This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Martial arts C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Taoism C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaoismWikipedia:WikiProject TaoismTemplate:WikiProject TaoismTaoism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. China C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Tai 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 Date Process Result December 8, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

I apologize if this has been discussed to death but pinyin has really become the standard for phonetic spelling of Chinese words. Taijiquan, Taiji Quan, or Tai Ji Quan should be the spelling for the article.

I would recommend putting corrected Wade-Giles in parentheses after Pinyin: "Taijiquan (T'ai Chi Ch'üan)"

If Wade-Giles is preferred by consensus then we should at least use correct Wade-Giles: "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" (the current title of this article would be pronounced "daijizhuan" which is incorrect).Herbxue (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I checked the archives and numerous editors have brought this same question up. An attempt to switch to a more "correct" version of Wade Giles seems to have failed based on the use of an umlaut, which differentiates the pinyin "quan" (as in 拳 "fist") from "chuan" (as in 川 "river"). It seems people objected to the umlaut making it too complicated.

To me this just highlights the need to switch to the more correct and clear pinyin system. If nobody objects, I will edit the title to "Taijiquan (T'ai Chi Ch'üan)"

Wikipedia should attempt to accurately portray the subjects in the articles, not to survey the most popular misconceptions and portray them as true. The subject of this article is from China, China uses pinyin, so the title of the article should be the most correct name for the art, Taijiquan.

It seems that nobody is actively watching this talk page. Although I do not want to unilaterally decide on a name change, I think the only way to get the issue, which I see as important, talked about is to go ahead and make the change, which I believe is a needed improvement. I welcome any debate that may ensue.Herbxue (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreement here that the name should be adjusted to the pinyin system, not only on a sentence or two, but on the page itself and all the references (unless they are direct quotes, of course). The Chinese gvt endorsed the pinyin translation when they started promoting the 24-form in 1956, so I see it as a further reason to form concensus on this and create uniformity and end this splintering with all these endless name variations to the same thing. The majority of practitioners, as well the International Wushu Federation refer to it as Taijiquan. A further proof is that just about any Modern Chinese English dictionary will be in pinyin, so it is definitely more relavent to us now than the Wade-Gilles. As such, I motion that all the references to in the form "Tai Chi" & "Tai Chi Chuan" be amended to the pinyin "Taiji" & "Taijiquan" respectively and that the page itself be placed under "Taijiquan" and redirects be placed from the "Tai Chi" & "Tai Chi Chuan" pages to it.InferKNOX (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So some of the options are:

Pinyinish short 2 words: Tài jí, Tài Jí; Tai ji, Tai Ji

Pinyinish short 1 word: Tàijí; Taiji

Pinyinish long 3 words: Tài jí quán, Tài Jí Quán; Tai ji quan, Tai Ji Quan

Pinyinish long 2 words: Tàijí quán, Tàijí Quán; Taiji quan, Taiji Quan

Pinyinish long 1 word: Tàijíquán; Taijiquan

Wade-Gilesish short 2 words: T'ai chi, T'ai Chi; Tai chi, Tai Chi

Wade-Gilesish short -: T'ai-chi; Tai-chi

Wade-Gilesish short 1 word: T'aichi; Taichi

Wade-Gilesish long 3 words 2 ': T'ai chi ch'üan, T'ai Chi Ch'üan; T'ai chi ch'uean, T'ai Chi Ch'uean; T'ai chi ch'uan, T'ai Chi Ch'uan

Wade-Gilesish long 3 words 1st ': T'ai chi chüan, T'ai Chi Chüan; T'ai chi chuean, T'ai Chi Chuean; T'ai chi chuan, T'ai Chi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long 3 words 2nd ': Tai chi ch'üan, Tai Chi Ch'üan; Tai chi ch'uean, Tai Chi Ch'uean; Tai chi ch'uan, Tai Chi Ch'uan

Wade-Gilesish long 3 words 0 ': Tai chi chüan, Tai Chi Chüan; Tai chi chuean, Tai Chi Chuean; Tai chi chuan, Tai Chi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long - 2 ': T'ai-chi ch'üan, T'ai-chi Ch'üan; T'ai-chi ch'uean, T'ai-chi Ch'uean; T'ai-chi ch'uan, T'ai-chi Ch'uan

Wade-Gilesish long - 1st ': T'ai-chi chüan, T'ai-chi Chüan; T'ai-chi chuean, T'ai-chi Chuean; T'ai-chi chuan, T'ai-chi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long - 2nd ': Tai-chi ch'üan, Tai-chi Ch'üan; Tai-chi ch'uean, Tai-chi Ch'uean; Tai-chi ch'uan, Tai-chi Ch'uan

Wade-Gilesish long - 0 ': Tai-chi chüan, Tai-chi Chüan; Tai-chi chuean, Tai-chi Chuean; Tai-chi chuan, Tai-chi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long 2 words 2 ': T'aichi ch'üan, T'aichi Ch'üan; T'aichi ch'uean, T'aichi Ch'uean; T'aichi ch'uan, T'aichi Ch'uan

Wade-Gilesish long 2 words 1st ': T'aichi chüan, T'aichi Chüan; T'aichi chuean, T'aichi Chuean; T'aichi chuan, T'aichi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long 2 words 2nd ': Taichi ch'üan, Taichi Ch'üan; Taichi ch'uean, Taichi Ch'uean; Taichi ch'uan, Taichi Ch'uan

Wade-Gilesish long 2 words 0 ': Taichi chüan, Taichi Chüan; Taichi chuean, Taichi Chuean; Taichi chuan, Taichi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long 1 word 2 ': T'aichich'üan; T'aichich'uean; T'aichich'uan

Wade-Gilesish long 1 word 1st ': T'aichichüan; T'aichichuean; T'aichichuan

Wade-Gilesish long 1 word 2nd ': Taichich'üan; Taichich'uean; Taichich'uan

Wade-Gilesish long 1 word 0 ': Taichichüan; Taichichuean; Taichichuan

Wrongish short: Tai-Chi; Tai qi; Thai Chi; Tao Chi

Wrongish long: Tai Chi Quan; Tai ji chuan; Tai Ji Chuan; Taiji Chuan; TaiJiQuan; T’ai Chi Chuan; T’ai-chi ch’uan; T’ai chi ch’uan

I vote for either Tai chi (as the most common, I believe), or Tàijíquán (as the most correct, I believe).--Nø (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a formal move proposal now - I'd suggest Tàijíquán?--Nø (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I formally submit the Pinyinish long 1 word: "Taijiquan" as it is, as I said earlier, used by the highest and closest thing to being the authoritative body, the International Wushu Federation (IWF). It is also used by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming (who is formally recognised by the IWF) and numerous other Taiji Masters.

• The name has to be stated as it is used in reality, not as it's prescribed to be used in a perfect world scenario. I would personally prefer the 2 word "Taiji Quan", however, my preference does not supersede the usage as "Taijiquan" by all the relevant authorities who do so.
• Another point is that using the name in the form T'ai Chi Ch'uan or Tàijíquán, will always have people reverting to the incorrect Tai Chi Chuan, and the normal usage, Taijiquan, respectively. As such, using special characters will be, as is already the case, something that is generally not done and is not particularly necessary, as Taijiquan is correct. InferKNOX (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree that we should change the title to Taijiquan. Yes, WP:NC-CHN says pinyin titles should be without tone marks. Keahapana (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Nø (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Taiji quan or Taijiquan, with the tone-marked version mentioned in the lead paragraph, and the older name(s) made into redirects; my instructor prefers the first (two word) version over my earlier preference for the single word version. htom (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)htom (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Taijiquan. Although I think Taiji Quan is more a appropriate as it wouldn't have to be 'broken' for the informal, Taiji.InferKNOX (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The policy on article titles is crystal clear. Wikipedia should use the most common and accessible name in English. "Tai chi" is by far more common the spelling in literature outside martial arts circles. Steven Walling 03:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but "Tai chi chuan" isn't "by far the most common"!--Nø (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That is definitely the case, thus nullifying "Tai Chi Chuan" as the prime candidate, but at the same time having the ambiguous "Tai Chi" being invalid, leaving "Taijiquan". Second most used to "Tai Chi" is "Taijiquan".InferKNOX (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Glad to see so many weighing in on this. I would like to repeat my support for pinyin or "pinyinish" Taiji/ Taijiquan. The problem with the still common "Tai Chi" is that the public is less and less familiar with Wade Giles (most have never been familiar) and so it encourages the incorrect pronunciation "tie chee". It also confuses it with the philosophical concept of Taiji. The problem with the "most common" convention (such as "Bill Clinton" rather than "William Jefferson Clinton") is that in this case it is incorrect so it would be like saying that Zhang San Feng was the real creator of Taijiquan because most Americans believe that he was, even though it is legend rather than fact.Herbxue (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all the current support (5) and only a single opposition, is it not now sufficient be concluded that consensus has been reached to have the page and non-quote references be changed from "Tai Chi Chuan" and "Tai Chi" to "Taijiquan" and "Taiji", respectively?InferKNOX (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it. People searching for "Tai Chi" can be redirected to "Taijiquan", therefore there is no disservice to those who use the term Tai Chi. I do not know how to "move" the article or change the name of the title, so if someone else could do that I am happy to help edit within the body of the article.Herbxue (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ordinary people looking for information will be more familiar with the term "Tai Chi" which is the most commonly used term in the English language for this subject, only specialists in the field will be familiar with the Pinyin term "Taiji" or "Taijiquan" and they are less likely to be looking for Wikipedia articles on this subject. A Google search of the term "Tai Chi" returns 54,600,000 results and even "Tai Chi Chuan" returns 51,600,000 results, whereas "Taiji" returns only 10,700,000 results and "Taijiquan" a mere 2,190,000, therefore the term "Tai Chi" is the more commonly accepted one. A similar sort of pattern emerges if you search Google books. What is most important here is the common usage in English and not the way it is spelled in a foreign language however correct some minority of people may feel this to be. For example the Wikipedia article on China is called "China" and is not called "Zhōngguó". If it ain't broke don't fix it. --Chuangzu (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "Tai Chi" already got an disambiguation page, so it is irrelevant to speak of it at this point.

