Talk:Yin and yang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Modern Yin Yang

Modern definition

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8E%B0%E4%BB%A3%E4%B9%8B%E9%98%B4%E9%98%B3

Yin and Yang and the nature of math, physics and chemistry indicators, the definition: Movement (nergy, momentum) and order (information) synthesis.

defines 3: yin and yang in the same concept of a "unity of (The Complete Works of U)" under the concept of two kinds of "Yin (set) and Yang (set, Y)" incompatible with the kind of relationship between. Yin and Yang of the negative connotations of each other, a concept of "Yin (variable set)" definitely the target of negative attributes, and the other concept, "Yang (variable-Y)" while the concept of Yin in the negative by a positive attribute as a positive attribute of the object; the yin and yang Extension of mutually exclusive (∩ Y = 0), and complement each other (∪ Y = U = 1,1-Y =), equivalent to the sum of its nearest the concept of an (overall unity of opposites) extension, that is, 2 kind of concept of Yin and Yang And the extension and or (+ Y = ∪ Y = U).

defines 4: If U Complete Works of mutually exclusive variable-Y And the existence of Y, and ∪ Y = U, ∩ Y = 0, then Yin known as variable-yin, yang known as Y-changed.

Yin and Yang of fractal sets

Most ancient from yin and yang of self-similar fractal sets Yin and Yang fractal set. Its fractal dimension (similar to the dimensions) D = 1

I suppressed this: "==Fractal set== The Yin Yang are fractal set, fractal dimension is 1, Df=1 yin represents female and yang represents male."

Because it is pure gibberish. Even if we consider the yin yang dialectic as a form of logic, there is simply no relation with fractal sets, which belong to Aristotelian logic. In more, if the fractal dimension is 1, then by definition it is not a fractal.

Text moved from Traditional Chinese medicine

The text following is removed from the traditional Chinese medicine page as an effort to thin that page down. Please feel free to merge it into the main yin yang article. heidimo 15:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Why remove this? Yin and yang is central to the understanding of TCM. In fact, it can be said to be the basis of TCM; without it, it can't be well understood. Mandel 23:25, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

Yin Yang

The most fundamental concept in TCM is the philosophical construct of Yin Yang, complementary qualities seen in all natural phenomena. Yin and yang are not forces, energies, or material substances; neither are they irrational mystical concepts (though they do not work well with Aristotelian logic). Yin Yang is a way of thinking about phenomena, and a way to describe how things function and interact with each other in the Universe.

The Chinese characters for Yin and yang are derived from pictographs for, respectively, the shady and sunny sides of a hill. This relationship is an example of several elements of the Yin Yang dynamic; there can be no shady side without the sunny side, and one transforms into the other as the day progresses. On the sunny side there are shady spots (under a tree, for example), while on the shady side there are bright spots (in a clearing). These exemplify yin within yang and yang within yin, respectively. By extension, the artificiality of discriminations between yin and yang is posited, informing the traditional Chinese medical practitioner that in some cases yin and yang are plastic metaphors based on relative points of view rather than an absolute identity, a non-dualistic dynamic represented by the Taoist and Neo-Confucian icon known as the Taijitu.

Yin is used to describe phenomena which are dark, cool, at rest, down, inward, female, still, and/or decreasing. Yang corresponds to bright, warm, active, up, outward, male, and/or increasing. Within the human body, certain elements are considered more yin and some more yang: the front is considered more yin, the back more yang; the upper part yang, the lower part yin; the interior yin, and the exterior yang.

Simplisticly speaking, fever, irritability, and redness from blood rushing to the skin are signs of too much yang, or not enough yin to balance the yang. Coldness, lethargy, and paleness are signs of excess yin or deficient yang. Medicines and treatments are classified as to their ability to strengthen or disperse yin and yang. Because of the continuous movement of change and the interactions between yin and yang, actual situations are usually far more complex than this example.

In the West, Yin Yang are sometimes associated with sexual terms, which leads to some major misconceptions about Chinese medicine. One such misconception is that a Chinese herbal medicine such as rhinoceros horn is used primarily as an aphrodisiac. This is not true, as rhinoceros horn is intended mainly as a fever reducer, and has a number of substitutes.

Possible Copyvio

Marked with copyvio due to two source links leading back to Encyclopedia Britanica[1], yet without an actual account on that site, it can't be verified. The links were added by Curtis Davis ([[User:]]) on June 13 (hist)

…Guy M… ^(soapbox) 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Can't we simply revert back to the 12 June, 2005 version? there was a lot on here that wasn't sourced from EB. Fire Star 02:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the copyvio policy page: "Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted." I reverted article to 12 June, 2005 version. Fire Star 03:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When the article starts the section Meaning of Terms it states the following: Because yin means "sunny", it corresponds to the day and more active functions. Whereas yang, meaning "shady", corresponds to night and less active functions

Isn't that wrong? Shouldn't yin mean shady and yang be sunny? Throughout the rest of the text the mistake is continued, even though we are told to look at the chart: Yin and yang can be compared in the chart to the right. But looking at the chart would only confirm that the article got yin and yang backwards.

-greenheart (chuck1815@yahoo.com)

[From: former Taijitu article, now merged] as of the 1/1/06 edit, there is a quote at the bottom of the article cited as "others say:," and ending with an opinion. unless the quote can be attributed to an individual, it should either be removed entirely, or the quotation marks shold be removed along with the opinion statement at the end ("the second version is more complete")Shaggorama 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire quote is by Wu from a much longer didactic essay. I have a copy of the original essay, it was also published in a 1995 issue of T'ai Chi magazine. Unfortunately, Wu quotes two different quotes within his quote, and the single quotes I used to differentiate don't show up too well. Taijiquan is actually named after the subject of the article, and the quote seemed illustrative of a practical use for what most Westerners probably consider a mostly decorative design. --Fire Star 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Text moved from Yin-yang

Often used contemprarily as a symbol of peace or love, the Ying Yang is a sign of Eastern origin, specifically of Chinese Taoism philosophy and representing interpenetration and interdependence of all universal things. One half of the symbol being 'Ying' and the other 'Yang', the two entities embody and complement eachother.

One might derive personal meanings from the Ying Yang such as the relationship between man and woman or that of the individual and society.

The text above was written at Yin-yang. I moved it here. I ask the author or anyone else to merge it with the main article at Yin yang. Optim 16:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Yin-yang should redirect here. The yin-yang is a symbol more than it is a concept, and as such I think it shold redirect to Taijitsu instead of here. Anyone else have an opinion?Shaggorama 05:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Principles item 6

I like the item, but the part about the 'dots' is a personal annoyance. They have not always existed in the image to the taichi, though I am having trouble determining the origin. I will likely complete my research, and start a new wiki topic regarding the taichi symbol itself. In the mean time, I propose that reference to the 'dots' be taken out in this context, as it works just as well to say that in any radial from the center of the taichi there is both black and white on the radial (though technically there are 2 lines where this is not true) Technotaoist 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the Yin and Yang article and was thrown of course when the first sentence said "the misconception of yin and yang..." Whether or not we belief the Yin-YAng philosophy, is it not still a concept, rather than a MISconcept? I changed it from misconcept to concept, because I suspected it was vandalisim.

Was I right in my edit? What are your opinions?

Thanks,

--Bewildered reader

You were right in removing the 'mis' part, Bewildered. It was probably another damn hell-forsaken troll trying to be funny. I hope he gets leprosy and starves to death in a dumpster in New England. Smith Jones 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Error?

