Talk:Tai chi

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiji (philosophy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"Taichi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Taichi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Taichi until a consensus is reached. SilverStar54 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the refusal to change "Tai Chi" to "Taiji Quan"

'Taiji Quan' (Pronounced: 'TAI GEE CHWENN') is the appropriate pronunciation and transcript of this martial art. Taiji Quan has always been the correct pronunciation of the name of this art in Mandarin Chinese - the language of its founders, which is spoken by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Taiji Quan has been the official Chinese Government transcript for the name of this art since Pinyin was adopted by all of China, in the year 1958. Pinyin, and the term Taiji Quan, have also been adopted by Singapore (1980), the United Nations (1982) and Taiwan (2009). Accordingly, the Wikipedia page 'Tai Chi (philosophy)' was changed in 2023, by WP:RM vote, to Taiji (philosophy). The Daoist Philosophical concept of Taiji, is where the art Taiji Quan derives its name from. Hence, it is called 'Taiji Quan'. Many Westerners know it as "Tai Chi" by accident, really. An older and highly inaccurate version of Mandarin Chinese transcript method, called Wade-Giles, had it written as "Tai Chi". But as noted before, this is not how the art's name is truly pronounced.

This topic needs no vote, really, but simply an education. Has any of you ever been to mainland China? Or spoken with a Mandarin-Chinese speaker? Because if you had, then you would know that Taiji Quan is how the art's name sounds and is written. The 'Q' in 'Quan' is like a 'CH' sound in English, in this instance. This is a no-brainer. This transcript for the term is used in any book that mentions this martial arts, which had been officially translated from Mandarin Chinese over the past few decades. Moreover, that ALL universities and colleges worldwide that teach Chinese, use PinYin as the transcript standard. Therefore, in almost ANY Mandarin Chinese class in ANY American or European college or university, the art's name would be written as 'Taiji Quan' (or Taijiquan). No one uses "Tai Chi", because the Wade-Giles transcript is plain wrong, outdated, anachronistic, and has long ceased to be a part of the mainstream.

The claim that "Tai Chi" should be preserved as "the correct pronunciation", simply because "Westerners have grown accustomed to it and it is now a part of the English Language", is no less than cultural appropriation and cultural racism. Who are you, non-Chinese speakers, to tell the Chinese, who invented Taiji Quan, and still teach it far more commonly than Westerners, that they should call they art how you see fit? How exactly does that make any sense?

There are several other reasons which merit that change from "Tai Chi" to "Taiji Quan" as well.

In the anachronistic Wade-Giles transcript, Chi (Qi energy) is written the same as the "Chi" of "Tai Chi". But the Chinese characters are entirely different. The Chi 氣 of "energy" is NOT the same as the Chi 太 of Tai Chi, which is actually pronounced as 'Ji'. This is why in Pin-Yin, there are Qi and Ji, and not Chi and Chi. Pin-Yin is superior, hence its dominance and widespread acceptance. As you can see, the Pin-Yin version was also accepted in the Wiki page for Qi (Energy).

What else is that "Tai Chi" is devoid of the end of the term in Chinese: Quan (or "Chuan" in Wade-Giles). The word Quan 拳 means "Fist", and the art's name is therefore "The Fist of Taiji"; or - 'Taiji Boxing'. Without the suffix Quan 拳, it would not have been considered a martial art in Chinese.

I call upon you to undo your own cultural and linguistic ignorance! Test my claims and verify them for yourselves, in real life, outside of a computer screen.

2A0D:6FC2:5171:A400:DC07:7328:C69C:50A (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we go by the 'Common name' in English (see WP:COMMONNAME) which sometimes differs from the technically correct name or the one used in the originating language. So you could very well be correct, but on the English language Wikipedia, 'Tai chi' is still the name to be used according to the titling policy. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

And yet, although the common names for Taiji and Qi are still "Tai Chi" and "Chi", both those Wikipedia pages were converted from Wade-Giles transcript to Pin-Yin. Why? Because Wade-Giles is now considered dead internationally by the Academia, Governments and the United Nations. There has been a global decision that humanity is getting rid of Wade-Giles, as it is not representative of Mandarin Chinese. Accordingly, why should this page be any different?... Also, Taiji Quan is, in fact, in common usage in most of the newer literature and publications about the art. The trouble is that the majority of English sources mentioned on Wikipedia are older. Another issue is that many people that use the term 'Taiji Quan' in private and in their classes, advertise with the anachronism "Tai Chi" to broaden their sales. Should Wikipedia represent the truth of things, or be a contest of popularity? Because what is popular can be false, and also motivated by biased agendas. 2A0D:6FC2:5171:A400:DC07:7328:C69C:50A (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

the anachronism "Tai Chi" to broaden their sales. That's exactly the point. If 'Tai Chi' were not the common name they would not have to do that. Should Wikipedia represent the truth of things, or be a contest of popularity? Because what is popular can be false You've fallen into a common misconception of what Wikipedia is. See WP:NOTTRUTH for some explanation. Wikipedia does indeed follow the 'popular' view of the sources and not an editor's personal opinions of what is true. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, searching PUBMED:

• "tai chi" yields 2,687 results
• 'Taiji Quan' yields 6 results

If the search is limited to 2024 only, the results are 207 and zero. Bon courage (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If spelled correctly by the rules of Hanyu Pinyin, "taijiquan" gets 47 results, and 5 for 2024. But to your point, that's not enough and the WP:COMMONNAME decision still stands. Even "t'ai chi" has more results, at 147 and zero. Jōkepedia (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Re this I’m not sure I have got the capitalisation right. And do we need the quotation marks? Single or double? Anyone who knows please change it if needed. Thanks --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You've got the correct capitalization and spacing to reflect common usage. I could go on and on here about the rules of capitalization and spacing in Hanyu Pinyin and English, not to mention hyphens in Wade-Giles, but what you entered in your new article section correctly reflects common English usage. And although quotation marks would be necessary were I to use any of those terms in this reply, quotation marks are not necessary in your new article section. Jōkepedia (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a sidebox with several transcriptions. Are these correct? Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hanyu Pinyin, Wade-Giles, and Jyutping romanizations are correct. I do not know the others. Jōkepedia (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• And I've just remember a name change was discussed last year: see #Requested move 13 June 2023. Bon courage (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@IP, let’s relax, that’s just a name ...

Just a name change won’t change the nature of something. If it’s good, it’s good. If it’s bad, it’s still bad, no matter what name we change it to.

Well, back to the issue, as this is the English Wikipedia, and it’s just about the name, I think we should follow the common practice of most native English speakers for this naming / language discrepancy.

I don’t think many (if any) Westerners will care about whether the Chinese call Istanbul “伊斯坦堡” or “伊斯坦布尔”. So why people who speak Chinese should care about whether the Westerners call something “Tai chi” or “Taijiquan”?

In linguistics we follow what’s established in popular usage (the unwritten rule that people generally accept and obey), there’s no right or wrong, correct or incorrect (and people likely won’t care what the martial art inventor thinks, they probably just happen to choose a name that is easier to pronounce or shorter).

That said, I don’t see any reason why we can’t be more inclusive, let our readers know more about the different names people may use, and follow closer to our style guidelines. I’ve edited the page to reflect that.

Aside, if we really want to discuss how logical the name is, there are some tai chi practices that use other weapons, such as swords or spears, so it’s not just “boxing”. BTW, Wikipedia editors AGF and I don’t think there’s any “biased agenda”… --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Two dubious sources and an unknown practitioner

I was editing the page and stumbled upon two dubious sources:

• Choy Kam Man (1985). Tai Chi Chuan. San Francisco, California: Memorial Edition 1994 (I wasn't able to find it on WorldCat);
• Bluestein, Jonathan (2024). Martial Arts Politics Explained: History, Culture and Comedy (likely self-published).

Also: who is Choy Kam Man? Apparently he was Choy Hok Pang's son, in turn a disciple of Yang Chengfu, but there are no Choys in the article about Yang.-- Carnby (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are certainly many better sources than the Bluestein book as a reference for a paragraph on the 24-posture simplified form. In that article's paragraph on history I used the following:

{{cite magazine |last=Luo |first=Shiwen |date=Autumn 2023 |title=The 24-Posture Simplified Taijiquan |url=https://www.qi-journal.com/taijiquan/taijiquan-t-ai-chi/3256-the-24-posture-simplified-taijiquan |magazine=Qi: The Journal of Traditional Eastern Health and Fitness |volume=33 |issue=3 |publisher=Insight Publishers |issn=1056-4004}}

Choy Kam Man was a prominent tai chi teacher in San Francisco back in the Seventies, and I have no doubt that book did exist once. It was probably self-published by his school after he died, with no ISBN. As a replacement reference, I suggest this book published by YMAA Publication Center: 108 Insights into Tai Chi Chuan: A String of Pearls, by Michael Gilman, ISBN 978-1886969582. There may be better choices, but that's the first one I found. Jōkepedia (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I tried to fix that.--Carnby (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Bluestein is a well-know author and historian of Chinese martial arts. As well as being a practitioner/teacher, he has written extensively about Chinese martial arts, in particular the internal styles.

Thank you. NorthWu (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, but does that publication qualify under WP:RS, specifically WP:RSSELF? Jōkepedia (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Four training principles

I am too new to Taichi but from what I have read; there are 4 prominent training principles in practice - Two of them are song (loosening or relaxation) and jing (mental calm or stillness). Both principles emphasize on reducing physical tension and cultivating a quiet, focused mental state during movement. Some studies associate that with activation of the parasympathetic nervous system or the "relaxation response" which may be linked to reduced stress-related physiological activity.

The remaining two principles are chen (sinking of weight or the centre of gravity), and huo (agility of moves and responsiveness). All 4 principles are presented as mutually reinforcing aspects of coordinated movement, relaxation, and mental focus during taichi practices.

The issue is I noticed the article mentioned song as if it refers to centre of gravity in first paragraph in (Practice) chapter, but song (鬆) means physical relaxation of joints and tissues and does NOT inherently mean the shifting or controlling centre of gravity.[ I think instructors often layer centre of gravity onto the term, but it is still not the literal meaning of the word. Also, the article doesn't mention the other 3 training principles; Jing, Chen, and Huo, or I can't find it easily. I think they are useful to explain Tai chi practices but not too certain to add them into (Practice) chapter now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)