If we are to talk of using the Wade-Giles form for the full name (Tai Chi Chuan), then it should also be recognised that Wikipedia's policy on article titles also states that it is "crucial" that the apostrophes be used. That is to say, it should be "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" which only registers ~460,000 hits on Google, far lower than Taijiquan's ~2,190,000.

It should also be noted that in Google Translate (using English to Chinese (simplified)), "Taijiquan" translates to "太极拳" (as stated on the this article), which translates back to English (again using Google Translate) as "Tai Chi". However, "Tai Chi Chuan" translates to "太极拳港", which translates back to "Tai Chi i Hong Cong". InferKNOX (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor issues compared to the proven fact that the most commonly used term in the English language is the current title of the article for a very good reason, this is not an oversight but a consensus of opinion of users and editors which addresses the needs of the majority of English speaking Wikipedia users.--Chuangzu (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Expanding on what InferKNOX wrote, the policy on article titles gives specific guidance on this issue: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" and "Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic". The common English form of the name is Tai Chi. Tai Chi entered the English language while Wade-Giles was the more popular romanisation system. You'll find 'Tai Chi' in an English dictionary but not 'Taiji'. Nev7n (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Concurring with Nevyn, Chuangzu, and earlier Steven Walling when discussing the subject of Tai Chi Chuan in the UK it is always "Tai Chi" or "Tai Chi Chuan" that is referred to. I think it detrimental to people wanting to learn more to change the title to Taijijuan on the grounds that it is a specialist semantic term, and regardless of whether it is more or less 'correct' (a term which is relative in itself) it is certainly less accessible. Always Happy 11(talk) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These last 2 submissions are very suspicious to me, considering the proximity of each to the other within which they were posted and how neither Nev7n nor Always Happy 11 exist on Wikipedia. Can they be disregarded? InferKNOX (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They make valid points, regardless of whether they're long-standing editors or not. Unless you've got conclusive evidence (such as IP logs) that they're sock puppets, perhaps we should treat their comments at face value -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I checked the OED and they list it as "T'ai Chi" as the main heading and also in all but the earliest citations (one from 1736 spells it "t'ai ki" and another from 1845 spells it "t'hai-ki"); at no point does the form "taiji" appear. So if (as appears to be the case) Wikipedia policy is to favour common English usage even in cases when it's not technically correct, then I think we should to follow the OED. (I'd be happy for the article to be renamed "T'ai chi ch'uan", but not "Taijiquan".) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "specialist" or "semantic" to want to call something by its real name. Taijiquan is from China, where the majority of practitioners and respected masters live. China is becoming a more important world power and pinyin terms are more and more prevalent. I think some people are emotionally attached to the innocently ignorant time from which the incorrect anglicized name comes from. WP should educate people, not just make them feel good about what they think they know. I understand the argument about most common usage in English, but we live in a global world now and if the UK usage argument above is acceptable then most common usage in China should be acceptable too. If not, this would be a case of Orientalism, which is unfortunate.Herbxue (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, T'ai Chi Ch'uan/Taijiquan is from China, yes we live in a global world, yes China is becoming more influential as a world power, and yes perhaps in the future the Pinyin form will supplant the Wade-Giles form in the English-speaking world too (just as "Beijing" has supplanted "Peking" since I was at primary school). But none of that matters in this case: this is the English version of Wikipedia, not the Chinese one, and as Steven Walling says above, the policy on article titles is very clear and unambiguous that although Pinyin is the preferred transliteration scheme for Chinese languages, if a non-Pinyin form is more commonly used than a Pinyin form, then the former should take precedence. In this case, surely the OED (which is the definitive record of English usage) settles the matter?

(Also, you now appear to have voted twice in support of the Pinyin form - perhaps you'd like to delete one of them to avoid inadvertent unfairness?) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted Nicholas, I actually did not add the "support" to my earlier statement, but used it today because I did not see it as a vote but a heading for the statement. I can live with whatever happens, I just think an encyclopedia should use the most correct term. I speak Chinese and practice Chinese Medicine so I may be biased towards technically correct usage, but I think WP should strive for correctness because people use it to learn.Herbxue (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about UK usage but about the international English language usage, the Google search is not UK based but a search of all English language websites and therefore returns the most popular term. You have chosen to define correct in your own special terms, something you read in a book written in a foreign language, but in actual fact what is correct in this case is what is defined by the English Wikipedia users and this in turn is defined by what most English speakers have correctly chosen. Chuangzu (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if a Texas governor convinces the world global warming doesn't exist then WP should say it doesn't exist? This is an encyclopedia and should educate people as best as it can. This is not about a "special term" that I read in a book, it is about the correct spelling of Chinese words. Herbxue (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED isn't just a dictionary of UK English, it contains citations for US and other usage too - but since you bring it up, Webster uses the "t'ai chi" spelling as well. Also, I don't think we're arguing that Pinyin isn't preferable to Wade-Giles in the majority of cases, and I at least am not arguing one way or the other about the technical "correctness" of the spelling "taijiquan" over the spelling "t'ai chi". Maybe at some point the spelling "taiji" will supplant "t'ai chi" in common English usage as well - but the OED and Webster entries (together with the Google search results) indicate that this has not yet happened. (Remember that a dictionary is a record of current and past usage rather than a self-appointed rulebook of "correct" English.) Yes, an encyclopaedia should educate people as best it can, and I don't think any of us are suggesting that it shouldn't at least mention the "taiji" spelling and its context. But Wikipedia articles should follow consistent policies, and the policies currently in place are very clear that regardless of technical correctness, article headings in the English edition should prioritise current English usage whether or not that might be less "correct" in some other senses. Your point about idiotic and/or dishonest Texan politicians is not quite relevant - I'm not saying that the spelling "taiji" doesn't exist, just that most English-speaking people don't use it. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are convincing. I suppose as long as the article mentions the various spellings I am fine with Wade Giles as the title (though would prefer the accented "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" if Wade Giles is the choice we stick with).Herbxue (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the world became convinced that global warming didn't exist then yes Wikipedia should have an article stating this regardless of who stated it. Encyclopaedias are here to reflect the world the way it is and not to make political statements intended to convince people about a particular viewpoint. "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" is unlikely to make it as the popular choice because most people cannot remember where the various apostrophes go, like it or not languages change to reflect the needs of the users and over time it's undeniable that overcomplicated things tend to get simplified.--Chuangzu (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, I'm sorry to say it quite so bluntly, but your and others' seeming insinuation of "Taijiquan" being more Chinese, whilst "Tai Chi Chuan" being more English, strikes me as absurd. "Supreme Ultimate Fist" is English. We're talking here about a current standard of transliteration from Chinese to English versus an outdated one. Alright, so if the title remains as "Tai Chi Chuan", then can we at least have it that on the article itself, it is immediately highlighted that Pinyin is the new standard and thus it aught to preferentially be referred to as "Taiji" & "Taijiquan", then from there have all non-quote references to it as such in the article? At least that way the direction of transition will be clear to those learning from the article, while the title is maintained. Can we at least all settle on that? I think that way every objective will be achieved towards being 'accurate'. InferKNOX (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel the need to be blunt - I intended no such insinuation (that "Taijiquan" is "more Chinese" than "T'ai Chi Ch'uan"). My argument is that whether or not "taijiquan" may or may not be technically correct (whether from a linguistic or martial arts perspective), Wikipedia's current policies clearly state that in English Wikipedia, we should use the most common English form of phrases of non-English origin, even when that differs from alternative forms that might be more technically correct in some linguistic or other way. You're correct that "Supreme Ultimate Fist" is an English phrase, but so are "T'ai Chi" and "T'ai Chi Ch'uan", and have been for a good couple of centuries now, because English has a very long history of absorbing words from other languages. For example: "agenda" (Latin), "criterion" (Greek), "moussaka" (Arabic via Greek and various Slavic languages), "pasta" (Italian), and hundreds of thousands of others. And "T'ai Chi" is the most common form in current English, unless you can provide dissenting sources of a similar stature to the OED and Webster. Regarding your other suggestion (that "T'ai Chi" be used only in the heading), well I'm not sure about that, either. It's clear to me from this discussion (as well as a wealth of material out there on the web, and in printed books) that there are substantial numbers of practitioners in both camps, and I'm not at all convinced which way the balance is at present, or whether one counts as "more correct" than the other. This is a complicated linguistic issue that seems to be tied up with strongly-held views within various schools, and whether or not one spelling/transliteration is actually supplanting the other in widespread usage I don't know, but I hope that we can find a compromise that will keep everyone happy, and I'm willing to keep trying for a bit longer if the rest of you are. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuangzu- It is not a political statement and it is not a personal viewpoint. It is about correct spelling. Even if Tai Chi is most common it is still not correct because it is a lazy use of Wade Giles. Similarly your user name, if referring to Zhuang Zi, would be an odd mix of WG and pinyin, but its your personal name so who cares? Taijiquan is not just your personal art or an art practiced only in English-speaking countries, so its name should reflect the reality. We aren't posting an add for our local YMCA Tai Chi classes, this is an encyclopedia. And btw, for those that like to quote policies, it is clearly agreed that any "rule" should be broken if it stands in the way of improving the article. So if you are settling for "Tai Chi" because it is most common in your circle of experience (the West), you are ignoring not only a larger population of practitioners but also the source population, which just seems silly to me. I do think there is an emotional connection to "Tai Chi" because it is comforting and familiar to, really, a minority of the worlds practitioners.Herbxue (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely in agreement with what you say. It's unfortunate that progress is halted over such impractical vetoes. Perhaps it is a product of the failure to see the bigger picture and the collective impact that such impasses have on the art as a whole via fragmentation & dilution. It is my hope that my last suggestion will, at the very least, direct attention properly and shift the balance entirely, as to nullify this, frankly, ridiculous popularity counter-argument. However, if provision can me made for this policy to be bent/broken, then I think that the complete change over aught to indeed be done. I however don't think it's bending or breaking the policy in the first place, because the Wade-Giles name is "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" (not the titled "Tai Chi Chuan"), with the appostrophes, which is far less popular than "Taijiquan", as I stated in response to Chuangzu's opposition, which was referencing Google. InferKNOX (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "impractical vetoes", I say "legitimate expression of dissenting opinion". Let's all take a deep breath and assume good faith. We're all having this discussion because we're interested in the subject and want this article to be as well-written as possible. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is easy to get excited and I for one can occasionally go a bit overboard. I am not unable to compromise on this point (willing to go with T'ai Chi Ch'uan rather than my preferred Taijiquan or Tai Ji Quan with the pinyin mentioned as the more contemporary usage) but I still consider "Tai Chi" to be inadequate.Herbxue (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