After correctly connecting yin with the the Moon and yang with the Sun, the first paragraph ends with a summating sentence: "Yin is often symbolized by fire, while Yang is symbolized by water." However, the Sun is explicitly linked with the element of Fire in the Daoist cosmology, as with the Moon and elemental Water. Typically, yin is linked with Water, and yang with Fire. I don't know whether whoever wrote this sentence was just confused, or whether they have some alternate source to support this sentence. I'm changing it for now. SumeragiNoOnmyouji 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been a long history of drive by editors reversing the attributes. Since "Yin never leaves yang and yang never leaves yin" they may feel that they are correct, but I agree that the most attested correlations should be those listed, as in your recent correction. --Fire Star 火星 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Title

The Title should be reverted to Yin and Yang as Yang is a proper noun.--JP 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yang is no more a proper noun than "light and dark" are proper nouns. —Lowellian (reply) 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2006

Yin and yang → Yin-Yang – I think Yin-Yang sounds better, Yin and yang cannot be split, so that is one single concept, and that is also the Chinese name (陰陽) for it. Yao Ziyuan 04:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as above Yao Ziyuan 04:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: what matters here is the common English name by which the concept is known. Jonathunder 04:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed rename. Jonathunder is correct. See last July's discussion earlier on this page. "Yin-yang" should redirect to the current title, not vice versa. What "sounds better to" one editor is not a primary reason to change away from the most common form used in English-language reliable sources. Barno 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose common english terminology is current title. 70.51.10.35 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Lowellian's rationale for naming the page "Yin and Yang" (see "discussion" section, below). There is plenty of comment on this talk page to support keeping its current name. Sunray 05:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose present more common--Aldux 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

In case you folks hadn't noticed, this issue was discussed about one year ago on this page. Lowellian renamed the page "Yin and Yang. Here are his reasons:

Googling "yin yang" does yield more results than "yin and yang", but this includes results which shouldn't be counted, such as pinyin transliterations of the Chinese term or the term "yin-yang" used to refer (not quite correctly) to the taijitu rather than the concepts of yin and yang. Also, the article is actually about the concepts of yin and yang. Suppose we had an article about the concepts of light and dark, as compared with each other. We would not name the article "light dark"; we would name the article "light and dark". Yes, the Chinese term, 陰陽, does transliterate to yin yang in pinyin but a translation into English might well be "yin and yang" since the "and" is implied (as in many other Chinese two-character compounds). —Lowellian 15:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sunray 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

HELP! Vandalism!

I can't seem to get rid of this. It doesn't show up in the editor, so far as I can tell. End of the Summary section, just above See Also. Not quite sure why I can't erase it, but I would if I could. 70.176.178.118 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be seeing a previous verson of the page. If there was any vandalism, it is gone now. :) Disinclination 05:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing vandalism too, and while it's not gone when I refresh, I can't edit it out. It's Spongebob-related.

original research

The summary of yin and yang concepts does not cite any reliable published sources and seems to contain original research. Please comment/reference or I will be instigating a bold cleanup. VanTucky 21:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just add sources. Sunray 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research cannot by definition be sourced.VanTucky 06:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean Flag =

This article should discuss the presence of the yin/yang in the flag of Korea. 1) That it is there 2) Why it is there

If anyone is going to write anything on it, the red means heaven and the blue means earth. A lot like the re-representation of the Trigrams. Chrs Dailly Rubbings 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

CrankyK

Proposed merge of Taijitu article with this article

Strong Oppose Yin yangis a concept while tajitu is just a symbol, just like someone decide to merge Freedom with the Liberty Statue, how is that? --Saigon punkid 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose A merge tag at Yin and yang propose to merge that article into this one. As stated clearly at Taijitu, the latter is a diagram and the former a concept. Thus, I oppose the merge, especially a merge into Taijitu. Arguably, we might redirect readers from the diagram to the concepts it illustrates, but certainly not from the 3000 years old concept to the less than 1000 years old diagram.--Niels Ø (noe) 12:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the following reasons: 1) A merge tag was not placed on this page, suggesting bias. 2) The Taijitu article is stated, or at least insinuating, that the ying-yang concept is false, than that Taijitu is the correct. Which would make every editor that contributed to the Ying-yang article incorrect in their beliefs. 3) These articles seem to contrdict eachother, or at least don't match very well, other than that they share common.. similarities, it seems. In the event that the article does merge (which I doubt it will) it should be properly placed under the name Ying and yang, rather than Taijitu. But I don't think it should be merged at all. Disinclination 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read both articles from beginning to end recently, but what's the contradiction? Yin and yang are are pair of concepts; taijitu is a famous diagram illustrating this pair, and often simply denoted "yin-yang" or the like, though some think that is incorrect. Is anything in either article at variance with these facts? - As stated above, I too oppose the merge.--Niels Ø (noe) 08:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I proposed the merger because they are articles that, while currently focusing on different aspects (concept vrs. symbol), cover one topic. The Taijitu is the symbol of the Taoist metaphysical concept which is called Yin and Yang in Western culture. Having separate articles for different cultural conceptions of a single topic is unnecessary. As far as bias goes, I have not previously edited either article and I did place tags on both pages. A merge does not mean the diminishing of one aspect of the topic, only one comprehensive article. Furthermore, even on it's own, the Yin and Yang article needs cleanup for original research in a bad way. VanTucky 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have requested comment on RFC. VanTucky 21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support They should definetly be merged. There should be subsection in the yin/yang article explaing the symbol.Zeus1234 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. The Yin and Yang article is rather stubby on its own, but would make a reasonable section in a merged article. The Yin and Yang page should then become a redirect to Taijitu. While some Western readers may not be familiar with the latter term, it is the correct term and a merged article would promote learning. Sunray 06:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

comment: okay, its been sometime and it looks like we have three for support and two for oppose. This is too close for my absolute comfort, so I'll do another RFC or something similar. If this elicits no more response, I'm going to go ahed with the merge. The only question is about title. I think yin yang should redirect to a combined article entitled taijitu. any comment? VanTucky 06:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already cast my vote (the first one, an<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> "oppose"), but I don't think any of the subsequent "supports" have answered my objections. If you want an article about yin-yang in Western culture, or in taoism (at least as perceived by Western culture), then of course the symbol and the concept is "one" - usually known as "yin (and) yang", not as "taijitu". "Western culture" here referes to pop culture, New Age, and alternative medicine; in Western academic tradition, more nuances are recognized. But in a Chinese historical context, the concept is at least 2500 years old - and I think one could document or at least make a good case for it being a lot older than that, but I am no expert. The concept is central to some branches of taoism (it is mentioned once in the Tao Te Ching), but it also plays a role in other Chinese schools of thought. The symbol, on the other hand, is less than 1000 years old (I haven't located my source, but I think it was invented around 1100 CE), and is specific to taoism. So I really cannot see any reason to merge Yin and Yang into Taijitu as proposed, but perhaps the other way (which hasn't been formally proposed) since Taijitu is logically and historically subordinary to Yin and Yang, and also because relatively few outside China know the name Taijitu anyway, where as most people know the words Yin and Yang. The main argument against this merge is that it's two different things; the main arguments in favor of it are (i) that they are related and we can avoid repeating some info in two different articles that way, and (ii) that both articles as they stand would be extremely short if all unsourced material was removed. However, instead of a merge, I think both articles should be improved, especially by referencing appropriate sources--Niels Ø (noe) 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

