Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-13 Canthaxanthin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Mediated By: Cowman109 (talk • contribs) Comments: requestor is satisfied issue is settled

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-13 Canthaxanthin 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-13 Canthaxanthin

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: meatclerk 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...Canthaxanthin Astaxanthin and Salmon

Who's involved?

...I'll bring the food and myself

What's going on?

...Dispute over this issue on Canthaxanthin. I marked the page as inaccurate several weeks ago. Today, the other person claimed that it was accurate. I promised to take his claim seriously and look into it. The person continued to edit beyond that article into the others. I reverted Astaxanthin and marked the other in dispute.

What would you like to change about that?

...I would like to get the other person to discontinue editing those articles until I can verify the claim made. I have started some investigation, but need more than the hour or so, so far http://www.didgood.com/recipes/information/salmon/astaxanthin/canthaxanthine.html .

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

...Work anyway you see best

[edit] Mediator response

Hm, I don't particularly see what you need from the Mediation Cabal here. There's no reason to keep the user frmo editing the article, as certain points should be verified as to entire articles. You seem to have removed the tags to make the other editor happy, but is there still an issue here? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is still an issue with salmon being fed Canthaxanthin. I could go on from there, but this is my largest issue. I would prefer to label it unreliable and help someone fix it, but as of this moment it appears the other user is unwilling or perhaps unable to make changes.

To be clear Canthaxanthin was used at one time, but was outlawed. It appears to be coming into favor again. The real question then is, is aquaculture going to use it again?. Given past corporate responses, I think not. However, if there is proof (which I have given in my article Astaxanthin#For_Seafood_and_Animals), then by all means I would relent.

Lastly, just becuase there is regulation letting then do so, does not mean they will. meatclerk 04:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would dropping a ({{citationneeded}}) tag after the questioned sentence be acceptable so that more attention would be brought to finding a source for the information? Cowman109^Talk 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now. I don't think so. But I'm going to thing about it. Monday, or so, I will decide. Right now I'm not inclined as I've got the proof of what farm-raised salmon are feed. I am working to rewrite the Salmon article, see Talk:Salmon. In addition, this user has gone out of his way to make addition to other articles (salmon and astaxanthin). This last action, caused me to call his work malicous. I still continue to believe this, but I willing to drop that entire line.

Anyway, I will think on it. But in the meantime, I propose he rewrite, and I'm willing to do all the research he requests. Just as long as the entire notion is modified concerning salmon ingesting Canthaxanthin. Respectfully. meatclerk 06:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just re-read Canthaxanthin. I noted several errors. In light of this I withdraw my earlier offer to do research. It's quite clear to me now that the other user was acting in a flagarent and malicous manner. I note in the current paragraph 4 that it states, "As a result, in the United States, food packaging must indicate if artificial coloring". The requirement to add the label "artifical color" was required far before any possible health concerns. In addition, any current label was the result of a law suit - listed clearly on my article astaxanthin. Continuing on the next paragraph it says, "he analysis of canthaxanthin content in salmon is a scientifically-accepted method to determine the origin of salmons." This is whole incorrect, but I will stop with these arguements for now.

In short, I have the research and notes to show many errors in this article. However, even if I return to labeling it as "unreliable" I fear a revert war will ensue. Respectfully meatclerk

Do you have easily accessible, verifiable sources to assert your claim? That will be the key to preventing a revert war. Cowman109^Talk 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to some degree I believe I do have enough. And after giving this some thought today. I have a better proposal. This proposal may work better. I will rewrite the article in the sandbox with references. This should clear things up, but much of the current article will be cut out. However, as each sentence will have a footnote (this being my usual style), it should clear things up. At that point, the other editor should have less objections. In any case, I think I will proceed and pray for the good faith of all others involved. Thanks. meatclerk 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten it to some completion. It should be enough for this person, and it is enough for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canthaxanthin/rewrite_2006-08-20

I need to finish the last section about tanning. The other author should agree with this. It quantifies his needs and clears my concerns with regards to citation. In addition, I stand corrected on this issue. Even so, this will remain on the backburner as until I get to it in the salmon article. Lastly on this, I only went one link more than the other author on a google search. It does not prove my point on malicous, but it shows his willfully flagrent attitude. Best Regards meatclerk 06:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess this has been settled without mediation. I'm closing the case, then. Cowman109^Talk 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's not settled. meatclerk 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what is still amiss then? Cowman109^Talk 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have authored a new article. I need to complete the final section on tanning pills. This will be done in 7 days, or I will drop my case (recognizing its current draw on time). Once, complete I plan to approach the or person, but I don't expect cooperation. Reasoning seemed not to be in the realm of the other author. -- meatclerk 05:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be that the other editor would have cooled down by now, but if you make it clear that you are putting in a rewrite (of course with an edit summary to make things clear), things should be fine. I'll help you watch over it though, and it would be much more productive for the other editor to discuss instead of blindly reverting, of course. Cowman109^Talk 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have completed the article, but the domain eu.int is not answering right now. I will wait a day or two for it to come back. Then I will double check all my footnotes and clarify anything that looks unclear. Thanks for your help. --meatclerk 06:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given notice that I intend to replace the currently article. The notices are placed on the article, the talkpage and the person disputing the state of the article. I noted on all notices the change "would likely (be) 2006-10-12", although I will make the change on 2006-10-13. --meatclerk 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, no objections. Time seems to be on our side. Please, terminate mediation at your leisure. Thanks for you time and help. --meatclerk 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion