yin yang (symbol)"? "Yin yang" is really much more common among English-speakers than "taijitu", and such a name change could help point to the broad usage of the term in non-Taoist contexts. Anyway, a change of the tone in the lead is ok for me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You can read the page just as easily as I can - the questions are prominent on both pages (and only 3 or 4 paragraphs up on this page, and bulleted on the AfD page). and this isn't about some theoretical page with percentages applied to each section; this is about an actual page where balance has to be achieved with the given material. I have no problem with creating a proper renditioning of Monastra's idea (even given that I consider it to be a minor fringe theory), however, you need to restrain yourself to presenting the material in a decent balance. you can't hold the page hostage to your demands for more material either.

The page move I'd oppose - the european symbolism has nothing to do with yinyang (which is clearly a concept in chinese philosophy to which the romans have no connection). I'd suggest instead that you move it to theories of Monastra, in which case you could expand the Roman iconography bit to your heart's content. --Ludwigs2 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Gun Powder Ma. Changing the title to "point to the broad usage of the term" sounds like a good idea to me. That being said, I consider this article to be your "baby," and I will support whatever thesis you want to present. My primary concern is that the article should be well written. PYRRHON  talk   19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a good idea. What do you think of creating "Yin yang (symbol)" as a kind of overview article from which we can link to the main articles "Taijitu" and "Taegeuk" for more special uses. The Celtic and Roman usage would be practically exclusively treated in "Yin yang (symbol)", but also the two former ones, though not quite as comprehensively. Thus, we could inlcude all symbols of yin yang shape in one article, with additional separate entries on the Taoist and Korean usage which are dealt with under their specific Chinese and Korean names. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not share the concern of Ludwigs2 with regard to "balance." The balance in the current article seems fine to me. I suggest an article about the Celtic and Roman iconography under the title of Yin yang (symbol) would be inappropriate because the Celts and the Romans had no concept of Yin yang, and the article could be called merely Celt and Roman iconography. While the topic of Taijitu is interesting, I would be wary of putting too much detail on Wikipedia if the information is easily available elsewhere. PYRRHON  talk   19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a terrible article, even by WP standards. The Celtic bit is utter garbage. Where do you people dig this junk out from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.235.176 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not rename to Double spiral (symbol) and be done with it? In Celtic art, for example, it is often referred to as a spiral, and it comes in the varieties single, double and triple.[1] (just for fun, scroll through this, too). --Aryaman (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider that, but I don't think that would satisfy GunPowderMa. This article is an outgrowth of a protracted effort to co-opt the Chinese philosophical symbol as a Roman invention (possibly as part of a long-standing feud with user:teeninvestor who consistently tries to subsume Roman culture to the Chinese). Changing the name to something other than taijitu would lose him the leverage he wants, because he'd no longer be able to say (as he erroneously but consistently does) that the Roman symbols were taijitu. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I don't want to get into any more editor conflicts - I've had my fill of those for the year already. . Another note for the road, though: The same "symbol" appears frequently in Gothic architecture, again, in (at least) three variants. I don't know the technical English terms for them, but the German terms are Zweischneuß, Dreischneuß and Vierschneuß. An example of a Zweischneuß can be found here. Here's one of a Dreischneuß. I'm sure you can imagine what a Vierschneuß looks like. There was some symbolism behind them, but little more than that already behind the numbers 2, 3 and 4 as applied to Christian mythology. (OK, if you really get into Gothic architecture, there's more to be found than that, but it borders on the esoteric.) But linking the Gothic Zweifuß in any way to the Taoist Taijitu comes across to me something like posting this as verified proof of the second coming of Christ. Cheers. --Aryaman (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

don't worry about more conflicts - I'm not in the mood to get hot and bothered about this either, so it will be a very mellow affair no matter what the outcome. and with respect to the symbol - well, yeah: it's a simple geometric figure that's probably occurred in some form in every culture that discovered how to draw circles. The only real point I ever make in this debate is that the only significant referent for the conventional taijitu is Chinese culture and philosophy - that's where people know the symbol from, and 99.9 percent of its usages are going to refer to that. everything else is (at best) an interesting but incidental curiosity. Not that that argument ever gets anywhere, but I do keep trying... --Ludwigs2 01:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archive

I think it would be good to start an archive for the old posts on this talk page... the Tao at code point U+262F is not the eternal Tao...Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll set up Mizsabot to do it. give me a bit... --Ludwigs2 23:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thx!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the issue

The mistakes and opinions here are my own and not those of other editors, but as I see it, this is an article about a visual design element that's quite dissimilar to the earliest extant "diagram of the supreme ultimate".

Later supreme ultimate diagrams, closely resembling the article's subject matter, became immensely popular and today the mature design is recognized as a symbol of "Yin Yang"; the much older Taoist principle that was incorporated into Neo–Confucian cosmology as seen on these diagrams.

It's generally called "the yin–yang symbol" in English regardless of whether it's being used symbolically or stylistically. The name "Taijitu", uncommon in English, would strongly imply a more symbolic sense (consistent with a Chinese cultural context), despite the fact that the word "symbol" is right there in the phrase "yin–yang symbol".

I'm not familiar with the development of the various articles, so I'd like to solicit some feedback on suggesting a name change to something like "Yin–Yang (visual design)", with appropriate redirects for variants of "Yin–Yang symbol" (so they don't conflict with the Yin and yang article), and that "Taijitu" (and variants) should rather be pointed to the Taiji article.

This would, hopefully, alleviate any tension with Taoism by communicating the article's subject more effectively. Also, the article wouldn't then be expected to address Taijitu's earliest representation, its meaning or its popularity; which so eclipse the ancient European design's unknown significance and infrequency.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

First, a matter of perspective: the "visual symbol" is (to my mind) entirely non-notable outside of the context of Chinese culture and philosophy. In fact, the only reason the various non-Chinese designs enter into scholarship at all is because here and there scholars have noticed them and said, effectively, "Hey, those kind of look like the Chinese symbol". I kid you not - the sources used to include Roman, Celtic, and etc symbols in this article are almost entirely casual comments (sometimes in footnotes) that note the resemblance without claiming any relationship. The only exception is the Monastra piece, which is a purely speculative article in a lit-crit journal about a possible relationship in iconography, and even Monastra explicitly notes that there's no evidence backing up the claim.

The problem I have with calling this article 'yin yang' or even 'taijitu' is that both of the terms relate specifically to Chinese philosophy and culture - the Roman shield markings (and etc) cannot be called yinyang symbols or taijitu without implying that the shield markings have some relationship to Chinese culture, something for which there is no scholarly evidence (or even any serious scholarly theories). I am ok with having an article on the Chinese symbol itself that includes material about the other designs (under either name - technically 'taijitu' is the correct term, but 'yinyang symbol' is a well-known colloquial Americanism), it just has to avoid wp:SYN and keep itself in line with wp:UNDUE. All the arguments I've had with Gun Powder Ma have been about synthesis and balance. Frankly, If you tried to create an article that downplayed the chinese use of the symbol, the article would be entirely non-notable.

As a matter of wiki-history, this page was created because GPM originally was pushing an ever-expanding discussion of Roman iconography on the yin and yang article, where it had no place whatsoever (Roman shield markings have no relation the the philosophical concept of yin and yang). a while after this page was created, I nominated it for deletion because GPM wouldn't stop trying to imply that the Roman shield markings were the first examples of taijitu (surreptitiously asserting that both the symbol and the philosophy somehow came to the Chinese from the Romans).

Does that make sense? --Ludwigs2 06:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks Ludwigs. Gun Powder Ma, your thoughts please on a move to "Yin–Yang (visual design)" or another title? If it's to show both European and Chinese designs, the article really must limit itself to the later, more famous, version of the Chinese design. Showing instances of both the bull's eye and the swirling patterns in Europe is an error that must be addressed. Because all the earlier and later Chinese symbols are called Taijitu, it seems reasonable to redirect Taijitu to Taiji, Supreme Ultimate Diagram to Supreme Ultimate. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to renaming the article to something along that line. I've always thought it to better to call the article "Yin and yang (symbol)" than "Taijitu" for several reasons:

1. Analogy: The main article on the philosophical principle is called Yin and yang, so it is only logical to call the visual symbol which represents the philosophical principle Yin and yang (symbol), too.
2. World wide view: The patterns of the non-Chinese 'taijitu' are more commonly referred to as "yin yang" than "Taijitu". Thus, the article could become more inclusive, instead of trying to segregate what is visually clearly the same.
3. However, on the other hand, I don't yet see quite the need for giving up the principle of consistency: It is one and the same geometric pattern, so why two different articles on it? We don't have different articles on Chinese circles or triangles and non-Chinese circles and triangles Chinese circls and triangles, either.

I don't judge Ludwigs2 to be an honest broker in any way (he has been clearly trying to make a point all the time and is too often a guest on the fringe pages anyway), let alone a knowledgable one, so I would like to hear first third opinions other than yours and mine. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@GPM - with respect to your first point, you've misused the POINT policy, which refers to something other than what you've said. with respect to your second point, if you're going to stoop to ad hominem arguments (particularly ones as weakly vapid as this), then your opinion is utterly useless. --Ludwigs2 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You confuse cause and effect, first take the plank out of your own eyes: Revision as of 06:43, 3 July 2010. I'll stop commenting on you as soon as you stop commenting on me, but you may find this hard with an ridiculous 88% percentage of non-article edits. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

another ad hominem, and one that's not even article related. with respect to you - are you saying that you "aren't" pushing a Roman perspective? because if you are not, I am having a hard time understanding why you would want to apply the term taijitu to Roman shield markings (which you consistently try to do). any explanation would be useful.

By the way, I take it that you've been watching my other conversations (since you are now echoing some of Mathsci's comments verbatim). A word of advice: don't try adopting Mathsci's editing tactics. he's much better at it than you are, and you do not have the kind of support from administrators that he enjoys, but even he hasn't managed to make a lot of headway with me using scattershot ad hominem bitchiness. that will reflect badly on you in the long run, but it doesn't do anything to me except make me grumpy. do you want to turn this into a grumpy conversation, or would you prefer to keep it civil? --Ludwigs2 12:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My advice: Go to Oprah. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

gee, that was helpful. my advice to you is to grow up. Friggin' bad-tempered children on wikipedia, I swear... --Ludwigs2 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Yin and yang (symbol)" is good. The Taiji page already discusses Zhou Dunyi's "Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate" (in reference to the earlier bull's eye version pictured above). Only the name "Taijitu" would redirect there and the existing "Yin yang symbol" redirects would continue to go this article, renamed "Yin and yang (symbol)". There wouldn't actually be separate articles for the same geometric symbol. The Zhou Dunyi version should be removed from this article (as well as the European bull's eye) because they're not the same geometric design as ☯. In effect, this article would no longer need to provide a treatment of the development of visually non–identical versions in China. (The picture of Lai Zhide's version would be added there as well). Sound good?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, let's wait some more for more opinions coming in. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

from where? we don't have an active RfC. are you suggesting we start one? --Ludwigs2 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been 25 days... the Roman bull's eye symbol will need to be removed in any case. Yes?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Drawing

Good idea, but unfortunately there is a geometrical flaw: the diameter line has to run vertically in order to draw the two smaller circles (cf. Peyre 1982, pp. 62f.). The correct sequence is:

1. vertical line
2. two smaller circles
3. parts of the inner circles erased

I've contacted the creator, but until then it is best to remove the animation from the article altogether. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. The newly uploaded animation is correct. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin

When and where did the East Asian Taijitu originate from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.21.201 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It comes from Chinese culture! Chinese culture is 5000 years old and maybe not comprehended by Western mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5F7:EB00:7C02:3760:51CC:D764 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

http://xingyimax.com/more-about-taiji-symbols-of-ukraine-pavilion-at-expo-2010/ 178.36.13.155 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Symmetry

This article refers to the yin-yang symbol as symmetrical. However, for an image to be symmetrical, it has to consist of two halves that are mirror images of each other. The yin-yang symbol is made up of two halves that are 180 degree rotations of each other, not mirror images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See Rotational symmetry. --Thnidu (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)