"logically and historically subordinary" seems like a pretty good reason to merge to me. The main argument against keeping them separate for your last reason is that a stub referring to just the symbol and just the concept can only go so far (this is a symbol, this is what it means, this is where it comes from) and would be more comprehensive and informative as one article connecting the two. It seems to me from your timeline explanation, that it makes another argument for merging. If the taijitu is a younger Taoist symbol of an ancient, syncretic idea in Chinese philosophy and culture then shouldnt it be a part of the Yin Yang article? VanTucky 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see Niels Ø (noe)'s point. I also don't think we have consensus on a merge in either direction. Perhaps it make the most sense to keep the two articles in any case since readers may be interested in either concept. As long as there are good links between the two, it shouldn't be a problem. Sunray 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it just seems silly to keep two poor stubs separate when together they would make an interesting and comprehensive article. VanTucky 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. So the challenge is for users to expand and improve both articles. Failing that, it sounds like we should try to work at a consensus to merge Taijitu into Yin and Yang. Sunray 20:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I frankly think that's a waste of time. The scope of a Taijitu stub alone is very limited, and the only work that has been done to expand the Yin and Yang article has been insipid original research (philosophical interpretation). VanTucky 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to A.C. Graham, the "yin-yang" school dates at least to the third century BC, and is separate from other schools of Taoism at the time in lists of schools provided by contemporary chroniclers. The categorisation is implied in the I Ching, and the Taiji concept is mentioned in other philosophical works dating to that time, too, but I agree that the symbol itself is probably of Neo-Confucian origin. It may have been used earlier, but I don't know of any surviving examples. That being said, I feel there is no harm having Taijitu (at least until we have enough material to make a decent article) as a subsection of Yin-yang. --Fire Star 火星 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. But please note that the proposal was to merge Ying and Yang into Taijitu, not the other way round; I still oppose that.--Niels Ø (noe) 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I proposed it as a general merge, I placed a tag on both pages and I didnt specify which into which. VanTucky 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, you're right; sorry. I wish someone would improve both article to the point where a merge would not make sense, but I don't have the time to do so myself. A problem in this context is to distinguish between serious and not-so-serious sources. As the articles stand, converting Taijitu into a redir and moving its info to Yin and yang would not be unreasonable. I have therefore stroked out my "oppose" above. However, VanTucky wrote above: I think yin yang should redirect to a combined article entitled taijitu - I still oppose a merge in that direction.--Niels Ø (noe) 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you support a merge of Taijitu into Yin and Yang then? VanTucky 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Support a merge into Yin and yang, which is the better-known (and arguably superordinate) term. -- Visviva 12:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support They are essentially the same thing, so they should be merged into the article with the better known name, per Visviva.PierceG 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll tally

• Support merge: 6
• Oppose merge: 2

We thus have a supermajority (75%) who favour a merge. From the discussion, I note that generally those who commented saw Taijitu being merged into Yin and yang. Even the two opposed saw Yin and Yang as being the main subject (e,g, freedom) and Taijitu as being the symbol to embody it (e.g, the Statue of Liberty). Disinclination, who opposed, stated: "In the event that the article does merge (which I doubt it will) it should be properly placed under the name Ying and yang, rather than Taijitu."

My sense is thus that there is a consensus to merge Taijitu into Yin and Yang. If there are no objections, I will complete the merge. Sunray 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: Articles merged

Merge completed. Sunray 19:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yin Yang symbol used for WikiProject Alternative medicine

I have just created the banner template for this WikiProject, and I thought it somewhat appropriate to use this symbol (I couldn't immediately think of any other). If anyone thinks that was a bad idea, let me know. (I notice the martial arts project already uses it, maybe others too. It is pretty versatile.) __meco 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall

It is amazing to see (as of 01/01/2008) a Wikipedia article about such a fundamental symbol of Chinese philosophy so incomplete and of such a poor quality. Especially strange is the part at the end which not at a right place pushes the information about the Greek notion of dualism, furthermore, all (some of them not working or to amateur websites) references are to pages also about Greek philosophy! I do not know about Yin Yang much, I want to learn about it, that's why I came here, but I would really recommend someone who does know to fix the overall article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.32.149 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This page misrepresents the Christian concept of suffering

Under the "Duality in other philosophy" heading this article claims that Christianity posits a supernatural dualism to explain suffering in this world. This is absolutely false. Christianity does not claim that good and evil, light and dark, God and Satan, etc., are equal and that one cannot exist without the other. Christianity teaches that God (who is good), created all things as "very good" (Gen. 1:31), including Satan. Satan chose to rebel and deceived Eve (the first woman) to rebel, too. Adam soon followed suit and all of creation now suffers from their choices. Christianity also teaches that someday all evil will be done away with. This cannot be seen as the same as or similar to the duality of the yin yang. Would somebody please correct this error? Thank you. Theologyguy (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You bring up some good points, I am not completely satisfied with the wording, either. Yin and yang do not represent any "divine duality", in Taoism at least they represent man-made category. I think comparing duality in other religions is mixing apples and oranges. We really should be able to demostrate direct connexions, otherwise we are merely indulging in trivia sections. The only outside religion that China was really dealing culturally with (at least after 2-300 AD or so) was Buddhism, and other concepts (with the possible exception of Tocharian Manichaeanism) just can't be demonstrated as having an influence on yin yang theory, or that yin yang theory had any influence on Western culture until the 17th century at the earliest (Liebniz being the first example I can think of). If the article has to mention other religions at all, we shouldn't be concentrating on orthodox Christianity exclusively, there is also gnostic Christianity to consider, which is much more dualistically themed. There are some elements of dual categories in Christian iconic traditions; the sponge held up and the spear used to impale Jesus on the cross, for example. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed reference to Christianity. Sunray (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

10 Yin Yang from the sky (Google Earth)

Hi,

Maybe this should be usefull for external links : 10 Yin Yang from the sky French text.

Thanks,

Stéphane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.63.124 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While interesting, I see some problems with this. It has little to do with the concept of "Yin and Yang". It's also a French Language site. This is the English Wiki. While the images do speak for themselves, I'm not sure that it fits. If you have more information on the topic, I think it would make a very interesting topic on it's own in Wikipedia. --Technotaoist (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Text Box...

That's honestly just offensive, and should probably be edited soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.138.148 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Equation

Can somebody verify the mathematical equation? -Spansign (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though the link I provided doesn't provide the correct website. i will try to find some other means of verifying this equation.

English slang expression: "out the ying-yang"

Just dropped by to comment about this English usage, which may be, but most likely isn't, rooted in the context-meaning of this article; the phrase means "very thorough", every last detail, "the whole shebang", and then some....Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

eh. except that the usual american context of this phrase is the equivalent of 'out the a$$'. it's just a euphemism, that has no more place here than the term 'peetoe' has in the article about feet.

Problematic Redirect?

I clicked the link "Taijitsu" and was redirected to "Yin Yang"; I expected to learn about a martial art, not a philosophy on cosmic balance. Please remove redirect; if Yin & Yang are necessary to learn Taijutsu, then put it in the "See Also" section of Taijutsu. -Fuming,

    Rafe
    76.171.210.88 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with the redirects; you just didn't type the page name in correctly. "Taijitsu" goes to the page about "Taijitsu." "Taijitu" (without the "s") goes here, where it should. Don't start "fuming" and posting about it until you've throughly checked and actually know something is wrong and causing confusion where there should be none just because you made a typo and didn't check it. --13² 05:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

picture blocking text

In the Taijitu section, there is a picture which is blocking a line of text. can some one who knows how please readjust the picture so the text can be read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.201 (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. :-) --13² 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

cleanup and revisions

started some cleanup and revisions on this page. let me know if it's working or not. --Ludwigs2 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

yin yang in Albania

Does anyone possibly have any insight into these yin yang symbols found in Albania (ancient Illyrian city of Bylis)?

http://picasaweb.google.com/mhussey/BylisAlbania/photo#4986605740618285074 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popcontest (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Plus they have the Manji in them...Moocowsrule (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

two observations (which may not qualify as insights...)

1. the taijitu is actually a common, simple shape. anyone who's seen a raindrop on a curved surface will see the beginnings of a taijitu, and the shape itself can be made by nesting circles (a circle of radius 'r' containing two half-circles of radius 'r/2' each of them having a circle of radius 'r/4' at its center). it would not be surprising if the image itself shows up here and there in geometric art just by pure coincidence.
2. taoism is very old (formal taoism started somewhere around the 2nd century BCE, and the folk traditions go back centuries, if not millennia, before that). there was, further, a greater amount of information transmission around the ancient world than most people realize. it wouldn't surprise me at all if mystical symbols had wide dispersal, though mostly that would be as curiosities from 'far away' rather than meaningful things. I can easily imagine (for instance) some silk fabric from china with taijitu patterns getting carried by some traveler to india or the middle east and sold to some aristocrat who thought the pattern was intriguing and mysterious.

I haven't, however, seen any indication that the philosophy behind the taijitu ever made any headway anywhere outside of china - at least not till the 18th or 19th centuries. --Ludwigs2 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

popular culture

the 'yin yang in popular culture' section (The idea of yin and yang seems to have made a first apparition in popular culture with the beat generation in the late 1950s, and has increased its popularity with the counter-culture movements during the 1960s and 1970s) that's been added a couple of times suffers from the following problems:

1. to the extent that it's true, it's only true in the context of American pop culture, not pop culture universally (as the current phrasing makes it sound).
2. weasel words - who says it made its first appearance then? what counter-culture movements increased its popularity?)
3. what does 'increased its popularity' actually mean? the majority of Americans may or may not be familiar with the taijitu figure, but the vast majority have no idea what the inherent meaning of the symbol is, or any understanding of the yinyang concept
4. scope - I doubt this needs a section all to itself (probably it should be rolled into the previous section).

I'm not averse to adding some commentary about the place of the taijitu in American pop culture, but the way you've done it is anglo-centric, over-stated, and vague. can you give a more precise statement? --Ludwigs2 21:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yang-yin?

If I remember the Ta Chuan correctly, the yang characteristics are always mentioned before the yin. ("The Creative is such-and-such; the Receptive is thus-and-so.") So why, in every Western source that I know of, including this page, is the concept referred to as "Yin and Yang"? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

interesting question, to which I have no real answer. does it matter all that much? I've never read the ta chuan (not having that much interest in the I Ching), but I know that in the taote and taoist philosphy yin has a certain preeminence (e.g. 'know the male, but hold to the female...'). --Ludwigs2 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

European history additions

@ Gun Powder Ma - I can't (and wouldn't) argue with good sourced material like this, but I'm worried that that the emphasis is shifting too much from the philosophy of yin-yang to a description of the 'yin-yang' symbol. what you've added seems to imply that the Chinese picked up the symbol from the Romans; we either need to make that argument explicitly or revise things so we're not giving that impression. any suggestions? --Ludwigs2 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

well, I've revised the hit-and-run edit to something more sensible. we'll see what happens... --Ludwigs2 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Where is that impression given? Giovanni Monastra is quite explicit that he only talks about the yin yang symbol, and he totally silent on the transmission issue. His concern is solely with its earliest appearance among the Roman military, not its history afterwards. Therefore, the line with which you substituted the quote was not correct, as, in fact, Monastra neither argued for nor against a spread eastward, he did not address the subject from that angle. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

the impression is in the structure of the document, not in Monastra's work. this article (supposedly) is about yinyang as a philosophical construct; the taijitu comes into it because of the way the symbol was used in chinese philosophy with respect to that concept. now, the use of that symbol in other cultures and contexts is clearly relevant (if only as disambiguation to make sure that readers don't think the romans were taoists), but if the Roman's have no demonstrable influence over Chinese thought, then their shield displays need to a relatively minor presence in the article. as it is, you've given them way too much prominence, and it needs to be trimmed back. is that alright? --Ludwigs2 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your wholesale revert does not exactly raise faith in your willingness to compromise. Please remember, the article is not owned by the Taoist or Chinese culture, it is only insofar about Taoist or Chinese culture as it concerns the Taijitu. Since the Roman Taijitu appears earlier, and since this section is much better sourced than the rest of the article, there is no reason not to follow the usual chronological order. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ownership of the article is not at issue. this article is about yin and yang (the philosophical concept) not about the taijitu (the diagram). further, the Romans did not call their diagram the taijitu, and they did not (to my knowledge) have any philosophical meaning attached to the symbol.

I'll point out, by the way, that your reversion (twice) of the standing version of the article does not much raise faith in your ability to compromise either...

so let's do this. if you can respond to the following points effectively, we can let your version stand, otherwise we're either going to have to revert to the previous version, or find some effective middle ground

1. what influence did the Romans have on Chinese taoist philosophy or iconography?
2. what factor (other than mere chronological coincidence) makes the discussion of Roman iconography more central to the article than the discussion of taoist and chinese symbolism?
3. what purpose does the discussion of Roman shield patterns (and other european uses) have in this article at all, except to highlight an apparently coincidental parallelism in iconography?

I await your response for a day or two. --Ludwigs2 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all pretty much your own POV. If you are unhappy with the space the Tajitu is given, you may consider moving all contents on symbolism, that is both the Roman and the Taoist versions, to an article of its own. Please go ahead rephrasing the lead entry on the symbols, but WP:LEAD makes it unmistakenly clear that all contents have to be summarized in the intro. Also, the gallery should be sorted in chronological order, right now there is no order or method discernible. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry GPM, that doesn't fly. this is a matter of policy, not opinion. wp:NPOV states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Granting that these rules are relaxed a bit for non-scientific articles, it's still a fact that Roman shield configurations are not a particularly prominent element of a discussion of Yin-Yang. they deserve mention, of course, but not the kind of emphasis that you're putting on them.

I am more than happy to open an RfC on this, if you refuse to make any compromises on this matter; I have no doubts about its outcome. your choice: do you want to cooperate with me on this, or shall I open it up for the community to decide? --Ludwigs2 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

new: okiedokie, I will take the lack of response as a sign of tacit agreement, and restore the page to it's previous form. let me know if you'd still like to discuss the issue. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to open it for the community to decide. I would very much like to hear what others have to say about you persistently ignoring chronology, deleting contents from the intro against WP:LEAD and removing sourced statements without reason. Perhaps they should take a look at your block log, too, first. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

please keep it focussed on content, GPM. people are welcome to look at whatever they like, but snide insinuations don't become you. give me a few minutes and I'll open an RfC, so we can settle this without this kind of posturing. --Ludwigs2 02:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

edit table?

hi, i cant figure out how to edit the table on the page that shows yin-yang oppositions. i would like to enter an additional such opposition: sugar as yin, salt as yang. any info on how i can do this?

Black color is the absence of light, since black colors are supstances that absorb light, and white colors reflect all light that is cast. And more so, black and white are not colours at all, their definition is 'black=absence of light' and 'white=all wavelenghts'. But a interesting fact is, that if we want to experience total darkness we should have at least a bit of light to emphasize its absence.

Basically Salt and Sugar are not opposit...so that wouldn't fly really.

Indeed Black and White are not colours but 'teints'. And both in mixing colours and light they are eachothers opposit (mixing paint makes all colours together black, while in light it is opposit). However, I feel you are just jollying phrasing on total darkness and emphasizing with a bit of light. You recognize one on knowing the other (Tao). --Maddehaan (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

666999 =YinYang

"5. Yin and yang can transform into one another.

At a particular stage, yin can transform into yang and vice versa. For example, night changes into day; warmth cools; life changes to death"

see also 999 / 666 Number of the Beast (numerology)

Though generally many philosophies like Taoism and Religions like Christianity and Islam share common views on emotional and spiritual concepts, I think this one to be a bit off...

The numerology in the Western religions are far younger and have a very different approach towards 'explaining'.

Imagine this: Tao and therefore Yin/Yang are seen as the reason for all. However The Beast (the fallen) is meant as a means and is parted from the 'one'. Although Yin/Yang constantly transpose from one to another, this is not the case in the God/Devil-concept.--Maddehaan (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Section to Add

I would like someone to add something on this, but I don't want to because I don't have proper sources and I wouldn't know where to add it.

My history teacher explained the meaning of the yin yang symbol to me like this: At the height of yin their you find yang. At the height of yang - you find yin. This is the meaning of the two dots in the symbol. They are supposed to be the most important part. A bit of yin at the strongest point of yang. I think the point is that they are in-seperable. Could someone who understands this better please add this?--God of War 18:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the following external link. It is a good translation of the basics of Yin and Yang theory from historical chinese text.

• Yin and Yang Yin and Yang information page.

I am happy that you added a link that is actually refering to the Nei Jing. Indeed Yin/Yang are Tao. However nowadays everyone tends to believe that it is a 'Tai Chi' sign. Before this section can be finalized, resolution has to be found on this.

