Request Information

Request made by: Denoir 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Croats and discussion on Talk:Croats#Cleanup

Who's involved?

User:Denoir and User:Genomist

What's going on?

There is an escalating set of reverts over a passage in the Genetic origins section. The two versions can be found here (Denoir's) and here (Genomist's). There is a debate over sources and factual accuracy of the original version that Denoir is defending. What the supposed factual inaccuracies are is a bit difficult to know as Genomist refuses to say. Denoir's position is that the section added by Genomist are not necessarily incorrect, but cite a non-reputable source as opposed to the original version which cited two well-known books and two articles published in reputable scientific journals.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to find a solution to avoid a continuation of the pointless reverting.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I prefer to keep it open. The talk page of the topic or our user talk pages would do nicely.

Mediator response

I have taken a look at the article, the article talk page, and the material in question. I don't think it will be a problem to resolve this dispute in a reasonable, open, and balanced way that will be agreeable to all parties involved.

The only way this will happen is if all parties involved choose to participate in dialog and assume good faith. It would also be great if past disagreements could be let go; think of it as if we are starting fresh, with a clean slate, so to speak. As such, I think in this case, it would be best to keep the discussion on this page rather than the article's talk page.

As a final note, I would also like to ask all the involved parties to refrain from reverting anything and instead simply place an appropriate template above the content you object to. That way I won't have to resort to requesting that an admin protect the page.

I am going to begin looking at the conflict in a bit more depth and do some of my own research to see how best to begin the road to agreement. Eberhart 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this case, I think the best way to begin reconciliation would be to have all interested parties (including those not yet named as such) state in the discussion section of this page what they think should change on the Genetic Origins section of Croats from how the page currently stands. Also, please refrain from commenting on what other parties have to say at present. (Don't worry, there will be plenty of time for that later. The reason for this is so that people have a chance to state their position before having to rush to defend it.) Eberhart 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update-- I am currently working on a set of criteria that can be used to help evaluate whether certain implementations of the text are acceptable for a final submission to the article. These criteria are based on the concerns I am already aware of and will be expanded as necessary. Keep in mind that it will take me at least a day to review these criteria before I publish them so as to make sure they are fair and balanced; I'm also waiting for Genomist to make a statement about what should be changed (or kept the same) in order to make sure there are no misunderstandings about what the disagreement is. In the time until then, I have no plans as of yet to comment further, so don't be alarmed if I don't comment on a daily basis, I am watching this case closely. Also, if anyone needs to contact me privately for whatever reason my email link is active on my user page. I will keep all private correspondence in confidence. Eberhart 01:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to close this case on Friday, July 28 due to lack of activity unless User:Genomist responds by then. A closed case can be reopened if that should become necessary later. Eberhart 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Clearly he has bugged out now when he has to explain his logic and actions to a third party. Thank you for your time. --Denoir 04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion

Thanks for taking the case. What I would like to see is the section that says

"Concerning the theory of Iranian origins, an article written in 2004 states, "The genetic evidence based on mitochondria DNA provides no support for a specific ancient Iranian origin for modern day Croatians. However, the lack of evidence does not necessary rule out such a connection. What is more certain is that the Croats have been in on the Croatian mainland, in Bosnia and on the Adriatic coast from the 7th century AD." "

either removed or rewritten. The argument for removing it is that the cited reference is from an amateur news letter and doesn't hold up in quality compared to the other references. It is furthermore redundant as there is a section dealing with that topic ("The second conclusion that can be drawn..."), that uses peer-reviewed references that have been published in reputable scientific journals. Also, the conclusions of the section I wish to review, are while not necessarily wrong, based on mtDNA data, which is low-resolution while the original section is based on Y-DNA data which has a far higher resolution. --Denoir 00:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this version is worse than any previous as you have removed the relevant issue, removed other items that aren't disputed and destroyed the reference system. In addition, you have removed the peer-reviewed references and reinstated the questionable ones (although they are not referenced in the article).

One of the primary "rules" of the mediation is for the mediator not to get involved in the issue. The point is mediation - i.e help me and Genomist to reach a compromise on the article - not to make a version of your own. Otherwise the only thing that will happen that instead of a two party conflict, we'll get a three party conflict.

What you should do is the following: revert it to the previous composite version and let Genomist have his say about it. You should under no circumstances ever edit the article yourself. You should of course feel free to come with suggestions on compromises, but do so on this talk page.

If you don't agree with such terms as a mediator, then I'll thank you for your time and request another mediator to make a formal RfC to sort the issue out.--Denoir 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you disagreed with that, I reverted the article back to your last version. The reason for that edit is that I am concerned that there is a substantial amount of differing text between your version and Genomist's that is not being disputed. My attempt was to preserve the most recent non-disputed changes (possibly I didn't do that correctly, I will check into it). I am sorry if you felt that course of action was inappropriate. Eberhart 22:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that the best approach is to first see where the dispute actually is. From my point of view Genomist's version isn't factually incorrect, but just redundant and based a questionable source. My objections are more about removing or replacing the original section. Basically both his and the original version say there is no genetic evidence of a Iranian origin. Regardless in what form it is written, it's a fairly relevant thing as the Iranian theory used to be one of the mainstream theories of Croatian origins.

Genomist's concerns are the factual accuracy of the original section, but so far he hasn't really said what his objections are. So, at least in my opinion, your first step in this mediation was absolutely correct - to have both parties state what kind of change they want and why. Before we can resolve the dispute we must see first if there is a dispute over facts and if there is what the dispute is about. Until we do that we're just guessing blindly.

While I do understand the good intention of your edits I think that it complicates the situation if the mediator engages in active editing of the article, especially before we have established what the dispute is about. Your help would be most valuable to provide an objective opinion that can help us stick to the relevant facts and help us to come up with a compromise that is acceptable to both parties. --Denoir 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]