User talk:MonstretM

Welcome!

Hello, MonstretM, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to Food irradiation. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Additionally, the sandbox is available if you wish to test your editing skills.

All in all, good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to sign your posts

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

Please (re)read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In particular, the policy is summarized as Comment on content, not on the contributor. The following comment that you made, at Talk:Food irradiation, appears to be inconsistent with this policy:

... to say that research should be "flagged," simply because it originates from the 1950's or from a non-Western source, and to claim that "Western" research deserves to be weighted more heavily, is ethnocentrism, xenophobia, plain ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader, or all of the above. (emphasis added)

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi MonstretM: good to meet you at the wiki thing today; I'm looking at the irradiation article (since it's something I am somewhat concerned about); looks interesting. Keep in touch. --FeanorStar7 02:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal for Food Irradiation

Hi Jonathanstray, Thank you for your contributions to the food irradiation discussion. As you know, as a part of the mediation process we are allowed to express our assessment of the mediator's performance. As of now, I am considering requesting an end to mediation cabal, and strongly inclined to pursue a formal mediation process. There are several reasons I am not satisfied with the current informal mediation attempts, including:

Failure to streamline the discussion, and address barrage of incendiary, improper, and leading comments.

Failure to maintain neutrality regarding the definition of minority and majority viewpoints. Where was the discussion on this before you decided that "food irradiation is safe" as the majority viewpoint? Does the European Union's decision to ban further irradiation of foods based on their review of the studies and health risks constitute one of the "minority" opinions? And if you feel that governmental institutions constitute the majority viewpoint, then what would you consider the majority opinion on the Iraq war? Do a select few non-elected governmental authorities dictate what is majority, even if their decision opposes that of the mainstream population? Does the scientific community dictate what is mainstream? Is there a neutral, independent survey of the entire scientific community regarding their opinions on food irradiation? Is it the majority of the population (who according to polls is concerned about the health risks of irradiated food) that determines the mainstream viewpoint?

Failure to address conflict of interest of certain parties involved in the discussion.

Casual dismissal of points on plagiarism, which are fundamental to our debate on how we choose to paraphrase text and reference studies.

Arbitrary, capricious, and non-scientific based support of using the research abstracts as primary sources of info. If we are doing an in-depth review of the entire studies, why insist on looking at just the abstracts?

And finally, I am quite concerned about your newness to Wikipedia, as you happened to join Wikipedia on the day that we started discussion of mediation cabal. I'm sure you can understand why this would raise some flags.

Please address these issues, and then I will decide whether or not to end mediation cabal and pursue formal mediation for this discussion instead. Thank you. MonstretM 14:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monstret. Of course you are welcome to comment on the process. I will try to address these points one by one.

Failure to streamline the discussion, and address barrage of incendiary, improper, and leading comments.

You must give me that I've at least organized the discussion. As for "incendiary, improper, and leading comments", well, I too prefer not to have them in the discussion (and in my opinion all sides have made them). This is indeed something that needs to be addressed. However, please note that we cannot expect the discussion itself to be up to the strict standards of Wikipedia articles (NPOV etc.) Indeed, the whole point of talking together is precisely to find such language for the topic at hand.

I have not made unfair accusations, but have called out non-NPOV and conflict of interest where statements made by other persons show that they exist. That is quite different from making baseless accusations for the purpose of discrediting my edits. You have completely condoned those types of comments, which clearly indicate non-NPOV. And I don't see an organized discussion. I see many different sections being "attacked" simultaneously, which is impossible to keep up with, and quite contrary to our agreed upon process. MonstretM 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to maintain neutrality regarding the definition of minority and majority viewpoints. Where was the discussion on this before you decided that "food irradiation is safe" as the majority viewpoint?

It seems to be pretty clear that "food irradiation is safe" is the majority viewpoint of both the scientific community and government regulatory agencies around the world, the EU being a notable exception. I have yet to see any evidence on the opinions of the majority of citizens one way or another (if you have such, please provide!) It may not be the truth that food irradiation is safe, but it is the majority viewpoint, and we must write the article to reflect this.

I don't see the evidence that points to a majority viewpoint on food irradiation one way or the other. Where there is endorsement, there has been controversy surrounding the review procedures. I would say that the EU's concerns about food irradiation represents a significant segment of the population. What criteria are you using to determine a majority and how did you calculate the >50% that is required to constitute a majority? Where were your statistics and where was your evidence presented that you used to make this judgment? And again, where was the discussion? MonstretM 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to address conflict of interest of certain parties involved in the discussion.

It's coming. Patience. If you feel this is urgent, we can address it next.

Casual dismissal of points on plagiarism, which are fundamental to our debate on how we choose to paraphrase text and reference studies.

I did not dismiss your issues with plagiarism, I simply declined to get into the debate in an abstract form, as opposed to in regards to specific proposed text. In regards to this issue. wrote, "I don’t think we need to settle the question of appropriate citation in its abstract form, or to try to define what constitutes “plagiarism.” I do agree that reading the through entire article is appropriate, however we must be careful (as always) to avoid quoting out of context. In this sense abstracts are often helpful as they are specifically written to be concise summaries of the author’s views. I also note that direct quotations, although perhaps uglier than paraphrasing, are at least indisputably accurate (if taken with appropriate context.)"

