Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Julius Evola

Talk:Julius Evola

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. VeritasVox (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. ian.thomson (talk · contribs)
3. Grayfell (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Julius Evola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Julius Evola
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Nationalism - description of Evola as an 'ultranationalist' when he criticised nationalism repeatedly.
2. Merelli as a source (political attack by proxy, biased), merelli saying evola thought 'all sex was rape' and labelling him as an 'advocate of rape' (context is this is a political attack by proxy on Steve Bannon, not an actual analysis).
3. Prominence of this source and these views in the lede when it's a minor part of his work, even if true.
4. Evola's status within fascism, lack of analysis of his relation to the Traditionalist school

VeritasVox (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. VeritasVox (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, still a newbie. Ok, think I've sorted that out (hopefully to your satisfaction) and will move ahead with that before requesting mediation. Thanks for your input. VeritasVox (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Refuse. This has already been resolved through talk. Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Chairperson's note: There is an incompletely-filed Request for Comments at the article talk page, filed there by the filing party here. I presume that it was their intent to file it in regard to the same dispute as this, but they did not complete the RFC request. I'm going to act on that presumption being correct and reject this request under prerequisite for mediation #8 within the next 24-48 hours unless the RFC is either withdrawn or completed to show a subject wholly unrelated to the dispute listed in this request. Frankly, with one major participant in the dispute having declined to participate here, the filing party would probably be best advised to complete and continue the RFC if s/he wishes dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (Chairperson)
• Rejected as withdrawn: See above. May be refiled if the RFC fails to come to consensus, but all active participants in the RFC should be listed if that should happen. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)