Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-25/Tien Shan Pai

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Tien Shan Pai
Status	closed
Request date	03:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Junzi, User:TeamResearch
Mediator(s)	PhilKnight (talk)
Comment	Re-opening

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Talk:Tien Shan Pai

Who is involved?

• User:Junzi
• User:TeamResearch

What is the dispute?

Editing of the article Tien Shan Pai has been paralyzed due a disagreement on several fundamental issues about Tien Shan Pai. A discussion of those issues is present on the Talk Page, but editors seem to have failed to reach concensus on how to address the following points.

1) Whether Tien Shan Pai is an ancient and unique system, or the invention of a martial artist named Wang who synthesized his knowledge of other arts into a curriculum he called Tien Shan Pai.

2) Whether Tien Shan Pai has multiple generations, in this case a dispute over whether there are over 60 generations, as Wang claimed, or if there are only at most 4, starting with Wang himself as stated by Willy Lin (one of Wang's former students), supposedly with the support of other of Wang's former students (unnamed).

3) Whether a former student of Wang's known as Huang Chien-Liang is the sole lineage holder of the style, or if many of the students of Wang's have a legitimate claim on title of grandmaster (and thus lineage holder).

TeamResearch would like to leave the article as it is. As this editor believes that the article is the result of long negotiation that makes the article palatable to all sides. Junzi believes that the article places too much emphasis on questioning Huang's claims, particularly as Huang has backed those claims up with physical evidence. And that if the article is to question claims made by practitioners about the style, then a paragraph should be added questioning controversial claims made by other modern practitioners (in this case a martial artist named Willy Lin). Alternatively, Junzi proposed removing any direct mention of the controversy from the article, but this idea was met with strong disagreement

What would you like to change about this?

It seems that the discussion is being driven by the agenda or presumption of the agenda of various editors. A rational third party who could come in to suggest a logical resolution to some of these problems would be appreciated.

How do you think we can help?

Clearly, the article should be as fair to all sides of this discussion as possible. Hopefully the mediator can help which ever side is being unreasonable to understand why which ever approach is chosen is the correct one. Or, potentially, there is some other approach that neither editor can see because they are both too invested in the discussion at this point.

Mediator notes

I'm willing to take on this case. Due to the way mediation works, I need both parties to sign below this commment indicating that they'll take part in this case. If either party says "no" or the case is not changed in two weeks, the request will be closed. Thanks, GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 14:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept mediation. Junzi (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Having never been through a Wiki mediation, I unfamiliar with the process. Before I accept this invitation, could you please explain how it works? TeamResearch (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially I'll work with you and Junzi to find a compromise in between your two ideas which works for the both of you and is supported by policy. There are no binding consequences possible, just a friendly attempt to solve your dispute. Accepting or declining is fine, but this only works if both participants are active. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

______

I have two questions for you: How did Junzi happen to get to your name as a potential "mediator?" Do you have any connection at all to TSP, and/or do you have friends who do? These questions being asked, let me say that I appreciate your willingness to take this on, even though I'm not sure this would wind up as a productive exercise. The issues in question arise because we're dealing with what is essentially oral history.

I understand you can inform us as to Wiki policy. However, if there is no flexibility in Wiki's policy (of not accepting corroborative evidence in the form of first person testimony from others who were there at the time...and here we're talking about primary sources who are all in their 70's or 80's, and mostly living in Taiwan), then we have a dilemma before we even start.

It is in TSP's best interest for the "lineage" claim made by only one of Wang's many disciples to be resolved. HOWEVER this should be resolved by the disciples themselves, not via Wikipedia. Wiki contributors are just that, well-intended but with basically "hear say" knowledge, and potentialy vested interests.

TSP is a system that exists, it has existed for over 60+ verifiable years, and it is currently practiced by tens of thousands around the world. For these reasons alone, it deserves a place in the Wiki Encyclopedia.

As I said before, the history of TSP is rooted in oral tradition, and therefore impossible to prove or disprove in an academic sense. I think Junzi and I both alredy acknowledge this. Unless you are able to "mediate" what are essentailly questions relating to the "logic" (and therefore the validity) of each of our "arguments," then mediation may be pointless.

I'll wait for your thoughts before I make a final decision about accepting "mediation." TeamResearch (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a completely impartial mediator. To be honest I've never heard of either of you two users, and don't believe our paths have yet crossed. Junzi posted a request on the main page for the cabal and I took it on. We'll see. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's give "mediation" a shot. What happens now? TeamResearch (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notes

Opened case - GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 14:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Due to my own lack of experience with moderators, I may have posted this to the wrong section of your page before. I'm posting it again:

Having never been through a Wiki mediation, I unfamiliar with the process. Before I accept this invitation, could you please explain how it works? TeamResearch (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We just help party's communicate. There's no obligation on your part, but we do ask that you stay civil and refrain from personal attacks. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So, let's begin. I would first like to state that I have no interest in resolving the lineage dispute that has been going on for some time in the Tien Shan Pai community. I know that it is not something I am capable of, and I am not even sure that Wang's students will be able to resolve the dispute. Indeed, I would have preferred to remove all mention of the dispute from the article in question, or mention the dispute only in passing. However, you (TeamResearch) have stated that you firmly believe that the dispute, specifically a challenging of Huang's claims, should be visible on the page. This seems fine, but then it seems that as both sides have made claims, then both sides should (in the interests of maintaining neutrality) have their claims challenged. I have outlined here the nature of the dispute, and on the talkpage I have outlined the claims by Lin that I feel should be examined as carefully as Huang's claims have been. I believe that if the page is to reflect a neutral point of view, and we are going to be harsh to claims made by one side, then we should be equally harsh to claims made by all sides. Junzi (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The article, as all articles, should follow our neutral point of view policy. TeamResearch, do you have an "opening statement" of sorts? GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 13:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

______

I agree with Junzi’s first sentence. The “lineage wars” need to be settled by all of Wang’s still living disciples… not by Wang’s Disciple's students or well-intended commentators on Wiki.

What I want to talk about is NOT the politics behind the “wars,” but Junzi’s logic, and the looseness (and speciousness) of his arguments… which he, then uses in an attempt to manipulate the discussion surrounding this article... as well as the article, itself. He constantly posits “hearsay” as fact, and then uses these newly-minted “facts” to spin the speculation in ways more to his liking. Despite his protests to the contrary, he has set himself up as a de facto "moderator" for this article...even though he speaks for one side (and in this case, one disciple) alone.

When someone actually examines what is primary source data (as did Bengalsfan09 in his recent post) and tries to make a grounded contribution to move the discussion along, Junzi dismisses their contribution as irrelevant. Is it any wonder that Junzi's commentary is the one that monopolizes this discussion page, and has done for at least the past two years (which is all I can speak to)?

Junzi did the same thing to a posting about a month ago from Justin Chen, (who is actually one of Wang's disciples, who was "there" at the time, who speaks and writes in English, and who was attempting to bring clarity to the discussion.)

On other occasions Junzi has "archived" the discussion (so it's not easy to get to), blanked individual contributions (after the fact), and on one instance, blanked the entire discussion page. His "intention" may have been pure, but his action was decidedly "uncivil." He should have requested arbitration, not taken unilateral action.

I hope you will take the time to read ALL of the discussion (at least on the current “discussion page” since the last “archiving”) so you’ll have a better sense of what’s been going on, and why mediation (at least on my part) has been requested. TeamResearch (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not seeing anything from GrooveDog, so I feel I should respond to what I feel are unreasonable accusations.

First, I would like some specifics to TeamResearch's claim of my use of hearsay, as well as my preference for specious argumentation. Additionally, I think it would then be fair (if TeamResearch demands a retraction of those arguments) that I be allowed to dispute arguments raised by TeamResearch in a similar way.

Second, TeamResearch accuses me of (essentially) cherry picking my evidence. Their point about my dismissing of a point made by Bengalsfan09 is somewhat misguided, as I explained to Bengalsfan09 why their argument was not applicable. I did not simply say that Bengalsfan09 was wrong and provide no reason.

Third, the postings made by someone claiming to be Justin Chen do not present us with any verifiability. It would be one thing of the poster had pointed to some record of writings, a series of newspaper articles, indicating who they were and what their position was, but they did not. TeamResearch would like to use Justin Chen as a citation in the article, but I do not feel that the essentially anonymous posts on the talk page reasonably meet the wikipedia standards of verifiability, and no original research.

