Talk:Fur farming

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fur farming article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Acronym of PETA

There are 4 references to PETA in this after it's been explained once? DrkBlueXG (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The first instance should be wiki-linked and the acronym stated in parenthesis. Additional instances can use PETA w/o wiki-link, since acronym and link were previously included. Good call, DrkBlue. This happens because sections are added and edited independently w/o reviewing the entire article. I also removed a few red links. No real need to discuss edits like this (although not a bad idea on controversial article), but you can be bold and make edits with good edit explanation. Bob98133 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View

Added the NPOV marker to this page. If you are going to have a discussion of the pros and cons of fur farming, present a balanced discussion and present both sides. This article appears to have been inserted for the purpose of presenting one side of the issue. DanMS 2 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

I have readded the NPOV marker after merging material from fur about fur farming. For a much more detailed discussion about the disputed neutrality, see the Talk:Fur page. Elf | Talk 06:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to this article to get it to NPOV, however this article needs a lot of work, including source citation for some of these claims and needs to be rewritten to NPOV. As it stands, I think it should be flagged because it is very much one-sided. Bigj 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this article from the "animal liberation" category. This is an article on fur farming and it's highly innapropriate, as was the "Animal Liberation" template I removed. Additionally, this article needs more actual information on fur farming. Also, I'm flagging it NPOV, as it's a work in progress and as it stands, it is not NPOV. Bigj 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that all my changes have been reverted with no explanation. I'm going to revert it back unless a good explanation is made and a consensus is reached. This article is ridiculously biased and the quality needs to be improved, as it's what I was working toward. Bigj 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were introducing POV, Bigj. It being biased in one direction doesn't justify making it biased in the other. Being pro-fur farming is not the default position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for pointing that out, I appreciate your input. What did you find to be POV specifically, and how do you think we could work to change it? Discussion about specific topics would be really helpfull so we can reach consensus, rather than just generalized POV claims. (I appologize, I was being vague before, but maybe we could both state our POV concerns and actually find out what we disagree about). Thanks. 09:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive response, which I appreciate. I'm going to continue this discussion at the end of the page for ease of reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Please don't remove citations requests or add unsourced POV. It would make sense if everyone would source all their edits from now on. This article is badly written and undersourced as it is, so let's not make it even worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for responding on the talk page. Actually all of my edits are sourced : ). Please do not remove the NPOV marker without discussing it first. This article, is basically just a verbatim copy from PETA's animal fur fact sheet. I hardly consider an article lifted from any one source to be of encyclopedic quality or NPOV. The marker should therefore remain until we can make this article NPOV. Bigj 09:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should decide whether you want to use footnotes or embedded links. I'd prefer the latter, but I'll go either way so long as we do it as laid out in WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem. There is apparently some confusion here. The standard MLA way to cite an article is that your citations refer to the whole paragraph that preceeds it. Therefore "[1,2]" refers to the whole paragraph that preceeds it: "Animals on fur farms are fed excess products from production of beef, fish and poultry. This practice reduces the effects of environmentally damaging waste produced in this food industries. According to the Fur Commission, fur farming is considered a good conservation practice." Look through the sources and you'll see that everything falls into place. I'm reverting it back to the way it was : ). Thanks Bigj 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MLA is compatible with WP:CITE. That's what I'm most familiar with. Bigj 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep reverting. You've introduced changes that have been objected to, and a citation style that doesn't exist, and you've removed legitimate citation requests. It's inappropriate to ignore those objections and plough ahead as if no one has said anything. If you want to use footnotes, please do it properly. We don't simply add [1], whether it's after a sentence or para and it has nothing to do with MLA; please read CITE. Otherwise, I'll insert the sources as embedded links when I next edit the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must be confused because I thought I read "Therefore, if you already use a particular citation style, especially the preferred style by scholars in a field related to the article you are editing, please use the citation style of your choice." The page also said that there is no consensus regarding citation style. Are we talking about two different things here? Bigj 09:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

I flagged the main page with the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} template. I understand that some citations are provided, but at least one is from a very POV source, and there are many other items that need citation. If no citations are forthcoming, the uncited material will need to be removed. Jrkarp 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various types section

How can we say that cat and dog and mink furs are the only farm-raised furs.

-the descriptive rhetoric is very biased as it does not provide an accurate description of humane practicing fur farms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaindannduece (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what you are talking about? If you have changes to the article to suggest, please explain and supply references. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PETA-Video

perhaps something for this page

Link to PETA TV

I got so sick watching this... 62.206.245.74 13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for you to try to push your propaganda. The articles are supposed to be neutral. Lycanthrope777 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like someone whose a furry, I mean werewolf, wouldn't be too fond of animal furs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.66.130 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Edit

I've edited out this part:

' Films of abuse to animals exist which highlight these disgusting practices. The Fur Commission of the US has questioned the integrity/authenticity of the images by outrageously claiming that the acts of skinning the animals alive was staged, however given that several different videos have appeared from independent sources, yet similiarily showing the same barbaric acts; the images can be taken to be fact.[1]'

Personally I agree with what is said but descriptions such as 'disgusting', 'barbaric', and 'outrageously' are all very biased and have no place on Wikipedia.

91.107.222.109 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No argument on that edit! This is so blatantly POV you could probably have skipped the discussion and just done the revert. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoons vs. Raccoon dogs

I have some issues with the statement Foxes, raccoons and other animals suffer equally and have been found to cannibalize each other as a reaction to their crowded confinement.[12] which I changed to Foxes, raccoon dogs and [...] since raccoons are normally not kept in fur farms to my knowledge while raccoon dogs are in large numbers. The source, however, speaks of raccoons what is most likely a mistake. So it may be perhaps the best to just speak of Foxes and other animals [...]. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fur Council of Canada seems to think that raccoons are farmed in Canada and Finland [2]. They make no mention of any raccoon dogs farmed for fur. Your edit statement and recent change that more raccoon dogs are used on fur farms than raccoons is original research, unless you have some data to confirm it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finn raccoon is the name for the pelt of the raccoon dog: http://www.chichesterinc.com/FinnRaccoonSkins.htm so the authors of the page given by you do also seem to not know of which animal they are talking. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novil - you are saying that the Fur Council of Canada doesn't know what they're talking about. They are the experts in Canada about fur, but you are saying that a company in Niagara Falls, NY that sells fur pelts knows more than they do. Why not just add raccoon back into the article along with raccoon dog? Denying that raccoons are farmed, or claiming that you know that more raccoon dogs are farmed than raccoons, is OR. Sorry, but the reference that I cited, however wrong it might be, is a good source; and your pelt retailer, however right he may be, is a very, very poor source. In a case such as this, it makes sense to include both, not exclude raccoons as you did. By the way, I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that the way you made the change in the text is purely OR, not based on references. If it really was based on references, let's see some hard numbers about how many raccoons and how many raccoon dogs are farmed. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Misunderstanding] and your pelt retailer, however right he may be, is a very, very poor source LOLWUT? I have fought many battles to remove serious POV in favor of fur clothing from the main German article about pelts and I do not own one single piece of clothing made out of fur. I am strictly against fur farming! However, the raccoon seems to be often confused with the raccoon dog. I have asked de:Benutzer:Kürschner (Furrier) who has written many articles about pelts in the German Wikipedia and owns several written sources to give some insight into this confusion. (He will perhaps post some citations [out of the books] in German which will then be translated by me.) I also do not make the assumption that absolutely no raccoons are kept in fur farms. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I meant the reference you have above to www.chichesterinc.com not being a good reference. I wasn't accusing you of being POV, just questioning how you arrived at the information that more raccoon dogs are kept in fur farms than raccoons. Any comments you get from your German source will be OR, so unless he can point you to real references the consultation is not likely to be useful. Maybe you can just provide the source for your edit about raccoons not being farmed as widely as raccoon dogs? Bob98133 (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further uses of the word Finn raccoon for the fur of the raccoon dog: Deutsches Pelz-Institut, the association of all organizations in the fur industry in Germany, (Und Finn-Raccoon sei die Zuchtform des Marderhundes - And Finn-raccoon were the breeding form of the raccoon dog) ABC News referencing the The Humane Society of the United States. Written sources are definitely not OR, but among the best sources specified at WP:Sources. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section that we are discssing usees 3 references. I have just checked all of them One mentions raccoons. The other two make no mention of raccoons or raccoon dogs. Introducing raccoon dogs into the article at this point is not supported by the references cited. Bob98133 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for raccoon dogs being kept in fur farms in China: PETA and in Finland: IUCN Red List (although today they are produced in fur farms. While the species is still commonly farmed for fur in Finland [...]). --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German furrier:

Sorry, my English is bad and I am not sure, I understood all above. Please ask again, if I will not have answered all questions.

Raccoon dog is no raccoon. Other English names are sea-fox, tanuki, Russian raccoon. Since decades we complain of these mislead (raccoon-)names. Original they live in East Asia. They are not related with raccoons. The probably worldwide best book about fur skins is, sorry in German Christian Franke/Johanna Kroll: Jury Fränkel’s Rauchwaren-Handbuch 1988/89, 10. überarbeitete und ergänzte Neuauflage, Publisher Rifra-Verlag in Murrhardt (site 162).

It is often tryed to farm raccoons. It is not easy to find out, if and where they breed them today. But I can say, the price for raccoon skins in the last decades was so low, that it would not profitable to do it. Especially not in the States, where wages are relativly high. It is sure, there were no known quantities of farmed raccoons in the trade the last thirty years or more, maybe it is changing know, but I did not hear or read about it. - Tanuki skins are used for collars and trimmings. Tanukis are breeded, today especially in Scandinavia and Asia (Russia and China).

Max Bachrach: Fur. A Practical Treatise., Publisher Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, writes 1936 (site 314):

Asiatic Raccoon (Canis procyonidis) (Nyctereutes procyonides). Amur Raccoon, Jap Fox, Jap Raccon, and several other titles are used to describe species of dog that look like a Raccoon, and has many of its habits, as its Latin name indicates. It has the familiar dark spots about the eyes in most cases, and also the rings about the tail, which, however, are not apparent in every animal. - The following chapters are 'Natural History' and a longer one 'Merchandising details' and 'Assortments'.

Athur Samet: Pictorial Encyclopedia of Furs, New York, 1934 (site 311) writes in the heading(!) of the chapter 'Asiatic Raccoon':

Is it Raccoon? Is it Fox? Is it Wolf? Is it Dog?

If I understand him right, he lets the questions unanswered. But I think, today it is easy, to find these zoological questions answered in the internet. If you have any question to the trade, please ask.

By the way - I like to be a furrier! --Kuerschner (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen an advertisment from China for 'Dressed Chinese Raccoon Skins', with images. Shown are sea-fox (Nyctereutes procyonides Gray) skins. Sorry, the confusion goes on.--Kuerschner (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinchilla fur farming

I think the Chinchilla section missed out a few facts about chinchilla fur farming and provided mostly information about chinchilla in general. Chinchilla is a much smaller creature compared to foxes or minks, therefore in order to make an average coat or jacket, about 100 chinchillas are killed to obtain enough fur [3] In the farm, chinchillas are usually killed by electrocution, which often fails to kill the animal instantly and entirely. In many cases the animal is still alive and conscious while being skinned. There are other ways of killing the animal before pelting such as neck breaking and carbon-monoxide poisoning. [4]

Chinchilla fur is considered to be the softest in the world, softer even than that of the legendary Tibetan antelope, 30 times finer and more flexible than human hair, and its softness comes from copious amounts of natural oils secreted by the animal. Each chinchilla hair follicle will produce more than 50 hairs (a human's produces only one) and although the chinchilla has problems keeping its fur clean, it has no trouble from parasites. Fleas and other creatures cannot live in chinchilla fur because they would suffocate. These are a few seasons why chinchilla fur is highly profitable and luxurious. Reportedly, a coat such as Madonna's can sell for £35,000 and take up to 60 chinchilla pelts to make. [5]

On August 10 2004, PETA sent a letter to the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) demanding that it begin protecting chinchilla after PETA investigators on a fur farm in Midland, Michigan, saw chinchillas who were being electrocuted, causing painful seizures to the animals’ hearts, and having their necks snapped while completely conscious. The letter also protested the use of electrocution on chinchilla as this method is not effective and humane on small animals and accused other killing methods such as neck breaking as inhumane. (<5kg)[6]

On February 05 2005, the MDA replied that the authority of MDA extends only to facilities regulated by the department such as animal shelters, pet stores but not fur farms, but did contact and arrange investigation in conjunction with U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials to Midland, Michigan facilities [7]--Wickedpedia.ngm (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism lasted for about one year

I removed vandalism carried out by X bullet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at 2008-07-17T17:33:10 because the spurious list consists of words and transliterations of foreign languages that mean "dog" and "cat".

Dogs Asian wolf gae-wolf Pommern wolf China wolf Sobaki Mongolia dog fur goupee loup d'Asie dogue de Chine	Asian wolf - does not exist gae-wolf - "gae" means "dog" in Korean Pommern wolf - does not exist. China wolf - What's up with wolf in the dog category? Sobaki - means "dog" in Russian
Cats rabbit goyangi gatto cinesi maopee katzenfelle chat de Chine natuerliches mittel	except two, all means "cat in Korea/Italian/French/German rabbit do not exist in German (most people will understand the English meaning) German "Katzenfelle" = cat fur skins German "natürliches Mittel" = natural remedy; natural method

Wikipedia needs to be more wary of this kind of childish behaviors spreading hoax and false information.--Caspian blue 12:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent: Images broken!

Actually, I didn't fix the image as I said in the edit summary. It looked alright in the section preview but there seems to be something more wrong with this page that breaks images. Could anyone knowledgeable have a look?--Nakerlund (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to fix it on my own :) --Nakerlund (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== The Mink fur farm 1900 image is not broken, but what exactly it its point? It looks like a map, what does it add to the article about the fur trade?

24.61.41.1 (talk)MBVECO —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Biased sources

I have again removed commentary material from the fur commission. I have no objection to the material being included provided a third party reliable source can be used. A commentary by an employee of the fur commission is essentially a blog. There are no fact checking or references. If the fur commission supplies references, those could be used instead of their commentary. Surely, notable news has been reported elsewhere, so some other source would be far better. Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANIMALS SKINNED ALIVE!

Hi. Seeing as this is a very common criticism of fur (esp. with PETA vids), I think it would be VERY useful to have a little something about it. ESPECIALLY a stat or estimation as to how common it is (ie, 5% of fur is done this way, or whatever). It can't be too common, and under the section about China an expert 'does mention' that skinning animals alive is counter-productive and certainly not the norm- but I'd STILL very much like to see some statistics. Thanks! Masternachos (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finland

Arguments to continue the fur farming in 2013 included that it is a legal profession. Counter argument is that it is not legal in Sweden. Why not? The opposition claim that the animals have not opportunity to their natural behavior and the animals suffer in the cage. The activists have repeatedly in many years filmed the sick animals by producers. It seemed for me in many cases, but not always, that the producers were more concerned of the publication of pictures than the animals in concern. One argument is that if Finland ban fur farming it will be done in China. Counter argument is that Europe has different view of human rights and animal rights. Finland does not accept e.g. capital punishment. Watti Renew (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The initiative to ban fur farming was introduced to the Parliament by the Land and Forest Committee. It seems for me that the Land and Forest Committee is the most active supporter of the fur farming. I ask was this neutral? In my opinion it should have been prepared in another Committee, e.g. Juridical Committee. How does Finnish administration apply this? Watti Renew (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT)

The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) is not a credible independent source on this. If this citation is included, then a counter point needs to included as well.

A lot of farmers have contested numbers likes this saying they would make their operations unsustainable if they were true. Its a very one sided opinion that is presented. Judderwocky (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fur farming. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F05%2F13%2Fwmin13.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574462/fur_industry.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518102802/http://www.vshine.org.cn/news_detail_project/newsId%3D571.html to http://www.vshine.org.cn/news_detail_project/newsId%3D571.html

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) 13:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fur farming. 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) 15:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV again

I read in this discussion that the article some years ago resembled PETA propaganda. I can very well imagine it was like that. Now, however, the opposite seems to be the case. Look at the section: "Farmed mink production cycle". Why does the article mention the "ample aspen bedding" for the whelping females but does not describe the size of the cages the animals are kept in? Why does the article need (unreferenced) sentences such as "Ranchers are diligent toward creating an environment that prioritizes the welfare of each animal and allows them to live and function comfortably within their environment"? I don't really find this description balanced and neutral.--Oudeístalk 17:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oudeís I think the whole section "Farmed mink production cycle" is undue and could be reduced to one or two paragraphs. At the moment it reads as a fur industry propaganda brochure. Happy to work on this with you Robynthehode (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need a map

This edit looks correct to me: Without any data source it shouldn't be here. However it would still be nice to have a map. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monoxide poisoning

Jan 27, 2022, 13:35 - «asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning are very different concepts.»
Jan 27, 2022, 18:09 - «‎Piping format: new section»

@Cerebral726: …WP:SURPRISE … is not a policy. The phrase monoxide poisoning I've linked by asphyxiation is not surprising in any way. Minks die because of exposure to a lethal monoxide concentration that basically causes respiratory arrest which results from asphyxia i.e. lack of oxygen.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia's Manual of Style's take on the subject, MOS:EGG specifically states what the best course of action in this instance is. Burying the link to carbon monoxide poisoning within the word asphyxiation is very much the situation that is to be avoided. It seems like it would be better phrased, "The most common method of slaughter is by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, causing respiratory arrest" or something similar, as in the example listed in the MOS.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also struggling to find a source that even calls it "carbon monoxide poisoning", do you have one? That seems to usually refer to long term poisoning vs asphyxiation. this paper refers to people who "expressed concerns about the potential welfare implications of hypoxia when carbon monoxide or other hypoxic methods are used for killing mink." This seems distinct enough that we need a source specifically calling it carbon monoxide poisoning. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebral726: MOS:EGG/WP:SURPRISE are not applicable in anyway. It's not surprise, that if you are lowered to a chamber lacking oxygin you die from a respiratory arrest. On sources, checkout: «Before pelting, the animals die peacefully, going to sleep from carbon monoxide poisoning.»^[8], or [9]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely surprised you don't see MOS:EGG as relevant here. I'm not saying it is surprising that the animal dies when subjected to a chamber lacking oxygen and I'm not sure where you understood me to be saying that. I'm simply talking about the way you originally linked it, which is explicitly to be avoided per MOS:EGG:

"For example, do not write:
Richard Feynman was also known for work in [[Parton (particle physics)|particle physics]].
Here readers would see the link displayed as particle physics, not the hidden reference to the page Parton (particle physics), unless they clicked on the link or hovered their mouse cursor over it. If a physical copy of the article were printed, the reference to the parton model would be lost. Such links are sometimes called "Easter egg" or "submarine" links. Instead, refer to the separate article with an explicit see also X, or by rephrasing the sentence, as in:
Richard Feynman was also known for work in [[particle physics]], especially the [[Parton (particle physics)|parton]] model. Sometimes moving other words into the bluelinked text avoids surprise. In an article on the history of Texas:
In 1845, the Republic of Texas was [[Texas annexation|annexed]] by the United States. implies the topic of annexation is linked;
In 1845, the Republic of Texas was [[Texas annexation|annexed by the United States]]. implies that the 1845 event is linked."

(bold my own)

These examples are remarkably similar to your edit: "by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide causing asphyxiation." --Cerebral726 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asphyxation results from respiratory arrest, which is result of poisoning of nervous system (the process may go in reverse if of course monoxide binds to RBCs earlier, Hypoxia_(medical)#Carbon_monoxide_poisoning). That's simple. It's not a big deal to waste time on. Replace it by monoxide poisoning and we are good to go. No need to revert it under pretext of WP:SURPRISE/WP:EGG. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Hypoxia (medical)#Carbon monoxide poisoning is a strong candidate to be linked, perhaps "by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, inducing hypoxia." I will continue to stand by the fact that the way the link was originally presented was not in lien with the MOS and should be avoided. Further, as I was not sure what the preferred destination should be nor if "carbon monoxide poisoning" is the correct medical term for the death induced by the method described, and given the lack of a clear source on that sentence, the best course of action was to remove it. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is secondary. That's enough. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source given in the section you linked, Animal_euthanasia#Inhalants, is from National Geographic and never uses the term "carbon monoxide poisoning" to describe the means of death that the minks undergo, saying they "then eventually die from lack of oxygen." The vast majority of reliable sources seem to indicate the most used term in the scientific community is hypoxia, with the only exception being the Modern Farmer source you mentioned. Since the only source that says "poisoning" is from the Modern Farmer, and the rest seem to use "Hypoxia" or "lack of oxygen", that seems like the best way to go as I mentioned above with my suggestion for the edit to be "by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, inducing hypoxia." This also fixes the issues of the MOS:EGG concerns.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the sourcing, where does the second source say that the minks die to CO poisoning, I wasn't able to find that anywhere in the paper. As for the first source, it seems a good bit weaker than the one I linked which does not refer to it as such, but as a "hypoxic method" versus a poisonous one.--Cerebral726 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike yours, the first source is not a report, but a secondary source we can rely upon.
Regarding the second one, look for monoxide (CO), it's toxic for animals as well (see Animal_euthanasia#Inhalants, [10], [11]): «From the literature, we know that CO is a toxic gas yet colourless, odourless, tasteless,… Symptoms of mild acute poisoning include …. Greater exposure can lead to significant toxicity of the central nervous system and heart, and even death.»^[12]^: 248
I ain't gonna discuss this further. I think we are safe to mention obvious fact. I hope you don't think that minks die from something else, rather than asphyxation. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that minks do die by asphyxiation, and asking that feels overly aggressive, which I would prefer to avoid. As I've mentioned a few times, I was disagreeing with the labelling of asphyxiation as being synonymous with carbon monoxide poisoning: my initial question was "where does the second source say that the minks die to CO poisoning". I'm still not comfortable with that interpretation of the source you quoted as it seems to be giving background by discussing how humans' exposure to carbon monoxide can cause carbon monoxide poisoning not that carbon monoxide poisoning is the correct term for the means of death for minks we are discussing. The other sources call it "inducing hypoxia" when it is specifically labeled, not carbon monoxide poisoning.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officially WP:3O

I have removed the item from WP:3O to make me the official 3O. I know a lot more about chemistry than farming, so hopefully I can help. Gah4 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have read much of the above, but I am still not sure where the disagreement is. CO takes the place of O2, and binds stronger to hemoglobin. So yes animals die from lack of oxygen. Note that the reflex, the feeling of a need to breathe, comes from buildup of CO2, not the lack of oxygen. CO2 poisoning might be considered painful, where CO is not. If an animal is removed from a CO chamber, it won't quickly recover, as it takes a (relatively) long time for O2 to replace the CO. If placed in, for example, N2, one would still die for lack of oxygen, but (if not yet dead) could recover quickly if O2 is restored. I might have thought the danger of working with CO would be enough to discourage its use. In any case, there are lots of ways to asphyxiate, with CO being just one. Gah4 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gah4: Assuming we don't know for sure whether death is incurred by asphyxiation or not, are we safe to specify that monoxide poisoning is a cause of death? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gah4: Thanks for your input. My dispute was whether the term "carbon monoxide poisoning" is applicable in this situation. My interpretation of that phrase is that poisoning more refers to long term exposure leading to flu-like symptoms. If you're saying that it is accurate to refer to rapid death induced in an oxygen-free, carbon monoxide-rich as "carbon monoxide poisoning", than I will be fine with any addition that doesn't violate MOS:EGG. However, it seems like "carbon monoxide inducing hypoxia" is the phrasing most aligned with sources I could find. This aligns with what you are saying it seems, as the CO works two-fold to induce death by hypoxia by depriving the minks of oxygen and then binding to the hemoglobin. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't know is that CO is always used. It is faster, and that might be important. But yes, "poisoning" and "asphyxiation" sometimes have other meaning, so readers might get surprised. Since CO binds so tight to hemoglobin, I believe that poisoning is fine (fast or slow). In nitrogen or vacuum, it would not be poisoning, but would be asphyxiation and hypoxia. That said, I don't see anything wrong with "carbon monoxide inducing hypoxia". If you put them in 100% CO, they will die fast, and not recover when removed. That might be important in a production line system. Gah4 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerebral726 and Gah4: I have to disagree with hypoxia used alone in a sentence because it doesn't automatically imply death. I propose we go instead with fatal lack of oxygen in organism induced by carbon monoxide poisoning. Simply because it's supported by overhelmening amount of sources above and common sense. The "Hypoxia has a range of narrow medical definitions which are different from one another. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what "overwhelming amount of sources above" you're referring to. Only one of the sources ([13]) use that terminology, versus the rest of the papers which do not use "carbon monoxide poisoning" to specifically refer to the means of death the minks undergo, while the term hypoxia is used frequently. Regardless, the suggested sentence "The most common method of slaughter is by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, causing a fatal lack of oxygen in organism induced by carbon monoxide poisoning" is quite wordy. The fatality of the condition is already mentioned at the beginning of the sentence, making it redundant. My suggestion is The most common method of slaughter is by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, inducing hypoxia through carbon monoxide poisoning, which also includes the link discussed earlier. This includes both the condition that induces death as well as the cause, and matches both the papers linked above and the Modern Farmer source. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:STONEWALLING. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm not sure why you choose to be so aggressive towards me. There seems to be a lack of assuming WP:GOODFAITH, a quickness to escalate, and an unwillingness to compromise or listen to concerns about your edits in most interactions we have had. You have not conceded any ground in this discussion (even though the third opinion stated they were happy with the terminology I suggested stating, "That said, I don't see anything wrong with "carbon monoxide inducing hypoxia") and have ignored my concerns about MOS:EGG, stating it was irrelevant. I have on the other hand conceded that "poisoning" is a reasonably term to use, and have included it in my suggested edit, and followed the terminology the third opinion has agreed with. Which specifically of the behavior guidelines do you believe I have violated? --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me quote Gah4 for you: I believe that poisoning is fine (fast or slow … That said, I don't see anything wrong with "carbon monoxide inducing hypoxia".^{[Feb 2, 2022, 22:32]}. As you can see, we don't need go into details on whether it was lack of oxygen or whatever. We have consensus that poisoining should be used and I"m awaiting Gah4 response. Please, don't turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let us save our time. I'm not paid to waste time here. Thank you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion was ""The most common method of slaughter is by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, causing a fatal lack of oxygen in organism induced by carbon monoxide poisoning", which I found wordy and went into the details on whether it was a lack of oxygen or whatever. My suggestion removed that and still includes the "poisoning" term, so I am confused why you are telling me what I was already integrating into my suggested edit. Again, my suggestion is The most common method of slaughter is by subjecting the animal to a chamber that contains carbon monoxide, inducing hypoxia through carbon monoxide poisoning which includes the suggested languaged from Gah4, including "carbon monoxide poisoning". --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

psychology

OK, I am happy to answer questions related to the chemistry and biology of various methods, but not psychology. Especially not questions about how much pain, or otherwise, an animal might feel. Also not about activists or protests about various methods. It seems that vets have studied this^[1] including the effects of different gases, different concentrations, and pressures. The article is more for pets, and less for farming, but the effects of various gases should be the same. Gah4 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition" (PDF). www.avma.org. AVMA. Retrieved 10 February 2022.

[AVMA-1] "AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition" (PDF). www.avma.org. AVMA. Retrieved 10 February 2022.

[1]