Indeed Yin on its high point becomes Yang and the other way around. However this is not the 'most important' part. The transition/symbolism/spiritual representation etc etc in whole is important. As said: One does not know light, without darkness. Tao is the mother of the two who are the parents of the meriad of things. --Maddehaan (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

three part yin/yang

There is also sometimes seen a three part yin/yang, what does that signify? Chris 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

May have a partial answer at Taeguk Chris 08:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

perhaps the three is 1: the whole 2:the polarities 1+2=3

There is no three part Yin/Yang (I am sorry to burst the bubble). Or it would have been called: Yin/Yang and the other part. However you are welcome to create your own philosophy or religion on one. The Western Religions contain trinity symbols, however the reason for Tao to be represented this way (with two alternating/intertwined/transposing parts) is the basis for the whole philosophy of TCM and Taoism. Base rule in Taoism: Keep it simple. --Maddehaan (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Which side is which?

I'm not sure which side was yin, and which was yang, does anyone know? And shouldn't this be in the article somewhere anyway? Keyblade Mage 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

I don't think it matters what 'side' it is on. You could simply turn the symbol around, and find them on opposite 'sides'. Yin and yang isn't about what side is 'right' and what side is 'wrong. It's about.. well.. read the article. :P Disinclination 18:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean, is the black side yin, or yang? And is the white side yang, or yin? Get me? 'Cause Yin represents this, and that, and yang is supposed to be there for one thing and another, right?

Yin is dark, Yang is light. Disinclination 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be said though that, in accordance with the theory, the tai-chi must be presented with yin on the right with the bulging portion downward; yang on the left with the bulging portion upward. In the simplest explanation, this makes sense since yin represents the cool element, and cold drops (ie, the bulge on the bottom); yang represents the warm element, and heat rises (ie, the bulge on the top). Furthermore, having them side by side allows this correspondance of opposites to be represented without hindrance. Stacking the portions horizontally also is incorrect in two ways: if yang is put on the bottom it would represent heat as not rising, although the bulge itself would. If yin is put on the bottom, it would show cold as dropping but its bulge would represent it as rising. It is contradictory. In my understanding of the theory, my aforementioned method for presenting the symbol is correct, and I believe the way the symbol is shown in the photo for the article philosophically is the only way it can be presented. Just something to consider. --Bentonia School 13:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will just be correcting this part all through where I find it. The symbol including Yin and Yang is Tao, not TaiChi/Taiji. TaiChi is actually a movement form (whether one wants it to be art or fight I leave out of it here). The basis of Chinese Medicin and general philosophy is build on Tao (read the Tao Teh Ching). Yin and Yang are showing the duality in all of existence (not just reality). --Maddehaan (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Orientation, top to bottom or side to side?

In the main article, the yin yang is oriented top to bottom. In other pictures, side to side. Is there any special direction it should be? The reason I ask, is this symbol seems to correlate with the Star of David, representing the Absolute and Relative (Divine and Common) ways of the world, as both symbols are comprised of two equal but opposite shapes intersecting. If Yin and Yang is officially supposed to be top-to-bottom that would be a rather interesting fact. MobyDikc (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

again, let's not confuse speculation about interesting coincidences with analytic relationships. the conventional orientation of the taijitu is as given at right, with philosophical justifications, but there are several other common depictions. while I don't doubt that one could construct correlations between the star of david and the taijitu, that would almost assuredly be original research, without any foundation in the derivation of either symbol. that's useful for constructing interfaith or trans-faith discussion, but not really something that belongs in wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The depict of Tao/'the Yin and Yang sign'/Taijitu is quite dependant on its origin. Basically, I feel that as long as there is uncertainty whether or not the sign is first used in China or in the Roman empire (which for me is clear to be the first, China), the original meaning and therefore the direction of parts remain to be uncertain. Besides that, if you would come to the conclusion that this sign is Taijitu, then which part would be Yin or Yang? It is said that Yin is the empty, but dark. Others feel the dark part is the masculin and therefore male and as such represents Yang. From that choice you come the supporting or 'symbiotic' fact. If supporting, one could choose for top to bottom. In case of symbiotic/sharing existence 'next to eachother', would imply sideways. Being a Taoist scholar, I advise: top to bottom. There another item to take into consideration when depicting it. There are geometric values inclined: 1, 1/2, 1/4 --Maddehaan (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is exactly what I was worried would happen. there is no confusion over where the Taijitu originated! 'Taijitu' is a Chinese word for a Chinese symbol that was used (in Asia) to represent the Chinese concept of yin-yang. the Romans did in fact use a similar symbol (much earlier than the Chinese did) but there is absolutely no reason to believe that there's any relationship between the symbols or their use in Roman and Chinese cultures. grumble-grumble-grumble... otherwise, I don't disagree with Maddehaan. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC on European History section

This dispute is over the prominence of European iconography in in this article. versions for comparison:

version that places less emphasis on European iconography

version that places more emphasis on European iconography

diff of two versions

statement by Ludwigs2: I am advocating for the version that places less emphasis on European iconography. The article is about the philosophical concept of Yin-Yang. as such, it needs a section about the taijitu symbol , because that is a highly recognized symbol for Yin-Yang. that being said, other closely-related symbols have appeared elsewhere in history, most notably on shield markings of two Roman legions, where (in fact) the symbol was documented far earlier than in Asia. however, I object to the Euro-centric version that Gun Powder Ma is advocating for the following reasons:

• there is no documented evidence or academic theory that connects the European iconography with the later Chinese use of the symbol.
• there is no documented evidence or academic theory that connects the European iconography with the philosophy of Yin-Yang, which is what the article is about.

In short, the appearance of versions of this symbol (which is, after all, a relatively simple geometric shape) in two different cultures in the ancient world seems to be nothing more than pure coincidence, and is treated that way by the scholarly world. it obviously needs to be mentioned, but only as a passing coincidence, not with the prominence that the other version gives it. I am concerned, in fact, that the more version gives a false impression that the symbol was transmitted from Rome to China, and impression that is magnified because Gun Powder Ma consistently refers to the Roman design as a taijitu (which, of course, is not a word the Romans would have used; at the time of the Roman empire the Chinese word taijitu likely hadn't yet been invented). this article is about Yin-Yang; Roman shield markings are an interesting but minor side point.

This seems like something that is obvious on the face of it, but... --Ludwigs2 03:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the article is about the philosophy and concept of Yin Yang, not specifically about the taijitu. I would agree that, since the Roman shield symbols are unconnected with Yin Yang, discussing them at too much length might be seen as coatracking - dedicating ~25% of the article to something only tangentially connected with its title does seem a little extreme. I would also be inclined to put the description of the actual symbol before the mention of the coincidentally similar one. (I think that the chronological order is, in this case, a red herring). On the other hand, it seems that there could well be enough information here to create a separate article on the Taijitu as a symbol, and a more in depth discussion of other, similar, symbols would be more appropriate on such a page. Then you could cut back the discussion of Roman heraldry on this page even further than was the case before, and keep it on-topic. Anaxial (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

I already suggested on 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) above that an article of its own could be created for the tajitu. As for the percentages ("25%"), I hardly believe they are helpful. It is certainly not in the spirit of WP to cut back on well-sourced sections just to follow some imagined golden ratio of text proportions. In these cases, an constructive approach would be to expand the other sections, that is those on the Taoist version, not to cut back the better sourced. Deleting a referenced quote for fear that it might give an "false impression" on another section, is rather absurd and borders WP:POV. The section accords to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and there is no need to justify deletes by second-guessing what readers might think. For the same reason, the usual chronological order is fine. Finally, contents should be summarized according to WP:LEAD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - one way to decrease the proportion of the article that is off-topic is to add more on-topic information. But, if you're both willing to work on a taijitu article, that seems like the best solution. Anaxial (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

as I said, that would work for me. I'm not sure from the above what GPM wants, though. --Ludwigs2 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to work on this new article, as far as the Roman side is concerned, with which I am more familiar, but I would like to point out that the creation of an article Taijitu or Yin and yang symbol means moving both the sections on Taoist and Roman symbolism in their entirety to the new page, not just the Roman. If we separate philosophy from symbolism, as Ludwigs2 has made abundantly clear is his overriding concern, there is no reason to keep any contents related to the graphical side here. Instead, any discussion of the Taoist philosophy as far as it relates directly to the Taijitu symbol should take place there for systematical reasons. I added a template at the top of the article. Finally, the new article goes simply by the chronology, and not by any postulate of a primacy of the Taoist symbol. Hope we have settled the matter. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

