Talk:Tai chi/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

ARTICLE NEEDS MAJOR REVAMP & CORRECTION; ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION, & CLARIFICATION!

There are questionable if Chen Taiji has anything resemble to the original Taiji or Wudang Taiji at all, Chen style taiji was greatly influenced by ShiaoLin style of Kungfu more than Wutang where the original creator of Taiji was from; WuDang mountains range is far far away. Look at the map, the Chen village is only 15km away from ShiaoLing Temple! The main article needs to differentiate the two! 1)what is Wu-Dang Taiji(The Taiji of the Taoists in the WuDang mountains), and 2) Shiaolin Temple influenced kind of Taiji that is of the Chen's, which is a bit of "externally" influenced(versus "internally" kind of WuDang Taoist Taiji.) If one look at the lineage tree, Chen's has nothing to do with the Zhang's of WuDang mountain. Edluu (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you guys like the edits I made to this article :) Anyways, anyone up for a Good article collaboration on this article? For one thing, it needs more references, so if you've got some, please add them (and make sure they are reliable per WP:RS.) Hopefully we can get this to Good article within the month! :) Gary King (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The other article seems to be a useless stub. 69.138.72.24 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

'dbe taijiquan,as standed[iso'79] py4daChin.--219.69.85.251 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to see names of Master practitioners being added to the "See also" section, which I believe do not contribute to the value of the article. In the context of this article, I believe only topics related to the generic practice of Tai Chi Chuan should be in the "See also" section. If names of Masters get added to this list, pretty soon every fan or student of a Master will want to add their favorite name(s) to the list and then we'll have hundreds of names there. This adds nothing to the article.

As of this writing, two names are already there (Wong Kiew Kit and Tchoung Ta-Chen), perhaps only because they already have their own stubs elsewhere in Wikipedia. I can think of several other names as well, but have refrained from adding them there for the reasons I outline above. I vote for deleting them, and perhaps add a link to another page with names of known Masters.

Thoughts?

Panicpgh (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with the recent change of the word "practice" replacing it with "practise", including all conjugation appearances of the verb throughout the article, and calling the change a "correction of misspellings". "Practice" is an American English spelling, "Practise" is the British English spelling. Neither is a misspelling, and both are correct. (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/practise) If the article is to be written so as to not offend anybody's personal language sensibilities, then the article will never be finished. According to the reference I provide, "Practice" is the preferred spelling.

If no one can provide a good rationale for this replacement, I will revert the change in 24 hours. Panicpgh (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now reverted the changes. Panicpgh (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool story, bro.

---

"At the height of its development, around 1644 A.D., tai chi had become a fast martial art that also valued slow movements meant to expand the mind and focus the body's energy. However, the Manchurians invaded the Chinese empire and created the Ch'ing Dynasty."

Where is the source that supports this statement? The first mention of an internal martial arts (neijia) only appears in the Epitaph of Wang Zhengnan and this reference does not refer to taijiquan at all. See Autumn/Winter 1994, 1-7. Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan. by Stanley Henning

"When the new emperor saw the health and vitality of tai chi masters, he demanded he be taught the secrets of tai chi.[citation needed] While refusal to teach the emperor would mean death, the tai chi masters decided to only teach the slow, flowing movements rather than the fast martial art aspect of tai chi. The Manchus, now believing that they had learned tai chi, began to practice it on a large scale. The Chinese, on the whole not knowing tai chi, saw their new leaders practicing tai chi and began to practice it themselves. This is how the slow flowing movements that are internationally recognized as tai chi came into practice.[citation needed] But, just like shaolin kung fu, both the meditative and physical practices of tai chi were originally considered necessary for the complete practice of tai chi, referred to as temple style tai chi. However, many of the slow elements of tai chi have evolved into their own schools of practice, such as Yang style tai chi chuan."

This is totally made up! See this for a really educated explanation of the development of the so call internal vs. external mythology. Stanley E. Henning, "Chinese Boxing: The Internal Versus External Schools in the Light of History and Theory," Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1997, 10-19

Tai chi chuan is generally classified as a form of traditional Chinese martial arts of the Neijia (soft or internal) branch. It is considered a soft style martial art — an art applied with internal power — to distinguish its theory and application from that of the hard martial art styles.[5]

The so called internal arts were up to the end of the republican period figthing systems, what we see today is just a poor copy of its original intent. See: Zhong Yang Guoshu Guan Shi 中央国术馆史, Huangshan Shu Chubanshe

For an excellent source depicting the real capability of taijiquan see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-BN5cKNAX0&feature=related

The conexion of taijiquan, xingyiquan and baguazhang comes from Cheng Tinghua (1848-1900), Li Cunyi (1847 – 1921), Liu Dekuan (?-1911) and Liu Weixiang's neijia quan association. See Xing Yi Quan Xue: The Study of Form-Mind Boxing, by Sun Lu Tang trans. Albert Liu, ed. Dan Miller

and for a good exposition of the creation of the Zhang Sanfeng myth see Taoist Immortal of the Ming Dynasty: Chang San-feng,”. Anna Seidel

Tianshanwarrior  —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC). 

I've never heard of this person. Anybody has any information about him? Googleing him doesn't yield anything about him. I'm beginning to believe this was vandalism. I find it preposterous that a total unknown "founded Tai Chi" in the 16th century. It goes against all established research that I am aware of. If this doesn't get resolved in a timely fashion, I'm deleting this statement.  Bruno  00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to this request, and given that this is unsupported by historical records, I am regarding it as vandalism and will proceed to delete it. Bruno  23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping that someone with knowledge of the subject can discuss the stylistic differences between the different "styles" of Tai Chi Chuan. The article makes clear that the different styles originate from different clans, but it does not explain the stylistic differences between, for example, the Yang style and the Chen style. What are the differences (if any) in the way they look, in the way they are done, in the objectives they seek to achieve? Thanks.DoktorMax (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth having a "style comparison" article, but that's awfully close to doing original research. The styles differ firstly in the content and sequence of the forms, but also the pace of execution, variation of pace, and structure of individual postures as well as a difference in emphasis of training. For instance, a Chen stylist will vary the pace of movements with slow movements interspersed with explosive kicking and punching movements, whilst Yang will maintain a steady slow pace throughout. Lee style schools tend to emphasize the "staying healthy" over the "martial application" side of the art. A comparison here: http://www.kungfuquest.com/styles.html notes some of the differences that can be seen by examining the techniques that are common between styles (like Single whip). Good references that illustrate the differences are hard to find, and this can be further aggravated by a competitive attitude that can exist between practitioners from different styles. This problem exists in many arts where stylistic differences have developed, but is particularly striking here since TCC has so many different styles. -- Medains (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The section titled "history" doesn't contain any relevant or useful historical information, instead it goes into great length debating the Zhang Sanfeng myth, without giving any relevant pointers into its origins. Neither is the fact explicitly mentioned that all current styles go back to Chen style, nor that the Chen family history credits Chen Wang Ting (1600-1680) with the invention of the martial art now known as Taijiquan. The research of martial arts historian Tang Hao is certainly relevant here.

I intend to seriously cut down on Zhang Sanfeng and Wu Dang, and try to explain the historical roots according to the sources available to me. If you mind, please raise your voice now. --217.110.47.1 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tai_chi_chuan and Taijiquan pages appear to be exactly the same. Duplication is a waste so one of these ought to be deleted. I recommend the Taijiquan page as Tai Chi is a known term whereas Taijiquan is not. A redirect may be required given that various pages throughout Wikipedia link to one or the other of these duplicates. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The page Taijiquan is a redirect to Tai Chi Chuan. Look again.  Bruno  15:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a photo on this page showing the gate of Shaolin temple. What does Shaolin temple have to do with Taijiquan? (Hint: Nothing.) 111.173.73.51 (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the "Chinese Martial Arts" info box -- Medains (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we go along with the ISO standards instead of Wade-Giles and rename the article Taijiquan instead of Tai chi chuan. If you think that Tai chi chuan is better because it is better known, you're wrong; the best way to name this is Tai chi. Busha5a5a5 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a small edit to the page regarding the classification of Tai chi chuan in the Wudang group; "panic" didn't like it because he says there is no proof that tai chi is Wudang. In October 1928, the Central Guoshu Institute held a national examination in the form of a highly competitive lei tai tournament. This event came to be regarded as one of the most significant historic gatherings of Chinese martial arts masters. Participants were either classified as "Shaolin" or "Wudang" by the organizers of the Institute (Taijiquan practitioners were classified in the Wudang division). In modern day China, the martial arts are still divided this way. Please see Wudang chuan. Is this really a problem that needs instant patrolling ? TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you put all your references to the body of knowledge you possess about this point in the Talk pages of the articles you contribute to but not in the articles themselves. Nobody is out to get you, as you do not need to prove things to the people you discuss these things with, but on the articles themselves.

To resolve this issue to your satisfaction, I strongly suggest that you do the following:

1. Define what is meant by "Wudang branch" of Tai Chi Chuan.
2. Provide the supporting references.

If you do not, put yourself in this position: suppose I am a reader that knows nothing about Tai Chi Chuan, and I use Wikipedia to research it and I come across your statement about "Wudang branch". How am I supposed to understand that statement if I am not an initiated practitioner? Only by explaining things and referencing them properly will you be able to convince me of your claims. Without proper and correct references, they will only be regarded as personal claims, and thus have no value. This is why I deleted your statement.

Your article on Wudang Chuan is indeed very interesting and along the lines of what is already known, and thus, very valuable. However, it is written in a style that makes editors question its neutrality, and it is currently marked so. Therefore, it is not yet useful as proper documentation of the validity of your claims.

PanicPgh, (AKA "panic" as you put it in a rather unprovoked and disrespectful manner.)

 Bruno  16:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You provoked and disrespected me with this: "My understanding is that you have been told before that there is no such link connecting Tai Chi Chuan with Wudang." That was rude, and your statement is WRONG. And, I meant no insult by calling you Panic; I simply couldn't remember the other letters. You are so deep in the trees that you can't see the forest.

1. Shaolin and Wudang are how Chinese people differentiate the two major martial arts categories: Praying Mantis falls under Shaolin and Tai Chi falls under Wudang.

2. I have well-placed my body of knowledge and references on the Wudang chuan page-- not in any discussion. The points I have placed in the Tai Chi discussion page are meant to advance the state of the art for this article; they are listed in the discussion because I do not have good references for them-- but please note, they are completely different points than the one I make in the TCC article, or the multitude of referenced points I make in the Wudang chuan page.

3. "...what is meant by "Wudang branch" of Tai Chi Chuan ?" Your reading and comprehension skills must be very weak. I am not suggesting anything in the ARTICLE about the Wudang branch of Tai Chi Chuan; I said Tai Chi falls into the Wudang chuan branch of martial arts, meaning the internal martial arts, or more broadly catagorized as Neijia. Clearly, I am not suggesting something about a sub-set of Wudang Tai Chi Chuan. How are you missing that ? Please read number 1. above just one more time.

4. I will give a strong reference to this today; meanwhile, why don't you give me a strong reference backing up your claim that, "there is no such link connecting Tai Chi Chuan with Wudang ?" (not the mountains, but the moniker) Stanley Henning's "Ignorance" article dictates that TCC does not come from Wudang Mountain or Zhang San Feng; it does not refute that as of 1928, Chinese people began to classify TCC as a "Wudang martial art."

5. Regarding your supposition: If someone researches TCC, and comes across my statement about "Wudang chuan," the very words link to the Wiki page on Wudang chuan; that same someone can easily click that link and read about Wudang chuan to understand why TCC falls under this catagory. It seems pretty dumb to define Wudang chuan on the Tai chi chuan page.

6. I understand how references work. But when I read a book and reference it, are you going to read the book too ?

7. If you were to actually check the Wudang chuan page before you insulted me, you would have seen that someone suggested the neutrality check before I made my inclusions and edits. You assumed it was my information that was one-sided. You're really not a nice guy, and clearly, you are reading into statements while simultaneously ignoring what they say.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Wudangquan/id/1968526

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6798786.html

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/martial_arts/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_and_Wu_Tang

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're having a discussion about a very interesting topic (close to my heart) where Wikipedia is exactly the wrong forum for presenting work-in-progress research about it. Please read WP:NOR so that you can understand where I am coming from. While I might agree with some of your points, and actually I do, with much of what you say in your Wudang chuan article, I do not agree that those statements can be made without running into some kind of resistance when presented in WP. Perhaps my mistake was in not immediately directing you to the proper "No Research" page when you stated that you weren't very experienced in the use of WP.

As for your point 3, in the article of Tai Chi Chuan (not the article about Wudang chuan) you clearly state the following:

"Tai chi chuan is generally classified as a form of traditional Chinese martial arts of the Wudang chuan (internal) branch, or the broader term Neijia."

Then you question my inquiry about that is the "Wudang chuan branch", when it is clearly stated that the Wudang chuan article's neutrality is still in question. If I will research TCC, then I expect true and tested references and statements. While I applaud your effort at doing research on Wudang chuan, so far that research can only be regarded as your personal opinion until such time the neutrality issue is resolved.

 Bruno  18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP:NOR rule says, "a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence can be provided if needed." "Tai chi chuan is classified as Wudang" is exactly the same. It surprised me very much that you objected to it (even though I didn't know the NOR rule) because Paris is the capital of France and Tai chi falls under Wudang. I understand a lot more after reading the NOR page (thank you), and see the error of my ways on the Wudang chuan page; but "tai chi is still Wudang." It shouldn't need reference because it is ubiquitous in China, and would have 10,000 reliable sources by the year 2010. I see that my Wudang Tai chi discussion point is mostly synthesis; but I posted it (for DISCUSSION) because I believe WP is a living, breathing thing, and that people who are interested might read the discussion and help cite the loose ends. I understand now that this is not the forum for such discussion; but if naming Tai Chi was important enough to discuss, isn't the dichotomy just as worthy ? TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your statement that "Tai chi chuan is classified as Wudang is exactly the same [as Paris is the capital of France]" since Tai Chi Chuan is not known the world over. Yes, it is very popular, but it is not (yet) known the world over. It has been known outside of Asia only since the 20th century (thanks to the efforts of TCC Grandmasters and the Chinese government), unlike Paris, which has been known for many centuries. The "Paris" statement is true in the English language Wikipedia (even though it is a French city), while the "Tai Chi Chuan" statement is not. *I* would not object to your statement on a personal basis, but in the forum of WP I feel I must, since there's still out there many people who do not know about Tai Chi Chuan, let alone a connection with Wudang. I see it all the time with new students, not knowing what TCC is. For every student that doesn't know what TCC and wants to learn it, there are certainly many more people who have never heard of TCC.

 Bruno  21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Cheese is a dairy product." For the millions of Chinese people who have never tasted cheese but want to learn more, the Chinese Wiki page should certainly include the fact that cheese is a milk-based product (of the larger classification "food"). This fact would need no reference, as it does not have one on the English page. And yet, I'm sure there's a Chinese academic, just like you, who will say, "I disagree. Chinese cheese is made from soy." Cheese is a treasure of the Western world; I am sure that at any of the previous World Expo's/World's Fairs in Europe, cheese was a major piece of culture the Europeans wanted to share with the world. "Here's how we milk a cow; here's how we make cheese; here's how we eat it." Thus, cheese is defined and dichotomized by the people of its origin-- not its onlookers. At the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai this year, China will showcase its martial arts to the world in two major catagories: Shaolin & Wudang. Even though a white guy (or a non-Chinese guy) says "Tai Chi is not Wudang" based on his personal experience, the overwhelming evidence from China (the origin of Tai Chi) says "Tai Chi is Wudang." Chinese people grow up repeating the expression, "BEI ZONG SHAOLIN, NAN ZUN WUDANG." (north honors Shaolin, south respects Wudang) This dichotomy is even described on Wiki's Shaolin Kung Fu page. I think this link from the Chinese Newspaper says it all:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6798786.html