btw, although I can compromise on that, I would like to address Nicholas' comment in the "blunt" thread above: Pinyin is definitely the predominant romanization of Chinese language and has been since the early 90's. The only holdouts are some Taiwanese naming conventions (proper names) and a decreasing number of Western university sinologists trained in Yale or Wade Giles, and they are steadily moving towards complete adoption of Pinyin. As an example, Paul Unschuld, one of the most respected sinologists, now publishes using pinyin whereas he used Wade Giles in his publications from the late 80's. There are many examples like this, such as the work of Livia Kohn, a respected Daoism scholar. For more context on this, please read the WP articles on pinyin and Wade-Giles. Herbxue (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me if my passion is seemingly aggression, that is definitely not my intent. So, proceeding with the discussion, I have so far not heard any opposition to what I said above, of changing non-quote references in the the content of the article to Taiji & Taijiquan, while making clear from the start that these spellings are the now preferred according to the Pinyin standard. Can I take this as a positive response and press forward? Also, on the table is Herbxue's proposal to at least use T'ai Chi Ch'uan for the title. InferKNOX (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're all still happy and calm. I've been thinking about this and trying to understand the various sides of the discussion, and I think that part of the conflict comes from the need to provide an encyclopaedia article which is accessible and as accurate as possible for both practitioners and non-practitioners alike. Looking at things from the practitioners' point of view, it seems that some people prefer the "taiji" spelling while some prefer "t'ai chi", and although it may well be the case that the former is gradually supplanting the latter, I'm not yet convinced that this is happening as quickly or as widely as is claimed. Looking at things from the interested non-practitioners' point of view, I'm pretty sure (from things like newspaper articles and also more authoritative sources like the OED and Webster) that "t'ai chi" is more widely used. I'm concerned that if we mostly or completely remove the "t'ai chi" spelling from the article, we might confuse or otherwise put off people who don't currently practice t'ai chi but want to know more about it. I think some of the rest of the conflict comes from this interesting question about the absorption of non-English words into the English language. At the moment, the major dictionaries agree that "T'ai Chi" is how it's spelled in common English, and although we've seen this sort of thing change in the past (what we used to call Peking we now happily call Beijing, for example) I haven't seen it happening yet with T'ai Chi, and Wikipedia's own policies say that we should favour common English spellings even when they might not be technically correct. So my preferred approach is:

1. The title to be "T'ai Chi Ch'uan", with redirects from "Tai Chi Chuan" etc, and also from "Taijiquan" etc.
2. The (correctly apostrophised) English spellings "T'ai Chi" and "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" (which, as we know, derive from the Wade-Giles transliteration) to be used mostly throughout except where there's a specific reason for using the "Taiji" and "Taijiquan" spellings.
3. To include a paragraph or two, very early in the article, noting that some practitioners now prefer the spelling "Taiji" and "Taijiquan", and explaining the various reasons why.

I appreciate that not everyone might be willing to go along with this approach, so let's see how close to a compromise we can get. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Accepted Sounds like a good approach. Eventually we should get to critical mass on the pinyin spelling, but looks like we are not there yet. I do appreciate the willingness to use the apostrophes which are essential for the Wade Giles spelling. btw- there is an interesting WP article on the "Daoism vs. Taoism" issue which I think discusses some of the word-absorption issues Nicholas mentioned.Herbxue (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accepted I believe that your approach is probably the best at this point in time, as long the correct Wade-Giles spellings are used and the direction of progression of the name's spelling towards "Taiji" & "Taijiquan" is clearly evident. InferKNOX (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept A reasonable, balanced approach, that allows for later changes as the situation changes ... how like Taijiquan. htom (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid - thanks to all of you for being willing to compromise on something I realise we all feel quite strongly about. (And thanks to Herbxue for the pointer to the Daoism vs Taoism article, which I found very interesting.) -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have but a single request, however, that the very first word in the article remains Taijiquan, and from there the understanding is immediately built about the naming, then all further references be as you outline in your 3 points. I'm prepared to handle that writeup, and will of course do so in accordance with all we've discuss and in an impartial manner. InferKNOX (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not teach at the YMCA. However I have taught thousands of people at various classes around Britain and on the Continent for over twenty five years, studied Chinese medicine in depth, and I have published five books about the Taoist arts including T'ai Chi, kung fu, Chi Kung, Chinese Medicine and Taoist philosophy. I searched Google for references to Tai Chi which proved that it was the most common usage of the term on websites throughout the entire world using the English language (including China), a similar pattern emerged when I searched Google books which showed five times the amount of books with this spelling over the Pinyin version. You have chosen to define correct in a particular way as being spelled in some way connected with schools in China who use a particular style of transliteration, however it is not the most popular or commonly used one as of this point in time on websites around the world or in book titles on the web. The title of the article should be "Tai Chi" because this is the most common English language use of the term and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary then this is the correct term because it is the actual term in current use. Speakers of languages choose terms in this way and their choice is by definition correct, any other interpretation of how languages work is really academic and I'm sure fascinatingly interesting and supremely relevant in some small circles of discussion, but in reality irrelevant to actual language users in the real world. Personally I vote for the Wade-Giles transliteration because this is what I have used for more than thirty years, but practically speaking I recognize that the correct common English usage must stand.--Chuangzu (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding: the YMCA comment was not directed at you (I teach as well) but was intended to say that accessibility or ease of use is not the only factor driving the name. Many books on the subject are published using correct Wade Giles (your preference) and increasingly more with pinyin (my preference). Is T'ai Chi Ch'uan a Chinese word? I say yes but I am willing to accept that the English usage is the convention here at WP. Still, we must educate the readers. OED and Webster's give very wishy-washy incomplete definitions, by the way, showing that the broad public knowledge on the subject is miniscule in the west. Should under-informed popular opinion drive the content of this article? I say no. Still, please recognize that I am compromising from a previously rigid pinyin-only position, and supporting Nicholas' proposal. I hope you will also.Herbxue (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" only returns 1,090,000 hits on a Google search compared to 54,600,000 for the term "Tai Chi" and 51,600,000 results for "Tai Chi Chuan", a ratio of more than fifty to one suggests that it is those people who use apostrophes who are under informed. I do not agree that apostrophes should be used in this case because it will be misleading to the majority of people searching for information about the subject.--Chuangzu (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be misleading? Can you give a scenario in which a person searching for (and redirected from) "Tai Chi" is ill-served by the article being titled "T'ai Chi Ch'uan"?Herbxue (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a scenario where Wikipedia users are best served by article titles which are called by names only used by a very small percentage of English language users?--Chuangzu (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of us are in agreement. Your post is unhelpful - I was really asking a question in good faith - how would anyone be disadvantaged by a title that combines the familiar spelling with a technically correct depiction of an accepted (though declining) transliteration system, Wade Giles? People come here to learn - is it bad for them to learn that the "Chi" (極) is not the same as Qi / Ch'i (氣)? No, it is beneficial. But since you continue to be obstructionist - to answer your question, yes - the Mao Zidong page educates people who mostly read "Mao Tse Tung" in their school history books. They are better served by contemporary transliteration on WP because they will know how to have access to reliable sources of info in the future. I believe we have consensus to go with Nicholas' proposal even without your acceptance.Herbxue (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we set up a redirect from the unapostrophised "Tai Chi" form, then people who don't know where the apostrophes are supposed to go (or weren't aware that they were even there) will still find themselves reading the article they were expecting, so I'm not sure it's actually going to cause any confusion in practice. At the moment, we seem to have arrived at a compromise position that, while it might not be absolutely ideal from everyone's perspective, seems at least to be acceptable to (almost) everyone. "Tai Chi Chuan" is strictly incorrect; "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" is correct Wade-Giles, and is also the spelling used by the OED and Webster, but might be a little old-fashioned; "Taijiquan" is correct Pinyin and in some circles appears to be supplanting the Wade-Giles form but seems not to have completely done so yet. As I see it, there isn't really a strong case for the first of these alternatives when compared to either of the other two. Sorry. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that you wish to change the title of an article that has already been decided by a consensus of Wikipedia users and editors to be the best solution, yet you have produced no compelling evidence that there is any need for this change. What is most correct in this case is to follow standard Wikipedia guidelines: as Steven Walling has pointed out: "The policy on article titles is crystal clear. Wikipedia should use the most common and accessible name in English. "Tai chi" is by far more common the spelling in literature outside martial arts circles." I have provided clear evidence to back up this statement, the article title as it stands is the best one to use because that is the term most English speakers use to denote this subject, other spellings although they conform to some specialised factions' transliterations are simply not in common usage. This is the choice of the majority of internet users by a factor of fifty to one. This is not a matter of compromises or choosing one view or another because it is the least unpopular alternative in a particular debate, Wikipedia is here to educate by representing the way language is used by most people, not to change the way people use language by imposing special spellings that are not commonly used, this would constitute original research rather than reporting on an already accepted standard. Look at the question in the section below for example, the guy refers to "tai chi", we all know and have come to accept - whatever our personal preferences - that this is the term that refers to this subject that most people use and commonly recognise. The best title is the one we use now and until another term becomes more commonly used there's no reason to change it.--Chuangzu (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, Chuangzu. However, I would argue that it is not original research to use the correct transliteration of a Chinese word. Also, it might be construed as original research to say that a google search is the best way to establish word usage (do all T'ai Chi masters have web pages? My teacher did not). Your own book even uses the correct Wade Giles spelling, right?