what I was envisioning was moving over both the taoist and roman stuff to taijitu, and leaving a reduced discussion of the chinese symbolism and a very reduced mention of the roman iconography in yin-yang, with appropriate links. you have to admit that the chinese symbolism is much more pertinent to the concept of yin-yang than the roman iconography. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that you just moved back the whole Taoist section, although you have argued above for an article of its own?! You seem to have a very specific idea of what should be included in the article and what not, of which I am not certain whether it conforms to WP guide lines. How helpful could it be to the reader discussing the symbol half here and half there be? Note that the material has already been in the past moved back and forth, so I move it back and we take it from there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, because the taoist section had material on tai chi and I Ching, which are closely related related to yin-yang, and not really related to the taijitu at all. please pay attention to what you delete. we can discuss reducing the taijitu section if you like, but that's only the first paragraph of that section. --Ludwigs2 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is really much to discuss, if not your stance would appear so self-contradictory: We both agreed, along with Anaxial, on creating an own article for the Taijitu and that is obviously now the place where the main material related to the symbol has to be moved. Right now, your revert created a section which is identical with contents in the Taijitu... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. setting aside the bits on taiji chaun and I Ching (which have their own place in this article), the concept of yin-yang needs a discussion of the taijitu, specifically as it relates to yin-yang. it could probably take some editing down a bit, if that's your inclination, but you can't remove the discussion of it entirely from this article. that would just be plain silly.

look, I understand what's going on here, by looking at your edits on this page and on the taijitu page. you want to make the implication that the Roman use of the symbol is somehow the ancestor of the Chinese use of the symbol. that is just not going to happen, sorry. there's no scholarly support for that theory, and no real reason to think its true. I have no problem with noting that similar symbols are used in both cultures, or that the symbol was used earlier in Europe than in China, but that's as far as it goes until scholarly opinion changes. I'm going to go back to the taijitu page and remove that implication, and if you keep adding it, I'll tag it as original research so as not to mislead the casual reader. believe me, I think it would be fascinating if there was some evidence that the Chinese picked up the symbol from the romans, but there isn't, and wikipedia isn't the correct forum to push interesting but unfounded pet theories on an unsuspecting public. --Ludwigs2 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a fixed idea running along the line that I want suggest that the Chinese symbol as derived from the Roman symbol. Please get rid of that idea, because I a) personally don't believe that and b) my edits show that I have tried to stress the point that both are unrelated and of independent origin. As for the Taijitu section here, please note that it is now in the Taijitu. We don't have identical sections in two articles in Wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

as I keep saying, we can edit the section here to be a bit smaller, if that's your desire. I don't (personally) think it's necessary, but I'm not averse to it. there does, however, need to a passage here discussing the taijitu. I'd ask you to stop reverting and stop tagging, and to start editing cooperatively. I respect a determined editor, but there are limits to how functional that is.

with respect to my 'fixed idea' - I judge actions, not people. so let's look at your actions:

• you consistently make edits which try to equalize discussions of Roman and Chinese designs. that's problematic on taijitu (because Roman shield patterns are obscure and little-known, whereas the taoist use of the symbol is widespread and well-known), and absolutely absurd on yin and yang (because there's no philosophical side to the Roman shield patterns and no connection to the philosophy of yin-yang). yet you persist.
• you consistently use phrasing that tries to highlight some supposed connection between the designs: you refer to Roman shield patterns as taijitu (which is completely unsupported and unsupportable); you treat the symbol as a singular 'The Symbol', and then say it was first used by the romans and later used by the taoists; you insist on ordering that places the Roman use first, to highlight a supposed temporal relationship.
• you removed references on taijitu to the use in Persian and Indian art, and downplay it's use in Celtic art, because that diminishes the pure connection you're trying to draw between Roman and Taoist usages. yes, I added those as a test to see what you'd do. the symbols are there, mind you - you can see them in Persian rugs and Indian tile work (I'll dredge up some jpegs later) - but your reaction made it clear that your interest is in establishing a Roman/Taoist connection.

all I can really say about all that is : Stop! Play Fair! Don't keep trying to stuff original research down wikipedia's gullet! hopefully that will have an effect. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Why don't you take a look for a change at Swastika to see how people deal with an international symbol? Nobody over there thinks that the Indian name Swastika gives the Indian usage any special entitlement over countless other uses, so why should it be, mutatis mutandis, any different with the 'Chinese' Taijitu? Moreover, the symbol Swastika, although of eminent importance to many eastern philosophy, is still treated separately in an article of its own from these philosophies. Why should it be any different with the Taijitu? Wikipedia:SUMMARY now applied: When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article. Done. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh... because GPM, unlike the swastika (which is significant in both Asian and European contexts for different reasons), the taijitu is only significant in its Asian use. the Romans did not call their symbol a taijitu (heaven knows what they called it); the Roman symbol played no significant part in Roman history, Roman philosophy, or Roman culture; and the Roman symbol is not known by anyone in the modern world (except you, me, and a handful of other people who really ought to get out of the library more often). if you think that's wrong, then give me some reference other than the one you keep bandying about (which seems to take no particular note of the symbol except to say that it looks like the Chinese taijitu).

I've been being generous with you, GPM, but I am this close to deleting every reference to the Roman symbol from both yinyang and taijitu on the grounds of wp:undue weight. You're giving me headaches over something trivial for no damned good reason, and policy is unambiguously on my side in this issue. this is my last request for you to edit cooperatively rather than combatively; push more and I will start pushing back seriously. --Ludwigs2 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Things that are Yin and Yang

I'm going to add this list to the article: http://www.doyoufengshui.com/what_is_yin_and_yang.htm

I think that it is impossible to understand yin and yang just by speaking in generalities, without a list of examples of things that are yin and yang. Halberdo (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

eh, a simple list of examples won't help much either, and might encourage overly-literal thinking. but... --Ludwigs2 20:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange link to info about Yin and Yang symbol

At the top of the document, I see: "For the symbol [yinyangsymbol], see Yin and yang (disambiguation)." where the reference to the disambiguation page is red even though that page exists; going to the page doesn't show me the page but offers to create it, which is odd. --Netsettler (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, this document contains a sub-entry called "Taijitu" that points to a main article nmed "Taijitu" containing the symbol. Should that page ("Taijitu") not be the target of the referral at top? I'm not an expert on this, I'm just trying to make sense of this muddled page presentation. --Netsettler (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

fixed it. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

removal of tags

I removed the 'textbook' and 'OR' tags from the 'nature of yin yang' section. they are a month old, and not even the OP has begun a discussion about revisions. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A Third Concept Missing

The article thus far omits explanation of an important part of the image, namely the meaning of the existence of the opposite parts within the other. I believe this relates to the notion of non-well-foundedness (as opposed to "well-foundedness" at it is known in mathematical set theory - there is also "non-well-founded set theory"). So, we have an outer circle symbolising unity, two black and white "drop shapes" representing duality and a third component black/white "eyes" representing a third concept. I believe the third concept might also be thought of as a kind of recursion. As an example, in human endeavours we might think of three parts, namely intent, capability and awareness. The non-well-foundedness comes in bringing about the duals, so to have intent in capability becomes attent(ion) in awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.61.229 (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the third concept is missing, but what those dots represent are the opposite concept that the 'drops' are founded upon. These dots differ from the drops because there is an element of time involved. The opposing 'drop' is simultaneous, the drops defining each other. The whole symbol describes the nature of existence.

An example would be: anarchy=each being following its own rules. fascism=everything obeying the same fixed rules that cannot be changed. The 2 concepts are opposite extremes, and so opposite 'drops'. However, true anarchy could not exist without a fixed rule in place that everyone must obey, a rule of consent for example, allowing everyone their freedom. Otherwise it would be a case of 'back to the jungle' as people are free to form their own power structures, and you are forced to join a group to survive, e.g. what happened before civilization. Conversely, fascism must be founded on the rules of one individual, who was free to make them. Thus, fascism is based on anarchy and anarchy is based on fascism. This can be applied to anything, physical or meta-physical.Natmanprime (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to basics?

