Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

De-beaking

Question which I cannot answer: is de-beaking confined to factory farming or is it a practice that is used on normal farms? In part I ask because I know that chickens in a free range environment like a small holding can be viscious blighters and wringing the dominant bird's neck is one solution, clipping spurs and so on. Nothing obvious pops up in Google as I can't get past the chicken fan sites on the topic. ;) Spenny 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, debeaking is directly related to density of chickens. In other words, just as Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is not directly related to the crowding conditions definition of factory farming, debeaking is. But if you do crowd chickens and do not cage them then you have to debeak them or they eat each other. Don't crowd, debeak, cage. Choose one. In the future, a genetically altered for passivity chicken might be available, but not right now. WAS 4.250 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way our articles Free range and Yarding make a distinction that you may care to note. WAS 4.250 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a particular line of thought. I know someone who has a small number of chickens running free around the place aside from bed time when they hop over the fence into the coop to avoid being fox-fodder (nature red in tooth and claw - don't just blame the people). Sometimes the mix of characters is wrong and they beat each other up something rotten. I have my suspicions that the likes of de-beaking exist outside the confines of factory farming (farmer with pliers in his back pocket whipping them out when he sees trouble in the farmyard). FF makes the practice common-place almost by necessity.

If we consider the Schroder line of get rid of factory farming and all are ills are over, then I am not happy with that - it is not a neutral position. Therefore I like to test things like suggesting de-beaking is only an issue of factory farming, which is the implication of some of the tone of the article. We can see that mis-use of antibiotics is not necessarily just an issue of FF, though again FF tends towards necessitating the use and abuse of these things. Much in the same way as issues of food stuffs are exacerbated by factory farming, it is misleading to take the position that it is in itself factory farming that is the problem. I'm sure many FF practices are in use outside of FF. I simply don't have enough background on the detail to come to a position, and I haven't got a good general source. I think I might be in danger of going down the library at this rate! Spenny 12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is all a matter of clear thinking. Exactly define what you are talking about. "Factory farming" defined as tending toward maximum confinement consistent with animal health and minimum cost? Debeaking defined as removal of all chicken beak tips? Or on the other hand, "factory farming" defined as any cost-conscious raising of any chicken and debeaking as any removal of any chicken beak? Unclear thinking leads one to sometimes call grey white and sometimes call that same shade black. WAS 4.250 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the one resource I didn't check was Wikipedia which covers the issue well it seems. It gives an interesting insight, and essentially yes, it is not an issue of factory farming per se (though as you say, it depends on your view on whether factory farming is simply some level of intensity or whether it is an extreme practice), more an issue of any restriction of movement (in line with your yarding vs genuine free range). Interesting also that the EU version of free range is yarding which doesn't quite come over in the yarding article (we have some free range farms locally). Spenny 18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking

There is a confused bit about tracking in the article where it uses some low quality citations to suggest that tracking is an issue of factory farming. Whilst I understand the issue, I don't see the argument as being well-put. The 1000 cows in a hamburger is spurious, dubious, and is simply a reflection of food production not farming, I deleted the food can come from the other side of the country argument, that is irrelevant to factory farming, it is simply a reflection of the modern world, not farming technique. (In the UK we would not see it as an issue coming from one part of the country - in London there are not too many cows in Trafalgar Square). In traceability, it is not always appropriate to be concerned about the individual as long as you can identify the batch. In terms of tracing the source of a problem, it is likely to be easier with factory farming. So traceability is an issue of farming, I don't see it as unique to factory farming. I'm tempted to delete this paragraph unless there is a better structured and sourced point to be made. Spenny 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2006 North American E. coli outbreak illustrates the issues involved. Modern ag techniques have both health benefits and drawbacks. Food poisoning is as old as eating. Modern techniques trade one set of problems for another. Evaluations differ. WAS 4.250 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Spenny, I agree with you that the whole section about tracking cows has truly nothing to do about factory farming. Please, delete as you see fit. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an issue of traceability in farming; in the UK every cow is individually marked, our local butcher even displays the tag numbers of the beef he is currently selling. This was in response to the BSE crisis where one of the problems was that they could not work out what cattle had been moved where. However, not specifically a factory farming issue, the only issue specific is that when something happens, the whole flock/herd/whatever is typically slaughtered. For example, the current foot and mouth problem here is leading to a few hundred animals being slaughtered - the UK doesn't particularly go in for factory farming of cattle (on the American scale) anyhow. Spenny 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note: all cattle in the US are individually tagged, too. Jav43 23:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Supporting and Opposing Views

I think I worked out why I felt so uncomfortable with the presentation. This needs recasting. At the moment it characterises the arguments as being between two warring camps. This is misleading in that individuals also can see the dilemma: in other words, you do not have to have a supporting or opposing view to be able to appreciate the points for or against factory farming - indeed you can be neutral on the issue and hold the view that it is both necessary and unnecessarily cruel without being contradictory.

I've recast the intro. to reflect that: it better suits the NPOV style I think. I think that having neutrally worked through the issues, we can add in the debate as a notable item in its own right rather than threading it through the text. Again, more appropriate to the Wiki style. Spenny 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Agriculture" is not the same topic as "animal rights". This article pretends to about "Factory farming". It is actually about "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming". WAS 4.250 02:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint and frustration. However, what it was, what it is and what it should be can be different things. My view is that factory farming is a concept that the public relate to, and as such it is noteworthy. Although there is a choice to say it is simply an alias for intensive animal farming, I'm not there yet in being convinced that this article should not be here or cannot be rescued.

Regardless, I think the structuring of the for and against arguments as opposing points of view is itself pushing a POV that the world is divided into those in favour or those against. In fact, you can work down that list and say that an animal rights activist might well agree that factory farming will produce more chicken than less intensive methods - we can come up with an agreed statement of facts regardless of viewpoint. I don't think there is any need for the discussion to be organised into sides, the best way is to present the facts impartially and then let the reader balance the side. I don't think quotes from factory farmers in magazine articles is appropriate, to me it is presenting a POV behind a façade of WP:V. Spenny 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture for what I believe to be a more NPOV and less original research approach. WAS 4.250 17:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Within the Arguments for and against section, there are several descriptive paragraphs regarding the bullet point views. Would it be appropriate to reduce this section just to the paragraphs and move the bullet points to the Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture article with more explanation? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend not deleting anything that is fairly described as "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" from this page as that is what it is about. Further Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture has an issue oriented summary subsection style, rather than a bullet list of charges and rebuttals more suitable for a debate than a calm discourse. Sub-sub-sections probably should be created at Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture in the animal rights section on topics that have articles in wikipedia such as are listed in the issues section of the farming template (like gestation cage/stall/crib/box). WAS 4.250 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was not going to delete anything. I agree that if it has some merit to the article, it should be included like in the Arguments for and against section. However, I would like to re-ask the question - if the bullet points would be better served in an animal rights article or another article describing issues with factory farming. This would bring the focus of this article back to farming and less on the issues and feelings have toward it.--BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as some people want this to be a article on "factory farming" and others want it to be an article on "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" the edit war will never end. Let this be an article on "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" and use industrial agriculture and its sub-articles such as Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture with its subsection on animal rights pointing to this page be the suite of articles on "factory farming". If we do that, then the problem is limited to this article having an inappropriate name. WAS 4.250 19:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I can do that. I can only hope someday this article will be renamed to an appropriate title. It is quite misleading at this moment. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have every confidence that things will work out in the end. WAS 4.250 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I already proved beyond the reasonable doubt why this article needs to be named Factory farming. Do not misinterpret the fact that other editors are tired of the POV pushing with a lack of vigilance. Any attempts to introduce geographic bias, ovelry technical explanations, original narratives, etc, will be dealt with. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, inflammatory comments and veiled threats. Your comments would have more credence if there was evidence of positive editing on the article by yourself to resolve the issues you raise. Thanks! Spenny 23:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What personal attack? If you feel I am violating policy, please feel free to bring a WP:DR. You excuse actual uncivil behavior on the part of WAS, while characterizing my legitimate warnings against policy violations as "personal attacks". It is not a veiled threat, it is a clear warning not to violate content policy, as has been down in the past, continues to be done, and we have sought to stop by trying to engaged in sabotaged mediation attempts. I suggest you stick to debating content, rather than people, unless egregious examples (Such as WAS') happen. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Amongst other things, the implicit assumption of bad faith. Please stop, take stock of John's comments above and work positively. Spenny 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Until you stop introducing bias and POV into the article, you are in no place to talk, Cerejota. Jav43 12:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on Intro