Changing to "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" is most likely beneficial, has not been shown to be potentially detrimental, and any guideline or policy should be ignored if it stands in the way of improving the article, per WP:IAR. Looking back on the history, this topic comes up over and over. Lets enact this well-planned and thoroughly discussed compromise, which most of us have agreed to, so this issue can rest at least until pinyin gains more acceptance. Herbxue (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The transliteration you have chosen to advocate is not correct, and just repeatedly using the term "correct" does not make it so, what is correct is what is defined by the majority of speakers in a language whether you personally approve of this or not, and in this case in particular the correct use has already been chosen after a prolonged debate on many occasions as you have pointed out yourself. Using Google is not original research but is a published report by a recognised authority which is used by many millions of people on a daily basis and reflects the actual usage of a word at any point in time, I also searched Google books as is recommended in the guidelines on choosing article titles. People use Google, and indeed Wikipedia, so often exactly because they are known to reflect the way things are in reality precisely because they are so popular, they tell it like it is. Some few Tai Chi masters may not have web pages but people searching for information certainly will have and it is their needs we are catering to, and anyway whether people have the internet or not this does not change the fact that internet users are still reflecting the way language is used by a vast majority of people speaking the English language. My own book uses the Wade-Giles spelling not because it is in any way correct but purely for sentimental reasons: my master died in 1994 and I chose to publish it under the title he chose which was in 1976 when the Wade-Giles spelling was more common and accepted. The book is searched for under this title and it does not reflect the way people actually refer to the art, it is the historical name of the book and not the correct name of the subject that people commonly use on a daily basis. If I changed the name of the book now I would have to take out a new ISBN number and people would think it was a different book. In my own literature if I am publishing anything about the subject I would use the term people expect to read and understand to be the name of the subject so as not to confuse them.

Changing the article is beneficial only in your own personal viewpoint and you have not proved it to be beneficial in any other way, it is detrimental because people will look at the article title as they are reading the article and think that this is how most people currently spell the name whereas this is untrue. By calling the article by a term not usually used it will confuse people and will introduce a special spelling into the language which is beyond the remit of a Wikipedia article which is designed to reflect the way things are and not how a minority view things. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not made to be ignored unless there is a good reason to do so and you have not demonstrated any good reason in this case. Adopting a policy of ignoring policies cannot be construed as a policy in itself it is simply a balancing factor that should be taken into consideration and it is not appropriate in this case to use it to over-rule well established guidelines. Your view has not been well planned or thoroughly discussed and most people have not agreed with you, it has simply been repeated over and over again that it is somehow correct even though that does not represent the view of most other people. Personally I agree with you, but I bow to the policy on article titles because they seem to me to be the guidelines which provide the best working solution for the majority of ordinary people. The main thrust of your argument is that you advocate change, but the current article title has already gained acceptance, it is the best way to refer to this subject as has already been chosen by many many people and it should stay the way it is.--Chuangzu (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe readers will be confused by the addition of an apostrophe, which satisfies the repeatedly raised concern about transliteration of the Chinese word. As far as "minority" views are concerned, yours is currently the minority argument in this discussion. Is google really considered an authority on language usage? That seems odd to me. Herbxue (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, have always been confused by the apostrophes (or lack thereof) in the various book titles and within their texts, wondering which, if any, was correct. I do not read, write, speak, or understand any spoken form of Chinese. If T'ai Chi Ch'uan is the correct Wade-Giles spelling, then that is what Wikipedia should use for now, with redirects from the other Romanizations, correctly spelled or no, and a paragraph or two explaining (probably not in the lead) the differences. htom (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying "specialised factions" in reference to "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" is quite incorrect. Although I agree that "Taijiquan" is used by the more learned among those connected to it, "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" is simply the correct spelling for the commonly misspelled "Tai Chi Chuan" and as such is in no way distinct from it, other than being correct. Just because "OK" is more commonly used that "okay", doesn't mean that it's the new spelling, nor would it imply that those using the correct spelling are some sort of "specialised faction". For me, at least, it seems like your making such a strong drive against this is inspired by your books that you mentioned earlier, ie, it is personal/biased and thus hinders productivity in the debate. InferKNOX (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my point, I am not advocating the spelling I use in my books but the conventional English spelling which is most commonly used. Languages are not constructed by dictionaries or authorities on the subject but by the users and this is what is correct, if a term falls out of common usage it becomes incorrect to use it. An encyclopaedia like Wikipedia reports on the way people denote a subject and should not try to enforce a deprecated or unused term just because a small but vociferous minority of people choose to call it correct. Someone is not more learned or correct because they are using an outdated term they are simply not using up to date language. If you truly are practitioners of Tai Chi you should understand that balance is the key here, the Wade-Giles term is outdated, the Pinyin term has not yet gained acceptance, the solution is to accept the way people commonly spell the word, it has gained popularity for a very good reason.--Chuangzu (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Languages are not constructed by dictionaries" – Yes, exactly, dictionaries merely record current usage of a language (and some, like the OED, also show how it has changed over time) rather than prescribing how a language should work. (Compare with the work of the Académie française, who actually do attempt to prescribe how the French language should be written and spoken, although I'm not sure a majority of French people actually listen to them.). There was a case a couple of years ago where the latest supplement to the OED included the word "McJob", which it defined to be a low-paid job with few or no prospects for advancement. McDonalds complained and demanded that the OED remove the definition; the OED collectively shrugged and said "you've misunderstood what a dictionary is - the word is in there because people are using it, not the other way round" and left it in. Personally, I'm inclined to attach more weight to what the OED and Webster say than the Google search results, because the former are carefully compiled by experienced lexicographers from a phenomenal range of written and spoken sources, and the latter is a vague count of random web pages of unknown provenance, returned by a search algorithm which is agnostic about punctuation anyway. We seem to have a broad consensus for "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" at this point, so can we go with that? I know it's not quite what you'd prefer, but everybody else has compromised on details that they feel strongly about, and this is a relatively minor point in comparison. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously disputing that "Tai Chi" is the common English usage? Do you use Google? If so perhaps you would care to explain why. Google is probably the most commonly used search engine in the world, it reflects the use of the language which is why so many people use it, dictionaries are not up to date and I doubt they can directly reference 54 million uses of a word the way Google can. A dictionary cannot give us an accurate statistic about how many people are using a word in a real world scenario. I agree that Google may not be completely accurate, but it's just as likely that it's skewing the picture in favour of the Pinyin or Wade-Giles terms as it is of the common usage isn't it, unless you have real evidence to the contrary? Even so it seems highly improbable that websites have really given a false picture in ninety five percent of cases doesn't it? Anyway I searched Google books too which gives all public book titles if they have an ISBN number, this reflects a more authoritative use of the term, the results were the same, an overwhelming majority of publishers have chosen the terms "Tai Chi" and "Tai Chi Chuan", other terms are not in current use by a very big margin. My personal preference is for "T'ai Chi Ch'uan", but I think it is more important - given the overwhelming evidence - that we stick to the clearly defined Wikipedia guidelines and respect the decision of a consensus of Wikipedia editors over previous years. I do not think it is a minor point to choose an article title which has fallen out of use in the language and only appears in one in fifty of web pages. The problem seems to be that you favour an academic based approach, however the majority of Wikipedia users are not academics they are simply ordinary people searching for basic information about the subject. We should stick with what has already been decided and keep it the way it is.--Chuangzu (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we change the title of the article to 'Tai Chi' to reflect the fact that this is the way the overwhelming majority of people refer to the subject, with redirects from 'Tai Chi Chuan', 'Taijiquan' and any other spellings such as Wade-Giles etc. There should also be a paragraph early in the article to explain that the title of the article reflects the common English usage and that there are other spellings such as the Wade-Giles and Pinyin terms.--Chuangzu (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We'd already arrived at a consensus that was acceptable to everyone else, and I don't understand why it's not acceptable to you as well, especially since you say that your personal preference is for the apostrophised form. In the early centuries of the Christian church, there was an extremely heated argument between two factions (the Homoousians and the Homoiousians) about an abstruse point of theology that literally came down to whether one specific Greek word had an iota in it or not. (This is where the phrase "not one iota" comes from.) You're outdoing them: you're arguing with the rest of us about punctuation. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it is unacceptable to me is because it goes against Wikipedia guidelines and proposes to call the title of the article by a term which has fallen into disuse. Why do you think that the overwhelming majority of people have chosen to call this subject 'Tai Chi', and why do you prefer an archaic term? Hasn't a clear consensus already been reached in the real world about how this subject should be referred to, not only by members of the public but by also by authors and publishers around the world? Surely if encyclopaedias chose terms which are only used by 2% of people then wouldn't they fail in their basic premise of helping people to gain accurate and up to date information about subjects and the way people communicate about them? I believe that my personal preference is outweighed by the need for article titles to reflect common English usage and this is clearly the case as is shown by the evidence.--Chuangzu (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Tai Chi is a DAB page. The cosmological Taiji (T'ai Chi or bastardized Tai Chi) and the martial art Taijiquan are two different words. Keahapana (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Taijiquan/T'ai Chi Ch'uan without the "Fist" is, as Keahapana mentioned, a philosophical term. Similarly, "Bagua" gives 12 million hits, while "Baguazhang" only yields 500,000. Yet, the WP article on the martial art is correctly titled "Baguazhang". We don't know how many google hits are referring to Taiji the philosophical concept vs those that refer to the martial art. This is the problem with Chuanzu's approach - resorting to the most "popular" google result used by a population that is mostly ignorant of the subject leads to distortions. We have already reached a majority consensus on the non-bastardized "T'ai Chi Ch'uan".Herbxue (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Chuangzu is the only one in opposition at this point and the rest of us have agreed with Nicholas Jackson's proposed renaming, thus let us proceed. If other authors of this article disputed the proposed actions, then they have had ample time to respond and it is no disrespect to them to act upon the consensus we have reached. Shall I make the change, or is there someone in particular that aught to make the move from this page to "T'ai Chi Ch'uan"? I know how and am prepared to put my time into doing so. I also want to re-iterate my request that the very first word remain "Taijiquan" (to check this, refer to the bottom of the discussion by Nicholas Jackson's proposed terms that are bolded, slightly above). InferKNOX (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree in the interests of co-operation, make the change of the article title to 'T'ai Chi Ch'uan' even though it isn't the commonly accepted term. I don't think the first word should be 'Taijiquan' though, that will only cause confusion, the article should be consistent throughout. If InferKNOX doesn't know what he's doing I suggest a more experienced editor handle the matter.--Chuangzu (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find me quite capable at this point, Chuangzu. Thank you for your cooperation. InferKNOX (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chuangzu, I would say go ahead InferKNOX and move the article name. It would probably be best to put the pinyin term in parentheses with the article title as the first word. We can include the short list of used spellings as it currently is in the first line, but then add a bit more detail under the section titled "The Name".Herbxue (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will proceed with building it on the "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" page, then turning this one into a redirect. I will also move the entire discussion page. Please could you clarify this statement though, "It would probably be best to put the pinyin term in parentheses with the article title as the first word." I don't quite understand exactly what you mean. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move complete, now correcting other redirects (that I can think of) to this page instead of "Tai Chi Chuan". InferKNOX (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following redirects have been edited to point to T'ai Chi Ch'uan: Tai chi chuan, Taijiquan, Taiji Quan, Taichichuan, Taichi Chuan, Tai Chi Chuan & T'ai chi ch'uan, as well as edits made to the disambiguation pages: Tai Chi & Taiji.

A minor conflict has arisen in my mind, however. Is it preferable to have the entirely capitalised "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" or "T'ai chi ch'uan" with only the first part capitalised? I have moved everything to the fully capitalised version, as was suggested, but it's seeming to me that the popular convention is to have only the first part capitalised. If need be, I can simply move everything to the lower case version and re-edit the redirects.

I have not made the suggested edits to the contents of the article, but can if everyone would prefer I do so. InferKNOX (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION, in order to maintain the edit histories, I've undone the manual move I made. The only way to make the move and preserve the edit histories would be to make a request to move, which has a backlog of requests pending. The reason for this is that the "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" already existed prior to the move request, and thus the move would act as an overwrite. InferKNOX (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means use the title 'T'ai Chi Ch'uan' as the first word of the article and then include your other term in brackets'()'.--Chuangzu (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as in within the brackets already present? If so, the Pinyin "Taijiquan" is already included there. InferKNOX (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move to "T'ai chi ch'uan"

After debating having the page renamed to "Taijiquan", which is according to the Pinyin transliteration standard now preferentially used by learned practitioners, from the current name, we have settled on Nicholas Jackson's proposal to compromise in which:

1. The title to be "T'ai Chi Ch'uan", with redirects from "Tai Chi Chuan" etc, and also from "Taijiquan" etc.
2. The (correctly apostrophised) English spellings "T'ai Chi" and "T'ai Chi Ch'uan" (which, as we know, derive from the Wade-Giles transliteration) to be used mostly throughout except where there's a specific reason for using the "Taiji" and "Taijiquan" spellings.
3. To include a paragraph or two, very early in the article, noting that some practitioners now prefer the spelling "Taiji" and "Taijiquan", and explaining the various reasons why.

This reflects on the fact that the Wade-Giles transliteration is still the most commonly used, but still endeavors to maintain accuracy in the spelling of the name, which will aid in being informative for those learning about the subject and also make clear the progression of the standard naming from the Wade-Giles to the Pinyin.

In accordance with this, I tried a manual move (copy, paste), which worked, but wasn't the preferred method as it does not maintain the edit histories, so I reverted the Article and Discussion pages back to the original. I'm now prepared to make the move properly (with all edit histories remaining intact), however, Wikipelli ^Talk would like to have it clear that we've reached consensus on moving the page from the current to "T'ai chi ch'uan" (in that exact lettering, punctuation and case), so would everyone please place their 'votes' below before I proceed. Thank you. InferKNOX (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. InferKNOX (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Herbxue (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with a request you pull all from "Alright, here are the state" just above, into a new section for ease of !voting. htom (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, go ahead.--Nø (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm mostly retired from Wikipedia these days, but I do prefer "T'ai Chi Ch'uan." This is how us old timers have read it in English since the 1970s. That isn't scientific, granted, and I can easily see that it will someday be moved to "Taijiquan." --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted the move, but unfortunately was presented with the following: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." I'll request that Wikipelli ^Talk handles it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InferKNOX (talk • contribs) 11:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved. Please visit this page [1]. It lists the pages in Wikipedia that link to the old page (now a redirect). Those links should be changed so they point to the new page. I'll work on that some today, but there are quite a few and I'd love some help! :) Wikipelli ^Talk 09:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wikipelli, however there's a minor edit necessary: please refer to my talk page. I'll begin working on the links once the edit is done, as from the start of the coming week. InferKNOX (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished correcting all the links from the former page (as well as all variations I could think of) to this current one. InferKNOX (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Respective Family Style articles to "t'ai chi ch'uan"

Now that the move of the former "tai chi chuan" page is complete (to T'ai chi ch'uan), I believe that we can move forward with moving the pages (one at a time to allow for link correction) of the respective family styles (also note the case of the destination pages):

• Chen-style tai chi chuan to "Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Yang-style tai chi chuan to "Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Wu (Hao)-style tai chi chuan to "Wu (Hao)-style t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Wu style tai chi chuan to "Wu-style t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Sun-style tai chi chuan to "Sun-style t'ai chi ch'uan"

as well as:

• Lee style tai chi chuan to "Lee-style t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Wudang tai chi chuan to "Wudang t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Zhaobao tai chi chuan to "Zhaobao t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Guang Ping Yang Tai Chi Chuan to "Guang Ping Yang t'ai chi ch'uan"
• Taoist Tai Chi to "Taoist t'ai chi"

I'm prepared to contribute my time to correcting the links from the former to the new pages after each move, then report it done to do the next. InferKNOX (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the moves at all, but just wanted to say that moving those pages really shouldn't just be decided here. Notice of the proposed moves should be made on each of the pages listed above. I really have no knowledge so I'm sure you know best, but I think that some notice on each talk page is appropriate. Good luck! Wikipelli ^Talk 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. It is merely creating uniformity with the main page by propagating what is established here, not any sort of outright change, thus doesn't really need to be re-discussed, however, notices will be placed on each page's talk before the change. I've already started with the Chen-style t'ai chi ch'uan page, but will be sure to put up the notice as soon as possible. InferKNOX (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the table gives the impression that the Chen styles do not continue past the first few generations. Would someone handy with tables be willing to extend the Chen lineage perhaps to the point of Chen Fa Ke?Herbxue (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the lineage so that I see where the branch that Chen Fake comes from. I've looked around, but am not finding anything conclusive. I'll work on it and post it here to be assessed. InferKNOX (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I'm Bill Batziakas, the author of the section Tai Chi Chuan's fighting effectiveness as well as of the section Tai chi chuan in popular culture. It's always nice to see people interested in this wonderful martial art. Thank you very much for your comments. I've read them very carefully. And here are my comments on yours.

I disagree with the title of this section.

Tai chi is only the forms portion of a martial art and has no applied study.

