Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Intensive animal farming. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

List of Arguments For and Against the "new" version

Latest comment: 17 years ago41 comments8 people in discussion

In an effort to get a final idea of whether there is any basis for this reverting by SV/crum/localzuk here are the various reasons why the new version is a better one. Here are the issues raised.

A: NOLINK no link that says any two of the terms "Factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture" are (all encompassing) equivalent (so that is original research) while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming". There is no article which states this and it disagrees with britannica, and the dictionary definitions found) e.g. walkthrough of the articles

B: NOLINK_INTENSIVE Intensive farming simply means requirement of extra inputs to maximise returns per smaller area of land (as opposed to extensive farming)

C: NOLINK_IND_AG Industrial agriculture is a broad field: again encompassing more than just factory farms which are just a type of industrial agriculture. We know for sure that crops/aquaculture are part of industrial agriculture and so is factory farming.. Therefore it's fair to say it's just a type or subset. As Coroebus found in a bunch of sources.. e.g. [1]

D: NO_LINK_CNN The CNN article does indeed mention both factory farming, but the sentence does not link the two as equivalent terms

E: ANIMALS_ONLY Found definitions (britannica/dictionaries) refer to animals and confinement. It may also just mean "large number of animals" based on other sources.. But it's pretty safe to say it's worthy of putting in the lead.

F: NO_CROPS The term does not appear to be applied to crops. (OR)

G: NO_AQUA The term does not appear to apply to aquaculture (fish, shellfish, algae etc). (OR).

H: NO_ACTIVIST Activist sites do not agree with SV's definition (see PETA's definition/factoryfarm.org etc and they refer to livestock.. not crops, no mention of equivalency of terms etc). Not that we should use their definitions, but you'd think that they would back up a radical claim

I: ACTIVIST_MEDIA Britannica's definition backs the claim that the term is made mainly by animal activists and its use in headlines means it's used by the media. (OR).

J: ENG the new version is more in line with the policy on english variants (removed all US/English spellings), so more correct.

K: NEW_NOT_OR the newer version is less OR so therefore more desirable.

L: CHOP a complaint was made that information was chopped out (in specific the mad cow reference) in the new

M: ADD_NOT_REMOVE Complaint was made that the changes were reverted because changes should not always add not remove the work of other editors

N: GESTATION_PIC pig sow pic has been moved down the page, there's a push for this to be at the top of the page

O: CONSENSUS Claim was made that the changes NL made were due to consensus on the discussion page

P: NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD argument was made that you can't have definitions in the lead

So, I'm now going to ask everyone who seems to have an interest to examine each of the issues and for any that they have issues with, refer to them by their codes. Any new ones, add in with a code so we can discuss. If you're happy with the new version being put back then say so, if not, then say so also. But having the page locked (on a 5 minute before revert) is an issue for me as it's inaccurate in my eyes. NathanLee 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Notified - Agrofe, FNMF, Coroebus, Jav43, Haber, Crum375, Localzuk, WAS, SlimVirgin on talk pages as they all seem to have contributed to the discussions since this all began.. NathanLee 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee, I am not clear how using a series of cryptic computer-code-like names describing your issues is going to move us forward. The way I like to address issues is on a one-by-one basis, not all at once. For example, to me it is clear that a reasonable person would read the CNN/Reuters and the CBC articles as equating Factory Farming, Intensive Farming and Intensive Agriculture. You and some others disagree. It seems to me we need a wider forum to get some more opinions on this and other issues. Crum375 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum: there's been so many attempts, this is a good way to raise all your issues or dispute the claims. Doing it bit by bit hasn't worked because a) you guys disappear after one post, and b) you haven't respected requests to discuss rather than reverting and c) if your reverting then avoiding discussion is reason enough to say the issue isn't closed: it'll never be "closed" and that's unfair to those who want to contribute.. So if you can't contribute to the discussion area then can you agree to let those who will put their edits in without reverting?

The naming was rather than "A", "B", "C".

If your issue is with the CNN article: my comment to that would be that it doesn't say they're the same:

United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease.

A) If they're the same: why would the article say to move away from one, yet drop the other? b) Question: does it make sense if you take the definition (as per britannica and others) as factory farming being a type of intensive farming, or something that makes USE of intensive farming? c) Simply having mention of both in an article does not mean they're the same thing. They're urging a move away from the concept of intensive farming with the specific mention that a particular disease could disappear if factory farms disappear. So part of, or one step in moving away is to stop doing factory farming. Just like scientists calling from a moving away from dependence on fossil fuels saying that stopping the use of coal power stations is the only way to clean up the air. That doesn't mean "coal power stations" and "dependence on fossil fuels" are identical terms. One is a type of the other, but not the other way around. Does that clear that up? NathanLee 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the CNN article, it clearly equates Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. It simply uses the two terms as synonyms, so as not to repeat the same word. There is no other logical way to understand that article, and we have gone around that many times in the above discussion. If you still disagree, we really need to get a wider forum, as we do for the other issues. Crum375 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the CNN article stands for that proposition, which it doesn't, an online newspaper article is not a good source when it is contradicted by professional research-based and peer-reviewed documents. The CNN article only uses dicta, which shouldn't be considered. Jav43 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav43, per above discussion, please refrain from inventing new policies, like 'dicta'. Wikipedia is built on very specific set of rules, like WP:V and WP:NOR (summarized in WP:ATT), which are the only ones that apply. If every editor here were to invent his/her favorite policies on the fly, we'd have a very hard time collaborating, as I am sure you can appreciate. Crum375 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay... seriously... basic research rules, codified or not, apply here. Jav43 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research is actually not allowed here. The only rules that apply, are very well described in WP:V and WP:NOR (summarized in WP:ATT), WP:NPOV, etc. You are not allowed to apply any other rules that you invent, like "basic research rules, codified or not". Again, if each of us were to invent his/her own rules, we wouldn't get very far. Crum375 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right! I'm not creating OR - I'm stopping you from drawing your own OR conclusions from dicta. Look at the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Sources about tertiary sources and combining sources (WP:SYN) to make a point. That's what you're doing. You should not cite a source for a proposition unless the source actually stands for that proposition. Citing dicta does not meet that qualification. Jav43 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not following. Where exactly do you find anything in our policies about "citing dicta"? If you can't, then you are clearly inventing your own rules, which simply won't get us anywhere. I'll address the rest once you explain to me where you see the 'dicta' rule. Crum375 02:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding other issues because you can't prevail on this one won't "get us anywhere". It doesn't matter whether there is something in Wikipedia policy or not: any reasonable, unbiased person should know to avoid citing something as a source unless it actually stands for that proposition. Regardless, I provided you with two references. Specifically look at WP:SYN. You are combining various interpretations of terms in ways that are not done in a single text. Find a text that actually defines terms and I'll give it due credence. (Oh, but Nathan already did so, and you ignored him. So unbiased of you.) Jav43 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee

Ones I have issues with:

NO_DEFINITION_IN_LEAD is silly: that's half of what the lead is about.
GESTATION_PIC - the new version still has the pic, just not at the top: it's also from an activist site, so perhaps it carries a POV.
ADD_NOT_REMOVE: not policy, not a reason, not how wikipedia works, no reason not to improve an article to remove OR.
CHOP - mad cow article is actually still in the new one.. So not an issue.

That's all for now.. NathanLee 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I will comment when I've sobered up.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll read it after I've sobered up and slept ;) NathanLee 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree, although ENG doesn't matter either way in my opinion. Jav43 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Haber

Wow dude, this is exhausting... NOLINK agree NOLINK_INTENSIVE agree NOLINK_IND_AG agree NO_LINK_CNN agree ANIMALS_ONLY agree NO_CROPS agree NO_AQUA agree NO_ACTIVIST no opinion ACTIVIST_MEDIA agree ENG no opinion NEW_NOT_OR agree CHOP no opinion ADD_NOT_REMOVE confused - but I think deletions can be just as legitimate as adding content GESTATION_PIC disagree CONSENSUS no opinion NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD disagree -- Too bad you couldn't help me pick a horse in the Preakness. Haber 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Co0l, I just mashed all the various issues I saw were brought up (may have missed some.. in which case.. add 'em in) so that we can work out what we all agree on and then focus on the sticking points perhaps.. We may only really differ on a couple of things.. NathanLee 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well)

A: NOLINK The argument labeled "nolink" that says that while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming". There is no article which states this and it disagrees with britannica, and the dictionary definitions found) e.g. walkthrough of the articles

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

B: NOLINK_INTENSIVE Intensive farming simply means requirement of extra inputs to maximise returns per smaller area of land (as opposed to extensive farming)

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

C: NOLINK_IND_AG Industrial agriculture is a broad field: again encompassing more than just factory farms which are just a type of industrial agriculture. We know for sure that crops/aquaculture are part of industrial agriculture and so is factory farming. Therefore it's fair to say it's just a type or subset. As Coroebus found in a bunch of sources. For example: [2]

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

D: NO_LINK_CNN The CNN article does indeed mention both factory farming, but the sentence does not link the two as equivalent terms.

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

E: ANIMALS_ONLY Found that definitions of the term "factory farming" in britannica/dictionaries refer to animals and confinement. It may also just mean "large number of animals" based on other sources.. But it's pretty safe to say it's worthy of putting in the lead.

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

F: NO_CROPS The term "factory farming" does not appear to be applied to crops. "Original Research"

Yes WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

G: NO_AQUA The term "factory farming" does not appear to apply to aquaculture (fish, shellfish, algae etc). "Original Research"

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

H: NO_ACTIVIST Activist sites do not agree with SV's definition (see PETA's definition/factoryfarm.org etc and they refer to livestock.. not crops, no mention of equivalency of terms etc). Not that we should use their definitions, but you'd think that they would back up a radical claim

Yes. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I: ACTIVIST_MEDIA Britannica's definition backs the claim that the term is made mainly by animal activists and its use in headlines means it's used by the media. (OR).

Yes. So? WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

J: ENG the new version is more in line with the policy on english variants (removed all US/English spellings), so more correct.

I don't care about US versus British language differences. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

K: NEW_NOT_OR the newer version is less "Original Research" so therefore more desirable.

Conflating different terms based on our evaluating newspaper useage is original reseach. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

L: CHOP a complaint was made that information was chopped out (in specific the mad cow reference) in the new

The mad cow comment by a political leader does not belong in the lead. It is a detail and not a summary. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

M: ADD_NOT_REMOVE Complaint was made that the changes were reverted because changes should not always add not remove the work of other editors

Stupid stuff is said and done in a revert war. Let's move beyond this argument. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

N: GESTATION_PIC pig sow pic has been moved down the page, there's a push for this to be at the top of the page

Stop fighting about the damn picture. It's not that important. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

O: CONSENSUS Claim was made that the changes NL made were due to consensus on the discussion page

There is no consensus on the talk page. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

P: NO_DEFINITIONS_IN_LEAD argument was made that you can't have definitions in the lead

You can have definitions in the lead. WAS 4.250 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with WAS on each of the points. FNMF 23:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's way too much to read here. I think we should deal with the issues point by point, and everyone should be as succinct as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan made this insanely simple. Either respond to the issues he listed, or admit that you really don't have any arguments to back you up. Jav43 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page has gone to hell in a handbasket because of Nathan's absurdly long posts, which I freely admit I've not read and won't be reading. He's posted to this page 98 times in seven days.

