Talk:Taoist Tai Chi Society

Critcism

This article seems to recite the Taoist Tai Chi Society's claims without any rebuttal or criticism, which is odd considering the low esteem with which it is generally held in the martial arts community. (RookZERO 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

The aim is to make the article align with a NPOV, not to present any possible criticism of the Society. What criticism would you include? the matter of the volunteer nature of instructors has been previously settled, and any critcism of its goals is a personal opinion of the larger goal of Tai Chi that is discussed in the main article. and you cant say that its held in low esteem, there are no surveys to back that up. besides, the society is about health and helping people not developing martial skill. most internal martial artists of good standing recognise and respect the differing goals and opinion. VanTucky 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I rm'd the NPOV tag. You may think it is not neutral but one key facet from your objection is missing. If you read the npov page, it says specifically that neutrality means representing equally all published points of view. if you can find a reference that criticizes the Taoist Tai Chi Society that is not included, please rv the deletion. VanTucky 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If the only published sources come from the organization and its adherents, are those sources really neutral? To be truly neutral, you'd have to write "the society claims it is about health and helping people, not developing martial skill." Until that claim is verified, it's only a claim. Speaking of surveys, are there any impartial surveys backing up the health claims of the Taoist Tai Chi Society? Or is this article based solely on information provided by the Taoist Tai Chi Society? Podmonger (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Trademarking

apparentely, if you check out the various sites for the TTCS, the phrase "Taoist Tai Chi" is not trademarked. Is there any changes that should be made to the articles? Are we required to mention it, say in the title of the article for Taoist Tai Chi? VanTucky 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so – the phrase "Taoist Tai Chi" *is* trademarked. See: http://www.taoist.org/content/standard.asp?name=LegalNotice

Dhadams (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so, in spite of what the TTCS has published. The logo of the TTCS is a certification mark, not a trademark. See: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Certification_mark and http://western.canada.taoist.org/copyright.htm . On its own, the phrase "Taoist Tai Chi" is not trademarked, and so its use is not restricted. If you search the Canadian Trade-marks database for "certmark" as current owner name ( http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/trdmrks/srch/tmSrch.do?lang=eng ), you'll find the record of the TTCS certification mark, but no record of "Taoist Tai Chi" as a trademark. "Taoist Tai Chi Society" is trademarked, as is the logo as a certification mark, but not "Taoist Tai Chi". Although Wikipedia's goal of only citing published sources is admirable, self-published sources aren't always reliable. Podmonger (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

edit: Certmark Holdings has recently filed for trademark registration for "Taoist Tai Chi" in the US. See http://www.trademarkia.com/taoist-tai-chi-77827215.html . Podmonger (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Registration was granted 8 February 2011 (ibid) Dhadams (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Taoist Tai Chi" has been used as a trademark in Canada since at least as early as May 1976. It became a registered trademark in Canada on 2014-12-22. Search for trademark registration number TMA892797 at http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/ Dhadams (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hierarchy

Regarding the added information of 2007/05/23: [1], fyi: of the three "Taoist Tai Chi Society", "The Gei Pang Lok Hup Academy", and Fung Loy Kok Institute of Taoism the FLKInstitute is the parent company. The information on the Lok Hup Academy should therefore be added there, not here. VanBurenen 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TTCSlogo.gif

Image:TTCSlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Taoist Tai Chi internal arts of health"

This term has been introduced throughout this article. Where does this term come from? It isn't used by the society, I never heard Moy himself use this term while he was alive and it isn't used in his seminal book The Art of Tai Chi - Cultivating Mind and Body by John Panter and Rick Davis, with Moy Lin Shin, Taoist Tai Chi Society, 1992. The term has been introduced even into the aim and objectives of the society in this article and that usn't supported by the ref cited. I will fix the aims to square with the ref, but please explain where the term comes from and why you think it should be in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In recent years the International Taoist Tai Chi Society, through its board of directors, has moved to assert its trademarks, including ‘Taoist Tai Chi’ and ‘Taoist Tai Chi Society’. Hence reference is now made to Taoist Tai Chi(tm) internal arts of health and Taoist Tai Chi Society(tm) internal arts of health. An alternative phrasing is Taoist Tai Chi(tm) internal arts and methods. Both are acceptable, although we are tending to use the ‘internal arts of health’ or ‘arts of health’ more often. These usages can be found in the 'A Path of Dual Cultivation' publication (2008), see reference 9. As you can appreciate, Taoist Tai Chi(tm) internal arts of health refers more broadly to all the arts Mr Moy taught, and their distinctive character, and not just to the Tai Chi form. The correct use of these trademarks is as described in this para. If possible, it would be appreciated if Wikipedia can conform to this usage. EclectusParrot (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I note on your user page that you acknowledge a conflict of interest in this subject area as per WP:COI. In general Wikipedia does not necessarily use the terms that the organization itself uses, but instead uses the terms that are in common language usage instead. Wheaties may call itself "The Breakfast of Champions", but on Wikipedia we call it cereal, because that is what the public calls it. This is done for clarity and also to avoid making the article look as if it has been written by people involved with the organization which is the subject of the article, as per WP:SPAM and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Essentially Wikipedia is not here to promote the subject and use subject-organization approved language, but to be a neutral encyclopedia and use common language instead. As it stands the repetitive use of this term in the article appears very spammy and like it has been added by the organization itself as promotion. I don't have a problem with using it once along with an explanation that this is the term the organization uses, but then the more common term "Tai Chi" should be used. Also I can't find a ref for the use of this term, if it is the organization's preferred term then it should be used on their website or somewhere other than one paper book, so we can cite the use of it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For an example of use of 'arts of health' see http://www.taoist.org/content/standard.asp?name=Testimonials_Summary. Various examples can also be found on the Society's blog http://www.thetigersmouth.org using the search facility. The Society has now updated http://www.taoist.org/content/standard.asp?name=AimsandObjectives to also reflect this usage -- previously this page was using 'arts and methods'. As stated earlier, either is acceptable but the Society is now more commonly using '(internal) arts of health'. EclectusParrot (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting - it looks like that latter link was updated in the last day. Okay let me rework the article to incorporate that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have completed that and also removed the para on trademarks. It isn't relevant encyclopedia content unless it has been the subject of a dispute or some similar notable reason for including it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)