Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Ching/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

I Ching edit

Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this article on one of China's most difficult and storied classic texts. A top priority article in the China, Philosophy, and East Asia WikiProjects. Would be pleased to hear all comments. Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from Gaff

There is a problem with citation to Marshall 2001: Marshall 2001, p. 50-66. Harv error: link from #CITEREFMarshall2001 doesn't point to any citation. --Gaff (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this, thank you Shii (tock) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by --Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get expert input, I've requested and received some comments on this article via email from S. Marshall, author of [Marshall 2001]. I've already edited the page to respond to his points, except for three:

  • He insists that Zhouyi is one word and not Zhou yi (other sources seem to disagree)
  • He has some complaint with the description of changeable lines; I've asked for more details on this (He has now written back and confirmed that there is no WP:RS that would back up this specific complaint.)
  • He thinks more space should be devoted to how completely modern scholarship has overturned earlier views. I will have to look into this. Attempted to address this here.

Shii (tock) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just now saw that this is an FAC, excuse my tardiness.
I'm not sure why we are paying any attention to what Marshall has to say on this article... He's certainly not an expert on the subject in the eyes of anyone but himself, and I don't think any serious sinologist would cite his work. I'm concerned that Shii has been citing his 2001 work, which I don't think is a wise choice (see David Pankenier's review of this book). I know sinology isn't your main field, Shii, so please feel free to get input on sinological works' validity and reliability from editors like User:Kanguole and myself who are more familiar with that area.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him simply because his email was readily available. As you can see from the resulting edits, he had a number of simple, factual criticisms to make which I generally found were backed up by sources, and I believe the article is better for it. Looking forward to your own comments. Shii (tock) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shii (talk · contribs), I've got some down time at work today and am going through the article making some revisions and comments. I'll post them here when I'm finished, probably just in a large bulleted list.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Textual Review by WhiteWhirlwind
I'm going to do these in bullet form, I hope it's not too difficult to follow along.
  • "The I Ching"
    • at some point in the future this will be needed to be changed to Yi jing, I know a lot of sources still use the Wade-Giles spelling, but no reputable publication would do so in 2015.
      • I am going off the book titles for now, e.g. Redmond & Hon 2014, Shaughnessy 2012, Shaughnessy 2014 all show this is the common name Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "/ˈiː ˈdʒɪŋ/"
    • I've never understood why we consider Random House Webster's to be an acceptable source for (often crappy) pronunciation of non-native English terms. In any case, this should be changed to standard Mandarin "/ˈiː ˈtɕiŋ/".
      • Man... who did this? Maybe I left this over from the pre-rewrite version. Fixed Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph of lead
    • I know I rewrote part of this, but I just want to say this is an excellent paragraph.
  • 2nd paragraph of lead
    • I'd rephrase this to "...produces six apparently random numbers between 6 and 9. These numbers are turned into..." Better flow
  • " of the readings found in the I Ching is the matter of centuries of debate"
  • Section headings
    • I'm on the record as against section headings where editors try to get cute and finesse things, like "The divination text: Zhou yi". I try to stick to simple ones like "History", "Content", "Influences", etc. Not a deal breaker, just my opinion.
      • I agree that the section heading might be changed, but FWIW I provided a list of 8 sources that distinguish between Zhou yi and Yijing -- basically all of the sources used in the article. Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decision-making"
    • Wikipedia editors have chosen to eschew this sort of hyphenation, just space it
  • "the Changes of Zhou or Zhou yi.(Chinese: 周易; pinyin: Zhōuyì)."
    • This is a bit of a mess here. I recommend "Changes of Zhou (Zhou yi 周易)", which is standard in sinology but has traditionally been less common in WP articles. Either adopt my suggestion or just clean up the periods/parentheses a bit.
      • Done. Will address the next two thirds of this tomorrow Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Zhou yi means a book of "changes" (Chinese: 易; pinyin: Yì) used during the Zhou dynasty"
    • I mean, not really – it just means "Changes of Zhou".
  • " Feng Youlan proposed that the word for "changes" originally meant "easy""
    • Two things here: 1) check and see which is more common, this form or "Fung Yu-lan", I seem to see the latter more often and I think it's the one Feng used in his lifetime. 2) You have no source for this sentence, so if you're not quoting anything either consider adding that this may be influenced by the modern meaning of yi 易 as "easy", which is common in most dialects. If you're going to say something like "there is little evidence for this", you should probably have a reliable citation.
      • The citations are at the end of the paragraph Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Zhou yi is attributed to the legendary world ruler Fu Xi."
    • This phrasing makes it sound like a present day situation. I'd rephrase to something like "The Changes were traditionally attributed to the legendary..."
  • "The basic unit of the Zhou yi is the hexagram (六十四卦 liùshísì guà),"
    • The term liushisi gua 六十四卦 refers to the "64 hexagrams" as a whole, single hexagrams are just gua (as are trigrams).