I'm a little surprised that the edits I have done to the issue are characterised as POV pushing, which boarders on incivility in the context of the sensitivities of this page. I also do not think it is in the spirit of a fresh start. I take issue with the blind reverting as (a) it is not an appropriate and constructive editing response, and (b) it restores a version which appears to claim that opposing factions do not accept as fact that factory farming can produce more product or that there is not acknowledgement of cruelty or potential cruelty. This is clearly POV pushing in itself, as has already been discussed on this talk page (though the edit comment suggests this is not the case, again AGF if we are in that game, which I would hope we are not). Whilst there are factions, there is a factual basis to the points of view of both sides and it is unhelpful to cast those facts as opinions only held by one side or another. From my viewpoint, it is a given that factory farming does produce "more product" and I don't think the animal rights lobby would disagree. The disagreement is about whether the cost of this in terms of impact on the animals is justified. Words like popular are inappropriate when discussing factory farming. There was a lot wrong with that old text. Edit it appropriately and I am content, inappropriate reverting is unhelpful and gives the impression of edit warring rather than constructive improvement of the article. Spenny 10:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In particular, (b) is important. These things are fact, acknowledged universally. There's no need to reduce them to claims by one side or the other. Jav43 15:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this view, as it is WP:SYNTH. It is an irrelevant "fact" when talking about controversy. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Jav43 12:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And then you ask yourself why people ignore the talk page, do you fail to see how "That makes absolutely no sense" as a one-liner could possibly be seen as incivil and patronizing?

What part didn't make sense? The WP:SYNTH part or the irrelevant part? Because I can dig up reliable sources that state that factory farming is not needed to satisfy food needs in the world, and a huge percentage of the slaughter products are either not used or badly distributed. A huge amount of people die of hunger on one side of the world, while another side trashes huge agricultural surpluses made possible in part by factory farming. The WP:SYNTH is clear: the "benefits" of factory farming are in dispute, and attempting to say they are not simply because they are your opinion and this opinion is shared with some sources is WP:SYNTH.

Now, what doesn't make sense? Please do not confuse your disagreement with lack of coherence. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That does make absolutely no sense. What does "It is an irrelevant 'fact' when talking about controversy" mean?

Also, you seem to have failed to actually read the text. There is no dispute that so-called "factory farming" makes "food production more efficient, cheap and available for a growing population". Issues regarding misuse or need or whatever else ARE NOT part of what you're reverting. Please stop.

Finally, your edits show extreme POV. For example, the image of the sow, as conclusively shown, does not belong; your attempts to reinstate it are ridiculous and unwarranted.

If you cannot look at this issue objectively, you should not be working on this article. Jav43 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jav, I think Cerejota's edits are fine. Please refrain from attacking your fellow editors, and try to stick to the issues. You are free to disagree with others and hold your own opinions; you are not free to attack and disparage others. In general, just focus on finding good reliable sources. Thanks, Crum375 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... how about you do the same? Oh, wait, right - you prefer unreliable pseudo-sources and synthesis. How about just focusing on finding neutral, good, reliable sources - and incorporating facts from those sources into the article - while removing biased, poor, or unreliable sources and associated "facts"? Jav43 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Crum, you are propogating Cerejota's version without explaining how it improves things. The flaws in Cerejota's version have been explained in talk here. Please do not continue to propogate that flawed version. At the very least, you might explain, point by point and changed-word by changed-word, what makes Cerejota's version better in your opinion. Jav43 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am told that things are about edits not people, yet the small modifications I made went to some lengths to choose some words which I had explained in the talk page, which fundamentally was about removing an implicit POV so that the main issue about factory farming should be the activity not the controversy. They have been reverted with the justification that SV's version is better, Cerejota etc. which is clearly not a discussion about content, but about who is making the edits. There has been no discussion of the words. The rule of 3 seems to have even required SV making an especial visit to Wikipedia on the 12th for the sole purpose of responding to the deletion request and reverting this article. This does not reflect well on all those concerned. I'm going to ask John to take a view. Spenny 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

first two citations

We should really find another way of dealing with the first two "references" in this article. They really don't fit. Any ideas? Jav43 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctant to remove them due to the sensitivities, but for the introduction, it is unnecessary word count (I am content with the definition that follows on). I think I had in mind a thorough reconstruction of the term section, where it could thoroughly discuss the range of meanings the phrase has, how it is used by politicians, activists and the press with different connotations and how it relates to all farming practises. I haven't really had the time or enthusiasm to get into that. Spenny 16:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I am really bringing up the points I raised in [[1]]. Yes, there are sensitivities to consider... so I'm not sure where to go with this. I've tried to work out something regarding the meaning of terms, but I have had a hard time finding reliable sources; "factory farming" is rarely used by peer-reviewed sources, while "industrial agriculture" or "confined feeding operation" are rarely used by popular non-scientific sources. I still think there is validity to my point that "factory farming" is a pejorative term (at least in the US). Jav43 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, and you should know my view is that factory farming has more than one sense to it, which is perfectly usual. You may detect I am trying to be the epitome of the well-behaved editor (I only said trying!) to see if that will help move forward. We need solid foundations to allow constructive editing.

Most of the main players appear to be back in town, though it appears that WAS has been worn down. My suggestion is that we ask John to moderate a debate on scope and structure (I am keen to establish the principle of separation of ethics and process) to come to a resolution under "Fresh Start". From the introductory chat, my view is that this could work, and with a brutal approach to good behaviour on all parties, John may have the stature to carry that through. For good faith, we could hold the discussion in a neutral zone, so those that feel that this page is the wrong place to be could contribute. On that basis, I will put a note on John's page though I guess he is watching. I think he should do the invites. If that can be resolved, then there is the potential to validate, and adjust, the general farming article structure to a consensus. This will need everyone to be on their very best behaviour. I would also suggest there is a moratorium on deletion and restructuring until that point. Spenny 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

My recent edits and reformatting are intended to better article quality and fit the sources. I did some work on encyclopedic voice and internal coherence, in particular when naming things.

