Talk:Taoist tai chi

Untitled

We have to be careful not to inadvertantly imply things about other schools in articles. We can say that Moy said that other styles are competitive, but we can't say that other styles are competitive. Some are, some aren't. Most traditional styles aren't, so we have to be careful. This is a big problem for Westerners especially, since they are enthusiatic about pointing out the differences that they feel are distinguishing factors between what they do and what others do. That can be done, of course, but it has to be done according npov policy, and (from a traditional martial standpoint) what Moy would call "Sense of Propriety." The old Chinese martial arts schools worked out a system of behaviour based on the Confucian family model many centuries ago to eliminate overt competition between them. So it can be implied, by the reasoning of that system, that martial styles of T'ai Chi are overtly competitive by saying Taoist society style isn't at all. Again, the right qualifiers (such as the most recent edits I've made to the article) can clear that up without sacrificing info about the school in question.

Another person who made similar statements, only in reverse, was Bruce Lee. He didn't think that traditional styles were competitive enough! This is from our JKD article:

"Bruce Lee's comments and methods were seen as controversial by many in his time, and still are by many today. Many teachers from traditional schools disagree with his opinions on these issues, especially seeing what Lee described as their lack of strategic flexibility due to "rote" teaching methods to be a misunderstanding on Lee's part. Most, if not all, traditional martial arts teachers say "fluid" strategy is a feature of martial training that is indeed addressed in the curricula of most traditional styles at advanced levels, when the students are ready. The schools Lee criticized tend to see their initial conservatism as a safety feature; a legacy of practical experience passed down from generation to generation, said to ensure that their students are thoroughly prepared for advanced martial training, skipping nothing and developing intangibles such as good character, patience and discipline. The hierarchy of the traditional schools is said by this reasoning to provide a level playing field for all students by instilling respect and care for one's seniors, peers and juniors, so that everyone, not just the physically gifted, has an opportunity to benefit from the training provided in a martial art school."

I mention it because it is a good description of why competition in traditional Chinese schools was discouraged. --Fire Star 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

About paid instructors.

A remark was removed with the comment: (no instructor of Taoist Tai Chi is paid. It is all volunteer work). The 'Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism' and the 'Gei Pang Lok Hup Academy' and the 'Taoist Tai Chi Society' form a happy marriage. Senior staff in one branch teaches in the other. Directors and/or senior staff within the combined organisation are paid officers with annual salaries. These paid officers/members are also teaching Taoist Tai Chi, and thus are paid instructors. Therefore stating that not all instructors are unpaid volunteers is a correct statement. --JohJak2 11:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note, the people who are paid are the administrators, bookkeepers, and the like. Some also happen to be instructors. They are not paid to be instructors, they are paid for their administrative skills. (Added by 199.44.17.15, revision as of 21:51, 2 February 2006)

Administrators etc. are paid by Fung Loy Kok and volunteer their teaching in the Taoist Tai Chi Society. However, FLK and TTCS are really one organisation, and moneys/funds are shifted between them. To tell members that all TTCS instructors are volunteers is a play on words. So TTCS is not open and up front towards their members about how the relationship is really functioning. Alexanderprinciple 10:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

you are both obviously not members of the society. as a former member, (User:VanTucky now denies having been a member, 2007/05/21.) I can tell you the debate over misrepesentation of volunteer status is futile for the simple reason that the only people who dually are paid administrators and volunteer teachers are members who operate at the headquarters in Canada. All heads and administrators of regional branches are unpaid volunteers. Thats hundreds and hundreds of teachers who are in no way shape or form paid by the society. Besides the fact that even at headquarters, the percentage of administrators who are also teachers is miniscule. saying that the society is lying about its volunteers is based on the paid dual admins/teachers that are less than 1 percent of teachers worldwide and is misleading. VanTucky 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You were obviously a member, but a long time ago. When Master Moy lived there were only a minimal number of people in Toronto being paid, as you say. However, since his passing there are now various (quite a few) people, in a number of countries, getting paid as managers. They happen to also teach tai chi, for you have to do something for it. That only a number of instructors in a different function also earn money from the society does not change the way it works. Paid managers is something that would have been unthinkable in Moy's time. JohJak2 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about what would be unthinkable in "Moy's time" like you knew him or are a member of the Society. Once again, the percentage of people who are both paid administrators and instrcutors (which doesnt make them paid tai chi instructors, there is no conlfict of interest for someone paid to do accounting and someone who teaches tai chi) is an absolute minorty. Even the accounting and admin staff of the city/state-wide branches are volunteers. It occurs only scarcely on the national and international level. That teachers of Taoist Tai Chi are volunteers is a simple fact. I have never met once single person who ever had contact with the Society, even at a prospective begginners class with people who decided it wasnt for them, who had a conflict with the Society's honest status as a 501-C3 run by volunteers. Oh nad fyi: I was a member of the Society, (User:VanTucky now denies having been a member, 2007/05/21.) and an assistant instructor, within the last two or three years. Moy had been long gone by the time I was around. There was not a single paid person in the entire Oregon/SW Washington state branch. And when the lady who is the USA head came to teach workshop at Chinese New Year, I asked her about how many teachers were both paid accountants and intrsuctors. she said that this only occured with maybe one in five out of the national headquarters and one in ten out of the international headquarters in Canada. The larger the needs for admin personnel, the more they hired from non-members. and at the state/city branches, they had no need to pay anyone at all bc the ratio between volunteers and amount of clerical work was better balanced. VanTucky 01:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Please don't presume you know the depth of my relation, past or present, with the Society, because you don't. I have he impression that you take this very and unnecessary personal and your reaction comes across as defensive (my impression). I only wanted to clarify a detail: that it is not just people at "headquarters in Canada" anymore that are paid, as it was in Moy's time, but that there are now more in other places, even though the number of people is relatively small. My point is that the Society should, I think, be entirely open about the number of paid members, who they are, and how much they are paid. Since you have only been with the Society the last "two or three years" your knowledge of the history is only recent. Nothing wrong with that.

With reference to the list of names of the moves. I would like to be able to convince you that that list is entirely appropriate where it was. You removed that, without even putting in a reference to an article where you said the names might be found. The list with names takes absolutely no significant (digital) space in the Taoist Tai Chi article, and is handy to have there for reference. Close inspection of the names reveals that they are not 100 % the same (as in e.g. the 103 Yang), nor is the numbering exactly the same. Taoist Tai Chi has its own characteristics and is, as said, although based on the Yang, it is not the same. It may even be confusing for Taoist Tai Chi members to see their moves mentioned under the Yang banner.

JohJak2 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe there is a list of the moves under the TTCS name in the list of forms page. if not let's add it there and link it. I just think that none of the other style pages include a list of moves. and just as the 108 is the standard form, there are other TTC forms (their Lok Hup and such). So I dont want to start a precedent of including long form lists is all. Oh, and youre right, I do tend to take everything personally in debate. a fault of mine. but I especially take attacks on the integrity of the Society bc even though I dont think their tai chi is for me, and that its been reduced to a set of calisthenics, I saw with my own eyes the absolute honesty and compassion that the Society is a vehicle for. Very few organisations in this world truly help people as much as they say, and I hate to see people needlessly attacking one of the only ones that I know for a fact does help people in without asking for anything in return except to be able to continue to help others. VanTucky 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some information I found on other web sites to article Moy Lin-shin. My suggestion re the removed list with moves: place it back since it fits in under this article heading: Taoist Tai Chi. TTC is the name of the form and the moves are part of the form, so this article should contain all things re the form. However, there is some content in this article that might better be placed in a separate, new article, Taoist Tai Chi Society, and that is the paragraphs starting from Moy's form is taught by unpaid volunteer instructor..., and up to the sub heading 'Form principles'. With additional information added how it came about. The Taoist Tai Chi Society is rather unique and deserves its own article. VanBurenen 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

This is an advert for a commercial organisation (Added by 87.114.3.172, revision as of 05:58, 27 May 2006)

---

This is no more of a "commercial organization" than the Boy Scouts of America or the YWCA. It is a non-profit. Rasp 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading information