If you still disagree, then you need to go to the cheese page and disagree there also. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I para-address Edluu's discussion toward the top of the page. Stanley Henning's "Ignorance" article pretty much kills the notion that the genesis of tai chi chuan or Wudang Sword came from Zhang San Feng or "Wudang Mountain." The name Wudang seems to come from the Wudang Sword Grandmaster Sung Wei-I around the turn of the 20th century. Sung was from Liao Ning Province, which is also a long way from "Wudang Mountain;" however, he had tai chi chuan not of Chen Style origin, and he seems to have been the individual who introduced the jian sword to Chen tai chi, Yang tai chi, and BaGua Zhang. His most renowned student, General Li Jing Lin, propagated the name Wudang through the development of the Central Guoshu Institute. As for the martial arts which are currently practiced at Wudang Mountain, I cannot find any evidence that they existed before the 1920's. Also, my teacher, Victor ShengLong Fu said that his father, Fu Wing Fay, was invited to Wudang Mountain to teach the Taoist priests Wudang chuan in the 1970s because they "did not know any Wudang martial arts." Coincidentally, Fu Style Tai chi chuan includes a form called "Liang-Yi Chuan" which was unique to the Fu's; the priests at Wudang Mountain are the only other group who also teach a tai chi chuan form called Liang-Yi Chuan. In my estimation, Wudang Taijiquan is an amalgamation of styles created in the 20th century in order to bolster the Zhang San Feng legend. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In an interview on the radio, when talking about tai chi, I head an Englishman referring to what sounded like 'tukka ti' or 'tukka chi'. What is this, please? 86.137.138.159 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What was this in reference to? There's a mountain and subprefecture in Japan called Tokachi. Chi or qi in the martial arts is energy flow. It also figures in Asian traditional medicine. The yin-yang symbol of tai chi is called "tai chi tu". Pkeets (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The body of the article uses many of the different spellings of T'ai chi that we have debated about so I thought we should go through and standardize throughout the article.

The obvious exceptions would be things like book titles, association or school names, or direct quotes that use a different spelling.

I tried to start cleaning up the text body but kept crashing before the changes could be saved. Maybe I made too many changes at once and they couldn't be saved? Herbxue (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually considering that myself. It's good that you've taken the initiative. I'm now contemplating the wording on the explanation of the name now moving to being called "Taijiquan" according to the Pinyin system, and will add it in under "The Name" section when I feel it's adequate. InferKNOX (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I read through it again, I am reminded as to one of the major reasons that I was so much for moving to the name Taijiquan. It's so inconsistent because other major aspects of it are in Pinyin, like Qi, Qigong, Taiji, Taijitu, etc. I hope that sooner rather than later, the issue of the name is revisited and brought in line with the rest. Sorry, just had to air those thoughts. InferKNOX (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about pinyin being the more consistent style, but we will have to wait until it becomes more prevalent in English. I agree we should add some text about this under "The Name" section.

About that section: does anyone have a reliable source for the statements regarding the name? Did the Chen family call it something else before the name 太极拳 was applied to Yang Luchan's style?Herbxue (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have been correcting the various articles to link to this new page, the scale of this operation became apparent to me. Not only can does this article need to have been moved, but all the related articles, such as the family styles articles that are still with the names XX-style "tai chi chuan", the various form articles, such as the [[24-form tai chi chuan], etc. After that move, all relating links have to be corrected as well as well as amendments made to the article bodies themselves. I propose that it be done in a radial manner, where all corrections, etc, for this 'head' article be done first, then the family styles, then the lower level articles such as the forms, and so on. I believe I've gone through correcting about half the links to this new article and Herbxue (talk) has been handling amendments within the body of this article, so unless more people would like to participate, I think we'll have to finish up with what we're doing, then make it known and progress to the others, since we can't handle more than what we already are. InferKNOX (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, dashed: T'ai-chi; Tai-chi

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

Wade-Gilesish long, 3 words, 2 apostrophes: 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 apostrophe: 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 apostrophe: 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, no apostrophes: Tai chi chüan, Tai Chi Chüan; Tai chi chuean, Tai Chi Chuean; Tai chi chuan, Tai Chi Chuan

Wade-Gilesish long, dashed, 2 apostrophes: 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, dashed, 1st apostrophe: 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, dashed, 2nd apostrophe: 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, dashed, no apostrophes: Tai-chi chüan, Tai-chi Chüan; Tai-chi chuean, Tai-chi Chuean; Tai-chi chuan, Tai-chi Chuan

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

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

Wade-Gilesish long, 2 words, no apostrophes: Taichi chüan, Taichi Chüan; Taichi chuean, Taichi Chuean; Taichi chuan, Taichi Chuan

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

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

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

Wade-Gilesish long, 1 word, no apostrophes: 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)

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

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)

• 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)
• Support --Nø (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support. InferKNOX (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Herbxue (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support, go ahead.--Nø (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

as well as:

• Lee style tai chi chuan to "Lee-style t'ai chi ch'uan"  Done
• Wudang tai chi chuan to "Wudang t'ai chi ch'uan"  Done
• Zhaobao tai chi chuan to "Zhaobao t'ai chi ch'uan"  Done
• Guang Ping Yang Tai Chi Chuan to "Guang Ping Yang t'ai chi ch'uan"  Done
• Taoist Tai Chi to "Taoist t'ai chi" (let me stick to the tri-syllable named styles, as this seems ambiguous)
• etc...

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)

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)

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)

Sorry everyone, life had gotten me out of touch with Wiki for quite a while, but am getting back to finishing the edit. InferKNOX (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Editors have improved the style considerably since the original post in this thread. However, the section remains unsourced. I added an "unreferenced" tag. Does anyone have any reliable sources on this? Sunray (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

There are dozens of possible spellings of taiji and taijiquan that make some degree of sense in English. We may discuss each of these separately and argue whether a person using each spelling is most likely to be looking for the philosophical concept, the symbol, or the martial art. But I think only one principle consistently makes sense of this: Any spelling EXCLUDING the word/syllable quan/ch'uan/... should redirect to the concepts, and any spelling INCLUDING this word/syllable should redirect to the martial art. And then, of course, the article on the concept should display briefly explained links to the martial art and to the symbol in top-notes - and perhaps in the lead, too.--Nø (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that that's a smooth way of organising the words, but my understanding of redirects is that they should predict what a user is actually looking for - which may not be so elegant. I think a person looking for the taiji concept is likely to be aware how it is spelled, and unlikely to enter "tai chi" as a search term, whereas someone looking for the martial art is highly likely to enter "tai chi". What links here suggests the same - the links to Tai chi seem to be referring to it as an activity, sport or martial art. But if you feel strongly, and nobody else comments, we can compromise. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, but I think any changes made should reflect the fact that the following are all redirects to T'ai chi ch'uan and Taiji, respectively:

• T’ai chi ch’uan, T’ai Chi Chuan, T’ai-chi ch’uan, Tai Chi Chuan, Tai chi chuan, Tai Chi Chu'An, Tai chi ch'uan, Tai Chi Ch'uan, T'ai chi chuan, T'ai Chi Chuan, T'ai Chi Ch'uan, T'ai Chi Ch'uan (pin-yin article), Tai Chi Chuean, T'ai Chi Ch'uean, T'ai Chi Ch'uean (pin-yin article), Tai Chi Chüan, Tai chi chüan, Tai Chi Ch'üan, T'ai Chi Ch'üan, T'ai chi ch'üan, T'ai Chi Ch'üan (pin-yin article), Tai Chi Quan, Tai ji chuan, Tai Ji Chuan, Tai Ji Quan, Tai ji quan, Tài Jí Quán, Tài jí quán, Taichi Chuan, Taichi chuan, Tai-chi Chuan, T'aichi ch'uan, T'aichi Ch'uan, T'ai-chi ch'uan, T'ai-chi Ch'uan, T'ai-chi Ch'uean, T'ai-chi ch'uean, Taichi chüan, Taichi Chüan, T'aichi ch'üan, T'aichi Ch'üan, T'ai-chi ch'üan, T'ai-chi Ch'üan, Taichichuan, Taichichüan, Taiji Chuan, Taiji Quan, Taiji quan, Tàijí quán, Tàijí Quán, TaiJiQuan, Taijiquan, Tàijíquán, Taijiquan (pinyin article), Tàijíquán (pinyin article), T'ai chi, T'ai Chi, Tai qi, Tai-Chi, Tao Chi, Thai Chi
• Tai chi, Tai Chi, Tai Ji, Tai ji, Tài jí, Tài Jí, Taichi, T'aichi, T'ai-chi, Tàijí, Tai Chi (disambiguation), Tai Ji (disambiguation)

I've only included those redirects that represent attempts at spelling taijiquan resp. taiji. The boldfaced ones presently redirect to the wrong article, according to my consistent principle. The italicised ones are unfortunat too, I think, though I'm not sure what to do about them. Some may feel that these two list of redirects are ridiculously long - and I'm one of them, though, for consistency, I actually created some of them.--Nø (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. I've now changed the italicised ones to redirect to Taiji (disambiguation) instead; I think that makes more sense.--Nø (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeeeeez. Who had the patience to create all those?? Some of them don't need to exist at all - T'ai Chi Ch'üan (pin-yin article) for example is an orphan and nobody's going to enter that in the search box. Likewise the two dab redirects you changed - nothing links to them, and nor should it. :) I'm not convinced that anyone is going to enter special characters like ü and à on the English Wikipedia either. Maybe we'd better take this to Redirects for Discussion - neither of us are happy with how it is at the moment, and this is gonna need a bigger broom. :p ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you scroll up to what presently is the first section of this talk page, you'll find a list of possible (and impossible) spellings of taiji and taijiquan. There are still red links among them... and I definitely agree: many of the redirects are pointless. Apart from the ones with parentheses, I'm not sure which ones we should delete, though. "Chüan" seems frequent enough to stay, where as I don't recall seing "chuean" elsewhere. The accents in pinyin "Tàijíquán" should not warrant a redirect, I guess, but that's a question of general principles for pinyin in wikipedia. I'm not quite sure how things work when you look something up in Wikipedia - are some of the redirects unnecessary simply because one will be redirected anyway? Like, searching for peter pan (or even pEtEr pAn) sends you directly to Peter Pan, even in absence of a redirection page. (Incidentally, someone went through the trouble of creating the redirection pages Peter Pan (literature character), Peter Pan (person), Peter Pan (fictional character), Peter Pan (character), Peter Pan (lierature character), and Peter Pan (literary character) -- whatever the purpose!)--Nø (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(I guess some of the Peter Pan redirects are leftovers from a series of rename-over-redirect's.) I see my link peter pan is a redlink - however, as I stated, searching for "peter pan" in the search box leads to Peter Pan, and that is what matters.--Nø (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

...So I looked up [[2]], and following those principles there seems to be no reason to delete ANY of the weird redirects. Which brings us back to your original suggestion about WHERE to redirect. Here's all I really have to say about that: As long as ANY of the spellings of "taiji" (including Wade-Giles spellings) redirect to T'ai chi ch'uan, that article must have a hatnote pointing back to Taiji -- which I will now add.--Nø (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a case for deleting all the weird spellings on 'reasons to delete' #1 and #8, spamming up the search engine and being unlikely typos respectively, but it does seem most redirects are kept unless there's a convincing reason why they shouldn't be. And I think you're right, the search engine corrects capitalisation if it doesn't find an article with the capitalisation you entered, so it's unnecessary to have T'ai Chi Ch'uan as a redirect for T'ai chi ch'uan for example. I would say all those Peter Pan fans have too much time on their hands, but here we are debating obscure spellings of Chinese words, so. :D

Good call with the hatnote on T'ai chi ch'uan. I added one back to Taiji for the same reason, it's clearer than the one you deleted. And now I'll start an RfD - I'll link here when I've finished, but it might take a while for me to sort through all those titles to make my suggestions. ~ Kimelea (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Lots of the redirects are now under discussion at RfD. Thank you for your help identifying the ones that needed to be discussed, Nø. ~ Kimelea (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposed: "Spamming up" the search engine? This has nothing to do with WP:SPAM. I agree with User:Nø, both that there was no reason to mass delete these and that the concept should not be redirected to the martial art.

In isolated cases, perhaps there are unlikely typos, however, you've been indiscriminate with your "suggestions" and you've failed to follow guidelines. There was already a hat note on Taiji, and to use your example, T'ai Chi Ch'uan: regardless of whether a full search might turn up something somewhere, it would needlessly break every one of these links:

• Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan ‎ (links)
• User talk:Petersam ‎ (links)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fire Star ‎ (links)
• User talk:Taichiseeker ‎ (links)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taikyoku nidan ‎ (links)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 28 ‎ (links)
• Talk:Tai chi chuan/Archive 1 ‎ (links)
• User talk:206.54.145.254 ‎ (links)
• Talk:Reiki/Archive 1 ‎ (links)
• User talk:Roble ‎ (links)
• User talk:Hilikp ‎ (links)
• Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 1 ‎ (links)
• User:Bradeos Graphon/temp ‎ (links)
• User talk:Tyciol/2006 ‎ (links)
• Talk:Qi/Archive1 ‎ (links)
• Talk:T'ai Chi Ch'üan/Archive 2 ‎ (links)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Taoism/Assessment ‎ (links)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Taoism articles by quality log ‎ (links)
• User talk:PRehse/Archive 1 ‎ (links)
• Talk:Tai chi chuan/Archive 3 ‎ (links)
• User talk:Ghostexorcist/Archive2 ‎ (links)
• User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 8 ‎ (links)
• User:Showers ‎ (links)
• Talk:Wing Chun/Archive 1 ‎ (links)
• Talk:Qigong/Archive 1 ‎ (links)
• User:BullRangifer/List of alternative medicine subjects ‎ (links)
• User:Yunshui ‎ (links)
• User talk:InferKNOX ‎ (links)
• International Chinese Kuoshu Federation ‎ (links)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/T'ien Ti Tao Ch'uan-shu P'ai ‎ (links)

Please self-undo your precipitous mass deletion as consensus is weighing against you.

• 02:46, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+395)‎ . . Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan ‎ (→‎Redirect of Tai chi: Nominated for RfD) (top)
• 02:44, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+325)‎ . . Talk:Taiji ‎ (→‎Redirect of Tai chi: Nominated for RfD) (top)
• 02:36, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+16,597)‎ . . Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 27 ‎ (Nominating Tai chi and related redirects) (top)
• 02:05, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tài jí ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:05, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tài Jí ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:05, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai ji ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:04, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai Ji ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:04, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tàijí ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:02, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai Ji (disambiguation) ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:02, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai Chi (disambiguation) ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:01, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai-Chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:01, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . T'ai Chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 02:01, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . T'ai chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:57, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Thai Chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:57, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tao Chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:56, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai qi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:56, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . T'aichi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:55, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . T'ai-chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:55, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai-chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:55, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Taichi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:54, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai Chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)
• 01:54, 27 March 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+255)‎ . . Tai chi ‎ (Nominated for RFD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion) (top)

Thank you.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where to start with this, Machine Elf. You've massively jumped to conclusions. Although Nø and I both talked about the long list of spelling variations redirecting to T'ai chi ch'uan, we both agreed that they were probably excessive and could do with a trim. But the RfD isn't even about that. I haven't proposed deletion of a single redirect, let alone the 'mass delete' you're talking about. Nor have I suggested redirecting the concept to the martial art! Please see my reply on the RfD.

'Spamming up the search engine' was an informal reference to WP:R#DELETE, reason #1. Nothing to do with WP:SPAM. ~ Kimelea (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tisk tisk… regarding the unfortunate ones in italics, User:Nø clearly stated "I've now changed the italicised ones to redirect to Taiji (disambiguation) instead; I think that makes more sense" (emphasis in the original). However, at the RfD, you claim Nø's "elegant" solution "hasn't held up due to the Western usage ambiguity, and now we have a mess."

RfD is a euphemism for deletion. Notice, they each say: "keep/delete"… not to mention: “Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted”.

