1. Chumchum7 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Piotrus (talk · contribs)
3. Poeticbent (talk · contribs)
4. Mariaflores1955 (talk · contribs)
5. Robert Warren (talk · contribs)
6. Bolekpolivka (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• 1st Armoured Division (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Example link 1. Attempt by Mariaflores1955 to offer verification of the 'War Crimes' thesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1st_Armoured_Division_%28Poland%29&action=historysubmit&diff=331088461&oldid=330957117
• Example link 2. Attempt by Robert Warren to offer verification of the 'War Crimes' counter-thesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1st_Armoured_Division_%28Poland%29&action=historysubmit&diff=331468143&oldid=331458527

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. During World War Two, 1st Armoured Division (Poland) was a unit fighting under Allied High Command against the Germans in Normandy in 1944. Some editors want to put a 'War Crimes' section in the article, based on a book by a credible historian named Stephen Ambrose, which uses hearsay to suggest a Polish murder of German POWs commanded by Walter Model may have taken place at Hill 262 in the Battle of the Falaise Pocket. The editors say two other credible sources seem to support Ambrose's case. No court has ruled that war crimes took place. Other editors have raised WP:REDFLAG and WP:Libel issues (the alleged war criminals may be living persons). A third party have called for a note on the allegations to be included by Wikipedia, without Wikipedia asserting that a war crime took place. Ambrose's allegation itself seems to be verifiable, though (i) I haven't yet seen the passage in which he personally alleges war crimes took place, and (ii) it may be in fact that he is quoting another party as alleging war crimes took place, or (iii) he may be quoting another party alleging that war crimes may have taken place. Conspicuously, the alleged Polish massacre of German POWs took place just days after a verifiable German war crime known as the Wola Massacre of Polish POWs in the Warsaw Uprising, where it is verifiable that Walter Model was in action just two days before he fought the Poles in the Battle of the Falaise Pocket. Editors with a Wikipedia record in Polish military history and editors with a Wikipedia record in German military history are seeing bias in each others' edits. Edit wars have very nearly broken out.

• Issue 2. Please consider that I am aware mediation is a further step beyond Wikipedia:Requests for comment. To explain my rationale calling for mediation: we're on the verge of accusing living people of murder. This requires extremely serious attention in order to rule out any legal risk. This is not just an intellectual debate between editors about content, it is also about Wikipedia's relationship with the law. We should be able to keep our own house in order before provoking a public threat from the likes of Carter-Ruck. Hope that explains my reasoning.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1. Many things can be said in a book of history. For example, that the soldiers swore to have seen Jesus descend on the battlefield with a rifle, wearing an army uniform. A book of history can say that, but no encyclopedia can. We’re told (with no link to confirm anything) that Ambrose included in his book a statement by a man called Walters who spoke with an unidentified Polish captain (whomever, why a captain) about the alleged atrocities. There’s NO official confirmation by any judicial or military source whatsoever. Even more disturbing is a bizarre reference to an outdated BBC newsbyte spreading false information about Jedwabne (see talk). --Poeticbent talk 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Chumchum7 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Poeticbent talk 22:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Robert Warren (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Provided the rest of the parties agree, I think mediation is appropriate in this case. Andrevan@ 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Not all parties agreed to mediation within a week of filing. AGK 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Voila-pourquoi (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs)
3. Flyer22 (talk · contribs)
4. Claireislovely (talk · contribs)
5. TheRingess (talk · contribs)
6. Rectitudo (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Orgasmic_meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OneTaste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OneTaste#Proposed_merge
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orgasmic_meditation#Edits_of_22_Nov.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orgasmic_meditation#Request_for_Comment

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. Whether to merge this article under that of the organization One Taste. The underlying question is whether the subject of this article is a *term* used by a only by particular organization or a *practice* which is taught and promoted by that organization, but which also has sufficient notability to merit its own article. Some editors involved have maintained that through television news reports, mentions in books, and international press coverage, including some that focus more on the *practice* of Orgasmic Meditation than the *organization* of One Taste, sufficient grounds for notability have been established. Others maintain that since all discussion of the practice also mention the organization, the article on Orgasmic Meditation should be merged into the article on OneTaste
• Issue 2. Several sources discuss or mention the practice of Orgasmic Meditation but are not primarily about it. Some editors have maintained that these sources merit inclusion in showing the breadth of cultural references to this phenomena. Others maintain that only sources that are principally *about* Orgasmic Meditation can be cited in an article on the topic

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Voila-pourquoi (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Decline. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Decline TheRingess (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Decline Rectitudo (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties agree to mediation. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel[reply]

1. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Kate Winslet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Link 1:[1].*Link 2:[2].
• Link 3:[3].
• Link 4:[4].
• Link 5:[5].

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1- User:Wildhartlivie seems to believe the Kate Winslet article belongs to User:Wildhartlivie, and has consistently indicated that the "year and a half" which Wildhartlivie has spent on the article gives Wildhartlivie more authority over the article, than more junior editors.
• Issue 2.- Though the reviewing editor noted that a series of my edits were good, Wildhartlivie reverted my edits and left messages on my talk page and the article's talk page citing Wildhartlivie's poor health and hard work as reasons that I shouldn't get involved in editing the article.
• Issue 3.-Wildhartlivie accused me of intentionally attempting to jeopardize the GA process, and demanded on multiple times that I explain my intentions and explain why a editor who I have worked with in the past spoke up on my behalf, suggesting that I was inappropriately canvassing.
• Issue 4.-Fearing that Wildhartlivie might be right, as I've only been through one GA process, and that I might jeopardize the GA status, I asked what the whether the other editors thought I should back off from the article, three or four editors said yes, citing all the work Wildhartlivie had done. I thanked them for their opinions and in accordance with consensus backed off. Now that the GA status has been obtained, I have returned to the article to work on one section in particular, and am facing even harsher hostility from Wildhartlivie. It's not that I particularly must edit this article, it's that I am shocked that an editor is able to bully off other editors and prove to be an obstacle to the article's improvement. I am not finding a genial editing environment on the Kate Winslet article as I've found on other WP articles.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1- User:Nehrams2020 offered that we should all bypass the disagreements and refocus on the article, remembering to maintain good humor. User:Wildhartlivie's next edit seemed a complete dismissal of this, cutting and pasting a comment I had left on the page of a fellow editor. I hope somebody can talk to Wildhartlivie and also clean up the talk page from all the personal stuff that is cluttering it up. Thanks for your time.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Do not agree. This editor stepped in during the middle of a good article review to start rewriting the article, which effectively put the GAR in jeopardy. He has repeatedly refused to respond to why he would willingly jeopardize a GA review and why he would try to insert a rewrite 2 days after the article passed GA. There is nothing under dispute here except why an editor would willingly take action that undermines a GA review or status. The diffs presented do not show an effort at resolving anything. He refuses to answer direct questions regarding his motivation to render a stable article unstable during a quality review, while not even discussing it beforehand or participating in the GA nomination. That is the only thing that requires clarification here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties agree to mediation. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My regards, people from Wikipedia, and congratulations for the great idea Jimmy Wales had. My User name is Pablo Zeta, and I am from Argentina. Forgive me for bothering you, but I have an editing dispute in the Wikipedia in my mother tongue, Spanish, and I don't know where to look for guidance. I file this request in the Wikipedia in English because I don't want my request to be intercepted by the two users/guardians I have the conflict with. The main problem is that I read the article about "White race" in your Wikipedia and I saw that my country is considered "White" because of his population being mainly of European ancestry -this is no news to me, I already knew it- and so I checked what was written in the same article in the Spanish Wikipedia, entitled "Blanco (persona)". There, in the regions and countries considered "white", Argentina and Uruguay -our neighbour country- were not included- so I included both. I considered not necesary to give referencies because this information appears in any geography book, but some editors didn´t agree and my edition was reverted. I agreed with one of the editors that, if I gave referencies of my sources, he wouldn't revert my editions. So I did , but this is when two new editors -one Chilean "JCEstepario", and another Spaniard "Ferbr1"- appeared. This two guys think they are owners of Wikipedia because they reverted all my editions arbitrarily, even when I referenciated them, and they answered that the concept of "white" had to be discussed first and we had to get to an agreement. I wrote all my argumentations in the talk page of the article, but they alleged that they were all "relative, depending on the point of view". I sent JCEstepario some proposals for edition of the page, but they have even refused to publish them in the talk page. Besides, I think I can be given a certain credit for living in the country I am writing about. Please, give me some guidance of what I should do in a case like this, I think the Wikipedia in Spanish deserves to have an article as good as the one you have in English, and not to have as editors two people who believe that Wikipedia belongs to them.--Pablozeta (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pablozeta (talk · contribs), filing party
2. JCEstepario and Ferbr1 (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Blanco (persona) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the Wikipedia in Spanish language.

• Example link 1.
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. Regions and countries considered "white" because of their population
• Issue 2. Expansion of the white population; sections Latin America and Australia/New Zealand.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Pablozeta (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Rejected - The Mediation Committee cannot formally accept cases from other wiki's. Prehaps approaching the Mediation Cabal is a good idea. However for mediation to work, it needs all parties to participate.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sanam001 (talk · contribs),
2. Anandks007 (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Example link 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#A_neutral_solution_for_dispute_resolution

• Example link 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Another_content_dispute_resolution_option

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. The present content has primary definition of nayar which is non-generic, non-inclusive is not a comprehensive primary definition.
• Issue 2.Content has peacock terms and requires further anthropological and historical accuracy.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Sanam001 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree: First, a thorough discussion should be conducted and third party opinion should be invited. Formal request for mediation is the last resort and used only when all other options are closed. Axxn (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Reject Not all parties have agreed to mediation.

For the mediation committee - Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Virginvoice (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) - opposed to addition of link

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• News and media sources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Example link 1.
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. Inconsistent Wiki policy regarding what is allowable news and media sources links
• Issue 2. Legitimate news source http://virginvoices.vi/Home being denied listed under news and media sources

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1. News and media link http://stthomassource.com/moved.php is not allowable yet has been listed
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Virginvoice (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Virgin voice, are there any other parties to this dispute to invite to this request for mediation? Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Myself. The link is not a quality link and is considered spam, in my opinion. The link has low or no value. Dawnseeker2000 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected No previous dispute resolution. For the mediation committee - Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Example (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Avraham (talk · contribs)
3. Debresser (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Basically anything connected to Judaism

• [6]

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• I have grave concerns that Debresser and Avraham and one or two others are operating as a tag team to assert ownership of a series of articles concerning Judaism, in contravention of WP:OWN. Their behaviour includes
  • reverting any major edit I make, even breaking 3RR to do so, [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
  • blanking pages they dislike, so that they don't have to face the will of the community at AfD ([14][15][16][17][18][19])
    • even talk pages ([20] [21][22][23][24])
  • moving an article [25] and then wiping the content and replacing it with something else appropriate to the new title [26]
• encouraging stalking [27][28][29], and explicitly refusing to comply with Wikipedia:Canvassing [30]
• making general claims about me, rather than pointing to specific edits or content they have issue with, despite repeated requests ([31][32][33][34])
• insistence on primary sources instead of secondary ones
• incivility [35]
  • hostile campaigning against me [36]
• forum shopping - using pages where they think they will find like minded support, rather than article talk pages or my talk page to raise issues [37][38][39]
• trying to suppress certain viewpoints ([40][41]) while giving undue weight to their own ([42][43])

I would like someone who is Not Jewish, nor interested in the bible or Judaism - basically a disinterested observer - to perform the mediation.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Newman Luke (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree - User is already the subject of an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. -- Avi (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Furthermore, the main issue is not one of content, but of User:Newman Luke's behavior, so an RfMed is not the proper venue. The RfC is, which is why it was filed. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   RFM is for ANY mediation. I'm surprised you are so unwilling to try that first. Instead of talking about changes on article talk pages, you do it on AN/I. Instead of going to mediation, you go to RfC. Why is that? Why so much unwillingness to follow the official dispute resolution procedure? Its almost like you don't want to resolve the dispute, you just want to impose your will. Newman Luke (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties agree to mediation. For the mediation committee yo, Xavexgoem (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sanam001 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Anandks007 (talk · contribs)
3. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Example link 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#A_neutral_solution_for_dispute_resolution
• Example link 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Another_content_dispute_resolution_option

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1.After WP:30 and multi-party consensus check disputed parties have not arrived at a consensus on the primary generic definition of nair that is comprehensive and representative of all distinct un-connected lineages within the community as described by social scientists
• Issue 2.Present content has peacock terms and requires indepth investigation of anthropological and historical accuracy of the content based on research articles by social scientists especially all efforts to discuss a consensus on Kshatriya-Sudra terminology has failed .

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.The content issue is complex and sensitive and requires scientific validity of research references of either parties with dispute to be examined by an expert in anthropology.
• Additional issue 2. All alternatives except formal mediation have failed to negotiate the content dispute.WP 30 and multi-party discussion have all failed.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Sanam001 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree - Clear 3O consensus on talk page. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties agree to mediation. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ Bethel Lutheran Church (Manassas, VA)))

1. Binksternet (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Wayiran (talk · contribs)
3. Kurdo777 (talk · contribs)
4. BoogaLouie (talk · contribs)
5. CasualObserver'48 (talk · contribs)
6. Work permit (talk · contribs)
7. Skywriter (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• 1953 Iranian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• CasualObserver'48 filed a Third opinion request on March 6, 2010. User:Work permit responded. Kurdo777 challenged the role of Work permit saying that "nobody has requested mediation". He indicated that he would not accept "a monologue among a group of like-minded editors" as consensus.
• SnowFire asked for help at the Content noticeboard on June 21, 2009. User:Binksternet responded. A reworked lead section was discussed with no consensus reached over the next eight months.
• SnowFire asked for help at the Neutral point of view noticeboard on June 20, 2009. No response.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Whether the United States was truly worried that Iran was in danger of falling under the Soviet Communist sphere of influence, or whether stated US fears were only a smokescreen for the American wish to profit from Iranian oil production.
• Is George Lenczowski's 1990 book American Presidents and the Middle East a reliable source for the article.
• Is Arshedir Zahedi's May 2000 letter to The New York Times a reliable source.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Is the consistent exclusion of certain RS’d notable content acceptable, despite the authors themselves being accepted; this remains a long-running dispute, as noted above in previous mediation attempts, as well as more recently here. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether factors other than desire to control Iran's oil played a part in motivating the US to organize a coup in Iran. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether factors other than bribes, propaganda and false-flag operations by the US and UK played a part in the success of the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. BoogaLouie (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Work permit (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When notified of the request for mediation, I was not directed to this page for comment. I was directed to another page [44] where I did comment about the much broader problem with references. I am not experienced with Wikipedia admin procedures such as this and did not know a vote was required.Skywriter (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were given the correct link in this notice... the link to this exact page. It does not matter, though, as your agreement would have made five of seven involved editors agreeing to mediation, when all seven were needed. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error. I was directed to and commented here.[45]. I just clicked the link on my talk page and nothing else. I do not understand why you can not accept on good faith that I was not aware that a vote was needed on a separate page. It is possible that the other people did not know that either. Skywriter (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is water under the bridge, man. I gave everybody the exact same link... yours was in this notice that I posted—you can clearly see the link in the notice is to this page we are on now, the actual mediation page. Another proof can be seen at the "what links here" page. One final proof is that there is no link anywhere on your user talk page that points to "Wikipedia talk" on any subject whatsoever. Four editors figured it out and signed, three editors did not sign, and I do not pretend to know whether they figured it out or not. Even if one of them did not sign, it would have halted mediation. Don't worry about it. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties have voiced their disagreement explicitly on the list within a reasonable timeframe. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. OberRanks (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Mk5384 (talk · contribs)
3. Father Goose (talk · contribs)
4. Postoak (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• John J. Pershing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Talk:John_J._Pershing#Dispute_over_presentation_of_nickname: Extremely lengthy and multi-section talk page discussion. All views presented, debated several times, still no agreement.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Should the nickname "Nigger Jack" be displayed in the bio-infobox at the start of the article. One side of the dispute states this is cited material and that it is a violation of WP:CENSOR to remove it. The other side states that this nickname is already covered in the article and that there is no need to display a racial slur in the info-box.
• it has also been suggested that the entire nickname section be removed, eliminating as well the nickname "Black Jack"

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. OberRanks (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Postoak (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. Mk5384 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Decline mediation, for my reasons here.--Father Goose (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties agree to mediation. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. EGMichaels (talk · contribs)
3. Bus stop (talk · contribs)
4. Cush (talk · contribs) Removed by rquest
5. Lisa (talk · contribs)
6. Afaprof01 (talk · contribs)
7. PiCo (talk · contribs) Removed by Request
8. Griswaldo (talk · contribs) Removed by Request
9. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs)
10. Ben Tillman (talk · contribs)
11. UberCryxic (talk · contribs)
12. Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs)
13. Hans Adler (talk · contribs)
14. Nefariousski (talk · contribs)
15. HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs) removed by request
16. Deadtotruth (talk · contribs)
17. Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)
18. Aunt Entropy (talk · contribs)
19. JzG (talk · contribs)
20. Noleander (talk · contribs)
21. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
22. David Eppstein (talk · contribs)
23. Keahapana (talk · contribs)
24. Ed Poor (talk · contribs)
25. Ἀλήθεια (talk · contribs)
26. Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)
27. Akhilleus (talk · contribs)
28. Grantmidnight (talk · contribs)
29. NickCT (talk · contribs)
30. Johnbod (talk · contribs)
31. Labattblueboy (talk · contribs) removed by request
32. Reboot (talk · contribs)
33. Aindriahhn (talk · contribs)
34. Plumbago (talk · contribs)
35. Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
36. Gabbe (talk · contribs)
37. Tediouspedant (talk · contribs)
38. Jfdwolff (talk · contribs)
39. Swift as an Eagle (talk · contribs)
40. Masterhomer (talk · contribs)
41. Avraham (talk · contribs)
42. Newman Luke (talk · contribs)
43. Mk5384 (talk · contribs)
44. History2007 (talk · contribs)
45. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) THIS ISSUE IS UNRESOLVABLE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT GENESIS, IT'S ABOUT THE DUAL MEANING OF THE WORD "MYTH" Removed by request
46. Quietmarc (talk · contribs)
47. Dweller (talk · contribs)
48. Mildly Mad (talk · contribs)
49. DVdm (talk · contribs)
50. dave souza (talk · contribs)
51. Agathman (talk · contribs)
52. Garrettw87 (talk · contribs)
53. The C of E (talk · contribs)
54. Rossnixon (talk · contribs)
55. AuthorityTam (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Genesis creation myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• RFC
• ANI
• Declined ANI
• Survey
• survey 2 ( We have a possible result on this 'survey' now.)

