Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
4,771,313 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject China}}, {{WikiProject Martial arts}}.
 
(752 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject China |importance=High}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Martial arts|importance=}}
{{Martialartsproject|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Taoism|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WPCHINA|class=start|importance=top|nested=yes}}
}}
}}

{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1=GAN
Line 20: Line 17:


|currentstatus=FGAN
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}{{archive box|auto=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Tai chi/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Former AFI|date= 3 July 2023|page={{PAGENAME}}|oldid2=1164593813|oldid1=1162772066}}


== Inconsistent capitalization ==
Throughout the page, the spelling varies between "Tai chi" and "Tai Chi". Can we pick one (perhaps the one used in the page's title, although I personally prefer both words capitalized) and change the other? [[User:Kumagoro-42|Kumagoro-42]] ([[User talk:Kumagoro-42|talk]]) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


:I agree with this, and also prefer capitalization of both words.
{{archive box|box-width=14em|image-width=20px|
:<nowiki>~~~</nowiki> [[User:NorthWu|NorthWu]] ([[User talk:NorthWu|talk]]) 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Tai Chi Chuan/Archive 1|till May 29, 2005]]
::[https://translate.google.com/?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&text=%E5%A4%AA%E6%9E%81%E6%8B%B3&op=translate Google Translate] agrees with you. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<sub>'''•'''</sub>Raven]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</sup> 01:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Tai Chi Chuan/Archive 2|till February 27, 2006]]
:::[[User:.Raven|.Raven]], [[User:NorthWu|NorthWu]], [[User:Kumagoro-42|Kumagoro-42]] I added a move discussion below. [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Tai Chi Chuan/Archive 3|till December 23, 2006]]}}

== Disambiguation needed. ==

Tai Chi is a martial art form that utilizes both the fist and the external weapon. Chuan is the word that denotes the use of hands as weapons. It is incorrect to call Tai Chi "Tai Chi Chuan" unless you are talking specificaly about weapons-free forms.

No, Tai Chi by itself denotes a daoist philosophical concept which literally means the most elemental separation of yin and yang. Chuan at the end of tai chi means "fist" with the connotation of shadow-boxing and differentiates the tai chi concept from the tai chi martial art. You can shadow box with weapons. Dropping the chuan is like using a nickname it is informal and for convenience. Put it this way, if you were correct about this we would have to go back and correct the names of around 1000 chinese styles. [[User:Mlmalone|Mlmalone]] 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

== A suggestion or two for improvement ==

1. It is not necessarily true that most scholars agree that taijiquan began with the Chen family. Taijiquan's history, in fact, is in some dispute. For many years, Zhang San Feng was (and still is by many people) regarded as the founder of taijiquan. In recent years the Chen family has laid claim as the founders of taijiquan. A third arguement states that no one individual or family created taijiquan but, rather, the art evolved through the centuries from several different sources.

The arguement that Zhang San Feng was the founder of taijiquan is based on his authorship of the first of the tai chi classics. Scholars dispute the authenticity of this claim, however, pointing out that others could have just as easily authored the essay. Add to that, some historical suggestions that Zhang San Feng may have been nearly 200 years old and it is not hard to see why this story is often dismissed.

The Chen family's claim to authorship of taijiquan depends on how you define taijiquan. If, for example, you define it as an art utilizing the taiji principles as outlined in the taiji classics, then there are documented arts in China as early as the 7th century that fit this definition (see: "The Dao of Taijiquan" by Jou Tsung Hwa). Further, many of the guiding principles and energies of the art (chan si jing, fa jing, etc.) also predate Chen style taijiquan and are found in older arts including xingyiquan. Ba fa (ward off, roll back, press, push, etc.) are also found in arts older than Chen style taijiquan and many of the postures found in Chen style exist in martial art styles predating Chen Wanting.

I would like to suggest that the author offer the arguements on all sides and allow the reader to decide.

2. The author cites only two key components to training - solo form and push hands. No where is mentioned the most crucial aspect of taijiquan training - zhan zhuang (standing training). Most all traditional taijiquan schools begin students with zhan zhuang. Standing training serves many purposes. First, it helps practitioners memorize proper structure in static postures. Secondly, it teaches students to find and maintain complete muscle relaxation (song). Third, it trains concentration and intention (yi) through utilization of advanced mental exercises designed to facilitate contraindication within the musculature. The end result is a process that eliminates muscle tension while at the same time increasing strength, speed, reflexes and reaction time. Once this state can be maintained in a static position, the next stage is to introduce this state into movement. This is where tai chi form comes in. Perhaps most importantly, without the inclusion of standing training in the beginning stages, it is much more difficult to learn to produce and maintain peng jing, a key energy in taijiquan.

I would like to suggest that the author researches the subject and append their entry to include zhan zhuang. For further study, some of the more advanced standing techniques can be found in Yiquan, a martial system founded by the legendary master Wang Xiangzhai.

Sincerely,

Jim Donnelly,
Director,
American Society of Internal Arts,
www.AmericanSocietyOfInternalArts.org

HANDS FOLDED IN RESPECT <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Jdonnelly001|Jdonnelly001]] ([[User talk:Jdonnelly001|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jdonnelly001|contribs]]) 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->



:Greetings. The concerns you mention are addressed in the current article, if in the passive voice usually used to minimize controversy. We don't actually say the Chens invented T'ai Chi, but we say the current orthodox styles, all came through the Chen family. Other claim this or that, but haven't provided independent verification. We also give a mention to the Chang San-feng story, as well as mentioning the gradual evolution theory and the [[neo-Confucian]]s. Reference is given to an exhaustive study of the origins of the art by Douglas Wile. I don't personally aagree with Wile's speculations, but the info he provides, names and dates, is valuable. The [[Debate on the origins of Tai Chi Chuan]] would actually be an excellent separate article.

:Post standing is mentioned in the bit on nei kung:

:*Breathing exercises; ''[[nei kung]]'' (內功 nèigōng) or, more commonly, ''[[ch'i kung]]'' (氣功 qìgōng) to develop '''[[ch'i]]''' (氣 qì) or "breath energy" in coordination with physical movement and [[Zhan zhuang|post standing]] or combinations of the two. These were formerly taught only to disciples as a separate, complementary training system. In the last 50 years they have become more well known to the general public.

:Different schools have different approaches. Zhan zhuang is vitally important, but it is one of four varieties of meditation taught. The Yang family (esp. Yang Zhenduo, as he mentioned 11 years or so back in Smalheiser's ''T'ai Chi Magazine'') have de-emphasised it in their curriculum in recent years. The Wu family teach it, but they teach moving stance training first, as they feel it is more difficult (and more valuable in this case) to learn to balance while learning to coordinate different body parts. Later they get people into as many 30 minute horse stances and golden roosters as they'd like ;-). Cheers, --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 14:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Fire Star,

Zhan zhuang is, unfortunately, a poorly understood topic. Post standing is a multi-purpose tool, not one single practice. The posting referred to in the neigong section of wikipedia refers to the use of standing as a form of qi development. While this type of exercise may be found in taiji schools, this is not the same zhan zhuang used for structural training. Likewise, zhan zhuang is not the same as deep standing for 30 minutes in postures. That type of standing is designed primarily for developing leg conditioning and balance. Nor is it simply a form of meditation as one usually thinks of meditation. Yiquan probably comes closest to describing the old methods of standing training, although some argue that, as practiced today, even Yiquan has been watered down a bit. As for Yang Zhenduo, despite being the head of the Yang family, he doesn't necessarily speak for taijiquan masters everywhere. He's just one of hundreds with a single viewpoint. Good Holidays!

Jim Donnelly, Hands Folded In Respect

While you certainly show credible knowledge and sources mr. Donnelly, I have to disagree with you. The majority of credible scholars place Zhang San Feng in the same context as such chinese cultural hero-founders as the famous general Yue Fei. That is to say, most likely a real person at some point, but who has been mythologized enormously. Zhang San Feng is not only credited as the founder by taiji practitioners, but by just about anyone practicing an art with internal characteristics. While the idea that the Chens are the first and sole originators of taiji principles or the first incarnation of the ba fa is totally inane, it does not make a semi-mythical character in chinese folk tales out to be the sole originator. like you said, taiji is really the work of hundreds of individuals throughout the generations contributing to its development. and just to repeat FireStar's arguement...while I personally agree about the importance of standing meditation, it is by a huge margin NOT the core taiji practice in the west or east among current practitioners. though regretable, we can all regcognize that the days of students spending weeks/months only learning zhan zhuang are over. Just look at the advent of the multitude of short forms, people have neither the time nor the inclination to spend that much time on zhan zhuang as a core/founding practice. We are not going to return to some "golden age" of taiji where people revere zhan zhuang practice. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:I'll try to dig up the Yang Zhenduo interview, perhaps that would be a good way to source the changing rôle of the practise.

:In the T'ai Chi meditation methods I learned from the Wu family, zhan zhuang was 1/4 of the whole, there was:

:*Stillness inside/stillness outside (zhan zhuang)

:*Stillness inside/movement outside (forms, pushing hands, some nei kung)

:*Movement inside/stillness outside (hsiao t'ien in various positions)

:*Movement inside/movement outside (silk reeling)

:Unfortuantely, I hasven't found this actually written down in my sources anywhere, so as interesting material as it is, I can't put it in the article! I'll keep looking of course... Cheers, --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 14:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

== stub expansion ==

I was just considering the idea of expanding the number of tai chi stubs like the single whip stub. a group of stub explaining the postures of tai chi found in every style (single whip, grasp bird's tail etc.) and detailing the differences in execution and application. anyone want to collaborate? [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

== Tchoung Ta Chen Style? ==

I just discovered the pages for the so-called Tchoung style tai chi. Not disputing that this guy taught his own version of tai chi which was obviously Yang influenced. But his students claim he learned from a much older generation of Yang teachers than Yang Chengfu, this and other claims by the people who wrote the page (his students of course) allude to the Tchoung style being "original" Yang style that is superior to the lineage of all other Yang teachers. Historical truth not withstanding, wikipedia has strict NPOV and if we dont let people write their own bios, then we sure as hell cant let his students lord it over the article of their "style" claiming to be the pure standard bearers of Yang teachings. I suggest the article for a serious overhaul, maybe even deletion. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've only ever heard of the style just now (not that that means much) and I agree the articles need to be either completely re-written or removed. Good catch. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've revamped them for npov. this makes them okay for inclusion I think, though having not a single indedpendent citation, they are still on shaky ground. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved that the contents of Tchoung Ta Chen style tai chi be merged with the Yang style page. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


== Consistency of links ==
The following two articles link to tai chi, should there not also be reverse links here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baguazhang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%ADngy%C3%ACqu%C3%A1n

Currently there seems to be no mention of these two associated arts that are frequently taught alongside tai chi.
(CJE) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/217.169.45.170|217.169.45.170]] ([[User talk:217.169.45.170|talk]]) 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Translation? ==
first of sorry but i dont know how to input chinese yet.
second, the quan or chuan in tai chi chuan or taiji quan does
mean fist when used by itself. however in martial arts it connotes
"boxing" to distinguish itself from just taiji, which is just a philosophical
theory. Almost all Chinese martial arts have a quan at the end to
denote it being a "boxing" style and not just a family name. However,
quan or chuan in itself means fist.--[[User:Blckavnger|Blckavnger]] 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tai Chi Chuan is in fact one of the forms of Tai Chi, not Tai Chi itself. I have changed the redirect that led "Tai Chi" to this page. If anyone is interested about the subject I did a quick search on google and found an ok site about it. [http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/] All the best, [[User:Whiskey in the Jar|Whiskey in the Jar]] 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To clerify: Tai Chi Chuan is the Martial Art which can further be broken down into many substyles under the overall heading. Tai Chi itself is the daoist philosophical concept which the martial art is loosely based on. [[User:Mlmalone|Mlmalone]] 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

== Definition Needed of ''Qigong'' ==

The word ''Qigong'' is used a few times in the article, but there is no definition of it. I suggest adding at least a short parenthetical definition after the first reference. (I would add it myself, but I don't know what it is.) --[[User:Skb8721|Skb8721]] 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:We've got:
:*Breathing exercises; ''[[nei kung]]'' (內功 nèigōng) or, more commonly, ''[[ch'i kung]]'' (氣功 qìgōng) to develop ''[[ch'i]]'' (氣 qì) or "breath energy" in coordination with physical movement and [[Zhan zhuang|post standing]] or combinations of the two.
:The initial definition of "breathing exercises" is pretty accurate. From there, the opinions differ widely what they entail, and those opinions can be treated better at the linked articles like [[nei kung]], [[ch'i kung]], [[ch'i]], [[zhan zhuang]], etc. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 17:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Its not really necessarry to include a definition. Thats what internal links are for. If someone doesnt know what Qigong is, then they read the definition on the Qigong page. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Failed GA ==
No inline citations. Also, for future reference, you should put <nowiki>{{GAnominee|date}}</nowiki> here on the talk page when you nominate, as described in the directions at [[WP:GAC]]. --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

== Youtube Tai Chi Video Growth ==

Just want to share that I have noticed a growth in the number of quality youtube videos of tai chi including rare clips of well known masters. I ahve some on my page on youtube [http://www.youtube.com/mastergohring Master Gohring's Tai Chi & Kung Fu Youtube Videos].

There are also many many more. I don't know if they can be embedded and discussed here, Youtube's interface is a bit difficult for discussions and it often has non Tai chi practicioners commenting on tai chi videos. Anyway, if you have any ideas please share. I am still pretty new to wikipedia so let me know if this is not appropriate to post here.

Thank you.

Master Gohring
Master Gohring's Tai Chi & Kung Fu
6611 Airport Blvd.
Austin TX, 78752
512-422-4245
[http://www.mastergohring.com Master Gohring's Tai Chi & Kung Fu]

== Intro/first sections ==

To reach GA status, I think we need to rewrite the intro and first few sections to make them as concise as possible, also keeping in mind order/grouping (i.e. puttin all the mentions of where it comes from etc. together for cohesion). I think for someone who has no idea what exactly tai chi is, this article's intro would be highly confusing. Remember, first and foremost Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a resource for people. Despite my personal feelings, I think we also need to review the entire article for [[NPOV]] concerening the fair and balanced presentation of the martial art versus health/exercise points of view. I will be doing some [[wp:be bold|bold]] edits, so please feel free to discuss them with me of course. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:What you say is sensible. There was weight towards justification, with the martial arts therapy link, etc. That is good to have in the '''See also''' or health section, but stremlining the initial explication is fine. I'm going to (time and external commitiments permitting) start collecting as many inline refs as I can as well. I'll post them here first to see what people think. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== Neijia pride! ==

I've proposed getting a userbox for tai chi players. Bout time we had one. You can view the request [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas#for_Sports.2FMartial_arts.2FHealth...|here]]. Cheers! [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

== Speculation ==

I've removed the following paragraph, as it seems to want to make a causal connexion between the prevalence of squatting in Asia with the practise of T'ai Chi Ch'uan. I'm pretty sure that squatting (from prehistory) predates T'ai Chi ([[Song dynasty]] at the earliest, but only recorded from the late [[Qing dynasty]]), and is probably more directly linked to the relative scarcity of chairs in rural villages, at least until recently. For us to imply that an aspect of T'ai Chi may be a contributing factor to the syndrome is opinion or even [[original research]] if it isn't explicitly stated in a secondary source.

:Even for the young, Tai Chi's focus on relaxing the [[Pelvis|''kua'']] may be a contributing factor in the greater pelvic flexibility observed in Asian countries and the use of the [[Sitting#Squatting|squatting]] position as a more common rest mode.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://travel.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/travel/17bpchina.html?ex=1176609600&en=1e3994b4f388c344&ei=5070|title=An Eye on China's Not So Rich and Famous|last=Dobrzynski|first=JH|date=2004-10-17|publisher=[[The New York Times]]|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref>

--[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the section refers to referenced and peer-reviewed medical journal articles, so I personally think deleting the paragraph is fine. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm okay with that since it could fall under "interesting but useless facts" since it is out of context, but it isn't original research. This concept was introduced in a NY Times article on Tai Chi's health benefit that I think is still in references. I would like to see a cite for your claim of the squat's age as a cultural attribute Fire Star, as I could find no other sources on the history of the squat position (check the article) dating back that far. Also, the paragraph doesn't categorically suggest that all Asian squatting traditions are a product of Tai Chi, only that it is distinctly possible that it contributes to the ability to do so. A broader suggestion would be totally inane, considering that the squatting position is arguably more prevalent in other countries (say, Thailand) that do not practice Tai Chi on such a wide scale. It seemed pretty tame compared to other statements in the article, such as a direct quote from an AIDS patient saying Tai Chi and Qigong have helped put his condition basically into remission. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::I'll agree that doing T'ai Chi regularly should promote the ability to squat (especially among relatively unsquatted westerners!) and coincidentally there are several squat like stretches in Wu style beyond the ubiquitous variations on horse stance. They may exist in other styles too, for all I know. It may have struck me wrong, but the paragraph as worded seemed to imply that T'ai Chi was partly responsible for Chinese squatting, which didn't seem likely, because as popular as T'ai Chi is, I don't think it is that popular. If we can get a secondary source saying that T'ai Chi promotes the ability to squat, we should feature it. I brought the paragraph here though, so we could sort it out and perhaps reword it. The NYT article cited (which seems interesting) requires registration, which opens up the spam floodgates most times, so I didn't access it. For an overview of the prehistory and history of squatting, archaeologists (and pathologists) have long been aware of changes in the leg and hip bones they call "squatting facets" in skeletons of people who squatted for extended periods of time. A Google search will provide a lot of descriptions and examples of the syndrome. Regards, --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks, that's very interesting. Yeah, the NYT registration doesn't give out your info for spammers or send any of their own, but it does cost money. I can sign in again with mine and look at the articles in the refs again to be sure, but if it can be cited would you agree to a rewording for clarification (that it contributes to the ease of motion, not the reason for the motion in Chinese culture)? and btw: almost every other style has squatting exercises or sustained kua-opening in its forms (Chen style is like one long squatting exercise for christssake!)[[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes, I think the idea is fine, but a reversal of the wording will be better, perhaps paraphrasing the article cite. I suppose squatting (ankles to butt, feet flat on ground) is the deepest horse stance, after all! On a side note, I have been reading excepts recently of what sinologists think is a 4th century BCE chapter (out of many others) of a collective philosophical work, the [[Guanzi (text)]]. The chapter in question (chapter 49, called "Inner Training" 內業) mentions a lot of the same kind of language of ''shen, jing'' and ''qi'' in the same way that it is used by many T'ai Chi schools. I wonder if anyone else thinks that would be worth expanding on for the article? --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, that has interesting implications for the history section. Can you give me the sections you are referring to here? I think with a proper quotation or paraphrase it would be good to add a sentence along the lines of "...not only are there predecessor neigong arts to Tai Chi Chuan (Tao Yin etc.) but the theoretical terminology still in use today dates back to mentions in Chinese philisophical texts, notably the Guanzi (and maybe the Tao Te Ching) of the 4th century BCE. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I'll post some of A.C. Graham's translated excerpts from the chapter here tomorrow to give you an idea. I've got the whole chapter in Chinese, but just excerpts so far from well known translators. My classical Chinese isn't good enough to do it justice, I'm afraid... --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== A question of categorisation ==

I recently was reading <nowiki>{{Template:Martial arts}}</nowiki> by type and found that tai chi was listed as a striking art. This seemed absolutely ludicrous to me, so I moved it to the grappling section. While this isn't exactly correct, as tai chi isn't interested in sustaining holds, locks or groundwork like judo or wrestling and does implement some strikes, placing tai chi in the same category of martial art by type as taekwondo and karate seemed especially foolish. It also depends on style, because different styles apply the bafa in different ways. Chen style could most definitely be called a grappling art, but I'm not so sure about Yang, Wu, or Sun styles. Any thoughts on how tai chi should be categorised in this context? [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:I had a nice long reply all typed out for you, accidentally hit the esc button and it all went bye-bye. Crap. Short version: I believe any single category is unsatisfactory - traditional tai chi trains all of these things in multiple ranges. Wu style also usually emphasizes grappling, wrestling, hitting the floor and fighting on and from the ground (groundwork) and throws before striking and kicking, esp. if the student is younger. What sets Wu style (and I'm sure other styles) tai chi apart from more conventional wrestling systems like [[shuai jiao]] is that there has to be [[pushing hands|training]] in the sensitivity required to completely neutralise an attack with sticking, adhering connecting and following expected from the first instance of contact with an opponent. "Give up oneself to follow the other" (yin) coupled with a simultaneous counterattack (yang). We may not always respond this way (we may go all "previous yang" on a caught red-handed rapist or child molester, for example) but without this ability, we say we can't really be doing tai chi. Other systems respond, too, of course, but tai chi has to have the ability to have a soft response. And then, there are weapons... Cheers, --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::After doing some reading, I too agree that it shouldn't be categorised at all. I'll remove it entirely. Other than the style differences, especially poignant to me was this passage from [[Fu Zhongwen]]'s ''Yang Shi Taijiquan'', <blockquote>"Taijiquan is not the kind of martial art whose applications can be broken down into specific elementary techniques against specific kinds of hypothetical attacks. It is rather an art that teaches one, gradually, through individual and partner training, to respond with sensitivity to circumstances..."</blockquote>

::applicable no? [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 19:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Maybe the template could be changed to include a fourth category for martial arts that cannot be pigeonholed into just "striking" or "grappling". Tai Chi Chuan could be included under a heading titled "mixed", for example. The template is more valuable if it is more comprehensive, rather than less, and Tai Chi is too prominent and important a martial art to be excluded.
:::Alternately, perhaps a consensus could be reached as to Tai Chi's primary focus as either striking or grappling. For example, weapons are an indispensible part of most karate curriculae, but karate is still primarily a striking art, and thus belongs under "striking". Likewise with jujutsu - most traditional schools teach a comprehensive set of striking skills, but it is still properly categorized as a grappling art, which is its primary feature and focus. What is the ultimate combative purpose of Tai Chi, to be able to kill with a strike, immobilize with a pin, disengage or injure with a projection, or something else? Thoughts? [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Again, the problem isn't particularly that tai chi as a whole defys categorization , but that each family style of tai chi applies the art in a different way (same theory, different look and techniques). Chen style is often described by Chen teachers as a grappling art. You can see about Wu style above. Yang style is the most ambiguous in my opinion, employing grappling and strikes almost exactly equally. Sun and Wu/Hao are more focused on fajing strikes in my opinion. If you insist on being comprehensive (which is generally a good idea) in the template, then you could possibly cat. each ''style'' of tai chi in a different area. But not everyone might agree with my personal assessment of the styles. A mixed category might work, but in my mind the purpose of the template is to group those arts which are otherwise unrelated except as grappling, striking or weapons arts; not just to list all the martial arts articles. If tai chi doesn't relate to any of the categories (and hence the martial arts) listed, then it doesn't need listing. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::Well, the template is actually a navigation bar. A reader should be able to jump from type of martial art to type of martial art without using the search function. So I think the purpose would be comprehensiveness. [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 23:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::I was under the impression that karate was a separate discipline that was primarily forms and sparring, and karateka would take a [[jujitsu]] or [[judo]] class if they wanted grappling or a [[kobudo]] class if they wanted weapons training. Japanese martial arts tended to be more specialised like that (I do use the past tense, though), and one of the things [[Morihei Ueshiba]] apparently wanted to do with aikido was to bring weapons and grappling under one roof. Chinese martial arts have historically been much more independant, sometimes even seemingly jealous to western eyes, each school providing an wider range of training in one place under one name without relying on other schools, with notable historical exceptions, of course. Tai chi has 5 main styles, and nowadays each style has different emphases in their training. [[Yang Zhenduo]] for example, has stated in interviews that while tai chi chuan is indeed martial, his branch of the Yang family no longer teaches the martial art to the public. Other styles are still martial, and some modern "[[Taoist Tai Chi|styles]]" eschew any mention of martial art in their classes whatever. I can only speak definitively for Wu style, but it works basic stances and forms first, basic pushing hands and sticking to neutralise second, hitting the floor third (tumbling and throws), joint traps, locks and breaks (wrestling) fourth and then combining all of that with striking into freestyle pushing hands. About a 5 year process for a student under 30 or so, longer as they get older. So at the beginning, it is predominantly grappling and groundwork, but in the perspective of an overview of where the training eventually goes, the different aspects even out. At that point, it depends more on the skills and preferences of the individual practitioner what techniques they will prefer for fighting. There are also [[didactic]], [[nei kung]] and [[traditional Chinese medicine]] curricula from the families that are studied simultaneously with martial training at intermediate and advanced levels, which are actually more complicated.

:::::A teacher's job is to at least introduce the different aspects so that the student may eventually teach them all in their turn, even if they only specialise in one, two or three areas. That kind of introduction can take up to 20 years in traditional schools! At that point, if the instructor(s) is(are) satisfied, a student can then open their own school.


== Consistency among Tai chi-related articles ==
:::::What I was taught was that the ultimate martial goal was to be able to defend ourselves effortlessly, to not get hurt, ever, by an opponent; and the ultimate health goal was to be perfectly healthy, to feel no aches, pains or disease. They also said that only one out of a thousand ever got that good, but the benefits on the way to that goal are significant enough to justify the work even for an "average" student.


There are a ''lot'' of Tai chi-related articles that use a different version of the name than that used here. For example: [[T'ai chi classics]], [[Chen-style taijiquan]], [[Yangjia Michuan Taiji Quan]], [[Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan]], [[Wu-style t'ai chi ch'uan]], [[Sun-style t'ai chi ch'uan]], [[Wudang t'ai chi ch'uan]], [[Zhaobao t'ai chi ch'uan]], [[Guang Ping Yang t'ai chi ch'uan]], etc. Needless to say, this really harms readability. I'm neutral on what name Wikipedia should use for this topic, but can we agree for sanity's sake to keep it consistent?
:::::Much of this isn't stuff I'd put in the article, as a lot of it is from oral transmission (the written records being more circumspect, the old-timers not wanting to "give away the store"), but I wanted to add my 2 ''fen'' towards the issue of categorisation. It's a tough one. [[Wu Chien-ch'uan]] said: "Scientific principles could apply to every aspect of T'ai Chi Ch'uan skills. That being said, the ways that empty and full transform are truly unfathomable." --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to cross-post links to this discussion on several related articles and boards so that we can hopefully come to a real consensus on this. (Note: for some context on why "Tai chi" is the current page name, see [[Talk:Tai chi/Archive 5#Requested move 18 November 2014|here]] and [[Talk:Tai chi/Archive 5#Page move|here]]). [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 06:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
:Note that a suggested replacement for this template (addressing categorisation) is being discusses on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#Navbox_revision]] if you want to add your opinions on a wider basis. -- [[User:Medains|Medains]] 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


:I agree, there's no reason for inconsistent names here. I'll start by saying that I agree with the reasons for making this page "Tai Chi" and think that should apply to all of these, but it looks like those past discussions were rather contentious, so I'm sure others still disagree. [[User:Justinkunimune|Justin Kunimune]] ([[User talk:Justinkunimune|talk]]) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
== superflous languages ==
::Okay, if you want to move this page I'll go ahead and start a move discussion. [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 16:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


== Requested move 13 June 2023 ==
Why should their be translations into Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese in the infobox? There aren't translations for other non-originating countries, and tai chi isn't a unique part of the aforementioned countries culture's. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 01:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know about Korea, but I know tcc is popular in Japan and, surprisingly, Vietnam (which has a large overseas Chinese population). Whether that is enough of a reason to have the info in, I don't know. It's interesting, I guess. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::I guess it just seems like the transliterations should be there bc that is the ''original'' usage of the word. And as no cites on numbers of tai chi players can be found by country, it is pretty debatable about how popular tai chi may be in some country. It may be that taiji is just as popular in say, the UK or Malaysia, as Vietnam. I think that the other languages are included bc they happen to be Asian, which is sheer ignorance. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't have any cites, but coincidentally I'd agree from my own original research the UK and Malaysia have more. Vietnam is a former Qing colony, so it kind of makes sense. There was a thing where 1,000 Japanese in identical silk outfits demonstrated a wushu Yang form in Tiananmen a few years back. I'll see if I can find a link to that... --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Whoa whoa, I'm not saying taiji isnt certifiably popular in those countries, I'm just saying that there isn't a translated name for taiji from all of the countries it is popular in, so that is clearly ''not'' the qualification for inclusion, nor should it be. It seems more to have to do with regional association of origin. But we all know taiji isn't a Japanese or Vietnamese martial art. So why do we need them translated in the English Wikipedia's infobox? Isn't that the purview of the Japanese and Vietnamese wikis? [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::We don't currently have (or probably need) sections like '''Tai chi in Europe''', '''Tai chi in Canada''', '''Tai chi in Japan''', etc., which is a logical place for that kind of info to go (if we want it) anyway. [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]]'s suggestion is good, IMO. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:Instead of the boxes that are there now, why don't you use {{tl|infobox martial art}} for the right-hand corner, and use {{tl|zh-tspw}} inline with the beginning of the article as recommended by [[WP:MOS-ZH#Combination Templates]]? (See [[Xingyiquan]] for an example where this was implemented) [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' [[WP:COMMONNAME]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] ([[User talk:SilverLocust|talk]]) 02:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::I would go for that for consistency with other MA articles. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
----


[[:Tai chi]] → ? – ''Note to admins: please keep this discussion posted for at least few weeks even if there's consensus on a move; [[Talk:Tai chi/Archive 5#Requested move 18 November 2014|last time]] a number of editors missed the window to participate.''
Good suggestion Bradford, I'll implement it (if someone didnt already). Thanks for batting this about with me FireStar. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


