This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
The start image is so one-sided it's a farce to use it on a supposedly impartial article. Does anyone else feel similar outrage? Vaarok19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the one with the dirty and skinny cows? It is a little ridiculous for an impartial article. Also, a bunch of stuff needs citations on the "Against" side, why is it there if no one can prove it? --207.118.7.9912:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What image would you expect exactly? maybe a crop field? it makes no difference whether you show the animal or crop side of industrial agriculture, it's just an example image. The image is has now is of an industrial battery farm I assume, which is obviously on topic. - Sye
I agree there is no contrast in the article. Take your hippie crap somewhere else. Like [1] hahhahaha--Rossmacleod199210:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
new article
started this article, by changing a redirect to agriculture and moving in sections from the article factory farming. i hope this slightly more neutral name will help to make the article more neutral. i had at first moved section to the article intensive farming but decided that it is not the right place. i could not see a particular reason for the redirect. first thing one sees at the agriculture article is a man plowing with horses.
trueblood09:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the recent addition of a section on ecoli has to do with factory farming. Seems like it should be in a foodborne illness article, if anything, not a factory farming one. 65.246.216.100 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
i think the section could be deleted or condensed into one sentence or two.trueblood13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. The area seems to serve as just another focal point for criticisms of factory farming and lacks the NPOV that should be maintained throughout the article. --Vpivet16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see why the e. coli section relates to intensive farming
check out the articles the section cites. From the New York Times:
Basically, grain is a common diet on intensive farms, but not a natural diet of free-range cattle. Research, as mentioned in the New York Times article, as well as cited in the section:
Callaway, T. R. (2003). "Forage Feeding to Reduce Preharvest Escherichia coli Populations in Cattle, a Review". Journal of Dairy Science. 86: 852–860. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
points out that it is this grain diet that increases the acidity of the stomach of cattle and increases the abundance of the 0157 strain of E. coli. The research suggests a solution: stop feeding cattle grain. JabberWok01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't related to factory farms, though, as I'd understand the definition. I believe a factory farm is one that has a large number of animals... but nearly all farms (working farms, not "I have a pet cow" places), regardless of size, feed grain. As such, I still don't see the relevance to this article. I believe this ecoli discussion would fit better elsewhere. 65.246.216.10002:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Time article references industrial farms:
Where does this particularly virulent strain come from? It’s not found in the intestinal tracts of cattle raised on their natural diet of grass, hay and other fibrous forage. No, O157 thrives in a new — that is, recent in the history of animal diets — biological niche: the unnaturally acidic stomachs of beef and dairy cattle fed on grain, the typical ration on most industrial farms.
So, while you might be right that grain is a typical diet for cattle on most farms - on industrial farms it's standard to feed grain to drive up production levels of the dairy cattle.
I guess this falls under a critisim of industrial farms. Although, I agree the section could be made shorter or more clear and to the point. JabberWok02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the Nina Plank article from the NY Times op-ed page by definition does not constitute unbiased information. This is definitely a POV citation. A scientific journal article is more appropriate here that a newspaper opinion piece. This reference should be improved or the reference and associated text should be deleted.--NDM07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably refering to a statement made in that section similar to what is said in the Nina Plank piece:
In 2003, The Journal of Dairy Science noted that up to 80 percent of dairy cattle carry O157.
i started moving sections to intensive farming. this passage should go, too. i haven't done so because i am not sure whether it could not go to somewhere else (is there an article on ecoli?) but with the other stuff gone it cannot stay here
There is an article about the the the E coli outbreak. It is linked to from the E coli section in this article. But I believe this section belongs in both places as it is very much related to factory farming. JabberWok23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i would like to move everything out that is not about the usage of the term. factory farming is not a specific agriculture system , it is a term that is used by opponents of intensive agriculture. sometimes in the article it seems to be used to mark everything that is not organic.trueblood11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand. What do you mean by "everything"? Everything in the E coli section, or everything in the entire article? And what do you mean by "not about usage of the term."? You want the article to be about how a term is used?
Also, the phrase "Factory Farm" is fairly commonplace, not just used by "opponents", no? Personally I've never heard a person use the phrase "intensive farm," but I have heard regular people use the phrase "factory farm." JabberWok20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sure that if it is used in everyday language is already an argument. show me an article in a normal magazine or newspaper or encyclopedia that uses the term, i just went through the first 50 links for a google search for factory farming and did not find a single one that was noncritical. same goes for the google book search that someone mentioned in an earlier discussion. maybe it is difficult to find noncritical about factory farms ;-), but i don't think there are many farmers that say, 'i run a factory farm'.
but yes originally i wanted to move everything away that was about intensive farming and just leave stuff about where the term comes from and who uses it. trueblood 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i moved further sections to the article industrial agriculture rather than intensive farming. also moved sections that i first moved to intensive farming to industrial agriculture. this section even refers to industrial agriculture. i suppose i should also move this discussion to industrial agriculture?trueblood15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved titles
This page and Factory farming seemed to be getting mixed up, with material being copied back and forth, and the criticism section of FF being moved to here. I've therefore moved anything to do with animals to FF and called it Factory farming (animals), and anything to do with crops here and called it Industrial agriculture (crops). That division seems to make most sense because when most people think of FF, they think of animals, and when they think of agriculture, they think of crops. In this way, we can avoid repetition or forks. SlimVirgin(talk)07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i said before that i find the term factory farming not neutral, and that was mirrored in the article. to talk of factory farming of crops even seems clumsy. nevertheless it makes sense to have one article about a certain kind intensive agriculture not two.trueblood07:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said on my talk page that farmers wouldn't use the term, but we can't write from the point of view of farmers (and organic farmers might use it). "Factory farming" is a very common term, which everyone understands more or less, and it tends to be used in relation to animals. People tend not to worry about factory-farmed carrots.
I see what you mean about the possibility of making the article about the term only, but with a term that's in such widespread use, I'm not sure about the validity of that. Also, we would have to actually write it, but it's not clear what we could use as sources (about the use of the term, as opposed to the phenomenon). SlimVirgin(talk)07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no intensive farming would not do, intensive farming also means high input relative to used surface, as opposed to extensive farming. there are farms in australia for example that you could describe as industrial but because the land is so bad they farm say 10000 ha but only extensively. on the other hand you could say a small market garden is intensively farmed. an organic farm can be intensive (also industrial come to think of it). i think both articles should be together (on crops and animals). but yes there should be an article on factory farming, since it is obviously a term that is used a lot. the parts that i left in the article factory farming are actually about the usage of the term. i don't want to write from the point of view of a farmer but also not from a animals rights point of view. but i would like to use that is less charged. earlier in the discussion at factory farming (people criticised the name of the article before) someone mentioned a google book search factory farming as an argument for the title. i looked at that and found that most books seemed to be written from a very critical point of view. someone who says factory farming is usually critical of it. i don't have a problem with being critical but i find the term polemical.trueblood08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it does, the first line from the article agriculture is:Agriculture (a term which encompasses farming) is the process of producing food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals. farming redirects to agriculture.
trueblood08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I suggest we move everything to that one title "Industrial agriculture" and have "factory farming" as a redirect. Would that work for you? SlimVirgin(talk)08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. I'm not keen on the arguments for and against format, but at least it's now all on one page with a neutral title. Hope that works for everyone. SlimVirgin(talk)08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deletion from alternatives
While organic food represents only about 2% of food sales worldwide, some surveys indicate a disproportionately high degree of participation. For example, in the U.S., some recent surveys indicate that upwards of 50% of consumers say they purchase some organic food products on a regular basis. [citation needed]
i deleted this section, if someone wants it back please provide a reference.trueblood10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
someone else removed it and at least left a message here (at the top), this helga person reverted carelessly (and another change by salix alba) and called it vandalism. i don't particulary object to the image, but i think whoever objected had a point, that could be discussed. the picture and the text that claims that these sows are confined to this space most of their lives are from an animal rights site, that shows a drawing of sheep behind barbed wire with a watchtower that makes one think of concentration camps. in my book that disqualifies it already as a source for information. how representative is this picture for modern farming and is the text true. people have objected to the picture before. of course with photos it is difficult to argue if they represent reality. you seem very fund of this one. is this because you know it represents modern farming well or is it because you feel it represents it well?trueblood12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no answer hu.. someone else removed the image again, so i resurrected another image that was in the article earlier and might be less controversial
regulations
i deleted a rather specific passage about regulations in two us states, article should be a little bit more general.
also deleted claim that organic regulations outlaw industrial agriculture, that would be up to discussion, since i.a. is a rather vague term.trueblood20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
animal rights
i fail to see the connection here with animal rights. this article is about agriculture, bringing in to much of an animal rights focus is just going move away from being npov.trueblood09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
removed tag, this is not the place to "to educate readers and editors about the concept of animal rights, the animal liberation movement"[reply]
I think it atleast merits a link to the animal rights page, as it is the source of much scrutiny from animal rights activist. Its a fact that is relevantto the topic, I don't see why it shound't be there. - Sye
It took me a little while of working on this article to see that there was an animal rights slant to it. Industrial ag relates as much to crop ag as it does to animal ag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).--Agrofe13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awful!
I have to say, I just found this article and got very confused with regards the title (with Factory Farming being the most common term as far as I can see) but I can let that slide as it is redirected here anyway.
My problem is this: The article is polarised into a 'pro' vs 'anti' debate which makes it difficult to follow information if someone has to check 2 places for every piece of info. Why is the 'for' stuff first and not the 'against' - this is a minor problem (I don't care which comes first) but it does give prominence to one side of the story over the other.
Next there is the lack of souces for many things (such as the entire history section and a lot of the arguments, both for and against). There are 2 citations in the 'for' section and 9 in the 'against'... Seems a bit unbalanced to me. Moving on there is only a single citation in the crop section (none at all for the criticism bit, which is again a bad way of presenting the arguments) - with the criticism section be a single paragraph which is a simple list compared with a detailed and explained bulletted list for the features section.
The 'alternatives' section makes sweeping claims such as 'In general, critics of industrial agriculture advocate decentralized approaches to food production' and 'Some have proposed genetically modified foods as a solution in alleviating some of the issues of industrial agriculture, particularly excess use of pesticides and fertilizers.' which are unsourced and use weasel words with abandon.
Finally, we come to a long list of see also's - and not a single link to animal rights or veganism and an external links section that could rival the open directory project.
So, from this, I am going to go through and do a bit of work (starting with the easiest bits of course - such as the links and unsourced statements).-Localzuk(talk)18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this article used to be called factory farming and was hopelessly biased against modern agriculture from a very animal rights point of view. it was changed to make it more objective (factory farming being a very suggestive title and in my opinion not the most common term).
it still is not very balanced, feel free to improve it, but it is not the place to preach about animal rights. in fact i don't see why their should be any mention of animal rights. trueblood06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any preeching at all, but its not a ridiculous notion to have a link to the animal rights section on policies or something, to beter inform the user that there are contraversies with this subject, if not then you'll only be putting a blanket over thier head, and I didn't think that was what wiki was about - Magwitch09:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies
Perhaps the section on arguments in favor and against should be rewritten under the title controversies. Even the pros and cons of factory farming are contentious. Neither side is willing to concede on issues such as cost ( including hidden costs ), efficiency, environmental concerns or safety.
Cayte04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Cayte[reply]
Egg Image
I don't understand the image of the eggs. Is it supposed to show some quality difference between eggs grown in different ways? By the way, is the egg on the left fertilized? I think this image should go. Jav4319:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Egg Image
The image is just a visual comparison between the eggs, and nothing else, the egg on the left was bought a local organics store and is not fertilized. Samuel13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is not a comparison between organic agriculture and industrial agriculture why do we have a comparison of the two eggs? --Agrofe20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i also agree, the image should go, for above reasons, also these two eggs may or may not be representative for organic and nonorganic eggs. if you were to quote a scientific study about the differences, that would be something else, but still rather belong into an article on organic farming.trueblood06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from intro
from the intro:"According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the United States are "family farms". Two percent of farms are not family farms, and those two percent make up fourteen percent of total agricultural output in the United States, although half of them have total sales of less than $50,000 per year. Overall, ninety-one percent of farms in the United States are considered small family farms. Depending on other factors, nine percent of the farms in the United States may qualify as industrial agriculture.[1]"
i find this to us specific to be in the introduction. we need to find another place. also the conclusion is OR and should not be there at all.
trueblood06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the problem is that we still don't have a clear definition of what factory farming/industrial agriculture is. Since it's a perjorative term that in my biased opinion is improperly often considered synonymous with non-organic agriculture, I'm not sure of the answer. Perhaps the definition eludes me because it's as simple as you wrote in the intro: that industrial agriculture is producing food products as a business, while non-industrial agriculture is hobby farming. Jav4302:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
woa, although i agree with often considered synonymous with non-organic agriculture, i don't agree with non-industrial agriculture is hobby farming. nonsense. it lot of people make their living out of non-industrial agriculture. me included.trueblood23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsavage edit to Alternatives
Hi Tsavage, Thanks for your additions to this article. We need good editors. I wanted to see what you thought about my thoughts on your recent revision. You talked about organic certifications are those, "...which preclude most of the practices that characterize industrialized agriculture." I would argue that the major components of all agriculture are the anthropomorphic production of crops that inlcude the amelioration of germplasm to better suit human and environmental requirments. Next I would say tillage and (in most cases) irrigation of the planted ground are part of most practices. What do you think? --Agrofe19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my small addition could be worded more clearly. Feel free! Its point is straightforward, it isn't very deep. Here in WP, we've made industrial agriculture synonymous with factory farming, and what characterizes IA/FF for general discussion purposes are a few basic practices like crowding, drugs, GE, monoculture, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. These are the things that put the "factory" in farming as defined by this article. Organic certification standards don't allow any of these practices. You can still have massive farms and quite factory-like production under organic certification, but you can't do it as described here. --Tsavage22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tsavage, Sorry for the delay. The FF and IA synonym works fine for me too! That part of the article reads fine to me now as well. Just a note, discussion could be had on wether organic certification alloow crowding and monoculture or not. Anyway, I am going to post some edits I would like to make to the central "Pros vs Cons" section. I will put it on the bottom and would really appreciate your (as well as everyone else's) input/comments.--Agrofe15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current article is poorly structured, missing a central section
The entire basic description of what exactly industrial agriculture/factory farming refers to for animals is currently filed under, "Arguments against", which is kind of...ridiculous. Overall, the article represents a poorly structured pro-industrial ag POV. --Tsavage03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accordance. This whole "Argument in Favor" and "Arguments in Opposition" does not seem encyclopedic and diminishes the article. Needs to be reworked. I will tackle it.--Agrofe04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken an initial shot at reworking the article. I deleted quite a bit (mostly POV and irrelevance. I tried to be as objective as possible. I think the structure is much better but contenct and references will need a lot of work. Any thoughts?--Agrofe19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mostly did a good job. I do think you neglected the entirety of the "arguments in favor" section, though, probably by accident. This might be because the current "arguments in favor" section is set up as a mere rebuttal of the "arguments against" section. I might suggest reposting your edits in a new (temporary) article (or something) so that we can work on them while retaining the current look of this article. Jav4308:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jav43, thanks for taking a look. Acutally I made some significant edits (including a few mistakes). Check out my version of "18:25, 16 March 2007 Agrofe" in the history section. SlimVirgin reverted everything I did saying I was trying to whitewash. Many of SV edits on my changes were welcome but I have not had time to open a discussion regarding what I feel was a much better approach to the article. I did make some changes that were worng for sure. If you get a chance please take a look at the version I mention about and let me know what you think.--Agrofe13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dairy cow image
Would whoever keeps adding this please stop? It's a photograph of a family farm, which you'll see if you look it up on Google. That's not what's meant by "factory farm" or "industrial agriculture." SlimVirgin(talk)23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the person adding the dairy farm photo but I do like the photo. For all intents and purposes this farm does seem to meet the criteria of Industrial Agriculture (regardless of it's familiality or not); i.e., concentrated population, lack of grazing (living in an enclosed environment), supplemented feeding, antibiotics, vitamins, mechanized milking, the list goes on. My opinion only, but this photo seems more a standard of industrial agriculture than does the swine photo that replaces it. Again, those are my feelings only based on my experiences and objectivity (or lack thereof). What do others think?--Agrofe19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a family farm. I've reverted your edits, because you seem to be trying to whitewash this. In future, could you please add material, but without deleting what's already there without discussion? In that way, we can make progress rather than going back and forth. SlimVirgin(talk)00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SV, I am not sure where we contradict on the "family farm" or not piece. Regardless of if a family owned the farm or not it is certainly factory farming or industrial agriculture any way you slice it.
I was not trying to whitewash the article but to add clarity. My bad for not opening up discussion prior to the dramitic changes. If it appeared I was eraseing content to paint a prettier picture of industrial ag then I made a mistake. My bad again. Moreover, if the edits I made are viewed by you as incorrect or biased I would benefit by hearing where you think they are off. Thanks again.--Agrofe00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could add, rather than delete. Your edits even changed what a source had said. If you want to remove something, perhaps you could post about it first? SlimVirgin(talk)00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately I will do this moving forward. I did try to include eveything that was in the content but tried to make it flow better. I also attempted to remove what I felt was irrelevent. I should not have removed "what the source said". Thanks for the tip.
Hi SV, I do not follow you but that's ok. I am not the smartest person around :-) Anyway, what about looking for a more objective photo?--Agrofe18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the picture IS of, I don't think. What matters is what the picture looks like. And the picture looks like industrial agriculture. Oh, and that picture of sows is ridiculous, not the standard, and actually against the law in the US. Jav4308:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters what the picture is of, and the cow image is one of a family farm, so to use it here would be dishonest. Do you have a source that says gestation crates are against the law in the U.S.? So far as I know, they're still widely used. SlimVirgin(talk)01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. People see the picture and use it as part of drawing conclusions. Also, you neglect the fact that family farms can be industrial agriculture - the two are not mutually exclusive, although they are often considered such. It doesn't matter what this is a picture of - what matters is what the picture portrays to visitors to the site, and the picture portrays industrial agriculture.
Basically, your picture is prejudicial and fails to show industrial agriculture. (By the way, see http://www.factoryfarming.com/fl_amendment.htm. No federal law, but other states have done the same thing as Florida, if I understand correctly.)
I would also like to note that the hog picture has been repeatedly criticized and stricken - by others as well as myself. See the first category in this discussion page, for example, and the sixth. Anyway, if you truly object to the dairy farm photo, I suggest you do as Agrofe suggested and look for a more objective photo. Jav4305:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not representative of most "industrial agriculture" operations [including hog farms] 2) it draws emotional responses due to lack of explanation/facts (hog crates are used during the week before and 3 weeks [or so] after farrowing because if they are not used, the sow crushes the piglets [by laying on them]) (which, oddly, isn't what the picture even shows) and 3) it is intentionally inflammatory [see category six on this page]. Jav4306:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh section 6, I was wandering what you were talking about ("categories"). I don't quite follow your explanation: unless the caption is inaccurate, it makes sense that it'd be featured in the arguments against. Otherwise, intentionality aside, the truth is often "inflammatory." At this point, I'm inclined to retain it unless you can offer more convincing and details reasons. El_C06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a description from an industry source. [2] These crates are widely used. As for the argument that they're only used for a week before and three weeks after birth, that misses the point that the sows are kept almost perpetually pregnant, so they end up spending a good deal of their lives in these crates. SlimVirgin(talk)07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently only Arizona & Florida (both relatively small swine producing states) outlaw 2 ft x 6.5 ft gestations stalls. In larger swine producing states like Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota and Oklahoma legislation has been proposed but none passed. In these larger swine producing states many large factory farms (many of them family owned) gestate in group stalls. By the way, Smithfield Foods & Maple Leaf Foods both recently anounced they would replace gestation systems with group pens. I guess the question is what percentage of commercial/industrial swine industry uses gestation stalls instead of group stalls? Maybe this info is not readily available and could only be put together going company by company and looking at their practices.
SlimVirgin, by the way, the second largest vegetable producer in the world (after Dole) is family owned. Is that a famly farm or industrial ag/factory farm?--Agrofe14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, this is like saying that the Organic Farming page should start with a picture of a gun shooting manure into the air. It shouldn't, because that is an inflammatory image that makes the reader jump to conclusions - although it is completely accurate. You are creating the same problem here - the image is inserting your point of view. It doesn't belong. Wikipedia is supposed to be about showing an unbiased factual article to inform readers - not about arguing someone's opinions. Jav4317:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Animals/Crops Sections
I would like to open a discussion on my proposing the following to replace entirely the Animal Ag & Crop sections. This of course would be a "rough draft offering" as many would have additional and improved content to add;
Factory Farm Livestock Production
Intensive, large scale animal agriculture can produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster. This concentrated form of agriculture produces higher yields of the final products in smaller populations. However, long-term costs for petrochemically derived compounds and their environmental effects is just becoming better understood. Also, the net loss of organic niomass due to their removal from the food chain is fundamentally incongruent with the production of livestock and crops.
The high input costs of industrial agriculture operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital. A single dairy cow contributes over $1300 US to a local rural economy each year, each beef cow over $800, meat turkey $14, and so on. As Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff states, “Research estimates that the annual economic impact per cow is $13,737. In addition, each $1 million increase in PA milk sales creates 23 new jobs. This tells us that dairy farms are good for Pennsylvania's economy.” [4] Organizations representing factory farm operators claim to be proactive and self-policing when it comes to improving practices according to the latest food safety and environmental findings. A 2002 article by a representative of the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, arguing against increased Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulation, stated, "Poultry growers, largely free of regulatory controls, are managing their litter in an environmentally sound, agronomically beneficial manner."[5]
Agricultural reformists say factory farming can be cruel to animals and legislation should be passed to regulate how livestock should be treated.[6][7][8] For example, in industrial poultry production newborn chicks are commonly debeaked using a hot blade. The confinement of animals for purposes of breeding, concentrated feeding and gestation can leads to physiologial problems such as osteoporosis, open sores and joint pain. Animal neurosis from monotony and frustration can lead to repetitive or self-destructive behaviour known as stereotypes.[9] The highly concentrated populations of livestock is an unatural form of overpopulation and may lead to disease. In natural environments, animals are seldom crowded into as high a population density. In factory farming environments animals a exposed to concentrated levels of fecal matter. Disease spreads rapidly in densely populated areas and antibiotics are commonly used to battle the spread of disease. In this form of livestock production there have been instances antibiotic resistance to various strains bacteria ("superbugs")[3].[citation needed].
In industrial livestock production large quantities and concentrations of waste are produced [10] and must be handled and recycled properly to avoid potential lake, river, and groundwater contamination. In concentrated animal agriculture situations there are higher concentrations of volatile gases (particlularly sulfur and ammonia compounds). There are also dust, insect, and odor problems that can be created.
Factory Farm Cropping Systems
Industrially produced agricultural crop are mass acreages of a unique crops (monocultures)in the same localities. This creates a requirement for a large infrastructure to process and translocate the final product.
Monoculture is the production of large areas of a single crop, often raised from cropping cycle to the next with out crop rotation. This in done in order to meet the economic requirements exerted on them because of the costly and specific infrastructures.
The application of petro-chemically derived fertilizers and crop protection compounds is standard to industrial agriculture. The uniformity of application over the compound over large areas enables a highly mechanized form of agriculture with very little hand labor involved.
The use of specialized hybrids is also an aspect of factory farming. Also, many of these varieties are developed to withstand the rigors of a large and disparate supply chain, thus further our reliance on pertochemicals and costly infrastruture that only large scale producers can afford to economically take advantage of. Genetically engineered or modified germplasm have been developed to be resitant to certain crop protection compounds.
Large scale irrigation and water management is also a facet of industrial agriculture.
Hydroponic greenhouse production of different crops is also considered and industrialized form of agriculture.
Food Safety, Food Security
In Factory Farming Food Saftey and Food Security becomes more cumbersome. When large quantities of meat or a wholefood product from disparate locations are comingled it is difficult to track the sources of all the constituents in a timely manner. Also, contaminated prostions of a small part of the batch might contain a food borne that contaminates the entire batch. Traceability is limited and the likely hood of mass contamination and illness is increased. Portions of ground beef may contain the flesh of as many as 1000 cows.[11] [12] [13]. This causes concern among consumers concerning the origin of foods and among government officials concerning the origin of disease. The National Animal Identification System is one proposed way the USDA is attempting to remedy this problem. Another proposed solution is the amelioration of irradiation technology for food sterilization.
--Agrofe15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I have no objection to most of this, though I'd like to see more sources and perhaps a little less jargon, if possible. SlimVirgin(talk)23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like generally the first part, although I would change factory farming to industrial agriculture in all instances. As for the food safety/food security section, I'm not sure it makes sense. You'll note that the current article text on this topic is full of argument. As such, I'm not sure that your conclusion that food safety/food security becomes more cumbersome with industrial agriculture is accurate. Specifically, the proposed purchasing direct from producer *avoids* FDA food safety/security checks, while processing foods through various mechanisms makes for a more carefully scrutinized (and thus safer) product. Jav4320:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guys, thanks for the feedback. I would definately try to get more sources (and we can use some of the existing ones from earlier edits). And with regards to what SV refers to as "jargon" I am using language that agriculturalists would be accustomed to. I have no isses with changing it make easier reading but don't know the proper protocol. When I read an encyclopedia I like to learn technical jargon. I am still learning Wkipedia though for sure.
Jav43, I have no aversion to either Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture and this issue has been discussed in detail by SlimV, Trueblood and others and a good consensus was reached. Review this discussion above and let us know what you think.
With regards to the food saftey/security piece let's definately discuss. I know what I have is very rough. I think some of the arguments about the problems with lot consolidation, cross contamination, pesticide management, water management, in the larger production and handling systems that Industrial Agricluture implies, are valid. Thanks again for any and all feedback. I think we are going to come up with a pretty good article here.
As I understood it, people agreed to use the less inflammatory yet accurate term "industrial agriculture". That's what I see in the discussion earlier. (I don't object to talking about the term "factory farming", but that term shouldn't be the term most frequently used in the article.)Jav4317:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fear we're still missing the point
In an effort to "satisfy everyone" and avoid NPOV tagging and acrimonious exchanges and whatnot, this article is steadily losing focus. Earlier versions needed better writing, less point form, but they did get to the point.
"Factory farming" is the common term, likely what most in a general audience will look up, not "industrial agriculture". Although not such a big deal, making IA the primary title seems more political to WP editors than reflecting the real world.
FF/IA is not a method of agriculture, it is a fairly mainstream view of certain large-scale, intensive ag practices, seen as a group, and disfavored by its opponents (the ones who use the term!) for a set of central concerns. An IA?FF article must make this plain and clear. As it evolves, this is becoming more and more an argument, pros and cons.
As I see it, a useful general encyclopedia article on FF/IA should plainly set forth:
what the term refers to
why it exists (ie, some people think FF is a bad thing)
some detail on what supposedly makes it bad, appropriately written so there is no confusing claims with absolute facts
Britannica has no problem doing this (while limiting the term to the animal aspect):
System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.
The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.
Right now, I get bogged down in what should be the most informative, central sections, "Animals" and "Crops", it's kind of a DIY list where you're can argue factory farming for yourself. The rewrite reads better, but it's still a debate, not an explanation. Simply saying "factory farming says doing this, this and this is bad" is not the same as telling people that factory farming is bad. --Tsavage00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you shouldn't merge the articles. The article about Intensive farming should go about a agricultural production system. The article about Factory Farming should describe where the name come from how it came in commen use and how it used. It shouldn't describe a argicultural production system.195.193.60.45 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
FF/IA is not a unified, formal agricultural production system, it's a descriptive term for a loose set of practices, characterized by "unnatural", assembly-line/factory-like conditions. It's as much a perceived ag philosophy as a method. --Tsavage14:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the primary title should be "factory farming"
Really, appeasing some WP editors (ie certain segments of the general audience) by using the "less inflammatory" industrial agriculture as the title is as POV as it gets. The terms FF and IA may be synonymous, but common usage isn't. "Factory farming" is the popularly used, familiar term, not "industrial agriculture". This is reflected in several dictionaries, where "factory farm(ing)" is defined and "industrial agriculture" is not. --Tsavage15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: What is the article about? It's about industrial agriculture (or intensive farming). "Factory farming" is a perjorative term... and the article isn't about the nature of the term (although it has a paragraph on that topic). The article is about the nature of industrial agriculture. It's not a question of being "inflammatory" - it's a question of being accurate. Jav4322:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c on the matter: "factory farming" is indeed a popular term for the process of "Industrialised Agriculture" typically associated with view presented by groups against farming. If you look at the body it even states that opponents call it "factory farming". So if one term is less inflammatory without being overly euphemistic for no point then I'd say we use that term, expecially as one of the terms has a longer historical use (factory farming is really just a popular activist title). some people might call milking "cow rape". I'd suggest the article be called "Industrial agriculture" as per the more popular use for non-activist/research description of the practice (Industrial agriculture is far far more referenced by a LARGE amount check out amazon and you'll find just 15 books for "factory farming" and 3,700 for "Industrial Agriculture"). "Industrial Agriculture" is an acceptable term to both POV and NPOV, whereas "factory farming" fails that test. Also: "factory farming" is a less descriptive word. Industrialisation is greater than just "factories". Industrialisation process is wider and describes more things without the connotations of a shed with chimneys, sad workers doing repetitious chores and smoke belching out.. NathanLee19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we use this source as a reference, it uses the term FF as their primary title, and equates it to "intensive agriculture". I think we should rely on reliable widely published sources for deciding terminology, not our own perceptions. Crum37519:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I mentioned amazon's book list as an example. 3,700 references to 15 seems like it is "widely published" don't you think? Titles for news articles specifically written to catch attention or invoke emotion aren't really a good reference on whether a term is correct, more so the opposite (e.g. confirmation that it is indeed a sensationalist term). NathanLee20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the book titles, but I notice that Google comes up with 454,000, 500,000 and 530,000 hits respectively for "Factory Farming", "Industrial Agriculture" and "Intensive Agriculture". Clearly all terms are in 'vogue', but that and the book titles don't really tell us which is more prevalent or apt today. I also noticed Intensive farming which seems to be on its own (oddly using the bolded term "Intensive Agriculture" in its lead), and I am not quite clear about its distinctions from the above, if any. I think FF makes sense for this article in light of the sources we have regarding the gestation crates and Mad Cow disease, but I am not sure how to resolve the stand-alone Intensive farming article. Crum37520:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although google might have a roughly equal view of internet sites, I think the published references would seem to be a more reliable source on the longer term and more widely used professional terminology (publishing a book of any sort is a pretty involved process.. any dummy can throw up a webpage or blog). Certainly I think it is a more encompassing term and you'd have to agree it isn't loaded with any activist leanings? I mean you can call people who don't believe in god "godless heretics" or you can say they're atheists.. One's loaded, the other less so. Both describe the current name applicable to non-believers-in-god under many religions.. But one's obviously a term used almost exclusively by one side. As is the case with this: not many farmers would say they're "factory farmers", but they might attend a conference on "Industrialised agriculture". And activists against them will also understand "Industrial Agriculture" as well.. NathanLee20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that if a major news outlet like CNN refers to it as 'Factory Farming', and that's an important source for us in the article, we should also use that term. I have no problem in redirecting "Industrial Agriculture" and "Intensive Agriculture" to it, but we need to resolve the status of the Intensive farming article. Crum37521:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's where we're not agreeing. Factory farm does have an "angle" to it that Industrial Agriculture does not. Therefore it should be the primary article with the factory farm as a redirect. If the concept of calling something factory farm has enough meat in it (pardon the pun) then perhaps it can be a split article. But at the moment we've got issues trying to sort out Industrialised Farming/Agriculture (a term used by both "sides") and "factory farming" used almost exclusively by one side and not as descriptive. The process is that of Industrialising agriculture, not factory-ing farms.. It's like the change from hand made goods to mass produced products. Factory farming is a nickname only and not a very descriptive one. Just as the industrialised nations continue to evolve past the notion of countries with factories: as does the notion of industrialising the rural/fishing/etc industries.. Industrialised agriculture will continue to progress beyond the simple name of "factory farms". NathanLee21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and intensive farming/Intensive Agriculture is definitely NOT the same as factory farming. Intensive farming for vegetable/crop production is NOT factory farming.. This factory farming article is the least descriptive title of all. The terms Industrialised Agriculture is different to Intensive farming is different to factory farming. With factory farming being the only one which holds an implicit POV and used almost exclusively by activist groups. NathanLee21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as FF title, I prefer to use the news organization's title, as that to me indicates what they believe the current public terminology is. It seems to me that our mission and their mission are similar as we'd like the public to recognize our terminology, and if there is an issue of offensiveness, they would be very sensitive to it. To me personally, a factory means a place where things are produced in an efficient, organized and and mechanized fashion, and I see no problem with the term. My concern is that the terms seem to blur each other out. As I noted, we have "Industrial Agriculture", "Intensive Agriculture" and Intensive farming. The CNN article seems to equate FF with "Intensive Agriculture", and the separate Intensive farming article equates IF with Intensive Agriculture. So before we start moving things around, we need to nail down these confusing terminologies. Right now, the sources we use match the main title, so it's a good starting point, but the confusion with the others needs to be resolved if possible. Crum37522:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ONE article's description versus 3,700 books on amazon (versus just 15 on "factory farming")? Where are your priorities in this Crum375? I've said why a term used by popular media is not a good one to base an article on. Let's set the bar a bit higher than cheap "read me! Sensation here!" type article blurbs. How about what scientists would refer to it? Here's a link [url]http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/a-new-agenda-for-agriculture-research.html[/url] as an example. The public terminology as you call it is neither correct (it describes just one nickname given to certain practices), nor broad enough, nor a recognised term by those who actually are in the farming industry. You CANNOT use an activist term to describe a field of agriculture.
That's like having an article on nuclear weapon fabrication called "Baby killing mass murdering doomsday devices creation". Sure, anti-nuclear protesters might term it that, but I'd defy you to find any conferences, publications or scientific journals on that topic.
I think some are trying to turn this area of AGRICULTURE into a sounding board for animal rights concepts, which is most definitely POV. Whether you agree or disagree with the principles that doesn't make wikipedia a place to have all references to anything relating to intensive farming, industrial agriculture muddied and turned into "evil factory farming". Not all intensive farming OR industrial agriculture is able to be described as "factory farms" (which is such an ill defined concept.. as opposed to the concept of Industrial agriculture or intensive farming). Square peg, round hole: ain't going to go no matter how hard you hit it with the edit button hammer.. NathanLee00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I am not sure that the title we use should necessarily be the one used by the most books or scientific papers published. I think the topics that we are addressing here are the pros and cons of modern large-scale mass production high efficiency mechanized farming that is used to produce much of the food on western supermarket shelves. Given this topic, we are trying to present the pros and cons of these techniques, as seen by their proponents and opponents. Since we are required to use reliable sources, the most notable and reliable sources we have for this topic and its controversies are the big news outlets, like CNN, Reuters, Washingon Post, BBC, etc. They all seem to be calling this 'Factory Farming' as a primary name, with 'Intensive Farming' or 'Intensive Agriculture' as a secondary synonymous name. I think it makes sense for us to pattern ourselves after these big news media, since they are the most reliable and notable. Crum37500:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see one that shows that the set of all things that are "Factory farms" is the same as the set of all things that is "Industrial agriculture" which is the same as the set of all things that is "intensive farming". Factory farming appears to mean "any big farm", or "any high density of livestock farm". That doesn't fit intensive farming process as applied to crops, or to fish.. Or to the concept of any non traditional type of farming (e.g. you could regard the ova/egg donor concept as "intensive farming" as related to human reproduction.. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with factory anything, just high inputs to maximise outputs).. NathanLee02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned to you elsewhere, the wiki process is very straightforward - find relevant and notable reliable sources. In this case, we have very reliable and notable sources (i.e. the big news media) using the term Factory Farming, showing us it's equivalent to intensive farming, intensive agriculture, etc. Additionally, they tell us that there is controversy - that opponents believe it has all kinds of drawbacks, while proponents have counter arguments. This is what this article is about. If you can find good sources, for either side, please let us have them. Just discussing a lot of your own ideas and personal knowledge on the Talk page is not productive or efficient. Thanks, Crum37503:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm being cautious to respect other's contributions and avoid an edit war with an editor particularly when they have in the past tag team reverts they don't like with yourself. "Efficient" is not the same as someone merging articles and ploughing on ahead with no regard to the discussion on here. I would be in my rights to restore things to the pre-massive update frenzy by SV and rename the page: but I'm attempting to not be a wanker and follow that practice.
I posted on SV's page a suggestion that in a sign of good faith she should revert the changes and take this up in the discussion page as per polite/decent/respectful process. She's then doubled her efforts and just gone ahead and continued. I'll be renaming the page to the less POV term "Industrial Agriculture" shortly in the abscence of any argument why a term's popular use should outweigh choosing a Neutral name. As I've given the example of anti-names not getting picked over names used by the industry itself. If you can show me where the primary title for an industry is that of a term used by their opponents and not themselves then I'll be happier. But if that was the case: then the PETA page should be named "People for Eating Tasty Animals" given the number of casual users who attempt to change it that way.
I still cannot see why such a massive rewrite of the page had to take place at speed and at the expense of the discussion process on here. You also have no sources that say that the term is " showing us it's equivalent to intensive farming". I've posted up the point that in legal terms "factory farm" may merely mean "big", but as I'm not the one making the original research that these terms are exactly equivalent. The use of the term factory farm does not apply to fish or vegetable crops that I can see. Nor does it replace the term "intensive farming" that I can see. The only original research going on appears to be the attempt to use wikipedia to turn an activist assumption into a somehow valid and most suitable term.
Now I've been rather polite and restrained my editing/renaming efforts and asked for some degree of courtesy by SV to stop just steamrolling her POV forward. I think these actions are showing that SV has a significant agenda/desire to muddy the waters as per activist definitions of something. There is no urgency unless you have an agenda to push though. What I should just do is revert all the changes and restore the pages until you have evidence of the equivalency of the terms IN THEIR ENTIRETY and a reason for picking an inflammatory term over a non inflammatory more broad term. NathanLee09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from attacking other editors. Try instead to address the merits, such as the reliability or relevance of sources, or the neutrality (or lack thereof) of their presentation in the article — this is what Wikipedia is all about. I also suggest that we move from this thread to the bottom, to avoid repeating ourselves. Crum37512:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
origin of the term?
I see a whole section on the origin of the term "factory farm," but it seems the term is self-explanatory; what I would like is an explanation of the term "battery farm."
69.140.164.14207:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization error in article name
Has anyone else noticed that the capitalization in "Farming" in the article's title is ungrammatical, and against WP:TITLE? I plan to move this page back to Factory farming - I just wanted to give some advance notice to avoid alarming anyone, since this article's title has been debated before. --G Rose (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, please stop adding those cow images to the lead. You spent weeks reverting to an image that stated explicitly it was a family farm. Now you're adding one where we have no idea what it is. Do not add images of factory farms unless there is a source saying it's an image of a factory farm/industrial agriculture. Not your own POV. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin(talk)19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And who is to say something is/isn't a factory farm? The ONLY organizations that will certify farms as "factory farms" are those who are opposed to industrial agriculture, which is some insane POV. A family farm can very well also be a factory farm - a family run farm can be industrial agriculture. Why don't you actually look at the image and see what it portrays rather than blindly following the guidelines of biased activist organizations? Jav4322:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we have this dispute, you need to supply a reliable source showing that the cow image is of a factory farm, or some equivalent expression. Otherwise this is your guess, and that's OR. Or find another image of a factory farm, but you can't keep adding this disputed one that could be of anything. SlimVirgin(talk)22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just how can you say that the image of a number of cows in a barn doesn't meet common qualifications for a "factory farm"? That's what people mean when they say "factory farm."Jav4322:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your proof that the images of the sows is a factory farm? What if I say the hogs were just placed there for a moment while their usual homes were cleaned? Jav4322:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sows might have been paid to model for that photograph! Once the lights were off and the cameras had stopped rolling, it was out of the crate and back to the hotel for a quick snort of cocaine. SlimVirgin(talk)22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have never been to a hog farm - or even a fair :P. Crates of that type are exactly what are used to sort hogs for cleaning/medication/etc. Jav4323:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a source that says that's what it is; see the image page. You must supply a source showing that yours is, or find another one that definitely is. SlimVirgin(talk)22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the image page. It doesn't say it's a factory farm. It just says SOME hogs are confined in gestation crates. It doesn't even say that the depicted hogs are confined in gestation crates. Per your fallacious argument, I'm removing the image of the sows. Jav4322:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being disruptive now. It's from a website that publishes photographs of factory farming. It is clearly a photograph of it. What do you mean by "It doesn't even say that the depicted hogs are confined in gestation crates." Are you saying these are not gestation crates? SlimVirgin(talk)22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that the image of the sows does not have authority stating that those sows are on a factory farm - which is EXACTLY what you're saying about the image of the cows.Jav4322:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I believe both images can be included. But in accordance with your interpretation of policy, neither can. If your interpretation is to stand, then it must be applied universally. That's all I'm doing: applying your interpretation universally. As for whether the website collects images of animals in factory farms... you are violating WP:NOR to reach that conclusion. That isn't what the website says about the image. Additionally, the website is questionable, as it exists only to argue a specific activist agenda, rather than to describe the scientific or social status quo.Jav4322:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that the real problem is that there are two articles here, not one: there is one article on industrial agriculture and one on the term "factory farming". These articles should be separated. They don't work merged like this. Jav4322:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: That image and associated material from a site called factoryfarming.com which I would say should not be allowable for a number of reasons as it is a private site/run by an anti-factory farming/pro-vegetarian group (see the bottom of the page) and is not necessarily indicative of factory farming (what's to say they aren't used by a farm that the only cages are those which are used when the pigs are fighting?).
I ended up here off the PETA page as was discussing farming and I asked my flatmate who had parents who own a "family farm" and about the picture: "Gestation pens" (not the name used in Australia), he said they are used when sows are pregnantso there are less fights/territorial issues (this is all sourced verbally, not from an internet reference.. So I'm not expecting it to be added by the way). They are not kept in them for any significant length of time except when they're likely to be fighting. So to claim that these pens are the standard practice is very much POV (point of view) from a site created in opposition to certain farming practices (would that qualify as a "hate site"?). I would not regard an anti-factory farm lobby group site as a reliable, independent, NPOV resource for this page as per the wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources.. What are people's views on this?
If you look at the referenced article (if you exclude the biased source of the factoryfarming.com site) it talks about the reasons why those gestation pens are used (there's no mention that they're exclusively used by "factory farms") but the humane society's site talks about a number of issues with them.. But given they are widely used throughout the pig industry: I'm not sure whether that would constitute just industrial farms..
quote from the Washington post article:
"The American Veterinary Medical Association and other organizations recognize gestation stalls and group housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being of sows during pregnancy," he said. "We support the right of all producers to choose housing that ensures the well-being of their animals and that is appropriate for their operations."
So at very least there should be a mention of the views of the vet society as having some benefits.
So I'd propose a different source be found that's not from a private/lobby site that backs up:
a) gestation pens/cages are a factory farm only practice (the article mentions that animal rights groups regard it as a feature, but that isn't the same as factually being a feature of factory farms. Fact is that sows fight while pregnant or with litter ([3]).
b) the claim in the note is correct for the picture involved. As it is the picture may not depict the size of cages mentioned (the joining of two separate sources one for size and the other for a picture from a lobby site) is original research and cannot be verified. Caption should relate to the image, not original research. I'm not saying we need a scale on every picture: but an image caption that states something about the picture that can't be found in the original source of the image and could possibly be wrong is worth deleting.
I also dispute the idea that factory farm and family farm are two mutually exclusive concepts. I'm with Jav43 on this point also. "factory farm" vs "family farm" is a constructed "choice" from anti-farming lobby groups, not anything factual or verifiable..NathanLee17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images
A few things:
a) the image of the sows is clearly POV (see the archived talk page) and thus, if it should be included in this article at all, belongs in the "arguments against" section.
b) cattle on a feedlot is much more representative of typical views of "Factory farming" and should as such be included here.
c) the image of the sows is incomplete, as it does not explain the gestation crates: it tends to give uneducated viewers the wrong idea about gestation crates and their necessity. If the image is included, the caption should explain the necessity of the gestation crate. Jav4300:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should try our best to adhere to proper sourcing. When you say "cattle on a feedlot is much more representative of typical views of 'Factory farming'", that sounds like WP:OR, unless you can come up with an image and a reliable source that says that in respect to that image. Crum37500:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said with respect to the image of the sows, to quote, "I think this one is more typical factory farming". That sounds like WP:OR. (By the way, how on earth is factoryfarming.org [the source of the image of the sows] a reliable source? Thinking that a propaganda site is "reliable" is ridiculous.) Do you deny that a feedlot qualifies as a "factory farm"? Jav4301:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the wrong idea it gives readers about gestation crates? You said before they aren't used in North America, and I found you a reliable source that says they are. What is your other issue with them? SlimVirgin(talk)00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the archived discussion. The crates are severe POV. Without description of the reasons farmers use the crates, the POV is only expounded. Jav4301:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's your OR that they're necessary. The largest pork producer in the States is going to phase them out, so they clearly don't agree with you. SlimVirgin(talk)00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I misspoke. I should have mentioned the "value" of the gestation crate, not the "necessity" of it. But with your statement in mind, how are the gestation crates representative of "factory farming" or "industrial agriculture" if "[t]he largest pork producer in the States is going to phase them out"? Jav4301:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, when the farm no longer uses gestation crates, will is still qualify as "industrial agriculture"? See, the problem is that a gestation crate is not a factor that decides whether a farm is or is not a "factory farm". Thus the image of the hogs in the gestation crates is nothing more than perjorative. As a gestation crate is not determinative of whether a farm is a "factory farm", including the image of the gestation crates in this article is not helpful. If it is included at all, it should be in the "arguments against" section. Jav4301:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(from SV talk) Which cattle image don't you like? The one with the cows on the feedlot? Why did you relocate the image of sows again? Have you read the relevant discussion from the talk page (which you archived)?Jav4300:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The top one that gives no indication what type of farm it's from. Please don't keep moving the sow image. It's an iconic image of factory farming; even the producers are starting to recognize that. SlimVirgin(talk)01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. What's your proof that it's "iconic"? It's hypocritical for you to say that the sow image is "iconic" while simultaneously removing what I say is a much more common representation: the feedlot. Jav4301:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a feedlot more typical of a factory farm (as opposed to any other kind) than a gestation crate? And why do you think that feedlot is in a factory farm? SlimVirgin(talk)01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When people think of a "factory farm" (or rather, "industrial agriculture"), they think of large numbers of animals. A feedlot (or rather, a CAFO) by definition (in the US) has at least 1,000 head. That makes a feedlot a solid example of "factory farming". On the other hand, sows in gestation crates are not necessarily "iconic" of factory farming - the few sows depicted may be the only sows living on the farm, and gestation crates are in limited use (where used, they are only used during part of the gestation period). Gestation crates can be used on very small operations. Feedlots cannot. Jav4301:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The top image says it's from a feedlot. A feedlot is by nature an example of "industrial agriculture". Why are you removing that image? Jav4301:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the sow image is that the image purports to portray particular hogs on a particular farm, and does not claim to be at all typical of the swine industry - or of the agricultural industry at large. Jav4301:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your new caption for the sows image still fails to explain the reason farmers use gestation crates. Jav4301:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gestation crates are widely used. We can add something from the WPost about why they're used. Bear in mind, of course, that if sows tend to crush their piglets, the species would not have survived, so the sentence about them being "necessary" has to be carefully written. What is meant is that they are convenient in a situation where sows have been overfed and given growth hormones and are much larger and heavier than is healthy for them or their piglets. SlimVirgin(talk)01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sows crush their piglets in the wild, too. This is why most litters in the wild will only have about 6 piglets, while litters raised on farms will have around 10 piglets. I don't understand your reference to sows being overfed or whatever - sows specifically are not overweight, as being overweight decreases fertility and leads to birthing difficulty. Jav4301:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's overlapping the lead now. You wanted information to be added about the crates to the cutline, and so that fills that section. SlimVirgin(talk)01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This leaves a question unanswered: why is the lead the image of the sows at all? Is there any reason other than your claim that the picture of the sows in gestation crates is "iconic"? Can you honestly claim that the image gives a fair portrayal of industrial agriculture, from an encyclopediac perspective, rather than being intended to prejudice people against industrial agriculture from the start? Jav4301:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a well-known signifier of intensive farming of animals. It's iconic. It causes customers, including those who sell meat, a lot of problems. Of all the images there are in the public mind of factory farming, the gestation crate is possibly the most prominent.
All you're doing is trying to whitewash the issue, and claiming you know best, but you were arguing until recently that they're not used at all in the U.S., when in fact around one million sows are in crates in the U.S. at any given time. They are in widespread use, they are widely regarded as cruel, and they are very typical of the situations factory farming creates by trying to industrialize the reproduction of living beings. SlimVirgin(talk)01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you admit that the only reason you include that image is because it speaks out against "factory farming". How exactly is that good encyclopediac style? Shouldn't an image that portrays "factory farming" without being intended to take a side be the one that leads the article? Jav4301:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slimvirgins assertion that "family farms" do not use gestation crates is unlcear. They are individual families that own pig farms that ue gestation crates...--Agrofe18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes down to what your definition of 'family farm' is. The term conjures up images of mom and pop with their little small-holding with a few cows and chickens. Whereas in fact 'family farm', in the sense you are using it means 'a farming business owned by a family' - which could be anything.-Localzuk(talk)19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you equate "family farm" with "hobby farm", then? Regardless, there is no reason why a "family farm" would suddenly not qualify for that term if it made use of gestation crates. Gestation crates are not a determining factor. Jav4301:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Factory farming has a poor reputation. Even McDonald's is starting to worry about this for commercial reasons, as was seen by the welfare committee they established, which pushed its suppliers to start phasing out gestation crates over the next ten years, as they are doing in Europe over the next seven. Wikipedia reflects majority and significant-minority opinion, in roughly the proportion to which they are represented by reliable sources. Agrofe and Jav43 want to write an article that sings the praises of factory farming. That would not be in line with our policies.
The gestation crate image is an image that is iconic of factory farming. That is precisely why McDonalds was so concerned about it. It is the type of practise that gives industrial agriculture a bad name, and it does have that bad name. Jav and Agrofe want to stick to images of uncertain origin that show happy cattle and well-fed chickens.
From now on, please use only images where you can show that it is an image of a factory farm, either because the source says it is, or because we have the name of the farm and we can find out that it is for ourselves. That is in line with WP:V and WP:NOR. No more WP:POINT. No more endlessly reverting over months. Just stick to the policies. If we end up with multiple images that our sources say are from factory farms that would all be suitable for the lead, then we can discuss which one(s) to use, but at the moment we don't. SlimVirgin(talk)19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are biased, Slimvirgin. Your opinion has been perverted by propaganda. You want to write this article to show that "factory farming" or rather "industrial agriculture" is bad. That's wrong. I think the article should describe "industrial agriculture" from an unbiased point of view. You seem to say that cows/chickens/whatever in "industrial agriculture" are "unhappy" and aren't "well-fed". That's ridiculous and is wholly your POV and the POV of propaganda-based animal rights activists. Remove the bias and prejudice and POV from your edits and I'll be happy. No more POV, Slimvirgin! (And the gestation crate image is NOT iconic of "factory farming" - it is iconic of the arguments used by animal rights activists in opposition to industrial agriculture.)
Slimvirgin wants to write an article that sings the horrors of factory farming. That would not be in line with our policies. Jav4301:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Jav43, let's focus on the issues and not the editors. I think that much of the focus of this article is on the controversy, so I added a blurb in the lead, and also restored the sows image, as I think it depicts the controversy better than just a bunch of cows feeding. Crum37501:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sows image advocates one side of the controversy and as such is improper POV.
Re: issues v. editors: I must admit I agree. I was prompted to address Slimvirgin directly because Slimvirgin accused Agrofe and myself of attempting to insert POV into this article, while she is actually the one promoting a POV article. Jav4303:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re the sows image: if it shows what is common practice in factory farming, which is sufficiently controversial that McDonald's plans to stop using it, and is a visually effective image that gets the point across, then I see it as an informative way to explain the controversy to our readers. Just having some cows feeding gives no special information to the readers, as far as I can tell. Crum37504:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you admit you placed the image there because it portrays "factory farming" in a negative light. How can you avoid recognizing your action as POV? You're including the image of the sows ONLY because it portrays "factory farming" poorly - not because it portrays industrial agriculture in general. (Gestation crates aren't an intrinsic component of "factory farming".) You need to remove the POV you continually insert into this article. Jav4304:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your picture of cows could be from anywhere. It doesn't show anything that is distinctive about factory farming, and you've offered no evidence that it's not from a family farm. The other image does show something that is limited to factory farming, and we do have evidence from a source that it's from a factory farm. Your edits to this page are very disruptive. SlimVirgin(talk)04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what picture you refer to. The picture of cows on a feedlot? A feedlot qualifies as a "factory farm" as discussed supra and in the article. The picture of dairy cattle? That has just as good "evidence" as your image of the sows. (In actuality, the propoganda-based presentation of the image of the sows is very poor "evidence" of anything. A website dedicated to propaganda (like factoryfarming.org) is not a verifiable source.)
Gestation crates are not limited to "factory farming" and to claim that they are is simply ludicrous.
To be honest, I find your edits distruptive. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you are only interested in portraying "factory farming" in a poor light and are not interested in creating an unbiased encyclopediac article. Jav4304:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a single-issue editor who has made only 122 edits to articles in two and a half years. [4] You either have no clue what you're talking about and are unwilling to use sources to educate yourself, or you're trying to mislead others intentionally. You wrote recently that gestation crates are illegal in the U.S. [5] But in fact, they're widely used on factory farms in the U.S. [6] with 60-70 percent of America's six million breeding sows confined in them. [7] Your sole contribution to the encyclopedia for months has been to try to remove this image on the grounds that is doesn't represent standard use, although it very much does. If that kind of editing continues, you're likely to be reported for disruptive editing. SlimVirgin(talk)04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. All you did there was make a personal attack. That was about as useless as can be imagined. (As for gestation crates being illegal? We already went through that on the archived talk page.) Jav4304:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but florida is IN the US. Therefore it is fair to say that something is illegal in the US. Had he said "throughout the US". If we're going to talk about single topic I'd point out "Pot Kettle, black".
Everyone's here to contribute whether they contribute much over 2 and a half years or not. My contributions so far are motorbikes, techie stuff, a small Australian town, random spelling fixes and a couple of paragraphs on animal welfare..
Your interest in wikipedia seems to be fairly narrow too if you run things through your magic tool. [8] I don't see much interest outside Animal Rights and Jewish/Antisemite/Israeli related articles.. Does that mean you have less right to speak than myself (given I have a with a wider range of interest categories than "Jewish related" and "animal rights related"). :P I'd suggest a chill session for a bit and we can sort out fixing up this article without need for referring to people's credentials, especially when it's irrelevant and hypocritical to do so.. NathanLee19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav43, I am not familiar with your history here, but regarding the image, it is the best one we have that clearly conveys 'factory farming' as opposed to just a 'modern farm', and it also best highlights the controversy between the opponents and proponents of factory farming. If you have another sourced image with these attributes, then let's have it and we'll compare its merits. Crum37505:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't portray "factory farming". We have nothing that says that gestation crates are unique to "factory farming". It also is extremely POV. That's bad. It doesn't show the controversy - it shows one side of the controversy. We need a factual image, like cattle on a feedlot. Jav4317:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shows animals that are confined to a tight space, like in a production line in a factory, and unlike the feeding cows image, we are told by the source that they actually spend prolonged periods of their life there. That to me represents the crux of the article - to the proponents the 'production line' means efficiency and safety, while the opponents see it as abusive and harmful. The key to a good image in the lead is that it has to encompass what the article is about. This image does, while the feeding cows image, which just shows cows lined up to eat, does not convey that message. Crum37517:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only characteristic that seems to be universal to the definition of "factory farming" is the size of an operation. It seems that nearly everyone agrees that a "factory farm" must have large animal numbers. Animals being confined in a tight space is *not* a characteristic inherent in "factory farming". It may be an added factor leading to a farm being termed a "factory farm", but it does not by itself qualify a farm as a "factory farm." You're right about the distinction along a "production line", but the image of the sows inserts POV into that production line - the picture was taken and posted in order to inflame and provoke. The lead image should reflect the factual nature of "What is a factory farm?" This should be a feedlot or other collection of large animal numbers. It should not be a POV image of sows in extremely tight quarters. The image of the sows is *not* informative, except to explain why some people oppose "factory farming". The lead image should be informative of the nature of the term "factory farm". Jav4317:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, a 'family farm', at least by the USDA's definition, can be of any size, as long as it's owned and managed by family members. Thus, I don't see how size alone is a distinctive characteristic. OTOH, we agree that efficient 'production line' process is associated with 'factory' farming. So at this point it seems to me that the sow's image is the only one we have to convey a distinctive image of factory farming. I don't see it as POV at all - the proponents consider that technique efficient and safe, while the opponents see it as harmful, and clearly it conveys a 'production line' message, so it seems nearly ideal to represent the contents of this article. Crum37519:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "family farm" issue. But I think we need something that's firstly more indicative of the process of factory farming: not just one aspect that's not really inherent to factory farming (e.g. if you were to use this as a criteria in europe where it is phased out: there'd be no "factory farms" So I think we need something showing the process or the "Factory like" nature without tying into what sounds like a process that'll be gone in a few years anyhow).NathanLee19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that 'factory farming' is a controversial issue in western countries - it is regularly discussed by people. This article should reflect this discussion. If major world companies that used 'factory farming' methods are ceasing to do so (such as McDonald's) then this should be reflected within the article. Choosing a picture that is typical of factory farming is not POV. It is simply a picture that shows something that is typical in the industry. To choose an image of cows in a feedlot doesn't show an aspect of the industry that is often discussed, so is not a good all round 'representative' image.-Localzuk(talk)12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article should reflect controversy. It does that. The article should NOT choose a side, which is what the image of the sows does. I don't propose removing the image of the sows - I simply propose placing it in the "arguments against" section where its POV belongs. Jav4317:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WPost says gestation crates are used in factory farming. If you want to say they might also be used by family farms, please find a source. Otherwise you're just giving us your own opinion, which was wrong about the crates being illegal in the U.S. and might be wrong about this too. SlimVirgin(talk)19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WPost article does not actually say that. It says "[t]he largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." Jav4319:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it logically the concept is not linked to family ownership of a farm. The WP article says "animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming". That's the only reference to factory farming in the article and it is referring to animal welfare group opinion..
There's nothing that says family farm ownership precludes the use of these. The article talks of "contract suppliers" as well as the company owned farms.
The emphasis is on the whole industry in other articles (e.g. the humane society and the statements about Europe banning the process). So I'd say that the onus is on you if you wish to assert that firstly family ownership of farms is mutually exclusive to factory farming process (which logically doesn't seem to match.. Nor is it supported by the article, unless an article that mentions a claim by a group means that group's claim is correct automatically). We are talking about a process, nothing to do with ownership (to be honest the only groups that use this family versus factory argument are animal lib groups that I've read information by). Nothing that says an "organic farm" can't use these either, they're entirely unrelated to the rest of the operation of the farm or the farming concept. If you separate pregnant sows using gestation crates, then you use gestation crates. Nothing exclusively linked to factory farming process..
I can't help but think that rather than a photo we need some sort of diagram that highlights the defining characteristics of factory (e.g. "production line, repeatable one step-> next step -> product" type concept). Focus on one aspect of pig raising relating specifically to pregnancy is a bit of a niche that will probably have us all arguing for the next decade about its relevance. NathanLee18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Family farm" is not defined as "nonfactory farm".
You are editing warring on whether the pic goes at the top or in the argumenst section. May I suggest you compromise and put in somewhere not at the top and not in the arguments section?
"Factory farm" is like "life" in that it is a process and not any one static thing. Pics capture process badly.
Factory farms that don't pollute and don't mistreat animals are still factory farms, just as other factories made safer and unionized are still factories. Mistreated animals is not the essence of factory farming. WAS 4.25023:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear how a farm could be highly automated and not be regarded as mistreating animals or polluting the environment (for those who regard factory farms as doing that). In other words, I'm not sure your hypothesis of that not being a necessary implication is correct. But regardless, all we have to do here is report what reliable sources say about it. The gestation crates issue is, as the WPost article said, regarded as the single-most controversial aspect of factory farming, and one of the things it is best known for outside farming (i.e. among the public), which is why McDonalds focused on it too. When animal rights advocates and McDonalds both agree on something, you know you have a notable issue. SlimVirgin(talk)18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is clear to me ... but the important thing as you point out is "all we have to do here is report what reliable sources say about it." I disagree that the gestation crates issue is anything like what you just said, but maybe what I hear you saying is less than an adequate representation of your full considered opinion. I have no intention of getting into much analysis right now, but power and value systems are the essense of the issues involved and gestation crates are simply a stalking horse and poster boy for the clash of value systems and the power struggle to prevail in manifesting those value systems. WAS 4.25019:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking there's some blurring public dislike of "gestation crates"/"cages" with public dislike of "cramped conditions". Cramped, grubby conditions with sick or distressed animals are what we (well, decent human beings would generally) have issues with. You could equally show footage/pictures of the results of fighting by the animals (e.g. trampled piglets) and you'd get the same response.
If you move past the shock value of single images and look at with/without combined with discomfort/distress on average then you get a balanced view of things. You can argue the fundamentalist view that there should be no human intervention in animals' lives, but that neglects the predator protection/disease prevention/food provision etc aspect.. So on the whole we have to examine (and present) the reasons behind some of the choices we see in factory farming techniques.
So back to the gestation crates: they weren't just created to torture animals, the reasoning was that without them the farmers were noticing lots of fights/distressed animals. As alternatives are explored and researched the views will change, but in the situation of having lots of animals together (e.g. farming in general) it is (perhaps) a better solution than without (where animals would fight etc). Ideally you'd have each sow able to have as much land without competing females/agressive males.. But farming tends to have constraints that prohibit that. So anyhow, I don't think this article should be focussing purely on criticism/controversy of particular aspects of it: it should be primarily on the process.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Then why are they not used outside factory farming, if sows fight all the time? How were pigs able to evolve if all they do is fight each other and kill their offspring? SlimVirgin(talk)19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are they not used outside factory farming? I haven't yet seen anything that says only factory farms use this technique. As I said we've got a reference to animal welfare groups saying it's a trademark.. But as I said logically there's nothing about the practice of separating sows that is tied to factory farming. To be fair: pigs in the wild (e.g. wild boars) are quite violent (see wild relatives of domestic pigs: [9], attacks: [10], and behviour in "normal" farms" [11]). So it's really vast amounts of space that keeps them apart and squabbles rare I'd say. Just like any animal: given enough room they're fine. But if you have a high population like on a farm then that normal natural check is removed.. The concept of a protective mother in nature is pretty common. Just like the concept of territorial males. So a farm is no different, factory or otherwise.. NathanLee20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that they're used both to stop fighting and to stop the mother rolling onto the piglets. But of course this ignores that it's overcrowding that causes the problems in the first place.
To the best of my knowledge, these crates are used only on factory farms. I've been looking for some evidence that they're used elsewhere, but so far haven't found anything. SlimVirgin(talk)20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, overcrowding aside: if it's a better solution than overcrowded and killing pigs then that's best of a bad situation.. Farms are never going to be as spaced out as nature. It's a trade off of density of animals vs providing livable/decent enough conditions.. But back to references: I'll find out some alternate names (my flatmate who grew up on a pig farm called them something else) as that might help sort out the issue with some more hits on the google-ma-tron. One of the links I posted in this discussion page (I realise it was a personal page, so not a great reference) talked about visiting farms where the animal had close to natural environments, but they still separated the sows during pregnancy and piglet rearing.. So it sounds like it's necessary anywhere where pregnant sows are likely to come across other sows/pigs.. So I think it's really just a case of the size of the enclosure and the restrictions it places (e.g. as you say an argument is for the "sow crushing piglets", which might happen a lot in nature.. who knows? Like the birds and more eggs than they need because some die/eaten etc). Or perhaps the intent..
But is this one activity really a good representation of the concept or intent of Industrialising the farming process? If, as I said, this is to be phased out soon enough: is that the death of industrialised agriculture? I'd say not.. As it's really just a continuation of the industrialisation process.. A refinement of it really. If we want to look at the term "factory" then the concept of an effective factory is quite different from 50 or 100 years ago as different considerations form part of the industrialisation process. e.g. giving a sh_t about workers versus just focussing entirely on the product.. Same with this article, and I think we need to focus more on that for the longevity of this article. Pigs in cages ain't going to represent it for very long.. NathanLee20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding fighting: "Limiting aggression is often given as justification for confining sows in gestation crates, yet antagonistic interactions remain a problem in stall housing systems. Studies have shown that confinement in individual stalls may lead to unsettled dominance relationships and high aggression levels.(114) These unresolved agonistic interactions are likely to cause stress(115) and worsen with successive pregnancies. Crated sows have been found to experience agonistic interactions up to three times more often than group-housed sows and cannot readily practice avoidance.(116) This same study found that stall-housed sows were more aggressive than group-housed sows by the fourth pregnancy.(117) Although aggression can be a welfare problem in group housing, it can be curtailed with responsible management and good practices. In stall housing, minimizing aggression is more difficult.(118)" [12]SlimVirgin(talk)01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While they may be more agressive, they are limited in the damage they can do I guess. I'd say that "responsible management" links back to what the Vet group said that they support sensible practices that help.. E.g. confinement.. Anyhow, I think the linking of this picture/statement and concept is more to the linking with your and other activist's notion of "factory farms" and all the emotional arguments that follow. Perhaps that's the biggest argument for splitting up not only factory farming (can talk about the perception of what a factory farm is versus reality versus research on the matter). versus Intensive farming (concept of resources supplied etc) verus Industrial Agriculture (the concept of industrialisation of farming similar to manufacturing). What do you think about that then? Then there's no need to keep mashing them all together and finding links to try and say they're equivalent when they're talking different creatures really.. NathanLee03:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the image of hogs in gestation crates is not intrinsicly representative of "factory farming"
See also list
I would question why there are companies listed in the "see also" list that appear to not be mentioned in any way in the article. Maple foods for instance has nothing on its page..
I would say this list should not be used as an unreferenced implication that these companies are factory farming organisations. This is about the concept of industrial practice in factory farming, not related to implementations thereof. I'd suggest a tidy up. Anyone got thoughts on this? NathanLee17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two I added (Maple and Smithfields) are in the WPost article about gestation crates and I'm intending to add something about it. There's already something in the cutline of the first image. Secondly, the names on the list are huge well-known operators of factory farms. It's not clear what you mean by the distinction between concept and implementation in terms of this article. SlimVirgin(talk)18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by "implementation" I mean "individual instance of" factory farming e.g. "Farm number 27315 that does pig raising" versus "this is what factory farming is". While the two may be mentioned in the linked article: that article is not fixed in stone as integral to the wikipedia article. So as the link dies or is replaced by a newer/more up to date one the reason for it being in the article is lost.
I'd be a little cautious about the concept of "well known" without references (and the Maple page has no mention of it.. and even then: do we want references to run-of-the-mill practitioners of it on this page as "see also"?
Given "factory farm" is a bit of a loaded term (e.g. contentious because of political pressures) I wouldn't like to see the page used as a "name and shame" at the expense of referring to significant companies e.g. if there's no specific mention of the company in the body article.
E.g. if we have the page on industrial manufacture, I'd question whether it was good article design to name practitioners of the process unless they were a significant force in pioneering the practice. E.g. Ford motor company might be a good one for "modern automotive manufacture process" as they contributed significantly to it (e.g. the first).. I think the list would get out of control and doesn't really add to the content.. Now if we can get some references to how they've contributed to the concept: then I think they'd be worthy of mention in the body and in the see also.. Your thoughts? NathanLee18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First about use of the see also list:To some extent it is a place to park stuff that should be incorporated into the article but hasn't yet for one reason or another. Under this concept a finished article will have no see also list. Yet a fully complete article often is very long and some people like to have a ready list of related items. Most of these best go into one or more navigation boxes. Yet still sometimes some other related items are felt worth linking to. WAS 4.25019:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next:You ask about adding the links to wikipedia articles that give information on the nature and history of corporations whose behavior is identified by some as being described in this article. I thought it would be useful to include in this article some actual examples, so I looked up what wikipedia already has in this area, read the articles to make sure they had data that was relevant to this subject and put them in this see also list. Ideally, we will eventually be able to have a subsection dealing with these companies' behavior as it relates to this topic. Suppose it turns out that one of these companies is an example of a huge food multinational corp that does not match the claimed qualities and behavior and characteristics identified in this article (other than being a huge food multinational corp that is identified by some as being described in this article). I think that would be very relevant to this article, even more than if it did match. WAS 4.25019:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in conclusion, the point isn't to create a list, the point is to flesh out some relevant examples that illuminate the claims. Adding the items to see also is just a tiny useful first step towards that. WAS 4.25019:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point: there is no "finished article" in wikipedia is there? New information can always appear that could require a page to be edited. Using a section on the "live" portion is not what it is for I don't think. That's the talk area. I'm happy to move this stuff to the talk area as it will firstly clean up the article of the irrelevant see alsos and secondly put them in the appropriate spot for "work in progress".
I see no reason to link those companies as looking at those companies reveals no contributions to the concept of industrialising the farming process in any significant way. They weren't the first, nor the last, nor do they appear to have developed any specific processes related to this article's topic.
If a company has not contributed to the practices of Industrial Agriculture (factory farming) in some way: they're not really relevant to the ongoing life-cycle of an encyclopaedic article. I don't see how listing out piecemeal bits and pieces of companies that do industrial agriculture is at all relevant unless this happens to be the idea of using wikipedia as a soapbox for "name and shame". Particularly while this article is misnamed as it is (see other talk) to be the activist pet name for the process of "Industrial Agriculture". This is a subset of agriculture.. NathanLee19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are links to articles about companies and not links to companies. The articles I linked have content relevant to this article and are thus useful links for our readers as is without being incorporated into another section and so it would be inappropriate to censor them into the talk page under the excuse that they were works in progress as all wikipedia is forever a work in progress as you noted. WAS 4.25020:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I understand they are links to the wikipedia pages :) the point I'm making remains the same. It's associating this article with those company articles for no real purpose. It's not "censoring" anything other than someone's vague concept of something they may possibly-somehow-one-day-potentially work into the article. The talk page is most certainly the best spot to put things if they are of no immediate relevance and some content is to be created for it. Stuff shouldn't disappear out of discussion pages even if archived the archiver should retain open topics into the new page I'd say. Placing them in there if they have no immediate (or discernible future) relevance is just cluttering up and can be (as I hinted) a POV as a "name and shame" list). There are countless activist sites that have lists of companies they regard as immoral or worthy of protest for various reasons.. But this page shouldn't seek to mirror those. If you can suggest how all those company names are involved in this page on a farming/agricultural technique/process then that'd justify their existence. But otherwise we either need a rather massive list that really doesn't add much useful encyclopaedic information to wikipedia or to this. NathanLee20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS's revert
WAS, WP:LEAD says that leads must include the topic's notable controversies. Schroeder's call for an end to factory farming, backed up by British scientists, certainly counts as a notable controversy. The first para of the lead gives no indication at all of what a controversial practise this is. Therefore, the second paragraph must.SlimVirgin(talk)20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you have me at a disadvantage cuz you love to fight and I hate to fight and all you have to do is turn this into some long picky mess and I'll just walk away. Also the last time we got into such a thing, I kept getting edit conflicts so please give me time to fully reply. WAS 4.25021:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's deal with one thing at a time, ok? You added something that I thought was appropriate for the article but should eventually go in a section called politics or current status or some such, so I parked it in the notes as creating such a section with just that would be unbalanced. The lead section is to summarize the rest of the contents and the added sentence is a detail and not a summary. It summarizes nothing but instead is an example, a detail, a specific, a corroberating specific. Not a summary or an introduction. Does not belong in the lead. WAS 4.25021:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says you who just gave me two conflict edits :P haha
On SV's comment: Well that's why this article needs a proper name. Factory farming refers to a loaded term and we should clear that up with the use of the more correct term "Industrial Agriculture". Referring to process and concept rather than loaded phrase used predominantly by activist groups. As it stands we're lumping that all together which has an implicit POV attached. If someone's researching Industrialised Farming concepts they shouldn't be getting "factory farming" alone.
Wikipedia needs additional articles and details about the actual real economies with its factories, corporations, trade in goods and services, contractual arragements, monopolies, lobbying, power stuctures, worker conditions, trade unions, conditions of employment, tools of the trade, business to business markets and models, business procedures and processes, financial structures. Correct names will follow correct information. Instead of fighting over a name, maybe add some sourced data? WAS 4.25021:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term factory farming if you do a search on google (not a definite thing of course) but look at the first couple of pages of results and the registered domains.. They're anti-factory farm sites. I don't see why there's such a push for a POV term against the acceptable to both sides Industrial Agriculture (which is a broader, more descriptive, less loaded term). Go to amazon also and search for both terms. 15 books for factory farming, 3700 odd for Industrial agriculture. That's got to indicate something in terms of reference-worthy books that use the term to describe this article's content! NathanLee00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's ill defined as a result of the use, but as I've said: it's not used by the industry itself. Surely that counts for quite a large say in what something's called. If names used predominantly by opponents, sometimes by media but almost never by the industry itself that should preclude its use. Otherwise we'd have so many unflattering terms used as the primary article heading rather than just a small note that some people refer to them as.. Come on: you're the more experienced editor, what's the policy on referring to groups by names they themselves would not generally use. E.g. which of the following would be the more suitable choices for each set: gays/sodomites/faggots/pillow biters?, or churchies/biblethumpers/infidels/christians?, animal murderers/abattoir workers/degenerate bloodthirsty butchers?, sinners/baby killers/abortion clinic staff? All are widely used (unfortunately) in various circles, but in each case the least loaded and generally acceptable name to that group would be the best choice if you had to chooseNathanLee03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. The term "factory farming" is a perjorative term and should not be used here to describe "industrial agriculture" -- it should only be used to describe the nature of the term "factory farming". Jav4319:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A modern form of intensive farming
(moved)
As for "a modern form of intensive farming," there is no pre-modern form of it as it relates to animals, and most of what people think of as factory farming relates to the industrialized reproduction and maintenance of animals, not carrots. SlimVirgin(talk)20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the one shows it to be a subset of the definition of the other. But I put it there for article navigation purposes so maybe what we need are navigation boxes. Argiculture, food production, industrialization, whatever. WAS 4.25021:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around if you're going to do that. Factory farming is a subset of intensive farming. Not the other way around. I doubt anyone will think of "factory farming" when they think of high rotation crop cycles.. Again: factory farming is an activist term, not one that should be swallowing up other actual non-loaded NPOV recognised terms.. NathanLee00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Factory farming is not an activist term. It is the term used by the Washington Post, the BBC, and Reuters in three of the articles we use as sources. It is the term most commonly used now for intensive farming and industrial agriculture. SlimVirgin(talk)00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources on this, Wikipedia seems to be the only publication making a distinction between factory farming and intensive farming, so we're engaged in original research. We need to merge the other article into this one. SlimVirgin(talk)00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, of course not everyone who uses one word will, at the same time, use the other. The point is whether they are using the terms to mean different things. SlimVirgin(talk)01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have you merged these without any proof that they are equivalent? I still think you should undo your changes as you have not justified the merging with no citable example. Having them used in similar area and then saying they're equivalent without a reference is original research wouldn't you say? The state/federal laws seem to talk about size.. That's got little to do with a process.. NathanLee02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to undo Mass edits and merging by SlimVirgin
SlimVirgin can you please stop with any merging or articles you are lumping under "factory farming". You're showing complete disrespect for the discussion area and discussions currently in progress and the contributions (in the correct manner) that others are trying to make.
You're plowing on in and destroying the separation of topics. It appears that you are very much pushing a personal POV and disregarding the comments here.
Please (as a sign of good faith and respect to the discussions here) revert your changes and restore the separation of the articles.
i propose that Factory farming is not a descriptive/definitive article name for the things you are merging in here.
The reasons that factory farming is not a good name for this article (or the fields you are merging like crazy):
I've raised the point that the sheer volume of references in book titles on amazon to "Industrial Agriculture" outweighs "factory farming" by 3,700 odd to 15 for factory farming.
Factory farming is a term used by activists almost exclusively. It does not appear to be a term used by those actually in the field, which indicates a significant POV attached to that term
intensive farming is a practice, Industrial agriculture is a field, factory farming is a name attached to certain notions of what animal farms (only animal farms) are like.
Industrial Agriculture appears to be a NPOV title and is a broader term
Intensive farming is NOT known always as factory farming. I have never heard the talk about intensive crop farming processes referred to as "factory farming". Nor have I heard it commonly used to describe intensive fishing as "factory farming", Intensive aquaculture is a term that might be appropriate though.
If you would like to create a separate article on the POV for why animal rights groups regard factory farming is evil: then by all means do so, but to merge Intensive farming/Industrial Agrigculture and to try and shoe horn it into a POV sounding term is reducing the impartiality of the articles.
There is no rush!
This is not a case of vandalism that needs immediate reversion (although your changes are looking like they need that treatment to restore things to a sensible state). :) We can discuss and there's no need to stomp all over the opinions that are in this discussion area.NathanLee00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably doing something wrong, but when I search "Industrial Agriculture" on Amazon I get 1,096 titles, and when I search for "Factory Farming" I get 1,182 titles. I still don't think this should be our selection criterion per my argument above, but I fail to find the "15 books on FF". Crum37501:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me that factory farming = intensive farming = Industrial Agriculture. I'm not sure which google you're using, but mine doesn't find much to support your assertion that they're all the same thing. If you exclude activist (e.g. personal/non cite-able sites) then there's very little mention of factory farming in terms of book titles or scientific research. Regardless, can you put the other article back and abide by the concept of "discussion". It is a bit rude if nothing else to just bypass the discussion that was going on here and on the other page.. An example of intensive farming that I haven't come across as referred to as "factory farming" relates to plants. Intensive simply means lots of inputs to crank up outputs. Industrial Agriculture = application of industrialisation techniques to agriculture. Factory farm = term used by vegan sites to be honest. I think you're attempting to infect what should be at least 2 maybe 3 articles with a POV. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I can't see any evidence of good faith when you've gone off and bypassed the discussion forum and started mass merging. If you can please put things back to where they were prior to you discarding the discussion forum process.. Again: there is no rush, the two articles were quite happy existing and I think the equating all of these terms as equal is Original research and just mirroring a POV from activist sites to push a term not used by the industry themselves. NathanLee01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps activists in your circle of friends equate factory farming with industrial agriculture, SV, but industry folk would only use "factory farming" to speak derogatorily of a farm that engages in inhumane and abusive practices (if they use it at all), while simply using the term "good farm" to speak of industrial/intensive farming. Jav4319:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of "factory farming" being used by mainstream news organizations
Here are some examples of mainstream news organizations, in the UK and U.S., using the term factory farming:
The Washington Post: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." [13]
CNN: "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow": "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." (based on a report from Reuters) [14]
BBC: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy." [15]
CBC: "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination" [16]
Mcleans: Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.
The Ecologist: O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.
Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy: Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.
We need (and asked for on here) a source that justified your massive merge frenzy, but have yet to receive one. Any reason why we shouldn't adopt a less activist term and make the distinction between the concept of a "factory farm" versus "intensive farming" NathanLee09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been given sources for the use of factory farm = industrial agriculture = intensive farming etc. You're just ignoring them. Here's another one. [18] As we've given you several links showing they're used interchangeably, could you please produce one source that says there is a distinction? SlimVirgin(talk)17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[url]http://www.wsn.org/factoryfarm/factfarmfactsheet.html[/url] Makes mention that
"A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farm or large farming operation is defined by federal and state statute as a facility that contains 1,000 animal units. The calculation of animal units varies by type of animal. For dairy cattle, a facility that contains 700 milking and dry cows is considered a CAFO."
It (as a private site) is not the definitive guide, but can we find the definition by law. That would back up the free dictionary definition of "large scale farming" or words to that affect.
It may only refer to "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)" term, but another site (again a site suggests something similar, [url]http://www.factoryfarm.org/whatis/1.php[/url]).
Maybe we just need some govt agency definitions of these things to settle this issue.. NathanLee02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to create distinctions where they don't exist, which is why you're getting confused. Reliable sources use all these terms, and they use them interchangeably to refer to industralized farming methods. SlimVirgin(talk)
And I say that you've blown away a separate article in your desire to merge a concept and a catch phrase.. Your article that talks of intensive farming and factory farming doesn't strictly mention that factory farming is the same as intensive farming. e.g. ""Time will tell if agricultural run-off was the source of E. coli contamination of the wells at Walkerton. However, you don't have to look long or too far to find examples of environmental damage caused by manure management from large livestock operations." The article header says factory farms to blame, there's a paper mentioned that is on Intensive farming techniques, but the idea I've talked about below is that factory farm is such an ill defined term that it can just mean "large", which is what the article is pointing the blame at. I'm not saying there's not overlap in the terms, believe me.. But I think we're talking definitions of things here so distinction is important. Intensive farming means farming that relys on external inputs to get more out of something than would be possible. That's got nothing that forces it to be the same as "Factory". Factory can mean lots of things, but in short it's activist terminology that's used in the media because it's a known term that gets attention. Factory farms may USE intensive farming practices and they may be an example of an Intensive farming practice. Would you say a 1 hectare block of crap dirt that has lots of fertiliser added to enable crops to grow is a factory farm? I wouldn't, but I'd say that's an example of intensive farming practices (e.g. lots of fertiliser, water etc required to get a return far beyond what would have grown). Perhaps that explains why I'm trying to push for a distinction. There's nothing particularly factory like when you start looking at the basics of what the "intensive farming" concept is.. NathanLee02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, if I may make a suggestion, all we really need are good reliable sources. Right now, we need one saying that proponents argue that FF is safer. Can you help with that? Thanks, Crum37503:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one arguing for a safer title and a safer division of the articles. The merge was based on unsourced original research and no one has addressed the complaint that I made that this is a loaded/one sided term. If this is not in some way addressed I will be renaming the article to remove this point of view change. Factory farming is an activist term rather than one the industry uses and as such it is a POV held by one side only (and referenced by the media for sensationalist titles). The change to this and the merge was not backed by facts and appears to be contrary to my requests for evidence. That you need a quote to talk about FF safety is irrelevent when the other changes were made with no regard to this discussion. If people can find the time to do mass edits without consensus: they should find time to answer things on the discussion page (note the number of questions that have not been answered by SV, yet that user has plenty of time to do the merging and editing against both article discussion pages). If a source can not be found as to why the loaded POV term factory farm is preferential then I'll be renaming the page and restoring the changes. That I have persisted here to try and do things the proper way when you and SV have attempted to steamroll your POV does not indicate good faith or respect to others' opinions. The definition of what is "factory farm" may just mean "big" according to government agencies. NathanLee09:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to stick to providing reliable sources. Much, if not all, of what you say is WP:OR. What we need is: "source X says Y. It is reliable and relevant. It should be in the article because of Z." Then we can address and discuss the specifics, such as how to present a neutral and balanced picture. Thanks, Crum37512:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, rather than spending lots of time arguing about the title, why not help to produce research that leads to content? The title can always be argued about later. We need a source showing that proponents say factory-farmed food is safer, or that will have to be removed from the lead. SlimVirgin(talk)16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that certain editors are deleting data they say is "unsourced" while simultaneously arguing for the inclusion of other data that is unsourced. Hypocrisy is not an appealing trait. Jav4319:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By nature, a CAFO is industrial agriculture - and if you say that industrial agriculture and factory farming are the same, then to be consistent, you'd have to admit that a CAFO is "factory farming". Jav4319:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crops
Webster's New Millennium dictionary calls (factory farming) "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility."
Crop production is part of "agriculture", and falls under "large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit". In addition, "the animals are kept indoors and restricted in mobility." So the definition covers both crops and animals. Crum37512:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375 - this it the point I've been making: the term "Factory farm" does not appear to have been used to describe crop production. If webster's attaches mention of animals, indoors and restriction of mobility: that voids the use of this term to be the all encompassing term the edits and merge have resulted. Unless you can find a reliable source that somehow voids webster's definition. As so far we only have mention of it as per what activists call things. I'll put this in a section presenting everything and then unless these are dealt with a revert and restore of the two articles is in order as this article is Original research and POV polluted.NathanLee15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That first site is essentially a blog quality of reliability site. It does not reference anything, and is just some random process for producing answers..
The second site is an unreferenced mirror of wikipedia's article. Try doing a search for key phrases (e.g. [19] states "Proponents, while they do not use the term factory farming, claim that this type of concentrated farming is a useful agricultural advance:". It sounds a little too much like the wikipedia article for my liking.. And is basically a copy of the wikipedia article on the topic. We can't refer to ourselves I'm afraid and this is the problem with your changes: they start to have a ripple effect of muddying up a term. I'd ask you again if you can restore the two articles until you find some evidence to back up your (At this stage) original research which has linked these pages NathanLee17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Crum said, the definition points out "large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit" - crops are part of agriculture. It then goes on to say 'with blah' - this is simply a clarification of one aspect and not the complete definition of the term. Also, as the editor below points out, factory farming = industrial agriculture as the 2 terms are pretty much synonymous.-Localzuk(talk)19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as the encyclopaedia britannica disputes that:
System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.
The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.
You're trying to shoehorn a term around more than it generally refers to. You're making the assumption, it's not backed up and that's Original Research. SV's references are out (as one is a mirror of the WP article) NathanLee01:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, chickens were raised primarily on family farms until roughly 1960. Originally, the primary value in poultry keeping was eggs, and meat was considered a byproduct of egg production. Its supply was less than the demand, and poultry was expensive. Except in hot weather, eggs can be shipped and stored without refrigeration for some time before going bad; this was important in the days before widespread refrigeration.
Farm flocks tended to be small because the hens largely fed themselves through foraging, with some supplementation of grain, scraps, and waste products from other farm ventures. Such feedstuffs were in limited supply, especially in the winter, and this tended to regulate the size of the farm flocks. Soon after poultry keeping gained the attention of agricultural researchers (around 1896), improvements in nutrition and management made poultry keeping more profitable and businesslike.
Prior to about 1910, chicken was served primarily on special occasions or Sunday dinner. Poultry was shipped live or killed, plucked, and packed on ice (but not eviscerated). The "whole, ready-to-cook broiler" wasn't popular until the Fifties, when end-to-end refrigeration and sanitary practices gave consumers more confidence. Before this, poultry were often cleaned by the neighborhood butcher, though cleaning poultry at home was a commonplace kitchen skill.
Two kinds of poultry were generally used: broilers or "spring chickens;" young male chickens, a byproduct of the egg industry, which were sold when still young and tender (generally under 3 pounds live weight), and "stewing hens," also a byproduct of the egg industry, which were old hens past their prime for laying. [2]
The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round. Before this, chickens did not thrive during the winter (due to lack of sunlight), and egg production, incubation, and meat production in the off-season were all very difficult, making poultry a seasonal and expensive proposition. Year-round production lowered costs, especially for broilers.
At the same time, egg production was increased by scientific breeding. After a few false starts (such as the Maine Experiment Station's failure at improving egg production[3], success was shown by Professor Dryden at the Oregon Experiment Station[4].
Improvements in production and quality were accompanied by lower labor requirements. In the Thirties through the early Fifties, 1,500 hens was considered to be a full-time job for a farm family. In the late Fifties, egg prices had fallen so dramatically that farmers typically tripled the number of hens they kept, putting three hens into what had been a single-bird cage or converting their floor-confinement houses from a single deck of roosts to triple-decker roosts. Not long after this, prices fell still further and large numbers of egg farmers left the business.
Robert Plamondon[5] reports that the last family chicken farm in his part of Oregon, Rex Farms, had 30,000 layers and survived into the Nineties. But the standard laying house of the current operators is around 125,000 hens.
This fall in profitability was accompanied by a general fall in prices to the consumer, allowing poultry and eggs to lose their status as luxury foods.
The vertical integration of the egg and poultry industries was a late development, occurring after all the major technological changes had been in place for years (including the development of modern broiler rearing techniques, the adoption of the Cornish Cross broiler, the use of laying cages, etc.).
By the late Fifties, poultry production had changed dramatically. Large farms and packing plants could grow birds by the tens of thousands. Chickens could be sent to slaughterhouses for butchering and processing into prepackaged commercial products to be frozen or shipped fresh to markets or wholesalers. Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long.[6] This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (and not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries). Once a meat consumed only occasionally, the common availability and lower cost has made chicken a common meat product within developed nations. Growing concerns over the cholesterol content of red meat in the 1980s and 1990s further resulted in increased consumption of chicken.
Today, eggs are produced on large egg ranches on which environmental parameters are well controlled. Chickens are exposed to artificial light cycles to stimulate egg production year-round. In addition, it is a common practice to induce molting through careful manipulation of light and the amount of food they receive in order to further increase egg size and production.
On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300. In the United States, laying hens are butchered after their second egg laying season. In Europe, they are generally butchered after a single season. The laying period begins when the hen is about 18-20 weeks old (depending on breed and season). Males of the egg-type breeds have little commercial value at any age, and all those not used for breeding (roughly fifty percent of all egg-type chickens) are killed soon after hatching. The old hens also have little commercial value. Thus, the main sources of poultry meat 100 years ago (spring chickens and stewing hens) have both been entirely supplanted by meat-type broiler chickens.
List of sources and quotes found when searching for benefits
"Through seminars, workshops and demonstrations, Nkoma ADP staff taught Ester and the other members of her focus group modern farming practices like preparing fields, applying manure and planting in rows rather than scattering the seeds. Soon, group members reaped the benefits. Ester was able to increase her harvest to more than nine bags of maize per acre, which means her household has enough food each year."worldvision
"More than 40 years of research has yet to document a single case in which antibiotic use in food animals has caused human disease due to antibiotic resistance."cgfi
It appears the major health benefit of industrial agriculture is the higher gross national product created by increased efficiencies. The higher GNP allows for better nutrition (no one starving is the initial health gain) and allocation of resources to other things like health care (the proportion of the population engaged in farming drops from most people to 5% or so). The health benefit of industrial agriculture is the health benefit of society having additional resources (wealth, money, products and services including educational and health). In short the health benefits are the natural consequences of wealth. But no, I did not find a quote that said so. WAS 4.25019:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of POV bias, Rename and restoration of Intensive farming article
As a number of large scale changes including a merge were taken: I submit that this has resulted in Original research and a Point of view biased article.
The is evidence to suggest that the term "Factory Farm" is POV and an activist term that the media uses on occasion.
example: The washington post article referenced: [20] states:
The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming.
Points on this : the use of the term "Factory farm" in the article is tied to what animal welfare advocates' POV.
The term "factory farm" does not appear to have usage outside referring to animals. (there's no reference that links the name to crops, fishing. It appears attached to the concept of animals in cramped conditions on large scale farms) examples
Factory farming appears to be linked to "large" and little else by some definitions, making the term useless to describe small operations [21] and [22]
Animal and mobility restrictions resources: [23] (science term dictionary)
From the "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th edition"
factory farming (′fak·trē ′fär·miŋ)
(agriculture) Raising livestock indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility.
So this is not sounding like the field of industrial agriculture and it is linked to livestock and extreme limited mobility.
Britannica links it to animals, animal rights activists
System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.
The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.
Nothing about crops, or that it is used by the farming industry itself.. It also links it somewhat to the USA, rather than the rest of the world.
Even activist sites place the restriction and link between the term "Factory farm" and animals, cramped conditions etc
[24]
These factory farms are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). They emphasize high volume and profit with minimal regard for human health, safe food, the environment, humane treatment of animals, and the rural economy - in other words, factory farms are not sustainable.
The definition of a factory farm varies from state to state; however, these industrial facilities share many of the following characteristics:
Hundreds to thousands of animals (mainly cows, pigs, chickens or turkeys) confined tightly together and provided little or no access to sunlight, fresh air or room for natural movement. Some facilities produce millions of animals yearly.
Public health problems, including the overuse of antibiotics and food borne illness.
Liquid waste systems and "lagoons" to store raw manure.
Buildings that confine animals indoors and control their environment.
Mutilation of animals such as debeaking poultry, clipping pigs' tails and teeth, and docking cows' tails.
The corporation that owns or controls the factory farm also owns the feed company, slaughterhouse, and final stages of production (referred to as vertical integration).
Through contract growing, a remote corporation controls all aspects of raising the animals. The livestock owner does not manage the day-to-day operations of the facility. The farmer is left with the risk, debt payments on barns and facilities, waste, and dead animal disposal.
A decrease in neighboring property values because of odor and water pollution.
Through the campaign, the member groups of the CFFE worked to grow our numbers, trained highly skilled (and now seasoned) leaders, framed issues (such as the term “factory farm” for large-scale confined animal feeding operations), developed media and political contacts and allies, passed important policy initiatives and advanced others forward in the policy debate, stopped nearly 100 proposed factory farms in our states, and accomplished a host of other environment-protecting and grassroots power-building objectives.
In short: this attempt to create a synonym between "Industrial Agriculture", "Intensive farming" and the activist notion of "Factory farm" was not correct (which was why there was discussion going on, which was ignored and the changes blasted through anyhow). "factory farm" may be synonymous with "large confined animal feeding operations" (CAFO), but not the broader term of Industrial agriculture or the concept of intensive farming and as applied to non-meat related activities.
"Factory farming" means an activist tainted Point of View term that is restricted to large scale animal farms with animals in cramped, indoor conditions. While it may be synonymous with "farming" for some: that is probably a US version of farming.
Industrial Agriculture is a broader term and "Factory farming" can refer to the notion of treating a farm as a factory[26] but Industrial Agriculture is a more neutral term that is frequently used (by both proponents and opponents). So to avoid Point of View infection of this article the previous title of "Industrial Agriculture" should be used over the term "factory farm" which as per the links appears to be loaded with other assumptions. There's nothing that says that an industrialised agricultural farm has to fit the narrower definition implied by factory farming.
Intensive farming is a process or a concept. It is simply characterised by requiring or using a high amount of inputs (e.g. capital, fertiliser, feed, chemicals, man power) in order to maximise crop or livestock returns.[27]. There are also terms like "semi-intensive farming"[28], and "low intensity" farming [29]. So I would say it deserves to be a standalone article given that it wouldn't make much sense to have the concept of "semi-intensive", "low intensity" but not "intensive". NathanLee17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted the changes as SV has ignored the discussion going on here. The changes made are in the history, we can add them back if/when they are supported. Yes there was a bit of "Baby out with the bath water" but the information is still in the history and can be selectively added in as required. Next up I think we need to fix the title as I think I've shown that "factory farming" is not the appropriate term to apply to the other terms. Neutral POV title is needed. Suggest the discussed "Industrial Agriculture" which is a term understood by pro-and opponents NathanLee17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits were close to vandalism. The content you removed had nothing to do with the merge you're complaining about, because you left in the issue of crops anyway. Please add content (with sources); do not remove it.
Slim, if you can't take the effort to participate or listen to requests to justify the massive edits then take some time. You can term it vandalism if you like, but I'm just resetting the page to where the discussion started and you ploughed a bunch of unsupported changes and merged another article. You had plenty of time to make a tonne of changes: but very little to participate. Can you now take some time to answer the issues with your changes. See my section above on why I reverted. I'm aware that the page is not perfect. That's why I've also talked about the need for a rename (refer to this discussion page if you missed that). But it is less polluted with your misconception (see my above reasons) of why you think "factory farm" is the one term to own them all.
To summarise my issues with the changes: it's original research to be saying "factory farm" holds identical meaning to "industrial agriculture" and "intensive farming". "Factory farming" has POV and is akin more to an activist notion than a field of agriculture.
Now I can go and remove the unsupported and conflicted POV edits and original research. But as you disagree you are quite likely to keep reverting (does that count as "removing others work"). As you have decided to ignore the discussion area there is not really any way for you to pay attention to the opinions of others on this article. If you can't do that: might I suggest you participate more and large scale edit/merge less.. NathanLee18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've made 111 edits to articles overall, and whenever I've seen you edit, you're causing disruption. Look at the lead you added: "Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors [are they always indoors?] under conditions of extremely restricted mobility. [that is not all it is] The term, frequently used by animal welfare activists [but not only them, so why mention them and not everyone else who uses it?] refers a the [sic] specific technique [what specific technique? only one?] of intensive farming ..."
Then fix up the typo, you're attempting to justify your disruptive editing of my addition that doesn't warrant a revert. I was in the middle of making some changes which you stopped by reverting then threatening 3RR.. I now cannot fix anything because you have threatened that I am will be in violation of 3RR because I dared to edit an article you are appearing to try and own.
You accusation is a completely false and an unwarranted attack. Where's the daily conflict in my edits? Can you back up that claim of disruption? Also: 111 edits that have improved wikipedia are useful I would think: rather than 10,000,000 that can easily be called edit warring and POV shaping (reverts, threats of 3RR). This seems to happen with your edits quite often. A quick peruse of your talk history page (which you blank and archive almost constantly) indicates that your editing style is rather closer to disruptive than mine. How many editors have you clashed with Slim as it appears to be relevant to the discussion for some reason? Your attempt to bully anyone from attempting to contribute seems to be almost a hobby of yours. Might I suggest that you review your non-collaborative approach might result in less editwarring and disruptive behaviour on your part. The earliest revisions of your talk page appear to indicate why you are so quick to introduce POV into animal related articles [30]. Which is fine if you are able to be neutral, but the agressive attitude you show towards contributions that don't fit your POV are not suggesting anything positive about your contributions on this article. Why: just check up in this very discussion and you'll see that you've clashed and disrupted editors. NathanLee20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim: the point is that i've been making is that since you are the one that made the edit to say that it is the same: the onus (responsibility) is on YOU to back that up.. Find me an reference that says oranges are not to be used as jet fuel. NathanLee20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A system of farming with the aim to produce the maximum number of crops in a year with a high yield from the land available and to maintain a high stocking rate of livestock.www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/glossary.htm
a method of farming which produces the largest amount of crops or meat possible from a particular area www.stepin.org/glossary.php
Farms which cover small areas but which use either many people or a lot of capital (money). No land is wasted.geographyfieldwork.com/GeographyVocabulary7.htm
farming that uses modern machinery/technology to grow vast quantities of produce.www.bridgemary.hants.sch.uk/folders/gcse_revision_guide/glossary/page_1.htm
Intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system characterized by the significant use of inputs, and seeking to maximize the production. It is sometimes also called productivist agriculture.
Just my 2 cents. Nathan is obviously not a vandal. Factory farming does not equal intensive agriculture, and the negative connotation associated with the term "factory farming" is one reason not to use it in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. Haber19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but repeatedly removing large areas of text without consensus can easily be seen as vandalism. The 2 terms are synonymous. 'Factory' = 'Industrial' (one is a part of the other), 'Farming' = 'Agriculture' - they mean the same thing. The only reason there are negative connotations with one term is because the overall reaction to the practice is a negative one.-Localzuk(talk)19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is fallacious. Terms are not the sum of their component parts. Consider the term "silverware". Jav4319:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Nathan is a vandal, then I want more like him. He is clearly putting in a lot of work and trying to improve the article. You and SV should apologize to him. Haber20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know enough about Wikipedia to but would like to bring in a third party editor to review SVs actions, accusations, threats and edits, etc... Do you know how this process is started? I would also suggest freezing the article until SVs hositlity has subsided. --Agrofe 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That might be useful. It would be good to resolve this without such action, though. SV is clearly outnumbered. Jav4319:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of apologising for pointing out that the large amount of reverting that Nathan engaged in could be seen as vandalism - it is written in our policies that such actions can be seen as vandalism. That isn't me calling it vandalism, it is simply saying that SV isn't out of line saying that it could be seen as such. I do see his actions as disruptive though, as it is damaging to remove large amounts of work such as he did here.
SV does a huge amount to improve this encyclopedia and is one of the most respected editors on this site, any claims against her need to be very well backed up and not just yet another rant. Someone removing a large amount of work and being warned about it is not such a situation - it is simply following our policies.-Localzuk(talk)22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make you apologize, but you just did it again. What Nathan is doing is not "disruptive", and throwing these sorts of accusatory terms at a well-meaning casual contributor looks like bullying to me. Haber02:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agrofe, here is an earlier version you approved of. Very few sources; lots of OR; no information or sources in the lead; and completely misleading information such as "According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the United States are 'family farms'," but without mentioning how little, relative to their number, these farms produce compared to the big corporate producers.
If you feel the current version is unbalanced, then please do some research and add material. I have looked for sources that are pro-factory farming. They are hard to find, because even the owners tend not to defend it, beyond arguing that it produces cheap meat and crops. But perhaps you know of sources that I don't. But please add material; do not remove other people's work. SlimVirgin(talk)22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agrofe is acting responsibly. He is not "removing work" any more than what SV has demonstrated is proper. Jav4319:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indents)
LocalZuk: there was only a large amount of revision because SlimVirgin chose to charge on ahead rather than discussion. See Nathan's note to SlimVirgin about the mass changes. Which can also be regarded as vandalism since the requests to support the OR material have gone unanswered. If you look at the comment on my change ("revert to pre-massive merging by SlimVirgin. Refer to discussion page. Remove POV and original research"). SV then reverted ignoring the discussion page again. How is that respect worthy behaviour when there's been little evidence of respect for others by SlimVirgin? I was the one in the right in this case and was sticking to the policies. SV was not, so whether the person is well known or not: that is irrelevant if their actions are incorrect, disrespectful of others or overly abrasive. The large amount of conflict SV appears to stir up even just within this discussion forum doesn't seem too much like a constructive thing :at the same time as this. Willingness to fight and inability to listen is not a virtue. :)
SlimVirgin my friend: I have requested a number of times for you to support your additions. I'm not asking to be annoying: I'm asking because you still have not and we have what appears to be an OR broken article. I attempted to revert them so we'd all discuss (as the old page made less OR assumptions, but still needed fixing, hence my views and others on the title), you overrode that, then accused and made threats of 3RR policy violation (that you yourself are more in violation of the guidelines and recommendations as I informed you :deleted note to slimvirgin about 3RR).
I had on numerous times asked you to contribute and to halt your massive rewrite and merge. You chose to ignore those attempts and pleas for you to join the discussion. I then did the revert pre-warned on your talk page and on this discussion page (only made large due to your ignoring the earlier requests and pointing out the POV and Original Research concerns.. ): you once again ignored the reasons and overrode it.
As it stands: you've altered the article to introduce original, unsupported research and yet you are protecting that from not only revision, but also from an attempt to fix up your additions to make them neutral and in line with the supported, cited references.
Trying to put the responsibility on someone else to disprove something which you added [31] when that has been asserted is unsupported is not the way it works. Without proof: it is your changes which are closer to vandalism, yes it is not blatant, but you are firstly changing the article dramatically to suit your POV and original research then ignoring polite requests to back it up, then when it is reverted you push it through again ignoring discussion as an option, then threatening and accusing with no justification other than saying you should not remove work from others (something which is an absurd thing to ask when OR has been pointed out)..
My changing the article header to remove Original research is not a revert, nor is it vandalism and it IS adding material and improving the article. There is no ban on removing material from wikipedia that is Original research, Point of view or misleading (which your edits have been) in fact my understanding is that that is encouraged. It's a tired old line, but please assume good faith and accept that your edits are not necessarily 100% correct nor 100% neutral. Mine aren't always going to be, no one's are always going to be..
You did attempt to back up some of your material using an potentially unreliable source/non-citable site and a mirror of wikipedia's page on factory farming: which is reason enough as to why this page has to be correct(the mirroring and muddying of things). But to then go and attempt to start an editing war when you have neglected any and all requests to back up the added material in this article is not good editor behaviour (I would think). As I've said: there was no rush, no need to plough on through, but either you were too busy editing to read the notes, or discussion page, or reversion comment directing you to the discussion page or you are unwilling to accept the polite collaborative behaviour myself and I would think your fellow wikipedians expect. If you have such high personal feelings about animal liberation and about the need to retain your POV/OR material: I'd suggest you take this page off your watchlist and refrain from editing it.
If there's the assumption against good faith that I'm "from the opposition":I'll declare now that I (or immediate family and friends) personally have no membership or affiliation with any activist or lobby groups (other than to donate to some non political environmental and homeless charities), or farming groups, or industry groups nor am I in any way involved with the agricultural industry (other than as an end consumer). So I'm really only here to try and improve wikipedia.
So I'd humbly recommend to SV that they tone down their approach to attempt a more harmonious balance between editorial needs and allowing others to contribute. NathanLee01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the title of this entry
Much of the debate about this entry seems to come down to the question of whether it should be titled "Factory farming" or "Industrial agriculture." A number of points should be clear: (1) the titles are almost interchangeable (factory = industrial, farming = agriculture); (2) if one title redirects to the other, then it doesn't matter which is most commonly used, or which has the most Google hits, since whichever title one prefers will take you to the same discussion, as it should; (3) the question of which title is preferable may be significant, but it is not crucial, and the entry does not stand or fall on this question.
Nevertheless, which is better? I don't believe it is a question of which is more popular, nor which is more neutral. But I do think one title is slightly more accurate than the other. The goals and techniques described in the entry amount to the reduction of agriculture to forms of quantification and calculation to be employed in the achievement of economies of scale in production. The development of these goals and techniques is essentially a matter of industrialisation, where industrialisation is a process occurring on a planetary scale and commencing with the industrial revolution. This process includes but is not limited to the rise of factories and factory methods. Now, it is possible to argue that a factory is nothing but an apparatus for the quantifiable and calculable application of industrial techniques to material, and thus that the title "Factory farming" is an apt and evocative description of the way in which plant and animal life is turned into material made available for such techniques. I would nevertheless argue that the rise of factories is one element within the overall process of industrialisation, and that the real point is the degree to which agriculture has been submitted to the entire process of industrialisation. Industrial agriculture is not only the process of turning living things into material to be "fabricated": more than simply the technicisation of agriculture, it is the entire system whereby technical innovation is devoted to the end of achieving economies of scale, and, in general, profit.
In short, the industrialisation of agriculture means more, and is more significant, than the technicisation of agriculture (which was always technical). For that reason I would argue that "Industrial agriculture" is a more general and yet more precisely accurate description of the process presently unfolding than "Factory farming." I recognise that this kind of argument does not necessarily appeal to editors, since it is based in analysis rather than sources, but I can only say that this is my view of the matter. I apologise also for the length of this comment, for which my only excuse is that it will probably be my sole contribution to this discussion of an extremely important entry. FNMF19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The entire 'industrial revolution' worked on the idea that economies of scale would be gained by using factories. The entire process was the factory.-Localzuk(talk)19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed new lead in paragraphs - Comments welcome
I would like to make the following edit (which has been reverted by SlimVirgin diff of my change to the intro and the many attempts to get discussion from SV most recent, finally a response indicating that it was not read then an attack. So as I don't believe SV has any desire to permit this (assumptions of good faith have seemed fruitless), nor inclination to allow anyone to contribute constructive input so I'm going to put my proposal here (like my other comments) because it appears my ability to edit this article is going to result in more reverts from SlimVirgin and the threat of 3RR violation as a way to prevent my editing this article further.. Rather than just letting me contribute to this article to fix the POV. The runaway changes that SV made to merge this page and Intensive Farming despite ongoing discussions (and my request that she hold off and use the discussion area) in both page's talk pages.
It's slow (I've now had to re-iterate arguments from before, make this page, try to reason with SV etc etc), painful to have to do this and making my contributions difficult.. But I still think the discussion area is the best way to resolve this because I want wikipedia to have a non-biased, factual article (which currently it doesn't appear to have).
Moving on to content:
Proposed First paragraph
Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility.[7]
Does anyone have issue with this as to why this is unacceptable as the first, succinct description (non OR view, it's backed up by the reference). I think it most accurately nails what the term "factory farm" has come to mean. The current first paragraph contains a statement which equates the term factory farming with numerous other terms which creates a false fact and is definitely Original Research. There's been a lot of information put forward on this discussion page, which was cited during my change, and then summarily reversed by SV before an unrelated personal attack accusing me of being disruptive for making this change rather than addressing what was wrong with this (SV mentioned that it was inappropriate to have a definition up front, this to me seems counter to what it SHOULD be).
Perhaps if there's other conflicting proper sites that show conflicting views (e.g. I've been trying to find the US/State definitions of factory farms.. other definitions just list it as "large scale"). I would insert the word "generally" or "often", but that tends to be something that's frowned upon here.. Suggestions?
Would it benefit to make this refer also to the use of "factory farm" to refer to certain (large) size farms (as per all the legislation stuff.. Would still need a good reference to govt definitions).. Or something to indicate it is synonymous with much of the current state of cattle/livestock farming in the US? (as per britannica's definition and supported by the large number of media references) NathanLee02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more generally used definition of the term "factory farming" simply relates to large farms with large animal counts. I don't think free space per animal is the deciding factor - although it certainly is a contributing factor. I would suggest preliminarily focusing on overall farm sizes. Jav4320:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it does seem to have been used just to mean large. Particularly the articles that have mentioned factory farm permits.. They don't seem to be needed for small farms using similar techniques.. So I think for "factory farming" there's the extra meaning of the phrase when used by animal welfare/activists and also the one associated with the POV that they're unhappy, cramped type conditions of livestock.. I mean that's why we've been stuck having this conflict over what this page should be since it changed from "Industrial agriculture" to one with POV attached. So I think that's worthy of mentioning if we're talking just the term "Factory farming", so it can just refer to large AND referring to the (perceived or otherwise) "horror of cramped animals" type view that people have when the term is mentioned (sensationalist or emotive). As distinct from industrial agriculture (no POV or emotion generally appears to be attached) or intensive farming (which is just a concept of extra inputs to get more out of one patch of land, water or whatever). NathanLee11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph
The term is frequently used by animal welfare activists[8] and the media. It refers to a technique of intensive farming[9], describing the large scale, confined industrialized production of livestock and poultry.
I've altered this from the reverted one to include a typo fix, some slight wording changes and reference to the media (although the claim that it was frequently used by activists is SUPPORTED by the britannica definition, which SV objected to despite this. I'm not sure what the complaint about using information from britannica's definition as it appears to be a good referable source).
This is more correct than saying that factory farming IS intensive farming and IS industrial agriculture and IS intensive agriculture, because we have nothing to support that and nor does it have the same connotations or meanings. The reason it is useful to point out who generally uses this term is that if the farmers themselves don't appear to use the term: we should make that very clear from the start.
Third paragraph
A subset of industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture[10], farms producing animals this way are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),[11]concentrated animal feeding operations,[12] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).[13]
Notes:
"subset" because we can find reference to support that the term "factory farm" forms part of the wider field of Industrial Agriculture, but nothing that suggests the entire Industrial Agriculture field is accurately represented by saying "factory farm". E.g. I've got references that link factory farms specifically to animals rather than crops.
the link to concentrated animal feeding operations is made all over the place.. So that one is fine to link I think.
Would it worry people less if it was "a type of industrial agriculture" if the term "subset" appears to be a sticking point? I think we can all agree that it's a type of industrial agriculture (and thus a subset) but if it "un-mathematic-ifys" ;) it a bit maybe that'll cause less contention? Same meaning, just different way of saying it.. NathanLee11:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original text
The text that I was attempting to clean up.
Factory farming,[14][15] also known as intensive farming,[9]industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture,[10] refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, fish, and crops. Farms producing animals this way are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),[11]concentrated animal feeding operations,[12] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).[13]
Reasons:
while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming".
no link that says any two of the terms "Factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture" are (all encompassing) equivalent (so that is original research)
the term is media and activist specific rather than one used by the farmers themselves, therefore POV laden. (numerous discussion material above in other sections of this discussion). If we're to use sensationalist/anti names of a subset of a field/area to represent the whole: then wikipedia needs a lot of page changes from neutral to POV group's names for them.
if the page MUST be called factory farming: it should be clear what factory farming generally refers to. It's unlikely that a freerange feed lot that has hay and water shipped in to be referred to in the media or press as a "factory farm": but it is both industrialised agriculture AND intensive farming.
this intro is a new addition (by SV) and as it is not backed up by citations that show the terms are equivalent and interchangeable (or applicable to crops/fishing/algae production/any number of other areas of agriculture) it should be rolled back (an unsuccessful venture as SV just keeps putting it back)
Are you simply not reading any of the sources? For example: FACTORY FARMING = INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE, CNN. [32] That's just ONE example. Please read third-party sources, rather than writing so much about your own opinions. SlimVirgin(talk)01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a lousy news story! Did you see the credentials on those jokers that the reporter dredged up as sources? One guy had worked for the Ag Ministry, the second had "worked on BSE", and the third was a lobbyist. Come on! Even if you believe these stooges you're still only left with FACTORY FARMING = INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE OF CATTLE. Haber01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, strictly speaking the CNN story is talking two separate quotes. One's ""The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming," they said." and the other is ""The U.K. BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture -- a 'recipe for disaster."'". It's talking about the intensive farming of cattle in factory farms.
Perhaps an analogy as the concept of bi-directional substitutability of terms seems to be the sticking point. Instead of "factory farming" think "boarding school", instead of "intensive farming" think "structured education" and instead of Industrial Agriculture think "learning process". It's true to say "boarding school" is a type of structured education, or uses the principles of structured education, but you can't say that Structured Education IS boarding school. Because standard schools are also structured education too. Boarding school is a type of learning process, but it isn't correct to say that the learning process is only boarding school.. We're talking subsets. It's safe to say factory farms are a subset of intensive farming. And they are certainly an example of industrial agriculture. But they are not equivalently swappable terms in both directions. NathanLee02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on inserting an actual definition of "factory farming"/"industrial agriculture" into the article. It's been sorely needed for a long time. Jav4320:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the changes NathanLee introduced in the lead are not conformant with the sources we cite. It would be better, in my opinion, to introduce changes one at a time, instead of in bulk. Crum37505:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375 can you back that up? Your revert of this again with no specifics appears to be just edit warring rather than using the discussion area and is not backed up. I've explained how the changes are relevant, there's been no attempt to answer the charge of OR and my changes remove that OR. I don't see any new evidence to warrant your tag team reverting other than to continue an edit war. Can you please revert your changes and either add new material or point out specifically where you find my suggested changes in error. How are they "not conformant"?
As explained: the revision you reverted to IS not backed up by the source, the new version does not make those OR claims that the terms are equivalent, sticking instead to what we CAN say. NathanLee07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case this list of examples gets lost among the very long posts here, it's worth repeating. The terms FF, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are used interchangeably.
The Washington Post: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." [33]
CNN: "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow": "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." (based on a report from Reuters) [34]
BBC: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy." [35]
CBC: "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination" [36]
Mcleans: Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.
The Ecologist: O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.
Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy: Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.
I haven't looked at this issue in any detail but my first impulse is to agree with NathanLee that these terms are not synonymous since 'industrial agriculture' usually includes monocrop cultivation as well as confined animal rearing ('factory farming'). I will go and have a look at some sources. --Coroebus10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar search first hit: L Horrigan, RS Lawrence, P Walker - Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002 "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture" classifies "Industrial animal production...commonly called factory farms" as a subset of "Industrial Agriculture". --Coroebus12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a useful reference. PDF available from: here
Despite this inefficiency, livestock diets have become higher in grains and lower in grasses. The grain raised to supply feedlots (cattle) and factory farms (chickens, hogs, veal calves) is grown in intensive monocultures that stretch over thousands of acres, leading to more chemical use and exacerbating attendant problems (e.g., pesticide resistance in insects, and pollution of surface waters and aquifers by herbicides and insecticides).
It makes a distinction between the term "feed lot" for cattle, "factory farm" for poultry, pigs, veal etc.. But I think enough other sources have referred to "factory farm" to mean animals/confined conditions etc..
It also supports the notion that Industrialised agriculture is wider than "factory farms" as it talks about crops/monocultures but also talks of the concept of regarding the farm as a factory (not the same as saying Industrial agriculture IS factory farming).
The Union of Concerned Scientists (1) said that industrial agriculture views the farm as a factory with “inputs” (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and “outputs” (corn, chickens, and so forth). The goal is to increase yield (such as bushels per acre) and decrease costs of production, usually by exploiting economies of scale. Industrial agriculture depends on expensive inputs from off the farm (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer), many of which generate wastes that harm the environment; it uses large quantities of nonrenewable fossil fuels; and it tends toward concentration of production, driving out small producers and undermining rural communities.
In recent decades, however, industrial agriculture has increasingly separated animals from the land. More and more meat
production is occurring in concentrated operations commonly called factory farms.
So we've got "monoculture" style Industrial agriculture being the current trend on the plant side, factory farms/feedlots on the animal production side. I guess "monoculture intensive crop practices" would describe the current plant equivalent of factory farming (for US typical Industrial agriculture). NathanLee14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: factory farming, industrial agricutlure, family farming, organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture, indigenous agriculture, etc... can all be intensive farming.--Agrofe22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of family farming being intensive farming and organinc agriculture? Reliable sources use factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive farming synonymously, as opposed to family farming and organic farming, and we have to stick to what sources say, even if you think they are wrong. SlimVirgin(talk)22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any farm owned by a family that engages in intensive organic agriculture production. There are huge numbers of examples. I could name names of individuals I know who fall into this category, but that would be pointless. Your sources are not scholarly peer-reviewed articles. I would put much more credence on them if they were. I am unwilling to place great weight on media or propoganda sources. Jav4323:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles thrown together by a newspaper reporter and approved by their editor are "good enough" for many purposes but we all know newspapers get stuff wrong all the time. A newpaper article is not a "reliable source" for claims that are contradicted by scholarly peer-reviewed articles. That's the fact. Policy edits that say otherwise are insupportable and efforts to put newspapers on a par with expert sources drive away experts. Wikipedia is not mediocre-pedia. We strive for excellence. We are already more accurate than newspapers. Let's keep moving in the right direction. WAS 4.25023:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV are you back to "family farming" being mutually exclusive of "intensive agriculture". Listen: this notion that the two are exclusive is just activist rubbish and makes no sense on any level. Example: most of the agriculture in Australia. We don't have the widespread commercially owned farms, most are family run and owned. Yet there are piggeries, chicken and livestock farms that rely on more than just the food lying around the ground (e.g. intensive farming). Easy example #2: intensive means lots of inputs to boost productivity? e.g. fertiliser and piped water. Do you think that all farms owned by families do not use fertiliser or irrigation to grow crops? There's an example of intensive farming owned by a family. NathanLee01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the title is separate from the issue of the writing. The way it's written now is a dog's breakfast. It contradicts itself. Even the lead contradicts itself. SlimVirgin(talk)22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to decide:
1. Do you want to include crops in this article, yes or no? Currently you first say no, and then you include them.
2. Do you want this article to be called factory farming or intensive farming?
Then
3. We can tweak the writing to accommodate. You can't change the writing first.
Exactly. I have restored the last self-consistent version. And we must have some rational decision about the contents. What is this article about? What do we name it? What goes in it? As of now, it was totally inconsistent with itself before I restored it. Crum37522:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to put in a plea for good writing, regardless of the title, or POV, or anything else. There's no need for poor writing and lack of clarity. SlimVirgin(talk)22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What contradicted itself? The version that Crum just reverted was very much better than the version we see right now. Jav4323:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Original research has been removed in the version I've put up. Unless you have a source (as requested multiple times) that somehow counteracts the evidence presented that shows the terms are NOT equivalent then you should leave this one up as it makes no un-justified claims and is all completely referenced.
As for whether it is a dog's breakfast: I wonder why that might be? Could it be the attempt to shove POV and unsupported assertions that factory farming refers to all the other terms (which were separate articles). If you want to talk about the factory farming POV then it is a separate article to the concept of industrial agriculture AND intensive farming. Hence my pleas (ignored) to stop, slow down and discuss. Accusations of vandalism when I attempted to reset the article appear to warrant an apology SV/crum375 as you perhaps now see what a mess you've made this article trying to push POV and OR lifted from animal rights.. wait.. not even supported by animal lib sites. Can you examine the arguments (lengthy though they be) and see why there is a significant difference between the terms and why "factory farm" is an entirely inappropriate term to be pushing over the top of the other ones? There should be two or three articles: "factory farming" refering just to the notion of factory farms, "Industrial Agriculture" as per how is was kind of before and "intensive farming" - just restore the article that was called "intensive farming". Factory farming has POV attached (as per my changes to the lead in. If you're going to force the page into "factory farming" then that needs to be made clear and neutral. NathanLee23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As some of many examples, the Schroeder and the British scientists statement calling for an end to 'factory farming', contradicted the statement that it is 'frequently used by the media and activists', since we refer to mainstream politicians (Schroeder) and scientists. Also, it is implying that when people say 'factory farming' they don't mean 'intesive agriculture', yet the sources we provide clearly equate the two (e.g. here). The previous version to mine also eliminated the Schroeder reference. Crum37500:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the terms in the same article or even the same sentence does not mean two terms are equal. It's a one way, subset relationship.. Again: Factory farming is a type of Industrial Agriculture. It uses Intensive farming practices.. That's all verifiable, referenced etc.. You assertion that they are all the same is Original research.. Full stop. NathanLee00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this clearly equates the terms:
"United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease."[38] (my emphasis)
If you claim that one is a subset of the other, that would be your own OR interpretation - I don't see any logical way to read this but as equivalent terms. Crum37500:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using dicta in a newspaper article to prove your point is about the WORST possible source verification around. Jav4300:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using CNN and Reuters as a source to determine the accepted usage of public terminology is quite reasonable, as notability of a source is important also. If we has some obscure scientist writing a very complex and profound scientific paper, it wouldn't be as important a source on public terminology as respected mainstream media sources. Crum37500:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum, firstly no one's debating that the term "factory farm" is a term that's not used. It is. I agree it is a term that's used. So does Jav43 I believe. But if you claim that the sentence in that article links the two phrases to be equivalent to each other then it doesn't.. You can even say they are two different requests if you like. Saying that you need to move away from X and stop Y. If you assert that X is linked to Y then the best you can do (still incorrect really) is say that Y is a type or subset of X. Really moving away from is a different concept to stopping. Does the sentence make sense if you say that factory farming is a subset or type of intensive farming? Yes. Is it fair to say the terms are interchangable? No. If the sentence had said "We recommend a stop to factory farming therefore that means all intensive farming will stop (as factory farming is the only form of intensive farming)". But factory farms can disappear and you'll still have monoculture crop farming relying on fertiliser, irrigation and mechanical tilling (e.g. intensive farming)..
So Intensive farming is a wider concept. Are you familiar with the mathematical concepts of sets? As in sets, subsets, union, difference etc.. As I think that's the area that myself and jav43 are thinking in terms of that you're missing our point. We can establish evidence to suggest that factory farming forms part of the set of things that makes up "Industrial agriculture" or "agriculture that uses intensive farming". But we cannot find evidence to suggest that industrial agriculture is identical to intensive farming is factory farming. That's the OR part, and if you've got something that says they're completely interchangeable terms from a site we can reference (the only ones that SV came up with were this article itself and a private answering site that may have just ripped it off wikipedia too). That defines the term "original research" and is a dangerous pollution of terms that should not stay sitting in the article regardless of whether crops are out of scope for an article on factory farm (they are: but given the response to any attempts by jav and myself to edit (or indeed revert the massive merging) the article to correct this: a tag team revert against the discussion evidence) you've made it rather difficult to get this article knocked into shape. NathanLee00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but despite all your words, I still don't see how reading that sentence to mean that one is a subset of the other, or that they are not simple equivalents of each other, is anything but your own interpretation, i.e. OR. Crum37500:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum: I can't put it too much more simpler or too many more ways. Cat is an animal. True? Is it fair to say animal is cat (or animals are all cats). No. Easy proof: a dog. Factory farm is a loaded term that as per the britannica encyclopaedia (a source I think you will have to agree knows a lot more about encyclopaedia writing than you, I, SV or jav43) says refers to industrial agriculture with a bunch of conditions on it.. If you put conditions on something that means you NARROW the field to which that can then encompass (e.g. you shrink the set). Factory farm is a term that refers to livestock. That narrows it down from livestock, fish and crops. Therefore: outside your set of things which are able to be called "Factory farm" are agriculture that involves crops and fish. Therefore: to use the term "Factory farm" refers to a subset of industrial agriculture. THEREFORE it is not able to be interchanged as a term for the larger set of things. THEREFORE the terms are not equivalent. Ditto for "intensive farming": there's intensive farming of animals and intensive farming of crops. Crops are not animals, therefore the set of what is able to be called "intensive farming" is larger than the range allowed by "Factory farming" terminology.. If you don't see how this works, then this argument is beyond your comprehension skills (as it depends on notions of sets etc) and that's where the sticking point is and will continue to be unless the notion of sets is sorted out.. NathanLee01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that we agree to have different articles edited by different sides of this little edit war and each side in the edit war agree not delete anything the other side puts on "their" article, but can add stuff, but if its deleted let it stay deleted for now. Then we can compare the different articles to see what is better and what is worse. This could be done on a subpage, but I think we can do it at Factory farming (Slim and friends get to "own" it), Intensive farming (Slim and friends let it alone and don't keep making it a redirect), Industrial agriculture (starts with the non-slim version of this article that is being edit wared between). I would hope we could all borrow from each other and eventually wind up with a way to agree to merge common items and perhaps wind up with three good articles or one good article depending on whatever consensus evolves over time. I think the main thing is to get on with the writing of sourced content. Slim deleted good stuff at Intensive farming and slim's opponets deleted good stuff slim added to this article. Let's add, not delete. WAS 4.25023:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did I delete that was good, WAS. Please show me. SlimVirgin(talk)
Agreed: this should never have been shoehorned (I've used the term god knows how many times) into one article that is a POV laden term. We need 3 pages it seems. Factory farming, Industrial Agriculture and Intensive farming.. This was pointed out in the discussions on both pages prior to moving had SV bothered to read them before pushing through her incorrect OR changes. Despite god knows how many posts on the discussion forum pointing this out. This is why I suggested, then did the revert because the current page is a dog's breakfast.. NathanLee23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the process. Everybody, please only edit the articles that are "yours" (for now only, eventually we will have to come to a consensus). Add data, don't revert war. And steal good stuff from each other. WAS 4.25000:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS, you're engaged in OR. Factory farming and industrial agriculture are used interchangeably by the sources, as is intensive farming. I can see an argument for having intensive farming separate if you want to focus on crops in that one, but there's no argument for separating factory farming and industrial agriculture. If you want to say they are different, produce a source. I've produced sources for all my points so far; I am waiting to see any of you do the same. SlimVirgin(talk)00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV as this has been stated many times before: there's no source that says that factory farming means the same as any of those sources. It may be a subset and that's a safe assumption from the usage in articles, but it is not equivalent. E.g. apple is a fruit, but is fruit an apple? No. John is a person, but person is not john. You have not provided a source to say that the terms are interchangable. The links you provided were not referrable sites and one was a wikipedia rip of this page. Again: it was you making the merge and the assertion that the terms are equivalent: prove it. That's the way it works, not making some unsupported allegation and asking for a source that proves otherwise. My example above: prove that oranges are not able to be used as jet fuel. It's going to be impossible for you to find a source that proves that statement is wrong because it's unsupported OR with no proof against either.. NathanLee01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, here is the CNN/Reuter article, where I have replaced the terms:
Scientists: X drop could end mad cow. LONDON (Reuters) -- United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from Y, saying the end of X was the only way to kill mad cow disease.
Now can you explain to me how anyone could read this simple heading and sentence without the understanding that X=Y? Crum37501:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no implication that X=Y and Y=X. Replace X with "Sausage eating" and y with "clown terrorism". The sentence is perfectly valid as the sentence implies no relationship between X and Y. Only that the scientists are warning people away from one and to stop the other. e.g. Move away from "this endless querying", stop trying to find "proof in this one sentence". :P NathanLee01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum: look at what the title says: X means mad cow end. then the second part of the sentence says the same thing. Drop X means mad cow end. Header is just the second half of the sentence again. Y is a separate thing altogether.. NathanLee01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, if as you say "Y is a separate thing altogether", what does Y mean? How would any reasonable reader understand it? Why would any reasonable writer write it if it's "a separate thing altogether"? I think it's clear to any reasonably person reading this, that X=Y - there is no other logical way to interpret it. Crum37501:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(back)Crum: Just read the headline, then read the sentence. The headline can be "Fred says hello", the sentence in the body can be "John eats an apple, while fred says hello". That is EXACTLY the same as your example from the article. I really can't spend or think of another way to explain what is just too simple to come up with another way to say it. If the headline is X.. Just lump the whole thing to be a concept X. Then you have a sentence which says something different (Y) and joins this with saying the exact same thing as X.. e.g. headline = X, sentence = Y and then X. Y is completely unrelated, can be completely unrelated.. IS unrelated by the sentence. What you are trying to argue is that if two things are in a sentence together then they are equivalent.. which is absurd. Try covering up the first half of the sentence in teh first paragraph. Do you now see that the title and the uncovered part are IDENTICAL. So no new information. Now cover up the title and read the sentence. Is there anything that says they are equivalent? No. It's a run on sentence. That is, two different things jammed into the same sentence. It's your brain that's imagining something saying they're the same. NathanLee02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to explain several times, a reasonable writer (and I suspect Reuter only has reasonable writers) wouldn't say "X drop could end mad cow ... scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from Y, saying the end of X was the only way to kill mad cow disease", unless X=Y. If Y is not X, than that sentence would not make sense. Crum37503:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about X='using carcasses as cattle feed', and Y='factory farming', where I think we can agree that X is a subset of Y, but not identical with Y:
Scientists: 'using carcasses as cattle feed' drop could end mad cow. LONDON (Reuters) -- United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from 'factory farming', saying the end of 'using carcasses as cattle feed' was the only way to kill mad cow disease.
Your example defines the actual terms as being different, whereas in our real case the X and Y are simply 'factory farming' and 'intensive agriculture', which to an average reader mean the same thing, so there is no other way to interpret it than that they are used synonymously. Crum37513:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely circular reasoning. Your X and Y example was intended to establish that the terms had to be the same because of the sentence structure they were embedded in. I have demonstrated, as you have conceded, that this sentence structure is consistent with X and Y being different. Therefore, your example does not establish that they mean the same thing, and your argument comes back down to you asserting that they are the same. --Coroebus13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Clearly the article is not directly saying "X is Y", it is only conveying it in the way it is worded. My point has been all along that any reasonable person reading it can only understand it to mean that X = Y. Your example with the carcasses is different because it uses words that clearly mean different things to everyone, whereas in the case in point the terms 'factory farming' and 'intensive agriculture' mean the same thing to an average reader, and their usage in the article just confirms it. Crum37514:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that does make your argument circular because you are basically saying that this sentence establishes that the two expressions are the same because they are the same! I would request that you engage with some of the examples provided which draw explicit distinction between the terms. --Coroebus14:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept ‘industrial agriculture’ does not refer to large-scale and specialised factory-farming.
Instead, it is here used to designate farming that depends at least partially on external supply of inputs
(e.g. seeds, fertiliser, veterinary services) and on markets, infrastructure, etc. since consumption of its
produce mainly takes place outside the farm itself."
The European Journal of Development Research "Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food Crisis" Holmén (2006).
"Firstly, just under 80% of respondents expressed opposition to intensive farming practices, such as factory farming..."
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Complementarities and conflicts between farming and incomers to the countryside in England and Wales" 2000.
"Industrial agriculture is characterized as capital and resource intensive, large-scale, high yielding, and mechanized with monocultural cropping systems directed to local, national, and international markets."
Jarosz (2000), "Understanding agri-food networks as social relations", Agriculture and Human Values.
"Just 10 years ago, only a handful of farms in Wisconsin met the definition of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" (CAFO) - or, in environmental circles, a factory farm."
Capital Times (Madison, WI) January 22, 2002.
"A factory farm is often defined as one with 1,000 or more animals..."
The Associated Press State & Local Wire December 7, 2001.
"To counter the pollution caused by factory farms, the EPA proposed changes to the definition of "concentrated animal feeding operations" to include a larger number of such facilities and bring them under the auspices of the Clean Water Act."
Environmental Laboratory Washington Report January 18, 2001.
"This exemption also may protect factory farms, which are, by definition, confinement operations. Some factory farm confinement practices are illegal in other parts of the world, such as the European community, due to their cruelty."
Capital Times (Madison, WI.) June 8, 2000.
"Mark Anthony, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said 'factory farm' is purely a political term. It's a neat little phrase used by opponents of our largest farms and it's used, ironically, against family farms that are large. It's a term manufactured by political opposition to generate a negative response. It is polemical in its use....Richard Sahli, an attorney who has worked closely with groups opposing Buckeye expansions, defines factory farm in environmental terms. Do it on the potential to be a nuisance and an environmental threat, which relates to waste materials, he said. He prefers the Environmental Protection Agency standards, which require livestock farms with more than 1,000 animal units (1,000 beef cattle, 2,500 hogs or 100,000 chickens) to have permits and stronger standards for waste management."
Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) July 26, 1998.
"...he's not aware of a definition in Ohio of what constitutes an industry-sized farm for the purpose of regulation. I guarantee it's a very, very difficult issue to get a handle on what the definition is of a factory farm, Finan said. One measure is the EPA requirement that any farm with more than 1,000 animal units must have an environmental permit to operate.
Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) March 10, 1998.
"...focus on the ways industrial agriculture (and factory farms in particular) harm and abuse billions of animals each year."
U.S. Catholic March 1, 2007.
"...much like the factory farms and other industrial agriculture..."
The Globe and Mail (Canada) September 21, 2002.
To really mix things up, here's the OED:
Factory...6. attrib. (sense 5)...factory farm orig. U.S., a farm organized on industrial lines; hence factory farmer, -farming...
...
1890 A. MARSHALL Princ. Econ. I. IV. xi. 351 Our knowledge..would be much increased..if some private persons,..or co-operative associations, would make a few careful experiments of what have been called ‘*Factory farms’.
1926 19th Cent. June 825 Factory-farms..can be multiplied or spread widely enough to affect the whole of British agriculture.
1952 Economist 7 June 657/1 The operators of the huge western factory farms..resist the rule that no more than 160 acres of a single owner's land can be supplied with federally financed water. Ibid. This so-called ‘160-acre limitation’..is still applied when new lands are irrigated, but *factory farmers, particularly in Texas and California, have been trying..to get Congress to repeal it.
1964 New Statesman 30 Oct. 649/1 Boycott factory farm food?.. Boycott factory farmers?.. The essential thing is to amend the Protection of Animals Act (1911) to cover *factory-farming techinques. 1968 Ibid. 5 Jan. 10/3 Under conditions of intensive ‘factory’ farming, a lot of animals did suffer from true infections. 1968 M. PYKE Food & Society v. 63 It is fashionable to sneer at intensive methods of livestock production; they are called ‘factory farming’.
...
intensive...5. a. Econ. Applied to methods of cultivation, fishery, etc., which increase the productiveness of a given area: opposed to extensive in which the area of production is extended.
1832 CHALMERS Pol. Econ. x. 324 The removal..of the tithes, gives scope both to a more extensive and a more intensive agriculture. 1865 Times 15 Apr., Ruin stares in the face the occupier whose farm premises are inadequate to the requirements of an ‘intensive cultivation’. 1889 Nature 3 Oct. 558/2 The necessity for increased food productions calls for intensive methods. 1899 19th Cent. No. 264. 300 There is little probability of their escaping from being caught..on account of the intensive fishery.
You appear to be revert-warring against consensus. Please refrain from undoing justified changes to put a supported view in the lead paragraphs. You have repeatedly failed to produce evidence that backs up the claim of equivalent terms. SV: you are an editor and supposedly experienced, please show respect for the facts presented, the majority support for the change, assume good faith and either provide references that show equivalence (set-wise) of the terms or else leave the less OR infected version as it is. Reverting is not showing any new evidence other than your ability to back up your view in the discussion and a lack of respect for everyone else contributing. Given we have a bunch in favour it is you and crum who are disrupting and interfering with proposed changes that meet wikipedia expected standards. The other version does not. NathanLee01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again.. SV and crum375 seem to be tag team reverting against evidence on here, how exactly is what you are doing anything but vandalism?? I (and others) have been more than patient on this matter, you've shown no good intention, just a desire to push original research into an article and thus damage the factual nature.. NathanLee03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three entries, one talk page, plus two comments
Although I agree with the intention behind WAS's suggestion to develop three different entries for industrial agriculture, factory farming, and intensive agriculture, I think using one talk page for all three will rapidly become unwieldy. I can't see that such a procedure can work for very long.
In relation to my earlier comment that industrial agriculture and factory farming are nearly interchangeable terms, clearly that is not the case if factory farming is defined as "the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility." With such a definition factory farming is clearly only one aspect of industrial agriculture.
In relation to the definition of industrial agriculture: the definition as it currently stands essentially describes it as agriculture devoted to achieving economies of scale in production. Although this is true, I think the issue is slightly more complex: if it is accepted that one goal of a corporation such as Monsanto is to actually control a very large proportion if not the entirety of food markets, then this objective, while still a matter of increasing profits, is also about manufacturing a situation of global control that is insusceptible to competition, rather than simply increasing profit. Certain genetic strategies employed by such corporations can be interpreted in this light. Such attempts to achieve monopoly domination don't seem quite the same as simply achieving economies of scale, even if in the end they are strategies devoted to ensuring long-term profitability. FNMF05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is interested in my view - I would say that Slim and Crum are right that historically 'factory farming' has been used as something of a synonym for industrial agriculture (e.g. see OED definition and quotes) but I would agree with NathanLee and others that it is probably more often used nowadays to refer to intensive confined animal rearing as a subset of industrial agriculture (e.g. see my quotes above). Therefore I would favour having two articles, one of industrial and intensive agriculture, the other on 'factory farming' as restricted to animal rearing (but with a referring to industrial agriculture as a possible alternative meaning). I do not think we should be assigning ownership of articles to people as an effective fork. --Coroebus11:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So by the sounds of it the factory farm article should just have a clarification or definition of what's generally referred to as "factory farm" (e.g. if there's specific information about the term or its definition) and then the body of the material on the overall process is held in "Industrial agriculture". NathanLee13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was suggesting that Factory farming could be an expansion of the animal section of Industrial agriculture since it is inevitable that there will be some animal rights issues addressed in the former, while the latter will probably have more of a focus on environmental criticisms which apply to both animals and crop cultivation. --Coroebus13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exhaustive look through the linked references to support my change to the header
SV and crum375 have asserted that factory farm/intensive farming, industrial agriculture are synonymous and completely interchangable..
So looking through all the references in the article.
The terms are sometimes used in the same article (even in the same sentence in one article) we haven't yet had anything that shows the terms are anything other than a type of the other..
The CNN article doesn't use them interchangably [39], it calls for a move away from intensive and a stop to factory farming. It would have said stop to both if they were the same thing. You can stop factory farms and still be moving away from intensive farming is about all you can glean from that..
britannica and the sci-tech dictionary says it applies to animal farming as per cramped conditions [40],
this one supports the notion that the term means livestock [41],
this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations [42] no mention of "factory farm" anywhere,
this one [43] does not mention the term factory farm,
webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock definition [44],
On and on through the list.. Even if we go to activist sites on factory farming: I haven't come across any that assert that the terms are interchangable. Sure: factory farming IS industrial agriculture and it IS using intensive farming techniques (or is a type of intensive farming). But that just means it "is a type of", or "is a subset of". English use of the word "is" isn't the same as mathematical =. a = b means b=a. But in English a is b doesn't also mean that b is a.
Nothing to back up the claims in the referred links or anything I can find (other than mirrors of wikipedia's mistaken statements.. which is why it is important we do NOT have this definition sitting up there and infecting the common vernacular of agricultural terms), thus: it is original research and has no place on wikipedia.
Might I add:
Even the PETA link on factory farming (completely un-admissable I would say given PETA are a pro-vegan, anti every type of farming site, and not exactly known for their fact based statements e.g. "meat causes impotence", "your daddy murders chickens") mentions only animals [46].
So, does this settle the arguments that SV and Crum375 have about wanting the term "Factory farm" to be synonymous with the other terms? No mention of crops, and 3 different dictionary/encyclopaedic entries that suggest there's a link to cramped livestock.. Yet Industrial agriculture definitely includes monoculture crop planting, and intensive farming definitely definitely refers to using fertiliser and irrigation and mechanised ploughing etc..[47]
So unless there's any new evidence: I suggest we move past this and get on with splitting up the articles and back to supportable definitions/synonyms. This has all been a pretty big drain of time, good will and patience that has damaged the accuracy of the information on here, not improved it (although I guess at least this has been exhaustively debated now.. and has firmed up sources/supporting arguments etc). Any thoughts on this? I'm not wanting to be dictatorial on this: just presenting the evidence.. NathanLee12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the articles should all be neutral, but the concept of factory farming refers to a certain subset of Industrial agriculture.. Perhaps it doesn't warrant a page all of its own.. Because: as you say that can be thought of as a POV fork rather than just treating it as a subsection of the broader page. Does factory farm deserve a page all by itself? Hrm.. It definitely should NOT be the replacement page for Industrial agriculture or intensive farming.. It should probably defer a bunch of coverage to the Industrial agriculture or intensive farming pages rather than duplicating material for what is a subset of the other concepts.. NathanLee13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality writing
Wow, what a mess. The current lead is terrible. Why has it changed from a well structured set of paragraphs to series of poorly thought out sentences? It is currently representing only one view of what 'Factory Farming' is - some have expressed that factory farming and industrial agriculture are the same thing and have provided sources to back it up (such as the CNN source, which despite your attempts at analysis, and your ignoring of our reliable source guidelines, is a reliable source that is written in such a way as to se the 2 terms synonmymously - any analysis more than simply reading is as it is written is OR), yet we only have 'Factory farming is a subset...' and 'describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility'.
I would say that use of the CNN passage to establish the equivalence of the terms is quite probably the crappest argument I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and the repeated attempts to rely on it brazen Humpty Dumptyism with the quotes as mere props. Fortunately for you there is the far superior OED source that says "factory farm...a farm organized on industrial lines". --Coroebus17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to point out is that the intro only covers one POV - that the term is a subset. There are those who see it differntly (including myself) who have shown sources to support that the terms are synonymous. I'm not trying to say that the article should be written one way or the other - just that both views should be represented properly.-Localzuk(talk)17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm trying to say that the evidence that they are synonymous is pretty much absent - apart from the OED quote I haven't seen any other evidence that stands up to even a cursory glance. On the other hand there is some pretty compelling evidence of it being used as non-synonymous. But I do agree that at the very least the intro needs to spell out the different uses to avoid confusion. --Coroebus17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further down the page we have statements such as 'According to Faison:' being changed to 'The animals are better off, according to Faison:' which is a change from a encyclopedic intro to a poorly thought out line.
Futher, we have now had the image removed from the intro and placed down at the bottom of the article. Why? A representitive image of the practices so vividly described in the intro is appropriate is it not? The intro states that animals are kept in strict confinement, so why not have such an image in to lead? -Localzuk(talk)16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the first 3 paragraphs (if you can call them that) start off talking about the practice, then the term, then the practice. This is a terrible mess. I propose that we go back to the old layout and work slowly from there - proposing each change bit by bit.-Localzuk(talk)16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again the suggestion to put it back to the changes by SV that made it the mess in the first place. I changed those sentences to make it less Original research. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they are at least factual and making no original research claims.. Which is preferable to what was there. NathanLee01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American v. British spelling
I noticed that a few recent modifications changed American spellings to British spellings. Is there some general wikipedia standard regarding spelling choice? If not, we should probably adopt one spelling method or the other, just to be consistent. Jav4318:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was Australian spelling I was correcting as part of that.. But same spelling for British/Canadian/South African/Indian/New Zealand English spelling I guess. Don't know that there's any consensus on this.. Those words are either US spelling or "rest of the world" English I guess.. My personal view is to go with the one that applies to most variations of English (in the absence of a wikipedia mechanism to put individual English variations in e.g. Jail/Gaol, colour/color etc). Is there a tag to put the US alternative spellings in..? 89.168.20.518:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care overmuch, although I don't know many of the actual words for British English (i.e. Jail->Gaol, Trunk->Boot, etc). There ought to be a general wikipedia policy on point, if there isn't already. Jav4318:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a few more.. If we work around the our/or type words I think we're ok for US/other variations.. Just be conscious when using favour/favor, odour/odor, colour/color, stuff that ends in -ize when it's spelt -ise generally.. And we'll be fine and within the guidelines without any trouble.. NathanLee02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issues: Public health concerns
Why does "public health concerns" have its own section? Shouldn't that section be incorporated into the "arguments against" side of the debate-style outline (unless we're removing the debate-style outline, section-by-section). Jav4318:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial agriculture, opening paragraph
At the moment the opening says that industrial agriculture's methods involve technology (modern machinery) and science (modern medicine and genetic technology). Obviously this doesn't make much sense, since genetic technology is a technology and not just a science. But it indicates a more general issue, which is: precisely for phenomena such as industrial agriculture, the distinction between science and technology no longer really holds. The pressure to innovate in these fields means that what formerly passed for scientific investigation is now entirely submitted to the needs of technological and industrial innovation. It would be better to say: "Industrial agriculture's methods are technoscientific (including innovation in agricultural machinery and genetic technology) and economic (involving techniques for achieving economies of scale in production as well as the invention of new markets for consumption)." FNMF22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted accordingly. Also, added "intellectual property rights to genetic information" as an economic method. This is key in the sense that without establishing these legal/economic rights on a worldwide basis a great deal of recent innovation in industrial agriculture would not be possible. Only because corporations can establish and count on such rights can they pursue the strategies they devise. FNMF22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International tags..?
I noticed that there are other language versions that appear to be ones for the other articles.. e.g. intensive agriculture and industrial agriculture..
The lead which SV has reinstated is a much more well rounded summary of the article. Please do not remove information from the intro, as it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and the prior version was far from this.-Localzuk(talk)22:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not been paying any attention to the dicussion: it is Original research.. It is not supported.. If anything is vandalism it is this repeat of reversion despite numerous changes. SV: I don't really know how many more ways you need to have it pointed out that your opinion is not backed up. Continual reversion over a more accurate lead is just wasting time. For the umpteenth time: either present evidence that backs up the equivalency of the terms (and take the time to read the discussion page) or I'm afraid there's no other conclusion that you're edit warring and disruptive. I'm not just throwing around the terms either like some do: there's been rational, backed up, consensus on the conclusion that your page was broken. If you can't see the merit in the extensive work people have had to go through to show you that your edit is incorrect (see my above section on "Exhaustive.. " which goes through nearly every reference cited on the page. Nothing in it supports your statements. Thus: they needed fixing. NathanLee03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, the CNN/Reuters clearly uses Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture interchangeably. We've gone through that quite a few times above, and I don't see any other reasonable way to read that article. I do not see any source that specifically says that there is a distinction between Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture or Intensive Farming. The ILO source does not use the term Factory Farming (which includes crops), and is specifically for concentrated confined animals only, which is exactly how we present it. Some sources refer to the animal aspect of Factory Farming, but there are clearly others that refer to both animals and crops, e.g. Webster's New Millenium says FF is "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility" (my emphasis), and of course agriculture includes crops. So while some sources (and animal rights groups) focus on the animals, other sources include crops, and I have yet to see a single reliable source that specifically excludes crops (i.e. by saying "FF does not include crops", or "FF is for animals only"). I think the reason is simple: animal rights groups, by their very nature, focus on animals, and therefore tend to ignore the crops aspects of FF, and some sources seem to focus on the animal rights groups and Mad Cow, etc. But our article cannot be tailored to animal rights groups or Mad Cow only; we should follow the general and broad application of FF in the published literature, which clearly includes both crops and animals. Crum37504:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you paying any attention to what's been said or not? Clearly you haven't read the rebuttal to that (quite frankly idiotic) claim (as was said by another user). That CNN article does not use them interchangeably, nor do any of the articles cited on this page. Again: if you can't read the discussion page that mentions this (scroll back up two or three sections to the one about exhaustive). If you have no new evidence: can I suggest you stop wasting time and effort having to explain things to you again. You put forward another ridiculous argument that because something mentions "Agriculture" and then says it applies to animal production agriculture: that it then must mean crops too.. I really don't get your logic skills: is English your first language as perhaps that explains the missing of the nuance (if you can call it a nuance).. How can a type of agriculture to do with animals kept indoors also magically refer to crops which are firstly not animals and not indoors. What specific article are you referring to that talks of factory farming in such magic broad terms as to fit your definition.. We've got two dictionary and britannica that disagrees with you.. So it'd better be a good reference to override those.. This is just seeming more and more like beating a dead horse and taking up time and energy that I'd rather spend on improving the article. Not arguing for the 50th time on why you should stop reverting articles to the original research. Why exactly couldn't you have put some of this critical review into the massive alteration of the article to prevent the original research in the first place? Rather than trying your hardest to keep it there? Your/SV's view isn't even shared by animal welfare activists (check PETA's description or countless others). NathanLee04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, you completely missed my point. The lead you are trying to include does not provide a well rounded summary of all major aspects of the article. It has also taken many comments to get you all to realise that the quality of the writing you are adding is lower than what was there. As SV says, add material, do not delete well sourced material merely because you don't agree with it.-Localzuk(talk)10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Nathan's version is better. It contains a well-referenced set of definitions, while SV's version uses only dicta from newspaper articles. Nathan's version properly doesn't talk about growth hormones or antibiotics, which don't characterize "industrial agriculture" or "factory farming", while SV's version says that such things are iconic of factory farming. SV's version cites a number of propaganda-based activist websites, which clearly are not verifiable sources, while Nathan's version moves away from such problems. Looking at the whole, Nathan's version is much better. If you object to his sentence structure or the like, then *fix that* without removing his text. Jav4317:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add, don't remove
If anyone feels the lead needs more positive material, by all means add it, but do not remove well-referenced factual material. Please see WP:LEAD. Leads should briefly describe the topic's notable controversies. The BSE thing is certainly that, as is the chancellor of Germany calling for an end to factory farming. It would be absurd to leave that out of the intro. SlimVirgin(talk)05:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The various editors involved with this page have an honest editorial difference of opinion on:
the definition of "factory farming"
which version is the better "well rounded summary of the article"
the reletive importance of BSE versus say, avian flu, artificial genetic manipulation, agribusiness political lobbying, e.coli, etc.
the the relative importance of a political leader's remark versus say a scientist's scientific study and conclusion or an economist's peer reviewed analysis or an agribusiness spokesperson comment. WAS 4.25017:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if reverting between two versions is the best way to handle this honest editorial difference of opinion. WAS 4.25017:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bit that was altered. Really SV: if you can't read the discussion page: leave the editing to those who can. Again, since you can't seem to get it via comments on your talk page, comments in the change history, discussion in this talk page or by reading the articles you claim supports your assertions: The term "factory farm" is not interchangable with "Intensive farming", "industrial agriculture". As above: none of the articles show anything other than it is a type of the others. Crop farming does not get called factory farming. Britannica/websters etc talk about confinement and ANIMAL farming. NathanLee00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are the one deleting good and referenced material from the lead, Slimvirgin. The article needs a definition of terms: the lead provides one. Also, citing propaganda-based activist websites does not a well-referenced article create.Jav4317:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than reverting, thereby removing a large amount of referenced material that summarises the article better, why not add the bits about antibiotics and the like and definition of terms to this version? Regardless of what *you* think of the references to newsmedia, they are reliable sources according to our policies. Removing them is not helping.-Localzuk(talk)18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicta is not a reference. Sorry. Dicta doesn't count. If you had any training in research-based professions, you'd know that. Jav4321:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, I'll turn your question back on you, Localzuk. Why didn't you add whatever it is you think is "good" rather than deleting/reverting Nathan's version? Come on, stop the hypocrisy. Jav4321:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Localzuk: do you realise that references were ADDED. By reverting you've removed references to superb 100% citable sources AND based on an incorrect assumption: the articles are still referenced. I'm not sure how you're justifying this? YOU removed good referenced material and put back unreferenced claims. NathanLee00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicta? Sorry, I don't understand that terminology. And the reason I didn't add what you have added is that I don't think it adds anything good to the article, so I reverted to the last good version.-Localzuk(talk)21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing about research methods without knowing the first thing is sad. Dicta is statements that are made to explain or enhance, but that aren't the actual point. Dicta isn't a good source for a citation. The point made by the article/source is what you should cite. Jav4302:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually admitting that you don't know the first thing about serious research? :P It doesn't matter whether there's a Wikipedia policy. Any decent researcher should know what to use as a source and what doesn't qualify. Jav4308:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav43, perhaps this is part of our problem here. First, please try to remain civil - it will make collaboration much easier. For example, try to focus on the issues, not the editors involved. Second, you seem to think there are some kind of sourcing rules, 'dicta' being an example, that we need to follow, that are not part of Wikipedia policy, and that "[a]ny decent researcher should know what to use as a source and what doesn't qualify". I suggest you read our WP:V, WP:NOR sourcing policies, summarized in WP:ATT. These are the rules we need to adhere to - we cannot ignore them, or invent new ones as we go. Once we all sing from the same page, we can hopefully move forward. Thanks, Crum37513:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't any of that, we can cite wikipedia policies til the cow's come home (or in this case: get shunted to a more cramped feeding cage): the important one is Original Research. Can you please provide any evidence to counter the mass of evidence we've provided to show that the page you revert to all the time (the current one that's locked in place) is not original research. To be honest: civil means showing respect for others' editing and to not keep reverting without reason. The overwhelming push by wikipedia is to back up and reference any claims made. We've shown at this stage that the new page is a better article from an accuracy point of view.. This debate is pretty thin on justification on your side and continues to be while you tell others to read the policies while you flagrantly ignore them yourself to keep this POV in the article. You are the only ones circumventing or inventing new rules. The new page makes no claims in the lead that aren't verifiable. SV's one does. NathanLee13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually like to hear Jav43 respond to my point about not inventing new policies on the fly, as he seems to be doing. But responding to your message above, can you show me one specific example of WP:OR in the current version? (and please - make it just one so we can stay focused) Crum37513:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not just read the exhaustive list or here or perhaps even the section on proposed new lead where I specifically replied to you in both those last ones.. But you went silent again and did not provide the requested evidence.
If you can't focus enough to read replies specifically to you on the discussion page: how many times do the same sets of complaints need to be raised before you read them? I'll say it again to summarise the above links AGAIN, SV's version makes claims that terms are the same: they aren't and no reference backs that. The SV version is wrong in the body too because it mentions crops (merged from intensive agriculture) and no article exists to link crop farming with factory farming.. It disagrees with the dictionary and encyclopaedic entries referenced in the newer version on that regard. Hence "original" (e.g. SV's ) research. NathanLee14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement with a specific source is not OR. I suggest you read WP:OR carefully. If you are referring to the equivalence between FF and Intensive Farming etc., all that is well sourced, for example here. I have yet to see a single source that says that FF is not equivalent to Intensive Farming. In general, I think the current version is extensively and carefully sourced, and I have yet to see a single example of OR in it. Crum37514:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see how that source (headline is the only bit to use the phrase "factory farming", then it talks about a report on groundwater and intensive farming", then there is some discussion as to whether an e.coli outbreak was due to manure runoff) fails to establish the point you are trying to make then I think we will need outside input here. Request for mediation anyone? --Coroebus15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the cbc article Crum just referenced is useless. It only mentioned "factory farming" in the headline (if you know anything about newspaper articles, you'd know that the headline usually isn't written by the journalist) and draws no actual correlation between "factory farming" and "intensive agriculture". Crum & Co. are grasping at straws in a last-ditch attempt to throw their POV into this article. It's just tiring. Jav4320:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part that we've got issue with (as per the original research policy) is nothing to do with disagreement with a single source.. It's this bit:
Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position
. The lead and article was changed to remove the extrapolation of the definition to include the unsupported equivalency and extension to include crops (for which there's no reference.. including the one you cite which makes no such claim). The personal position by a couple of you that they are identical terms: is only that: A personal position. Your justification is the same as saying that any two terms used in a sentence are the same and interchangable. "A move away from intensive farming and an end to factory farming": does not mean the two terms are the same. It's even referring to two different groups saying that as I recall.. Your reference from above: [48] mentions factory farming in the heading.. And refers to a report on intensive farming, but the part about "Miller points to larger livestock farms in Ontario, which produce more manure or agricultural run-off, and, hence, a higher risk of groundwater contamination.". Doesn't this support the assertion that the term "factory farm" is referring only to large animal farms? We know intensive farming can include more (crops, fish etc) therefore the BEST we can assume is that factory farm is a subset or type of intensive farming practice. The same can't be said the other way around. NathanLee16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy isn't exhaustive and isn't meant to be exhaustive. I'm not attempting to "invent new policy". I'm simply restating the obvious... which I wouldn't need to do if the editors here could actually use decent research techniques. Jav4320:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a question for WAS. This talk page has reached the point of being almost useless, because of long irrelevant posts, and posts designed to insult rather than just reply. SlimVirgin(talk)18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's useless because you completely ignore it. This argument to "add, don't remove" is firstly stupid because if you look at it: there's nothing been removed. It's a rewording to make it match the references. It actually has more references (ones to britannica and other dictionaries) to support the material. Having Original research (the claims of equivalency of terms was not backed up in ANY of the articles.. Had you paid attention to the discussion you'd see that I'd shown that) is much much worse than having a LEAD that might need an extra sentence or something to round it off. If you value adding material so much, why have you reverted to undo numerous fixes just because you don't like that someone has improved the article? Removing added Original Research or POV is not something anyone should be reverting, let alone an admin. NathanLee00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What we need here is a solution
What we need here is a solution. Both sides have given their evidence and neither side agrees with the other side's evidence. Both sides claim to be following policy and accuse the other side of not following policy. Perhaps a straw poll on which of the two contending versions is best could be a solution. What do others think? WAS 4.25019:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the dispute is already resolved. SV, Crum, and Localzuk are on one side; WAS, Nathan, myself, and Agrofe are on the other -- BUT SV, Crum, and Localzuk cite propaganda-based activist websites rather than decent sources, and at least SV has admitted bias against modern agricultural practices. The "correct" outcome here is obvious. (By the way, how on earth did the image of the sows get back in the lead again?)
Oh, also, the talk page is working perfectly. Of course, SV/Crum/Localzuk's refusal to actually read it doesn't work so well. Advice: read without bias. Jav4321:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is filled with self gratifying nonsense by a couple of editors who are trying to hide their own biases by providing too much info in response to very simple questions. Nearly every time one of SV/Crum/myself have asked a question we have received long diatribes which barely provide an answer and would be more appropriate if a politician had said them. This isn't an attack against any editors, it is an analysis of why we haven't got anywhere with coming to a compromise. We need to stop with the OTT answers and keep things succint. I suggest that we simply archive the page so far and start again - going over each paragraph bit by bit.
The introductory paragraph is not original research, it is well sourced. The image is also sourced, how is this original research?
Also, regardless of your beliefs of things being 'correct', this site works on verifiability. Everything in the lead is verifiable and sourced.-Localzuk(talk)21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "there is no evidence in ANY of the articles cited to suggest the terms are interchangeable" is so hard to understand? I'll say AGAIN:See my section on exhaustive coverage of the referenced articles.. I've shown there is NOTHING in ANY of them to support SV's lead. The one I changed it to makes NO original claims, cites MORE sources (and doesn't throw away any sources) and is thus infinitely preferable. If you say it doesn't cover the article: I'd like to see you add things to make that so. SV's version is plain WRONG. Inability to contribute or be able to understand extensively supported arguments is not a reason to keep reverting. If SV/crum375/localzuk can't understand why something needs to be fixed if it contains unsupported claims: then there's no reason why the article should suffer because of that. If the discussion page has gotten lengthy it's because we've got a couple of animal rights activists who need to create a biased page.. That's the only explanation at this stage. The article has also had other fixes which have been thrown away (e.g. the english variation neutral changes, spelling mistakes etc). If these editors were doing this from an IP address they'd be banned from editing, but for some reason we're tolerating their un-supported ignorant and lazy "I'll just keep reverting til I win despite all evidence against me" approach to this article. NathanLee23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk, if you read this discussion page, you'd find out why you're wrong: this version is OR and the image is improper - as we all agreed long, long ago. Jav4302:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'll find that *you* think it is OR and *you* think the image is improper. Myself, SV and Crum all think it is proper and not OR...-Localzuk(talk)08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also WAS - a poll isn't a good way to solve this. Every attempt to explain why the article is OR has been made. SV/Crum375/LocalZuk are just unable to either bother reading the arguments, or accept that SV may have polluted this article with incorrect statements (which has been shown god knows how many times on this page). Why are we putting up with such disruptive vandalism of this page in the face of one side providing extensive evidence and the other not contributing, not reading the arguments and edit warring.. NathanLee23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protected page status
Rather than propogate questionable information, I think the entire lead section of this article should be removed while the article is protected. Jav4321:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you reverted (against requests for you lot to participate in the discussion) just before it got blocked so that the incorrect Original research about equivalent terms can stay there a bit longer.. I wouldn't mind so much if any of the 3 of you gave any reason for doing so.. But edit warring rather than reading or providing evidence seems to be all the proof you need. It's also a less referenced one too by the way: no link to britannica etc NathanLee00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny, I requested page protection... Normal when there is a revert war. Please read the notice at the top - protection isn't a promotion of that version.-Localzuk(talk)00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant to be used to protect your own revert. Why revert if there's no promotion involved? Why did you not simply request a protection. So yes: it is funny. Had you requested the protection without having immediately been the one doing the reverting you might have a leg to stand on and have shown good faith and professionalism. What you did was once again ignore the discussion mechanism, revert a bunch of changes to damage the article with OR again.. Then abuse the page protection mechanism to make it stick up while you lot once again fail to provide any evidence or reason for SV's misleading lead to stay there. NathanLee01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So true. Localzuk's actions were completely unethical. The page should at least be placed in a neutral state if it is to remain locked for a time. Jav4302:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I made my revert at 18:05 and the page was protected at 19:05, I don't think there is anything wrong with what I did - stop reading into things. Your over the top 'this is a conspiracy' behaviour is not helping - all it does is make me think that you aren't here to improve but to push your own agenda and to troll.-Localzuk(talk)07:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Localzuk: true you reverted (18:05), but then 5 minutes later (18:11) you requested a block. It took some admin a little under an hour to respond to your request. Response time of admins is irrelevant really, but 5 minutes between your reverting and starting the block process doesn't exactly support your idea that it's an agenda to call you out on perhaps using block as a technique to enforce your POV.. NathanLee11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling me a liar and *still* not getting to the point of how we can compromise on this issue. Being at work and heavily overloaded with work I don't have time to create a possible compromise version.-Localzuk(talk)12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you a liar: my apologies if it read that way: you just implied you had given more time between your revert and the block request. Your actions were 5 minutes apart.
The "compromise" is that if you/crum/SV want to contribute on this (including right to revert) then your argument needs to be backed by evidence and the talk page used a bit more. As currently it's based on nothing other than some POV e.g "the lead sucks" equivalent and a desire to keep the page from being changed at all costs (pissing others off, trampling over arguments/convention/requests to discuss, personal attacks, unhelpful editing).
None of the excuses given appear to have a basis or justification: it is referenced, despite claims: editors can (and are encouraged) to remove/change/add material that improves the article ("don't remove" was one argument for reverting the additions of others strangely), it is less original research, agrees more with other primary sources.. So I still can't see why this debate is there other than to somehow appease a couple of people's unjustified reverting against consensus and backed up reasoning. The improvement process keeps getting knocked back every time you lot decide to revert and stall for more time with no evidence to support it. Might I suggest that if you move beyond clinging to this need to have the original research in the page: we can stop wasting time on you so far fallacious arguments against improving the article.
Also if you/SV/crum375 are too busy: consider that we did spend the time out of our also busy days creating a more accurate lead, with lots of reasoning behind to save the disputes: and all you SV and crum really have found time to do is revert and refer to one article with the two terms in the same sentence but which does not back the claims. It appears it's not ok to revert SV's massive changes (which were contributions though.. although against the discussion pages on each of the pages), nor is it ok to ever change them regardless how flawed it is shown time and time again. NathanLee13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes, once again, to show that you would rather rant for several paragraphs than get to the point. I'm sorry but you are missing the concept of 'compromise' if you think 'you lot should give up' is a compromise... Also, consensus by a few people doesn't mean there is overall consensus. There are 3 of us saying the same thing (well 4 if you count that other random user). Anyway, now that I have finished work, I shall try and build a compromise version of the 2 and see if that is acceptable to you.-Localzuk(talk)16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) If a couple of people say they think "Triumph Daytona 675" and "motorbike" are synonymous: they can even start a revision war on the motorbike page: that doesn't mean some compromise of material on the motorbike page is needed: the person with that personal view needs to pay attention to the evidence or find something that actually supports it.
In this case: you have yet to actually show anything that supports the view of equivalent terms OR crop/intensive farming inclusion. In short: you're being pig headed and yes: in this regard unless you provide some proof "you lot should give up" and let the improvements that were made stand. If there's no evidence to support a claim: it doesn't matter how many people you have saying it: it simply isn't able to be included in wikipedia. That's a suitable concept for a blog, but the policy on original research leaves no room for discussion. The previous version makes no claims that aren't supported, hence it is an improvement.
Additionally: why is it that britannica's definition, two dictionaries, a million and one articles provided for you, animal activist definitions (and really: come on - surely they would widen the scope as much as possible?) ALL seem to disagree with you. Yet still you persist without any evidence.
The compromise would be: "Everyone seems to think of factory farming as this and sometimes this, but Crum375/SV/Localzuk believe against consensus that it is an equivalent term for various fields of agriculture" (with a citation to this discussion page).
Would that be a suitable addition? NathanLee16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I attempted this before I made the changes, and before SV blasted all hers through that got us to this point in the first place. How about you accept to revert your changes and use the channel I created to talk about this stuff "here Proposed New lead-in paragraphs - Comments welcome" and again earlier, oh and again, etc. Those that did contribute through the discussion page rather than "undo" button: approved it was a better edit (albeit not perfect, but better than having OR in it). Forcing a revert war and page lock to justify some sort of "compromise" (rather than just say "oh, I guess that was wrong in my interpretation") when many attempts including requests on user talk pages to engage in discussion were made and ignored is a poor substitute for finding evidence. But that's just another rant.. But if you think your need for discussion now deserves a chance, by all means present your evidence and we'll see how it stacks up. Start with crops and then we'll need an article for each term that you think is equivalent that uses the terms in a way that's not able to be said that the article is saying "a type of" or "subset" of.. Oh and why intensive agriculture should be merged and deleted. Why the term "factory farm" isn't one that's popular with activists/media. And then why the spelling mistakes, regional english fixes etc are worthy of inclusion also. Then why britannica etc definitions of "factory farm" that say animal/confined etc are not suitable and robust citations for the lead. NathanLee17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - SuggestionI'm going to request this page be unprotected since I've got improvements to make and the revert gang have gone silent (or stayed silent) once more. When it is unprotected we'll revert to the newer version (the non OR one) and move forward. If the above editors cannot make their case before any further reverts then it's nothing more than disruptive editing/vandalism (in addition to their existing efforts that have yet to be justified). Anyone got comments/thoughts? NathanLee09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no. I would strongly disagree with unprotection at this time. Please remember that people have jobs. I am working on a compromise version which I will post here when it is done. Unprotecting now would simply lead back to you posting your version and us lot reverting - for the same reasons we have all outlined, over and over again.
Stop stating that we are doing things 'against consensus' - the fact that we disagree means that there isn't consensus (there, at last count, are 3 of us complaining and 4 of you pushing for that edit - far from consensus). The simple fact remains that you see something as original research and we don't. You are removing a significant summary of controversy over the subject and we don't want it removed. You disagree with the photo being there and we don't. That is not consensus. We have outlined why the version that I last reverted to is better than the version you are proposing but you simply disagree with it. Compromise doesn't mean 'we've heard your arguments and disagree, so we should go with what we say' it means 'lets draw up something that meets both our requirements'. Stop dictating and get on with compromise.-Localzuk(talk)12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it's you that's dictating that without proof or effort to contribute meaningfully to the discussion page that you have a right to keep reverting. On the discussion page: you've each popped in, said some POV non-argument, then disappeared when it's shown to be garbage or nothing more than a random statement. How many ways do you need to have pointed out that you have not provided any article that states what you believe. If you are freely admitting that you'll just keep reverting (i.e. "edit warring") but not willing to provide a proper argument against the changes (have you even looked at the page version in question?), or contribute on the discussion page: why don't you just leave the editing to those who will. What exactly is your complaint about the new page? Specifically what in it isn't referenced and is POV? You haven't outlined why it's better, but I have: see the section on "proposed new lead" as to why I made the changes, also the section on the english variant stuff, and the stuff on why there is original research in SV's version. Prehaps start a new section and clearly outline your complaints specifically as saying "I believe it's better" appears to just mean it fits your POV more rather than "is more accurate". Again I'd like to know why you think britannica et al are wrong in their definition and your/SV are right too..? NathanLee15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request the article be put into the more correct revision: the page block
Firstly: Localzuk made a revert and then requested the page be blocked. If this is not prohibited by policy: it damned well should be because it's a pretty crap way of forcing a page to stick up there..
I propose that the last revert made by LocalZuk be reverted as that user was the one who requested the page then be locked and it places the page in the less desirable state of having Original research (claims of synonymous terms, with nothing to back this up). I also think that this version is the preferred one in light of the extensive evidence provided on this discussion page in particular:
There's been a claim that the lead might need some additional changes, but nothing to support the reason to have a page put back to one that HAS been shown to be incorrect.
The allegations that the SV page is better are incorrect:
there has not been information just chopped out: a talk about mad cow's disease is still in the article
the OR claim against SV's page still stands, with no evidence/link to suggest it is anything other than OR (equivalent terms and the widened scope of the term that's not present in any citation)
contrary to any of the cited references (see here for that list again)
contrary to dictionary/encyclopaedia definitions (see britannica's definition, the science terms dictionary one and the websters one)
even contrary to activist definitions such as factoryfarming.com and PETA who say it refers to livestock.
there are numerous other little fixes that got reverted/removed
the claim that you should "add not remove" is rubbish: this is a wiki, so information is meant to evolve. Otherwise every piece of incorrect data added (such as SV's claim of interchangeable terms) would have to be maintained. In addition extra references were added which were "removed" by the reverts to SV's version by Crum375/localzuk. Hypocritical to suggest that SV's additions are worthy of protection, but any and all others are to be immediately reverted but not discussed.
nothing says the version in the new page is the final one. Reverting because of an argument that the lead needs more work is a) not constructive at all, b) fallacious and c) removing a more factually correct lead in favour of one polluted with original research. If the quote from a german official *really* needs to be in the lead, then by all means ADD IT IN. No one is stopping you, reverting is a piss poor way of adding that back in (so that it appears twice in the article for some reason).
Exactly! Thank you WAS. I say we just ignore the fact the page is protected, and try and resolve this little impasse we have reached.-Localzuk(talk)07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey WAS, I saw that page too (amusing). The point was more that if you're going to block it: then block it, don't firstly revert it and then block it because it then becomes just another tool in an edit war.. That was my point with that. The requesting person for protection shouldn't have taken part in the reverting immediately prior is all I'm saying there. It wasn't necessarily malicious: just a bit outside what you'd expect should happen. Regardless we've got to resolve the issue (having it locked on either version is irrelevant to that matter). I don't want to get sidetracked from the issue at hand though. There's the unsupported stuff in the "factory farm is the same as" version that (I think.. and others) has been shown to be original research and contradicts the other "official" definitions (and unofficial activist ones even). NathanLee11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the protecting admin, I will say it was pretty unscrupulous for the guy requesting protection to revert to his preferred version immediately before requesting protection; it doesn't help to foster consensus-building and encourage working together, as it could easily be perceived as an underhanded attempt to keep your favored version in place. Either way though, it's time for you guys to work together and work towards a consensus. Krimpet (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I'm not made out to be some sort of daemon on here... My intentions were entirely honest, hence my saying 'yes I requested protection'. I will fully admit that revert warring has occurred, my intention with protection was to stop it and for us all to just get on with working on a compromise. Nothing more, nothing less. I honestly do not care which version is protected - so long as we come to a reasonable compromise on here.-Localzuk(talk)07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to say that SV/Crum/Localzuk haven't exactly engaged with the argument, rather they have fallen back on repeating that a couple of lines from CNN (which emphatically do not mean what they think they do) somehow define the meaning of a term, while refusing to discuss the sources presented that oppose this interpretation. --Coroebus08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the discussion page (although lengthy) has been the place where one side has taken lots of time to explain and reason.. But the revert button with no significant explanation has been the main "discussion" from the other side. NathanLee11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it's fairly obvious that an attempt at "compromise" is futile. We've requested, on several occasions, that Localzuk/SV/Crum edit rather than revert. It hasn't happened. These individuals have refused to consider the facts. What needs to happen is this: Localzuk/SV/Crum need to read this talk page and remove their objections or need to actually provide some reliable sources with express statements that back them up. Jav4320:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV and Localzuk have used similar tactics on Animal testing. It's part of an animal rights agenda that they are pushing. They hide behind Wikipedia's "civility" code while calling people trolls and filling talk pages with this intentionally obtuse blather. Good faith is long exhausted. Assume the worst. Haber20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the first time I looked at the "animal testing" talk page. The similarities between Localzuk/SV's statements and attacks and positions are amazing - the discussion of "animal testing" and the discussion here are identical, right down to Localzuk's "civility"/"disruption" arguments and SV's discussion of happy animals :P. I am finding it difficult to understand why these are "respected" editors. Jav4322:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have done an awful lot of work improving dozens of articles, policies, guidelines, projects etc... We've spent huge amounts of time making things less POV, preventing nonsense from entering articles, removing vandalism, battling trolls who are only here to annoy people, etc... Just because you disagree with our viewpoints doesn't negate those efforts.-Localzuk(talk)12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk: if instead of "compromise" (because basically there's nothing to compromise for without some evidence.. At this stage I'm not accepting anything that says the terms are equivalent without proof that's more than saying because the terms occur in the same article they're equivalent): how about you address the issues in this section at the top in bulletpoint. If you think that any of those are incorrect, please say so. No more distraction: you've yet to answer a single one of the claims between the 3 of you dissenting editors (well.. just you who is contributing since the block). Just address those and perhaps we can see what your issue is with the newer version. There's plenty on this discussion page about why I think the version sucks and the newer one is better. But how about you have a go at the bullet points..? NathanLee15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Arguments For and Against the "new" version
In an effort to get a final idea of whether there is any basis for this reverting by SV/crum/localzuk here are the various reasons why the new version is a better one. Here are the issues raised.
A: NOLINK no link that says any two of the terms "Factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture" are (all encompassing) equivalent (so that is original research) while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming". There is no article which states this and it disagrees with britannica, and the dictionary definitions found) e.g. walkthrough of the articles
B: NOLINK_INTENSIVE Intensive farming simply means requirement of extra inputs to maximise returns per smaller area of land (as opposed to extensive farming)
C: NOLINK_IND_AG Industrial agriculture is a broad field: again encompassing more than just factory farms which are just a type of industrial agriculture. We know for sure that crops/aquaculture are part of industrial agriculture and so is factory farming.. Therefore it's fair to say it's just a type or subset. As Coroebus found in a bunch of sources.. e.g. [50]
D: NO_LINK_CNN The CNN article does indeed mention both factory farming, but the sentence does not link the two as equivalent terms
E: ANIMALS_ONLY Found definitions (britannica/dictionaries) refer to animals and confinement. It may also just mean "large number of animals" based on other sources.. But it's pretty safe to say it's worthy of putting in the lead.
F: NO_CROPS The term does not appear to be applied to crops. (OR)
G: NO_AQUA The term does not appear to apply to aquaculture (fish, shellfish, algae etc). (OR).
H: NO_ACTIVIST Activist sites do not agree with SV's definition (see PETA's definition/factoryfarm.org etc and they refer to livestock.. not crops, no mention of equivalency of terms etc). Not that we should use their definitions, but you'd think that they would back up a radical claim
I: ACTIVIST_MEDIA Britannica's definition backs the claim that the term is made mainly by animal activists and its use in headlines means it's used by the media. (OR).
J: ENG the new version is more in line with the policy on english variants (removed all US/English spellings), so more correct.
K: NEW_NOT_OR the newer version is less OR so therefore more desirable.
L: CHOP a complaint was made that information was chopped out (in specific the mad cow reference) in the new
M: ADD_NOT_REMOVE Complaint was made that the changes were reverted because changes should not always add not remove the work of other editors
N: GESTATION_PIC pig sow pic has been moved down the page, there's a push for this to be at the top of the page
O: CONSENSUS Claim was made that the changes NL made were due to consensus on the discussion page
P: NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD argument was made that you can't have definitions in the lead
So, I'm now going to ask everyone who seems to have an interest to examine each of the issues and for any that they have issues with, refer to them by their codes. Any new ones, add in with a code so we can discuss. If you're happy with the new version being put back then say so, if not, then say so also. But having the page locked (on a 5 minute before revert) is an issue for me as it's inaccurate in my eyes. NathanLee16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notified - Agrofe, FNMF, Coroebus, Jav43, Haber, Crum375, Localzuk, WAS, SlimVirgin on talk pages as they all seem to have contributed to the discussions since this all began.. NathanLee17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee, I am not clear how using a series of cryptic computer-code-like names describing your issues is going to move us forward. The way I like to address issues is on a one-by-one basis, not all at once. For example, to me it is clear that a reasonable person would read the CNN/Reuters and the CBC articles as equating Factory Farming, Intensive Farming and Intensive Agriculture. You and some others disagree. It seems to me we need a wider forum to get some more opinions on this and other issues. Crum37517:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum: there's been so many attempts, this is a good way to raise all your issues or dispute the claims. Doing it bit by bit hasn't worked because a) you guys disappear after one post, and b) you haven't respected requests to discuss rather than reverting and c) if your reverting then avoiding discussion is reason enough to say the issue isn't closed: it'll never be "closed" and that's unfair to those who want to contribute.. So if you can't contribute to the discussion area then can you agree to let those who will put their edits in without reverting?
The naming was rather than "A", "B", "C".
If your issue is with the CNN article: my comment to that would be that it doesn't say they're the same:
United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease.
A) If they're the same: why would the article say to move away from one, yet drop the other? b) Question: does it make sense if you take the definition (as per britannica and others) as factory farming being a type of intensive farming, or something that makes USE of intensive farming? c) Simply having mention of both in an article does not mean they're the same thing. They're urging a move away from the concept of intensive farming with the specific mention that a particular disease could disappear if factory farms disappear. So part of, or one step in moving away is to stop doing factory farming. Just like scientists calling from a moving away from dependence on fossil fuels saying that stopping the use of coal power stations is the only way to clean up the air. That doesn't mean "coal power stations" and "dependence on fossil fuels" are identical terms. One is a type of the other, but not the other way around. Does that clear that up? NathanLee17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the CNN article, it clearly equates Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. It simply uses the two terms as synonyms, so as not to repeat the same word. There is no other logical way to understand that article, and we have gone around that many times in the above discussion. If you still disagree, we really need to get a wider forum, as we do for the other issues. Crum37518:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the CNN article stands for that proposition, which it doesn't, an online newspaper article is not a good source when it is contradicted by professional research-based and peer-reviewed documents. The CNN article only uses dicta, which shouldn't be considered. Jav4318:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav43, per above discussion, please refrain from inventing new policies, like 'dicta'. Wikipedia is built on very specific set of rules, like WP:V and WP:NOR (summarized in WP:ATT), which are the only ones that apply. If every editor here were to invent his/her favorite policies on the fly, we'd have a very hard time collaborating, as I am sure you can appreciate. Crum37519:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is actually not allowed here. The only rules that apply, are very well described in WP:V and WP:NOR (summarized in WP:ATT), WP:NPOV, etc. You are not allowed to apply any other rules that you invent, like "basic research rules, codified or not". Again, if each of us were to invent his/her own rules, we wouldn't get very far. Crum37501:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I'm not creating OR - I'm stopping you from drawing your own OR conclusions from dicta. Look at the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Sources about tertiary sources and combining sources (WP:SYN) to make a point. That's what you're doing. You should not cite a source for a proposition unless the source actually stands for that proposition. Citing dicta does not meet that qualification. Jav4302:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I am not following. Where exactly do you find anything in our policies about "citing dicta"? If you can't, then you are clearly inventing your own rules, which simply won't get us anywhere. I'll address the rest once you explain to me where you see the 'dicta' rule. Crum37502:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding other issues because you can't prevail on this one won't "get us anywhere". It doesn't matter whether there is something in Wikipedia policy or not: any reasonable, unbiased person should know to avoid citing something as a source unless it actually stands for that proposition. Regardless, I provided you with two references. Specifically look at WP:SYN. You are combining various interpretations of terms in ways that are not done in a single text. Find a text that actually defines terms and I'll give it due credence. (Oh, but Nathan already did so, and you ignored him. So unbiased of you.) Jav4307:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee
Ones I have issues with:
NO_DEFINITION_IN_LEAD is silly: that's half of what the lead is about.
GESTATION_PIC - the new version still has the pic, just not at the top: it's also from an activist site, so perhaps it carries a POV.
ADD_NOT_REMOVE: not policy, not a reason, not how wikipedia works, no reason not to improve an article to remove OR.
CHOP - mad cow article is actually still in the new one.. So not an issue.
Wow dude, this is exhausting...
NOLINK agree
NOLINK_INTENSIVE agree
NOLINK_IND_AG agree
NO_LINK_CNN agree
ANIMALS_ONLY agree
NO_CROPS agree
NO_AQUA agree
NO_ACTIVIST no opinion
ACTIVIST_MEDIA agree
ENG no opinion
NEW_NOT_OR agree
CHOP no opinion
ADD_NOT_REMOVE confused - but I think deletions can be just as legitimate as adding content
GESTATION_PIC disagree
CONSENSUS no opinion
NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD disagree
-- Too bad you couldn't help me pick a horse in the Preakness. Haber21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co0l, I just mashed all the various issues I saw were brought up (may have missed some.. in which case.. add 'em in) so that we can work out what we all agree on and then focus on the sticking points perhaps.. We may only really differ on a couple of things.. NathanLee23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well)
A: NOLINK The argument labeled "nolink" that says that while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming". There is no article which states this and it disagrees with britannica, and the dictionary definitions found) e.g. walkthrough of the articles
B: NOLINK_INTENSIVE Intensive farming simply means requirement of extra inputs to maximise returns per smaller area of land (as opposed to extensive farming)
C: NOLINK_IND_AG Industrial agriculture is a broad field: again encompassing more than just factory farms which are just a type of industrial agriculture. We know for sure that crops/aquaculture are part of industrial agriculture and so is factory farming. Therefore it's fair to say it's just a type or subset. As Coroebus found in a bunch of sources. For example: [51]
E: ANIMALS_ONLY Found that definitions of the term "factory farming" in britannica/dictionaries refer to animals and confinement. It may also just mean "large number of animals" based on other sources.. But it's pretty safe to say it's worthy of putting in the lead.
H: NO_ACTIVIST Activist sites do not agree with SV's definition (see PETA's definition/factoryfarm.org etc and they refer to livestock.. not crops, no mention of equivalency of terms etc). Not that we should use their definitions, but you'd think that they would back up a radical claim
I: ACTIVIST_MEDIA Britannica's definition backs the claim that the term is made mainly by animal activists and its use in headlines means it's used by the media. (OR).
There's way too much to read here. I think we should deal with the issues point by point, and everyone should be as succinct as possible. SlimVirgin(talk)00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan made this insanely simple. Either respond to the issues he listed, or admit that you really don't have any arguments to back you up. Jav4300:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page has gone to hell in a handbasket because of Nathan's absurdly long posts, which I freely admit I've not read and won't be reading. He's posted to this page 98 times in seven days.
We have policies and guidelines, and we must stick to them; we don't need Nathan's invented rules. As for the lead, please review WP:LEAD: the lead must include the topic's notable controversies. SlimVirgin(talk)01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're unwilling to actually work on this article, why did you keep reverting to a polluted version? Jav4302:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV: if you can't contribute or bother to read other people's contributions: Why the hell do you keep reverting this page? You seem obsessed with pointing out number of contributions (you did it to both Jav43 and myself.. see above) as part of an attack on people's credentials: yet here you are now saying that too much contribution is a reason to ignore it and that we should continue to tolerate (with infinite patience) your disruptive editing style. I've not invented any policies or rules (again: an unfounded, unjustified statement): that's just false and a fallacious argument to boot. I and others have been happy to read and respond to the few comments you throw in and then disappear: but you can't see there's been a hell of an attempt to justify why your edit needs improvement then I suggest you try reading for a change.
We should not be having to edit war to make up for your laziness and inability to discuss or read contributions of others. Why have I had to post so many times? Perhaps it's because you didn't take the time to read or contribute earlier on and then started an edit war to make up for your lack of professional courtesy.
Thanks for explaining why you keep asking the same ignorant questions time and time again: you've never listened to the answers.. I should point out you've basically voided your right to revert and invalidated your reasons for doing so in the past.. NathanLee09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being overly verbose is as damaging to a discussion as not providing enough information. It is difficult to follow this discussion due to your long posts. As I have said elsewhere - be succinct and stop repeating yourself. What SV wants is for you to post one point at a time, rather than post the lot in one long block. It makes it easier to reply to them.-Localzuk(talk)12:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your continuing to not provide justification is just making it longer. If SV can't read a list and needs a list of one per item: that's not our issue. Most people of reading age can cope with lists in day to day life (e.g. shopping lists, lists of instructions, lists of WP policies to wave around). It's no more than another stalling tactic in the absence of evidence. Can I request you stop side arguments and just give evidence or agree to let the rest of us continue with the article. NathanLee
Number of articles
I believe the time has come to conclude there should be three different articles, with three different talk pages. FNMF01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The positions of each of the disputing parties appear fairly intractable. At the same time, it seems possible to define each of the three (factory farming, industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture) in a fairly specific way while nevertheless each of the three will be notable enough to deserve an entry. With these two points in mind, having three separate entries seems like the most workable solution, and a legitimate one. Naturally, each of the three will likely refer to the others, and they do not all need to be equally lengthy. I think if such a solution is pursued, it should be made clear in the opening of each what is the specific definition, to avoid problems later on. FNMF01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(again.. *sigh* ) Because it is original research to suggest that they're anything but three different things. A bizarre deduction from the same two articles that we've time and time again explained do NOT use the terms interchangably is not a substitute for the verifiable "factory farming is a type of industrial agriculture and uses or is a type of intensive farming". Got to britannica or any proper encyclopaedia and you'll see an entry for intensive farming, one for industrial agriculture and maybe something for factory farming.. But you're probably not reading this answer AGAIN for the umpteenth time so this is a waste of time.. Again.. NathanLee09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, just because you think that doesn't mean you are right. From the evidence given I see there are some who see the terms as synonymous, and some who don't. You simply have to accept this.
Now, splitting the article is not the answer - we need to provide better descriptions of what the terms refer to and this apparent disparity between the word's usage.-Localzuk(talk)12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not what I think: You've only got your interpretation of TWO articles as the whole basis for this claim. Why does that override numerous encyclopaedic/dictionary definitions AND articles AND the lack of crop/aquaculture citation? NathanLee14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it doesn't override it - it simply adds to the problem. One set of sources doesn't override another - they should both be included with information.-Localzuk(talk)15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But when it's your (slightly strange) interpretation (e.g. can be called OR) that's questionable: you should "err" on what can be proven and what can't be just said to be misinterpretation of two conjoined topics in a sentence. If you say it is a subset: that entirely agrees with no disputes with your source as well.. Thus bringing the overall definition into line with what's easily citable. NathanLee15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we err? We have 2 sets of sources, one supposedly saying one thing and the other supposedly saying the opposite. Why should we be picking one side of that?-Localzuk(talk)16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that your POV isn't even supported by a set of sources. We have a large number of clear sources explaining that factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are separate and distinct terms... and then we have your personal activist-based POV that all modern agriculture is "factory farming". Unfortunately, you have failed to back up your POV with any clear sources. I'm sorry that you've gone through life so far without understanding the nature of modern agriculture or the term "factory farming", but that isn't our fault. Jav4315:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion that it isn't supported - whereas it is mine, Crum's and SV's that it is supported. Stop going back to that point - you aren't going to suddenly convince us otherwise. It is, as I have said before, called compromise. Stop pushing for a single outcome when you know we aren't suddenly going to say 'oh we were wrong all along, how silly of us'.-Localzuk(talk)16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It's my opinion that your POV isn't supported based upon what you've presented thus far. It's your opinion that you don't need solid sources because you have some omniscient conception of intransient factoids. By the way, where there's a "right" and "wrong", there can be no compromise. Based upon current facts, you're absolutely wrong. If you demonstrate otherwise, then we can reconsider. (Oh, and if you're so interested in compromise, then why did you continuously revert?) Jav4317:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you misunderstand the concepts behind this site if you think we are here to present 'right'. We are here to present all sides of an argument - and as such, the argument is laid out above. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be ignored. Hence, compromise.-Localzuk(talk)17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's called "Original research". We ARE here to present a correct and accurate article set. Not to allow any random view to get its place in an article. If it isn't supported within reason: it doesn't belong on wikipedia. NathanLee17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Please understand that the sources provided back our side of the argument. They provide a significant argument also. So including it is required by our WP:NPOV policy. And, we are not here to present a 'correct and accurate' article set, we are here to present a 'correct, verifiable and accurate' article set. And the info we are discussing is verifiable.-Localzuk(talk)17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: This talk page has become absurd, with no sign of resolution. Editors should allow three articles to be created and worked up to a reasonable condition. At that point, if editors continue to believe that one or more of these articles should be deleted, they can commence an AfD. I cannot see a justification for prolonging the stalemate by artificially refusing to allow the three articles to be created. On what grounds can editors refuse to allow the three articles to be created and worked on? If the articles are illegitimate, that will be established when the time comes by a proper process. Simply complaining that the posts are too long to read seems like a refusal to advance the situation, regardless of who is right. Again: the only solution is to permit three articles to be worked on, with three separate talk page discussions. Nothing is permanent, and an AfD later on can always decide what to keep and what to ditch, if need be. FNMF17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where you are right now is chaos. One possibility is that you will end up with three overly-similar articles, which can be determined by AfD. Another possibility is that the articles will be different enough to all deserve retention. I consider such an outcome entirely plausible. Furthermore, even if you feel that way, on what grounds can you insist on preventing three articles? Surely they are not candidates for a speedy delete (or, if you disagree, you can try it). FNMF17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it appears you're the only one wanting this change or believing this point of view Localzuk. SV's silent, as is Crum375. Does this mean they're not interested? They still seem to be actively editing.. If it's just you, perhaps can you let the page be unlocked so we can all contribute, we'll put the page to the new version and then archive this talk page and go from there?
By all means we can work on padding out the lead, no one's said it is fixed in stone. But the revert doesn't really seem to have strong justification if it's just not long enough or there's one interpretation of a couple of articles that leads you to deduce something. There's significant reason to say that the other version has OR or can be said to have OR. The new version doesn't seem to have had that charge levelled at it from what I can see. We can discuss proposals for fleshing it out more, but as I (and the bunch of contributors here) seem to think that it's a better choice to move forward from (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). SV said herself that there was a distinction in what people thought the terms meant prior to this merge concept.. So we're not looking so strong on that aspect if SV herself seems to have thought so.. NathanLee17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! Sorry but this 'they've gone quiet' nonsense has got to stop. Not everyone can post here all the time. Please remember that. This is why we have AFD's that last at least 5 days etc...-Localzuk(talk)18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note the tendency of editors to argue about anything except how to move forward. This is the main reason the talk page has become absurd, and all editors should strive to curb this tendency. I also note that no grounds have yet been provided to justify preventing the creation of three entries. To give some more specific content to my proposal, I think each of the three entries ought to include a relation to the others. Without wishing to dictate definitions, I think the entries should begin with something resembling the following:
Industrial agriculture: Industrial agriculture is the application of industrial methods to agricultural practice. Aspects of industrial agriculture include [list follows, including factory farming and intensive farming, among others].
Intensive farming: Intensive farming is a form of agriculture that seeks to obtain high inputs...etc...frequently an aspect of industrial agriculture. Aspects of intensive farming include factory farming etc.
Factory farming: Factory farming is a form of industrial agriculture and intensive farming that [something limiting the definition to confinement of animals, etc.].
With definitions along these lines, editors will have clear enough guidelines to work up each of the entries and see where the situation leads. FNMF18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for FNMF
FNMF, can you provide a source showing that these are three different things, and are as you define them? (This is a question for FNMF only, please.) I'm asking this not to be difficult, but to make sure that we're not engaged in OR. SlimVirgin(talk)18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to be tricky, I don't think this is the right question right now. There are interminable arguments by multiple parties about the relation between these terms. I happen to lean to the view that they can be defined in a legitimate way that separates them enough to warrant three entries. If factory farming is to refer to the confinement of animals, then surely industrial agriculture is more general than factory farming. And nobody seems that bothered by the definition of intensive farming. More to the point, even if I am wrong, I am arguing that, given the absolutely stalled situation, such a question should be postponed. The separate entries should be worked on, in a manner that tries to maintain fidelity to the notion that these are separate but interrelated phenomena, and then if one or more entries need to be deleted, that can be done through an AfD process. In short, if an entry involves original research, that is something to be discussed at that entry, but the question of whether creating three entries itself constitutes original research seems like a strange argument to me. And I can't see how else progress is likely to be made: despite talk of compromise, there is no evidence of anybody shifting ground. FNMF18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we're engaging in original research by claiming there are three separate types of farming here. It's against policy to do that, and it's the out-of-policy editing that has caused the problems here. I can understand wanting to separate animals and crops, and indeed we used to have Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). But no one has yet offered a source that shows there are three separate things called (a) Factory farming, (b) Intensive farming, and (c) Industrial agriculture. The fact is that mainstream news sources do use the terms interchangeably, and I've offered sources to that effect several times. We can't have a situation where Wikipedia is the only source on the Internet that makes the distinction, but without explaining exactly what that distinction is. Our work must be sourced-based.
I personally don't care what the article is called; it used to be called Industrial agriculture, and I was fine with that too. (Others arrived recently and changed it to Factory farming.) What I object to is having three pages, because some will end up as POV forks. SlimVirgin(talk)19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be original research to have seperate articles on jews, israelis and zionists even though it is quite clear that some reporters use the terms in ways that can be argued to be interchangeable? Insisting that all three are the same thing to avoid POV forks is not appropriate. Different things are different. Even if some reporters get mixed up. WAS 4.25009:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for WAS
Was, I've asked this three times now. You reverted my lead a few times saying it contained original research, but you didn't say what. [52] Could you tell me, please, what was OR? If you don't say, I can't fix it. SlimVirgin(talk)00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is filled with the answer to that. Unfortunately, you keep refusing to read this talk page, so we keep being forced to repeat ourselves. Why don't you just read this page instead? Jav4302:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can disagree all you like: if you're unable to understand logic or English sentence structure: we can't help that. If you look up run on sentences perhaps that'll show you an example of sentences which you would regard as saying the same thing were it not separated by a coordinating conjunction. NathanLee14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered; but I can't help those who won't read or can't understand what they read. "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you." WAS 4.25015:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I am short with you, but your agressive take no prisoners style of fighting makes me wary. Read the section "WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well)" for my answer and read prior sections for the evidence presented by others for those positions. WAS 4.25009:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.
Therefore, can we make a list here of what we agree are the topic's notable controversies? (They must all be carefully sourced.)
The chancellor of Germany calling for an end to factory farming because of BSE; British scientists saying factory farming was the cause of BSE.
Gestation crates, which the committee set up by McDonald's (hardly animal rights activists) identifed as factory farming's most controversial issue.
Overuse of antibiotics and growth hormone, leading to human health problems (e.g. the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria)
Also, Nathan's version has a succinct and good version of a straightfoward summary of the topic's notable controversies. The controveries don't need detail in the lead, as you'd realize if you weren't trying to push your POV. Jav4302:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are evading the real issue which is that industrial agriculture =/= factory farming. If you actually read the talk page(which you admitted that you can't be bothered to), you would have known this.--Dodo bird07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that we don't need specifics of people's quotes (e.g. stating that some official somewhere has an issue is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.. e.g. is factory farming defined or critical to a german chancellor's views? No.), rather just that there are often issues raised about the health/environmental issues is enough of a mention without losing neutrality. I'd also urge against focussing too much on introducing controversy over actually defining what factory farming is. An encyclopaedic entry shouldn't be focussing too much on controversy, after all that's infecting factual definition with POV or defining something by its controversy itself. So: yes factory farming has controversy.. That's not what the major portion of the lead should be. Otherwise you're giving more weight to other people's view of the thing than the thing itself. e.g. do we go to the gay page and put endless quotes from anti-gay religious leaders? Do we give it anything more than a brief mention that some people have issues? No, or if we do then we shouldn't because that's entirely POV.
Neutrality and no original research is (I would think) far more important than mentioning every controversy. An enc. entry on factory farming would be acceptable if it just outlined what factory farming was, but if it didn't bother defining what it was and ploughed on into controversy. NathanLee09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, why is it that every time you post, your posts are a good 4 times larger than anyone elses? You have repeated your same arguments over and over and refuse to listen to our points. Please be more succinct - it makes this entire issue difficult to deal with if everytime a reader visits the page they have to trawl through a couple of essays worth of repetitive info from yourself. (Note, this isn't specifically about this post above, but about the many you have posted over the last week).
Now, onto this point. Nathan's version removes all mention of notable controversies from the article - without them being in the intro, the entire controversy part of the lead is a single line 'Proponents of factory farming argue for the benefits of increased efficiencies, while opponents argue that it harms the environment,[10] creates health risks,[11][6][12] and abuses animals.[13][10]' which is too short. The entire lead by Nathan is too short and does not suitably cover all aspects of the article - instead focusing on defining terms.
The way I see it, the lead should be split into 2 - a general description of the subject matter in one paragraph, this would include history, methods and a little on definitions (this would include the 'for argument') and then a similarly sized amount of detail on the 'against' arguments - as these are the currently notable aspects of the subject (the general worldwide discussion on factory farming is regarding the controversy surrounding it). To give the controversy any less focus would not be reflecting on the real world significance correctly. We are not a dictionary, so are not simply defining the term - we are covering all notable aspects of it.-Localzuk(talk)12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy: Because I actually attempt to back up my statements, which takes more than two words saying "it's better", or "more consistent".
"Too short" then add to it, don't revert to a bad OR version!
How is my lead not mentioning the controversy if it summarised them all with extra citations for all bits, unlike the other one
If you read my posts I'm answering things in a different way since you seem to miss the point (or like SV just don't bother reading).
You guys have been reverting without discussion and for bullshit reasons that change every 5 minutes, to give you credit: you're contributing thoughts now..
it succinctly covers the contents, INCLUDING the various complaints and defines the term accurately (which the other did not). I don't see how they're gone if they're in the sentence you quoted!
The one you revert to has OR and does not define it as per any valid easily acceptable version.
Revert is the dumbest/most abrasive way you could have said "it's too short" (which you didn't mention at all and had ample opportunity to do so).
The bit about the chancellor is not Lead worthy, it belongs in the body. Lead is a summary, not the entire article. If the chancellor was the inventor or a major contributor or figurehead of the industry: maybe. But he's just a politician voicing an opinion. NathanLee14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Backing up your statements doesn't mean rambling on for hours and repeating yourself.
I did add to it, by reverting to the last good version of the lead before it was brutally culled.
We are getting the point, you just are repeating yourself without listening to the arguments put forward or accepting that the opposing view is a valid one, backed up with references.
The reasons don't change. It is just that there are so many reasons to revert that they far outweigh the reasons not to.
It doesn't cover the contents - it goes into far too much detail about definitions and then sums up half the page in one sentence... That is not a good summary. For an article this size we should be looking at 4 paragraphs in the lead.
It isn't OR, we have shown that it isn't many, many times...
Well, it is pretty obvious when you read WP:LEAD that it is far too short - I didn't think it was necessary to repeatedly tell you to read the guideline on this issue.
The bit about the chancellor succinctly summarises an aspect of the article.The lead should be a mini-version of the main article. It doesn't have to use the eaxact same refs and info as in the main info, so if a quote does a good job of summarising an issue then so be it.-Localzuk(talk)16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting without supported does not constitute "adding to". Look down below and you'll see that even SlimVirgin suggests that the term means it refers to animals not crops.. We're still waiting for some other references other than your selective interpretation of one sentence with two topics as to why that means all the terms are the same AND how crops/aquaculture fit in with no reference available. But that's just repeating the question you've so far ignored successfully for so long with sidetracked arguments. NathanLee17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment
I have filed an RfC on this article. The fundamental issue with this article at the moment appears to be whether Factory Farming is synonymous with Industrial Agriculture and Intensive Agriculture. Once that question is settled I believe that editing will be able to return to something of normality.
Pro-argument: Although "factory farming" is often used to talk about enclosed animal rearing that is because of increased attention to this aspect of factory farming, but it includes other non-animal aspects like monocropping:
Examples showing that it is synonymous with industrial agriculture or intensive farming (all emphasis mine):
OED "factory farm orig. U.S., a farm organized on industrial lines"
CBC "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination...a report...entitled Protection of Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming, questions the safety of groundwater, which is supplied to three million people in the province. Miller points to larger livestock farms in Ontario, which produce more manure or agricultural run-off, and, hence, a higher risk of groundwater contamination."
CNN "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease."
Anti-argument: "Factory farming" is usually used to refer to enclosed animal rearing practices, and rarely to encompass all industrial or intensive agriculture, therefore these terms are distinct and not-synonymous, although factory farming may be a subset or part of "industrial agriculture" or "intensive agriculture".
Examples showing it is distinct (emphasis mine):
McGraw Hill dictionary "factory farming...Raising livestock indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility."
Concise Britannica "Factory farming. System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible."
Cambridge idiom dictionary "factory farming a system for producing eggs, meat, and milk quickly and cheaply by keeping animals in small closed areas and giving them food which makes them grow quickly."
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Firstly, just under 80% of respondents expressed opposition to intensive farming practices, such as factory farming..."
Capital Times "Just 10 years ago, only a handful of farms in Wisconsin met the definition of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" (CAFO) - or, in environmental circles, a factory farm."
Jarosz Agriculture and Human Values 2000 "Industrial agriculture is characterized as capital and resource intensive, large-scale, high yielding, and mechanized with monocultural cropping systems directed to local, national, and international markets."
U.S. Catholic "...focus on the ways industrial agriculture (and factory farms in particular) harm and abuse billions of animals each year."
I think the argument for equivalency is rather flimsy if you stack up
selective interpretation of implied similarity of terms in 2 news articles against
hard no-confusion definitions from dictionary sources and encyclopaedias and no crop/aquaculture mention..
If we had anything other than those two news articles then there might be grounds for further discussion. But as we've got plenty of dispute (I think it's a ridiculous assertion myself "move away from X, and to stop Y to prevent Z" to read it as meaning that X and Y are the same??!?) that the interpretation of those articles implies a "definition" versus hardcore "this is what factory farming is" from multiple sources and the still unanswered crops issue. Gotta be a pretty powerful argument to override primary primary sources for a skewed reading of one sentence in an article or two.. NathanLee12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti - Factory farming is such a loaded term that its use in an encyclopedia should be avoided altogether. Activist terminology is incompatible with the NPOV policy. Taking it a step further to include all intensive agriculture is simply over the top, and I see no solid evidence to support that leap. Haber12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This site is not a regular encyclopedia. It covers things that are notable - and the term 'Factory Farming' is notable. I see the evidence as solid - it is simple english.-Localzuk(talk)12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an example will help clarify this. Notable talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger uses the terms "shacking up" to refer to cohabitation and "sucking your baby into a sink" to refer to abortion. Her supporters might say that there is evidence we should file all information about these topics under her preferred terms. Now we can choose to sound like activists or we can choose to sound like an encyclopedia. I submit that the latter route will lead to more success for Wikipedia in the long run. Haber13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that it isn't just one group of people who use the term - it is activists, the media, notable figures, government reports etc...-Localzuk(talk)16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet no one who supports modern agriculture uses "factory farming". That means the term is perjorative rather than definitive. It shouldn't be what an encyclopedia uses. Jav4316:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see a stretched interpretation of two news articles as overriding researched material from britannica, websters, Mcgraw hill etc? Can you question their definitions in any way? Crops/aquaculture don't seem to be referred to as factory farming (still waiting for that to be addressed) but you seem to want to lump that in. Let's assume your interpretation of two isolated sources is correct. Do you think they override the mass of other ones (and their compatible definitions of being "a type of" with your articles)? You're arguing for selective interpretation of a couple of news articles to override well defined and "safe" (from an OR point of view) definition. No one can come along for the new lead and say "hey: factory farming doesn't mean that" because we can point to several bullet proof definitions that say it is. Safer is better, no? NathanLee13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it isn't a case of overriding - it is a case of their existence and the fact you can't just ignore them because there are opposing views. We have to present both views.-Localzuk(talk)16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What POV? That we should present both views? Or that the words or synonymous? If the prior, that is simply policy, if the latter I think we have those that are in the lead at the moment - even though you disagree with them.-Localzuk(talk)17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should present an overall neutral coverage. Any POV stuff needs to be attributed and referenced so that it's not the article's POV, it's clearly someone else's POV and backed by a source to confirm. Without a reference, there's no way it can go in.. (I realise wikipedia is full of unreferenced stuff.. but this one is getting enough editor time to be referenced) NathanLee17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's previous argument - still relevent?
Since my arguments are too much to read/too wordy etc, I'll quote SV on whether it's fair to say FF and IA are different.. (from the archive page)
This page and Factory farming seemed to be getting mixed up, with material being copied back and forth, and the criticism section of FF being moved to here. I've therefore moved anything to do with animals to FF and called it Factory farming (animals), and anything to do with crops here and called it Industrial agriculture (crops). That division seems to make most sense because when most people think of FF, they think of animals, and when they think of agriculture, they think of crops. In this way, we can avoid repetition or forks. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it no longer makes sense, and people are entitled to change their minds (this isn't politics), but if extra dictionary definitions and more references to support that notion are somehow still worth overriding: Is this the same SlimVirgin at the keyboard still? :) The comment at the end was correct: if you merge them then you'll have repetition and forks, that's for sure (we've witnessed). Sound advice that should have been heeded.. NathanLee12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A request
Nathan, would you consider not posting here for a few days? You've made 114 posts here in eight days, many of them very long, and it's making the talk page hard to use (for me, anyway), and drowning out other people's opinions.
Perhaps you could allow Localzuk, WAS, Jav, Crum, Coroebus, Haber, FNMF, and me to discuss the issues for, say, 72 hours in an effort to find common ground, then you could comment on our conclusions? SlimVirgin(talk)18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a lot of the static is coming from Localzuk, whose page protection trick inflamed the situation. Why not ask him to step aside temporarily as well? Haber18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm asking only Nathan to step aside is that he has posted 21,900 words to this page in 115 posts over eight days, almost all of them his own personal opinion, which is not good for him, the talk page, or the article.
We need some calm, some space, and some intelligent discussion about what reliable sources say (not what our own opinions are); if we're given that, my guess is we'll reach an agreement fairly quickly. SlimVirgin(talk)19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the criticism of Localzuk for requesting page protection has to stop, because he did the right thing. He had no control over which version was protected; there was so much reverting going on, it could easily have changed several times before the admin protected. The protection has given us some space to have a calm and focused discussion about what the sources say — which is the only thing we should be talking about, rather than simply exchanging our prejudices, which is what this talk page is mostly about. I ask that we deal with one issue at a time, and that Nathan takes a rest from this page for at least 72 hours, then offers an analysis of the discussion upon his return. SlimVirgin(talk)19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk did a shady thing, and it made the situation worse not better. I think that Nathan's contribution has been valuable. I suggest that if Nathan accepts your recommendation you should offer to revert the article to his preferred version for the time while he observes. Haber19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He acted correctly, and one of us should have done it sooner, if anything. The situation couldn't have gotten much worse. We had a multi-editor revert war, and a talk page dominated by one very new editor who was posting tens of thousands of words of his own opinion, so that no sensible discussion could talk place. It's exactly that kind of situation protection is intended for, and the page is protected on whatever version it's on when the admin arrives to protect. Please try to adopt a constructive approach, rather than arguing about the lock. We need to move on and focus, one issue at a time. SlimVirgin(talk)20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one last post as I'm being attacked: I'm passing up my right to continue to participate to appease a request from an editor who has not contributed in discussion much and not even read my comments by her own admission (a usual prerequisite for being able to comment). The first thing you do is abuse my absence immediately by attempting to make out my contribution was not worthy of respect or is POV (and imply I'm new for being on here a year). You had numerous opportunities and requests to participate and you didn't. Yet I'm extending you a personal courtesy despite all that for pretty baseless reasons. Had you read my contributions you'd see there's been a lot of research, reasoned argument and responses to others in there as well as attempts to mediate. A bit of courtesy is in order SV as you've appeared to show very little so far and then launched attack on me and a defence of an action described as "unscrupulous" by the blocking editor. If you simply read the discussion forum even a little bit you'd perhaps not need it all explained again, and had you participated in discussion when first requested by me this would have been resolved long ago. With that said I'll continue hold of contributing as a personal favour to you and hopefully you'll take some time to perhaps revise your statements about my contributions, possibly apologise and even read some of them.. NathanLee02:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that's required from you is a few simple answers SV. If the whole discussion board is too hard: try the recent request for comment section put up by Coroebus. Your definition appears to be eccentric and unsupported by any real source (other than creative reading of articles). There's been so many opportunities for you to simply back up via references that you've failed to do from when you began editing and ignoring discussion repeatedly. Just answer some questions for a change: you found plenty of time to hit the revert button before. I'm happy holding off editing, but I'd first like some simple answers justifying the need for another 72 hours for as yet: unconvincingly supported POV/OR which you yourself appear to disagree with from the archive page. NathanLee18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lousy "request", in bad faith, and doesn't further our cause. Should Nathan agree to honor this request, I will join the 72 hour moratorium out of protest. Jav4318:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who would prefer which article title(s)
I suggest that people write here what they think the title(s) should be, and why, preferably using sources to back up the argument. Please write no more than one short paragraph each, preferably no more than 150 words. No threaded discussion; just let each person have their say, because we may agree more than we realize.
SlimVirgin
My preference is for us to have one article, which should include crops and animals. I don't mind what the title is: factory farming, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, or intensive agriculture, because mainstream sources use these terms interchangeably (e.g. the BBC using the terms "factory farms," "factory farming," "intensive agriculture," and "intensive farming" in one article to refer to the same phenomenon). If others want more than one article, I'm willing to see two articles: one about crops, one about animals. I'd prefer the animal one to be called "factory farming" because it’s commonly used (e.g. Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CBC. As a compromise, I'd be willing to see Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). I'd be unwilling to see three articles (Factory farming, Intensive farming, and Industrial agriculture), unless someone can show me mainstream reliable sources who use the terms differently and who make clear what the difference is; so far, no one has done that. Wikipedia must not create distinctions that do not exist for reliable sources. SlimVirgin(talk)20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examining your links: none of them do what you've said they do: which is to use the terms equivalently:
the washington post article only mentions factory farming as something that activists consider gestation crates to be an inhumane practice.
the bbc article and other bbc article don't do what you claim they do either (none of them use the terms equivalently, nor are all of the terms in the articles either).
nor does cbc article does actually have two terms in it, but unless having a report on intensive farming and a mention of factory farming in the article means they're equivalent (when factory farming is a type of intensive farming technique).
So there's nothing in any of those to support your request for a compromise to make them all the same. Read those articles with the mind that factory farming is a type of intensive farming and it makes perfect sense. None of them use them interchangably as you claim. NathanLee11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375
I agree with SlimVirgin above. My main concern is that this topic may degenerate into POV forks, and the best way to avoid that is keep it all in one article. If that is impractical, then I could live with one for animals and one for crops, at most. I think a single combined article would still be the most informative and efficient, since many of the issues and controversies are the same or similar. Crum37521:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coroebus
Sorry, I'm very busy at the moment so I won't be able to engage in this issue in much detail. In brief, I think that intensive farming is different from industrial agriculture because there are non-industrial agricultural methods that are still intensive, particularly historically (thinking enclosure, that sort of thing). I would be inclined towards a single article called industrial agriculture covering crops and animals but I think that practically speaking this might be unwise as I think there will be overemphasis and conflict over the animal aspect and associated animal rights issues. Therefore I would favour a short article on intensive agriculture with a very short summary section on industrial agriculture that points you to the industrial agriculture page, which in turn has a short summary section on factory farming which is also an article that expands on the confined animal rearing aspect, and spells out in the intro that factory farming is here taken to mean confined animal rearing but that it can also be used to mean industrial agriculture (with, obviously, a wikilink). --Coroebus21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haber
Single article is fine. Ideally everything will be lumped under Intensive agriculture, which is a very neutral term and used by the USDA[53] and BBC[54]. Intensive farming would also be acceptable and is neutral, but sounds less encyclopedic to me (matter of taste, and I see the two terms as nearly equivalent.) Also supported by USDA[55]. Industrial agriculture shows up in a negative context[56],[57], and should be avoided. Factory farming is a propaganda term that evokes images of sows in gestation crates. Although activist sites and some media outlets use this term, Wikipedia should not buy into their agenda. I could also see possibly two articles: Intensive ag and Industrial ag, but at present I don't see that there is enough material and would rather lump everything under Intensive for the time being. Haber 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it goes without saying that I think that the assertion Intensive ag = Industrial ag = Factory farming is false, but I'll say it again just to avoid any confusion. Haber12:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FNMF
Concur with Corobeus's conclusion: "a short article on intensive agriculture with a very short summary section on industrial agriculture that points you to the industrial agriculture page, which in turn has a short summary section on factory farming which is also an article that expands on the confined animal rearing aspect, and spells out in the intro that factory farming is here taken to mean confined animal rearing but that it can also be used to mean industrial agriculture (with, obviously, a wikilink)." FNMF23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it seems to me that if an editor creates an article (e.g. industrial agriculture), it is illegitimate for another editor to simply change it to a redirect (e.g., to factory farming). Changing the article to a redirect is a de facto form of deletion, and thus an attempt to bypass AfD. If somebody creates an article, then it can be contested by other editors who consider it engages in original research, but this must be done through process. One cannot "in advance" decide that an article is OR and therefore summarily change it to a redirect. I have raised this point before, with no response. Denying the right of other editors to create articles without a legitimate justification seems like an attempt to unfairly control the process. FNMF06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk
Agree with SV and Crum, preferably one article (not too bothered about the title, as all of them would redirect here) or two (one focusing on crops and one on animals, with the 3 titles pointing to a dab page or similar). I wouldn't want 3 articles as this would lead to POV forks and create distinctions where there are grey areas.-Localzuk(talk)09:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee
Just read the exhaustive list or here or perhaps even the section on proposed new lead. [...] SV's version makes claims that terms are the same: they aren't and no reference backs that. The SV version is wrong in the body too because it mentions crops (merged from intensive agriculture) and no article exists to link crop farming with factory farming. It disagrees with the dictionary and encyclopaedic entries referenced in the newer version on that regard. Hence "original" (e.g. SV's ) research. NathanLee 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (copied here by WAS 4.25010:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'd suggest the version of intensive farming and see if it goes with the version that uses a more accurate description of factory farming (pre-revert version ). Between the two they succinctly shows what intensive farming is and delegates greater detail to other pages (e.g. aquaculture, factory farming).. Which, so long as you don't claim that factory farming IS intensive farming, means you have the higher level one for intensive farming concept which covers the broad concepts and links the sub types.., and then delegates more detail to factory farming, aquaculture etc.
If an agreement/compromise is made to not push for the "they are the same" arguments: then we can have a factory farm page, intensive agriculture page can redirect to if there's a desire not to have the two.. Even though one's a process/concept, the other's talking of a field or farming revolution.. NathanLee12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250
Combining these three is like combining articles on jews, zionists and israelis. Related but different. Even if some people don't get that. But until the content grows enough to force hiving off, factory farming could be a section within indusrtial farming which could be a section within intensive farming, but farming is a big subject - we just currently lack content due to lack of interst by contributors. They will eventually be seperate articles. The real issue here is an attempt to control not only the articles but also the discussion about the articles. Including asking a contributor to not contribute. That is wrong. That is controlling. That is contrary to an honest open thoughtful discussion. That is not helpful in finding consensus. I am against gagging any contributor. I am against deciding against the creation of other articles. No to censorship. Let the articles grow organigally rather than trying to tightly control their development. There is a lot more to farming than controversy. WAS 4.25010:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV wants one article, but could live with two (one on animals, one on crops). Does not want three. No preference on titles.
Crum wants one article, since he feels the issues are the same and because he fears POV forks. No preference on titles.
Coroebus would like three articles — intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming — and could live with one combined one called industrial agriculture.
Haber would prefer one article called intensive agriculture or intensive farming, in that order of preference.
FNMF would prefer three per Coroebus: intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming.
Localzuk would prefer one article, but could live with two (one on crops, one on animals), but not three. No preference regarding titles.
WAS 4.250 would like to see three articles: intensive farming, industrial farming, and factory farming, but could live with one called intensive farming.
Jav would like to see three articles; no preference regarding titles.
In other words:
One article called intensive agriculture or intensive farming: Five editors (SV, Crum, Localzuk, Coroebus, Haber) would either prefer, or could live with, one article, and the only preference expressed for its title (by Haber) is "intensive agriculture" or "intensive farming," in that order. I think WAS 4.250 would also be able to live with one article called intensive farming.
Three articles called intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming. Two editors have asked for three articles and expressed no second preference.
Could the editors who would like to see three articles say what they would be prepared to accept as a second best choice? The aim is to find out whether there's enough common ground between us to proceed without further argument.
For example, could those editors accept one article called "intensive agriculture"? This would explore the history of intensive farming/agriculture (e.g. along these lines [58]); it would move on to the industralization of agriculture as society in general became industralized; and it would deal in separate sections with the issues raised by the industrialized production of crops, on the one hand, and animals on the other.
If the article became too large at any point, then we could think about creating separate articles for some of the sections, per summary style (so long as this doesn't appear to be POV forking), but we've not reached that stage yet. On the contrary, quite a bit of the content of the three articles was repetitive when I last checked. SlimVirgin(talk)18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav has agreed to one article, so long as we make it clear that we're dealing with a number of distinct areas. (We could perhaps write a section on the different terms and their usage). Thank you, Jav. Does anyone remaining have a strong objection to one article called "Intensive agriculture"? SlimVirgin(talk)20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I dispute the analysis: by my reading, five editors prefer three articles (Corobeus, FNMF, Nathan, WAS, Jav). There is certainly no clear majority that prefers one article. What this reflects is the current deadlock. And thus the real point is not whether these five editors can "live with" one article; the question is whether having one article will achieve a good outcome. In my opinion, one of the main reasons these editors prefer three articles is because they see it as a way of breaking this deadlock, whereas having one article is essentially maintaining the status quo: that is, an apparently interminable waste of energy arguing on the talk page with no improvement to the actual article. Changing the title to "intensive farming" is not likely to change this situation. Insisting on preventing three articles is an attempt to unfairly control the situation, and, in my opinion, it is an illegitimate way of doing so. As I have said, I don't believe editors should be able to de facto delete articles by changing them to redirects. FNMF21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FN, I wrote "Five editors (SV, Crum, Localzuk, Coroebus, Haber) would either prefer, or could live with, one article ..." And it's now six, because Jav says he could accept one article too. The proposal is to call it "intensive agriculture."
We can't proceed with deadlock, so there has to be compromise. That is why I looked at people's first preference, but also what they said their second preference was.
I don't see how not having three articles is an exercise in illegitimate control. It's an attempt to avoid repetition and POV forking. There may come a point where the different sections on this article are so large that forking becomes necessary, but that point has not been reached. SlimVirgin(talk)22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FN, could you say what your particular concerns are about the need for three articles, because I've not followed it, and I'm sorry if I'm being dense. For example, is it that you want a separate article on the history of intensive agriculture, because if so, perhaps we could have one called "History of intensive agriculture," where you deal only with pre-industralization.
The POV fork problem arises only if editors try to turn an article on "intensive agriculture" into something that deals with modern methods, but pretends those methods are not examples of what mainstream sources call "industrial agriculture" or "factory farming." If your history article would definitely only deal with pre-industrial methods, that problem would not arise.
What we have to avoid is erecting any framework that, in and of itself, implies either than intensive agriculture is a good, non-controversial thing, or is a bad, controversial thing. Our content will make both claims per NPOV, but our framework should not. That is why one article would be good, with a neutral title such as "intensive agriculture." SlimVirgin(talk)22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My particular concern is that this is getting nowhere. Once the issue of what to call the article is "resolved," we will be right back where we are right now, that is, at a deadlock about content, which is what lies behind the "article title" issue. I don't believe that three articles means the articles will represent particular points of view, and assuming that in advance is wrong. One article is just as likely to be POV as three articles, but it is just as possible for all three to be neutral and balanced. Insisting that three articles will result in non-neutral articles is inventing a problem in order to control the outcome. Compromise would be if editors said, "OK, let's have more than one article and see where it takes us." The unwillingness of some editors to try this approach is the most obvious thing about the situation at present. FNMF05:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether factory farming is limited in definition to the confinement of animal stock and associated phenomena. If so, the difference is clear enough. But if factory farming is described more broadly than just stock confinement, then I refer you to my first ever comment on this talk page, here. And, again, my argument is not that there should be three articles, but that this is the most likely means of breaking the deadlock, that is, the most likely means of actually beginning to improve the article(s). If another solution works, that's fine; I just haven't seen much evidence of anything else working. FNMF11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's still been no reference to why the terms are the same. Britannica's definition clearly states that factory farming only refers to CONFINED ANIMAL raising [59], and that intensive farming is separate [60] (see "extensive farming" and "semi-intensive" as to why). We've still nothing provided that includes crops or aquaculture. SV/crum/localzuk: can you provide any resource that shows "factory farming" as inclusive of these? That's the big reason for why Industrial Agriculture is needed as a broad term. NathanLee12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) Localzuk: surely you know that those are both not valid/citable references (as per policies). A dictionary/encyclopaedia would surely somewhere have something supporting your assertion. Again you supply some private, unreferenced, unsourced site for anti-factory farming groups or organisations. Is that all you've managed to find? I've supplied britannica, mcgraw hill, oxford, new world encyclopaedia and encarta.. You've supplied nothing that is allowable as a reference (see the PETA page for your side's arguments as to why they're not..). Don't you think this continued lack of any decent source should indicate your argument is unsupported for inclusion.. NathanLee12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That shows a lack of understanding of WP:NOR/WP:RS. The farm would be classed as a secondary source. What we are trying to show is that the terms are used to refer to both crops and animals, and who better to do that than an actual farm? But ok, I will drop the second source, as it wouldn't be suitable.
I've read the policy on reliable sources. I'd point out "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "reputable publisher" requirement too. And also dispute resolution (avoidance) as to why your revert warring is a bad idea. That farm is nothing more than an opinion piece from a farm trying to sell itself over it's view of other farms (anyone can put up a site like that..). You're repeatedly going against 100% citable sources with flimsy "personal sites" which SV has argued against (e.g. consumerfreedom.com etc on the PETA page, which actually references stuff, but is unallowed because it has information you lot disagree with). Perhaps it's just time you admit that you have nothing solid to base this whole thing on. SV made the claim of equivalency: onus is/was on her to prove it is correct, and without any sort of proper source you're just fitting the definition of "disruptive editing" that is: frequent, persistent attempts to introduce an "eccentric view" into an article with no proper references. I suggest we go with what is easily provable from proper sources instead of waiting around for you to dredge up every non-useful (as a reference) site as you've done so far.
From the wikipedia founder:
If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."
I'd submit that your view on this should be easily supported, but here you are dredging up one or two sites that wouldn't be acceptable sources and relying on some strange interpretation of equality by same article mention (contrary to any even moderate English skill interpretation). NathanLee14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters "industrial agriculture" about 453,000 google hits, "factory farming" about 472,000. Both top links are from critical websites, and wikipedia pages feature promenently in the first few hits for "factory farming".
If you ask me, its "Factory farming" as title "industrial agriculture" as redirect, main page covers a short intro into two sub-pages (crops) and (animal). I have been watching the page since forever but not edited...--Cerejota08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of Analysis
If you now seem happy (going off your proposed version) that factory farming is just one type or subset of intensive farming: then is there any problem with having separate articles if it means:
smaller articles size
more directed (e.g. see how the version of intensive farming is focussed on the concept of what is intensive farming versus extensive farming and directs people to factory farming (see the pre revert version for consistency with that notion) on specific detail on factory farming specifics, just like aquaculture details out details on aquaculture..
an avoidance of a POV merge (as per the argument about jew/zionist/israeli not being in the one article for the obvious reason that they are distinct).
when/if factory farming disappears from the current state of industrial agriculture (and practised intensive farming techniques): those topics will still make sense. In one big article they're forced to be all together..
if we merge one, we'd also have to merge aquaculture: which wouldn't seem to be a good idea..
redirecting factory farming to intensive farming creates the assumption that it IS the same thing, when it's clearly a subset. We can put in a bit that talks of the notion of "treating the farm like a factory" to mean Industrial agriculture, but that the main use of the word is to refer to animals/confiend in large operations etc.
I would go along with however you want to arrange the articles, but I disagree with the last point. A redirect from a subtopic to a larger topic could just mean that we don't have enough information for a decent subarticle.
I'd also like to reiterate that "Factory Farming" is not an NPOV term, being found almost exclusively on activist websites and in negative articles written by media types. No one builds factory farms or works in factory farms, the government does not keep statistics on factory farms, it's just a made-up term which sounds worse than "farm". Wikipedia should not propagate this terminology, which was invented by critics in order to demonize a legal activity. It reminds me of a Simpsons' quote, "Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... The Killbot Factory." -- Kent BrockmanHaber21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archive
I know we shouldn't normally archive stuff which as current but this page is now so long that it is near impossible for someone new to come in and read over it. I suggest we archive as much as possible and reference bits of it in any new postings. It would help things immensly in my opinion.-Localzuk(talk)18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived everything but this last section, as we seem to be making progress finally. The previous comments amounted to nearly 52,000 words. SlimVirgin(talk)19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eight minutes later you do it? I think Localzuk wanted some comment first or otherwise he would have just done it himself. Haber19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was getting hard to load the page, Haber. I looked through it, and I couldn't find anything that would help us to move forward. It was 52,000 words of personal opinion, almost half of it written by one person. There were a few sources scattered throughout (not many), which any of us can retrieve from the archive. I think we should concentrate on forward progress only from now on. SlimVirgin(talk)
No matter what the reasons, it was appropriate for Localzuk to seek some consensus before making such a radical change to this highly contentious talk page. This was not an emergency and could have waited a day or so. I'm not dwelling in the past, just trying to point out that your methods as of today are not working to build any kind of trust. Haber20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My strategy is to keep us moving forward, not looking back, and to encourage everyone to compromise, because the arguments of the last few days have been very damaging, very toxic. I hope you'll help me with it and assume good faith. SlimVirgin(talk)20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for your unfounded attack and attempt to belittle my and other's contributions. It wasn't personal opinion for a start, if you'd read it: you'd see that. NathanLee11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that this is pathetic. Was and Nathan - you are now commenting on something completely unimportant and pointless. Please stop doing this as it is not helping move the page forward. If you take offence to something an editor did, discuss it on their talk page.-Localzuk(talk)12:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course everything seems petty to perpetrators. Your response shows that you and SV are so set in your ways and so buried in the system that I cannot hope to change your long-term behavior. All I can do is point it out as it happens, and hope that there are enough reasonable people around who likewise can't stand bullying, dismissiveness, and underhanded tactics. Haber12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if it would make more sense to get an agreement going, then proceed with editing the real thing. All we need to decide is number of articles and title, and content of lead. The rest will probably take care of itself. SlimVirgin(talk)02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nathan
take a look at the current intensive farming as I did a reasonable amount of refactoring to get it where it is now (still needs a bit of referencing etc).. It's a smaller, more manageable article. SV's one that takes that version and combines it with all the other factory farming stuff is massive by any wikipedia article standards..
2 or 3 more manageable ones.. Someone's going to come to the page and go "I think there's too much information here: we need to split it" and there we go again. It's pretty obvious that the material can be split without any big issues I think (given we've got in this new version a tree like structure: why can't it have the "main article" type concept (as it already has if you look at intensive farming)).
The massive amount of information (unreferenced) for chickens etc: really seems a bit much too.
It's closer to the definition that's supportable, so that's a definite improvement to the one we've got sitting up on factory farming.
I'd suggest if you're happy with a version that no longer makes the claims of equal usage of terms: then lumping it together in one article is no different from separating it out.
Currently it seems the other articles are going fine as standalone
Also: it seems like industrial agriculture and intensive farming seem to be able to exist on their own as meaningful aricles. If you put the version of factory farming back to the non SV one: it too exists and is consistent. The only thing that's the issue is an OR/ POV (as in unbacked up by any evidence) desire to have them being the one massive article. NathanLee10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of equivalent terms
As this question has gone unanswered since the start of this: SV/Crum/localzuk:
As your attempt at compromise is to force people into "moving forward" and to "live with" just one article you still have not provided any source that shows the terms to be equivalent:
From my comments on SV's arguments about supported sources:
:Examining your links: none of them do what you've said they do: which is to use the terms equivalently:
the washington post article only mentions factory farming as something that activists consider gestation crates to be an inhumane practice.
the bbc article and other bbc article don't do what you claim they do either (none of them use the terms equivalently, nor are all of the terms in the articles either).
nor does cbc article does actually have two terms in it, but unless having a report on intensive farming and a mention of factory farming in the article means they're equivalent (when factory farming is a type of intensive farming technique).
So there's nothing in any of those to support your request for a compromise to make them all the same. Read those articles with the mind that factory farming is a type of intensive farming and it makes perfect sense. None of them use them interchangably as you claim. NathanLee 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is another site which under its dictionary definition of agriculture it has 'large scale farming' listed with 'syn: agribusiness, factory farming'. This is a feed from [63].
Does that mean that all large scale farms are factory farms? No, that wouldn't make any sense: What about a large scale extensive farm? Or a large scale organic, freerange farm? Of course not. Yes, factory farms are large scale, that again doesn't mean that ALL large scale farms are factory farms. Nor does this over simplified definition show that "intensive farming" or "industrial agriculture" are equivalent terms.. NathanLee17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you look at what wordnet is: it's not exactly something to be used as a definitive guide: See the FAQ for what it is.. wordnet FAQ. To quote: "groups of words that are roughly synonymous in a given context". It's a computer program making assumptions about synonyms that the definitions that were written by the researchers. I'll stake my money on britannica over this any day of the week. It's akin to quoting google's word suggestions as a dictionary definition. NathanLee17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do put chicken in there, so how is that a valid support to your argument other than wasting space on this discussion page? NathanLee18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV and crum375 have asserted that factory farm/intensive farming, industrial agriculture are synonymous and completely interchangeable..
So looking through all the references in the article.
The terms are sometimes used in the same article (even in the same sentence in one article) we haven't yet had anything that shows the terms are anything other than a type of the other..
The CNN article doesn't use them interchangably [66], it calls for a move away from intensive and a stop to factory farming. It would have said stop to both if they were the same thing. You can stop factory farms and still be moving away from intensive farming is about all you can glean from that..
britannica and the sci-tech dictionary says it applies to animal farming as per cramped conditions [67],
this one supports the notion that the term means livestock [68],
this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations [69] no mention of "factory farm" anywhere,
this one [70] does not mention the term factory farm,
webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock definition [71],
On and on through the list.. Even if we go to activist sites on factory farming: I haven't come across any that assert that the terms are interchangable. Sure: factory farming IS industrial agriculture and it IS using intensive farming techniques (or is a type of intensive farming). But that just means it "is a type of", or "is a subset of". English use of the word "is" isn't the same as mathematical =. a = b means b=a. But in English a is b doesn't also mean that b is a.
Nothing to back up the claims in the referred links or anything I can find (other than mirrors of wikipedia's mistaken statements.. which is why it is important we do NOT have this definition sitting up there and infecting the common vernacular of agricultural terms), thus: it is original research and has no place on wikipedia.
Might I add:
Even the PETA link on factory farming (completely un-admissable I would say given PETA are a pro-vegan, anti every type of farming site, and not exactly known for their fact based statements e.g. "meat causes impotence", "your daddy murders chickens") mentions only animals [73].
So, does this settle the arguments that SV and Crum375 have about wanting the term "Factory farm" to be synonymous with the other terms? No mention of crops, and 3 different dictionary/encyclopaedic entries that suggest there's a link to cramped livestock.. Yet Industrial agriculture definitely includes monoculture crop planting, and intensive farming definitely definitely refers to using fertiliser and irrigation and mechanised ploughing etc..[74]
So unless there's any new evidence: I suggest we move past this and get on with splitting up the articles and back to supportable definitions/synonyms. This has all been a pretty big drain of time, good will and patience that has damaged the accuracy of the information on here, not improved it (although I guess at least this has been exhaustively debated now.. and has firmed up sources/supporting arguments etc). Any thoughts on this? I'm not wanting to be dictatorial on this: just presenting the evidence.. NathanLee 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Which was agreed by Jav43 and WAS by the way and no opposing view or comments.
There's been no attempt to answer this anywhere that I can see: which really is the whole rationale for squashing this article into one big article.
Can we finally get an answer, or else I suggest to "move forward" you drop the argument that these terms all belong in one article (which appears to be set to be a massive article). NathanLee09:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point? We have half the editors thinking that the terms are equivalent and half that don't. All you are doing is going back, again and again, to the same old 'we're right, you're wrong' argument. This is getting us no-where and the entire exercise above is intended to try and move us forward and out of the deadlock that we are in and to compromise. All you have done is once again gone back and repeated your same argument again, filling the page up again. We have all read through this before and simply disagree with your analysis - posting it again and again isn't going to change our minds.-Localzuk(talk)11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk: you can "think" what you like: What we need are some references. I and others have shown that there's nothing that says they are the same and have a definition that fits britannica and dictionary definitions, yours only fits if you have some strange idea of two things mentioned in a news article that they're the same. The rules of the English language also seem to agree. No one from your side has shown any attempt to refute those (and the above) time and time again. No rational being would keep insisting they have a case without any evidence, yet you still do. If inability to provide evidence from your side is "deadlock" then allowing you to force your unreferenced, OR/POV is not a fair compromise. What compromise have you made? That you'll only accept having one article? That is not a "compromise" and moves nothing in any direction. NathanLee17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my section below. Also, as I have said - we don't think that your analysis is correct of the sources that show the 2 terms are equivalent, whereas you do believe that. We both have shown various things and both sides don't agree. The compromise is getting past that and doing something in the middle. Stop going on about rules of the English language and your own POV because we already know what you think. We want to move on and actually settle this problem, whereas you only seem to be willing to accept our complete and total withdrawal...-Localzuk(talk)17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I go and merge the jew/zionist/israeli articles because I can give the same level of "proof" of equivalency of terms: you'll be fine with that? I can show them used to mean the same thing (in your fashion). The rules of the English language are rather important: as they're the thing you're relying on to concoct a definition: and you're wrong. A is a type of B, does not mean B is a type of A. Or X and Y does not mean X is Y or Y is X. But that's your argument. How about a compromise to what's safer and makes no OR: something directly backed by dictionary and encyclopaedic entries? Is that a fair compromise? That's all I'm asking for.. NathanLee17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that people here are missing the point by a long way
Right, I will outline my position: We have evidence that shows the 2 terms (intensive farming and factory farming) are equivalent but some editors disagree that it does so therefore I am willing to compromise and have an article which outlines all 3 in some way (regardless of how obscene it seems to me). On the other hand we have a group of editos who simply refuse to accept our evidence and continually say that we aren't getting anywhere as we are trying to 'trick' them or what have you. How, in your opinions then are we to move forward with this? We have 2 stances and we need a middle point. We have a majority of the editors who are willing to have a single article as I just described but this isn't good enough for some. Please explain how you think we should break this deadlock then as you (I'm looking at you Nathan) are continually repeating yourself and failing to provide a single new idea to this debate.-Localzuk(talk)17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a majority of editors who want more than one article because they do not share your view of equivalency.
As I've said: having two terms used in a sentence or an article does not automagically mean they are the same thing. Your "evidence" is extremely strange. If you expect me to suspend my knowledge of English to cater for your obscure "definition" then I really can't do it. That's why I've asked for you or SV or anyone to explain it via proper reference because it doesn't make sense nor do the articles you say do it even support it. The use of the word "and" seems to be a sticking point. I can say "I believe you are wrong localzuk and I like correct wikipedia entries" does not mean that "localzuk" and "correct wikipedia entry" are the same thing. Yet you argued that a sentence with factory farming AND intensive agriculture meant that they were the same. Additional info was provided about the lack of any reference to crops, or that the definitions match if you take one to be a subset of the other. In SV's proposed version: they say exactly that: yet you still want just one article that says that anyhow? I've got britannica's entry on factory farm and britannica's definition of intensive farming that back up my claim. You have nothing more than a questionable technique of interpreting a few news articles. Surely you can see your position is rather shakey if you have such strong arguments against it and no reliable direct definition to back yours up? NathanLee17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the dictatorial/dismissive style is continuing from you SV, please assume good faith that someone contributing with reasoned arguments deserves to be listened to. Why these are getting lumped together I don't know. NathanLee18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given sources that use the terms in the same way, but you deny they're doing it, saying for example that when CNN writes of the need for an end to factory farming and later in the same paragraph (writing from memory) of the need to (forget the word, but another way of saying stop) "intensive farming," you deny they're referring to the same things.
I can only assume you've not read his 22,000 (yes, twenty-two thousand) words of personal opinion posted on this page over eight days, not counting the similar posts he left on user talk pages, because much of it was indeed wikilawyering and an almost wilful refusal to read what the sources were actually saying. I'm not sure I've ever seen a talk page taken over to that extent by a single user; well, I did once, but it was someone talking entirely to himself.
The bottom line is that none of us can get our own way here, because to move on there has to be compromise, about number of articles, titles, and content. I am willing to compromise, but not to the point of being ridiculous, which having three articles on the same subject would be. There are at most two subjects here: intensive farming and industrial farming, which only at a stretch can people argue are different, but fair enough; I'm willing to be educated. There are also two objects of that farming: animals and crops. Whichever way you cut it, it doesn't translate into three articles. SlimVirgin(talk)23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As predicted, the so-called attempt to reach consensus through a straw poll on the title seems to have failed to achieve anything like consensus.
It's not over yet. If this doesn't work, we can go for mediation, but it seems a waste of time given that (I hope) we're all adults and should be able to mediate for ourselves. SlimVirgin(talk)00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did I know that it would fail? Because it is not, in fact, a genuine compromise at all, but simply an attempt to push through the preference of one "side." It's all very well to speak of "bottom lines" and the necessity of compromise, but I cannot help but note that, rather than then indicating what compromise it is you are prepared to accept, you immediately follow with a statement of what you are not prepared to accept because it would be "ridiculous." Let's imagine for a moment you are right that three articles is ridiculous: so what? Let the three subjects develop until the point where we can see if and how they should be merged. The real point is the insistence that you already know how this will turn out. That insistence is what is preventing any compromise. Editors who are illegitimately controlling the situation by refusing to let things develop are in fact preventing any "forward movement," despite their rhetoric to the contrary. It is hard not to conclude they are simply trying to drive away editors who disagree with them. For my own part, as an editor more concerned with breaking the deadlock than pushing a particular perspective, it does indeed increasingly seem like a worthless waste of energy to continue making the attempt. FNMF00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be interested in breaking the deadlock. You seem determined to have three articles, and to hell with compromise. If I've misread your position, I apologize, and would appreciate you reiterating what compromise you'd be willing to accept. SlimVirgin(talk)00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have misread my position, and I would suggest you have done so because you are dividing everybody into the camp of friend and enemy, rather than really taking a look at the reality of the situation. What compromise I am prepared to accept is really the wrong question: there are a number of committed editors who were clearly always going to disagree with your so-called compromise. I cannot help but note that you tend to simply ignore anything which may be problematic for your own position. FNMF00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but still you won't say which compromise you're willing to accept, if not the one I suggested. :-) Anyway, we're clearly getting nowhere, so I've filed an RfM. Hopefully with some outside help we'll find a way through it. SlimVirgin(talk)01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin: what compromise have you made? What evidence have you provided outside selective reading and questionable english skills if that is your proof. Your insistence that the CNN article is some magical support for your argument is incorrect: two mentions of a term in a paragraph or sentence do NOT mean they are equivalent. Repeated requests have been made for you to provide something resembling a decent, non-POV/OR interpretation of something. You've pushed and pushed, forced others to make a choice to fit your unreferenced POV but contributed little to this discussion except to revert changes citing your own version of policy ("add don't remove"), belittle the contributions of others, make fallacious arguments about their credibility (you did that to both jav and myself) or contribute in a meaningful constructive way. Three articles seemed to be quite able to exist before your merger and you'd ignored any attempt to discuss (or pay attention to the discussion on various pages that had agreed that the pages should not be merged). Now you've forced the issue to mediation due to your inability to accept others point of view. NathanLee03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a position, therefore I'm not able to "compromise." I put forward a proposal which I felt had a good chance of breaking the deadlock. Apparently I was wrong, given your rejection of that proposal (on what I consider flimsy grounds). I thought you may have been less intractable. I doubt very much I'll participate in any mediation because, as I indicated, it's increasingly clear that this debate is a waste of energy. Rather than trying to genuinely solve the problem, it seems to me there is just a switch from one mechanism to the next, in order to try to "win." I think this is unfortunate and unnecessary, but good luck to all the editors with greater faith than myself in the worthwhileness of the process. FNMF01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV: I would request that you do not call for others to compromise until after you offer a compromise yourself. Jav4317:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to compromise, as I have already pointed out. Our position calls for a single article which doesn't distinguish between the 3 topics. Your position is to have 3 pages which does distinguish. The compromise is having 1 or 2 pages which semi-distinguish... (That is in very short summary form, it is a bit more complex than that). As it stands, you have not proposed a single compromisable point.-Localzuk(talk)18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll on title
As I see it, we have a consensus (as a first or second choice) for having one article called "Intensive agriculture." My proposal is that we proceed with this, with separate sections on the history of intensive farming; perhaps another section on the industrialization of it in general; and then we split into sections about animals on the one hand, and crops on the other. We could also include a section that discusses the different terms, who uses them, and so on.
If and when that article gets too long, we can discuss again the need to split into more than one article.
We will also carefully discuss the lead in advance of editing so that we have a consensus on images and text, and no revert wars. We can discuss the lead after deciding on the title.
We need to move on this, rather than repeating the same old arguments and getting nowhere. However, if this is not acceptable to people, how about 'Agribusiness' as the title? The article ties in with th subject matter being discussed here and would work well.-Localzuk(talk)11:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume Localzuk and SV's agreement to this means that they accept(at least as a "compromise") that factory farming is a subset of industrial agriculture is a subset of intensive agriculture. Main conflict solved. Support is not an endorsement of the one article preference. Whether sub sections deserve their main article is not quite relevant here. If they do, we can split them when this page is up. --Dodo bird06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
WAS 4.25021:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) This is premature. Let us all edit the subpage in question and if we can do that without reverting each other then it is a possible solution to this revert war.[reply]
NathanLee09:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Forcing people to accept your POV on an article being squashed into one article is not "consensus" SlimVirgin. You've still never provided anything to back up why they're equivalent terms (please see my question that's gone unanswered since this began). Your selective interpretation which is the whole basis is incorrect and Original research. Moving forward does not mean "ignore the fact you've not supported your argument STILL".[reply]
Neutral
Votes are Evil
I think that there is a high probability that the results of this straw poll will be misused to somehow assert that the terms are equivalent and certain editors need to be marginalized. It's Memorial Day Weekend (at least in the US). I recommend that SV and Localzuk take a 72 hour break. If so I can do likewise. Haber14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. If it's the same old argument: it's because it still has the same old complete lack of evidence as to why just one article is needed. More articles can easily work if SV, localzuk and crum375 stop reverting any attempt to improve the article. Pretending that they've made some compromise and want to move forward yet have made no compromise nor provided any new evidence. NathanLee17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
The mediation page says that I am only allowed to say "accept" or "reject". I reject that. The description of mediation page says mediation is not binding. Therefore it is a waste of time. Or else it is no better than someone uninvolved choosing to come to this page and talk. But Slim complains there is too much talk here already. So more talk is gonna help how? Slim appears blind to the possibility that she is wrong. She literally can not understand how I can read what she claims she did not read and come to a conclusion different from the conclusion she came to. That is blind. WAS 4.25016:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works both ways, we don't see what you are saying as true and you don't see what we are saying is true. Neither side is blind, they just disagree. The idea of mediation is to get someone who is good with these sort of situations to take a look over things and give their opinion. We would then have faith in the mediation process and either accept what they say or be prepared to move to arbitration due to the inability to come to an agreement (this wouldn't look at content, it would look at the behaviour of editors).-Localzuk(talk)18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted mediation because you need all parties to accept, but I am very busy at the moment so just go ahead without me if I don't respond to stuff. --Coroebus18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Coroebus. WAS, you say I'm blind to the possibility that I might be wrong. Do you accept that you might be wrong? I mean that as a serious question. Do you accept it as a possibility? SlimVirgin(talk)18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difference is Localzuk that your side's whole argument lies in a rather strange interpretation of a couple of articles. The other has encyclopaedic/dictionary validation (a necessary requirement for addition to wikipedia) and is not really disputable because it is referenced and meaning is incredibly straight forward to extract. Currently the 3 articles exist and have distinct, diirected content.
SlimVirgin, localzuk and crum375 have an overly aggressive editing style with anything to do with animal lib topics and I might suggest that it has clouded your ability to produce a neutral article. Even PETA (a pretty extreme animal lib viewpoint) and other activist definitions disagree with your definition [75] there's problems, yet still you persist with your original research claim. NathanLee18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this one last time: We know what your view is. Stop repeating it. Repeating it is not getting us any closer to breaking this deadlock. We have 2 viewpoints - one which says one thing and is backed up by sources, and the opposite, which is also backed up by sources. Regardless of how many times you say our view isn't backed up by those sources, we still read the sources as backing it up. So, now that I have said that: Can we move on and try something *new* and not repeat this same thing, over and over again. Thank you, Localzuk(talk)18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just find some decent sources instead of diverting from answering again and again..? As in one that says exactly as you're asserting from a reliable source. Read [76] in a nutshell points: you're violating the 2nd two. Also: "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" is exactly what you're doing: "synthesis" based on your reading of the articles (you can't find a quote that says what you are arguing for.. Just mention in the same article = synthesis). Ignoring it again and again doesn't make you any more correct. If it's so common a fact you should be able to support it easily as per this.. NathanLee19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, you have just repeated yourself. We are showing the 2 terms are used interchangably - the article uses them interchangably but you disagree. We know this already, and as I have said, repeating it isn't getting anywhere - therefore compromise is the way forward.I would say your constant repetition is disruptive to this entire process as you aren't allowing any thing to move forward.-Localzuk(talk)19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, we give you sources, such as this one, that you insist in interpreting in your own way. Please don't provide us with a list of Wikipedia policies, we are all familiar with them. It is quite obvious that there are differences of opinion among us - blaming each other will not get us anywhere. If you are sincere in wanting to move forward, and to accept outside input, all you need to do is agree to mediation like the rest of us. Crum37519:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll approach this from another angle: Whether they appear to be used interchangably or not: you need to get a reference that says the terms are all equivalent (not just appear to be interchangable: one that says they ARE the same thing, not just appear (to you) to be used as synonyms..). Otherwise you are doing synthesis by deciding that they are indeed identical. Particularly as we have other sources which clearly define the terms that you are overriding with your new definition. One article can be a very minority view point, CNN or otherwise. Plenty of articles use the term "muslims" and "terrorists" almost interchangably. But to say that all muslims are terrorists or all terrorists are muslims is synthesis. NathanLee19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes is one reliable source that specifically says that not all Muslims are terrorists, and you can't say it anymore (unless directly quoting a specific source). Do you have a reliable source that specifically says "Factory farms are not Intensive Farming"? Crum37520:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, finding a reliable source that directly says so, e.g. "Factory farms are not Intensive Farming" or "Factory farms are a subset of Intensive Farming" should be easy, so can we have one? Crum37523:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's akin to saying find me a site that says "factory farming is not a type of space shuttle".. But anyhow I can do the quotable proof positive (but naturally I'll not be able to find some reference to counter every possible negative statement required that people can concoct): I've got one from webster's [77]"factory farming, n, a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility". Will that do you for both my assertions in one definition? I wasn't arguing that factory farming is not an example/system or/instance of/type of intensive farming: Just that the terms are not bidirectional-swappable.. Hence the need for more than one article as they're different things. NathanLee23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, we've already addressed that source extensively above. It does not say Factory Farming is not Intensive Agriculture. Crum37513:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Factory farming IS a type of intensive agriculture, I've never argued it isn't, but it's not the other way around. By your logic "factory farming" is a type of hair product too, cos it doesn't say it isn't. What policy are you referring to that requires dictionary definitions of everything that something is NOT? You're asking the absurd. It's not me that's holding up this whole argument over a selective reading of one CNN article and no dictionary definition that backs it up. I've shown a dictionary definition that proves my stand, all in one hit: find one that proves yours (as so far no one from your side has been able to). Unless you can find a dictionary or encyclopaedic entry: I suggest you drop this argument (as it's outside allowable inclusion to put in uncommon uses of terms) that your claim is in any way common because ultra-niche interpretations do not belong in wikipedia. Here's two from the same dictionary: surely if your claim was correct they'd be the same. From crystal reference dictionary intensive farming def, factory farming def. Just how many more do you want while you insist on providing zero? NathanLee14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Nathan, I agree that the reference.com definition of factory farming does not include crops. We also don't include crops in the current locked version of the article. There are also other reliable sources that clearly equate Intensive Agriculture and other terms to it. And please stop spamming my Talk page – anything that relates to Factory Farming belongs here. Thanks, Crum37515:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By saying it's also known as intensive farming: you include crops. See the current locked version which talks of "early versions" including rice paddies and saying it is also known as intensive farming. If you have a source that says intensive farming is factory farming, rather than factory farming just being a type of intensive (animal) farming: please put it up, stop just saying you have it: as you haven't (as I can tell) yet put up any dictionary definition. Surely this definition would be published if it was anything other than a minor interpretation or viewpoint. All you've pointed to are one or two readings of articles to synthesise the definition. NathanLee17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you could point me to a Wikipedia policy that tells us that reference.com is more reliable, or carries more weight than CNN, Reuters, BBC and CBS? Thanks, Crum37517:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rejected the mediation. All along SlimVirgin and Localzuk have been using underhanded tactics including this insincere discussion in which they attempt to wear down good contributors with simple weight of words. Mediation is not a process that can overcome bad faith and dishonesty in an experienced administrator who knows all the tricks. Haber03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using dictionaries as sources
We must use the terms the way reliable published (preferably mainstream) secondary sources use them. How CNN, the BBC, the Washington Post, and Reuters use the terms is directly relevant. We have never based our work on dictionaries. SlimVirgin(talk)18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is neither true nor sensible. It is appropriate to use the best published sources for any specific claim and the best editors do. Dictionaries for definitions of words, scientific literature for scientific claims, historians for history and so forth. Prefering newspapers for these claims is nonsense. WAS 4.25019:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you get the idea from that a dictionary is a good source for Wikipedia, because it's not in any of the policies or guidelines. On the contrary, these say we prefer secondary sources, not tertiary sources, for obvious reasons.
We have to use words the same way reliable mainstream sources use them. Reference.com is a website written by who-knows. The W/Post, CNN, Reuters, the BBC are staffed by professional researchers and writers who deal directly with the issues. That is, they speak to the factory farmers, intensive farmers, industrial farmers, or whatever they call themselves. They speak directly to the governments that regulate them. They speak directly to the public that may or may not have concerns about them. They know what vocabulary is in general use, and they form committees to decide which terms to use for sensitive subjects (e.g. their policies on terrorist versus militant). That is why we take our lead from these mainstream organizations. SlimVirgin(talk)19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree totally on this. We need arbcom or a miracle if you can't accept dictionaries as reliable published sources. To me that's just nuts. And I'm sure you are sincere. So we need outside forces who have the authority to decide this very important attribution issue. I have asked for help at WP:AN/I. WAS 4.25019:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that there was an ArbCom case that revolved around the use of a dicdef, which as I remember was regarded as not legit. I'll try to find it. SlimVirgin(talk)19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII, which was unfortunately closed without a decision. It was triggered by one user insisting that a dictionary definition of "capitalism" be used instead of the definitions of reliable sources. It appears to have been resolved by removing his dicdef from the article, but creating a "definitions of capitalism" article, where he could include his material. There was also a discussion about it on the mailing list, and my recollection of that was firmly against dicdefs. SlimVirgin(talk)19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein was involved in that and I consider him an authority on proper sourcing; as is TimVickers - so I have requested help from both. WAS 4.25020:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Hello all, just briefly checking in) But your interpretation that they are using them interchangeably is very much an interpretation, I note someone elsewhere on this page is insisting Nathan find a source that explicitly states that they are not the same. What is sauce for the goose and all that. --Coroebus18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'someone' was me - my point is simply that all those CNN/Reuters sources are equating the terms while we have no reliable sources that say they are not. I agree that reference.com says that Factory Farming is for animals, but dictdefs are not considered as important or relevant for Wikipedia as secondary sources like the major mainstream media, that show us how the terms are really being used in the mainstream. Crum37518:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that your interpretation of those mainstream sources as using them interchangeably is very much in dispute, whereas there are a variety of other sources (much more than just dictionaries) which define them in ways that are distinct and non-identical. I've said before, and I'll say again, the CNN/Reuters argument is incredibly weak, I'd concentrate on the dictionary definitions and other explicit definitions that are consistent with your position (and there are some, as I've pointed out), rather than depending on fairly unconvincing and circular textual analysis about what a particular usage must mean about the terms. --Coroebus18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "there are a variety of other sources (much more than just dictionaries)" – if you can provide us with a secondary source that specifically says that Factory Farming is not equivalent to Intensive Agriculture, that would be very useful. Crum37519:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. We need just one reliable mainstream source that either explicitly says they are different phenomena (as the terms are used today, not historically), or that uses the terms in a way that implies a difference. Not one of you has produced such a source yet, despite all the discussion. SlimVirgin(talk)20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you have failed to produce any sources defining them as being the same, only sources that use them in ways that you consider to be synonymous, we have produced sources that draw a distinction between them (e.g. by saying something like "intensive agricuture, and in particular factory farming"), or sources that define them differently (e.g. X defines 'factory farming' as "confined animal rearing", and Y defines 'intensive farming' as "agriculture using intensive methods including intensive animal rearing and monocropping"), but we have not been able to find a source that says "factory farming is not synonymous with 'intensive agriculture' (which isn't particularly surprising). So the onus of proof is at least 50:50, and I'd say that your side is somewhat weaker in that we have sources that explicitly contrast them (the "and in particular" type examples), while your side relies on a rather strained interpretation (as I pointed out to Crum a few talk pages ago). I would urge Nathan and co to try mediation as this argument really isn't going to go anywhere, even if you're right. --Coroebus21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment. Here goes: I have never supported using dictionaries as sources for two main reasons. For one thing, I aver using them as sources for the same reason I am opposed to using encyclopedias as sources. Granted, since we are competing with them they are useful points of reference ("How do other handle this kind of issue?"). But to use a dictionary or encyclopedia as a source is like raising our arms and saying we give up on writing our own encyclopedia, there is another one out there that is a real authority ... and if we do that, we may as well tell people not to use Wikipedia but to use Answers.Com and Encarta instead. If we are to draw on dictionaries and encyclopedias at all, here i show we should do it: we should ask, how do people writing real (established) dictionaries and encyclopedias do their research? Well, let's try to emmulate the way they do research in writing our own. Slrubenstein | Talk09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my second (and perhaps better) reason: in my experience, dictionaries are good resources principally for only one thing: the correct spelling of a word (and yes, I guess in this regard I would say, we can use them as sources). The OED is unique among general dictionaries in being an excellent source on etymology, and I have no objection to using it that way. But as a source of definitions, I am really opposed, for the same reasons I tell my students every term never to use a dictionary to define a word that is important to the theme of the course (obviously they can use it to look up the words "never" and "theme"): dictionaries privilege the most popular definitions, but when I teach a course the whole point of the course is to get students to stop thinking about something the way everyone else does (i.e. most popular) and to start seeing how people in other cultures, at other times in history, and scholars have thought about the topic. Seldom does a dictionary give the definition that anthropologists, or philosophers, or literary critics use. And when we are talking about a divisive issue and I want them to know the different points of view (e.g. approaches to class, or to capitalism) dictionaries are especially useless. This was my argument with RJII. Marx, Weber, Hayek and others all define capitalism in different ways. An encycklopedia article should provide their understandings of capitalism, and a dictionary definition only obscures the issues. To sum up my view: if the point of view of dictionary writers is one of the views NPOV and good sense demands be included in an article, I guess we can use a dictionary and explain that this represents the view of the editors of Websters or whatever. However, if the major views are those of multinationals like ADM, family farmers, the organic food movement, consumer groups, as well as rural sociologists and other social scientists who have studied changes in the food industry, I would say an article needs to explore the different views i.e. different definitions of each group, and avoid dictionaries. Slrubenstein | Talk09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is intensely misleading to characterise this argument as being about dictionary definitions versus mainstream news organisation usage. At the very least it is interpretations of what mainstream news organisations might imply by their usage, versus a variety of explicit definitions and contrasts from news sources, academia and government reports. I suggest we canvas opinion more widely from some more uninvolved users, for instance, Slrubenstein, have a look at my little summary or some of the previous argument, and see what you think. --Coroebus09:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add my thoughts for Slrubenstein: the point SV et al is making is that they're reading an article and deriving a "definition" which a bunch of us disagree and believe is POV. It's not explicitly stated in the article, and I regard it as synthesis. That's why the dictionary/encyclopaedic entries are coming into play as the definition appears to be a bit of a stretch to say the terms are synonymous as it disagrees with the dict/enc entries for the words. My argument is that as the dict/enc definition fits the articles too, it's just a niche/strange view to say that the terms are synonymous and that we should go with the one that fits all the sources. "Recommend move away from intensive farming and a stop to factory farming" to me does not imply intensive farming IS factory farming, only (if you need to draw definitions from it) that factory farming might be a type of/instance of intensive farming (which matches other definitions too, even those of activists and makes sense and is most verifiable).. Although from an English point of view the two can be completely different topics as comma/"and" etc implies separation of themes.
The full sentence that's caused this whole argument:
United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease.
Does that sentence imply a definition of completely interchangeable terms do you think? Is it worth overriding numerous dictionary definitions that paint a far narrower definition of "Factory farming". To my logic if it said "move away from intensive agriculture (known as factory farming)" or even "A call for a stop to intensive ag which would result from a cease of factory farming". But as it stands it seems rather flimsy. Regards, NathanLee11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to get bogged down in this debate - I was really just registering a general view I have. However, if one agree with me, I wouldn't think it too hard to apply to this article. I see no reason to assume there is one definition of factory farming. I have looked at both SV and Nathan's versions and they both seem to include the main elements in the introduction, providing sources for all. I think this is the key thing - just to make clear whose definition -i.e., view - is being presented. With all due respect, Nathan, I think "Does that sentence imply a definition of completely interchangeable terms do you think? Is it worth overriding numerous dictionary definitions that paint a far narrower definition of "Factory farming"" is a non-sequitor. There is no question of "overriding" dictionary definitions. According to NPOV no one view over-rides any other POV. Maybe there is one view that factory farming and intensive farming are the same. So what? No one claims this is the "truth," only the point of view of whoever thinks this. I think you have every right to (1) inssist that this view be properly identified and that (2) other views be included. But I would look to academic researchers, business advocates, consumer advocates, environmentalists, etc. for those other views, not a dictionary. Based solely on the portion of what you wrote that I quoted, it sounds as if you think a dictionary definition is authoritative. i hope that is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of your view because as you surely know Wikipedia's standard is not "truth" but verifiability and I think all of us are better off if instead of trying to find one "authoritative" definition we stuck to Wikipedia policy in providing verifiable definitions without claiming that any of them are authoritative. I would think that there are enough non-dictionary sources (USDA; Small Planet Institute; textbook for a course on agricultural management) that one simply does not have to rely on a dictionary. I realize that this may not at all address what most of you consider the main points of dispute on this page but what can I say? I haven't contributed to this article and do not know a helluva lot about factory farming, and I don't think it is my place to address the various conflicts on this page. Someone asked me to express my views on using dictionaries, that is all I meant to do. Slrubenstein | Talk12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you should mention non sequiturs: as I believe the deduction SV and others have formes is a type of non-sequitur: affirming the consequent. As such the verifiability of one side seems to be a quite questionable definition: the terms are definitely used in the same sentence, but not in a manner which I would say generally indicates they're reverse-equivalent. e.g.
Article says a move away from intensive farming and calls for a stop to factory farming.
If factory farming is intensive farming.
Then if something is intensive farming it must automatically be factory farming. (this is the deduction I have issues with)
Back to dictionary use: The policy also states: "For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopaedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones.". Britannica has a clear definition of "factory farming" [78] and "intensive agriculture" [79].
[80] indicates that rather than relying on an interpretation in an article: it should be able to be found in referenceable texts. The policy on avoiding neologisms frowns on putting terms in wikipedia to perhaps encourage the use of them (which is also a goal of trying to blanket equate the terms and thus creating a "definition" which I think is the danger here). So I think there's no aversion in the policies towards using dictionary/encyclopaedias as validation. NathanLee14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you admit that what you wrote was a non sequitor. I still do not understand your continued appeal to dictionaries, which you have now widened to encyclopedias. Aside from the fact that your links do not go to signed articles, are you really saying that the best research you are capable of is looking up stuff on other on-line encyclopedias? Surely if you care about this topic you care enough to do serious research, and read books and articles! Don't you care? Slrubenstein | Talk15:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really quite simple. Factory farming refers to animals. Industrial agriculture refers to crops as well as animals. Therefore, factory farming is not interchangeable with industrial agriculture at least when in reference to crops. You don't need a PhD to understand that. And crappy dictionary definitions > assumptions. --Dodo bird15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly did I say I had used a non sequetur? I ignored your comment and stuck to discussion relevant to the topic in hand. Perhaps this is why there are problems: see to me I didn't say ANYWHERE *I* had used a non sequetur.. Yet here you are saying I did. I did however say SV's argument was one..
The argument was ALWAYS for dictionary AND encyclopaedias (it was britannica I talked of all along from the start). My appeal is that as a verification: they suggest one thing and the sole "proof" on one side is a selective reading (the non sequetur derived definition i mentioned).. There's been plenty of research and citations (including tracking down many articles/definitions and putting forward arguments) and yes I do care. Quite frankly I don't get your accusing sounding tone: what on earth would give you cause to attack my motive or effort I've put into this matter say I don't care? NathanLee18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I ignored your comment" - well, quite frankly I don't get why you would ignore a well-intentioned good-faith thoughtful constructive comment. I did not attack your motives, but yes I did question them. Why? Because you seem to value dictionaries and encyclopedias as sources over books and articles. I realize it takes much more effort to read a book or article especially if you have to go to a library. But I think producing a quality encyclopedia requires effort, if we are serious about it. I have suggested several times that books and articles from a variety of sources are better than dictionaries and encyclopedias. You keep arguing for doing the easier work than doing the harder work. That is what motivated my question. For what it is worth I would raise the same question about anyonw who favors dictionaries or encyuclopedias - espeically when they are on-line - over books and articles found in a library, so it is nothing personal. Slrubenstein | Talk09:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I ignored was the (off track) part of your reply that said my statement was a non sequetur (which I didn't think it was.. but debating that achieved nothing).. I obviously didn't ignore your whole reply because I responded to it. I wasn't necessarily favouring them exclusively: but when they have a clear, precise definition and it contradicts with a selective reading (the "selecting the consequent" non sequetur) then it would be worth paying attention to. There's nothing easy or hard: we've got enough resources contradicting it to indicate SV's version is nothing more than a personally synthesised definition that not even activist sites use (well I did see one). It's an "eccentric" view to put it kindly and one that unfairly/incorrectly tarnishes distinct terms with an activist loaded one. And yes: I want a definition that's easy to validate. That's the point. One side is easy to validate, the other requires "special" English interpretation skills. So I favour Britannica over that any day of the week. There's nothing incompaticle about the definitions (assume britannica's and then it works with that article too) UNLESS you insist that the terms are synonymous then it conflicts with common sense and a bunch of references, and then you get this messy debate on here rather than just admitting it isn't backed up.
Also: as soon as someone references offline material: we have a problem. How do we verify that content? I agree there's tonnes of decent material that never makes it online, but it's then very difficult for others to casually go to the original source. See my user page for discussion/issues/suggestions on this exact issue.. So I agree offline stuff is where most of the material on any given non-internet topic.. Perhaps you can read my user page and comment on the talk page on this separate matter.. NathanLee10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise
Perhaps the pages could recognize that factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are three distinct phenomena -- and provide distinct articles on that basis -- but, under the factory farming article, have a section on "colloquial use". This section on colloquial use would have a line of this sort:
The term factory farming is sometimes used colloquially to refer to any type of modern agriculture-production system. This variant of the term's meaning is most commonly used by animal rights activists, although it can be seen in any forum.
works for me too. I'd say "any forum" might be better defined as "media and politics" (or if there's other ones we've got references for?) as we've got references for both of those.. Britannica's and others def agrees with that. NathanLee18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked this exact question on this talk page SV. Scroll back up and search for "can you say once more what you see as the difference between industrial agriculture and factory farming?". You got answers from several people. NathanLee19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's one that talks of the notion Jav43's proposing: [81] first paragraph. Views the farm as a factory.. But as per britannica and others the term "factory farm" means something else. NathanLee19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everytime I ask a question, someone says "it's been answered already; see above." I wouldn't be asking it again if I could find the answer.
If you mean the content, the former looks fine; the latter obviously not as it seems not to discuss animals. We have to decide on titles and numbers of articles before content. SlimVirgin(talk)20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I gave you the search string to find it (it was your question) :)
So anyhow: if those two are acceptable: then logically you'd have to see that "intensive farming" exists in its own right (as the common element or process between those two pages? Just as a general concept as it is now intensive farming versus extensive farming being the "opposite"). With Industrial agriculture being the overall field across animal, aquaculture and crops that may regard the farm/patch of water as factory, make use of intensive farming and mechanisation etc.. Because there's a reasonable amount of history attached to that process of industrialisation, but maybe that's not enough..? But how about we see what ends up there and if it's not too unique then maybe it gets chopped up into the two articles you're talking about?
On the titles: I think those might be good choices as you can (i'd say) have intensive animal farming that's outside the realm of what's attached to the term "factory farming" (with the current state of animal agriculture today: confinement, cramped conditions etc as per your desire to put the gestation crate picture in), so I'd suggest that your title is more appropriate than "factory farming" which wouldn't generally cover things like intensive fur farming, captive panda breeding or intensive rabbit breeding (just plucking examples out of animals farmed intensively outside the definitions for FF)..