That's 214 links pointing at the 17 different redirects you've nominated, a mass deletion which I did recommend that you self-revert (unless it really is your intention, of course):

You leave out “all the many, MANY weird spellings of taijiquan / t'ai chi ch'uan pointing to T'ai chi ch'uan” (emphasis in the original). That is, you only nominated Taiji-permutations, none of which would go to your desired location, per User:Nø's recommendation.

Please be honest: you most certainly do "suggest" that Tai chi, Tai Chi, Taichi, Tai-chi and T'ai-chi be redirected to T'ai chi ch'uan and that T'aichi, Tai qi, Tao Chi and Thai Chi be redirected to disambiguation.

Although you claim User:Nø “tried to create some consistency by directing all spelling variations of taiji and t'ai chi to Taiji and all spelling variations of taijiquan and t'ai chi ch'uan to T'ai chi ch'uan” you "suggest" Keep because that's these currently do point to your desired location: T'ai chi, T'ai Chi, Tai-Chi. You'll also inexplicably !vote keep for the disambiguation pages, (very thoughtful of you), and the following rarely linked Taiji permutations (35 out of 214): Tàijí, Tai Ji, Tai ji, Tài Jí and Tài jí, which does nothing to clear anything up.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Point by point then...

1. Yes, Nø changed the ones in italics yesterday. It was an improvement. The mess was caused long before yesterday, by other editors redirecting some of the tai chi spelling variations in good faith, but not being aware of all the others. Nobody deliberately made a mess. My description of his solution as 'elegant' was not sarcastic. It was elegant. Unfortunately, the usage of the words in English is not so elegant, and redirects should reflect the most likely usage. (See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - I am saying that the English primary topic of the term tai chi, for example, is the martial art and not the concept.)
2. RfD is not a euphemism for deletion. It's called discussion for a reason. This was made clear to me on the Help Desk when I first raised the possibility of RfDing a (different) redirect.
3. Once again, there is no 'mass deletion'. I do not want any of the redirects I nominated to be deleted, except possibly Tai Chi (disambiguation) and Tai Ji (disambiguation) - deletion is not the purpose of my RfD. I am well aware how many internal pages link to these redirects. That's why it's so important that we get them pointing at the right targets.
4. Yes, I did only nominate "Taiji-permutations", because they are the only ambiguous ones. Anybody searching for Taijiquan, Tài Jí Quán, T'aichi ch'üan or even Taiji Chuan is going to be looking for T'ai chi ch'uan, not Taiji or even Tai chi chih.
5. Yes, I do suggest that Wade-Giles variations on tai chi be retargeted to T'ai chi ch'uan, and confused spellings go to the dab. That is not the same as 'redirecting the concept', which implies redirecting Taiji and similar Pinyin spellings - something I have suggested we do not do. No matter the etymology - terms like tai chi refer to a martial art in English, not a concept.
6. I don't even understand your last point. I don't have a 'desired location'. My 'desire' is for our redirects to cause minimum confusion to our readers, by correctly anticipating what users of a particular search term will be looking for.
7. If you want to nominate some of the redirects for deletion, by all means do so. Nø and I were entirely in agreement that there are too many pointless ones - he remarked on the ones with parentheses and the unnecessary capitalisations. But as I explained, I didn't nominate anything for deletion because it would have confused the important matter at hand - the frequently used redirects such as Tai chi. If you nominated the likes of T'ai Chi Ch'uan (pin-yin article), T'ai Chi Ch'uan (unnecessary capitalisation), Tai Ji (disambiguation) etc etc for deletion, I'd support it. But it needs someone with more understanding than me of Chinese romanization, to know which are likely search terms and which are not.
8. Your points on the RfD: you said Nø was not in favour of my proposed redirects. He actually declined to state an opinion, saying he didn't feel strongly. He just asked that any changes made were consistent, and provided the list, helping me to identify which redirects needed discussing. Please do not put words in his mouth by framing him as being in opposition.
9. I am circumventing nothing. WP:FORUMSHOPping is raising an issue "on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators". This is raised on exactly one noticeboard. That is the purpose of RfD: asking for community-wide discussion on the purpose of redirects.

I have no nefarious agenda here. Please stop assuming such bad faith. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nefarious? Who said anything about nefarious, you? Who said anything about an agenda, you? Who proposed "Redirect of Tai chi" on both article talk pages, you? Those aren't forums? Don't pretend like you could care less; just stand by what you've explicitly said you want to do. The sooner you stop accusing me of bad faith, the sooner I can forego pointing out that you were the one making false accusation about me right from the start: I did not claim you were being uncivil, and FYI, I did not imply that you were sarcastic. I have no idea why it strikes you as "elegant" that different transliterations of the same word mean the same thing. Unfortunately, you think you're being accused of something nefarious, so you carry on with denials and counterattacks:

8. “Your points on the RfD: you said Nø was not in favour of my proposed redirects. He actually declined to state an opinion, saying he didn't feel strongly.” (here's what Nø actually said) “He just asked that any changes made were consistent, and provided the list, helping me to identify which redirects needed discussing.” (and you just won't admit you're arguing against making it consistent… "needed discussing" eh? here we go then) “Please do not put words in his mouth by framing him as being in opposition.”

You've got some nerve! Quit lying, you're the one shamelessly putting words in Nø's mouth and you're the one crying bloody murder as if you're being framed… for a tactical end-run. LOL, fiendish.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Machine Elf has removed a comment that I placed here. I don't agree with that removal and it is being discussed, but anyone interested can check the history to find out what was said. ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Undid revision 484273545 by Kimelea (talk) WP:NPA Still having secret discussions about me? I'm not intimidated by you.
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 27: Silly me, I had hoped you were going cold turkey on the dramz.

WP:LETGO—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that in the interests of maintaining accuracy in the articles/searches while not disregarding usual usage, spellings in the short form "Taiji/T'ai chi" should redirect to the respective disambiguation pages, or if not, then to the Taiji article page, with hatnotes to the T'ai chi ch'uan page the disambiguation page(s). Honestly, I'm undecided about the matter, but in a way think the disambiguation pages should be consolidated (I won't pursue that though). Additionally, I agree on deletion of redirects based on variations in capitalisation, with only one of each respective variant left, since the search engine compensates, but have no comment on deletion of spelling variations as I'm not aware of much of the WP guidelines regarding such. (I've also posted this in the RfD page, since I'm not totally sure where the post aught to be.) InferKNOX (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input InferKNOX and welcome back to Wikipedia! Your comments are very welcome, however please note that the current RfD does not propose deletion of anything - even the capitalisations and so on - it would have got too complicated. The RfD is just talking about where to redirect Tai chi and similar Wade-Giles spellings, based on the English use of such terms to mean T'ai chi ch'uan, the martial art. As I've said to Machine Elf, I would welcome it if someone else with better knowledge of Chinese would nominate some of the weird ones like Taiji Chuan for deletion. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you too for your warm welcome back. I understand that deletion of anything isn't the point, but I was just adding my opinion on it. I don't see the point of redundant capitalisation redirects of the same spelling. in the point of hybrid WG-Pinyin spellings, I wholeheartedly believe they are a blight that should be purged and seeing as they are simply the product of misspelling, need not even have a linguist intervene. Back to the main point though, I reiterate my belief that the various T'ai chi's & Taiji's should point at their respective disambiguation pages. Reason is, as you say, Kimelea, most of the time people will be referencing the martial art, but it should rightfully be pointing to the concept. Pointing to the disambiguation page will make sure people become aware that there are two different meanings to the one term rather than force them to the (technically correct) concept, which they probably aren't after, or the (technically incorrect) martial art. InferKNOX (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) I think I'm going to stay out of this whole debate once the RfD is done, though. I really admired the way you and the others came to consensus last year about the naming of this article (T'ai chi ch'uan) but it hasn't gone that way this time. I'll voice support of deleting the excess redirects if somebody else nominates them. ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, don't do that. Reading through what has been discussed about this topic, it is my opinion that Machine Elf is being unnecessarily confrontational & hostile, despite being at quite a tangent to what you're actually talking about, in my view. Debate is definitely necessary on the naming of this art & I strongly believe that the various names people are attaching to taijiquan are hindering yet other peoples' understanding of it & by proxy, it's propagation. Thus it is vital that individuals like yourself participate in clarifying what the name truly is and shaking off these... abominations for names that are popping up like "Tai qi", "T'ai ji", etc. If it is not done, then the art will continue to sync ever deeper into obscurity as each erroneous interpretation builds upon prior errors. Besides, I (and I'm sure others) found it quite cumbersome to develop some semblance of consensus here regarding the name, but it happened eventually... kind of & so I hope to press forth to do the same as best I can in the institutions teaching taijiquan so that some form of unity can be achieved for the solidification of the art as a whole. InferKNOX (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Confrontational and hostile? Comment on content.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offend Machine Elf, as it is not my intent to do so, but I stand by my assertion due to the tone with which you've been addressing Kimelea. It is the manner & not the content of your argument I speak of. It seems unduly harsh despite Kimelea's earnest attempts to have you understand that he/she is not after deletion, but rather to develop continuity on which redirects are pointing where, as stated in an example, Tai-chi redirects one way, yet Tai-Chi another, despite being virtually the same, if not so. InferKNOX (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My tone and not the content. Then let's WP:comment on content, not on the contributor.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment has neither been a personal attack, nor is about you, but is rather about the aggressive manner in which your content has been presented to Kimelea. My comment is not directed at you, that this topic need be deviated off course by discussing it with you, but is directed at Kimelea, who is opting towards ceasing contributions to this topic as a result of you apparent offensive. Please let's say no more on this and deal with the matter at hand. Thank you. InferKNOX (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to discuss it with me. I'm asking you to drop it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your moral support InferKNOX. To clarify, no uncivil editor would scare me off participating in something that interests me (and I trust in good faith that that is not Machine Elf's intention), it's just a question of whether the taijiquan-related redirects matter enough to me to go to the trouble of nominating them and then the drama of defending the nom. If the current RfD results in some progress with the inconsistency, we could possibly work together to produce a list of those we think could stand to be deleted, and co-nominate them? ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I would love to help in whatever way I can to sort through this mess that is taijiquan naming. I've very passionate about it and will do my utmost to achieve progress. Remember though that I'm relatively new, as far as WP editing goes, so it may take quite some... guidance to get me familiar with methods, tools & policies, so that I contribute effectively without putting a spanner in the works. ;-) InferKNOX (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm newer than you! :) I just have a great mentor and dive into the WP documentation a whole lot! Maybe sometime (at your leisure) you can produce a list of the three-syllable redirects that you think need to go, and we can discuss them. ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm just bad at reading then, LOL. Sound great, will do. :-) InferKNOX (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

in Shenmue II there is some of this T'ai chi ch'uan -- 60.241.153.201 (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've come across information regarding these styles while gathering information for the lineage tree I'm working on above, and have heard of their significant presence. I would like to recommend making articles on them as sub-topics of taijiquan. For Zhaobao He-style, if a full topic is excessive, at least a section within the Zhaobao Taijiquan article to refer to.
Li-style
Zhaobao He-style
They seem relevant and I believe could have reason to be part of the lineage tree. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

During my re-building of the taijiquan lineage trees, it has been suggested to me that Tian Zhaolin also had the tudis (special students) Shen Yongpei and Shen Jingling. Shen Yongpei then fathered Shen Zaiwen, who was taught by both Yongpei and Jingling, then formed "Shen-style" and passed it on to Steve Higgins. This is apparently denied by the Tian family records, thus I would like to ask for input on it here, as it seems premature to consider it's inclusion into any tree(s) before proper discussion. It is now taught in Canada and Japan as an Old Yang middle-frame deriving from Yang Jianhou through the Tians.... ~ InferKNOX (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not considered it to be a separate style of Yang. Shen Zai Wen (沈再文) is the son of Shen Jin Lin (沈金林). Shen Zai Wen published and promotes qigong and the internal martial arts. He is currently living in Japan. According to my searches, other martial arts authorities do not refer to Shen's Taiji performance as a separate style. This lack of recognition suggested to me that it is not a separate style. ottawakungfu (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I did the best with collecting data single-handedly and built upon the current tree to come up with this tree that is more comprehensive and (I think) better shows continuation of the various styles. I can't entirely vouch for it's accuracy & need it to be double-checked please. It's mostly information I gathered whilst editing the various taijiquan related articles. InferKNOX (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Key:

Solid lines

Direct teacher-student.

(张三丰) Zhang Sanfeng* c. 12th century NEIJIA

Dash lines

Individual(s) ommited.

Various Daoists

Legendary figures

Dot lines

Partial influence /taught informally /limited time.

(王宗岳) Wang Zongyue* 1733–1795 TAIJIQUAN

Dash cross

Branch continues.

(陈王庭) Chen Wangting 1580–1660 CHEN-STYLE

(蒋法) Jiang Fa Zhaobao-style

(陈汝信) Chen Ruxin 2nd gen. Chen

(陈所乐) Chen Suole 2nd gen. Chen

(邢喜怀) Xing Xihuai 2nd gen. Zhaobao

(陈大鹍) Chen Dakun 3rd gen. Chen

(陈大鹏) Chen Dapeng 3rd gen. Chen

(陈光印) Chen Guangyin 3rd gen. Chen

(陈申如) Chen Shenru 3rd gen. Chen

(陈恂如) Chen Xunru 3rd gen. Chen

(陈正如) Chen Zhengru 3rd gen. Chen

(张楚臣) Zhang Chuchen 3rd gen. Zhaobao

(陈善通) Chen Shantong 4th gen. Chen

(陈善志) Chen Shanzhi 4th gen. Chen

(陈继夏) Chen Jixia 4th gen. Chen

(陈节) Chen Jie 4th gen. Chen

(陈敬伯) Chen Jingbo 4th gen. Chen 4th gen. Zhaobao

(陈秉奇) Chen Bingqi 5th gen. Chen

(陈秉壬) Chen Bingren 5th gen. Chen

(陈秉旺) Chen Bingwang 1748–? 5th gen. Chen

(陈公兆) Chen Gongzhao 1715– after1795 5th gen. Chen

(张宗禹) Zhang Zongyu 5th gen. Zhaobao

(陈长兴) Chen Changxing 1771–1853 6th gen. Chen Chen Old Frame

(陈有本) Chen Youben c. 19th century 6th gen. Chen Chen Small Frame

(张彦) Zhang Yan 6th gen. Zhaobao

(陈耕耘) Chen Gengyun 7th gen. Chen

(杨露禅) Yang Luchan 1799–1872 YANG-STYLE Guang Ping Yang Yangjia Michuan

(陈清萍) Chen Qingping 1795–1868 7th gen. Chen 7th gen. Zhaobao

(陈延熙) Chen Yanxi 8th gen. Chen

(王兰亭) Wang Lanting 1840–? 2nd gen. Yang

(杨健侯) Yang Jianhou 1839–1917 2nd gen. Yang 2nd gen. Yangjia Michuan

(杨班侯) Yang Banhou 1837–1892 2nd gen. Yang 2nd gen. Guang Ping Yang Yang Small Frame

(武禹襄) Wu Yuxiang 1812–1880 WU (HAO)-STYLE

(他招远) He Zhaoyuan 1810–1890 8th gen. Zhaobao Zhaobao He-style

(吴全佑) Wu Quanyou 1834–1902 1st gen. Wu

(王矯宇) Wang Jiaoyu 1836–1939 3rd gen. Guang Ping Yang

(李亦畬) Li Yiyu 1832–1892 2nd gen. Wu (Hao)

(李瑞东) Li Ruidong 1851–1917 Li-style

(杨少侯) Yang Shaohou 1862–1930 3rd gen. Yang Yang Small Frame

(郝為真) Hao Weizhen 1849–1920 3rd gen. Wu (Hao)