Please go to the official Taoist Tai Chi website for correct information. This article is misleading and has the wrong tone. All instructors teach on a voluntory basis. There are a few people who are paid by the society but they are not paid to instruct.```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.48.49.146 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Information from an "official" website is not necessarily correct. It should be verified by an independent source. Podmonger (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Forms vs information

It is becoming rather annoying, this repeatedly removing the list of tai chi moves by User:VanTucky. You repeatedly remove this list from this article and mention in the commentary box a "forms list page", however, without linking to such a page. So it is guessing what page you mean. I have pointed that out to you before. In the commentary box, you justify your actions by referring to "other internal martial art articles".

I have been looking for a list and I have looked at other articles. Maybe it is this list: List of Tai Chi Chuan forms?. I could not find another. There it says, near the bottom, "Taoist Tai Chi Society form". This appears to be a link to the article Taoist Tai Chi. The one you're cutting the moves from. So you remove information from an article with the comment that it is to be found in that very same article. What nonsense is this? Did you even follow up and check the consequences of your wiping actions?

This article, Taoist Tai Chi, is totally about the form!!! Who developed it, how it is carried out (information you added yourself), and the names of the moves! The names of the moves belong here! All form related information together! The same as in, for example, Wu Chien-ch'uan style long, or 67 movements Combined Tai-Chi Chuan form (also from that List of Tai Chi Chuan forms).

Apparently a solution was found where the information not directly related to the form, such as all that is related to the instructors and the aims and objectives were placed in another, more appropriate article: Taoist Tai Chi Society. Seems logical and entirely sensible to me. Now you've put this information, not form related, back again. How odd.

When I read your comments above I do not (yet) get the impression that you are an unreasonable person. From your user page I even get the impression that you are rather intelligent. Therefore, it surprises me that you keep repeating the same action of effectively destroying information. I ask you to look into this again and not hit the revert button. I have moved more not form related, but Society related information to that appropriate page.

JohJak2 12:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Before, when this page stood for the form and the society, a form list was inappropriate. but now that they are separate articles, you are correct JohJak. and the list box looks better. VanTucky 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Since there doesn't seem to be a userbox for Taoist Tai Chi, I have created one. To add a userbox to your user page just add this code:

{{User:Ahunt/TTC}}

to your user page to display this userbox:

This user does Taoist Tai Chi.

Ahunt 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

CULT

HOW IS THIS SOCIETY NOT A CULT ? Demeter1 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please observe that this space is for discussion on how to improve the article, not for general discussion of the topic. Please see the guidelines of WP:TALK. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) SORRY, NEW AT THIS FORUM. WHAT I MEANT WAS THE WORD "SOCIETY" IN THE ARTICLE MAY BE INCORRECT. THE ORGANIZATION REVEALS ITSELF TO BE FUNCTIONING MORE ON THE "CULT" MODEL.Demeter1 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use all caps. It is both annoying and unnecessary. Second, all reliable, published sources refer to it under the name Taoist Tai Chi Society, which is also its name under U.S. and Canadian law as a non-profit. Here at Wikipedia we take a neutral point of view on things, so despite our personal opinions on a subject, we do not take sides in debates and controversies. We also do not give undue weight to fringe points of view, that are not supported by publication in reliable sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC) THAT'S NOT WHAT I DID BY MAKING MY STATEMENT.PLEASE BE MORE CAREFUL BEFORE JUMPING TO SUCH RECKLESS CONCLUSIONS. WHAT IS YOUR RELIABLE SOURCE THAT MY STATEMENT IS FRINGE ? SOUNDS LIKE AN OPINION TO ME. EXPERIENCE BEGATS FACTS. FACTS NEED TO BE CONTINUALLY REVISED. KNOWLEDGE IS AN ORGANIC THING SO A PICTURE OF SOMETHING CAN GROW. RELIABLE SOURCES TEND TO BE REPETITION OF STATUS QUO IDEALS.Demeter1 21:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MANY OF THE ABOVE ASSERTIONS STATED ABOVE ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG.DID YOU CHECK YOU FACTS?

Dear Demeter1:

Perhaps I can help out here on this issue? If I understand your question correctly, you are asking whether this article should mention that this organization is classified as a cult? If so then I think that is a worthwhile discussion for this talk page.

One of the difficulties with calling an organization a cult is that the Wikipedia page on Cults says that there is no accepted definition of what a cult is. That article does however give many different possible definitions of "cult". Perhaps if you can indicate which operational definition of cult would be a useful measure in this case we can hold a discussion on whether that is the best definition for these circumstances and then whether this particular organization fits that definition?

The key thing then will be to find reliable third-party sources that describe this organization as a cult, since Wikipedia does not allow original research, only the reporting of existing research. See Original research for more information on this subject.

Ahunt 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Request: please do not use so many capital letters. It hurts my eyes. :). VanBurenen 12:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can I add my 2 cents to this? I am a member of the Taoist Tai Chi Society. It is not a "cult." No one takes large sums of money, cuts you off from your family, or is menacing to you if you decide not to return. Recently my husband was ill. I didn't attend any classes for 5 months. No one bothered me at all. When I returned they decided to waive my membership fee for the 5 months I was gone. They are laid-back, friendly, helpful -- just a normal group of people. It is non-profit. The instructors are not paid. On the contrary, the instructors have to pay a membership fee the same as everyone else. The fee is used to pay the rent on our building.68.43.236.211 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

When one doesn't attend classes one doesn't pay: what is exceptional about that? That you find that special is strange. Claiming to be "non-profit" status is a bit weird with all the real estate they own. One doesn't become an instructor if one is not a good little soldier. Yes, they are very special. Ego and such. However, the management gets paid handsomely (from your fees) which was not the case in Moy's time. --VanBurenen (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just adding to the subject: I am a current member of the TTCS but wouldn't say it is a cult in terms of exploitation - cults in terms of sociology and psychology is a pet study of mine and it is correct to say it is hard to define what a cult is. In terms of personal cultivation, "perhaps" would be accurate as we are given more resources and aid (such as form corrections) when we either have good form, or might be a good instructor and as an instructor we are told to help others that wish to instruct just in the same way we were helped to be instructors. We are often told to have trust (faith) in the tai chi form and M. Moy. Instructors and admin do form their own little cliche, but this is typically simply because they know each other better having worked with each other more than they have with the less involved members and are usually very welcoming to other volunteers who want to be involved. The society by and large does recognise that when instructors form little power groups then that is a problem that should be addressed (so there is still common sense and it is addressed in a low key manner, unless the member becomes aggressive which seems rare). There is actually very little property really owned by the society, Orangeville is owned by the Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism (FLK) - which is I understand registered as a religious organisation - and large surpluses of pooled society funds are donated to FLK. Internationally, most members get membership to both society and FLK by default (I am not certain if this is the case in Canada though). What the boards of both groups are paid is not discussed within the society, but one day they may be obliged to do so and maybe even democratically elected from the international diaspora one day. At current the FLK & TTCS boards are virtually the same people who are by and large direct students of M. Moy and are all Canadians or former Canadian citizens (this is all as far as I know however...). The newer members who are pro-society as it is (meaning did not ever meet M. Moy), probably would not object to how the society is run or the board is paid as it would not be unique in comparison to other volunteer based charity or non profit groups. We are told as members it is our society that we are a part of, although we don't have direct democratic or shareholder-like voting as individual members. Individual members talk to their branch councils (who are unpaid), which elects candidates (unpaid) to regional and national committees (unpaid) who then sends a delegate (unpaid) to consult with the international society & FLK board in Canada which is at the top of the pyramid. Delegates are typically those who are going to CIT week at Orangeville. (CIT meaning Continuing Instructor in Training, as there is only beginner and continuing level instructors). The delegate may be a paid book-keeper member/instructor, but that would be just coincidental. If that was or was not M. Moys vision, noone will really know. Unlike many other societies, M. Moy (as far as I am aware) did not really leave us with many personal writings or lectures that people could in later years look back to as a definitive reference which would resolve this question. Some of the senior board members I have met do seem to have reduced their ego's (sometimes referred to as "taming the heart") on one level - which is a good thing - but as a few have commented above in some cases it seems to have subtly transferred that same ego focus on M. Moy and the body corporate, so are effectively in the same boat as they were before still firmly rooted in attachment and ego-desire. Its typically an outsider, or someone who keeps their distance who would be able to see when that happens. This is by no means unique - people often glorify even good and honest people beyond reality, saying (eg) "I" was so fortunate to have so and so as a teacher (and) that "we" belong to such a rich tradition (or) "They" were so humble and compassionate role models that I want others to share the benefits that I got (etc etc). Meaning, you would have to ask is it ultimately about the Tai Chi & health benefits or the man (who would have had his own teachers anyway that the society does not focus on directly, as TTCS would simply become a branch of someone elses lineage - which certainly would induce a sense of humbleness). It never really works out by avoiding this question or saying it is both as they cannot really be balanced easily (and generally human nature is not what you could say is usually inclined towards true balance as it is not rewarding to the ego that motivates us). It is subtle and it certainly can still be very ego-indulgent and a small step from there to becoming a worship & ego indulgence centre, not a Tai Chi for health focus. Its not universal however, but often the sign is when it becomes excessive repetition and reinforcement to already established members - keeping the flock if you will. There is I understand a group in the USA called "Moy Tai Chi", but the society officially (it seems) looks at this group as rogues who broke the faith with M. Moy. But you really get these political things everywhere from religions, big political parties down to local small community groups that we would not classify as a dangerous cult, even if we should. I would say the society is fairly low impact and low harm, as it is grounded in Confucian ethics, with sufficient (although fading) Chan Buddhism elements to help reduce the cult potential it already had. The Taoist element rather seems a little coincidental and minor role when you isolate it from the other two, but (practically speaking) calling it a Taoist society does make it stand out more, rather than becoming lost in a plethora of Buddhist & Confucianist or "3 religions" societies. Although TTCS has 3 religion influences, these influences are referred to as Taoist identity (so Confucianist ethics and Buddhist characteristics are being explained to members as "Taoist", or are not being properly identified as other). Strictly speaking, this would be objected to by scholars and members of these religions as it is not Taoist historically, properly or very respectful to the sources. But on the other hand this does not cause too much potential harm, as the factors TTCS absorbed from the other religions are usually ones that give benefit to people anyway (such as ethics, goodwill etc). Its ultimately up to individual members to keep themselves in check and to keep a healthy distance from the evangalist or political extremes and in practice most members do exactly that anyway - politics would logically compromise any health benefits one might gain from the exercises and philosophies. When the current board members pass away (which will happen within a few years or decades) it could be more what would be called M. Moy worship as all the factors are currently in place for such an event to occur, like a religion may elect Bishops to a synod on theological grounds. But this may have been what M. Moy intended or would not have objected to (as previously mentioned, both the society and its opponents unfortunately lack written plans or views from M. Moy about this topic and he did create FLK to serve some central purpose). There will be a stage when there wouldn't be anyone left who actually knew what M. Moy was like but have only what they have been told by the society in terms of member stories (and they are all glowing tributes). I hope that by being open about this subject that people can get a clearer image of the society as it is today. If noone speaks, noone will ever know. 203.59.164.150 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for Deletion

This article was tagged for deletion today by an administrator User:Bradeos Graphon. The tag indicated that the lack of third party refs meant the article's notability was in doubt. I have since added some third party references, a reflist and removed the tags on it. The article could certainly use more references added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re references

