Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Should the term "Cult" be used in the lead of the page New Kadampa Tradition?

New Kadampa Tradition page usage of &#34;Cult&#34; in Lede

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


 * Articles affected by this dispute

First NPOV discussion Second NPOV discussion Talk page discussion
 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

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.


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * There is still an active RfC. The first RfC on this issue.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No.. RFC is closed. There were no responses other than the usual subjects (you, me, Montanabw). Prasangika37 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC is not closed.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)