Talk:Tai chi/Archive 2

I'm a student of the Li Family Style (in the UK and other countries). Alot of information is available on www.leefamilystyle.com. I think it at least deserves a mention somewhere, but I'm not going to just edit free-range. Can I have feedback? --Kyle Dantarin 05:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I have put the link in the external links section. I know the style is increasingly popular in Europe, the problem we would have with fitting them in the main article would be that we would have to mention that there doesn't seem to be a clear T'ai Chi provenance provided on the site from the Ch'en family to the Lee family with the info we have now. On the Lee family site they claim a 3,000 year history of 8 sections of brocade, but no mention is made of who they learned T'ai Chi Ch'uan from or where. Yours is a notable enough group, and could certainly have its own article, but the subject of where the Lee's T'ai Chi came from, its history and development, will have to be discussed in an NPOV fashion. Any info in aid of that you could provide would be helpful. Fire Star 15:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope no one objects to my adding the ' to T'ai Chi in a few places for consistency throughout the article, and removing some umlautes for the same reason. Forgive for not wishing to add in all the missing umlautes instead. I'm new here and practicing on simple things. Is there any way to get the ' into T'ai in the title of the entry itself? -Jmh123 05:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Howdy, yall. I've never edited a Talk page, so I hope this is harmless. I study a family variant of Yang style, not the Cheng Man-Ching sort but another, less popular kind, in the U.S. I wouldn't go inserting my own POV, but I wanted to point out another fun weapon: the Wind and Fire Wheels, see e.g. http://www.windfire.com/ (my grand-master's commercial site to sell the book, or just the various sites about the weapon and the videos therefor: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wind+fire+wheels. I personally would not link to a commercial site on the main page, but inclusion of the weapon (as a rare but highly interesting, because double-handed and ring-shaped, tai chi weapon) in addition to the already-included Jian, Dao, Spear, and Fan (among others) might be valuable. - Eh_Nonymous 21:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Info on a particular style

The following is a bit POV, but if cleaned up will be more appropriate at the Yang style T'ai Chi Ch'uan page:

"Tchoung Ta-tchen formulated the Dual System of the Older form of Yang style that is traced directly to Yang Chien-hou. Tchoung's system is a modern system based on the older version of Yang Style. Other older forms of Yang style were taught, such as the form taught by Kuo Lien Ying in San Francisco.

Modern "Orthodox" Yang style variations are traced to Yang Cheng-fu. While their is considerable debate on the what is considered real, Fu Zhogwen and Yang Zhendo taught two versions Cheng-fu's form. Other Significant students of Yang Cheng-fu modified his form to their own arts, these masters include Tung Ying-chieh, Cheng Man-ch'ing, Chen Wei-ming, etc.

According to Gu Liuxin Yang Cheng-fu modified the older Yang style by taking out more difficult movements and fast kicks. Older forms such as Tchoung's contain slow and fast strikes and kicks as well as the silk reeling energy often seen in the Older Ch'en forms. Kuo Lien Ying's form contained jump kicks and fast kicks and strikes as well."

Fire Star 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, controversial. I can see awkward first sentence is attempt to be NPOV - "known for claims of...". But this effort just is literally not true. Tai Chi is not well know for making claims. It is well known as an effort to aquire health. This STILL might not be true but "known for claims" is a mish-mash sentence contorting things terribly. "Known for X" does not imply the truth of X. "Known for claims of X" implies that something known for being very vocal - something that few would claim Tai Chi in particular is. Folks wants to add NPOV should learn to do something more creative than pasting "claims of" into every sentence.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 19:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, there you go. The "claims of" bit was put in over a year ago by a drive-by editor also making claims of NPOV. The health benefits have been pretty well established in more and more Western medical studies, though, so I see no reason myself to put that language back in. Fire Star 01:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Familiy tree

Dear FireStar,

please tell me why you removed Grandmaster Yang Shou-chung from the family tree without comment (the oldest son of Yang Cheng-fu). As the section is titled family tree the tree should exclude simple students of Yang Chen-fu, as for instance Chen Man-ching who was never his official disciple. It would be correct to create a second tree that shows the lineage of unofficial students.