  • "(彖 tuàn),[note 1]", "The word tuan (彖) refers to a four-legged animal similar to a pig. It is not known why this word was used, and it is possible that it is a homonym for an unknown word. The modern word for a hexagram statement is guàcí (卦辭). (Rutt 1996, pp. 122–3)"
    • I have no idea why Rutt would write this and not mention that tuan is usually glossed as a loan for duan 斷 "decision". (Knechtges 2014: 1881 notes this, I'm surprised you missed it). I haven't found any mainstream reviews of this book, and I've never heard any scholar mention or appraise it as a good work. Not sure I would cite from it.
      • Changed. Rutt is cited as the single best translation by Redmond & Hon 2014, part of a series published by Oxford University Press and the American Academy of Religion. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I see. I'm not sure how I feel about that attribution... Hon and Redmond (the latter I've never even heard of, and he doesn't seem to be a great expert on the subject) aren't what I would call Yi experts, and this wouldn't be the first time a major press published a dud. Unfortunately, this Hon and Redmond book only came out in October 2014, and so there aren't any reviews of it out yet. I'm curious to see how the expert reviewers appraise it. My local university library doesn't have this book yet, and I have no quasi-legal e-version of it like I do for many Chinese topics (doesn't leave the room, Shii).  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am aware of the need to be cautious with these books, but Hon is the author of The Yijing and Chinese Politics: classical commentary and literati activism in the northern Song Period (SUNY Press) which was widely reviewed and cited. The book has received several positive blurbs from Sinologists, here. Shii (tock) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I saw those reviews on the OUP site. Those are the standard blurbs from author friends, I'm more interested in seeing the published reviews in major journals. Those tend to be more honest.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The book opens with the first hexagram statement, yuán hēng lì zhēn (元亨利貞)."
    • This has proven a very tricky phrase (maybe phrases?) to interpret over the centuries, but I think Shaughnessy (2014) has the best discussion of it. I'd summarize what he says.
      • Will need to go back to the library tomorrow for this. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", but in five cases (2, 9, 26, 61, and 63) an unrelated character of unclear purpose."
    • You're missing a verb somewhere in here.
      • I thought this was grammatical, but since it's unclear I added a word Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Zuo zhuan and Guoyu contain the oldest descriptions of divination using the Zhou yi."
    • Consider including translations here, like "Zuo Commentary (Zuo zhuan)", or at least a descriptor like "ancient narratives".
  • "In the Zuo zhuan stories..."
    • I think this entire paragraph is unnecessary and should be deleted.
      • I added it because of the long descriptions of "changeable lines" in previous revisions of the page, making me think this was an important topic. You can delete it if you want Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 136 BC, Emperor Wu of Han named the Zhou yi "the first among the classics","
    • Citation needed.
      • This is something I worked on for a while. Eventually I got a good source in Smith 2008. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Shuogua attributes to the symbolic function of the hexagrams the ability to understand self, world, and destiny."
    • This is the first and only time you mention the Shuogua – you'd need to introduce it if you intend to keep this clause in the article.
      • Not sure what introduction is necessary other than "one of the ten wings"? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Japanese word for "metaphysics", keijijōgaku (形而上学; pinyin: xíng ér shàng xué) is derived from a statement found in the Great Commentary that "what is above form [xíng ér shàng] is called Dao; what is under form is called a tool".[44] The word has also been borrowed into Korean and re-borrowed back into Chinese."
    • This probably isn't necessary and can be deleted. I'm not sure that source is reliable, in any case.
      • I think it's a non-trivial explanation of the value of the Ten Wings, but it is a bit wordy and the source is not the most reliable. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The I Ching was not included in the burning of the Confucian classics, and textual evidence strongly suggests that Confucius did not consider the Zhou yi a "classic"."
    • Citation needed
      • Shchutskii 1979 and Smith 2012, as given Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Eastern Han, I Ching interpretation divided into two schools...."
    • In the following sentence, you need to introduce the two, such as: "The first school, known as New Text criticism, sought to..." and similarly with the Old Text pai.
  • "Only short excerpts survive,"
    • The term "fragments" is generally used in this context in sinology
  • "At the beginning of the Tang dynasty, Kong Yingda was tasked with creating a canonical edition of the I Ching."
  • "One was the yili xue (義理學, "principle study") approach, which was based on literalistic and moralistic principles. The other approach, taken by Shao Yong, was the xiangshu xue (象數學, "image-number study") approach, "
    • You need to italicize foreign terms like yili xue. I'd actually rearrange like this: "..."principle study" (yílǐ xué 義理學) approach..." The last sentence of this paragraph needs a citation, too.
      • This was added by someone else. It appears to be a confused duplication of the Han section so I will remove it. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1557, the Korean Yi Hwang..."
    • Some title/descriptor needs to go between "Korean" and "Yi Hwang", this reads strangely as is.
  • "...was later taken up in China by Zhang Zhidong."
    • A descriptor like "Qing scholar and official" would be good here
  • Early European
    • This is a nicely written section. Good job.
  • "as described in China's most ancient histories, in the 300 BC Great Commentary, and later in the Huainanzi and the Lunheng."