It is obvious to me, using Industrial agriculture (crops) as model, that this article is a sor tof parent article to Factory farm. Sources show that factory farm, and associated terms (ie CAFOs, ILOs, CFOs etc) are the form that livestock and poultry industrial agriculture takes in the world. However, there is also industrial aquaculture. SO this page should serve a role in establishing the existence of these forms of agriculture, but leave the bulk of the contents to be handled by the sub-pages. My edits are geared in this direction.--Cerejota 10:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, industrial agriculture (animals) is not limited to so-called factory farming; factory farming is a subset. Industrial agriculture includes mere intensive methods using industrial equipment; so-called factory farming requires high animal population density. You are correct that industrial agriculture should be a more generic page, with this among other pages as subpages -- which, happily, is the case. Jav43 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a clear exit

We can go into formal mediation. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not engaged in the first step, which is discussion here. No need to escalate. Spenny 07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have engaged amply in it, only to be met by vitriol. And when we have suggested moderation in the past, it has been ignored. Please read the history of the page. You just arrived here and know nothing of the long history of abuse on the part of WAS and Co. If you are going to be patronizing, at least nake sure you actually know what you are talking about. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I assumed your exit referred to your dispute over the edits which I have justified in Point to Point. Please read Fresh Start above. You clearly are dragging quite a history with you which I respectfully suggest colours your views of what is going on here. I have a clear agenda which is nothing to do with personal history:

• That the issue of scope of this article is not resolved.
• That there needs to be a clear split between the practice and the ethical debate.

Those issues can be compatible with all editors to this page, and if we can escape the personal side of the editing, which is not easy. John has essentially offered to mediate and slap down hard on all inappropriate behaviour. I am trying to embrace that approach. Why not try it too? It is not at all easy, nor is it fun, but it is satisfying.

Thanks!--Spenny 10:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

This section added as there is insistence that there is undue synthesis on this article. Rather than edit war the article, I have added this section to support the tag assertion that there is discussion on the problem here.

As yet this tagging has not been justified.Spenny 10:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

stop reverting for fun

The introduction of original research based on the WP:SYNTH list from uncivil WAS is not acceptable.--Cerejota 07:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I am not reverting for fun, you are edit warring without referring a content dispute to discussion. Read and respond to the Point by Point above. It is about content, not process, not policy. Spenny 07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Point by point is circular and has been responded to before. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Please read Fresh Start.

2) Please explain circular. I hardly think that counts as reasoned debate.

3) How can reasoning not previously listed have been responded to before.

4) On that basis, I have reluctantly reverted your third revert with my third revert. I withdraw from the article for the day and will take a break. Spenny 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota: You have not explained your reverts. Without explanation, they are unsupported and incomprehensible.

I would request that you stop accusing people of incivility. Such accusations only propagate further incivility, rather than curbing impolite conduct.

Please focus on substance rather than form. Jav43 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Page edit protected

{{editprotected}}

Remove:

See also: Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture

and all links to Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture (if any)

As article has been deleted.

Thanks!--Cerejota 05:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture has been deleted

The closing admin has recommend we try mediation as a way to resolve the outstanding issues. I again open an informal request and conversation in this regards. I believe informal mediation will not lead anywhere, an are unwilling to participate in it.

So I suggest we explore again going into formal mediation.

Before making an actual proposal, so we do not make the MedCom lose time, I would like to gauge the opinion of involved editors in this regards. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears from the deletion debate that uninvolved editors don't support what has been going on, so I feel the need for mediation is stronger than ever, because we obviously need to get this situation sorted out. I suggest that we approach the MedCom even if we have the same two or three objections as before, because we had nine people (as I recall) willing to be involved. Two or three shouldn't be allowed to decide on behalf of nine. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Two days and no responses? Come on! Lets move this forward... Thanks! --Cerejota 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected exactly three minutes after Crum again reverted to an unexplained version?

Amazing coincidence.

Perhaps a better solution would have been to ban Crum/Cerejota/SV from editing this page, since they refuse to engage in discussion.

Now they have "won" and will sit idle for another month. Jav43 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I protected it, as the protection log says, to prevent another ongoing edit war. It seemed better than issuing blocks. Feel free to make any constructive suggestions here. --John 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your actions capricious, in blocking me three days ago, while now refusing to take action against Cerejota, but rather locking his flawed version into place. Constructive suggestions? Don't lock a version that is unexplained and little better than vandalism. We need to facilitate discussion; locking Cerejota's version counts to him as a "win" and will simply prevent discussion on the issue for another month. Remove all disputed text from the locked version, in order to prevent endorsing anything in particular, or don't protect the page, but rather ban the users who avoid discussion -- those are my suggestions. I don't suggest blocking users; banning is more narrowly tailored to the problem. Jav43 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (addendum) I am referring to a partial ban, of course, banning edits to the agriculture project or to this particular page. Jav43 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

To be infinitely clear: protecting the version sponsored by Cerejota/SlimVirgin/Crum375 will not lead to resolving the dispute, as those users refuse to engage in discussion on the talk page. Assuming the intent of page protection is to foster dispute resolution, protecting this page while under this version will not achieve that intent. All that will happen is that a month will silently pass, then the current dispute will resume. Protecting this page is not the answer. Jav43 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

John. I am disappointed that the very careful effort I put into justifying the edit, flagging it very carefully in my edit requests has been allowed to be ignored. Crum375's edit note is simply untrue and it is not a reflection of a fresh start but is continuing the warring. I am not comfortable with my reverting this morning, it was pointy but I withdrew. A tag team revert and page lock gives the appearance of a lack of evenhandedness. However, there are plenty more weeks to make an encyclopedia, I'll live :) Spenny 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding Ian. I didn't expect this to be a popular move but, short of handing out at least two blocks, I thought this the best way to calm the situation down. --John 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

John, maybe I'll be proven wrong, but from what has happened in the past, you have taken action that will provoke rather than calm the situation. Your protection means that those opposed to the protected version of the page will be increasingly annoyed and frustrated by that version being locked in place. When those supporting the locked version do not comment on this talk page while the page is locked, this frustration will be aggravated. When the protection is removed, the current version will be reverted, with more emotion than at present, and the subsequent reverts (again, as at present, without explanation) will create a continuing edit war. The solution is not to lock the page - and particularly, not to lock the page in the version preferred by those who refuse to discuss content. Your move will only aggravate the situation when the protection is removed. Jav43 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted)I didn't think I had been that understanding... :) I think it would have been a more appropriate response to hand out 3 blocks myself, and block anyone else who reverts rather than edits. That would have kept the faith. It's not too late to correct this in my view. It might actually catalyse some crafty thoughtful editing.

Perhaps another way ahead would be for you to look through Point by Point, and any issue that you believe is convincingly made as an improvement over the current text be put in as an admin. edit, with any admin reversion being a wheel war block (if that is what you do). PS Not trying to do a double act with Jav, though it often appears to happen. Spenny 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dejavu.. This has happened before. Although it was localzuk and a request for page protection to keep his version up. Now the same thing again. I think there's some very obvious tag team reverting (or meatpuppetry it could be termed) and once again the same editors are involved. NathanLee 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resuming the discussion

I'm willing to start discussing the issues with the editors who agreed to mediation if the personal comments, sarcasm, and filibustering stop completely. Over the last nearly three years, I've edited some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia, but I don't recall being subjected to the kind of abuse I've seen on this talk page. You can't subject people to that then complain when they withdraw.

If points could be made succinctly (no long or repetitive posts); with the focus on content only; and if people would stick closely to what the content policies actually say, I'd be willing to resume the discussion. Better still, those of us who agreed to mediation could get together and arrange it, which the MedCom might agree to. There were, I believe, nine of us, which is enough to establish a compromise and consensus. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal. Can I apologise for the delay in my getting back into helping here; real life rather took over for a while there. My main suggestion would be that we agree (here) on the proper hierarchy and content of the different articles first, and then it might avoid a lot of the content dispute, which currently seems to derive from this disagreement about what the different articles should contain. Does that make sense? --John 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. My original proposal was that we have two articles: Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). We produced multiple sources showing that intensive farming, factory farming, and industrial farming are used interchangeably. The only clear distinction is between the methods used for animals and those used for crops, so it's a natural division. Both articles should include a description of the perceived benefits and perceived drawbacks according to reliable sources.

