Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition

Should &#34;Cult&#34; be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute

Second NPOV discussion Talk page discussion
 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Other attempts at trying to solve this issue by asking for outside help. (Going on for about 6 months without consensus)First NPOV discussion

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) Is the term 'cult' along with the various other criticisms in the third body paragraph in the lead appropriate?
 * 2) Essentially, the phrase is linked to one person here, Thierry Dodin, who is involved in a dispute with the New Kadampa Tradition. He ran the "Tibet Information Network", now operates [www.tibet-info.net A pro-tibet website], has no verifiable PHD or scholarly credentials (all that is evident after thorough searching online is that he claims he 'studied at the university of Bonn'), and was a co-editor on one book, which is a collection of other people's essays called Imagining Tibet. Does this give strong enough WP:WEIGHT for the lead and does it violate NPOV? I, along with others  (particularly in the two NPOV board discussions), have thought, based on 1) WP:W2W 2) WP:WEIGHT 3) WP:IMPARTIAL 4) WP:RS 5) He is closely involved in the dispute, as the New Kadampa Tradition is deemed to be at-odds with 'Tibetan Freedom', which Dodin advocates for a living. This is not appropriate for the lead and perhaps not the article at all. It is like having Mao's criticism of the Dalai Lama in the lead of the Dalai Lama. In addition, the list of five consecutive criticisms without counterbalance of favorable views is violating WP:WEIGHT.  have all weighed-in in various ways supporting the criticism of this inclusion and no consensus has been reached as of yet for it since its initial inclusion around November 2014.Prasangika37 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * Why not allow atleast one RfC to run its course?VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this request is premature.  The reason there has been "no consensus" for six months is because a single editor with a probable COI problem refuses to drop the stick and keeps forum-shopping in hopes of a different result. The various comments obtained at other drama boards have run the gamut and are inconclusive.  This request is a waste of everyone's time.  And the filing party cherry-picked his pings, neglecting .  Montanabw (talk)  04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional issue 3

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Dubious. I will only participate if all other parties do.  I agree that there is an RfC on this issue, and mediation is highly unlikely to result in any agreement.   Montanabw (talk)  04:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." In this case, one of the opposing parties has indicated that they do not wish to participate and the other has indicated that she only wishes to participate if everyone agrees, which means that she does not agree. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)