Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

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.--BirgitteSB 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to start the article? WAS 4.250 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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..--BirgitteSB 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a flaw, Birgitte. It's a good idea and that's contribution enough. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What name do you suggest for this article? Factory farming (term) ? WAS 4.250 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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! Jav43 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the commentary. It really has gone too far. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an honest try at communication. Your response makes no sense to me at all. WAS 4.250 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

1. Move the current contents of Factory farming to Confined animal feeding operations and edit appropriately including possibly moving some material to other agriculture articles
2. Make Factory farming a disambig page like Modern agriculture
3. Create a page called Factory farming (term) and fill it with all the sourced data dug up in this argument

WAS 4.250 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 4.250 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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[1] (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[2]. 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.[3].

If we perform the same search, but limit the results to those under ".gov", we get 441,000[4].

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.[5]

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.[6]

(This pretty much proves that the term "CAFO" is only used in the USA, and mostly in a legalistic, non-colloquial way.)

Now, lets do the same with "Factory farming".

Total hits: 521,000 [7]

Total hits ".gov": 355 [8]

Total hits ".us": 10,900 [9]

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.[10]

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.--Cerejota 03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 04:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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? --Cerejota 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"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. Jav43 05:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "you"? (I hope it's not me.) Jav43 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what lawyers and lobbyist in their enclosed world of doublespeak use as jargon. I do care what reliable sources have to say:

• New York Times: "CAFO" 7 google hits, "Factory farming" 49;

• Time magazine: "CAFO" 0, "Factory farming" 7;

• Washington Post: "CAFO" 7, "factory farming" 59

Even this radical animal rights, anti-capitalist rag:

• The Wall Street Journal, goes "CAFO": 1, "Factory farming": 2.

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.--Cerejota 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet it doesn't, as it isn't the term used by US agriculturists. Jav43 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Jav43 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Jav43 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)...

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.

This discussion must end here, unless a term that satisfies this common sense and policy-based approach are proposed. Please review WP:POINT.--Cerejota 08:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Jav43 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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) NathanLee 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the contents in that section belong here. As such I am raising a merge request.--Cerejota 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, don't merge. That information is about industrial agriculture, not so-called "factory farming". Jav43 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 19:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Repeated, overlong list moved to Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST.--Cerejota 04:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

WAS 4.250 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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!--Cerejota 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 4.250 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Jav43 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Jav43 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This was left in my talk page:

"Do you have the same problems as SV, Crum, and Localzuk? Read [11]. 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. Jav43 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"

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.

Thanks!--Cerejota 07:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You tend to accuse people of violating various rules when there is no reason to do so. Please stop. Jav43 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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!--Cerejota 11:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You made this easy. [12] Jav43 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Considering that Cerejota's favorite cite-to rule appears to be related to so-called "disruptive behavior", I think this is clear. Jav43 22:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, as posting such a long list, that you have posted before, is disruptive on such a complex and fast moving talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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! --Cerejota 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[13] Jav43 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for arbcom? WAS 4.250 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --John 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Haber 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:NPA. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

I'll continue to edit the article, but I won't take part in these discussions again until the civility and filibustering issues are resolved. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 welfare SV 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. NathanLee 13:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The personal abuse on this page of regular editors really has gone too far. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 10:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SlimVirgin, please stop abusing regular editors. Jav43 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, please stop your personal attacks. Try to focus on the issues, not the editors. Crum375 19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS, this is your last chance. I se eyou have added material but not apologized for your personal attack.--Cerejota 04:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You really can't handle disputes on your own without crying to "authority"? Amazing. Jav43 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Jav43 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, please don't remove that image while logged out, as it leaves a false impression of how many times you're reverting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --John 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Quite simply, no, I am not. Jav43 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Oh good grief. Slim you have a banana in your ear again. You are not hearing me even in the slightest. WAS 4.250 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Um? No, most of the attacks, sarcasm, filibustering, and obfuscation on this page are from you and Crum, as I recall. Jav43 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [14]. NathanLee 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [15] 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 [16] 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 [17]. 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. NathanLee 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone notice? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, noticed - three times in fact... Shame, again. -Localzuk^(talk) 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's our next step? What can be done? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. NathanLee 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 NathanLee 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on them.. :) Have had other things taking time away (work, life etc), so it's only sporadic.. NathanLee 18:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this, together with your comment above [18] 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. Spenny 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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). BCST2001 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bites tongue :) Spenny 23:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to imply. BCST2001 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do ;) There are a number of comments that I could make, but they would be presumed inflammatory. Spenny 00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you feel the wiser course is to imply inflammatory comments rather than make them? BCST2001 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. BCST2001 00:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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? NathanLee 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, a decent editor with decent editing behavior would agree to mediation, when it is clear that discussion has been exhausted. Crum375 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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? NathanLee 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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:

• 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. 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 4.250 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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!--Cerejota 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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. NathanLee 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, you're unnecessarily holding a grudge and blocking progress. Please move on. Jav43 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Cerejota 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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). NathanLee 08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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.. NathanLee 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--BirgitteSB 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur; "pig" seems a more international term. --John 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--BirgitteSB 16:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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):

1. 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.
2. All editors will follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at all times, under pain of the same remedies.
3. 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? --John 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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 :) Spenny 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. At present we have:

"Factory farming, a system or method of intensive animal farming^[1] or industrial farming,^[2] is the practice of raising farm animals in confinement at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions.^[3][4][5] 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.^[6]"

That seems reasonable and well-referenced to me. What (specifically) would others desire to change about the definition? --John 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [19] 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. Spenny 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --John 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Jav43 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you reference that? This reference seems to disagree with you. --John 16:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"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 4.250 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --John 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The position is slightly different, and more related to synthesis. Here is a respectable mainstream source (just to use some policy wordings) [20] 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 [21]. 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. Spenny 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the main differences between factory farming and industrial agriculture? --John 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article factory farming is about activist complaints about factory farming and industry rebuttles while the article industrial agriculture and its subarticles are about industrial agriculture which includes important issues regarding industrial agriculture as can be found here: Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST. WAS 4.250 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case we do not need two (or even more?) articles on the subject. See Wikipedia:Content forking. --John 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In what case? I just told you that the contents are different. Do you claim the factory farming article covers these issues? If so show me where in factory farming they are covered. WAS 4.250 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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). Spenny 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(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? Spenny 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(<--)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 4.250 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --John 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• 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. But more articles and more information is needed. WAS 4.250 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. BCST2001 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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. BCST2001 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Yes. The benefits and liabilities of industrial farming go far far far beyond the ideas of the animal rights advocates. WAS 4.250 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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 4.250 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture and see if you agree with me that we should change the title of this article to Animal rights in industrial farming. WAS 4.250 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ok. WAS 4.250 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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.. NathanLee 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Spenny 16:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)