The recently added references surely could use some scrutiny. This one: "Scrivener, Leslie. "Marshalling praise for art of Tai Chi", The Toronto Star, Sep 09, 2007" mentions in the article one David Draper. This person mentions the number of TTCS-locations in The Netherlands. He is quoted saying that when he left The Netherlands there were 40 locations. A simple verification (with www.archive.org), using the website of the Netherlands branch over the past years, gives the following numbers: in the fall (around September) 2001:25, 2002:29, 2003:25, 2004:24, 2005:26, 2006:27, and February 2008:31. Clearly nowhere near 40. Through another source I found the other number where this man was quoted was not correct either (i.e. more than one). This person may be trying to boast his own efforts, however, it puts the article in doubt. --VanBurenen (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As in the Moy Lin-shin article that seems to be listed as just a "general" ref and not a paragraph citation, so if it is of doubtful accuracy or value it can be removed! - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Taoist Tai Chi that can be put into words is not really Taoist Tai Chi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.211.114 (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently amended the move set list, I amended move 86 to read as move 30. It was correctly pointed out that to do this I needed to provide a reference. Unfortunately, all the move lists I have seen say that move 86 is called White Snake Turns and Puts out Tongue. However the move performed in any set I have participated in is move 30 - Turn and Chop with fist. I have a book published by the Taoist Tai Society that repeats the move numbers and names but although it states that move 86 is called White Snake etc it in fact describes move 30, complete with exactly the same pictures. Any help regarding the reference and hence the change would be appreciated John.Nurse (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When I learned the set in the early 1980s "White Snake Turns and Puts out Tongue" was taught as being the same as "Turn and Chop with fist", although it has a different name. I have been told that originally the move was different, but Master Moy simplified it at some point. The ref cited Panter, John & Rick Davis: The Art of Taoist Tai Chi - Cultivating Mind and Body, Second Edition 1992, pages 19 and subsequent. Taoist Tai Chi Society of Canada, 1992. ISBN 0-9694684-0-7 which I have a copy of, also continues this tradition. Since we need a new ref to change this and all the refs seem to use the "traditional" name, perhaps it would be better to add a small note somewhere instead? Alternatively, because this is not a training manual and therefore people aren't using this article to learn Tai Chi, then perhaps it is fine as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am relearning the set after a break and actually came here looking for an up to date set list, thinking something had changed at move 86. So for me an explanation would have been useful. I now understand about this not being a training manual, thanks for the reference. With that in mind I think, on balance, that as all the reference material to hand calls move 86 White Snake .. we should leave things as they are. Thanks for the help and guidance. John.Nurse (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Form principles and foundation exercises

I reverted the wholesale removal of these sections, as the tone of the content was not advisory or how-to in nature, and these principles and exercises are what makes Taoist Tai Chi unique when compared to other tai chi schools. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is needed as it does explain how this school differs from others schools. The main thing is that it does not constitute a "how to" manual, as you couldn't take it and actually do tai chi from the descriptions given. It looked like the removals were the first step to removing almost all the content here. - Ahunt (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

The latest additions, see [1], have turned this article into propaganda for the organisation: the majority content of the article apparently and excessively cites from published material from or sanctioned by the TTCS. The paragraph "Health benefits" now claims (this term is used repeatedly) many many benefits, however, text mentioning that these health benefits are not unique to TTCS but are also experienced by practitioners of other tai chi forms has now been removed without motivation. None of these many health claims is referenced. The text also implies that all practitioners will experience these benefits, which is very doubtful. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In adding material from the reference cited I was very careful to indicate that this is what the society claims and not that "it is so". If you read the text carefully you will see that "claims" is used in this manner - that the society claims these are the benefits.

I removed the other text claiming that all Tai Chi provides these benefits, because it was unsourced and I am doubtful that it was correct. I have seen other forms taught that clearly have different aims in mind and show different results. I think it would be a good idea to add some material indicating that these are general benefits of Tai Chi, but it has to be referenced as per WP:V.

I don't believe that the POV tag is warranted, because the text was carefully written to show that these are only claims made by the society and the references are clearly to a publication of the society. The text does not indicate that these claims are correct, just that the society makes these claims, that is NPOV, not a POV. A balance tag would be more appropriete, because what is needed is criticism or counter-claims.

Incidentally I haven't been a member of the society in over ten years, so the intention here is not propaganda, but referenced text from the only book I have on this form. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I did read the additions by User:Ahunt carefully. I have counted at least 26 health related statements under the heading "Health benefits" in the article. Wow. You use the term "claim" quite a few times and by doing that you seem to think that you can quote any number of statements. I have been looking for a clear explanation about using the word "claim". I found in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words that it is an expression to be avoided, because it doesn't "really give a neutral point of view".