We have policies and guidelines, and we must stick to them; we don't need Nathan's invented rules. As for the lead, please review WP:LEAD: the lead must include the topic's notable controversies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to actually work on this article, why did you keep reverting to a polluted version? Jav43 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SV: if you can't contribute or bother to read other people's contributions: Why the hell do you keep reverting this page? You seem obsessed with pointing out number of contributions (you did it to both Jav43 and myself.. see above) as part of an attack on people's credentials: yet here you are now saying that too much contribution is a reason to ignore it and that we should continue to tolerate (with infinite patience) your disruptive editing style. I've not invented any policies or rules (again: an unfounded, unjustified statement): that's just false and a fallacious argument to boot. I and others have been happy to read and respond to the few comments you throw in and then disappear: but you can't see there's been a hell of an attempt to justify why your edit needs improvement then I suggest you try reading for a change.

We should not be having to edit war to make up for your laziness and inability to discuss or read contributions of others. Why have I had to post so many times? Perhaps it's because you didn't take the time to read or contribute earlier on and then started an edit war to make up for your lack of professional courtesy.

Thanks for explaining why you keep asking the same ignorant questions time and time again: you've never listened to the answers.. I should point out you've basically voided your right to revert and invalidated your reasons for doing so in the past.. NathanLee 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Being overly verbose is as damaging to a discussion as not providing enough information. It is difficult to follow this discussion due to your long posts. As I have said elsewhere - be succinct and stop repeating yourself. What SV wants is for you to post one point at a time, rather than post the lot in one long block. It makes it easier to reply to them.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and your continuing to not provide justification is just making it longer. If SV can't read a list and needs a list of one per item: that's not our issue. Most people of reading age can cope with lists in day to day life (e.g. shopping lists, lists of instructions, lists of WP policies to wave around). It's no more than another stalling tactic in the absence of evidence. Can I request you stop side arguments and just give evidence or agree to let the rest of us continue with the article. NathanLee

The lead

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The lead must stick to WP:LEAD. This says:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

Therefore, can we make a list here of what we agree are the topic's notable controversies? (They must all be carefully sourced.)

The chancellor of Germany calling for an end to factory farming because of BSE; British scientists saying factory farming was the cause of BSE.
Gestation crates, which the committee set up by McDonald's (hardly animal rights activists) identifed as factory farming's most controversial issue.
Overuse of antibiotics and growth hormone, leading to human health problems (e.g. the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria)
Pollution to the environment from waste disposal

Are there any other issues that stand out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other issues. Read this talk page already. Jav43 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Nathan's version has a succinct and good version of a straightfoward summary of the topic's notable controversies. The controveries don't need detail in the lead, as you'd realize if you weren't trying to push your POV. Jav43 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are evading the real issue which is that industrial agriculture =/= factory farming. If you actually read the talk page(which you admitted that you can't be bothered to), you would have known this.--Dodo bird 07:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that we don't need specifics of people's quotes (e.g. stating that some official somewhere has an issue is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.. e.g. is factory farming defined or critical to a german chancellor's views? No.), rather just that there are often issues raised about the health/environmental issues is enough of a mention without losing neutrality. I'd also urge against focussing too much on introducing controversy over actually defining what factory farming is. An encyclopaedic entry shouldn't be focussing too much on controversy, after all that's infecting factual definition with POV or defining something by its controversy itself. So: yes factory farming has controversy.. That's not what the major portion of the lead should be. Otherwise you're giving more weight to other people's view of the thing than the thing itself. e.g. do we go to the gay page and put endless quotes from anti-gay religious leaders? Do we give it anything more than a brief mention that some people have issues? No, or if we do then we shouldn't because that's entirely POV.

Neutrality and no original research is (I would think) far more important than mentioning every controversy. An enc. entry on factory farming would be acceptable if it just outlined what factory farming was, but if it didn't bother defining what it was and ploughed on into controversy. NathanLee 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, why is it that every time you post, your posts are a good 4 times larger than anyone elses? You have repeated your same arguments over and over and refuse to listen to our points. Please be more succinct - it makes this entire issue difficult to deal with if everytime a reader visits the page they have to trawl through a couple of essays worth of repetitive info from yourself. (Note, this isn't specifically about this post above, but about the many you have posted over the last week).

Now, onto this point. Nathan's version removes all mention of notable controversies from the article - without them being in the intro, the entire controversy part of the lead is a single line 'Proponents of factory farming argue for the benefits of increased efficiencies, while opponents argue that it harms the environment,[10] creates health risks,[11][6][12] and abuses animals.[13][10]' which is too short. The entire lead by Nathan is too short and does not suitably cover all aspects of the article - instead focusing on defining terms.

The way I see it, the lead should be split into 2 - a general description of the subject matter in one paragraph, this would include history, methods and a little on definitions (this would include the 'for argument') and then a similarly sized amount of detail on the 'against' arguments - as these are the currently notable aspects of the subject (the general worldwide discussion on factory farming is regarding the controversy surrounding it). To give the controversy any less focus would not be reflecting on the real world significance correctly. We are not a dictionary, so are not simply defining the term - we are covering all notable aspects of it.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy: Because I actually attempt to back up my statements, which takes more than two words saying "it's better", or "more consistent".

