Category talk:Orientalist woo

See also Category talk:Oriental woo

I don't think so. From what I gather, Orientalism refers to a movement in the arts during the 19th century. It seems anachronistic to use it like this. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The term still has a lot of resonance today among historians and literary scholars as the same tendencies to paint the people of the "East" in a particular way shape how the "West" understands/interacts with Asia. Hell, Said dedicates a big part of the book to that very question, right? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't describing this as "Orientialist woo" displaying a Western bias? I mean, wanting to view these concepts through the prism of what they mean to Western culture (a desire which seems to fit pretty well with Edward Said's definition of orientalism), rather than considering primarily what they mean to the cultures in which they originated? They are not "orientalist woo", but calling them that seems pretty orientalist. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Examples of traditional non-scientific beliefs and practices from East Asian cultures, and western New Age culture's flirtation with these ideas." therein lies the Orientalism. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, but your choice of naming ("Orientalist woo" instead of "East Asian woo") is privileging the orientalism over the original cultures. East Asian culture is surely a more primary topic than Western (mis)interpretations of it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles in this cat should be about the significance of Eastern woo in both the East and West. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine. Because all BS from East Asia is based on TCM, whether you're talking about Shiatsu, Reiki, meridians, yin & yang, and all those weird "remedies" made from parts of various exotic animals.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is all based on Taoism (both versions of it). --★uːʤɱ socialist 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Presently, it also includes "Karma", which is a much broader concept than Taoism or TCM, and (the name at least) is originally Indian, not Chinese. Maybe "Karma" should be removed? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Brx, you've got that backwards: Chinese medicine is based on yin & yang (among other concepts), not vice versa. & Some of the things in this category, like astrology & martial arts, can't really be classified as "medicine". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are we considering martial arts to be woo? This category needs to be cleaned. And no, I did not look at the category before opening my mouth. I assumed it was about acupuncture and whatnot.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I like UHM's Taoism idea. Astrology can fly under Taoism. I motion to change this category to Taoism.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was meant as an argument (argumentum ad absurdum) against it. I'm going for "East Asian woo". --★uːʤɱ structuralist 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? What exactly does astrology have to do with Taoism? How about Karma? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese astrology forms an important part of Taoist religious beliefs. Karma, well the name is Indian, but the concept of reincarnation and being punished in the afterlife for your misdeeds in this one are important ideas in Chinese folk religion (to what extent they are natively Chinese, and to what extent imported from India via Buddhism, I am not qualified to say.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I removed Karma. As for astrology, it makes use of Taoist principles such as the five elements and Yin and Yang.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

and I put Karma back in, because, while Weasel and I might disagree about what term works best, I think we both agree that the point of this category is, essentially, "things from Asia that have been co-opted by the New Agers and other woo-meisters." PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Asian woo? Can we do that?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Isreal, Saudi-Arabia and Russia are also "Asia" so, No. --★uːʤɱ socialist 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

East Asian, then--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Any further thoughts as to this?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category loop

C:Eastern Religions is a subcategory of C:OW. C:OW is a subcategory of C:ER. Results: C:ER is a subsubcategory of itself. C:OW is a subsubcategory of itself. Please fix this. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bootmii / talk / contribs}

Done. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 04:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What's to fix? Categories are there for user navigation, and there is no harm whatsoever in multiple categories being inside each other. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that's a bad idea. For one, by having Category:Eastern religions‎ a subcat of Category:Orientalist woo, you are saying that all "Eastern religions‎" are "Orientalist woo" (which someone is bound to complain about). And then by having it the other way around you are saying that all "Orientalist woo" is "Eastern religion" (which, given the previous, doesn't make any sense). Being "related" has nothing to do with it. Also, there's bound to be some automated thingy that will get very confused by the loop. "See the Wikipedia article on Category theory." ED: Scratch that, actually. Not a very helpful page.

As for user navigation, they can use the link at the bottom to go to the cat if they really need to. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How can the two subjects being related have nothing to do with it? Why would either be a subcat of the other if they weren't related? "For one, by having Category:Eastern religions a subcat of Category:Orientalist woo, you are saying that all "Eastern religions‎" are "Orientalist woo" (which someone is bound to complain about). And then by having it the other way around you are saying that all "Orientalist woo" is "Eastern religion" (which, given the previous, doesn't make any sense)". No, that's not what I'm saying. The categories are for user navigation, in order to view a selection of articles on "related" subjects, not for making sweeping judgements about specific things. Example: Anonymous is in Category:Scientology. Does this mean that Anonymous is an example of Scientology? Nope, it means that some of the article content in the Anonymous page relates to the subject of Scientology. Plus, in Eastern cultures, religion is somewhat loosely defined so it's rather tenuous whether traditional belief systems such as Chinese traditional medicine theory or Feng Shui can be defined as religious, although they are related to concepts otherwise present in Eastern religions. Is the principal of Yin & Yang an example of Taoism, or vice versa? This overlap is why I think these categories belong inside each other rather than in a hierarchical formation. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of note that there's an aspect of woo in most eastern religions... NOT because it's inherent in the religion, but because the spiritualism is interpreted to CREATE woo. The depictions of Yoga in holy books are very different from the yoga that is a martial art, which are STILL different from the woo-aspect of yoga that capitalizes on mystical healing and fitness powers. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 19:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)