Fourth, there is an accusation that I have archived the discussion. This is patently false. The discussion was archived by the user Dave1185, after a series of personal attacks and homophobic slurs were levied over the talk page at myself and at several people affiliated with Huang. (Archived pages can easily be found ). The resulting posts lead to an incident report which was likely how Dave1185 became involved.

Fifth, Individual contributions were blanked because the page had devolved into a series of attack postings, and clear self promotion When those blankings were reverted, an explanation was provided for each removal.

Sixth, yes I blanked the entire page on one occasion. My reason was that the page contained a slanderous remark about Willy Lin, and vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia. (It was the only comment on the talk page at the time).

My interest in mediation has been to improve the article, not involve others in a back of forth of worthless recriminations. I have attempted to avoid personal attacks, and to present the content and conflict as neutrally as possible; however, we are quickly headed in a direction that involves more ad hominim attacks than actual level headed discussion. I am willing to continue with mediation if the focus is on the discussion of the content of the article, rather than the personal feelings of one editor for another. Anything else is a waste of all parties involved. Junzi (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agreed to mediate this with Groovedog. The whole point is to have a 3rd party involved. I await his reply. Otherwise, you're right. This is a complete waste of time.TeamResearch (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Been a bit busy over the past few days but I'm all caught up now. I'm in the midst of reading everything, the article itself, and the discussion. As a note to both of you, mediation does not deal with conduct disputes. Content should be our sole focus. I'll continue studying this and try and provide a further response in the next day or two. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Many tks! TeamResearch (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Restarting mediation

Hopefully, I can be of assistance in trying to resolve this dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

____

Any help you could give would be appreciated!

Some background material that may help understand what is going on: At present there is a lineage dispute going on within Tien Shan Pai (TSP). One camp (which speaks for the senior students and disciples in Taiwan... all men who had personal first hand knowledge of the system’s early history in Taiwan (from the late 1940s-the the present. ) All of these men trained personally under Wang Jyue Jen, the “Grandmaster” of the system. This camp also speaks for Willy Lin, Wang’s assistant and head instructor in Taiwan from 1960-1968. Lin is the person who introduced TSP to this country in 1971. He also “branded” the name TSP through personal appearances and with the publication of his Martial Art books beginning in 1976. Further details relating to this camp’s position can be found on Lin’s website www.linkungfu.com.

The other camp represents positions held by Huang Chien Laing, one of Wang Jyue Jen’s later Disciples (most likely from the 1980’s? Don’t know. He never says when he was given this rank, but we know he was not a Disciple when he was working for Lin as in instructor at Lin Kung Fu Schools in 1974.) Huang maintains that TSP is an ancient style, and that it traces its lineage back for 65+ generations. He also claims he is the only “formal” Disciple of Wang Jyue Jen, and the only legitimate lineage holder of the style (a position verifiably contested and denied by at least six other of Wang’s Disciples, all of whom are senior to Huang.). Further details on Huang’s position can be found on his website www.tienshanpai.org

Clearly Wiki can not resolve a contentious lineage war. This has to be resolved by and between the parties. What we can ask of you, as a Wiki editor, is to make sure there is no double standard operating when it comes to what is allowed to be referenced (which is what seems to determine what “information” can be published) as reliable and true.

I find it highly questionable that the Wiki article is allowed to presently proclaim that, “As evidence of his full, formal discipleship, Huang has said that none of his classmates learned as much of the actual Tien Shan Pai curriculum as he did, that only Huang received the initiatory Taoist disciple name from Wang Chueh-Jen, and that Huang has produced written materials from Wang documenting that the lineage was being passed on through him[15]

The reference-citation which gives this statement credibility links to photos on Huang’s Gallery website page (all undated). In the caption under “The Rubbing Photo,” it clearly states that, “Because he (Huang) was the only formal disciple of Tien Shan Pai upon Wang's passing, Huang thus became the Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai after his teacher's death.” THIS IS NOT A FACT. THIS IS HUANG’S OPINION AND THEREFORE “HEARSAY.” It’s also appropriate to point out, if you don’t know already, that The Tien Shan Pai Organization is not a neutral entity. This is Huang’s organization. Because it is under Huang’s control, it’s pronouncements (as would be expected) will always favor Huang.

