Jump to content

Talk:Culling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human Culling in the Scottish Highlands

[edit]

This is very important that I find this out. I am trying to find out something about the stronger highland clans started running their less popular members out of the country. Apparently the idea was a social engineering attempt to keep Scotland's rural flavor. Someone told me that this sort of thing happened but I am in doubt. Can someone tell me more?

Piercetp 09:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culling is a term used for animals other than humans. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population explosion?

[edit]

In an area with little food but many predators, prey animals will still have ample offspring so as to ensure survival of the next generation. Hence in some cases a cull can be counter productive by causing the population explosion it is designed to prevent.

It's not clear to me how reducing the size of a breeding population, breeding being the key word, could cause a subsequent increase in population or population growth. --24.40.139.209 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

population control

[edit]

"Culling for population control is most common in wildlife management, particularly on African game farms."

This really isn't right. A farmer culls each year 1) To make money selling surplus stock and 2) Because he has to because he can only run so many animals. So it could be said all farm culling is populations control; income is made from the cull ( and to claim all culled stock is killed is blatant nonsense) and a good farmer will cull to improve his/her stock.

It really is a badly written article but I don't have the expertise to tidy up the wildlife part. Charles Esson 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical

[edit]

"In an area with little food but many predators, prey animals will still have ample offspring so as to ensure survival of the next generation. Hence in some cases a cull can be counter productive by causing the population explosion it is designed to prevent."

I think the argument is; the manager culls to protect the species that is being hunted but the profession manager is misquided; "the cull is not needed because if the species declines the predictor will decline anyway", i'm not sure but I think that is what is being said. Pity about man isn't it. I think a reference for this argument is needed. My own view; this and the next paragraphs should go but there needs to be something to replace them with. Charles Esson 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satanist Groups - Reference?

[edit]

certain Satanist groups have had, allegedly, rituals where certain individuals are chosen to die. Does anyone have a reference for this? The use of allegedly suggests that the authod did not. If there are no references for this, then it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Royhills (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removed Unsourced Statements

[edit]

The following is unsourced. Please reintroduce with sources.

Culling is also practiced in North America, where it is more controversial. For example the Canadian practice of culling wolves and seal-cubs. The culling of prey species elsewhere in America is also disputed, since many species moderate their own breeding habits based upon the supply of food and the rate of predator deprivation. In an area with little food but many predators, prey animals will still have ample offspring so as to ensure survival of the next generation. Hence in some cases a cull can be counter productive by causing the population explosion it is designed to prevent.

Some conservationists have claimed that culls are often associated more with the tax revenue that comes from hunting licenses than any actual ecological benefit.

Culling in the Legal Services (ediscovery) deals with filtering out files or documents that don't belong, or is deemed not responsive as evidence in a case of law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pdelongchamp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Chick slaughtering

[edit]

I'm proposing that the article Chick slaughtering be merged in to this article (and perhaps Chicken), as it's a subtopic of culling and is too specific to be a separate article. The culling of chicks is just one topic of culling chickens, and doesn't deserve separate coverage. VanTucky 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been some time and no one has chimed in, I'll be merging them presently. Also see the relevant consensus here. VanTucky 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Van tucky you should not merge an article then forget to include that information in the merged article. It's really unhelpful and damages wikipedia. You're effectively removing information. If you want the article merged then please at the very least go to the trouble of including that information in the merged article. Your actions mean notable content has been effectively ommited from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content was omitted because it isn't appropriate for a general article on culling, and the topic of chick slaughtering is not notable according to the amount of coverage it gets in reliable source material, such as these ones on chickens. None of these books mention chick slaughtering even once. It's not special in culling, and not in chicken keeping. VanTucky 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless your actions however well intentioned have meant notable content has been removed from wikipedia for several months. That is unacceptable and niether do I think it's acceptable for someone to merge an article and include next to nothing in regards to that merge in the new artcle. You can't just expect other people to do it. It's lazy and also suggests you didn't want to merge teh articles but infact wanted them deleted although I will assume good faith in that regard. However for example regarding maceration? That's notable isn't it but it's been removed. So you have removed notable information from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not notable content...which is why it wasn't all merged. You can't merge content that is far, far too specific to fit anywhere on Wikipedia. Notability is determined solely through significant coverage in reliable sources. If the subject isn't mentioned at all in the major recently published sources on chickens, then it's not notable. VanTucky 08:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
van Tucky I encourage you to watch this video which documents the process of chicken slaughtering and includes references to much of the information which you removed from wikipedia for several months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT7Um1GDzk Note also that A maceration has been mentioned on wikipedia on the maceration page. Supposed (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, the name is "VanTucky" not "van Tucky". Second, a YouTube video does not constitute a reliable published source for us to verify facts with. If there can be no proper verification, then we can't have an article on it. Just because there are websites and YouTube videos about something does not make it fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. VanTucky 08:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being very petty by criticising me for not capitalising your handle (unless people call you that outside of wikipedia). I think your actions demonstrate the problem with wikipedia. You have just seen a video by a highly notable British chef documenting the process and rather than accept this and keep the information you would rather remove the information because the video was hosted on youtube simply because you wish to follow wikipedia's strict criteria. I think this is an instance where we should follow Wikipedia:IAR as it's 100% certain that both Jamie is telling the truth and that this information does exist elsewhere. Thus it would be unhelpful to remove it. Supposed (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People have a right to be called what they like, it's a matter of simple respect. As for the video: you seem to be unaware of our most basic policies. I quote here directly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." A video has no established editorial system or fact checking, like a news paper or a publishing house for books. It does not meet the definition of constitutes reliability according to Wikipedia. Again, it's not about what I think may or may not be true, it's about what reliable sources can verify. VanTucky 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fruits and veggies

[edit]

The word is also often used for fruits and vegetables. For example, a packing-house will "cull" apples deemed to unattractive for sale (eg bruised or hail-damaged), and these will typically be made into sauce or juice. Also, workers reguarly cull produce from store shelves when it's started to spoil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.220.73 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about culling in zoos?

[edit]

This article is lacking a section on culling in zoos - this is a current issue due to the recent culling of a young healthy giraffe in Copenhagen zoo, but it is a standard practice in many zoos. I will start work on it when I have a bit more time, but if any other editors want to get started, feel free!__DrChrissy (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency between definition and text

[edit]

The opening line of this article reads "Culling is the process of removing breeding animals from a group based on specific criteria." However, in the main body of the text, the example of culling marbles is used. Which is it? Should the opening sentence have a broader meaning?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plant breeding

[edit]

This article is focused too heavily on animal breeding. Plant breeders also practice culling, and the article should reflect this but it would probably require a complete rewrite. 98.218.23.114 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magpie culling in Australia

[edit]

For possible article expansion... a new subject of culling in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-04/parks-and-conservation-cull-magpies-after-food-related-attacks/6750710 --Danimations (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Student Edits

[edit]

Hi all,

As a group of students studying Conservation Genetics, we'd like to make some edits/additions to the page including but not limited to:

- addition of sources to the segment on Shark Culling (noticed it was lacking)

- description of additional wildlife culling practices (e.g. whitetail deer)

- brief insight into nonlethal population control methods (e.g. link to info on other means of wildlife management)

- brief insight into the effects of culls on population genetics in general with specific examples of impacts culling has had within species.

-add to the section on the ethical aspects of culling


Other edits may be proposed, and some of these listed may go unfulfilled, but this is the plan at present. Are there any objections before we proceed?

Cschuette17 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JM LaV (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demullett (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Culling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Section about culling sick animals

[edit]

Animals infected with diseases, or those suspected to be infected with diseases, are often culled in mass. These may be to prevent a larger population from contracting the disease, or to prevent the spread of disease to humans. Notable examples include swine flu(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic), bird flu(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H5N1), or Mad Cow Disease(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.136 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section with a single sentence on the subject. Hopefully others will add more. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move duplicated sentence?

[edit]

At the end of the general "Wildlife" section, there's a single sentence about animal-rights activists arguing that killing animals is unethical. It has no relation to anything that came before, and just kind of dangles there awkwardly.

I was going to move it to the "Culling and Ethics" section, but then saw that the second sentence/paragraph in that section says essentially the same thing, and in fact has links to the exact same references. So, as far as I can tell, the sentence at the end of "Wildlife" can be deleted altogether without any loss of information in the article as a whole.

But the sentence in the ethics section seems to be using some kind of internal reference code -- referring to the other one, perhaps? Anyway, my abilities don't extend beyond simple text, and I don't want to make any technical screw-ups, so perhaps someone with more Wiki coding expertise can do this instead?

Hery-Tep Medu (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hery-Tep Medu and thanks for the observation. I had a look at it and in the end decided that it seemed okay to leave that detail in both sections, as it is relevant in different ways, and sometimes readers may just read one section in an article. I added a couple of section headers to group the paragraphs following which address a specific issue, and also a hatnote from one section to another. Does this make sense? I will leave other editors to add their opinions. The "internal reference code" you refer to is, I think the "blue link" which links to another article within Wikipedia for further explanation of the word - like that one I just created for Wikipedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meat is murder

[edit]

Equating Culling with murder in the lead is massively POV and is promoting a fringe viewpoint. - MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The significant opponents to culling label it a such. Besides, you removed much more than just that. Mariolovr (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted a range of animal rights POV pushing, this is one example that illustrates the general problems with recent edits. Wikipedia is not supposed to take a position on such matters. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, MrOllie views animal rights proponents as extremists.
When did wikipedia take a position on such matters? Could you be more descriptive? It certainly wasn't when I was editing. I made sure to report on viewpoints and not promote them. And what does the coronavirus cullings even have to do with POV pushing? From my perspective, you're just censoring anything that makes animal agriculture look even remotely bad. Mariolovr (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender vs sex

[edit]

Hi User:Rasnaboy and User:DinkleKerry, I think I may have inadvertently undone your edits with a recent edit of mine. Would you mind looking it over and making sure it is OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonoesimposible (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicken slaughtering" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chicken slaughtering and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Chicken slaughtering until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whole entry written by impartial editors.

[edit]

Hello,

I have to say that this entry seems to be written by hunters. Many important sources are questionable at best and refer to speculative studies. The chapter named Arguments against wildlife culling provides no actual arguments against wildlife culling, which definitely do exist. It seems like the whole entry needs to be rewritten with an unbiased mindset. This wil also mean much text has to be removed. This is an important subject. I'm certain my observation is very reasonable, and I would be willing to help rewrite if necessary.

Cheers 2A02:A212:2645:1100:75E7:E323:1F6D:31EC (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culling&oldid=1194844454"