"Too short" then add to it, don't revert to a bad OR version!
How is my lead not mentioning the controversy if it summarised them all with extra citations for all bits, unlike the other one
If you read my posts I'm answering things in a different way since you seem to miss the point (or like SV just don't bother reading).
You guys have been reverting without discussion and for bullshit reasons that change every 5 minutes, to give you credit: you're contributing thoughts now..
it succinctly covers the contents, INCLUDING the various complaints and defines the term accurately (which the other did not). I don't see how they're gone if they're in the sentence you quoted!
The one you revert to has OR and does not define it as per any valid easily acceptable version.
Revert is the dumbest/most abrasive way you could have said "it's too short" (which you didn't mention at all and had ample opportunity to do so).
The bit about the chancellor is not Lead worthy, it belongs in the body. Lead is a summary, not the entire article. If the chancellor was the inventor or a major contributor or figurehead of the industry: maybe. But he's just a politician voicing an opinion. NathanLee 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Backing up your statements doesn't mean rambling on for hours and repeating yourself.
I did add to it, by reverting to the last good version of the lead before it was brutally culled.
We are getting the point, you just are repeating yourself without listening to the arguments put forward or accepting that the opposing view is a valid one, backed up with references.
The reasons don't change. It is just that there are so many reasons to revert that they far outweigh the reasons not to.
It doesn't cover the contents - it goes into far too much detail about definitions and then sums up half the page in one sentence... That is not a good summary. For an article this size we should be looking at 4 paragraphs in the lead.
It isn't OR, we have shown that it isn't many, many times...
Well, it is pretty obvious when you read WP:LEAD that it is far too short - I didn't think it was necessary to repeatedly tell you to read the guideline on this issue.
The bit about the chancellor succinctly summarises an aspect of the article.The lead should be a mini-version of the main article. It doesn't have to use the eaxact same refs and info as in the main info, so if a quote does a good job of summarising an issue then so be it.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting without supported does not constitute "adding to". Look down below and you'll see that even SlimVirgin suggests that the term means it refers to animals not crops.. We're still waiting for some other references other than your selective interpretation of one sentence with two topics as to why that means all the terms are the same AND how crops/aquaculture fit in with no reference available. But that's just repeating the question you've so far ignored successfully for so long with sidetracked arguments. NathanLee 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I have filed an RfC on this article. The fundamental issue with this article at the moment appears to be whether Factory Farming is synonymous with Industrial Agriculture and Intensive Agriculture. Once that question is settled I believe that editing will be able to return to something of normality.

Pro-argument: Although "factory farming" is often used to talk about enclosed animal rearing that is because of increased attention to this aspect of factory farming, but it includes other non-animal aspects like monocropping:

Examples showing that it is synonymous with industrial agriculture or intensive farming (all emphasis mine):

OED "factory farm orig. U.S., a farm organized on industrial lines"
Free Dictionary thesaurus "factory farm - a large-scale farming enterprise"
CBC "Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination...a report...entitled Protection of Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming, questions the safety of groundwater, which is supplied to three million people in the province. Miller points to larger livestock farms in Ontario, which produce more manure or agricultural run-off, and, hence, a higher risk of groundwater contamination."
CNN "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease."

Anti-argument: "Factory farming" is usually used to refer to enclosed animal rearing practices, and rarely to encompass all industrial or intensive agriculture, therefore these terms are distinct and not-synonymous, although factory farming may be a subset or part of "industrial agriculture" or "intensive agriculture".

Examples showing it is distinct (emphasis mine):

McGraw Hill dictionary "factory farming...Raising livestock indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility."
Concise Britannica "Factory farming. System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible."
Cambridge idiom dictionary "factory farming a system for producing eggs, meat, and milk quickly and cheaply by keeping animals in small closed areas and giving them food which makes them grow quickly."
UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Firstly, just under 80% of respondents expressed opposition to intensive farming practices, such as factory farming..."
Capital Times "Just 10 years ago, only a handful of farms in Wisconsin met the definition of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" (CAFO) - or, in environmental circles, a factory farm."
Jarosz Agriculture and Human Values 2000 "Industrial agriculture is characterized as capital and resource intensive, large-scale, high yielding, and mechanized with monocultural cropping systems directed to local, national, and international markets."
U.S. Catholic "...focus on the ways industrial agriculture (and factory farms in particular) harm and abuse billions of animals each year."

Comments welcome, feel free to add better examples to either side of the argument. --Coroebus 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think the argument for equivalency is rather flimsy if you stack up
- selective interpretation of implied similarity of terms in 2 news articles against
- hard no-confusion definitions from dictionary sources and encyclopaedias and no crop/aquaculture mention..

If we had anything other than those two news articles then there might be grounds for further discussion. But as we've got plenty of dispute (I think it's a ridiculous assertion myself "move away from X, and to stop Y to prevent Z" to read it as meaning that X and Y are the same??!?) that the interpretation of those articles implies a "definition" versus hardcore "this is what factory farming is" from multiple sources and the still unanswered crops issue. Gotta be a pretty powerful argument to override primary primary sources for a skewed reading of one sentence in an article or two.. NathanLee 12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti - Factory farming is such a loaded term that its use in an encyclopedia should be avoided altogether. Activist terminology is incompatible with the NPOV policy. Taking it a step further to include all intensive agriculture is simply over the top, and I see no solid evidence to support that leap. Haber 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This site is not a regular encyclopedia. It covers things that are notable - and the term 'Factory Farming' is notable. I see the evidence as solid - it is simple english.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an example will help clarify this. Notable talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger uses the terms "shacking up" to refer to cohabitation and "sucking your baby into a sink" to refer to abortion. Her supporters might say that there is evidence we should file all information about these topics under her preferred terms. Now we can choose to sound like activists or we can choose to sound like an encyclopedia. I submit that the latter route will lead to more success for Wikipedia in the long run. Haber 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that it isn't just one group of people who use the term - it is activists, the media, notable figures, government reports etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet no one who supports modern agriculture uses "factory farming". That means the term is perjorative rather than definitive. It shouldn't be what an encyclopedia uses. Jav43 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the term which is most commonly used in general should be used per our naming conventions.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You see a stretched interpretation of two news articles as overriding researched material from britannica, websters, Mcgraw hill etc? Can you question their definitions in any way? Crops/aquaculture don't seem to be referred to as factory farming (still waiting for that to be addressed) but you seem to want to lump that in. Let's assume your interpretation of two isolated sources is correct. Do you think they override the mass of other ones (and their compatible definitions of being "a type of" with your articles)? You're arguing for selective interpretation of a couple of news articles to override well defined and "safe" (from an OR point of view) definition. No one can come along for the new lead and say "hey: factory farming doesn't mean that" because we can point to several bullet proof definitions that say it is. Safer is better, no? NathanLee 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it isn't a case of overriding - it is a case of their existence and the fact you can't just ignore them because there are opposing views. We have to present both views.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to share a source that actually supports your personal POV. Jav43 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What POV? That we should present both views? Or that the words or synonymous? If the prior, that is simply policy, if the latter I think we have those that are in the lead at the moment - even though you disagree with them.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should present an overall neutral coverage. Any POV stuff needs to be attributed and referenced so that it's not the article's POV, it's clearly someone else's POV and backed by a source to confirm. Without a reference, there's no way it can go in.. (I realise wikipedia is full of unreferenced stuff.. but this one is getting enough editor time to be referenced) NathanLee 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's previous argument - still relevent?

Since my arguments are too much to read/too wordy etc, I'll quote SV on whether it's fair to say FF and IA are different.. (from the archive page)

This page and Factory farming seemed to be getting mixed up, with material being copied back and forth, and the criticism section of FF being moved to here. I've therefore moved anything to do with animals to FF and called it Factory farming (animals), and anything to do with crops here and called it Industrial agriculture (crops). That division seems to make most sense because when most people think of FF, they think of animals, and when they think of agriculture, they think of crops. In this way, we can avoid repetition or forks. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it no longer makes sense, and people are entitled to change their minds (this isn't politics), but if extra dictionary definitions and more references to support that notion are somehow still worth overriding: Is this the same SlimVirgin at the keyboard still? :) The comment at the end was correct: if you merge them then you'll have repetition and forks, that's for sure (we've witnessed). Sound advice that should have been heeded.. NathanLee 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

I believe the time has come to conclude there should be three different articles, with three different talk pages. FNMF 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why three? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The positions of each of the disputing parties appear fairly intractable. At the same time, it seems possible to define each of the three (factory farming, industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture) in a fairly specific way while nevertheless each of the three will be notable enough to deserve an entry. With these two points in mind, having three separate entries seems like the most workable solution, and a legitimate one. Naturally, each of the three will likely refer to the others, and they do not all need to be equally lengthy. I think if such a solution is pursued, it should be made clear in the opening of each what is the specific definition, to avoid problems later on. FNMF 01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(again.. *sigh* ) Because it is original research to suggest that they're anything but three different things. A bizarre deduction from the same two articles that we've time and time again explained do NOT use the terms interchangably is not a substitute for the verifiable "factory farming is a type of industrial agriculture and uses or is a type of intensive farming". Got to britannica or any proper encyclopaedia and you'll see an entry for intensive farming, one for industrial agriculture and maybe something for factory farming.. But you're probably not reading this answer AGAIN for the umpteenth time so this is a waste of time.. Again.. NathanLee 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, just because you think that doesn't mean you are right. From the evidence given I see there are some who see the terms as synonymous, and some who don't. You simply have to accept this.

Now, splitting the article is not the answer - we need to provide better descriptions of what the terms refer to and this apparent disparity between the word's usage.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just not what I think: You've only got your interpretation of TWO articles as the whole basis for this claim. Why does that override numerous encyclopaedic/dictionary definitions AND articles AND the lack of crop/aquaculture citation? NathanLee 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't override it - it simply adds to the problem. One set of sources doesn't override another - they should both be included with information.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But when it's your (slightly strange) interpretation (e.g. can be called OR) that's questionable: you should "err" on what can be proven and what can't be just said to be misinterpretation of two conjoined topics in a sentence. If you say it is a subset: that entirely agrees with no disputes with your source as well.. Thus bringing the overall definition into line with what's easily citable. NathanLee 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we err? We have 2 sets of sources, one supposedly saying one thing and the other supposedly saying the opposite. Why should we be picking one side of that?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your POV isn't even supported by a set of sources. We have a large number of clear sources explaining that factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are separate and distinct terms... and then we have your personal activist-based POV that all modern agriculture is "factory farming". Unfortunately, you have failed to back up your POV with any clear sources. I'm sorry that you've gone through life so far without understanding the nature of modern agriculture or the term "factory farming", but that isn't our fault. Jav43 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it isn't supported - whereas it is mine, Crum's and SV's that it is supported. Stop going back to that point - you aren't going to suddenly convince us otherwise. It is, as I have said before, called compromise. Stop pushing for a single outcome when you know we aren't suddenly going to say 'oh we were wrong all along, how silly of us'.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's my opinion that your POV isn't supported based upon what you've presented thus far. It's your opinion that you don't need solid sources because you have some omniscient conception of intransient factoids. By the way, where there's a "right" and "wrong", there can be no compromise. Based upon current facts, you're absolutely wrong. If you demonstrate otherwise, then we can reconsider. (Oh, and if you're so interested in compromise, then why did you continuously revert?) Jav43 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you misunderstand the concepts behind this site if you think we are here to present 'right'. We are here to present all sides of an argument - and as such, the argument is laid out above. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be ignored. Hence, compromise.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's called "Original research". We ARE here to present a correct and accurate article set. Not to allow any random view to get its place in an article. If it isn't supported within reason: it doesn't belong on wikipedia. NathanLee 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Please understand that the sources provided back our side of the argument. They provide a significant argument also. So including it is required by our WP:NPOV policy. And, we are not here to present a 'correct and accurate' article set, we are here to present a 'correct, verifiable and accurate' article set. And the info we are discussing is verifiable.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: This talk page has become absurd, with no sign of resolution. Editors should allow three articles to be created and worked up to a reasonable condition. At that point, if editors continue to believe that one or more of these articles should be deleted, they can commence an AfD. I cannot see a justification for prolonging the stalemate by artificially refusing to allow the three articles to be created. On what grounds can editors refuse to allow the three articles to be created and worked on? If the articles are illegitimate, that will be established when the time comes by a proper process. Simply complaining that the posts are too long to read seems like a refusal to advance the situation, regardless of who is right. Again: the only solution is to permit three articles to be worked on, with three separate talk page discussions. Nothing is permanent, and an AfD later on can always decide what to keep and what to ditch, if need be. FNMF 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, I've always thought 3 articles were necessary. NathanLee 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that would just cause chaos. We would end up with 3 articles with such similar content it makes it pointless.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where you are right now is chaos. One possibility is that you will end up with three overly-similar articles, which can be determined by AfD. Another possibility is that the articles will be different enough to all deserve retention. I consider such an outcome entirely plausible. Furthermore, even if you feel that way, on what grounds can you insist on preventing three articles? Surely they are not candidates for a speedy delete (or, if you disagree, you can try it). FNMF 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now it appears you're the only one wanting this change or believing this point of view Localzuk. SV's silent, as is Crum375. Does this mean they're not interested? They still seem to be actively editing.. If it's just you, perhaps can you let the page be unlocked so we can all contribute, we'll put the page to the new version and then archive this talk page and go from there?