The text you removed stated that "Some practitioners find that Taoist Tai Chi improves their health in certain ways. In that sense this form is like all other forms of Tai Chi." Considering that Along with Yoga, tai chi is one of the fastest growing fitness and health maintenance activities in the United States - a referenced sentence from the article Tai chi chuan this fact may be considered main stream.

The text you removed also stated that there are actions in tai chi, such as standing on one leg, which occurs in all tai chi forms, may improve balance [2], and a few more general comparisons. If you do not know that that occasionly standing on one leg is part of the practice of any tai chi form I suggest you look again.

I believe that you think you wrote the text carefully. However, consider a reader who reads that many "claims": most readers do not have enough medical knowledge to even question these "claims". Using the term "claim" is for them the same as if "it is so".

You claim not being a member of TTCS for over ten years, yet you advertise for them on your user page.

--VanBurenen (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So put in the counter-claims and their references as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a way forward on this issue: In scouring through my own library I have found five general texts on Tai Chi. These do not deal with this style, but Tai Chi in general and provide some information on health benefits for all forms. Let me read through them and extract what I can from them. They will not have anything to say about this form, but I should be able to reference statements about what benefits Tai Chi in general is expected to produce. I can then contrast these to the society claims.

As far as saying "this is what the society claims" I can't see much way around that. They claim certain benefits, but provide no scientific proof, so scientifically they remain just unsubstantiated claims. That should not be a problem to mention them as long as they are indicated as claims made by the society. Perhaps I can clarify that, although using the words "claimed by the society" in every sentence makes for a poor prose style. If you aren't happy with what the society claims being included then the whole health benefits section really has to go, because none of it is substantiated outside what the society says.

Regarding your implications that I have a conflict of interest: total disclosure here - I first joined the society in 1985. In 1987 Moy asked me to become an instructor and I taught for seven years. I never held any management, supervisory or board position. I last belonged to the society in the fall of 1998, leaving it just after Moy died. Since then I continue to practice the style he taught, but on my own. I think you can see that this means I have no more conflict of interest in the subject than a Ford-owner writing about Ford cars or a pilot who learned to fly on Cessnas writing about Cessnas. Obviously it helps to have some acquaintance with the subject to be able to write about it, while not working for the organization involved. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the style guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with saying something is claimed, as long as it is attributed to show whose opinion that is. What the style guideline says to avoid is unattributed opinion being passed off as fact. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I come back to this change: [3]. I added: "In that sense this form is like all other forms of Tai Chi." It is clear from the context that that refers to practicing any Tai Chi form for health improvement purpose. Your reaction and objection, as stated: "I have seen other forms taught that clearly have different aims in mind and show different results." Sure, one should not forget that Tai Chi has a martial origin and elements (I think that is what you refer to). However, on many, many websites schools advertise teaching either Tai Chi for health or a combination of health and martial elements. I have never seen a form advertised where health improvement is excluded.
The rest of that text: As with all forms of Tai Chi there are movements that involve briefly standing on one leg, which may improves balance, the many circular movements of the shoulders and wrists may improve suppleness and circulation, learning the sequence of the set movements may improve cognitive function such as concentration, the social atmosphere can sometimes forge friendships and alleviate loneliness and anxiety, and the exercise itself can boost a person's mood and alleviate depression.
In all the forms of Tai Chi that I have seen performed, and if you don't practice them yourself now you can see hundreds through the 'youtube.com' channel, you will see people standing on one leg and perform circular movements of the body. Also the other underlined aspects you will find in other schools (and not only Tai Chi schools but many other sport facilities). I have purposely added the verb "may" since not all people might experience the details. One may find in publications such as PubMed that scientific studies have compared Tai Chi with other types of exercise where Tai Chi is often not significantly better than other sports in attaining specific health improvements. For that matter there are very few if any scientific studies that could be quoted supporting any of the medical claims in the TTCS book. Even the much trumpeted "proof" that Tai Chi improves balance is countered by another study. The other underlined statements, referring to mental health improvement, may be supported by scientific studies of other sports, such as jogging, not Tai Chi.
I am glad to see that you also study books about other forms of Tai Chi. (The Society does not approve of that, especially not when one is an instructor.) In those books you may find health improvement, but once again, few if any scientific studies will support them. One could cite these claims and generously paste them in various articles, the result is that in the end readers will see "claims" repeated. Does that make them more truthful or valid? I think not.
If you are looking through your other books to see if you can back up the claims of the TTCS: that would be a strange way of proving something. Two, or even more sources with unproven claims do not make a claim true. The article Tai chi chuan has a paragraph on Tai_chi_chuan#Health_benefits. It would be better to use that, may be even expand it, and referring to it, instead of trying to reinvent a text. The most you can do in this article is point out how the TTCS form differs from the original Yang style.
I like this statement: "Tai Chi provides a moderate aerobic workout for the entire body. It is simple and great for all ages...", a partial quote from Jess Goodman [4]. That would be enough for me. Other claims are mainly parroted over and over again. --VanBurenen (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay that is useful. I have been through my other texts and have found two that specifically make some health statements for Tai Chi in general. Let me put that together and insert it to the article as an introduction to the health benefits section and then see what you think. I believe this will provide some context and balance to the society claims, which, I think, we both agree is what is needed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new subsection and additional text and refs, plus sectioning and some copy-editing to integrate all the information. All claims and research are correctly attributed as to who is making them and referenced as well. See what you think - does this provide the needed perspective and balance to the article? - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any objections I will remove the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Ok, no objections. Although I think it would be better (my POV) what I wrote above: "The article Tai chi chuan has a paragraph on Tai_chi_chuan#Health_benefits. It would be better to use that, may be even expand it, and referring to it, instead of trying to reinvent a text. The most you can do in this article is point out how the TTCS form differs from the original Yang style." However, that will befor another time, if necessary. --VanBurenen (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