The main thing is that there should be no content forking. The ArbCom is currently ruling on that specific point, namely "Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy provides that all significant points of view must be presented fairly and without bias. Content forking, where two or more articles are written from differing points of view on a single topic, is a violation of the NPOV policy." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WAS recently provided a clear outline of the discussion in this subset of agriculture articles. To quote him: Jav43 02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jav, this is the kind of thing that has proven unhelpful. It's pure OR, as well as complicated and difficult to implement. We need a streamlined solution that sticks to how the terms are actually used by reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rephase what was here: Jav, Slim, it is unhelpful to carry across the personalities of who proposed what and not look at the content. I do not see a structure of articles as being OR, but there was a documented route for arriving at the content. Spenny 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what I did that you feel was inappropriate. Jav43 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Spenny, I don't know what you mean about "carry[ing] across the personalities." Jav posted a structure. I replied that in my view it was unhelpful. Period. Your comments are the kind of thing we're trying to move away from. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to work to the premise that if we are to debate content, not people, then describing things as WAS's outline is carrying on the history, albeit you may feel it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I accept that I am implicitly doing the same thing being critical of Slim, but there is a tone of history about it, being dismissal, rather than discussing whether it is a workable structure. After all, what if it is OR, this is a discussion page. To bring in personality, I had a brief exchange with WAS on his talk page and he understands what I am trying to do here. I do think it is rubbing off a bit! (I also feel a bit sad after seeing other comments there). Spenny 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But you're the one who is trying to debate people. Please stop and address only the issues. My position is that the list posted by Jav is OR and too complex. Stick to addressing that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I am being obsessed by having a Fresh Start. Spenny 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I felt it was inappropriate to use his work without giving credit. Jav43 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The outline WAS provided seems quite workable; he has already built a page structure around it which is fluid and self-consistent. I don't believe it is "complicated and difficult to implement". I also don't see it being OR, for reasons I'll address in another section later. Jav43 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture (IA) is the context for this article and the suite of articles that it is a part of includes:

• 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. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the following articles ought to exist: Intensive farming; Extensive farming; Industrial agriculture; and one other, to be called either Factory farming, Industrial agriculture (animals), or CAFOs. I'm not fussed about the title of this last article, which should focus on the treatment of animals issue. All the other articles have a clear purpose for existing. Intensive and extensive farming are opposing and substantial terms. Industrial agriculture is a critical concept for understanding modern existence, and for reasons that are not limited to the animal rights issues.

Splitting Industrial agriculture into one article on crops and one on animals makes no sense: the overarching concept deserves an entry. As has been pointed out previously on this page, an essential aspect of the phenomenon of industrial agriculture is the interconnection between plant and animal agriculture: for example, the creation of GM crops to feed GM pigs, and the questions raised by such developments. Industrial agriculture is a single process with multiple elements. Were Wikipedia to delete this article, it would be obscuring a fundamental aspect of the process of life and technology on this planet. It is simply not the case that we can assume that (quoting SlimVirgin) "angst for animals" is "the main criticism of all industralized processes of farming that involve animals": there are other very important questions raised by these processes.

My fundamental point is that a critically important phenomenon should not be concealed by an artificial split into two articles, a split which is being advocated in order to push a particular point of view about modern agricultural practice. I have nothing against that POV, but it should not be at the expense of not properly addressing other important aspects of the globalized process of industrial agricultural production. The questions raised by this process are scientific, technological, philosophical, and political, and they are deserving of a proper encyclopedic treatment. I am certain that, upon reflection, all editors can recognize the importance of these topics. BCST2001 06:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BCST's proposal sums up exactly what I object to. He wants a separate article, to be called Factory farming or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), to "focus on the treatment of animals issue." This is content forking. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking, and the ArbCom is currently ruling that it's a violation of NPOV. The treatment of animals is an absolutely central issue in any discussion of the intensive farming of animals. It has nothing to do with animal rights. It's an animal welfare issue (which is quite separate from animal rights), as well as a human welfare issue, because the argument goes that what's bad for the animals may also be bad for the people who eat those animals. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deal with the issue, not the person. You can talk to your concerns without talking to the person. Fresh start needs to apply to all parties if we are to move on. It would not take many words to rephrase that comment to something entirely impersonal. Spenny 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The above does deal with the issue. Stop your incessant focus on me, in the name of doing the opposite. You seem obsessed by me. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically on the content forking. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to spin off content and maintain the same point of view. The issue is whether the pro's and con's should be spun off. The answer to me is that it is unimportant. The acid test is, do the pro's and con's pervade the article, or is the ethical debate contained in a separate section? Clearly, there may be practices which sit within their own element of the article where it is entirely appropriate to present the debate of the ethics specific to that individual practice, but it must not be given undue weight. Typically the reason for spinning of one of those subsections is not to evade the issue, but it is that the enthusiasm of the editors to contribute leads to a growth where left in place the section dominates the article. I've been involved with that sort of issue in the Dan Brown novels - it really messes up the article to have a great tome of errors in his novels, but without it readers are left without a gathering of the analysis which has spawned a whole industry of book writing. Spinning off with summary is a perfectly acceptable approach. It has to be done with balance - "factory farming - costs and benefits" not "factory farming - criticisms". Spenny 09:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the goal of this tree of agriculture articles is to have one article on intensive agriculture, one on industrial agriculture, and subarticles on things like industrial agriculture (animals) and industrial agriculture (crops). If I remember correctly, industrial agriculture simply got too big and needed to be split in some fashion; breaking industrial agriculture into two parts was done for size reasons. I see no problem with combining the two, if the resulting article is of a reasonable length. Jav43 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My observations:

• The split between arable and animal is a logical and practical division. It reflects the treatment of the subject by its practitioners as well as its documenters. School geography lessons teach this early on.
• Farming is/ought to be an enormous subject on Wikipedia. The current articles within the framework set out, do have notable content. There is sound logic to setting up a framework rather than spinning out content as articles grow. That has the potential for undue weight and arbitrary structuring. Look beyond the proposer and into the structure.
• I don't believe that anyone disagrees that the treatment of animals is a very important issue in intensive animal farming. However, that does not mean that the article has to be written with that observation pervading every statement of the article, or indeed all the farming articles. This is a really fundamental issue of perspective. Regardless of one's feelings of the importance of this issue, if one cannot document the the individual elements of the various practices without constant reference to animal welfare, then animal welfare is given undue weight. This seems to be a fundamental roadblock that we cannot get past.
• The presentation of factory farming as two sides arguing for and against the practice is a fundamentally flawed approach which is ingraining a point of view into the article, that point of view being "people are for it or agin it". Common sense tells us the average man/woman/McDonalds customer is mildly interested in the issue, not entirely comfortable with it, but is not going to stop eating products of the process because of it. Similarly, I doubt many farmers have a particularly philosophical view on farming, whether intensive or not. My relations in the farming game like to treat their livestock correctly, but they have no fondness for their animals, they do not anthropomorphise as they wring their chickens' necks. That is not to say they endorse unsavoury practices and I have recounted how they rejected protein feeds when they discovered that they were not sensibly sourced.
• A particular problem I have with the current article is the use of quotations to support the analysis, which may be via books of secondary source, but are a way of putting primary source material in, they are not the analysis that we seek which is essentially synthesised. Perhaps a prime example is the "Growing unpopular in Europe." I don't disagree with that statement, but I have yet to see a source that contains some paraphrasing of that statement. I altered the intro on that basis, from one synthesis which advanced a position to a milder less contentious synthesis. (I am not a great fan of verifiability over truth).
• Geographical viewpoint is clearly an issue which is causing difficulty. My perspective is that factory farming is ingrained into the American system, the casual acceptance of hormones in beef, the acceptance of genetic modification of crops highlight a couple of notable differences. These differences are not accounted for when reading high level sources - there is a transference of American concepts onto European statements for example. In the UK, I suspect cattle are not factory farmed as the farm land is sufficiently productive and through green belt protection, remains economic so there is no need to adopt the practice - why build buildings, employ men, pay for foodstuffs when you can leave cattle wandering aimlessly around, and they even bring themselves to be milked. One man can run a farm with many dozens of cows. France has land supplies and a tradition of agriculture so again there is nothing to be gained. Pigs are a different story, they destroy land at a phenomenal rate so are not well suited to being kept in fields. For a long time pigs have been factory farmed in the sense that they have been kept in small, barren enclosures near houses for local consumption, the only difference in treatment between the 19th century and now is the number of pigs kept together.
• There is also a problem that factory farming is not one method or philosophy, it is a catch-phrase collection of a variety of practices and concepts, with a pejorative connotation for many. This means we cannot say "Factory farms do this", "Factory farms do that" but we have to present the "menu" of activities and suggest that the collection of those is appropriate. I think the definition that stands in the intro is about as good as we will get, it reflects the vagueness of what the practice is.
• The issue of differences between animals is important. Chickens are seen as particularly stupid (with good reason) and their quality of life is rated as a fairly low priority by many people, whereas a pig is known to be intelligent, possibly more intelligent than your average Wikipedian it seems( :) ), and so the approach taken with them is different. I am sure there is a tale to be told about the transferring of the battery chicken logic to pigs and why that is now rejected.
• I picked out the example of hormones in my editing - it comes across as weasel words, it does show the problem of describing the practice. Hormones are not used in the EU, probably not in the Antipodes either, China has been rejecting American imports on that basis too. In America I suspect they are not always used, so we need a way of presenting this practice without the weasel words. I like the idea of a menu of activities (which factory farming sort of has) with an overview qualifying that not all practices are used by all sites. However, it does vary strongly by animal, which is why we need articles for the various practices of animal husbandry - chickens are simply farmed (factory farmed) differently from cattle.
• Industrial agriculture is an extremely wide field, with a wide variety of supporting industries, stretching as far as the GM research, rendering, feeding, machinery and so forth. We must be careful of terms so that we are not inconsistent. Making factory farming the semantic equivalent of industrial agriculture is not only mistaken etymologically, but that lack of differentiation will distort the whole treatment of the wider subject area.
• Lots of other things here :)

Spenny 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's going to be impossible to reach consensus if everyone posts such long comments with their personal opinions and stories about what their relatives do. What difference does it make to how many titles we have that a Wikipedian thinks pigs are more intelligent than chickens? If everyone would stick to source-based research, and would write succinctly, we would make progress. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary form

In summary form then:

• • Split animals and arable. Seems to be consensus.

• Agreed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree that there needs to be a separation between ethics and process. Seems to be contentious.

• I don't understand the distinction. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Need to address geographic disparities in practice.

• That can be done within articles, but not in separate articles (and it's not an issue here, so far as I can tell). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Need to work out how to cope with the fragmentation caused by different processes for different animals.

• I don't understand what this means. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On the above two points, the generalisation into factory farming is causing misleading and weasel-worded statements.

• Also don't understand what "the generalisation into factory farming" means. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Need to find a way to come to consensus on the scope of this page in relation to Industrial Agriculture. The definition debate. We can present sources, but the analysis of these sources seems to be the problem. There seems little point in throwing sources at the problem, discussion hasn't worked, neither has verbal fisticuffs.

Spenny 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• The only way to resolve this dispute is to "throw sources at it," and leave out all personal opinions. The problem we've had has been one of (as I see it) wilful misinterpretation of sources. Even when a source says: "X should stop; in other words, Y should become less prevalent," we've had editors argue that it doesn't show the source means X and Y are the same thing. If more mature heads prevail in that regard, this problem should be cleared up fairly quickly, and we'll be able to rely on the sources we produce. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the article you're quoting from said nor is it the argument that was given (isn't that willful misinterpretation?).. It was more closely "move away from X. We should stop y." But anyhow, here's an example with X and Y substituted: "Killing should stop, in other words violence towards individuals should become less prevalent." Are "crime" and "violence towards individuals" synonymous terms or just one a subset of the other? How would we verify this? Perhaps a dictionary might show that the two are not synonymous which would clear that up. I guess if that were the case we'd be ok then? So will Britannica and a bunch of dictionary references suffice to clear up your interpretation of synonymous? You're 100% correct on the wilful misinterpretation call. NathanLee 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to split "Industrial agriculture" into two articles, one on animals and one on plants. I strongly object to this idea, and I have given my reasons several times, most recently here. Those reasons have yet to be addressed by editors proposing the split. Industrial agriculture is an important topic, deserving of an article in its own right. There is no logic to splitting it into two articles unless the umbrella article "Industrial agriculture" is also retained. BCST2001 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, formal moderation is the solution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Future Farmers of America field manual Thanks!--Cerejota 09:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I must apologize, Cerejota, but the meaning of your comment eludes me. BCST2001 10:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of it? The formal mediation part? I think that should be clear, if not, I cannot elaborate further. Sorry, but requesting we go into formal moderation sounds pretty clear to me. If you refer to the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Future Farmers of America field manual" part, then I can expand: geographic neutrality, building branches from the top down (ie from existing articles, instead than from ready-made manuals), presenting things according to their mainstream notability, use of common language, and clear provision of context for inevitably technical articles and sections. In other words, providing information on agriculture that is not geared towards those with a technical interest in it, but those who normally read encyclopedias: a specialist on a field would be ill-advised to look in an encyclopedia for information, and the general public doesn't look for extremely technical information, but overviews on a given field of interest as part of their general curiosity on the world. Is that clear enough? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologize again, but I'm still in the dark. I don't understand how your comment is a response to mine, if that is what it is intended to be. How either sentence of yours is a response to my comment is unclear to me. BCST2001 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Image:Battery chicken 2.jpg

File:Battery chicken.jpg

Image:Battery chicken.jpg

I know there has been some debate as to which image should lead. I just uploaded these two images here. There not very good quality but I would like a few opinions of these and maybe an admin to put them in for me if people like them (not neccasarilly as lead images)--Pheonix15 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion... if the images are representative of Factory Farming and they are from a source that is meant to inform and not inflame (either for or against) the issue then they should be published in the article. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistically speaking that sow in a crate is much less representative of the conditions most animals in factory farms live in. Earlier there was a breakdown I provided of the number of sows/percentage etc.. There are far more chickens as I recall too, but still the same image "needs to be there" for some editors. NathanLee 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Pheonix15, but you've wasted your time. The only acceptable image is the one of the pigs in those crates that came from an activist site. None of the other 10 options has met with anything other than revert warring. Sad but true. NathanLee 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pheonix, where are these pictures from? Did you take them? Are they from a website? Although the quality is bad, I would sacrifice quality over the current picture that appears to be from an activist site. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

May I please edit this article? Haber 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently protected from editing. Please follow the instructions listed at the top of the article in the protection template. You can discuss changes here on talk. You can request that the article be unprotected. Or you can request that an admin make a non-controversial change for you. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

- Jimbo Wales

Please explain why administrators are not applying this principle to this article. Haber 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

meaning of terms

We have three terms which some people say are synoymous while others identify distinctions:

• intensive agriculture
• industrial agriculture
• factory farming

Here's my interpretation, as I've described with sources before [2].

