Talk:I Ching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I Ching article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

Religion Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as b on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Taoism Portal

This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Deoxy's I Ching Link

Add deoxy's I Ching (http://deoxy.org/iching/) to the links section. I'm not into wikiepedisms and stuff, but im very interested in the book, and i think that anybody else interested in it will agree Deoxy's online random i ching is just the best out there.

I don't know what problem you had with I ching links to add that "No More Links" warning, but seriously, i think that anybody reading this article not knowing deoxy's i ching service would be happy to know it.

PS:Just get to add the damn link, it should be there. Best regards, Marcos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.92.46 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible error in structure section.

The sentence in the fourth paragraph in the structure section may be erroneous: "While the probability of getting young yin or young yang is equal, the probability of getting old yang is three times greater than old yin." In literature I have read on the subject I understand the four ritual numbers-6,7,8,9-to have probabilities of 1/16, 5/16, 7/16. and 3/16, respectively (given certain logical assumptions). I would recommend that to convey the correct meaning this sentence be altered to: "While the probability of getting yin or yang (either young or old) is equal, the probability of getting old yang is three times greater than old yin." I would gladly provide a citation for this subtle but important fact. Gantczak24.211.234.40 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to now read "While the probability of getting either yin or yang is equal, the probability of getting old yang is three times greater than old yin."24.211.234.40 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm doubtful. Please explain. Sunray 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The probabilities I've referenced appear on the "I Ching Divination" wikipedia page and the calculation method can be found at 'http://www.organicdesign.co.nz/I_Ching_/_Divination'; though the more common professional citation is 'Gardner, M., "The Mathematics of the I Ching," Scientific American, January 1974.' According to these sources the probability of young yang is 5/16 while the probability of young yin is 7/16, therefore they are not equal. However since the probability of getting young yang OR old yang is (5/16 + 3/16) = 1/2 and the probability of getting young yin OR old yin is (7/16 + 1/16) = 1/2, the probability of getting either yin or yang is equal. 24.211.234.40 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Sunray 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to Phillip K. Dick's Hugo Award-winning novel 'The Man in the High Castle', which contains numerous references to the I Ching. Jusdafax 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in this article

I don't have the time or skill to fix it while maintaining Wikipedia's quality, but I noticed a distinct bias in the introduction to this article. Speccifically, "Dispite attempts at popularization by the psychologist Carl Jung and others, the Book of Changes has remained a monument to magical thinking and an impediment to objective and scientific observation. The struggle of minds in China, Japan and Korea to rid themselves of this pernicious work is one of the great untold stories of the East Asian world.The great historian of Chinese intellectual history and science, Joseph Needham, expressed it best in his second volume of Science and Civilization in China (p.311). Needham emphatically suggested that the early luminaries of Chinese thought, “would have been wiser to tie a millstone about the neck of the I Ching and cast it into the sea." If Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, this certainly doesn't live up to that goal.64.186.47.226 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. While they certainly express an interesting and valid opinion, I'm strongly opposed to stating in the introduction that one of the major works of one of the world's major religions (or philosophical systems, or whatever) is "pernicious." I'm copying the most blatantly opinionated parts to the "Influence" section. --George (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you both. I've come to expect a slight biased undertone in Wikipedia articles, just because of the nature of the beast, but I was actually kind of appalled at how blatant the bias was in this one. --Andy (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said, above. However, even with the attempt to clean up the language, it has no citations and is far from neutral. The combination results in a completely unencyclopedic section, IMO, so I have removed it. Sunray (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the identical wording was contained in two separate sections: "Skepticism" and "Westernization." I've now removed both: the material is original research and far from neutral. Sunray (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fifthing that. User:Iwanafish seems to be behind this, and is adding in lots of weasel words, and is responsible for the Westernization section (which I renamed Skepticism, but he added back Westernization in a new location without removing the Skepticism section). I rolled it back to my version again, but it needs citations, and a serious point of view check.--Yossarian

10:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Yossarian's work on this. He has eliminated most of the biased language (phrases such as "pernicious influence," etc). However, the section remains mostly original research, except for the Needham quote which is taken out of context and relatively uninformative. Yossarian is suggesting that we attempt to find citations for the material—now contained in the section: "Western view vs Eastern view." I can live with that, although I think we should set a limited time for the citations to be found: Say by the end of December. Do we have consensus on that? Sunray (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd just drop it, as it's pretty subjective at best, and Iwanafish has been a bit hostile. But there is stuff that might be salvaged, so maybe your way is best. End of December is good.--Yossarian

22:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The text had been moved to the "Influence on Western culture" section. Since no citations have been produced for most of this text, I have eliminated it as original research. Sunray (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Someone should look @ the history and see who added the objecionable text, and since @ least 1 person says it may have some value, the origonator of the text should be given oppertunity to get info out in a more neutral fasion.Thaddeus Slamp (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needham Out Of Context??????