The forms record techniques that can be understood by a skilled martial artist, but it's inappropriate to speak of "fighting effectiveness" if the forms are no longer applied. Without a background in application, the average tai chi practitioner will not understand how the techniques would be applied. If no one responds within objection to this within a reasonable time, I'll change it. Pkeets (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011

If you were to disagree with something, don't you think that you should rather disagree with the content under this title rather than with the title itself? If you go to a restaurant and ask for a Coke and the waitress brings you a Pepsi, will you oppose to the name of the product or to the actual product that you were waiting to be delivered? My intention was to write a section discussing exactly this: the fighting effectiveness of this martial art, exactly in the way that in other contexts others try or manage to persuade us about the effectiveness of a detergent or whatever. I am not saying that this is the perfect title. It could as well not include the name of the martial art, it could have of instead of 's and so on. And I set out to discuss or to prove the effectiveness of tai chi chuan by mentioning partly some characteristics in their own right (e.g. the fact that it's a well rounded martial art in terms of its syllabus) as well as to provide some famous written and oral references and some famous fights. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:01, 01 October 2011

What do you mean by tai chi anyway? Are you using tai chi to denote tai chi chuan? Because I hope you know that these are two different things, unless you use tai chi to denote the other in a shorten way, e.g. US instead of USA. And has no applied study? Look, once you teach and learn something, by definition it gets applied anyway, let alone when instructors teach and students learn the applications of each move in a martial arts school, let alone when you teach and learn it as part of your professional life if you are a law enforcer or a bodyguard or something like that. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:02, 01 October 2011

Regarding your if the forms are no longer applied: Forms in plural? Anyway. And also no longer, meaning that they were applied at some other previous point? And after reading my section you didn't find instances of form(s) application? The other references you made to a supposed average tai chi practitioner do not add anything to your arguments. Can you deconstruct the quality of a Formula 1 car by saying that the average driver would not be able to understand how to drive it or to make the most of it or something like that? Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:04, 01 October 2011

Tai chi practice includes applications (more or less fixed exchanges), tui shou (push hands, cyclical exchanges with variations and spontaneous applications), and san chou (longer fixed sequences of exchanges). Sorry about the spellings. I've met people with strong experience in other martial arts who said that to them, tui shou was the most realistic fighting practice tehy'd ever seen, as it has no artificial rules such as, "You can't push in the back", or whatever.--Nø (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tui Shou and San Shou can include both planned routines and random sparring. Generally, Taiji players progress from choreographed sequences (to learn the sensitivity and body mechanics and timing) to sparring either while maintaining connection (Tui Shou) or completely free sparring. It is true that most American practitioners do not practice applications, but ultimately one goal (many would say the main goal) of traditional Taijiquan is self defense. The name of the art refers to all aspects of the art, not just the forms or routines.Herbxue (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with each and every word, well done, nothing to add! Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:06, 01 October 2011

Tui shou doens't have any artificial rules? Tui shou is full of rules and regulations and restrictions, just visit the website of the International Wushu Federation to read their rules and regulations and restrictions, or just attend any tui shou competition around the globe. Perhaps you meant san shou? But then again san shou usually takes place in formal classes in a martial arts school or in a fight in a martial arts competition. So rules and regulations and restrictions will be there too. What your friends have seen is irrelevant to what you just said. I'm sorry if your friends have only seen such kind of tai chi chuan tui shou or san shou. You can't imagine how many times I used tai chi chuan against others or how many times I've recognised others using tai chi chuan against me. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:05, 01 October 2011

Hi Bill. I've moved some of your post above around a bit as it's common practice here not to post in the middle of someone else's posts (thereby separating part of their post from their signature) and as it is also common practice (unless there are specific reasons to do it differently) to add new material below older material, indenting it one level deeper. Both these pratices serve to make it easier to follow the thread at a later time by somone who wasn't involved in writing it. Sorry if I messed up your stuff a bit doing this! Feel free to repair -- but please consider conforming to those two common practices.

Anyway, I repeat: Tui shou has no artificial rules -- but yes, competitions have. The only rules I know of in proper tui shou are: Cooperate! and: Don't harm each others!--Nø (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, what was written could have been clearer. By 'tui shou' I meant competitions of tui shou, exactly like in the way that if someone says Rugby is tougher than football he rather refers to the modern sports and not to any older practice or any practice without rules, regulations, restrictions etc. So, I'm glad we agree.Bill Batziakas (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011

So, is "fighting effectiveness" appropriate? An explanation such as you've given would be more suitable under a heading like "fixed exchanges." Pkeets (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, guys, please, why don't you think the other way around? Why don't you leave the title as it is and instead try to propose ideas of how my content can live up to my title, in case you didn't like my content? Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:06, 01 October 2011

Fixed Exchanges only describes half of what I was trying to describe. To be clear, Taijiquan practitioners who study the martial aspect of the art do spar freely and do fight. Still, I agree that "Fighting Effectiveness" is not an appropriate subject heading in this article. How about something like "Martial Applications", or "Taijiquan as Fighting Art" (I like Martial Applications) which frames it as a description rather than an assessment (which could be construed as "Original Research").Herbxue (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't set out to describe the martial applications of this martial art, say, to describe one move and then to describe some of its applications, neither to mention how it has been used per se. I set out to discuss and hopefully to prove its fighting effectiveness to those who do not seem to know it. As I said before, you should better leave the title as it is and propose ideas of how my content can live up to my title, in case you did not like my content. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:07, 01 October 2011

I'll go with "Martial Applications." Would you like to change it in the article, or should we wait a while to see if anyone else has an opinion? Pkeets (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you reconsider after reading what I've written about and also below. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:07, 01 October 2011

Let's go ahead, I thinks its not too controversial. If the writer of that section objects they can revert and we can discuss more.Herbxue (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the writer of the section that I am, well, it is not that I object but rather that I ask you to understand what I set out to discuss. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:07, 01 October 2011

I think this section is well-written but it does sound like original research.

Thank you for saying that this sections is well-written. Thank you too for saying that it does sound like original research. It indeed took me weeks to gather all this information. But why did you wrote but between you two clauses? Can't something be well-written and original research at the same time? Or you think that that original research is bad? But then again what is original research? For me it was not original as I was gathering many of these pieces of information for many years and when I sat down to write this section I knew this stuff. I just had to bring them together. Pretty much, this is the case for the other sections of the tai chi chuan article. I mean, people knew some stuff and tried to bring them together and upload them here. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:08, 01 October 2011

We should edit it to sound more descriptive at the outset, rather than beginning as a discussion about style comparison or an analysis of "effectiveness". Still, there is some sourced material in there that is very good.Herbxue (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wanting to show the effectiveness, I hope you understand that it is ok to begin with an analysis of effectiveness. Regarding the need for more description, I just did not want to get into more details on this occasion. But thank you once again for saying that there is some sourced material in there that is very good. Yes, I was also amazed when I came across it. Thank you for your support on that. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:09, 01 October 2011

Yeah, any analysis of "effectiveness" by a WP editor is original research.

I discussed the issue a while ago. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:09, 01 October 2011

The premise of the section in question is contentiously opinionated and should be entirely scrapped, IMO. We should only report well-sourced attestations of any historical fights, if possible. Unfortunately, there are only a few that come to mind in the last 50 years (see Wu Ta-k'uei), and most of the reporting on those is in Chinese. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you propose to be entirely scrapped? What kind of attitude is that? When people say something that you do not think that it is backed up enough, don't you think that it is better to tell them to back up or prove or provide evidence for their words rather than telling them that what they have said or written should be entirely scrapped? Your username is Greek and for one thing you should have an extra reason to know the meaning of democratic expression and mobility of ideas and words, not to say to others that their intellectual products should be scrapped. For example, I'm talking about Oyama's book. And I hope you know who Oyama was. Isn't this a well-sourced attestation for you? And some years ago you could come into contact with Hu Yuen Chou (because now he has passed away) to tell you about this fight or you can travel to the area where the fight took place to ask people who attended it. How do you know that I have not found myself there? How do you know that I have not seen photos of this fight? And if you do not believe everyone, fine. Then, give us your well-sourced attestations even those few ones that come in your mind in the last 50 years, as you say. This is what I would name contribution to this section or at least genuine and sincere effort to make it better, not any proposal to have it entirely scrapped. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:13, 01 October 2011

Un-contentious descriptions of disciplines and practices under a heading like "Martial applications" is much better than scrapping it, I'd say.--Nø (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree with you! Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:14, 01 October 2011

I should have mentioned that there is already a section for technique above it in the article, which renders the section discussed redundant. The section I'd like to scrap starts with an unsourced 'Chen stylists argue and Yang stylists reply' format more like discussion board forum posturing than an encyclopedia article. The technique section above is a place to list the various pushing hands, sparring, wrestling, leitai, fencing, etc. It could use expansion, even style specific listings, but sourcing is a problem there. Most of the traditional schools, even if they do list their training syllabus, rarely go into detail. They don't like to 'give away the store' IME.

You still don't seem to be able or willing to get it, right? By discussing even in passing a very small number of characteristics and aspects of this martial art, I wasn't trying to give an account or a list of these characteristics and aspects, so that they could go under a heading such as applications or whatever. I was trying to show it's effectiveness. When wanting to prove the quality or effectiveness of something, haven't you ever provided some of its characteristics or aspects? Even some lines above when you wanted to prove that what I wrote is redundant, didn't you go on by giving some characteristics or aspects of this redundancy, at least according to you? Put it otherwise, just in case this helps you see what I was trying to do here, if you were given the title tai chi chuan's fighting effectiveness, what content would you write to substantiate it and in what order would you sequence it? Now, as regards the fact that you did not like the Chen stylists argue and Yang stylists reply, well, what can I say other than the fact now there is not any such sentence in my entire section! I guess you referred to those two individual sentences, starting with Chen's proponents argue and Yang stylists reply respectively? But these are are 50 words apart from each other and I guess you merged them and you also changed some of their words? Before I move on, can I ask you, seriously, why did you do that? In any case, I totally agree with you that what I have written is not sourced. But, assuming that you are a university graduate, I guess you know that ones does not have to source each and every single bit and byte that he says or writes. And I believe that in both these occasions the propositional content of these sentence did not need any source. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:17, 01 October 2011

I lost interest for a few years just because this article has a history of apathy and unanswered RfCs, one or two editors can't bring it up to featured article status alone. Chinese martial artists are notoriously fractious, and we haven't yet been able to interest editors who aren't students or practitioners much in this article. It would be great if we could change that. Lately there has been more interest and some good discussion from a new generation of editors, and it would be great if we can get a consensus to rigorously clean up what could be an excellent article. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And that's why we're all here now. But with proposals of scrapping and other similar practices do you wonder why potential editors' interest is low? Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:18, 01 October 2011

