Talk:I Ching/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about I Ching. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 {{dmoz}} 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)

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)

I was just going through this for the first time. The passage in the section that I do not yet understand is this:

"While the probability of getting either yin or yang is equal, the probability of getting old yang is three times greater than old yin."

I understood the previous explanation on probabilities, which does not seem to exp+lain this one about the moving lines. Is it something about picking up the yarrow sticks that favors the old yang?(Jace1 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Deletion of Binary Sequence Contribution

I have noted that my contribution to this section has been deleted by 85.59.72.154. who has the opinion that it is "New Age Stuff". May I remind this person, that there is a request by the editors of Wikipedia to expand this section and to clarify the information on this particular subject.

In my honest opinion, the earliest representation of the binary sequence is the Fu Hsi Segregation Table of the symbols of the book of changes. This table is illustrated in the reference cited. It is also illustrated in Vol 2 and 3 - Plate XVI of Science and Civilization in Ancient China by Sir Joseph Needham.

With regard to my information on the binary sequence based on the powers of the number 2. This information is basic computer science.

I therefore consider the deletion of my contribution as unnecessary and unfair, given that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia inviting contributions from everyone who is knowledgeable of the subject. As such, I am undoing this deletion and invite a discussion on this subject to get a consensus of opinion by other editors on this matter. ichingmaster (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your article isn't that its new agey; the problem is it's poorly written and formatted even worse. Also copyright violations.

Ichingmaster: Your additions are interesting and you are obviously well-versed in the subject. However, I have some concerns with some of what you have written:

Too long. At 52 kilobytes, the article is beyond WP groundrules for article size. Your additions add almost 10 kb to the article.
Too technical. The explanations of binary sequence are written like a manual, one of the things Wikipedia is not.
Not well-enough referenced. I know you have provided references. However, the section generally does not use the recommended method for citations.

One of the recommendations in the guidelines on article size is to use summary style in the main article and then go into more detail in sub-articles. I am willing to work with you on this and will begin by pruning the section. Sunray (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunray: Thank you for your comments. I was not aware of WP groundrules for article size.However! I am quite willing to work with you on this extremely important article.

Perhaps we could agree as to the sub-article titles as follows:

Segregation Table of Yin/Yang symbols.
The Ma-Wang-Tui Document.
The Binary Code /I Ching Mathematical Relationship.
System of Notation.
References for above articles. ichingmaster (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008(UTC)

We have both been away from the article since the above was written. It looks good to me, though you will have to take the lead on content. Also, you will want to ensure that each article can stand on its own, so we don't get deletion requests. Sunray (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

/* Insertion of POV material */

for the purpose of discussion only

Are you suggesting that because the westernization of East Asia has brought less interest in the I Ching that it somehow makes it less interesting, or "valid" or valuable as a metaphysical system?

People in Rome are losing interest in Catholicism while Africa and South America are gaining interest in Catholicism. Do you think that says something about Christianity's validity or value as a metaphysical system?

Needham's desire to denigrate magical thinking in favor of materialistic thinking says more about him, and the trajectory of modern East Asian culture, than it does about the I Ching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.177.10 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Needham really respected Asian Culture. He was a scientist, too. Magic doesn't work. The I Ching is a divination book that has been confused with a philosophy book. That's it. Hegel also notes this in Philosophy of History. TIC has no factual, logical, or inductive merit. To put it at the center of Eastern Religion, like this article does, is silly. It's like claiming Astrology is the central practice of Western religion or that Nostradamus was the most important writer. It's Orientalist. Also, what's with all the irrelevant cites of occult books? The I-Ching represents the genetic code? Leibniz, who couldn't read Chinese is suddenly an expert Sinologist because he corresponded with Jesuits?

