This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I replaced the old diagram because it claimed to link to "Taiji Tu" but was being redirected to "Yin and Yang" and there was no explanation of how the Yin and Yang are relatedd to the Taiji. 金 (Kim) 06:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Another Taijitu attributed to Zhou Dun-yi. The red-colored areas are colored (whereas the traditional version leaves them white) to show that both circles represent the Taiji. The Taiji "falls into immanence" first as the Yin and Yang, and then as further levels of differentiation culminating with the myriad creatures, which are represented by the bottom circle.
I removed "The existence of 'hot,' in fact, is wholly dependent on the existence of 'cold' and ultimately arises from it, just as the existence of 'cold' in turn arises from that of 'hot' and is wholly dependent thereupon" as being too wordy and adding nothing new.
i added replacement text about the state of dynamic equilibrium which is the third factor in producing all subsequent phenomenae.
I also replaced "the Taiji is still superseded by the Tao (Dào) itself", with the taiji being a practical expression of the Dao, as the concept of being superseded has no meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 25 June 2005.
In contemporary terms, the Taiji is the infinite, essential, and fundamental principle of evolutionary change that actualizes all potential states of being through the self-organizing integration of complementary existential polarities.
This sentence strikes me as really funny, and more than a little pretentious. Maybe I just need to do a few more years of taiji before I really "get" it.
I did an initial rewrite, but this article still needs a lot of attention. Thoughts? Suggestions? Vassyana 10:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think something like this is very hard to describe without either being ridiculous, pretentious or innappropriate. Perhaps a definition of the word would serve some use but, on the whole, this topic, as a religious, philosophical, metaphysical or evolutionary experience, will be very hard to cover adequately, or even properly, in an objective manner, being in itself so subjective in nature; the person well educated enough to teach you what Tai Chi really is, probably wouldn't tell you straight in the same way that if God revealed himself to you, you probably wouldn't run home to type it up on Wikipedia. If you would, I suggest you take the Wikiholic test. :P Whiskey in the Jar 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Should Wuji (philosophy) be merged with Taiji? Are they better together like Yin and yang? The Encyclopedia of Taoism (2007:1057-9) has one "wuji and taiji Ultimateless and Great Ultimate" article. Keahapana (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone added a merge tag, but provided no arguments. Here's mine: Oppose: The two articles are both of a fair length, and deal with two distinct (though overlapping) subjects.--Noe (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
it was proposed by 百家姓之四 (talk·contribs) for reasons unknown (there's not even an edit summary). I really dislike that taijitu article - the only reason it exists is that some guy was pushing some point about Roman shield markings on yinyang and I thought it was easier to give him space on a separate article than muddy up the chinese philosophy. I could go either way on a merge, but (again) the main sticking point is the 'european symbolism' stuff. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Not long ago, contents were transferred back and forth until some guy could make up his mind where his idiosyncratic definition of the taijitu was best served. Without good reasons, I don't see no need to reopen the discussion again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
ah, this is the 'some guy' pushing the Roman shield marking theory... --Ludwigs2 02:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The somewhat spurious and lukewarm health advice would be annoying in the Tai Ji Quan section for which it was intended, but it is here obviously out of place in the article discussing the philosophy of Tai Ji.
Tai chi redirects here. I feel it should redirect to T'ai chi ch'uan on the English Wikipedia, as this is what searchers of 'tai chi' are likely to be looking for (the T'ai chi ch'uan article acknowledges that in the West, "tai chi" refers to the martial art). Thoughts? ~ Kimelea(talk) 04:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The redirect (and many related ones) are now under discussion at RfD. ~ Kimelea(talk) 02:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Taiji → Taiji (concept) – T'ai chi ch'uan, “T'ai chi”, is arguably the WP:PRIME target. The existing discussion was preempted by a confused "RfD" on certain redirects. Misspellings, pinyin and Wade-Giles renditions of a word all mean exactly the same thing. However, the objective that the “RfD closes in favour of Wade-Giles-ish → dab” over-extends the scope of the RfD, for example, to move the “martial art at the top of the dab… as it is the most likely searched for” while avoiding the WP:PRIME guideline altogether via unsubstantiated opinion regarding an admittedly fictional distinction: “Pinyin vs Wade-Giles is an unfortunate circumstance brought about by laymen, but the truth is that the (usage) ambiguity surrounds the Wade-Giles version(s), so sadly the line is actually between pinyin & WG, when there shouldn't even be one”. Machine Elf 1735 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think the pinyin spelling of the two syllables taiji is commonly used to refer to the martial art taijiquan. After some deliberation, I think redirecting wade-giles spellings like t'ai chi to the article on taijiquan may reflect what most wikipedia users intended, but pinyin spellings of the two syllables should point to the concept.--Nø (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Then make the small handful exceptions rather than the vast majority. Apparently, you've never searched Google Books for taiji. Yes, it's obvious that t'ai chi/tai chi takes the lion's share, isn't it? .—Machine Elf 1735 11:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Support the rename of this philosophy (concept) article. Machine Elf has confirmed that I finally understand the proposal - see the bottom of the discussion section. The reason for the proposal is that because taiji is a somewhat ambiguous term, it should not be the title of an article on one of its possible uses. The titles of the articles should be unambiguous terms - T'ai chi ch'uan and Taiji (concept). This proposal would not override a consensus on the RfD to send pinyin-ish redirects to one destination and Wade-Giles-ish redirects to another. It would simply rename the philosophy article to the unambiguous title of Taiji (concept), and Taiji would become a redirect - like Tai chi and Taijiquan etc - each of which directs wherever RfD consensus says it should. This would reduce confusion for everyone and to some extent future-proof the articles against good-faith edits that are made without knowledge of this whole debate.
It is a shame that this whole debate (RfD and RM) has been muddied by frustration and misunderstanding. I encourage the other participants in this debate to make sure that what you !voted against is what you thought you were !voting against, because in my case it wasn't. ~ Kimelea(talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Support move to Taiji (philosophy), with both Pinyin & Wade-Giles dual & tri-syllable spellings/misspellings of the taijiquan redirecting to the martial art. InferKNOX (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Support: Taiji more commonly refers to the martial art T'ai chi ch'uan than to the philosophical concept. --RJFF (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
If your opinion is such as to disagrees with my own, please simply say so in addition to a viable alternative that answers both usage & accuracy, rather than taking quotes of what I say elsewhere. Thanks. Am I to understand that you say my opinion is unsubstantiated, that lay people have come to believe the Wade-Giles spelling of taiji refers to taijiquan, despite what even a Google search would return? And what ratio of concept to martial art would a search of the Pinyin, taiji return by contrast? Fact is T'ai chi means the concept, but is informally used to name the martial art by laymen and even by informed individuals for the sake of laymen (eg, in advertising, casual conversation, etc). This has created an ambiguous space around the Wade-Giles-ish spelling for taiji, so how to handle it effectively now, besides disambiguation? InferKNOX (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It's been explained at some length why your solution is not satisfactory. You're not the only one I quoted, did you want attribution? Please feel free to substantiate “that lay people have come to believe the Wade-Giles spelling of taiji refers to taijiquan” without semantic confusion. Please consider the guidelines, a good rule of thumb is when there are more searches for the martial art than searches for all the other meanings combined. Searches for t'ai chi and taiji mean exactly the same thing; that, as you say, is the fact. Please feel free to substantiate “but is informally used to name the martial art by laymen and even by informed individuals for the sake of laymen (eg, in advertising, casual conversation, etc). This has created an ambiguous space around the Wade-Giles-ish spelling for taiji” and state 1) how t'ai chi only makes taiji ambiguous [or not?] and 2) how it makes the WP:PRIME guidelines inapplicable. Explanations have been provided for you in regard to how disambiguation works, please take them on board.—Machine Elf 1735 23:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You keep bring up WP:PRIME, but in that very place it says, "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." May I ask what happens if neither is the primary topic when related to the other? I really don't understand the reason for splintering the discussion all over either, as the context established on one discussion page is lost on the other. InferKNOX (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What's more, a primary topic is something that applies separately to every term under discussion. In other words, every redirect. As you say, the primary topic of the Wade-Giles two-syllable spellings is what we are debating on the RfD, and the closing admin may decide that consensus is that there is no primary topic (so the dab would be used as a compromise, which is fine). But the primary topic of taiji and other pinyin-ish variants is not the martial art, in my opinion (people who use pinyin call the martial art taijiquan). There is no one primary topic that applies to all these words. WP:PRIME repeatedly says "a topic is primary for a term".
Have a look at what links to various articles. Although pages that link to the Wade-Giles-ish terms are referring to a martial art or activity, articles that link to Taiji are about philosophy, Chinese history and Taoism. ~ Kimelea(talk) 08:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
InferKNOX, if you could demonstrate that other pairs of redirects for equivalent romanizations point to completely different articles, that might help support your position. As I've said, the discussion should have continued at Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan, the article talk page is the appropriate venue to discuss an article. I have Kimelea to thank for the following demonstration of how fast and loose the “context established” at the RfD has become…
Kimelea, when you say “the primary topic of the Wade-Giles two-syllable spellings is what we are debating on the RfD”, you're demonstrating how far afield that debate has strayed. I assure you the closing admin is not going to decide “that consensus is that there is no primary topic”. Are you honestly suggesting there is no primary topic? Fine by you if both T'ai chi and Taiji go to a dab page? If so, you're in the right place. You'll have to get this article demoted from WP:PRIME and renamed. And demonstrating the quality of the debate at this mature stage, as well as the creativity with which guidelines are nominally applied, you opine that the primary topic of pinyin-ish variants is not the martial art, apparently because people who speak pinyin call it with 9 letters. You surmise: “There is no one primary topic that applies to all these words” because “WP:PRIME repeatedly says "a topic is primary for a term"”. Needless to say, that term is 太极. Ouch. Wouldn't you agree it's perfectly obvious that the links to Taiji spellings vs. T'ai chi spellings reflect nothing but the very fact that they go to the two different articles?—Machine Elf 1735 12:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You keep asking for demonstrations, etc, however, you don't make a direct proposal as to what exactly should happen. It seems you simply oppose the discussion, as though creating indecision is your objective. If there is a primary topic in this case, then please indicate directly, if, by your opinion, Taijiquan is secondary to the primary Taiji, or if Taiji is secondary to the primary Taijiquan. It is my honest opinion that they sit side-by-side to one another, thus none is primary over the other. Also, your claim that the term is "太极" is false. The terms are Tai chi, Tai Chi, Taichi, Tai-chi, Tai-Chi, T'ai chi, T'ai Chi, T'aichi, T'ai-chi, T'ai-Chi, Tai qi, Taiji, Tàijí, Tai ji, Tai Ji, Tài jí & Tài Jí which all mean the same thing (despite most being misspellings), "太极", however are used differently in the English language & thus require individual treatment. I, as a practitioner myself, too know most people that use the Pinyin spelling, to refer to the martial art as Taijiquan, rather than Taiji & even my shifu admitted to me that the primary reason the association we're part of still uses Wade-Giles to advertise, is that lay people still don't recognise the Pinyin spelling. Something many practitioners/professionals in the various family styles and associations/federations that I have contacted and am in correspondence with, have repeated to me. Is it then somehow absurd to say that primarily lay people recognise the Wade-Giles-ish two-syllable spelling to mean the martial art and/or the concept & that means WG spellings are ambiguous in meaning? It seems not so in my view. InferKNOX (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask you for a demonstration InferKNOX, I suggested that if you found similar situations in other articles, it might make the unsubstantiated opinion you're still pushing seem less WP:TENDENTIOUS. I won't ask you to WP:AGF, but it's only your false, misleading statements and irrational conclusions that I oppose. But why would you bother to read what I wrote when you've already proclaimed what this discussion is about and how reprehensible I am on account of it.
“If there is a primary topic in this case, then please indicate directly, if, by your opinion Taijiquan is secondary to the primary Taiji, or if Taiji is secondary to the primary Taijiquan.”
You still refuse to take the guideline on board… Fine, you "believe" your self-justified opinion “that they sit side-by-side to one another, thus none is primary over the other”. But who cares whether you're honestly shameless and irrational: “Also, your claim that the term is "太极" is false [TL;DR] "太极", however are used differently in the English language & thus require individual treatment.” WP:CB —Machine Elf 1735 10:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This may be something I support if I understand it, but not while we're already discussing such things on Redirects for discussion. I am also a bit bewildered at why Machine Elf is bringing up RfD-process-related matters here, and has quoted InferKNOX's and my comment about the RfD, on the requested move. We have a consensus hovering between two similar solutions over there, and this seems to be a third branch going somewhere else entirely and I'm quite lost.
Machine Elf, are you proposing to move Taiji to Taiji (concept), and send all two-syllable Wade-Giles and Pinyin redirects, including Taiji itself, to T'ai chi ch'uan? Is that why you're bringing it up before the RfD closes? ~ Kimelea(talk) 23:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Well Kimelea, I imagine you will support it, after the RfD closes. Actually, the discussion on the article talk pages only ran two days before you went to the RfD. That was surprising, but I've been discussing this: I've done exactly what I outlined, and I did ask if anyone minds soliciting a wider participation through WP:RM.
My apologies for not citing the authors… I quoted that exchange between you and InferKNOX because:
it indicates there's currently pressure to address the issue,
that it's beyond the scope of that RfD,
it was handy.
This needs to be discussed here, on the WP:PRIME article's talk page. The scope of the RfD is limited to whether or not those specific redirects should be kept, and if so, to which article they should currently point. The "problem" is that presumably they should point to the WP:PRIME article, as per the guideline, but everyone agrees that most searches, especially T'ai chi, are for the martial art rather than this concept. In fact it's quite probable that searches for the martial art outnumber searches for all the other meanings combined.
Possibly due to a misguided (though good-faith) attempt to recognize the philosophical primacy of the concept itself, (both in the martial art and in Taoism) the situation seems to have been handled in the past by making numerous special case exceptions: the Wade-Giles romanization, "t'ai chi", and misspellings thereof being redirected to the other article, but not the pinyin. No one thinks this is a happy solution. Unlike the t'ai chi ch'uan article, for which Wade-Giles is preferable (per WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:CHINESE etc.), there's no reason to emphasize pinyin for the philosophical concept. It's merely the default.
People are quite emphatic that it would be misleading to imply an artificial distinction between t'ai chi and taiji. In English, the former is more common by far, but it means exactly the same thing as the latter, they're just different "spellings" of the same foreign term:
… and collectively bemoaning the need to reconcile ourselves to the necessity of the existing special case exceptions, all the "confusion" and rationalization goes away if we simply admit t'ai chi ch'uan (pinyin: taijiquan) is the WP:PRIME article for t'ai chi (pinyin: taiji). Only the redirects for a small handfull of pinyin misspellings (mostly to do with tone marks) would even need to be retargeted to the other article, where the hat note is already in place. It should read:
Kimelea, this corresponds with every recommendation in your proposal, except for retargeting four redirects to the dab, (T'aichi, Tai qi, Tao Chi and Thai Chi). Since you're a quick study, I'm sure you know anything linking to them would just need to be disambiguated, but it turns out only one of them is actually being used: it's the name of a thai food franchise, (with only one link). Not that it's noticeable, but I understand you're really quite new and I don't expect it should have been at all apparent that the redirects are really just a symptom of having the wrong WP:PRIME article… But apparently I've explained it well enough for you to summarize more or less what I'm proposing, (though not why I'm proposing it): “move Taiji to Taiji (concept), and send alltwo-syllable Wade-Giles and Pinyin redirects, including Taiji itself, to T'ai chi ch'uan”, No doubt you're far from lost, so do note that unnecessary qualifiers have been struck out: this is much more focused and less ambitious than the RfD.