By all means we can work on padding out the lead, no one's said it is fixed in stone. But the revert doesn't really seem to have strong justification if it's just not long enough or there's one interpretation of a couple of articles that leads you to deduce something. There's significant reason to say that the other version has OR or can be said to have OR. The new version doesn't seem to have had that charge levelled at it from what I can see. We can discuss proposals for fleshing it out more, but as I (and the bunch of contributors here) seem to think that it's a better choice to move forward from (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). SV said herself that there was a distinction in what people thought the terms meant prior to this merge concept.. So we're not looking so strong on that aspect if SV herself seems to have thought so.. NathanLee 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry but this 'they've gone quiet' nonsense has got to stop. Not everyone can post here all the time. Please remember that. This is why we have AFD's that last at least 5 days etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I note the tendency of editors to argue about anything except how to move forward. This is the main reason the talk page has become absurd, and all editors should strive to curb this tendency. I also note that no grounds have yet been provided to justify preventing the creation of three entries. To give some more specific content to my proposal, I think each of the three entries ought to include a relation to the others. Without wishing to dictate definitions, I think the entries should begin with something resembling the following:

Industrial agriculture: Industrial agriculture is the application of industrial methods to agricultural practice. Aspects of industrial agriculture include [list follows, including factory farming and intensive farming, among others].
Intensive farming: Intensive farming is a form of agriculture that seeks to obtain high inputs...etc...frequently an aspect of industrial agriculture. Aspects of intensive farming include factory farming etc.
Factory farming: Factory farming is a form of industrial agriculture and intensive farming that [something limiting the definition to confinement of animals, etc.].

With definitions along these lines, editors will have clear enough guidelines to work up each of the entries and see where the situation leads. FNMF 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for FNMF

FNMF, can you provide a source showing that these are three different things, and are as you define them? (This is a question for FNMF only, please.) I'm asking this not to be difficult, but to make sure that we're not engaged in OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to be tricky, I don't think this is the right question right now. There are interminable arguments by multiple parties about the relation between these terms. I happen to lean to the view that they can be defined in a legitimate way that separates them enough to warrant three entries. If factory farming is to refer to the confinement of animals, then surely industrial agriculture is more general than factory farming. And nobody seems that bothered by the definition of intensive farming. More to the point, even if I am wrong, I am arguing that, given the absolutely stalled situation, such a question should be postponed. The separate entries should be worked on, in a manner that tries to maintain fidelity to the notion that these are separate but interrelated phenomena, and then if one or more entries need to be deleted, that can be done through an AfD process. In short, if an entry involves original research, that is something to be discussed at that entry, but the question of whether creating three entries itself constitutes original research seems like a strange argument to me. And I can't see how else progress is likely to be made: despite talk of compromise, there is no evidence of anybody shifting ground. FNMF 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we're engaging in original research by claiming there are three separate types of farming here. It's against policy to do that, and it's the out-of-policy editing that has caused the problems here. I can understand wanting to separate animals and crops, and indeed we used to have Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). But no one has yet offered a source that shows there are three separate things called (a) Factory farming, (b) Intensive farming, and (c) Industrial agriculture. The fact is that mainstream news sources do use the terms interchangeably, and I've offered sources to that effect several times. We can't have a situation where Wikipedia is the only source on the Internet that makes the distinction, but without explaining exactly what that distinction is. Our work must be sourced-based.

I personally don't care what the article is called; it used to be called Industrial agriculture, and I was fine with that too. (Others arrived recently and changed it to Factory farming.) What I object to is having three pages, because some will end up as POV forks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be original research to have seperate articles on jews, israelis and zionists even though it is quite clear that some reporters use the terms in ways that can be argued to be interchangeable? Insisting that all three are the same thing to avoid POV forks is not appropriate. Different things are different. Even if some reporters get mixed up. WAS 4.250 09:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for WAS

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Was, I've asked this three times now. You reverted my lead a few times saying it contained original research, but you didn't say what. [3] Could you tell me, please, what was OR? If you don't say, I can't fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is filled with the answer to that. Unfortunately, you keep refusing to read this talk page, so we keep being forced to repeat ourselves. Why don't you just read this page instead? Jav43 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. WAS hasn't actually answered it, you have... But I disagree with your analysis of it anyway.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can disagree all you like: if you're unable to understand logic or English sentence structure: we can't help that. If you look up run on sentences perhaps that'll show you an example of sentences which you would regard as saying the same thing were it not separated by a coordinating conjunction. NathanLee 14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered; but I can't help those who won't read or can't understand what they read. "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you." WAS 4.250 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where you've answered it. Could you cut and paste your answer into this section, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am short with you, but your agressive take no prisoners style of fighting makes me wary. Read the section "WAS 4.250 (others may feel free to comment here as well)" for my answer and read prior sections for the evidence presented by others for those positions. WAS 4.250 09:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A request

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Nathan, would you consider not posting here for a few days? You've made 114 posts here in eight days, many of them very long, and it's making the talk page hard to use (for me, anyway), and drowning out other people's opinions.