Intensive agriculture is a general philosophy of maximizing output from land. It depends upon providing various inputs, such as fertilizers, to increase total output. It differs from extensive agriculture in that extensive agriculture increases total land base to increase production, while intensive agriculture focuses on increasing output from an already-existing land base. This is a broad overarching philosophy or method which encompasses industrial agriculture and factory farming.

Industrial agriculture is a method of using modern technology and manufacturing-type systems to maximize output. While intensive farming only requires an attempt to cultivate land to maximize land use, industrial agriculture does so with modern equipment and technology. Thus, farming based solely upon manual labor could qualify as intensive agriculture if it cultivates a limited plot of land, while industrial agriculture demands use of modern machinery, and would not qualify manual labor. Although industrial agriculture can involve high animal densities for more streamlined husbandry, this is not required for industrial agriculture.

So-called "factory farming", which is a pejorative term in the US, used by activists or others who wish to denegrate what they see as "factory farming" practices (the term "factory farming" is never used in support of the practice), is a system of animal husbandry where a high concentration of animals are raised in a given area. This maximized animal density is intended to increase efficiency. This differs from industrial agriculture and intensive agriculture in that those practices do not require high animal densities. What is called "factory farming" is properly known in the US as a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) and is referred to as such by agriculturalists. I am unable to speak knowledgably as to the use of the term "factory farming" outside the US - whether it is a pejorative term outside the US or whether it is merely used descriptively.

I think that clarifies the distinction between the three terms in the outline for this set of articles. I believe the issue to be decided is what articles fall under the broad umbrella of "intensive agriculture".

On a side note, I would like to briefly mention that although there have been a number of attempts to equate industrial agriculture and factory farming through sources, all but one of the sources provided thus far require synthesis or reading the author's mind to understand them as actually equating the terms. Also, every one of these sources is from a popular newspaper or animal-rights propaganda website. If we are to disregard the peer-reviewed sources discussed in archive 2, linked above, then I believe we need to do better than popular newspapers and propaganda websites. We all know how often newspaper reporters get things wrong :). In this case, even dictionaries flatly agree that the terms are distinct. Jav43 13:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jav, please provide sources for your claims, rather than just repeating your own opinions. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, I addressed, with sources, this concern. The objection to Factory farming as pejorative is a figment of Jav's imagination. For example, see this use of "Factory farm" in a colloquial manner unrelated to any controversy around farming: ::[3]

Called in from the pig farm . . . Matthew Scully, a former staffer for Govs. Mecham and Symington, published a scathing account of the craftsmen behind President Bush's speeches in the September issue of the Atlantic.

In it, Scully, who worked for Bush from 1999 to 2004, skewers his former White House collaborator, Michael Gerson, for hogging the spotlight and the credit as Bush's muse.

But apparently it wasn't just Scully's words that Gerson was co-opting as his own. Scully writes about helping Gerson edit Bush's first inaugural address by phone while parked outside a factory farm in North Carolina. He was interrupted by a call from his old friend and Symington colleague, Arizona political consultant Jay Heiler.

It was Heiler, Scully says, who came up with the idea for the president to quote Mother Teresa in his speech - an idea later credited to Gerson.

"Sometimes we are called to do great things," Bush said. "But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love."

Of course, the term is used colloquially by neutral media when reporting on issues around factory farming, simple because factory farming is a much more quickly evocative term than CAFO, which as I demonstrated, is no a term in common currency outside of technical literature regarding laws (outside of law-related technical literature, factory farming is used almost as frequently as other terms)

As I also demonstrated, peer-reviewed literature available in Google scholar uses "factory farming" with equal abandon as it uses other terms.

I think these objections based around "peer-reviewed" literature are out of bounds. We do not call a Black hole a Gravitational singularity due to star collapse, even tho that would be the technical, peer-reviewed term.

However, be advised that not all peer-reviewed academic sources support factory farming. Some in fact analyze the use of language and the creation of propaganda campaigns to defend factory farming [4].

Lastly, a point must be made about the relegation of criticism in farming/agricultural articles to a section or sub-page. Since this is food we are talking about, it is something of inherent human interest and immediately obvious to anyone. In spite of the alienation most people in the western world have form the land, the immense majority of people in the world are farmers. However, the ideas and format proposed is one that reduces the encyclopedic scope to a westernized, and in this case American, POV on farming. I oppose this as a clear violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota: here's a reference that indicates that the term "factory farming" is not one that farmers would like being used. [5] and encyclopaedia britannica specifically mentions that it is frequently used by activists [6] and if we're doing web based as any indication: the domain name and top few pages of google hits are for anti/hate sites.. Just something to consider.. NathanLee 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoid having a lead image altogether

It seems the lead image is just being used as "maximum shock" which is not what an article should be. Whether you think factory farming is evil, or the gigantic boon to humankind: the reality of it lies somewhere in between. I've removed the image, suggest we avoid having a lead image if it's such a pain in the neck. NathanLee 17:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also - that image is from an activist site specifically set up to campaign against "factory farming". We really can't treat it as a reliable source. NathanLee 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there's a need to keep that image from an activist site (a factory farm "hate" site) in the lead.. Anyone care to explain that.. NathanLee 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In your view, sources who strongly favor factory farming are reliable, but sources who strongly oppose it are activist haters. That won't do. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SV, YOU are the only one who has posted sources to partisan organizations supporting factory farming. No one else has done so. And regardless of Localzuk's desire for anarchy, government sources are not partisan either way. Jav43 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the images being used in this article intend to persuade, rather than educate. I vote for the elimination of the header image. Another attempt to turn this into wikisoapbox. Ares0524 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.237.50 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia administration has locked this article to prevent you from changing any part of it, including images. Haber 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Page ownership, misleading comments, revert warring, tag team reverting

Once again I check in on this page and once again I see the following:

• reverts by editors saying they have discussed things but have done nothing of the sort
• page ownership via reverting any attempts to edit beyond an owned version
• bizarre interpretations of synonymous contrary to any intelligent english interpretation thereof
• revert warring with comments "agree to mediation" but no indication of any sort of ability to discuss let alone compromise
• revert and then page protection applied from parties who have on many occasions reverted without any discussion and with blatantly false edit comments
• The same insistence to keep the most shocking or POV picture up in the lead (rather than simply not having one, or using one which represents a more common practice statistically)
• back to the insistence that there is only one possible term (never mind Extensive agriculture having a logical opposite intensive agriculture) etc which is backed up by sources like dictionaries and other encyclopaedias
• misleading edit comments
• an inability to have a sophisticated, objective view of this field of agriculture
• ignoring the policies on dispute avoidance
• ignoring previous arbcom directives on behaviour

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you can't separate out ideology that blinds you in your wikipedia edits (which is exactly what we're seeing here I think it's pretty obvious): then refrain from editing. I cannot believe that people's memories of the point by point referenced and reasoned arguments on this have slipped their minds so quickly that they need to ask the same unhelpful comments ("show sources" and and make the same CONTRARY TO POLICY reverts rather than discussion. Developing the content should not be a case of who can best game the system, piss as many people off as possible (or drive them away from wikipedia) and repeatedly come back with revert warring with no talk page interaction. NathanLee 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I invite anyone else tempted to vent or rant here to review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Let's keep this page for its intended purpose please. --John 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

All quiet on the western front? Revert-happy people: have you any of that "as per discussion" to add since you've got the page blocked and a fresh set of users talking of leaving wikipedia (again)? NathanLee 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock?

