Talk:Tai chi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Taoism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article nominee Tai chi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 8, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Fighting effectiveness[edit]

I suspect this has been debated for some time here, but I must point out an inaccuracy in this section.

Opponents of t'ai chi ch'uan as an effective martial art point to the lack of success of t'ai chi ch'uan in the current competitive arena :of mixed martial arts. However, despite its primarily defensive philosophy, and in contrast to the 'ground and pound' tactics often :favored in MMA, offensive t'ai chi ch'uan often relies upon singular, crippling precision strikes at soft and vulnerable parts of the :body, such as the throat and stomach, in order to disable opponents[40] - an approach which is by definition considered illegal in modern :competitions. The question may therefore not be one of effectiveness, but of safety in the ring.

My issue is with the bolded statement. While blows to the throat have been illegal in most MMA organizations since the 1990s, there is nothing illegal about "crippling precision strikes at soft and vulnerable parts of the body" - this is what lots of fighters are trying accomplish. I know nothing about Tai Chi, so perhaps the art is very dependent on throat strikes. Whatever the reality, this needs to be re-worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley peters (talkcontribs) 02:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not have an answer to this, but think I can add to the discussion. Not to say that it is the explicit meaning of the statement, but to in taijiquan, certain techniques/forms such as wave hands like clouds are designed to disable the opponent by doing instantaneous & long term damage such as breaking joints, rather than subdue using qinna. Perhaps it's alluding to that. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tai Chi practiced as a martial art depends on mastery of balance, controlled weight shift, and alignment of the human frame, as it does in the context of a health practice. As such, first and foremost amongst any Tai Chi practitioner seeking to use it's principals against an opponent would be to master an opponent's balance and defeat an opponent's strength by applying force at angles against that opponent's arms, for example, which would put an opponent's arms an angles disadvantageous for action and strength. Although not unique to Tai Chi, this in conjunction with subtle off balancing is the chief path in Tai Chi for mastery of a contest with an opponent. Watching a push hands contest will reveal this at once.

With respect to vulnerable strikes, all martial arts consider such techniques a part of their lexicon of tools for self defense, and Tai Chi is no exception to this. This however is not the mainstay of Tai Chi's emphasis in self defense contexts. Bitswapper (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In essence, China recently held an "MMA" competition, and the Tai Chi guy not only won, but the black-listed website cites his "superb skill." I want to revamp this section of the article using factual representation as the basis from this link: Here is the black-listed: (fix-it) http:// www. examiner. com/article/does-tai-chi-have-any-real-martial-art-value Please check out these details and get behind me on this. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally T'ai Chi was not a sport for competitions in a staged arena but a practical defence method against actual attacks. In a real self defence scenario there is no referee, no timed bouts, there may be multiple attackers who strike unexpectedly from behind, possibly using weapons and a variety of techniques that would be considered illegal in a MMA kick-boxing contest. You only need to look at a list of legal MMA moves to realise this, for example in a real world scenario a defender would not be wearing groin protection and a knee or kick to the groin would be a primary form of defence that is not permissible in a boxing contest. A martial art like MMA uses various ways of offsetting the danger of these techniques by using gloves, groin protection, fighting in the ring against a set opponent for a determined length of time, however the means by which T'ai Chi teachers offset these dangers are different, for example by slowing a technique down or limiting a factor like the amount of force used in a simulated attack routine.

"Illegal blows were listed as groin strikes, head butting, biting, eye gouging, hair pulling, striking an opponent with an elbow while the opponent is on the mat, kidney strikes, and striking the back of the head with closed fist. Holding onto the ring or cage for any reason was defined as foul." Chuangzu (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Is there a reason that this article has apostrophes (T'ai)? As far as I know, the Wade-Giles system for representing Chinese has been superseded by pinyin, which doesn't use apostrophes to mark final/initial separation. Moreover a comparative wiki search reveals 16.5m results for "Tai Chi" vs. 850,000 for "T'ai chi" This title is not only inconsistent with almost every other Chinese-named page on Wikipedia (Anglicized using Pinyin or common variants), but also internally inconsistent - it should be "T'ai ch'i ch'uan" if initials and finals are separated. Confused, LT90001 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I pushed hard to switch to pinyin about 2 years ago, and was met with a majority of people who feel the wade-giles is more appropriate because the majority of westerners know it by that name. Eventually we will switch to pinyin, but the consensus was that we should not do that until it reflects both the most popular way to write the word in western countries, AND is technically correct ("Tai Chi" for example is the most popular but not technically correct). The topic of changing the name of this article is controversial, so I encourage you to read archived talk page threads first if you really want to change it now.
Regarding the current title - Chi is correct wade-giles because 極 in 太極拳 = pinyin "Ji" and w-g "chi" (Ch'i would equal Qi, which is not the correct transliteration of 極). Technically the u in ch'uan should have an umlaut, and I cannot recall the rationale for omitting it. Herbxue (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
More specificly, you can find about 2 meters of discussion here: Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan/Archive 1#Romanization / Naming Revisited. Also, a couple of sections below taht, there's 1 meter discussion of the various redirects.-- (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate that there's been a lot of debate, so I just want to register my discontent. It seems like a compromise was reached, and now you have a title written in a way that is not commonly used in a system that is no longer employed by the vast majority of Chinese speakers. LT90001 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually I eat my hat on this one. Although I think it's inevitable this article will eventually become the pinyin form, it's clear a lot of work went in to finding a suitable consensus name, and today's probably not the right day for this change. LT90001 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks LT, I agree, and please weigh in with your opinion the next time the pinyin question is raised!Herbxue (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here, since I was part of the original push for Pinyin. I've been increasingly seeing the pinyin name being adopted, however, it's hindered by those advertising, using the incorrect Wade-Giles spelling (Tai chi chuan, without the apostrophes) in order to catch the attention of more people, who are familiar with that incorrect spelling. It is unfortunate that taijiquan is still referred to in the Wade-Giles transliteration, however, if it's to be employed here in accordance with popular usage, it is only logical that it has to be written correctly, thus the apostrophes. The comparative searches you'd have to thus look at is not "t'ai chi" vs "tai chi", but rather "tai chi" vs "taiji", as "tai chi" is a Wade-Giles misspelling, not Pinyin. :) InferKNOX (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to beat a dead horse a bit, why is correctness so important? I see this a lot with China-related topics, where users insist on using the "correct" name or some version thereof. WP:NAME would suggest that we should use the common English name when there is one. In this case there should not be any question what the common English name is. Today, it is overwhelmingly "Tai Chi" or "Tai Chi Chuan". Remind me why correctness is super important for China-related topics. see WP:EN and WP:COMMONNAME - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Large deletion of T'ai chi ch'uan's long-standing health section[edit]

There is a discussion happening by WP:FT/N#T'ai chi – neutrality & sourcing regarding a huge deletion of the health benefits section on this article by Alexbrn talk, on the basis that the "content was out-dated, superseded, or poorly-sourced".
Please join the discussion. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion hopefully moving here, where it's supposed to be. htom (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It was done without consensus, and with lots of valid content removed -A1candidate (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The content was in violation of WP:MEDRS. We should not be including such stuff that's sourced so poorly. jps (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Not all of it. I'm putting it in a section below for discussion, elaboration, and (at least for some of it) return. You're welcome to participate. htom (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Promotion[edit]

I promoted this article to B and with the exception of a few small sections without references it is close to being classed GA. A little effort should take it at least to that point.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally! I've been waiting for this to happen, to the point of almost requesting a review of the rank and am glad to see it come to pass. For my part, I've been looking at Aikido (a GA ranked martial arts article) & trying to glean the positive aspects to employ here towards that end. Hope it gets to GA. Sigh... refs, just to build those refs. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can promote from C to B - you could have done it yourself - after that it becomes complicated. Aikido is a featured article (FA) by the way and the process was quite tough - it first went through GA and peer review. The next step for the T'ai chi ch'uan article is to get it to GA and, based on your response, I will start the process. As I said, in my opinion it is very close.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks InferKNOX for all your hard work on this article.Herbxue (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked again at the GA criteria and the article and instead of submitting it directly to GA I have asked for a peer review. There are areas that could use more references with some that are unreferenced and there is also the current issue about health benefits that should be resolved first (ie. stable article). With the Peer review it is stated that the goal is GA so hopefully suggestions that come along will have that goal in mind. There are some automatic tools available on the review page that can help.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I meant Aikido is an FA. I'm too nervous to edit ranks, as I'm not well versed enough with WP & don't want to get ahead of myself & promote something just because I feel I've inputed enough to do such, so I'll leave it to you more experienced editors. Thanks Herbxue, but I haven't done much material input, just things like formatting, clean-up, etc. Despite all the time I've put in thus far to these various taijiquan related articles, if it makes any sense, I'm lazy to go into referencing, which just seems tedious to me, ha ha. I'm hoping other editors that are more enthusiastic in that vein will fill that in, but at this point, if there continues to be little input, I may take-up that slack a bit. For now I look forward to the feedback from the peer review & to have some attention here, thanks for the, Pete. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Peer review was closed without any comments. Pity - but the next step is a GA submission. There are a couple of sections with no references (i.e.. Fighting effectiveness) but I still think it is worth going ahead. Comments?Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Health discussion[edit]

The following was deleted as not conforming to WP:MEDRS. It looks to me more like a new study came out and is being used to dismiss all of the other work, in some cases other meta-studies.

Further, the replacement is not even a fair summary of the abstract: Several systematic reviews (SRs) have assessed the effectiveness of t'ai chi for many conditions including hypertension, osteoarthritis and fall prevention; however, their conclusions have been contradictory. The aim of this overview was to critically evaluate the SRs of t'ai chi for any improvement of medical conditions or clinical symptoms. English, Chinese and Korean electronic databases were searched for relevant articles, and data were extracted according to predefined criteria; 35 SRs met our inclusion criteria. They were related to the following conditions: cancer, older people, Parkinson's disease, musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), muscle strength and flexibility, improving aerobic capacity, cardiovascular disease and risk factors, lowering resting blood pressure, osteoporosis or bone mineral density, type 2 diabetes, psychological health, fall prevention and improving balance, and any chronic conditions. In several instances, the conclusions of these articles were contradictory. Relatively clear evidence emerged to suggest that t'ai chi is effective for fall prevention and improving psychological health and was associated with general health benefits for older people. However, t'ai chi seems to be ineffective for the symptomatic treatment of cancer and RA. In conclusion, many SRs of t'ai chi have recently been published; however, the evidence is convincingly positive only for fall prevention and for improvement of psychological health.

The original text of the section is also available here Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's important not to rely on the abstract: the full text also includes a mention of "improving balance" in the category of things for which there is a "suggestion" that the evidence was "conclusively or tentatively positive". I have expanded the quotation to clarify. Of the 15 sources that were used previously, just one was potentially okay: PMID 20492638 - and now we have a stronger, later source for its subject (which arrives at the same conclusion anyway). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yobol, your revert references that the research review I cited does not relate to tai chi, only exercise in general. The content of the study specifically states that tai chi is 1 of 9 parameters that were intentionally searched for. Just because other physical activities were examined does not mean that it is not appropriate to mention its relevance to tai chi. It should be possible to include mention of the fact that physical activity was the suspected mechanism while still including a reference to the dementia review.
Proposed version: A separate 2013 review reported promising evidence that physical activities, including t'ai chi ch'uan, might improve cognition in senior citizens with dementia.
If helpful I have another 3 or 4 MEDRS-compliant sources about tai chi and/or exercise in relation to dementia. I didn't want to pile on references for a single, uncontroversial sentence, but it seems a significant point to make. What are your thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
First, you are using an out of date review, this would be the most up to date version. Second, as far as I can tell, tai chi is only mentioned twice in the paper, once as a search parameter, and once when describing a trial excluded from the study. None of the trials included appear to use tai chi at all, so this source is not appropriate to use on this wikipedia page. This is, of course, is the problem with citing a source based on the abstract and not reading the paper. Yobol (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, Yobol, I did read the article and it includes more than a dozen mentions of tai chi, including listing it as one of the studies' main MeSH terms, which is about as much as any of the other activities are referenced. As for the other study, the one you cited A) is not publicly available or verifiable, so it's hard to tell how it does/doesn't relate to this specific topic and B) a 2 year old review is not so old that it should be considered obsolete. Also, whether or not this the reference works for the article I would encourage editors to not accuse others of making uninformed citations without at least asking them about it. The Cap'n (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course that review you are citing is out of date the website of that article has in big neon red sign saying "This is not the most recent version of the article" with a link to the one I am citing. That you would think it is not out of date when the authors and publisher specifically say it is out of date is, frankly, bizarre. The one I cite is of course available to the public, through a subscription. Whether you or any individual editor in particular has access to any one source does not affect its verifiability, per WP:PAYWALL. As the most recent and up-to-date version does not appear to discuss tai chi in any significant form, it should not be used in this article, nor should we use out of date reviews. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, after now reviewing the now out-of-date review from 2012, "tai chi" is used as a search term only. None of the underlying studies actually discuss tai chi, at all. That you would think that this qualifies this systematic review as a source on this Wikipedia page on tai chi, when none of the actual studies discusses tai chi, is mind boggling to me. Yobol (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Fighting effectiveness vs Martial application[edit]

The controversy of the "fighting effectiveness" section was never resolved and it cannot be denied that it will be continually argued against as being subjective. In the interest of improving the quality & rank of the article this needs to be addressed. After noticing the "martial application" section on the Chen-style taijiquan page, I would like to propose naming the "fighting effectiveness" section likewise, as a step towards a "neutral point of view". I think "fighting effectiveness" is within the scope of "martial application", but the latter has a less suggestive tone. From there the follow-up can perhaps be verification of the section through referencing, etc. Comments? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. "Fighting Effectiveness" is a loaded term open to interpretation by the reader especially one fueled by numerous televised MMA bouts. "Martial application" requires less "proof" and would be easier to reference. That said the section would require a bit of a re-write to accomodate the change.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. 'Martial application' more neatly captures the application of techniques (or roots of techniques, if they have evolved since moving away from direct application, and especially since 'fighting effectiveness' also loses contexts such as typical opponents and their styles, armaments, etc). And to be fair, the section will likely need a rewrite to accommodate further referencing. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
This section still remains without any references and probably will be the main block to GA status. My advice is to delete the entire section unless some references can be found quickly. I actually don't think as a whole it really contributes to the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I also agree, it could be replaced by a simple description of common techniques.Herbxue (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I will submit to GA status after a few days assuming the change is accepted.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I went quiet on this, got tied up with real life issues. Will try and see if anything valuable can be salvaged. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment (from disinterested observer) - for an article aiming at GA, this contains an awful lot of unsourced material; I can't imagine it passing unless this is fixed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I am of two minds specifically because of the point you made. The section removed was just the worst case and I feel that it might not make the cut this time either but I would hope that a GA review would highlight the shortcomings that were not delivered during the peer review process. On the other hand it might considering there are at least some references for all the remaining sections. I am trolling for opinions here.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Steps in the forms list[edit]

Hi guys. I would like to develop the rather bleak list of t'ai chi ch'uan forms article by adding lists of steps under each form, but have no idea where to start as far as the names go. I'm willing to put in the work, but need help find the list of steps for each form. Optionally, I can also colour code the styles in list to match the colour coding in the lineage tree (in the e.g. I've added coloured borders since they're more subtle). Also, instead of writing the hanzi & pinyin separately, ruby characters can be employed. Here's the example of what I've made so far (I've only added the steps to the 1st):


24 forms[edit]

28 forms[edit]


Comments and opinions are welcome. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have moved some links from the External links section because they are inappropriate for that section but might be useful as sources to support article content:

Jojalozzo 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC) .

Requested move 18 November 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Tai chi, per WP:COMMONNAME and the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

T'ai chi ch'uanTai chi – This article stands in clear distinction to the WP:COMMONNAME guideline used on Wikipedia, and is titled in a confusing manner in a system that is now no longer widely used. It should be changed to reflect modern usage.

The current title ("T'ai chi ch'uan") is a transliteration from Chinese using the Wade-Giles system. This results in:

  • A name that is not commonly used.
  • A confusing name few Chinese speakers, and fewer English speakers, will be familiar with
  • A name derived from a system of transliteration that is not widely used, compared to the current system, Pinyin
  • A name is not even internally consistent, with all the other Chinese transliterations using pinyin.

A change is consistent with WP policies and guidelines:

  • Wikipedia guidelines WP:COMMONNAME
  • Wikipedia guidelines on romanisation (WP:PINYIN: "English Wikipedia uses pinyin as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters") and Chinese name titles (WP:NC-CHINA: "The titles of Chinese entries should follow current academic conventions, which generally means Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks. ")
  • Wikipedia article titles guideline, which states "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, " (WP:UE)

"Tai chi" is the common name. Compare:

  • Google n-gram, which shows that "Tai chi" is used in literature at least 20 times more than T'ai chi, and has been used more since the 1970s
  • Google search: more than 33 million results for "Tai chi", less than 450 thousand for "T'ai chi"

It's time that we move this article to its appropriate title, "Tai chi"! Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. No brainer. Per WP:MOS-ZH we should be using pinyin for the article title.  Philg88 talk 22:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. "Tai chi" seems like a textbook example of a common name.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Tai-chi" "Tai chi" is definitely the common name. Stickee (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
So which one. Tai chi or Tai-chi.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Pinyin doesn't use hyphens so it should be the former.  Philg88 talk 18:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to use a hyphen. Corrected my comment now. Stickee (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Tai chi is actually not pinyin (taiji is), but is definitely the common name. Those Wade-Giles apostrophes are rarely used by the media nowadays. -Zanhe (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Tai chi is definitely the common name, while T'ai chi ch'uan looks weird. -JesseW900 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title should satisfy both commonality and correctness. Taijiquan is an art from China and all versions of the name are an attempt to transliterate 太極拳. Tai Chi is not a correct transliteration and encourages the false assumption that the "chi" refers to "qi". Part of what the article does is educate people who want to learn more, its ok for the title to be correct even if its not what they expect. They still get here after the redirect if they search "Tai Chi". I would support a move to "Taijiquan" but not "Tai Chi".Herbxue (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I also noticed a couple people who support the move do so in support of Pinyin - "Tai chi" is not the pinyin, Taiji (or Taijiquan) is. If we want to vote on correct pinyin, then my vote is yes. But I oppose the common name "Tai chi" as it is not correct pinyin, nor is it correct WG.Herbxue (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


The article has the record I think for alternate spelling redirects some quite obscure but I would like to see some care taken that the spelling really reflects common usage. Also - whatever is decided the article would have to be gone through carefully to be consistent which is not the case now.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move[edit]

I blinked and missed that move debate - I know the guideline is 7 days but that seems very quick for such an important decision. I'm no expert but this feels a bit 'lowest common denominator'-ish to me. I always thought the proper name was Tai Chi Chuan (whether you choose to have apostrophes or 'j's instead of 'ch's) - can someone explain the reasoning behind dropping the last 'word'? Btljs (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Also the article title is now at odds with all the content that talks about t'ai chi ch'uan. More thought was needed before moving in my opinion. Btljs (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the "拳" merely indicates that it involves the hands and is superfluous in the same way that "with the hands" would be in the title of Boxing.  Philg88 talk 09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I missed this too. I would have opposed the move. I'm happy with moving to pinyin transliterations, but not to misusing terms. Taiji is a philosophical concept, taijiquan is a series of movements. When I was taught this, taijiquan was part of a family of three exercise routines based on taiji, along with taijijian (sword) and taijiqiang (lance). Equally, there were movement exercises based on bagua (eight trigrams) and wu-xing (five moving forces), either for the fist or hand, the sword, or the lance. This made a series of nine classes one could choose from. I think that calling taijiquan just taiji (misspelt at that, to pander even more to those who know nothing about it), especially when we have a taijijian article, is just confusing, and looks ignorant. If we are to have English language articles about ancient ethnic traditions from foreign countries, the least we can do is to try to find out (and pass on) something about them, rather than pander to the lowest common denominator, with little regard for the actual living and ancient culture we are plundering. --Nigelj (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
People will be wanting to move the Beijing article to Peking next, and Chennai to Madras, because it looks nicer to their eye! --Nigelj (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've contacted the closer to see if we can get this debate re-opened. Btljs (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Good, the move was premature, and ignored many pages of previous debate that went into settling on T'ai Chi Ch'uan (I support correct pinyin Taijiquan). I don't believe adequate consensus is there to support the move. Also, 拳 is not superfluous, it is part of the proper name and indicates that this is a martial art, rather than the philosophical/cosmological concept. Herbxue (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I too missed the discussion about the move. I think this is an ill-conceived move, since the full and correct name of the martial art is T'ai Chi Ch'uan, and there was an extensive discussion a while back to precisely change the name this way. If I had been able to vote, I would have OPPOSED the move and suggested instead to create a redirect template from Tai Chi to the correct article, if that would appease people, but leave the original article ALONE. Just because the name is popular does not make it correct. The name is NOT Tai Chi, it is Tai Chi Chuan (modulo the Wade-Giles spelling). (As an aside, I humorously even tell my students that if you practice Tai Chi, you're only doing a "dance". To do the martial art you need the "boxing" part, hence, the Chuan. Oh and there is the philosophical aspect of Tai Chi creating the Yin and Yang from Nothing.) Furthermore, for a move of such an important article (well, it is to me!), on which many many people have contributed, the move was agreed upon with only 6 people voting?? This seems WRONG WRONG WRONG to me! I call for a vote to restore the name AND create the redirect template.Bruno talk 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion here. There is no "correct" english name for Tai chi, because it's a transliteration. Unlike Beijing or Xian, this isn't a name that local people have chosen to represent the city, and because it is a school of thought/action there is no organisation that "owns" it and can determine its name. Surely on this encyclopedia we should be using the name which people commonly refer to? As stated above the name "Tai chi" is used 20 times more in literature and has been used more since the 1970s. It also has vastly more articles on google, which indicates how other people have chosen to use it. I fail to see how using the complicated title with apostrophes helps readers, the vast majority of whom (1) will be unfamiliar with the term and (2) will be unfamiliar with how to pronounce it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on (and/or revert and reopen) the close here. First, I'd like to affirm that I performed the move and close as an uninvolved, disinterested administrative action: my job was to read the discussion for consensus and adherence to guidelines and policy. If I were unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the requested move, this would be one reason to reopen the discussion. However, while I was unaware that additional editors would subsequently object to the quality of the discussion, it does not seem that the subsequent objections have introduced new arguments. I doubt that I would have closed the request differently in light of the new comments, given the new title's accordance with WP:AT policy guidance on common usage in English. This chart shows that "tai chi" is the most common form, which made the move advisable under WP:COMMONNAME. Usage in other languages is not the primary concern when a term enjoys wide recognizability in English. To make a parallel point, this is one reason we so many references on Wikipedia to "jiu-jitsu", which combines archaic romanization and a reading that would be "incorrect" in terms of Japanese. "Correct" transcription is not generally the key point after a term has passed into English parlance.