(和庆喜) He Qingxi 1857–1936 9th gen. Zhaobao

(陈发科) Chen Fake 1887–1957 9th gen. Chen Chen New Frame

(杨澄甫) Yang Chengfu 1883–1936 3rd gen. Yang Yang Big Frame

(吴鉴泉) Wu Jianquan 1870–1942 2nd gen. Wu WU-STYLE 108 Form

(孙禄堂) Sun Lutang 1861–1932 SUN-STYLE

(郝月如) Hao Yueru 1877–1935 4th gen. Wu (Hao)

(郑悟清) Zheng Wuqing 1895–1984 10th gen. Zhaobao

(陈照丕) Chen Zhaopi 1893–1972 10th gen. Chen focused on Chen Old Frame

(張欽霖) Zhang Qinlin 1888–1967 3rd gen. Yangjia Michuan

(郑曼青) Zheng Manqing 1902–1975 4th gen. Yang Short (37) Form

(吴公儀) Wu Gongyi 1900–1970 3rd gen. Wu

Kuo Lien Ying 1895–1984 4th gen. Guang Ping Yang

(王延年) Wang Yannian 1914–2008 5th gen. Yang 4th gen. Yangjia Michuan

(傅仲文) Fu Zhongwen 1903–1994 4th gen. Yang Beijing form

(孙剑云) Sun Jianyun 1913–2003 2nd gen. Sun

(郝少如) Hao Shaoru 1908–1983 5th gen. Wu (Hao)

(陈照奎) Chen Zhaokui 1928–1981 10th gen. Chen focused on Chen New Frame

(杨振铎) Yang Zhenduo 1926–Present 4th gen. Yang

(鄭天熊) Cheng Tinhung 1930–2005 Wudang-style

(吴雁霞) Wu Yanxia 1930–2001 4th gen. Wu

(孙永田) Sun Yongtian ?–Present 3rd gen. Sun

(刘积顺) Liu Jishun 1930–Present 6th gen. Wu (Hao)

(陈小旺) Chen Xiaowang 1945–Present 11th gen. Chen

(陈小星) Chen Xiaoxing 1952–Present 11th gen. Chen

(吴光宇) Wu Guangyu 1946–Present 5th gen. Wu

(杨军) Yang Jun 1968–Present 5th gen. Yang

Chen-style

YANG-STYLE

WU-STYLE

SUN-STYLE

WU (HAO)-STYLE

This tree is very useful and helps the reader to see how the classical styles evolved. However, I agree with the comment above that it seems to imply that Chen style is no longer extant. It suggests that the other styles grew out of Chen (which I understand to be the case), but that Chen didn't carry forward to the modern era. t know that isn't the case, so can the tree be modified to show that Chen still exists, along with Yang, Sun and Wu styles? Sunray (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy trees are always both useful and misleading. This one, while not incorrect, it is incomplete. There are several currently recognized Grandmasters of all styles around, but they do not appear in the tree. You'd think the art is dead because of this. For instance, there is no mention of the other brothers of Yang Shou-Chung, like Yang Zhen Duo. Neither is there mention of Chen Zhenglei or Chen Xiaowang, Eddie Wu, Ma Hailong, Wu Wenhan, Sun Yongtian or Yang Jun. These are all the torch bearers of the major styles, and all (and others too!!) have done tremendously important work around the world to keep their styles vibrant and accessible to all.

Also, since the are life dates, per force, the reader is led to believe that the tree is also time-related, giving the impression that there are no other branches that continue to exist after the represented person is dead.

Consequently I ask: is there a better representation of a tree that will not mislead people into believing that "this is all there is"?

Bruno talk 13:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Sunray & Bruno : My point is to expand upon the current lineage tree, which (another editor made &) creates an even stronger illusion of the styles coming to an end at certain individuals, as Herbxue (talk) said. I made this tree have downward branches beyond the teachers to give a greater impression of continuation. However, I need assistance in gathering information on who each branch connects to, so please specify; ie, Yang Chien-hou connects to Yang Shao-hou & Yang Chengfu, Yang Chengfu connects to.... Also, please be specific on how to arrange it in order to make the continuation of each style clearer, etc. That way I'll add in the extras and build a more comprehensive and straight-forward tree.

The tree needs to be a reasonable size, however, so logically I think it would be better to add in the consecutive torch-bearers/gate-keepers for each style, with minimal contemporaries, then make more contextualised trees that shows the connection of a particular teacher, on the pages of those significant individuals, with links pointing back to the major tree on the taijiquan page. That way, it'll show this tree which will be a main stem of sorts, with zoomed in view on particular branches on the relevant pages. Does that sound okay? InferKNOX (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments to my changing of the shape & colour-coding of the tree would be very welcome. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The new tree looks better. Here are some points for consideration:

1. Chen Fake is the grandson of Chen Changxing. Chen Fake's father is Chen Yanxi. Chen Fake should be in the same Taiji generation as Yang Pan-hou.
2. The tree suggest that that Yang Chien hou studied with Chen Qingping but that is not the case Yang Chien hou only study with his father. Only Wu Yu Yu-Hsiang studied with both Yang Lu Chan and Chen Qingping. So the tree should reflect that.
3. Wang Jaio-Yu should be Guang Ping Yang Style not Original Yang because that is how the Guang Ping stylist refer themselves.
4. The Zhaobao Frame continues today. The tree suggest that it only continued through the Wu (Hoa) Style.
5. Cheng Man-ch'ing, a student of Yang Cheng Fu, established his own style and can be considered a variant of the Yang style. ottawakungfu (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The new, colored tree is much easier to understand. Could you add leaves to the end of each branch with the labels (Chen) (Wu) (Yang) ... so that a reader could trace upwards easily? htom (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I added the leaves you spoke of htom. Is there any other beneficial edits to the tree you'd like me to make?

I made adjustments you mentioned in 1, 2 & 3, ottawakungfu, but need you to please elaborate on where exactly to add the branch for Zhaobao and the details of (or at least links to) the individuals in the lineage. About Cheng Man-ch'ing; would it be of benefit to add him, considering the focus is the major family styles? I only ask this because the tree could get too big & not display nicely in browsers. I think it'd be better to limit the lineage of the major styles' through the gate-keepers, eg, for Yang-style: Yang Luchan → Yang Jianhou → Yang Chengfu → Yang Zhenduo → Yang Jun (according to the Yang family tree), etc. With this in mind, I'd like to propose removing the (seemingly redundant) Yang Shao-hou branch from this tree on the main page and instead having it present on a more zoomed in tree I can build on the Yang-style page (and the related sub-pages) that focuses on the Yang-style related branches. It's my intent to make such zoomed in trees on each family style's page & it's sub-pages. Does that sound acceptable?

I would also like to reiterate that I need help in the form of people giving me the gate-keeper lineages for each style, including the generation each individual represents in that given style. Remember that the relevance is on the lineage of the style, not necessarily the family members. Thanks for the feedback. InferKNOX (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work InferKNOX. I have no other suggestions. The reason I mentioned Cheng Men Ch'ing is due to his popularity but you are correct - he is not one of the major family styles. Forms of Zhaoboa taiji exists in China, Taiwan and US but it could be considered as a form of Chen (but not to the Zhaboa practitioners). So not having an extension is ok. I will go to the Zhaoboa article to provide more details. I will drop the Yang Shao hou lineage since it is not very well known. I will go to Yang Shao Hou page to find more information on this branch. I would suggest dropping Guang Ping Yang Style at the end to be consistent since it is not a major family style. The color is a good addition as well. ottawakungfu (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ottawakungfu, I'm really glad the there's positive progress. I've reduced the colour intensity for better readability and the horizontal size of the tree by cutting down the Yang lineage to the gate-keepers, but I can't find definitive information on who is the 5th generation Yang, since shifu Yang Jun is meant to be 6th generation (please correct me if I'm wrong). Since the size is smaller, Zhaobao should now fit better, so please give me or point me to the lineage information for it, then I'll add the branch. Have a look at this unusual lineage tree on Zhang Sanfeng article that I found, which may help (it didn't really make sense to me). Now I also need more comprehensive Chen, Wu, Wu (Hao) and Sun lineage and generational information to fill in the blanks. InferKNOX (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

InferKNOX, point of information: Yang Jun is 6th generation direct blood descendant of Yang Luchan, but is the 5th generation gate-keeper of the Yang Family style. Yang Jun was raised by his grandfather Yang Zhenduo, and never mentions his parents; I speculate it is because they were lost to the terror of the Cultural Revolution.Bruno talk 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bruno. I amended it to 5th generation on the tree now, since the relevance is the martial art not necessarily the family lineage. InferKNOX (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work, InferKNOX. I would suggest One Giant Tree (OGT) (perhaps as its own page) with pointers into it from the various articles, displaying only the relevant parts,levels, and detail desired at that link, but I don't know of a way to do that in wiki-display. The OGT might be useful as a building and maintenance tool, if there's a way to snip copies of branches of that OGT and paste them into the articles with only the appropriate detail showing. If not, it would be a mountain of work to little use. htom (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, InferKNOX, the table looks great. I like the format and colors. The difficulty will be deciding what NOT to include. I would agree with others that a Zhaobao branch may be unnecessary. Within Chen, there is so much detail that could be included, though I favor simplicity. Would like to hear if others think that there should be a separate branch for "Chen Village" Taiji vs. "Xin Jia" Taiji of Chen Fake and his successors?Herbxue (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to overdo it htom. Let's first get this one in order, then see about the tree-on-it's-own-page idea. Your idea sounds great, but I've not seen any way in which to point into the tree, only a way to link out of it. I also don't know how to make only certain branches of a tree display on a page, other than manually building those branches of the tree on the page. Read my response to Herbxue below though, it's quite similar to your suggestion and if there is a way to do what you say and agreement to do so, my suggestion can be the interim place-holder that builds towards that end.

Thanks Herbxue, my current proposal is to have this tree just show the successive generations of each family style, with perhaps other lesser styles like Guang Ping Yang, Zhaobao & He styles included if they don't over-enlarge the tree. I think it would be better to focus for the time being on filling in all the information regarding the lineage of each family style and deploying the tree, then think about expanding it with lesser branches, it'll probably come together better. For the individual styles, I will build more detailed branches depicting the particular style's origin and lineage detail within the style (and also add those trees to the pages of individuals found on the tree), while referencing the larger more generalised tree on the main page. On the main page, a note can be put that more details on any given family style can be found by following the link to the specific style and seeing the detailed family-style specific branches on the respective style's page. That way both the core origins and the detailed propagation information will be available to readers without making any single tree overwhelmingly large. This will quickly address the issue of deploying the core information that should be available, then all the peripheral data can be filled in as it's decided upon and made available.

All that being said, can someone post information on each successive generational gate keepers firstly for Chen-style, please.

This is probably too controversial because Chen Fake have many students. You can proceed according to family relationships then you follow his second son - Chen Zhaokui (1928-1981) and then his son Chen Yu (1962 - ). However, there will be objections from the Chen village who follow the first son, Chen Zhaoxu and his son Chen Xiaowang. Then there are other students of Chen Fake all teaches a variation of Chen Taiji. So I think the issue should be addressed in the Chen Tai chi article rather in the general Tai-chi article.

Also, who is the 5th generation for Yang-style to complete that branch in the tree? Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue should be address in the Yang-style article. The lineage for Yang style become complicated after Yang Cheng Fu. He had many students and they are all well known proponent of Yang Style and all have great reputation. According to family relationships, his oldest son Yang Sau Chung was the most well known since was based in Hong Kong. He has three daughters (Amy, Mary and Agnes) so they could be considered to be the next generation for Yang Tai Chi (5th generation). However, according to Chinese tradition, lineage holders should be male so the students of Yang Sau Chung could be the fifth generation holder. It is only recently with the opening of China that other sons of Chen Fu (Yang Zhen Duo, Yang Zhen Ji, Yang Zhen Guo) promoted the art internationally. Yang Zhen Duo is the most organized in the West. His grandson (Yang Jun) learned from Yang Zhen Duo and now lives in Seattle. So according to this history, there is no fifth generation between Yang Zhen Duo and Yang Jun. Yang Jun is considered sixth generation based on family ties and not based on teacher-student relationships.

In general, family trees in martial arts are very complicated and can be very political so in an introductory article for Wikipedia, the latest edition provides a non-controversial overview. Hope this helps. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Thanks for the information and advise. It is indeed helpful. I'll start building the trees for the individual styles then take the discussion there when I have something present on those pages, so that we can build on those trees, then add what's appropriate to this one. Any additional feedback, etc from anyone is welcome and requested. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a question. Shall I attach the legendary figures to the top of this tree? I think it would be prudent to do so, considering that they are the true origin. I could make a "{" of sorts at the top stating that those are legendary figures. I made a Yang-style oriented branch that you can check to give you an idea of what I did, although there I didn't add names of individuals or a 'legendary figures' tag, because it's not immediately relevant to the article, but it is here on the main article. InferKNOX (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the legendary figures in another color? htom (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How's that? I think a neutral tone is better than overdoing things with even more colours. I got the "various daoists" from Zhaobao_taijiquan#History and Lineage. Hope you all like it, and everyone, please keep the suggestions on what to add coming in. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I've completed all the preliminary branches for the family styles:

• Talk:Chen-style t'ai_chi ch'uan#Improving lineage trees
• Talk:Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan#Improving lineage trees
• Talk:Wu (Hao)-style t'ai chi ch'uan#Improving lineage trees
• Talk:Wu-style t'ai chi ch'uan#Improving lineage trees
• Talk:Sun-style t'ai chi ch'uan#Improving lineage trees

Everyone please input where you can. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there's a bit of a mix-up regarding talk of generations of the respective individuals in the lineage tree between generations of family descendants & generation of practitioner in relation the founding of the respective style. I propose having the lineage tree reflect the generation of the practitioner in regard to the style, not his/her personal family tree, since the focus of this tree is the martial art, not the individuals' families, eg, Chen Wangting, (may be 9th generation in the Chen family, but) is the founder of Chen-style taijiquan, so the tree aught to just show that he's the founder, Chen Changxing and Chen Youben are 2nd generation teachers (despite being 14th generation in the Chen family), etc. This will allow greater clarity on how taijiquan was passed down and who each gate-keeper was, irrespective of the fact that some styles have gate keepers that are not from the same family & will avoid confusion. A write-up can simply be made indicating that the generations mentioned are of the styles' gate-keepers, not which generation they represent in their respective families. InferKNOX (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, the tree lacks the information on Chen-style gate-keepers to the current date, so help there would be appreciated; then I think you all can agree that this tree can be deployed and any further additions, which would be minor at that point, can then made on the deployed tree. InferKNOX (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Lastly, I would still like feedback on what should be done with the tree regarding Zhaobao taijiquan. Should I build a tree only for Zhaobao & it's subpages that is more focused on the branch of that style, the way I've done with each family style, and omit it from this main tree? If I should include it in this tree, who in the tree does it branch from & what is the lineage? Other than that, I think Guang Ping Yang-style gate-keepers to-date would also help to enrich the tree. InferKNOX (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems there's silence on this now. So, unless there are any objections/additions, I'll be replacing the tree on the main page with this one soon, and the same for the respective sub-pages, putting the family-style centric trees on the family-style pages and their appropriate sub-pages. InferKNOX (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked for additional assistance from individuals on a Facebook group called The Kwoon and with their contributions have allowed me to make significant changes to the tree. Please review it and give me feedback. I've also added Wudang, Zhaobao and Zhaobao He style. I'm very unsure about the Zhaobao branches because everywhere I look, I'm finding conflicting information, so I need particular help there. I think from what I've read, they are quite relevant and I even think some articles aught to be made on them. Please give me any and all feedback. I've also made major changes on all the family trees that I linked a few comments above, which I'll be updating on the respective pages in a moment. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That, I think, can qualify as the final tree. Unless there are any objections/corrections/additions, I will go ahead and put it onto the article page. I've also revised the trees of the various family styles + the built an initial Zhaobao tree, that I'm putting up on the respective discussion pages. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you for all the hard work you put into this.Herbxue (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)