Need help in inserting some important information

Dear Sirs I'm Bashar Abdulah Iraqi writer and translator I want to add to the I Ching article( under subtitle- Translations) new information about my first arabic translation of the IChing published in 2008 by Fadaat Publishing House in Amman, Jordan. I need ur help in inserting the information bellow for me for I tried more than once but it is not accepted, perhaps there is something wrong with my performing editting. This is the information supported by links:

"== The First Arabic I ching ==

In 2008 the Iraqi poet and translator, Bashar Abdulah, introduced and forwarded the first Arabic translationof Wilhelm, R. and Baynes, C. F's edition, by Fadaat Publishing House in Jordan[الترجمة العربية الأولى The First Arabic Translation Of The IChing] and in July 2009 launched with his colleague Hikmet Elhadj the first Arabic Iching[The First Arabic Iching webpage] so as to be a means of spreading out- in the Arab Homeland- the importance of this ancient book in both fields of philosophy and oracle reading."

Thank u for patience and understandingBasharabdulah (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ISBN no of the Arabic IChing book

Dear Sirs Sorry to disturb u. Referring to my last talk about asking ur help in inseting information about the arabic translation of the I Ching, I forgot to give u information of the book it self and ISBN no.So as umight help me in adding it to the reflist

" The book name is: Kitabul Taghayyurat-The First arabic Translation الترجمة العربية الأولى لكتاب التغيرات =(I Ching or Book of Changes) translated and frowarded by Bashar Abdulah, Fadaat Publishing House, Amman, Jordan. ISBN 978-9957-30-043-2 "

Sorry again for disturbing and thank u in advanceBasharabdulah (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 91.144.8.15 (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to Article

I'm very entertained by all this debate about this article and happy it's ongoing. I am wandering though why no ones brought up the i ching's influence on Jungian philosophy. It seems it should at least be mentioned in the section on the I chings influence on western culture. I'm not sure I am qualified to add that section but perhaps someone should look into it. Thanks for allowing my input. angus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.172.5 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Be aware that the Doxy site uses a lot of links to the I Ching Plus site of Lofting. That site is being shifted to the dedicated Emotional I Ching site (http://www.emotionaliching.com ) so links may start to break unless changed. The files of concern are now relabelled and in http://www.emotionaliching.com/lofting directory with a bx heading (e.g. bx111111.html ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.160.172 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Added 'neutrality disputed' tags to some biased sentences in the Binary Sequence section

The indicated lines hardly give objective information about the binary sequence, on the contrary, they show one person's use and opinion of a possible application of the sequence. It merely is an advertisement for mr Lofting's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.162.40 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The material contains suitable references to scientific research on brain function and the elicitation of the sequence through our brain's natural oscillations when acquiring information. The isomorphism present in our specialist assessments of situations allows us to translate 'fight/flight' assessments into yang/yin assessments and as such brings out an abstract domain model we all use as species members - it is what makes it possible to understand yang/yin meanings etc without having an in-depth understanding of ancient Chinese. The Domain model is covered in the EIC book and is available, with refs etc, on the net as http://www.emotionaliching.com/AbstractD.html - we see from this how we can validate the I Ching beyond its traditional form as a tool of divination - and at the same time bring out the properties and methods of the IC as stemming from basic brain function and so the I Ching is a reflection of our generation of meaning in general. From a Wikipedia perspective, quoting Wilhelm is advertising his work. The Dioxy link promoted on this Wiki site, and has nothing to do with me, uses my I Ching Plus pages to promote itself in combination with the Wilhelm edition used so I dont see any issue here with what I have presented - it is all testable/falsifiable which is a lot more than what the traditional I Ching has to offer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.160.172 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sirs I'm Bashar Abdulah Iraqi writer and translator I want to add to the I Ching article( under subtitle- Translations) new information about my first arabic translation of the IChing published in 2008 by Fadaat Publishing House in Amman, Jordan. I need ur help in inserting the information bellow for me for I tried more than once but it is not accepted, perhaps there is something wrong with my performing editting. This is the information supported by links:

"== The First Arabic I ching ==

In 2008 the Iraqi poet and translator, Bashar Abdulah, introduced and forwarded the first Arabic translationof Wilhelm, R. and Baynes, C. F's edition, by Fadaat Publishing House in Jordan[الترجمة العربية الأولى The First Arabic Translation Of The IChing] and in July 2009 launched with his colleague Hikmet Elhadj the first Arabic Iching[The First Arabic Iching webpage] so as to be a means of spreading out- in the Arab Homeland- the importance of this ancient book in both fields of philosophy and oracle reading."

Thank u for patience and understandingBasharabdulah (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Coin method question

I was just wondering if anyone would think a section explaining basic methods for questioning the I Ching would be helpful. I think that a section explaining the coin method (for example) would be good. Sseay (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish to bring to your attention the link http://the-iching.com/. There process of a guessing not only on coins, but also using Yarrow stalks is evidently represented. I shall be glad, if the community will consider admissible accommodation of this link in a body of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.70.66 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Trigrams and Hexagrams

In the "Stucture" section, the symbol 卦 is said to be the symbol for hexagrams as well as trigrams. While I have no knowledge of Chinese, I doubt this information is correct.

LeeDuke (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

S J Marshall's site is a terrific resource: Yijing Dao—Glossary of Chinese Yijing terms:

Gua 卦 'Divination figure'—This character has been translated both as 'hexagram' and 'trigram' in Yijing studies, context deciding which is meant. But its use is not exclusive to the Yi…

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I Ching divinations

Under the tables for the hexagrams, the lines that let you know what they mean? They are backwards. So what you have as listed for 60 is not the actual 60 if you look in the I Ching itself. They are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.63.104 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hexagram 60 is listed correctly and generally, I don't see a systematic error with the lines. What exactly did you think was wrong?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Are you daft? That the I-Ching, a divination book, held back the Chinese is a very common view, especially in philosophy. See: Hegel - Philosophy of History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.228.145 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Changes & the supernatural

All references to supernatural ideas (that don't indicate that they are such) should be deleted. For instance, there is a line that says that a researcher has suggested that the numerical code from the book may represent codons from the human genetic code. This is obviously a ridiculously unscientific idea -- akin to suggesting that the Bible code is more than coincidence. The author of the Book of Changes knew nothing of genomes or the molecules of DNA or of atoms themselves. Thus, to say that genetic code is represented in the text is to suggest either coincidence or a supernatural event.

The difference between today and the time in which the Book of Changes was written is that the majority of the population now accepts science -- that is the primary use of empirical, rational thought as opposed to superstitious beliefs. And it's not a stretch to say that it's been a good thing for the human population. Let's not go back to superstition on Wikipedia. Can we agree that inclusions, such as the one about the book's relationship to the genetic code, should be deleted? ask123 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand how someone could interpret the phrase "the numerical code from the book may represent codons" as ridiculous conspiracy nonsense. The words "numerical code" and "representation" in this case simply refer to numerals represented in base-4. Unlike the so-called Bible code, there's no gematric reinterpretation going on. However, although the "code" is mathematically overt, that doesn't imply the authors (of the Book of Changes) understood base-2 or base-4 number systems. For what its worth, the "code" {6,7,8,9} can, just as easily as {G,A,T,C}, be used to "represent" a DNA sequence. I suppose the combinatoric theme of the Book of Changes is probably what makes the DNA thing interesting to some folks.

The wording you've introduced is somewhat problematic [3]: "John C. Compton has suggested that it is possible that these numerical codes may represent specific codons of the Genetic Code." The words "it is possible that" and "may" should be undone so it doesn't imply more than that which is trivially true. I think it might be condescending to caution the reader about DNA being unknown to ancient China. I haven't read John C. Compton's book but someone who has done might be able to suggest a more extensive rewording.

In regard to Richard S. Cook, its a scholarly work and I've verified the article text is consistent with what the author claims in his abstract. I'm not one of those who push the phrase "Wikipedia isn't about truth" too far… and I'm skeptical about the claims myself, but the {{expert-verify}} tag needs to be removed. The book doesn't need his own section though and if any math experts have read it, I'd love to hear their thoughts.

Finally, scientists don't claim to have all the answers. Before throwing the word supernatural around, especially in regard to classic literature, beware "the greatest of intellectual sins".—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ask123, Wikipedia also should not present a work of Chinese antiquity out of the context in which it has always been interpreted and understood. It all comes down to the sources. Anything, technically speaking, can be deleted if it has no citation. But I disagree with the logic that elevates ideology over intellectual rigour, and seeks to delete things solely based on the ideas that they espouse. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Compton and some Lofting and scaled back the mentions for Cook's CCC.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Making the titles consistent

Should the "classics" (yi jing, shu jing, shi jing, li ji) not all have a consistent title? At the moment we have: Shi Jing, Book of Rites, Book of History, and I Ching. That's two English, one pinyin, and one Wade-Giles. I don't understand the logic there. If no one objects, can we change them all to "Book of..."? I suppose I Ching is simple: Book of Changes, but what about Shi Jing? Book of Odes, Songs, Poems? I prefer Odes. Is someone able to do this? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How long until the names could be changes to make them consistent with one another? I have suggested using "Book of..." for all of them. Thanks. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

These aren't listed in this article. You're inquiring about moving all these articles to new names. I see you posted to the talk pages of 3 other classics. The talk pages aren't active on the following: «Four Books», «Five Classics», «Four Books and Five Classics», except with regard to a proposed merge into Four Books and Five Classics.

Sometimes things are arranged by convention and that's the logic. If there were stronger bindings and more abstraction between alternate titles, a richer disambiguation API/presentation, and just better search in general, I wouldn't have concerns about moving to "Yijing". However, it seems like robots are constantly repairing links and things can go wrong. I'm just not sure the pros would outweigh the cons. You mention elsewhere you don't know how to move an article. Neither do I, but I'm guessing that even for an experienced mover, what you're proposing would be a non-trivial task.

That being said, typically it's "Classic of" but there's a discussion on changing Classic of Rites to "Liji" or "Record of Rites" due to inaccuracy/ambiguity. Book of Odes would require disambiguation with Book of Odes (Bible) and Kitab al-Aghani, so that's not a good choice. If the most recognizable name in English really is Shi Jing, then from what I understand, it shouldn't be moved. (I'm no authority). I'm not sure how long it might take before other editors chime in to form a consensus.

Did you leave out Spring and Autumn Annals because it doesn't fit the scheme?

—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I may have been wrong in moving it. I am going on the assumption that Wikipedia has self-corrective mechanisms for people like me, who are testing the water and trying things out. I am not sure that "Shi Jing" is the more recognisable name in English, though I'm not sure how that could be tested. In both the de Bary and Ebrey texts here, "Shi Jing" is not the main referent. If I went too far, please do what is necessary to fix it. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with this move. I Ching is the most commonly known name of this work in English. Book of Changes is much less well-known (if you doubt this, try googling "I Ching" and "Book of Changes." The policy on article names states:" Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Sunray (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

!vote=I Ching. Agreed, way more wikilinks for I Ching and the related articles List of hexagrams of the I Ching, I Ching divination, I Ching's influence... Thanks (and welcome back!)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Machine Elf. Usually there is a fair amount of discussion of a change in article name--especially when the article has been in place for many years. You were the only person who commented, besides TheSoundAndTheFury, and you said that it shouldn't be moved. Therefore no consensus for a name change; I am going to request a move back to I Ching.' Sunray (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Page move completed: Book of Changes moved back to I Ching. Sunray (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As a footnote to the foregoing, WP:TITLE is the policy governing article titles. In the section on "Considering title changes," it states: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."[4] If there is a reason to change it, this would be subject to broad discussion. As the policy states further: "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested Moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." Sunray (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Link : Chinese Text Project

Let us add this very useful link to the "External links" section http://ctext.org/book-of-changes/yi-jing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.54.91.178 (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, I've spent hours on that site :) Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Link: Center for Zhouyi & Ancient Chinese Philosophy

David Knechtges, "THE PERILS AND PLEASURES OF TRANSLATION: THE CASE OF THE CHINESE CLASSICS" [[5]] is a solid scholarly discussion and history of translations into Western languages which should be drawn to the attention of serious readers.