Since there's been nothing going on for a while.. And maybe the revert warring types have grown up a bit: time for an unblock? NathanLee 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the front page and history, it's been unlocked for a while. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, with no input from those who drag the page into a blocked state do we just assume they're going to follow the "avoid reverts" policy now? NathanLee 23:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported analysis

The practice has become increasingly unpopular in Europe due to a series of events associated with modern farming techniques, including outbreaks of swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth, and bird flu, together with concern over animal welfare.

There is no support in sources for this analysis which is an original interpretation. I'd previously softened the wording and I have a suspicion it may be true, but we haven't got any citations. Spenny 12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Supported expert non-regionally-biased scientific analysis as presented by neutral third party secondary source:""There is no doubt that the world has to depend upon some of the technologies of intensive animal food production systems," said FAO livestock policy expert Joachim Otte. "But excessive concentration of animals in large-scale industrial production units should be avoided and adequate investments should be made in heightened biosecurity and improved disease monitoring to safeguard public health," he said in a statement." [7] WAS 4.250 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between suggesting that there is a need to improve factory farming methodologies and the claim that it is increasingly unpopular (with whom?) and due to. The suggestion of increasing unpopularity is a synthesis which should be verifiable if it is notable. If it is held to be increasingly unpopular, then the analysis will no doubt assert what the causes were. These might align to the statement above, but it is a pretty emotive way of saying something which we could say neutrally, such as there is currently support in Europe for improvement of factory farming methods. I can cite DEFRA directly on such a statement without bringing in the novel concept of popularity to the argument.

Having said that, that is a good source to be able to express neutrally that there IS a concern about the methods of factory farming. Spenny 13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I provided the sourced comment not to support what you deleted but to replace what you deleted (perhaps as a useful summary in the lead?). WAS 4.250 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Proponents of factory farming argue that it makes food production more efficient, that the animals are looked after in state-of-the-art confinement facilities and are content,[7] that it is needed to feed the growing global human population, and that it protects the environment.[8] Opponents argue that it harms the environment, creates health risks,[9][10][11] and abuses animals.[3] Gerhard Schroeder, then German Chancellor, called for a re-think of factory farming methods in 2000 in response to Europe's BSE crisis,[4][12][13] and the risks to human health continue to be a concern to scientists." misrepresents the sources. You will note that the last source provided makes points labeled as given by the strawmen "proponets" (that it is needed to feed the growing global human population) as well as the strawmen "opponets". There are both good and bad aspects of factory farming. Putting the good in the mouths of one group and the bad in the mouths of another group is a lie. Further, it also makes the important point that factory farming is not some monolithic thing that must be accepted as is or rejected in toto but instead is a variety of interconnected adjustable technologies that can and should be tweaked in accordance with the latest evaluations of what is best for society. WAS 4.250 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - I'd said this along time ago, the approach of sides is original research - it is looking at what is said and making that analysis, rather than finding a (reliable) source that debates it in those terms. What I have done so far is to pick out some obvious distortions that have a reasonable line of policy to support.

An interesting example is the one calling for an end is an interesting comparison of sources: both sources are of equal stature, but the BBC makes a careful wording, whereas the other source (CNN) is a sloppy hearsay reporting of "someone said the Chancellor said something" which at best, under policy could be written in as saying scientists claimed that the Chancellor called for an end to factory farming. Not having the German source to hand, it is a bit hard to prove that, so it does not seem to be a reliable source. Anyhow, quite a good example of why you would really want to go to a primary source to validate the analysis (oops! wrong page). Spenny 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)\

Large gap

The large gap between first 2 paragraphs is very unsightly, and it's due to the Agriculture box having it's code between the 1st & 2nd paragraphs. I suggest moving the box's insertion point to the beginning of the 2nd section (The term). That eliminates the huge gap, and though it's still not an ideal layout while the contents box is open, it looks decent when the contents are hidden. What do y'all think? JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Anything to make this article a bit better in appearance is something I'd supprot. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• unsure. But give it a go - I think the page's readability from an editing point of view AND aesthetics is stuffed because of the lead image in there personally. By all means give it a go. Can we do away with that and then the agriculture box has room to "breathe". NathanLee 05:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There being no objections over several days, I'll now implement it. JD Lambert^(T|C) 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it makes a lot of difference. It seems to render OK for me on Firefox in either form, unless I am missing something. The real issue is the content box, but that is a generic issue as far as I am aware. Spenny 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Barren and Unnatural

I do not like these words in the lead because to me they are opinion. However, some object to their being excluded because they are cited. Per wikipedia policy, if they are cited they can go in, but I believe that if that sort of anal response is the reason to include this opinion of the practice in the lead, then the citation should be literally followed. The citation says that it is a European phenomenon and the citation also refers to the past not to the present. Since this is literally what is cited it is literally what should go in the lead. Or else the phrase could be removed. --Blue Tie 23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The source was UN. I don't think it is opinion per se. The source does not specifically say it is a European phenomenon, though it is giving a historical European context. If you take the source as a whole, it glides from talking about Europe into talking about the worldwide phenomenon. It does not seek to redefine the discussion and indicate that the problems are any different in implementations anywhere else in the world.

So the response (and forgive me if I do not think it is anal) is not because it is cited, but because I think it is a fair reflection, a reasonably neutral view. These animals are not kept in fields, and even if they are the intensity of farming will end up with them being denuded. So, I think it is fair comment to say conditions are "unnatural". It is not a term that has been invented, the source is just to underline it is a reasonable phrase. Barren, well, again I would say fair comment. It is, for an example, a fair description of the photograph next to the lead, which I think is a reasonable reflection of a factory farm. If you think "barren" is too pointy, then I wouldn't fight about it, but it is the essence of factory farming that conditions are unnatural.

In terms of citations, there are a significant number of sources that describe the practice from different perspectives. The selection of the phrase was trying to capture a compromise between lots of cited sources, some of which made extreme claims, like "indoors" - not always true. Spenny 07:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My bigger objection was the alteration that made the lead suggest that the problems were European, which would be ironic as the USA has some of the most extreme installations, though the extremes are being copied in the East European states like Poland. Spenny 07:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that quoting the full paragraph, thus providing context (it is the intro paragraph to a "chapter") will satisfy everybody. I don't really like the paragraph though because the author's words illustrates the unclear thinking and writing that has permeated the wikipedia discussion in including "high inputs of feed, fertiliser," in a paragraph that starts out mentioning "intensification of animal production" and concludes with "intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals". Yes fertiliser use is one of many elements of both intensive and industrial crop farming methods but it is not an essential element (it is being replaced where possible by careful scientific nutrient analysis and sustainable technological innovations such as "integrated farming systems"[8][9]). Fertiliser is an output of those intensive systems that are characterised by confinement of the animals and an input of most current intensive systems that are characterised by crop monoculture (which causes its own problems such as reduction of biological diversity and usable habitats for wildlife). To beat a dead horse, using this paragraph for a purpose other that which it was authored is original research as the author is slightly sloppy in the exact wording he is using as he is trying to make the specific point that there is a problem and here is an overall hand waving description of how we got there and did not go over its details with a mind to distinguish "factory farming" from "intensive systems" in a logical sense but is throwing out words to give the reader a sense of context as is common in human speech. Anyway, it does illustrate how these things are all tied together but its lack of precesion bothers me. Maybe adding some precising language might help. Sometimes we add (sic), but I think maybe a slight clarification might be better. How about the below? any opinions? WAS 4.250 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:

"Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet. The policy was supported by guaranteed prices, encouraging high inputs [and/or outputs] of feed, fertiliser, pesticides and veterinary medicines. [These] intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions."[6]

Archiving

|Spenny]] 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture may not be right

The picture of cows on a feedlot may not be a real factory farm. Such feedlots exist where cattle merely pass through and are not retained there. I note it is from an epa website that is about animal feeding operations and not necessarily factory farms. --Blue Tie 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but what is a factory farm? Serious question: is for example an animal feeding operation simply a form of factory farming aka industrial agriculture? The terms are not clearly defined, what definition were you thinking of? Personally, it strikes me as representative of an example of a style of factory farming, but I wouldn't fight a battle over some suitable alternative. Spenny 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was using the definition of factory farming as provided in the article. By that definition, this picture does not seem to apply. --Blue Tie 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Which definition? There are several, for example under terms it suggests it applies to In the U.S., factory farms are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations, or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). which would seem to cover the picture context you mention. However, we have a barren and unnatural version from the intro which is also applicable. There is a long debate on terminology, and the problem is that even within the article it is not absolutely clear, though in reality there is not one definition but a variety of definitions.

What do you think would be a good way to address your concerns? Spenny 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that a "Confined animal feeding operation" (CAFO) is what is meant by Factory Farming. CAFO is a form of "Animal Feeding Operation" (AFO) but AFO is not a form of CAFO. The picture is of an AFO but not a CAFO. You can see that the definitions for Factory Farming and other examples are indoors, whereas this picture is outdoors. (And certainly a CAFO must be indoors).

So if the definition includes ordinary feedlots as part of factory farming, then this picture would apply, but, then too, the article should be revised to express this wide ranging definition. I think that perhaps the picture should be removed. At the very least it should be retitled in the article, but I do not think that would go far enough. I'm interested in hearing what others think. --Blue Tie 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Confined animal feeding operation"s can be outdooors. The difference between CAFO and "Animal Feeding Operation" (AFO) is largely one of size which results in CAFO's producing concentrated environmental pollution that must be regulated by law. [10] [11] WAS 4.250 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<<<CAFOs can be outdoors. The "barren" aspect refers to lack of natural vegetation that the animals can eat and can naturally process the resulting animal waste. High density destroys the vegetation and produces unacceptable pollution from the animal waste in runoff and ground water unless it is handled appropriately, so laws have been enacted to deal with that; thus the legal definition for the term CAFO. Confinement here is about destroying the vegetation. Caged for life in pens too small to be humane is a completely seperate issue from what "confined" refers to when used to define "factory farms" and "CAFO"s. WAS 4.250 05:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how this definition exercise pertains to the picture which appears to me to be of a transition feedlot. --Blue Tie 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure why you think being a transition feedlot (if it is) precludes it from also being part of a factory farming operation. WAS 4.250 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Googling "transition feedlot" produces nothing but googling "feedlot "factory farm"" produces sources indicating that many American cattle have a traditional first few years of life followed by being processed by factory farming (industrial farming) methods. Perhaps you were under the impression that it isn't "factory farming" if it isn't conception to dinner-table industrial processing. It is a set of methods that are constantly in evolution as research and laws and disease and consumer attitudes creates new conditions. WAS 4.250 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

new animal health material

I have reverted this section since it needs discussion prior to such a major change. The first reference used is a "group" formed by most major drug companies selling pharmaceuticals to the animal agriculture sector - see members here: http://www.ahi.org/aboutAHI/member_comp.asp As such, they are far from impartial as a source. One of the references used for the USDA is a list of references and the other is to the table of contents of a report - not to the report itself - neither are good references.Bob98133 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

proposed content

• Animal health — "Because farm animals produce a vital part of our food supply, farmers use different tools to protect and maintain the health of animals. Healthy animals are an essential first step to ensuring safe food." Unhealthy farm animals can spread disease to other animals and humans and decrease the farmers' profits; so farmers, the farming industry and society all take measures to insure farm animal health. These measures include antibiotics, vaccination, stress reduction measures, research, disease surveillance, quarantine, agriculture trade restrictions, proper nutrition, and other measures.

WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Acording to the FAO: "you cannot feed six billion people today and nine billion in 2050 without judicious use of chemical fertilizers. [...] data and models regarding the productivity of organic as opposed to conventional farming show that the potential of organic agriculture is far from large enough to feed the world. [...] The key elements in feeding the world now and in the future will be increased public and private investments, the right policies and technologies, knowledge and capacity building, grounded in sound ecosystem management."

WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement about how many animals you can feed using chemical fertilizers is out of place in this article. The article is not about chemical ferilizers, it is about factory farming. Although I agree there is probably a link between the two, this is the wrong article to be making it in. If you are keen on this info being in Wiki, why not put it in organic farming or pesticides or soemwhere it belongs? Please read this entire article prior to making changes - much of what you say is already discussed in the Key Issues section. I reverted your last edit since there is always a balance between things like big farms being able to hire vets more easily and how many animals each vet has to examine. Realisically, when 100,000 chickens are kept in one barn, it would take almost that many vets to assure their well-being. When a farmer has 10 chickens, he is probably better aware of their health even if he is less likely to call a vet. If you are going to claim that the availability of vets is a bonus for factory farms, then you have to examine the vet:animal ratio for it to make sense. The AVMA publishes data on the number of vets involved in intensive agriculture - if you divide this number into the number of animals produced in intensive agriculture, you're going to end up with each vet "caring" for thousands and thousands of animals. Maybe that's better than small farms, but I wonder. Bob98133 (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you are making the same mistake some previous editors made in that you are mistaking this agriculture article for an animal rights article. My two edits where merely to add sourced information, not to engage in debate on an issue close to your heart. In the one case, "animal health" is an important issue that is dealt with using a variety of measures and your response is to bizarrely claim that people making their lively-hood in agriculture are not to be trusted making claims about agriculture. In the second case, someone added a fact tag so I tried to illuminate what was being claimed - there are two aspects to the need for "factory farming" to support the human population - one, that I did not go into involves the fact that humans are not choosing a meat free diet - that concerns the more limited definition of "factory farming" as a concentrated animal farm - two, that I did address, was the need for factory style farm management - specifically in terms of soil management. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I'm mistaking this for an animal rights article. Actually, I thought it was an article about intensive confinement farming which has to do with the number of animals kept and the condtions in which they are kept. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of chemical fertilizers, organic foods or the number of vets per animal. Bob98133 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be about intensive confinement farming; but if it were, we would then need to delete the claims about mad cow disease because that is related to animal feed issues and not animal density issues. The article is a mess due to a former battle that got way out of hand. Maybe you could help improve the article to be an agriculture article about intensive confinement farming; because that's not what it is now. What it is now is the messed up battlefield of an ugly edit war. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I can see how that happened. I'll take a look at this article as a whole when I have time and see if I can reorganize it so it makes more sense and stays on topic. Any help is appreciated! Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See Industrial agriculture for our article on "factory farming" in the broad sense of the phrase and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confined_animal_feeding_operations&action=history for the location the content of this article could go if it was confined to the subject of intensive land animal confinement farming. See Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture for an interesting example of the new movement towards the scientific integration of multiple species in an integrated artificial ecology that renders obsolete simplistic divisions of agriculture. Also see Industrial agriculture (animals). WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NYT

There's a Mark Bittman article on factory farming in the NYT Week in Review. Useful? Incidentally, a quote: "Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all." Is the use of the word 'growing' common? Perhaps we should consider using it here. Relata refero (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read the above exchange. Copying this note to the other article. Relata refero (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)