Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Karate


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for mediation discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

The concluding statement is at the end of the page - see.

Initial details

 * Taken from Requests for mediation/Karate, with modifications.

Involved parties

 * Also known as simply "parties" from now on.



Issues

 * Is the history of the Japanese Occupation of Korea pertinent to the article on Karate, rather than the article on the occupation?
 * If so, is the text inserted by the appropriate way to mention it?

Housekeeping tasks
A few things before I can begin.

Consent to Daniel.Bryant being the mediator
Just to be sure that things don't fall off the rails later due to someone raising an objection to me being the mediator, either due to a prior conflict or whateverelse, can the parties listed please just note "Agree" or "Disagree" below.

Declining my mediation does not mean that your mediation request will be rejected. Most likely, another mediator from the Mediation Committee will be along within a week and things will be taken from there. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree melonbarmonster 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Endroit 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree rogueninja 12:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good. Now I can make a start.  Daniel Bryant  12:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity
Melonbarmonster has now been inactive for five days now, and non-responsive to this mediation in around about fifteen days. I have pinged him asking to give his input. If he does not shortly (ie. by Friday), then I will have to close this mediation due to inactivity of the parties. Presumably as he has withdrawn from the dispute/Wikipedia, you would be free to find a comprimise between yourselves. At the moment, looks like it could do quite nicely. Until Friday (ACST) then. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Last call. Will close down in a couple of hours' time, if no response or activity by Melonbarmonster.  Daniel Bryant  06:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, closing now. Thanks to all for their input, to different degrees.  Daniel Bryant  11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Initial Statements
(Blatantly copied from a fellow mediator) I would like to hear both parties' views without complicated discussion in the first instance. To that end, I'd like you both to put a statement below, under your named section. Please don't engage in a detailed rebuttal of the other editor's points for now. I want to get an overview of the situation first.

When we have got to this place, we can then decide exactly what issues are under contest. From there we will hopefully be able to find a solution you can all be happy with.

Basically, a short (couple of paragraphs, maximum) summary of what your opinion is on the inclusion/exclusion of the content under mediation, why you have this viewpoint, and if applicable, what policies and guidelines you believe are relevant. Once this is established, then we can start to work on a comprimise version.

I'm sorry that this may seem complex and drawn-out, but the first 3-4 days are always the worst. After that, it shouldn't take long (only another week, I'm guessing, at maxium) to reach a resolution.

Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  12:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RogueNinja
My argument is that the state of the Japanese occupation of Korea is both PoV, and irrelevant to the article. I would have no qualms about simple having a link at the top saying something along the lines of "For more information on the Japanese Occupation of Korea, please see Korea under Japanese rule." The article is about karate, and the occupation of korea is tangential at best. The effect of Karate on TKD should be the point of that section, and it does not really matter weather the Japanese occupation was characterized by. The section needs rewriting to be more karate centric. Other material should go into the appropriate articles. I believe that per WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:What Wikipedia is not (in particular, not an indiscriminate collection of information), that the inclusion of information pertinent only to non-Karate subjects is something that should not be done. I also believe that is pushing a Korean PoV across several wiki articles. He believes that he is neutral, thus this mediation.

Melonbarmonster
In a section about karate's influence on taekwondo, the historical context behind HOW the early taekwondo masters were exposed to karate is topically relevant and very interesting! The negative aspects of Japanese occupation in Korea(regardless of how we may personally feel about this) is what drove immigration stemming from "economic and social" hardships. This is a historical fact regardless of our personal POV.

I've already compromised my previous edits by reducing my edits to just half a sentence of text and have even included references from University of Tokyo and Japanfocus to document that my half a sentence is existing academic fact:

1. brutality of Japanese rule, please see http://www.cgs.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/workshops_e/w_2004_02_23_e

2. migration caused by social and economic impact of Japanese policies, please see http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2220

Korean taekwondo masters were part of this Korean Migration as documented in above references and this allowed early Korean masters to learn karate and other Japanese martial arts during colonial times. This fact is historically interesting and relevant to the topic of this sub-section and I fail to see the logic behind anyone claiming this is topically irrelevant! Deleting this historical context from the text is unnatural and decreases info content and accuracy of this wiki article.