I think you are right, those sections are redundant. Perhaps we could mine the "Martial Applications" section for parts we like and stick them in the techniques section.Herbxue (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything else, you have forgotten to include so many words and punctuation signs in your your second sentence, Perhaps we could mine the "Martial Applications" section for parts we like and stick them in the techniques section, that one ca not extrapolate what you wanted to say in the first place. But let us oversee it. Again, whether these sections are redundant or not, and this is something that I discussed above, your proposed Martial Applications title is a very limited one and by no stretch of imagination is it what I set out to do. If you want to write and upload a section with the title "Martial Applications", feel free to go write and upload it. But judging from your comments, I believe that neither your tai chi chuan knowledge and skills nor your academic knowledge and skills are that good. As such, you should think twice and even more before taking someone’s 5 pages A4 text which took weeks to write, to ask others for feedback, to add and delete, again and again and again, until it was uploaded, and end up mainly proposing just a different title. Do you think that its author was not at a level to set this right and you are? Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:19, 01 October 2011

I actually liked and complimented the section you wrote but agreed with other editors that "Fighting Effectiveness" sounded like original research (which is discouraged in Wikipedia articles because original conclusions may be controversial). I am of course willing to listen to your reasons for crafting it the way you did (as I mentioned here in the discussion before changing the section title).Herbxue (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is not a section's title but its content that would make it original research or whatever. And where did you see elements of original research anyway? Did I conduct any original research, say, by administrating any pre- and post-tests or by interviewing people and analysing their discourse, which yielded findings that I reported here? In your profile you write that you have a master's of science degree. So, weren't you ever asked to conduct any original research for your course so that now you could now tell how original research looks like? Just because something was new for you does not mean that it is original research. You write that you are willing to listen to the reasons that I crafted the section the way I did, but actually you are not. And what is more I am not willing to tell you. I am not your shifu to teach you tai chi chuan nor your university tutor to tell you about writing or rhetorical strategies or whatever. With all due respect, I told you previously that both your tai chi chuan knowledge and skills and also your English and your writing skills are in a very low level, and you did not take that into consideration. For example, among others, and there others too indeed, can you (I mean, physically and academically and intellectually) go correct sentences in the new edited version such as The taijiquan classic texts known as tai chi chuan classics, e.g. Yang Ban Hou's Forty Tai Chi Chuan Treatises,[33] in which there are extensive discussions about how to neutralize the opponent so as at least to reach the level of language? Set and achieve this objective for the time being at least and you will make many editors and readers happy. Bill Batziakas (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy. Making assumptions about my skill level is childish, it is not based in reality, and more importantly, does not help the article at all. Please review my comments: I liked your section and now you are insulting me. Please see WP:OR. It is a policy that we can report what a reliable source concludes, but we cannot put a bunch of sources together and present them as supporting the conclusion that Taijiquan is effective for fighting. Encyclopedias report sources, they do not make conclusions. I understand you put a lot of good work into this article, and now it seems like we are attacking it. This is just a discussion. As I said, you can revert my change (the section name) and I won't cry about it. Practice some 放松功。Herbxue (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really take it easy, considering on the one hand my replies and on the other hand the fact that your comments and your new versions every time get both some native speakers of English and some tai chi chuan guys who use tai chi chuan in their daily professional life that I know laughing at you. For example, you still have not gone to your text to correct the incomprehensible sentence referring to the tai chi chuan classics. And is tai chi chuan a domain, as you write? And are you trying to explain chin na through prioritising and mentioning pressure points having omitted joints? And is it supposed to incapacitate an opponent? And neutralisation of an opponent and not of an opponent's attack is the same in your reading of the tai chi chuan classics? Providing specific examples of linguistic infelicities and lack of understanding of tai chi chuan related issues in your text is not making assumptions or not based in reality, as you say. They are so telling about both your academic or martial art skills that you cannot imagine. But you don not have to be insulted. Nobody was born knowing a martial art or a language or how to write. And the article would have been helped indeed, or at least it would not have been wounded, if you had acknowledged the limited level of your knowledge and skills and you were not editing it in such a way. The only childish thing I see is what you have been doing. I wrote and uploaded the section knowing that they can and that they will change. But I was hoping that it would change towards the better. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening on this occasion. So, at least lamenting this state of affairs is not childish. And, just in case you have not noticed, I never reached any conclusion. Seriously, was the last paragraph too difficult for you to understand? By saying fighting effectiveness, did it read for you tai chi chuan is the best martial art in the world? If someone writes Person X's financial status, would it be for you Person X is the richest person in the world? Then, what is this hung-up that you have with the title? And with the content too. In case you have not noticed either, more often than not, discourse is made up by conclusions. When you yourself wrote there is a bit of conflict, wasn't it a conclusion based on some other bits and bytes of experience that you had from reading or talking with others? And the section never reported on any research so as to reach a conclusion anyway, not even in the limited meaning that conclusion has for you. And usually conclusions are reached and not made. Also, nobody said that you will cry if I revert to the original title, why did you mention that? But, since you say so, why every time after I restore the title back into the original one you immediately go and change it into yours again? And, although you've doing that, you say the opposite? Isn't this insulting in the first place? And by the way it is revert to smth (to something former) and not revert smth (something current), as you put it. Gosh, your English is so wretched. Anyway, 感谢 for your advice to practise 放松功. But you are giving the wrong piece of advice to the wrong person in the wrong way. I hope you have better luck with your patients. I leave my section up to you to do whatever you want with it. Delete more chunks here and there, and make it even worse. And you do not have to reply. Enough is enough. I have other things to do which are much more important than showing you your linguistic errors and mistakes and your tai chi chuan imbroglio. But, seriously, man, at least go get persuaded on the use and usage of the word revert: In your profile you say that you practice Chinese Medicine and, if you use the word revert in such a wrong way as you just did in your reply to me (effectively signalling the opposite sociolinguistic effect of the word), you might make someone understand that you are advising him to go back to his old medicine whereas on the contrary you want to advise him to stop it and take something else, and effectively you might even kill him! Anyway, as I said, do whatever you want. I am not timewise able or intellectually willing to reply to you or anyone else again regarding this issue at least. Cheerio. Bill Batziakas (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you may have confused me with someone else. Yes, I changed the title from "Fighting Effectiveness" to "Martial Applications" but, as I said, I am fine with you reverting to your version ("revert" is a commonly used term within wikipedia). Other than that, the only work I've done here is to recommend changing the article title (to "Taijiquan" or "T'ai Chi Chuan") and to include more Chen stylists in the lineage table. The only comment I made about the specifics of the art was that Taijiquan includes both choreographed routines and free sparring. So, please let me know if there is a specific comment, made by me (Herbxue) that you object to? You quoted "there is a bit of conflict" but I don't recall writing such a phrase. Also, I have not undone any of your edits other than changing the section name, once. So, I really think you are confusing me with someone else.Herbxue (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title once and you immediately deleted it and wrote yours once too. So, my usage of every time is not wrong, as you tried to communicate. I know the use of revert in wikipedia, but this does not deconstruct the rest on revert either. And, when I was writing you or your(s) or yourself, I was not referring specifically to you (singular 'you') but collectively to you and to some other editors too (plural 'you'). It is not my fault that in the English language the singular and the plural you are not as semantically transparent as for example in Greek or French. And after all in doing so I was just following you that you did that first: In your previous comment you had written it seems like we are attacking it (my section). Since you yourself grouped yourself like this, why couldn't I do the same? Further to that, in my reply starting with In this case and posted on 2 October, hoping that you have the time and the will to do so, I opted for asking you to correct sentences in the new edited version and not for something like your edited version. I hoped that this would have helped to go about the referential meaning of you or your(s) thereafter and pre-empt misunderstandings in general. As I said, I am not interested any more in this discussion or in the article itself. Perhaps later on. It is like drawing a graffiti on a wall. If you see that after a while others have changed it in a way that you do not like and you envisage that this will keep on happening in the future too and you do not have the time and will to revert to what it was before, you just stop. Those others may say that the new version of the graffiti is better. No problem at all. Those others may also say that this what wikipedia is about and if you do not like it do not write and upload anything again. No problem at all either. But, if you have more free time and will than me, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to continue. This is the very essence of wikipedia. I did not get angry so that I have to relax as you advised me before, and I do not take it personally either although it seems that I am the only one who reveals his real full name and does not use a pseudonym or a nickname here. I have just been interested in martial arts in general ever since I can remember myself, and in tai chi chuan in particular since I was really very young. It has given me health, it has saved my life and the life of others around me, and I just want the best for this martial art and for every dissemination of information about it. So, I hope you know the feeling and I wish you to avoid this feeling, when tai chi chuan has saved your life and you try to communicate to others this effectiveness or quality or well-roundness or function of it to say the least (I repeat that the content of the section should have enjoyed much more focus and attention compared to the title), and you see someone treating your section like that and writing that tai chi chuan is only about health or fixed exchanges or that it has no applied study. That's all. But no hard feelings at all on my part. Peace, man. Keep in touch. Bill Batziakas (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Are you trying to talk everyone to death? None of this improves the article in accordance with the stated Wikipedia policies. Perhaps you might consider rewriting and adding citations to the section to reduce questions about the title and origins of the material? Pkeets (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to clean up the Qigong article, and made the following edits to the T'ai chi ch'uan article:

• Added Qigong Navigation Box
• Added text in opening: T'ai chi ch'uan ... is a type of qigong and internal Chinese martial art... (reverted)
• Added text in Overview: T'ai chi theory and practice evolved as a type of qigong (energy work)^[1] in agreement with many Chinese philosophical principles, including those of Taoism and Confucianism, citing YeYoung, Bing. "Tai Chi (Taiji quan)". YeYoung Culture Studies: Sacramento, CA (http://literati-tradition.com). (reverted)

Also, in the Qigong article I added the following subsection:

T'ai chi ch'uan

T'ai chi ch'uan (tàijíquán, 太极拳), or simply tai chi, is often translated as "supreme boxing" or "supreme balancing", and is a popular type of qigong characterized by complex stylized movements.^[2][3] The Chinese character 极 , jí or chi, means "final" or "extreme", in contrast with 氣, qì or chi, which means "life energy". Tai chi is performed slowly for health, meditiation, and martial arts training, and quickly for self defense.^[1] Practice consists of a sequence of movements that emphasize fluid motion, an erect spine, abdominal breathing, natural range of motion over the center of gravity, calm focus, and attention to philosophy and aesthetics. Tai chi can be practiced individually or as "pushing hands" with a partner.

Please address the following:

1. Is T'ai chi ch'uan a type of qigong, as various references indicate? Or does it just "include qigong exercises in its training"? In either case, how should we build links and cross-references between the Tai chi and Qigong articles? According to scholars such a Bing YeYoung, T'ai chi ch'uan and other martial arts are types of qigong.
2. Could we get some help in editing the qigong page (see rewrite plan, below)?
3. What is your opinion of the Jahnke 2010 review (see abstract below)? Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.

Qigong Rewrite Plan

Priorities:

• Dispute: resolve to assure neutrality, reliable references, factual accuracy, tone

• Theory: reduce traditional view to concise treatment, move detailed treatment of qi to Qi article; expand principles (coordination of breath, focus, meditative state, body alignment, stance, relaxed muscles, fluid motion, balance and counterbalance, aesthetic sense...); expand contemporary view with basic concepts (alternative and scientific interpretation - mind-body intervention, exercise physiology, biofeedback, stress management, neural pathways, meditation and trance states, breath control...)

• History: reduce to concise treatment, move detailed treatment to new Qigong History article

• Health Benefits: add section with traditional view, contemporary claims, traditional vs scientific approach, scientific basis

• Literature: consolidate, cleanup, eliminate references that do not meet Wikipedia standards

• Solid Edit: focus on organization, clarity, tone, consistency of voice, brevity; eliminate redundancy and wordiness

• Photographs: add interesting and informative photographs to illustrate major points

The following reference was put forth for consideration (along with some discussion of controversy and a list of references and other resources) (see Qigong Discussion Page).

Scientific Review

Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(6), e1-e25.

Concise Summary: This review examines the evidence for achieving outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning psychological and physiological benefits of Qigong and Tai Chi. Seventy-seven articles met inclusion criteria. Results demonstrated consistent, significant results for nine categories of health benefits: bone density (n = 4), cardiopulmonary effects (n = 19), physical function (n = 16), falls and related risk factors (n = 23), quality of life (n = 17), self-efficacy (n = 8), patient-reported outcomes (n = 13), psychological symptoms (n = 27), and immune function (n = 6).

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594090

Manuscript: http://www.instituteofintegralqigongandtaichi.org/pdfs/ReviewRJLL0509.pdf

Qigong and Energy Medicine Database: http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/database.php

Vitalforce (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these issues up here. I will get back to you on #'s 2 and 3 after reading the review and looking at the Qigong page.

As for #1:T'ai chi is first and foremost a martial art. It predates the coinage of the term "qigong" (your source mentions a Tang reference to qigong but that the context was different from the 1957 use of the term qigong). Some of T'ai chi's training methods have been labeled as types of qigong because of the overlapping theories, practices, and goals. These practices include things like Zhan Zhuang (standing meditation), Chan Si Jin (silk reeling), Fang Song Gong (relaxation and softening), and other exercises.

I agree that there needs to be strong connections between the two articles. They are closely related and often overlapping subjects. However, it would be inaccurate to say that T'ai chi ch'uan falls under the umbrella term "qigong". Herbxue (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your input I modified the text in the qigong article. See what you think. Perhaps you could add more about the relation and distinction. Vitalforce (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief Qigong vs T'ai Chi subsection. Please see what you think. Also, please look at the progress on rewriting the Qigong article. Thanks Vitalforce (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance could you please see how you feel the Qigong article is progressing? We have tried to provide solid structure, clean neutral text, and reputable references. Perhaps you could offer your assessment of the article's neutrality on the Talk:Qigong page. Thanks, Vitalforce (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While making wikilink corrections & propagating the nice looking lineage tree on this main page with to replace the old style lineage trees on related pages, I found 2 main differences. Firstly the other trees don't have the Wang Jaio-Yu branch for the "Original Yang style", which I assume is merely them needing an update and the branch added in. When replacing the old trees, I excluded this branch to avoid changing their structure, until it's discussed and approved at a later time. However, secondly, I found the unusual tree below on the Zhang Sanfeng article which is distinct from all else I've seen. I've put up the usual one up (without the Original Yang branch), hidden this one on the page and brought it here for review on the accuracy of the structure, so that if any changes are to be made, it can be done here on the main t'ai chi ch'uan page, then propagated outwards.

LEGENDARY FIGURES
   |
Zhang Sanfeng*
circa 12th century
NEIJIA
   |
Wang Zongyue*
T'AI CHI CH'ÜAN
   |
   +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                                                                                     |  
The 5 Common Styles                                                                                Zhaobao Taiji
   |                                                                                                     |
   |                                                                                               Jiang Fa (蒋发)
Chen Wangting                                                                                            |
1600-1680 9th generation Chen                                                                      Xing Xihuai (邢希怀)
CHEN STYLE                                                                                               |
   |                                                                                             Zhang Cu-Chen (张楚臣)
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+                                 |
   |                                                                   |                          Chen Jingbo (陈敬伯)
Chen Changxing                                                    Chen Youben                            |   
1771-1853 14th generation Chen                          circa 1800s 14th generation Chen        Zhang Zong-yu (张宗禹)
Chen Old Frame                                          Chen New Frame, Chen Small Frame                 |
   |                                                                   |                            Zhang Yan (张彦)
   |                                                                   |                                 |
Yang Lu-ch'an                                                          |                         Chen Qingping (陈清平)
1799-1872                                                              |                               1795-1868
YANG STYLE                                                             |                                 |
   |                                                                   |                          He Zhaoyuan (和兆元)
   +---------------------------------+-----------------------------+   |                                 |
   |                                 |                             |   |                             He Qingxi (和庆喜)
Yang Pan-hou                      Yang Chien-hou                   Wu Yu-hsiang                          |
1837-1892                         1839-1917                        1812-1880                     Zheng Wuqing (郑悟清)
Yang Small Frame                     |                             WU/HAO STYLE
   |                                 +-----------------+               |
   |                                 |                 |               |
Wu Ch'uan-yü                      Yang Shao-hou     Yang Ch'eng-fu     Li I-yü
1834-1902                         1862-1930         1883-1936          1832-1892
   |                              Lee Zhong Sen     Lee Big Frame      |
Wu Chien-ch'uan                                        |               Hao Wei-chen
1870-1942                                           Yang Shou-chung    1849-1920
WU STYLE                                            1910-1985          |
108 Form                                                               |
   |                                                                   Sun Lu-t'ang
Wu Kung-i                                                              1861-1932
1900-1970                                                              SUN STYLE
   |                                                                   |
Wu Ta-kuei                                                             Sun Hsing-i
1923-1970                                                              1891-1929

I think I also aught to mention that this tree was quite scattered, so I did my best to fix and make it legible. InferKNOX (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read from the above that this is a delicate subject, so I'll try to promote a discussion on the talk page rather than defacing the section with citation tags and so forth. I believe the style has some room for improvement, to make it more encyclopedic and less personal, less speculative, less subjective. That's the intention of the "essay-style" tag on that section.

Some of the aspects which I think could be modified include phrases like these:

• "Yang style practitioners seem to reply..." (to whom do they seem to reply? to the author of the section?)
• "Tai chi chuan's effectiveness is nowadays sometimes not acknowledged" - needs to be replaced by something like "expert XYZ claims (here) that the effectiveness is sometimes not acknowledged..."
• "A lot of instructors are ignorant of what tai chi chuan really is" - emotional phrase needs to be removed.
• "there are many self-appointed gurus, whose sessions give zero if not negative results and should be avoided" - again, just one person's personal opinion unless there's a good quote.
• "perpetuate the vicious circle of ignorance about tai chi chuan's fighting elements." - too heated, sounds just like personal grievance.
• "One could counter-argue this by referring them to the hard facts" - wikipedia isn't a how-to on winning arguments, it should present the facts as they are.
• "Oyama gave up admitting that he could win over Mr Chen." - does this mean he gave up and admitted he couldn't win, or he just gave up, or what?
• "Oyama was learning quickly being the genius that he was." - ouch. Either find a quote claiming that he was a genius, and quote it, or remove the sentence.
• "it is also said that Hu Yuen Chou was once contacted by Bruce Lee" - useless without a quote,
• "But Hu Yuen Chou turned down Lee, on the basis that he was not interested in teaching anyone who would take tai chi chuan aspects in order to feed them into another martial art as it was known that Bruce Lee was trying to develop jeet kune do at that time and on top of that he would make these skills known to a much wider audience as a martial arts movie star that he used to be." - apart from being a terribly long sentence, it's also attaching reasons to an unsourced rejection, without basis.

The whole of the last three paragraphs is in my view nothing more than personal opinion and speculation, especially the final paragraph. Is it possible to reach any consensus on this? Thrapper (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please post your suggestion for new wording, Thrapper. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, edit to your heart's content!Herbxue (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although T'ai chi redirects here, Tai chi redirects to Taiji. I feel it should redirect here on the English Wikipedia (Tai chi -> T'ai chi ch'uan), as this is what English-language-using searchers of 'tai chi' are likely to be looking for (this article acknowledges that in the West, "tai chi" refers to the martial art). I started a discussion on Talk:Taiji. ~ Kimelea (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]