Would that keep everyone happy: you get your two articles, the naturally implied common one between 'em (higher concept, would not be a huge article, instead delegating to Intensive farming (animals), intensive farming (crops) and Aquaculture) and to Industrial Agriculture too. And Industrial agriculture referring not to the concept of "more inputs to make more outputs", but to the modern agricultural industry and it's history. I just think that there's sufficient need to separate out the concept of intensive farming from industrial agriculture.. NathanLee20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because all you're doing is transplanting the edit conflicts from this article to others. I would like to see an agreement to have 1, 2, or 3 articles; an agreement on the title(s); and an agreement on the content of the lead section(s). Then we can request that this page be unprotected. SlimVirgin(talk)21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(<---)I disagree that we disagree ... except of course for the disagreement on whether we disagree; meaning that I agree with what you just said. Only the mechanism to achieve that that I suggest is "Let's just see if we can all contructively edit Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) or not." So we have tentatively agreed on two articles with these names; now let us edit those articles and find if we can reach "an agreement on the content of the lead section(s). Then we can request that this page be unprotected." The lead summarizes the article. Without an article to summarize it is hard to know what the lead should be. So slim (and everyone else), edit the lead to reflect the article and let us see where we stand. Of course, adding content to the nonlead parts is also good. But let's not delete content relevant to the article title. I am especially concerned with people deleting farming information. These are articles on farming. The challenges and issues are what newspapers report, but those are a minor part of an encyclopedic coverage of a major sector of the economy. Read up on what universities teach about farming to see what I mean. If someone wants a lead all about the "challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals)" then perhaps they need to have such an article: Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals)WAS 4.25023:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion of having one article about animals and one article about crops. It is an artificial distinction, imposed to try to solve a problem rather than reflect any reality about the phenomenon. For one thing, there are interconnections between the two: the same corporation that wants to patent pig genes is the corporation that produces genetically modified animal feed, and this has raised questions about the connection between these two facts. More to the point, what this reveals is that the phenomenon of industrial agriculture, and the questions it raises, are more profound than just the "treatment" of animals. Splitting the article in two in order to appease those whose concern is specifically to do with animals makes it much more difficult to describe the character of the phenomenon itself. In my opinion, this is the worst of all possible solutions, and would be a political decision in the worst way. The fact of the industrialisation of agriculture is a profound adjustment in the relation of human beings to nature, and to artificially break this complex phenomenon into two halves would diminish the encyclopaedia. FNMF23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's leave it for the RfM. I was just looking to see whether it could be headed off. FNMF, you strongly argue against one page, then against two, and yet you say you're willing to compromise, when the only solution left is three pages, which is what you want! Then in addition you say you don't want to take part in mediation. It's all somewhat unhelpful. :-) SlimVirgin(talk)23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not strongly argued against one page. In fact, I have not strongly argued against anything, until now, when I strongly argue against an entry on crops and one one animals. I feel you have persistently misread my position. In fact, my position has been almost entirely a matter of encouraging others to try out solutions and see where they lead. I'm sorry you feel this has been unhelpful. And I'm bemused by the fact that the first time I do strongly argue against something, it has to be "left for mediation"! FNMF23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, would it be ok if there was a single article called "intensive agriculture"? If so, I have no objection to that. As I hope I have made clear, I am not fussed by how many articles there are. I think there is a good case for three articles, especially if that would enable the deadlock to be broken. But I have no objection to a single article other than the fact that editors are unable to actually work on such an article due to deadlock. I do, however, object to the artificial division between crops and animals which does not reflect the phenomenon and obscures the profound character of the transformation of human life it involves. FNMF23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can not fit all of modern farming into one article anymore than we can fit all of the television industry into one article. We can use transclusion. We can use sections that summarize other articles using the main template. The point is to evolve forward rather than revert war in a standstill. Write a section describing what you are talking about and put it somewhere. It can then be added to, transcluded, made a seperate article. I agree with the points you are making. I disagree that they are a reason to not give this a try. Work with me and see if what you write can't be dealt with appropriately. WAS 4.25023:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of "fitting everything in." It's a question of having entries that accurately reflect the phenomena they are describing. And I strongly believe there should be an overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. To simply have an article about one aspect of it, and an article about another aspect of it, without any article indicating what these things are aspects of is a bad solution made for the wrong reasons. FNMF00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find that an odd response. I think industrial agriculture as it currently exists does largely cover what I am talking about, or is at least on the way. I don't believe it's a matter of finding some new article name. I can't think of anything worse, since it will just lead to more arguments. Writing "pick some article name not currently locked" tells the whole story: the article is locked. That's the problem, and it's a problem that exists because the environment is presently so little conducive to writing anything. I feel that you are venting frustration because I have not supported the proposal to have an article on animals and one on crops. I just think that is a bad solution, being no solution at all. FNMF00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of god, FNMF, you said above you didn't want one article, [82] now you say you weren't "fussed." Please make up your mind so we can move on. I am happy with one title. And I am happy with one for animals, one for crops. I am happy with any of the titles. The only things I object to are three articles, anything that smacks of a POV fork, and leads without detailed criticism. Otherwise, I will accept any compromise.
You asked all editors to state their preference. I stated my preference. From my very first post until my last I have not stated I will not accept one article, nor have I stated that there must be three articles. My argument all along has been that letting three articles develop will enable decisions to be made later on about whether merges are required. It is a pity you don't bother to read what is written with more care. Your pretence that you will "accept any compromise" is unconvincing. FNMF00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But others were stating their preference and what they would be willing to accept, so that we can compromise, so that we can work out whether we have any common ground, and so we can do that without behaving like a bunch of four-year-olds. Come on, guys, this is getting silly. We all know what the content policies say the content must include, and most of us are experienced editors, so there's no excuse for this incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio. Let's make a decision about numbers of titles, please, find out whether we have an agreement, and move on to discussing content. SlimVirgin(talk)00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion for SlimVirgin: say you'll accept three articles for now. Then you can go straight to talking about content. If three articles is a problem, it can be sorted out later. At present, content is what is being perpetually postponed. FNMF00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, three articles is silly and POV forkish. One, yes (my first preference). Two, yes. Three, no. SlimVirgin(talk)
Exactly! My position is the same as SV's. FNMF - you have only pushed for a single goal - 3 articles. You have not tried pushing for any other ways of doing things, other than that goal. Please start compromising else we won't get anywhere.-Localzuk(talk)01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue with the edit warring isn't the number of articles: that's just us all getting side tracked. Without solving the equivalent terms issue: the edit warring will continue regardless of the number of articles. If we avoid lumping or merging articles we'll have less contention over definitions I think is what FNMF is getting at. Without the need to link all the terms the articles can each be fine grained and specifically directed (with neutral tone to avoid it being a POV fork). If one article is looking like the other in a month's time: it's a candidate for a two into one merge. But the 3 into one merge is the sticking point and (i think) major cause of disagreement.. NathanLee01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How absurd. Do whatever you like: the point is you aren't getting anywhere doing what you are doing. The only thing I strongly object to is having one article on animals and one article on crops, an artificial distinction that would mean the encyclopaedia has failed when it comes to this topic. Other than that very recent development, I haven't pushed for anything, no matter how many times you say I have. But that doesn't mean I believe that having three articles is necessarily "POV forkish": in my opinion that is a ridiculous objection based on second guessing the outcome of a process you are stubbornly unwilling even to contemplate. FNMF01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how three articles would be POV fork and not merely WP:SS. Would having three articles in itself be a POV fork or are you predicting a POV fork? --Dodo bird06:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lying back and thinking of England one last time
Is there anyone who objects to this proposal (please say so very succinctly; size does matter, and less is definitely more!!):
We have two articles only, and they will be called Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). All other titles are directed to Intensive farming, which will be a disambig page, and will say something like "other terms used to describe intensive farming are industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, and factory farming. Please see IF (crops) and IF (animals) for more information."
clarification needed: so is the argument still going over whether the terms are all the same? Number of articles fairly irrelevant versus that sticking point (which will cause edit warring still, regardless of number of articles). I may have satisfied crum with a definition he/she asked for..? NathanLee01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, one day you'll be able to say just yes, or just no. :-) I don't think it would matter with this proposal whether we all thought the terms were identical or not, except that, as always, the leads would say "also sometimes known as x and y." SlimVirgin(talk)01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree This makes no sense. It also isn't a compromise; it's a victory for SV's side, since it fallaciously equates "factory farming", "intensive agriculture", and "industrial agriculture". Jav4303:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for now - We don't make choices for all time. We only make choices for now. I swear, some of you guys seem to like fighting more than encyclopedia writing. Write content. We can place good data. We can find sources for good data. But it makes no sense to structure our articles around content you have yet to write. (Note: The "All other titles are directed to" part can not be mandated and is null and void. Think about what "All other titles" refers to. Who is to say that the content of some other article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect? Can we decide that here? No! There are article deletion processes and procedures for that.) WAS 4.25005:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cautiously agree with this, since factory farming is a loaded term. Intensive farming is much less loaded. That does not mean we ignore the controversy or indeed that we don't discuss the terminology. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I support the 2 article Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) plan, with 'factory farming' discussed in Intensive Farming (animals). This solution would lead to grouping of relevant information together in a meaningful way, whereas the one-article solution would be a mess of (animal) and (crops) subheadings - I'm thinking about 'criticisms' sections in particular. Intensive farming (crops) could have a history section discussing non-industrial intensive agriculture. FNMF's objection brings up the question of what to do with the Agribusiness article. Dialectric16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we have enough of a consensus here to proceed with this option. The term "industrial agriculture" can be discussed within Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). Dialectric, perhaps Agribusiness can be merged into the others and redirected unless and until someone wants to expand it? SlimVirgin(talk)18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you do? This is just a diversion SlimVirgin: you're just going to keep edit warring over the as yet unsupported equivalency of terms issue. E.g. you'll be saying that intensive farming (crops) is known as factory farming.. NathanLee19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Nathan, can we take this one step at a time. You are constantly trying to deal with all the issues at the same time - which we cannot do. Lets sort out structure, then content.-Localzuk(talk)19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's only one issue over a definition that's the whole cause of this (or have you forgotten). Without having to cater for it: all the rest of the articles seem to exist and have suitable content (look at intensive farming: that exists on its own (as it should regardless as it is a concept). So bear in mind this need to determine articles is SOLELY to cater for that view of SV's. Nothing else. There was no need to merge them until SV decided that a CNN article read in a special way meant they needed merging. So although you're trying to make it seem like a compromise: you've made no concession whatsoever other than to divert the topic onto numbers of articles.NathanLee20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why britannica or dictionaries don't count: there's been no policy that's shown that's not the case (closest we got was a specific arbitration that wasn't even a finding.. and this term isn't in some strange context..). Britannica is specifically mentioned as a secondary reliable source in the policies. But your articles all support my definition, without the need for non-sequitur derived definitions. Can you point to one of yours that doesn't work with the concept of a subset of the other.. The BBC site on intensive farming talks of the concept as a standalone issue (no mention of factory farming). The CNN one, if you must read the two statements together then try reading it like: "move away from intensive farming, (one part of that overall process is to) stop factory farming (which will) end mad cow disease".
Comment It is obvious we need mediation and cannot reach consensus, as a previous compromise proposal with some support is ignored to start another one.--Cerejota11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reasons to reject mediation?
Haber has rejected mediation, which probably means mediation will be rejected. While he is entirely in his rights to do so, I think he owes an explanation. Why reject a process that might lead to a better article?--Cerejota12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it. It is the one above where you say we have been using underhanded tactics and are acting dishonestly, without any supporting evidence so as to make his outburst sound like an attack on the names of several editors. Ok, understood.-Localzuk(talk)14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for Haber, I was feeling a tad uneasy about any mediation that has no enforceability and has been put forward with clauses that seem like personal attacks or attempts to censor another editor (SV put the version up with her POV that requests that my contributions be considered for review.. which made it look like it was just another trick in the grand scheme of winning the edit war and a thinly veiled attack on credibility of one side's arguments: so I added in her behaviour as well since she neglected to put her own behaviour as questioned by more than just one user). I also think that as a so-called-senior editor who is making the request: it's already skewed towards that editor due to "being well known"/having a set of editor buddies and when she's freely admitted she didn't read the talk page it's a bit premature. I'd really think that someone with animal liberation views (a fairly radical standpoint) would just realise they're maybe clouding their view of an article and assume a bit more good faith of opposing arguments than to use mediation as a tool to censor/push a POV and somehow validate abrasive/dismissive/disruptive editing. NathanLee14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only one who makes personal attacks here, Cerejota. When the others insult me, they're not really attacking me, just telling the truth. I'm also the only one who has a POV, and my filing an RfM wasn't an attempt to use dispute resolution; it was just more manipulation. SlimVirgin(talk)18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith does not mean blindly accept that every action was good faith when multiple attempts seem to indicate the contrary (otherwise no one would ever be banned from wikipedia would they?). A belief in animal liberation might well be assumed to bias a viewpoint on this topic. I was asked to hold off discussing and did so as a favour to SV ...
I held off for a while, but as you just attacked me and then started ignoring my position it was pretty obvious that all I was doing was a favour to a disruptive editor who just wanted one less opposing voice. NathanLee19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... but what immediately followed: personal attacks on me, attempts belittle/discard my contribution (which wasn't even read by own admission). Originally I asked SV "as a sign of good faith" to hold off the massive changes and discuss: she didn't and here we are today deadlocked over a strange interpretation of equality. Revert is recommended in policies as a last resort, yet here it was used in place of discussion. That's not showing good faith at all. NathanLee19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At some point you'll maybe LEARN from the past, consult others, don't use the revert and maybe you'll not be selectively clearing your talk page every 2 seconds to remove the negative comments from other editors you've annoyed by only having a revert button as your sole tool. NathanLee19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't that a useful and helpful comment for dealing with the issue on this page! Please Nathan, if you are going to make comments such as this, take a look at SV's edit history and see how many ranting, rambling trolls post things on her talk page because she has 'annoyed them'?-Localzuk(talk)20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you assume everyone that disagrees with SV is a troll: that's a problem. So many issues over a long period of time with such a large number of people? From a link from a wp article: people that annoy that many people consistently and don't alter their style.. well.. Let's just say that a different approach might win more friends, avoid more conflict and result in less 3RR warnings and a few more constructive additions on the whole.. Pick any day and in 20 seconds you'll find issues with multiple people [84], [85], [86], [87]. Now you can take this as a personal attack (quite likely) or as a helpful suggestion (as I've done in the past) to adopt a less aggressive approach. That would be constructive: yes? NathanLee21:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Structure
Ok, if you merge all the contentious topics together, you would get a structure that vaguely looks like this:
Not much different from SV's suggestion which looks like this:
Intensive farming
History
Industrialization
Crops
Etc.
Animals
Terminology
Etc.
If the article is too long, you would then split Industrial agriculture into another article, leaving behind a summary that is reflective of the new article as a whole so as not to violate NPOV/content forking rules. You would then want to split the new article sections on Animals, Aquaculture, and Crops again if the article is still too long.
We could make reasonable guesses as to how the split will occur and work accordingly, or we could waste a lot of time and effort to merge the current articles into one and then split it. Or we could split it into two articles. --Dodo bird15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Including Aquaculture into some massive overarching article brings with it a new set of problems. For those of you who enjoyed finding and debating subtle distinctions between terms discussed above, but are bored of the current debate, I propose the discussion move on to the relationships between
If you read my comment more carefully, you would realize that I don't favor one giant ass article but a number of articles split from that general structure. The rest of your comment is irrelevant.--Dodo bird17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the sort of divided hierachial structure: but that's what we've got currently and the articles ARE too big to merge 'em into one for no reason (e.g. the current intensive farming article): the trouble is that SV/crum/localzuk will not let it stand as it is: because they insist intensive farming IS factory farming (despire all evidence of intensive farming being a standalone topic).. That's why they don't want the article divided up, and the structure of the single big article will still have to be written as "intensive farming" same as "factory farming" same as "industrial agriculture" which, no matter how many times we show: they still regard as all being the same. 1, 2, 10 articles the sticking point is still the insistence of the interchangeability of terms when it's obvious (to a reasonable person) that factory farming does not refer to intensive crop production. NathanLee18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on whether the terms factory farm and intensive agriculture equivalent
As a parallel and as this is the core issue to whether we need any merging of intensive farming
A - It appears "Factory farming" is an exactly synonymous term for intensive farming (e.g. intensive crop farming, intensive animal farming). So any type of intensive farming is factory farming as well.
Or
B - Factory farming is a TYPE OF (or subset of) intensive farming practices (usually linked to confined animal productions)? (e.g. not all types of intensive farming are "factory farms")
A I'd go for A - as the terms are used synonymously - as has been said and shown before. Please can you provide a non-dictdef/encdef to back up your claim?-Localzuk(talk)20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is an allowable secondary source.. And common sense says that it should be used as part of the definition for a term. Along with the multiple dictionary definitions. What policy do you discard it for? An arb committee finding was never made on that as I read SV's comment..[88] got plenty, or this one a good oneNathanLee21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B. Obviously. Please can you provide a non-WP:SYN source to back up your claim? Nathan has already shown why it can't be A. Jav4320:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B. But Slrubenstein is right that part of the problem here is that no one is doing real in depth research and further that the proper way to present the data is to give all important points of view and labeled as whose point of view rather than simply presenting one view as the truth. I'm beginning to think the underlying problem is simply a lack of content. Whole books are filled with encyclopedic data on intensive farming. WAS 4.25020:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS, you have the nail hit right on the head there. I pointed out this same thing quite a long time ago in this whole debacle - we should be representing both sides in the article and not just one.-Localzuk(talk)21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if both sides are verifiable. A selective reading to synthesise a definition isn't verifiable. Also: One side wants the articles merged, the other wants them separate (which can accommodate more than just the one view then). If you move past needing 'em merged and forcing terms to be equivalent at the exclusion of the evidence they are separate: you can have mention of whatever you like.. But enforcing the terminology to all be lumped means only one side can exist.. NathanLee21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B. People who think is should be A should read Miguel Altieri, Wendell Berry, Norman Borlaug, Sir Albert Howard, J.I. Rodale, etc... for some perspective. -- Agrofe (thanks Jav) --Agrofe21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B Factory farming may sometimes be used synonymously with intensive farming, but it seems clear that it is more commonly and more precisely used to refer to a particular way of raising animals. FNMF00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it needs to be resolved.. The reason for the merge is to force these terms to be equivalent.. If we can "get consensus" on this, then there's really no more reason to edit war and we sort out the core issue. I'm not too fussed on how many articles (although I prefer more rather than less for more directed, concise articles) but I don't want a synthesised definition that's not backed up properly infecting the use of the term. It's blurring of the meanings. NathanLee10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a general consensus. Six people have come to the same conclusion, and only one disagreed, citing insufficient references. Those references have since been provided and have not been disputed. Nearly all parties in this thread have posted on it since this question began. Therefore, it seems that we have concluded that what is commonly known as "factory farming" is a TYPE OF (or subset of) intensive farming practices: specifically, large-scale confined animal operations. Let's move on. Jav4316:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random defs of Factory Farming from decent sources
So... so far, we have good, solid defs of factory farming from dictionaries and encyclopedias. Other than that, we only have POV. I'm going to now provide some peer-reviewed articles that define factory farming. (One interesting thing to note is that VERY few peer-reviewed journals use the term factory farming, presumably because it is a pejorative term. A question we may wish to ask is why, if factory farming is a pejorative term, we would use that term in this encyclopedia to refer to a class. Look at the niggers article for a preferred means of dealing with pejoratives.)
If you look at journal articles, you will see that factory farming is universally equated with CAFOs. That, however, does not serve as a definition. I have found the following definitions:
"Factory farms" refers to those plants where large numbers of animals, who live a miserable and even terrified existence, are raised in confined spaces for purposes of minimizing the costs of meat production.<ref="George Schedier, Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 2005), P. 499">
Focuses on environmental and consumer impacts of confined animal feeding operations, also known as factory farms, in the United States (U.S.).
Because factory meat producers must break the law in order to survive, the industry's business plan relies on the assumption that pork factories will be able to evade prosecution by improperly influencing government officials.
<ref="T H E E C O L O G I S T D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 4, P. 52"> (I guess factory farming is illegal after all.)
Rather than being controlled by individuals who generally live on the premises, livestock factories are controlled by corporate entities which often hire outside workforces or use family farmers as "franchises" or contractors to produce their pigs and chickens. On the giant factory farms, the corporate entity owns the farm animals; the contractors raise the animals and provide the buildings. The corporation pays the contractors on a per-head basis.
The poultry industry pioneered the factory farm approach more than 25 years ago. In the early 1980s, factory hog operations emerged in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest. Now they are spreading like a prairie fire across the U.S. heartland. In the last 15 years, the number of hog farms has dropped from 600,000 to 157,000 while the number of hogs raised in the United States has remained constant.
Definition: A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farm or large farming operation is defined by federal and state statute as a facility that contains 1,000 animal units. The calculation of animal units varies by type of animal. For dairy cattle, a facility that contains 700 milking and dry cows is considered a CAFO.
Why? You need to study the definition of "or"? "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" about 102,000 google hits, "Factory farm" about 223,000, notability means we redirect to Factory Farm, not the other way around - not to mention CAFO is something a bureaucrat could have cooked. Enough for a redirect, which is what "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" has been since May 15.--Cerejota06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least according to the above source, CAFO is defined by federal and state statute, so no this is not OR. Also, this is the third time I have heard you mention using Google hits to make editorial decisions. Remember this is not Googlepedia. Maybe if the farmers of the world had the means to fund and operate dozens of attack sites Google would tell a different story. Haber11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! You've made me laugh so hard Haber. Do you think the people who operate protest sites are all rich then? I can point you to hundreds of rich farmers, compared with not a single rich protester...-Localzuk(talk)11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ingrid newkirk? Activists tend to be a bit more internet savvy as compared to ol' farmer joe.. (complete and utter assumption there) Anyhow boys and girls back to references.. I've dug up a few that would probably good but require payment to get into 'em *sigh*. Bloody research journal wanting to make money.. How dare they!? :( Anyone else found any good ones? NathanLee12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so this isn't left hanging, well done - you have named 2 famous people. I mean your run of the mill people, like your run of the mill farmers. But as you say, back on track.-Localzuk(talk)12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a farming community and living in a farming community (not the same one) I can say that most farmer owners are well off (that doesn't include those who are simply hired to manage said farms). To put it simply, I have not met a farmer who earns less than £40k profit per year from their business.-Localzuk(talk)17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then your area must have some massive subsidies above and beyond what the US offers or a completely different economic climate. Average farmers here don't earn $80,000 a year. Jav4318:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree from the point of farming in Australia: droughts etc hit farmers pretty badly (suicide rates are fairly high as a result [91]).. I don't think on the whole it's regarded as a super lucrative or reliable source of income.. NathanLee18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not proven - that doesn't show what it means by 'farmers and ranchers'. Does it include farm hands and farm workers? If so, then the amount is being skewed by them.-Localzuk(talk)17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes proven. Maybe in the UK people use different terms, but here in the US, a farmer is not a farmhand - the two are different. Jav4319:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
What do you guys think of (and please read and add to; redundancy can be eliminated when we find consensus for where stuff goes):
I believe industrial agriculture is an important phenomenon which merits an entry. It's fine to have an entry on animals and an entry on crops, if that will resolve a dispute which is impeding progress in these areas, but not at the expense of an entry on industrial agriculture itself. FNMF03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim asks "What would it discuss if not the industrialized production of animals and crops?" Earlier FNMF said "It's not a question of "fitting everything in." It's a question of having entries that accurately reflect the phenomena they are describing. And I strongly believe there should be an overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. To simply have an article about one aspect of it, and an article about another aspect of it, without any article indicating what these things are aspects of is a bad solution made for the wrong reasons. FNMF 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" I think the globalization and genetic patents aspects are two examples that belong in Industrial agriculture and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture with a historical/structural perspective in the first and challenges/issues in the second. WAS 4.25009:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for that too, concentrated animal feeding operations cos we've got lots of material, the crop stuff can live in Industrial Agriculture (or intensive farming if it's more suitable there). Intensive farming really just needs to be the partner to extensive farming.. (earlier edit: add NathanLee01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
intensive farming
i don't want to get involved into this whole argument, but there is at least one specific meaning to intensive agriculture that is not in factory farming or industrial agriculture (i tried to move this article from factory farming to industrial agriculture)
Intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system characterized by the high inputs of capital or labour relative to land area as opposed to extensive farming. extensive farming does not necessarily mean small farms without machines. there are huge farms in australia for instance with thousands of hectars and tens of thousands of animals, which could be perceived as 'factory farms'. Intensive just means the soil is so good, so you can get high returns from high inputs. the article on extensive farming could be improved to better reflect that and this article is better off being called either factory farming or industrial agriculture.trueblood17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Trueblood raises an important issue. There is a sense in which it is legitimate to call industrial agriculture a subset (to use the terminology popular on this talk page) of intensive farming. That sense is if we think of intensive farming as a particular method of doing farming, and industrial agriculture as a way of harnessing that method for particular ends (that is, industrial ends). Putting it very crudely, this is thinking of intensive farming as a particular technique, and industrial agriculture as the way in which this technique is then deployed within or according to a certain economic/political system. But there is another sense, perhaps even stronger, according to which the greater phenomenon is the industrialisation of agriculture, and according to which both intensive and extensive farming are aspects of this greater process. What does the fact that this relationship can be understood in these two ways show? In my opinion it shows up a problem with the "nesting" articles idea: it is forcing the definitions a little to conceive things as factory farming inside industrial agriculture inside intensive agriculture. Rather, these are complex and inter-related concepts, the relations between which are not quite as obvious as people are striving to make out. Perhaps this is one reason for the interminable problem apparent on this talk page (clearly it is not the only reason). But if this is the case, the only solution is to recognise that each of these concepts (industrial agriculture, intensive farming, factory farming) is most likely deserving of an entry in its own right, and not simply as an entry that falls within the greater umbrella of whatever is nominated as the big daddy of entries on this topic. FNMF19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; and I more and more think that the solution is to do actual research and add that research with sources to the articles and let the aticles evolve according to the sourced content in the articles rather than to vote on our preconcieved ideas about farming when none of us is an expert in farming. WAS 4.25000:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anything's been resolved. I still think mediation is the best way forward, because it would give us an entirely independent party to help us reach a decision. SlimVirgin(talk)00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to have been reached on your rationale for the merging and reverting SV (e.g. the equivalency of terms).. See above for the choice of A or B. We're looking into more thorough research for fleshing things out if you want to help, but until we get some decent sources other than a disputable reading it's best you drop that line of argument.. If there's other reasons to merge the articles (research articles etc), then by all means. But as the terms seem to be regarded as distinct terms.. How about we see how the articles develop without forcing that definition in there.. NathanLee01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the dispute is about. You can't simply declare it's resolved, because not everyone (or even nearly everyone) agrees with you. SlimVirgin(talk)01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The entire dispute resolves around that problem and you simply saying 'we think it isn't supported' isn't going to work, as we think it is...-Localzuk(talk)01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your "it" is, Localzuk, but the meaning of the colloquial term factory farming is obvious and no matter how many times you say you have, you have not provided a source that supports your definition. This isn't even at issue: you simply have not provided a source, so please stop pretending you did. Read the sources that were actually provided, instead, by Nathanlee and myself, and ignore your petty biases and prejudices when doing so, so that you actually learn some fact about this subject for the first time in your life. Jav4302:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you start trying to dictate - please stop that, it is annoying. We have now got many thousands of words of discussion about this. We have presented the case where using the term 'Factory Farming' is the correct usage - namely because it is the most common term. We have also shown equivalence between it and the other term but you still refuse to accept it. As I have said before, repeating your argument is not going to make it any more 'true' to us.-Localzuk(talk)08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok: it's down to 3 people still clinging to an obscure "definition". Yes you 3 disagree: fine. Had SV sought discussion on her changes back at the start: this wouldn't have been so drawn out. Do you really need the consensus definition posted up? What you're now doing is called "disruptive" editing (against consensus: eccentric view etc).
Consensus has been reached on your idea: you're mistaken or there's not enough proof to support it currently to convince enough interested parties. Move on. You're forcing the page to stay blocked (on the revert-request block version that was a questionable tactic) because you are unable to see that your reading of a definition is obscure and not what the majority seem to think. You 3 are dictating that your opinion overrides the majority on here. That needs to stop guys, whether that's dictating or not: there's been infinite patience shown and all you've done is keep the page at a standstill while you cling to selective reading of two articles. There are improvements to be made and you're never going to budge on this, so it's down to consensus which was against you. Not every view belongs in an article, and if it's a not very common one: then that's one that doesn't belong. The naming of the page is a separate matter, but on the equivalent definition one: case closed I'd hope.. NathanLee11:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Last count I had 4 people supporting our side and 4 or 5 supporting yours. That is not a 'majority' let alone a consensus. Stop making out like there is one, as there isn't.-Localzuk(talk)11:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indent) Last count we had 6 to 1 for your definition. From the policy on consensus "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus;". I (and I assume the 6 others.. but I can't speak for them) would regard your "definition" based on a questionable reading of an article (see "non sequitur" for why) as an insignificant factoid.. Especially since the 3 of you have just that same rather strange reading of the CNN article as your only basis, nothing else to back it up except requests that we discard encyclopaedic entries, other references and have to find a specific phrase to discount your selective reading. The rest of us have various reasons: encyclopaedia/dictionary, crop exclusion, other sources, non nuetrality of the term, various logical argument. You 3 just have the same one article you keep relying on and if only we'd get a glowing reference from an editor SV trusts[93], maybe we'd not be copping the lack of good faith, unwillingness to work and "acerbic onslaught" that we've had to endure on here. NathanLee12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who would the six and who is the 1? Last count, I had counted myself, SV, Crum375 and Cerejota for supporting 'Factory farm', and you, haber, WAS, FNMF, Coroebus and Jav as not. I make that 4 to 6... So that means you just about have a majority, but not a consensus.-Localzuk(talk)12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee, as best as I can tell, both sides feel frustrated over the incomprehensible behavior of the other side. Both sides feel they are obviously right and can't imagine how the other side could possibly be behaving in good faith. Humans are like that. We see things from our own point of view. The fact that no one here is an expert in the subject matter and precious little actual reseach is being done is not helping. WAS 4.25013:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No definitely not. That's a technical term not used by any mainstream sources. We should stop making new proposals and instead act on the one that has the most support so far, whichever it is; or else agree to mediation. SlimVirgin(talk)00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye It's a more descriptive, non loaded term. So long as we make mention of the use of the term to mean the same thing, that should be all good. We've got several sources that mention the term. NathanLee01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" on Google = 101,000 hits
Google has nothing to do with anything. The most accurate and NPOV term should be used: here, that is CAFO. Jav4302:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - As SV says, this is a technical term and also one with very few hits. Before it being brought up here, I had never heard this term used.-Localzuk(talk)01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - I think terminologies on Wikipedia should follow their popular names, not the esoteric technical ones (which can always be redirected), because we write for the man/woman on the street, and they are most likely to search the more common terms. Crum37502:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Factory farming can redirect to CAFO, although it would be better to treat "factory farming" as wikipedia treats other pejorative terms, like nigger. Jav4302:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The more popular term is most likely to be heard or read by our readers, and that's what they'll look up most. That CNN, BBC, Wash Post, Reuters, with their fully-staffed PC departments use Factory Farming means it's not a pejorative. Crum37502:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye - fact is fact... no need to bow to colloquial ideas. Encyclopedias should represent fact. Those who haven't heard of CAFOs before should benefit by reading this encyclopedic article. There is absolutely no way we should use "factory farming", which is a pejorative term. Jav4302:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love the twists and turns on this page; they're a real testament to the flexibility of the human brain. If the "other side" had suggested using a term no one had ever heard of, we'd have had another 55,000 words of shock and awe. But if someone you agree with suggests it, it's hey! let's all learn something new! :-D SlimVirgin(talk)02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye I can't understand the argument that it's bad to look up "factory farming" and be redirected to CAFO. Even if it is a "technical term," I can't see how it will hurt them to learn the term via the redirect. It seems to me that when people oppose "technical term" to "popular term" this is a bit disingenuous: what the insistence on the so-called "popular term" really reflects is the desire of some editors to have a non-neutral term as the article title. If so, these editors should recognise that this desire is obstructing progress on these articles, and isn't helpful (not even to the cause they are championing). FNMF03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. We have all agreed to industrial farming, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, factory farming, intensive farming (animals), and intensive farming (crops). These are all terms used by mainstream sources. SlimVirgin(talk)06:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. It doesn't convince me these arguments aren't disingenuous. I just don't believe that what is motivating editors such as yourself is your strong commitment to naming conventions policy. I find it incredible that editors clearly prefer a ridiculous deadlock to giving way on a minor question such as this. There is so little to be gained from this kind of stalling. FNMF04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a propaganda term. It is now used by mainstream sources. Perhaps it used to be a propaganda term, but now it isn't, and we've supplied sources to demonstrate this e.g. BBC, CNN, and Washington Post, hardly bastions of animal rights activism. SlimVirgin(talk)14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as we don't do votes on this site, we do discussions, I would say it is perfectly normal to try and disprove blatantly false statements and positions. Saying things like 'Factory farmin is a propaganda term' when there is huge amounts of evidence to the contrary in the form of news media deserves a response.-Localzuk(talk)17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin has implored us numerous times to keep the discussion brief, yet seems incapable of taking her own advice. You too have added thousands of words of personal opinion recently. I inserted a one line "Aye" statement and you jumped in with your nerdy "No votes on Wikipedia!" comment. Now how does that help? Haber17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intension of heating this discussion, I am just a passer by. I would have never come up with the term CAFO to look up something on agriculture or farming, I made a logical assumption: This is a farm, a lot of machines are used, so much that it looks like a factory or industry. I mean you can't deny that it is an industry, millions of animals are "produced" for consumption. Also it reads in the article Farms producing animals this way are also known as confined[8] or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and intensive livestock operations (ILOs). So this would mean CAFO and ILO together are Factory Farms. Again don't shoot me since this seems to be a very heated discussion and I don't want to troll or feed them. yours humbely Teardrop onthefire15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on naming at wikipedia
The scientific and technical articles that are based on peer reviewed sources often have the scientifically or technically correct name as the common name is ambiguous and/or means something different altho the average person would not know that until they read the article. Like avian flu versus H5N1. Even tho people will use one to mean the other, they don't mean the same thing. Or Flu vs. Influenza. I get the impression that slim belives newspapers are at least on an equal footing with peer reviewed sources and sometimes I think her beliefs concerning secondary sources versus primary sources mean that she thinks wikipedia should prefer newspapers overs peer reviewed sources. I believe the scientific and technical editors at wikipedia disagree with this. Farming in today's world is a highly technical information-management-intensive economic activity. Newspapers are a joke of a source for that. WAS 4.25011:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom doesn't rule on content - this is a somewhat over-verbose but otherwise fairly civil content dispute. Crum37504:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need to go through mediation first, and then there would have to be issues other than content before the ArbCom would look at it. But other steps in dispute resolution must be tried first in any event. Why not sign up for mediation, WAS, if you want outside help? SlimVirgin(talk)06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. If we want mediation, all parties have to agree. I can't see why anyone wouldn't agree in this case, because we clearly need it. SlimVirgin(talk)14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that anyone who wants to can come to this page and talk. You are refering to the anti-wiki rules currently insisted on by a specific group here at the English language Wikipedia that you submitted a mediation form to. WAS 4.25015:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how we do formal mediation on Wikipedia; and formal mediation is the best way to proceed because the mediators go through some training, and the process is respected by the ArbCom. That is, I am proposing that we initiate formal dispute resolution, which you agree with, because you suggested ArbCom. The only difference between us is that I want to start at Step 1, and you want to start at Step 2. SlimVirgin(talk)15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(<--)All of them. I don't know anything about this whole wiki-formal-mediation thing and I am wary of being asked to agree to something I know nothing about. Would you sign something before you read it? If agreeing is nothing then why do I have to do it? If agreeing is something then what could it be since they claim it is not binding. WAS 4.25016:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading somewhere where arbcom members were disparaging the mediation process and the mediators with an example showing how bad it was and one remarked they found it useless. I can't find it and it is possible I'm misremembering and were talking about advocates or some such thing. WAS 4.25017:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been individual criticism of individual cases, and sometimes the MedCom has been slow to respond because it's volunteer work the same as anywhere else on WP, but in general they are very good, and the ArbCom does trust them. The outcome is not binding in the sense that the mediator can start banning people who ignore it. But if, for example, a mediated agreement led to us installing version X, and then three days later, one of us started reverting to version Y, that person could then be taken to the ArbCom over that behavior (not over the content), and the ArbCom would almost certainly respect the mediated agreement and would take action against the reverter. So the results are not formally binding, but are de facto highly respected. SlimVirgin(talk)17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've reached consensus on one of the matters: that the terms are equivalent/synonymous. That was the big sticking point. That was the revert war reason to start: if that's resolved then anything else is a separate matter isn't it? If the 3 editors are happy to start a revert war on that again: then arbcom can be used for determining the disruptive editing claim for going against consensus. NathanLee11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralYes - There is a strong user conduct component to this case that makes it highly unlikely that mediation will work. That said, I don't expect good things to come out of ArbCom either. Haber 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Changed vote. Haber12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation 2
Can people please agree to formal mediation? This back and forth is a waste of time, getting us nowhere. I can't understand why someone would agree to ArbCom but not to mediation, as the latter is the stage that needs to be gone through before the former can be considered.
Informal mediation is fine if you can't find a formal mediator. But I think we would be able to. I can't see why you'd prefer informal to formal, if both are available. SlimVirgin(talk)
So you're paying attention to dispute resolution NOW? How about the bit about "discuss" or "revert only as a last resort" type recommendations? I can't see why you lot are STILL clinging to your non-sequitur "definition" after all this time. It's really just seeming ridiculous. You've tried to get dictionary and encyclopaedia's disallowed to try and support your skewed view.. Demand we find a quote that says the opposite of your factoid.. And here we still are trying to get you to just drop your absurd definition.. Senior editors or not: you're just being stubborn. You ask for a reference that says exactly one thing, when it's supplied you try to discredit it.. HOW ABOUT YOU JUST ACCEPT YOU ARE WRONG. How many more thousand words of discussion do you need before you'll assume good faith and accept that someone else might have a reasonable input to provide beyond yours. SV: you'd admitted elsewhere that you don't assume good faith and attack a user until you get someone you trust to recommend the user: Please do us the same courtesy. And then we don't have to try and work around your bizarre definition or cater to your inability to understand normal rules of English. NathanLee00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you are the ones who are stalling. We have agreed to one article. We have agreed to two articles. We have agreed to seven titles. We have filed an RfM, which might have been underway by now had others not blocked it.
I still believe they are used synonymously and still stand by the earlier evidence that was presented. I think this has been made pretty clear many times now.-Localzuk(talk)01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, what you have agreed to is what you have proposed and not what the other side has agreed to proposing. Both sides have agreed to their own proposals. I see no compromise with the other side's agreed on proposals. I see no evidence of your side doing real research or creating sourced intensive farming content. Why can't you agree to not do original research? Why can't you agree to discuss the evidence? Why can't you agree that we should present all sides of the issue instead of phrasing the definition of "factory farnibg" as if we are presenting truth rather than merely repeating others' claims? WAS 4.25001:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS, we are going around in circles, and we'll never get anywhere unless we find some common ground. Accusing each other of engaging in OR, or 'not doing real research', will get us nowhere. We obviously have clear disagreements here, about the number of articles needed, their titles, their contents, the definition and equivalence of the terms, etc. It seems clear to me that there is only one way to proceed, and that is via mediation. ArbCom won't take the case because we are all too civil, and I highly recommend formal mediation because we'd be more likely to get tangible results. Crum37501:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. WAS, I'm very surprised by your behavior here, I must admit. This is exactly the kind of situation that mediation is designed for. Let's move forward with it and stop wasting time. SlimVirgin(talk)02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Slim, I'm very surprised by your behavior here, I must admit. This is exactly the kind of situation that ARBCOM is designed for. Let's move forward with it and stop wasting time. Why can't you agree to not do original research? Why can't you agree to discuss the evidence? Why can't you agree that we should present all sides of the issue instead of phrasing the definition of "factory farnibg" as if we are presenting truth rather than merely repeating others' claims? WAS 4.25005:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the terms by reliable sources
Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory," and "modern" in the SAME way
BBC
BBC using "intensive farming" and "factory farming" to mean the same:
Factory farming in Britain began with the Agriculture Act of 1947 which granted subsidies to farmers to encourage greater output by introducing new technology, specialisation and improved breeding and management of animals ... In the 1990s outbreaks of BSE and foot-and-mouth - as well as swine fever and TB in cattle - devastated the agriculture industry and British tourism and forced a change in attitude to intensive farming. The emphasis was now on welfare of animals, the land and the consumer as much as on welfare of farmers.[94]
BBC again
"Intensive farming," "intensive agriculture,"
industrial agriculture," "factory farming," and the "modern way of agriculture" used to mean the same.
The BBC quotes Caroline Lucas, MEP, and Oliver Wolston, a farmer, using "intensive agriculture," "industrial agriculture," and "factory farming" to refer to the same phenomenon when discussing the practises that led to BSE, and the BBC headline is "Head to head: Intensive farming" and in the same intro it refers to "intensive farming" and the "modern way of agriculture."
Here, Green MEP Caroline Lucas takes issue with the intensive farming methods of recent decades, while farmer Oliver Wolston defends the modern way of agriculture.
The German Government has appointed an Agriculture Minister from the Green Party. She intends to end factory farming in her country. This must be the way forward and we should end industrial agriculture in this country as well.
— Caroline Lucas, quoted by the BBC in the same article. [96]
The green movement ... claims that the disease is a direct result of intensive agriculture.
— Oliver Wolston, farmer, quoted by the BBC in the same article. [97]
Globalinfo.org citing industry sources
Sources discuss "factory farming," "industrial agriculture," "intensive farming," "Industrial-scale farms," and CAFOs in the same terms:
Countries will turn increasingly to intensive forms of production because they offer economies of scale ... It's a myth that factory farming is efficient ...
Factory farms, or concentrated animal-feeding operations, account for more than 74 percent of the world's poultry and 68 percent of the eggs, said Danielle Nierenberg, a research association at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington ... About half of all pork and 43 percent of all beef in the world comes from these industrial-scale farms.
Around the world, small-scale farms are in decline as the U.S. and European model of industrial agriculture is being exported, said Mark Rosegrant, a director at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington ... Factory farming in the developing world has expanded enormously in the past 15 years ...
CNN/Reuters
From the U.S./UK: CNN/Reuters using "intensive agriculture," "factory farming," and "industrially farmed" to refer to the same phenomenon:
United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease ...We would urge that the EU should both promote, and provide substantial funding for ... a scaling down of industrially farmed beef throughout Europe ... 'The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming ...' ... 'The U.K. BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture — a 'recipe for disaster.'"[98]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
From Canada: CBC using "factory farming" and "intensive farming" to refer to the same phenomenon:
Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination ... The commissioner's report, entitled Protection of Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming, questions the safety of groundwater ... ...[99]
Committee for Environmental Cooperation
Committee for Environmental Cooperation using "intensive livestock operations" to mean "industrial-scale farms":
Comparative standards for intensive livestock operations in Canada, Mexico, and the United States ... Canada has recently attracted ... investment in intensive livestock operations ... [ILOs]. And ILOs have engendered controversy ... News reports have asserted that the federal governments own investigations show [that] industrial-scale farms ..." (title page and p. 19)[100] (pdf)
Chemistry and Industry
Chemistry and Industry uses "intensive farming" and "modern farming" to mean the same:
"Factory farming" and "intensive farming" used to mean the same (CAFO also used to mean factory farm):
Factory farms mainly responsible.(Avian Flu) ... Higher demand for meat has helped drive livestock production away from rural, mixed-farming systems--where farmers raise a few different species on a grass diet--toward intensive urban production of pigs and chickens ... Because of unregulated zoning and subsidies that encourage livestock production, chicken and pig "confined animal feedlot operations" (CAFOs), or factory farms, are moving closer to major urban areas ... Intensive animal farming is deleterious to human health and economies as well as causing a great deal of ecological destruction.[101]
British government's BSE inquiry
Statement from Dr. Alan Long, Vegetarian Economy and Green Agriculture using "intensive farming" and "factory farming" to refer to the same thing. See paragraphs 6.4.2.3.1; 7.6, and 19.6. [102] (pdf).
The Meatrix [shows] ... modern farming techniques. Whilst it may be seen as 'anti' factory or intensive farming, it could be used as an interesting introduction to the subject.
Mark Berstein
"Applying PGS to these data will demonstrate that we are morally obligated to end all our factory (intensive) farming." Mark H. Bernstein, Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship With Animals, University of Illinois Press, 2004, p. 92, ISBN 0252071980
Brooman and Debbie Legge
"A major reason that animals are still reared in huge numbers in intensive farming systems is that consumer demand for meat and other animal products at the cheapest possible price remains strong. Many surveys have found that the public find factory farming practices abhorrent and would like to see them stopped. Yet, at the same time, evidence shows that roughly the same number would vote in favour of retaining an ability to buy inexpensive animal products." Simon Brooman and Debbie Legge, Law Relating To Animals, Cavendish Publishing, p. 173, ISBN 1843141299
Karl Kunkel
"Formed in 1981, the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) claims that modern, rational, intensive farming techniques, referred to as "factory farming", are cruel to animals raised for human consumption." Karl R. Kunkel, "Factory Farming as a Social Problem", in Donileen R. Loseke & Joel Best, Social Problems: constructionist readings, Aldine Transaction, 2003, p. 101, ISBN 0202307034
Robert Garner
"It is in the United States, the birthplace of 'factory farming', that most remains to be done. No federal laws exist to regulate intensive farming and state anti-cruelty laws often exempt farm animals. It is clear, though, that there is much opposition to 'factory farming', or certain aspects of it, and this opposition is not restricted to radical animal rights activists." Robert Garner, Animals, Politics and Morality: Second Edition, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 118, ISBN 0719066212
The agriculture correspondent of the Guardian, 1964
"Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay. The tide will not be held back, either by the humanitarian outcry of well meaning but sometimes misguided animal lovers, by the threat implicit to traditional farming methods, or by the sentimental approach to a rural way of life. In a year which has been as uneventful on the husbandry side as it has been significant in economic and political developments touching the future of food procurement, the more far-seeing would name the growth of intensive farming as the major development." [104]
The Guardian 2003/4
"Intensive salmon farming has resulted in the spread of disease and parasites ... Intensive farming of prawns is dependent on the use of antibiotics and chemicals to kill parasites ... Grass-fed animals live in much better conditions than their cousins on intensive pig and poultry farms ... The intensive factory farming of chicken is associated with pollution ... The biggest environmental problem with intensively reared and fed pigs is faeces ... Intensive rearing is dependent on the routine use of antibiotics ... The British pig industry is currently in steep decline in the face of competition from intensive farming in other European countries. ... [105]
"Why factory farms and mass trade make for a world where disease travels far and fast ... Although Britain has so far escaped avian flu, groups campaigning against intensive factory farming say there is an inevitability about each new panic. [106]
The Observer
"Nor is a return to 'primitive' farming practices the only alternative to factory farming and highly intensive agriculture ... What price, for instance, should society put on the destruction of so much of our rural heritage, the loss of our water meadows and ancient hedges, the disappearance of so many songbirds? It may be impossible to calculate that sort of thing in hard cash, but much else can be quantified. There are the taxes we pay to finance farming subsidies. There is the cost of cleaning chemical pollution from our drinking water. There are the consequences for the National Health Service of factory farmers abusing antibiotics ... There is the terrible impact and vast cost of a tragedy such as BSE. And now, as I write, we are in the midst of another epidemic, foot and mouth disease. It would not be fair to say it is the direct result of intensive agriculture. But modern practices of food production and supply have enabled it to spread at a terrifying speed across the entire country. [107]
Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory, and "modern" in DIFFERENT ways
Please add examples here of sources who are using the terms to refer to different phenomena:
Encyclopaedia britannica
Has separate articles on "factory farming" and "intensive agriculture". Factory farming:
System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible. The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.
System of cultivation using large amounts of labour and capital relative to land area. Large amounts of labour and capital are necessary for the application of fertilizer, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides to growing crops, and capital is particularly important to the acquisition and maintenance of high-efficiency machinery for planting, cultivating, and harvesting, as well as irrigation equipment where required.
Examples of the uses of the individual terms by reliable sources (not comparisons of more than one term)
Use of the term "factory farming"
BBC
In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy."[108]
"Factory farming" used in relation to fruit. [110]
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Factory Farming: The Impact of Animal Feeding Operations on the Environment and Health of Local Communities.[111]
Seattle Times
"Factory farming" used in relation to cattle [112]
The Washington Post
The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming."[113]
Intensive (of agriculture) aiming to achieve the highest possible level of production within a limited area, esp. by using chemical and technological aids: intensive farming. Often contrasted with extensive.
I completely object to the way SV has altered my additions to this section by declaring them to be supportive of the other side of the argument. I requested that the user undo the messing around with my contributions to this section but it has gone unheeded (and was archived off that users talk page with no reply or action). Also: SV's definitiobn of "The same" is way out of normal english rules of "equivalent" or "synonymous". Used in the same article does not mean synonymous. I'd appreciate SV put back my contributions that she either deleted [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], hidden in "added now content" comment or modified [126],[127] and reworded to add to her side via chopping of the quote,[128]. This then followed by an accusation of ME doing the changing of her edits when I changed no content whatsoever of hers [129]. NathanLee14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources with definitions of terms, rather than sources that merely use terms. Our interpretation of term use is OR and extrapolating definitions from dicta is simply irresponsible. I have provided actual definitions for factory farming above; please do the same. Jav4321:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the use and comparison of the terms by reliable sources
Wrong question
As I've tried to explain, this is the wrong question. We cannot show definitions through our interpretations of a person's use of a term: that leads to OR and WP:SYN. Instead, we need to use actual definitions - find where a term is explicitly defined and apply that definition. NathanLee and myself have found definitions for "factory farming" thus far; if you dispute those definitions, please find definitions contrary, rather than providing your own interpretation of various people's dicta. Jav4304:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it is original research to take a quote that is not a definition and to claim from that non-definition a definition. WAS 4.25005:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're both serious, I have to say that neither of you understands the policies. We look to see how reliable sources use terms. Then we use them in the same way. There is no OR in it; no SYN. SlimVirgin(talk)16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is common sense. It is simply reading the pages. Nothing WP:OR about it. Hence we should attempt mediation. What have we got to lose by trying? Nothing. Why are people so against mediation? Arbcom would simply send us to mediation as we haven't done it yet.-Localzuk(talk)12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existing formal mediation process rules are fundamentally broken. Informal mediation is fine. But I'm not buying a pig in a poke. WAS 4.25013:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My own experience is that informal mediation in cases of deeply entrenched disputes between groups of editors produces mountains of words and no results. There is no 'pig in the poke' for either formal or informal mediation - arbitration is the only real binding mechanism, but formal mediation has a more rigid and formalized format, and has a better chance to produce results. I suggest you read up on WP:DR and WP:RFM. Crum37513:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Informal mediation can be farcical. We had someone turn up once as a mediator who had 30 edits to his name, or else (as I suspected) he was actually a sockpuppet of one of the participants. :-) Anyway, the MedCom is currently in good shape; its members are elected, not just self-selecting, they undergo a training of sorts, and they're respected by ArbCom. There's no point in going straight to ArbCom, because what they'll most likely do is recommend an RfM. If you want to avoid a "pig in a poke" then formal mediation is the best way to proceed, because with them we know what we're getting. SlimVirgin(talk)16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT:It's clear from this that factory farming is but one type of intensive farming. It even qualifies the terms as referring to beef production. industrially farmed beef It is not logical to assume that because one thing is a type of the other that the other is also true. This is known as a type of non sequetur known as Affirming the consequent. NathanLee22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: The report is on 'Ground water" and "Intensive farming". In that report there's absolutely no mention of the word "factory". By this logic the term "ground water" is synonymous with factory farming. If you read the actual report (found here) you'll see that it's referring to a subset of intensive farming in that report, mainly that to do with cows and hogs. It also however mentions in the "competition for groundwater" section about crops and irrigation. NathanLee22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Committee for Environmental Cooperation [132] (pdf)
COMMENT:It's referring to two separate attributes of a farm, not saying those things are the same thing. e.g. a car can be fast and also red in colour: that doesn't mean red=fast. That paper very clearly (as in for EVERY) use of the word "intensive" qualifies it with either "intensive livestock", "intensive dairy", "intensive cattle". Surely this supports the notion that intensive means more than just "factory farming". The term used in the article was "industrial scale". That would also suggest that it means that industrial = large. Not industrial = confined animal feeding operations. It's not even the same term that is being asserted to be identical "industrial agriculture" does not appear anywhere in the article. It's a hell of a stretch to be trying to say the terms are used synonymously. NathanLee22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Farcical requirement
Firstly: you either show the terms to be equivalent or to be different, not "have to show the terms in question being used in a different way and it must say that they are not the same" (which is the impression I get from your requirement). That's not how verifiability or validation works. If we can show that the terms exist in their own right and have different uses: then that's one half the argument. You've now widened the scope to mean that "modern farming" by the once again dubious technique. I really can't see how we can proceed with rational debate if a) you're going to chop out anything you disagree with and b) read any article with the two terms mentioned to mean they are then able to be used synonymously. The term synonymously: "you keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means". You simply cannot be saying now that "factory farming" is synonymous with "modern farming" for all cases. There's modern extensive farming and modern organic, small scale farming.. Intensive farming might be a common type of modern farming, but to now be saying that all modern farming is "Factory farming" is beyond ridiculous. NathanLee00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see where a problem exists then. You think that we are simply saying that the terms are always used synonymously. I'm not saying that, so of course there are examples of them not being used synonymously. The issue is that they most of the time, by mainstream media, are used synonymously - something which, it seems, you think is such a marginal issue that it shouldn't appear in any of the pages.-Localzuk(talk)13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Coroebus
Many of these sources compare rather poorly with e.g. these explicit contrasts of 'factory farming' and 'industrial agriculture', for instance, the last one added by Crum ("The term "factory farming" used in relation to grape growing in Sonoma County.") simply says "Measure M had the backing of farmers, ranchers and vintners skeptical of factory farming and laboratory tinkering. But it drew strong opposition from others in agriculture, including the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. The measure would establish a 10-year moratorium in Sonoma on the "propagation, cultivation, raising, growing, sale or distribution of transgenic organisms." The second link better supports the position (""It certainly would not be good for our image to have genetically engineered grapes, if we can at all avoid it," said George Davis, owner of Porter Creek Vineyards in Healdsburg and a supporter of Measure M. "We have an image of pure, wholesome wine that comes from very traditional, wholesome sources, grown by small farmers using traditional methods -- certainly not by factory farming and laboratory tinkering."") but the poor quality of these sources which are suddenly flooding the page, when contrary and explicit quotes were ignored, is not achieving anything. I'm sure there must be a way of resolving this issue where we don't actually need to take a position on whether 'factory farming' is synonymous with 'industrial agriculture' or not, and I think that routes lies down the road of deciding what the articles are about, not what they are called, since this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Coroebus18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the terms factory farming and the others are sometimes used interchangeably. So we cannot flat out say that they are different or that one is a 'subset' of the other. Crum37518:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my suggestion that we might want to decide what the articles are going to be about (irrespective of name) and then attempt to say what terms can be used to refer to them. --Coroebus19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd beg to differ Crum: if they are "sometimes used interchangeably" but not other times: might that not suggest that they are firstly different things (so why the desire to delete articles for a "sometimes interchangeable" use) and secondly if it's "sometimes" surely that means "for some of" or "in some cases" (and therefore would it be reasonable to say "a subset" or factory farming is a type of..). If that article on grapes means it's interchangeable: then so is the term "laboratory tinkering" as it's used in exactly the same way. I agree with Coroebus in that we can mention the terms can be used (we just need to supply the context because without context it isn't fair to say they are synonymous) NathanLee20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are people listening to each other...
... or this has become a contest to see who wins?
Mediation is obviously needed, as it is obvious that familiarity and thousands of words have made arguments circular and almost inside jokes. A fresh, neutral perspective is needed, badly. Why not?--Cerejota15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV/Crum/Localzuk "win" by retaining the status quo, as the locked version of the "factory farming" page supports their POV. That removes their incentive to compromise... which has yielded this stalemate. Jav4301:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning of terms
NathanLee: Your ad hominems do not help this become a better article. I am not going to get to the validity or invalidity of your argument, however, try to not let your obvious contempt for S.V. get in the way of reaching consensus. Remember that consensus is always imperfect from X or Y point of view, and that includes yours. S.V, for example, has been willing to compromise *his* position in order to reach consensus. You should do the same.--Cerejota15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no concession or compromise from SV by the way: the number of articles was a distraction argument and completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. The main push was that the terms are equivalent based on selective reading of a couple of articles. No new links or references have been forthcoming on that side.. NathanLee23:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a lot of concession from myself and the others. We concede on having two articles rather than one. We concede on calling it something other than factory farming. We concede on separating animals and crops into different articles. What concessions have you made? SlimVirgin(talk)23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concede to use your sources as well as ours, to quote the sources exactly, to tell the reader the source of the quote, and to let the reader make up their own mind. What's wrong with that compromise? WAS 4.25023:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being so rude. These are not concessions; these are what we all have to do anyway. I would like you to tell us what compromises you have made; what you have agreed to do that you would prefer not to do. SlimVirgin(talk)04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examples
Nathan, could you please add examples of "reliable sources using the terms "intensive," "industrial, and "factory" to mean different things in relation to "farming" and "agriculture"," as the section header says? If you want to add examples of other uses and other terms, please create a new header. It'll be useful to see all the different kinds of sources, but it won't be useful if we mix everything up again, as is done elsewhere on the page. No point in repeating the confusion. SlimVirgin(talk)23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promise not to complain about the number of words he adds? Because you ask him to add stuff and you complain about him adding stuff. WAS 4.25023:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV: if you're going to try and own this talk page by deleting other's comments and shifting them around: I can't contribute meaningful (all of the stuff you removed was 100% not POV and 100% references) content and I'll be lodging a request for your account to be blocked from editing as it's nothing more than vandalism and an attempt to interfere with the talk page. I cannot imagine how many policies you are violating by doing this. The talk page is NOT yours to dictate what is written and what isn't. Quite frankly your conduct is appalling to be censoring attempts to provide references that answer a request YOU made. Showing that the terms are something different from your limited definition is EXACTLY what that section is about. Please undo your changes and put the page back how it was pre-SV's censoring/mucking around with the page efforts. NathanLee00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following close enough to notice what is being deleted. Could you provide a list of diffs on my talk page please? WAS 4.25004:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's mucking around with the talk page
Slim: you've asked for references to support an argument: you're not only removing the ones you disagree with, you're shifting my comments off to another section AND then butchering the page beyond recognision.
Can you please put back the stuff you chopped out, and un-mash the page (e.g. you're essentially censoring the talk page and editing others comments which is HIGHLY questionable).
You can't ask someone to find JUST references that state the opposite of something. That's just rubbish. If so: find me an article that says that factory farming isn't a type of internal combustion engine used by french explorers in the 1800s.
Please stop changing other people's contributions to this page and the selective reformatting to remove other's contributions or comments. NathanLee00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think SV's editorial habits are untenable to a rational discussion on this topic now.. If your contributions on a talk page cannot be assumed to be left alone and not deemed to be able to be changed and chopped around at will: then how exactly can meaningful contributions be made that SV disagrees with? NathanLee00:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather disturbed by your examples, Nathan. You added examples of sources who use the terms differently, but when I read the articles, they are actually examples of sources using the terms synomymously. I hope it's only that you're not sure what the word "synonymous" means. SlimVirgin(talk)00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal view: you don't have the right to go and chop around my contributions to suit your own argument if you want to add it to your own side by your weird logic: then that's fine, but you can't chop out my arguments in doing so. If this is the final stage of stifling dissenting views: congratulations because I cannot contribute with the knowledge that you believe you can do whatever you like to other people's contributions on the discussion page. Hence I think your ability to edit this page be removed until you respect the right of others to contribute. It's bad enough your "refactoring" to separate out any contribution I make into a separate section: but now you're deleting content because YOU think it's not right. Someone back me up on why this is completely inappropriate..? NathanLee00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nathan, it was you who was changing my edits. I added two sections: one for synonymous comparisons, and one for contrasting comparisons. You then started adding to the second section sources who actually said the opposite. So I have moved the sources to the correct sections. Please read the sources carefully in future. SlimVirgin(talk)01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: no content has been deleted. It was been moved into sections so we can see a list of which sources use the terms to mean the same, and which use them to mean different phenomena. SlimVirgin(talk)01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I have read in other places that you are known for using underhanded talk page tactics including moving comments around and shady archiving. Now that I am seeing it for myself it is causing a good faith problem with your edits. Please desist. Haber03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that you've seen my incredibly underhanded tactic of sitting here for hours to find and post sources, and come up with two new suggestions, I'm not surprised that you find me despicable! SlimVirgin(talk)04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JayG: the trouble is that your buddy slimvirgin here has taken to deciding whether someone's contributions are his/hers to shift around or dismiss as she/he pleases. Surely you can't be supporting that sort of behaviour: but here you are weighing in out of nowhere to defend actions that deserve a block.
SlimVirgin: actually *I* spent the time researching those links and you have now chopped them out of my side of the argument and declared them yours. But as you've said time and time again: you don't bother reading my comments: which explains a lot in this debate and is entirely unacceptable to be just ignoring them and still claiming a right to contribute on this discussion. I'll ask again (as you've archived away the request on your talk page): please undo your mucking around with the page and the removal of my contributions to one side of the argument. NathanLee13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee, phrases like "your buddy slimvirgin" are, again, personal comments; please use the Talk: page to discuss article content, not your personal view on various editors' likes or dislikes. Jayjg (talk)15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg:It was nothing more than a flippant reference: but do you have anything to say on the actions of SV in deciding that because her PERSONAL view was that the articles put up were not arguments for one side, that she should delete, modify and repost as her own arguments the comments of others on this discussion page.. I would have thought that someone skilled in picking OR/NPOV/whatever would see that there's an issue if one editor decides that content from another editor can be moved around from one side of the argument to the other based on her personal interpretation? Or is that personal comment to expect another editor to not censor your input on a discussion topic? NathanLee16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, it's my view that you're spending far too much energy complaining about process rather than focusing on product. "He said, she said" arguments often fill Talk: pages, but nobody really cares about them besides the people who post them in the first place. The remedy is to devote oneself to discussing article content, not other editors. I recommend it. Jayjg (talk)16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you suppose I discuss article content if I cannot safely assume another editor will just delete and skew input to his/her own ends? Surely you can see the issue there, or would you like to instead have another go at me and my actions to defend SV's dodgy tactics? I contributed, SV removed and/or "selectively POV refactored" it to suit her argument.. If that's the "process" then yes: I'll continue to question it. NathanLee18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, refactoring of talk pages to aid in readability and to make them make sense is commonplace. If one editor, yourself, posts comments in the wrong place for a thread which is set up in a certain way then moving them is perfectly normal. Demanding things like blocks and reverts won't get you anywhere and is a side-track from the issue being discussed - people never get blocked for moving comments around on talk pages, or at least I have never seen someone be blocked for it.
Also Nathan, you seem to be trying to polarise the situation, rather than reduce the problem. If the things you posted make sense to both sides and work towards a consensus then that is good - stop thinking about it as 'my argument vs your argument'.
Finally, I cannot blame SlimVirgin for not reading your comments as they seem to always degrade into incivility and claims of misbehaviour by the person you are replying to. Why would someone want to read through accusations constantly?-Localzuk(talk)13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Firstly refactoring does not mean "I disagree or it doesn't suit my argument, so I'm going to delete it and then re-add it with different wording to my argument" which is EXACTLY what happened here. SV finds no problem making accusations or attempting to dismiss contributions of others (and has on a number of times said that she hasn't bothered reading my contributions anyhow). It's not her place to declare my arguments to one side as being wrong: that's just underhanded no matter which way you look at it. NathanLee13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactoring means moving things around so that they fit into the formatting of a page - if that means rewording then so be it. If nothing specific was lost in the move then good. I don't see any deletion of specific content. I suggest you simply move on as arguing about it isn't going to help.
I haven't checked to history to see what quotes SV has moved around, but I would say that even if you disagree that Nathan's examples show what he thinks they show it is unwise and rude to move them, particularly as many of your examples rely on arguably dubious interpretation of usage, and thus could well be interpreted the other way. --Coroebus14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More suggestions
Modern farming
As I'm looking through these sources, I'm seeing a lot of them using the terms intensive, factory, industrial, and modern to mean the same thing, so another suggestion would be Modern farming (animals) and Modern farming (crops), if people don't like "intensive farming." Again, this suggestion is dependent on the separate terms not being forked out to different articles as though they mean different things (unless sources can be found showing they do mean different things). SlimVirgin(talk)01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have no grasp of people using levels of abstraction to describe things. Yes factory farming is a form of intensive agriculture, modern farming, large scale farming, industrial farming but THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THEN INTERCHANGEABLE. Here's an example that you'll probably not read (as you constantly say). Global warming is an environmental issue. Agreed? That doesn't mean the two terms are interchangeable: you can't say that all environmental issues are global warming. But by your rationale: the terms are used "synonymously" and thus ARE interchangeable. E.g. you see an article that mentions that factory farming is intensive farming.. Then you assume that intensive farming = factory farming. I'm really surprised this concept seems to escape you. NathanLee13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because 'Global warming' and 'environmental issues' have not been used synonymously as far as I have read. So your example falls down there.-Localzuk(talk)13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been used "synonymously" (by your definition) in many articles. [133] "Now, with global warming the pre-eminent environmental issue, those conversations have taken on added gravity.", [134] ""The science performed by NASA as well as scientists around the world shows that global warming is no longer an environmental issue. It's a rapidly advancing human disaster,".. Oh wait: that means I should say "global warming", "environmental issue" AND "human disaster" are synonymous. Here's another one that supports that "synonymous" usage.. [135] and [136] from the BBC says "Researchers describe global warming as "the greatest threat facing the world community". So I'll add that to the list of synonymous terms. So "global warming", "environmental issue" , "human disaster" and "greatest threat". By the patented SV/Crum/localzuk synonym generation process: these terms are all synonymous rather than "types of" or subsets. NathanLee18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you one. Peter Singer uses intensive animal agriculture interchangeably with factory farm in an interview he has with Salon[137] (it's free you just have to click and endure a few seconds of advertising). Of course his opinion that intensive ag of animals deserves the pejorative term "factory farming" is just an opinion. Haber03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, stop sniping after very single thing. MOVE ON. SlimVirgin(talk)
I don't know how you take that link I put up to say that it's the same as factory farming SV: I see no mention that ties "intensive farming" meaning "confined animal feeding operations". In fact, it merely says "Intensive farming is concerned above all with productivity and uses a high level of inputs to achieve it. ". I don't see any mention of gestation crates which you were earlier arguing had to be at the head of the page because they are what people think of immediately with factory farming. It's an independent concept. One type of it, as applied to animals, as partnered with confinement is "factory farming". NathanLee18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources show these terms refer to the same phenomenon, and that "factory farming" is in mainstream use
I believe I've produced enough mainstream sources by now (see Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory," and "modern" in the SAME way) to convince any reasonable person that these terms — intensive farming, industrial farming, intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, modern farming, and factory farming — are used to mean the same thing. Although the first five terms refer to animal and crop farming, "factory farming" is usually used to refer to intensive animal farming. The sources include the BBC, CNN/Reuters, CBC, USA Today, Chemistry and Industry, and the British BSE inquiry.
I have also shown that the term "factory farming" is in mainstream use, and is not a term simply used by activist groups. The sources I produced above (see Use of the term "factory farming") include the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, The Washington Post, CNN, the BBC, the Seattle Times, Mcleans magazine, The Ecologist, and a statement in the British House of Commons. Please don't anyone here keep saying that "factory farming" is mostly an activist term. Perhaps it used to be, but it's not anymore.
Slim, your behavior is, in my opinion, exactly what "no original research" was meant to stop. Would you agree to seek arbcom's decision on just this one question? WAS 4.25005:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the NOR policy if you think this is an example of it. I thought you asked Slrubenstein's opinion. Two of the editors who have an excellent understanding of what OR is are Slrubenstein and Jayjg. Ask one or both to comment here.
As for the ArbCom, they do not do content disputes, and they don't do disputes in general that haven't been through some prior form of dispute resolution.
For the 100th time: a)ArbCom won't even listen until we have gone through Mediation b)they don't judge on editing disputes. I see nothing here that ArbCom would wish to rule on.
If you want to raise an ArbCom, no one here can stop you, you can open one at any time. Of course, making ArbCom lose there time with a spurious request will gain whoever had the brilliant idea of requesting it without first going through mediation no friends among the sysops. Please read and understand WP:DISPUTE. (This is me covering my ass: I do not want you opening an ArbCOm, having your ass handed to you, and then claim I tricked you!)
Mediation might help to break the obvious impasse we have here by bring in third-parties that do not have a shared history (ie don't hate each other). Of course, it might help the case if S.V. stopped being all ironic and sarcastic, on the other hand NathanLee could actually listen to other voices other than his own.--Cerejota06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jayjg
I'm pretty strict about original research, but when terms are used synonymously, it is not original research to treat them as the same thing. There are many sources that use the terms as synonyms, including ones not mentioned by SlimVirgin. For example:
"Applying PGS to these data will demonstrate that we are morally obligated to end all our factory (intensive) farming." Mark H. Bernstein, Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship With Animals, University of Illinois Press, 2004, p. 92, ISBN 0252071980
"A major reason that animals are still reared in huge numbers in intensive farming systems is that consumer demand for meat and other animal products at the cheapest possible price remains strong. Many surveys have found that the public find factory farming practices abhorrent and would like to see them stopped. Yet, at the same time, evidence shows that roughly the same number would vote in favour of retaining an ability to buy inexpensive animal products." Simon Brooman and Debbie Legge, Law Relating To Animals, Cavendish Publishing, p. 173, ISBN 1843141299
"Formed in 1981, the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) claims that modern, rational, intensive farming techniques, referred to as "factory farming", are cruel to animals raised for human consumption." Karl R. Kunkel, "Factory Farming as a Social Problem", in Donileen R. Loseke & Joel Best, Social Problems: constructionist readings, Aldine Transaction, 2003, p. 101, ISBN 0202307034
"It is in the United States, the birthplace of 'factory farming', that most remains to be done. No federal laws exist to regulate intensive farming and state anti-cruelty laws often exempt farm animals. It is clear, though, that there is much opposition to 'factory farming', or certain aspects of it, and this opposition is not restricted to radical animal rights activists." Robert Garner, Animals, Politics and Morality: Second Edition, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 118, ISBN 0719066212
The problem is that there are also many sources explicitly defining them as being non-synonymous (or which explicitly define the words, and these definitions are non-synonymous), as well as an unusual reliance on sources that do not in fact define them as being synonymous, but which have been interpreted as using them synonymously (even though there are other, better sources that do say they are synonymous, or define them synonymously), and for which the interpretation is arguable (which gives rise to the accusation of OR), to say the least. All this talk about mainstream usage versus dictionary/encyclopedia definitions is so much hot air. What we need to do is decide what the articles are to be about and pick titles, and then try to introduce how the various phrases ('factory farming', 'industrial agriculture' etc) can relate to the articles (i.e. do not start an article on confined animal rearing called 'factory farming' by saying that 'industrial agriculture' means confined animal rearing. Better to say that the article (which we'll assume is called 'factory farming') is about confined animal rearing, and note that 'factory farming' can sometimes be used to refer more widely to all industrial agriculture (including crop rearing) but that this is covered in article X. The real problem here is that we are both trying to write an article on a topic (confiend animal rearing, industrial farming practices etc; which is obviously what we're supposed to be doing) and also defining what words mean (factory farming means X, factory farming and industrial agriculture mean the same thing; which is not what we're supposed to be doing). --Coroebus14:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue though. The issue is whether to have two articles, Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming (or similar titles), with the other terms, including factory farming, as akas in the lead — so please focus on that issue, so we can finally move on. The sources show the terms are used synonymously. SlimVirgin(talk)08:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I've said many times it's mostly used for livestock. That was never a big issue. What's at issue is whether factory farming is the same thing as intensive and industrial farming when it comes to animals (and it is), and whether intensive and industrial are the same when it comes to crops (and they are). SlimVirgin(talk)08:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry if I'm sounding dense. So it sounds like you agree that factory farming is a "subset" of intensive farming. FNMF08:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's used mostly to refer to the intensive farming of animals, though I found sources who used it to refer to animals and crops. I don't know whether that would make it a subset. Why would that matter? SlimVirgin(talk)09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems that a lot of the argument here is about whether or not factory farming is a synonym for intensive farming, or whether it is a subset of intensive farming. Editors such as NathanLee, etc., seem to me to be arguing that, as a subset, it is not a synonym. If you agree that the term "factory farming" pretty much refers to the intensive farming specifically of animals, then it seems that the distance between yourself and the "opposing" editors is not so great. Am I wrong? FNMF09:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole subset thing is a red herring, and I honestly have no idea what the opposing editors are saying. I don't read most of Nathan's posts because they're too long and blustery, and WAS 4.250 keeps accusing me of original research but refuses to explain why (except to refer me to a previous post that also doesn't explain why). The substantive point, which I wish someone would address, is this: would you accept an article that was called Intensive arable farming, and which began "Intensive arable farming, also known as intensive or industrial agriculture, is ..." And another article called Intensive livestock farming, which began "Intensive livestock farming, also known as intensive or industrial agriculture, and factory farming is ..." With the other terms directed to those articles. Yes/no? If not, why not? SlimVirgin(talk)09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can get to your question, but before we do that: it seems you are being somewhat evasive about whether or not you agree with the proposition that factory farming is pretty much the intensive farming specifically of animals. Regardless of whether or not it is a red herring, I think it would be helpful if you simply confirmed that you agree with this proposition. It seemed to me to be what you were stating earlier: would I be right to conclude that you agree with this proposition? FNMF09:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm hedging because I've seen factory farming used as a catchall for intensive farming in general. But I don't see that it matters. We can go with most of the sources and say it's synonymous with intensive livestock farming. I feel that arguments are being kept going here for the sake of it. Let's get to a solution, please. SlimVirgin(talk)09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just don't see how on the one hand you can keep saying "Let get to a solution," while on the other hand say "I'm hedging." Perhaps there is a connection between your hedging and the difficulty in finding a solution. I don't see how you can start by saying, "Yes, as I've said many times it's mostly used for livestock," call it no big deal, but then refuse to acknowledge what is clearly implied by that: that factory farming is a subset of intensive agriculture. If one is "mostly used for livestock," but the other is used for crops as much as livestock, that would seem to indicate a difference in meaning, hence that they are not synonyms. Yes? A clear statement about this from you would, I believe, help. FNMF09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. You're trying to create some extra category of "intensive farming" that is independent of the things that are farmed. Farming farms stuff. Some of that stuff is livestock and when it's farmed intensively, it's called intensive livestock farming. And some of that stuff is crops, and when it's farmed intensively, it's called intensive arable farming. There is nothing called "intensive farming" that doesn't have an object. So yes, if you want, we can have a bunch of subsets with no set. How does it advance us, one way or the other? SlimVirgin(talk)09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing that at all. I am saying that if one word "mostly" refers to livestock, and the other doesn't, then they aren't quite the same word. You can call that splitting hairs, but it would seem the hair is there to be split. Whether it is splitting hairs or not, it has nothing to do with "having a bunch of subsets without a set." Aren't you admitting that factory farming is the subset and intensive farming is the set? It seems you will say anything except dealing with the question directly. I repeat: a clear statement about this from you would, I believe, help. FNMF10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands upon thousands of words have been exchanged here about whether or not factory farming and intensive farming are synonymous terms (and, I note, virtually none of those words have been written by me). It seems to be a clear sticking point between two sides (of which I am a member of neither). You then write that you agree that factory farming mostly refers to animals. This seems to me to indicate a clear margin of difference between the terms. You then refuse to answer whether you acknowledge this difference. The reason you should answer is to try to escape having to write a few more thousand words on this question. When somebody says a question is unimportant, but then refuses to answer it, it suggests there is more going on than they are admitting. FNMF10:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't keep repeating myself. The dispute was (a) how many articles, (b) which title(s), and (c) contents of lead. I was never aware of any sticking point about subsets, though if that came from Nathan, as I said, I wasn't reading the posts. But you seem not to want to answer my question: what substantive difference does it make to the creation and editing of these articles? SlimVirgin(talk)10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to answering any question. In fact, I answered it: the reason to admit the terms are not synonymous is to avoid having to write thousands more words about this question. You yourself have spent countless hours compiling sources for your view on this question, so I don't really see how you can act like the answer to this question is completely trivial. Now, why don't you want to answer my question: do you acknowlege that if factory farming refers "mostly" to animals, then it means something different from intensive farming, which does not refer "mostly" to animals? I'm not asking you to repeat yourself; I'm asking for a "yes" or "no." FNMF10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that there is no clear demarcation of the terms in normal usage. When SlimVirgin says that Factory Farming refers 'mostly' to animals, she means that the term is mostly used to refer to animals, but some reliable sources use it to refer to crops too. So you cannot draw a logical conclusion of a subset from such a situation, nor that Factory Farming is always different than Intensive Farming. Crum37513:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the numerous references to using it to refer to crops? We've got pretty much every reference so far to mean confined animal intensive farming.. But this widening to include crops and now "modern" farming.. Well.. NathanLee14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reliable sources which use Factory Farming synonymously with Intensive Farming and the other terms that include all farm products. There are some that limit it to animals only. See the references in SlimVirgin's list. Crum37514:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: I don't see how much clearer and persistent FNMF needs to be and SV STILL just avoided a simple question. Can SV just answer the simple question from FNMF with no more stalling/deflecting/return questions etc..? NathanLee14:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My position on number of articles is that we should "just start with the one article (Intensive farming) and then farm out the individual sections as needed, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style" as per Dodo bird in the talk section "Another suggestion". I'm not at all picky about the names of whatever articles are created but I like the names and contents of (except better reseach and sourcing is needed):
I think the contents should quote the sources exactly, to tell the reader the source of the quote, and to let the reader make up their own mind. We do not do that in the article factory farming. Instead factory farming says: "Factory farming, also known as intensive farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture, refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, and fish." which is original reseach. WAS 4.25011:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At User talk:Slrubenstein I said: "If you are willing to take the time to read the gathered source material on the talk page and to skim the various articles under discussion that are listed on the talk page, then I would be both very very very grateful and fully willing to abide by whatever decision you make with regard to the issues involved. Thank you very much for the time you have already provided." WAS 4.25011:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why slim and I can not successfully communicate on this, but I am sure it is a communication problem. WAS 4.25011:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But my best guess was supplied at the subsection "Comment on naming at wikipedia" where I said : The scientific and technical articles that are based on peer reviewed sources often have the scientifically or technically correct name as the common name is ambiguous and/or means something different altho the average person would not know that until they read the article. Like avian flu versus H5N1. Even tho people will use one to mean the other, they don't mean the same thing. Or Flu vs. Influenza. I get the impression that slim belives newspapers are at least on an equal footing with peer reviewed sources and sometimes I think her beliefs concerning secondary sources versus primary sources mean that she thinks wikipedia should prefer newspapers overs peer reviewed sources. I believe the scientific and technical editors at wikipedia disagree with this. Farming in today's world is a highly technical information-management-intensive economic activity. Newspapers are a joke of a source for that. WAS 4.25014:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"
"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists"
So clearly, though highly regarded for technical information, the scientific peer reviewed papers are not the best sources for Wikipedia article titles. Crum37514:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see where the problem is. The term 'Factory Farming' is normally used to refer to industrial agriculture and intensive farming in reference to animals (not as a subset, but synonymously) but both the terms are also used to describe something else (crop production) also. This doesn't mean that 'factory farming' is a subset, it simply means that the mainstream media use the terms to describe the same thing.
So, for example, we have some sources that say that 'factory farms' are the same as intensive farms - when the subject matter is animals (that is a rough summary of the sources above). We also have other sources saying something different. The issue is that we are simply wanting to create 2 pages (see slim's comment above) which contains these synonymous terms in their lead's. (To SV: I hope I summarised it correctly).-Localzuk(talk)13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is your assertion of synonymous use isn't correct. You are then creating a definition that doesn't match any dictionary or encyclopaedia out there and is based on non logical reasoning at any rate. "Used commonly together in article" is NOT the same as synonymous/interchangeable. It's pushing a POV to try and widen the term so that you'll gain more exposure. Intsnive crop farming is not generally referred to as "factory farming". In fact: "factory farming" is not a term used by government or the people working in those farms themselves. Even activist sites use it to mean just concentrated animal feeding operations. It's just intellectually lazy to deduce a definition like this. If you assume that the good folks at britannica, websters, oxford etc know their stuff then the articles all make sense still. Which one is the simplest and most accurate explanation? NathanLee13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you are hugely missing the point - we are not here to simply say what other dictionaries and encyclopaedias say. That would completely defeat the object of this site. Stop relying on Britannica. If you support their work so much, go and get a job there. And yes, using them interchangeably in articles does mean synonymous.
So, I will restate the situation: We aren't saying the terms always mean the same thing, just that they are sometimes used to mean the same thing. The evidence above shows this quite clearly. You are simply refusing to accept something that is blatant and obvious - because you are too hung up on academic sources.-Localzuk(talk)13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to create our own conflicting definitions. Can I say in response: If you like pushing animal lib positions so much: go work for PETA (if you're not already). You ARE saying they're the same thing (that's what synonymous means), although SV seems to be admitting they're not in the section above where FNMF tries to get an answer out.. The evidence is very much that they are NOT synonymous no matter how many times you keep saying it is but then fail to see that it contradicts with dictionary and encyclopaedic entries AND the articles themselves.. Two terms used in an article does not mean they are then interchangeable: it's generally pretty hard to find terms that are synonymous: but here you are arguing that they should be introduced as being synonymous. "Motorcycle" and "motorbike" are synonymous: any place you use one, you can use the other (although one sounds more formal.. so probably not even 100% synonymous.. but pretty close). Someone might refer to motorbike as "transport", that doesn't mean it's a synonymous term in all contexts. "Factory farm" however is not even close to being synonymous with "intensive farming" OR "aquaculture" OR "industrial agriculture" OR "modern farming". Saying factory farming is synonymous with "modern intensive confined animal farming" is a lot closer or if you were talking within the context of "current US modern animal farming practices" it could be said to be synonymous WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. But it needs the qualifiers, and a dictionary entry is inherently context free. You'd also have to be pretty weird to think of "factory farmed wheat", or "factory farmed oats". But "intensively farmed wheat/barley/corn" concept isn't that strange a concept.. Move beyond trying to grab attention to the sad looking sows in crates for any google hit on "intensive farming" and try reading those definitions of Britannica you seem so willing to dismiss. That's like arguing that the dictionary has spelt something wrong because you spell it differently and have a few references on the web that also make the same mistake: doesn't make the dictionary wrong or invalid, it just makes you pigheaded for insisting that it be ignored to cater for your spelling. NathanLee15:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of patience
I came into this debate without realising just how persistent and intractable the disagreement really is. My concern was firstly that this deadlock was preventing the composition of good articles about this material. My second concern was that I believe Wikipedia should have a strong entry on the phenomenon of the industrialisation of agriculture. My initial comment posted here was an attempt to indicate the importance of this topic and try to suggest a way out of the deadlock.
I now recognise this was a naïve intervention, given the character of the ongoing problems here. All sides are culpable in this, but I have reluctantly concluded that those editors who appear to be supporters of an animal rights agenda are especially so. My impression is that these editors are not, in the end, interested in pursuing the best interests of Wikipedia, but rather what they consider the best interests of their cause. Because they have this agenda, these editors mistakenly presume that whomsoever disagrees with them is on the other side, and that the best strategy is in every case to treat them as belonging to an enemy camp. I am sure these editors will disagree with this analysis, and I myself have a lot of respect for SlimVirgin's practice, views and approach in other areas, but I have reluctantly reached this conclusion based on what I consider fairly objective observations. I have thus concluded that it really is a pointless waste of energy to try to intervene in this dispute at the moment.
I would like to make the following points:
(1) Industrial agriculture and intensive farming are important topics not just because of the question of the treatment of animals, and thus dividing this topic into an entry on animals and an entry on crops is truly the wrong approach. The industrialisation of agriculture is a profound transformation of the technical and biotechnical system which now covers the entire planet. The interconnections between plant and animal agriculture are just as important as the specific features of each, and no proper understanding of either can be obtained without a consideration of the total phenomenon. I thus strongly believe there should be an entry entitled Industrial agriculture that reflects this phenomenon and process.
(2) I do not at all understand the objection to a plurality of entries, and I think that would be by far the best solution. Intensive farming, Industrial agriculture, Factory farming, are all entries that deserve to exist, and perhaps more besides. None of these articles is at present being developed because of the impossible working conditions that prevail here.
I urge all editors to see that, however much they imagine they are fighting an important fight, they are achieving absolutely nothing with their current tactics. Nothing worthwhile will occur unless there is a genuine attempt by all editors to look past their partisan positions. Best of luck to those with greater forebearance than myself. FNMF14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the arguments are going no where and improvements have ground to a halt.. The core issue I've been arguing for is that all the articles are entities in their own right. I've not been willing to compromise on this "the terms are all the same" because it seems counter intuitive and defies common sense/references on the matter to be insisting that all the terms are one (or that "compromise" to split this into 2 articles that state the same thing.. either way). I think when people have a strong POV on a topic (such as animal lib) then the abstraction process gets messed up. It also hinders your ability to see the distinctions in terms e.g. "factory farming", "concentrated animal feeding operations", "intensive agriculture", "evil animal torture houses", "animal equivalent of nazi gas chambers" etc.. "Hedging your bets" that the terms should be synonymous to include a very niche view of something isn't sensible.. NathanLee15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argument
Please re-read section 8 of this page, where I suggest a compromise.
SV: Please remember that interpreting documents is OR. If a document provides an explicit definition of a term, it can be used as a source for the term's meaning; if it doesn't, then extrapolating a meaning from the way a term is used is OR interpretation and SYN.
I don't have time right now to read all of the posts and arguments made here in the last however-many hours. I'll get to it in the next few days. Jav4317:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not particularly helpful to tell people to "remember" a claim that is contention in the first place. From my reading it appears the terms are used synonymously; it's not OR to use them the same way that the sources do. Jayjg (talk)17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of synonymous those articles do not use them in such a way.. Taking a step back we've got clear definitions that describe exactly what the terms are which are being ignored to pursue this derived definition of synonymous terms. "used together often" =/= "synonymous".. That's a synthesis or OR definition.. It's pretty obvious that factory farm means confined animal intensive farming practices. NathanLee17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very quickly found four sources that used them as synonyms, not "used together often". Did you read them, above? No doubt there are many more. That's not a synthesis. Jayjg (talk)18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone summarise the different positions very briefly for me, having been away a few days I find I'm having trouble following what is going on. --Coroebus18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reponse to jayjg (here because SV asked for someone to support her assertion that the terms were synonymous). You're still not aware I think of what synonymous means and the concept of context (as the comments on your "synonymous" links said).
Your first one is within the context of animal farming (the report is on animals). Which is what factory farming is: a form of intensive animal farming.
your second one backs the notion that it's just relating to animals. Again it's within the context of animals..
3rd one was a statement by the "Farm animal reform movement": so obviously they're referring to animals. Also read the sentence again and you'll see that it's just a big lot of qualifications of what the "are
cruel to animals.." part is all about. It refers to the intensive farming technniques referred to as factory farming. Not "all of intensive farming techniques".
and your final one is clearly again about animal only farming context.
Within a certain context the terms may be synonymous. Absolute synonymous usage is highly unlikely and in this case VERY disputable.. This attempt to make out that the terms are synonymous is consistent with an animal liberation driven POV and that's all. It requires a pretty selective way of reading articles to ignore context and the notion that it is a TYPE OF.. In case you missed it [138], [139], [140] and any other dictionary or encyclopaedia you care to look at.. But Jayjg: you're entering this late, and at SV's request, so rather than us going the full cycle of the same arguments (that SV failed to bother reading), perhaps just leave the debate to those who have been following it.. NathanLee18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Why do you keep missing the point? No-one is saying the terms are 100% synonymous. They are saying that sometimes they are used synonymously. Did you even bother reading my comments above?-Localzuk(talk)18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But my recollection is that the argument started over the line that defined 'industrial agriculture' as being synonymous with 'factory farming' right in the intro of the article. --Coroebus18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what we want. As the 2 terms are used synonymously sometimes. To not include it would be to ignore the widespread synonymous usage of the terms by the mass media and other forms of publication.-Localzuk(talk)18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you wouldn't accept saying that 'industrial agriculture' can be used to refer to 'factory farming' without saying they're synonymous? That's a bit extreme as a position given that you have agreed that they are only sometimes used synonymously (i.e. it would be a false claim on our part). --Coroebus19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That wasn't what I said. This entire argument has become twisted and winding. We had a claim in the lead that the 2 terms were used synonymously - which was removed by NathanLee and the rest of 'that side' of the argument (the last one was Jav43). This complete removal of the information was one of the problems that we are arguing about. Another was the issue with crops, and another was the overall culling of large amounts of important information from the lead. All we wanted was things to not be removed due to the over use of academic sources at the expense of other mainstream sources.-Localzuk(talk)19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't follow from the earlier arguments: If you're now ok with not enforcing this idea of "exactly synonymous"/"the same" that SV's pushing for..? There's also a difference between "this term is synonymous" with "this is synonymous in this particular context". The argument was merely against the "absolute" or complete synonymous argument (and corresponding push for all the articles to be lumped into "factory farming" which also doesn't indicate much leeway on the terms being "sometimes" synonymous you know..) If it was "sometimes" I believe that's exactly what I and others have been saying since the start:"Sometimes" or "in some context" means you're talking "type of" or "subset" because it obviously doesn't mean "all the time" which is all I was after, look at what I changed it to.. Just to say it was a subset. If you put an unqualified "also known as" as the first sentence of the lead and want to get rid of the other articles for the other terms: that implies synonymous "all the time". Perhaps we're edging towards consensus on something :) NathanLee20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk: this was the specific question to try and work this out. You voted that they were A -"It appears "Factory farming" is an exactly synonymous term for intensive farming (e.g. intensive crop farming, intensive animal farming). So any type of intensive farming is factory farming as well.". Which you voted for.. The rest of us (that voted) went with B which was that it was a type of/subset of.. NathanLee20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I still stand by that statement - I am willing to compromise to get things moving. The statements are synonymous - and that includes Crops also - the term 'synonymous' means words with 'similar or identical meaning'. That is what we have here, and that is why ideally we would have a single article discussing the entire lot but just pointing out that sometimes the terms are used for specific things (as far as I can see, the majority of the time, the terms are used synonymously so the individualistic uses of each are sub-uses of them according to the naming policies and POV policy. But, as I said, we have accepted that we can have a couple of articles which state their usage (this was accepted many many paragraphs ago) but since then it has degraded into your demands for our complete acceptance of your demands.-Localzuk(talk)21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if we can all agree that it would be acceptable to have an intro that acknowledges that different terms can be used to refer to whatever our article is about (but that may refer to something else, and give a link - I think this is necessary to deal with ambiguous redirects), the disagreement comes down to how many articles and what those articles are about, am I correct? If we can resolve that then presumably the next argument is about what to call those articles although I get the impression that Slim, Localzuk and co are admirably flexible in that regard. --Coroebus21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for that if that gets things moving again, I don't think it's a common thing (the struggle to find many articles that even mention the two terms together is proof of that).. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of how context and "synonymous" relate with this topic and as such the disagreement of "100% interchangeable" continued on. I don't think "factory farming" has been synonymous with crop type intensive farming as far as all the articles I've come across. As intensive farming/extensive farming/semi-intensive farming are concepts that's where the confusion between "the instance of intensive animal farming as is the current state of industrial agriculture in the developed world" and "abstract concept of using more input to boost productivity per land area".. NathanLee22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this resource got lost in the mix, I think it clearly delineates that factory farming is referring to a subset of the overall "thing" that is "industrial agriculture" (talking of "intensive monocultures" being the crop based side of industrial agriculture). It also talks of "intensive" with relation to resource and chemical etc.. NathanLee22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm suggesting is that we move away from arguing about whether 'industrial agriculture' means 'factory farming' means 'confined animal rearing' and instead focus on what we actually want articles on (rather than called). Then we could solve questions of words being, or not being, synonymous with intros like "Industrial animal rearing under confined conditions is often known as Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture (although these terms can also refer to industrial practices in agriculture generally, including in arable crop production, see XXXXXX)." So I'd appreciate it if soemone could either briefly summarise where we're at with this question, or people could very briefly indicate their own position. --Coroebus08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that we could have one article on intensive farming with sections on the different aspects, but others have said no to that, so another suggestion would be to observe the natural split between animals and crops, and have one article on each. I've seen people object to this, but I'm still not clear why. We could look at the history, the process of industralization, the benefits (cheap food), the criticism (cruelty allegations, human health problems), the different position of various farmers' groups, whether and why there's a move away from it (in Europe anyway) back to pre-industrial/organic farming, and whether that's still feasible. SlimVirgin(talk)08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wasn't initially that fussed about the intensive agriculture page, looking at it now I think it covers some actual content we wouldn't otherwise have anywhere else (the historical stuff), but it doesn't cover that much on the industrial/modern intensive agricultural side. I wonder whether we could refactor the industrial agriculture stuff that might warrant a combined article (from industrial agriculture) into intensive agriculture (into the 'industrial agriculture' section) then split out the animals bit into a specific article summary style (aquaculture is already an article), and perhaps keep the crops stuff as the crops section of the industrial agriculture article is the same as the crops only article. --Coroebus18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering
People are wikilawyering. It doesn't matter whether the terms are strict synonymous on every single occasion that they're used. What matters is whether we can have articles that say "also known as X, Y, and Z," without having those terms removed just because people can cite examples of them being used differently. The terms Holocaust and Shoah can be used differently but they're still akas.
I'm appealing to the opposers on this page who have common sense to take a stance against the filibustering (even if you agree with some of the sentiments) and to join us in trying to advance a sensible solution.
I think we've established with Localzuk that the idea of having a mention that puts the terms in context or "sometimes known as" is acceptable. Would that be acceptable to you? To be honest: if you simply acknowledged before now that it wasn't 100% synonymous then you wouldn't have pushed to delete pages and squash everything under "factory farming". Easy solution, pages can co-exist. It's your insistence that they ARE the same for every single instance that means you need just one page to represent what I think we can all see now is more than one concept. NathanLee01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee, I beg to differ. Even if the terms were not synonymous in all instances, what you propose would be a POV fork: those sources that allege dis-similarity between the terms do so on differences that do not justify separate articles, or in totally POV-driven terms. The solution of two articles (one for animals the other for plants) with "known as" is the only one that allows to cover th whole range of issues in a neutral and verifiable manner.
It has been your insistence (wholly and repeatedly disproved) that "Factory farming" is a controversial propaganda term, that leads to this entire conversation - Not SV's or anybody else's insistence on anything. Please do not lose that from sight.--Cerejota04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota: That's just wrong and not my argument at all. Actually I haven't made that insistence that it's purely a propaganda term (although I have said in the past that it's a loaded term), I acknowledged that it was used by politicians and in the media and it was/is primarily a term that has activist connotations [141] (and the fact that "factory farming" isn't a term used by those who are "Factory farmers" or government agencies), but moving on from that: my argument has been that the term "intensive farming" is NOT synonymous with factory farming (and as the debate has gone: I and others think it's based on questionable WP:SYN or WP:OR to be making that determination).
What you're talking about by merging all the articles is a POV MERGE (e.g. making "intensive farming" the same as "factory farming" when it's pretty damned obvious that it refers to more than factory farming does). Namely some strange activist concept that there's only "factory farming" and no other term for farming (SV even widened it to be the term "modern farming" which is simply ridiculous). I'm arguing against that because the term "intensive farming" refers to a concept that's pretty much got nothing to do with animals cramped in cages[142],[143],[144] (see extensive farming for the logical opposite). Dictionary and encyclopaedias talk of it in neutral /independent terms and there's any number of references that talk of intensive farming without any link to factory farming or animals. THAT is what I'm against.. Although I think it best to choose the most neutral term when one has POV attached (e.g. "this is a bad/nasty thing" and is primarily used by opponents). NathanLee09:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're never wrong about anything, are you Nathan? Everyone else is wrong, but you are always right. Everyone else's sources (no matter how many dozens they find) amount to OR and SYN, while your ONE source must be correct. Anyone else who for one day posts more than you is taking ownership of the talk page, but it's fine for you to post very long, repetitive posts amounting to scores of thousands of words in response to everything that anyone else says, to the point where no one can make their way through this discussion anymore. SlimVirgin(talk)17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is enough to make anyone lose their cool, huh? ... Slim, you have to remember that both sides honestly think they are helping wikipedia and the other side just doesn't get it or else must be wikilawyering. Honestly, your behavior looks like wikilawyering to me, but I am sure your behavior does not look like that to you. It is when one is sure that AGF does not apply, that it is most important to act like it does anyway. WAS 4.25017:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact still remains that Nathan is repeating the same 'your sources are OR and SYN' argument without accepting that just because he thinks that, doesn't mean it is true. I think SV's response there is well within the realm of reasonableness due to the constant lack of good faith shown by Nathan (this has been a problem since the very beginning, far before SV made changes as far as I remember). I simply say that we should drop this all and move on to sorting out the structure - let the past be the past, and move on.-Localzuk(talk)17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look back at the start of this whole thing and my plea on SV's page, and the ignored discussion attempts that were very much assuming good faith and very much attempting to follow the policies on dispute resolution. Take a look at the "avoid" part and you'll see it recommends against reverting without discussion.. Who did that? NathanLee18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see that a lot has happened while I have been gone. Thank you FNMF for helping to clear up the synonymous terms issue a little bit. SlimVirgin's evasiveness regarding this simple question has destroyed a lot of good will around here and helped to lead to the "toxic" "wikilawyering" environment of which she complains.
Stop these endless personal attacks. I've done nothing but try to be flexible and make suggestions since page protection. I've found sources, and I've filed an RfM, while a bunch of you sat around trying to define "synonym" and posting about how evil I am. I'm tired of being your punchbag. SlimVirgin(talk)17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a possible point of agreement that has to do with writing the encylopedia. One of the things that originally drew me to this discussion was the redirect [145] of Intensive farming to Factory farming and other similar redirects that SlimVirgin et al. seemed ready to edit war to the death to protect.
Hang on right there. I redirected other titles to factory farming only after someone else decided that should be the name of the article. It had been industrial agriculture. [146] It had also before that been split into animals and crops. I've gone along with all title suggestions. SlimVirgin(talk)17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have reverted my change to make this section easier to read, but I will let it stand so as to avoid a pointless edit war.
May 16[148], in spite of WAS' opinion that this was not a proper redirect
May 18 - Industrial ag [149] edit summary "no, these terms are used interchangeably; see factory farming talk page; it is absurd to have three articles on the same topic"
Premature - you are jumping the gun - we need to first agree on what the overall structure is, then we can agree on redirects. Crum37517:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's premature. My own idea would be to direct all the terms to the one or two article titles we choose, but let's get there first. SlimVirgin(talk)17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - you have missed the point wildly. We are discussing a set of articles based on a 'crops' and 'animals' split at the moment - the terms would all change to different things, it seems. So, I'd say wait a while and see what the final outcome for the structure is.-Localzuk(talk)17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, don't agree to anything you don't want to. This just illustrates how inflexible the three of you are. Haber19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You three are refusing to compromise, refusing to reference reliable sources that actually contain the information for which you are citing them, and refusing to review any sources that contradict your pre-conceived biases. That certainly is inflexible. Jav4301:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that suggesting a position between the one of having dozens of articles based on the 'peer reviewed' definitions, and the stance by ourselves for one article with everything in is a compromise. Repeatedly suggesting that we pay no attention to the common usage/media usage of the terms, other than in a POV 'colloquial use' section is not compromise.-Localzuk(talk)08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I say below, you have ignored everything that has been said. Please take some time to read the sources and discussion, see the compromise being suggested by having a couple of pages and realise how inflexible you are being.-Localzuk(talk)20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read everything. I have ignored nothing. Please take a step back and attempt to objectively look at what you're proposing. It is ridiculous. Jav4301:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could people please say whether they agree or object:
A disambiguation page called Intensive farming that lists common terms used when discussing different kinds of intensive/industrial farming, and refers the reader to the two articles below.
Any other titles created since this dispute began redirected to the most suitable of the two titles, and if neither suggests themselves, then to the disambig page.
How would you react to someone arguing for X number of articles about Jews? That's how I feel about you arguing about X number of articles about modern agiculture. WAS 4.25008:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - though 'livestock' is not a good name for poultry, for example, and 'arable' may not be a good fit for some crops, so I would recommend (crops) and (animals) as the two categories of Intensive Farming. Crum37518:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Please read the sources above. Please understand what content would be included (the exact uses of each term can be discussed within the articles). Just saying no, whilst giving a suggestion of doing what we have specifically said we don't want, isn't helping. Please try and compromise.-Localzuk(talk)20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal does not explain how it would represent "exact uses of each term". My suggestion is a more viable compromise that more accurately represents fact. Please try to look at it objectively. Jav4301:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - althought I am not sold on Intensive livestock farming and Intensive arable farming for lingusitic reasons. Livestock and Arable are much less common in usage than "crops" and "animals" - and on top of that not all animals intensively farmed are livestock (ie pork and beef): the fur industry in particular uses the same processing technologies, as does poultry and even farm fishing. But a compromise on organization must happen and I am sure not goign to let details over titles get in the way of content.--Cerejota21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - this is just the same idea over and over again to push the idea that the terms are the same. Which they aren't, it's purely POV. For the umpteenth time: extensive farming contrasts with intensive farming, it's got nothing to do with confined animal operations.. The concept was around long before them.. NathanLee18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you just have "intensive farming" listing the common concept and with links to the other pages.. Without insisting the term doesn't exist except to be equivalent term to "factory farming".. Then.. NathanLee18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal!
I propose we have these articles with the associated basic content:
Agriculture: remains as is: covers general farming history and practices
Intensive agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices intended to maximize use of natural resources
Extensive agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices intended to use minimal inputs on land
Industrial agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize production
Industrial agriculture (animals): remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize livestock production
Industrial agriculture (crops): remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize crop production
CAFO: contains the current information from the factory farming page, with an updated and unbiased lead
Factory farming: discusses the origin of the term factory farming and its uses and meanings in various settings; directs the reader to CAFO for a discussion of issues related to what is popularly known as factory farming
I think this clearly violates POV forking, as Industrial agriculture (animals), Industrial agriculture, CAFO and Factory farming all cover essentially the same topics. Crum37519:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you think this is a content fork? I don't understand how this is a POV fork. Regardless, since these are all different topics that cover different issues (read the relevant articles), I don't see how they are all "cover[ing] essentially the same topics". Jav4319:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, it completely ignores all the evidence of the fact that the terms are sometimes used synonymously. It goes against the naming guidelines and it is a set of POV forks, depending on your views that the subject matters are different. So, you have simply suggested that we ignore the last week or so of discussion and move with the exact thing we complained about. Doesn't seem like much of a compromise to me. Instead of 1 article, which is what we want, you want 6 to cover the same topics. We suggest a compromise with 2 articles and a disambiguation page and you say no, going back to wanting tonnes of articles. This is simply amazing.-Localzuk(talk)20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence of the fact that the terms are sometimes used synonymously" is all your OR. Regardless, this provides for that, while simultaneously providing distinctions between the terms for readers to learn. Just because people use terms improperly doesn't mean we should also do so. Your "compromise" is entirely your POV and completely neglects the fact that these terms address separate, distinct issues - and is not close to a compromise of any sort. When we have terms with separate meanings, each capable of supporting its own article, we should provide a separate article for each term. Your failure to comprehend this obvious approach is simply amazing. Jav4321:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jav, for repeating the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again. There are roughly half the editors here who agree with you and half who don't. Move on, COMPROMISE!-Localzuk(talk)21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed two explicit compromises. This is one of them. This proposal retains your pseudo-science while simultaneously providing solid articles. Please end your false characterizations of those of us who share a well-reasoned understanding of the topics here. Jav4322:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read this discussion page, then. Here are my proposed compromises: [150] and [151]. Others have proposed other compromises. The pseudo-science is "defining" a term through its use in media and activist circles -- rather than through reference to actual definitions in peer-reviewed journals or equally well-respected sources. Jav4301:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Content and POV forking are effectively the same, because once you separate out overlapping topics, they tend to collect one-sided POVs, since editors with opposing views tend not to maintain all the different versions equally, and doing so would violate the guideline. Crum37520:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposal is good, except that a new article is not needed. Specifically, no CAFO article -- just improvement of the objectivity of the Factory farming article. A strength of Wikipedia is the variety of articles that are heavily interlinked. It's not content forking when multiple terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing. If the terms are ever used with distinct meanings, a separate article is justified, if there is enough to be said on the topic.
Agriculture is the top level topic. Intensive agriculture, Extensive agriculture, and Industrial agriculture are subtopics of Agriculture that have enough distinctive use to justify their separate articles. Industrial agriculture (animals) and Industrial agriculture (crops) are excellent ways to break out major subtopics of Industrial agriculture. Factory farming is an accepted term in common use and cited in dictionaries and other encyclopedias, and deserves its own article. The primary definition for the Factory farming article should be based on the definitions in highly regarded sources, such as other encyclopedias, and any other meanings can be sited and referenced outside the primary definition.
Summary: Leave all the articles. Leave them named as they are. Improve the objectivity of the Factory farming article. JD Lambert21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of information is bad, why do it? Why make POV forks just because one source says one thing and another says another thing?-Localzuk(talk)21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of info is bad. No, some duplication is bad, but it's is a question of how much. If a subtopic is lengthy it should be broken out into its own article to avoid parent articles that are too long. If a subtopic article needs a little duplication to round it out and make it a good stand-alone article, that's fine. If you see that something specific is duplicating too much, please remove it, while ensuring there is at least one link to the article where it remains. JD Lambert22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not only duplication: it's creating a definition by lazy POV deductions of a definition at the expense of a term.. NathanLee18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm with your suggestion to leave all the articles. Insisting something is a POV fork when the pages currently exist and have distinct dictionary entries elsewhere is a POV merge.. NathanLee18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We must go into moderation...
I haven't seen a really fresh idea here in weeks, we are just rehashing the same arguments and propossals, and this has to stop.--Cerejota21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Constantly reverting back to the initial stances by involved parties is not helping anything. Mediation would hopefully make some sense out of all this.-Localzuk(talk)22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. I think one (with sections for each type) is the correct and most logical number. Two is a stretch – sub-optimal (since there are many overlapping issues) but I can live with it if there is no other choice. Three or more would be just a mess and unacceptable to me. Crum37502:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate on this talk page amounts to whether or not other articles should be deleted. This discussion is getting nowhere. I propose that all editors who do not mind the existence of multiple articles ignore this debate. The articles exist: work on them. If some editors wish to delete articles, let those editors open AfDs for those articles. If they win the AfDs, they will have achieved their goal. If they lose the AfDs, then we have multiple articles. Clearly the problem is not going to be solved by debating the issue here. FNMF01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us regard them as POV forks. Others do not. That's what the dispute is about, and because we can't resolve it, we need mediation. There's no point in just telling us to get over it, because we disagree. SlimVirgin(talk)01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, I'm not telling you and Crum and Local to get over it (I do believe you should get over it, but I don't think there's any point in me telling you to do so). I'm telling everyone else to ignore it. Jav is right that, if this page is going to remain protected, it would be better to delete the opening. But, given that there is not going to be agreement about anything whatsoever, I recommend all editors who are happy to have multiple articles not get too hung up over Jav's issue. FNMF06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are suggesting that those that disagree with our POV ignore our objections and carry on anyway? That is not how to build a consensus FNMF, that is a way of being disruptive - it just discounts everything that is being said as unimportant, which it isn't.-Localzuk(talk)07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I am suggesting: if you don't like the articles that currently exist, open an AfD. Given that consensus is highly unlikely, an AfD is the only legitimate way to get rid of articles. I believe editors are being sucked into a pointless debate that is going to go nowhere. You have your view of who is being disruptive and obstructive, and I have mine. FNMF08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works, FNMF. Sounds good. All that leaves is the content of this page.
Jav, can you say exactly why you won't agree to mediation? This is a question for Jav, by the way, not for anyone else. I would like to hear what he says independently of anyone else's input. SlimVirgin(talk)04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, saying that we should split the concepts entirely, completely ignoring our refs and examples, relegating it to a section named 'Colloquial Use', treating a widely used term the same as a racist/derogatory term, is not a compromise. It is pushing ahead with what you wanted and ignoring us entirely. A compromise is somewhere between the 2 sides - a middle area, with aspects from both. Please agree to a compromise (either propose a sensible one or agree to an existing one)-Localzuk(talk)07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This will be the second time today I have asked you to stop mischaracterizing me and lying about my position. As I have explained, the term "factory farming" ideally should not be used at all, as it is a pejorative and is not conducive to a quality encyclopedia. I am proposing a compromise here: provide an explanation of usage of the term. Jav4308:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have already shown that it isn't a perjorative term. It is used by a wide range of media, academic and mainstream sources to describe this subject matter. It *used* to just be a term relating to activists, but has adapted and been picked up by many other aspects of society.
Your proposal is simply to ignore mainstream usage, counter to WP:NPOV and lump it into a single section regardless of its credibility or verifiability - based on your own perception of the term. That is not a compromise, that is pushing for the same thing that was proposed originally (which was to remove the info from the lead and only discuss it in the article).-Localzuk(talk)09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as we've debated: your point of view disagrees with dictionary and encyclopaedias and appears (to myself and I'm sure others) to be a non logical deduction.. But yet you still campaign to delete existing articles, surely that those sources suggest the articles should all exist is worth erring on "the safe side" and not pushing for deletion.. You're just arguing to delete stuff to get a "sometimes" used the same definition enforced. I look forward to your arguments on why jew/zionist/israeli should be merged into one article: because that's what you're doing here based on your notion of interchangeable.. NathanLee18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side issue - please vote
I would like to propose that we remove the lead from the current version of the protected "factory farming" article for as long as it is protected. As I mentioned [155], I feel that having the lead support a particular POV in this dispute is not facilitating movement toward consensus. Removing the lead is contrary to everyone's wishes for the final product, but it will remove the disputed text from the article. Thus, removing the lead would not sponsor a request to "remove The Wrong Version", as it does not choose any version as "right", but rather would simply remove all disputed text from the article so that everyone may move forward equitably and on equal footing. Please express whether you support or oppose this proposal.
Oppose - If we leave the rest of the entry there, then the reader will get the same information in a more expanded form. I fail to see how by eliminating a summary of what's there anyway we are helping anything. In addition, I feel this issue is a diversion - I think we need to focus our attention, priorities and efforts on resolving our differences and agreeing on the real issue, which is an entry (or entries) we can all accept. Since it seems to me that the odds of agreeing to such a compromise on our own here are negligible at this point, I repeat the call for mediation, preferrably via the Mediation Committee, that would have the best chances to help us reach real results. Crum37503:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin could help with that, including the ones participating in this discussion, if it came to that. But I think that's a moot point because it would require total consensus. Crum37504:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Look, just agree to mediation and we can get it sorted. You're holding up the process, then complaining about how long it's taking. :-( SlimVirgin(talk)04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - That is one of the main issues that brought all this about, how is simply proposing the same thing again a useful proposal? Please,lets go wit mediation.-Localzuk(talk)07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This is not proposing the same thing again. Please actually read what I wrote. This suggestion would put us all on equal footing so that we all have equal motivation for mediation or other resolution. Jav4308:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually very curious to know if Wikipedia is really committed to NPOV or if it is just full of crap. Because as it stands now I see an admin with years of experience, two obedient sidekicks, and a stated "Animal liberation" agenda plowing through topics relating to animals and warping them to her own ends. To be honest, I feel that no matter how many well-intentioned Wikipedians show up to discuss the matter, we won't make headway against the bullying tactics (moving comments, asking people to shut up), mindless verbosity (anything Localzuk says), and the fanaticism of experienced users who employ wolfpack tactics. (What was Jayjg doing here anyway?). I actually feel kind of stupid for helping them make a popular site that they could then turn into a sophisticated collection of attack pages. Haber12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of WP:NPA, calling everything I say 'mindless verbosity' is a personal attack. This is the exact behaviour that is holding this entire process back - you are focusing on editors rather than working on achieving a compromise/consensus.-Localzuk(talk)12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have a feeling that you wanted to mention Arbcom, as you titled the section but haven't mentioned it as such. Are you wanting to move forward with an ArbCom case?-Localzuk(talk)12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haber: if you jump the gun to ArbCom you are going to get banned for personal attacks, and pretty much that is the only thing that will happen, as this is an editing dispute over which ArbCom doesn't rule, and pretty much everyone here has been generally civil and refrained from personal attacks, except for yourself. That is my prediction. If you really have concrete proposals for content, then mediation in good faith is the best way to go.--Cerejota13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember that you don't need support from others in order to go to Arbcom, you can propose the case alone, forcing everyone else into the arbcom.-Localzuk(talk)13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration will not be accepted for content disputes. Mediation cannot impose a solution, it only helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone and that doesn't appear likely. JD Lambert13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JD, I disagree with that assessment. I think an outside voice with experience of content disputes and knowledge of the policies would be able to guide us. It's at least worth a try, because we currently don't have another option. SlimVirgin(talk)17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with the comment form S.V. The only other alternative is to continue filling this talk page with circular arguments and yet another iteration of "Strawpoll vs Straw-poll". If you don't trust the good faith of wikipedia admins, then get the fork out of here. :D--Cerejota01:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim/Cerejota, I have no problem with accepting mediation, I just don't think it's likely to result in a solution. I like to be optimistic, but I need at least a meager reason, and I don't see one here. It's not a matter of admins working in good faith, which I expect, it's a matter of an inability to sufficiently compromise. If one person insists on eliminating an article, and another person insists on keeping it, that's an impasse. Mediation will not impose a solution. That's not an assessment, that's Wikipedia policy. And as long as at least one person is not willing to invoke mediation, it won't happen. JD Lambert19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
It seems that someone cites some civility or disruption or similar Wikipedia policy page almost daily. Grow up. If you have a concern, then deal with it. Don't go yelling for authorities or crying, "He broke the rules!!!!" Civility is difficult to come by when people refuse to deal with content and instead continuously complain about format. Move on. Jav4316:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jav43, but civility is the only way we are going to get through this. If you can't deal with that then you shouldn't be here.-Localzuk(talk)16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always moaning at Jay for his excessive references to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and so on, but in this case we're generating more heat than light here, and it won't do us any harm to at least keep the attacks to a minimum, they haven't done us any good so far, and I think we all know where we all stand. --Coroebus16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, just move on. Unless people are actively making attacks against you for the sake of insulting you for reasons unaffiliated with your statements on this page, there's no reason to cite any rules. Citing conduct rules every five seconds just makes more people angry. Snap out of it. Learn to resolve disputes without crying for playground moderators. Jav4322:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand my point Jav43. An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not condusive to a useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If users are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.
If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the 'right' answer and find it difficult to assume good faith of the other parites, but we must force ourselves to as much as possible, and to stay civil. Else we are just a bunch of arguing editors who are doing exactly nothing for improving the site.
I completely agree that civility is good and is conducive to a good work environment. However, whining about imagined or real instances of incivility does not get us anywhere. Save the references to "civility" rules for truly egregious wrongs and everyone (other than you) will be much happier. Jav4301:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Coroebus, a self-admitted critic of the (in)famous Jay agrees this instance is called for. Please refrain from falsely accusing other editors of excess... that is being uncivil! (And I have had my share of unsightly encounters with Jay too, he is harsh like a Russian steppe, and likes the wikilawyer part a bit too much, but in reality he tends to be helpful and civil.) --Cerejota02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at any particular instance, but rather saw two citations to conduct rules in little more than a day... after weeks of continued citations to conduct rules. If particular instances do absolutely require such citations, then so be it, but nothing requires the multitude of citations to conduct rules that we have seen. Jav4304:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is a simple answer to this problem then - be civil and then citations won't be necessary. What you are doing is complaining because people are trying to keep things in order here. If someone warns others about civility, I doubt they are doing it for minor reasons.-Localzuk(talk)22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see someone give a civility warning for a "major" reason. Seriously, just let some things go. We don't need to whine every time someone ruffles our feathers. Jav4323:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise which should satisfy the requirements
It was proposed in here that we put mention on the factory farming page that the terms are in some cases synonymous with xyz.. Now: if that little snippet of information is added to the version (pre the last revert): does that not satisfy the desire to indicate that some find the terms synonymous? That also satisfies me because we're not merging away legitimate encyclopaedic entries.. Isn't everyone moderately happy with that compromise?
SV/crum/localzuk: you get your desire to assert the terms are used synonymously and the other pages can just hang around as they were doing fine.. There's really no POV fork because the pages were all created separately and with the mind to create an entry for terms used out there in the real world.
Wouldn't this break the impass? The lead section mentions your definition, but the term "intensive farming" doesn't disappear away and that keeps myself and britannica/oxford etc all happy (and the rest of the editors)..
Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility[1] as part of a set of methods designed to produce the highest output at the lowest cost, using economies of scale, modern machinery, modern medicine, and global trade for financing, purchases and sales. It is a type of industrial agriculture and a subset of intensive agriculture that is also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations,[6] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). The practice is also referred to simply as "intensive farming", or "industrial farming" when referring to modern methods of livestock production.
Nathan, it seems to me you are putting the cart before the horse. We need to decide on a top level farming article structure first, then nail down each of the titles, then decide on the lead of each article. To go now into the details of only one of them, Factory Farming (assuming that is in fact the name we end up with), before we agree where it fits in, is simply premature, and diverts us from our main task. Crum37520:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page protection is only a minor temporary point. The big issue that we need to resolve is the overall article structure that pertains to a variety of articles of related or equivalent topics, as listed above on this Talk page. Crum37520:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crum, I guess the thing is that removing the other articles is probably not going to fly as there's evidence to support the terms being independent from factory farming/CAFO/"modern intensive confined animal farming"/whatever. And FF is big enough that a merge is going to need a split anyhow.. So this way we're putting the "the terms are synonymous" references into the article, which is (from what I can see) one of the core arguments from one side of the debate and is a good way to cater for that bit of information from sources (right or wrong.. if it's something that's strongly pushed and if is believed supported by the references: Then this might be the best way to move on from that).. I know it's not the same as deleting all the articles etc, so it's not going to be a 100% satisfactory solution for those who want to delete 'em.. But it would get that bit in the article that this has been arguing about and is middle ground.. ). What do you reckon? NathanLee21:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to decide, for example, where Intensive Farming goes. If it redirects to Factory Farming, then we need to decide which name is primary. Similarly for Intensive Agriculture, Industrial Agriculture, etc. We can't just bury our heads in the sand - we need to face these issues and solve them. Crum37521:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago we had nothing at all - so should we just delete the entire encyclopedia? We clearly need to move forward, that's the whole idea of this project, and keep improving the content and structure as we go. We do it based on consensus. If consensus can't be reached on a Talk page after a reasonable amount of time, and I think we are well past that here, we need mediation. I think that's pretty obvious. Crum37522:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for another fallacious argument. I think you're just being difficult and avoiding any attempt to get a consensus.. If you truly want to move forward: how about you consider whether this compromise achieves what you've been pushing for: mention of synonymous terms.. If you're unwilling to accept that that is a fair compromise: then mediation is going to achieve sweet f**k all to be honest: because you're not going to accept anything less than deleting all the articles and having them renamed to factory farming AND a bunch of sad looking gestation crate pictures lifted from activist sites.. Can I ask if any of you lot are members of animal liberation organisations (PETA, ALF etc) because I really think this is beyond merely wanting a piece of information included (which I'm offering in this compromise): this is just blatant political POV to be pushing this desire to remove valid articles. There is absolutely no reason to delete other articles if they have decent content and are independent themes: which they are. And after the tone of the RFC that SV wrote it most certainly seems like using the RFC as a way to censor others or to (like the block) use the processes as a tactic.. NathanLee13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Nathan, please try to remain cool and civil, and focus on the message, not the messenger(s). If this case ever goes to ArbCom, I assure you that their main focus will be on our conduct, not on content issues, so your best way to prevail there will be to demonstrate a professional demeanor in every message you post, regardless of your frustration level. May I ask why you think that going to RfM, where we are letting neutral party(ies) evaluate our situation and make suggestions, will result in anyone getting censored? Don't you think that is the best way out of our current impasse? Crum37514:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's ridiculous, Crum. First, [156]. Second, you completely avoided answering any of the reasonable points Nathan raised and instead turned this back to RfM. Please actually answer his questions rather than raising new issues. If you read SV's original RfM, before Nathan sanitized it, removing insane bias, you would understand how a slanted RfM request does not encourage people that the RfM will occur fairly. Jav4316:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not putting all agriculture-based articles in one page. Sorry. Even if that were the debate here, it would not require that this page be protected. So... yeah, your proposal works for me, Nathan. I'm game. Jav4322:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin and Localzuk: would this compromise to put in the synonymous mention keep you happy? Can we unlock the page and get on with life? NathanLee13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The issue is that we have a duplication of information. All this suggestion goes for is maintaining the status quo having a multitude of articles. What we have said is that we wanted a single article. We have suggested having a couple of articles as a middle ground. This is once again ignoring that and asking for the tonne to stay. So, yes, it would satisfy the inclusion of information regarding the words being synonymous but doesn't cover the other issues at all.-Localzuk(talk)15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The duplication of information is a problem solvable through editing. Editing seems to be the least preferred solution to some editors in this forum. FNMF15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the complaint is duplication of information, then I would say that I don't think there's an issue that can't be addressed by editing and so on. Factory farming is not the appropriate place for information on the concept of intensive farming, and if there's a factory farming article then that should be the primary spot for specific information and no having too much of that in intensive farming. There's also article size considerations: one big article is unwieldy and going to be too massive an article.. So smaller more directed should be the preference rather than one or two large catch-alls for anything relating to modern agriculture: which is a rather massive field (if you avoid sensationalist activist definitions). So perhaps if the content of this article (the addition to compromise and stop the reverting) is ok with you guys then we can unblock the article and start discussing content rather than deleting/merging of articles.. They are not good candidates for deletion: which is what this is suggesting. Much of the duplication of information was due to the edits to merge/delete intensive farming.. So if we're allowed to clean it up and put things back in the right articles that complaint will no longer be an issue. NathanLee16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk, I'm sorry that you want to remove the agriculture section from Wikipedia and everything associated with it, but your biases shouldn't control content here. There is a huge amount of duplicitive information in this encyclopedia, and it generally doesn't cause harm. If we wanted to be proactive on the point, we should remove the discussion of organic farming practices from the organic food article, instead referring readers to the organic farming article. Jav4316:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still not acceptable? Bias/ Conflict of interest?
So no further thoughts about whether this is an acceptable solution proposed above that includes the synonymous mention? In an earlier question about animal lib group membership: although it doesn't mean you are definitely going to be POV editing: it is a potential conflict of interest as per the policies. So as several editors on here (including myself) have suggested that your side of the editing is skewed towards an animal lib POV: that should be a wakeup call and perhaps result in extension of good faith in erring on the side of "well, maybe all these editors are just trying to improve the article".
A concrete example:If you recall that britannica and dictionaries were attempted to be dismissed as not to be used? But it seems that when the term is Animal rights then there's a bit more credit given to Britannica for use in the lead of an article by SV (and localzuk edited that page a bit too) [157], [158].
And the argument about what should go in the lead (as in it's a summary of later stuff): well why does this get chopped out if it means the lead no longer summarises the later material, and ability to fine grain determine difference in often synonymous terms "animal rights" vs "animal liberation movement" but any and all terms even remotely related to "factory farming" need to be made the same as. In short I think this shows there's a bit of a bias by at least two of the editors involved here and similar 3RR "revert without discussion" sequence of events (including jagjg protecting[159] then changing it to SV's version after locking[160]). Or tag teaming again:to protect an obscure term,[161], Spookily similar result. In short: there's a clear bias and the patience we've all shown in trying to accommodate it is just using up goodwill and energy better spent elsewhere. Yes this is article related because it relates to editors' potential conflict of interest with respect to this article and double standards are being applied. For the record I (and have said before) have no affiliation with any animal rights group or with any agriculture groups, nor do I have a belief in animal lib or anything of that sort. So I'd think that perhaps the editors involved might examine and comment on their potential conflict of interest in this matter.. NathanLee01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not myself verified any of these claims; but if they are accurate, then they would constitute behavior issues as opposed to content issues and as such would be appropriately addressed by arbcom. SlimVirgin et. al., will you please agree to the proposals NathanLee et. al. have proposed so we can avoid arbcom? C'mon guys ... WAS 4.25005:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! For god's sake, you are going on and on and on about the same proposals and ignoring our requests. You are not suggesting any form of compromise - maintaining your favoured position is not a compromise. No matter how much you shout 'COI' 'POV', it won't sway me. We have said what we wanted. We have presented a good middle ground that covers the entire subject in a sensible way.
Simply going back to 'you're biased' and 'we're right' isn't helping at all. You have still not grasped the meaning of the word 'compromise'. It means taking your position (where you want duplication and many articles, with 'Factory Farming' being referred to only as a term used by activists) and our position (which is having one article on this subject area, with discussion of the synonymous usage of the different terms) and find somewhere in the middle. NathanLee's proposal is not a compromise.
And I would happily go to arbcom. I don't believe I have behaved out of line, asking for people to compromise, be civil, stay on topic, stay succinct, explaining my views regarding sources etc... I will say, though, that ArbCom would likely pick up on the large amount of incivility coming from a few editors in this situation.
By the way, whilst I am a supporter of animal rights, I am in no way affiliated with any groups or campaigns. Holding views about a subject matter doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest - else the only people able to edit articles would be those not interested in them, which would be ridiculous. I have successfully edited many subjects regarding AR with no bias, providing negative information about the subject etc... So any claims that I am editing in a biased manner are simply false. I would say the same thing about SV and Crum375, as they both have a very good history of NPOV editing - else neither of them would have been made administrators.
So, in conclusion: if you suggest a compromise that is sensible, then we may have some chance of people accepting it. If you keep suggesting thins which are so close to your position that it ignores ours entirely then you aren't going to get a positive response.Localzuk(talk)09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk, please actually read what has been proposed. Not doing so simply makes you appear more biased. We never said that only activists use these different terms interchangeably. Rather, we proposed a fair compromise that, as you just stated, explains that these terms are used synonymously in some forums, as well as being used correctly in many others. [162]. Jav4316:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the terms being only used by activists is based on the comments made by various editors over the last week or so. Check through the history and you will see it.
Also, you just said 'synonymously in some forums, as well as being used correctly in many others'. Who are you to say which usage is correct? You can try and back it up with dictionaries, which I personally see as descriptive documents of usage so change regularly but it still doesn't mean either usage is 'correct'.
What I said above, which you have failed to address, is that the 'compromise' that is being suggested only touches on one aspect of this large problem - the use of the term in the article(s). We can't simply do that as it doesn't address the fact that the terms are used synonymously in terms of article structure.-Localzuk(talk)16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been nothing really mentioned about activists: the issue's been "we want all these pages turned into the one page". The term IS a popular activist term (if you can find a proponent site that uses the term you're probably on about page 20 of the google results.. and britannica sepecifically mentioned that it was favoured by activists). As for "known NPOV": actually SV seems to have has a bit of a reputation with some editors for POV pushing if you start digging in RFCs and RFAs (pro-jewish/israeli, pro-animal lib were the accusations made by various people and that's only after 5 mins of searching).. Or just into the history of her talk page.
Being made administrator shows nothing in relation to NPOV ability, it's also nothing more than a cleanup role (jimbo wale's view).. If you think it means more: it doesn't. ALL editors are equal on wikipedia: so you can throw that argument out the door.
There was at least one revertwar driven arbcom involving the animal rights page that I saw.. And to be honest: your "definition" conflicts with the way the rest of us read those articles AND encyclopaedia britannica/various dictionaries/new world encyclopaedia etc.. So we're making a hell of a compromise to even accept that the terms are used synonymously because basically: they aren't unless you've got a pretty dumbed down view of agriculture..
How most people use "there/their/they're" often isn't correct either, but we're not generally going to redefine the correct usage based on people's incorrect interpretation of that.
I've shown that in one instance you/SlimVirgin are more than happy to use britannica: but on this page (in what can only really be called delaying tactics at this stage) it is unacceptable as it conflicts with POV on how related topics should be presented to the public and warrants SV inviting a friendly editor (jayjg) and another guy to back that view up. I see no mention of any issue whatsoever in using that as a source on the animal rights page by either localzuk or SV. As with the Animal rights page the technique of protection to hold a version up there was used but instead of localzuk reverting and requesting, it was jayjg who firstly protected the non SV version THEN reverted (completely against policy there). And it wasn't that you have an interest in animal lib that I was saying may indicate a POV infection: it was the editing actions. I agree that you can't exclude people who are interested in a topic: and said that, BUT if they are showing a clear bias (which I think if you look at every change made to the pages to do with this topic I think you'll find there's a pro-animal lib slant and a gradual chipping away or marginalisation of negative information.
If you're concerned with civil behaviour: that we've persisted with trying to engage in discussion with difficult/abrasive/evasive editing practices shows an overall civility, assumption of good faith and patience far beyond that which should have to be extended to support a flimsy argument.
Now of course you can disregard all of this as "personal attack" or "incivility" (what isn't these days?), but the rules are not meant to mean we turn a blind eye to disruptive POV pushing or disruption no matter how "senior" or whatever they are or think they are.. The first rule is "ignore all rules if they're getting in the way of improving wikipedia": if that means pointing out that something is biased or an editor is not doing good things to wikipedia: then that's worth being bold for and calling them out on that (which appears to be the case in this situation). NathanLee19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't address everything there as there is too much. I will address your comment about becoming an admin. Administrators are 'voted' in following questions about a variety of situations. Being 'voted' in shows that the user has a good knowledge of policies, and is trusted not to abuse those powers. I know it is a maintenance role, but it is only given to those who can be trusted with it. This is why I brought it up. If Crum and SV had histories of POV editing, there is no chance they would be given the role of admin as they would not be trusted to not misuse their extra buttons.
When I look through SV's history I see a huge number of POV pushing editors who are angry because they have not got their way. I have not seen SV edit in a POV manner anywhere, as yet - every edit has a good reason (same with Crum, and I should say, with myself).
Once again you simply are saying our sources do not say something and yours does, and that because of that we are being biased and that a middle ground between the 2 points is 'one hell of a compromise'. I think you need to start realising that in a polar situation, there has to be give by both sides. You have not shown any give, other than saying you are willing to allow something, that was already in this article, to remain there. How kind of you.
I would suggest, also, that you stop focussing on editor's supposed 'bias' and realise that you, just like everyone else in the world, have a bias also - and this bias is very apparent from your edits. So, rather than getting into a 'your biased' slagging match, how about coming up with a compromise that actually does just that? Compromises?-Localzuk(talk)20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Nathan's comment: So True.
To Localzuk: You have yet to propose a viable compromise. Perhaps that's because you don't want anything that contradicts your prejudiced POV on the page -- but I don't know. Regardless, please stop asking us to "compromise" without offering compromises of your own -- particularly since we HAVE offered compromise after compromise, which you have ignored time and time again. (I note that you AGAIN failed to address the compromise proposed [163]. Until you're willing to actually READ WHAT IS SAID, please do not continue your antics on this page.) (Oh, and status [admin or otherwise] means nothing - actions mean everything.) We have demonstrated which meaning of the terms in dispute is correct through peer-reviewed journals and well-respected sources. Please actually look at the evidence, rather than sticking to your rote beliefs. Move past your animal-liberation indoctrination and we might be able to get somewhere. Jav4320:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All you have done there is simply ignored the multitude of compromises that have been suggested. All of which have been summarily ignored by yourself. You have not 'shown' that your definitions are 'correct' just that there are these sources, and you believe them to be superior to those presented by ourselves. Neither is 'correct' they are just 2 different meanings. We are going round in circles here. You don't believe that we have attempted compromise, although we have shown that we are (asking for somewhere between the 2 sides to be presented, which you are not doing). Please can all parties go to mediation? I have commented on the above proposal and have said why it is not a compromise as it simply does not address the large problem of structure.-Localzuk(talk)20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that half of the editors here believe that it should be a single article due to the major synonymity of the terms, duplication of information etc... and half think it should be many articles due to the opposite of those views. This is the underlying issue behind this entire mess. The lead is one small part of that.-Localzuk(talk)23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, this is the problem. If you read up the page you will see a large discussion about the entire stance behind merging all the 'Industial Agriculture/Intensive Farming/Factory Farming' articles into one. On one side we have several editors who support this, and on the opposite some that don't. So, it was suggested that we go for a middle option - create 2 pages 'intensive farming (crops)' and 'intensive farming {animals) with a single disambiguation page for all the terms, which points people to either of these articles. This is all discussed in the first topic of the page and goes on for about a half of the page... We are just going round and round in circles.-Localzuk(talk)23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to stop going round in circles, I think you (Localzuk, etc.) need to genuinely consider the reasons you find yourself doing so. The fundamental reason editors do not want to agree to mediation is because they do not trust how you will behave in mediation. And they do not trust how you will behave because they have observed how editors have behaved. Now, you can talk about how you have been "civil" and supposedly proposed "compromises" all you want, but editors are not persuaded by this, because this is not their perception of your behaviour. Whatever compromises you think you have proposed, the perception of other editors is that your overwhelming agenda is to delete other articles, and to do so in order to control the coverage of animal farming in Wikipedia. And the reason they make these judgments about your agenda is that all your arguments for deleting other articles are based on guessing what those articles will be like: either that they will be "POV forks" or that they will contain "duplicate information." The fundamental fact is: other editors are not persuaded that these guesses about what will happen with multiple articles are good enough reasons to delete the articles in advance. And it is clear to other editors that the last solution you wish to accept is to let these articles run their course or actually to edit these articles, in order to make them into good articles. It seems that you find it preferable to keep going round in circles and keep this article indefinitely protected, rather than consider actually editing this or other articles. Your clear wish to control the situation in advance by controlling which articles are permitted to exist is the fundamental reason other editors do not trust you. In the end, it is fundamentally illegitimate to keep this article protected indefinitely on the grounds that this article cannot be edited until decisions are made about other articles. The persistence with which you have held to this manipulative, controlling and illegitimate argument is the fundamental reason other editors do not wish to pursue other avenues that you claim can lead to a solution. FNMF00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FNMF, if two sides disagree, and both seem firmly entrenched in their positions, what alternative is there besides mediation? Crum37501:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum, that is a good, and difficult, question. But my answer probably won't please you. Obviously I cannot instruct you or Localzuk, etc., what to do, but it is my genuine belief that your "side" needs to do some genuine introspection about the degree to which your agenda is determined by being a Wikipedian, and the degree to which it is determined by your concern for animal welfare. My saying that is not an accusation, but I do believe that experienced editors should be able to ask themselves such things in a truly self-questioning way. And my saying that your "side" should do that comes from this belief: I don't actually think we are confronted with a situation where two "sides" disagree: I think, rather, that your perception that there are two "sides" is a big part of the problem. My perception is: there is one "side," and then there is everybody else. Like I said: I expect you won't like that answer, primarily because you are likely to see it as "one-sided." But if you can genuinely ask yourself the question, "What is the other side?", I think you will find it difficult to describe what the other side is supposed to be for. The other "side" certainly aren't an anti-animal rights group, or a pro-factory farming group, are they? And if they aren't genuinely a "side," that suggests that the "side" that perceives things in terms of "two sides" should conduct the process of introspection I mentioned. Beyond that, I can only suggest that editors ask themselves whether keeping an article indefinitely protected and insisting on deleting articles is a legitimate approach, or whether it isn't. In my opinion, it isn't. FNMF01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 positions regarding this whole situation - whether you think there are or not. There is one outcome - improving Wikipedia. The use of the word 'side' is a simplification of a complex set of arguments, is all.-Localzuk(talk)02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and I stand by what I said. I think your response is disappointing, and I can't help noticing how little you tend to respond to the points I have raised in this instance, nor the points I have raised in previous instances. FNMF02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FNMF, if there is a simple answer to my simple question above, I haven't been able to find it in your words. There are clearly two sides here, and clearly both are entrenched. The specifics of the 'agendas', if any, of the sides, are not really relevant. The bottom line is that we are stuck, we don't seem to be moving, and we are unlikely to move on our own. So clearly we need outside help, aka mediation. If you believe the facts are on your side, as I assume you do, what do you have to fear from neutral outsiders trying to help us? At worst they'll achieve nothing, while at best they may be able to get us to find a mutually acceptable solution. So why not give it a shot? Crum37502:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again: a disappointing response. No matter how many times you tell me, I don't believe I'm part of a "side." It is not a matter of persuading me to agree to mediation. What you have to face is that numerous editors have concluded that you prefer infinite postponement and disruption to actually solving the problem. Editors don't believe you want to solve the problem, except on your own terms. And they do not accept that these terms are legitimate. Again, I see no evidence of any willingness to address the points I actually raised:
Is it legitimate to demand the deletion of articles in advance because of what they might turn out to be like in the future?
Is it legitimate to demand the deletion of articles because they might turn out to be POV, or because they might duplicate information?
Why is editing not a potential solution to these problems?
Is it legitimate to keep this article indefinitely protected because of your desire to delete other articles?
These are the questions you need to ask yourself and need to answer for others. Questions such as these are the reasons editors do not believe it is worthwhile entering into mediation with a group of editors unwilling to honestly address such concerns. FNMF02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you are disappointed, but this is how Wikipedia works. There are groups of editors with different points of views about the issues, and sometimes it is hard to find a middle ground. For the groups to label each other in derogatory terms, or to claim that some are more 'legitimate' than others, is always counter-productive and will achieve nothing. If you really want to move forward, instead of just going around in circles, then mediation is the only solution - surely you can see that? Crum37502:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The clear unwillingness of editors on your "side" to say anything whatsoever about the questions I raised (numerous times) speaks volumes. FNMF02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is legitimate - it is part of the editing process to merge articles
Yes, again it is part of merging things to remove duplication
Because we have tried that, and that is what got us here. Editors tried a merge of the articles and all hell broke loose. This was followed by large scale removal of anything remotely critical from the lead, the removal of anything to do with the synonymous usage of terms etc...
Yes, it is. Until something can be decided on the overall future direction of this entire mess, having an article protected is a normal method of preventing warring.
We are trying to solve this problem. We have tried to present mutliple compromises, but they have been pretty much rejected without anything reasonable being presented as an alternative (other than maintaining the status quo, which as I have mentioned several times is not a compromise).
Whether you like it or not, there are 2 sides, you may not think there are and you may not think you are on one side or the other but you are. There is a deadlock. We need neutral editors to mediate in a formal manner to make any headway on this.-Localzuk(talk)02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FNMF, we have addressed each of these questions and issues ad nauseam. This Talk page is filling up Wikipedia server space and we are achieving nothing. If you feel confident that the facts and policies are on your side, why not let neutral parties come in and advise us? Crum37502:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk, thanks for answering my questions. Personally, I find the answers very unconvincing. I find the insistence on keeping this page indefinitely protected because of those answers to be illegitimate. The reality is that the articles aren't going to be deleted without a consensus, and there is no evidence of such a consensus emerging. In the light of the lack of likely consensus, I find the insistence on indefinitely protecting this page to be controlling and illegitimate. You throw your hands in the air and say, "Why won't people agree to mediation?" I'm just telling you the reason. As things stand, a group of diverse editors seem to find your tactics and arguments very problematic. Whether you do anything about that is up to you. Continuing to throw your hands in the air does not count as doing something about it. In the end, I think if you have any sense you will need to recognise there is no consensus for merging the articles and agree to unprotect the page. But I also feel that me saying that to you is just likely to cause you to dig your heels in even harder. What you think that will achieve is beyond me. FNMF02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also.. As was said: you have a bunch of diverse/different editors and the three of you have a common interest in animal lib/animal rights (at least 2 of you..). The above was (I think) a fair suggestion/compromise that incorporates the synonymous claim.. Now we should be moving on. But SV hasn't put any input into this (although doesn't read the discussion): has she lost interest (more just than not reading the discussion normally)? NathanLee15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Question...
M'kay. Factory farming. Presumably they breed the cattle that they raise and eventually slaughter. What happens to the placenta after the calves are born? I'd assume they'd just throw it away, but where is it disposed? Does anybody know? Thanks in advance to whoever does.
With cows, the birthing cow usually eats the placenta shortly after birth, while or after cleaning off the calf. The placenta is a good source of protein that replenishes the cow's body, which may be depleted from calving. (The cow isn't forced to eat the placenta; she does so on her own.) This practice of consuming the placenta is quite common among mammals. The placenta would not be discarded unless the cow did not consume it - in which case it would be disposed of as fertilizer (perhaps in a lagoon), alongside a dead animal, or through normal garbage collection services. Jav4316:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like katie holmes/tom cruise were rumoured to be going to do with their baby huh?[164] ;) On topic though: it sounds like in some areas the waste disposal is pretty lax (i.e. out and out straight on the fields pollution) and it may just be spread over the farmlands with the manure.. There was a video I watched where the locals were complaining about cow parts spread on fields.. NathanLee16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, placenta would have a very small biological impact on land, pollution-wise. Simply throwing it on a field would be an acceptable method of disposal. But like I said, that would be rare: the cow would nearly certainly eat the placenta. Jav4316:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A weekly reminder...
We need to go into moderation. Another week has passed and nothing substantial has been proposed or discussed, just a bunch of "(s)he-said" arguments, personal attacks and wikilawyering. Nothing about content.
If people disagree with the page protection, speak to another admin to evaluate the situation, or raise it at the admin noticeboard or even raise an arbcom on this. But do not continue arguing with involved administrators in this talk page which gets you nowhere. --Cerejota15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed. The sooner we go into moderation, the sooner this issue will be resolved. Until then, all we'll get is more hot air and going around in circles. Crum37515:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well a compromise was proposed that included the "terms are synonymous" (i.e. content), think that got agreement some editors and would seem to answer the required change to content somewhat. The issue of articles getting merged/deleted should be raised some other way: in terms of content on this article as it stands if Crum375 is happy with that and localzuk is happy with the content change to THIS page: then we should be able to remove the protection and they can take up the discussion for deleting pages via the appropriate channels.. There's usually a tag to put in pages which didn't appear on any of the "to be merged" pages.. Can we separate out that argument from what goes on this page as it is currently titled and as it is currently named? NathanLee16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what you expect to get out of moderation, Crum, since you refuse to actually look at the issue/consider any form of compromise. I don't see how moderation can be the magic pill that will make everyone suddenly do whatever you say. I don't oppose moderation - but if we can't get anywhere without moderation, moderation certainly won't be of any assistance. Perhaps you could actually look at the issues with an open mind, Crum, and then we could get somewhere. Jav4316:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You imply that I have not looked at issues with an open mind. I will just assume good faith and conclude that you truly believe that. Needless to say, I disagree, and believe that SlimVirgin, Localzuk and myself have gone overboard trying to compromise, while your side have proposed nothing beyond words. We have also agreed to accept mediation from day one, while some on your side refused. The point is, we will all keep spouting words at each other until the cows come home (unless in Factory Farming they are always home ;^)), and nothing of substance will happen unless we get some neutral third parties to move this process along. Crum37517:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal
There is clearly no consensus for deleting articles. And there is clearly no prospect of such a consensus emerging in the near future. The wish to delete articles cannot be a grounds for indefinitely maintaining protection of this article. So the only possible grounds for maintaining protection of this article is the supposedly terrifying prospect of "edit warring." Well, what can we do about that? I propose that all involved editors agree to the following: (a) the opening of the article be adjusted so that it links to the other articles; (b) the opening of the article be adjusted so that it reflects the desire of some editors to say that "factory farming" is sometimes used synonymously with other terms; (c) editors agree not to delete mention of the controversial animal welfare aspects of factory farming from the opening paragraphs of the article. If all editors can agree to these terms, I think we can unprotect the article almost immediately. FNMF18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree You edit conflicted with me just as I was asking a near identical question. Sounds like a good start to move forward. NathanLee18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by not deleting mention of "controversial animal welfare aspects"? I have no problem with the actual text of the lead containing the mention it does, but I still maintain that the image currently in the lead is improper. Jav4319:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any point getting in to those kind of specifics here. Obviously I am not proposing that everything about the article be set in stone. What I am proposing is that you agree not to just wade in and make changes other editors are going to object to without discussing things on the talk page first. By agreeing to hold back from simply making such changes, it will become possible to unprotect the page and see if things stabilise. I think this is achievable, but only if all editors are mindful of how their own behaviour may escalate the situation. FNMF19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree This seems to me to be just another POV fork. We need to decide at a top level what is the best way for Wikipedia to present the topic of Factory Farming and related Intensive Farming terms. Then, once we agree on a top level structure, we can decide on the lower tiers, if any. To start from the bottom with one article that seems likely to overlap others is contrary to our rules. Crum37521:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum: If you want to delete articles then that can be a different topic, that doesn't need this article locked.. But FOR NOW can we focus on the reason why this article is not allowing any future editing which is the content in this article under this heading.. NathanLee21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, we are just going around in circles. You can't build a roof without a foundation. The decision sequence has to be 1) top level structure, 2) titles of top level entries, and 3) contents of leads. If you can't accept this simple outline, we need an outsider to help us. Crum37523:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You have not demonstrated that having multiple articles is necessarily a "POV fork"; (2) you have not demonstrated why, if there is such a problem, it can't be solving through editing; (3) you have ignored the clear fact that there is no prospect of any consensus to delete articles. It is very difficult not to conclude that you prefer to keep the page indefinitely protected to seeking a solution. But putting all that to one side for the moment, is there one or more of my points (a) to (c) in my proposal to which you feel you cannot adhere? FNMF23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bypass FNMF's question.. So answer both.. Well, if you are unable to see the obvious attempts to move things forward.. well let me recap.. You wanted synonymous: you got a solution that puts that in. You want criticism in the lead (no problem it was there anyhow were you interested, and no one was saying it couldn't be there). You want just one big article or maybe split in 2 but saying the same thing: consensus seems to be against that and there seems to be little to be gained by that.
Holding this page hostage to force deleting articles when one view (the SV/crum/localzuk animal lib collective) versus the various viewpoints of the rest of us is hardly the way to sell the need to merge articles. Take a look at the JD lambert ag stuff before you post yet another "we need mediation, that's all we're open to" that's your camp's sole suggestion of late. Is that structure suitable? If structure is what you want, that one's not a bad place to start cleaning up the duplication..
A crazy thought: if you agree to unlock the page and contribute something other than reverts or undiscussed mass changes: maybe it can evolve. All that can happen while you dig your heels in is indeed go around in circles while you fail to compromise (which is bound to happen in mediation too by the way.. it's just one level of indirection and if you win, we whinge, we win, you whinge, consensus is not reached and thus the circle continues). It seems a bit strange that only the 2-3 of you seem to be pushing this "we need mediation" and the rest of us are pushing for some middle ground.. Just what is the deal? I can't really assume this push for mediation is in good faith when a good faith offer(s) is/are here in front of you.. I'll even give you a sticker barnstar for your troubles.. ;) NathanLee00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please save those poor electrons! (I am an Electron Rights activist). The situation is simple: we disagree over the approach, the titles and the contents. We have gone over every issue a thousand times plus. It's time for outside help. Crum37500:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my Disagree vote above. We have been over every one of your points many times, ad nauseam, and are still on square 0. Mediation will get us back on track. Crum37500:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I understand you still have concerns about the article, and I understand you want to go into mediation. But the question is: is there a way of unprotecting the article in the meantime? Keeping the article protected is a bad thing: the goal here should be to edit. I cannot help but notice you have refused to address every single one of my questions, and have refused to indicate which of the elements of my proposal you cannot abide by. You can pursue your agenda with the article unprotected. Wanting to keep it protected is beginning to look like a will to obstruct the development of this article. FNMF00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Unprotecting at this point will not solve anything - we'll still have all the issues we have now, plus a possible edit war. So let's resolve our differences first. And by the way, the only 'agenda' I have is maintaining Wikipedia's rules. Crum37500:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I believe unprotecting may well solve some problems. You cannot keep an article indefinitely protected just because you feel like it. Unless you are saying you are going to be disruptive if we unprotect, it seems to me we can still unprotect despite your disagreement, so long as other editors are prepared to risk not knowing how you may behave. One or two editors objecting to unprotection on the grounds they don't want it is not a good reason to keep the article protected. The worst that can happen is the article gets protected again. FNMF00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that leaving an article protected is a good way to get people to resolve their differences. When it is clear there are significant deeply entrenched differences, unprotecting is not a good idea. Mediation is usually highly recommended in such situations. Crum37500:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's how you feel. But, as I said, there's really nothing to lose, and it is bad to keep an article indefinitely protected. So regardless of your reservations, and despite your unwillingness to try out solutions, I think the article should be unprotected. FNMF01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've had enough agrees and one disagree to unlock the page. If one user (crum375) can't see a fair and flexible compromise then that's their disruptive editing problem and too blinded by POV to accept consensus, one user shouldn't be holding up a page indefinitely. Deferring all decision making to some random party seems to be the only decision crum's willing to make, so crum: here's 4 people willing to making that decision for you.. Is that ok? Take your concessions and give it a rest. :) You might think mediation is the only solution: the rest of us seem to think compromise was a good way: which we did along several levels and you still rejected it outright.. Where's the scope for any compromise? NathanLee01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is this: one editor disagrees with the proposal to unprotect. Perhaps another editor (maybe even two) will back up the disagreement. What that means is: they are not consenting to be bound by the proposal, and thus editors do not know how they will behave if the article is unprotected. My feeling is that the editors who have agreed to my proposal should trust that the behaviour of Crum et al will not be so disruptive as to make unprotection a bad idea. But when Jav, etc. agreed to my proposal, they did so on the basis that everybody would agree to it. If we are going to unprotect the article without the agreement of all editors, I think those who supported by proposal should be given the chance to say whether they agree to it in spite of Crum et al. Nathan obviously agrees to chance it. I also agree to chance it. I think we should give JDLambert, Jav, WAS, etc., a chance to agree also, before actually unprotecting. FNMF01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct on my opinion on the matter. I think the case for article deletion can be made at some future stage (hopefully not too far off in the future) and in the meantime editors can do the much needed cleanup to at least sort out the duplicate data (e.g. stuff in intensive farming etc). I think the link on ag stuff at the top of this has some good starting points perhaps we can see how that goes.. Both viewpoints will be incorporated into the article.. Should be all sweet with a bit of maturity on both sides.. ;) NathanLee01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reluctantly agree to unprotecting the page. My reluctantance is because SlimVirgin, Crum375, and Localzuk have earned my respect for their many contributions to Wikipedia. However, even though I am not opposed to mediation, I believe it is extremely unlikely to have any useful result, because Wiki policy is that mediation cannot impose a solution and there appears to be an impasse. In addition, seven months is a long time to have an article locked, and in a worst case, it can always be locked again. If we all adhere to posting planned changes and waiting at least a day for discussions, I think we should be able to move forward, even if more slowly than SV/Crum/Localzuk would prefer. JD Lambert02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Seven months is how long the total dispute has been going on. However, there is reason to hope that progress can be made on this article by unlocking it and everyone discussing changes before making them. I have no hope of mediation making any difference. JD Lambert15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read above: we'll try unprotecting the page as having it protected is achieving nothing and a pretty good compromise has been offered.. i.e. "consensus". One or two people wanting a page locked indefinitely is not a reason. NathanLee13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article unprotected/opening adjusted
The article has been unprotected. Hopefully editors are ready to make the most of this without getting involved in a new editing war. I have adjusted the opening in line with the proposal put above. That is: the opening now indicates that the term "factory farming" can be used synonymously with other terms; the opening links to industrial agriculture and intensive farming; all the discussion of the controversial issues remains. This is no doubt not perfect at the moment. Feel free to change, but if all editors can try to discuss changes on the talk page before acting rashly on the article itself, it may be possible to avoid the problems of the past. This depends on all editors choosing to try to act sensibly and thoughtfully. But I do believe that is within the realms of possibility. FNMF19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also appended a final sentence to the opening paragraph indicating that the term "factory farming" can be used to refer to industrial agriculture generally. I have done so because this seemed to be what some editors were arguing about the synonymous use of the term. Again, if editors disagree with this or any other portion of the article, please discuss on talk page before changing. FNMF19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it might be useful to have more than one proposal for change at a time, and there is a tendency (at least with me) to read only the bottom section, I suggest we put markers in the section names. E.g. If someone wants to change the opening image, create a section header with "(OPEN ISSUE)" as a suffix to the section name. Once there is a consensus and the change is made, the suffix can be removed. JD Lambert(T|C)20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.. Might be a good idea to archive this discussion page as the body of it was over synonymous usage (e.g. the tonnes of quotes etc). What do people think? NathanLee20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to content: lead image
Alright, I've left this article for about a week now... I'd like to return to discussing the lead image. I do not believe the image of the sows is appropriate for the lead, as I discussed in Archives 1 and 2. Does anyone have thoughts on this topic?
Also, I don't know how to archive. It would be great if someone could archive this whole argument as Archive 3. Thanks! Jav4321:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that it is from an anti-factory farming site (which do tend to make exaggerated claims at times) and the caption itself is making assumptions based on content in another article.. NathanLee16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image were from a non-bias site, I think it would be appropriate. But, because it is known here that it is from a biased site, it violates the NPOV and should be removed or replaced. --BlindEagletalk~contribs18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? So would one from a government agency be acceptable? It would be from a Pro-factory farming site then, and would therefore be biased...
How is a government site automagically pro-factory farming?
The problem here is that a) the image is not representative and b) the image is intended to be provocative rather than informative. Gestation crates are outlawed in parts of Europe and Australia, as you and SlimVirgin kindly pointed out, and in at least Florida in the US - and will be outlawed in all of the EU by 2013. Placing a largely illegal image in the lead of this article is irresponsible. Secondly, the image was intentionally captured and placed here in order to oppose "factory farming" practices - not to describe them. Something informative would be best. Since we've finally figured out that a "factory farm" is a CAFO, we should simply have an image of a CAFO in the lead, showing large animal numbers in a small space. Jav4319:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, btw: I'm fine with this image being in the "opposition" section of this article. I just do not believe it fits in the lead. Jav4319:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a NPOV image would be best. I agree with the prior post. The image is not meant to inform but to inflame. Can this image be removed and another promoted in its place? --BlindEagletalk~contribs13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, if you had wanted a different image and different content, you should have agreed to compromise or mediation, or to have an article called something other than "factory farming." But as you insist on retaining what you call the "activist" title, then you have to accept that it will be about the controversy. You can't have it both ways. SlimVirgin(talk)17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the distortion. These are not outlawed. They will be outlawed by 2013 in the EU, and in the U.S. there are plans to phase them out by (from memory) 2020 in some areas. But they are, as of this time, widely used in Europe and North America. That's why the image is there. It is an iconic image of factory farming. SlimVirgin(talk)17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I wanted an article called something other than factory farming. Your failure to recognize this simply means that you did not read nor participate in any of the debate we went through, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your first paragraph.
Second, gestation crates ARE outlawed in parts of Europe, Australia, and at least in Florida. Please stop ignoring that. I don't care whether the image is iconic of animal welfare activists; it is not demonstrative of CAFOs. Jav4319:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still is the case that no one has actually shown how this image is representative of "factory farming", defined as a CAFO system. Jav4322:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have failed to show that the image shown is not representative. Any image from a government agency is going to be staged specifically to ensure that it 'looks good' and any image from the industry itself likewise. On the otherhand we have people who simply go into a random farm and take a photo - this is not staged, it is simply a normal pig farm. In the UK, the RSPCA has visited dozens of such farms and shown images similar to the one in dispute, as have dozens of other welfare and rights organisations. In my collection of video's, I have video evidence from at least 20 uk pig farms, and photo evidence from more. Everything I see shows me that this is representative.-Localzuk(talk)23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think governments habitually "stage" images, you need to go see a shrink... or at least visit some farms. This is not just people going into a random farm. This is animal-rights activists looking for excuses to call modern farming evil. This not a neutrally-conceived image. AND it is not representative, as has been demonstrated! Jav4323:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you don't understand how government departments work do you? A department for agriculture is there to help farms, promote farming, and to provide information about farming. Now, in the capitalist society that we live in, the 3 are linked - and therefore images can't be of a mucky farm.
Also, I have been to farms - quite a few actually and all are like the image in dispute and those in the video's and images I have.
Nothing has been demonstrated showing that it is not representative, due to the above mentioned inherent bias within government agencies etc...
Also Jav, even though you haven't broken WP:3RR your constant reverting is disruptive. Looking at it this way you have removed the image 7/8 times in around 72 hours, without consensus. This is not good for the page and it has to stop.-Localzuk(talk)23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you're willing to talk.
How is this supposed to be representative when a) it is illegal in GB, Australia, at least FL, and a host of other European countries, when b) it deals with an atypical industry, hogs, and c), it is taken from an anti-agriculture, pro-PETA website?
Dep't of Agriculture is there to help farms. Interestingly, most of these departments are set up to help small-scale farms while being adverse to large-scale farms that practice "factory farming" methods. How about that?
These sows are confined most of their lives in 2 ft by 7 ft gestation crates.[16][14] Pork producers and many veterinarians say that sows are prone to fighting if housed together in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates from its 187 pig nurseries over the next ten years, because of concerns from its customers, including McDonalds.[14] They are also being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy.[17]
""Oppose"" NPOV, it is not representative of hog farms I have personally visited. Its inclusion is clearly intended to provide editorial content. Flyboy12122:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about voting
This is a stupid thing to fight about. The image can be moved, the caption can be changed, other images can be found, the size of the image can be adjusted. This is not a binary choice. This is something that can be negotiated. Stop fighting about it as if it is a binary issue. Please. WAS 4.25022:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try "all that" on this talk page. Getting reverted means you were trying it on the article page. Which is fine to do once or twice; but then when reverted, the usual thing to do is to take it to the talk page and talk about it. The idea behind "consensus" is to try to find something everyone can live with. Example ideas:
move the image down into the article
make the image smaller or crop it
add a contrasting image (I saw cows on a waterbed image once; the owner said happy cows gave more milk)
caption it with "image used by anti factory farming fanatics to misrepresent factory farming" (well, you have to leave room to negotiate ... :) )
Thank you for your comments. I think the first step is to determine what the majority wants and why. From there we can work on the results of that vote. If you have an opinion on the whether or not the picture should stay, please vote above. --BlindEagletalk~contribs10:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried all that on this talk page, WAS. Then, several times, I waited a few days, then when no one responded, I made a change... and was reverted without comment on the talk page. See Archive 1. Jav4310:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is when everyone involved agrees with some solution enough that they stop fighting and move on. In cases where someone simply refuses to cooperate in finding that solution, then administrative measures (including arbcom) can be used. I suggest we find a solution to this image issue without bringing up other issues and without both sides insisting on no compromise. It was my impression that moving the image down the page had substantial support. Am I wrong on this? WAS 4.25011:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for what happened with these articles. What you've achieved is a bunch of badly written POV forks, which is nothing to be proud of. SlimVirgin(talk)08:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image
We have discussed this image and its rationale ad nauseam. It is very representative of factory farming and includes the essence of the concept with its attendant controversy and therefore belongs in the lead. I see no reason to suppress it. Crum37515:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed, it's neither representative nor typical. This article is about more than a controversy - it is also intended to inform as to a certain farming methodology. Controversy isn't everything. Jav4316:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if its the lead image or used for the Opposing View section. However, it shouldn't be used for both the lead and Opposing View, and since it is the only photo in the Opposing View section (and it's certainly appropriate there), I don't think it should be moved unless an equally suitable photo is provided to take its place in Opposing View. JD Lambert(T|C)18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverts without talk page discussion
So... for those who know, what's the appropriate course of action to take when people revert without engaging in discussion on the talk page, even after being asked to do so? (i.e. Crum and SV) Jav4322:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the reasons for its use have been expressed dozens of times, and the constant ignoring of them is getting old, and saying people aren't discussing it is just wrong, as it has been discussed to death. If you disagree with the image, we should use some form of dispute resolution - as there seems to be 2 completely opposing positions.-Localzuk(talk)23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point in mediation when you refuse to discuss the merits? That said, I won't oppose mediation. Jav4300:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed the merits, over and over and over, to death. This Talk page and its archives contain huge amounts of discussions, that got us nowhere. The way to proceed when we clearly disagree, is not to keep talking at each other ad nauseam, but to go to mediation. Crum37500:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We had 55,000 words from one contributor alone in three days, so heaven knows how many words overall. If you want to go to mediation to discuss the image and the titles, let's do it. We've been suggesting it for weeks. But you can't have your way completely: multiple titles, images of your choice, no mediation. SlimVirgin(talk)01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, those opposed to Slim et. al. should take note of her comment about "can't have your way completely: multiple titles" which seems to indicate the acceptance of not trying to merge other agricultural articles into this one. This was the issue here that I felt could not be compromised on. As long as the other agricultural articles aren't also made into being all about angst for animals then I don't feel its worth the time to fight over this article being too much like that. WAS 4.25008:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's what's wrong with your approach. We should have merged all the information, all the images, all the POVs, and written two encyclopedic articles, instead of leaving this as a POV fork so that your other articles are free of nastiness. Anyway, Jav, as you can see, you backed the wrong side. And WAS, any mediation must cover all the issues, because they're all linked. SlimVirgin(talk)08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's what's wrong with your approach. Everything for you seems to be all about one side versus another and backing a winning side and everything you do comes off as tactics and strategy for winning. Some of us, Slim, just want to incrementally improve a free neutral encyclopedia. WAS 4.25009:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all do. The point SlimVirgin was trying to make is about the way to get there. Some of us wanted to resolve our differences by mediation, while some refused it. Some of us wanted to have a combined article that coherently presents all aspects of industrialized, intensive or factory farming, while others wanted to have three or more articles that would be susceptible to redundancies and POV forking. The 'sides' SlimVirgin refers to are not POVs - they have to do with constructive approaches to a solution, vs. approaches that keep going in circles, spew tons of repetitive verbiage, and do not converge. Crum37514:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slimvirgin, I don't know how to respond to you here. I keep answering your queries and rejecting your conclusions, but you just make the same blatantly false statements over and over again. I really find it hard to believe that you want a good encyclopedia - it seems that you just want to "win", whatever that means for you. Please take a step back and look over your statements - maybe you'll realize how ridiculous they are. Jav4322:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav43, accusing your fellow editors as being 'ridiculous', or not wanting a good encyclopedia is uncivil. Please address the issues; attacking other editors will get you nowhere. If you really want to move forward, convince everyone on this page to agree to mediation. Crum37522:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse SV of being ridiculous. I accused her ridiculous statements of being ridiculous. Please don't read your own biases into my statements. Jav4322:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, do you edit with other accounts? The reason I ask is that I said yesterday you were a single-issue editor, and you said you were not, but the contributions of this account clearly show you are. Also, you edit only sporadically, but are also able to turn up quickly if reverted (and you've reverted it nearly 70 times). It's leading me to think you may have other accounts. Please note that it's a violation of WP:SOCK to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. SlimVirgin(talk)22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-read the rules regarding sockpuppetry. But that's irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything? Jav4322:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think she has done, particularly the line which states 'Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions.'
Regarding the image, you do not have consensus to remove it. It has been there for a long while, the normal thing is to leave things be until consensus can be achieved. So far your arguments have not swayed me and your claims that no-one is discussing the issue are baseless - as we have discussed the image many, many times.-Localzuk(talk)23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, if you have other accounts, please tell us what they are, or start editing here with the main one. You've kicked up quite a bit of dissent on this page for months, and this is exactly the kind of situation where scrutiny of your edits might matter. Please review WP:SOCK very carefully. SlimVirgin(talk)01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have this account simply to avoid scrutiny of your edits, as it seems, then you have broken the rules. It would simply be better if you used only one account or told us of your other account(s).-Localzuk(talk)15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk: have you recognized that at least 6 people agreed the image should be removed, while only 3 support it? This is not an attempt to show a "vote", but merely to show that you are outnumbered -- and that, perhaps, you should take a fresh look at why you are introducing controversy into an article that is meant to be informative. Jav4313:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as you say, majority isn't consensus. The majority can still be wrong... We're not introducing controversy into the article, simply wanting the most representative image at the top.-Localzuk(talk)15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(followup question) What attempts at WP:DR have been made? Article RfCs, Article for deletion discussion, User conduct RfC, Mediation, CheckUser, etc.? Also, thank you for the new "one paragraph" section below, it's very helpful. I would very much like to see a single paragraph from each of the main participants of this dispute. --Elonka19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an RFC (in one of the archives) and an attempt to take it to RFM but several parties didn't believe it would be of any use and declined it. No user conduct, afd or checkusers have been completed.-Localzuk(talk)20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say: I think this potential underhanded tactic of checkusering or accusing (there was a similar some would call abuse of admin rights during a request for adminship that JayjG let slip, and surprisingly enough some names from here popped up there too and defended that..) has nothing to do with the article at hand. If anyone's conduct needs examining: it's the conduct of editors on here who turn up, tag team revert, avoid discussion, claim mediation is the only way forward. SV, crum375, localzuk: I recommend you stop using personal attacks or allegations of impropriety as a substitute for consultative editing. One might suggest you are showing an inability to accept that agriculture is more than just a synonym for "evil". You also do not own the article and it is not necessary/not recommended for an article to be about controversy. If you are blinded by animal lib activism: take it elsewhere. While I can't say if this (found with a simple google search) is anything other than a joke or attempt to slur, but it does somewhat appear to describe the actions on here of a group of people on this topic.
"The most representative image" means different things depending on view. If you are an animal lib proponent: of course you want the most shocking picture (lifted from an activist anti-factory farming site.. something which "you lot" have argued strongly against doing on the PETA page). So I might put it that "most appropriate" to you means "most shocking". Factory farming isn't JUST about controversy (supplying a very large percentage of food to the industrialised nations is no small feat). And yes there is some messed up stuff getting practised but all agriculture isn't evil. All agriculture terms are not simply "factory farming". There are actual benefits as well as downsides whether you like to admit it or not. I'd suggest you lay off this line of attack and perhaps look at your own behaviour on this article. Gestation crates are one small part of the overall field. There are many more pigs NOT in gestation crates (as they're for pregnant sows). Should the page for steak have a big skull with blood dripping from the eyes because some people think that's representative of what a steak is because they hate meat? NathanLee17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I refer SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Localzuk to the policy on checkuser: checkuser policy. To quote:
The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).
I would recommend you read the WP:SOCK policy - which clearly states Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions.
As we have said, it is simply a case that if the user Jav43 is a sock of another account and is only like that to avoid scrutiny then he is breaking the rules. I don't think anyone has requested checkuser or has used checkuser either - just asking him to use only one account as his use of multiple ones makes us uneasy and makes it difficult to trust him. So, Nathan, please actually read what we say before demanding apologies on behalf of someone else.
Also, once again Nathan, you are making unjustified claims of ownership and some sort of conspiracy where there is none. We have a dispute here, which you simply refuse to accept that a legitimate opposite side exists. With regards to removing the image - the image existed there for a while, then was summararily removed without consensus and so far consensus has not been reached to remove it.
Finally, your pointing to the meetup.com link is completely inappropriate and simply makes me think you are using underhanded tactics in order to daemonise SV. You can plainly see that it is a slur, no reasonable person - especially SV - would type such a preposterous pile of nonsense and bringing it up here either shows an acute lack of judgement - and has, I have to say, completely destroyed any respect or trust I had for you.
Localzuk: if you can tell me how SV's (and your) accusation of sock puppetry is in any way a relevant fact or in some way "assuming good faith" in this discussion then I'd love to hear it. Localzuk: i believe it was you who said you or everyone hated me in the past? Is that correct? In which case you had no respect or trust to destroy I would assume. I think your continued defence of some checkuser type threat/accusation/whatever is grossly inappropriate and yes: you should be apologising. Would it be reasonable to suggest that given crum375/SV and yourself could quite easily be assumed to be sock puppets? I had made a request for this to be checked back at the start which SV deleted (a grossly inappropriate act to start with). The claim of ownership: take a look at how SV keeps "tweaking" the page back to the version that was locked a while back. We went through an awful lot of discussion that seems to have been wasted because one user appears unable to accept a differing page or other input (and frequently ignores the "avoid reverting" part of the dispute avoidance policy). This accusation against jav43 is nothing more than extreme assumption of bad faith (or perhaps indications of abuse of checkuser privileges). What other possible reasons would anyone have to make that accusation?
My posting a link: I didn't say it was anything other than a rubbish thing BUT it SEEMED to describe what was going on (unfortunately).
Needing to "detect patterns": This fallacious line of argument is really just a substitute for having a real argument against the question of content and any logical editor can see that. I could (in an equally fallacious line of argument) point out the common editing patterns of say SV and Crum375: nice to see the interest in vegan, animal lib, factory farming, holocaust, jewish related and revert-heavy editing patterns are so consistent (oh and nice that crum375 is watchful and able to decide what constitutes a revert-worthy edit on SV's talk page like this). I might add a request to checkuser on those two was removed by one of the users in question. But here they are slinging mud at Jav43 for no reason (other than it would be nice to silence someone they disagree with). Is it bad faith for me to be suspicious of an out of the blue accusation and demands to go on record to answer obviously bad faith accusations? NathanLee22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, asking someone if they use other accounts is not an assumption of bad faith, it is simply a question based on observations of apparent single purpose editing. Pointing out how things look is not a bad thing either (I agree that the editing patterns of SV and Crum are similar but would not agree that they are sock puppets of one another due to their arguing styles being completely different).
Pointing to a site which is completely inappropriate like you have done is a bad thing and whilst you admit it is nothing more than rubbish, why post it at all other than to cause trouble?
No-one owes Jav43 an apology, as pointing out the rules is not a bad thing. The only assumptions of bad faith are coming from you Nathan...
Finally, I can't remember what exactly I said regarding people liking you as there has been so much talk on these pages, but IIRC it was saying that your behaviour makes people dislike you and I may have said I dislike you - which would be true, but it doesn't mean I can't respect your opinions.-Localzuk(talk)22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to add a link
I am trying to add a link to my little idea, FeedlotRadio.com, to raise animals better the same way you can plants, with music, and silence the vegan protest (ideally).For some reason, this novel idea is being rejected outright every time I try to add the link. It was suggested I discuss it here, so I am. I guess I didn't think there'd be an issue, and I'm surprised it wouldn't be included when so many redundant pro-veganism sites are. - comment by User talk:Repeat2341Contributions
As per your talk page:
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the Feedlot (diff), Factory farming (diffdiff), Vegetarianism (diffdiff), and veganism (diffdiff) articles do not comply with our guidelines for external links, and furthermore have misleading edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Slashme07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please give me a single paragraph summary of what the issue is?
(stepping in as an outside opinion) Folks, I've been trying to get a sense of what the actual controversy is here, but mostly it seems to be a lot of finger-pointing and complaining about individual editors. Could someone please give me a single paragraph summary of what the issue is? Preferably focused on the article, and not on the editors who are working on it? --Elonka22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several disputes really - this one is regarding the image at the top of the page. One group of editors believes that the pig picture is representative of the term and the industry and the other doesn't.
The other dispute is over how many articles there should be on this subject. One group thinks that the three terms 'industrial agriculture', 'intensive farming' and 'factory farming' are so interlinked and similar - and in most places synonymous - that they should be combined into a single article, so that there is less of POV fork nature about this article and an apparent wanting to keep negative information out of the other 2. The other group doesn't, as they believe that they are completely different subject matters and should be dealt with separately based on dictionary definitions. (This is what the several pages of discussion spurned from).
Note: There has been something around 100,000 words of discussion about this, so my summary is very short and crude, to say the least.-Localzuk(talk)00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1)The definition of "factory farming" and proper weighting of sources for that definition including using offhand comments about "factory farming" in newspaper articles to construct a definition contrary to WP:OR. (2)Proper placement and description of the current top most image. (3)Attempts to limit the number of articles on the subject of industrial agriculture. (4)Attempts to turn agriculture articles into angst for animal articles. Agriculture is not all about or even mostly about newspaper covered ontroversies! (5)Personality conflicts. WAS 4.25007:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin
The issues for me are that WAS 4.250 and a few others have created a myriad of other titles as forks, I think to avoid very critical material being placed in them, or perhaps to escape the term "factory farming." They claim that industrial agriculture, factory farming, and intensive agriculture are not the same thing, even though we've shown that reliable sources use the terms interchangeably. Because they want to insist they are separate, they've created Intensive farming, Industrial agriculture, Industrial agriculture (animals), Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture, and possibly others I'm not aware of. Apart from NPOV issues, WAS 4.250 has violated the GFDL because he has copied and pasted material from one article to the next without attribution, so it looks as though he has written material that was written by others; he has also caused articles to be virtually duplicated. For example, material I wrote for this page, he has copied and pasted into Industrial agriculture (animals) without attributing the material to me. We have asked that there be two articles only: Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals), but they refused for reasons I still don't understand. I filed a Request for mediation, but WAS 4.250 and one other refused to agree to it, so it couldn't go ahead. In addition to that, Jav is trying to whitewash this article too by removing the main image, which we argue is iconic of the issues surrounding factory farming. SlimVirgin(talk)08:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a newbie to the talk page here, I do not feel the pig picture is has NPOV. As I have read, the picture comes from a biased source that is meant to inflame the reader and not inform them. Other sources could easily be found to provide a NPOV image. --BlindEagletalk~contribs14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee
Is this still going on? Issue is: activist terminology pushed into the article on flimsy reasons. Compromise was offered, but nothing other than total squashing of all semi-related agriculture terminology under the banner "factory farming" and with a picture lifted from an activist site of unhappy looking pigs. An RFM was indeed created by SV: but it was half an attack on myself (on my contributions which were admitted to have not even read) and was incredibly biased. Discussion ensued, compromise was offered to include mention of "synonymous terms within context" which should have been enough, but it seems nothing will be accepted and the insistence on mediation or else continued revert wars. Now it appears personal attacks (and maybe some sly use of checkuser?) on jav43 (which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this article) in order to continue ownership of the article and to force it to have controversy (and thus POV) as the main theme. NathanLee16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CAFO v. "Factory farming"
Suggestion: Let's remove the bias: let's change the title of this article to CAFO, and have "factory farming" link to CAFO. This is per this discussion: [[165]]. Thoughts? Jav4313:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a paragraph to the Could someone please give me a single paragraph summary of what the issue is? section above and include this and any other issues you have related to this article and its talk page. Let us give Elonka a chance. This is a chance at an informal mediation and I am unaware of any possible downside to giving it a chance. WAS 4.25014:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid having a lead image altogether
It seems the lead image is just being used as "maximum shock" which is not what an article should be. Whether you think factory farming is evil, or the gigantic boon to humankind: the reality of it lies somewhere in between. I've removed the image, suggest we avoid having a lead image if it's such a pain in the neck. NathanLee17:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also - that image is from an activist site specifically set up to campaign against "factory farming". We really can't treat it as a reliable source. NathanLee17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there's a need to keep that image from an activist site (a factory farm "hate" site) in the lead.. Anyone care to explain that.. NathanLee22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, SV, YOU are the only one who has posted sources to partisan organizations supporting factory farming. No one else has done so. And regardless of Localzuk's desire for anarchy, government sources are not partisan either way. Jav4315:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that the images being used in this article intend to persuade, rather than educate. I vote for the elimination of the header image. Another attempt to turn this into wikisoapbox. Ares0524 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.237.50 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia administration has locked this article to prevent you from changing any part of it, including images. Haber19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Number of articles
Whee, definitely a complex issue here. If I may, it seems that the image issue is actually minor, so I recommend that it be set aside for now, with the understanding that nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, and whichever state that the article is in for a month or so, one way or another, won't cause the world to end. :) The larger issue here seems to be, "How many articles should exist on this subject, and under which names?" Could I please get opinions on that, to see where everyone stands? --Elonka20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin
It seems to me that, to cut through all the nonsense, it makes sense to have two articles, one on the industrial farming of animals, including its history, benefits, and drawbacks, called Intensive farming (animals) and another called Intensive farming (crops). We could also have a disambiguation page called Intensive farming for all the other titles to redirect to, and the dab page would send readers to the animals and crops articles.
The "intensive farming" title was chosen because it's very neutral: it doesn't contain the words "factory" or "industrial." Several editors agreed to this, but about four didn't. My understanding of their objection is that they don't want criticism of factory farming to be contained in the other articles i.e. they want to keep the other articles "clean," as they see it, or "POV forks," as I see it. One of them came close to saying this explicitly; I'll try to find the diff. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the diff from June 29; WAS 4.250 says: "As long as the other agricultural articles aren't also made into being all about angst for animals then I don't feel its worth the time to fight over this article [factory farming] being too much like that." The problem is that what he calls "angst for animals" is, of course, the main criticism of all industralized processes of farming that involve animals, so to try to divert the criticism of the treatment of animals onto one page called "factory farming" turns the other pages into POV forks. Those forks refer to factory farming as a "colloquialism" used by activists, as though the term and the criticism that applies to the practice are somehow unconnected to real industrial farming — even though we've shown that the term "factory farming" is in common use (Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CBC etc); that it is used interchangeably with "industrial farming" and "intensive farming"; and the criticism of it is widespread and mainstream (even McDonalds set up a committee to look into it, and is now asking its suppliers to modify their practices).
Therefore, I would like to see one page that deals with the industrialized farming of animals, whatever we call it, and which gives a three-dimensional view of the practice, including detailed discussion of the benefits and criticism. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor below writes: "Let's face it: the reason some editors want to have only two articles (one on crops and one on animals) is so that they can ensure that anybody who looks up something to do with animal agriculture will necessarily find the article they want them to find, about the treatment of animals." That's exactly right. It's an absolutely central issue (for reasons of human and animal health), and we don't want it to be hidden away in a separate article. That's the whole point of the NPOV policy — each article must neutrally describe all majority and significant-minority published positions. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin seems incapable of understanding that important issues regarding industrial agriculture include:
what it is exactly
how it fits into modern science/technology
how it fits into modern global and national politics
its place in the modern corporate world
its effect on traditional farming practices and communities
its effect on the environment
the ethical issue of causing pain to animals
the ethical issue of creating "unnatural" ecologies and lifeforms
the need for it to keep billions of people from starving
specifically, what it is as applied to Animals
specifically, what it is as applied to Aquaculture
specifically, what it is as applied to Shrimp
specifically, what it is as applied to Chickens
specifically, what it is as applied to Pigs
specifically, what it is as applied to Cattle
specifically, what it is as applied to Crops
specifically, what it is as applied to Wheat
specifically, what it is as applied to Maize
specifically, what it is as applied to Soybean
specifically, what it is as applied to Tomato
specifically, the part modern management techniques plays
specifically, the part mechanical harvesting plays
specifically, the part genetic modification plays
specifically, the part hydroponics plays
industrial organic farming
innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods
genetictic technology development
techniques for achieving economies of scale in production
the creation of new markets for consumption
the application of patent protection to genetic information
globalization
historical development
current efforts to modify it it including "sustainable agriculture" efforts
Cheap and plentiful food
Convenience for the consumer
The contribution to our economy on many levels, from growers to harvesters to processors to sellers
Environmental and social costs
Damage to fisheries
Cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with animal waste
Increased health risks from pesticides
Increased ozone pollution and global warming from heavy use of fossil fuels
marketing challenges and consumer tastes
international trading environment (world market conditions, barriers to trade, quarantine and technical barriers, maintenance of global competitiveness and market image, and management of biosecurity issues affecting imports and the disease status of exports)
infrastructure (such as transport, ports, telecommunications, energy and irrigation facilities)
management skills and labor supply (With increasing requirements for business planning, enhanced market awareness, the use of modern technology such as computers and global positioning systems and better agronomic management, modern farm managers will need to become increasingly skilled. Examples: training of skilled workers, the development of labor hire systems that provide continuity of work in industries with strong seasonal peaks, modern communication tools, investigating market opportunities, researching customer requirements, business planning including financial management, researching the latest farming techniques, risk management skills)
coordination (a more consistent national strategic agenda for agricultural research and development; more active involvement of research investors in collaboration with research providers developing programs of work; greater coordination of research activities across industries, research organisations and issues; and investment in human capital to ensure a skilled pool of research personnel in the future.)
water (access rights, water trade, providing water for environmental outcomes, assignment of risk in response to reallocation of water from consumptive to environmental use, accounting for the sourcing and allocation of water)
resource access issues (management of native vegetation, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, sustainability of productive agricultural resources, landholder responsibilities)
the industrial farm owner issue of integrated farming systems
the industrial farm owner issue of crop sequencing
the industrial farm owner issue of water use efficiency
the industrial farm owner issue of nutrient audits
the industrial farm owner issue of herbicide resistance
the industrial farm owner issue of financial instruments (such as futures and options)
the industrial farm owner issue of collect and understand own farm information;
the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your products
the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your markets
the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your customers
the industrial farm owner issue of satisfying customer needs
the industrial farm owner issue of securing an acceptable profit margin
the industrial farm owner issue of cost of servicing debt;
the industrial farm owner issue of ability to earn and access off-farm income;
the industrial farm owner issue of management of machinery and stewardship investments
I believe the following articles ought to exist: Intensive farming; Extensive farming; Industrial agriculture; and one other, to be called either Factory farming, Industrial agriculture (animals), or CAFOs. I'm not fussed about the title of this last article, which should focus on the treatment of animals issue. All the other articles have a clear purpose for existing. Intensive and extensive farming are opposing and substantial terms. Industrial agriculture is a critical concept for understanding modern existence, and for reasons that are not limited to the animal rights issues.
Splitting Industrial agriculture into one article on crops and one on animals makes no sense: the overarching concept deserves an entry. As has been pointed out previously on this page, an essential aspect of the phenomenon of industrial agriculture is the interconnection between plant and animal agriculture: for example, the creation of GM crops to feed GM pigs, and the questions raised by such developments. Industrial agriculture is a single process with multiple elements. Were Wikipedia to delete this article, it would be obscuring a fundamental aspect of the process of life and technology on this planet. It is simply not the case that we can assume that (quoting SlimVirgin) "angst for animals" is "the main criticism of all industralized processes of farming that involve animals": there are other very important questions raised by these processes.
Let's face it: the reason some editors want to have only two articles (one on crops and one on animals) is so that they can ensure that anybody who looks up something to do with animal agriculture will necessarily find the article they want them to find, about the treatment of animals. That's not a good enough reason to delete other articles that cover equally important phenomena. That said, not all the articles I am proposing deserve equal length. Perhaps, for example, Intensive farming and Extensive farming could be quite brief, referring to the other related entries.
My fundamental point is that a critically important phenomenon should not be concealed by an artificial split into two articles, a split which is being advocated in order to push a particular point of view about modern agricultural practice. I have nothing against that POV, but it should not be at the expense of not properly addressing other important aspects of the globalized process of industrial agricultural production. The questions raised by this process are scientific, technological, philosophical, and political, and they are deserving of a proper encyclopedic treatment. I am certain that, upon reflection, all editors can recognize the importance of these topics. BCST200101:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jav43
At a minimum, I believe we need articles on CAFOs, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, agriculture, and various specialty agriculture subsets. Jav4303:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250
You ask "How many articles should exist on this subject, and under which names?". No other article should be deleted due to talk on this page. They are not POV retreads of this article; they are different articles on different subjects as reflected by their different titles. And I disagree with just about everything SlimVirgin just said. Her claims and accusations are absurd, false, baseless, and seem delusional to me yet my point of view seems to be that to her; so we have joked that we both have bananas in our ears. I could refute her point by point but it seems pointless; besides others here like to argue more than I do so I'll let them do that (as they are doing). WAS 4.25009:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Leave the page as it is"
"Leave the page as it is, give Elonka a chance," is the cry on the reverting edit summary. Yet this clearly does not match the behavior of the editors uttering these words. Furthermore, the very same editors that urge "leaving the page as it is" and "giving Elonka a chance" are also those who not only make change after change, but do not bother to discuss any of these changes on the discussion page. It is hard to attribute good faith to the calls for mediation, given this hypocrisy and this preparedness to edit willy-nilly without discussion. In such circumstances, these editors should not feign surprise that mediation is rejected by opposing editors. And I say all this while having no stake in the debate beyond what I laid out above. BCST200105:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it extremely difficult to work with Crum/SV/Localzuk. I do not see how they are improving the article - they seem to be doing nothing more than propogating their "animal rights" agenda. Jav4314:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get involved in editing, but I have been interested in watching this page to see how WikiPolicies might evolve to cope with the situation when sensible people get stuck.
As a phrase, 'Factory farming' clearly can be understood in two ways, as a restricted term that has an image of the 'unhappy pig'. However, it is also quite reasonable to define the term more widely as 'modern techniques', including (perhaps only one of) feed production, supplements, physical constraints and even intensive crop production. This definition appears to be the heart of the issue.
I think it is a really interesting dispute in that both sides have got a reasonable position (hence the characterisation of the other "side" being unreasonable by simple logic). Normally, policy would resolve this, but I think the arguments for each definition are quite well balanced, so it has gone to a stalemate. I don't think the solution rests in consensus on the meaning of the term as I think the problem is in the public domain (regardless of referenced sources for either view).
As it stands, the article is not written with one consistent term in mind. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on which to go with, and so it is difficult to fix the article as each side views edits taking one context as inappropriate.
The lead in is a good example at the moment: the first sentence firmly places the definition in the 'unhappy pig' camp but to me the last sentence on BSE places the definition firmly in the 'modern techniques' camp as there is a fair consensus that BSE is related closely to feeding techniques which affected even happy cows romping in fields their whole lives which is not consistent with the first sentence (put another way, you don't get BSE from "restricted mobility"). So here we see that the introduction is misleading, regardless of which camp you sit in.
I have a few thoughts on a solution, but I know that I might not be seen as being neutral. However, as it stands the article is difficult to assess as it is not clear which definition is being worked to. I think the one thing that should happen is a consensus to use a pair of clear and unambiguous phrases in the article for the two different concepts (Unhappy Pig - the narrow issue defined in the first sentence - and Modern Techniques - the wider effects of industrialisation of farming alluded to in the article). Spenny20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the broad topic of "all possible industrial farming techniques", including the decimation of forests, overusing land etc. There are then within that, a subset of modern techniques which are associated with intensive animal production, not all of which have to be indoors. Within that there are techniques which are to do with indoor animal production. "Unhappy pig" is the use of indoor techniques where there is a broad consensus that they are not satisfactory for animal welfare, but even so, for whatever reason, they are tolerated. Factory farming is clearly a subset of industrial farming techniques - free range hens are an example where the scale is industrial but there has been some effort to treat the animals humanely (whether that is actually the case is debatable). The trouble is that in seeking to equate that "factory farming" defined by yourself as the narrow term (and I have no real problem with that usage) of extreme and typically cruel farming methods, means that there has to be an alternative article to describe modern industrial farming techniques that fall outside that scope.
To repeat the point on BSE, it was well-understood early on that it was feed that was the issue - farmers were sold protein supplements. A relative of mine asked the question (before BSE happened) "Where does the protein come from?" and the answer was evasive (along the lines of "erm, a protein factory"). My relative stopped feeding his herd these supplements as he could not trust the source (he did a bit more digging and was taken aback). This farm was a typical small dairy farm (less than 100 cows), low intensity, cows in fields, trot in by themselves for milking. Two views, as a modern farm, this farm has milking machinery and so on: industrialised to a degree, but no restriction on movements (aside from during milking, but that is standard practice). Yet, it is just this sort of farm that was hit by BSE as it is common to use feed supplements in winter as simply put, grass isn't growing to be eaten. If that is not a factory farm, then you cannot say that BSE was related to factory farming techniques, because it was actually related to an unsatisfactory technique which is part of standard, not-intensive, not cruel, farming techniques, on element being, put uncritically, "winter feeding".
If you are content with the narrow definition, which to be fair does dominate the definitions, then make the article consistent with it. However, that means that there has to be a wider article that can cover other modern techniques of agriculture that are not intensive indoor techniques. Some of these will still be worthy of criticism (such as feeding animal protein to vegetarian animals) but does not fall within the topic "practice of raising farm animals indoors under conditions of restricted mobility". By defining it so narrowly, but at the same addressing wider industrial farming techniques in the article, it means that sound agricultural practises will be tainted with the "unhappy pig" association. It is at that point, the article gains a misleading POV by synthesis on those topics that fall outside the narrow scope. Note that this suggests two articles, both of which may need critical comment of some techniques. It is not the split of cruel farming vs. the rest, but intensive, indoor farming, and another one of general modern farming, perhaps on an industrial scale, perhaps just modern farming. I think you could quite happily scope out the superset and subset contents, and link factory farming in as a subtopic of the superset. I don't think that is a POV fork. Spenny15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this interesting input. Two things: first, it wasn't me who determined the scale of the article. It was the editors on the other "side" who decided this page, whatsoever called, had to be about animals only, and that the scale was about animals kept in conditions of restricted mobility. Secondly, you wrote "The trouble is that in seeking to equate that "factory farming" defined by yourself as the narrow term ..." Just a point: I'm doing source-based research only: I'm using the terms and repeating the content of reliable published sources only.
You also say that BSE wasn't related to factory farming, but the scientific sources say it was caused by factory farming. Bear in mind that they're talking about the cause of the epidemic; if those affected included non-factory-farms, that doesn't affect their hypothesis. My understanding is that no organic farms were affected, except for cattle who had been raised on conventional farms.
I would personally prefer to get away from factory farming or industrial farming, and focus on intensive farming, because it's intensive techniques we're talking about. Hence the proposal to have two articles: Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). As you seem to know what you're talking about, your input here would be greatly appreciated. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is probably unhelpful to phrase things as who said what. I also haven't got an absolutely firm idea on what the right set of articles is as I haven't got a good sense of what the total structure of Farming is on Wiki. There are many ways to cut it up - the continuum from prehistoric farming techniques to today, which is typically split between arable and animal, so that all makes sense as a general structure - it follows what I remember from school days (all I revised was the Corn Laws, Agricultural and Industrial Revolution and I got lucky and hit the jackpot so have a fraudulent A at O Level).
To change my position a little, (or a lot), I think I have come down in favour of Factory Farming as best aligned to the "unhappy pig" and only that. Factory Farming in this context is meant to have negative connotations, so if the article is to stick to this definition, then I think it should be trimmed to being simply about indoor restrictive movement. I think the title is a POVish in itself (taking the hint from www.factoryfarming.com !) and so leads to too much button pushing. Perhaps as a temporary position it might be helpful to call the article itself, "Intensive Indoor Animal Farming", a very clear neutral term around which it should be possible to clearly define the scope. Make factory farming redirect to that as an alias, and define the term as within the article, but then the scope becomes uncontroversial. I think then it is easier to define the what, when and why and then have a section on the debate (the why not) which can neutrally describe the passionate positions of the anti-lobby, and the tolerance of the population. I do think that the intertwining of criticism into the heart of the article is going to be very difficult, and it would be better to have the article structured so the intro is a simple statement of what they do in as tolerant language as possible and a statement that the approach is offensive.
With regard to the organic farms comment on BSE: absolutely, BSE did not occur on what would now be termed organic farms (don't believe the concept was current in the mid-80s so I don't think it is a good term to use) but again, the terminology is dangerous not being organic does not necessarily mean industrial nor factory farming. I think the BSE is a really good test of this topic because it doesn't really belong in indoor confinement, although it clearly is a product of (dreadful) industrial farming technique (which Margaret Thatcher's Government were very involved in permitting and defending).
Further note: the terminology is critical here. I just read through the Reuters link used in the BSE link, and there is a fair amount of synthesis in the statement that "British scientists blame factory farming". "British scientists blame intensive farming techniques" is the comment in the cited piece. Those terms are not synonymous in the cite, but they are in the lead, which would make the citation read in the context of the article appear to state something it does not really do. The cite is too high level to be the basis of these specific statements. Spenny22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One brief point before I head off. One of the difficulties I find reading around this subject is that reliable sources (BBC, Washington Post, CNN, but also Centers for Disease Control and other more scientific sources) use certain terms interchangeably (factory farming = intensive farming = industrial farming) that people within the industry might not. This presents us with a problem. On the one hand, we want to be accurate and use the most knowledgeable sources available. On the other hand, we don't want to be forced to assume industry-created vocabulary, which may be designed to create distinctions that no reasonable person would observe.
SV, we've already been through this. You did not use "reliable sources", nor did you actually take your conclusions from those sources. Instead, all you found were hints and suppositions, where you used synthesis and your own opinions to create the outcome you desired. Contrarily, I actually reviewed peer-reviewed articles to determine the meaning of the term -- as fully outlined in the archives to this discussion page. I don't know how long it will take before you finally understand that peer-reviewed articles are more reliable than a reporter's quick typing at 1:00am to meet a 1:15am deadline. Jav4315:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there lies the problem - neither type of source is better. One reflects the scientific community and the other reflects real world usage. These are both suitable for inclusion, as has been said dozens of times before. The rule of thumb has and always will be: If something is in the article and is sourced but you have a source that disagrees, introduce your source also. Don't remove the existing information.-Localzuk(talk)16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that help move this debate onto more neutral ground to move forward? The one line summary is: there is a split but not on a critique of techniques, but on scope of techniques. Spenny22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your first point would be difficult to implement (keeping this article negative), in part because of NPOV, and in part because the same facts speak very differently to both sides. Much of what is regarded as negative by opponents (and probably the general public insofar as they know or care) is regarded as positive by proponents. That's why I added Denis Avery to the lead because I think he illustrates that point very well: he feels that factory farming is a conservation triumph and that we had better hope our three billion pigs killed annually are kept in big confinement barns, for environmental reasons. I can imagine opponents choking on their breakfast reading that. But both are dealing with exactly the same facts, which is unusual when writing about deeply entrenched positions — usually, you find different sides emphasizing different points. But here: both cite the same issues, and describe them in very similar terms, and yet reach radically different conclusions.
...folk lore has it you don't have a life ;) I think I was really saying, in my usual confusing way, force the scope of this article to be indoor livestock farming, then the problems of confusing terminology may fall away and it should be possible to structure a neutral point of view around it. Also the need for other articles will become clear. I know the language is heated here, but there is something of merit in WAS's article structure. Stepping back, farming is a big topic, there should be a whole project's worth of articles, so I wouldn't get too hung up, there are parts of Wiki in far worse shape (computer stuff is pretty shocking which is surprising in what should be a land fertile with computer nerds - myself included). I think a bit of tolerance of constructive anarchy here wouldn't go amiss. Spenny23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your summary is correct Spenny, we can reason a solution. Per WP:NPOV, all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). The question is whether unhappy pig and modern techniques represent two significant views of the same topic. Being two different concepts, I do not thing they represent two significant views of the same topic. Here, they represent two significant topics using the same term (factory farming). My proposed solution is that the two topics be split into two articles. As for the naming of the articles, I think that can be resolved once the two topics have been split into two articles and each of those article have had time to develop. To get started, Modern techniques of factory farming and Critique of factory farming seem like good article titles to me. Of course, Modern techniques of factory farming will have a section entitled Critique of factor farming per Wikipedia:Summary style, include a link to Critique of factory farming, and include a cogent summary of Critique of factory farming in its section as a spinoff of Modern techniques of factory farming. -- Jreferee(Talk)23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting an article about X to 'X (main)' and 'X (critique)' is a very bad idea, and we refrain from doing so on Wikipedia. The reason is that the critique article tends to collect all the criticism, and becomes a POV magnet. OTOH, the main article, by sheer logic, only retains the praise for X and thus violates NPOV, since any significant criticism would naturally be moved to the critique article. This is also why we don't want a 'Critique' section - for similar reasons, it will leave behind uncriticized statements in the other sections, also violating NPOV. So by NPOV and logic, it means that the proper way to handle an article about X is to interweave criticism and praise wherever possible, in a neutrally balanced fashion, per WP:NPOV. We break the article into substantive topics, and for each one we provide all significant reliably sourced views, per NPOV, both the praise and the criticism. Crum37523:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like such an in-your-face approach. Also, I don't think they interweave criticism and praise wherever possible in the abortion article. As the factory farming article appears now, NPOV Article structure seems to be relevant. However, there is an entire List of controversial issues and I'm sure that some of the articles listed there has the answer needed to help bring some stability to this matter. -- Jreferee(Talk)00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As well as being POV (and we already have too many articles, so we definitely don't need one more), it would inappropriate for other reasons to split the article into main and criticism, because the two can't easily be told apart. Take the second paragraph of the lead, for example. Most of these issues (one worker per 90 consumers; 80 million pigs raised each year in confinement in the U.S. etc) are regarded as some of the benefits of factory farming by its proponents, and exactly the opposite by its opponents. Same facts, different values. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the too many articles, there may be aspects of what I call ownership forking - an attempt to evade consensus policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid decisions or the likely decisions of a discussion about that material.-- Jreferee(Talk)00:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the 'too many articles' issue - I believe it is incorrect as it stands, and that there should be one, or at most two articles about Factory Farming (or Intensive Farming, etc.). There are editors, however, who are doing exactly what you say - they support forking off articles to try to create POV forks. This is one of the main issues we have been debating on this Talk page, so far without results. Crum37500:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what has happened in this case, Jreferee. We need to reduce the number of forks and keep the material on one page, length and summary-style permitting. Instead, the same material has been copied and pasted word-for-word into forks. We submitted a request for mediation, but some editors turned it down, so it couldn't go ahead. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)00:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page represents a lot of hard work towards consensus. The material at issue regarding the consensus is no longer here, which removes the basis for some people to return to this page to conclude the consensus talk. Disbursing the material over a variety of ownership forks creates a situation where a consensus cannot be reached by all interested parties. If you think about it, how are you, Crum375, and whoever else is still posting on this page supposed to run around to each of the ownership fork talk pages to participate in a consensus on this topic? And if the consensus on those talk pages is going towards the minority view's disliking, what is to prevent them from again running off with the material and starting new articles? I think the material needs to be kept localized for the time being so that the present consensus discussions on this talk page can develop on what to do with the material. A way to do that is to list the forks at AfD with the basis being that the ownership forks prevent concluding the on-going consensus discussion on this talk page. If people want everyone to return to one table to finish the consensus discussions, they may vote to deleted the fork articles. If this is the only article left, then the consensus on this talk page can continue. -- Jreferee(Talk)01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I have the stomach for it. This page has seen some serious personal attacks; massive presumptions of bad faith; filibustering (22,000 words posted in 115 posts from one user alone in a week); misuse of the content policies (finding mainstream and scientific sources who use the term "factory farming" was deemed original research); and WAS 4.250 has said he'll continue to create new titles as he sees fit no matter what we do here.
My suggestion was to have two articles: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops), which I felt would be very neutral; and then to create an Intensive farming disambiguation page to redirect all the other titles to. But for reasons I still don't understand, this was deemed POV by about four editors, so it didn't happen. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands at the moment, do you see the version (15:00 UTC today) representing Intensive farming (animals), do you see that as synonymous with factory farming, or is the expectation that with such a rename you would alter the content somewhat? Cheers. Spenny15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I'm writing it based on the current title, but it's in the process of being written, so it's in a state of flux. I think it could stand to be called Factory farming or Intensive farming (animals) at the moment. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spenny: SV's appearing unable to accept that there is any other type of farming activity other than "factory farming". Check britannica for some definitions that give a less animal lib centric view of the terms (although this was argued un-admissable as a source or reference by SV in favour of a selective non sequiter reading of some articles). The field of agriculture is wider than activist terminology and views on how shocking and controversial farming is. Fact is "intensive farming" is a concept that exists beyond and before "factory farming" with sad looking pigs in cages or depressed debeaked chickens even existed. But if someone is to read any article with the two terms in it together and then demand that they're synonymous while ignoring the context they were mentioned: then there's little hope for the finer points of the term to be understood. NathanLee22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Intensive farming fits with the scoping I am suggesting and the lead there appears to be a logical and sensible scoping statement now I look at it. I'm trying not to get sucked in too much (I know Wiki is quicksand and I am up to my neck!) so I will stick with just the contradictions in this article. I actually went against character and did some proper checking of sources as I wasn't happy about the BSE link to indoor farming and the British Inquiry essentially puts its blame to recycling of beef in cattle feed which is quite a narrow blame rather than the whole of factory farming (or worse Intensive farming). In fact it is interesting that to come to this conclusion it relied on the fact that BSE cropped up in a diverse range of farms which allowed it to eliminate issues such as animal husbandry to get to the root cause. I'd put that British Inquiry document as a secondary source of the highest quality. Spenny00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, what you say about the inquiry isn't accurate. It blamed factory farming for the epidemic. You have to read the entire report to find that, of course (and it's long), but journalists were briefed, and those journalists reported that factory farming was being blamed, which led Germany's chancellor to call for an end to it. We can't use our own interpretations of primary sources (and the inquiry is a primary source for our purposes); we have to go with the interpretations of reliable secondary sources.
Yes, the primary way the disease was spread was feeding cattle to cattle, but it was the entire system allowing that practice (and feeding supplements to calves instead of milk, spraying animals with pesticides, and on and on) that was identified as the facilitator. Bottom line: we can't insert our own opinions. We must stick to what reliable secondary sources say. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't factory farming issues. Factory farming has to do with scale - number of animals per area. That's all. What you're talking about would be industrial agriculture or perhaps intensive farming. These are different things, regardless of your attempt to lump all agriculture under one title and call it "bad". Jav4316:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis
(unindent)I think that is quite a synthesis, and in parts inaccurate (for example, my relative was very concerned about organo-phosphates which were specifically excluded from being a cause of this - though I wouldn't want to go near them). The British Inquiry must be considered a secondary source of the highest calibre, and to switch to vague summary pieces of journalism to synthesise a statement that the Inquiry said intensive indoor farming is to blame for BSE is worthy of inclusion as a real world example on the OR policy page. It pinned the blame fairly and squarely on indirect cannibalistic feeding methods only. Whilst it clearly explored the intensive methods, and contrasted with organic methods, the only real conclusion it came to was that it was possible to demonstrate that the 150 or so cases of BSE on organic farms could be pinned down to conversion or to old feeding practice. The fact that journalists are not consistent in terms is not an excuse for putting words into the Inquiry's mouth. The Inquiry does not use the term factory farming as far as I can see, nor does it seem to discuss intensive farming as a concept, even though it does give a background on farming in the UK and EC. With regard to the Chancellor's statement, you need to consider the context of the time (and that it was a translation). I cannot see the secondary source that the tertiary summary item was referring to, but around that time we had swine fever as a major issue, pollution of the Rhine due to pig farming - and a whole host of problems with intensive (not necessary factory) farming that lead to politicians rightly questioning practices. It is distinctly OR to read these articles using a specific interpretation on issues and terms that cannot be validated. Specifically, given the lead of this article which seeks to make a very specific definition of terms meaning indoor farming, it is synthesising an interpretation to use that definition within other articles. Spenny09:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an inaccurate synthesis, it's one made by three of the scientists who were heavily involved in the investigation into BSE, one of whom was Iain McGill who, as I understand it, led the investigation when he was with the Dept of Agriculture. Their words were: "The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming. The UK BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture — a 'recipe for disaster'." [166] These are expert sources, and they are clearly (a) equating factory farming and intensive farming, and (b) saying the Phillips inquiry concluded BSE was a "product" of it. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the same letter to the European Union food safety commissioner, the scientists also argued for "an expansion of extensive and organic systems of beef production...and a scaling down of industrially farmed beef throughout Europe." So they seem to be equating factory farming with intensive farming with industrial farming. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is still an interpretation to advance a position. That article says two different things: the Chancellor attacked factory farming, the scientists also made an attack on intensive farming methods. The two are related, but not the same, and it is absolutely a synthesis to equate them. I don't have a problem with a position that says that the scientific view is that intensive farming methods are deprecated by scientists - indeed it would surprise me if there was not a solid body of scientific data to support that view. My confusion here is that there is no need to conflate these ideas to ensure that a neutral POV asserts that viewpoint clearly. By confusing these ideas, it undermines the power of a well written neutral article. Spenny11:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:SYNTH to take two unrelated sources and put them together to advance a position. All we are doing here is quoting real secondary sources. E.g. "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow" - that is the title of the CNN/Reuters article. Then, right below it, it says: "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." Then it says "The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming". And the BBC article says: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy." These are reliable sources stating a position, which we faithfully report per V and NOR, with no SYNTH involved. Crum37512:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, you've misunderstood WP:SYNT. It is the sources themselves (three scientists, at least one of whom is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about BSE), who say in the letter that factory farming, intensive farming, and industrially farmed beef were to blame for BSE, and they call it a "recipe for disaster." A violation of SNYT would be if a Wikipedian were to put together sources to advance a position not advanced by the sources. But in this case, the sources are very clear in what they're saying. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a laxity in the article terminology that can only be closed by some subtle synthesis. It is not an academic source of the highest quality and there is a subtle transduction of statements being made by scientists to that being scientific evidence. In the end though, I'm not overly fussed about the citation: the basic point it is making is sound, and not saying anything specific that I have a problem with, it makes the common sense observation that unsound farming methods caused the problem and the issue needs to be addressed.
Ian McGill is a scholarly source of the very highest calibre when it comes to BSE, and he is clearly equating factory and intensive farming, and saying BSE was a product of it. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, the but is that however much you try and justify it, the final common sense test is that using the inconsistent terminology, the article ends up saying something nonsensical - as it stands the article reads that the blame for BSE went on specifically indoor intensive farming given the very specific definition made in the introduction, whereas the scientists were scoping practices far worse and insidious and widespread: feeding of apparently innocent foodstuffs that affected the wider industry and suggests that some of the fundamental thinking on farming practices was flawed. The article left as it is almost reads like free-range chickens is the solution to BSE, whereas farming that was clearly not within the scope of the article lead in was affected. I am bemused as to why anyone would want to argue the point, because, using BSE it is support for organic farming methods above and beyond even taking away what might be considered the obviously indoor farming methods. Spenny15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the article is not balanced, why not provide counterpoints from reliable sources? This is what WP is all about. Crum37515:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it is not about balance, its about it being wrong. I have given a simple example which demonstrates that the article is logically inconsistent and the result is that I am told that it cannot be logically inconsistent because you can synthesize the inconsistency by using an interpretation of a single source. This is Dan Brown research. I give up. Spenny16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP is not about right and wrong, or about 'truth'. It is about faithfully reproducing the published works of reliable sources, with a neutrally balanced presentation. That a WP editor personally disagrees with some sourced statement, or considers it 'wrong', is immaterial. Per V and NPOV, it is our duty to neutrally report the published facts, not to criticize or modify them per our personal knowledge. Crum37516:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely wrong to even suggest that factory farming caused BSE. That is a simple impossibility. Feeding bone and meat meal to cattle caused BSE - nothing more and nothing less. Jav4316:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm incredibly tempted to follow your lead (in giving up). Ah well. At least you got to see what we're dealing with. Jav4316:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully who the source is and what he says. He knows more about BSE than probably anyone else in the world (certainly more than anyone on this page), and he says it was a PRODUCT of factory farming. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dejavu on the arguments I made that this notion of "synonymous terms" is a synthesis, except this time it's Spenny who is coming to the same conclusion.. So just how many people do we need who have perhaps less clouded views of agriculture and normal english interpretation skills for SlimVirgin/crum375 and localzuk to perhaps admit that their definition of "factory farming" doesn't match reality and is not at a suitable level of abstraction. Factory farming is only synonymous with all those fields of agriculture if you've a pretty un-informed or biased view of the field (which is why I referred to britannica's definition of the terms factory farming, intensive, extensive etc). Just like someone can look at a particular car engine and say "that's an engine", someone else with a less simplistic view could say "that's a v4 water cooled, EFI etc etc". Just because 3 editors with a similar overly simplistic view of a topic can't see past that: doesn't mean the article should re-enforce that simplistic view. Otherwise we should redirect everything in biology to "cell stuff" or everything electronic into "computer gizmos". If you can't handle the finer definition points: don't try and force those that can into adopting the least accurate version to suit the comprehension skills. NathanLee06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you have missed the point. The terms are used synonymously, as we have shown - regardless of your interpretation of synthesis. This is the common 'media' and 'real world' usage by people rather than the use within the industry and scientific community. Claiming anything different is simply ignoring that viewpoint. What is wrong with discussing both issues and centralising the entire subject area into a couple of pages?-Localzuk(talk)07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've said that the terms are used synonymously - said that again and again. What you don't seem to understand is that we've demonstrated that the terms are not actually synonymous - just that the public misuses them in colloquial speech. What's wrong with putting 5 different topics on one page? Well, other than that they are 5 different topics, each worthy of its own article, nothing! Perhaps you should review whether you actually understand the true meaning of the terms at stake, or whether you fall into the group of the uninformed public which misuse the terms. Jav4307:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific sources use them synonymously too, but you ignore them. We've offered links from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In this thread, we offered a letter from three scientists to the European food safety commissioner, where they clearly regard factory farming, intensive farming, and industrially farmed beef as referring the same phenomenon. All ignored because they don't fit your view. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you and SV and Localzuk ignore them and just repeat yourselves instead. At one point, Localzuk questioned the integrity of peer-reviewed sources as compared to web blogs. Useless. Jav4316:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I did no such thing! I have said many times that the 2 should be used together and that they have equal use (not blogs - they are inherently unreliable, but the media) and neither should 'override' the other. I will ask you to not misrepresent my arguments again please.-Localzuk(talk)16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. You wanted this site used as a source [[167]] (a web blog) and you denegrated the clear definitions from peer-reviewed sources in this comment:
So, I will restate the situation: We aren't saying the terms always mean the same thing, just that they are sometimes used to mean the same thing. The evidence above shows this quite clearly. You are simply refusing to accept something that is blatant and obvious - because you are too hung up on academic sources.-Localzuk(talk) 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than that site not being a blog, yes you are right - I did say that... The site in question is a farm which produces organic produce. It is an example of real world usage of the terms, as are the media sources being thrown at you by the dozen. And my comment stands - you are too hung up on academic sources. You seem to think that only academic use of the terms is acceptable and that the media usage is somehow lower quality despite it being common.-Localzuk(talk)16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published internet document = web blog. And yes, of course use of terms in peer-reviewed sources is more reliable than use of terms in the mainstream public or in the media. Jav4316:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah there. Not all self published sites are blogs. Wow! I've never seen that claim anywhere before. And once again, no, peer reviewed sources are not of more importance than use in the media. -Localzuk(talk)17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a joke
The article as it stands justifies "Factory farming, also known as intensive[4] or industrial[5] farming, is the practice of raising farm animals indoors under conditions of restricted mobility" with original research that illogically ignorantly delusionally claims statements like "She intends to end factory farming in her country. This must be the way forward and we should end industrial agriculture in this country as well." constitute a source for the terms to be called equivalent. What a joke. This is disgusting and absurd and contrary to the original research policy and reflects a POV that blinds an otherwise excellent editor into not being able to parse an English language sentence. WAS 4.25020:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added the qualifier to match what the sources say. Funny how the compromise, discussed changes always seem to head back to one editor's version. Page ownership anyone? NathanLee21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting to my absolute wits end with this nonsense. YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO OTHER EDITORS!! JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK ONE THING DOESN'T MEAN IT IS CORRECT!! Please re-read the archives and you will see that some editors have provided very good justification of all this, but you simply disagree - this doesn't mean it is wrong. Learn to accept this please, as you are constantly saying the same, useless and repetitive nonsense.-Localzuk(talk)21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan and WAS decided to go off and edit POV forks, and while not ideal, it at least means there is time actually to write this article. What is notable about the editors who've caused trouble here is that none of them contribute to content: it's all shuffling things around, deleting material, and creating a toxic talk page.
Please allow the page to be written — or even help to write it! Once that's done, we'll have a clearer idea of how to judge the content and what to call the thing. But this pointless reverting while it's being written is nothing but destructive — and it can't be written overnight so some patience is required. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are you allowing others to contribute if the only version you will accept is one written by SV? It was your action of deleting the other articles to do a merge without any discussion that started this. The extra pages were created by WAS in an attempt to create some sort of idea on how they could look. Prior to your actions there were the pages "factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture". You attempted to remove those other pages and have them all redirect to "Factory farming". So please keep that in mind as you now place blame on the resulting mess. Any attempt to change or refine the page was reverted if you recall.. Despite a number of editors wanting to contribute.. So if that's not ownership then I don't know what is.NathanLee22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the pages redirected to something, not necessarily a page called "factory farming." I did not call this page "factory farming": please bear that in mind.
Nathan, you are welcome to write for this page (so long as your edits rely on decent sources), something you haven't done so far. What you're not welcome to do is destroy other people's work. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slimvirgin: can you in any way substantiate that attack on my edits and your lack of assumption of good faith. I've added many references. Can I also remind you that edits that involve changing content does not constitute "destroying" other people's work. This is a wiki. Look up the definition if you're unclear on the concept. Your edits are not set in stone, nor are they magically protected from edits, refinements, deletions, additions or rewordings. You do not own this page, and nor are your edits magically worth more than other people's if they are conforming to policies, references etc. I'd suggest (as I have in the past) that perhaps your animal lib beliefs are clouding your judgement and your editing style can be said to be unnecessarily abrasive in this matter. NathanLee22:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the edit with which SlimVirgin changed the opening line of this article. And her edit summary was: "added source and quote in footnotes; tightened writing a little." Needless to say, the description does not match the actuality. Furthermore, SlimVirgin was, with this edit, deliberately introducing a prior and very contentious version of the lead. She shows yet again that she has no interest in anything other than the version of the article which she wishes to create, and that she is utterly prepared to bypass anything written on this talk page. If anything, this behavior evinces an intention to make the situation unworkable. All the while bemoaning that others don't wish to enter a mediation process with her. It is remarkable that such an experienced editor is not ashamed of these controlling and underhanded tactics. Such tactics may for the moment grant SlimVirgin control over the content of this article, but the erosion of good will which her behavior has inevitably produced will not make it any likelier that consensus can be achieved for her other goals, such as the deletion of related articles. The more she insists on a skewed version of this article, the less likely it is that others will feel comfortable with such deletions. The reality is, there is no consensus for deleting articles, and strong arguments have been put for their retention, to which SlimVirgin's response has been limited to the continual refrain: "I can't understand why they want to have more articles," or, "These other articles are POV forks." In the apposite words of WAS 4.250, what a joke. BCST200101:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image is from an ANTI/hate activist site against factory farming
Since this image seems to HAVE to be in the lead for some editors. I submit the following:
image is from a hate site (activist against factory farming site)
text is a synthesis of different articles
This image should not generally be used (as per arguments I've seen on the PETA page by the very same editors to exclude sites critical of PETA). I suggest this image should not be used in the lead or in this article. NathanLee22:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, we have been through this a thousand times (it seems), but let me try once more to explain it to you. This is an article about factory farming, and this image highlights the key issue of the animal aspect of FF - the fact that animals are kept in very confined quarters. The gestation crates issue is important enough that McDonald's and other large food companies have decided to move away from it. If you have another image that so well exemplifies the key issues of FF, let's have it for discussion. An image of a bunch of feeding cows won't do, since it won't be clear it's not just a regular large farm, and it won't highlight the key controversy about animal confinement, as this one clearly does. Crum37522:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why is it that any reference to an anti-peta site was excluded from the PETA article on these grounds, but it seems "factory farming" has a different set of rules with the same editors because it suits them in this case. THAT is the bit I don't understand. One might reasonably expect that a site that's about ending factory farms and promoting other types of farms might distort, misrepresent or flat out lie about things.. But here we are with an image lifted from that site with synthesised assumptions in the description (saying that information from another article applies to this image) and (as has been explained to you a number of times) about a very specific farming practice that does not necessarily represent anything "typical" other than what a bunch of pro vegan/pro animal lib sources would have you believe. Just because you think it representative from an animal lib background does not mean it's realistic. This is about a modern farming technique NOT about the animal lib's issue with it and a practice that is being phased out. Given that a large chunk of the food that supplies many millions of people is from this practice: might pictures of people having cheap, available meat in supermarkets be more indicative? Certainly. But because you are obsessed with the POV that there is controversy and nothing else that's all you can see. Of course if this didn't have to be called "factory farming" (a favourite term of activists and media when talking negative connotations) then perhaps you'd be able to move beyond "this has to show controversy".
I'll suggest again: avoid having this image and avoid having a lead image. This article should be less about a shocking picture to push controversy and more about text content. 125.215.145.24905:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV, that image isn't trying to say anything about "common practice", but rather to refer to one event. Your image of sows, on the other hand, is attempting to describe "common practice in the industry as a whole" - obviously in an attempt to inflame. As we've said again and again, it is not representative of the industry - of hogs or of other animal species - and is not NPOV, AND is insufficiently described at the source (you claim it's representative, but have provided no sources showing that THIS IMAGE is representative). Why can't you find another image? Oh, right, because this one is better at inflaming. Jav4316:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look for another image that is definitely of a factory farm and that clearly shows the issue of close confinement, and we can look at it. The problem is that the alternative you came up with showed a bunch of ecstatically happy cows with plenty of space on a family farm in New York. But if you come up with realistic alternatives, then of course we'd be willing to look at them. Perhaps you could post them here in the first instance. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand who this "we" is that is the arbitrator who apparantly owns this page. But anyway, I have provided no less than 6 separate images to lead this page, at various times. You've reverted me each time. I don't understand, but whatever. Oh, and that image of cows on what you said was a family farm - that is as cramped as any dairy will ever get. 11:10 cow-stall ratio is the highest imagined by Hoard's Dairyman, and that image seemed to portray that. Jav4323:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question
Nathan, a question for you: why don't you help to write this article? Don't remove anything, just add to it. Find some sources, read them, and add something. The current version is not good. The sooner we get a first draft written, the sooner we can look at what we have and decide what to call it, and also decide what direction it needs to be taken in. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've long attempted to get this article to a proper, verifiable definition. You on the other hand just keep protecting your version of it. I dug up a lot of references, and look what you've done to the page again: put it back to your simplistic view of what agriculture entails. Had you bothered to read my discussion (rather than just ignoring the talk page) you might have realised this.
And I'll say again: you are mistaken if you think that you must never remove anything or change anything. But assuming that's correct:There was content added to the lead, references etc (that you say I never use) and rewording which YOU HAVE REMOVED. So can you point me to this policy that you have that says "SlimVirgin's edits must never be removed, and you can only add information which is approved by SlimVirgin". Because that's what you're arguing for and that's what your edits have been doing. You've removed the input of at least 4 or 5 editors to put it back to yours. Any reason for that other than to enforce your version of the page? NathanLee22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the "history" tab for the article if you want that information. Specifically back to the contributions around the time when you began one of the edit wars that ended up in the latest round of page protection. I'd advise you instead to assume good faith and stop slandering my edits. I'd also point you to where I referenced britannica and others to put a more accurate description. Perhaps also you can look at the PETA page and the struggle I had to include referenced material from 60 minutes, sydney morning herald etc. Had you also bothered to read my contributions in this discussion page you'd have seen that I've provided many many links as part of an ongoing attempt to refine the page content. How about references that are in the article currently Difference is that unlike you I've made use of the discussion page rather than reverting. Hell: you even shifted around my references at one point because you thought my research fitted your argument. Quite frankly I find your request absurd and an avoidance of answering any real question in the previous post. So I'll ask again: Any reason why you have removed other editors' work to keep reverting this page back to your version if this notion of not "destroying" other's work is so critical to you? NathanLee06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we ready for arbcom?
Are we ready for arbcom? In my opinion SlimVirgin is a wonderful asset to Wikipedia and in general a really great editor. It pains me to come to the conclusion that in the area of agriculture, SlimVirgin's POV on animal rights clouds her judgement to the extent that she and those who take their lead from her (is "meatpuppets" the right word??) should not edit on agriculture articles but should be allowed to edit on their talk pages. Further, a year ago or so I looked into SlimVirgin's editing of animal rights pages and found nothing to complain about, so I think she should be allowed to continue editing animal rights pages. She appears blind to things about agriculture that don't involve animal rights but not blind to arguments pro and con concerning animal rights. What do others think? WAS 4.25013:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this, like everything else on this page it seems, several times. ArbCom won't take a case where normal dispute resolution methods have not been tried. In this case, some of us have accepted mediation, while others keep refusing. Also, in general ArbCom does not accept content disputes, and this one clearly is. Crum37513:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minority is using means that are against policy to foist material that is against policy onto this article in spite of months of effort to resolve the problem. A rigged formal mediation is not required for arbcom to accept. WAS 4.25014:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are so convinced that your position has clear merit, then it should prevail in mediation. So why are you resisting mediation? Crum37514:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation works by having people self select for who handles what case. There is nothing preventing someone from having a friend self select to handle their case. It is a rigged game for anyone who plays to win. WAS 4.25014:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, it sounds like you are saying that mediation is hopelessly flawed, and therefore will never work. I suspect that if you come to ArbCom and say: "I want you to arbitrate a content dispute - I refuse mediation because I believe it's rigged", the odds of them taking the case are not good. Crum37515:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as a separate point, WAS, I suggest you focus on the message, not the messengers. Attacking your fellow editors as having 'clouded judgment', or by calling them 'meatpuppets' of each other, violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If you want to achieve results, focus on the message, and in this case, accept mediation. Crum37514:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that token, if I call someone 'an idiot', or 'a liar', for example, I could always say it's not a personal attack or being uncivil - I'm just describing his/her 'troubling behavior'. You say your fellow editors have 'clouded judgment' and are 'meatpuppets' of each other. Hopefully you can understand that these are clear violations of CIV and NPA. I really suggest you stop that, and try to focus on getting our differences resolved. Crum37514:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum asks: why not mediation? At the same time, he reverts the removal of a portion of a sentence for which there is clearly no consensus. I am talking about the claim, re-introduced by SlimVirgin and then restored by Crum, that the terms are synonymous. When Crum restored this claim he did not support it with any talk page discussion, but his edit summary stated that the claim is supported by sources. The fact that there is absolutely no consensus to include this did not prevent him from blithely putting it back in the opening sentence of the article. When editors demonstrate their complete lack of interest in the question of consensus, and yet persistently ask why others do not agree to mediation, they are either blind to their own behavior or else playing a game. BCST200114:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have just shown up here, many of us have been hashing these topics here for a long time now. So I have supported my view for the equivalence of the terms, per reliable sources, on this Talk page, many times. I fail to follow your logic, however. If consensus cannot be reached by Talk page discussions, isn't mediation the next logical step? What other possibility do you see? Crum37514:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Informal mediation. Perhaps by some recent contributors to this page. It seems to me that is happenning now at a slow pace. If so, arbcom can and should wait for them to see what they can do. WAS 4.25015:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am for any attempt by anyone to resolve this dispute, although my own experience with informal mediation is that it produces huge amounts of words and no results. However, I prefer that to just going around in circles. Crum37515:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen them disagree, they edit the same series of articles at the same time, and they tag-team. That's more evidence than you have that I'm a sockpuppet, at least :P. Jav4316:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although we agree on many issues, we also disagree on some. In this topic, you'll note that I fought hard to keep FF focused on both crops and animals, whereas SV seemed inclined to focus on animals only. While we are at it, can you show me where you disagreed, for example, with NathanLee? Crum37516:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this source could help us with the issue of definitions. It's the Grace Factory Farm project, which is run by farmers. Here they have some information on the definition of factory farm. We could contact them to ask for further, specialist reading material. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an activist site, just in case you hadn't noticed. But of course, any peer-reviewed or well-researched sources obtained through that site could be reviewed for individual merit. Jav4323:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an activist site, but it's one composed of farmers, so they're likely to know what they're talking about. Jav, you can't claim that industry sources are acceptable only when you agree with them. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm? No, I haven't done so. But an organization devoted to furthering a particular cause often is partisan and fails to portray both sides of any given issue. Jav4301:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the mediation to suceed, I recommend that you remove the names of people like me who will not sign up for formal mediation and I recommend that you limit it to this one article. Who knows, if that goes well, maybe I'll see my fears are unfounded and will join a second formal mediation on the question of number of articles. WAS 4.25004:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned there are two obstacles preventing agreement to mediation. The first is the total disregard by SlimVirgin, Crum, etc., for the lack of consensus about certain issues. Most significantly, the insistence by those two editors on re-inserting the statement that "factory farming" is synonymous with other terms, despite the clear lack of consensus to do so. This complete lack of interest in the state of disagreement between the parties shows bad faith, controlling behavior, and a disregard for correct procedure. This has been pointed out and ignored, compounding the problem. The second obstacle is the idea that mediation should determine the number of articles. There is a procedure for deleting articles, and it is very noticeable that those editors wishing to delete articles are very unwilling to follow this procedure. I consider this further evidence of controlling behavior, an attempt to bypass a process these editors fear will not deliver their objectives. Not once has any of these editors commented on the arguments put that industrial agriculture is an important article deserving of existence in its own right. This continual tactic of ignoring whatever does not suit is, again, destructive of good will. If these two obstacles are not addressed by the relevant editors, I shall unfortunately be forced to vote against mediation. BCST200104:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is possibly the worst analysis of the situation someone could have made, with it being wrong in nearly all areas. Firstly, adding sourced statements to an article does not need consensus - they are sourced to reliable sources so they should stay. If there is an opposing viewpoint then that should also be stated within the article. It doesn't need to be either/or. Second, this discussion is not about deleting anything, it is about co-ordinating the subject matter in the most effective manner and as such afd would be the wrong venue for that discussion. It is a merge/split discussion and the appropriate place to discuss that is on one of the articles in question. For someone who has never actually edited the article, you sure do throw accusations about people being controlling etc... I would advise you to take a long read of the archives before you make any more statements as you are approaching this problem as if there is a black and white outcome waiting to be reached whereas it is much more grey and needs work from all sides.-Localzuk(talk)07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above tendentious comment by Localzuk unfortunately does not encourage me to agree to mediation. I do not see any good faith argumentation here, nor any genuine reflection on what I have written. BCST200107:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic, BCST2001, that you decry improper behavior on the part of others, yet you decline to take the right course of action to counter it – mediation. Think about it – if you are so right about everything, what do you have to fear in mediation? Crum37511:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your view, however I can't help but noticing that the points I have raised are yet again utterly ignored. I can only consent to mediation if I see some evidence of good faith from opposing editors. Thus far I have yet to see any. BCST200112:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If SlimVirgin, Crum375, and Localzuk really do want to engage in mediation, then they need to ask themselves what it is worth to them. I have indicated that there are two obstacles to my agreeing to mediation. A gesture of goodwill by those editors in relation to these two obstacles will enable me to consent to mediation. Thus far, there is no evidence of any willingness to consider such a gesture. Without such a gesture, I cannot consent to mediation. But if there is such a willingness, I urge those editors to demonstrate it. BCST200116:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that both of your issues are fundamental issues we are discussing here. We have shown one thing but you disagree - there is no way round this issue (btw. I am talking about the synonymity of the terms). We are discussing the overall future of this subject area, and have many, many times tried to compromise to no avail - how can we compromise further without completely abandoning our position. Please read the archives to see the prior attempts at compromise and what our positions are and how we are compromising, otherwise I think you feel we are just being completely stubborn when we are not.-Localzuk(talk)17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could compromise by agreeing to remove, for the duration of the mediation process, the clause from the opening line describing factory farming as synonymous with other terms. BCST200117:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Clearly several editors find the claim that the terms are synonymous to be false, despite your insistence that it is "well sourced." Furthermore, it is part of an attempt to justify deletion of other articles. That is why deleting the clause during the mediation process would be a goodwill gesture. It seems, however, to be a price too high. Would I be correct in assuming that you are completely unwilling to consider such a gesture? BCST200117:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the value of it, as it is part and parcel of the entire issue which has been discussed now for over a year. Removing something that one 'side' thinks is correct and the other doesn't won't achieve anything as far as I can see. I am unwilling to remove it due to the fact it is the underlying issue we are discussing - it would be like me asking you to remove any mention of the terms being a subset of each other - which I am not going to do, as there are sources to back them up. The 2 ideas work with each other - one is based on scientific information and one is based on the real world usage of the terms. Neither should be removed, both should be included with an explanation of the discrepancy.-Localzuk(talk)17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would I be correct in assuming that Crum375 and SlimVirgin feel similarly to Localzuk, and are uninterested in discussing my requests further? BCST200100:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a contest for which side can write the most neutral set of articles on industrial farming
Arbcom is the right place to deal with a handful of people who are willing to do anything to win. But I hate fighting. So I'm willing to write off this article as I do many others. But I am not willing to write off a whole category of articles. I am not willing to fight so long as the current stand off is maintained: that of slim and friends editing this article and not playing ownership games with other agriculture articles. By the way, slim's request for editors here to add content should be heeded. Add content to the other agriculture articles while slim and friends show what they can do here. Who knows? Slim is usually a great editor. Maybe as she researches and improves this article she will find over time the scales falling from her eyes. Meanwhile it is an excuse to say she reverts your edits here because she is not reverting your or my edits (she tried twice but let it go) on the other agriculture articles. Let's add content and see what happens. WAS 4.25012:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a contest for which side can write the most neutral set of articles on industrial agriculture. In my opinion , in comparing factory farming with our suite of articles:
In this contest each side may under the rules of the contest, as well as under GFDL and wikipedia standard practice, take material from the other side so long as that fact is acknowledged in the edit summary as in "Moved content here from factory farming" with the best possible end result being articles that can be trivially merged or the next best thing - articles that are similar yet different in some clear specific ways that can be arbitrated or mediated point by point. WAS 4.25012:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I've stumbled onto a useful harness for people willing to do anything to win. Slim, I challenge you to win at writing the most neutral (and otherwise best by wikipedia standards) suite of articles on "Industrial agriculture" and if for you that is identical to factory farming then in my opinion that fact alone will mean you will lose the contest. Let's put your finely honed instincts for winning to a good cause. What do you say? WAS 4.25013:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a competition, it is not here to 'win' it is here to work together. Working on dozens of articles about the same subject is duplicating information and pointless. We should simply agree on which articles should stay and which shouldn't. All people are going to have to compromise, it is as simple as that.
It would be odd if an account that only recently arrived on the talk page were able to turpedo mediation just because we didn't agree to remove certain phrases from the article. In fact, if it were allowed to stand, it would suggest a review of the RfM process is needed, because it would be a clear abuse. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no abuse, and you and Crum and Localzuk really need to start looking at what other editors say rather than attacking the editors. My comments were persistently ignored or rejected out of hand. I do not believe anything I wrote was unreasonable. You yourself chose to ignore everything I wrote. That said, nothing is set in stone, and it remains the case that if I see some evidence of good will and good faith, mediation is always still possible. But as things stand I do not see that mediation is worthwhile. BCST200102:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BCST2001 actually makes a good point. I don't understand why SV/Crum/Localzuk require the article to retain statements they say are supported that others say are unsupported while continually reverting additions of statements that others say are supported but SV/Crum/Localzuk say are unsupported. Seems hypocritical. Jav4302:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am an editor involved in this dispute. I have a stake in the outcome, which is the reason I am contributing to this talk page. Whether I edit the article or not is irrelevant, especially given that the article is in a long-term dispute. Other editors would we wiser to edit the article less. It is clearly an illegitimate process to list me as a party to the dispute, then try to suggest my vote doesn't count because you don't like how I voted. And, yet again, there is a willingness of certain editors to do anything except consider the actual words written on the talk page. How much easier it would be for you to consider my entirely legitimate request, which is that a highly contentious clause be deleted for the duration of the mediation process. BCST200102:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blackmailing anybody. I made it very clear in advance that I consider the problem here is that I cannot commit to mediation where I have no belief that certain editors are really prepared to moderate their position. I made this clear, and made clear that I thought it was possible to do something about this. Every single word I have written about this has been ignored. Mediation may be a Holy Grail to you, but that is why I urged you to help make it possible. I do not intend to discuss anything unrelated to the issues surrounding this article. Please follow suit. I reiterate: at present I see no evidence of a genuine will to work toward the best encyclopedic outcome. That is the sum of my concern. BCST200102:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are using your veto power over the RfM to force change to the article. That is unacceptable.
I am not "forcing change" to the article. I am proposing the deletion of one clause on a temporary basis as a gesture of goodwill. A clause which, by the way, already was deleted until you insisted on restoring it. Clearly neither you nor Localzuk consider my request reasonable. That's fine. I'm disappointed with your decision in this regard, just as you are disappointed with my vote against mediation. As for your question: I am not a sockpuppet. That is all I intend to say on this matter, and I expect you to drop it on this talk page. I have every right to contribute to this talk page, and my behavior on this page has been entirely proper, so please stop diverting attention from the issues. BCST200103:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have posted on this page previously with another account, you're a sockpuppet. It's a violation of SOCK to act in a way that avoids the scrutiny of other editors who might have good reason to track your contributions. As you're now behaving in a highly controversial manner, and attempting to scupper mediation that several editors want, we have very good reason to need to know whether you've been involved in this dispute before as someone else. Please review WP:SOCK carefully. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a pity that you are so determined to fight an underhanded battle rather than actually try to achieve anything. If you bothered to read and digest what I wrote, and if you had an ounce of flexibility and imagination, I would be voting for mediation. I honestly wonder what you think my agenda is. By the way, I have done nothing controversial. I proposed a condition: the condition was rejected out of hand. So I made the judgment that at present mediation is not worthwhile. That's it. BCST200103:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a cheek to talk about anyone being underhand, when you're clearly the account of a previous user. Be honest and say who you are, or please go away and leave this page and the RfM alone. The last thing we need is more shenanigans. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You create a sockpuppet to arrive here to tell us that, unless we remove certain claims from the article — claims that are one of the reasons we are seeking mediation in the first place — you will use your veto power to scupper the mediation for everyone else. But that's not blackmail, underhanded behavior, or dishonesty ... SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing how SV/Crum/Localzuk only object to BCST's tactics, and (again) completely refuse to address the point made. That certainly vindicates BCST. Jav4303:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed his points and find them to be unreasonable demands, that's quite simple really and I don't know how I can say it any more clearly. Demanding we do someting else mediation won't be accepted is not good behaviour, especially from an editor who only arrived on the page very recently.-Localzuk(talk)07:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not come close to describing why so-called "sourced" statements with which you agree should be in the article, while truly sourced statements that contradict those should not. Jav4314:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of people being Sockpuppets
Why does Slimvirgin continually accuse people of being sockpuppets? The only reason I can think of is a guilty conscience regarding Slimvirgin/Crum375... Perhaps SlimVirgin should give others the benefit of the doubt that she apparently desires to be given herself. Her disruptive behavior should stop. Jav4303:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, if someone says: "You must do what I tell you, or else I'll destroy your mediation", do you really consider that as acceptable behavior, regardless of which side he's on? Crum37504:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous analysis. I am an editor. I have the right to agree to mediation, as I equally have the right to disagree. On what grounds do I make my decision? One possibility is through negotiation. Negotiation is not blackmail. The fact that you and SlimVirgin and Localzuk rejected my attempt at negotiation does not make it blackmail. I continue to believe my suggestion was reasonable. And I continue to conclude that the utter refusal to consider it, or to enter into any productive discussion with me, is a legitimate ground for me to reject mediation. As I have said repeatedly, I am not in principle against mediation, and nothing is ever set in stone. But as things stand, and as far as I am concerned, agreeing to mediation does not seem wise at present. Calling this situation "blackmail" is false and unhelpful. I could simply have not responded to the mediation request. What I did instead was indicate clearly what the obstacles to my agreement were, and attempt to initiate a dialogue about how to overcome these obstacles. It is a pity that the relevant editors have not realized there is a wiser course than the one they have followed, if they truly wish to enter a mediation process. BCST200104:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have any sense of shame? Do you really call forcing editors to agree to edit according to your edict, that if we disagree with you, you'll scuttle our mediation, acceptable behavior? Next thing you'd want us to pay you for your vote? And if you are a sockpuppet, that is even more shameful, as that would mean that you don't even have the courage to stand up for your own edit history. Crum37504:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I have forced nobody to do anything. I issued no edict: I requested a gesture of good faith, or at least a meaningful response. I didn't get it. Negotiation, flexibility, good faith, imagination: these are the elements required for mediation to succeed. That is why I seek signs of them. Finding such signs gives me a reason to believe mediation is worthwhile. The absence of such signs gives me a reason to think it's not. But if you feel compelled to continue with your abuse and false characterizations, go ahead. BCST200104:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that as a gesture of good faith, you should tell us whether you've edited this page before under a different name. Also, you should agree to mediation, so that we can finally get our issues here resolved. AGF means we all assume that others will play fairly - by coming in disguised as someone else, and trying to force us to edit according to your demands, you are starting out on the wrong foot. Crum37504:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if you feel compelled to continue with the abuse and false characterizations, go ahead. I am already quite aware that you think I should agree to mediation. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to do anything whatsoever to make that more likely. The question I have therefore to ask myself is whether mediation is likely to "finally get our issues here resolved." That is a judgment I have to make, and I have the right to conclude, at this moment, that it is not. Look: the reality is you know that the clause in question is highly contentious, and you know that I am not "forcing you to delete it"; I am asking you to voluntarily remove it for the duration of mediation. In my opinion, the utter refusal to do so suggests that you are more interested in controlling the article than really mediating with other editors. You disagree with that analysis: fine. But that is my feeling. If you can give me reasons to change my feeling, so much the better: that is what I am looking for. BCST200104:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think your actions and words speak for themselves, and believe you should be very ashamed of yourself. Crum37505:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS, that makes no sense to me. The whole point of mediation is that anybody who was involved with the topic, or has expressed strong opinions about the issues, should participate. If you and BCST just sit on the fence while we mediate, you may then disagree with the outcome and continue the same disputes we had before. Unless you and all involved parties agree to mediation, continuing it would be an exercise in futility, in my opinion. Crum37514:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At any time new editors can arrive on the page and form a new consensus. Mediation can not stop a new consensus from forming. Just treat me and the new guy like we were away on vacation. WAS 4.25015:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BCST has made extensive arguments why he feels he is involved in the case. For you to tell us he is not, and to remove his name from the list, while his 'disagree' vote is there, is a little odd. As far as your own position, you are one of the most involved parties on this page. You are a large reason we need to mediate - specifically your refusal to agree to a single or dual page approach, and even refusal to negotiate over it. You have yourself created and supported the POV forks that we will be addressing. I just can't see how you can logically sit this out - if you need to go on vacation, so should we. Crum37515:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone read the rules to mediation? Accordingly, this mediation will be rejected if people involved do not join or agree to it.
All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.
Any involved editor who refuses to sign on within the time limit will sink the process also. WAS is the fourth most prolific contributor on this page (per this tool), and is a large reason for the need for mediation, as he refuses to allow a single or dual page to handle FF, has produced and edited POV forks, and refuses to negotiate over those issues. Crum37519:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct to say that WAS was highly involved, but it is incorrect to say that he is the reason mediation is needed. Quite obviously, mediation is needed because SV/Crum/Localzuk are stuck in a cave, watching the shadows of what appear to them to be the horrors of agriculture and refusing to step out of the cave to see the truth. (Sorry, I just felt pedantic and wanted to use Plato.) Jav4322:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sure that, without WAS 4.250 and NathanLee, the rest of us would have hammered out a compromise by now. If they don't want to be part of mediation and are willing to withdraw from editing these pages entirely, that's fine. But if they want to continue editing them, they can't claim to be uninvolved for mediation purposes only. Otherwise, the rest of us will reach an agreement, and those two will continue to edit war. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually SlimVirgin: without you and your inability to compromise the rest of us (6-7 editors) are in agreement. Without your revert warring, deletion of other terms (like "intensive farming") to protect your version of the page: this whole thing would not be an issue. It's been your inability to ever use the talk page constructively or to accept that there is more to agriculture than your limited view allows that is the sticking point. I would ask what compromise have you made whatsoever to accept anything other than your version of the page? There's been lots of evidence presented that there's a more accurate/correct definition of the terms than your simplistic view. You ignore discussion, come in and contribute either accusations of sock puppetry or fallacious arguments. After a compromise on the lead was reached: you go and undo it to put it back to your version without any discussion or consultation. How about you withdraw from editing (as numerous editors have pointed out you appear biased)? The page could then potentially move forward without your ownership or POV pushing behaviour.. NathanLee02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Nathan, I think your attack on SV above is way out of line. SV is the only one that actually writes in the article, most other people here just talk up a storm or revert. You, for example, were asked to provide a single diff of some writing to the article (after deluging the talk page for weeks) and we are still waiting for it. You may also notice that SV has tried to compromise - she agreed to change the name FF to Intensive Farming (for example), and she agreed to have more than one page to cover the subject. She is also not alone - there are other editors, myself included, who support her views, despite what you say. So please try to be constructive. If you really want to help, instead of again deluging the page with countless edits that seem to go around in circles, how about signing up for mediation? We are waiting for you. Crum37503:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many of us have made countless contributions. It's just that you and SV revert them, every single time, so they don't last -- and we aren't as willing to engage in long-term revert wars as you are. Jav4304:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375: what complete rubbish: Why the hell should I do what anyone with a mouse and the ability to click on the history page can do? For someone who can't be bothered reading my contributions.. That request was completely and utterly out of line and just another diversion from ever answering a straight question. How about you lot adhering to the dispute avoidance policy which states NOT TO REVERT others work, and that there are more constructive additions.
Actually, those edits are riddled with removal of sourced information that is under dispute. The reverts were to get that information back. Also, merging a page back into its original to prevent POV forking is a minor task - similar to mopping up a spill in a supermarket...
What we have got here is 2 large chunks of text which spend their time attacking editors such as myself, SV and Crum. As I have asked, why not include both viewpoints on the subject rather than simply saying that one is wrong and we should all work with yours? Compromising by saying 'sometimes called' and sticking it in an origin section rather than the lead is not a very good compromise as far as I can see - and it still leads us to the place where we have loads of overlapping articles discussing the same subject.-Localzuk(talk)07:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I feel that the thread-based nature of this forum is hindering our ability to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.
I would like to make the following proposal:
Let's have anyone who wants to do so get together in an anonymous chatroom or in an instant messaging program -- or in a VOIP server -- to see whether we can reach consensus during a live meeting. Personally, I feel meeting via VOIP would be most fruitful, but if you don't have access to mics/speakers, any format would work.
If you would be willing to meet in some forum at some time, please say so. We can arrange a date/time after we determine whether anyone is willing to participate.
I tend to doubt it. I think the beauty of WP is that all is out in the open, and recorded for posterity. Any agreements hammered out in secret negotiations in smoke filled back rooms among specific participants, will be worthless once new editors show up. Crum37500:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind in the least if you recorded everything. But recording for posterity isn't the problem here. We need to reach a solution now. Short term > long term. What is going on right now obviously isn't working. Jav4301:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that recording wouldn't help, because we need to get everyone on board, including the WASs and the BCSTs and the future ones too. So any deals we cut secretly in a back room conversation will look suspicious, and will not satisfy others. The whole principle of the wiki is openness. Crum37501:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you and SV speak off-wiki about wiki stuff continually, I really doubt that's a huge issue :P. How about just going for talking to one another in hopes of getting somewhere, rather than making everything about "winning"? Jav4301:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, it doesn't help that you continue to make assumptions about issues you have no knowledge of. Given that you've edited logged out, and that it revealed your IP address, I could start speculating about what your precise interest here is, but it wouldn't exactly be helpful, would it? SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)02:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any assumptions here. I also have no idea what you're talking about regarding my "precise interest" - my interest is to get an accurate, impartial article. Jav4304:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, suggesting a VOIP to subject dialog has to be scariest solution I have ever seen in wikipedia. What happened to "in the internet no one knows you are a dog"?--Cerejota02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have bark during a discussion, I'm fine by that :P. What's wrong with VOIP? It's not like voices will reveal your identity any more than an ip address would. Jav4304:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having a voice conversation would defeat the whole concept of the wiki. This is not a social club - we develop content by open and recorded collaboration in a wiki process. Crum37504:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your point of view here. A social club? Believe me, I have plenty better means to socialize. But guess what? Your thread-based IS NOT WORKING! *gasp* So what makes you refuse to try a live format? Have you ever engaged in a forum that uses simultaneous thread-based and live conversation to make decisions? Believe me, more gets done in live conversation. Jav4304:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. I am sure any 2 people could reach agreement by voice or any other means. But that's not the wiki model. If 2 people agree, that doesn't mean that #3 and #4 who arrive tomorrow will agree, especially if the first two just discussed things privately. So our concept here is to have totally open discussions, where every word you utter is recorded and viewed by millions around the world, and anyone can contribute a statement at any point. It may not be as efficient as 2 people one-on-one, but in the long run it works and powers our dynamic project, whereas the private chats will produce your father's dusty dog-eared old encyclopedias. Crum37504:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing. You and I could agree to something here and now, on this thread, but next month SlimVirgin could take a peek, disagree, and make changes contrary to our agreement. Agreement between any individuals never binds all. And two things: a) published encyclopedic articles on this topic are much more accurate/impartial than the current version, and b) I'm not talking about a "private conversation" - I'm talking about letting everyone who's involved get together to try to work something out - but even if I were, there's nothing wrong with you and I forming an understanding *in any forum* that we bring here. Jav4304:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to disagree then, I think you just don't understand or appreciate the power of the wiki model. Private chats defeat that concept, as they leave no recorded trace, and don't let others inspect or participate. This is a wiki - if someone comes in tomorrow, they have full records of every discussion, every word that was every uttered. If you don't appreciate and accept that model, you are in the wrong place. Crum37505:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand where you're coming from, particularly since you continually converse offline with SlimVirgin. There's a difference between recording *discussion* and recording *changes*. Am I suddenly not allowed to speak offline to anyone about subjects which appear on Wikipedia? I find your position completely illogical. Oh well. Jav4307:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
As mentioned elsewhere, I haven't got much time at the moment. I decided it would be constructive to put the wording I think is justified by the sources in the article, the bold edit is done as an appropriate technique as suggested by policy. I know it needs the citations, they exist in the prior version, but I didn't want to add them without taking proper care of filtering through the existing ones.
I'd like to think this a structure that can be edited to be improved rather than simply reverted, and it would be nice to see that approach, but we'll see. Spenny09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea. However, I think it would have been better served if you discussed it here first. Not that I have much hope of any of the major editors backing it. Also, if you noticed the comment left on the revert, you'll see that most of the editors have a very pointed view of the article and have minimal interest in keeping their personailities and agendas out of it. --BlindEagletalk~contribs18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't necessarily expect it to remain, and I don't have a problem with it being reverted. Edit, revert discuss is a legitimate Wiki technique. Spenny19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BlindEagle, please AGF.
Spenny, it wasn't bad, though it would need citations. But it generalized a bit, rather than sticking to facts, and some of it wasn't correct e.g. "However, opponents have successfully campaigned to have some of the more obviously cruel techniques of factory farming ceased ..." The most obviously cruel technique, according to some advocates, is the overcrowding and keeping animals indoors all their lives. No one has managed to get rid of that; indeed, it is part of the very definition of the intensive farming of animals. I assume you're thinking of gestation crates, but these have only been stopped in Sweden, the UK, and in two states in the U.S. Or did you have other things in mind too? Also, it wasn't only opponents of factory farming who campaigned against gestation crates. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, constructive criticisms :) I don't disagree that it wasn't entirely correct, it was designed as a first pass (the result of a long drive there and back checking out University Open Days with the offspring) and something that was loose enough to encourage tweaking. Specifically, I was deliberately being general as it was a lead to set the scene: one of my problems with the existing lead that in justifying itself it has spiralled into being too specific (same goes for the image description). I think there is a happy medium to be found. What I was trying to get to was a balanced lead that said that although factory farming has its proponents, there is a consensus amongst the wider population that there are limits to what will be tolerated, and there is clearly continuing reduction in that tolerance. Go back 20 years, I think factory farming had free range on techniques whereas now there are increasing standards, de-beaking has been banned (I think), minimum space requirements have been introduced, the RSPCA in the UK is probably a good source for this legislation. Different countries will have different perspectives. People even are starting to agree that Kentucky Fried Chicken workers shouldn't play football with the live produce - this is progress. Anyway, as part of the mediation, I thought it would be helpful to give people something to hang their hat on rather than a negative, "I don't like your version but I am not saying what my version is", sort of thing, sort of, like. ;) I do think it would have been very fixable, but I am realistic that the atmosphere is not conducive to that. Spenny19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that I think your version is based on your own ideas of the situation, which may not be correct. Twenty years ago, there was less overcrowding, fewer animals produced, less automation, and more farms were still owned and controlled by farmers. Latest figures I can find from the U.S. Dept of Ag, annual production in the U.S.: 8.04 billion chickens, 250 million turkeys, 21.9 million ducks, 100.3 million pigs, 35.7 million cattle, 3.29 million sheep and lambs, 1.05 million calves. This is an unprecedented output.
Also, you would have to say exactly what has been banned and where. (Where has debeaking been banned?) In trying to be less specific, your version has abandoned facts entirely and is based on ideas which are not accurate. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that as a lead in, it should be an overview and will not be accurate, but a pointer to issues to be discussed in detail. I do have a problem with the "false accuracy" of the existing lead, so I was trying to see if there was a less controversial way of putting things (e.g. the interchangeable rather than the synonymous, which allows for the wriggle room that the cites on definition only show that people use two undefined phrases interchangeably with no clear understanding of what they meant when they used each of the phrases - on that point, my version is more accurate).
With regard to the statistics, it may well be that Europe and the Americas are diverging, I don't know enough. Simple numbers of animals do not give any indication of improving or worsening conditions, any extrapolation is OR. Certainly in Europe, there is a demand from consumers for "clear conscience" food and it was that element I was trying to get in (the main supermarkets are majoring on organic produce), animal protection bodies do now have an influence over farm animal treatment whereas once it was an irrelevance. I tweaked the wording on lowest cost, highest volume, as it is an over-simplification, lowest cost is not always the highest profit, which is one of the drivers over here to higher quality organic farming. We have a move away from globalisation with Tesco promoting locally produced milk, but again we know that Tesco have an eye on capturing hearts and minds for more long term profit and it does not exclude elements of factory farming philosophy. So the subject scope is vague, you cannot make absolute statements about what it is and is not; the subject encapsulates a wide range of issues which are not for the lead to explore, but it guides us what needs to be explored in detail further on. Spenny20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean this direspectfully, but I feel you're relying on anecdote. There is a trend away from factory farming in Europe, but it doesn't really amount to much yet. There is a high demand for organic food, but still not that much of it available. The animal protection agencies have always been involved in animal welfare on farms, but again, their involvement has never amounted to much (giving rise to some of the breakaway groups, because groups such as the RSPCA do very little). There is no move away from globalization: despite the local-milk thing in Tesco, it's the large chain supermarkets that drove globalization in the first place in the UK, and still do.
This is why we need to stick to facts, because people's firmly held ideas about this area often turn out to be quite wrong, and sometimes based on deliberately misleading propaganda put out by the companies who profit from the practices. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) I couldn't agree more. One of the myriad of issues that I am trying to unravel here is that a lot of editing starts out as a POV: that is not a problem as long as we can use the editing process to refine it, it is what Wikipedians do. It is what you have done, you have a perspective on this, and produced an article, except that you are then missing the Wiki step of allowing refinement. You have taken a different point of view to start with and selected and interpreted sources that match, or appear to match that POV, I haven't yet done that step - we could, and are allowed to, let others who are better at it do that, it is why reverting is deprecated as an article editing technique.
Spenny, once again, please stick to facts. I haven't produced an article; I've written the lead, parts of two of the sections, and added some images. I don't see the article as anywhere near a first draft. What would be welcome at this point is not refinement, but actual meat. Once we have a completed article, then we can look to see how to move things around, and what the balance of POVs is like. But if everyone only refines or deletes, that will never happen. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple example is that long list of references about synonymous usage - a beautifully documented piece of OR on linguistics as has ever been presented in Wiki: it makes an original analysis on how those terms were used. I effectively looked at the same sources and said, given those sources, I still cannot justify such a strong interpretation (in good company, I think), looking at those documents as primary sources on usage (in this case a reasonable perspective given the context is researching the usage of terms), and used my personal understanding of the terms to validate what was written to make sure it made sense. It is not advancing a position to observe that those documents do appear to use the terms interchangeably as I am not particularly trying to make use of that interpretation or make any assumptions on what flavour of the terms were being used. However, not one of those sources says "I am a respectable journalist who has researched the meanings of terms and found that the two meanings were used synonymously by the speakers". When you make extraordinary claims based upon this interpretation, as others have claimed you have, then we are entitled to demand the highest quality of sources of the actual claim. Spenny23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not understand what spenny is saying? It's yet another editor who disagrees with your strange version of what "synonymous" means. THAT is what is original research: your assertion that the terms are identical. Just how many editors do you need to say "this is not what you think it means" before you'll stop trying to revert the article to say they are synonymous. You either can't get the idea of "context" or the idea of subsets/types of.. Factory farming is a TYPE OF intensive farming, nothing more. NathanLee01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, we've been through this countless times. Here is what one of the reliable sources in the article says:
Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet. The policy was supported by guaranteed prices, encouraging high inputs of feed, fertiliser, pesticides and veterinary medicines. The intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions.[169] (emphasis added)
Can you please explain how or why 'factory farms' differ from 'intensive systems', that this source clearly says are the same? Crum37502:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly well, based on that quote, which is a definition (there can be others) that I am perfectly content with. Where in the whole of that quote does it say ALWAYS in restricted movement, ALWAYS indoors. It does not. When will you get it? It is the determination to force factory farming to mean ALWAYS indoors, ALWAYS restricted movement, as the definition in the lead says which leads the article into making nonsensical statements (back to square 1 where I came in). This is basic linguistics: you cannot do original research on meanings like this. In easy steps, yes, sometimes people do use the term synonymously, but if they do that they are not using the term in the restricted sense that the article asserts, you require OR to extend to that definition. Look at that example even further: confined does not mean constrained, which I guess you might assert, simply putting a large number of chickens in a shed is confinement at high stocking densities. Are you a language expert? No, I am not either, but I can see idiotic assertions when I see them, and this is so idiotic it is beyond belief. Engage your brain for two minutes, read what people have been saying. Put in simple terms, (though why I bother I do not know), I do not have a problem with a definition factory farming meaning a wide range of techniques, and intensive farming meaning a wide range of techniques and then being defined as used synonymously. However, you cannot take an extreme interpretation of factory farming meaning always indoors, always restricted movement, and claim that is synonymous. Even if you find a dozen sources that a restrictive interpretation of intensive farming, you cannot extrapolate that claim back over other people's usage.
It becomes really offensive when the tag team abuse definitions of primary sources, original research and so on, which they maintain a stranglehold on the wording of, to support nonsense like the above, and they always claim that everyone else misunderstands when they practically display such ignorance of the concepts in day to day editing. Spenny09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have been through this countless times: and here's another person calling your view a strange original research interpretation. You three have an English comprehension process on this definition that differs significantly from the way the majority of people in this discussion do AND from any dictionary/encyclopaedia we've found on the topic. Ok, let's look at that quote: it qualifies what the "intensive systems" refer to: those which are do do with animal production and confinement, high stocking density etc. That's the "context". For you to then assume that that means factory farming is "the same as" intensive farming is (as spenny said) an extraordinary claim. You can have intensive farming which is nothing to do with factory farming. Some examples of similar terms: "intensive solar gardening" [170], intensive organic farm.
It's such a generic term, yet you want to tie it to a particular instance. Some other uses of "intensive" : "energy intensive", "intensive chemotherapy", "CPU intensive", "bandwidth intensive", "intensive questioning", "capital intensive", "time intensive", "intensive driving lessons", "intensive care".. etc etc.. Now why is it that "intensive agriculture" needs to be tied into your specific view of "the horrors of animals in gestation crates" rather than on what it is? NathanLee05:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
==3RR==
I have left a warning on SlimVirgin's and Crum375's user talk pages to highlight the fact that they 3RR'd on the disputed meaning tag last night. Take care out there. Spenny10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR before accusing fellow editors of violating it. While you are at it, reading WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:ICA regarding improper accusations would also be useful. Crum37510:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with its provisions and acted accordingly. As an admin I would expect you to understand those policies clearly. Spenny11:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion is that 3 reverts of the tag occurred is proven by these diffs and the edit comments make it clear that the edits were specifically about the tag. That does not make this sort of accusation entirely "baseless". The principle of multiple accounts is that it is understood that people may evade the 3RR rule by working together. I don't accuse you of being a meat-puppet (which I am sure is what you are angling at and appears in this strange world to be a particularly offensive term, but is not synonymous with tag team or working in harmony), I do assert that you continually work in harmony which is clearly against the spirit of the multiple users provision.
The point of a warning is exactly to assume good faith and to let someone know that you feel they have broken policy so that if the behaviour continues it is understood to be causing a problem rather than simply asking for a block on the 3RR incident page. You are asserting that to follow this procedure is in itself an act of ill-faith. I simply note that if that notice is reverted again in the next few hours, an incident will be raised and assessed appropriately. There is nothing uncivil about such an approach. Spenny11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I asked you to please cite the specific policy and specific provision that you believe I or SV have violated. I ask again: please quote them below, so that we can examine your allegations. To use vague allegations against fellow editors constitutes a violation of the no personal attacks and civility policies. Crum37511:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Spenny but you are simply wrong here. 3RR doesn't work across multiple accounts - it only applies to individual users or individual people via multiple accounts. There has not been any evidence put forward in support of any sock puppetry so your warning is premature, leaning on uncivil. Your claim may not be directly stating that they are meat or sock puppets but it is inferring or implying it - which is just as bad without evidence. I would suggest you drop your use of 3RR here and, if you think something is wrong here, follow other policies to deal with the problem - supporting yourself with evidence.-Localzuk(talk)12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read the policy on dispute avoidance? It recommends AGAINST reverting.. But it seems any time you feel like it you revert without discussion, reason or right. You 3 usernames have a long history on this page and other animal lib related for using up your reverts and then one of the others appears out of nowhere and continues the revert.. That's tag team reverting and is against policy as far as I know. I think there's quite a lot of evidence of collusion off wiki.. As for your worry about whether or not that's stating you are sock/meat puppets: can I refer you to earlier comments by you lot that accused people of using other accounts and being sock puppets completely out of the blue.. NathanLee07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, there is a major difference between asking a user, that appears to have a single purpose, if they have another account (which is not an accusation, it is a question) and calling people meatpuppets/sockpuppets simply because they have the same pages in their watchlist. Anyone with any research ability would be able to confirm that we are indeed separate people. If someone else turns up to revert something that simply means they agree that the change was incorrect, nothing more, nothing less.
With regards to off-wiki collusion, I think you are way off the mark here. You have absolutely no evidence to support yourself other than gut feeling.
So, once again, you have come to the support of another editor without getting any facts straight - this is becoming a habit Nathan.-Localzuk(talk)11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry have been far more adamant than anything NathanLee has said here.
On multiple occasions, either Crum or SV have noticed a not-so-recent change I made to an article, then reverted twice... then the other would revert the third time, all 3 reversions occurring within an hour, without any communication between the two on Wikipedia. What's the saying? Something like... One is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three+ is proof? Jav4319:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, and I use it. But when you pop on to revert after four hours of no edits - and immediately after SlimVirgin reverted - well, I can only draw one conclusion. Jav4300:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which conclusion is that, Jav? Hint: a fresh edit on a watchlist item causes it to show up on top, while older ones scroll down. Crum37502:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Localzuk: something I find a bit of an indication is that Crum375 feels enough of a buddy to chop things out of SV's page: seems a tad strange. Can you think of any cases where other users feel significantly authorised to revert contributions on another user's talk page?
I have removed stuff from other people's talk pages on occasion, including SV's IIRC. SV receives a lot of bizarre ranting on her talk page and as such it is only neighbourly to remove it.-Localzuk(talk)15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no justification for what you are describing: if someone wants to edit single issues they can. That's hardly any justification to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet whatsoever. I can quite easily work out (from a tool that SV used during one attack on more than one user on this page) that there's not a whole lot of editing going on aside from certain select topic areas. The way you all kept pushing on this issue against jav would tend to suggest to a reasonable person that you have some evidence via checkuser (another close-friend editor has been recently questioned by many over the dropping of such checkuser knowledge and questioning along those lines to discredit an RFA). I guess I've escaped checkuser accusations (perhaps because there's nothing to find): As I have no other usernames and no contact with any other editor off wiki. I'm also able to say I have no affiliations with any pro or anti-farming groups, no animal lib groups etc.
No, you misunderstand. Asking an editor if they use other accounts as they appear to be a single purpose account is perfectly normal. It is against policy to have multiple accounts like that and asking if they have is not a bad thing. Coming out and saying pretty much that Crum/SV/Myself are meat puppets or sock puppets is in no way the same thing - considering no actual evidence has been presented (vague hand waving is not evidence).-Localzuk(talk)15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any of this: you should not be tag team reverting in the fashion you do as it contravenes the recommended practice for dispute avoidance and is not a conducive editing style.. I've yet to see some of you use the discussion page until you've used up your reverts and have no choice. Discussion should be preferred rather than reverting. Also shouting about "add don't remove" is probably viewed as appallingly hypocritical by the average person I would think. NathanLee15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If something is so blatantly wrong that it should be reverted, then it should be reverted. Removing sourced information is seen as a bad thing (and is actually in a couple of our policies and guidelines as such). Restoring removed material, whether it is seen as tag team editing or not, is a good thing. I can say the exact same thing applies to you, Jav43 and a couple of others - you exhibit the same behaviour.
My personal reverting policy is revert, see if someone reverts, revert again and post on the talk page at the same time. A kinda variation of the 'post, revert, discuss' idea if you will.-Localzuk(talk)15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H5N1 Influenza
I am confused as to why there is a reference to H5N1 influenza in this article. The reference source used for its inclusion does not imply that H5N1 is related to factory farming (in fact, it implies that its spread is directly related to migratory birds, and in commercial poultry is more related to small-scale farming where people are intimately associated with the animals, and to live poultry markets, which are the antithesis of factory farming). The reference source also does not imply that vaccination of poultry has had anything to do with the spread of H5N1; in fact, it recommends development and use of vaccines. Since the major vector of infection of commercial poultry with H5N1 is through contact with migratory birds, one could argue that the closed environment of factory farming is more likely to prevent infection than cause it. The discussion of H5N1 is not a key point in this article; it is best to simply remove this reference. Risker13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added it and I'll answer your questions point by point. But I won't edit this article anytime soon.
I am confused as to why there is a reference to H5N1 influenza in this article. Because some experts believe that the current H5N1 pandemic threat was created by the use of poor vaccines in China.
The reference source used for its inclusion does not imply that H5N1 is related to factory farming The use of cheap poor vaccines is directly related to China's migration to the use of industrial methods in food production.
(in fact, it implies that its spread is directly related to migratory birds, Migratory birds have spread it from continent to continent but commercial trade has been the main factor spreading it within any specific region
and in commercial poultry is more related to small-scale farming where people are intimately associated with the animals, and to live poultry markets, which are the antithesis of factory farming).The reference source also does not imply that vaccination of poultry has had anything to do with the spread of H5N1; how it has spread since it was originally evolved is not the point. The point is that poor vaccines used widely in China are believed to be the original environment that allowed it to evolve in the first place.
The reference source also does not imply that vaccination of poultry has had anything to do with the spread of H5N1; in fact, it recommends development and use of vaccines. Good vaccines can be helpful, but bad vaccines allow poultry to catch H5N1, not die from it, and allow the virus to both infect others (including humans) and to continue mutating which is one way to create a pandemic strain which is a very bad thing.
Since the major vector of infection of commercial poultry with H5N1 is through contact with migratory birds, That is not true as was explained above.
one could argue that the closed environment of factory farming is more likely to prevent infection than cause it. Yes, now that this current deadly strain of H5N1 is endemic in wild bird populations, indoor housing of poultry is one solution. The irony of industrial practices causing a problem that is best dealt with by more or other industrial practices has been noted by many and is not limited to this case. The presentation of this information in a pro versus con format does a grave injustice to the complexities of the situation. WAS 4.25022:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some believe The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu is essentially a problem of industrial poultry practices.[18] Others have a more nuanced position. According to the CDC article H5N1 Outbreaks and Enzootic Influenza by Robert G. Webster et al.:"Transmission of highly pathogenic H5N1 from domestic poultry back to migratory waterfowl in western China has increased the geographic spread. The spread of H5N1 and its likely reintroduction to domestic poultry increase the need for good agricultural vaccines. In fact, the root cause of the continuing H5N1 pandemic threat may be the way the pathogenicity of H5N1 viruses is masked by cocirculating influenza viruses or bad agricultural vaccines."[19] Dr. Robert Webster explains: "If you use a good vaccine you can prevent the transmission within poultry and to humans. But if they have been using vaccines now [in China] for several years, why is there so much bird flu? There is bad vaccine that stops the disease in the bird but the bird goes on pooping out virus and maintaining it and changing it. And I think this is what is going on in China. It has to be. Either there is not enough vaccine being used or there is substandard vaccine being used. Probably both. It’s not just China. We can’t blame China for substandard vaccines. I think there are substandard vaccines for influenza in poultry all over the world." [20] In response to the same concerns, Reuters reports Hong Kong infectious disease expert Lo Wing-lok saying, "The issue of vaccines has to take top priority," and Julie Hall, in charge of the WHO's outbreak response in China, saying China's vaccinations might be masking the virus." [21] The BBC reported that Dr Wendy Barclay, a virologist at the University of Reading, UK said: "The Chinese have made a vaccine based on reverse genetics made with H5N1 antigens, and they have been using it. There has been a lot of criticism of what they have done, because they have protected their chickens against death from this virus but the chickens still get infected; and then you get drift - the virus mutates in response to the antibodies - and now we have a situation where we have five or six 'flavours' of H5N1 out there." [22] Keeping wild birds away from domestic birds is known to be key in the fight against H5N1. Caging (no free range poultry) is one way. Providing wild birds with restored wetlands so they naturally choose nonlivestock areas is another way that helps accomplish this. Political forces are increasingly demanding the selection of one, the other, or both based on nonscientific reasons.[23]WAS 4.25022:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant to poultry agriculture practices that are based on science and technology and cost reduction. Cost reduction techniques that include the immoral risking of consumer and worker lives thru pollution, poison in the air, water and food, and similar behavior is well documented in the West's industrial revolution as well as China's current efforts (eg toothpaste, dog food, ...). Science as a tool is a key. Cost reduction as a driving force is a key. Democratic forces forcing public safety is a key. Modern industry providing the wealth to pay for modern human health and animal care efforts is a key. There is a process occuring that does not neatly fit into a pro and con framework. WAS 4.25002:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civility and Etiquette
Please stop accusing people of being uncivil or <insert random WP:Whatever cite here> every other post. It's unnecessary - and at the risk of being hypocritical, it's uncivil. Jav4317:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, as I have said before, another solution to this - people should stop being uncivl and stop breaching policy and then there would be no need...-Localzuk(talk)19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If only that would happen. There are lots of wise words in Wikipedia about good behaviour. However, you cannot selectively assert some elements of behaviour and not others. WP:TEND comes to mind. I am sure some of those comments fit me, I see the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors fitting very well others. It is for this reason I find selective quoting of Wiki rules rather offensive when the accusers do not abide by them or their spirit - especially when that approach is clearly recognised and has a name. Spenny20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentiousness is hard to assert when most of us have agreed to mediation, which is being held up by a couple of editors. For you to issue vague allegations and innuendos against others that you disagree with is extremely uncivil and constitutes a personal attack. I suggest you either provide actual diffs with the specific policy and provision that you feel are being violated, so the accused can defend themselves, or retract your statements and apologize. Leaving the allegations vague and open ended without such supporting evidence is unacceptable behavior. Crum37522:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to spend my time WikiLawyering these accusations. If you want to pursue a complaint about those accusations, feel free. The accusations are not vague: they are very clear and the supporting evidence is there to be seen in the talk pages and edits of this page and policy pages. I have attempted to demonstrate this before with you, but rather than try and understand you see it as a point of honour not to be in the wrong. But I've stopped sulking now, have moved into some constructive editing so I am not going to dredge through the past. I live in hope that much as I am a bad tempered old scrote that one day you will see you have played your part. Spenny23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has seen a lot of personal attacks, which you are also engaged in, Spenny, referring to other editors' posts as ignorant and offensive, telling me you thought I had no life, and accusing editors of tag-teaming. All the personal attacks needs to stop, and the issues focused on. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have made attacks, they are plain to see, and the context they are made in. Sometimes there comes a point where to me it is inappropriate to hide frustration and pretend all is well when it is not.