Greetings. To tell the truth, I'm not happy with the tree table, either, but for different reasons. I took out Shou-chung mostly because we don't have an article about him, and he can be found listed at the Yang Ch'eng-fu article, which is linked from the tree table. I am aware that there are those who believe Cheng Man-ch'ing wasn't a disciple of YCF, but there is more evidence that he was (testimony of Fu Zhongwen and Ma Yueh-liang, who knew them both, for starters). Also, CMC style was the #1 style in terms of amount of people practising for a long time, at least in the West. I hope this helps. Fire Star 13:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. There is only one way to clear discussions about whether someone was accepted as a disciple and thus belongs to the family. In the Yang family there exists the practice of making fotographs for proof of acceptance. I do not know how long it dates back but I know that Yang Cheng-Fu and Yang Shou-Chung did this. The existance of this practice shows that there were pretenders at that time (as they still are). Nevertheless, I do not consider Chen Man-Ching a pretender as he never claimed to be a master.

I could write an article about Yang Shou-Chung if needed, but I do not see, that an article about the person is a prerequisite for appearing in the family tree. If that were the case we could ONLY list Zhang San-feng! 84.145.19.2 10:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Chang San-Feng was real

It's very disrespectful to "portray" Chang San-Feng as a "imagery” figure.

Please don't have false infomation on your Wiki Page... He did exist, the so called common years that he lived (1247-1447AD) is just a “estimated range”.Chang San-Feng (also known by different spellings ex. Zhang Sanfeng) was the “original creator” of the 13 original movements of Tai Chi Chuan. One just has to look, at the old book of “The Tai Chi Classics”, to see his teachings.

Also this web site: http://www.egreenway.com/taichichuan/chang1.htm ....

… is also posted in the Wiki Tai Chi page. Posted on Wiki Tai Chi or the above web page does not mean anything. It not only, insults the original master, of all forms Tai Chi Chuan, but it also shows the web site authors lack of knowledge, history, and understanding of the art. I am from direct Yang family lineage

I am bilingual and able to read "Zhang San Feng Quan Ji《张三丰先生全集》，八卷" - which mean "All about Zhang San Feng". Please note: Quan" 全" mean complete and not fist or "拳" . It was initally written by Zhang San Feng and later edited by Li Xi Yue in Qing Dynasty. In the books, nothing had been mentioned about martial art or even the word "fist". Therefore to say that the "original creater" of Tai Chi Chuan is Chang San Feng is not right. So at this point in time, without concrete proof but based on just few hear say or novels or movies is not good enough. If anyone is able to get proper document proofs or records, please approach the Chinese History Authority, they are more than happy to make the history right for all.

Promotional websites

Dear Firestar, I spoke to Wikipedia about you censoring World Tai Chi & Qigong Day from the "tai chi" listing "External Links." They said I should speak to you before I file a complaint. I'll repeat me original message to you.

Please look at www.worldtaichiday.org. It is a massive resource for tai chi & qigong medical research, a global directory of free listings for schools and associations, and a vast resource of free online lessons, and tips for new students to get the most out of their instruction. It's health education work has been recognized by the United Nations World Health Organization, and governors of over 16 US states, and mayors and senates worldwide. It represents every major Tai Chi & Qigong style, with educational information on tai chi & qigong, as wells as multitudinous health issue resources and links. I've viewed the other External Links, and do not see why www.worldtaichiday.org has been singled out to be censored from the External Links. Please re add it, or instruct me to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.8.194 (talk • contribs)

Well, it isn't censorship, there is a long history of redundant websites being taken off the main list. Yours is just the most recent. By redundant I mean that it is already linked at Lee Scheele's links to T'ai Chi Ch'uan websites already on our list, so in the interest of preventing the already long article from becoming more of a weblisting service I removed it. The contact info for World T'ai Chi Day is still there, just at a secondary tier. As a promotional rather than a purely instructive website, I didn't see it as appropriate for a primary listing. For instance, claiming that they represent all the major styles is promotional hyperbole, it simply isn't true. I know that they don't represent the Wu family, for instance, because I know all of the living people who have been appointed by the family to do so.

So, that's my position. As an advertising service for various schools they get a lot of attention, and they provide some incidental academic services thereby, so if other editors want to have them listed, I'll understand. Regards, --Fire Star 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Taoist Tai Chi Society has not been interested in this "worldtaichiday" either. Neither are many more. The claim that it represents all major froms is untrue. The site is also badly designed in that navigation and searching on the site is difficult and not userfriendly. In my opinion the other claims about the website are hugely exaggerated. The educational information is rather limited in scope and can be found on other sites. The claims about the UNWHO, governers, mayors and senates (worldwide? ROTFL) is laughable in that they would never support a website. Some support of tai chi in general terms maybe, but only if political advantage could be had from it. The added value of the worldtaichiday website is not more than many on Scheele's list. It is a mix of commercial links with a collection of medical studies (latter can also be found on pubmed.org). Scheele's list is also a much better resource for links than the one pushed above. Leave it out of the article, please. --JohJak2 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way: how does one talk to Wikipedia? In your list of contributions Special:Contributions/65.27.8.194 I do not find any reference to communicating with others. Also, accusations of "censoring" and threatening with "filing a complaint" are not constructive and do not get sympathy here. --JohJak2 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• LET'S CORRECT A FEW MIS-STATEMENTS ABOVE:

