Talk:T'ai chi classics
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T'ai chi classics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from T'ai chi classics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 August 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
translation inclusion and misc
I've entered a few reliable books. There are many more translations than this available. Probably should subdivide at some point into scholarship, text, and translation. Correct, a translation is under copyright. Short quotes in the context of an essay are within fair use. The original texts are not. However, to add the texts would create a too-long and too-detailed page that is way beyond the scope of this entry, plus there's so much variation about what is included or what the original words were. Those who want to learn more about the topic can turn to the books and other works for actual texts. Also, please see my prior entry titled Taijiquan Classics. Probably should link that page with this one or combine them with a varient spelling for search. Also, why not title this entry T'ai Chi Ch'uan Classics, adding the Ch'uan? Ruguo 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the major points about the classics that makes their study (for non-Chinese speaking students) so difficult is the wide field of translation. A discussion of this in the article may pave the way for a separate stub on common taijiquan terminology that has no universally-used English equivalent. In some secondary sources, such as Fu Zhongwen's "Mastering Yang Style Taijiquan", almost as much discussion of translation techniques and reasoning is given as the actual text of the classics. VanTucky (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that translation is an important issue. Comparing some translations, sometimes you can't tell you are reading the same text. A.C. Graham has published some interesting examinations of the differences between Chinese and Indo-European linguistic conceptions. --Fire Star 火星 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we be including actual transliterations of the classics as well, rather than just a list of who wrote them? If necessary, we could also paraphrase their subject matter and their analysis with in secondary sources. VanTucky (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't known what is fair usage in this case. The book has header sentences like
Once you begin to move, the entire body must be light and limber. Each part of the body must be connected to every other part.
- followed by a page of explaination. Would using just the header sentences be fair use? jmcw 14:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- We are kind of stuck. We can't publish Douglas Wile's or Yang Jwing-ming's translations because they are copyrighted, but if we translate them, is that original research? We could post what we can find in Chinese and link each character to Wiktionary and provide a thumbnail sketch of the theme of each text, I suppose. We should look at how other articles, Tao Te Ching, for example, approach this. --Fire Star 火星 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm also involved in tai chi and found your page here interesting. If you don't mind me putting my two cents in, including actual transliterations probably crosses the line over what should be included in an encyclopedia entry. Its sort of be like doing an entry on the dead sea scrolls and trying to include the entire contents of the scrolls themselves. Not necessary. Also, trying to perform actual translations of the works themselves will probably lead you into very deep water. Most of the translations done by the scholars you've cited, used either the Yang families or the Wu Yuxiang family versions of the translations. The translations of the authors who used those versions are, themselves, open to interpretation. This is why the more scholarly minded authors include the classical Chinese in their books , so that their translations can be open to debate in the academic community. Bottom line - there's no such thing as "definitive" when your dealing with the tai chi classics and it would probably be better to just cite the various translations available in the bookstores and let folks take it from there. Just an opinion. --NomanRedux (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- On the same subject, this may interest you then... --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Tai chi family tree
We don't need this in every article. It's in the main article and several others, so that is sufficient. This is about literary works, and the lineage of the disambiguated figures is explained in their articles. VanTucky (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a lot more info to come, especially about works from Wu Yu-hsiang and his relatives. If the formatting gets too confusing, we may have to find another way to list the texts. Also, I haven't found a publishing date yet for Chen Xin, if anyone has it... --Fire Star 火星 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Got Chen Xin's date from Wile, 1919. --Fire Star 火星 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)