My understanding of the development of Yin Yang is that the idea began as the relatively simple one of two complementary principles moving in concert with one another. Over time, the Taoists who took up the idea moved off into a much more elaborate scheme involving magic and mysticism. Later still the West got hold of it and, in keeping with the dualistic mind set of the West, saw it now as two opposing principles. Yin Yang has all kinds of "stuff" attached to it.

It seems to me that at least some of the problematic discussion here arises from the tangle of later developments and perhaps the article might do better to return to the simple basics of Yin Yang with clearer separation from later ideas that have become attached. I am particularly uncomfortable with the repeated use of the word "opposing". The word is not wrong in the sense that its meaning could not encompass a correct meaning for the relationship between Yin and Yang but because it has several meanings, one of which more typically in Western linear conveys the very dualistic orientation that Yin Yang philosophy was intended to correct. Yin Yang essentially says that what might otherwise be seen to be as opposing or "good vs evil" struggles are in reality two components working naturally together as part of a greater whole. It is--as someone has pointed out--Hegel's synthesis (or rather Hegel's is...etc).

In spite of my usage of "good vs evil", I feel these and many other binary ideas should probably not be used as examples. Because two concepts appear together they do not necessarily reflect Yin and Yang; a corollary is that because ideas are not "opposed" they are not Yin and Yang (sweet and sour represents a balance of sorts in cooking).

In general, Yin and Yang represents a different way of seeing the world: as a harmonious interplay of contrasting principles, rather than the struggling world of opposites seen by many...at the expense of their ulcers. Everything else (in my humble opinion) is a distant second to this.

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Western culture views Yin and Yang as Good and Evil?

In Western culture, Yin and Yang are often inaccurately portrayed as corresponding to "evil" and "good" respectively.

Really? News to me. There is no citation here; I'm not qualified to edit the article, so I'll leave it to an expert, but in my perception, it's a more common Western view to equate Yin & Yang with masculine and feminine. This article's reference to the misconception seems unencyclopedic with any context or source. Eeblet 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you kind of answered yourself right there as to why that statement is up there (it's a more common Western view to equate Yin & Yang with masculine and feminine. ). If you go around and ask almost anyone, they'll tell you that. So how do you source a common Western myth? Disinclination 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, exactly -- can I nix the generalization altogether? Eeblet 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added this to the general definition, as this confusion seems common: "A common mistake in western popular culture is to consider yin and yang as the good/evil opposition of western manicheism. However eastern philosophy considers yin and yang as of equal moral statute, it even not pose a moral judgement on them, just considering that disorder or suffering arise when the yin and yang are unbalanced. If this happens, it results into harmful or destructive effects, as this is commonly considered in Chinese medicine. So we can say that, after eastern philosophy, evil in our western sense is when one of the two overtakes the other. For instance authority (yang) usually develops in dictatorship (evil) when it loses a sense of human sensitivity (yin), or the contrary freedom (yin) results in disorder (evil) when it is not related to some community rule (yang). But the balance of the two can result in an harmonious, if not perfect, society." I have seen this confusion in a very popular french comic "spirou", it is used in a cult like "Mahikari", and it also seems common in New Age groups or environmentalists, and it is often invoked to justify evil, war, gender discrimination, etc. So I think it is worth adding a paragraph to dispell this confusion. Richard Trigaux, France. I am a taoist and buddhist practitonner since years. Clear explanations can be found in books of taoist masters like Mantak Chia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.231.251 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good and Evil

It seems (from the discussions above and also from the edit history) that we're in danger of endless disagreement over whether yin and yang can be equated to good and evil. I've amended to passage in the text to reflect the fact that, whilst not a fundamental part of yin/yang philosophy, the moral aspect was incorporated by some schools of thought, particularly the Confucian thinkers - hopefully this is a satisfactory compromise? Yunshui (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Yin" or "Ying"... "Yan" or "Yang"?

The title of this article is "Yin and Yang". "Yin and yang" is the most common name for this concept. So why does the entire article use "ying" instead of "yin"? While the popularity of a term is a factor, in the end, as an encyclopedia, we have the obligation to set things straight with what the correct term is. Now since I have no expertise in this matter, I'm asking this as a question (as opposed to rhetoric): What is the proper (Pinyin, Wade, etc.) transliteration for these terms? Are the vowels long (implying no 'g') or short? 24.126.199.129 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The correct transliteration, whether using pinyin or Wade-Giles, is yin (not ying) and yang (not yan). The absence or presence of the g has nothing to do with the length of the vowels, though; it has to do with the ending sound. —Lowellian (reply) 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "ying" to "yin" several times in this article, especially in the first paragraphs. The Chinese character 陰 (or simplified 阴) is transliterated as "yin" in Pinyin. "Yin" is different from "ying". See the Wikipedia article on Pinyin under "Pronunciation of finals", which shows that final -in and final -ing in Pinyin correspond to two different sounds in Standard Mandarin. -- Similarly, the Chinese character 陽 (or simplified 阳) is transliterated as "yang" in Pinyin. Thousandpeaks (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

which is which?

Which is yin, and which is yang? I can never remember. 69.205.56.80 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

.... It says right in the article. Disinclination 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

.... Not explicitly enough, I added "(respectively)" to the first paragraph so the yin = black = female / yang = white = male association is unequivocal. Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Isn't yin yang also a part of feng shui?

Answer Yes, Yin and Yang is absolutely fundamental to the study of Feng Shui. See http://www.8whitestarfengshui.com Chadedunham (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)chadedunham

Yin Yang or Yin and Yang?

Lowellian moved the article of Yin yang to Ying and yang. Does this reflect common usage in English? As far as I have checked on Google, the former is commoner. In Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, the terms for the dualism are equivalents of yin yang, not yin and yang. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:08, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about this too. It might have been nice if Lowellian had communicated his reasons for the move. Yin Yang certainly is more common. One reason that Lowellian may have done it is because for years, in English, there was a rude expression ("up the Ying-Yang"), sometimes still used, which was likely a bastardization of Yin Yang. He may have wished to avoid this association. Sunray 02:00, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Uh, if you guys were curious, why didn't you just ask me directly on my user talk page instead of speculating about my motives on this talk page and assuming (incorrectly, in this case) that I monitor this page all the time (which is the reason why this response comes two months late)? In any case, here's a couple more reasons why the page should be at yin and yang: Googling "yin yang" does yield more results than "yin and yang", but this includes results which shouldn't be counted, such as pinyin transliterations of the Chinese term or the term "yin-yang" used to refer (not quite correctly) to the taijitu rather than the concepts of yin and yang. Also, the article is actually about the concepts of yin and yang. Suppose we had an article about the concepts of light and dark, as compared with each other. We would not name the article "light dark"; we would name the article "light and dark". Yes, the Chinese term, 陰陽, does transliterate to yin yang in pinyin but a translation into English might well be "yin and yang" since the "and" is implied (as in many other Chinese two-character compounds). —Lowellian (talk) 15:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Yin and Yang makes better sense in English than the (IMHO) inelegant "Yin Yang," and is therefore better for the primary article. Redirects are cheap! Fire Star 19:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What results from Yin and Yang is that one will come up with the illusion that yin and yang follow up one and other: "Thus, a seed will sprout from the earth and grow upwards towards the sky – an intrinsically yang movement." Apparently the roots that grow into mother earth are simply forgotten and one enters the world of manifestations. Yin and yang is the beginning of all con-fusion. Greetings Pablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.109.219 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Google popularity os not a good indicator of anything at all (I wish people would stop using google results as though they were meaningful) and the 'most common use in English' is irrelevant because we can use redirects to cover alternate usages. The correct term would be 'yin yang' or 'yinyang', the way the term is used in asia, and the page name should be one of those two. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps it's time for a change?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the age of this thread (this talk page really needs some archiving - I'll set that up now) I think I can go ahead and do it, unless there are any objections over the next day. --Ludwigs2 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, please do! Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to wait on archiving till after the page move - less work that way. I'll do it all tomorrow, barring any strong objections. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Flaws