Richard J. Smith, The I Ching: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton UP 2012 ISBN 0691145091) [[6]] should be added to References ch (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done ch (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to add a link to bibliographical information on the I Ching.

This is updated regularly based on scholarly articles published:

http://hermetica.info/YixueBib.htm

Thank you for your consideration.

Luis Andrade Sparhawk1961 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, Added Yixue Bibliography general bibliography (multilingual) of Western works on the Yijing [with link]RandNoel (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarities between Trigrams and the third-generation of Gods given by Hesiod in Theogony.

I've long noticed a link between the characteristics of Theogony's 3rd gen. gods, and the eight trigrams of the I Ching. Their attributes are remarkably similar. The order of birth differs, but they both seem to be trying to describe the forces in nature (including human nature). Anyway, it seems to me like:

Parents: Gaia = 坤 kūn (receptive/field), and Uranus (maybe Cronus is better fit?) = 乾 qián (creative force heaven/sky).

The daughters: Hestia = 離 lí (fire), Demeter = 兌 duì (joy/fertility), Hera = 巽 xùn (penetrating wind).
The sons: Hades = 艮 gèn (mountain), Poseidon = 坎 kǎn (water), Zeus = 震 zhèn (thunder).

Did these two proto-scientfic systems evolve independently, or were these cultures in contact? If anyone has studied this, I'd love to know more!
Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Definitive Form at end of 2nd Millenium"?

There is an apparent contradiction. Under "Modernist View" we read that that "According to Daniel Woolf, the text reached a "definitive form" at the end of the 2nd millennium BC."

In the preceding paragraph, however, we read of the changes in the text and differences between the Old and New Text versions, suggesting that there was no "definitive form," much less one at the end of the 2nd millennium. Woolf is a Tertiary source, which is not a Reliable source, when we should be using Secondary sources when possible.

So I propose to replace the Woolf statement with a brief statement about modernist scholarship on the early history of the text from Smith, I Ching. ch (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical equivalents

Sorry, I know this isn't a discussion area, but I believe a clear link can be drawn between the I Ching and mathematics, besides the binary interpretation.

I think everyone is aware that the Taijitu symbol represents a two-dimensional view of the universe (up/down, black/white, etc). The trigrams of the I Ching can be described as eight distinct points which each have three degrees of movement (i.e. they have 3 lines that can alter) - easily represented by the vertices of a cube.

Imagine a cube balancing on one corner; the top and bottom points representing the creative (乾) and the receptive (坤) respectively. In the same manner that a trigram can move in one of three ways, becoming one of three different trigrams; each vertex on the cube has three routes or edges linking three different vertices, with three axes (x, y, z) available for movement. Note also how any further movement upwards is restricted for something stood at the top of the cube, as is any 'up' movement with the creative trigram. To reach an opposite corner on a cube by following the edges, at least three changes in direction will be made, and similarly, with any of the trigrams three line changes have to be made in order to obtain the opposite trigram.

So, extending the analogy, the mathematical equivalent of 64 hexagrams (each with 6 changeable lines) would be an object that has 64 vertices, each vertex having six edges connected to it. As there are 6 individual lines that can alter for hexagrams, the corresponding shape would need to have six different axes (i.e. x, y, z, a, b, c) available for movement... ..Enter the 6-cube, also known as the hexaract! This 2D projection of a 6-cube provides an excellent way of visualizing the structure of the I Ching. Whether six-dimensional hypercubes were in the minds of the creator(s) of the hexagrams is at best speculative - however, I think this angle is both logical and helpful in comprehending the mechanics of this venerable book. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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.[7]

*** The above paragraph is the only information on Wikipedia about the CONTENT OF THE BOOK. Everything else is history and influence. I came to the Talk page to mention that the giant long entry had ZERO information about the content of the book, and fortunately found this paragraph and now I know something about it. I would paste this into the body of the page under the heading "Content", but some wiki-power-addict always reverses any change that improves Wikipedia, so someone else will have to try doing it. (There seems to be a Wiki-____ guideline that can be used to justify ANY deletion or reversal.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.244.194 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Trigram Names Consistency

In the section Structure:Trigrams, there is a table giving the names of the trigrams. The "Image in Nature" column contains the names Heaven/Sky, Lake, Fire, Thunder, etc. By contrast, the 8x8 table of hexagrams uses the trigram names as row and column labels but replaces Fire with Flame. Why? Is "Fire" or "Flame" the correct name, and why does the 8x8 table use a different word to the list of images in nature? 132.244.72.6 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am going to rewrite this article entirely because it is not very helpful in its current state. My plan is to use the most recent 30 years of scholarship and explain the entire text instead of just parts of it. It seems that it is not being actively worked on at the moment so speak up if you want to discuss this; otherwise I will be WP:BOLD and ~~ask for~~ make apologies instead of asking for permission. Shii (tock) 00:35, 16 September 2014 (edited 02:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC))

No need to apologize but your WP:BOLD rewrite might be reverted per WP:BRD. Instead, you might want to suggest specific changes that are small enough to easily gain consensus and be incorporated incrementally into the existing article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing worth saving in the article after the very first sentence. In the second sentence, European geomancy and West Africa intrude for no apparent reason. The rest of the lede is historicism that fails to convey the importance and content of the text to the reader, which is what the lede is for. Then we have the "History" section which is a real jumble, jumping back and forth from mythology to Ten Wings to modern philology. The Ten Wings, crucial for understanding the cultural value of the I Ching, appear here and nowhere else in the article, which is a fine example of how it totally fails to do its job. The "Structure" section delves into technical detail, and while there might be something worth saving in it, it's far from satisfactory. Then, a whole section for Unicode?!? After the Unicode we finally get a discussion of one of the several titles of the book, but not the others; there is no justification for this. It even includes an unsourced pun. The philosophy section is an exercise in Wikipedia:Systemic bias where Leibniz is apparently twice as important as 2800 years of East Asian commentary. Finally, a bunch of miscellaneous sections, including an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of translations. And don't get me started on the references. Let's scrap this and start over. I will restructure the article based on The I Ching: A Biography (Smith, 2012) and the Japanese Wikipedia article, but with academic sources. Shii (tock) 02:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I foresee a problem if you think there's "nothing worth saving in the article after the very first sentence". The article has been stable for quite some time so why insist on replacing it wholesale? Please work with the existing contributions at a reasonable pace (with easy to read diffs). Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will go with my initial plan of asking for forgiveness instead of permission. Shii (tock) 13:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I will go with my plan as well. To be clear, you have failed to achieve consensus and the rewrite you're working on will definitely be reverted.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Machine Elf. I recommend you choose a section (other than the lede, that should be fixed later to reflect the body changes), and make your bold edits, one source or statement at a time. That way, your good and less controversial edits will go untouched, while we can revert to recommend changes to anything that seems objectionable. If you just go and trash whole sections we will have to revert it.Herbxue (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I can be as harsh as any editor out there (I've rewritten entire articles, I admit), but to say that this article has nothing of value after the first sentence is ludicrous (note: I haven't contributed to anything on this article other than the infobox and maybe the list of translations). I agree that the 2nd lead sentence about Ifa geomancy is unneeded, but there is plenty of good, sourced content in the article that's in pretty decent prose. If you want to make improvements, do some cleanup and "encyclopedization" based on Loewe (1993), Shaughnessy, and Knechtges (2014). White Whirlwind 咨 16:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's take for example the "Traditional view" section. While it sounds sensible, it contains no sources at all. When I rely on academic sources rather than popular sources that might have been taken from Wikipedia, I have been unable to confirm most of the information in it. In particular the idea that "King Wen turned the trigrams into hexagrams" does not seem to have appeared before the modern period and therefore doesn't make sense as part of a "traditional view". Do you guys see the importance of removing unsourced claims? But the entire article is basically unsourced. Shii (tock) 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

By Knechtges 2014 I assume you mean Ancient and Early Medieval Chinese Literature, however there was no article in this book about Yijing or Zhouyi. Shii (tock) 20:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I support Shii's efforts, and agree with his criticism of the current article. I note that no one here is defending the current version on the specific points that Shii has made. We should support having well-sourced material replace poorly-sourced material. And telling someone that their proposal will "definitely be reverted" without giving any substantial reasoning other than a lack of consensus is childish. — goethean 20:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shii: I suspect you are looking at either volume one or two, which is not going to help you because neither of those contain Y or Z (volume 2 ends with "Xi") and thus couldn't possibly contain an entry on the Changes. Volumes 3 and 4 are coming out this month: that's what I was referring to. I'm sure it will be covered — that series is based on the materials Prof. Knechtges used to teach his graduate classes on Chinese literature, and we definitely covered the Changes (at least the rhymed portions) when I was there. Trust me, a few of us are quite knowledgeable in this field.

I have no problem with you improving this article — I doubt even the editors above would dispute that it needs it in a few areas. But a complete rewrite of the article isn't necessary. Go right ahead, just use some good sources and prose. White Whirlwind 咨 20:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, I got to the end of volume 2 and was quite confused that it ended at X. I will return to the library next month and I assume the book will be here by then. In the meantime you can see what I am working on at User:Shii/Yijing. Shii (tock) 20:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As was suggested here by Herbxue and White_whirlwind, and with the additional support of Goethean, I rewrote a few sections instead of the whole article. This was reverted by Machine Elf 1735, removing a dozen citations from the article. I request an explanation here, or else I will undo his revert. Shii (tock) 15:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The two versions can be merged. Simply add your additional material without removing any sources from the current version. — goethean 15:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that now. However, the sources published by "Visionary Networks Press" and "Holonomy: A Human Systems Theory" do not belong in an article about the I Ching. I don't believe that requires much discussion. Shii (tock) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You most certainly do not have consensus to remove material from the article. Stop WP:EDITWARING with misleading edit summaries.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what you're doing here. I spent all day yesterday doing research for this article, as the long list of citations attest. You seem to believe that because you can remove my rewrite with the Undo button, that means you should. You are not discussing the content of my rewrite, you are simply protesting the idea of change. I think this is more than a little ironic considering we are editing the article for the Book of Changes. Shii (tock) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't lie about me.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

... Shii (tock) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(inserting here to avoid interrupting Goethean's question) - I think we should de-escalate and assume good faith on Shii's edits. Shii has listened to our procedural advice on going section by section, now is the time to consider the content of the changes. If the removals are separated edits from the additions, it is easier to discuss those separately (the removals are likely to be more controversial). Herbxue (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Machine Elf, Shii's edit removed a few paragraphs ("The binary arrangement of hexagrams..." and "Richard S. Cook states....") and reworded the Leibnitz material. Which of these changes do you object to? — goethean 18:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now imported the rest of my draft. The next step is to remove sources that are over 100 years old or that fail WP:RS for other reasons. Shii (tock) 13:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the "rest of [your] draft" because it carelessly duplicates existing material and article structure. Perhaps someone will try to incorporate those change for you.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Machine Elf, you are making it impossible to edit this article. Rather than reverting every change, please try to work collaboratively. I attempted to moderate by merging the two versions, and then you revert because there is redundancy. Doesn't it make more sense to attempt to reduce that redundancy by selectively removing the duplicate content, rather than by reverting every time someone attempts to improve the article? Please stop reverting Shii's edits. — goethean 17:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose removing the references to "Holonomy: A Human Systems Theory" and "Divination: Sacred Tools for Reading the Mind of God" from the article, as there is no conceivable universe on which these could be considered WP:RS. Shii (tock) 03:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Shii's work seems fine so far to me. White Whirlwind 咨 03:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the references mentioned above. My next concern is the "Unicode" section. It is not clear to me what value this has. No book on the I Ching has ever mentioned Unicode as an important development in I Ching studies, so I can only call its placement here a rather unusual idea of what to put in an encyclopedia article. Shii (tock) 12:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:HEAR You did not "integrate" your changes you inserted wholesale once again at the top of the article with the same substantial duplication of structure and content. You don't have consensus for those so stop trying to force them in by piling more edits on top of it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So we can't merge the two versions, and we can't duplicate any material, and we can't remove any material from the article. Apparently, no one is allowed to edit this article. — goethean 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Machine Elf 1735: please stop disrupting User:Shii's edits. He is doing perfectly acceptable editing using, as far as I have seen, perfectly reliable sources. Both User:Goethean and I are supportive of his edits — you are the only one who is taking exception to them. I personally intend to give User:Shii a month or so to improve the article and then re-read it and see if I feel a need to do any work on it myself. White Whirlwind 咨 00:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support everyone. Now let's look at the "Philosophy" section. I attempted to explain the actual known connections of the I Ching with Chinese philosophy in the new "The classic: I Ching" and "Interpretation" sections, but someone did put some effort into writing this so I will take this section seriously. The main problem with this is that it basically just says, "Some people say the I Ching is Taoist, others say it's Confucian due to X", followed by a poorly formatted list of reasons. But we are missing details on who said this and why.

Furthermore, this section makes extremely grand claims that could raise eyebrows. There's even a serious attempt to claim that Taoism is logically fallacious: "Taoist scripture avoids, even mocks, attempts at categorizing the world's myriad phenomena and forming a static philosophy. However, Taoist ritual frequently uses the eight trigrams, and they are fundamental for alchemical practice, both internal and external." If someone wants to keep this statement and others like it in the article, they need to prove two things: (1) that this is an important argument made by a historically significant figure, and (2) that it is relevant to understanding the I Ching. Also, maybe (3) a response from a well-known Taoist is needed?

I believe my "The classic: I Ching" section is better for the Confucian content because it explains how the I Ching became part of the "Confucian" canon, and the "Interpretation" section explains how it was interpreted ethically and philosophically over the dynasties. Obviously these new sections could benefit from expansion, but IMHO none of the unsourced claims in the "Philosophy" section would be helpful here. (Please confirm this for yourself.) Another thing my rewrite is missing is information on Taoism; if I'm not mistaken, we are still some years away from a good understanding of medieval Taoist uses of the I Ching. Alas, this "Philosophy" section doesn't provide any information at all on Taoism so it won't be helpful there either.

The final paragraph seems to be someone's jumbled attempt tp remember information that has now been explained with sources in the "Interpretation" section. (edit: I have now gone into the edit history of the article and discovered that this is exactly what it is. 4 January 2004, edit summary: "Help wanted, please rewrite". Poor guy just wanted some help, and now 10 years later the article still contains this passage...)

In conclusion, I would delete this entire section due to it being unsourced and rather outrageous in its claims, although we should keep in mind that its goal of explaining the I Ching's relevance to Taoism and Confucianism is a good one for the article. Shii (tock) 05:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, it's unsourced and seems to have been wedged in as an afterthought. As far as I'm concerned, you can axe away, and as the warnings have been there since time immoral, you shouldn't need an excuse to remove unreferenced material. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fiddlersmouth. — goethean 13:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)