Forgive me for offering unsolicited advice, but you may not be aware that the RfD cannot make the "unhappy solution", mandatory, perpetual or normal. As I said, the RfD certainly can determine whether or not the listed redirects should be kept, and if so, where they should currently point, (presumably here). So long as the wrong article is WP:PRIME, all the redirects should presumably point to the wrong article. The fact that most of them don't, will always require extraordinary justification, one RfD notwithstanding. By simply making the correct article WP:PRIME, all the redirects will point to where they presumably should. Changing that happy solution, is what would require justification.
The guideline is merely a suggested rule of thumb, so if any special case exceptions are required, that's perfectly fine but they're the exception, not the rule. You said your goal is to clean that mess up, and I believe you. Sweeping it under the rug doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt.—Machine Elf 1735 09:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I am new, yes - and advice is welcome, I actually solicit it on my userpage. Anyway assuming that you weren't being sarcastic when you commented on me being a quick study, thank you, but I am not keeping up with your arguments because there is a lack of understanding at a much lower level than the one you're trying to make your points on. The way you quote people and then answer them with WP: links makes it very difficult to follow you. We don't need to be shown more guidelines, we need to be shown your proposal. We need to understand exactly what you're proposing before we can understand your case for it, and we need to understand your case for it before we can understand what you're saying with all the WP: guideline links.
You keep referring to "the WP:PRIME article". As I said in an earlier comment, that WP guideline about primary topics is talking about the primary topic for a term, in other words, the primary meaning given to that term in English. The others in this discussion are talking about it that way. We are dealing here with dozens of such terms, as laid out in the RfD - dozens of ways of spelling 太极 in English.
You on the other hand seem to be talking about article titles, not redirect destinations, when you quote WP:PRIME. I think you feel that for English speakers, there is ONE over-arching primary topic for all the romanized spellings of 太极 and it is the martial art, T'ai chi ch'uan. And for this reason, locating the philosophy article at Taiji is ambiguous and confusing. When you say "the WP:PRIME article", I think you are referring to "the article that is, or SHOULD be, carrying an unclarified title such as Taiji." Your point is that because the primary topic of 太极 in English is T'ai chi ch'uan, there should be no other article with an ambiguous or unclarified title.
You feel that because English-speakers are much more likely to be looking for the martial art article than the philosophy article, having the philosophy article bear the title of Taiji causes confusion. Because taiji is an ambiguous term,Taiji should be a redirect, just as Tai chi and Taijiquan and the like, and the philosophy article should be located at Taiji (concept), a title that is less likely to cause confusion. You are less interested in where the redirects point, so long as it's tidy - if people want the pinyin-ish variations of taiji to point to Taiji (concept) because pinyin-users call the martial art taijiquan, that's fine by you, but you think moving the philosophy article to a less conspicuous title would make things clearer.
If this is correct, please could you confirm with a yes or no? If "no", please try to explain as simply as possible (and in your own words, without linking anywhere) what I've misunderstood. ~ Kimelea(talk) 14:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you're brilliant, have no doubt about that. I'm off to work, but I think you've got it sorted. As you say, as far as I'm concerned, redirects can go wherever people want. Term is, of course, ambiguous ;-) Machine Elf 1735 15:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have moved to support the proposal. ~ Kimelea(talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you've hit the more essential line of argument on the head.—Machine Elf 1735 14:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.