Perhaps you could allow Localzuk, WAS, Jav, Crum, Coroebus, Haber, FNMF, and me to discuss the issues for, say, 72 hours in an effort to find common ground, then you could comment on our conclusions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually a lot of the static is coming from Localzuk, whose page protection trick inflamed the situation. Why not ask him to step aside temporarily as well? Haber 18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking only Nathan to step aside is that he has posted 21,900 words to this page in 115 posts over eight days, almost all of them his own personal opinion, which is not good for him, the talk page, or the article.

We need some calm, some space, and some intelligent discussion about what reliable sources say (not what our own opinions are); if we're given that, my guess is we'll reach an agreement fairly quickly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the criticism of Localzuk for requesting page protection has to stop, because he did the right thing. He had no control over which version was protected; there was so much reverting going on, it could easily have changed several times before the admin protected. The protection has given us some space to have a calm and focused discussion about what the sources say — which is the only thing we should be talking about, rather than simply exchanging our prejudices, which is what this talk page is mostly about. I ask that we deal with one issue at a time, and that Nathan takes a rest from this page for at least 72 hours, then offers an analysis of the discussion upon his return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk did a shady thing, and it made the situation worse not better. I think that Nathan's contribution has been valuable. I suggest that if Nathan accepts your recommendation you should offer to revert the article to his preferred version for the time while he observes. Haber 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He acted correctly, and one of us should have done it sooner, if anything. The situation couldn't have gotten much worse. We had a multi-editor revert war, and a talk page dominated by one very new editor who was posting tens of thousands of words of his own opinion, so that no sensible discussion could talk place. It's exactly that kind of situation protection is intended for, and the page is protected on whatever version it's on when the admin arrives to protect. Please try to adopt a constructive approach, rather than arguing about the lock. We need to move on and focus, one issue at a time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just one last post as I'm being attacked: I'm passing up my right to continue to participate to appease a request from an editor who has not contributed in discussion much and not even read my comments by her own admission (a usual prerequisite for being able to comment). The first thing you do is abuse my absence immediately by attempting to make out my contribution was not worthy of respect or is POV (and imply I'm new for being on here a year). You had numerous opportunities and requests to participate and you didn't. Yet I'm extending you a personal courtesy despite all that for pretty baseless reasons. Had you read my contributions you'd see there's been a lot of research, reasoned argument and responses to others in there as well as attempts to mediate. A bit of courtesy is in order SV as you've appeared to show very little so far and then launched attack on me and a defence of an action described as "unscrupulous" by the blocking editor. If you simply read the discussion forum even a little bit you'd perhaps not need it all explained again, and had you participated in discussion when first requested by me this would have been resolved long ago. With that said I'll continue hold of contributing as a personal favour to you and hopefully you'll take some time to perhaps revise your statements about my contributions, possibly apologise and even read some of them.. NathanLee 02:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nathan, it's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All that's required from you is a few simple answers SV. If the whole discussion board is too hard: try the recent request for comment section put up by Coroebus. Your definition appears to be eccentric and unsupported by any real source (other than creative reading of articles). There's been so many opportunities for you to simply back up via references that you've failed to do from when you began editing and ignoring discussion repeatedly. Just answer some questions for a change: you found plenty of time to hit the revert button before. I'm happy holding off editing, but I'd first like some simple answers justifying the need for another 72 hours for as yet: unconvincingly supported POV/OR which you yourself appear to disagree with from the archive page. NathanLee 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a lousy "request", in bad faith, and doesn't further our cause. Should Nathan agree to honor this request, I will join the 72 hour moratorium out of protest. Jav43 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim Virgin's proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Talk:Factory farming/Slim Virgin's proposal Do I have that right? WAS 4.250 06:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can all edit Talk:Factory farming/Slim Virgin's proposal without getting into a revert war, then we have a compromise. If not, then not. Let's find out. WAS 4.250 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks way better than I thought it would. Take a look and see what you think. WAS 4.250 07:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would make more sense to get an agreement going, then proceed with editing the real thing. All we need to decide is number of articles and title, and content of lead. The rest will probably take care of itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Nathan

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

take a look at the current intensive farming as I did a reasonable amount of refactoring to get it where it is now (still needs a bit of referencing etc).. It's a smaller, more manageable article. SV's one that takes that version and combines it with all the other factory farming stuff is massive by any wikipedia article standards..
2 or 3 more manageable ones.. Someone's going to come to the page and go "I think there's too much information here: we need to split it" and there we go again. It's pretty obvious that the material can be split without any big issues I think (given we've got in this new version a tree like structure: why can't it have the "main article" type concept (as it already has if you look at intensive farming)).
The massive amount of information (unreferenced) for chickens etc: really seems a bit much too.
It's closer to the definition that's supportable, so that's a definite improvement to the one we've got sitting up on factory farming.
I'd suggest if you're happy with a version that no longer makes the claims of equal usage of terms: then lumping it together in one article is no different from separating it out.
There's extensive farming to consider: it's the "opposite" if you like. NathanLee 12:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently it seems the other articles are going fine as standalone

Also: it seems like industrial agriculture and intensive farming seem to be able to exist on their own as meaningful aricles. If you put the version of factory farming back to the non SV one: it too exists and is consistent. The only thing that's the issue is an OR/ POV (as in unbacked up by any evidence) desire to have them being the one massive article. NathanLee 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of equivalent terms