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. Whether it is necessary and proper (advisable?) to include Creation Myth in the Title of Genesis Creation Myth
• Issue 2.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1. Whether it is appropriate to change the title of the article to ' Creation according to Genesis->Genesis creation myth->Biblical creation->Genesis creation narrative->Creation in Genesis OR Biblical creation myth
• Additional issue 2. Whether the scholarship of religious groups can be used as reliable sources for positions of said religious groups.
• Additional issue 3. Whether the term "myth" is sufficiently distracting that editors should avoid using it in titles unless its formality is readily apparent; whether the term "myth" should be considered similar to the term "cult" and used only with the same care; whether WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Religion be updated (contrast WP:WTA#Myth and legend).
• Additional issue 4. Whether enough votes have been recorded in the survey 2 to gain a 'stable' result.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Masterhomer 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree Uncle Ed (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. EGMichaels (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. (However, I would appreciate a clarification of what "additional issue 2" is supposed to be about. I am not aware of such a dispute.) Hans Adler 03:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree. Ἀλήθεια 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. to issue 1 - the use of the term "Myth" in the article title. I am in agreement with Hans Adler that I am unaware of specific disputes regarding additional issue 2. -- Avi (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Am I a party? I have an opinion but I don't think I've edited the article. However, if this finally nails the endless pushing for a rename then I'm all for it. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Disagree. Notconfirmed as a "myth" The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree. Ooops, misred that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Take my name off the list. This debate is not about whether Genesis is a "myth", it's about the meaning of the word "myth" itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Chit chat removed.) AGK 22:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15. Disagree - simply because I am not editing frequently and do not wish to hold up proceedings. Mediation can continue without me if necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No longer a listed party. AGK 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16. AgreeMk5384 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Agree NickCT (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Agree Aindriahhn (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Agree Quietmarc (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Agree Grantmidnight (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Please take my name off the list - I won't be editing this article any more. (That should make Lisa happy! :) No hard feelings, but this just goes on and on and... PiCo (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No longer a listed party. AGK 23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22. Please take my name off the list - I won't be editing this article any more. (That should make Lisa and Weaponbb7 very happy) this whole creationist/religionist POV-pushing has gone way too far · CUSH · 10:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Agree. This is solvable potentially. Although I'm pessimistic. The mediator will be well-advised to ensure everyone holds their tongue when labelling others (eg "creationist") as it's most unhelpful. If everyone can remember that all of us merely want Wikipedia to be the best it can be within its own definitions, policies and guidelines, we can get somewhere. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Disagree. RFC would probably be a better option, but this is one of those articles destined to draw eternal controversy.UBER ^(talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Agree. --AuthorityTam (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Disagree. I don't see why making a one-time comment on an RFC should cause me to have to be involved with this article on a longer-term basis. So please carry on without additional input from me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Agree. SAE (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Agree. --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Agree Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Disagree. There is nothing to mediate. Consult a dictionary. The article title is highly appropriate and by definition compatible with all points of view.

    How come I was not notified about this, although my name is on the list? DVdm (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties accept mediation. For the mediation committee Xavexgoem (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Hang on, not all the "parties" are actually parties. I think it might take a little while to shake that out. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outside comment) I'm inclined to agree - we have one user that believes they are not a party, and the other user that has disagreed has explicitly said "carry on without me". Give it a while for people to figure out where they are. It seems like we have people from all sides coming forward, so perhaps this should go ahead with the willing majority even if some decline to participate. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outside comment) Yet, they're still monitoring that page !

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good heavens. What's actually happening here? Are all fifty-five editors to be listed parties to this mediation? If we're going to proceed to mediation with a list of parties as lengthy as this one, we'll almost certainly need to appoint a representative (cf point 3 of this) for each school of thought in the debate and have only that representative engage in dialogue. With tens of editors yapping away, we'd get nothing done. AGK 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. tao2911 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. David Starr 1 (talk · contribs)
3. Jason Riverdale (talk · contribs)
4. Devanagari108 (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Adi Da (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Example link 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adi_Da/ see "third party dispute"
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1. David Starr 1 was not involved in editing for some months during which a lot of editing took place, with editors with differing viewpoints reaching consensus. Starr 1 appeared without comment or stating position and placed a POV alert tag on page, and has since been uncooperative in making consensual edits in order to remove POV label. David Starr 1 is a follower of controversial religious leader profiled in page, and is unwilling to allow proportionate material explaining reasons for this figure's controversial reputation, as reflected in dozens of tertiary sources.
• Issue 2. Tao2911 will not allow Starr 1 to remove cited information regarding profiled figure, and there is a disagreement regarding "proportionality" of sources re: "controversial" info; also dispute re: viability of sources, with Tao2911 generally fighting to maintain sources, and Starr 1 trying to remove those he sees as negative toward subject, despite contextualization of source info.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.

Tao 2911 misrepresents my position with regards to Adi Da. My statement regarding this has been posted at my user page [[46]] since August 2008.

Adi Da founded the new religious movement called Adidam. He also became a critically acclaimed artist and writer. There are many things to cover about his life and work. A part of his story has to do with public controversy that arose in 1985.

It is alleged that in January 1985, disgruntled former members of the Adi Da church sent the church a letter demanding $5.2 million dollars. They said that if their demands were not met, they might "undertake to destroy" the church. (Source: MIll Valley Record, April 17th, 1985, "Da Free John Sect Sues Ex-Members on Extortion Charge") In April of 1985, a local media campaign that lasted a few weeks announced the filing of a lawsuit that the media was calling the "sex-slave suit". The lawsuit affadavit was the source of many salacious claims and asked for 5.2 million dollars. The Sausalito attorney who wrote the affadavit , David Cunningham, who resigned from the bar in 2001 in the face of misconduct violations , later died broke, a transient, and before Marin County authorities could bring Fraud charges against him in April of 2006. (Source: Marin Independent Journal , May 2 2006, "New Twists in Case of Tiburon Bleeding Death" ) The lawsuit was later thrown out of court due to lack of evidence, but a settlement was also reached. So there are two sides to this rather complex story.

This lawsuit and the media campaign associated with it is the only event in the history of the church where mainstream sources have printed allegations of "Adi Da forcing members to engage in psychologically, sexually and physically abusive and humiliating behavior, as well accusing the church of committing tax fraud." And for it's part the Adi Da church did admit to sexual experimentation, but said no one was forced, and no laws were broken.

Since that time however, an Anti-Adi Da, hate based website appeared that posted all of the negative coverage from 1985 and included a chat-room where anonymous posters could post their comments on Adi Da. From this process many more salacious claims surfaced. This website has since changed it's format and removed the articles. [47] However it was used as a source for some fringe print sources and another website emerged more recently that archived many of the anonymous posts from the chat-room still giving new life to the controversy, [48]. This site carries a heavy disclaimer: [49] Many of these posts are highly inflammatory and if one believes them, could become very upset.

From my POV, the Adi Da article should cover the 1985 controversy, but with proper weight and neutrality considering not only prominence criterion, per WP:UNDUE, but also considering event importance to the subject. From WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

I find that in it's current form the article is full of injected bias that uses mainstream sources from the 1985 media campaign and then fringe sources to repeatedly bring up negative assertions about Adi Da as though in each instance they were separate events. It's a sort of shotgun effect using one shell to make many holes.

Instead I feel that it is up to Wikipedians to use the Wiki process to sort this all out and present a well-sourced, neutral article that is a service to people looking for information on this subject. As such we must purge ourselves from representing any bias either way.

Tao2911 states that in his opinion "90%, of the independent tertiary information available on Adi Da concerns the controversy surrounding him" [[50]] and I believe this opinion drives him to feel that the entire article should be peppered with references that support the claim that this controversy and the behaviors alleged were true, proven, and on-going throughout Adi Da's life. But in fact there are no reliable sources to support such a claim.

The most recent somewhat mainstream media account (alternative newspaper but with editorial staff) focusing on Adi Da was in 1999 from Humboldt Counties North Coast Journal, in which I count 8 critical paragraphs and 50 neutral ones. [51] While they do bring up the 1985 controversy right away, they do not focus on it, nor do they make the inference that these allegations were ongoing, as the current WP article seems to infer. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 2.

Sourcing and "source stacking" has become an issue. When I have brought a challenge to a particular passage with NPOV concerns regarding weight and proportionality, the response from Tao2911 has been instead of seeking consensus, he stacks multiple sources next to the challenged statement, even though each source does not verify the statement in full, but perhaps instead, some aspect of the statement. Such as in the lead section, "In later years, while he continued to garner praise for his ideas, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]" "

Who are the some who perceive this? And the sourcing is either questionable sources, or sources from 1985. When you review the sources, some may express the opinion that Adi Da was isolated, but most if any do not say that he was eccentric or that his community was a cult. So in this instance I believe that the whole edit is pushing a POV and may be engaging in synthesis . There was already a summary of the controversies section in the lead. So now we have the lead saying that Adi Da was eccentric, isolated, cult-like, and was accused of financial, sexual and emotional abuses. I think the lead now is biased due to this inclusion. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 3.

"Beginning during a phase known as the "Garbage and the Goddess" in 1974 (the underlying philosophy of which was documented in a book of his lectures by the same title), Bubba Free John began employing a method of teaching he called "crazy wisdom", including directing his followers in "spiritual theater", a form of "psychodrama" that often involved public and group sex, the making of pornographic movies and other intensified sexual practices. Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged. These techniques were said to be used in order to help "shock" students into insights regarding neurotic patterns and attachments.[41][42][43][44][45]"

Once again there is the stacking of sources even though the majority of these sources do not mention anything about " public and group sex, the making of pornographic movies". The only mainstream sources are from the 1985 controversy, the rest are fringe or questionable. The overuse of quotation marks lend a non-neutral tone. The amount of detail could be a way of injecting bias as well. Once again the 1985 controversy is being treated as another separate event within the article. I believe this is a violation of NPOV. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional issue 4.

Recently, without consensus, Tao2911 merged the controversies section with the biography section. [[52]] He then amplified the contentious claims, used source stacking, and without consensus, removed information regarding the churches counter-claim of extortion. [[53]]

These edits are a clear example of POV pushing in my opinion. Removing well sourced information thereby making it impossible for the reader to make up his own mind. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Tao2911 does not now, having seen this argument, make changes to the article. We have an agreement not to do this as it undermines our ability to determine these issues as set forth. Thanks for your time and effort. I appreciate your making this process available. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since filing this request for mediation, Tao2911 has made over 130 edits to the Adi Da article. [[54]] He ignores requests for consensus while demanding it of others. This makes it very difficult to have a consideration regarding content since he is always changing content on his own, while denying this right to others. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply find so much of this to be useless hearsay (we are not retrying the case on Adi Da in 1985, so the paragraph about the lawyer is especially perplexing), and simply not born out by the page, that I am reluctant to respond to each point. I will only say that I have recently been moving some citations to more specific locations in passages in question, cleaned up some citations that were left from previous versions/edits and needed to be culled, have added footnotes in many cases to show source passage, and in a couple of cases have removed sources Starr found unacceptable because I have gained access to better root source texts that provide no room for dispute.

The primary texts for the page are now:

-New Religions in America, a 3 editor, two-dozen writer, 5 volume encyclopedia of the kind recommended as ideal by WP.

-Holy Madness, by Georg Feuerstein, 1992. Feuerstein is the preeminent scholar of yoga/Hindu traditions in the US, with many dozens of books in print. he was a one time admirer of Adi Da, and this 1992 book reflects a balanced admiration while explaining that his "crazy wisdom" teachings are radical by nature, and controversial. Many of the passages contested above by Starr are virtual quotes from this book. He had inside access to Adi Da, and the seeming tacit approval of the community for his chapter on Adi Da. GF changed his opinion years later, and a 2006 edition is more critical as he admits in the introduction to it. This is discussed in the entry in 'reception' section. 2006 entry is used not at all or sparingly, and then contextualized as such.

-Different editions of Da's own autobio, the early editions of which contain much info excised from later versions.

-News stories, the bulk of which are from 1985 sex abuse allegations and exposes on the community. These again are contextualized to deal with the periods in question, and are not used to provide general info on Adi Da's bio or philosophy etc. Much of the material in stories deals with a period spanning a decade ('74-86), and all of it relates to the practice of the religion, so there is some overlap. It is not compartmentalized into "a couple disgruntled followers sued the guru." Allegations were widespread, as were admissions of sexual experimentation by the church, and controversy was devastating to the community and guru, as other source accounts report (Holy Madness, New Religions.)

There are a few others, including Da books often recommended by a follower in 'talk' who knows the lit well, and we have worked together to include passages to clarify teachings. but these other sources are not heavily relied upon. Those listed above are primary.

There is not a single citation or allegation that comes from these websites Starr speaks of, and I have spent little time wasted looking there, as I want this entry to work per WP standards.

I have made changes in order to actually address some of Starr's concerns (like condensing 'allegations' section into bio to remove needless repetition of said allegations - before this mediation request). Recent edits are of the kind I explain above - citations, footnotes, clarifying language in line with tertiary sources acquired, etc.

I maintain the entry reflects available information in much the same proportion it is presented in an overview of that info - most of which I have read in researching this entry. The majority of news stories of course deal with controversy - but that info is presented as such, and is not more than 25% of total entry. Adi Da was controversial, as the first line states, and the entry must say why. it does so in a balanced an neutral fashion - everything is cited, and sources are within standards.

I really have nothing more to say than that. I think it will take review by outside parties to resolve this. Tao2911 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Tao2911 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Devanagari108 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. AgreeJason Riverdale (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Accept I will get a mediator onto this ASAP.

For the Mediation Committee. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline - (A) one user was blocked for a significant period of time, indicating conduct issue, (B) no mediator has picked up the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Shamir1 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. George (talk · contribs)
3. Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs)
4. Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Washington Institute for Near East Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related discussions:

• Recent additions and op-eds
• Formation and funding
• Pro-Israel?

3O:

• 3O request

RfCs:

• Request for comment

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Issue 1: What the lead should reflect.
• Issue 2: If AIPAC should be described as having a "'partisan image' in contrast to WINEP'" twice in the article (lead and background section).
• Issue 3: If statements from The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy should be in the criticism section or in activities and policy orientation section.
• Issue 4: If a commentator's juxtaposition of WINEP's activities to AIPAC's should be included, and if the content is potentially erroneous.
• Issue 5: If allegations of pro-Israel should be in the lead or if details of political sympathies should be in the activities and policy orientation section.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

Issues from George

Shamir1 and I disagree slightly on what the issues are, or at least how to best phrase them. I don't think it's something that will prevent mediation, but for completeness I'll outline my understanding of the issues of disagreement in my own words:

• Should the lead mention that WINEP was founded by AIPAC?
• Should the lead mention that WINEP is "often described as being pro-Israel"?
• Should AIPAC's "partisan image" be mentioned in both the lead and Background section of the article?
• Should an excerpt from The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy be included in the policy orientation section, the criticism section, or both?
• Is Joel Benin a reliable source, and, if so, should his contrasting of WINEP with AIPAC be stated as fact, or attributed to him directly? ← George ^talk 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Shamir1 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. ← George ^talk 02:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree! Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties have indicated acceptance within a reasonable timeframe. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bluesoju (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Filing party: you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

• Korean grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Talk:Korean_grammar#This_article_needs_experts
• Example link 2.

Filing party: Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• User Kwamikagami is engaging in an edit war. He undid my edits twice after I corrected the romanization on the page. The user admits to not knowing what he's doing and not having good sources as well here. After showing him examples of other wikipedia articles that follow the same romanization pattern (including pictures from articles of officially romanized Korean text) the user still remains stubborn. Before he edited, the romanization was consistent, but the user claims he will undo them and will change them to suit his style of romanization. All other Korean language articles have some consistency in terms of romanization, including Korean grammar before the user decide to romanize it in his own way. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Korean_grammar#This_article_needs_experts. If there is anyone leading the Korean language articles, it would be nice to bring him/her in as well.

• I brought this up for discussion at Talk:Revised Romanization of Korean, the article that Bluesoju directed me to. Bluesoju is evidently not very familiar with Korean romanization, or at least did not read that article carefully, for it uses examples of the format Bluesoju objects to. At issue is the distinction between phonetic and morphophonemic transcription, which in the case of hangul is more or less transliteration. The former is the default of Korean romanization (found in signs, maps, names, government titles, etc.), but the latter is also used, for example in grammars, and is appropriate when morphology is under discussion, as it is at the disputed article. We need a morphophonemic transcription because per the MOS (and common sense) we should not rely on hangul to explicate the phenomena under discussion. For example, the verb 있 is transcribed phonetically as iss, it, ik, in, etc. depending on what follows. However, those changes can all be predicted if the reader knows that the underlying form is iss. This is clear in the hangul but not in Bluesoju's preferred format, putting readers who are not familiar with hangul at a disadvantage when trying to understand the article.

Anyway, more than this one article is potentially affected, so IMO there should be discussion among the editors of the articles on the Korean language on transcription formats. kwami (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1.
• Additional issue 2.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Bluesoju (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Decline - not all parties have indicated acceptance within a reasonable timeframe. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]