World Tai Chi & Qigong Day supports and lists the work of over 1,500 schools worldwide of all "major" styles. Taoist Tai Chi Society is a large "organization" but not one of the "major styles" of Tai Chi. And in fact Taoist Tai Chi practitioners HAVE participated in World Tai Chi & Qigong Day, and have even listed their contact information at www.worldtaichiday.org in the past. Of course the headquarters hasn't participated (see explanation below), and has tried to order its people not to participate with other tai chi schools worldwide, but in spite of their commands individuals of those schools have participated. World Tai Chi & Qigong Day's global health educational work HAS been officially recognized by governors and senates worldwide. See: http://worldtaichiday.org/WTCProclamations.html

www.worldtaichiday.org is a #1 most popular site for "tai chi medical research" (see google). Our collection of medical research on Tai Chi is unequaled. Which is why World Tai Chi & Qigong Day has been used as a tai chi source by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, Parade Magazine, USA Weekend, and over 100 other media worldwide.

We list hundreds of pages of tai chi educational content, yet you won't list us because we have a marketplace. One of your top sites on your External Links, when clicked on says "MERCHANDISE" as the main focus of their sites. Free educational resources are the main focus of www.worldtaichiday.org.

Why would you want to deny readers the resources at www.worldtaichiday.org? If Taoist Tai Chi Society doesn't want to participate in World Tai Chi & Qigong Day, or for that matter not cooperate with ANY tai chi schools or groups outside their organization, that's their choice, but is this wikipedia entry a mouthpiece for the Taoist Tai Chi Society, or is it an informational resource. Some of the organizations who've supported World Tai Chi & Qigong Day's efforts have included: The National Qigong Association American Qigong Association World Qigong Federation Canadian Taiji Federation European Taiji Federation The UK Tai Chi Union The Hong Kong Martial Arts Association . . . and these are just a few, and represent most of the major styles. This doesn't mean every school in those styles, what it means is that most of the major styles worldwide are represented by schools and organizations internationally, many of whom have actively supported and are supported by World Tai Chi & Qigong Day's efforts.

If your above editor, who's obviously from the Taoist Tai Chi Society, wishes to wield censorial control over this topic, I think you've perverted the process that Wikipedia stands for. I spoke with the Taoist Tai Chi Society headquarters several times inviting them to join in our global celebration now in 60 nations annually. The person I spoke with insisted they would not cooperate with ANY Tai Chi schools who charged for their classes, which most teachers worldwide do, with the exception of the Taoist Tai Chi Society. So, my question is, what are they doing on an External Links page with the sites you have listed who have "MERCHANDISE" FRONT AND CENTER, on their home sign on page you have a direct link to?

And your arguments above throw out accusations, such as "The claims about the UNWHO, governers, mayors and senates (worldwide? ROTFL) is laughable in that they would never support a website. Some support of tai chi in general terms maybe, but only if political advantage could be had from it." In fact, World Tai Chi & Qigong Day has been officially proclaimed by over 16 governors, state senates and assemblies, including New York and California, and the national Senate of Puerto Rico, as well as mayors in many countries. It is possible that leaders endorse events that have intrinsic educational value that will uplift their society, and not necessarily because of "only political advantage." Is this the level of discourse that Wikipedia accepts from its editors? Is the Wikepedia editors group for "tai chi" okay with such cynical outbursts that paint a prejudiced reality, rather than looking at the FACTS that World Tai Chi & Qigong Day's health education efforts have been officially proclaimed by many officials worldwide.

Apparently the editors here just make up facts that are convenient to their "agenda" of limiting what Wikipedia readers read, to organizations that they are obviously aligned with, and wish to exclude valuable content based on personal, and prejudices not based on factual reality.

