Talk:Lee-style tai chi

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redirects

message: 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)
thread_title: Updates

message: 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)
replies: text: Definately needs more sources. -- Medains 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  rename to Lee Family System 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No further discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.JunBao (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: "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? 147.143.5.25 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Taoist Society 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good Progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quality Scale Ratings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lee Family Arts Articles / Several / One conjoined 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NAME#Lowercase  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleDantarin (talk • contribs) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexpected move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move to "Lee-style t'ai chi ch'uan" 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928101121/http://www.movietone.com/N_search.cfm?ActionFlag=back2ResultsView&start=1&pageStart=1&totalRecords=1&V_DateType=1&V_DECADE=1929&V_FromYear=1928&V_QualifySubject=&V_storyNumber=95962&V_TermsToOmit=&V_ToYear=1980&V_searchType=1&V_MainSubject=&V_Year=1928&V_resultsPerPage=10 to http://www.movietone.com/N_search.cfm?ActionFlag=back2ResultsView&start=1&pageStart=1&totalRecords=1&V_DateType=1&V_DECADE=1929&V_FromYear=1928&V_QualifySubject=&V_storyNumber=95962&V_TermsToOmit=&V_ToYear=1980&V_searchType=1&V_MainSubject=&V_Year=1928&V_resultsPerPage=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified