Talk:Animal slaughter

Vandalism on Talk Page

Talk pages are not for debate -- just discussion of the article in question. I went ahead and reverted the conversation in fear that it would generate too much off-topic discussion. 74.242.99.231 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

POV...

I don't want to edit it at fear of being biased in the opposite direction, but the article as it stands is clearly turning a blind eye to the ubiquitous animal torture that occurs daily in the United States. At mass slaughterhouses, not to mention other places, the techniques described are often used haphazardly and with minimum regard for the wellbeing of the animals. For example, the "bolt stunner" is not 100% in producing unconsciousness, which often leaves an animal writhing through its death after its throat has been slit. Surely someone who isn't employed by the meat industry can make the adjustments. --Tothebarricades (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The stunning is not haphazard, because adrenaline release and excitement will lower the value of the meat. Animals can writhe after being stunned only because the stunning puts them into an epileptic fit. This has been known for decades. Livestock are very, very predictable creatures and handling them correctly to avoid panic is intensely cultivated by management of the slaughterhouse, because it would slow down the the through-put of the factory. Animal-rights jihadis prefer to deliberately ignore and lie about these biological/veterinary facts of life for the same reason that muslim jihadis tell teenage boys that if they carry out a suicide bombing, they'll earn 70 virgins. Reference: www.templegrandin.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.7.56 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a really stupid comment.

You call us animal rights jihadists. I call you - incomparably more justified - a murderer (and it doesn't matter at all whether you do it with your own hands or delegate the killing for your disgusting appetites).

Ecce homo... 2A02:768:860E:FA0E:E168:220E:BD63:5156 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You're very ignorant... 2A02:768:860E:FA0E:3C51:D1E2:9AE3:6BF5 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@ unsigned, wrong. Quoting templegrandin? Is that a joke? I agree with Tothebarricades.

I do not think that there should be a "controversy" item as this is article is only describing the technique of slaughter. I would however abstaing from the use of political terms and comparisions as it's use will cause more harm to the one using it and by proxy to the group he aims to defend than otherwise.

77.72.112.5 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I am proposing that this page be merged with the page "Animal Slaughter" because these pages are essentially the same. Since the slaughtering of livestock is just a subsection of animal slaughtering, I would include the comments made on this page after the merger. Both pages require a great deal of editing. However since the same editing mades to be made on both pages, it makes sense to merge the pages before any editing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Big mistake in this article

In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) specifies the approved methods of livestock slaughter:[1]...

No, the Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter are, by US law, defined as humane. These are methods of stunning. RPSM (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2) After the animal is stunned, it is killed. This is done by severing the carotid arteries (2) and the jugular veins (4) with a knife. The method of killing is the same in all slaughter unless the animal is decapitated (Jhakta) or strangled, which is done by some tribe in Northern India. Non-Jews and non-Muslims are not too particular as to how the severing of the blood vessels occurs (in an Italian paper it is mentioned that sometimes only one carotid artery is cut). Shehitah is a refined method that takes into account that the animal is sensible and conscious, and therefore has a number of provisions to lessen sensation. see Shehita RPSM (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Slaughter

This is a loose definition. Please feel free to create a clear distinct definition and category.--Jondel (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I am proposing that this page be merged with the page "Slaughter (Livestock)" because these pages are essentially the same. Since the slaughtering of livestock is just a subsection of animal slaughtering, I would include the comments made on this page after the merger. Both pages require a great deal of editing. However since the same editing mades to be made on both pages, it makes sense to merge the pages before any editing them. --DivaNtrainin —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) --DivaNtrainin

Yes, I guess they should be merged. I feel that editors/contributers to the animal slaughter want to focus a bit more on cruelty, animal ethics & rights, etc while at the livestock, it is more on the meat/butchering/food process. Do be bold, feel free and merge if you/anyone are/is up to it.--Jondel (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's merged now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

this point might be trivial

the third photo down from the right is really only semi-accurate in its description -- the cow is being restrained immediately before a captive bolt is used. however, the captive bolt is (as we all know) used only to stun the cow, to make it unconscious, prior to slaughter. the cow is then slaughtered by having its throat cut. i just don't want any readers to get the idea that the captive bolt is the only step in the slaughter of cattle. i'm wondering if a minor tweak of the caption would make the photo more accurate in its description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.214.126 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

link problem in the also see section

i noticed when you click the "Cattle Slaughter" link that you are taken to the breast article. is this vandalism or a mistake?

Thank you for noticing and bringing attention to this. This has to be vandalism.--Jondel (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. KrisAnn Rose Thompson here. Iwant to know the laws on caging animals; like, caging birds created to fly. Briefly let me know. I'll check with you on Monday. Love Eternal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.176.54.112 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Animal slaughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926035316/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/index.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaughter/index.htm#3a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

National Laws

The section on National laws on Canada has a link supposedly to a Canadian law. It instead links to the US Humane Slaughter Act

• I've removed the WikiLink to humane slaughter which redirects to US legislation. DferDaisy (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Lazy Editing

MrOllie, I've done quite a bit of work on this article, regarding multiple different facets. However, you undid it all with very little explanation. This is very frustrating. What do you have an issue with, and can we find a compromise? Mariolovr (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In what universe does Critics have labelled it murder, and it has been denounced as a perpetual genocide and the modern-day equivalent of the Holocaust.[3][4][5][6][7] belong in the lead? Praxidicae (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Our universe, but that's besides the point. If you or MrOllie have an issue with that, why not just remove and discuss that? That's just one sentence out of many more that were removed. Mariolovr (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Our universe being who, Mariolovr because this is neither neutral nor a fact, nor relevant in the WP:LEDE. Before you make such ridiculous broad statements, perhaps read up on the notes left for you on your talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake. No one mentioned this on my talk page. This is the first discussion on it. If the quote was instead "Slaughter is murder, and it is a perpetual genocide and the modern-day equivalent of the Holocaust" then, yeah, that wouldn't be neutral, but that's not the case. This is a significant view by many people opposing animal slaughter, and all that's being done is reporting on that fact. Mariolovr (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Note parallel discussions at Talk:Artificial_insemination#Rape?, Talk:Smithfield_Foods#Offensive_videos, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

They aren't parallel. The only common link is that fact you also oppose what I contributed to those articles too. Mariolovr (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The common link is the WP:PROFRINGE pushing of the views of a tiny minority of animal rights extremists as though they were mainstream criticism. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, could you be any more biased? "Extremists"... really? Animal rights advocates have shaped the history of animal slaughter and treatment. For you to take such a hostile stance against them is ridiculous. It's now obvious to anyone that you're just censoring these views because you dislike them. Someone with such an intense bias really shouldn't be editing these kind of articles. Mariolovr (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Only an extremist would suggest that conservationists are raping endangered species by using artificial insemination. - MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

And only someone with such a hostile anti-animal-rights bias would think that's what is being said. The AI = rape debate has to do with livestock, not endangered animals. Stop being so misleading, and please get back on topic to your lazy editing. Mariolovr (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr Might I suggest you cease pontificating on the motives of other editors and brazen personal attacks before you find yourself blocked from editing entirely? You should consider this a final warning. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I was called an extremist, and I don't even agree with these statements. I just think they deserve to be seen and I'm trying to remove wikipedia's anti-animal rights bias. Where is your warning for MrOllie? Threatening me with a block because I accurately described an editor's behaviour is just bullying. Mariolovr (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The article said "AI is used for pets, livestock, endangered species, and animals in zoos" and you added 'Critics label this practice as rape or sexual assault.' - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have added a bit more context, but unless you're going to talk about animal slaughter, we really should discuss this on the correct talk page. Mariolovr (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Slaughter(livestock)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Slaughter(livestock) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Slaughter(livestock) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)