It seems to me that what's really going on is that some feel uncomfortable about negative mentioning of Japanese rule in Korea period. And while I sympathize with reasons for such sensitivity, historical context(regardless of our personal feelings about this) that can be properly attributed(WP:A)should be included.

And lastly let's not engage in NPOV finger pointing and the like. Certainly, feelings are mutual in this regard which is why mediation was needed in the first place.melonbarmonster 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endroit
Our discussion in Talk:Karate centered around this edit by Melonbarmonster, and his unilateral revert-warring. Most people there agreed that Melonbarmonster's use of the word "brutal" is either too strong or is an WP:NPOV violation. In addition, his source uses controversial terminology such as cultural genocide, which I believe may also be a WP:NPOV violation.

All we need to do in the Karate article is to simply mention Korea under Japanese rule with a wikilink, so that interested people will jump to that article. Words such as "brutal" and "cultural genocide" aren't even mentioned in Korea under Japanese rule, and shouldn't belong in any related article anyways. Melonbarmonster shouldn't go around inserting phrases and sources which violate our WP:NPOV policy.--Endroit 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comprimise versions, Round 1
OK, that's very helpful (those above statements), thanks. I've proposed a couple of simple comprimised versions below. Basically, can the three parties list whether they "agree", "strongly agree", "neutral", "oppose", or "strong oppose" with each of the versions. If we reach a version we all agree on, then lovely, this was a simple fix and we can all move on. If we don't, we'll work on those suggestions which have "support" and "oppose" votes and try and reach a version where we will all support. If you oppose, please briefly note your objection in the discussion section. Suggestions from the parties are more than welcome! Cheers, and thanks again,  Daniel Bryant  06:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Simply the original version.  Daniel Bryant  06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is obviously, the reason we are here, so of course I oppose it. RogueNinja talk  02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes
This version is simply the original one, without the word "brutal" which Endroit identified as being his main issue (NPOV).  Daniel Bryant  06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Yes, its a bit less NPOV, but its still not about Karate RogueNinja talk  02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Implements the template, as suggested by RogueNinja. Because of the more prominent link to the main article using further, the wikilink of occupation is removed. In this version, also removed the whole second part of the introductory sentence that is under dispute.  Daniel Bryant  06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Combination of Comprimise versions II and III.

Discussion
While the spirit of compromise here is commendable, and the proposed text is NPOV, the cited source is centered around a neologism, "cultural genocide". "Cultural genocide" is not listed in the major English dictionaries, and therefore may be a WP:NEO violation. "Cultural genocide" may also be a WP:NPOV violation, because genocide is listed in all major English dictionaries with a completely different connotation, involving "mass killings". There were no "mass killings" involved in Korea under Japanese rule.

There is no need to advocate the use of such a neologism ("cultural genocide") to describe Korea under Japanese rule, especially in the Karate article. If a more relevant or balanced source is cited, I will change my mind. I suggest a source such as the following: --Endroit 22:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tae Kwon Do Techniques & Tactics By YEON HWAN. PARK, p. 12, Published 1997 Human Kinetics, ISBN 0880116447

Mediation concluded
Due to Melonbarmonster's extended break from Wikipedia (10 days), and failure to provide input into this mediation (15+ days), I've closed this mediation (see ).

As a result, it is the consensus of those that gave their input into this mediation that pleases them. As such, this mediation has still been successful as it has found a solution to the problem for those still active and editing the article.

Thank you to all for participating, and I hope I was a help in resolving your dispute. I appreciate any comments the parties may have about this mediation, on my talk page.

As mediation is confidential if required, this page can be deleted if any party wishes it to be. If one of the parties does want it deleted, then please ask me on my talk and I will, per WP:M. Otherwise, it'd be good to leave here and show the good-faith attempt to reach a comprimise, which was successful.

I'll leave it to one of the parties to implement, which forms the successful result of this mediation. I don't mind which, but as a mediator, I wish to maintain my neutrality to (and beyond) the end.

Thank you, again.


 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel Bryant  11:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have missed out.melonbarmonster 18:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.