One suggestion made by the editors here is not simply to revert to the previous title, but to introduce a different title based on pinyin (Taijiquan) that might be argued to be more precise, if less common. There still seems to be little support for the previous title. Therefore, if necessary, I suggest a new move request to discuss support for another proposed title rather than a relisting that might simply result in reconfirming the support for Tai chi evident above. I understand the sense that changing the article title is an important decision and that many people feel it is an important article, but it will not be difficult to move the page again if a new discussion deems it necessary. Dekimasuよ! 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that, for reasons unclear, much of talk archive 1 and talk archive 2 are more recent than talk archive 3, which shows a rejected move from 2006. The first archive contains naming discussions from 2008 and 2011, including a list of a number of associated articles that might reasonably be expected to have their titles changed as a result of any decision made here, although the 2011 discussion was not done through WP:RM or formatted as a multimove request. Dekimasuよ! 21:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
For those interested, the discussion in 2011 was lengthy and resulted in consensus on T'ai Chi Ch'uan, it can be found here. I don't doubt Dekimasu's expertise on following policy correctly, but I would prefer a return to the previous consensus version, and require the current proposal (Tai chi) to pass muster more thoroughly before adopting it. Herbxue (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
While I don't fault the admin for following policy, perhaps it should be made a requirement that admins review the existence of prior discussions and their outcomes before making decisions that bring on situations like this one.Bruno talk 14:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this suggested requirement, but I tried myself unsuccesfully to locate the previous discussion (before links were supplied here). Is there a safe way to check if such a discussion exists - short of reading through all archives? PS. I do not object to the present name of the article ("Tai chi"), though it does not conform with pinyin transscription, and though "Tai chi" / "Taiji" is strictly speaking a philosophical concept (aka "yin/yang"), not the martial art "Taijiquan". It is probably true that "Tai chi" is the name and spelling most non-practitioners and non-sinelogists will recognize. (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Old moves}} can be added to the top of the talk page, but it has to be filled out and applied manually. Dekimasuよ! 19:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the usage chart is relevant as it compares terms of 3 words and 2 words. After all this chart shows that "tai" or "chi" would be much more popular names and "John Kennedy" is more popular than "John F Kennedy" - precision is the point here surely? Personally I would prefer Tai Chi Chuan based on the fact that it is the most popular spelling (in line with the common usage guidance above) BUT without removing a crucial part of the title which makes it ambiguous and non-precise. If there is any support for this, I'll start another move request as suggested by Dekimasu above. Btljs (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as the Google Books result, please note that Tai and Chi also refer to many other separate topics that could increase their overall usage in Google Books. This is also a slight factor here in terms of precision, given the philosophical concept, but "Tai chi" has consistently been a redirect to this article, indicating that it this has generally been regarded the primary topic of the phrase. Dekimasuよ! 19:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I know, I was being a bit facetious. My point is if you remove a word from a descriptive name then you generally get more hits but also lose precision. Names tend to get shortened by use over time. Having "Tai chi" as a redirect is the correct solution to this trend; removing the precision of the title IMO is not. Btljs (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed.Herbxue (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I also missed the debate. Personally I'm fine with using the common name tai chi. I'd prefer if taijiquan caught on with the general public, but it hasn't yet. My question is: what do we do about all the places on Wikipedia where the term "t'ai chi ch'uan" is used to link to this article? Is this going to be like when all the Chinese dynasties got the word "Dynasty" decapitalized and all the links to those articles had to be changed? Is t'ai chi ch'uan deprecated from now on, or are we keeping it for everything except the article title? What term should we use by default in new content? Difference engine (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not just links but throughout the article itself. The job is half done. The easy half. Btljs (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wudang contradiction?[edit]

Article says "the Wudang name falsely suggests these arts originated at the so-called Wudang Mountain, ..." yet linked Wudang chuan says "named after the Wudang Mountains". Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The category of Wudang martial arts is named after Wudang Mountain, but it's not saying that all those arts are literally from there. Tai chi, specifically, is not from Wudang. It's confusing, but not a contradiction. A bunch of Chinese martial arts got lumped under the Wudang category in the early 20th century, and the rest got lumped under Shaolin, and the names stuck. It doesn't really imply anything about the historical origins of each art (of course, since then, people have created origin myths to try to link the arts to the categories they're in, which doesn't help things). Hope that clears it up. Difference engine (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Tai Chi as a Internal Art[edit]

Deleted wholesale as unsourced (fair comment, will work on sourcing) and as duplicating material found elsewhere. There is indeed some similar material in the article 'neijia' which I plan on cross-referencing, and elsewhere in articles on Chinese martial arts as a whole. However, I believe this info is needed here.

If you look at the article's source text, you'll see 2-3 commented-out sections regarding internal arts and 'qi' that say, 'We should talk about this at more length in a separate section'. This section does. Many people looking at an article on 'Tai Chi' will want to know 'What's so special about it? How is it different from Karate, or Yoga, or dance, or whatever?' This section, I think, fills that need.

Please don't wholesale-delete again. If you have suggestions for improvement or constructive edits, please provide them.

ChengduTeacher (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)