speak or forever hold tongue

The Taoist Tai Chi Society is run mostly by member volunteers. This includes instructors who are not paid to instruct. As any volunteer not for profit organziation there are some paid employees. These people are paid very modest salaries. They work long hours and give tremendous overtime. If someone is teaching a class and an employee ....this happens rarely...but they are not paid during the hours they are instructing. One can be an administrative assistant, go home and have dinner and then on one's own time- instruct as a volunteer. AS already stated most employees of the organization are paid little. If they left their jobs and went to the private sector they would earn much more. This is a not for profit organization. There are no huge salaries. I would ask the person who stated this where he or she is getting their information from. I do not understand the sources and know the information provided to be false. This organization has nothing to hide and their finacial statements do not support what has been said here. Myeyesaresore (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about this subject presently in the article, perhaps you are thinking about the article Taoist Tai Chi Society. What are you proposing here for this article? - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Look alike

Looks very much like TTCS form: dr Qi Jiang Tao's (short bio here: [5]) Taijiquan 47 form:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a-89AoOilM (dr Qi Jiang Tao's Taijiquan 47 form)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Xchg06o4M (dr Chi Chiang Tao practising 47 form in the garden)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoOKKSgEUtY
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U0mLYhmBxg (dr Chi Chiang Tao practising Taiji jian (looks like TTCS sword form)

--VanBurenen (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In the “Squaring the hips” paragraph in the “Form Principles” section, the phrase “when at the rollback or beginning of a posture the hips should be in line with the back or ‘45’ foot,” might be more accurately expressed as, “…hips should be perpendicular to the back or ‘45’ foot.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Huber (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Text belongs in other article

The present article is about the tai chi style. The chapter Taoist_Tai_Chi is all about the Taoist Tai Chi Society. It should be moved there. Also the second paragraph in the introduction starting with "Taoist Tai Chi Awareness Days" should be moved there since it deals with corporate activities. --VanBuren (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the two articles should be merged. Acwilson9 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

From which major tai chi styles was the "Taoist" form developed?

From which of the five major tai chi styles did Moy develop the Taoist Tai Chi form? (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi#Styles .) It would be helpful for this article to address this; I myself cannot because I do not know. Acwilson9 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)