Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 18 February 2008

	Religious texts (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts

	Taoism (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaoismWikipedia:WikiProject TaoismTemplate:WikiProject TaoismTaoism

China B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

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"[REDACTED] 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)

Bias in this article

I don't have the time or skill to fix it while maintaining Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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 ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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 ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 17 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)

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)

Original Research

May I remind all editors of the[REDACTED] rules on Misplaced Pages:No_original_research. Basically you cannot place your own conclusions or research into[REDACTED] articles. You need to cite Misplaced Pages: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 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?

• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles