Talk:Wudang t'ai chi ch'uan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Taoism (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated Start-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!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


That's a good looking lineage table on the page, wish the home Tai Chi page one looked that good. but however, it completely omits such figures as, umm, Chen Wangting, for whom there is documented evidence. The Chen family martial arts did not begin with Chen ChangXing. Not that I am claiming they are the sole progenitors or denying the distinct possibility of Jiang Fa or of course Zhang San Feng but Chen Wangting is a verifiable figure in the lineage, you shouldnt just leave him out. VanTucky 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's documented evidence for them all if you only know where to look. The reason that there are many masters missing is that the style's masters do not consider them relevant to its development. That is not to say that other masters are not relevant to the development of TCC overall, just that if I put all possible masters in, the lineage diagram would lose its relevance to the content of the article.
As I discussed with you before the reason the article is laid out that way, is because it is constructed from the style's point of view, which is then, I believe, a fair representation of what the style believes it is, and not what you or others believe it should be or is!
I am certainly happy to create a nice lineage diagram for the Tai Chi article, but then I may produce something of which you and or others do not approve!!
Realtaichi 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, those sound like a perfectly reasonable justifications for the state of the lineage on this article. and it would be helpful to have a better looking one on the main page. just not this exact one. and I think we should without a doubt start it with ZSF, and include Jiang Fa, Wang Zongyue and other figures not in the historical record as solidly as later ones. its important to include them whatever my personal speculations on the matter bc it is wihtout a doubt possible that they contributed to the fomentation of Taiji. VanTucky 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice lineage table/diagram but the Chinese Charactor "Yang" as shown is wrong, please change accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources?[edit]

So far, the article seems to be based entirely on primary sources for its info, that is, sourced entirely by the subject(s) of the article. That means most of the info in the article can be challenged as it stands, rendering it basically a stub. Are there any secondary sources that anyone knows of? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Additionally to the other remarks, wudang taijiquan or t'ai Chi is a style of martial arts developed over a 500 year period in the wudang mountians in hubei province, also called taihe mountian. It is often mentioned in competition with shaolin boxing. Some claim it predates the Chen and Yang styles of martial arts which belong to warlord families/clan's/societies, while Wudang martuial arts is religious in origin and internal organisation (and hence the association with daoism). The name wudang in this case is a borrowed name leaning on the reputation of martial societies in Hubei, but not having any form of formal or informal relationship with it. that is also the reason why no other secondary sources can be found. this argument by the way does not wish to argue the reputation of the people involved in the style from Hongkong. It only wants to support a solution for subfiling the article under taijiquan as a whole (style-wise) but separating it from secular and religious internalized martial arts as to clarify similarities in names.(YouLiOu (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Move to "Wudang 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) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)