Talk:2007 pet food recalls/Version1/Archive 2

Discussion on two versions of this article

I actually did not see the presence of an article at 2007 North America pet food recall when I spent two days writing this. Anyway, this version is far more expanded, and completely unrelated GFDL-wise, so I am moving over the redirect. The original talk page was at Talk:2007 North America pet food recall. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you spent two days writing a very long article (which does look good by the way) and you are now saying that you are going to completely replace the work of all those other edits with your own version?

If so, (and just out of curiosity) why would you do that? I mean, it seems like a first draft of two days ago would have been better than nothing to put up.

If that is what you are saying, I must say I don't think it is proper. I haven't done a detailed analysis to see which is better or what is missing from either version, but the version you are replacing was no stub or hack job. It had dozens of references. It is viewable here.

I hope this does not seem confrontational, but I think you should do a proper merge of the information and not just declare yours to be better and replace the old version with your version. Johntex\^talk 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of the many people who worked on the previous version, I agree with Johntex. Especially since the melanine mode of action is still not identified. If you would like to add additional information into the existing article, that is fine, but I don't think the pictures are necessary.Jfwambaugh 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my action. If I had just unilaterally rewritten the article, then the result would be the same. If you look at the two versions, my recent version covers far more angles far more extensively and contains far more references. Please compare the two and the differences in quality will become evident. This is not to hold anything against prior versions. Part of a wiki is to build on prior versions, and sometimes, to completely rewrite from scratch. In my years here I have discovered that the latter works out much better every time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And I still stand by my statement that what you did was improper. Just because it is a wiki is not an excuse to sumarily discard other people's work without even trying to incorporate what might be good about it. Just because you can does not mean you should. It would be different if it was a stub or a self-promotional article but this was none of those things. Never-the-less, I see no point in dragging this discussion out. I will begin editting this versison you have created. Johntex\^talk 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what the button is there for. But we should never sacrifice quality to spare people's feelings. Here is the previous version: [1].--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is what the edit button is there for. It would have been nice if you would have used the edit button on the existing article instead of building a brand new article by yourself. Johntex\^talk 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I was unaware of the previous version. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless. I merge this guy's new material into the existing article and he is actively trying to prevent that version from appearing. Unilaterally rewriting an entire article is not very Wikie at all. I suggest we block Gustafson from editing this article. Jfwambaugh 04:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm... the only thing you are "merging" is the timeline. The newer version has twice the references, and three times the overall material compared to the older version. It's a matter of evident quality. If you feel there is an angle not covered in the existing version or a reference I didn't catch, please ad it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I spent quite a bit of time merging your material with the existing article. Something you seem to be unwilling to do. Please stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfwambaugh (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I am sorry, but I will not "stop." This is an issue of quality and comprehensiveness. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already created a merged version, but he keeps deleting it. Strange that his article refers to "recalls" in the lead-in even though he claimed he had only searched for "recall". Jfwambaugh 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And the whole point of a wiki is that the collaborative effort of several people is superiour to one person who apparently wasn't even able to discover the existing article on the subject he was researching.Jfwambaugh 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jfwambaugh, please don't get discouraged by this. This is not typical and I'm sure if we all talk it out we can come to a suitable merged version. Johntex\^talk 05:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I will revert to the merged version in the morning. This guy can't sleep forever and the time-line *is* nice.Jfwambaugh 05:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proposed "merge" for folks to see: Talk:2007_North_American_pet_food_recall/Redux. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone looks at the extensiveness of sources and the sheer amount of relevant quality material, the choice immidiately becomes evident. I have not missed an angle or reference. And if I have, please ad it to the current version. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just read this article, I have to comment that this version is more informative and complete than the one referenced above. As a side note: just a few days ago, I went looking for an article on this event and couldn't find it; the mistake of not knowing of the previous version does not seem that hard to make. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that Jeffrey legitimately did not find the pre-existing article. That should teach us all to make liberal use of redirects, especially when the article title is a little cumbersome.

I still have not read both versions word for word. My general overall impression is that Jeffrey's is better. That is one reason I am content to switch over to that version as the starting point for further work. However, I don't think the quality diffence is so vastly great as to justify an edit war. Violations of WP:3RR are a bad thing. I suggest we all step away and come back a bit later. There is no harm in the article staying as is for a day or so. It will also potentially give other users a chance to find this page. Johntex\^talk 05:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The harm is from any potential health-related misinformation slipped in by a vested interest in the midst of a current event. Pets lives are important to people and this editing terrorist is holding the agreed-upon information hostage. Some people are very worried about this issue. Jfwambaugh 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At Johntex's suggestion I have once again tried to merge the "two" articles, this time by adding the original information into the new article. I think the readability of the new version is preserved (the previous version still had the feel of the original time-line from the menu food's article) but the facts have been reorganized. Most importantly, just because there is an "association" with melanine does not imply that it is the actual cause of the sickness. Hopefully pet owner's will be able to see this version, especially since it includes the description of the symptoms. Jfwambaugh 13:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Removed. - Jfwambaugh 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think he actually said that anywhere. I did say that, on his page, and I freely said the same thing above. I said that I have not read either version word for word but that on skimming both versions I do think the version Jeffrey created looks a little better. Let's get past the incriminations and see if we can smooth together a version that has the best of both worlds.

I see that you have taken a stab at that. Let's see if Jeffrey and others can make further improvements. Johntex\^talk 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Past Article "Useless"

I cannot believe that Jeff is continuing to label the previous version of the article as "useless" and refusing to even allow a link to its information. This is especially a problem since I have already had to add information from that article to his and I think that readers should be entitled to the whole story and not just his take on it. Jfwambaugh 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The link is useless. I have moved the previous article to Talk:2007 North American pet food recall/Version1. We do not put links on articles to previous versions of articles because of editing disputes. Period. That's called metadata and is useless and prohibited. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that both of you are possibly mis-reading the other person and their intent.

Jfwambaugh, Jeffrey is a long-time contributor here. He and I both happen to serve as so-called "administrators" here, which basically means we given a few extra tools to help deal with vandalism and problematic articles. Please see WP:ADMIN. There are somewhere over 1,000 administrators here. We also had to go through a process of public comment. I say this not so that you think either Jeffrey or I are special or privileged in any way to make changes. As a matter of fact, administrators should be trying to set the best possible example with regards to discussion and the like.

I only point this out because it does show that Jeffrey knows a thing or two about what types of links we normally use. I can confirm that we do not normally link to an older version of the article within the article itself.

Jeffrey, can you please try to watch your wording more closely? Calling the other version of the article "useless" is really a harsh statement about an article that was decently written and contained 36 references. Even if you didn't mean to call the article useless but were just calling inclusion of the link "useless", that seems overly harsh. Newer users might easily take that sort of statement more personally that you would like.

Could you perhaps try to work with Jfwambaugh on saving more of the other article? The references might be a good place to start. More references is never a bad thing. Johntex\^talk 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jwambaugh has completely rearranged the middle sections and added material from his version including more references already. I have not changed that at all. I have only removed the link to the older version and put an image back. That is all. I have been accomodating to his changes in text and flow. Just look at the history. As for more references, sure, why not. There is not a single unreferenced thing in the article, but more cannot hurt. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And, jeepers, I have already made it clear that the bloody LINK is useless. That is not a judgement of the previous version. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Johntex was just pointing out that in a heated debate, that could have been quickly read as an insult to the author's article - and the author - rather than what you actually meant. I understand the point that you can't be held responsible for how other people (mis)interpret your words, but it's just something to keep in mind when commenting. Anyway... this version of the article seems to be pretty NPOV and sourced correctly, and I don't think it promotes any kind of viewpoint or agenda. If it does, I sure couldn't tell what it was just by reading it. Maybe the next question is "What sourced information does the previous article have that this version does not?" and then work on getting it incorporated. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let us examine some of the differences from scratch

Here is the version as it now stands. Here is Jfwambaugh's supposed originally proposed "merge": [2]. The differences are evident, and have a couple of other users have pointed out above, the current version is better.

Now, lets look at Jfwambaugh's recent edits to the current version: Last Edit Here, and again, the version as it now stands. Here is the dif for folks who like difs.

The overwritten article is at Talk:2007 North American pet food recall/Version1.

