User talk:Professor Pelagic

Welcome!

Hello, Professor Pelagic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Gap9551 (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

IP address

Hi Professor Pelagic. Please could you tell me the IP address you were editing from previously. Thanks.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

For anyone that might be following this thread, Professor Pelagic indicated he was the IP involved, as indicated by the diff here.[1]

Conflict of interest

Greeting Professor Pelagic. Would you please state whether or not you have a conflict of interest when editing Pain in fish. It is fine if you do have a COI, but if you have you should disclose what it is. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, no COI, my only interest in this page is that I am very familiar with the literature surrounding the subject from 25 years working as a fish biologist, and I was keeping the page up to date for a number of years with new literature as it was being published. The page was reasonably well balanced for a number of years until recently I noticed some rather major changes to the page that, based on my understanding of the literature, were not done in an even-handed way - erasing some information and de-emphasising other information that people need to know when they want to learn about this subject. The additions I made to redress balance were undone by others, something that has never happened to me before - this raised a red flag - so I am now interested in seeing this through to learn more as to why all of a sudden achieving a balanced fish pain page that represents both sides of the scientific debate about the issue has become so hard.....Professor Pelagic (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well hang in there and don't back off. I'm sure, if your arguments are sound, we can bring it to a place you find more congenial. But there needs to be more clarification in a number of areas, and unlike you, I'm not so sure that the literature to date provides real clarification. Please look at the source code and note how the colon (:) is used to indent comments. This makes it easier for other people to follow what you have to say. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we can get to where is needed - I've only been a casual contributor to wikipedia for around 5 years - don't know the finer points of editing but decided I'm going to have to learn - but because this fish welfare stuff comes through local committees and meetings I have to attend, I have a pretty good grasp of the history of the research on the subject, even reviewed some of the papers themselves, which should help. In the past I was just sitting in the background updating the page when new research came along, but with recent developments I became concerned that there seems to be no history of my edits as an IP between 2010 and 2014, so the only option seemed to be to bite the bullet, finally listen to wikipedia's suggestions and become a registered member, so that things can be done transparently. Sounds like we can just do it bit by bit, which will eventually make the fish pain page a much better/more informative resource for people, then I might even contribute to other pages, but I want to learn the ropes properly first so thanks for the tips and olive branch. Not sure whether you do two colons for a double indent following an indented paragraph, or just indent every alternative paragraph, I am assuming the latter.Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how you have got through at least 5 years of editing without learning threading, but WP:THREAD should help.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - that is the difference between my former "casual editing" and otherwise, I guess.Professor Pelagic (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you want a decent article or not?

You would make faster progress if you assume good faith with other editors instead of indulging in inaccurate personal observations, and if you propose specific edits you want to see (as you have been repeatedly asked) instead of posting walls of text that do not address the central point. Though we have been discussing issues for only a short time, you have acknowledged yourself that we have already made progress. A process like this needs needs patience, and if you trust the process and hang in there you will probably be very satisfied with the final result. However you seem to be seeking a dramafest instead. On Wikipedia that often just brings busybodies with no background in the content area to the table, and things will go downhill. Is that what you want? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am repeatedly posting the edits I would like to see to regain scientific balance in the article, but in most cases getting replies that simply state " we do not agree". However , when you ask for evidence to support my edit suggestions, I supply it. So I am sorry if this appears to be walls of text, but when you ask for evidence I will supply it and quote the references. As for asking for assistance to attain neutrality, I think a third opinion would be very useful on some of the issues raised here. I have had the unfortunate experience at work dealing with animal rights activists on this topic who only choose to quote from "pro fish pain science" that has been identified by many scientists as having many potentially serious flaws in technique and interpretation. This is why I pick up when the literature on this topic is being selectively referenced. All I ask is that both sides of the science are presented so that readers can decide for themselves. When I am repeatedly blocked from doing so by users exploiting their superior knowledge of wikipedias rules and regulations, to regain neutrality, I will ask questions of third parties as to why it is happening. Professor Pelagic (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Where have I "blocked" you? Everything so far seems to me to still be in process. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not said anywhere that you have blocked my edits, other parties (whom it seems I now cannot mention) have been doing that in certain sections.Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems you are not willing to assume good faith and discuss your issues here. I'm tired of your insinuations that DrChrissy and I have biased agendas and are too stupid to assess literature in this area. My own position was that the work of Rose and Key should be fully represented in the article, and by the end of the day I would have made sure that was the case. Your personal attacks are way off the mark.

However I was puzzled when, shortly after I posted this overview you seemed to spit the dummy and made this dramatic appeal for outside intervention. I would have thought you would be interested in the overview if you had a genuine interest in the topic. Particularly as my opening comment was: "Influential philosophers like Dennett and Caruthers argue it is likely that animals lack the phenomenal consciousness necessary to experience pain". I would have thought that was exactly the sort of thing you were looking for. But then I noticed my final comment: "If, for example, fish feel pain, then there are ethical and welfare consequences running across huge commercial enterprises. But that is really the main point to make here. Details of just what the ethical and welfare issues are don't belong in the pain articles". And the penny dropped.

You disclosed elsewhere that you work on animal welfare committees and that you were "basically forced to know the literature on this topic". This suggests that you are involved with the topic, not because you are interested in it, but because you are paid to take a position on it. As you say above, you have "the unfortunate experience at work dealing with animal rights activists on this topic". No wonder you got upset at my final comment above, and decided to see if you could seek muscle elsewhere. It also explains why you are so unconvincing arguing your case, why your discussion of methodology lacks any nuance, and why you throw up dust instead by posting walls of text. You can't argue your case eloquently because it doesn't really interest you.

I asked you above if you have a conflict of interest because other circumstances indicate that you might well have. You assured me that you don't. I find that hard to square with your subsequent behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My position on welfare committees are always invited, and voluntary, so your accusations of conflict of interest are baseless and way off the mark. I am asked to assess the literature on this topic for various research proposals so I must provide a balanced view in order to assess the research even handedly. There are interest groups who continuously deliberately choose not to consider the very valid points of concern raised by Rose et al., and, more lately, Key, in their opposition to research. We are constantly balancing these issues now for each research proposal and it is frustrating to see the same issues now creeping into online resources such as wikipedia, which I think should remain neutral and represent both sides of the topic in an evenhanded manner. If you interpret discussion backed up by scientific reference as "walls of text", that is a problem here because many of the issues cannot be explained away using pithy one liners. The question remains, do you truly believe the Wikipedia fish pain page was neutrally balanced the way you had it  ? Your response that "the work of Rose and Key should be fully represented in the article, and by the end of the day I would have made sure that was the case." suggests I am right and that it was not. The fact that we have a large amount of twoing and froing to get simple self evident messages such as "no scientific concensus" into the opening paragraph is the sort of stuff I am talking about - I was simply following Wikipedia guidelines for new reviewers which suggest seeking third party guidance on such topics. Why would you be so against my seeking of a third party opinion here on points of procedure ? PS. As an aside, this was a mere 296 word paragraph in response to a 395 word post from you. Note I did not complain about a "wall of words", I am perfectly capable of reading the information you provide and welcome detailed discussion of a topic that I am indeed very interested in from an academic as well as philosophical perspective. Professor Pelagic (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)