Talk:Zhaobao Taijiquan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Zhaobao Lineage

As I understand it, the traditional Chen geneaology places Jiang Fa as a contemporary of Chen Wangting. As far as Wang Zongyue goes, the controversy is whether he modified the taiji of or simply learned from the Chen family during the Ch'ien Lung period (1736-1795), so it is the extent of his role that is debatable, not his time of influence. VanTucky 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone doubts my changes to the lineage description they only need look at the video of Zhaobao jia on Chenstyle.com or google some pics of the postures to see that it is obviously linked to Chen Style. In addition, as the previous edits mentioned, the Chen family has plenty of documentation to prove the lieneage. Besides, I think the older accepted lineage of Zhaobao should take precendent over Yang family records. Not to disrespect Yang tai chi or its practitioners, I myself having been one for years.VanTucky 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of room for doubt about any of the lineages before 1800-1820 or so, unfortunately. There isn't even an attestation of the name Taijiquan itself before 1850. The best we can do is report the notable stories from the Chens, Yangs, etc. and let the readers sort it out. --Fire Star 火星 03:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to consider is that this article is about Zhaobao Taijiquan and not about Chen Family Taijiquan and it is important to write an article that is written from the school's point of view and not from another school's point of view. Please reference your sources from Zhaobao sources otherwise I will have to revert the article back to its original description. I only have two books about Zhaobao style that are written by academics associated with the style, so I consider them to be of reasonable authenticity. We cannot say that because one style looks like another style then they must be the same thing, if you read extensively about Zhaobao Taijiquan you will see that in fact although related they have quite a different approach to technique and application. Realtaichi 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. If you read the code of conduct of Wikipedia, it clearly states that articles are to be presented in a NEUTRAL point of view. if people went around writing articles solely from the point of view of their subjects, politicians could get away with doctoring thier votng records and the Klu Klux Klan would be described as a peaceful political advocacy group. But, having made that point, it seems I was wrong taking Chen records as the sole source of my modifications to the article as well. It would be wrong to write articles simply from the point of view of the peers of a subject as well. So why don't we compromise, sound good?VanTucky 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically, all I changed was the wording. I think it needs to be acknowledged that Zhaobao does share many deep influences of Chen, but that it is an original system. VanTucky 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is difficult to write about controversial subjects from a neutral point of view and when starting the article I was very conscious that there is much disagreement over the authenticity of the Zhaobao style (as there is with my own style Wudang Tai Chi Chuan), so I thought the best approach was to attempt an article from the school's own point of view (again as I did with my own style), otherwise it is too easy to get embroiled in much heated discussion. If we can find sound evidence that the Zhaobao style shares "deep" influences from the Chen style, then that is fine. Remember, according to the Chens all Taijiquan shares deep influences from themselves, but in my opinion this is clearly not true!

It also reads in the Five Pillars that we must cite sources and I realise that this is very difficult when it comes to the Zhaobao style, but equally we shouldn't, I feel, simply resort to saying something that could be construed as Chen style propaganda.

My suggestion is that we write an article about Chen Qingping and in that mention his background and input into the Zhaobao style, I think that would be more appropriate and more likely avoid any conflicts, and in the meantime try to make the Zhaobao Taijiquan as neutral as possible with cited sources. Maybe we can write two or more different points of view, each with a title. For example, the Chen family theory and the Zhaobao school theory, what do you think?

Please let me know if you are interested in working on a Chen Qingping article with me and hopefully we can put this baby to bed.

Realtaichi 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine. You're also right about the citation neccesity. I really am not that adamant about pushing the "Chen influence on contemporary Zhaobao" point of view personally, but I think both sides need to be mentioned for fairness sake. But as it stands, the Zhaobao article is good. It probably needs expansion on training and where to find schools around the world rather than more debate on lineage. and I think the Chen Qingping article is just one of many that needs to be written on notable practicioners/teachers of all styles.VanTucky 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)