Talk:Animal–industrial complex
Latest comment: 1 year ago by C.J. Griffin in topic NPOV
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal–industrial complex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
NPOV - this article needs a NPOV flag
editThere is no part of this article that is neutral. 207.229.178.241 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- This issue has already been flagged and sorted out after several discussions. All the claims in the article are well sourced. See previous discussions (including archives). Rasnaboy (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. The article largely allows scholars, journalists and others who write on the subject to do the talking (with proper attribution throughout the body), and relatively little is written in Wikipedia's voice. Secondly, there is no editorializing present in the article that I can see. Given the nature of the topic, I'd say the article does a pretty good job at maintaining a neutral stance while presenting this material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
NPOV
editThis article is extremely NPOV. It takes the concept as fact with absolutely no critical thought. Compare this article's lede to that of, say, prison-industrial complex. The latter makes it clear that it is dealing with a concept, not objective reality. Just compare the first sentences of each:
"The term animal–industrial complex (AIC) refers to the systematic and institutionalized exploitation of animals. It includes every economic activity involving animals..."
"The prison-industrial complex (PIC) is a term, coined after the "military-industrial complex" of the 1950s, used by scholars and activists to describe the many relationships between institutions of imprisonment (such as prisons, jails, detention facilities, and psychiatric hospitals) and the various businesses that benefit from them."
The latter is a much more balanced intro, avoiding using such heavily charged terms as "exploitation" as though they were objective facts. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- We've been down this road before as you can see directly above, but nevertheless I have altered the language a bit to read: "Animal–industrial complex (AIC) is a concept used by activists and scholars to describe the systematic and institutionalized exploitation of animals", which brings it closer to the lead sentence in the article Prison-industrial complex. Given that the academic literature routinely emphasizes that the relationship between humans and animals is clearly exploitative in this context, I don't see it being an NPOV issue, especially now that the language reads this is "a concept used by activists and scholars". I have included citations for verification.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, your changes do not improve matters. They treat it as a concept that just gives a name to the "objective fact" of "exploitation". Again, the prison-industrial complex article - a topic that has received far more research - does not do this. Just because an academic article says something does not mean we have to treat it as true. Academics do not have to abide by NPOV.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have provided attribution to the activists and scholars who write on this subject. I believe this shouid resolve the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, your changes do not improve matters. They treat it as a concept that just gives a name to the "objective fact" of "exploitation". Again, the prison-industrial complex article - a topic that has received far more research - does not do this. Just because an academic article says something does not mean we have to treat it as true. Academics do not have to abide by NPOV.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)