As for Jfwambaugh's concerns over the focus on Melamine, it is vital to remember that the FDA themselves have said that it is most likely melamine, and that every single news sources has said it is. Melamine is actually the only common factor in all the cases and known contaminations. If the government finds another source of the sickness instead of melamine, then it can be added. To remove info on melamine research provides a disservice to the accuracy and completeness of the article. At no point is it said that the source of the sickness is melamine - indeed, in every version I have written, it says right at the beginning that the source is unknown.

Lastly, Jfwambaugh's shocking accusation that I am "somehow trying to change or spin important information. Late-night information dumps like this are exactly how the recall started in the first place." I don't even know where to start... I consider that a personal attack: I have been editing here for 29 months, an admin for 17, and I have never been in anyone's pocket. Additionally, anyone can see that my versions have actually contained more sourced information on people critical of the government's accused negligence and Menu Food's alleged fraud. Nuff said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We want to be very careful about the difference between "association" and "causation". Gluten contaminated with melamine may also be contaminated with a second chemical in lower quantities that has not yet been detected. Or, the melamine may be interacting with a second chemical. Either would explain some of the problems reproducing the toxicity. The evidence does not point to melamine toxicity (the limited effects that have been observed for signifcantly higher exposures) and it would be a incorrect to confuse the subject. We don't want to repeat the rat poison incident.

Personal attacks removed.

Finally, please do not continue to add random pictures. If you have a relevant picture that adds information to the story, let's discuss it first. Jfwambaugh 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More discussion on the two versions

>Begin modified statement<

>User:Johntex is attempting to re-word another user's comment in an effort to preserve the saliant points while removing any offense.<

Actually, it's mentioned twice in the timeline, and has been from the beginning as far as I can tell. I still haven't had time to read the JOG version, but it was because he might have omitted some salient fact like this in writing from scratch that I crosslinked. It didn't seem wise to accept his assertion that the crosslink was "useless". BTW, I'm aware that one wouldn't normally have an explicit content fork, but what happened here was quite abnormal and I justify the crosslink under WP:IAR. The reviews of the resultant article are good, but I have concerns about his behavior as an administrator. Andyvphil 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) >End of modified statement<

And to address my "behavior as an administrator," I have not used a single administrative action in this edit dispute (i.e. protection, deletion, or blocks). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You did act as an administer in deleting a comment by me that questioned your possible motivations for creating a new article in a way that the previous article could not even be seen in the history.Jfwambaugh 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I agree Jeffrey has not used or abused any administrative actions. Please keep in mind that the statement above by Andyvphil is not an exact quote. I may have miscommunicated Andyvphil's intent. In any case, this is not the best venue for discusison of editors. We should try to get back to discussing the content. Johntex\^talk 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In what forum will I be able to honestly address the impossibility of what I have been asked to believe? Andyvphil 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR. The first step is generally to try to talk it out in a productive mannar with the other user on their talk page. Johntex\^talk 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR says "...or use the talk page associated with the article in question." The policy seems mainly directed at content disputes, which is not what is going on here. I did not, accuse JOG of abusing his powers as an admin. As an editor I think he disregarded the wiki process and offered a justification -- that he thought this story was still unaddressed in Wikipedia three weeks in -- that would be no less amazing for being true. WP:DR also says "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." If I think there's a prima facae case, when do I get to say so? I don't see any steps short of requesting Arbitration, but I'm supposed to take some such steps.... Puzzling. Andyvphil 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, is ignoring 3RR a perogative of administrators? Andyvphil 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to follow WP:3RR except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, or in certain other extremely sensitive situations - such as potential libel. Johntex\^talk 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Complete"

I think I am satisfied that all of the content of he original article has been merged into the edit bomb version. Someone else should check through to make sure, though. For now, I think we only need to worry about updating with new information and possibly finding more relevant pictures to replace those currently in the article.

Also, I highly recomend the New York Times article from yesterday on the Chinese company to anyone who is interested. Jfwambaugh 14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add as an external link, or just here. Thanks. Andyvphil

Here you go: [3] Jfwambaugh 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another timeline. I haven't checked to see if there's anything to add from it:[4] Andyvphil 11:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)