The current title of this page, "'''Tai chi'''" is a {{Strikethrough|less common}} [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tai+Chi%2CTai+chi%2Btai+chi&year_start=1980&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 equally common] version of '''Tai Chi''', the English-language [[WP:COMMONNAME]] for this art. That's the simplest option for a move, but editors have [[Talk:Tai chi/Archive 5#Page move|pointed out]] two issues with that name. First, although "Tai Chi" is based on the [[Wade-Giles]] romanization of 太極, it doesn't use correct Wade-Giles conventions (should be "T'ai Chi"). Second, it's [[WP:PRECISE|imprecise]]. I'm not an expert, but it seems that T'ai Chi refers to the philosophy that the martial art is based on (太極), not the martial art itself (太極拳).
===New version===
I'm fine with that, but just FYI: we're probably going to get grumbling about unequivocally attributing the creation to Chen Wangting. It may be better to say: Disputed. And possibly include both Wangting and Zhang San Feng. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


The two alternative suggestions are '''''T'ai Chi Ch'uan''''' (the correct way of writing 太極拳 in Wade-Giles) and '''''Taijiquan''''', the way 太極拳 is romanized in [[hanyu pinyin|pinyin]]. These are more precise but less common. ''Taijiquan'' has the additional advantage of being in pinyin, which is the romanization system considered standard these days. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Taijiquan%2CT%27ai+Chi+Ch%27uan%2CTai+Chi&year_start=1980&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=0&case_insensitive=true The Google ngram comparing usage over time]
:That's fine, I changed to "disputed". One of you guys with tai chi experience or knowledgable about the history should fill in the fields for "parenthood" and "notable practioners" if possible. [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


I'd be happy with any of these alternatives (Tai Chi, ''T'ai Chi Ch'uan'', or ''Taijiquan''), so long as we keep all of the related pages consistent. My tentative vote is for '''''Taijiquan''''', because even though it's less common than Tai Chi, it is more precise and uses the modern system of romanization used elsewhere on Wikipedia. [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:ClydeFranklin|C<small>LYDE</small>]] <small>[[User talk:ClydeFranklin|<sup>TALK TO ME</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ClydeFranklin|<sub>STUFF DONE</sub>]] (please [[Help:Talk_pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small> 07:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)</small>
I filled in parenthood, but there are too many famous prac's to mention. Also, does "hardness" refer to difficulty or to hard and soft styles? [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


:I assume you read through the "Tai Chi without the fist" thread above; and I would like to assume you read through some of the referenced threads in the archive of this page. I still have an inkling that this page could use a better name, but the others convinced me that the project is too arduous. If a decade later, enthusiastic editors want to make a change I would stay abreast and involved. [[User:TommyKirchhoff|TommyKirchhoff]] ([[User talk:TommyKirchhoff|talk]]) 19:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:Actually (and don't blame me, I didn't make the template), "hardness" apparently refers to the hardness of competition,. so I always fill it in with "full-contact", "light-contact", "no-contact", "forms competition only", or "non-competitive". [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm happy to help with standardizing references to whatever name editors agree upon. I obviously can't do all of it alone, but I've been working on fixing [[MOS:CHINA]] issues for a while now and would add this to my list of things to look for. [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 20:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I've no horse in this race (I just happened to the page randomly and noticed the inconsistencies), but if I had to cast a vote, it would be Tai Chi, just because it's common use. Still, I would like for the article to be added a paragraph summarizing SilverStar54's finds. If the article's title were one of the other terms, I wouldn't know at a glance what it would be talking about; but I would want to learn about those other terms while reading about it. [[User:Kumagoro-42|Kumagoro-42]] ([[User talk:Kumagoro-42|talk]]) 21:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


*'''''T'ai Chi Ch'uan''''' would fit the full name used in most English-language book titles, and by every place I've seen that teaches it. ''Tai Chi'', the most common "for short" name, as a <s>redirect</s> <small>[→dab; see below]</small>, would continue to be a quick way to look the article up. ''Taijiquan'' would continue to be mentioned in the lede. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 05:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
::Would it be possible to put [[pushing hands]] in in place of the light contact bit? Also, I've competed in [[sanshou]] and [[leitai]] tournaments when I was younger with only a tcc background. Striking, kicking, knees, elbows, throws. This is fairly common for Wu stylists in SE Asia. I'm pretty sure there are Chen guys who compete too, esp. in Taiwan by my recollections. Do you think that could (or should) be included? I'll go over some tournament results online to see if I can find any mention of tcc people competing this way. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*::Links for examples:
:::* https://www.britannica.com/sports/tai-chi-chuan
:::* https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tai_chi_chuan
:::* https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/tai-chi-chuan-0
:::* http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/development/11802820
:::* https://mwc.en-academic.com/117087/t%27ai
:::* https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/t-ai-chi-ch-uan
:::* https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/tai-chi-chuan
:::* https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/taichichuan &nbsp; ''[Random House Dictionary]''
:::* https://books.google.com/books?q=t'ai-chi-ch'uan &nbsp; ''[books]''
:::* https://www.google.com/search?q=%2BT'ai-Chi-Ch'uan+school &nbsp; ''[schools]''
::{{pb}}
:::See also the usage of other Wikipedias, like Simple English: [[:simple:Tai chi chuan|Tai chi chuan]]
:::&nbsp;
:: &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 03:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::And I would amend my above suggestion to instead suggest that ''Tai Chi'', and alternate capitalization ''Tai chi'', should '''not''' be simple redirect pages, but rather '''disambiguation''' pages re '''''[[Taijitu]]''''' (the T'ai Chi or Yin-Yang '''disc''') vs ''T'ai Chi Ch'uan''. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 03:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


* '''''Tai chi''''' is my vote. I think [[WP:COMMONNAME]] clearly applies. The term has existed in English long enough that it's become an English word of its own with its own associated spelling, much like ''marijuana'', ''Delhi'', or ''Japan''. Ambiguity isn't a problem because anyone who comes here looking for the philosophical concept will see the [[WP:Hatnote|hatnote]]. As for capitalization, I just did an informal literature search, and it seems the lowercase form is the most common in books and scientific journals. That's consistent with how ''karate'' and ''capoeira'' are lowercase except at the beginnings of sentences. [[User:Justinkunimune|Justin Kunimune]] ([[User talk:Justinkunimune|talk]]) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
::leitai and sanshou (especially under modern wushu governance) are separate practices/courses of study than taiji. It is so rare in taiji study (in Asia and beyond) for students to practice full-contact fighting as to be completely negligible in a functioning definition. Besides, people participating in leitai and sanshou are simply utilizing taiji, they aren't ''practicing'' taiji. And restrained contact push hands is the norm for taiji tournaments the world over. To include a full-contact note in the infobox on a resource on taiji for those who don't know it already would be sorely misleading. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*:That's a good point that the un-capitalized version would appear as "tai chi" when it isn't at the start of a sentence. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tai+Chi%2CTai+chi%2Btai+chi&year_start=1980&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 Google ngram shows] that the sum of "Tai chi" + "tai chi" is equally as popular as "Tai Chi". [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, I'll have to agree that the overwhelming majority of schools have zero experience with full contact. I found this [http://www.wushucanada.com/aboutus/executivecommittee.html] that lists Eddie Wu as chairman of the Canadian wushu association, which oversees "Asian Games" style sanshou in Canada and in whose tournaments I have competed (I'm not his student, however, I learned from one of his uncles and his uncle's students). I don't think it is explicit enough for what I had in mind, though. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star 火星]] 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
*::Thanks for that, [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]]. I see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tai+Chi%2CTai+chi%2Btai+chi&year_start=2018&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 the same but for 2018-2019, "Tai chi" + "tai chi" is ahead of "Tai Chi". Unless it has a very close relationship with a person of that name, "tai chi" is it for me. [[User:Facts707|Facts707]] ([[User talk:Facts707|talk]]) 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Tai chi''' ('''tai chi''' if not at the begining of a sentence or in a title of a book etc.) is my vote. Similar to how [[karate]], [[kung fu]], [[jujutsu]], etc. have evolved to become simple English common terms. '''T'ai Chi Ch'uan''' is fine for a formal name but few English-speaking writers will remember those apostrophes correctly. [[User:Facts707|Facts707]] ([[User talk:Facts707|talk]]) 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
*:Redirects would ensure they don't have to remember the exact full name – but the title should use it. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 03:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Tai chi''' (no move) sentence case for the article title, lowercase in the body when not the beginning of a sentence per [[MOS:CONCISE]], [[MOS:FIELD]] and [[MOS:SPORTCAPS]]. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 18:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
*:Follow-up comment: My comment is primarily about using [[WP:SENTENCECASE]], not about whether to include "ch'uan" or apostrophes, although at the moment I am leaning toward [[MOS:CONCISE]]ness. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Justinkunimune - this is now an English word and the details of Chinese romanization are not determining. [[User:Walt Yoder|Walt Yoder]] ([[User talk:Walt Yoder|talk]]) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:<small>'''Relisting comment''': Per nomination request. [[User:ClydeFranklin|C<small>LYDE</small>]] <small>[[User talk:ClydeFranklin|<sup>TALK TO ME</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/ClydeFranklin|<sub>STUFF DONE</sub>]] (please [[Help:Talk_pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small> 07:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)</small>
* '''Oppose''', principally per Justin Kunimune. "Tai chi" has come to be an [[WP:ESTABLISHED]] English term in its own right, so it's best to use the English [[WP:COMMONNAME]] even if it's not the romanization that would normally be preferred. See also [[WP:NC-CHINA#Romanization]] for further corroboration. [[User:ModernDayTrilobite|ModernDayTrilobite]] ([[User talk:ModernDayTrilobite|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ModernDayTrilobite|contribs]]) 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': The common phrase is ''tai chi'' in English. I can see how technically that name is wrong, but it is the present reality and Wikipedia follows reality rather than rights wrongs. There's no need for capitalization as the names of martial arts are not proper nouns and this name is based on a philosophy which is not named based on proper nouns, and the phrase is not overwhelmingly capitalized in sources. After closing, the article should be cleaned up and this and other martial arts' capitalization should be cleaned up on Wikipedia.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose, possible [[WP:SNOW]] close.''' The common name in English is so obviously "tai chi" that there's not a snowball's chance in hell this page will be moved. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">O.N.R.</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 12:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' (keep at current name) arguments above and I was curious what newspapers.com would show for both total (approximate counts) and when they occurred (afaik it's case insensitive and I'm not going through the number of hits to use this to help determine that). And based on these numbers, I'd need to see a pretty strong argument that tai chi is "wrong" enough somehow to override [[WP:COMMONNAME]]: '''tai chi''': 602,832 (this may catch some "t'ai" as well but not many based on a scan) begins rising in the mid-1970s, hitting peak at ~1998, with a small decline since but still substantial); '''T'ai Chi Ch'uan''': 10,241 with large peak at 1974 (probably a book was published or otherwise popularized as that name) since then fairly low but consistent; '''T'ai Chi''': 58,757, which will include all of the previous one and a few false positives from just "t'ai chi"; '''Taijiquan''': 1,617 spiky with peaks at 2007 and 2019. [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
*:> ''"{{tq|1=I'd need to see a pretty strong argument that tai chi is "wrong" enough...}}"'' — That it's ambiguous, and refers also to the Yin-Yang or Tai Chi '''disc''' or '''symbol''' ([[Taijitu|tàijí'''tú''']] as distinct from [[Taijiquan|tàijí'''quán''']]), is a strong reason ''Tai chi'' should be a disambiguation page like [[Taiji (disambiguation)]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 15:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:::It's not really ambiguous, since neither taiji nor taijitu are called "tai chi" in English (they're both spelled with a "j" in English). [[User:Justinkunimune|Justin Kunimune]] ([[User talk:Justinkunimune|talk]]) 16:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::::> ''"{{tq|neither taiji nor taijitu are called 'tai chi' in English}}"''{{pb}}Not to wall-of-text you, here are three examples:
::::* https://www.lovetoknow.com/home/design-decor/tai-chi-symbol — e.g. "In addition to the male and female representation, the tai chi also embodies the Ten Thousand Things, which includes the four major compass directions and the four seasons."
::::* http://www.newcastletaichi.co.uk/yinyang.htm — e.g. "The Chinese symbol called 'tai chi' or the 'supreme ultimate' contains yin and yang. Yin is black and yang is white. Tai chi combines yin and yang to produce a process of dynamic balancing."
::::* http://defense-arts-center.com/tai-ji-quan-1 — e.g. "Many people interchange the use of Tai Chi and Tai Ji Quan or Tai Chi Ch’uan because it is popularly known as Tai Chi. This often causes confusion. Tai Chi is actually the Yin/Yang Diagram. This symbolizes the two opposing forces of the universe. It can be translated into 'the Grand Ultimate'. / When most Americans hear the words 'Tai Chi', they think of the slow movements of the discipline of Tai Ji Quan or Tai Chi Ch’uan. The 'quan' or ch’uan' means 'using the tai chi (yin/yang) as a martial art' or Tai Chi Boxing."
::::{{pb}}In light of the last clear distinction, rather than contribute to the (admittedly common) "confusion", shouldn't we also be clear in that same distinction? Not to 'right great wrongs', but rather, merely, not to '''add''' to a wrong. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Interesting, I stand corrected on that point. But as Skynxnex says, a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page is still the correct way to handle it as per [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]. [[User:Justinkunimune|Justin Kunimune]] ([[User talk:Justinkunimune|talk]]) 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:::My sense is that in English "tai chi" referring to this article is the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] and so depending on the number of potential other articles we have it can be handled by hatnotes on this article and/or a new disambiguation page at [[:Tai chi (disambiguation)]]. (Added: It looks like that disambiguation page is at [[:Taiji (disambiguation)]] already and is mentioned in the hatnote, which seems okay to me?) [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::::In that case, ''Tai Chi'' and ''Tai chi'' could redirect to [[Taiji (disambiguation)]] and let '''that''' help the reader find whichever article best fits what they're searching for... perhaps it might be [[Tai Chi (band)]], or [[Tai Chi (TVB)]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 20:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::> ''"{{tq|tai chi: 602,832}}"'' -and- ''"{{tq|T'ai Chi: 58,757}}"''<br>How many of those refer to the martial art (aka ''tàijíquán''), and how many of those refer to the Yin-Yang symbol (aka ''tàijítú'')?{{pb}}References to the symbol don't logically support using that term "primarily" for the martial art.{{pb}}Also, did your search for "tai chi" (etc.) ''exclude'' the sites where the next word was "ch'uan" or "chuan"?{{pb}}Otherwise, we should propose that "United" is the "primary" and "common" name for "United States of America", because the single word occurs more commonly — even though we'd be counting hits on other topics and even on that nation's full name. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 02:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I scanned through close to a hundred results for "tai chi" and then tried adding "yin" or "yang" or "symbol" and the closest I found were articles talking about tai chi (martial art) that also referred to "tai chi symbol" or "symbol for tai chi". So, out of the ~660,000... very few.
:::I had meant to search for and include all of the distinct spellings terms to try to adjust for the prefix problem (since newspapers.com, at least as far as I know, you can't exclude terms in results) "tai chi ch'uan": 14,493 and "tai chi chuan": 52,056 (with a moderate number of all three punctuation forms in all three results, so probably under 60,000 total including the 10,241 for "t'ai chi ch'uan" from above). [[User:Skynxnex|Skynxnex]] ([[User talk:Skynxnex|talk]]) 02:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
::::Okay, I'll take that as good indication of [[WP:COMMONNAME]], thus strong argument for [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]. In&nbsp;other&nbsp;words, agreeing&nbsp;to:
::::*'''Oppose'''.
:::: &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:.Raven|<big>'''.'''</big>Raven]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:.Raven|&nbsp;'''''.'''talk'']]</small> 03:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
== health benefits ==
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Article for Improvement ==
WTF? I personally placed a NY Times citation to the last paragraph, and now it's gone with a fact tag on it. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


So, we [[Special:Diff/1163099669|got notification]] at [[WP:CHINA]] that this article is currently listed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for improvement]], which I'd never heard of. And it uh needs a lot of improvement!{{pb}}Is anyone active here who was involved in creating this article? I feel like there was some nonsense a few years back (not involving the {{t|wg-apos}} used in article titles against consensus), but I can't remember anything clearly. Why is there a huge family tree tagged as Original Research? Does anyone have any details on any of the books listed without isbns? Or page numbers from anything?{{pb}}Also the layout could use some work. There are a lot of lists that could be prose, and a lot of stuff explained using only Chinese martial arts or Chinese medicine terms that don't really establish what they mean. And the health benefits section looks like someone did a search for tai chi related medical articles and gave them each a two sentence summary ordered by year.{{pb}}I took care of a lot of trivial punctuation and formatting issues, and I don't have a clear way forwards to propose, but I'm hoping some people involved in content creation for this article are currently active to help out, because there's a lot of work to be done. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 08:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The current link ([http://www.worldtaichiday.org/WTCQDHlthBenft.html this one]) is very much a product advert interspersed with references. Finding these references and linking directly would be useful. I've done one, [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605750121/fulltext Article in The Lancet, requires free registration].


:[[User:InferKNOX]], do you have any sources for [[Template:Tai chi lineage tree]]? There's none on the template page and it's tagged as [[WP:NOR|OR]] here. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 00:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
=="See also" section==
Hi, just wanted to mention that the "See also" section could use some trimming, as it should not include terms appearing in the body of the article. ''See'' [[WP:GTL#See also]]. [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


== Move discussion in progress ==
:P.S. And as long as I'm here, I'd also like to mention that I haven't seen any arguments in a while, so perhaps the "controversial topic" tag at the top of this talk page can come down now. [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 12:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:Taiji (philosophy)#Requested move 28 October 2023|Talk:Taiji (philosophy)]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Taiji (philosophy)#Requested move 28 October 2023 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed on both points. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
== "[[:Taichi]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taichi&redirect=no Taichi]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6#Taichi}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 02:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:14, 6 January 2024

Former good article nomineeTai chi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Inconsistent capitalization[edit]

Throughout the page, the spelling varies between "Tai chi" and "Tai Chi". Can we pick one (perhaps the one used in the page's title, although I personally prefer both words capitalized) and change the other? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and also prefer capitalization of both words.
~~~ NorthWu (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate agrees with you. – •Raven  .talk 01:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Raven, NorthWu, Kumagoro-42 I added a move discussion below. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency among Tai chi-related articles[edit]

There are a lot of Tai chi-related articles that use a different version of the name than that used here. For example: T'ai chi classics, Chen-style taijiquan, Yangjia Michuan Taiji Quan, Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Wu-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Sun-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Wudang t'ai chi ch'uan, Zhaobao t'ai chi ch'uan, Guang Ping Yang t'ai chi ch'uan, etc. Needless to say, this really harms readability. I'm neutral on what name Wikipedia should use for this topic, but can we agree for sanity's sake to keep it consistent?

I'm going to cross-post links to this discussion on several related articles and boards so that we can hopefully come to a real consensus on this. (Note: for some context on why "Tai chi" is the current page name, see here and here). SilverStar54 (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no reason for inconsistent names here. I'll start by saying that I agree with the reasons for making this page "Tai Chi" and think that should apply to all of these, but it looks like those past discussions were rather contentious, so I'm sure others still disagree. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you want to move this page I'll go ahead and start a move discussion. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tai chi → ? – Note to admins: please keep this discussion posted for at least few weeks even if there's consensus on a move; last time a number of editors missed the window to participate.

The current title of this page, "Tai chi" is a less common equally common version of Tai Chi, the English-language WP:COMMONNAME for this art. That's the simplest option for a move, but editors have pointed out two issues with that name. First, although "Tai Chi" is based on the Wade-Giles romanization of 太極, it doesn't use correct Wade-Giles conventions (should be "T'ai Chi"). Second, it's imprecise. I'm not an expert, but it seems that T'ai Chi refers to the philosophy that the martial art is based on (太極), not the martial art itself (太極拳).

The two alternative suggestions are T'ai Chi Ch'uan (the correct way of writing 太極拳 in Wade-Giles) and Taijiquan, the way 太極拳 is romanized in pinyin. These are more precise but less common. Taijiquan has the additional advantage of being in pinyin, which is the romanization system considered standard these days. The Google ngram comparing usage over time

I'd be happy with any of these alternatives (Tai Chi, T'ai Chi Ch'uan, or Taijiquan), so long as we keep all of the related pages consistent. My tentative vote is for Taijiquan, because even though it's less common than Tai Chi, it is more precise and uses the modern system of romanization used elsewhere on Wikipedia. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 07:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read through the "Tai Chi without the fist" thread above; and I would like to assume you read through some of the referenced threads in the archive of this page. I still have an inkling that this page could use a better name, but the others convinced me that the project is too arduous. If a decade later, enthusiastic editors want to make a change I would stay abreast and involved. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help with standardizing references to whatever name editors agree upon. I obviously can't do all of it alone, but I've been working on fixing MOS:CHINA issues for a while now and would add this to my list of things to look for. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no horse in this race (I just happened to the page randomly and noticed the inconsistencies), but if I had to cast a vote, it would be Tai Chi, just because it's common use. Still, I would like for the article to be added a paragraph summarizing SilverStar54's finds. If the article's title were one of the other terms, I wouldn't know at a glance what it would be talking about; but I would want to learn about those other terms while reading about it. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • T'ai Chi Ch'uan would fit the full name used in most English-language book titles, and by every place I've seen that teaches it. Tai Chi, the most common "for short" name, as a redirect [→dab; see below], would continue to be a quick way to look the article up. Taijiquan would continue to be mentioned in the lede. – .Raven  .talk 05:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Links for examples:
See also the usage of other Wikipedias, like Simple English: Tai chi chuan
 
– .Raven  .talk 03:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I would amend my above suggestion to instead suggest that Tai Chi, and alternate capitalization Tai chi, should not be simple redirect pages, but rather disambiguation pages re Taijitu (the T'ai Chi or Yin-Yang disc) vs T'ai Chi Ch'uan. – .Raven  .talk 03:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tai chi is my vote. I think WP:COMMONNAME clearly applies. The term has existed in English long enough that it's become an English word of its own with its own associated spelling, much like marijuana, Delhi, or Japan. Ambiguity isn't a problem because anyone who comes here looking for the philosophical concept will see the hatnote. As for capitalization, I just did an informal literature search, and it seems the lowercase form is the most common in books and scientific journals. That's consistent with how karate and capoeira are lowercase except at the beginnings of sentences. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point that the un-capitalized version would appear as "tai chi" when it isn't at the start of a sentence. Google ngram shows that the sum of "Tai chi" + "tai chi" is equally as popular as "Tai Chi". SilverStar54 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, SilverStar54. I see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Tai+Chi%2CTai+chi%2Btai+chi&year_start=2018&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 the same but for 2018-2019, "Tai chi" + "tai chi" is ahead of "Tai Chi". Unless it has a very close relationship with a person of that name, "tai chi" is it for me. Facts707 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tai chi (tai chi if not at the begining of a sentence or in a title of a book etc.) is my vote. Similar to how karate, kung fu, jujutsu, etc. have evolved to become simple English common terms. T'ai Chi Ch'uan is fine for a formal name but few English-speaking writers will remember those apostrophes correctly. Facts707 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects would ensure they don't have to remember the exact full name – but the title should use it. – .Raven  .talk 03:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tai chi (no move) sentence case for the article title, lowercase in the body when not the beginning of a sentence per MOS:CONCISE, MOS:FIELD and MOS:SPORTCAPS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up comment: My comment is primarily about using WP:SENTENCECASE, not about whether to include "ch'uan" or apostrophes, although at the moment I am leaning toward MOS:CONCISEness. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Justinkunimune - this is now an English word and the details of Chinese romanization are not determining. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Per nomination request. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 07:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, principally per Justin Kunimune. "Tai chi" has come to be an WP:ESTABLISHED English term in its own right, so it's best to use the English WP:COMMONNAME even if it's not the romanization that would normally be preferred. See also WP:NC-CHINA#Romanization for further corroboration. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The common phrase is tai chi in English. I can see how technically that name is wrong, but it is the present reality and Wikipedia follows reality rather than rights wrongs. There's no need for capitalization as the names of martial arts are not proper nouns and this name is based on a philosophy which is not named based on proper nouns, and the phrase is not overwhelmingly capitalized in sources. After closing, the article should be cleaned up and this and other martial arts' capitalization should be cleaned up on Wikipedia. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, possible WP:SNOW close. The common name in English is so obviously "tai chi" that there's not a snowball's chance in hell this page will be moved. O.N.R. (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (keep at current name) arguments above and I was curious what newspapers.com would show for both total (approximate counts) and when they occurred (afaik it's case insensitive and I'm not going through the number of hits to use this to help determine that). And based on these numbers, I'd need to see a pretty strong argument that tai chi is "wrong" enough somehow to override WP:COMMONNAME: tai chi: 602,832 (this may catch some "t'ai" as well but not many based on a scan) begins rising in the mid-1970s, hitting peak at ~1998, with a small decline since but still substantial); T'ai Chi Ch'uan: 10,241 with large peak at 1974 (probably a book was published or otherwise popularized as that name) since then fairly low but consistent; T'ai Chi: 58,757, which will include all of the previous one and a few false positives from just "t'ai chi"; Taijiquan: 1,617 spiky with peaks at 2007 and 2019. Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "I'd need to see a pretty strong argument that tai chi is "wrong" enough..." — That it's ambiguous, and refers also to the Yin-Yang or Tai Chi disc or symbol (tàijítú as distinct from tàijíquán), is a strong reason Tai chi should be a disambiguation page like Taiji (disambiguation). – .Raven  .talk 15:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really ambiguous, since neither taiji nor taijitu are called "tai chi" in English (they're both spelled with a "j" in English). Justin Kunimune (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "neither taiji nor taijitu are called 'tai chi' in English"
Not to wall-of-text you, here are three examples:
  • https://www.lovetoknow.com/home/design-decor/tai-chi-symbol — e.g. "In addition to the male and female representation, the tai chi also embodies the Ten Thousand Things, which includes the four major compass directions and the four seasons."
  • http://www.newcastletaichi.co.uk/yinyang.htm — e.g. "The Chinese symbol called 'tai chi' or the 'supreme ultimate' contains yin and yang. Yin is black and yang is white. Tai chi combines yin and yang to produce a process of dynamic balancing."
  • http://defense-arts-center.com/tai-ji-quan-1 — e.g. "Many people interchange the use of Tai Chi and Tai Ji Quan or Tai Chi Ch’uan because it is popularly known as Tai Chi. This often causes confusion. Tai Chi is actually the Yin/Yang Diagram. This symbolizes the two opposing forces of the universe. It can be translated into 'the Grand Ultimate'. / When most Americans hear the words 'Tai Chi', they think of the slow movements of the discipline of Tai Ji Quan or Tai Chi Ch’uan. The 'quan' or ch’uan' means 'using the tai chi (yin/yang) as a martial art' or Tai Chi Boxing."
In light of the last clear distinction, rather than contribute to the (admittedly common) "confusion", shouldn't we also be clear in that same distinction? Not to 'right great wrongs', but rather, merely, not to add to a wrong. – .Raven  .talk 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I stand corrected on that point. But as Skynxnex says, a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page is still the correct way to handle it as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Justin Kunimune (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that in English "tai chi" referring to this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so depending on the number of potential other articles we have it can be handled by hatnotes on this article and/or a new disambiguation page at Tai chi (disambiguation). (Added: It looks like that disambiguation page is at Taiji (disambiguation) already and is mentioned in the hatnote, which seems okay to me?) Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Tai Chi and Tai chi could redirect to Taiji (disambiguation) and let that help the reader find whichever article best fits what they're searching for... perhaps it might be Tai Chi (band), or Tai Chi (TVB). – .Raven  .talk 20:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "tai chi: 602,832" -and- "T'ai Chi: 58,757"
How many of those refer to the martial art (aka tàijíquán), and how many of those refer to the Yin-Yang symbol (aka tàijítú)?
References to the symbol don't logically support using that term "primarily" for the martial art.
Also, did your search for "tai chi" (etc.) exclude the sites where the next word was "ch'uan" or "chuan"?
Otherwise, we should propose that "United" is the "primary" and "common" name for "United States of America", because the single word occurs more commonly — even though we'd be counting hits on other topics and even on that nation's full name. – .Raven  .talk 02:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned through close to a hundred results for "tai chi" and then tried adding "yin" or "yang" or "symbol" and the closest I found were articles talking about tai chi (martial art) that also referred to "tai chi symbol" or "symbol for tai chi". So, out of the ~660,000... very few.
I had meant to search for and include all of the distinct spellings terms to try to adjust for the prefix problem (since newspapers.com, at least as far as I know, you can't exclude terms in results) "tai chi ch'uan": 14,493 and "tai chi chuan": 52,056 (with a moderate number of all three punctuation forms in all three results, so probably under 60,000 total including the 10,241 for "t'ai chi ch'uan" from above). Skynxnex (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take that as good indication of WP:COMMONNAME, thus strong argument for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In other words, agreeing to:
  • Oppose.
– .Raven  .talk 03:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article for Improvement[edit]

So, we got notification at WP:CHINA that this article is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles for improvement, which I'd never heard of. And it uh needs a lot of improvement!

Is anyone active here who was involved in creating this article? I feel like there was some nonsense a few years back (not involving the {{wg-apos}} used in article titles against consensus), but I can't remember anything clearly. Why is there a huge family tree tagged as Original Research? Does anyone have any details on any of the books listed without isbns? Or page numbers from anything?

Also the layout could use some work. There are a lot of lists that could be prose, and a lot of stuff explained using only Chinese martial arts or Chinese medicine terms that don't really establish what they mean. And the health benefits section looks like someone did a search for tai chi related medical articles and gave them each a two sentence summary ordered by year.

I took care of a lot of trivial punctuation and formatting issues, and I don't have a clear way forwards to propose, but I'm hoping some people involved in content creation for this article are currently active to help out, because there's a lot of work to be done. Folly Mox (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:InferKNOX, do you have any sources for Template:Tai chi lineage tree? There's none on the template page and it's tagged as OR here. Folly Mox (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiji (philosophy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Taichi" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Taichi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Taichi until a consensus is reached. SilverStar54 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tai_chi&diff=1193949941&oldid=148287857

Leave a Reply