I will just comment specifically on one issue, that the comment on you having to go out was said with a clear smiley, when you must be aware that you have a reputation for extensive hours spent editing on Wiki. It was meant as an acknowledgement that your reputation was not necessarily deserved, at a time when we were having a constructive discussion. As I see you have misconstrued my intent, and it was not my intent to be offensive, I most happily apologise for that and as it refers to issues outside the context of Wikipedia it was most inappropriate and I will do my best to avoid such comments again. Spenny23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was rereading the article and noted the first few sentences quoted a source as industrial farms are confined and indoors. There is a picture down the article labeled, "Cows in a CAFO in the U.S" that appears to be of an outdoor confinement. Can someone clarify the picture if I'm viewing this incorrectly? --BlindEagletalk~contribs20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Indoors" is not characteristic of anything. The correct definition of factory farming entails animals being kept in confined quarters. "Indoors" or "outside" is irrelevant. Thank you for pointing that out. Jav4321:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removing that produces a better sounding description.. Confined is the more important thing in terms of overall practice and the part that makes it "intensive" versus "extensive" agriculture. Although pig/chicken farming appears characterised by indoors, cow lots don't appear to have this. A lot of the historical reason behind it was to reduce the impact that the weather had on the animals (one of the references somewhere mentions this..) NathanLee07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
references in lead
This is a reminder to myself and/or others that we need to go back through the lead, review the references cited for various points, and dig through the discussion page archives to find more accurate/closely tied/relevant references. Jav4321:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, I asked you earlier, but you didn't answer: do you have alternative suggestions for the lead image that would illustrate animals being kept in conditions of restricted mobility, but which you would find more acceptable? SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in SV, sorry, but I came across some good images of the chickens in barns which I thought was very appropriate: not entirely pleasant, but not at the extreme end. I didn't find a free image of this, but I haven't looked very hard. It was good because it conveyed confinement as opposed to imprisonment which might be seen as POVish. Don't have a problem with the pig image lower down, though the text has inappropriate detail for the caption which should be moved into the body. There should also be some images of less intense systems. Spenny21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is to be about factory farming only, which is what Jav etc (and you, I believe) are arguing, then it can't wander off into the issue of less-intensive systems. What we are writing about here are the practices that are routinely referred to as "factory farming" by reliable sources. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I perhaps was not clear enough. Given a definition of intensive animal farming, within that there is a still a range of activity: it covers anything from simply penning in many chickens so that they do not have the room they would have in an old fashioned farm through to putting them in wire cages. You can have pigs in barns, never seeing daylight, but they are not restrained, just confined. The problem I have with the pig picture is that it relates too closely to the extreme end of the range of factory farming. I think if we can get to a position of accepting the UN definition of factory farming, then I think the issue of the picture should clarify. If it would stop raining here, I could pop down the road and take a picture of our local "free range" farm that would still surprise the average member of the public as to how many and how intense a free range chicken farm is allowed to be to meet standards. Spenny23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The UN definition is the one block highlighted in the Lead section above - somewhere around where I went bananas :) I reworded the lead in the article using that definition referenced to what appears to be an impeccable source. I guess the point that the picture shows something that is going to be banned in two significant areas of the world suggests that it is extreme. The difference I am making between confinement and restraint is that in confinement you might reasonably expect to move about (eg solitary confinement) whereas restraint suggests a restriction that might include being unable to walk about - though I wouldn't care to be held to an absolute definition of terms. Spenny01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any UN definition. Can you post it here, please?
As for restraint/confinement, sometimes the confinement may as well be restraint, yes, but it remains confinement, unless you can find sources who call it something else. Everything we do must be source-based. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer. I told you that I had provided about 7 images on various dates, all of which you reverted without explanation. Jav4300:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be better, but you have yet to provide any realistic options. I have, on the other hand, provided, e.g. (I'm not going to waste my time looking for all the images I tried that you randomly reverted):
Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet. The policy was supported by guaranteed prices, encouraging high inputs of feed, fertiliser, pesticides and veterinary medicines. The intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions.[174]
I think that is a really good cite that Crum highlighted and I think it resolves the main conflict, it ties the two phrases together, but is clear what the synonymous usage is. Qulaity source, no OR. Job done :) Spenny12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the fist image here is of little value to this article. It shows a bunch of chicken coop buildings at a great distance, and doesn't covey the potential density of the chickens. Do they house one chicken per building or 100 per square foot? -- we can't tell from this picture. JD Lambert(T|C)01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pigs in stalls one is much more suitable than the ones in gestation crates because:
far more pigs are kept like that than in gestation crates
the gestation crates that I found commercially were nothing like that..
talking to my flatmate who has parents who used to own a pig farm they never used anything like that except to possibly medicate/treat animals (so very much temporary).
the practice is being phased out: that doesn't mean "factory farming" goes away.. So it's hardly a key thing
it furthers an activist view (e.g. the site it came from) and is quite one-sided view of factory farming
That's if we NEED a lead image anyhow, which I don't think we do. Put the farming template at the top right of the article instead perhaps? NathanLee07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need is certainly a strong word around here. But, a good third-party, non-bias source for the picture would be a good idea, if we agree to have one at all as noted above. --BlindEagletalk~contribs16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've provided a number of images again. Again, a number of people agreed to remove the image of sows in gestation crates. I'm going to remove it. There is absolutely no consensus to keep it, and no evidence that it is characteristic of anything. If SlimVirgin/Crum/Localzuk wish to choose another image upon which the group as a whole may render a verdict, they are welcome to do so. Jav4317:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion
I was just thought of an idea that might help the editor's here work through the larger issues dealing with the scope articles, etc. If everyone focused on creating a page equivalent to Macedonia (terminology), it may be the first step in a productive discussion about the scope of articles. The major players in this, rather than countries, would various interest groups, regulating bodies, etc and also changing usage over time (maybe once Enclosure was labeled Industrial Ag). I think there is a greater variety to this terminology than has been previously discussed on this talk page. A focused effort to explain the terminology involved without getting into what is "common usage" or "correct", might be the first step towards finding a consensus on what articles need to exist and their scope. I really don't know if this issue would translate well into that sort of article, but I thought I would share the idea.--BirgitteSB16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have found my weakness, I share far more ideas than I would ever want to spearhead. It is a common complaint against myself, so I will spare you the excuses and just own up to the flaw..--BirgitteSB18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just spent a week yelling at NathanLee for spending more time on the talk page than editing the article. Please, SV -- remove the hypocrisy! Equal standards! And don't you dare tell people to "stop the commentary" when you are the SOLE instigator! Jav4322:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked!!! You agree it is a good idea to have yet another article on the subject??? My whole point here was to try to get you to see that setting an arbitrary limit on the number of articles was not proper. Where in the world did the communication between us get derailed? Sign me puzzled. WAS 4.25018:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CAFO is not a common term for it. Factory farming is the common term, and there's no need to have an article about the word. We need one about the concept/practice, and the most common terms for it are factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive farming. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birgitte says "If everyone focused on creating a page equivalent to Macedonia (terminology), it may be the first step in a productive discussion about the scope of articles." Then SlimVirgin says "It's a good idea" Then SlimVirgin says "Factory farming is the common term, and there's no need to have an article about the word." This makes no sense to me. WAS 4.25004:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Birgitte says "A focused effort to explain the terminology involved without getting into what is "common usage" or "correct", might be the first step towards finding a consensus on what articles need to exist and their scope." Then SlimVirgin says "It's a good idea" Then SlimVirgin says "Factory farming is the common term, and there's no need to have an article about the word." This makes no sense to me. WAS 4.25004:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. CAFO is the term used by industry and anyone with knowledge regarding the topic. It is the only term that is actually used in practice. "Factory farm" is a pejorative term used by ill-informed persons or by those intending to disparage the practice. Jav4322:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. CAFO is an euphemism concocted by a trade groups and lobbyists as an alternative to "factory farming" in legal discourse. The term "factory farming", according to the Oxford English Dictionary[175] (definitely a rabid animal rights publication keen on disparaging the poor, prosecuted CAFOs) was first used to refer to the topic at hand in the 1890s.
CAFO on the other hand has its origin in the 1970s and the Clean Water Act, and subsequent regulatory attempts by the EPA[176]. The predominance of CAFO links in google is due to its large use in laws and regulatory documents of US State governments and the US Federal government (along with said industry groups).
If we do a google search for "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" on its own, we get 663,000 hits.[177].
If we perform the same search, but limit the results to those under ".gov", we get 441,000[178].
These means only 222,000 pages use the term outside of the Federal government.
However, is we limit the search to the ".us" top level domain, usually used by State goverments and public schools we get 54,300 hits.[179]
This leaves the probable total of pages not related to US government activity, at around 165,000.
A similar search in the ".UK" domain - a major english speaking country - yield 70 hits, most of them similar, and most of them related to publications republishing US material.[180]
(This pretty much proves that the term "CAFO" is only used in the USA, and mostly in a legalistic, non-colloquial way.)
Approximate total non-US government (federal/state): 510,000, over 345,000 hits higher than CAFO.
Total ".uk": 33,600. Wow. The term is used 33,530 time more than CAFO in the United Kingdom... this means CAFO is obviously a US only term.[184]
CAFO is not only an ugly, legalistic, made-by-committee term, but use of the term would reveal an obvious geographic bias that automatically classifies it as a Geographically biased, and hence completely outside the rules. Use of this term would be a total violation of neutrality, and insistence in its inclusion as a title -after knowing it is geo-biased- is a WP:POINT conduct.--Cerejota03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your demonstration that "factory farming" more or less does not appear on government sites should demonstrate that the term is not technically accurate and is largely seen as unusable (pejorative) by said goverment sites.
Perhaps "factory farming" is only used as a pejorative in the US. I don't know; I'm not an expert on variations of the English language. But at least in the US, among farmers and ranchers and among conservation groups and preservation groups, the term "factory farm" is not used; if anything, the terms "feedlot" or "CAFO" are used. Jav4304:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are complete incorrect. A legal euphemism is a legal euphemism, not a technical term. "feedlot" is a general term of agriculture, that is used in a colloquial way. However, I note you still insist in geographic bias. The term is not used outside the context of the USA, period. Hence, it cannot be used in the title. Period. Is that so hard to understand? --Cerejota05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"factory farming" is not used by those engaged in agricultural production or those affiliated with agriculture, but only by outsiders looking in. Doesn't that equivalently mean that "Factory farming" should not be the title of the article? "Geographic neutrality" is one thing. Choosing a term that, at least, U.S. agriculturists consider pejorative is another. Jav4305:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin claims dictionaries are not a reliable published source for claims about what words mean and now you claim that the US government is not a reliable source for the meaning of a technical term they use for the purpose of managing billions of dollars of commercial enterprise. WAS 4.25004:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we go international to the UK, the numbers are amazing...CAFO is not mentioned in The Economist,The London Times, The Guardian, or (gasp!) the BBC with "factory farming" getting a whooping 353 in the BBC.
CAFO is obviously a term of limited use in reliable sources, technical or not. People simply don't use the term in regular conversation unless they are industry PR types. Even most lawyers know better than to use these kinds of terms outside of work... so this argument is pure sophism that doesn't hold up to any serious scrutiny. This is not used by normal people.
(BTW, I am not establishing notability, for which google is not always best. I am trying to establish commonality of usage of a linguistic term, for which google is a recognized tool - people are doing linguistics PhDs solely on google pattern research).
However, we again are discussing something that we shouldn't even consider, for reasons of geographical neutrality. There are no mentions of CAFOs outside of the USA. Period. The term is not used outside of the USA. This debate is over, unless you want to continue to disrupt this talk page, and face the consequences of your disruption. Next.--Cerejota05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When daily newspapers are considered more reliable than peer-reviewed journals, we have serious problems.
I'm not saying the term of choice (for this article title) should necessarily be CAFO -- I'm saying it should not be "factory farming". I've said multiple times that a "Factory farming" article should discuss the term "factory farm", while an article on something like "idustrial agriculture", "CAFOs", "large-scale animal production" should be a detailed review of the sort that currently exists under the "Factory farm" title. Jav4305:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the same paragraph that you say "I'm not saying the term of choice (for this article title) should necessarily be CAFO" you mention "CAFO" as a possible title... CAFO!
Please make up your mind and be clear, are you for violating geographical neutrality or not?
Your argument on "peer-review" vs "journalistic is beyond the pale. The entire bulk of wikipedia is built using mostly journalistic sources, popular books, or other forms of media. Peer-review is used mostly in scientific articles if at all. Please read WP:OR, as you obviously haven't, which states, clearly and with no caveats: "In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses."WP:OR, need I remind you, is a WP:5P policy, not open to discussion or WP:IAR.
Nevertheless, CAFO loses the peer-review battle too. While "CAFO" does have a slight 1,610 to 1,390 over "Factory farming" in google scholar (a difference made slightly smaller because 27 articles use both), this is an statically insignificant difference and hardly demonstrates that there is an overwhelming consensus in the peer-reviewed community that "CAFO" is correct and "factory farming" is not, as you seem to allege. The data proves you wrong.
Since there is no objection in the peer-reviewed community to the use of the term "factory farming", and the immense majority of the reliable sources (which should be the only providers of content in wikipedia) overwhelmingly prefer and use "factory farming" over CAFO, and all the other suggestions presented, this debate is ridiculous, and disruptive. All attempts at mediation have failed, and it is obvious you and others are disrupting wikipedia to push your POV. "Factory farming" is the only logical choice: everything else is pure and simple POV-pushing.
To further illustrate: "large-scale animal production": 3,040 google hits, 10 in .uk (the bulk form search directories), and in scholar 126. This cannot hold, it would be original research to use it as a title.
And just in case, "Industrial agriculture" applies to both animals and plants (and even to fungi, which are neither). The only notable terms used to refer to the topic of this page are CAFO and Factory farm, and only factory farm satisfies geographical neutrality, so it is the only choice.--Cerejota06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I have been saying all along - reliance on 'in industry' terms and 'peer reviewed journal' terms only is a poor choice. We are supposed to be using the most geographically widespread and commonly used term - which in this case is 'Factory farm'. This has been shown time and time again. Claims that CAFO is more appropriate seem bizarre, for the reasons Cerejota has outlined above (I have never heard of this term before its use on this talk page).-Localzuk(talk)10:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the public misunderstands a term doesn't mean we should use the incorrect understanding in the article. Just because you don't know diddly about the subject area (never having heard of a CAFO?) doesn't mean CAFOs aren't at the heart of the issue. Jav4317:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should use the term the way the public uses it - that is what policy calls for! It makes sense, if someone normal comes here looking for 'Factory Farming' they should get this and not some wishy washy 'this is what the term means'. CAFO is only used in the USA in a legalistic manner - not at all in the UK. Just because I don't have knowledge about the pet term of the legal representatives of the farming industry in the USA doesn't mean I know 'diddly about the subject area' - and saying such is simply an ignorant personal attack (this is why we keep quoting civility and attack policy, because you keep breaching it!!)-Localzuk(talk)22:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You admitted you don't know much about the industry - you said you'd never heard of CAFO before it was mentioned here! If you did know more than diddly about the industry, you'd know that "CAFO" isn't used by "legal representatives of the farming industry in the USA", but rather is used by the farmers themselves. It -is- the term of use. And admitting you know diddly about the subject area does indeed mean that you know diddly about the subject area.
I have no objection to "factory farming" redirecting to "CAFO", which would alleviate your concerns with regard to the public not finding what they are looking to find. Jav4322:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find the search results quite adequately cover the usage of that term... It is simply not used outside of the USA. I have never claimed to know anything about the USA and its farming practices - other than them being bigger and more intensive than over here... That still doesn't mean I know 'diddly' and I would ask you to stop saying that, as it is quite simply an attack. I would ask you to have a read of WP:COMMONNAME which quite plainly outlines the fact we should use the most commonly used term - which CAFO falls short of by a long shot.-Localzuk(talk)10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (the time won't match, as I forgot to sign)...[reply]
"Do you have the same problems as SV, Crum, and Localzuk? Read [185]. This is re: (cur) (last) 05:06, 20 July 2007 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (227,126 bytes) (→A suggestion - please do not break up other's constributions, any further reformating will be considered vandalism) (undo)
For the record, the breaking up I did was accidental, although that is not relevant to your strange jump to accusations of vandalism. Jav4305:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
1) Please read my comment again: I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I said that further reformating would be considered vandalism by me. It is an obvious call to having more care.
2) What problems do SV, Crum, and Localzuk have? - I cannot know if I have the same problems as they do, if I do not know what their problem is, so please reply.
I dare you to show me one diff in which I do this. Please do not accuse me of trolling if you are not willing to prove it. Thanks!--Cerejota11:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... There is not a single mention of a rule there, just that repeating your long winded list is not productive and is actually quite disruptive. I don't see any rules mentioned.-Localzuk(talk)19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Cerejota's favorite cite-to rule appears to be related to so-called "disruptive behavior", I think this is clear. Jav4322:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking on the usually thankless job of explaining the obvious, Localzuk ;)
Jav43, I sitll await a diff that shows that I "accuse people of violating various rules when there is no reason to".
There is a difference in trying to provide a better work environment, and promote respect, and launching false of accusations.
In the diff you cite, I didn't address policy, but sheer common sense: posting a long list twice in less than a few days is definetely disruptive, we saw it the first time!
I also took steps not just to point this out, but to try and resolve this problem in a fashion that still respected WAS' valuable contribution to the debate, but eliminated his disruption.
Lastly, please remember to remain civil and assume good faith, in makes for a productive environment. Thanks! --Cerejota19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin said this or something like it would be a good idea. I'm trying to figure out what the name of the article would be that slim said was a good idea. If this name does not capture what she thought was a good idea, I wish she would say what the name of the article to be created might be. WAS 4.25016:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Picture
I think we argue too much on this page. I thought I would discuss the big picture for a moment. The context of factory farming if you will.
30,000 years ago hunter-gatherer behavior feed 6 million people
Nothing prevents relevant and well-sourced information from being added to the article. But this has no bearing on our substantive issues. Crum37514:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial farming is the only thing preventing billions of humans from starving. Any one specific method such as gestation crates can be phased out over time without harm. Modern societies manage their food supply with numerous factors taken into consideration. All of those factors are encyclopedic. Not just the ones you know about. WAS 4.25017:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above statement. The bullet points were well presented and then there was a very biased paragraph noted afterwards. I would be for adding the bullet points to the article (if it fits appropriately) and cited as well. But, the second paragraph later is an abvious biased statement no matter if it comes from a sourced cite or not. --BlindEagletalk~contribs15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS THE MOST IRRELEVANT THREAD EVER How this contributes to article quality is beyond me. If you can find reliable sources that verifiably state these ideas, you could create Evolution of agricultural practices or some such. But this article is not about Agriculture in general, but about contemporary (and possibly historical) "Factory farming" which is the utilization of industrial methods to the farming of livestock, poultry and other animals, and to the debates around this farming practices.--Cerejota07:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the material at Industrial agriculture (animals)#Livestock and Poultry being either here or there. Move it here and leave a summary there for all I care. But after you do slim and friends will delete the content because they do not understand how industrial farming methods that do not harm animals are relevant to industrial farming methods. So then I will have to restore the material back to Industrial agriculture (animals)#Livestock and Poultry and we will be back where we started. They maintain this page as a POV fork of Industrial agriculture (animals)#Livestock and Poultry against consensus. If they would allow information on industrial farming methods that do not harm animals onto this page then we would not be having this problem in the first place.WAS 4.25019:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, please help carry out the merge. I have every faith that you intend well and hope that you have learned stuff from this regrettably poisonous discussion. I believe in wiki style editing. So give it a try and let's see what the result is. We can always revert to a prior version if it goes horribly wrong. WAS 4.25001:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself with a very long list of stuff is not productive. In the future please refrain from doing so. In the spirit productive discourse, I am placing your text in Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST. Should you feel the need to repeat it again, instead of reposting it, just provide the link. Please avoid disruptive behavior and repetition. Thanks!--Cerejota04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back from walking amongst some decidedly un-intensively farmed (but possibly still irradiated from Chernobyl) sheep in Wet Wales. The problem I have with the merge is that we have had stability for more than a week on the opening paragraph which seems to have some consensus as to a scope. I think that stability is a big win for both parties as it is a foundation to move forward. I think a merge will disrupt that - and will simply re-open the definition debate. The article needs work to bring it up to a good standard and worrying about structure of other articles misses that. There are plenty more years ahead to worry about the structure. Spenny13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not only a lack of consensus on the intro, but a majority here want it changed but can not due to revert warring. Further actual discussion in place of revert waring is mis-characterized as being disruptive. And lack of edit warring is misunderstood as indicating consensus. What is stable is the ability of animal rights activists to own this page and maintain its original research and non-neutral point of view (making it animal rights centric and mostly ignoring non animal rights issues) using methods against policy like revert warring and not discussing. Indeed they attack actual discussion with personal attacks equating trying to discuss with being disruptive. What an upside-down view! WAS 4.25013:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I'm comfortable with two pages, one on Intensive Agriculture (which may sub-divide naturally into arable and animal) and another on Factory Farming. I don't see that it has to be a POV fork, it is clearly a subject in its own right. In that context I was happy that the intro had moved from being something referenced but wrong to referenced and right, even if it is not the scope you might be seeking. I saw actually getting that wording changed in the current context as a small healthy sign that there was hope of regaining some common sense. Spenny16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow WAS, you are really keen on ignoring the hours of time we have spent showing what we mean and providing sources - which are still claimed to be original research. Stop miscategorising your view as being the one that should be there but 'we're' holding it back. The fact is that you have not disproven the information that we have presented and have not gained a consensus for a change.
Spenny, the issue still remains that the scope of this article overlaps majorly with other articles and we have shown this multiple times. We need to decide on scopes of articles before any stability will ever occur - as we are going to end up with bits being moved back and forth constantly otherwise.-Localzuk(talk)16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What other articles are about "confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions" as this one defines itself to be? WAS 4.25016:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to correct you, Localzuk: we *did* demonstrate the actual facts while demonstrating the inadequacy of your "sources". Saying that "you have not disproven the information we have presented" is irrelevant as you have not provided any reliable sources backing up your unsubstantiated claims. When you find a reference that says X is Y (as I did) then I will take it to be a source providing a definition and give it due credence. Until then, I cannot buy into the speculation. Jav4317:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't cover the old debate about the synonymity of the terms, the fact that we have more articles than actual topics with multiple topics being repeated etc...-Localzuk(talk)17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean about "more articles", but with regard to your stance on synonymity of terms, you have failed to provide any reference that actually says terms are synonyms, and rather have used your interpretation of sentence structure to reach that conclusion. On the other hand, I have provided references that actually *define* "factory farming", as has NathanLee. When you provide a reference that actually says that two terms are synonymous, then I will give that reference due credence. Until then, like I said, I cannot buy into the speculation. Jav4317:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you have missed the point regarding synonymity. The point is that the terms are used synonymously by the majority of the media, and normal people. It may not be the technical, legal or as you see it 'correct' usage of the terms, but it is the most common usage of the terms and our policies call for the subject to be called by the most common name.
Also, you have not provided any sources that say the terms are distinct subject areas - you have just provided dictionary definitions - which are not adequate.-Localzuk(talk)17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definitions? Did you miss the definitions I provided from peer-reviewed articles?
When you provide references that *say* that particular terms are synonymous, I will give those references due credence. Until then, your speculation that they are synonymous truly is original research. Jav4317:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of tag on definition of terms
It should be clear by now that "Factory farm" is the only term available to refer to the topic at hand. It is the only geographically neutral, sourced, verifiable, and commonly used term available.
All other terms that have been proposed have issues with geographical neutrality, and/or constitute original research, and/or are not notable, and/or are specialist terms that go against the style of writing that wikipedia seeks.
I find it amazing that you fail to understand something this simple, but apparently you can't grasp that the accuracy dispute is over the definition of the term "factory farming", not over what term to use to title the article. Jav4317:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota read this article's first sentence. Factory farming is a system or method of intensive animal farming involving the raising of farm animals characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions. They wish to first define factory farming as identical to "intensive animal farming" and then move all intensive animal farming content here. Then they wish to define factory farming as "the raising of farm animals characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density" and delete content not relevant to that. All discussion that factory farming is the subset of intensive animal farming that is characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density is met with a complete lack of comprehension. Experts use technical terms like confined animal feeding operations or concentrated animal feeding operations or intensive livestock operations for the sake of precision. This article sometimes uses factory farming to mean intensive animal farming and sometimes it uses it to mean the raising of farm animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions. It is an inconsistent article due to confused thinking on the part of the page's owners. WAS 4.25019:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we wish to define it as the way industrial agriculture of livestock and poultry is performed. The technical terms are in fact subsets of "Factory farming" because of their technical/geographically local use. Ask the average reader what an ILO is and you get a blank stare. But everyone knows what a Factory farm is.--Cerejota04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. "Factory farming" is much more limited than those other practices - it is the subset, not the parent set. Perhaps you don't know the difference between the terms? If that is so, please don't "guess" at their meanings. Jav4317:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what he was meaning I think Jav43... It is common to call the practices of Industrial agriculture, CAFO or whatever 'factory farming' all over the world, however, those sort of terms are geographically localised (ie. CAFO is local only to the USA as shown by SlimVirgin). The terms are not as popular as factory farming and as such are subsets of factory farming.-Localzuk(talk)19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may very well misunderstand. However, outside of linguistics, industrial agriculture, for example, is not a subset of factory farming - factory farming is a subset of industrial agriculture. Jav4323:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the term/practice "factory farming" isn't anywhere near as widespread or practised in Australia and is a term (as I've shown via several references) that is regarded as "activist terminology" (by britannica and by farmers themselves). Also the gestation crate concept isn't a widespread thing in Oz by the sounds of things (e.g. talking to a son of a pig farmer and the less agri-business nature of agriculture in Australia) NathanLee12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the geographical aspect is quite important. Even within Europe there are strong national differences. I'm pretty certain that the use of hormones in cattle production is fairly specific to the US (and it used to be generally assumed over here that the excess of fat bottoms on display at Disney World is related to hormones in meat), they are banned in the EC. It is one place I have a problem with the article: it tends to suggest that factory farms use all these techniques, whereas there are a long menu of techniques available, the combination of which may result in something recognisable as factory farming. The other problem remains that some of the issues being identified as factory farming issues are not specific to factory farming: it was not uncommon in England for a house to have a pig sty in the 19th century where a single pig would live in barren confinement all its life as a waste to food recycling machine. Spenny14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of my previous post
WAS:
Your removal of my previous post, and accusation of trolling, not only was highly unproductive, but a personal attack.
My post clearly was meant to explain an edit on the article, and inform editors on why I had done the edit. By no measure of the word is that trolling.
I ask you apologize for this unacceptable behavior or face a formal proceeding for disruptive editing of a talk page and a personal attack.--Cerejota09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It must be brought under control. I will await for an apology in this case, but my usual over-tolerant self is getting strained by the unwarranted form the attacks take.--Cerejota10:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have not apologized, and have had ample time to do so, you leve me no remedy but to seek out admin intervention. I do not use empty words. I am sorry I have to do this, but you leave me no other way.--Cerejota11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And once again Jav43, you have completely missed the whole point of us having rules about civility. Have you ever even read them? It is getting beyond the joke that, whenever someone complains about personal attacks, civility issues, inappropriate behaviour or similar, you turn up and almost ridicule them for complaining or citing our policies! I would even verge on saying it is edging on trolling behaviour, but it is at minimum disruptive behaviour. Will you please read the policies, and try and understand why these behaviours are a major problem and are causing this entire debate to drag out much more than if it were simply on task and civil?-Localzuk(talk)19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking. Yes, I have read all of the wikipedia policies. I also happen to believe that we are more likely to reach a solution if people actually discuss substantive matters rather than continually complaining about form. Jav4323:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies. I didn't realize I was logged out at the time, and I do not know of any way to take credit for something done by an anonymous user. Jav4301:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that there's been a hell of a lot of reverts (and little decent justification/discussion given on this page) to protect having that image put up as the lead image regardless of a) it's from an activist anti-factory farming site (and activist sites are notoriously bad sources e.g. take PETA's various unsubstantiated ads about meat that have had court cases to shut 'em down), b) a practice that is being phased out or not tied into "factory farming" in any way (if it was a key, lasting necessary element of factory farming.. maybe.. But you take it away: factory farming lives on.. ), c) unnecessary to have a lead image (we're adults, writing for adults, not 2 year olds who only notice pictures), d) POV laden and put there to convey the shock/horror quality (immediately setting this article to be negative) and e) not indicative of the conditions that the vast majority of pigs live in (there's a perfectly good example of this that might be used of pigs in pens or cows in feedlots).. All good reasons to remove it or put it down in the "criticisms" section, yet it keeps getting added back up to the very top. Now simply reverting without answering any of those is nothing more than page protection and edit warring. Either provide some answers to those criticisms of why that image is unsuitable or you void your "right" to revert (and are going against policies on reverting in addition). I've witnessed many attempts to create sections to discuss that lead image, but reverting seems to be the only "argument" for. NathanLee13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make some interesting points. Can you provide evidence that "not indicative of the conditions that the vast majority of pigs live in "? I'd regard this, if it could be reliably sourced, as a reasonable justification for replacing the image. --John14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without digging up references at the moment (time constraints), I can briefly explain that gestation crates are only used for sows during the few weeks before farrowing. Considering that the vast majority of hogs (at least 10:1) are not sows but rather are feeder pigs, gestation crates cannot be seen as used for much of the hog population. Additionally, since gestation crates are only used for a part of the pregnancy/farrowing cycle, they again cannot be seen as typical living conditions. Finally, since something like half of industrial nations outlaw gestation crates, gestation crates certainly do not typify any agricultural practice. Jav4317:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, you're making this up as you go along, and in fact you earlier told us these were illegal in the U.S., when they're widely used. They're currently only illegal (as far as I know) in Sweden, the UK, Florida, and Arizona. The fact is that female pigs on intensive farms spend most of their adults lives in these cages. See Gestation crate for information and sources. After they give birth, they're moved to farrowing crates, which are only marginally bigger. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, you're making this up as you go along can be viewed as a personal attack or it can be viewed as an honest exasperated outburst from someone at their wits end trying to communicate. Lots of examples like thie can be found in the communications from both sides. WAS 4.25018:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was intended as a statement of fact. Most of the attacks, sarcasm, filibustering, and obfuscation on this page are from you and Nathan, as I recall. Perhaps it's time to start collecting diffs. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um? No, most of the attacks, sarcasm, filibustering, and obfuscation on this page are from you and Crum, as I recall. Jav4319:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is collecting diffs to continue to persecute/accuse/revert war against others going to improve this article? If it helps though perhaps SV you might add this diff to your list from an arbcom ruling about personal attacks [188]. NathanLee20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SV: I recall earlier he explained that he had meant they were illegal in parts of the US (i.e. "they're illegal in the US" is as true as saying "they're used in the US".. Neither is stating "all" inclusive unless florida and arizona aren't part of the USA). Farrowing crates being "marginally bigger": completely POV and unsupported there.. We've also nothing that really provides any concrete backing for "most of their lives" other than an activist site run by people who have a definite conflict of interest.. I've talked to a first hand source that say they never use them nor did any of the other farms he'd been to or knew of. One might say you are "making it up as you go along" too. See my references below as to why it's a small percentage of animals of one type of animal (pigs) on some subset of the total farms. NathanLee17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can do (hopefully): Pregnant sows are naturally going to be a much smaller portion of the total number than the pigs kept in the areas for growing/slaughter etc. E.g. each sow produces say 6-10 pigs by the looks of a quick google search [189] so even if we look at animals involved in pregnancy/early child (piglet?)hood you're already out by a factor of 6-10. Here's one talking of sows to total pigs breakdown [190] seems like it's a factor of one to ten. Even the activist site(s) only mentions sows. Add to this we've nothing that says this is the standard/majority practice or somehow intrinsically linked with intensive pig farming (e.g. my flatmate's parents had a piggery and they never used anything like this.. that's not a great reference but somewhat confirms I'm on the right track).. Another thing is that there's no real idea whether those pens pictured are not simply temporary pens used for medicating or temporary holding pens for shuffling pigs around. I'm not a farmer, but it sounds like there's lots of cycling of pigs between areas [191]. In short: the focus on this one practice that takes place in some farms (and which is gradually being phased out) means it's furthering a misconception and the source is probably a bit suspect. NathanLee17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a shame that the powers that be haven't yet grasped the nettle. This page is not unique and a proper review might have served a wider purpose than sorting out the one page. I think there is something missing in the WikiArmoury of oversight and resolution that something can carry on for this long, especially when all parties recognise what is going on here is wrong. Spenny16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add sourced material to agriculture articles like Slim and I and some others are doing. It'll work out in the end. Example here is a primary source for the fact that from 1990 to 2000 the number of pigs fertilized by artificial insemination by hand went from 1 in a hundred to 3 in 4 in the US and that over half the pigs in the world are in China (but that does not tell us about pork production because industrial agriculture methods are more productive per living pig in speed and size). And Current Status of Housing and Penning Systems for Sows is a good secondary source you can use for other things. Add sourced information. Maybe the image at the top should be artificial pig sperm aquisition? Nahhh. WAS 4.25017:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thepigsite.com has a tonne of stuff.. very very specific on parts of pig breeding/feeding etc etc.. Excluding the slow battle to overcome some editors' heavy revert button fingers: the page is making progress.. I think if as much animal liberation type concerns are kept out of agriculture topics as possible then we'd be seeing a lot less issues on this rather straight forward (dare I say it: "boring") field. NathanLee18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean if we eliminate balance then it would be ok? This inability to understand that it is impossible for your POV to be the only one is what has us stuck. We can work on due weight, we can work or notability or reliability, but as long as you insist on violating WP:NPOV, then we cannot move forwd. Is as simple as that.--Cerejota18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how I've violated NPOV? Perhaps show some diffs of edits or suggestions I've made which violate NPOV? There's undue weight (and skewing of articles/pictures/creative definitions of terms) given to some of you to the views of organisations or ideologies who have an agenda to oppose any type of farming (aka "evil animal exploitation"). This is at the end of the day a part of the field of agriculture and yes: some mention of controversy is definitely useful (particularly as there's some messed up stuff people are doing to boost profits) and warranted I'm not saying it isn't (go back and read what I said if you've jumped the gun). But giving undue weight to sensationalist, activist viewpoints is not what this encyclopaedia is for. Otherwise we'd have westboro baptist church choosing the image for "US war dead" or "homosexuality". Flat earth belief structures taking up half the page on "the planet earth". KKK ideology taking up half the martin luther king page. Pro-vegan, pro-animal lib views taking up significant portions of "animal related agriculture".. As WAS tried to mention in the "big picture" section: this farming technique feeds millions of people worldwide, has many benefits yet there's an almost religious need to only show the bad side. THAT is a violation of NPOV, not me wanting to focus on reality or accuracy rather than activist propaganda. NathanLee19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee, what an extraordinary statement to make. That just about sums up the problems we've had on this page. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)
The problem is that this article isn't supposed to be about animal liberation/welfare -- it's supposed to be about facts. The attempts to make this article reflect animal liberation/welfare issues (mere editor opinions) rather than reflecting fact are truly making it difficult to move forward. How exactly is NathanLee's statement "extraordinary"? It seems quite simple to me. Cerejota, you might consider that some of us aren't interested in POV but rather are interested in portraying fact -- and nothing else. If everyone would focus on fact rather than POV, we'd be much better off. Jav4319:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you have no clue what NPOV means.
Criticism of intensive/factory/industrial farming of animals mainly boils down to three issues: (1) animal welfare/rights; (2) damage to human health from the hormones and antibiotics; (3) damage to the environment from the waste.
You can't simply decide that these are "activist" issues and not really "facts," while the opinions of industrial farmers are magically awarded the "fact" status. This would be funny if I hadn't had to waste so much time dealing with you. We are here to describe the issues, not engage in them. When even McDonald's sits up and takes notice of animal welfare/rights arguments, you know it's not a minority issue. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky i know what NPOV means then. You are correct that the CRITICISM of the topic might boil down to such a thing and there are indeed FACTS relating to the criticism of the practice.. I'm not saying don't mention any criticism: but that does not mean that that is then what the whole article should be about nor should it be the vast majority or the overall tone of the topic. What is activist and not is not the big issue: but what is criticism and what isn't is pretty easy to determine: yet you are wanting that to be the sole focus by the looks of it. THAT is violation of neutral point of view. you're giving undue weight to criticism at the expense of the actual topic itself. NathanLee20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's extraordinary to regard agriculture in neutral/non activist terms? As for agriculture being a bit of a boring topic: have you been in or near a farm? Or inside one of these piggeries? I have (quite a while ago I'd have to admit..). There's not an awful lot going on on your average day. Although if the farmers are bored they kill time by stabbing cute animals to death.. Oh wait.. The other thing: driving tractors around and waiting for rain. Always get those two mixed up. :P
So anyhow my views are formed from something beyond the information gleaned from PETA.org or factoryfarming.com and yes: farming is (relative to many other industries) a pretty dull business/field. There's only so fast that things will grow (although I'm sure on some of the dodgy farms if they could pump another gallon of steroids into chickens and get 'em growing quicker again then they would). You should visit a real farm one day, take some time out of this wikipedia editing thing and get some fresh air in the countryside. :P NathanLee19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The industrial agriculture suite of articles is also making progress. Check it out. Help improve them! Use of summary style lets us add data to relevant articles. This article can be all about the confined-land-farm-animal methods of industrial agriculture and not get in the way of other articles detailing other aspects of industrial agriculture. WAS 4.25018:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NathanLee, I a surprised as it seems you have done an about face. First you said "I think if as much animal liberation type concerns are kept out of agriculture topics as possible" but when I pointed out this was an egrerious violation of NPOV, you said "I'm not saying don't mention any criticism: but that does not mean that that is then what the whole article should be about nor should it be the vast majority or the overall tone of the topic". First you call for removal, then you call for semi-inclusion. This should be transparent, and clear example of why we don't move forward.--Cerejota13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this, together with your comment above [192] shows exactly the impasse. It seems to me that the fundamental approach to writing this article is flawed. There is a complete lack of "what, when, why, where, how?" and it is fixated on the debate rather than the mechanics. There is nothing contradictory about Nathan's statement. The starting point needs to be a factual exposition of what factory farming is; how it evolved and how it is evolving in the future; who are these factory farmers (are they farmers or are they industrial), where does it take place, internationally, nationally, types of farms; why are such methods used and so on. Once those foundations are laid, it can then be appropriate to consider the ethical debate which can then be referenced to the proper understanding of what the topic is. This article is so busy on the ethical debate, it says very little about what factory farming is. To be FA status, I would expect a very solid foundation of what factory farming is to be established. After all this is not an article called Factory_farming_(ethics) it is simply factory farming. Spenny13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Spenny here and add that if you think this article is a sounding board for animal liberation ideology or a canvas to paint the animal rights view of farming: then it isn't. NPOV does not mean "some minority has a view (and some editors willing to fight over it) that needs to take up as much or more space than the factual coverage of the topic". If we're talking animal lib: that's a very very minority view, just like the Amish views on electricity are not deserving of half the lead and half the page space on "the electric light bulb" page. By all means go find an animal lib user group to sound off about the injustices of the world against animals: but keep that out of a wikipedia article on agriculture. Sure factory farms have concerns with animal treatment, that is not a sign that it is free season to hijack it for activism or animal lib promotion purposes. NathanLee16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page
I'm going to stop contributing to this talk page. I've rarely seen such irrationality or been subjected to such sustained personal attack. NathanLee's comment that if only animal welfare issues could be left out, the article would be much easier to work on, takes the biscuit and is the final straw.
We've put in two RfMs, both rejected, and I don't see what else we can do. It's clearly a systemic weakness that two editors can continue to edit in bad faith, showing no understanding of the policies, yet are allowed to interfere with the desire of nine other editors to enter mediation. Systemic weaknesses are best dealt with at a systemic level, and not on an article talk page.
To get this straight: I didn't say that animal welfare should be left out: that's a complete distortion or else a misread. I said (and I'll quote so that you can read it again and try to understand it):
I think if as much animal liberation type concerns are kept out of agriculture topics as possible then we'd be seeing a lot less issues on this rather straight forward (dare I say it: "boring") field.
So to further define what "animal liberation type concerns" are: that is the complete abolition of any and all animal farming/production/use etc. Animal welfare is not the same as animal liberation (I would have thought you would know the difference). I'm sorry but that notion really has no sensible place in forming the majority of an article on an agriculture topic. Animal welfare certainly does have a place, but animal liberation is a fundamentalist view on animals and their rights to not be in any way used/grown for food etc by humans. It's like giving weight to the view that electricity is a sin and the work of the devil in an article on the electric razor.
This attitude of yours towards ownership of the article and in large part a complete disregard for the discussions on this talk page have been a problem. I'd post up the diff of your talk page where I repeatedly asked you to participate in discussion but your page history has been wiped. This latest post here looks like a "cop out" from participating and providing rational reasoned argument. So far your sole reason for revert warring to keep a particular image in the lead is emotional rather than factual and has diverted along personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry etc.
If you can't participate in the discussion page then you should not be editing in the page: the two go together. Me saying animal lib ideology should be kept out of the article is not an excuse to (continue to) bypass discussion or consensus attempts on edits and any rational person can see that. NathanLee20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping "animal liberation type concerns" out of the article is as bad as keeping animal welfare out of it. It is removing a valid and verifiablie point of view on the topic from the article so as to maintain some misguided idea of stability (a war would be stable if there was only one side!). I am going to join SV in her non-discussion on this page for the same reasons. The level of incivility and number of personal attacks, combined with the lack of understanding and in some cases, complete ignorance of policy makes me believe that partaking in 'discussion' on here is a fruitless exercise.-Localzuk(talk)23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose then that we also make mention of his grand noodleness the flying spaghetti monster's noodley appendages that are holding the farm animals on the ground (it's what causes gravity). Or the jedi teaching on life force concentration due to so many animals in one place (I'll go out on a limb and say based off census results there are more jedi than animal lib supporters). I think we should also mention those russian dolls as an example of intensive doll stacking and how it relates to battery hens. Sure it's a niche argument.. But to leave those views out would be "as bad as" leaving out animal lib theology.
Quite simply (and this may be hard for an animal lib activist or supporter who can't separate those feelings for the purpose of writing wikipedia articles) : animal liberation is an extreme viewpoint that is shared by a minute portion of the population. I'd refer you to the policies you claim are not being followed (*groan*) on what opinions/views are worthy of inclusion in an article. Animal welfare or animal wellbeing: most certainly. But if editors can't separate a need to talk about "animal liberation" theology or ideals from contributions that are "anything to do with animals" then you shouldn't be editing articles on that topic. It seems that this point of contention comes up a lot in animal related topics, so I'd urge you to perhaps examine whether you're truly neutral on this topic or whether you have a conflict of interest (as I've suggested in the past).
If you can show that animal liberation (statistically a view shared by probably 0 to 1% of the population.. I can't find a link to back that up but it's such an extreme viewpoint and if we're using diet as a guide: given the number of omnivores or egg/milk eating vegetarians versus vegans) deserves significant coverage versus say animal welfare (which I would hazard a guess and say the vast majority of people believe is a good thing.. e.g. treating animals humanely), then i'm willing to accept that.. But for you to equate the two as even in the same ballpark of acceptable topics to cover is yet another example of your desire to push or promote animal lib theology/POV into articles where it doesn't belong.
Personally:I'm not anti-factory farming, nor am I pro-factory farming. It's got advantages and to deny that is silly when it feeds so many people and has reduced lots of issues with extensive farming. I think there's been some disturbing developments in farming, particularly in the US under the big business approach to it. I don't tend to eat chicken because I worry how many nasty things are jammed into the "at speed" created chickens and I definitely think the typical Australian farm with cows out in paddocks etc is a far far nicer/more natural way to bring up cows.. BUT that's all completely irrelevant to my desire to have this page a factual rather than emotional/POV article.
It's hard to see that this is anything but the latest in the fallacious arguments and just plain incorrect or distorted reasoning/statements. I never said animal welfare should not be a concern (nor would I) and it's hard to believe SlimVirgin can't differentiate terms she's edited on extensively (Animal liberation page all over the place and Animal welfareSV editing section on the distinction on the two terms). A reasonable person might (in light of this) say that this is just another tactic, a pretend excuse to ignore discussion as a dispute resolution technique and a poor substitute for reasoned discussion or to gather points for some review of the situation. I'd urge you both instead of this pointless "protest" to instead make meaningful contributions, detach some of the animal lib "shock horror" type views on things and we can all just get on with this article. NathanLee13:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a week first. A week for everybody to cool down, give up edit-warring and accusations of bad faith. A week to look for images (if that's the current squabble of the day) and other good things to put into the article. A week to think. I'll see you on the 30th or thereabouts. --John23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching. WAS, if you think ArbCom would help, I'd say go for it. You're 100% in the right. On the other hand, if they ever wanted to reign in SlimVirgin and friends, they would have done it by now. Haber01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that we disagree. Slim says she wants to create an article on:
Criticism of intensive/factory/industrial farming of animals: (1) animal welfare/rights; (2) damage to human health from the hormones and antibiotics; (3) damage to the environment from the waste.
It will be a fine NPOV article about that subject with only the title of the article being biased. A correct title would be something like Animal activist concerns about factory farming. Maybe the rest of us should just let them create their mis-titled article. I am sure Slim will do a fine job of accurately describing rebuttals to the activist concerns. But no matter how many times we say it they just don't hear us when we tell them that there is more to factory farming than activist concerns over it.
Those who agree with me might wish to consider improving articles that do deal with industrial agriculture (IA) and not merely activist concerns about it:
These are articles which contain industrial agriculture information and are appropriately structured. But more articles and more information is needed. Let's leave this mis-titled article to slim and friends and work on the articles that are actually about industrial agriculture. WAS 4.25017:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS, I have an open thread for your unwarranted personal attack against me at AN/I. Since you have chosen not to apologize, nor to address the fact that you engaged in a personal attack, I must ignore any and all content proposals -regardless of how good or bad they are-. Please address these concerns before trying to continue debating content, as ignoring this matter is in itself a form of incivility. Thanks!--Cerejota18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota: I must have missed something.. You posted up a pretty unhelpful comment (with broken keyboard stuck on caps), he chopped it out (which I'm against.. SV has mucked around with my posts in the past and I think it's unhelpful), but you put it back and it was left there.Your statement above "I must ignore any and all content proposals - regardless of how good or bad they are" is rubbish because it's not based on any policy or common sense but appears rather to be based on sulking behaviour. "must" = "I'm going to to try and make a fuss". You are choosing to have a whinge when WAS just posted stuff above here in this section on content. That's not real helpful and this is just sidetracking a discussion on content. NathanLee19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not holding a grudge, he has not apologize for the epitome of uncivil behaivior with is the complete deletion not just of one, but three comments by me. Please stop defending violations of civility simply because the editor fits you POV.--Cerejota02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are from what I can see. I'll agree with you that deleting contributions on the talk page is bad form. I had a similar situation(s) when SlimVirgin not only altered posts, shifted 'em around to marginalise the message, but decided to alter them to make them match her side of the debate. Unlike your simple deletion: my contributions were so mangled it was impossible to simply revert to put them back. So your comment saying in capitals "THIS IS THE MOST IRRELEVANT THREAD EVER" or similar got chopped: It shouldn't have been. I back you on that. It wasn't a very useful comment.. But it wasn't just mindless vandalism. But you put it back and it stayed there. Now you're just harping on to get an apology via incident notification and posting "you owe me an apology" off track comments on other sections (sections that were on content) in discussion.. Next time: think about whether a) capitals are necessary, b) saying "this is irrelevant/biggest waste of time ever" is helpful and c) whether your post might be going to do nothing but rile up an editor who was attempting to point out some big picture stuff in amongst an excessively non fact driven barrage. So someone said you were trolling: you weren't exactly contributing much by saying "this sucks your statement is the biggest piece of shit ever" effectively. That does tend to sound a bit like the very definition of trolling (especially if you add in capitalisation to boot). NathanLee08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opening paragraph
I object to SlimVirgin's unilateral change to the opening paragraph. Her attempt to define factory farming in a way that makes it synonymous with other terms ("also known as...") is an underhanded attempt to divert readers' attention from other related articles. It is clear that numerous editors do not buy the argument that the terms are synonymous. Insisting on reverting to this earlier contentious version is a partisan attempt to ignore other editors and manipulate the situation (and to do so by deliberately ignoring all talk page discussion). BCST200123:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am trying to imply good humoured frustration at the SlimVirgin bulldozer which has swung into action. I am confused as to why the contentious edits have been made, and I am also rather offended at the personal criticism she has made in her edit comments about some changes. There are some changes which are inappropriate, but rather than whine here, I will wait to see the final results of the edits. Spenny00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all just seeming like a game to entice people into making frustrated comments. Commenting on edits: Once again SlimVirgin decides to start large amounts of edits to a contentious page again and after declaring that they will not participate in discussion. To a normal decent wikipedian that might suggest that you would withdraw from editing an article. Just how are we supposed to assume good faith when an editor will not participate and disregards any input from a large number of other users? Just how exactly are we supposed to deal with someone so completely off the radar of normal decent editing behaviour? NathanLee00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, a decent editor with decent editing behavior would agree to mediation, when it is clear that discussion has been exhausted. Crum37500:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A decent editor would be able to use the discussion area for changes, or not end up in edit wars on pretty much every single page they touch because they can't separate their personal bias from their editing. Just how many people does one have to be told "you are biased" and "you are tag team reverting" or "you are edit warring" before it sinks in? NathanLee00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology
Just a small point, hog is not normally used for pigs in British English and so the article reads a little oddly like slang. I'm not sure on American terminology as to whether hog is an informal word or the norm. I note hog redirects to pig. I'd prefer to change this, but will defer if there is serious disent. Spenny13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Australia. Hog is definitely a more US term.. As is "factory farming" (not really used so much in Oz) to be honest.. But that's a different story.. NathanLee15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In American English "hog" is an equivalent of "cattle". But I don't know if British English uses "cattle" the same as American, so that may not help you. Technically "swine" would seem to be the equivalent of "cattle", but that is not the real usage.--BirgitteSB15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; the European futures market uses hog. I really think different terms are for different usages rather than different locations. The best bet might be to follow the usage from the source.--BirgitteSB16:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fresh start
I am fairly new to this article. I am an admin and have only ever made minor edits to it, though I have been watching and following the conflict for a while. I recently intervened to end an edit war. I'd like to propose a fresh start towards improving the article and permanently ending the warring, under the following conditions (which all Wikipedia editors should really always be following anyway):
Only discussion which is focussed towards improving the article will be allowed here. All comments about editors will in future be aggressively removed and the authors warned and then blocked if necessary. Please keep comments brief and to the point too. Remember also to back up your arguments with policy and/or reliable sources. Opinions aren't useful, except inasmuch as they allow us to see where an editor's POV may influence them in editing an article.
All editors will follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at all times, under pain of the same remedies.
No edit-warring whatsoever will be tolerated.
I understand there is a dispute about POV in the article. Can anyone explain to me, briefly and simply, what it is? --John15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue is: is this an article about the generality of intensive agricultural techniques or is it an article about the ethics of intensive industrial farming? One perception is that the ethics seem to dominate the article, so it is difficult to provide a neutral statement of what factory farming is, with the issues being dominant over a basic description of the practicalities of the various activities of factory farming. It is fair to say that the basic definition of what factory farming is about is disputed, though I think people are fairly clear what factory farming is, and more concerned about how the pejorative connotations are allowed to leak through into industrial agriculture which is deemed to be a wider and less emotionally charged topic by some. But there is lots of other baggage too :) Spenny15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. At present we have:
"Factory farming, a system or method of intensive animal farming[24] or industrial farming,[25] is the practice of raising farm animals in confinement at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions.[14][15][26] The practice aims to produce the highest output at the lowest cost by relying on economies of scale, modern machinery, biotechnology, and global trade. To increase the yield, synthetic hormones may be used to speed growth, while antibiotics and pesticides mitigate the spread of disease exacerbated by crowded living conditions.[27]"
^Havenstein, G.B., P.R. Ferket, and M.A. Qureshi, 2003a. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82:1500-1508
^BBCBird flu vaccine no silver bullet 22 February 2006
^Breitbart News article Key West Chickens Raise Bird Flu Fears published April 13, 2006. Todau on line article Restoring wetlands key to curbing bird flu: UN published April 13, 2006.
^Sources discussing "intensive farming", "intensive agriculture" or "factory farming":
Turner, Jacky. "History of factory farming", United Nations: "Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet ... The intensive systems - called 'factory farms' - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions."
Simpson, John. Why the organic revolution had to happen, The Observer, April 21, 2001: "Nor is a return to 'primitive' farming practices the only alternative to factory farming and highly intensive agriculture."
Baker, Stanley. "Factory farms — the only answer to our growing appetite?, The Guardian, December 29, 1964: "Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay ... In a year which has been as uneventful on the husbandry side as it has been significant in economic and political developments touching the future of food procurement, the more far-seeing would name the growth of intensive farming as the major development." (Note: Stanley Baker was the Guardian's agriculture correspondent.)
"Head to head: Intensive farming", BBC News, March 6, 2001: "Here, Green MEP Caroline Lucas takes issue with the intensive farming methods of recent decades ... In the wake of the spread of BSE from the UK to the continent of Europe, the German Government has appointed an Agriculture Minister from the Green Party. She intends to end factory farming in her country. This must be the way forward and we should end industrial agriculture in this country as well."
^Sources discussing "industrial farming" , "industrial agriculture" and "factory farming":
"Annex 2. Permitted substances for the production of organic foods", Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: "'Factory' farming refers to industrial management systems that are heavily reliant on veterinary and feed inputs not permitted in organic agriculture.
"Head to head: Intensive farming", BBC News, March 6, 2001: "Here, Green MEP Caroline Lucas takes issue with the intensive farming methods of recent decades ... In the wake of the spread of BSE from the UK to the continent of Europe, the German Government has appointed an Agriculture Minister from the Green Party. She intends to end factory farming in her country. This must be the way forward and we should end industrial agriculture in this country as well."
^"Is factory farming really cheaper?" in New Scientist, Institution of
Electrical Engineers, New Science Publications, University of Michigan, 1971, p. 12.
That seems reasonable and well-referenced to me. What (specifically) would others desire to change about the definition? --John15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources in reference 10 and 11, then compare them to the sources outlined in the third archive of this page. The crafting of reference 10, 11, 12, and 13 carefully ignores any dissent and they avoids actual definitions; using them as definitions requires relying on insinuation and clever word games. As discussed in the third archive, these sources fail to actually provide a definition of "Factory farming". The third archive has about a dozen sources that actually provide such a definition, instead. Basically... the actual introductory paragraph isn't exactly wrong, but the provided references don't support it. The introductory paragraph does fail to explain that industrial agriculture is a subset of intensive agriculture. Also, the term "often in barren and unnatural conditions" does not come from any source that I have found. Jav4316:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, you missed that one. I found it in one of Crum's definitions, which was being used in a slightly different way. It is a UN document. See [193] though it is in the page above {originally near one of my rants!). I thought it was good because it did tie together definitions together for once, but not in the very restrictive sense. Spenny17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article to be about "the practice of raising farm animals in confinement at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions" or something else. If that is what is to be about then Bovine spongiform encephalopathy for example does not belong in it. WAS 4.25016:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BSE is caused by feeding bone and meat meal, which is not an intrinsic part of factory farming. BSE is not caused by factory farming; it doesn't belong in this article. Jav4316:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Factory farming" can be used to mean "the practice of raising farm animals in confinement at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions" which does not cause BSE. "Factory farming" can also be used to mean industrial agriculture which can include practises that cause BSE. This article is based on confused thinking. WAS 4.25017:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues which the BSE example throws up is that although it was related to a practice that is widely used in factory farming, essentially artificial food stuffs of dubious sourcing, with some other contributory factors, BSE was not confined to factory farming, the foodstuffs were used on normal farms too. However, there are less reliable sources that do indeed say that BSE is related to factory farming. We can point to British Government sources that give a fairly clear definition, but ironically they are unlikely to use factory farming as a term, as they do not relate it. So to use some of the best quality sources to discuss the topic, we are into a form of synthesis, whereas some high level summary press statements of lower quality appear to assert something different. The BSE article is well formed and has a good discussion, and it does not especially attribute BSE to factory farming. Spenny17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing often happens. All that we need to do is to be careful to quote accurately from reliable sources. We end up with "X says Y, but A says B" and allow the reader to make up his or her own mind. See this RfA for an excellent appreciation of this point. Look under question 4. --John17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The position is slightly different, and more related to synthesis. Here is a respectable mainstream source (just to use some policy wordings) [194] which gives a good summary of the understanding of BSE. You will see it is a solid abstract of other more detailed discussions of causes. Nowhere will you see the mention of factory farming. With a low level of understanding, we can see from this document that certain factors were highlighted as the cause. Some of these factors are used, but not exclusively, in factory farming, but they are not exclusive to factory farming. If I use this article though to claim that factory farming is not to blame, I do not have that analysis, though to me the logic is inescapably obvious, including a fairly solid position on what scientists think. However, the argument in favour of the linking of factory farming and BSE is this summary article [195]. It clearly says what the article used to say and yet I am unhappy, as it seems to me to be 1) high level summary, 2) hearsay 3) informal communication of "scientists", not a reference to pear reviewed sources 4) unclear on terminology (circle warning - depends on your POV on terminology). I feel a fair summary is only that FF is only implicated as it depends on the deprecated practices, rather than is in itself (meaning the narrow definition of factory farming rather than a wider philosophy) to blame. I feel it is worth exercising this here as it is at the heart of why some of the editing is contentious. So although I know you could characterise it as two different points of view, I see one as a distortion of information though the lack of critical review of sources. I can also see that it is done with good faith as clearly it is a reasonably respectable source, Reuters, and as it matches a view point, there is no need to question further. However, we can question whether the source is a neutral summary of the issues: well no it is simply reporting an event and the context of a particular POV. Spenny13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would put the issue differently. Factory farming and industrial agriculture can be the same thing, but it very much depends on what scope you put. However, I think in the grand scheme of things we could say that:
factory farming is seen as a pejorative term and we therefore tend to fit the nasty end of the farming business in it, indoors, cramped, inhumane and so on. However, you can see that that leads us down a POV fork
industrial agriculture can cover a wide range of activities which include using feeding systems, breeding, transportation, specialised buildings, economies of scale. Industrial agriculture is also not necessarily seen as animal, whereas factory farming, in the terms being thought of here, very much is about the animal as work in progress to the end product of meat eggs and more animal feed.
factory farming is very much about the activity of intensive animal farming, whereas we might think that industrial agriculture is going to cover things like the use of animal rendering to produce foodstuffs, which are also used outside the factory farming system, e.g. industrial processes which are not farming per se but are part of the whole system. (This is where BSE could fall into industrial agriculture whereas it is out of scope of a factory farm). Spenny18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(irrelevant personal attack redacted; see above)
I know, you know I know, I know you know I know :) I am going with the flow, bear with me. Anyway, I think I came up with a good little acid test in writing that. Would you agree that an animal rendering plant is part of a discussion of industrial agriculture? Would you agree it does not fit in the scope of a factory farm? Spenny18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(<--)Yes. Industrial agriculture also covers patenting plant genes, lobbying congress for changes to agriculture laws and many many things this article would never cover. WAS 4.25019:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's interesting. So factory farming is a subset of industrial agriculture then. This is a sustainable position, but it may necessitate some restructuring of the articles. --John19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are articles which contain industrial agriculture information and are appropriately structured. But more articles and more information is needed. WAS 4.25019:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view industrial agriculture is a broad global phenomenon and process that includes many aspects which don't fit within the factory farming article. And I would add that, even though I agree that there is a sense in which industrial agriculture is a subset of intensive farming, there is also a sense in which industrial agriculture is a larger phenomenon than intensive agriculture. For instance, the attempt by some very large agricultural corporations to try to control the entire market of world agriculture through the use of patented genetic material is not really necessarily a question of intensive agriculture, but most certainly is an important theme in the history of the industrialization of agriculture. It is precisely by turning plant and animal genes into industrial products that these corporations practise their global strategies. While such strategies may have implications in terms of what the factory farming article covers, the questions and issues clearly exceed the bounds of the issue of factory farming. It is not simply a question of the cruel treatment of animals, nor even a question of the health consequences for human beings, but involves profound and fundamental questions about the very agricultural process, and who controls it, and how. Questions which are, properly speaking, about the conjunction of industry and agriculture. For these reasons, I believe both intensive farming and industrial agriculture deserve their own articles: perhaps nested one as a subset of the other, but perhaps not. BCST200122:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To explain a bit further, using an example from the documentary The Future of Food: this documentary largely discusses Monsanto and its global strategies for controlling the agricultural market (note that controlling the market is not just a strategy to increase profits through economies of scale, but the attempt to actually obtain control over global food production by eliminating all competition). The program discussed the use of suicide genes in plants, which is clearly an industrial agricultural strategy with many implications. It also discussed the implications of patenting pig genes, with consequences such as the possibility that it may become impossible to farm other pigs if a farmer discovers his pigs share a gene with Monsanto pigs. But the program went further than that, and argued that there was evidence that the seed Monsanto was selling, seed which would become feed for pigs, had the effect of rendering pigs infertile, and thus that the use of genetically modified seed was in fact a part of their attempt to control animal agriculture as well. The program did not prove this claim, but went quite far in making a case for this claim. I think it is clear that the implications of all this include some consequences that fit within the factory farming article, but many consequences that exceed that article, including consequences for farmers, for the Third World, and for the world generally. BCST200122:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yes. Yes. The benefits and liabilities of industrial farming go far far far beyond the ideas of the animal rights advocates. WAS 4.25000:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely clear on this: The benefits are far beyond anything acknowledged by the animal-liberation movement. And the potential problems are even worse than than the average animal-liberation argument makes out. WAS 4.25000:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fine article and is a quality piece of work.
I couldn't support a position to change the scope of this article based on that work. A couple of reasons, it presupposes that the scope of this article matches the scope of animal rights, and I think at the moment that has the potential to be seen as a provocative standpoint, it is not a fresh start.
At the moment, I think that an article should be in place here called "Factory farming" with self-contained balance and a given scope, and it has its place in your hierarchy. There is enough material to justify lots of specialist articles and some overlap is entirely appropriate. One of my reasons for that is unless this is beaten into the ground then the other articles are at risk of the same approach - for example the topic of Industrial Agriculture page could be migrated into being Factory Farming. Let's not evade the problem: let John work through the issues for a reasonable amount of time. Spenny00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Animal rights or animal welfare? I'd think animal rights viewpoints belong in animal rights really.. We shouldn't have an article on everything any minor group believes on something unless it's really worthy of an article.. NathanLee13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being repetitious, the starting point of an article on Factory farming must be telling the story of what Factory farming is. An animal welfare viewpoint and even an activist viewpoint on the practice is part of the notability of factory farming, but it is not what an article on factory farming is. I think the fact that the activist lobby is so strongly associated with factory farming means that in this case it is appropriate to give their involvement significant weight, but that has to be careful represented. At the moment the article is written giving a running commentary on each element whereas I think it is worthy of a hefty separate sub-section. Spenny16:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-beaking
Question which I cannot answer: is de-beaking confined to factory farming or is it a practice that is used on normal farms? In part I ask because I know that chickens in a free range environment like a small holding can be viscious blighters and wringing the dominant bird's neck is one solution, clipping spurs and so on. Nothing obvious pops up in Google as I can't get past the chicken fan sites on the topic. ;) Spenny00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, debeaking is directly related to density of chickens. In other words, just as Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is not directly related to the crowding conditions definition of factory farming, debeaking is. But if you do crowd chickens and do not cage them then you have to debeak them or they eat each other. Don't crowd, debeak, cage. Choose one. In the future, a genetically altered for passivity chicken might be available, but not right now. WAS 4.25002:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a particular line of thought. I know someone who has a small number of chickens running free around the place aside from bed time when they hop over the fence into the coop to avoid being fox-fodder (nature red in tooth and claw - don't just blame the people). Sometimes the mix of characters is wrong and they beat each other up something rotten. I have my suspicions that the likes of de-beaking exist outside the confines of factory farming (farmer with pliers in his back pocket whipping them out when he sees trouble in the farmyard). FF makes the practice common-place almost by necessity.
If we consider the Schroder line of get rid of factory farming and all are ills are over, then I am not happy with that - it is not a neutral position. Therefore I like to test things like suggesting de-beaking is only an issue of factory farming, which is the implication of some of the tone of the article. We can see that mis-use of antibiotics is not necessarily just an issue of FF, though again FF tends towards necessitating the use and abuse of these things. Much in the same way as issues of food stuffs are exacerbated by factory farming, it is misleading to take the position that it is in itself factory farming that is the problem. I'm sure many FF practices are in use outside of FF. I simply don't have enough background on the detail to come to a position, and I haven't got a good general source. I think I might be in danger of going down the library at this rate! Spenny12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is all a matter of clear thinking. Exactly define what you are talking about. "Factory farming" defined as tending toward maximum confinement consistent with animal health and minimum cost? Debeaking defined as removal of all chicken beak tips? Or on the other hand, "factory farming" defined as any cost-conscious raising of any chicken and debeaking as any removal of any chicken beak? Unclear thinking leads one to sometimes call grey white and sometimes call that same shade black. WAS 4.25013:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the one resource I didn't check was Wikipedia which covers the issue well it seems. It gives an interesting insight, and essentially yes, it is not an issue of factory farming per se (though as you say, it depends on your view on whether factory farming is simply some level of intensity or whether it is an extreme practice), more an issue of any restriction of movement (in line with your yarding vs genuine free range). Interesting also that the EU version of free range is yarding which doesn't quite come over in the yarding article (we have some free range farms locally). Spenny18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting and Opposing Views
I think I worked out why I felt so uncomfortable with the presentation. This needs recasting. At the moment it characterises the arguments as being between two warring camps. This is misleading in that individuals also can see the dilemma: in other words, you do not have to have a supporting or opposing view to be able to appreciate the points for or against factory farming - indeed you can be neutral on the issue and hold the view that it is both necessary and unnecessarily cruel without being contradictory.
I've recast the intro. to reflect that: it better suits the NPOV style I think. I think that having neutrally worked through the issues, we can add in the debate as a notable item in its own right rather than threading it through the text. Again, more appropriate to the Wiki style. Spenny01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Agriculture" is not the same topic as "animal rights". This article pretends to about "Factory farming". It is actually about "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming". WAS 4.25002:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your viewpoint and frustration. However, what it was, what it is and what it should be can be different things. My view is that factory farming is a concept that the public relate to, and as such it is noteworthy. Although there is a choice to say it is simply an alias for intensive animal farming, I'm not there yet in being convinced that this article should not be here or cannot be rescued.
Regardless, I think the structuring of the for and against arguments as opposing points of view is itself pushing a POV that the world is divided into those in favour or those against. In fact, you can work down that list and say that an animal rights activist might well agree that factory farming will produce more chicken than less intensive methods - we can come up with an agreed statement of facts regardless of viewpoint. I don't think there is any need for the discussion to be organised into sides, the best way is to present the facts impartially and then let the reader balance the side. I don't think quotes from factory farmers in magazine articles is appropriate, to me it is presenting a POV behind a façade of WP:V. Spenny16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend not deleting anything that is fairly described as "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" from this page as that is what it is about. Further Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture has an issue oriented summary subsection style, rather than a bullet list of charges and rebuttals more suitable for a debate than a calm discourse. Sub-sub-sections probably should be created at Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture in the animal rights section on topics that have articles in wikipedia such as are listed in the issues section of the farming template (like gestation cage/stall/crib/box). WAS 4.25017:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was not going to delete anything. I agree that if it has some merit to the article, it should be included like in the Arguments for and against section. However, I would like to re-ask the question - if the bullet points would be better served in an animal rights article or another article describing issues with factory farming. This would bring the focus of this article back to farming and less on the issues and feelings have toward it.--BlindEagletalk~contribs18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So long as some people want this to be a article on "factory farming" and others want it to be an article on "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" the edit war will never end. Let this be an article on "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" and use industrial agriculture and its sub-articles such as Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture with its subsection on animal rights pointing to this page be the suite of articles on "factory farming". If we do that, then the problem is limited to this article having an inappropriate name. WAS 4.25019:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already proved beyond the reasonable doubt why this article needs to be named Factory farming. Do not misinterpret the fact that other editors are tired of the POV pushing with a lack of vigilance. Any attempts to introduce geographic bias, ovelry technical explanations, original narratives, etc, will be dealt with. Thanks!--Cerejota07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks, inflammatory comments and veiled threats. Your comments would have more credence if there was evidence of positive editing on the article by yourself to resolve the issues you raise. Thanks! Spenny23:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attack? If you feel I am violating policy, please feel free to bring a WP:DR. You excuse actual uncivil behavior on the part of WAS, while characterizing my legitimate warnings against policy violations as "personal attacks". It is not a veiled threat, it is a clear warning not to violate content policy, as has been down in the past, continues to be done, and we have sought to stop by trying to engaged in sabotaged mediation attempts. I suggest you stick to debating content, rather than people, unless egregious examples (Such as WAS') happen. Thanks!--Cerejota04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst other things, the implicit assumption of bad faith. Please stop, take stock of John's comments above and work positively. Spenny22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a confused bit about tracking in the article where it uses some low quality citations to suggest that tracking is an issue of factory farming. Whilst I understand the issue, I don't see the argument as being well-put. The 1000 cows in a hamburger is spurious, dubious, and is simply a reflection of food production not farming, I deleted the food can come from the other side of the country argument, that is irrelevant to factory farming, it is simply a reflection of the modern world, not farming technique. (In the UK we would not see it as an issue coming from one part of the country - in London there are not too many cows in Trafalgar Square). In traceability, it is not always appropriate to be concerned about the individual as long as you can identify the batch. In terms of tracing the source of a problem, it is likely to be easier with factory farming. So traceability is an issue of farming, I don't see it as unique to factory farming. I'm tempted to delete this paragraph unless there is a better structured and sourced point to be made. Spenny17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an issue of traceability in farming; in the UK every cow is individually marked, our local butcher even displays the tag numbers of the beef he is currently selling. This was in response to the BSE crisis where one of the problems was that they could not work out what cattle had been moved where. However, not specifically a factory farming issue, the only issue specific is that when something happens, the whole flock/herd/whatever is typically slaughtered. For example, the current foot and mouth problem here is leading to a few hundred animals being slaughtered - the UK doesn't particularly go in for factory farming of cattle (on the American scale) anyhow. Spenny17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised that the edits I have done to the issue are characterised as POV pushing, which boarders on incivility in the context of the sensitivities of this page. I also do not think it is in the spirit of a fresh start. I take issue with the blind reverting as (a) it is not an appropriate and constructive editing response, and (b) it restores a version which appears to claim that opposing factions do not accept as fact that factory farming can produce more product or that there is not acknowledgement of cruelty or potential cruelty. This is clearly POV pushing in itself, as has already been discussed on this talk page (though the edit comment suggests this is not the case, again AGF if we are in that game, which I would hope we are not). Whilst there are factions, there is a factual basis to the points of view of both sides and it is unhelpful to cast those facts as opinions only held by one side or another. From my viewpoint, it is a given that factory farming does produce "more product" and I don't think the animal rights lobby would disagree. The disagreement is about whether the cost of this in terms of impact on the animals is justified. Words like popular are inappropriate when discussing factory farming. There was a lot wrong with that old text. Edit it appropriately and I am content, inappropriate reverting is unhelpful and gives the impression of edit warring rather than constructive improvement of the article. Spenny10:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In particular, (b) is important. These things are fact, acknowledged universally. There's no need to reduce them to claims by one side or the other. Jav4315:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then you ask yourself why people ignore the talk page, do you fail to see how "That makes absolutely no sense" as a one-liner could possibly be seen as incivil and patronizing?
What part didn't make sense? The WP:SYNTH part or the irrelevant part? Because I can dig up reliable sources that state that factory farming is not needed to satisfy food needs in the world, and a huge percentage of the slaughter products are either not used or badly distributed. A huge amount of people die of hunger on one side of the world, while another side trashes huge agricultural surpluses made possible in part by factory farming. The WP:SYNTH is clear: the "benefits" of factory farming are in dispute, and attempting to say they are not simply because they are your opinion and this opinion is shared with some sources is WP:SYNTH.
That does make absolutely no sense. What does "It is an irrelevant 'fact' when talking about controversy" mean?
Also, you seem to have failed to actually read the text. There is no dispute that so-called "factory farming" makes "food production more efficient, cheap and available for a growing population". Issues regarding misuse or need or whatever else ARE NOT part of what you're reverting. Please stop.
Finally, your edits show extreme POV. For example, the image of the sow, as conclusively shown, does not belong; your attempts to reinstate it are ridiculous and unwarranted.
Jav, I think Cerejota's edits are fine. Please refrain from attacking your fellow editors, and try to stick to the issues. You are free to disagree with others and hold your own opinions; you are not free to attack and disparage others. In general, just focus on finding good reliable sources. Thanks, Crum37513:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... how about you do the same? Oh, wait, right - you prefer unreliable pseudo-sources and synthesis. How about just focusing on finding neutral, good, reliable sources - and incorporating facts from those sources into the article - while removing biased, poor, or unreliable sources and associated "facts"? Jav4313:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum, you are propogating Cerejota's version without explaining how it improves things. The flaws in Cerejota's version have been explained in talk here. Please do not continue to propogate that flawed version. At the very least, you might explain, point by point and changed-word by changed-word, what makes Cerejota's version better in your opinion. Jav4316:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am told that things are about edits not people, yet the small modifications I made went to some lengths to choose some words which I had explained in the talk page, which fundamentally was about removing an implicit POV so that the main issue about factory farming should be the activity not the controversy. They have been reverted with the justification that SV's version is better, Cerejota etc. which is clearly not a discussion about content, but about who is making the edits. There has been no discussion of the words. The rule of 3 seems to have even required SV making an especial visit to Wikipedia on the 12th for the sole purpose of responding to the deletion request and reverting this article. This does not reflect well on all those concerned. I'm going to ask John to take a view. Spenny22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first two citations
We should really find another way of dealing with the first two "references" in this article. They really don't fit. Any ideas? Jav4315:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to remove them due to the sensitivities, but for the introduction, it is unnecessary word count (I am content with the definition that follows on). I think I had in mind a thorough reconstruction of the term section, where it could thoroughly discuss the range of meanings the phrase has, how it is used by politicians, activists and the press with different connotations and how it relates to all farming practises. I haven't really had the time or enthusiasm to get into that. Spenny16:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am really bringing up the points I raised in [[196]]. Yes, there are sensitivities to consider... so I'm not sure where to go with this. I've tried to work out something regarding the meaning of terms, but I have had a hard time finding reliable sources; "factory farming" is rarely used by peer-reviewed sources, while "industrial agriculture" or "confined feeding operation" are rarely used by popular non-scientific sources. I still think there is validity to my point that "factory farming" is a pejorative term (at least in the US). Jav4320:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration, and you should know my view is that factory farming has more than one sense to it, which is perfectly usual. You may detect I am trying to be the epitome of the well-behaved editor (I only said trying!) to see if that will help move forward. We need solid foundations to allow constructive editing.
Most of the main players appear to be back in town, though it appears that WAS has been worn down. My suggestion is that we ask John to moderate a debate on scope and structure (I am keen to establish the principle of separation of ethics and process) to come to a resolution under "Fresh Start". From the introductory chat, my view is that this could work, and with a brutal approach to good behaviour on all parties, John may have the stature to carry that through. For good faith, we could hold the discussion in a neutral zone, so those that feel that this page is the wrong place to be could contribute. On that basis, I will put a note on John's page though I guess he is watching. I think he should do the invites. If that can be resolved, then there is the potential to validate, and adjust, the general farming article structure to a consensus. This will need everyone to be on their very best behaviour. I would also suggest there is a moratorium on deletion and restructuring until that point. Spenny22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point by Point
It has been stated that there are problems of policy in the recent edits I have made, but there have been no specific statements made to justify the reverts, simple reverting with needless reference to sides and personalities. Rather than continue this, I thought I would make the time to go through some changes on a point by point basis, and a few other comments. It would also be helpful to review some points of principle to see whether we have a consensus. I would prefer at the moment that Cerejota specifically answers the points so we can avoid the bear pit atmosphere, and I would also ask that they are responded to in plain English rather than shorthand terms for policy so that we can unpick what the real issues are. Obviously, anyone is free to comment, but please keep it constructive and about content, not about people. In terms of context, can we restrict discussion to things that exist since John's fresh start? Comments below will reflect that position from my point of view.
1. Is this article about the process of factory farming, or is it about the ethical debate? This question has been put recently in the talk page, but the debate has been one-sided. This edit concerns me [197] as it suggests a point of view that the article is about an ethical debate, not about the process. I am happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted.
2. Do you agree or disagree that even with the article being an ethical debate or only an element of the article being an ethical debate, it is important to place the facts of what the activity is neutrally and clearly so that the reader can come to their own view on the various practices?
3. I am concerned with a new accusation being made of geographic bias. Whilst I specifically only have a UK perspective, Nathan appears to have an Australian perspective, it appears other editors only have an American perspective. This is not necessarily an issue if handled appropriately. The approach to farming does appear to vary around the world. All we can do is bring our own perspective and invite a wider audience. At the moment, if there is an overly strong bias, it is the view that factory farming article is defined by the practices of the USA. Could you give some specifics of why you feel that there is some geographic bias which exceeds the normal biases on display across Wikipedia? Where do you see this as malicious intent trying to subvert Wikipedia, if at all?
4. Let's look at:Proponents of factory farming argue that it makes food production more efficient, that the animals are looked after in state-of-the-art confinement facilities and are content, that it is needed to feed the growing global human population, and that it protects the environment. Opponents argue that it harms the environment, creates health risks, and abuses animals.
vs.:
Factory farming attracts controversy in that the advantages such as making food production more efficient, cheap and available for a growing population are balanced against harm to the environment, the health risks of the approach and the potential abuse of animals.
Both statements say roughly the same thing and can be supported by the same references. However, rather than seeking to term the debate in terms of sides, it seeks to show that there are issues to be balanced. I strongly believe this is a more appropriate approach:
a) The first statement assumes that there are polarised views. In fact, we can show through reference for example to DEFRA statements that groups can share the views on the facts, but come to the conclusion that the balance sways on way or another, for example based on how heavily you believe animal rights are an issue that outweigh human desires. Activists and farmers make a tiny proportion of the population. Isn't this giving undue weight to their views?
b) Do we believe that proponents do not acknowledge the potential harm to animals?
c) Is it a matter for debate that factory farming produces more foodstuff than less intensive methods?
d) Is it really NPOV to suggest that more food, cheaper and more available are "advantages"? It smacks of viewpoint to try and suggest otherwise.
e) Do proponents deny the potential for harm to the environment, abuse and whatever. No, they argue that they have these issues under control. Whether that is the case is a separate debate.
f) Is the second version particularly more synthetic than the first?
g) Is the second statement POV pushing?
h) Isn't the first statement pushing a POV that factory farming is an ethical issue only?
5. Compare: The practice has become increasingly unpopular in Europe due to a series of events associated with modern farming techniques, including outbreaks of swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth, and bird flu, together with concern over animal welfare. Gerhard Schroeder, then German Chancellor, called for an end to factory farming in 2000 in response to Europe's BSE crisis.
with:
Criticism has increased in Europe due to a series of events associated with modern farming techniques, including incidents of swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth and bird flu together with concern over animal welfare.
a) This is a Eurocentric view of the issue in both cases, but that is appropriate.
b) I take issue with the suggestion that it has become increasingly unpopular. This appears to be a statement unsupported by any citation. We can find increasing criticism by looking to citations, but synthesising this further seems to be advancing a position.
c) The suggestion of popularity suggests that the population as a whole have an opinion. Casting it in terms of popularity is a synthesis. We have a process which people generally take little interest in, and avoid finding out too much about. When particular practices gain publicity, then the public will be influenced. I was not particularly aware of any "We love factory farming" movement.
d) Where is the analysis that it is more unpopular? Statements by politicians do not form a test of popularity. For all I know, it might be the Chancellor's views that got him voted out of office.
e) Let's nit-pick the references (we lost one it seems):
"The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming," they said.
i) no reference to BSE.
ii) It is a hearsay statement of some scientists pushing their own agenda. We do not know what is actually said.
iii) The BBC site says: In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy.
He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy.
- this does not link BSE to Schroeder's views. It simply is an editorial noting of the contemporary comments. They are not "in response" as far as I can tell.
- it does not actually call for an end to factory farming. It is a synthesis to say so. It simply says he called for an end to the current practice.
- The sources are poor quality. They are high level summary, hearsay, seven years old.
- This is one example where I would say I would want to see the primary source to understand whether the secondary source is of sufficient quality to support the article's assertions.
- The extrapolation of the statement of one politician, to the whole of Europe is, erm, quite large.
f) So my point is that it is uncontroversial to note that with a number of problems in the farming industry (listed), it is unsurprising that public awareness and concern is being raised.
g) The voice of animal rights activists is being heard, that is changing opinions, hence the comment together with concern over animal welfare. Again, not particularly controversial. It introduces this concept which was not there before. Is this inappropriate?
h) If you go to the BSE page, you will see the detailed discussion on causes and effects of BSE. There is little that relates it to the subject matter of high density farming. I am happy that there is a vague relationship between BSE and public distrust in agricultural practises generally, but I struggle with this being used in the narrow confines of factory farming, it is animal activist FUD rather than reasoned debate.
6. There are other elements in the opening paragraph I have altered which are worth highlighting.
a) synthetic hormones may be used to speed growth Specifically added the may (from are) to take out the USA centric position. Hormones are banned in the EU. Do you have a problem with this?
b) the highest output at the lowest cost Naive and misleading point of view which fails to understand normal economics. I suggested replacing this with maximising profit, but this was seen as contentious. Counter example is egg farming in the UK where numerous farmers have converted to the more expensive free range (WAS tells me this is actually yarding) as free range eggs can be sold at a premium. Trading standards have introduced tests to check for wire marks on eggs as importers are substituting battery farm eggs for profit. In that context we can see the target is not lowest cost, nor highest output, and I conclude that it is a POV to suggest that all that matters to the nasty factory farmers is pile it high, sell it cheep[sic]!
Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not reverting for fun, you are edit warring without referring a content dispute to discussion. Read and respond to the Point by Point above. It is about content, not process, not policy. Spenny07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) Please explain circular. I hardly think that counts as reasoned debate.
3) How can reasoning not previously listed have been responded to before.
4) On that basis, I have reluctantly reverted your third revert with my third revert. I withdraw from the article for the day and will take a break. Spenny10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota: You have not explained your reverts. Without explanation, they are unsupported and incomprehensible.
I would request that you stop accusing people of incivility. Such accusations only propagate further incivility, rather than curbing impolite conduct.
I have engaged amply in it, only to be met by vitriol. And when we have suggested moderation in the past, it has been ignored. Please read the history of the page. You just arrived here and know nothing of the long history of abuse on the part of WAS and Co. If you are going to be patronizing, at least nake sure you actually know what you are talking about. Thanks!--Cerejota09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed your exit referred to your dispute over the edits which I have justified in Point to Point. Please read Fresh Start above. You clearly are dragging quite a history with you which I respectfully suggest colours your views of what is going on here. I have a clear agenda which is nothing to do with personal history:
That the issue of scope of this article is not resolved.
That there needs to be a clear split between the practice and the ethical debate.
Those issues can be compatible with all editors to this page, and if we can escape the personal side of the editing, which is not easy. John has essentially offered to mediate and slap down hard on all inappropriate behaviour. I am trying to embrace that approach. Why not try it too? It is not at all easy, nor is it fun, but it is satisfying.
I protected it, as the protection log says, to prevent another ongoing edit war. It seemed better than issuing blocks. Feel free to make any constructive suggestions here. --John16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your actions capricious, in blocking me three days ago, while now refusing to take action against Cerejota, but rather locking his flawed version into place. Constructive suggestions? Don't lock a version that is unexplained and little better than vandalism. We need to facilitate discussion; locking Cerejota's version counts to him as a "win" and will simply prevent discussion on the issue for another month. Remove all disputed text from the locked version, in order to prevent endorsing anything in particular, or don't protect the page, but rather ban the users who avoid discussion -- those are my suggestions. I don't suggest blocking users; banning is more narrowly tailored to the problem. Jav43 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (addendum) I am referring to a partial ban, of course, banning edits to the agriculture project or to this particular page. Jav4317:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be infinitely clear: protecting the version sponsored by Cerejota/SlimVirgin/Crum375 will not lead to resolving the dispute, as those users refuse to engage in discussion on the talk page. Assuming the intent of page protection is to foster dispute resolution, protecting this page while under this version will not achieve that intent. All that will happen is that a month will silently pass, then the current dispute will resume. Protecting this page is not the answer. Jav4317:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John. I am disappointed that the very careful effort I put into justifying the edit, flagging it very carefully in my edit requests has been allowed to be ignored. Crum375's edit note is simply untrue and it is not a reflection of a fresh start but is continuing the warring. I am not comfortable with my reverting this morning, it was pointy but I withdrew. A tag team revert and page lock gives the appearance of a lack of evenhandedness. However, there are plenty more weeks to make an encyclopedia, I'll live :) Spenny17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding Ian. I didn't expect this to be a popular move but, short of handing out at least two blocks, I thought this the best way to calm the situation down. --John20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, maybe I'll be proven wrong, but from what has happened in the past, you have taken action that will provoke rather than calm the situation. Your protection means that those opposed to the protected version of the page will be increasingly annoyed and frustrated by that version being locked in place. When those supporting the locked version do not comment on this talk page while the page is locked, this frustration will be aggravated. When the protection is removed, the current version will be reverted, with more emotion than at present, and the subsequent reverts (again, as at present, without explanation) will create a continuing edit war. The solution is not to lock the page - and particularly, not to lock the page in the version preferred by those who refuse to discuss content. Your move will only aggravate the situation when the protection is removed. Jav4322:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflicted)I didn't think I had been that understanding... :) I think it would have been a more appropriate response to hand out 3 blocks myself, and block anyone else who reverts rather than edits. That would have kept the faith. It's not too late to correct this in my view. It might actually catalyse some crafty thoughtful editing.
Perhaps another way ahead would be for you to look through Point by Point, and any issue that you believe is convincingly made as an improvement over the current text be put in as an admin. edit, with any admin reversion being a wheel war block (if that is what you do). PS Not trying to do a double act with Jav, though it often appears to happen. Spenny23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dejavu.. This has happened before. Although it was localzuk and a request for page protection to keep his version up. Now the same thing again. I think there's some very obvious tag team reverting (or meatpuppetry it could be termed) and once again the same editors are involved. NathanLee20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming the discussion
I'm willing to start discussing the issues with the editors who agreed to mediation if the personal comments, sarcasm, and filibustering stop completely. Over the last nearly three years, I've edited some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia, but I don't recall being subjected to the kind of abuse I've seen on this talk page. You can't subject people to that then complain when they withdraw.
If points could be made succinctly (no long or repetitive posts); with the focus on content only; and if people would stick closely to what the content policies actually say, I'd be willing to resume the discussion. Better still, those of us who agreed to mediation could get together and arrange it, which the MedCom might agree to. There were, I believe, nine of us, which is enough to establish a compromise and consensus. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that proposal. Can I apologise for the delay in my getting back into helping here; real life rather took over for a while there. My main suggestion would be that we agree (here) on the proper hierarchy and content of the different articles first, and then it might avoid a lot of the content dispute, which currently seems to derive from this disagreement about what the different articles should contain. Does that make sense? --John01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. My original proposal was that we have two articles: Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). We produced multiple sources showing that intensive farming, factory farming, and industrial farming are used interchangeably. The only clear distinction is between the methods used for animals and those used for crops, so it's a natural division. Both articles should include a description of the perceived benefits and perceived drawbacks according to reliable sources.
The main thing is that there should be no content forking. The ArbCom is currently ruling on that specific point, namely "Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy provides that all significant points of view must be presented fairly and without bias. Content forking, where two or more articles are written from differing points of view on a single topic, is a violation of the NPOV policy." SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WAS recently provided a clear outline of the discussion in this subset of agriculture articles. To quote him: Jav4302:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jav, this is the kind of thing that has proven unhelpful. It's pure OR, as well as complicated and difficult to implement. We need a streamlined solution that sticks to how the terms are actually used by reliable sources. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rephase what was here: Jav, Slim, it is unhelpful to carry across the personalities of who proposed what and not look at the content. I do not see a structure of articles as being OR, but there was a documented route for arriving at the content. Spenny09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spenny, I don't know what you mean about "carry[ing] across the personalities." Jav posted a structure. I replied that in my view it was unhelpful. Period. Your comments are the kind of thing we're trying to move away from. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to work to the premise that if we are to debate content, not people, then describing things as WAS's outline is carrying on the history, albeit you may feel it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I accept that I am implicitly doing the same thing being critical of Slim, but there is a tone of history about it, being dismissal, rather than discussing whether it is a workable structure. After all, what if it is OR, this is a discussion page. To bring in personality, I had a brief exchange with WAS on his talk page and he understands what I am trying to do here. I do think it is rubbing off a bit! (I also feel a bit sad after seeing other comments there). Spenny14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you're the one who is trying to debate people. Please stop and address only the issues. My position is that the list posted by Jav is OR and too complex. Stick to addressing that. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The outline WAS provided seems quite workable; he has already built a page structure around it which is fluid and self-consistent. I don't believe it is "complicated and difficult to implement". I also don't see it being OR, for reasons I'll address in another section later. Jav4313:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial agriculture (IA) is the context for this article and the suite of articles that it is a part of includes:
Intensive farming is the superset IA belongs in.
Industrial agriculture is the primary article and introduces summary-style:
History of agriculture
Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture which introduces
Factory farming
Industrial agriculture (animals) which introduces
Factory farming
Chicken industrial agriculture
Intensive pig farming
Cattle industrial agriculture
Aquaculture industrial agriculture which introduces
Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture
Shrimp industrial agriculture
Industrial agriculture (crops) which introduces
Green Revolution
Wheat to illustrate (Modern management techniques)
Maize to illustrate (Mechanical harvesting)
Soybean to illustrate (Genetic modification)
Tomato to illustrate (Hydroponics)
Sustainable agriculture
Organic farming methods
These are articles which contain industrial agriculture information and are appropriately structured. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the following articles ought to exist: Intensive farming; Extensive farming; Industrial agriculture; and one other, to be called either Factory farming, Industrial agriculture (animals), or CAFOs. I'm not fussed about the title of this last article, which should focus on the treatment of animals issue. All the other articles have a clear purpose for existing. Intensive and extensive farming are opposing and substantial terms. Industrial agriculture is a critical concept for understanding modern existence, and for reasons that are not limited to the animal rights issues.