This deeply flawed article should not be claiming "accuracy" for any title. To begin with the most obvious deficiency, what are the separate - albeit independent - meanings of yin and yang? Two paragraphs wave at it vaguely, and the lead separately asserts that they are not "good" and "evil" (true, but less than useful). A section on each; including the gentleman from Qin and the cartwheel, would make a much better article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article may be flawed, but explaining the meaning of "yin" and "yang" separately, in separate sections or separate articles, is absurd, like splitting Temperature into Hot nd Cold. It's not "hot" and "cold" (or "good" and "evil", for that matter), but as with those pairs, describing something as "yin" (or as "yang") immediately implies that it is seen as one end of a scale, a dichotomy, a pair of supplementary opposites, or something like that. True, the choice of which end of the scale is called "yin" and which "yang" for each dichotomy is not arbitrary, but it is intuitive or traditional rather than tied to a specific translatable "meaning" of the word "yin" (or "yang") as such.--Nø (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC); edited--Nø (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why articles written and titled by academics in reliable source encyclopedias are all titled "yinyang" (see above re: Encyclopedia Britannica, Gale's, Merriam-Webster). We should be giving more credibility to the expert Reliable Sources on the subject who are choosing that title for their encyclopedia articles, than to Original Research applied to Ghits from commentary in various websites and books. While the OR/Ghits approach might be applicable for titling pop culture articles, this is clearly an academic topic. First Light (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Yin-yang or something like that would be a better title - but I don't feel strongly about it.--Nø (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Yin and yang → Yin yang — Ths was asked for by G6 but given the discussions above I removed the speedy tag as it isn't uncontroversial. This is a procedural nom on behalf of the placer of the speedy (User:Ludwigs2 - who obviously supports it). Their reasoning was Yin yang is the correct name for the concept; yin and yang is an Americanization. There was a very limited discussion of this back in 2005 when the page was moved the other way, but nothing since. Dpmuk (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (obviously). Just to be clear, the reason I proposed this is that 'yin yang' or 'yinyang' i the way the concept is presented in taoist and buddhist philosophy. yin and yang is the more familiar Americanism, so a redirect from 'yin and yang' should be kept, but the article ought to be titled with the correct name of the concept, not the more familiar term. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Use English (including, at times, American), not Chinese. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per nomination and Ludwigs2, i.e., let's use the correct name as it originated. Yin and Yang changes the concept altogether. PrecisionAccuracy is most important, in this case. "Yin yang" would probably be the best choice, though "yinyang" runs a close second, imo. First Light (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Books shows that "yin and yang" is more often used than "yin-yang" in English. (And "yin and yang" is certainly not exclusively American - see this English example from 1868.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohn joe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The OED also cites English usage for yin and yang from 1671; yin-yang together is used chiefly as an attributive: yin-yang philosophers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, please note that COMMONNAME is not blindly applied to loose, colloquial usages - for instance we use bicycle not bike, even though 'bike' is far more commonly used in the US. The key here is that the proper translation of the term 陰陽 is as a single concept, not as the conjunction of two separate concepts. Wikipedia should be reinforcing the correct usage, not indulging the American misconstruction. --Ludwigs2 09:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Such American misconstructors as James Legge, Arthur Waley, and Joseph Needham... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The last two examples, Waley and Needham, use "yin and yang" while discussing the aspects of the overall theory. Both of them, however, describe the overall theory as "the yin-yang theory".[2][3] A quick glance at Legge indicates that he is only discussing the two main aspects of the concept—he may well call it the "yin and yang theory" somewhere, but I couldn't find it. First Light (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
          • In fact, if Google book results are going to be given credibility in this decision (I don't think they should), there are 2,840 results for "yin-yang theory" (in quotes), and only 426 for "yin and yang theory" (in quotes).[4][5] First Light (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
            • • Yin-yang theory is a different proposal; when made, I'll discuss it. English idiom for nouns by themselves is often different from that for attributives. (For now, it seems wordy.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
                • To clarify, the point being made is that the overall theory or philosophy is most often called "yin-yang", not "yin and yang". This article is about the overall philosophy, and should be titled some form of "yin-yang" (no need to tack on "theory" or "philosophy"). First Light (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
                • No, it isn't. This may be a lack of appreciation of English idiom: yin-yang theory is exactly equivalent to theory of yin and yang, which Waley also uses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at how reliable source encyclopedias title their articles, the first two I came across use "yinyang". These are Encyclopedia Britannica[6] and Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion (they title their article "Yinyang Wuxing"). Both define the concept in unitive terms, while also discussing the two different aspects. Because most sources will discuss the two different aspects of the concept using the phrase "yin and yang", Ghits are not a reliable indicator for the title of the concept. Separate articles on Yin and Yang would almost make as much sense as the current article title. First Light (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • FWIW, another broad-based religion encyclopedia, also qualifying as a reliable source, goes without the "and" in their title. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions uses "yin-yang".[7] First Light (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the article states that it is normally referred to as "yin and yang" 65.93.15.125 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose If you are treating it as a freshly transliterated Chinese word, it should be "yinyang". "Yin yang" still implies that it is two words. It just looks like someone forgot the conjunction. Readers are still left focused on irrelevencies like, "What does 'yin' mean?" and "What does 'yang' mean?" -- especially since most readers (American or otherwise) will have the phrase "yin and yang" in their heads. So I don't see any advantage. As for the hyphen, that is associated with the obsolete Wade-Giles system of transliteration (as well as with use as an adjective). What evidence is there that "yin yang" is British usage? Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to moving it to 'yinyang', I just want to get rid of the spurious and misleading 'and'. --Ludwigs2 09:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I don't see "yin and yang" very often and I don't see a problem with WP:COMMONNAME... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Search    Books         Web
_____________  _______  __________
"yin-yang"      89,500   8,010,000
"yin–yang"      90,800   8,090,000
"yin+yang"      90,800   8,090,000
"yin/yang"      90,900   8,090,000
"yin yang"      90,600   8,090,000
"yin - yang"    90,800   8,090,000
"yin and yang" 114,000   2,110,000
"yin & yang"     1,970     507,000
"yin or yang"    4,990     188,000
"yinyang"        5,920   1,070,000
yin and yang   442,000   5,280,000
yin yang       442,000* 11,300,000
yinyang         92,200*  1,060,000

* book results included: dash, slash, comma.

Well, since it came up... I also don't think Google results should matter, and anyway the results could go either way, but I have to laugh at the argument it's not even English without "and". Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

With the search engines, the hit counts are an afterthought, the numbers often doubled or tripled by duplicates. Here is an ngram, a chart created by a tool and a database designed to make these kinds of comparisons. Ngram also lets you compare British and American usage (not much difference in this case). Kauffner (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is anyone else here nonplussed at the (blind) preference to common language over proper usage? I can understand this with respect to arcane terminologu, but the difference between 'yinyang' and 'yin and yang' is minimal, it's easy for a reader to make the connection, the the former term is correct in terms of both translation and conceptualization. it's all well and good to make the project accessible by using familiar terms, but that should not be used as an excuse to 'dumb down' the project. --Ludwigs2 01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The article is about Chinese philosophy, not English language usage. Everything about it should serve the purpose of explaining the concepts at issue. Redirects will still get the readers here. Kauffner (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yin and yang is more common in English, and in the English language version here we are concerned with English usage, not with what a few people claim the 'real and untainted' Chinese usage is. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is most commonly "Yin and Yang" in English, and we go by the common name in English, not by what "the correct Chinese" is. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support because of very dichotomy created by the word "and" that the concept of "yin yang" is supposed to transcend. The irony. Also ngrams, wp:at, wp:rs, wp:ghits, and comments by user:Ludwigs2, user:Machine Elf 1735, user:First Light and user:Nø. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requesting ☯ AS A NEW Symbol/picture.

<QUOTE>-==♥=☮✞☪✡; ©K.c. Klaver = ☮✞☪☯==- </QUOTE>