Talk:Lee-style t'ai chi ch'uan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Li style Tai Chi Chuan)
Jump to: navigation, search


I understand why Xcali stuck up what he did but in case anyone reads this, just give me a break. I've emailed my technical director and my local instructor for more information. I'll have it all sorted in a day or so. --Kyle Dantarin 06:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)



Hi Kyle. It's a good start. I'm going to redirect this title (and several other very similar titles, Lee style T'ai Chi Ch'uan, Li style Taijiquan and Lee style Taijiquan) to Li style T'ai Chi Ch'uan for the sake of consistency with the other articles. Fire Star 20:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "", because of a redirect Li Family style T'ai Chi Chuan. Fire Star 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Li-style page redirects have to be removed, as Li-style, unlike Lee-style, originates from Li Ruidong (1851-1917) who learnt Yang-style from Wang Lanting. (Plum Publications) ~ InferKNOX (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


I've updated this page. Added link to BCCMA, and some more external links.

I think there needs to be more information on:

  • Lineage - I need to get my hands on some of the books written by Chee Soo to give more information on this. (The fact that Chee Soo, under who the arts grew so much, is not mentioned needs quick attention.
  • A summary of all the organisations which teach this Style
  • A summary of the defining features of this style
  • The relations its form to the forms of other styles.

Mark Swanborough 12:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The College of Chinease Physical Culture also practice Lee style, the head of college Desmond Murray was one of Chee Soo's high grade students. Unfortunatly the sites does not mention Lee Family System at all, so I don't know if its worth including. --Pfafrich 15:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is way too parochial for inclusion in wikipedia. Clearly written by people who have an interest in the promotion of the lee style organisation


Lacks independent third-party verification for this actually describing a style of Tai Chi Chuan. One would look for something from China pre-1950s, not publicity material from within the style itself.

As far as I know (and I've been in the business a long time) there is no independant verification of their claims for a 3000 year history or even that this group was the "first in the west". I toned down one instance of a weasel wording but more could be done to make it plainer that these things, at least until more sources are provided, are promotional claims of the school itself. --Fire Star 火星 13:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Definately needs more sources. -- Medains 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger Proposal (information from Feng shou[edit]

Proposal to merge to information from Feng shou (which is only taught by the Li school) with this article to form a larger article on the teachings of the Li school. -- Medains 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a fair enough idea to me. The Feng shou page needs a lot of cleaning up, hopefully this can happen at the same time. --Salix alba (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. This article is small, the other (too) big. A merger and some paring of the hyperbole at Feng shou will be helpful. --Fire Star 火星 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC
I've merged the articles, removed some of the more obvious advertising and also included the salvageable bits of Chang Ming Diet into theis article. I think we may also be able to merge K'ai Men into this one. --Fire Star 火星 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

List of people who should be independantly interviewed: Chee soo's wife and Daughter His top 3 students on his death: Desmond Murry, Tony swanson, Howard gibbon ....Top Students who left him when he changed the arts in the early years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I am still uncomfortable. The style has not spread worldwide as suggested and it is controversial. That it exists now is a fact so it deserves its entry, but all the Lee style entries should be amended to say that there is no proof of lineage prior to Chee Soo/Clifford Gibbs and that a number of issues remain:

1.The style is unknown in China. 2.It not mentioned in any reputable Chinese writings or commentaries on Taijiquan. 3.There are no records or, latterly, any pre-1960s photographic and third-party evidence that one might expect to have been generated from within the system and Chinese martial commentators. 4.The style’s theory of Li energy is at variance with traditional Chinese internal martial practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norfolklad (talkcontribs) 5 Oct 2006.