The above statement that the Needham quote was taken out of context is nonsense. Neddham had no use for the I-ching, and nor to the vast, vast majority of thinking people in China, Japan and Korea. Wake up.You don't like my comments on the I-ching because they do not fit into your personal religion. --Iwanafish (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is really whether Needham actually knew anything about the I Ching worthy of reproducing here. Needham was a biochemist and historian of Chinese science. Needham believed that western technology was paramount and that Taoism had held the Chinese back. How would anything he said about the I Ching be relevant without some context?

As far as not liking your comments. Whether or not I like your comments is not relevant here. I happen to agree with some of the things you have said. What I am trying to explain is that we need sources to support your opinion. Let's work on this. Sunray (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mccready has re-inserted the Needham quote; this time in the lead. I wish to reiterate what I said, above: Needham needs context. To that I would add: and definitely does not belong in the lead. Sunray (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunray. I'd be grateful if you would acknowledge that there are critics of Yi Ching. This belong in the article and the lead should summarise the article. Thus something, if not JN, needs to go in the lead reflecting that critical view. Over to you for your explanation. I will refrain from reverting, as you have not done, until this is sorted. Mccready (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, if you want to persue this, the problem was that per WP:LEAD we summarize the most important points, not every single out-of-context sentence, which is what criticism was at the time. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed what I said to Iwanafish on his talk page:

Please stop inserting the current version of the "Westernization of the I Ching" paragraph into the article. Editorial decisions about an article are made on the talk page, by consensus. Concerns have been raised about the material in question, and, in its present form, the paragraph cannot stand. It is unsourced, and is from a particular point of view (that is, it is not neutral). If you wish to participate in the discussion on the talk page, that would be welcome. I believe that the paragraph could be re-written, sources found and many of the ideas included...

The last sentence seems clear to me. The paragraph could be re-written and sourced. That is what several editors have said on this talk page. Would you be willing to help with that? Sunray (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sunray for you acknowledgement. The insertion was indeed sourced to page 131 of Vol 2. Can I leave it in your capable hands to include it in the article and make reference to it in the LEAD? Mccready (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize major points in the article. I'd suggest working up a criticisms section (Needham is a V RS) and then figuring out how to summarize it in the lead. I wouldn't suggest starting with the lead, other than an initial foray into bold, revert, discuss, since "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". My 2 fen. --Jim Butler (t) 06:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, Jim. However, before this is done, we still have the matter of the rest of that paragraph which has been reinserted into the article by a sockpuppet [1]. This is original research, and all requests to find a reliable source for it have been ignored. We need to get everyone to abide by the talk page consensus. Any thoughts on this? Sunray (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that diff is largely OR and we should just stick close to the source(s) we have. Just the Needham quote for now is fine. And I'm not sure it needs to be verbatim in the lead until or unless we flesh out criticisms further. We can maybe say something to the effect that some, like Needham, consider it superstitious. That can't be too controversial.... Jim Butler (t) 10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I like the idea of a criticisms section. Sunray (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of inline citations

Any objections to me posting the box at the top of the page requesting inline citations? The list of references is a start, but citations would be better (and would help to clean up the bias). --Andy (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Sunray (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You western Yijingers think you can have your magic book, shake you coins and no one will laugh at you. Be assured billions of us here in Asia are smiling at you all the time while you slowy go broke and lose you jobs. Daiku Barusu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanafish (talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One might say: "empires rise and fall—the people carry on." However, unlike a blog, an encyclopedia must rely on sourced material rather than generalizations. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigrams—elements: original research?

In the table in the "Trigrams" section, there is a column headed "elemental." What appears in the column seems to be a collection of ideas from very different sources. For example the four classical elements of Greek mythology (earth, air, fire and water) are listed rather the five Daoist elements (metal, wood, fire, water, earth). Two tantric sexual symbols appear (Yoni, Lingam). Then "moon" and "Sol" (Latin for the sun) round out the eight. Thus we have symbols from at least three different cosmologies. This seems to me to be a pretty blatant example of original research. I've placed a "citation needed" tag on that column of the table pending discussion here. Sunray (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't original research. It is Culling's usual incompetent copying of Crowley's material. The four Tantric symbols are from Crowley's 777. The other four are from either The Golden Dawn, or Gerald Gardner. jonathon (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It may not be original research, but it also may not be appropriate for this article. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source that says that Culling rejected the translations of Wilhelm and Legge and claimed to have “recovered” the original text based on the eight bagua of Fu Xi.[2] This is pure fantasy and has little to do with the "I Ching." I've removed it. Sunray (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insertion of POV material

Iwanafish continues to insert the following text into the article:

The I Ching has ironically become a source of wonderment chiefly in Western nations. In East Asian nations a copy of the I Ching is difficult to find in bookstores. Though the text remains a source of divination practise, this too has greatly diminished in recent decades. Despite attempts at popularization by the psychologist Carl Jung and others, the Book of Changes in the minds of many has been thought a monument to magical thinking and an impediment to objective and scientific observation. Historian of Chinese intellectual history and science, Joseph Needham, said in his second volume of Science and Civilization in China (p.311) that the early luminaries of Chinese thought “would have been wiser to tie a millstone about the neck of the I Ching and cast it into the sea.”

As previously stated, this is original research. In the discussion, in the "Bias in this article" section, above, (and other sections), seven editors have spoken, including Iwanafish, the originator of the text. Six have said that the text is not acceptable in its present form. That represents consensus. Several have agreed that the text could be re-written. A time period was given for re-writing and/or adding of reliable sources, but the text has not been modified. Unless or until Iwanafish fixes that text, his efforts to re-insert it are akin to vandalism and editors are requested to revert him. Sunray (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ALL PAINFULLY FACTUAL

Everything in the Iwanafish quote is a matter of fact. The I Ching is no longer taken seriously in East Asian nations. Sorry boys and girls, your dreams are contradicted by reality. The FACT that the I Ching is of minor interest in East Asia, but is of some interest in Western nations (in certain circles), is an interesting fact in itself. --Iwanafish (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an axe to grind here, since at present my knowledge of the I Ching is confined to "George Harrison was inspired by it to write a great song", but I think WP:Common knowledge is relevant and we do need to source things. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get A Wiki-Life

What is wrong with statements of the obvious, like "the I Ching is a book" or "people in China don't pay attention to it anymore." Are you guys hippies? You need to get a life.--Kungtzu (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about this because I value this encyclopedia and the policies that guide us in editing it. While the statement may be true, without a citation, it is original research. Would you agree to not reinsert that paragraph into the article until someone finds a source? Sunray (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kungtzu, welcome to WP, please have look at WP:OR and WP:V ... stuff does need to be cited in order to include. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

Someone recently placed a "neutrality" tag on the article. The textbox of the tag reads as follows:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

I don't see a discussion of neutrality on this page. The NPOV Dispute guideline states:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies..."

The content policies are: WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:NOR. Anyone who wishes to maintain the tag should state reasons for doing so here now, with reference to the appropriate policies. Sunray (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The only objection would be over lack of insertion of criticism in the lead. However, the criticism section is not large enough yet to merit insertion in the lead. Till there is enough criticism the tag should be taken out. Is criticism as such really notable? Well, maybe there is more historical criticism to include. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the content of the lead be more of a style issue than a neutrality concern? Sunray (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If you had a large enough crit section and nothing in the lead, that would be an NPOV problem. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I see that. But what about in this case? Sunray (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No other NPOV concern has been expressed by that editor. The tag should be taken out, till the editor who put it in has greatly expanded and sourced the criticism section. If that is done and people still don't want it in the lead, then it would be an NPOV issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[undent]There is no need to greatly expand the crit section, though that would be a tiny problem given the fraud involved in using the Bagua of the Yi Ching in fengshui. The crit is part of the article and a signficant part, given the weight of Needham. Thus it belongs in the lead. I'm happy for you two to suggest an alternative form of words for the lead.Mccready (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We have expressed our views, and considered yours. If you want to keep the tag, or to mention such a tiny, un-contextualized, and -as written- insignificant 1-sentence "section" in the lead, then you will have to form consensus for it. As is, there is consensus to take it out. I will do so. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that Needham's quote is sufficient for lead inclusion, but I think it's fine to leave the POV tag on if it will attract other editors who might help. --Jim Butler (t) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The proper thing would be to put an expansion tag on the section. The whole article should not be branded because no one has the ambition to expand the section. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, but will add that my personal philosophy is to err on the side of leaving up NPOV tags unless serious trolling is going on. They can stay up a long time and then be taken off whenever active concerns have passed. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on that. Definitions, I guess. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that the critique section should not be expanded. That quote seems like such a non sequitur. There must be some context to it. Incidentally, and this is just for amusement's sake, I conducted an experiment and asked the I Ching what it thought of the current dispute on this page. It gave me no. 12, Standstill (Stagnation) (Wilhelm translation). That amused me to no end. Though, it did transform into no. 58, The Joyous ("Thus the superior man joins with his friends/For discussion and practice"). Little bit of a contrarian there... --Yossarian

06:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that the "Criticism" section section needs to be expanded. You are absolutely right about context. Sunray (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. And the reading is great, especially the last part. Sunray did a nice bit of expanding just today. BTW, Mccready reported me to AN/I here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Query: Is the neutrality issue now resolved? It seems from the discussion above that the problem has been dealt with. Sunray (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed. Sunray (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I agree that it's undue weight to cite Needham in the lead. Why don't we try and flesh out the criticisms section with additional sources and then summarize it with a sentence in the lead. regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs to include the criticism by Needham. As noted above he is not insignificant and including it is in line with WP:LEAD. Please note that the POV tag has been replaced by another user after my attempts here, on a userpage and at AN/I. I'd be grateful if this is not removed until we sort this out. Those who oppose need to show by use of WP:LEAD that such crit should not be in the lead. The fact that it is a small section is irrelevant. Mccready (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Baker has suggested that including the Needham point of view in the lead may be undue weight. I share that concern. However, I am willing to work on the Needham criticism being added to the lead and would suggest that we work out the wording here. However, I don't yet see how this relates to the placement of the neutrality tag on the article. I will be happy to leave the tag there, if you would be willing to explain that. Sunray (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article. It's that simple. Until it does so then the article is inaccurate and the POV tag should stay. Could you tell me what was wrong, other than UNDUE weight, with my original formulation in the lead? I have already argued it is not undue weight for 2 reasons, 1 the lead should summarise the contents, 2. Needham is a towering figure in Chinese studies and his views cannot be summarily consigned to the nether regions of an article like this as undue weight. Mccready (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, the lead should summarize the most important points in the article. We need a little more weight than one scholar's very brief quote to the effect that he did not think highly of the I Ching, even if that scholar is a major one. Did Needham's criticism turn the tide of opinion, or encapsulate an important scholarly trend? We need historical context, not just textual context. Again, I don't think the present quote suffices for lead inclusion; I think that the section should first be expanded, then summarized in the lead. Accordingly, I've added an expert-help template to the section. --Jim Butler (t) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Comments??

Abraham doesn't know anything about Chinese philosophy. There is no influence from the I Ching in Chuang Tzu (inner chapters) or in the Lao Tzu. Abraham's comments in no way provide an alternative to Needham's I Ching comments. Needham felt the classic was am enormous brake on the development of Chinese philosohic thought i.e. it was the same stuff over and over, year after year, century after century. No new ideas. Get it? --Kungtzu (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that new ideas are invariably better ideas? That may, or may not, be true. The point is that the I Ching was influential in Chinese thought. Needham is saying that it held back the development of Chinese science (I don't think he was suggesting that it held back Chinese philosophical thought, but correct me—preferably with a citation—if I am wrong). Nevertheless, Needham's comment is just one opinion. I hope to produce other opinions on the subject. Sunray (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

May I remind all editors of the wikipedia rules on Wikipedia:No_original_research. Basically you cannot place your own conclusions or research into wikipedia articles. You need to cite Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. I have deleted the following material from the article and marked here the places where you need to provide reliable sources before the material is reinserted.

Early Chinese civilization, as with western civilization, accepted various pre-scientific explanations of natural events (NEEDS RELIABLE SOURCE but is irrelevant essay anyway), and the I Ching has been cited as an example of this. (NEEDS RELIABLE SOURCE). As a manual of divination it interpreted natural events through readings based on symbols expressed in the trigrams and hexagrams. (ALREADY IN ARTILE) Thus any observation in nature could be interpreted as to its cause and effect. (THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS RELIABLE SOURCE) This might be compared to the Roman practice of basing decisions of state on animals' livers. (NEEDS SOURCE AND IS IRRELEVANT ESSAY) While usually sympathetic to the claims of Chinese culture and science(NEEDS SOURCE), Joseph Needham, in his second volume of Science and Civilization in China (p. 311) stated: "Yet really they [Han dynasty scholars] would have been wiser to tie a millstone about the neck of the I Ching and cast it into the sea."

And why on earth delete the facts that Needham was a historian of Chinese intellectual history and science?

I thought the source was at the end of the paragraph? Abraham, Ralph H. (1999) Commentaries on the I Ching. Chapter 1 Legendary History ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is at the end of the paragraph. The paragraph in the article is a close paraphrase of the text of the citation. Anyone who doubts this has only to check the source (it is online). This is all perfectly in accord with the WP:MOS and WP:CITE. Sunray (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if it is so that the source says what the text here says, then there is no reason to source it multiple times. However, as long as it does you can quiet people's fears by putting it in multiple times, if that's what it takes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who haven't read the sources, I put the actual quotations in the refs. It is inappropriate to ask for sources while assuming that the sources given do not contain the information they purport to cite- having not read the given sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on Western Culture

The text under this heading is not neutral, regurgitates information above, and does not in any way, shape, or form, reflect the heading, appearing more like an "I Ching for Dummies" article in itself. I would suggest it either be heavily reformatted, clarified, or optimally outright deleted. Mockery (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree—a mix of original research and "how to" manual. I've deleted it. Sunray (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celestial Dragon Edition I Ching

This website has posted a full and original translation of the I Ching online. I recommend that it be included in the links section (http://www.answercult.com/about-celestial-dragon-edition-i-ching/) Comments?

I also agree with one of the above editors editor that (http://deoxy.org/iching/) should be added in the links section. I mean this is a Wiki Article on the I Ching - it should have links to different versions of the Text???? Wwind (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding these links: They do not meet WP:EL. Sunray (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about them specifically does not meet the WP:EL?? Whether it is these links or others, I think it is partially insane to have a detailed article on the I Ching - but no actual links to the text. To state my case - I make reference to pages on the Bible and the Tao te Ching , the Holy Koran, the Iliad and countless others. I have just given a few small examples that have in common that they be ancient texts. In addition, if you spend time examining similar articles, you will find that there is a definite pattern that articles on works of ancient text ALL have external links to various commentaries, translations both in the original language and in English.

So to summarize my points I would like you to answer

1 - What specifically about these links does not meet WP:EL Please state exact clauses. Specifically make clear whether the issue is with these particular links or with ANY outside links to ANY text

2 - Please state how the I Ching article differs from any of the others mentioned above and why those articles are entitled to have links to outside text, whereas the I Ching article is exempt from needing a link to the article text that the article discusses

Awaiting your response. Wwind (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the game whereby I set myself up as the authority and you take me on. I am just one editor. When you put those links in the "External links" section, you added them below this message:

"DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF

LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here,

but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link

to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)

and link back to that category using the I Ching at the Open Directory Project template.

Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED.

Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for details"

The links you would add are not necessary for this encyclopedia. The link already there has a list of resources on the I Ching, including the Wilhelm translation. You have made your case, if other editors comment and there is a consensus to add your link, it shall be added. Sunray (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To note - I put up the request to add the links for 3 days and nobody replied - Since there was no reply- I added the links and you came quickly and removed - obviously because you are watching the page for changes Since you are the defined authority/watcher on this page I again ask you to answer my questions. If your answers are logical and with reason- I will rest my case. I am sure any editor who can stand behind the stated policy can answer these questions reasonably.

For your(s) or anybody who cares to answer- reference the questions again. Please answer with authority.

1 - What specifically about these links does not meet WP:EL Please state exact clauses. Specifically make clear whether the issue is with these particular links or with ANY outside links to ANY text. If the problem is with these links in particular - what links to I Ching text would you recommend?

2 - Please state how the I Ching article differs from any of the other ancient texts (Koran,Bible,Iliad, Tao te Ching) mentioned above and why those articles are entitled to have links to outside text, whereas the I Ching article is exempt from needing a link to the article text that the article discusses

Awaiting your response. Wwind (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

a) Web links are not the preferred form of citing material;

b) For translations of texts, links are to versions which have scholastic/academic acceptance. The only comment on the linked page about the translation points out that there is no congruence between the English word that is used, and the Chinese word in the original text.

c) 13 hard copy translations are cited in the article. The Open Directory has links to ten websites that allegedly contain translations or commentaries. The presence of another translation is not going to clarify it for anybody.jonathon (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

a) I am not lobbying to cite via web links - I am lobbying to having an easy to use link to the complete text

b) That is fine- we can select a link that has scholastic acceptance - I beleive the Wilhelm may - somebody else can verify

c) I do not know Wiki's official stance on the DMOZ project- however in many categories - the links are many years out of date and added with no authority - rather whatever the editor at the time thought was a good idea.