Splitting Industrial agriculture into one article on crops and one on animals makes no sense: the overarching concept deserves an entry. As has been pointed out previously on this page, an essential aspect of the phenomenon of industrial agriculture is the interconnection between plant and animal agriculture: for example, the creation of GM crops to feed GM pigs, and the questions raised by such developments. Industrial agriculture is a single process with multiple elements. Were Wikipedia to delete this article, it would be obscuring a fundamental aspect of the process of life and technology on this planet. It is simply not the case that we can assume that (quoting SlimVirgin) "angst for animals" is "the main criticism of all industralized processes of farming that involve animals": there are other very important questions raised by these processes.
My fundamental point is that a critically important phenomenon should not be concealed by an artificial split into two articles, a split which is being advocated in order to push a particular point of view about modern agricultural practice. I have nothing against that POV, but it should not be at the expense of not properly addressing other important aspects of the globalized process of industrial agricultural production. The questions raised by this process are scientific, technological, philosophical, and political, and they are deserving of a proper encyclopedic treatment. I am certain that, upon reflection, all editors can recognize the importance of these topics. BCST200106:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BCST's proposal sums up exactly what I object to. He wants a separate article, to be called Factory farming or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), to "focus on the treatment of animals issue." This is content forking. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking, and the ArbCom is currently ruling that it's a violation of NPOV. The treatment of animals is an absolutely central issue in any discussion of the intensive farming of animals. It has nothing to do with animal rights. It's an animal welfare issue (which is quite separate from animal rights), as well as a human welfare issue, because the argument goes that what's bad for the animals may also be bad for the people who eat those animals. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)07:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with the issue, not the person. You can talk to your concerns without talking to the person. Fresh start needs to apply to all parties if we are to move on. It would not take many words to rephrase that comment to something entirely impersonal. Spenny09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically on the content forking. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to spin off content and maintain the same point of view. The issue is whether the pro's and con's should be spun off. The answer to me is that it is unimportant. The acid test is, do the pro's and con's pervade the article, or is the ethical debate contained in a separate section? Clearly, there may be practices which sit within their own element of the article where it is entirely appropriate to present the debate of the ethics specific to that individual practice, but it must not be given undue weight. Typically the reason for spinning of one of those subsections is not to evade the issue, but it is that the enthusiasm of the editors to contribute leads to a growth where left in place the section dominates the article. I've been involved with that sort of issue in the Dan Brown novels - it really messes up the article to have a great tome of errors in his novels, but without it readers are left without a gathering of the analysis which has spawned a whole industry of book writing. Spinning off with summary is a perfectly acceptable approach. It has to be done with balance - "factory farming - costs and benefits" not "factory farming - criticisms". Spenny09:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the goal of this tree of agriculture articles is to have one article on intensive agriculture, one on industrial agriculture, and subarticles on things like industrial agriculture (animals) and industrial agriculture (crops). If I remember correctly, industrial agriculture simply got too big and needed to be split in some fashion; breaking industrial agriculture into two parts was done for size reasons. I see no problem with combining the two, if the resulting article is of a reasonable length. Jav4313:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My observations:
The split between arable and animal is a logical and practical division. It reflects the treatment of the subject by its practitioners as well as its documenters. School geography lessons teach this early on.
Farming is/ought to be an enormous subject on Wikipedia. The current articles within the framework set out, do have notable content. There is sound logic to setting up a framework rather than spinning out content as articles grow. That has the potential for undue weight and arbitrary structuring. Look beyond the proposer and into the structure.
I don't believe that anyone disagrees that the treatment of animals is a very important issue in intensive animal farming. However, that does not mean that the article has to be written with that observation pervading every statement of the article, or indeed all the farming articles. This is a really fundamental issue of perspective. Regardless of one's feelings of the importance of this issue, if one cannot document the the individual elements of the various practices without constant reference to animal welfare, then animal welfare is given undue weight. This seems to be a fundamental roadblock that we cannot get past.
The presentation of factory farming as two sides arguing for and against the practice is a fundamentally flawed approach which is ingraining a point of view into the article, that point of view being "people are for it or agin it". Common sense tells us the average man/woman/McDonalds customer is mildly interested in the issue, not entirely comfortable with it, but is not going to stop eating products of the process because of it. Similarly, I doubt many farmers have a particularly philosophical view on farming, whether intensive or not. My relations in the farming game like to treat their livestock correctly, but they have no fondness for their animals, they do not anthropomorphise as they wring their chickens' necks. That is not to say they endorse unsavoury practices and I have recounted how they rejected protein feeds when they discovered that they were not sensibly sourced.
A particular problem I have with the current article is the use of quotations to support the analysis, which may be via books of secondary source, but are a way of putting primary source material in, they are not the analysis that we seek which is essentially synthesised. Perhaps a prime example is the "Growing unpopular in Europe." I don't disagree with that statement, but I have yet to see a source that contains some paraphrasing of that statement. I altered the intro on that basis, from one synthesis which advanced a position to a milder less contentious synthesis. (I am not a great fan of verifiability over truth).
Geographical viewpoint is clearly an issue which is causing difficulty. My perspective is that factory farming is ingrained into the American system, the casual acceptance of hormones in beef, the acceptance of genetic modification of crops highlight a couple of notable differences. These differences are not accounted for when reading high level sources - there is a transference of American concepts onto European statements for example. In the UK, I suspect cattle are not factory farmed as the farm land is sufficiently productive and through green belt protection, remains economic so there is no need to adopt the practice - why build buildings, employ men, pay for foodstuffs when you can leave cattle wandering aimlessly around, and they even bring themselves to be milked. One man can run a farm with many dozens of cows. France has land supplies and a tradition of agriculture so again there is nothing to be gained. Pigs are a different story, they destroy land at a phenomenal rate so are not well suited to being kept in fields. For a long time pigs have been factory farmed in the sense that they have been kept in small, barren enclosures near houses for local consumption, the only difference in treatment between the 19th century and now is the number of pigs kept together.
There is also a problem that factory farming is not one method or philosophy, it is a catch-phrase collection of a variety of practices and concepts, with a pejorative connotation for many. This means we cannot say "Factory farms do this", "Factory farms do that" but we have to present the "menu" of activities and suggest that the collection of those is appropriate. I think the definition that stands in the intro is about as good as we will get, it reflects the vagueness of what the practice is.
The issue of differences between animals is important. Chickens are seen as particularly stupid (with good reason) and their quality of life is rated as a fairly low priority by many people, whereas a pig is known to be intelligent, possibly more intelligent than your average Wikipedian it seems( :) ), and so the approach taken with them is different. I am sure there is a tale to be told about the transferring of the battery chicken logic to pigs and why that is now rejected.
I picked out the example of hormones in my editing - it comes across as weasel words, it does show the problem of describing the practice. Hormones are not used in the EU, probably not in the Antipodes either, China has been rejecting American imports on that basis too. In America I suspect they are not always used, so we need a way of presenting this practice without the weasel words. I like the idea of a menu of activities (which factory farming sort of has) with an overview qualifying that not all practices are used by all sites. However, it does vary strongly by animal, which is why we need articles for the various practices of animal husbandry - chickens are simply farmed (factory farmed) differently from cattle.
Industrial agriculture is an extremely wide field, with a wide variety of supporting industries, stretching as far as the GM research, rendering, feeding, machinery and so forth. We must be careful of terms so that we are not inconsistent. Making factory farming the semantic equivalent of industrial agriculture is not only mistaken etymologically, but that lack of differentiation will distort the whole treatment of the wider subject area.
It's going to be impossible to reach consensus if everyone posts such long comments with their personal opinions and stories about what their relatives do. What difference does it make to how many titles we have that a Wikipedian thinks pigs are more intelligent than chickens? If everyone would stick to source-based research, and would write succinctly, we would make progress. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need to find a way to come to consensus on the scope of this page in relation to Industrial Agriculture. The definition debate. We can present sources, but the analysis of these sources seems to be the problem. There seems little point in throwing sources at the problem, discussion hasn't worked, neither has verbal fisticuffs.
The only way to resolve this dispute is to "throw sources at it," and leave out all personal opinions. The problem we've had has been one of (as I see it) wilful misinterpretation of sources. Even when a source says: "X should stop; in other words, Y should become less prevalent," we've had editors argue that it doesn't show the source means X and Y are the same thing. If more mature heads prevail in that regard, this problem should be cleared up fairly quickly, and we'll be able to rely on the sources we produce. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article you're quoting from said nor is it the argument that was given (isn't that willful misinterpretation?).. It was more closely "move away from X. We should stop y." But anyhow, here's an example with X and Y substituted: "Killing should stop, in other words violence towards individuals should become less prevalent." Are "crime" and "violence towards individuals" synonymous terms or just one a subset of the other? How would we verify this? Perhaps a dictionary might show that the two are not synonymous which would clear that up. I guess if that were the case we'd be ok then? So will Britannica and a bunch of dictionary references suffice to clear up your interpretation of synonymous? You're 100% correct on the wilful misinterpretation call. NathanLee22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to split "Industrial agriculture" into two articles, one on animals and one on plants. I strongly object to this idea, and I have given my reasons several times, most recently here. Those reasons have yet to be addressed by editors proposing the split. Industrial agriculture is an important topic, deserving of an article in its own right. There is no logic to splitting it into two articles unless the umbrella article "Industrial agriculture" is also retained. BCST200106:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of it? The formal mediation part? I think that should be clear, if not, I cannot elaborate further. Sorry, but requesting we go into formal moderation sounds pretty clear to me. If you refer to the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Future Farmers of America field manual" part, then I can expand: geographic neutrality, building branches from the top down (ie from existing articles, instead than from ready-made manuals), presenting things according to their mainstream notability, use of common language, and clear provision of context for inevitably technical articles and sections. In other words, providing information on agriculture that is not geared towards those with a technical interest in it, but those who normally read encyclopedias: a specialist on a field would be ill-advised to look in an encyclopedia for information, and the general public doesn't look for extremely technical information, but overviews on a given field of interest as part of their general curiosity on the world. Is that clear enough? Thanks!--Cerejota05:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to apologize again, but I'm still in the dark. I don't understand how your comment is a response to mine, if that is what it is intended to be. How either sentence of yours is a response to my comment is unclear to me. BCST200107:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
meaning of terms
We have three terms which some people say are synoymous while others identify distinctions:
intensive agriculture
industrial agriculture
factory farming
Here's my interpretation, as I've described with sources before [198].
Intensive agriculture is a general philosophy of maximizing output from land. It depends upon providing various inputs, such as fertilizers, to increase total output. It differs from extensive agriculture in that extensive agriculture increases total land base to increase production, while intensive agriculture focuses on increasing output from an already-existing land base. This is a broad overarching philosophy or method which encompasses industrial agriculture and factory farming.
Industrial agriculture is a method of using modern technology and manufacturing-type systems to maximize output. While intensive farming only requires an attempt to cultivate land to maximize land use, industrial agriculture does so with modern equipment and technology. Thus, farming based solely upon manual labor could qualify as intensive agriculture if it cultivates a limited plot of land, while industrial agriculture demands use of modern machinery, and would not qualify manual labor. Although industrial agriculture can involve high animal densities for more streamlined husbandry, this is not required for industrial agriculture.
So-called "factory farming", which is a pejorative term in the US, used by activists or others who wish to denegrate what they see as "factory farming" practices (the term "factory farming" is never used in support of the practice), is a system of animal husbandry where a high concentration of animals are raised in a given area. This maximized animal density is intended to increase efficiency. This differs from industrial agriculture and intensive agriculture in that those practices do not require high animal densities. What is called "factory farming" is properly known in the US as a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) and is referred to as such by agriculturalists. I am unable to speak knowledgably as to the use of the term "factory farming" outside the US - whether it is a pejorative term outside the US or whether it is merely used descriptively.
I think that clarifies the distinction between the three terms in the outline for this set of articles. I believe the issue to be decided is what articles fall under the broad umbrella of "intensive agriculture".
On a side note, I would like to briefly mention that although there have been a number of attempts to equate industrial agriculture and factory farming through sources, all but one of the sources provided thus far require synthesis or reading the author's mind to understand them as actually equating the terms. Also, every one of these sources is from a popular newspaper or animal-rights propaganda website. If we are to disregard the peer-reviewed sources discussed in archive 2, linked above, then I believe we need to do better than popular newspapers and propaganda websites. We all know how often newspaper reporters get things wrong :). In this case, even dictionaries flatly agree that the terms are distinct. Jav4313:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, I addressed, with sources, this concern. The objection to Factory farming as pejorative is a figment of Jav's imagination. For example, see this use of "Factory farm" in a colloquial manner unrelated to any controversy around farming: ::[199]
Called in from the pig farm . . . Matthew Scully, a former staffer for Govs. Mecham and Symington, published a scathing account of the craftsmen behind President Bush's speeches in the September issue of the Atlantic.
In it, Scully, who worked for Bush from 1999 to 2004, skewers his former White House collaborator, Michael Gerson, for hogging the spotlight and the credit as Bush's muse.
But apparently it wasn't just Scully's words that Gerson was co-opting as his own. Scully writes about helping Gerson edit Bush's first inaugural address by phone while parked outside a factory farm in North Carolina. He was interrupted by a call from his old friend and Symington colleague, Arizona political consultant Jay Heiler.
It was Heiler, Scully says, who came up with the idea for the president to quote Mother Teresa in his speech - an idea later credited to Gerson.
"Sometimes we are called to do great things," Bush said. "But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love."
Of course, the term is used colloquially by neutral media when reporting on issues around factory farming, simple because factory farming is a much more quickly evocative term than CAFO, which as I demonstrated, is no a term in common currency outside of technical literature regarding laws (outside of law-related technical literature, factory farming is used almost as frequently as other terms)
As I also demonstrated, peer-reviewed literature available in Google scholar uses "factory farming" with equal abandon as it uses other terms.
However, be advised that not all peer-reviewed academic sources support factory farming. Some in fact analyze the use of language and the creation of propaganda campaigns to defend factory farming [200].
Lastly, a point must be made about the relegation of criticism in farming/agricultural articles to a section or sub-page. Since this is food we are talking about, it is something of inherent human interest and immediately obvious to anyone. In spite of the alienation most people in the western world have form the land, the immense majority of people in the world are farmers. However, the ideas and format proposed is one that reduces the encyclopedic scope to a westernized, and in this case American, POV on farming. I oppose this as a clear violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thanks!--Cerejota05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota: here's a reference that indicates that the term "factory farming" is not one that farmers would like being used. [201] and encyclopaedia britannica specifically mentions that it is frequently used by activists [202] and if we're doing web based as any indication: the domain name and top few pages of google hits are for anti/hate sites.. Just something to consider.. NathanLee15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated farming systems
Integrated farming systems transcend the division of agriculture into animal versus arable. It is considered an important issue for individual farmers who are trying to maximize profitability and thus not be driven out of business by competition.Source: article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE It is also considered both factory farming (when the term is used to mean "industrial agriculture") and sustainable agriculture (a "green" environmentally friendly method of agriculture).
An integrated farming system is a progressive biologically integrated sustainable agriculture system such as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture or Zero waste agriculture whose implementation requires exacting knowledge of the interactions of numerous species and whose benefits include sustainability and increased profitability.
Elements of this integration can include:
intentionally introducing flowering plants into agricultural ecosystems to increase pollen-and nectar-resources required by natural enemies of insect pests[1]
using crop rotation and cover crops to suppress nematodes in potatoes[2]
Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture has been deleted
The closing admin has recommend we try mediation as a way to resolve the outstanding issues. I again open an informal request and conversation in this regards. I believe informal mediation will not lead anywhere, an are unwilling to participate in it.
So I suggest we explore again going into formal mediation.
Before making an actual proposal, so we do not make the MedCom lose time, I would like to gauge the opinion of involved editors in this regards. Thanks!--Cerejota04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from the deletion debate that uninvolved editors don't support what has been going on, so I feel the need for mediation is stronger than ever, because we obviously need to get this situation sorted out. I suggest that we approach the MedCom even if we have the same two or three objections as before, because we had nine people (as I recall) willing to be involved. Two or three shouldn't be allowed to decide on behalf of nine. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs)07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently protected from editing. Please follow the instructions listed at the top of the article in the protection template. You can discuss changes here on talk. You can request that the article be unprotected. Or you can request that an admin make a non-controversial change for you. Hope this helps.-Andrew c[talk]20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
I know there has been some debate as to which image should lead. I just uploaded these two images here. There not very good quality but I would like a few opinions of these and maybe an admin to put them in for me if people like them (not neccasarilly as lead images)--Pheonix15 (talk)20:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion... if the images are representative of Factory Farming and they are from a source that is meant to inform and not inflame (either for or against) the issue then they should be published in the article. --BlindEagletalk~contribs21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically speaking that sow in a crate is much less representative of the conditions most animals in factory farms live in. Earlier there was a breakdown I provided of the number of sows/percentage etc.. There are far more chickens as I recall too, but still the same image "needs to be there" for some editors. NathanLee21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Pheonix15, but you've wasted your time. The only acceptable image is the one of the pigs in those crates that came from an activist site. None of the other 10 options has met with anything other than revert warring. Sad but true. NathanLee21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pheonix, where are these pictures from? Did you take them? Are they from a website? Although the quality is bad, I would sacrifice quality over the current picture that appears to be from an activist site. --BlindEagletalk~contribs12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page ownership, misleading comments, revert warring, tag team reverting
Once again I check in on this page and once again I see the following:
reverts by editors saying they have discussed things but have done nothing of the sort
page ownership via reverting any attempts to edit beyond an owned version
bizarre interpretations of synonymous contrary to any intelligent english interpretation thereof
revert warring with comments "agree to mediation" but no indication of any sort of ability to discuss let alone compromise
revert and then page protection applied from parties who have on many occasions reverted without any discussion and with blatantly false edit comments
The same insistence to keep the most shocking or POV picture up in the lead (rather than simply not having one, or using one which represents a more common practice statistically)
back to the insistence that there is only one possible term (never mind Extensive agriculture having a logical opposite intensive agriculture) etc which is backed up by sources like dictionaries and other encyclopaedias
misleading edit comments
an inability to have a sophisticated, objective view of this field of agriculture
ignoring the policies on dispute avoidance
ignoring previous arbcom directives on behaviour
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you can't separate out ideology that blinds you in your wikipedia edits (which is exactly what we're seeing here I think it's pretty obvious): then refrain from editing. I cannot believe that people's memories of the point by point referenced and reasoned arguments on this have slipped their minds so quickly that they need to ask the same unhelpful comments ("show sources" and and make the same CONTRARY TO POLICY reverts rather than discussion. Developing the content should not be a case of who can best game the system, piss as many people off as possible (or drive them away from wikipedia) and repeatedly come back with revert warring with no talk page interaction. NathanLee21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All quiet on the western front? Revert-happy people: have you any of that "as per discussion" to add since you've got the page blocked and a fresh set of users talking of leaving wikipedia (again)? NathanLee17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with no input from those who drag the page into a blocked state do we just assume they're going to follow the "avoid reverts" policy now? NathanLee23:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large gap
The large gap between first 2 paragraphs is very unsightly, and it's due to the Agriculture box having it's code between the 1st & 2nd paragraphs. I suggest moving the box's insertion point to the beginning of the 2nd section (The term). That eliminates the huge gap, and though it's still not an ideal layout while the contents box is open, it looks decent when the contents are hidden. What do y'all think? JD Lambert(T|C)22:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsure. But give it a go - I think the page's readability from an editing point of view AND aesthetics is stuffed because of the lead image in there personally. By all means give it a go. Can we do away with that and then the agriculture box has room to "breathe". NathanLee05:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it makes a lot of difference. It seems to render OK for me on Firefox in either form, unless I am missing something. The real issue is the content box, but that is a generic issue as far as I am aware. Spenny22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported analysis
The practice has become increasingly unpopular in Europe due to a series of events associated with modern farming techniques, including outbreaks of swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth, and bird flu, together with concern over animal welfare.
There is no support in sources for this analysis which is an original interpretation. I'd previously softened the wording and I have a suspicion it may be true, but we haven't got any citations. Spenny12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supported expert non-regionally-biased scientific analysis as presented by neutral third party secondary source:""There is no doubt that the world has to depend upon some of the technologies of intensive animal food production systems," said FAO livestock policy expert Joachim Otte. "But excessive concentration of animals in large-scale industrial production units should be avoided and adequate investments should be made in heightened biosecurity and improved disease monitoring to safeguard public health," he said in a statement." [203]WAS 4.25013:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between suggesting that there is a need to improve factory farming methodologies and the claim that it is increasingly unpopular (with whom?) and due to. The suggestion of increasing unpopularity is a synthesis which should be verifiable if it is notable. If it is held to be increasingly unpopular, then the analysis will no doubt assert what the causes were. These might align to the statement above, but it is a pretty emotive way of saying something which we could say neutrally, such as there is currently support in Europe for improvement of factory farming methods. I can cite DEFRA directly on such a statement without bringing in the novel concept of popularity to the argument.
Having said that, that is a good source to be able to express neutrally that there IS a concern about the methods of factory farming. Spenny13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the sourced comment not to support what you deleted but to replace what you deleted (perhaps as a useful summary in the lead?). WAS 4.25014:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Proponents of factory farming argue that it makes food production more efficient, that the animals are looked after in state-of-the-art confinement facilities and are content,[7] that it is needed to feed the growing global human population, and that it protects the environment.[8] Opponents argue that it harms the environment, creates health risks,[9][10][11] and abuses animals.[3] Gerhard Schroeder, then German Chancellor, called for a re-think of factory farming methods in 2000 in response to Europe's BSE crisis,[4][12][13] and the risks to human health continue to be a concern to scientists." misrepresents the sources. You will note that the last source provided makes points labeled as given by the strawmen "proponets" (that it is needed to feed the growing global human population) as well as the strawmen "opponets". There are both good and bad aspects of factory farming. Putting the good in the mouths of one group and the bad in the mouths of another group is a lie. Further, it also makes the important point that factory farming is not some monolithic thing that must be accepted as is or rejected in toto but instead is a variety of interconnected adjustable technologies that can and should be tweaked in accordance with the latest evaluations of what is best for society. WAS 4.25017:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I'd said this along time ago, the approach of sides is original research - it is looking at what is said and making that analysis, rather than finding a (reliable) source that debates it in those terms. What I have done so far is to pick out some obvious distortions that have a reasonable line of policy to support.
An interesting example is the one calling for an end is an interesting comparison of sources: both sources are of equal stature, but the BBC makes a careful wording, whereas the other source (CNN) is a sloppy hearsay reporting of "someone said the Chancellor said something" which at best, under policy could be written in as saying scientists claimed that the Chancellor called for an end to factory farming. Not having the German source to hand, it is a bit hard to prove that, so it does not seem to be a reliable source. Anyhow, quite a good example of why you would really want to go to a primary source to validate the analysis (oops! wrong page). Spenny18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Barren and Unnatural
I do not like these words in the lead because to me they are opinion. However, some object to their being excluded because they are cited. Per wikipedia policy, if they are cited they can go in, but I believe that if that sort of anal response is the reason to include this opinion of the practice in the lead, then the citation should be literally followed. The citation says that it is a European phenomenon and the citation also refers to the past not to the present. Since this is literally what is cited it is literally what should go in the lead. Or else the phrase could be removed. --Blue Tie23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source was UN. I don't think it is opinion per se. The source does not specifically say it is a European phenomenon, though it is giving a historical European context. If you take the source as a whole, it glides from talking about Europe into talking about the worldwide phenomenon. It does not seek to redefine the discussion and indicate that the problems are any different in implementations anywhere else in the world.
So the response (and forgive me if I do not think it is anal) is not because it is cited, but because I think it is a fair reflection, a reasonably neutral view. These animals are not kept in fields, and even if they are the intensity of farming will end up with them being denuded. So, I think it is fair comment to say conditions are "unnatural". It is not a term that has been invented, the source is just to underline it is a reasonable phrase. Barren, well, again I would say fair comment. It is, for an example, a fair description of the photograph next to the lead, which I think is a reasonable reflection of a factory farm. If you think "barren" is too pointy, then I wouldn't fight about it, but it is the essence of factory farming that conditions are unnatural.
In terms of citations, there are a significant number of sources that describe the practice from different perspectives. The selection of the phrase was trying to capture a compromise between lots of cited sources, some of which made extreme claims, like "indoors" - not always true. Spenny07:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bigger objection was the alteration that made the lead suggest that the problems were European, which would be ironic as the USA has some of the most extreme installations, though the extremes are being copied in the East European states like Poland. Spenny07:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that quoting the full paragraph, thus providing context (it is the intro paragraph to a "chapter") will satisfy everybody. I don't really like the paragraph though because the author's words illustrates the unclear thinking and writing that has permeated the wikipedia discussion in including "high inputs of feed, fertiliser," in a paragraph that starts out mentioning "intensification of animal production" and concludes with "intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals". Yes fertiliser use is one of many elements of both intensive and industrial crop farming methods but it is not an essential element (it is being replaced where possible by careful scientific nutrient analysis and sustainable technological innovations such as "integrated farming systems"[204][205]). Fertiliser is an output of those intensive systems that are characterised by confinement of the animals and an input of most current intensive systems that are characterised by crop monoculture (which causes its own problems such as reduction of biological diversity and usable habitats for wildlife). To beat a dead horse, using this paragraph for a purpose other that which it was authored is original research as the author is slightly sloppy in the exact wording he is using as he is trying to make the specific point that there is a problem and here is an overall hand waving description of how we got there and did not go over its details with a mind to distinguish "factory farming" from "intensive systems" in a logical sense but is throwing out words to give the reader a sense of context as is common in human speech. Anyway, it does illustrate how these things are all tied together but its lack of precesion bothers me. Maybe adding some precising language might help. Sometimes we add (sic), but I think maybe a slight clarification might be better. How about the below? any opinions? WAS 4.25014:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion:
"Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet. The policy was supported by guaranteed prices, encouraging high inputs [and/or outputs] of feed, fertiliser, pesticides and veterinary medicines. [These] intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions."[6]
November 2010 comments
needs to be worked on. Factory Farm is a term that is almost exclusively used in conjunction with negative information about these particular farms. In addition the term is almost never used in the agriculture term is almost always associated with animal rights/welfare or environmental groups that are advocating agaist these farms. --71.205.192.189 (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This topic needs more perspective. The posts seem to reflect and are referencing cites to those opposing larger agricultural production operations. The article needs to explore why someone opposes a business because they perceive it to be large rather than simply judging it evil because it is large. This is true especially for food production because without some larger operations, people would go hungry.Whobach (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the definition used for factory farming is inadequate and misleading. For example, two farmers are farming next to each other. One farms 100 acres and the other 5000 acres. Both use tractors, plows, harvestors, etc..... Using information in this article, ascertaining the industrialized processes that differentiate these two operations is impossible. Is the use of a tractor an industrialized process? Why is one of the two a family farmer and the other a factory farmer? What if a large corporation owned the 100 acre farm and a family owned the 5000 farm? Anyone reading this article would be confused. The article needs a rewrite and especially needs more perspectives.Whobach (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC
Whobach: yep, agree that the definition can be worked on, but your good faith edit still fails to maintain a NPOV. I would suggest perhaps (and anyone pls weigh on this) that if we want to cite the USDA, we bring in their classification of these large farms, which is CAFO http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/afo/. The fact that a farm is family owned or provides a need really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it falls under the "factory farm" definition. And I've been reading this page over and over, trying to get a sense of what the "evil" is in this and I'm just not finding it. If anything, I would suggest that your edits actually draw focus to a perceived evil. I'm thinking that the definition could include the USDA's definition of a large farm and then add something to "Scale" or "Characteristics" about who these farms are owned by. Also, please review how to add references. Bob98133 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely need some help on editing and references but i will get there. It is difficult for a reader to understand the use, definition and context of term "factory". First this is a blanket term applied to all meat species and that is a big mistake. The production process are so differentiated as to make a general statement meaningless. With respect to cattle, all cattle are confined. Some are confined to areas with forage and some to areas without forage. Some areas with forage are stocked densely and some areas like desert pastures are sparce. Most areas require supplemental feed for the cattle because grass is dormant portions of the year, like wintertime. The feed must be mixed and fed to the cattle. The mixing and delivery is the same process that has occured for 100 years. This same application occurs in a feedyard. Feed is mixed and delivered to the cattle. Where is the factory? What are the industrialized processes? How do you define industrialized processes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whobach (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whobach: Interesting points, all. When in doubt, I always go to the Oxford English Dictionary to get a base from which to start. The first use of the word "factory" dates to 1640 with a meaning of "the action or process of making anything" followed by the first use of the word in 1664 to mean "A building or range of buildings with plant for the manufacture of goods; a manufactory, workshop; ‘works’." From that, the term "factory farming" (which, btw, shows up on Dictionary.com as well as MSN Encarta, and the NYT actually has a search category for articles on the subject) can be applied to ANY size operation where animals are confined and used to produce a product. Also, factory farming doesn't just apply to meat species. I've seen it applied to egg production as well. What do you think of the USDA's use/definition of CAFO's? (Please feel free to ask questions about referencing processes, happy to help!)Bob98133 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary is a source we can all accept and i don't find factory farming in my edition. "Factory" is a term used for manufactured goods. It is only in the last decade that urban writers with little or no understanding of ag production processes introduced the term and applied it in a pejorative manner to large farmers. The NYT has championed its use but can not and will not explain its definition or why, when or how it is applied, or to whom. There is no known use of the term "factory farmers" by large commercial operations involved in producing meat or ag products.Whobach (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The manufacturor of a product in a factory has no feeling towards the product. The producer of a beef animal must care about well being of the animal or the production process will fail. This excludes the use of factory by any objective standard. The target of the term "factory farming" is simply to operations of a large size. No one can say at what size the term should appropriately be applied. A more appropriate term would be "large commercial farming" and some CAFOs would fall in this category. Absent the large commercial farming operations, many in this country would starve. Whobach (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no NPOV by contributors to this article. All references and source material is negative in tone and content towards large commercial agriculture operations.Whobach (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
|Spenny]] 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Picture may not be right
The picture of cows on a feedlot may not be a real factory farm. Such feedlots exist where cattle merely pass through and are not retained there. I note it is from an epa website that is about animal feeding operations and not necessarily factory farms. --Blue Tie23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but what is a factory farm? Serious question: is for example an animal feeding operation simply a form of factory farming aka industrial agriculture? The terms are not clearly defined, what definition were you thinking of? Personally, it strikes me as representative of an example of a style of factory farming, but I wouldn't fight a battle over some suitable alternative. Spenny23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the definition of factory farming as provided in the article. By that definition, this picture does not seem to apply. --Blue Tie23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which definition? There are several, for example under terms it suggests it applies to In the U.S., factory farms are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations, or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). which would seem to cover the picture context you mention. However, we have a barren and unnatural version from the intro which is also applicable. There is a long debate on terminology, and the problem is that even within the article it is not absolutely clear, though in reality there is not one definition but a variety of definitions.
I get the impression that a "Confined animal feeding operation" (CAFO) is what is meant by Factory Farming. CAFO is a form of "Animal Feeding Operation" (AFO) but AFO is not a form of CAFO. The picture is of an AFO but not a CAFO. You can see that the definitions for Factory Farming and other examples are indoors, whereas this picture is outdoors. (And certainly a CAFO must be indoors).
So if the definition includes ordinary feedlots as part of factory farming, then this picture would apply, but, then too, the article should be revised to express this wide ranging definition. I think that perhaps the picture should be removed. At the very least it should be retitled in the article, but I do not think that would go far enough. I'm interested in hearing what others think. --Blue Tie00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Confined animal feeding operation"s can be outdooors. The difference between CAFO and "Animal Feeding Operation" (AFO) is largely one of size which results in CAFO's producing concentrated environmental pollution that must be regulated by law. [206][207]WAS 4.25005:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<<<CAFOs can be outdoors. The "barren" aspect refers to lack of natural vegetation that the animals can eat and can naturally process the resulting animal waste. High density destroys the vegetation and produces unacceptable pollution from the animal waste in runoff and ground water unless it is handled appropriately, so laws have been enacted to deal with that; thus the legal definition for the term CAFO. Confinement here is about destroying the vegetation. Caged for life in pens too small to be humane is a completely seperate issue from what "confined" refers to when used to define "factory farms" and "CAFO"s. WAS 4.25005:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure how this definition exercise pertains to the picture which appears to me to be of a transition feedlot. --Blue Tie18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure why you think being a transition feedlot (if it is) precludes it from also being part of a factory farming operation. WAS 4.25022:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "transition feedlot" produces nothing but googling "feedlot "factory farm"" produces sources indicating that many American cattle have a traditional first few years of life followed by being processed by factory farming (industrial farming) methods. Perhaps you were under the impression that it isn't "factory farming" if it isn't conception to dinner-table industrial processing. It is a set of methods that are constantly in evolution as research and laws and disease and consumer attitudes creates new conditions. WAS 4.25023:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
new animal health material
I have reverted this section since it needs discussion prior to such a major change. The first reference used is a "group" formed by most major drug companies selling pharmaceuticals to the animal agriculture sector - see members here: http://www.ahi.org/aboutAHI/member_comp.asp As such, they are far from impartial as a source. One of the references used for the USDA is a list of references and the other is to the table of contents of a report - not to the report itself - neither are good references.Bob98133 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
proposed content
Animal health — "Because farm animals produce a vital part of our food supply, farmers use different tools to protect and maintain the health of animals. Healthy animals are an essential first step to ensuring safe food."[1] Unhealthy farm animals can spread disease to other animals and humans and decrease the farmers' profits; so farmers, the farming industry and society all take measures to insure farm animal health. These measures include antibiotics, vaccination, stress reduction measures, research, disease surveillance, quarantine, agriculture trade restrictions, proper nutrition, and other measures.[2]
Acording to the FAO: "you cannot feed six billion people today and nine billion in 2050 without judicious use of chemical fertilizers. [...] data and models regarding the productivity of organic as opposed to conventional farming show that the potential of organic agriculture is far from large enough to feed the world. [...] The key elements in feeding the world now and in the future will be increased public and private investments, the right policies and technologies, knowledge and capacity building, grounded in sound ecosystem management."[3]
Your first statement about how many animals you can feed using chemical fertilizers is out of place in this article. The article is not about chemical ferilizers, it is about factory farming. Although I agree there is probably a link between the two, this is the wrong article to be making it in. If you are keen on this info being in Wiki, why not put it in organic farming or pesticides or soemwhere it belongs? Please read this entire article prior to making changes - much of what you say is already discussed in the Key Issues section. I reverted your last edit since there is always a balance between things like big farms being able to hire vets more easily and how many animals each vet has to examine. Realisically, when 100,000 chickens are kept in one barn, it would take almost that many vets to assure their well-being. When a farmer has 10 chickens, he is probably better aware of their health even if he is less likely to call a vet. If you are going to claim that the availability of vets is a bonus for factory farms, then you have to examine the vet:animal ratio for it to make sense. The AVMA publishes data on the number of vets involved in intensive agriculture - if you divide this number into the number of animals produced in intensive agriculture, you're going to end up with each vet "caring" for thousands and thousands of animals. Maybe that's better than small farms, but I wonder. Bob98133 (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can tell, you are making the same mistake some previous editors made in that you are mistaking this agriculture article for an animal rights article. My two edits where merely to add sourced information, not to engage in debate on an issue close to your heart. In the one case, "animal health" is an important issue that is dealt with using a variety of measures and your response is to bizarrely claim that people making their lively-hood in agriculture are not to be trusted making claims about agriculture. In the second case, someone added a fact tag so I tried to illuminate what was being claimed - there are two aspects to the need for "factory farming" to support the human population - one, that I did not go into involves the fact that humans are not choosing a meat free diet - that concerns the more limited definition of "factory farming" as a concentrated animal farm - two, that I did address, was the need for factory style farm management - specifically in terms of soil management. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you think I'm mistaking this for an animal rights article. Actually, I thought it was an article about intensive confinement farming which has to do with the number of animals kept and the condtions in which they are kept. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of chemical fertilizers, organic foods or the number of vets per animal. Bob98133 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the article should be about intensive confinement farming; but if it were, we would then need to delete the claims about mad cow disease because that is related to animal feed issues and not animal density issues. The article is a mess due to a former battle that got way out of hand. Maybe you could help improve the article to be an agriculture article about intensive confinement farming; because that's not what it is now. What it is now is the messed up battlefield of an ugly edit war. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I can see how that happened. I'll take a look at this article as a whole when I have time and see if I can reorganize it so it makes more sense and stays on topic. Any help is appreciated! Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Mark Bittman article on factory farming in the NYT Week in Review. Useful? Incidentally, a quote: "Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all." Is the use of the word 'growing' common? Perhaps we should consider using it here. Relata refero (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing "treating farm animals as mere factory parts" to "treating farm animals as factory parts"
since the original is an inflammatory statement indicative of an animal rights bias. Qc (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the rest of the article closely, but I agree on this edit. I don't know about "inflammatory" but "mere" is definitely a weasel word. Bob98133 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would read the use of mere as indicating that factory parts are lesser than farm animals; in the sense that animals are alive. Consider, "John handled the precious vase as if it were mere glass.", it should be read as saying that John was not being careful with the vase. The whole idea behind the sentence "treating animals like factory parts" seems to suggest that animals are greater in value than factory parts in terms of intrinsic rights; thus, the "mere" doesn't really seem to be suggestive of anything beyond making this clearer.Phoenix1177 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how I read this before, but as you explain it "mere" does fit. It's still a bit weasily though, maybe something like 'no better than' or something like that would be more clear. Bob98133 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"treating farm animals as factory parts" is a POV bit of rhetoric that isn't provided in any of the references. I've reworded it. Neıl龱10:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BSE - Natural food source?
I think the spread of BSE was promoted by factory farming. Meat and bone meal isn't a natural foodstuff for ruminants - it's quite unnatural. I think the reason it was used was because it was a cheap source of protein which was a byproduct of factory farming, so it was good economics to grind up and feed unsaleable cows or parts to growing cattle. I don't belive this is a practice that small farms ever engaged in, unless they bought a commercially prepared food that included animals. So I think this should stay in the article, perhaps a line explaining why. Bob98133 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concentrating large numbers of animals in factory farms is a major contribution to global environmental degradation, through the need to grow feed (often by intensive methods using excessive fertiliser and pesticides), pollution of water, soil and air by agrochemicals and manure waste, and use of limited resources (water, energy).
Livestock production is also particularly water-intensive in indoor, intensive systems. 8 per cent of global human water use goes towards animal production.
Industrial production of pigs and poultry is an important source of GHG emissions and is predicted to
become more so. On intensive pig farms, the animals are generally kept on concrete with slats or grates
for the manure to drain through. The manure is usually stored in slurry form (slurry is a liquid mixture of
urine and faeces). During storage on farm, slurry emits methane and when manure is spread on fields it
emits nitrous oxide and causes nitrogen pollution of land and water. Poultry manure from factory farms
emits high levels of nitrous oxide and ammonia.
Organic pig meat production has a lower global warming potential per kg than does intensive pig meat production and the GHG
emissions for free-range poultry meat are only slightly higher than for factory farmed poultry meat.
I also feel these lists provide value to the article:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FACTORY FARMING
• Deforestation for animal feed production
• Unsustainable pressure on land for production of high protein/high energy animal feed
• Pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser manufacture and use for feed production
• Unsustainable use of water for feed-crops, including groundwater extraction
• Pollution of soil, water and air by nitrogen and phosphorus from fertiliser used for feed-crops and from manure
• Land degradation (reduced fertility, soil compaction, increased salinity, desertification)
• Loss of biodiversity due to eutrophication, acidification, pesticides and herbicides
• Worldwide reduction of genetic diversity of livestock and loss of traditional breeds
• Species extinctions due to livestock-related habitat destruction (especially feed-cropping)
ANIMAL WELFARE IMPACT OF FACTORY FARMING
• Close confinement systems (cages, crates) or lifetime confinement in indoor sheds
• Discomfort and injuries caused by inappropriate flooring and housing
• Restriction or prevention of normal exercise and most of natural foraging or exploratory behaviour
• Restriction or prevention of natural maternal nesting behaviour
• Lack of daylight or fresh air and poor air quality in animal sheds
• Social stress and injuries caused by overcrowding
• Health problems caused by extreme selective breeding and management for fast growth and high productivity
• Reduced lifetime (longevity) of breeding animals (dairy cows, breeding sows)
• Fast-spreading infections encouraged by crowding and stress in intensive conditions
I understand that the animal welfare list may be seen as contentious but it is based on verifiable research so I would still like to propose it. I do feel strongly that the environmental impact is very worthy of being added though as it is pure fact and not opinion or emotion, so please let me know if you disagree and why. Thanks.
Why all the bias against large farms? That is the angle you are coming at and trying to prove. I am in the egg business and have extensive experience with those "factory farms" that everyone hates. However, we treat our animals well this has really improved over the years with the Animal Care programs that are being ADVANCED BY THE INDUSTRY AND NOT FORCED ON US BY EXTREMISTS. We have provided them more space and have found that to have benefits. We also believe that cages were developed for several reasons. (1) the hens can be inspected easier. (2) they can not pile up on each other. (3) they and their eggs are not incontact with their feces. (4) air quality is better because the manure falls onto a belt and can be removed easily. I could go on and on. If you are going to present a balanced article you need to present BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. If you are just trying advance one side then wikipedia is not the place to do it. Yoscratch (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Consumers vary in their perceptions though, and are divided into three classes of consumers: Naturalists, Price Seekers, and Descartes’ Entourage. Naturalists place great importance on allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviors and exercise outdoors, and comprise 46% of the sample. Price Seekers, comprising 14% of the sample, are primarily concerned with low prices. Descartes' Entourage make up 40% of the respondents, and value animal welfare but perceive it can be achieved by simply providing food, water, and treatment for injury and disease. This last group perceives amenities such as access to outdoors and ability to exhibit natural behaviors unimportant for the well-being of farm animals.[40]"
The report cited is indeed unpublished. However, the final draft is available at http://asp.okstate.edu/baileynorwood/AW2/InitialReporttoAFB.pdf. The words "naturalist", "price seeker", and "Descartes' Entourage" do not appear anywhere. Furthermore, the sentence, "Support is particularly strong from females, Democrats, and residents of the Northeastern United States." is completely unsupported in the document. Lastly, since the entire reference is in violation of WP:NOR due to WP:PRIMARY, I would suggest that the entire section titled "U. S. consumer preferences" be removed, since the unpublished report is the only reference given. Kwagoner (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this section should be removed, and unless someone responds in favor of keeping it or removes it first, I will take out the section tomorrow. The section has major problems, including being based on unpublished work, making original research claims based loosely on that work, and lending undue weight to a relatively small opinion survey. Dialectric (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added this article, about a poultry business which released a video which shows workers throwing male chics being dropped alive into a grinding machine.
There are 450,000 AFOs in the United States and approximately 15% of them are Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). I don't think it would be quick and easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.173.212 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to have reverted so much of your edit, but most is clearly point of view pushing, not adding "counterbalance and accuracy of reporting". Some of what you wrote is just dandy, so please add only neutral content. Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV exemption
Kwagoner (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How did this article get an exemption of Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View rule? The author(s) preferences are pretty obvious when you look at the sentence construction, the text box at the end of the "History" section, and the list of references used. And that's just for starters. It would take one person days to get this article cleaned up, yet there's no NPOV violation banner anywhere on it that I can find. I'm newly signed up, so I don't know how, but I would if I could.[reply]
Let's start with just the article's opening sentence. The sentence starts, "Factory farming is...", which implies a definition. If you want to start with a definition, use one of the many dictionaries in existence, rather than going to a highly subjective group of biased sources. This is a case in which Occam's Razor clearly applies. The simplest explanation is usually correct. Let's try it again using NPOV, since Encarta's definition is perfectly adequate.
"Factory farming is the practice of raising animals on a large scale using intensive methods and modern equipment."
There. It's neutral, it's concise, and it's non-inflammatory. Now -- can we work on the rest of the article? I found out how to do it, so I'm adding the NPOV template now.
Kwagoner (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "NPOV language" template due to the use of the word "exacerbated" twice within the first two full paragraphs. Since the word is quite negative (usually applied to the worsening of diseases), this usage is obviously biased against the concept of factory farming. Kwagoner (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your insertion of the NPOV banner and your reasoning for it. In both cases where exacerbate is used, it is used correctly. Perhaps you may be unfamiliar with its uses, except in its medical use. I do not think that your suggestion above for a new lede sentence is nearly as informative as the existing one, nor could it be easily referenced. Unless there is consensus for the NPOV banners, i think they should be removed. Bob98133 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that I haven't gone through the entire talk page archives to find out if this has already been addressed, but my question still stands. Is this or is this not a standard Wikipedia article subject to NPOV rules? You state that the use of "exacerbated" is correct, but the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines it as "...more violent, bitter, or severe..." How can you possibly claim that usage is neutral? If this is, in fact, an animal rights page, then it should be labeled as such. As far as the lead-in sentence, please come up with some other suggestion that is at least closer to neutral. If you can't come up with a suggestion of your own, it seems to me you only wish to start "flaming". Kwagoner (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Anna that 3rd ph could go. Not sure if it's biased, but it is not relevant enough to be in the lead, could be elsewhere.
Kwagoner - where do you see that this page is exempted from NPOV? You have stated this twice. Is there an exemption log or something? I understand the definition of exacerbate to mean make more severe or aggravate in which case it fits well. Would you prefer aggravates or increases in a negative fashion to exacerbate? I don't have to come up with a suggestion of my own, since I believe that the article is OK as it stands. If you believe it is POV, it behooves you to supply a referenced version which is not POV, not me. I don't know what you're talking about flaming. Please stick to the subject of the discussion and not make this personal. Bob98133 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I was a student or someone who had time, ability, and better access to a library so I could do this topic the justice it deserves. "Neutral point of view", as described in Wikipedia's policy section, would seem to be a fairly straightforward concept. While there is, of course, no "exemption log" as mentioned previously, I feel the article would benefit from an analysis by someone ***outside*** the animal rights movement. From that point of view I suppose the article DOES appear neutral. I would just like to suggest showing it to a farmer, and see if s/he also finds it neutral. Since the list of references provided is contraindicative of any truly unbiased reading, I'd bet s/he would be highly offended. I had hoped there would be others with the ability to see the obvious, but since there appear to be none, I'll have to leave it at that.
Due to the time issues mentioned previously, I'm changing the NPOV banner to the NPOV-check banner. After that review, I'll just quietly disappear along with my objections. I am highly disillusioned, though. Wikipedia (and, apparently "Encyclopaedia Britannica") would seem to be only as neutral as its writers choose to be. Kwagoner (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwagoner. Wikipedia is created by people like you and me, but, as there are more health-food-store-employee editors than, say, oil-well-owning editors, there is slant to the libertarian left. Thank heavens the latter doesn't edit much, as this article would describe a factory farm as "...a place of joy where all the animals come to mingle and celebrate life..."
If you find the article to be pushing a POV, then click edit, and edit the article. I don't suggest swinging it to the other direction, as editors will revert. Just make it the way you think is right: balanced.
You say you are disillusioned. People get disillusioned with governments because we are subjects. "The People" make Wikipedia. Wikipedia is our subject. Get in there and balance the article out. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. (I hope this makes sense. I haven't had my coffee yet.) Happy editing! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This talk of hypothetical farmers possibly having possible objections to wikipedia articles seems to be very vacuous and a very tenuous reason to attach POV labels. In my experience hoping that "someone" will come along and do "something" that we ourselves can't be bothered to do is an exercise in futility. We are the people...Colin4C (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly not NPOV as it stands, but I think it's important to realize in what WAY it's not NPOV. A lot of it is very well researched, and overall the article is not particularly biased in its STRUCTURE, but it is peppered (to say the least) with very suggestive, inflammatory, and biased language. All of this language can be done away with through re-wording sentences one by one, no major structural changes need to be made for the biased issue (although the frequent use of bullet points, which often repeat the same information again and again, needs to be fixed). I would also note that in a few minutes I counted eight instances of anti-factory farming biased language and two instances of pro-factory farming biased language, so it is not all one-sided either. It seems that this article is being assuaged by both revolutionaries and reactionaries, both of which are equally dangerous to Wikipedia's purposes.MarcelB612 (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the best thing is to document the facts of the matter and then let the wikipedia readers make up their own minds about the moral issues. If the facts of the matter are unpalatable, then so be it, it is not part of our brief to sell either products or illusions, but to tell the truth. Colin4C (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article, made a few small wording changes, corrected some info per the reference, and removed a sentence from the lead because the reference (the Voice of America) is no longer available. I have also read the discussion and would like to see the tags removed unless someone voices an objection. Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with your changes,Gandy. I think that the pandemic potential is a significant point, so I readded that with a ref (just to a media account referencing WHO, so a better ref could be found). I also re-added category Gestation Crates since that is relevant to the topic. I removed some welfare org from the see also. Your grammar/rewrites elsewhere were good. Thanks ~~
Thanks Kwagoner, I have removed the tags. Also, re the WHO reference, I agree that it is very poor. Even though I agree that factory farms pose a huge pandemic possibility, if someone would dispute your ref, I'd have to agree with them. Can you find something better? Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the new comment above in the section titled "Descartes' Entourage". I just wasn't sure if I should put it there or down here at the bottom. Thanks! Kwagoner (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be rewritten
I think this article needs to be re-written. When I look at the sources, I see animal-rights organization citations who provide their "facts." These tend to be exaggerated and extreme in their favor. May I suggest someone rewrite the entire article using ubiased sources (universities, government websites, etc.)? I will if I have the time, but I thought I would throw this idea up in the air. Also, there are no external links/further readings for PRO factory farming, just against.
P.S. If an article is neutral, it will not refer to Factory Farms as Factory Farms, but rather to Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs).
I'm very new to wikipedia so please bear with me if I break any of your rules. I've been farming for many years and discovered this page when one of my kids was doing class project. My kids were very bothered by the content of this page and thought it unfair and very biased – I do too (and I see from this discussion page that several other farmers do as well). I think the problem you are having is that there is no neutral definition of “factory farming”, It's a pejorative term used only attack certain types of farms (hence no "pro factory farm" articles). No ag college has courses in “Factory farming 101”, no one goes to the bank for a “factory farm” start-up loan and no government, anywhere in the world that I know of, has a department of “factory farming”. The best definition I've every heard was from the Ontario Farm Animal Council, which defined the term as “one acre or animal more that the user is comfortable with” - for example I run 1000 sheep on my farm in Canada. For a Canadian farm, 1000 sheep is a very large number of sheep, but for my cousin, who ranches in Australia, 1000 sheep is a small hobby farm. So I might be a factory farmer in Canada and a part-time, small-scale farmer in Australia. It all depends on the perspective of the person looking at the farm.
The term “factory farm” is used to criticize modern farming techniques by implying that these operations are more like factories than farms. Whether these criticisms are valid is an entirely different topic and open for what is often passionate discussion, but the term itself is only ever used to create a negative characterization of whatever aspect of farming the user does not like (for example I've seen an article in Harrowsmith magazine attacking “factory organic farms” on the grounds that these farms are too big). It makes sense to provide a definition of the term, since its in common usage, but to use that definition as a forum to present a very one-sided attack on modern farming is not what I thought wikipedia as supposed to be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.21.29 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points.
First, I would like to say that Wikipedia as much yours as anyone's. Feel at home. Feel welcome. Nobody owns these articles. We all just chip in.
The term factory farm IS generally used pejoratively. Add that fact to the article. But add a good source supporting it. It's not about truth. It's about verifiability.
I just googled: "factory farm" pejorative site:edu
"And there is that pejorative “Factory Farm” term that’s too often used to slander anything bigger than 40 acres."
That can be written as: The term "Factory Farm" is often used in a pejorative way.
Well, not the greatest source, not the greatest bit of copy, but you get my point. If it's sourced, and is balanced, or maintains overall balance in the article, it should stick.
As for the bulk of the article itself, edit it. Keep it neutral. Use Google Books, Google Scholar, search "Factory Farming site:edu". Back up the content you add with decent sources. Keep the whole article neutral. If you want a section on why factory farming is wonderful, then a section on why it is not wonderful is needed. Overall balance. But the best policy is "Just the facts." A good editor writes in such a way that nobody knows where she/he personally stands.
Finally, it's probably best not to sign your real name. Consider registering an account.
Hello Oliver and welcome to Wikipedia! You didn't break any rules. I think it's great to get your perspective. I would encourage you to look over the Talk page on this article and you'll see that yours is a common concern and the issue of defining "factory farm" accurately is an ongoing one. All of the editors who have worked on this page have tried pretty hard to do the best we can with finding the most NPOV sources out there. Please take a look at those sources too and let us know where we could do better. I think the definition at top of this page is as about as good as it can get. But, as in all Wiki pages, we can improve. Please feel free to take a shot and also ask any questions you want about rules.Bob98133 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anna, thanks for opening this discussion, and thanks to Oliver and Bob for their posts. Now, as for you, Oliver, : ), I think that we may very well turn out to be on the opposite sides of the fence, so as to speak, since I am strongly opposed to CAFO's. That said, I can hardly say how delighted I am that you posted! Over the years I have tried to get people to edit here but as far as I know I've yet to recruit even one person. People seem to have some sort of idea that we are some sort of experts here, when nothing could be farther from the truth. And even if we were, there are always opposing viewpoints, and that is a good thing. Anna and all, for starters could we change the name of the article to CAFO, since there is no question that Factory farm is a pejorative term? Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It the term is pejorative, then maybe it should be a redirect to a more neutral term. The lead could be: X (commonly known by the pejorative term "Factory Farming"), is the practice of .... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'd be inclined to leave it unless we can find a decent new title. Factory farming is quite clearly the common name and in academic use - it is just often used negatively in wider society. I think we can adequately cover both those things in the one place. I don't think there is any real problem with it being a pejorative term, so long as we don't get behind the idea ourselves --Errant(chat!)00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term is pejorative, that it is used by those who oppose the specified practices, and not by those do use those methods. So it seems that the article, under this title, is inherently non-neutral POV, which is a problem. I think that the lead suggested by Anna above is a valuable one. I think a merge with the CAFO article and the industrialized animal agriculture article is in order. (Which is going to be a large amount of work.) Kerani (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Although, seeing that the term is pejorative, and is the first thing one sees (obviously), it might be fair to balance it out by bumping up the edit you added to the end of the lead, to, say, the end of the first paragraph. Just a thought. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strange situation... I googled CAFO and mostly EPA standards came up and when I googled factory farming, media articles came up. Certainly I do not want to start splitting hairs, but what is the difference other than the term used? Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this is my first wiki post but I became interested to read more after reading:
"# Diseases – Intensive farming may or may not make the evolution and spread of harmful diseases easier. Many communicable diseases spread rapidly through densely spaced populations of animals with low genetic diversity. Animals raised on antibiotics may or may not develop antibiotic resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria ("superbugs").[58] Use of animal vaccines can create new viruses that kill people and cause flu pandemic threats. H5N1 is an example of where this might have already occurred.[59][60][61]"
I'm a vet student and was particularly interested in this statement "Use of animal vaccines can create new viruses that kill people and cause flu pandemic threats. H5N1 is an example of where this might have already occurred". I have followed all the references and none of them indicate any proof of the vaccination of animals as a source/cause of disease, in fact the link for "60" is broken and "61" is a website that referes to an unsubstantiated report that makes these claims about H5N1.
This may very well turn out to be true (I personally doubt it), but no one has proven this, and it sounds to me as though someone very "anti industrialised farming" has written it. I also find the wording unscientific, so I am going to delete the statement. If someone can find a referenced article showing how vaccination has been experimentally verified as a source of human disease and subsequent deaths then please feel free, to add this section.
No, it is not true. I have done a great deal of editing at the 2009 flu pandemic article and am a member at the FluTrackers forum and I think I would have heard about it. I made some changes on the Disease entry; please let me know if anyone has any problems with it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed additions
{{request edit}}
(I read the guidelines WP:SCOIC, and was unclear about whether or not to actually copy the proposed edits here - I am copying them - apologies if that's not necessary.) I'd like to update the history section of the factory farming page with some information about how the system has been globalized in recent decades, and is now controlled by multinational companies that replicate the factory farming model from country to country. I think it's important to show examples of how the system is being replicated in fast globalizing countries like India and China, and that the history section could be expanded to include more recent developments such as these. Proposed addition: </ref> Multinational meat and dairy producers, as well as animal feed suppliers are now involved in every aspect of factory-farmed animal production in countries around the world. U.S. based Tyson Foods, the world’s biggest meat corporation, has invested heavily in China’s poultry industry, where per capita meat consumption has quadrupled in the past thirty years.[1] The company is also active in India, and in 2008 Tyson acquired a 51 percent stake in Indian company Godrej Foods, which produces poultry under the Real Good Chicken Label.[2]
I think it's also important to update the "distinctive characteristics" section, adding information about how these multinational companies control the entire chain of production, supplying inputs such as grain, animals, veterinary care etc. I think this information is still relatively unknown, but central to understanding how the factory farming system operates. Proposed addition: Another key characteristic is that in factory farm systems, multinational agribusinesses often control the entire chain of production. In poultry factory farming for example, Cobb-Vantress (a subsidiary of Tyson Foods) is the world’s leading supplier of broiler chicken breeding stock.[3] It supplies factory farms worldwide - from Brazil to Ethiopia - with high-yielding breeds of chicken such as the Rhode Island Red, and White Leghorn. [4] Cargill plays a central role in supplying factory farms worldwide with animal feed, another important input. [5]
I'm proposing that the "key issues" section be expanded to include consequences on labor and food security; issues that are being increasingly discussed in relation to factory farming. I'm suggesting them as I think it's necessary to include information that shows how factory farming affects our societies on a larger scale, beyond simply animal welfare or environmental consequences. Proposed addition: As the factory farmed animal population grows, so too does demand for staple grains like corn and soy required for animal feed. As a result, grain prices rise, making it increasingly hard for the lowest economic levels of society to afford key dietary staples. A related growing phenomenon is for countries experiencing food insecurity to divert grain resources to animal feed - both domestically and via exports. India for example, though struggling with malnutrition within its own borders, allocates about 10 percent of the its coarse grain production (maize, bajra, sorghum, and millet) for domestic livestock feed, and in 2007 exported 45 percent of its soy crop and 14 percent of its maize harvest, mainly to feed farmed animals in nearby countries.[6] Given that the production of one kilogram of beef requires seven kilograms of feed grain, growing meat production has important consequences on the availability and pricing of grain.
And
Small farmers are often absorbed into factory farm operations, acting as contract growers for the industrial facilities. In the case of poultry contract growers, farmers are required to make costly investments in construction of sheds to house the birds, buy required feed and drugs - often settling for slim profit margins, or even losses. Factory farm workers also cite the repetitive actions and high line speeds that are features of the large-scale slaughtering and processing facilities that characterize the factory farming poultry sectors, as causing injuries and illness to workers.[7] In Brazilian factory farming, contract growers supply soybeans to Cargill or ADM and often experience low profit margins, high costs and delays in getting soybeans to ports and onto ships, and often incur large debts in the production process.[8] Forced labor is another problem encountered in factory farming system. Greenpeace’s report Eating Up the Amazon described a set of abysmal conditions at Roncador Farm in Mato Grosso, where workers are responsible for maintaining more than 100,000 cattle and 4,000 ha (9,000 ac) of soybeans: :"Working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, the laborers were forced in live in plastic shanties with no beds or sanitary provision. Water for washing, cooking and drinking came from a cattle watering hole and was stored in barrels previously used for diesel oil and lubricants. There was no opportunity to leave the farm. Goods had to be bought from the farm shop at extortionate prices, putting laborers into ever-increasing debt, which they would never be able to pay off—a form of slavery known as debt bondage."[9]
To address the conflict of interest issue, I am posting on behalf of an organization that studies sustainable food systems. We have published a series of case studies and informational videos on these topics, which I wanted to include as certain references in my proposed changes. These case studies are produced by an established expert on the topic (Mia MacDonald), whose work has been published in reliable third party publications like the Huffington Post, Resurgence Magazine, and Grist.
Carroll Gardens (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. First off apologies for not doing "due diligence" over your edits. That was a mistake and something I should be slapped for. Anyway; the reason I edited out your additions initially was due to some concerns I had..
Firstly the material was not cited to a specific source, but a page listing some sources. It is better to link directly to the specific source, perferrably hosted in some form of academic or official setting. This allows material to be verified
Secondly the language you were using is quite... flowery. We try to write with an off-hand tone, in a clinical style (I realise the existing content in the article is not a good example of that... it is an issue that needs addressing). This is not a major issue, I'm only pointing it out for completeness.
I had concerns with the repeated mention of Tyson foods as examples, are there other examples to use?
Promotional language; it is probably not deliberate but there was a lot of promotional sounding language in the article, for example: In poultry factory farming for example, Cobb-Vantress (a subsidiary of Tyson Foods) is the world’s leading supplier of broiler chicken breeding stock. - phrases like "the world's leading supplier" is a difficult phrase.
That's the substance of my concerns, upon review. Mainly the reliance on a single source for a lot of content with not entirely neutral language. I reverted your content back in because it was wrong of me to remove it out of hand without engaging - but if you could perhaps look into addressing my concerns (particularly citing the content) then that would rock. Let me know if you need any advice :) --Errant(chat!)16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for bringing this discussion to the talk page. I'd like to give my reactions to the Carroll Gardens edits and the deletions. My concerns were similar to ErrantX's concerns. Furthermore, of course I did note that it was Carroll's first edit and s/he had added a considerable amount of information with no discussion. My impression was of someone who had just watched their first video on the subject, was quite impressed (and perhaps horrified) with the information, and went right to wikipedia to share what they had just learned. I googled the website and nothing came up, and that was a concern. With the first time the information was deleted I had decided that the new editor would just drop it, or hopefully continue on with more discussion and hopefully more references than just the one. When the information was again added I twice was ready to delete it myself, but each time I could not bring myself to hit the undo button, and finally decided on a wait-and-see attitude. It was a difficult position because I am an organic/permaculture gardener/ small-scale farmer and firmly believe the added information to be accurate. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I want to be certain that information that I do not believe to be correct can not easily be included in our articles either. Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that I could only find information from the website - articles they have published and so on. I have no way of knowing anything about them except what they have to say about themselves. Take the non-profit CATO Institute for example, at least I can go here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html and see a different viewpoint. Your site does not even have a wikipedia entry. When I go to check out your source I find a bunch of videos. You can't expect me to check out your facts by watching videos. If the information is strong enough to put into wikipedia you should be able to find something better. I can tell you, as one who has done a fair amount of editing, that it is not easy and it takes a lot of time and patience. Gandydancer (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carroll Gardens, it has been quite a few days and you have done nothing to improve your references. Take this addition under "Food security":
As the factory farmed animal population grows, so too does demand for staple grains like corn and soy required for animal feed. As a result, grain prices rise, making it increasingly hard for the lowest economic levels of society to afford key dietary staples. A related growing phenomenon is for countries experiencing food insecurity to divert grain resources to animal feed - both domestically and via exports. India for example, though struggling with malnutrition within its own borders, allocates about 10 percent of the its coarse grain production (maize, bajra, sorghum, and millet) for domestic livestock feed, and in 2007 exported 45 percent of its soy crop and 14 percent of its maize harvest, mainly to feed farmed animals in nearby countries.[60] Given that the production of one kilogram of beef requires seven kilograms of feed grain, growing meat production has important consequences on the availability and pricing of grain.
Now I have done a great deal of reading about food security and we discuss it frequently at my gardening forum, and I happen to believe that your addition is most likely accurate. But what if I did not believe a word of it, how would I check it out? IMO the only ref you provide is worse than none (for reasons already stated). What is so hard about researching food security with even a wikipedia article to help you? I feel that if you are not willing to take the time to properly reference your additions they should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus (small as it is) is that problems remain with the references, they should be removed (especially after a month to improve them). For instance, does factory farming cause more disease (crowded conditions) or does it decrease disease by allowing closer supervision over animals and ease of treatment? Right now the article says both. I applaud all your cool heads for discussing the issues instead of engaging in edit wars. Also, YouTube videos aren't generally valid references. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes removing poorly sourced material is a difficult decision because if one were quite strict about the decision half of wikipedia would disappear. But when there is contention, as in this article, I feel the standards must be kept higher. The author has made no attempt to improve his references and I agree that the material should be removed. Incidentally, this comment made by Banaticus: "growing demand for meat which drives up grain prices can theoretically be blamed on all meat producing farmers, factory or not -- section lays the blame solely on the "bad factory farmers") (undo)", is not correct. CAFO's rely on grain for food whereas free range animals eat pasture. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"CAFOs rely on grain for food whereas free range animals eat pasture" - this is not factually correct. 'Free range' animals (such as 'pastured poultry' and cow-calf beef operations) are supplemented with grain and hay forage, particularly during the winter when the grass is either buried under snow, dead, or not growing well. Chickens are supplemented more, as they are not grazers but insectivores & grain eaters. Furthermore, even feedlot cattle are fed a significant amount of forage (hay & silage) and are not fed a straight grain corn diet. Drawing a sharp distinction (confinement = corn; traditional farming = grass) is inaccurate.Kerani (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say after reading this article today and looking at the references, they seem to me to be outdated and biased. There were only a hand-full of references that are from reliable sources and only a few of them younger than 5 years. Most of the sources are from animal welfare/rights groups that offer one-sided information. While I do agree that the term "Factory Farming" is used almost exclusively by people that do not agree with large farming practices and their opinion should be noted, it should not be considered fact. Everyone here speaks about 'balance' with-in the articles, however there is not balance in this article and when someone offers to add balance the chief editors shoot them down. Take out the 'flowery' language that persuades people to believe that farming is awful, take away the biased information that is not supported by research and you may have an fact based article.Dearhearted (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Since 1995 Denmark has enforced progressively tighter rules on the use of antibiotics in the raising of pigs, poultry and other livestock. In the process, it has shown that it is possible to protect human health without hurting farmers."
In line 134, under "Animal Welfare Impact", it states that animals suffer "Sexual and physical abuse at the hands of workers." The source listed here is a PETA video, which we all know is not an unbiased organization. My question is that since PETA has been known to falsify videos (they did this at a farm in my community), should this reference be allowed? I don't want to delete this without a consensus that is should be deleted, so since the source may(is) not be reputable, should this be deleted?
Looking for input yet again, this time on the link to the Democracy Now! video "Bacon as a Weapon of Mass Destruction". Democracy Now! is a progressive group which has a radio show. This video seems to be more of an editorial than an instructional video, and as such, I question its purpose for being here. Editorials, whether conservative or liberal, do not belong on Wikipedia. I see this was previously deleted and then reverted, presumably because of no discussion. Should this be deleted?
The article appears to have suffered somewhat from drive-by editing, with quite a bit of awkward, poorly integrated and/or inappropriate content having been added. I've tagged it for several issues:
The introduction is a bit of a mess, and may not adequately capture the content of the article (e.g. the segue into antibiotics takes up 3-4 sentences for a topic making up only about 1/8 or less of the article text)
POV of sources: many (even most) of the sources are good, but there are parts of the article that read like POV screeds, and tend to be substantiated by somewhat partisan sources (either for or against the practice). I believe this is a consequence of steady decay due to drive-by editing.
The section "Aspects of factory farming" appears to be redundant with the rest of the article. It seems like some of parts of it should fall under the "Nature of the practice [of factory farming]" section, while other parts (e.g. ethics) should be incorporated into those sections.
A discussion of definitions of the term itself might be extremely useful to have under the "Nature of the practice" section. It shouldn't be hard to find definitions from a number of sources (e.g. FAO, USDA, ECARD).
As has been said previously, this page needs quite a bit of work.
I would suggest, instead of filing more and more complaints against this page, that a new page is created called Intensive Animal Agriculture. Start the page from scratch pulling information from this article only as needed to fill the page. Then have this article title set to redirect to new page, which should include a further reading section which has some of the more fact-based resources linked to in this article.
Generally speaking, rewriting while incorporating past material is better than throwing a page away completely. There is quite a lot of salvageable material in this article, and blanking it all would lose that. The correct way to fix the page is incremental changes, so that they get tracked by the software and all attribution is preserved. Of course, you can feel free to be bold and mercilessly hack out large chunks of poorly referenced text, and rewrite large chunks of biased text (there's quite a bit, on both sides).
I agree with your idea of moving the article to something like your suggested name. However, I think that first you or someone else should find good, verifiable sources for the suggested name. I'm not entirely sure if there even is an agreed-upon term for the practice. -Kieran (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be quite alarmed if I were to see an editor do extensive editing to any wikipedia page as his/her first few edits on WP. Please present any proposed changes on the talk page first. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea of changing the name of this article. "Factory farming" is a term used only by opponents of large-scale animal agriculture. This article seems to do a very good job of laying out that viewpoint. I just think that a name like suggested above would tend to muddy the issue for those without an opinion either way. The CAFO and AFO articles seem to cover the more NPOV more effectively, so I just don't see the need. Just my thoughts. Adv4Ag (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support shifting the information and reducing the size of this article. I think that this article, as it stands, is being incorrectly used as a general reference for intensive agriculture, when 'factory farming' is actually a pejorative term for some types of modern, commercial intensive agriculture. There is not an alternate term for 'factory farming' because the practitioners and subject matter experts of the practice do not lump together different practices in the same manner as the opponents of the practice, and because the practitioners of intensive agriculture simply call it "farming". The use of "factory farming" as a term is an effort to demonize certain practices, and is not a neutral term. I think that WP should include an article on "factory farming", and even include some perspectives and opinions as voiced by those who use the term, but to default to that term to describe agricultural practices, imo, fails the NPOV test. Shifting the focus to a more neutral article would help with this issue. Kerani (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Factory Farm Workers
I was considering going into more detail about the quality of life of factory farm workers. This would include wages, employment process, and health risks they face. Does anyone have any suggestions for more ideas I could add? Kristibanana (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the ethical issues section it states "animals such as chickens being kept in spaces smaller than an A4 page." that is not factual. An A4 page can be used at a measure of 2D volume but specifies a 3D volume of less than 10 cm3 which is smaller than the volume of the average chicken. I suggest that statement removed and replaced with an accurate 3D volume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.233.77 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show how the farms are good.
They are not some place that mistreats animals. They actually take better are of the animals then take care of ourselves.
Instead of watching all these videos that PETA and HSUS are paying people to do, go to a far, yourself and see the real side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.242.82.18 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the quote by Baker, Stanley because it is strictly limited to his opinion rather than facts
Remove the boxed quote (footnoted as #13) in the history section written by Stanley Baker, which reads, "Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay..." because unless Stanley Baker has a crystal ball & can see infinitely into the future, there is no way for him to know whether factory farming is here forever, or if it will be replaced by something else (even if that possibility may presently seem inconceivable to many). For all we know each future home will have its own living hotdog tree or burger bush & so have no need for a factory farm. Or maybe we will all be forced to go vegan to avoid worldwide environmental extinction. Many thought it was absurdity to imagine equality for blacks, or that man could ever fly or break the sound barrier. I, for one, think it's absurd to imagine something as wasteful & environmentally disastrous as factory farming will be the Earth's longterm solution.
3/23/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicAvery (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the boxed statement by Matthew Sculley (footnoted as #27) because it is merely his subjective opinion, rather than describing a fact.
Remove the boxed statement by Matthew Sculley (footnoted as #27) because, though it is merely his subjective opinion, it is positioned as if it were factual.
Matthew makes a statement as if it were a fact, "the conditions that we keep these animals in are 'much more humane' than when they were out in the field." But the words," much more" & "humane" are not quantifiable & describe only Matthew's sole opinion, rather than fact. Also, how far in the past is Mathew referring to when he infers how much worse conditions "were" out in the feild?.. last week, or a century or more ago when cattle could roam for miles, free from steroid injections? It could be strongly argued that allowing animals fresh air & the freedom to roam for miles was more humane.
Matthew also states, "They're looked after in some of the 'best' conditions..." The word "best" is always indicative of a personal opinion rather than something factual.
Matthew goes on to claim that "we" are very interested in their wellbeing because , "the healthier and [more] content that animal, the better it grows." Where, if at all, is this scientifically proven? By whom was it proven? And if it was proven, then where is the footnote for it?
Last, when Matthew states, "So 'we' are very interested in their well-being—up to an extent", who else is he speaking for when he uses the word "we"?
3/21/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicAvery (talk • contribs) 07:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Industrial agriculture seems to contain only the same information in the relevant sections of this article. The sections in this article could be severely reduced with the main article at Industrial agriculture, or Industrial agriculture could be redirected here. Exploding Boy19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was for someone who wishes to add to one of these two articles to remove some of the duplicated information and expand on the rest. If no one steps up to bat for that job, then maybe a merge is the best way to go. Anyone care to accually add to these agricultural articles? By the way, the context for all this can be found at talk:factory farming where people seem to want to revert each other more than add sourced data. WAS 4.25014:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specially without discussion. Being bold allwos me to edit without discussion, but if you disagree please explain.
My edits are consistent with the fact that a separate Factory farming article exists that deals with Livestock and Poultry in an industrial setting. Taking redundancy out. Please do not attempt to confuse our readers and undermine process by adding redundant content to a page that is not about the topic. This is a POV merge, and is unacceptable.--Cerejota08:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite
My recent edits and reformatting are intended to better article quality and fit the sources. I did some work on encyclopedic voice and internal coherence, in particular when naming things.
It is obvious to me, using Industrial agriculture (crops) as model, that this article is a sor tof parent article to Factory farm. Sources show that factory farm, and associated terms (ie CAFOs, ILOs, CFOs etc) are the form that livestock and poultry industrial agriculture takes in the world. However, there is also industrial aquaculture. SO this page should serve a role in establishing the existence of these forms of agriculture, but leave the bulk of the contents to be handled by the sub-pages. My edits are geared in this direction.--Cerejota10:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, industrial agriculture (animals) is not limited to so-called factory farming; factory farming is a subset. Industrial agriculture includes mere intensive methods using industrial equipment; so-called factory farming requires high animal population density. You are correct that industrial agriculture should be a more generic page, with this among other pages as subpages -- which, happily, is the case. Jav4323:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis
This section added as there is insistence that there is undue synthesis on this article. Rather than edit war the article, I have added this section to support the tag assertion that there is discussion on the problem here.
In some countries, such as India, they are honored in religious ceremonies and revered.
Is the reader supposed to be able to infer any other countries from the “such as?” Are there really any other countries where this is the case to any significant extent? Would it not be easier/better to just say Hindus honor cows? Are there any other religions that do? —Wiki Wikardo00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the term mean and to whom?
Article content pertaining to the nature of "industrial agriculture" appears to rely excessively on the opinion of article authors. From the descriptive content, it is clear enough that some kinds of animal production would be designated "industrial". However, because the article fails to cite or offer a definition of the term, and because it fails to indicate a threshold separating "industrial" from other agriculture, the reader is given insufficient information to understand the limits of what is meant by the term. Moreover, examination of several publications using the term suggests that it has different meanings for different people. At one extreme, a neo-Luddite definition might include any agriculture using technology introduced since the era of Jethro Tull. With regard to "industrial" production of livestock, FAO usage is far more limited in scope. Some comment about differing meanings and/or different usage and some appropriate supporting citations, with attention to thresholds involved in definition, would seem appropriate. Moreover, care is needed to ensure that if usage in various parts of the article involves different meanings, the meaning involved in each case will be apparent to a reader. Schafhirt (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic data
The article states "In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 60 percent of pigs, and 50 percent of chickens". This information is erroneous, misrepresenting the original source. The citation claims that this information is from testimony by L. Swenson before the House Judiciary Committee in September 2000. However, if one examines the record of that testimony, one finds that with the exception of the 50 percent for "chickens", the other figures are CR4 percentages for slaughter, i.e. they do not refer to production. Morever, the figure of 81 percent pertained to beef slaughter, not cow slaughter;the percentage for pork slaughter was 57, not 60; and the figure of 50 percent pertained to production of broilers, not all chickens.
The article states that "Factory farming is widespread in developed nations. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way.[6] " However, Steinfeld (of the FAO) has indicated that only about 10 percent of global beef cattle and sheep production in 1996 was "industrial". There is also abundant quantitative information in Sere and Steinfeld's "World Livestock Production Systems". Was any attempt made to check the Worldwatch Institute figures and their meaning before presenting them in the Wikipedia article? Schafhirt (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Factory farms" and analogous terms
The article states that "Factory farms under United States laws and regulations are called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), [10] and in Canada they are called confined animal feeding operations (CFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). [11] " The CFO and ILO designations do not appear to have any status in Canadian federal law or regulation; they apply in laws and regulations of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively. The term corresponding to CFO is "confined feeding operation", not "confined animal feeding operation". Alberta's CFOs and Saskatechewan's ILOs have precise definitions in law that are somewhat different. Is there adequate basis for implying that any and all "factory farms" would meet these definitions, or should the terms simply be described as being analogous? ("Intensive livestock operation" is also sometimes used as a general term, without implied reference to law, in both the US and Canada, and the term has legal status in some US juriscictions, such as North Carolina. The term "Confined Feeding Operation" is also not restricted to Canada. It is used in the US, e.g. in Indiana.) It is not clear why the article would refer only to terminology of Saskatchewan and Alberta when indicating usage in Canada, without acknowledging that other terms have regulatory status for analogs of these in other Canadian provinces. Examples include "feedlot" (British Columbia and Manitoba), "parc d'engraissement" (Manitoba), and "high-density permanent outdoor confinement area" (Ontario).
CAFO has a precise legal definition. If "factory farms" are CAFOs, as stated in the above-quoted sentence , this indicates that that those AFOs which are not CAFOs are not "factory farms". This does not appear consistent with some other article content referring to "factory farms".
The article states that "The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified certain animal feeding operations, along with many other types of industry, as point source polluters of groundwater. These operations were designated as CAFOs and subject to special anti-pollution regulation.[17] " This misrepresents the cited source, which nowhere refers to point source pollution of groundwater in relation to the EPA. The cited source does state that "The EPA regulations that ensued from the 1972 CWA were singularly focused on the main issue of surface water protection, and the rules developed for the 'feedlots' point source category were no exception." Schafhirt (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge of factory farming to Industrial agriculture (animals)
Perhaps this is best and perhaps not, but something I am sure that I do not like is that 56k of text went out of factory farming and only 47k of text made the jump to industrial agriculture. In the future, I think it would be best if you take all the text from the first article and move it into the second verbatim. After it is in, then cut whatever is redundant because with the method you used it is very difficult to view changes between versions. Since you already edited this article further, if you could explain what it is that you removed - and particularly whether you removed any referenced content or contentious material - then I think that concern would be addressed.
Hi! Thanks for your questions! The factory farming article was tagged due to the abundance of unsourced, essay-like content. Also as mentioned there was a lot of overlapping content, almost verbatim. When I did the merge, I went section by section through the Factory Farming article, and carefully merged content into where it fit in this article, leaving out what was redundant or OR/essay-like/unsourced. That is an interesting suggestion about how to do a merge... it is not how the guidance on doing merges advises proceeding, but I see how it would give comfort, especially in the context of a bold merge like this. Thanks for the suggestion!Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some other concerns:
Could you please give a rationale as to why "Industrial agriculture (animals)" is a better name for this concept than "factory farming"? See also the names on Wikidata - "factory farming" was English's connection point with everything else.
Can you make an argument that these two concepts are equivalent, or at least that they were treated as such on Wikipedia?
Assuming that the merge sticks - how would you feel about moving discussions from the factory farming talk page to this talk page?
The reason I merged to this one, instead of vice versa, is the parallelism with Industrial agriculture (crops); both this article and that one were formed via forks from Industrial agriculture and I am a big fan of there being order among related articles.
This question is strange. As I wrote in the original note, the contents overlapped completely. To say more on that, literally everything in the factory farming article mapped onto this article. Perhaps they are distinguishable out there in the world, but as the two articles evolved in wikipedia they completely overlapped.
That is great, but I don't know how to do that other than doing it manually. Is that what you are suggesting? I did make a note at the top of this page, as per the instructions for merging. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are the same then talk would be merged manually just like article content. About #2, if the contents overlapped completely then what was all text you deleted? A lot went missing. Blue Rasberry (talk)11:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will merge the Talk pages manually. I feel like I am not understanding your question about what did not come over. I addressed it in my initial description and again above, but what I wrote is not answering you, so would you please help me understand your question better so I can answer it? Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did the manual merge of Talk page and set up archiving. Let me give some examples of what did not come over (quotations are from Factoring farming article) - I think maybe concrete examples are what you are after...:
duplicate or strange images did not come over, like
Free range chickens (why did we have a picture of free range chickens?)
Directly overlapping (at times almost verbatim) content like this:
"The discovery of vitamins and their role in animal nutrition, in the first two decades of the 20th century, led to vitamin supplements, which allowed chickens to be raised indoors.[10] The discovery of antibiotics and vaccines facilitated raising livestock in larger numbers by reducing disease. Chemicals developed for use in World War II gave rise to synthetic pesticides. Developments in shipping networks and technology have made long-distance distribution of agricultural produce feasible.
Unsourced statements like the following, some with moldly citation needed tags:
"People adopted more intensive methods between the 15th and 19th century. With this growth in production best characterized by the Agricultural Revolution, where improvements in farming techniques allowed for significantly improved yields, and supported the urbanization of the population during the Industrial Revolution."
"Standardization — Factory farming methods permit increased consistency and control over product output. However, this results in less genetic diversity among animals, and weakened immune systems."
"Efficiency — Animals in confinement can be supervised more closely than free-ranging animals, and diseased animals can be treated faster."
"Food safety — Reducing number and diversity of agricultural production facilities may or may not make oversight and regulation of food quality easier. However, crowding and filthy conditions can make diseases like E.coli easily transferred between animals. Overuse of antibiotics can also result in the development of drug-resistant "superbugs"."
"Low monetary cost — Intensive agriculture tends to produce food that can be sold at lower cost to consumers. This is achieved by reducing land costs, management costs, and feed costs through government subsidized agricultural methods.[citation needed]" Note - the latter was part of a paragraph, most of which did come over. I worked in a detailed way.
Ah, here is something I did that may be controversial: content that was not on target, was OR/SYN, or was just kind of bizarre:
"Destruction of biodiversity — A tendency towards using a monoculture of single adapted breeds in factory farming, both in arable and animal farming, gives uniform product designed for high yields, at the risk of increased susceptibility to disease. The loss of locally adapted breeds reduces the resilience of the agricultural system. The issue is not limited to factory farming and historically the problem is reflected in the rapid adoption of one or two strains of crops across a wide area as seen in the Irishpotato famine of 1845 and the Bengalrice famine in 1942.[11] The loss of the gene pool of domesticated animals limits the ability to adapt to future problems." The sources here are all about agriculture (as in growing crops) and are not relevant to animals, which is the topic of the both articles. Somebody did OR/SYN to create this content. On this, I probably should have brought it over and then deleted it in a subsequent edit. (clarified what I meant by "agriculture" in italics Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
"Economic contribution — The high input costs of agricultural operations result in a large influx and distribution of capital to a rural area from distant buyers rather than simply recirculating existing capital.[citation needed] A single dairy cow contributes over US$1,300 to a local rural economy each year, each beef cow over US$800, meat turkey US$14, and so on. As Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff states, "Research estimates that the annual economic impact per cow is US$13,737. In addition, each US$1 million increase in Pennsylvania milk sales creates 23 new jobs. This tells us that dairy farms are good for the state's economy."[12]" I didn't bring any of it over. The first part is unsourced with a moldy citation tag; the quote from Wolff is not specific to factory farms and additionally could be said about any activity from the most virtuous to the most malign (you can't do much of anything without buying stuff and thus "contributing to the economy" ).
Another question for you, Lane.. in the instructions for merging, there is discussion about requesting that the history of the merged-from article be added to the history of the target article... you put a tag on, and an admin has to do it. I thought that might be appropriate, but was not sure. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for putting the burden on you of explaining what was deleted. Everything you said needed to be said, but it must have been a lot of work. In the future, just copy everything over even if it needs to be deleted and then prune it away after copying it. I really appreciate the breakdown because it acknowledges all the past contributions to that article, and after reading over what you did, yes, I agree, the merge was an improvement.
A history merge is not appropriate in this case. What that does is take one history and mix it directly into the history of another article. This works if the history of one article stops before the history of the other begins, but in the case of these two articles, they had activity going at the same time. This means that if there were a history merge, the recorded versions of the article would jump between the two versions in order of whatever timestamps existed, so that would make no sense to anyone trying to review things. The record of the other article's history is here in this talk section. There is some template which could go at the top but I cannot find it just now. It says something like "parts of this article were taken from that other article". Let me look a bit more and I will post it. After that the last thing to do will be to fix the Wikidata connection, and I can manage that also. I will post when it is done. Blue Rasberry (talk)13:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
great, thanks! All your questions were great and I think the burden was on me to explain myself, and I am glad we were able to work though this. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put a copied template at the top of this article. It looks like a common practice is to leave the old talk page without merging it, but I think that is a bad idea. Both conversations are about the same article topic, so I think the merge is best despite what the template I used said. You made a manual note about the merge; I deleted that and left only the template because the template comes with a maintenance category which robots will want to track. I also updated the Wikidata link. I will commit to another thing - refactoring this talk page. Discussions need to be sorted and merged by topic, and I will do that later also. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that! I agree that the box is waaaaaaaaaay better than the little sentence I put at the top. Thank you! As for refactoring... from my perspective that a) seems like a hell of a lot of work; b) creates a real danger of upsetting people by messing with their comments on Talk via editorial decisions you would make; c) doesn't create a lot of bang for the buck, as all this is text and is very searchable. I would recommend against doing it, as (from my perspective) your time is very valuable! Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Past move discussions
Hmm... this move has been discussed in the past - Talk:Industrial_agriculture_(animals)#Who_would_prefer_which_article_title.28s.29. Probably this move should have happened with a formal AfD or RfC. I think after all these years you do make a legitimate case for the persistent large overlap between these two articles. The name of the article is a controversial issue. "Industrial agriculture (animals)" could be changed anytime though, but I think it is a lot less controversial to say that the content and intent of the two articles was the same and that the content needed to be merged in any case. Blue Rasberry (talk)14:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yep i was aware of those conversations when I did the Bold move, and was especially aware of the age of those conversations (about "infinity" ago in Wikipedia time!). I have actually been thinking about the name thing. I think "industrial agriculture" is not a phrase used by people who actually do it (I don't imagine hearing that at 4H club) but it is very common among activists; the name itself is an expression of the bias that fills these articles. (personal aside: It seems to me that these articles on "Industrial Ag" were written not from "inside" farming but rather from the point of view of environmentalists and animal rights folks, who have no interest in agriculture per se but instead are out to Right Great Wrongs. The fact that the most-used source in the History section is "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" speaks volumes. Over the weekend I debated whether to commit to the articles in this bigger picture (most of my wikipedia work in the past year has been on genetically modified crops, food, etc). I don't know that I have the bandwidth to engage the bigger picture, but am sore tempted.) In any case, the next thing I am thinking of doing boldly, is to merge the main Industrial Ag article into Intensive Farming (a neutral term) and then to rename the two subarticles accordingly.Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely inappropriate merge
This merge was completely inappropriate. Rather than merge in the extremist POV, it would have been much better to give this article the same treatment as the Genetically modified crops article. Re-write and/or edit this article to the NPOV, then add a section titled "Controversy" which directs to Factory farming, or, better yet, to an article titled "Animal agriculture controversies". This merge flies right in the face of any attempt on the part of other Wikipedia editors to "normalize" articles across the entire encyclopedia, IMHO. I won't revert, but I would certainly vote toward that result. Adv4Ag (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^Mia MacDonald and Sangamithra Iyer (2010) Skillful Means: China's Encounter with Factory Farming. http://brightergreen.org, 1.
^Mia MacDonald and Sangamithra Iyer (2010) Veg or Non-Veg? India at the Crossroads. http://brightergreen.org, (Policy Brief)1.
^Mia MacDonald and Justine Simon (2010) Cattle, Soyanization, and Climate Change: Brazil's Agricultural Revolution. Brighter Green, 21.
^Mia MacDonald and Justine Simon (2010) Climate, Food Security, and Growth: Ethiopia's Complex Relationship with Livestock. Brighter Green, 6.
^Simon de Lima and Justine Simon (2010) Brazil: Cattle, Soyanization, and Climate Change, Brighter Green.
^Mia MacDonald and Sangamithra Iyer (2010) Veg or Non Veg? India at the Crossroads, Policy Brief. Brighter Green, 1.
^Mia MacDonald and Justine Simon (2010) Cattle, Soyanization, and Climate Change: Brazil's Agricultural Revolution. Brighter Green, 21.
^Mia MacDonald and Justine Simon (2010) Cattle, Soyanization, and Climate Change: Brazil's Agricultural Revolution. Brighter Green, 21.
^Mia MacDonald and Justine Simon (2010) Cattle, Soyanization, and Climate Change: Brazil's Agricultural Revolution. Brighter Green, 26.
^John Steele Gordon (1996) "The Chicken Story", American Heritage, September 1996: 52–67
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the Feedlot (diff), Factory farming (diff diff), Vegetarianism (diff diff), and veganism (diff diff) articles do not comply with our guidelines for external links, and furthermore have misleading edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Slashme 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