Arbitrary, capricious, and non-scientific based support of using the research abstracts as primary sources of info. If we are doing an in-depth review of the entire studies, why insist on looking at just the abstracts?

Again, see above. I wrote that "reading through the entire article is appropriate", and that abstracts were "often helpful." I never said we should use only the abstracts.

And finally, I am quite concerned about your newness to Wikipedia, as you happened to join Wikipedia on the day that we started discussion of mediation cabal. I'm sure you can understand why this would raise some flags.

I am actually a very long-time user of Wikipedia; since 2002 I believe. I just began editing recently, thus I created an account. I have also been involved in moderation of various types for many years, science, and science-writig for many years. The combination of Wikipedia+Moderation+Science is the new part here.

When considering whether to pursue formal moderation, you might ask yourself what you expect. No doubt there is an individual somewhere who could streamline this process better than I. However, any other moderator -- especially the formal ones with lots of experience -- will pursue an article which fairly represents both the mainstream and minority viewpoints, just as I have tried to do, in accordance with the central policy of Wikipedia which is WP:NPOV. At this time you might like to re-read this policy, and associated material such as the NPOV FAQ, to re-familiarize yourself with them. I did this myself before beginning this moderation session. I also I think you may find it helpful to study other examples of Wikipedia moderation in the talk pages of previously moderated articles.

The central issue you have to decide is, why are you here? I realize that you have strong feelings on the topic, and that is good! It's good to stand up for what you think is right. However, what we need here in Wikipedia is not your passion but your knowledge. You are not an advocate; you are an editor. Your job as an editor is to help craft an article that accurately and fairly reflects the major viewpoints on the topic of food irradiation, including both the mainstream consensus and the minority opposition. Again, this is in accordance with the NPOV policy, which states in part:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

I look forward to working with you further.

I am familiar with the article on NPOV. I take issue with your misuse of the term "mainstream consensus," as the only mainstream viewpoint seems to be that "the long-term health risks of irradiated foods are unknown at this time." And I question your application of the term "advocate" to imply that I have not been editing with NPOV. From the start I have advocated only for neutrality, and no where have I made comments that would indicate otherwise. The other parties involved, on the other hand, have made several blatantly non-NPOV statements that indicate their agenda. You have consistently ignored those statements. That, combined with the fact that you have brought your own biases into this discussion, as well as the fact that the current mediation has failed to focus the discussion, leads me conclude that mediation cabal is a waste of time. Please refrain from further mediation of this discussion. I will be pursuing official mediation on this topic. MonstretM 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to say. In fact you will note that I have been championing "your side" in many instances, for example pointing out repeatedly that we really do need to discuss the minority opinion which you represent so well, and pointing out that we do not necessarily need scientists to critique irradiation (both of these here.) Yes, I do believe that yours really is a minority opinion, at least as far as scientific literature and government regulation; regardless, you will notice that I even provided a specific place to discuss what the mainstream opinion is: the If so, is the "mainstream" consensus that irradiated food are "safe"? section. As far as commitment to NPOV goes, all of the other editors have agreed to have a "controversy" or "issues" section where the viewpoint that there are problems with irradiation is discussed. Since, on the basis of their investigation of the literature, they see this as a minority viewpoint, this is entirely apporpriate and consistent with NPOV.

To put this another way, what more do you think I should have done? Please cite specific examples. This is not a challenge. I am actively interested in how I could have improved my work here.

Nonetheless, I feel I have learned a lot from this case as a mediator. Next time, I will begin with a discussion of how Wikipedia chooses to represent different POVs, then start a conversation on evidence as to what, in fact, is the mainstream opinion. I am sorry you feel unable to work with me. I doubt you will find a mediator who is more sympathetic to your cause, but I wish you luck in any case. --Jonathan Stray 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on food Irradiation

Sorry to hear that MonstretM will no longer participate in the mediation. You certainly gave your best in bringing everybody together. At this point I would like to seek your council as to whether formal mediation is a step that offers a realistic probability in producing a quality article as an end result or whether we should consider mediation failed and pursue arbitration. Arved Deecke 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will have to discuss that among yourselves. Perhaps if you could resolve the first issue of whether "food irradiation is safe" is a majority viewpoint or not, mediation might be possible. I don't know. Why don't you ask MonstretM? --Jonathan Stray 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irradiation discussion

Since your unilateral withdrawal from informal mediation four days ago, discussion has stalled. The page is still locked. Please make your decision on whether to proceed to formal mediation or not. - MrArt 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no activity towards formal mediation and since there seems agreement on MrArt's talk page that formal mediation is not more promsing than efforts already undertaken by the Mediation Cabal I am in the process of requesting formal arbitration of the issue. Please provide any comments you might have about this proposal on the Arbitration section of the Mediation talk page. RayosMcQueen 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now filed a formal request for arbitration. Please provide your statment on this request on: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Food_Irradiation RayosMcQueen 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Irradiation help

The Food Irradiation page fell into disrepair. It was clearly abandoned by all editors, as the content was disjoint and made contradictory claims. I have done all I can to fix it (and pretty much finished 1 year ago), but I am not an expert in the topic. I know (based upon the quality of the article I started with) that some information must be incorrect do to my misinterpretation and rewording, and due to bogus claims. I would like to reduce the size and complexity of the article, verify its content, and improve the citations (especially in the sections that describe the irradiation process). Please help. 2602:304:415C:5399:2C40:7E88:E22D:B772 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]