Talk:Li style Tai Chi Chuan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page 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!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Taoism Portal
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-23. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I understand why Xcali stuck up what he did but in case anyone reads this, just give me a break. I've emailed my technical director and my local instructor for more information. I'll have it all sorted in a day or so. --Kyle Dantarin 06:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Contents

[edit] Redirects

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Li_Family_style_T%27ai_Chi_Chuan", because of a redirect Li Family style T'ai Chi Chuan. Fire Star 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

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)


The College of Chinease Physical Culture also practice Lee style, the head of college Desmond Murray was one of Chee Soo's high grade students. Unfortunatly the sites does not mention Lee Family System at all, so I don't know if its worth including. --Pfafrich 15:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is way too parochial for inclusion in wikipedia. Clearly written by people who have an interest in the promotion of the lee style organisation

[edit] Sources

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)
Definately needs more sources. -- Medains 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal (information from Feng shou

Proposal to merge to information from Feng shou (which is only taught by the Li school) with this article to form a larger article on the teachings of the Li school. -- Medains 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a fair enough idea to me. The Feng shou page needs a lot of cleaning up, hopefully this can happen at the same time. --Salix alba (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. This article is small, the other (too) big. A merger and some paring of the hyperbole at Feng shou will be helpful. --Fire Star 火星 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC
I've merged the articles, removed some of the more obvious advertising and also included the salvageable bits of Chang Ming Diet into theis article. I think we may also be able to merge K'ai Men into this one. --Fire Star 火星 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

List of people who should be independantly interviewed: Chee soo's wife and Daughter His top 3 students on his death: Desmond Murry, Tony swanson, Howard gibbon ....Top Students who left him when he changed the arts in the early years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.226.155.19 (talk • contribs)

I am still uncomfortable. The style has not spread worldwide as suggested and it is controversial. That it exists now is a fact so it deserves its entry, but all the Lee style entries should be amended to say that there is no proof of lineage prior to Chee Soo/Clifford Gibbs and that a number of issues remain:

1.The style is unknown in China. 2.It not mentioned in any reputable Chinese writings or commentaries on Taijiquan. 3.There are no records or, latterly, any pre-1960s photographic and third-party evidence that one might expect to have been generated from within the system and Chinese martial commentators. 4.The style’s theory of Li energy is at variance with traditional Chinese internal martial practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norfolklad (talk • contribs) 5 Oct 2006.

There are links with China, the International Daoist Society which is the school headed by Desmond Murray is a partner with with the Chinese Weihai Wu Shu Association. I should explain why this is relavant. As the a previuos comment has pointed out Murray was one of Chee soo's top three students (some would say his top student). When Chee Soo died the school split three ways and Murray school is probably the largest, with groups in UK, Germany and France. Since I left the school about 6 years ago the school has undergone rebranding now calling itself Weihai Lishi Quanfa/International Daoist Society/The College of Chinese Physical Culture. Hence its current lack of mention in this page.
History pre-1930's is sketchy. In Chee Soo's books he give a brief mention of its origins, apparently (but verifibly) the style was orignial created by Ho-Hsieh Lee around 1,000BC. The style was very much an internal family system (i.e. not taught to outsiders) which might explain its lack of recognition through the main tai-chi community. The style seems to be specific to the village of Wei Hei Wei a fishing village 200 miles east of Beijing.
Yes there is debates as to whether this is a tai-chi style. It does have a form similar to other tai chi styles, but it also has a a lot more besides so may be closer to Traditional Wushu. I know there has been debates in the UK as to whether it classes as a tai-chi style and prationers don't see eye to eye with the main UK Tai-chi bodies and are not members. The Frech group is a member of the French tai-chi body[1].
There might be a case for renaming the page to Lee Family System which would de-emphesis it as a tai-chi style and more accuratly represent the other aspects. --Salix alba (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At [2] theres a brief discussion of lineage Li Style had the characteristics of the small frame Wu Style, but also some similarities with the medium frame Wu Style. --Salix alba (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I can say that the group does exist and is relatively well known now, at least. They aren't a large group and have most of their followers in Europe, but history issues notwithstanding I had heard of them before I came to Wikipedia, FWIW. --Fire Star 火星 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rename to Lee Family System

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)

i agreewith this.the lee system is more than just tai chi



I disagree with this. Chee Soo never described anything he taught as a 'system', a system is what you use for painting by numbers not teaching Taoism. Lee style Taoist Arts would be a better title, forms of Art are not necessarily systematic. The Lee style is based around practical ways of teaching people about Taoism and this is the single unifying principle behind all of the various Lee style Arts which not only contain self-defence techniques but include Alchemy, Chi Gung, Meditation and Traditional Chinese Medicine. Taoism is a philosophy that is resistant to categorization in its very nature as opposed to Confucianism which was the philosophy of the civil servants. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the True Tao." Lao Tzu - Tao Teh Ching. So why try to fit it into some kind of compartment or category of other objects which it was never meant to be a part of? At least it's being referred to by it's proper name now as 'Lee Style', the corruption of spelling to 'Li' style is a recent invention and none of the people now calling it this ever learnt it under that name but changed it after Chee Soo's death. --Chuangzu 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template on self-published sources

I am puzzled by the template warning about self-published sources. The books are all by someone who is dead and therefore does not run any of the existing schools of this art. And my copy of The Chinese Art of Tai Chi Chuan was published by an imprint of Harper Collins. Man with two legs (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But they were written by the head of the system. A secondary source is an independent documentation of the group by a journalist or author not in the group. For instance, there are claims of an unbroken 3,000 year history for this family style of taijiquan (a bit long, but not unusual, other familes also offer undocumented claims of various ages). Every independantly attested source traces taijiquan, by that name, only back to the 19th century. This is an example why primary sources aren't reliable. They can be mentioned, but not relied on for historical value. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. The books by Chee Soo describe what practitioners of this style do. Even if Chee Soo had missed the point and got it all wrong, what he wrote would still be an accurate description of what goes on now because he was responsible for teaching it in Europe.
  2. The sources given show this style exists and has official recognition. The books by this dead person outline what they do. There is no risk of this information being unverifiable.
  3. The link you followed did not work because the BCCMA has chosen this week to alter its web site. Presumably that problem will go away soon.
  4. I agree that claims of the style being 3,000 years old are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but that is not the main point of the article, and it is accurate to say "it is said to be 3,000 years old" because people are saying that, and the phrase "it is said" is a clear indication of lack of proof.
Why the hell are you so determined to destroy this article? It is not misleading and it is not advocating anything harmful.
Man with two legs (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, WP:AGF. I'm not here to destroy any article, I'm here to make sure that a given article meets encyclopaedic standards. I've been referencing as many tai chi articles as I can lately. This isn't the only tai chi article with serious problems with unsourced info (look at the Chen style tai chi chuan article), and I've been tagging them as well. Policy is clear, without any secondary sources information can be challenged (which the tags were for) and when the tags aren't addressed in a timely fashion it can then then removed by any editor. In effect, there cannot be any article beyond a stub. Chee's books themselves can be mentioned, I suppose, but not as sources for the article. This style, while it may exist, is certainly under the radar when compared with some other styles. There isn't anything, to my knowledge, published about them. Are there any UK periodicals that have published articles about the the style? John Ding's magazine, for one example? That would be a big help. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No further discussion

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Recent Edits

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)