There are links with China, the International Daoist Society which is the school headed by Desmond Murray is a partner with with the Chinese Weihai Wu Shu Association. I should explain why this is relavant. As the a previuos comment has pointed out Murray was one of Chee soo's top three students (some would say his top student). When Chee Soo died the school split three ways and Murray school is probably the largest, with groups in UK, Germany and France. Since I left the school about 6 years ago the school has undergone rebranding now calling itself Weihai Lishi Quanfa/International Daoist Society/The College of Chinese Physical Culture. Hence its current lack of mention in this page.
History pre-1930's is sketchy. In Chee Soo's books he give a brief mention of its origins, apparently (but verifibly) the style was orignial created by Ho-Hsieh Lee around 1,000BC. The style was very much an internal family system (i.e. not taught to outsiders) which might explain its lack of recognition through the main tai-chi community. The style seems to be specific to the village of Wei Hei Wei a fishing village 200 miles east of Beijing.
Yes there is debates as to whether this is a tai-chi style. It does have a form similar to other tai chi styles, but it also has a a lot more besides so may be closer to Traditional Wushu. I know there has been debates in the UK as to whether it classes as a tai-chi style and prationers don't see eye to eye with the main UK Tai-chi bodies and are not members. The Frech group is a member of the French tai-chi body[1].
There might be a case for renaming the page to Lee Family System which would de-emphesis it as a tai-chi style and more accuratly represent the other aspects. --Salix alba (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At [2] theres a brief discussion of lineage Li Style had the characteristics of the small frame Wu Style, but also some similarities with the medium frame Wu Style. --Salix alba (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I can say that the group does exist and is relatively well known now, at least. They aren't a large group and have most of their followers in Europe, but history issues notwithstanding I had heard of them before I came to Wikipedia, FWIW. --Fire Star 火星 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

rename to Lee Family System[edit]

I've now merged in K'ai Men. Now that this page reflects more than just the tai chi aspects, it may be appropriate to rename it to one of Lee Family System, Lee family system. --Salix alba (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

i agreewith this.the lee system is more than just tai chi

I disagree with this. Chee Soo never described anything he taught as a 'system', a system is what you use for painting by numbers not teaching Taoism. Lee style Taoist Arts would be a better title, forms of Art are not necessarily systematic. The Lee style is based around practical ways of teaching people about Taoism and this is the single unifying principle behind all of the various Lee style Arts which not only contain self-defence techniques but include Alchemy, Chi Gung, Meditation and Traditional Chinese Medicine. Taoism is a philosophy that is resistant to categorization in its very nature as opposed to Confucianism which was the philosophy of the civil servants. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the True Tao." Lao Tzu - Tao Teh Ching. So why try to fit it into some kind of compartment or category of other objects which it was never meant to be a part of? At least it's being referred to by it's proper name now as 'Lee Style', the corruption of spelling to 'Li' style is a recent invention and none of the people now calling it this ever learnt it under that name but changed it after Chee Soo's death. --Chuangzu 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Template on self-published sources[edit]

I am puzzled by the template warning about self-published sources. The books are all by someone who is dead and therefore does not run any of the existing schools of this art. And my copy of The Chinese Art of Tai Chi Chuan was published by an imprint of Harper Collins. Man with two legs (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But they were written by the head of the system. A secondary source is an independent documentation of the group by a journalist or author not in the group. For instance, there are claims of an unbroken 3,000 year history for this family style of taijiquan (a bit long, but not unusual, other familes also offer undocumented claims of various ages). Every independantly attested source traces taijiquan, by that name, only back to the 19th century. This is an example why primary sources aren't reliable. They can be mentioned, but not relied on for historical value. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. The books by Chee Soo describe what practitioners of this style do. Even if Chee Soo had missed the point and got it all wrong, what he wrote would still be an accurate description of what goes on now because he was responsible for teaching it in Europe.
  2. The sources given show this style exists and has official recognition. The books by this dead person outline what they do. There is no risk of this information being unverifiable.
  3. The link you followed did not work because the BCCMA has chosen this week to alter its web site. Presumably that problem will go away soon.
  4. I agree that claims of the style being 3,000 years old are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but that is not the main point of the article, and it is accurate to say "it is said to be 3,000 years old" because people are saying that, and the phrase "it is said" is a clear indication of lack of proof.
Why the hell are you so determined to destroy this article? It is not misleading and it is not advocating anything harmful.
Man with two legs (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, WP:AGF. I'm not here to destroy any article, I'm here to make sure that a given article meets encyclopaedic standards. I've been referencing as many tai chi articles as I can lately. This isn't the only tai chi article with serious problems with unsourced info (look at the Chen style tai chi chuan article), and I've been tagging them as well. Policy is clear, without any secondary sources information can be challenged (which the tags were for) and when the tags aren't addressed in a timely fashion it can then then removed by any editor. In effect, there cannot be any article beyond a stub. Chee's books themselves can be mentioned, I suppose, but not as sources for the article. This style, while it may exist, is certainly under the radar when compared with some other styles. There isn't anything, to my knowledge, published about them. Are there any UK periodicals that have published articles about the the style? John Ding's magazine, for one example? That would be a big help. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No further discussion[edit]

Since there has been no further discussion, I challenge the inadequately sourced info of this article and plan to revert it back to stub status in the near future. I also would welcome input from other editors, and will also initiate a request for comment for this and several other similar articles. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't jumped in until now, but I agree wholly about those possible removals. Verification through self-published sources is no verification at all. VanTucky 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully support the move and would also suggest changing the Governance section to make it clearer that The British Council for Chinese Martial Arts might be recogised by the Sports Council as a relevant governing body for CMA, but that Taijiquan is not governed by any Sports Council recognised body. The way it reads gives accidental credence to the Lee style claims and as I've said before, they should stand on their own feet and be authenticated through third party evidence, especially some historic documentation, photographs, etc. Claims of authenticity through inference are no claims at all. I do not believe any single family can exist for 3,000 years, never mind pass on a complex martial system over that time without disruption. I would also like to see the claim that it was the first "Tai Chi" style practiced in the West independently verified or removed. The evidence cited behind the statement about it having aspects of its form in common with other Taijiquan styles is challengable on the grounds that they don't all time the movements with the breathing. If it does have things in common with modern Taijiquan forms, then it is a modern system and not ancient, because there were no slow forms until the art was taught publicly in the 1920s. It cannot be both ancient and modern at the same time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolklad (talkcontribs) 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

I think that it's important that at least some agreed temporary version can be put into place- the reversions (ultimately deletions) of parts of the article aren't really warranted. If it's not validated then rephrase it so that it clearly indicates that this is how the proponents of the style describe it. Instead of focusing on the validity of their claims, why don't we try to document what practitioners of this style actually do and think?

I'm reverting to the most complete version in the time being, but strongly advise you to DISCUSS a mutually agreed, toned down version- removing elements that some feel are only acceptable with verification, but not deleting entire sections and messing up the flow of the article. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

I would like to propose changing the name of this title to Lee style Tai Chi Chuan for several reasons:

  • 'Lee style Tai Chi Chuan' is the most commonly used spelling of the name for this style, especially for people searching on the internet because it is the name that appears on the majority of websites associated with this Tai Chi style
  • It is the name which appears in the authoritative works on this style published by reputable non self-published sources, in other words the books written by Chee Soo and published by HarperCollins
  • It will avoid ambiguation with the similar sounding Tai Chi style called Li style which is a different style based in China and is a derivative of the Yang style
  • The only people who call this style 'Li style' are offshoots of the original style who have substantially changed the original and introduced extraneous material from other styles therefore they should be considered to be hybrid styles using a different spelling of the original style and not genuine versions of the original style as taught by Chee Soo.

Chuangzu (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense.JunBao (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this page should be retitled Lee style T'ai Chi Chuan. This would then correspond with the name used for the art by its lead exponent in the West - Chee Soo - and with the title of the book he published on the subject. The description Li style refers to a derivative style that does not correspond to the Art taught by Chee Soo and is therefore an inaccurate description for this page. As this page discusses the Art taught and written on by Chee Soo it should be titled accordingly. Pandadada (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree - the renaming would avoid confusion with other uses of "Li" transliterated from —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I never understood why it was renamed in the first place. Can someone sort this? Beyond my WP:Skills --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorted Chuangzu (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

International Taoist Society[edit]

"After the death of Chan Lee, Chee Soo took over the responsibility of teaching the style becoming President of the International Taoist Society". I'm cautious about that wording, because it seems to suggest that the International Taoist Society already existed when Chan Lee died. However, I've done a fairly thorough investigation, and am unable to verify this.

In fact, I can find no references anywhere to anyone, apart from Chee Soo, who is said to have even heard of the Lee style between 1954 and the 1970's (when Desmond Murray, Tony Swanson and Howard Gibbon became students). I have also asked a number of Chee Soo's surviving students, and they have all been unable to name anyone, or even recollect hearing of anyone, who learned Lee style during this time.

If it is indeed the case that the International Taoist Society existed when Chan Lee died, could we possibly find some sort of reference which shows this? (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point anonymous poster However your comments appear to be opinions based upon original research WP:NOR and as suck do not pass the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. WP:V
I have checked the reference mentioned in the text and in fact the wording is slightly misleading, so I have put a quote of the exact text instead. The reference is to a book published by a well known respected publishing house. I hope this meets with your approval. Chuangzu (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Progress[edit]

I'd like to thank Chuangzu for his work on improving and increasing the quality of this article. We've had a rough time of it if you ask me but it's looking really positive now.

--Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Scale Ratings[edit]

Who do we speak to about having the quality of the article re-evaluated? I'd certainly rate this above some of the examples for stub and start class articles given in the guidelines. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lee Family Arts Articles / Several / One conjoined[edit]

Some of these proposals to merge in the feng shou page seem a bit silly really as it was never taught in the same classes as T'ai Chi, so I have editied out the material that is not directly related to the page title which is Lee style T'ai Chi. Maybe there should be a general page on the lee style but why not have different pages, is there a page limit in wikipedia? If people want to write pages and the information is verifiable and accurate why not let them do it? Chuangzu (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the Lee style should have a variety of pages each covering a different aspect, if sufficient verifiable information can be found. It is quite an in depth area and would only be to the detriment of the T'ai Chi article (this one) to bundle it all in here. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (having said that, I think the Feng Shou article needs attention as it's truly stubby. Perhaps we could also look at Tao Yin and K'ai Men). If Chee Soo released a book on K'ai Men and his books pass WPV as you say, then that article should be easy to re-write? KD

I have added some extra information and citations into this article regarding the K'ai Men Chi Kung and Tao Yin exercises because they were always taught as part of the Lee style Tai Chi classes.
Feng Shou however is a different matter as it was only ever taught in completely separate classes and is not as some have suggested the application of the Tai Chi forms, the same goes for Chi Shu (Chinese Aikido) and Chiao Li (Chinese wrestling) although these were later on incorporated into the Feng Shou classes. I would suggest this as a halfway house between having it all under one article and having various articles on all aspects of the Art. Chuangzu (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unexpected move[edit]

Does anyone know why this page has been summarily moved from Lee style Tai Chi Chuan to Lee style tai chi chuan? There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about it, and I wondered what was going on. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an spg thing- it's not correct to Have Titles Like This in proper English, and it appears consistent with the other style articles I've looked at briefly. The question is whether T'ai Chi Ch'uan classes as a proper noun. Looks like it doesn't, as it just means (approx) supreme ultimate fist. Which would entitle this Lee style supreme ultimate fist in proper English. I don't like it though- "proper" English grammar is so antiquated it's irrelevant. Stylistic choices are better! (i.e. T'ai Chi Ch'uan not Tai chi chuan). I won't revert it though as it's consistent and appears to be common practice, similar to what I was talking about with Firestar. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
see here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleDantarin (talkcontribs) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Lee-style t'ai chi ch'uan"[edit]

It has been discussed at length here: Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan#Romanization / Naming Revisited. Unfortunately the consensus was not reached to move to pinyin (taijiquan), as most other Chinese martial arts have done. This is because although most well learned practitioners and professionals of the martial art refer to it in the pinyin form, the majority of references to it are still in the Wade-Giles form. Consensus was thus reached to at least use the accurate Wade-Giles form, if at all, since the spelling "tai chi chuan" is too ambiguous as in turn one could, for example, also write "chi" (for "qi") instead of "ch'i", and making it appear to be the "chi" in the name (tai chi chuan), etc. This consensus has allowed for correctness while following WP guidelines of adopting the most common usage.
In turn, in all related articles it's to be made immediately clear that "t'ai chi ch'uan" is interchangeable with "taijiquan", e.g. writing "t'ai chi ch'uan (taijiquan)" or "taijiquan (t'ai chi ch'uan"), while on the t'ai chi ch'uan page, a write-up is going to be made to reflect that officially, taijiquan is preferred. For the sake of avoiding unnecessary fragmentation & to maintain consistency, all the family styles & other sub-styles are being renamed to "t'ai chi ch'uan" as well. The shift of common usage is slowing moving toward pinyin and in time the change will be made to it, but for now the current usage in it's correct form is what seems best to use and, of course, to avoid confusion through naming fragmentation, it's best to have all sub-pages in-line with the main t'ai chi ch'uan page. I hope this doesn't upset anyone and you all understand the necessity for the current position that has been taken. InferKNOX (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


The Wikipedia page on verifiability defines reliable sources as including: "...books published by respected publishing houses;" Considering that five books written by Chee Soo regarding the Lee style were published by several different publishers over the years including HarperCollins - one of the largest and most respected publishing houses in the world - this would mean they do not qualify as self-published sources which is where the author himself has paid to have a book published.
Considering that the books have been recently re-printed without any significant changes in their written content what I propose is to re-write the article citing the most recently published versions. I would also suggest that the title of this article be renamed to "Lee Style T'ai Chi Ch'uan" which is in keeping with the spelling used in these sources and is the most commonly seen spelling on various websites referring to the style. Chuangzu (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For completeness I'm including my arguments about the validity of the verifiability criteria as they apply to this article:

Chuangzu's argument about the source was valid- i.e. it does not classify as a self-published source. The primary sources criterion is not valid imo as it relates to original research- that is to say it says "articles should not include analysis of a primary source" that isn't the same as e.g. a quote or direct synthesis of one. "anyone without specialist knowledge who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source;" this is not research- anyone who reads the sources will see that the article is just a summary of them. Chee Soo was a teacher of t'ai chi. This is what he taught. This style of t'ai chi is now taught by different people.

"In general, the most reliable sources are....and books published by respected publishing houses"

So we've used a most reliable source according to WP. And it is not self-published. I do not see the foundation of your argument. Try not to conflate notions of verifiability that were written with scientific/theoretic concepts in mind with those that apply to e.g. an article about a type of t'ai chi, or even an article that is in many ways a summary of a collection of books on the subject. --Kyle Dantarin (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the 'Primary Sources' tag because the citations used in this article are not from primary sources but published by a reputable publisher. Chuangzu (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see below my attempt to interpret the guidance as applies to primary sources:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[TRUE/ N/A]

For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source [TRUE].

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.[We need to check this is the case here]

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
   * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and [TRUE]
   * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. [NEED TO CHECK THIS]

I'm not disputing your point about 3rd party articles to increase evidence of notability though, I just haven't had a chance to look yet. I think this *is* a primary source account, but necessarily so as it is close to an "original philosophical work." All we need to do is write descriptively and not evaluate or interpret what Chee Soo said. I'm waiting for Bradeos to confirm my interpret tho.

11:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no arguments have been offered to justify the 'primary sources' tag and several have been offered against it, I have again removed it. The information given in this article is taken from sources published by reliable publishers and should not be considered a primary source, it involves analysis of the subject and has been published by an independant authority therefore it should be considered a secondary source. If you wish to tag an article then please give some justification of your actions rather than taking them anonymously. Chuangzu (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


I have found some new evidence that Chee Soo had 2000 students in Britain studying Wu Shu in 1970 and that he was only one of three people outside China qualified to teach Wu Shu, it is from a reputable third party source British Movietone News and taken along with the other evidence from Harper Collins a reputable internationally recognised publishing house and various other publishers I think it's about time to put the record straight here and include the evidence about Chee Soo teaching the Lee style and remove the various warnings about citing verification etc --Chuangzu (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Great source! That pretty much nails it that Chee Soo must have been teaching before 1970. And fun to watch too :-)
Chee Soo wrote: "By 1959, groups and clubs were being formed all over the world, and they were all asking for leadership." Is there evidence of activity outside the UK in the 1950s? What's the earliest practitioner we can locate who started learning outside the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me user but do you have a name, considering your comments are purely speculative and constitute original research WP:NOR I have deleted them, please could you append your name next time? In general please could anyone who is making comments on this page stick to reliable and verifiable sources, independent publishers like Harper Collins are considered reliable by Wikipedia, as are Movietone News documentaries, copying something off a Lee style website is not really reliable independent evidence, neither is your own personal opinion, it's more like self publishing. and as such does not pass the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. WP:V

Chuangzu (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by anonymous user because they appear to be opinions based on original research. Although they do mention a source the fact that this style is not mentioned in a 'T'ai Chi in 15 minutes book' which is clearly a simplified version that doesn't mean that it isn't a real T'ai Chi style. The fact remains that the Lee style is mentioned in various reliable third party sources as stated in the main article.

Also I would appreciate it if people did not edit my comments on the talk page but add their own section because it only causes confusion, if you have a point to make make it, don't try to fudge the issues by editing other people's points.