Based on all that I lobby to mutually select a link to the full text that is acceptable to all to include. It is a travesty that the Wiki article is many peoples first introduction to the I Ching and there are no links to the actual text- only a link to a DMOZ catagory which without getting into a discussion regarding the (d)evolution of the DMOZ project is found lacking for many reasons. Is this suggestion acceptable? What link to outside text would someone recommend? Wwind (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In suggesting a direct link to an accepted text, you make a good case for the inclusion of the Wilhelm link, (which does have scholarly acceptance). I will support the inclusion of that link. Let's give it a couple more days and assuming we still have consensus, add it. Sunray (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough - do you have a recommendation on which link to Wilhelm to use as there are lots available - The (http://deoxy.org/iching/) link has the full text in a drop down search menu? Would this be a good way for inclusion - or would you recommend linking to a static page that just lists the whole text? Wwind (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a nice link. I'm not sure that the format is great for a reader who is unfamiliar with the I Ching. Would you be willing to suggest one or two alternatives? Sunray (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend the Online Clarity Link for inclusion as it is most academic and straight forward without complication or advertisements on the page. This link is (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/html/wiltrans/wilhelm_translation.html) What are some peoples thoughts? Wwind (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an amazing link! However, for those unfamiliar with the I Ching, the table on the first screen might be somewhat daunting. If we were to pick one of the two, I would say the deoxy link is more accessible. Perhaps we should put both links there with annotations explaining them. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction needs work

I am Chinese myself and I understand Chinese culture to a considerable degree. I do not understand what is going on when I read this introduction. I am very confused. Colipon+(T) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This text was inserted by Smithrjs on May 7. It provides a great deal of information—far too much to be in keeping with WP:LEAD. I am going to revert to the earlier version of the lead (which had been in place for a long time). The earlier version was far from perfect, and in need of revision. Perhaps we could incorporate some of the material added by Smithrjs, which I am moving here:

The I Ching (Wade-Giles), or “Yì Jīng” (Pinyin); also called “Book of Changes” or “Classic of Changes” is one of the oldest of the Chinese classic texts. The book consists of two parts. The "basic text" of the Changes, which took form sometime in the early Zhou dynasty (traditional dates: 1122-256 B.C.E.), consists of sixty-four six-line divinatory symbols known as hexagrams (gua 卦), each of which has a name that refers to a physical object, an activity, a state, a situation, a quality, an emotion, or a relationship. In addition, each hexagram possesses a short, cryptic description of several words, called a "judgment" (tuan 彖), and a brief written interpretation for each line of each hexagram, known as a line statement (yaoci 爻辭). The line statements, which are read from the bottom of the hexagram upward, describe the development of the situation epitomized by the hexagram name and the judgment. In the process of divination, the person consulting the text evaluates not only the judgment and line statements but also the relationship of the constituent trigrams (three-line symbols, also called gua) for insights into the issue under consideration, and what to do about it. Over time, a great many different systems developed for analyzing the relationship of hexagrams, trigrams and individual lines. During the late Zhou period, a set of appendices known as the Ten Wings (shiyi 十翼)--attributed to Confucius--became permanently attached to the "basic text," and so the work received imperial sanction in 136 B.C.E. as one of the five major "Confucian" classics (wujing 五經). This second part of the book articulated the Yijing's implicit cosmology and invested the classic with a new and powerfully attractive literary flavor and style. The world view of this amplified version of the Changes emphasized correlative thinking, a humane cosmological outlook, and a fundamental unity and resonance between Heaven, Earth and Man. It also stressed the pervasive notion of yinyang complementarity, cyclical movement and ceaseless alternation. These amplifications and explanations of the "basic text" have had enormously important consequences in many realms of Chinese culture, from the Han period to the present.[3]

We should should decide which portions of this text belong in the lead and which would best be moved elsewhere in the article. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For a Chinese person versed in Chinese classical texts this is very easy to understand when everything is translated back into Chinese. But I can't see how someone who does not understand Chinese culture at all to remotely touch base with what is being said in that entire paragraph. I say we cut it all, explain very briefly what "gua" is, and then explain on a broader scale how it has affected Chinese culture and applied internationally. Colipon+(T) 05:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I would welcome your thoughts on how it has affected Chinese culture. I don't suppose you would have any citations in English... Sunray (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)