The last paragraph in the present article is offensive (and contentious) as well, and for the same reasons. It reads,‘Huang has asserted that Tien Shan Pai is its own style in Chinese martial arts, distinct from other styles included in Wang’s curriculum. In support of Huang’s assertions, he has made available private correspondence from Master Wang where Wang reiterated that Tien Shan Pai is an ancient style. In these letters, Wang also recognized Huang’s tremendous contributions to Tien Shan Pai but expressed regrets about the lack of cooperation and personal attacks perpetuated by Huang’s classmates in the U.S.[4]

In this case, Wiki link #4 is used to support a conclusion that is not born out by the contents of the letters in question. As I have pointed out in previous posts on the Discussion page, the written materials (the letters) from Wang do NOT speak to any lineage holding position designation. They only speak to a warm and caring relationship between the two men.

Obviously, Huang can post whatever he pleases on his website. No one can control that. But we can ask for Wiki to monitor the material that is being slipped onto the page via a back door of legitimate enough looking footnotes, but which, in fact, are unverifiable and unacceptable citations according to Wiki criteria.TeamResearch (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

TeamResearch, the suggestion was made for the article to take an affirmative tone, as defined by WuWeiRen as

each side makes their own positive case, without any direct by name references to the other practitioners and without any challenges to their claims. It means just laying out this is what he says, that is what the other person says. There may be things that you don’t like, or that contradict the claims of the other people mentioned.

To which you responded

I agree that the article should be affirmative.

Thus, you should allow each side to make claims that are found questionable by the other. Lin's bio makes several questionable and potentially self-contradictory claims, but the point of an affirmative tone is that his claim is allowed to stand, and not directly challenged within the article. Likewise, Huang's claims may be questionable to some, but in the interests of maintaining the consensus regarding an affirmative tone, they should be allowed to stand.

If you would like to us to go into greater depth with each citation and piece of evidence, then we should follow PhilKnight's suggestion and go to some other organizations to get a more neutral point of view on what evidence can be seen as reliable and meets wikipedia's guidelines.

For the purpose of discussion, I will point out that hearsay is defined as the gathering of evidence by those not directly associated with an event for the purpose of presentation as fact. The evidence you try to call into question does not meet that criteria as it is physical evidence. Further the statement that you are calling hearsay is not even part of the article.

As to the last paragraph, it is actually a direct report of what is in the letters. There is little to contend about regarding the content of letters in Wang's own handwriting with postmarked envelopes provided. Wang makes direct reference to there being more than 60 generations of the style, he calls out those who "created a new founder name" as violating the sacred traditions, and refers to Huang very familiarly by his disciple name. As to it being offensive. Well, sometimes what is true is not pretty. Junzi (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Junzi, I'm pleased that you are prepared to get a neutral perspective about the citations from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. TeamResearch, would that be ok? PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

___

I have no problem with a neutral perspective either. I welcome it. I would also appreciate input from this neutral party regarding at what point (regarding what is basically an "Oral History") first person primary source testimony that contradicts information presented as factual in the article can be introduced (with an eye to getting the questionable statements either modified or removed.) TeamResearch (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Before we go and do this, however, I think it is only fair to point out that I would like the reliable sources noticeboard to look at all the sources and citations, and not focus their attention only on one or two. This will save everyone time in terms of arguing, and we can get feedback on all sources rather than waste time arguing now and having to bo abck to the group repeatedly. Junzi (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Junzi, to be honest, I'm slightly concerned that asking the volunteers at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to review so many sources in one go could be considered irresponsible. I'd prefer if we limit our request to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to sources that have been the subject of dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

____

Phil- what is meant by "sources that have been the subject of dispute?" Also who are these Relaible Sources Noticeboard editors who are giving their opinions? I took a look at the Noticeboard, and it looks like anyone who wants to can log on and say what they please. So is the function of this Noticeboard "reliable" by consensus, or reliable because it is truly impartial? TeamResearch (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

By 'sources that have been the subject of dispute', I meant the sources discussed above on this page. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard editors are normal Wikipedians, who are willing to give advice about sourcing. I still think getting an outside opinion could be useful. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

___

An outside opinion is the only way to go, or it's more of the same partisan politics as is found on the discussion page at present. The subjects of the dispute (Huang, Lin, the Senior TSP Classmates & Disciples etc.) are the only primary sources left, as Wang Jyue Jen is dead. Are you saying these still living primary sources should be the only ones allowed to weigh in on this discussion? Your thoughts. TeamResearch (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)