Chuangzu (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Chuangzu, I've restored the deleted Verifiability section. If you'd like to remove or change it, could you discuss the changes here? Thanks! (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous user I have deleted the section on verifiability, Chee Soo's books were published by a reputable publisher which means their content can justifiably be included on a Wikipedia page about the subject. Chuangzu (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be putting a great faith in the publisher. From the book all we can really assert is that "Chee Soo said A". We can't actually say the "A" is true. I would really treat Chee Soo's books as a primary sources. There are some obviously false assertions in the book on the p14 on the history of the Lee style he states the Lee style is "the only true Taoist art, the oldest form of Tai Chi Ch'uan in existence, and the most popular in the world". In turn these are: an opinion; a dubious statement with no verification; and clearly false as other style were much more prominent at the time. This points to Chee Soo being an unreliable source and a limited editorial control from the publisher. --Salix alba (talk): 10:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This was written during the Cultural Revolution when Tai Chi teachers were exiled or even killed, Chee Soo's style was very popular with clubs in many more countries than the other styles.Chuangzu (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed tag removed[edit]

I removed the disputed tag by anonymous user, there is no explanation for this on the talk page. This article has been taken from reliable sources published by Harpercollins an internationally recognised reputable publisher and translated and published in various languages by other well known international publishers and are still in publication today. If you look at the Chee Soo page you can see that Chee Soo was interviewed by Movietone News, BBC Nationwide reporters, made a documentary for the BBC and was interviewed on LBC radio by Brian Hayes all of which add veracity to his books and publications regarding Lee style Tai Chi.Chuangzu (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The section on the style's history consists almost entirely of unchallenged reports of Chee Soo's own unevidenced statements. The fact that such a report is from an established publisher only serves to make it reliable evidence of what Chee Soo's statements were, not of the veracity of the statements themselves.
I've restored the twice-deleted verifiability subsection from a revision two years ago, which notes the lack of evidence and highlights certain contradictions. If it is disputed whether the verifiability subsection is accurate, then we should restore the disputed tag. (I wasn't the one who added it BTW) Deteximus (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Haper Collins are not an authority on the authenticity of Chinese Martial Arts, so the involvement of an "established publisher" adds nothing to the authenticity of Gibbs' claims. At the time of the "Kung Fu Craze" of the late 1960's and early 1970's, martial arts were poorly-understood and there were a number of Walter-Mitty instructors (such as Ed Parker, Ashida Kim, Frank Dux etc.) who established martial arts "cults" and published books that were based largely on personal fictions, mythical oriental histories and origin stories that don't stand up to scrutiny. Even though Ashida Kim/Radford Davis is a published author with a number of established publishers, there is ample commentary in various sources on the lack of veracity of his claims, which illustrates how poor a benchmark this is for veracity. IMHO it is vital to establish the veracity of Gibbs' claims beyond his own commentary, which includes the "Nationwide" coverage based on it, and the Harper Collins books. Indeed, the "Lee Style" organisation seems to parallel a lot of the martial arts "cults" that have grown up around a charismatic leader who claims descent from an ancient tradition of which he is the sole inheritor. In these cults there are often dubious origin stories for their art, which are often a mishmash of different contemporary martial arts backed with a mythical history that's reinforced only by fanatical believers - to prove that the "Lee Style" isn't just a charismatic cult based on a personal fiction, it would be in the interest of the article to see documented evidence from other sources to verify the claims being made here, and until this is established, I think the "dubious" tag is genuinely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
HarperCollins is one of the top five international publishers in the world and is recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable independent source, Chee Soo did not publish these books himself. Chee Soo's books were also translated into French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Indonesian and Polish and distributed in Canada, the United States, Brazil, Eastern and Western Europe and Indonesia by various other major international reputable publishers. Chee Soo also appeared in a radio interview with LBC, two BBC TV documentaries and a Movietone News documentary, these were also made by reliable and independent sources. He also received a Guinness World Records award for his work on The Avengers being the first person to bring Kung Fu before a Western TV audience, this was years before the kung fu craze and Bruce Lee were even heard of. There are many similarities between various martial arts from all over the world, Japanese Arts probably originated in China for example, just as Japanese writing has similarities with Chinese writing because they have a common origin. However similarity does not prove a direct causal connection, even so it is unlikely that Chinese copied their Arts from Japanese Arts but the reverse for historical reasons. It is also well known that China has been isolated from the West for many years and that history of China has been rewritten on several occasions and as recently as the 1970s. Martial Arts in China particularly was often taught in secret and not known publicly. Even in the fields of Science and Philosophy it is still hotly disputed what can be said without a shadow of a doubt to be the truth. No answer has yet been found that has stood the test of time, we only have stronger or weaker probability to rely on, and published sources. If you have any new material for inclusion in the article please can you ensure it is properly referenced to reliable independent sources or it will be removed. Chuangzu (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not WP:TAGBOMB this article, if you have an issue or specific suggestion please discuss it here on the talk page.Chuangzu (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee-style t'ai chi ch'uan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)