Again, I request that http://www.worldtaichiday.org be added to the external links for Tai Chi at wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.8.194 (talk • contribs)

And again, World T'ai Chi Day is linked, linked at Scheele's thorough list of links. The main sites in the external links section are mostly sites associated with the families that created their respective styles, or articles from neutral news organisations like the BBC. As far as the credibility of your initial arguments go, there is a difference between "It represents every major Tai Chi & Qigong style" and "most of the major styles worldwide are represented". The former arrogates exhaustive authority to itself, the latter does not. World T'ai Chi Day is a promotional vehicle for itself and T'ai Chi schools that buy into it, it isn't itself a school. It can be looked up at Scheele's list, but you could also write an article about it yourself which would be linked in the see also section, just remember: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it and Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages. We aren't a monolithic group here, I don't study Taoist T'ai Chi, I study and teach Wu style, and have done for a long time now. I have had many discussions with JohJak2 and others about articles on their styles in aid of having neutral, factual presentations there as well. We all want good articles, but a consensus of interested editors will determine what that is. Regards, --Fire Star 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(@ 65.27.8.194) I mentioned the Taoist Tai Chi Society just as an example to counter the exaggerated claims you make. Funny that you make a big deal out of it. No, I am not part of that society and you calling me a mouthpiece for them and accusing me of censoring in their favor are statements not based on fact. Shame on you! Expressing yourself this way only makes all your statements less believable. Your reference to your site with proclamations as proof of worldwide support is also exaggerated: they are all USA based but three: lousy proof for worldwide support, even when there is. As far as your claim to fame for medical listings: google may be big but to use it as a fountain of truth is hardly a solid base for big claims. Pubmed.gov is much more reliable as a source. By the way: your site's medical page is linked in the article on another subject, at least still is today. So what's your problem? Making unsubstantiated accusations about wikipedia editors, "yelling" so loudly and hugely exaggerating various claims, relying on various PR efforts of politicians, making threats, and trying to bully your way in do not make a convincing case, and are not at all representative for what Tai Chi and Qigong are. You make bad advertising this way. As it says above: "...you could also write an article about it...". Go ahead. ----JohJak2 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your goal seems shift to argument rather than facts. In your earlier rant, you said it was preposterous that public officials would officially recognize World Tai Chi & Qigong Day's health education efforts unless there was political gain for them. Now that I've shown you official proclamations from several countries and 16 US governors, you shift the argument to "hardly worldwide, because three of the listing are international."

Pubmed.gov does not provide all the research we have accumulated on Tai Chi, check it out. Our focus for years has been tai chi research. It is our specialty. www.worldtaichiday.org has vast resources on "Tai Chi and Traditional Chinese Medicine" and "Tai Chi for maladies or life issues," "tutorials that explain the premise of Qi, via video, text, and audio, and video exhibitions of various styles," so readers can see with their eyes that there are many styles done in various ways. www.worldtaichiday.org is a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers. It would be unfortunate to deny this of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.8.194 (talk • contribs)

(Could you please sign your contributions by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the text just before saving it.) I wrote that politicians would not support a website. From the pictures on your site it is clear that politicians support a day dedicated to tai chi and qi gong and like to get in the picture at the same time. However, supporting any group that may represent a part of the electorate is common practice, a matter of routine, and it still is a political statement. It still leaves that you are exaggerating the political support worldwide. Getting back to the issue of listing your site: I'll point out again that there is a clear reference to your site in the article. It mentions "A comprehensive listing of Tai Chi medical research" and leads to http://www.worldtaichiday.org/WTCQDHlthBenft.html as source. --JohJak2 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings again, everyone. I'd just like to post a gentle reminder about Wikipedia's assume good faith policy when it comes to content disputes. We can question the structure or content of another's arguments but we shouldn't make personal comments about other editors themselves. We haven't crossed the line yet into WP:Civility issues, but I'd like to avoid that if possible. Regards, --Fire Star 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I appreciate your admonition, and apologize for any inflammatory remarks I have made. I was caught off guard when www.worldtaichiday.org's listing was dismissed as an attempt to market a commercial site in the External Links section. But, I can understand your concern. I was also caught off guard when a particular group, the Taoist Tai Chi Society's refusal to engage with any other tai chi groups was held up as some kind of proof that www.worldtaichiday.org should be edited out of the External Links for Tai Chi at Wikipedia, and perplexed as to how that information came to the editor, as my conversations with the director, and members of that group were private conversations, between me and the Taoist Tai Chi Society.

However, to the point again, www.worldtaichiday.org is a vastly informative site regarding tai chi, it's uses worldwide in business, healthcare, penal, and drug rehabilitation, etc. It offers free listings to tai chi & qigong schools worldwide of all styles, and has web links to all those schools by locality, providing readers with an "unequaled" database of contact information for public schools. World Tai Chi & Qigong Day charges no dues, or advertising fees, and has no commercial stake in those schools, it only seeks to help people worldwide find contact information that empowers them to search for schools in their areas.