    • "most ancient histories" is a bit awkward here, since that term is debatable in and of itself.
      • I mean "histories" as in a genre of non-fiction writing... maybe a better term can be suggested? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In East Asia, besides its widespread use in divination, "
    • I believe I mentioned this previously, but Yijing divination is actually not at all common in East Asia anymore, and hasn't been for quite a long time.
      • Indeed, I rewrote the section above it accordingly. I meant "widespread throughout history" but I'll just remove the adjective. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it had notable impact on 1960s counterculture figures such as Carl Jung, Philip K. Dick, John Cage, and Bob Dylan."
  • " Richard Rutt's 1996 translation incorporated much of the new archaeological and philological discoveries of the 20th century, and it is considered the most accurate available in English."
    • Citation really needed. I almost winced when I read that. I'd delete this entire sentence.
      • Citation is provided, it is Redmond & Hon 2014 Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translations
    • How did you determine which were "the most notable English translations"? I have an MA in Classical Chinese language and literature and have never heard of a number of these, such as Pearson's weird "feminist translation" and the Wu translation.
      • Various contributors to the article added these. Some list of most notable translations is necessary for an article about a book... Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course. I'd stick to the ones Knechtges mentions, including Rutt (1996) ....  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid I've just started a study abroad and can't get access to that Knechtges volume anymore. Would you be willing to clean up the list of translations for me? Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I can. Take a look at Kanguole (talk · contribs)'s note on the below bullet, if you haven't already.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marshall (2001)
    • I'd recommend deleting this as a source and any references thereunto. I can't find any serious sinological studies that cite it, and David Pankenier's review of it is pretty damning.
      • It doesn't really matter and the source can certainly be removed if the claims attributed to it are unusual, but it is cited in both Redmond & Hon 2014 and in Rutt 1996. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that those two works' citation of Marshall (2001) necessarily carries any weight. There are random Daoist blogs that cite them, too. The fact that Knechtges and Shaughnessy (two vastly more well known scholars than Hon) don't mention it is telling. I'd like to get a look at this Hon & Redmond book so I can form some kind of appraisal of it. I have a basic knowledge of Hon, and the problem is that his specialty is not classical works or philology, it's modern and late Imperial stuff, and that gives me a bit of pause in giving weight to his works on this subject.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure, we can put this off until you get a look at the Redmond book -- I think you'll find it fairly discriminate, and I expect positive reviews in academic journals when they do come out. Marshall 2001 is currently used only for the very vague statement about dating the events being referenced to. I'm not sure where to go for an alternate source for that, but I'm sure one can be located. Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I very much doubt there's an alternative source for that, since it refers to Marshall's own hypothesis that hexagram 55 refers to an eclipse observed at the Zhou city of Feng, that this eclipse occurred in the year of the conquest of the Shang, and that this was an eclipse known from astronomical calculations to have occurred on 20 June 1070 BC. No-one else seems to take this seriously. Pankenier's review demolishes the argument, and most authors now favour a date of 1046 or 1045 for the conquest. Kanguole 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kanguole (talk · contribs), White whirlwind (talk · contribs): I've removed all references to Marshall, replacing them with Shaughnessy where appropriate. Hope this resolves the certainly legitimate concerns you've raised. Shii (tock) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've kept The Zhou yi itself shares some of its features with even older Shang dynasty analysis of oracle bones. I didn't see this in Shaughnessy 2014. He does mention that some oracle bones associated with the predynastic Zhou include groups of 3 or 6 numerals, which several scholars link to the trigrams and hexagrams, but I see no justification for a link with Shang divination. Thus illustrating the section with an image of a Shang divination is also misleading. Kanguole 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I was basing this off of the following specific statement: "although there were numerous developments in the conduct of divination, certain features remained constant throughout ancient Chinese history and the various media used to divine." Shii (tock) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The quoted statement is quite vague, but from the discussion in that chapter, it appears that it refers to the religious context and purpose of divination. (Though I'm not sure whether his claim that the Shang oracle bones were prayers rather than questions is the consensus view.) I don't think it supports this sentence, which appears to suggest a connection between the Zhou yi and the procedure of Shang divination. In any case, we shouldn't be citing broad statements like this without context. Kanguole 13:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't think it would be fair to include absolutely nothng about Shang oracle bones when Shaughnessy spends 4 pages at the very beginning of his book describing the various links with the Zhou yi and why the oracle bones are useful for Zhou yi studies. Feel free to change the wording if you think something else would be more appropriate. Shii (tock) 13:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this has been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose>Comment

