Formal mediation case
Article	Continuation War (talk)
Opened	28 Aug 2012
Mediator	Lord Roem (talk)
Status	Closed
Notes	None
view talk edit delete watch

Users involved in dispute

1. YMB29 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Wanderer602 (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• Continuation War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk pages[1][2]
• No original research noticeboard[3][4]
• Third opinions[5][6]
• Military history talk[7]
• Dispute resolution noticeboard[8]

All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.

Primary issues

• Numerous sources clearly indicate that the Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive resulted in a Soviet strategic victory.[9] They mention the main strategic goal and say that it was accomplished, which is enough to consider the result a strategic victory (see [10]). The other user says that the offensive failed because one of its goals (invasion of southern Finland) was not accomplished. He thinks the result is too complex and should be blanked in the infobox. I point out that strategic victory in the result usually implies that it was not a total victory where every objective was accomplished (see Battle of Coral Sea, Battle of Antietam, First Battle of the Marne).
• Soviet/Russian and English language sources describe fighting at a small town near the old Soviet-Finnish border on September 4-5, 1941. The other user concluded that nothing happened because he was not able to find mention of this event in Finnish sources. He found the Finnish units that were supposed to be in the area, looked up their war diary entries (primary sources) for the dates in question, and did not find any evidence of fighting. He then added text into the article that questions the event and I added original research tags (see [11]).

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.

1. Agree. YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• Accept. We will assign a mediator to this case shortly. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I will mediate this case. Let me take some time to review the material on this page before getting started. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]