Our other educational resources, particularly medical research on tai chi, are also "unequaled" highly useful referenced resources for readers to use. Our "tai chi & acupuncture" and "tai chi & oriental medicine" and other educational sections are also unique contributions to understanding the ancient health sciences of tai chi & qigong.

These would make http://www.worldtaichiday.org a valuable resource to Wikipedia readers, and an excellent addition to the External Links section for Tai Chi. Respectfully, 65.27.8.194 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Bill Douglas, World Tai Chi & Qigong

Dear Sir. "...I was caught off guard..." in Tai Chi...hmmm. However, after a series of exaggerations you are again making puzzling statements: A few paragraphs above you state that the Taoist Tai Chi Society ...has tried to order its people not to participate with other tai chi schools worldwide, but in spite of their commands individuals of those schools have participated (so members worldwide of that society are surely aware having been commanded!) and now you state that you are ...perplexed as to how that information came to the editor, as my conversations with the director, and members of that group were private conversations, between me and the Taoist Tai Chi Society. What should one think of this...?

Despite your statements on User talk:65.27.8.194 I don't consider your website user friendly at all. You might want a few independent professional persons have a look at it. However, I thank you for the links on that page, and I took the liberty to take the best of your suggestions, since you are insisting so much, and placed it on the Tai Chi Chuan page. Hopefully with your approval. And maybe with other's approval so we can close this chapter. --JohJak2 20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we're happy to contribute. Your Tai Chi page at Wikipedia is a great piece of work, and if I hadn't bristled initially, I would have gotten to this sooner. All the editors are to be congratulated for their work on it. Well done. We're glad to contribute to it, and proud to be a part of it. Sorry, I didn't say this sooner.65.27.8.194 00:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Bill Douglas, World Tai Chi & Qigong Day

World Tai Chi and Qigong Day

I think that the best way to address the World T'ai Chi website issue is to actually write a Wikipedia article about the event itself at World Tai Chi and Qigong Day. I am convinced it is a notable enough subject to justify that. We could recount the history of the event, list the rationale for it, level of participation and local govt. cooperation, etc. in the article. We would be justified in having a prominent link to the World T'ai Chi day in its own article and also have the article linked to the main Tai Chi Chuan article. The article itself doesn't have to be very long, and we can always expand it later. --Fire Star 23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Fire Star, what can I do to contribute to this? Should I write a short article and submit it here, or add a new article myself. I'm happy to help in any way I can. We have hundreds of beautiful photographs of World Tai Chi & Qigong Day events from countries worldwide. We also have photos of governors signing the proclamations, and the proclamations themselves. Thanks for your work on this, as well as on the "tai chi" article at wikipedia. Sorry, I didn't say that sooner.65.27.8.194 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Bill Douglas, World Tai Chi & Qigong Day

No mention of Taoism or Chi energy instead a load of nonsense on lineage.

I have edited the T'ai Chi page to include some vital information to everyone which has somehow been omitted. T'ai Chi is firmly based on Taoist philosophy, ask anyone, and yet it didn't even get a mention, ridiculous. Also it is not a physical form of exercise but is designed to develop Chi or internal energy, again no mention at all hardly. Now I have removed all that silly lineage stuff, what an insult to any genuine Taoist and completely irrelevant to most readers, simply spam. Does anyone seriously think any of this lineage rubbish is of any interest whatsoever to anyone, as if Yang style and the Chen Village story was anything but a myth, quite absurd. Let me guess, some Yang style idiot put this nonsense up. Taoism is not about ancestor worship or lineage, that's Confucianism. I have studied T'ai Chi for almost twenty five years and I was stunned at these glaring omissions, if you revise this page please make sure you include something on these topics and do something to stop the Yang Style crowd putting their stupid lineage documents up, it's an outrage! --Chuangzu 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are links to qigong, neigong, daoyin, Taoism and traditional Chinese medicine already in the article, so the additions were redundant. As well, the majority of resources state that there are 5 main family styles, and dozens of relatively minor (at least in numbers of adherents) offshoots from those. We can report our opinions of things, but they have to be reported as opinions and only when there is a source for the opinion. To have a thing reported as a fact, the weight of independant evidence has to support it. For a well known instance, Yang style and Chen style generally disagree with each other about the origins of T'ai Chi. Do we say one is right or the other wrong? We report what both say as their opinions. T'ai chi is very popular anymore, and we should give precedence to the most attested styles first, still being general, but giving place in the links to the most common histories of lineage. If a lineage isn't well documented, that puts it further down the list for the main article. There is an article on your style, which is mostly known in the UK, and if you look at its page history you'll see I was encouraging to the editors who wrote it. That is the place for style specific philosophy discussions. --Fire Star 20:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)