My objections mainly because the "Influence" section is too short, I understand there's a main article I Ching's influence, but that article aloso had same problem, far from what it's should be, and lot sentence without source. Also I have some concern about the selection, I mean why Carl Jung listed, according to the article I Ching's influence, "Psychologist Carl Jung wrote a forward to the Wilhelm–Baynes translation of the I Ching", also no source to follow, I just feel that wrote a forward to some translation doesn't count for "notable impact", we don't know what he wrote, and how's I Ching really impact his life, his professional or personal opinion.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jarodalien: Please note that this is not an FAC for I Ching's influence but for I Ching. I have expanded the "Influence" section and added a quote from Jung, is this what you wanted? If not, please be more specific. Shii (tock) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this is not FAC for I Ching's influence, so just like I said before, "mainly because the "Influence" section is too short". Meanwhile, normally sections with {{main}} template, means this section is only an epitome for that article, just like lead section. But even when I consider this, this section are still too short. For example, I think it should mention the influence for divination, at mainland China, there's been a long history for people using I Ching to predict their future, choosing graveyard, homestead, (influence with Feng shui), even their spouse (with influence of "Bazi", calculate by people's birthday and exactly time), those influence also effect other country or continent. For as far as I know, there's still least tens of thousands people practicing Hexagram or Bagua for living (for a street that 3 blocks from my home, there's least 15 blind people do this, because some people lives here believe, when people lost their eyesight - normally born that way, cause by accident doesn't count. - for somehow they could open "another eye" to look into your future). My English is very poor, hope doesn't cause any misunderstanding.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Between you and White_whirlwind, who says the I Ching is no longer widely used in China, opinion is evenly divided. I have found it best to remain silent when the sources have so little to say about modern use of the I Ching. Sorry this makes you reject my work entirely. I wish I could find something better to say in that section. Shii (tock) 07:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my opinion makes you feel that I "reject" your "work entirely", so I switch to Comment, hope that helps. Maybe I Ching "is no longer widely used in China" like used to be, but their influence still strong, especially places less developed. Maybe I feel this way mainly because I live here, like we had a old saying "当局者迷", means when someone get involved, there's big chance they couldn't seen the whole picture. So, this is just my opinion, you already done a excellent job to writing this article, I only feel there's some place could been better.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think your anecdotal evidence makes perfect sense. In Japan, blind people have similar social roles. I just can't find a good source to attest to it. I will keep looking... Shii (tock) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

This is done, except for the hexagrams, for which I'm not sure alt text is possible Shii (tock) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Looks like there are substantive issues here that will be best addressed outside FAC, and the nomination has not attracted any support after more than 3 weeks. I will be archiving shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of one of the substantive issues? I was under the impression that the FAC was progressing well. Shii (tock) 21:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/I_Ching/archive1&oldid=1088823271"