As this question has gone unanswered since the start of this: SV/Crum/localzuk: As your attempt at compromise is to force people into "moving forward" and to "live with" just one article you still have not provided any source that shows the terms to be equivalent: From my comments on SV's arguments about supported sources:

:Examining your links: none of them do what you've said they do: which is to use the terms equivalently:
the washington post article only mentions factory farming as something that activists consider gestation crates to be an inhumane practice.

the bbc article and other bbc article don't do what you claim they do either (none of them use the terms equivalently, nor are all of the terms in the articles either).

nor does CNN

nor does cbc article does actually have two terms in it, but unless having a report on intensive farming and a mention of factory farming in the article means they're equivalent (when factory farming is a type of intensive farming technique).

So there's nothing in any of those to support your request for a compromise to make them all the same. Read those articles with the mind that factory farming is a type of intensive farming and it makes perfect sense. None of them use them interchangably as you claim. NathanLee 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is another site which under its dictionary definition of agriculture it has 'large scale farming' listed with 'syn: agribusiness, factory farming'. This is a feed from [4].

-Localzuk^(talk) 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that all large scale farms are factory farms? No, that wouldn't make any sense: What about a large scale extensive farm? Or a large scale organic, freerange farm? Of course not. Yes, factory farms are large scale, that again doesn't mean that ALL large scale farms are factory farms. Nor does this over simplified definition show that "intensive farming" or "industrial agriculture" are equivalent terms.. NathanLee 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you look at what wordnet is: it's not exactly something to be used as a definitive guide: See the FAQ for what it is.. wordnet FAQ. To quote: "groups of words that are roughly synonymous in a given context". It's a computer program making assumptions about synonyms that the definitions that were written by the researchers. I'll stake my money on britannica over this any day of the week. It's akin to quoting google's word suggestions as a dictionary definition. NathanLee 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this site uses the 2 interchangably also [5].-Localzuk^(talk) 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an activist site.. NathanLee 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And another [6] (ok, they stick chicken in the middle of intesive farming in that one).-Localzuk^(talk) 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do put chicken in there, so how is that a valid support to your argument other than wasting space on this discussion page? NathanLee 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And previously at "an exhaustive look":

SV and crum375 have asserted that factory farm/intensive farming, industrial agriculture are synonymous and completely interchangeable.. So looking through all the references in the article. The terms are sometimes used in the same article (even in the same sentence in one article) we haven't yet had anything that shows the terms are anything other than a type of the other..

The CNN article doesn't use them interchangably [7], it calls for a move away from intensive and a stop to factory farming. It would have said stop to both if they were the same thing. You can stop factory farms and still be moving away from intensive farming is about all you can glean from that..

britannica and the sci-tech dictionary says it applies to animal farming as per cramped conditions [8],

this one supports the notion that the term means livestock [9],

this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations [10] no mention of "factory farm" anywhere,

this one [11] does not mention the term factory farm,

webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock definition [12],

this article [13] talks specifically about cows..

On and on through the list.. Even if we go to activist sites on factory farming: I haven't come across any that assert that the terms are interchangable. Sure: factory farming IS industrial agriculture and it IS using intensive farming techniques (or is a type of intensive farming). But that just means it "is a type of", or "is a subset of". English use of the word "is" isn't the same as mathematical =. a = b means b=a. But in English a is b doesn't also mean that b is a.
Nothing to back up the claims in the referred links or anything I can find (other than mirrors of wikipedia's mistaken statements.. which is why it is important we do NOT have this definition sitting up there and infecting the common vernacular of agricultural terms), thus: it is original research and has no place on wikipedia. Might I add:

Even the PETA link on factory farming (completely un-admissable I would say given PETA are a pro-vegan, anti every type of farming site, and not exactly known for their fact based statements e.g. "meat causes impotence", "your daddy murders chickens") mentions only animals [14].

So, does this settle the arguments that SV and Crum375 have about wanting the term "Factory farm" to be synonymous with the other terms? No mention of crops, and 3 different dictionary/encyclopaedic entries that suggest there's a link to cramped livestock.. Yet Industrial agriculture definitely includes monoculture crop planting, and intensive farming definitely definitely refers to using fertiliser and irrigation and mechanised ploughing etc..[15]
So unless there's any new evidence: I suggest we move past this and get on with splitting up the articles and back to supportable definitions/synonyms. This has all been a pretty big drain of time, good will and patience that has damaged the accuracy of the information on here, not improved it (although I guess at least this has been exhaustively debated now.. and has firmed up sources/supporting arguments etc). Any thoughts on this? I'm not wanting to be dictatorial on this: just presenting the evidence.. NathanLee 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Which was agreed by Jav43 and WAS by the way and no opposing view or comments.

There's been no attempt to answer this anywhere that I can see: which really is the whole rationale for squashing this article into one big article. Can we finally get an answer, or else I suggest to "move forward" you drop the argument that these terms all belong in one article (which appears to be set to be a massive article). NathanLee 09:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point? We have half the editors thinking that the terms are equivalent and half that don't. All you are doing is going back, again and again, to the same old 'we're right, you're wrong' argument. This is getting us no-where and the entire exercise above is intended to try and move us forward and out of the deadlock that we are in and to compromise. All you have done is once again gone back and repeated your same argument again, filling the page up again. We have all read through this before and simply disagree with your analysis - posting it again and again isn't going to change our minds.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk: you can "think" what you like: What we need are some references. I and others have shown that there's nothing that says they are the same and have a definition that fits britannica and dictionary definitions, yours only fits if you have some strange idea of two things mentioned in a news article that they're the same. The rules of the English language also seem to agree. No one from your side has shown any attempt to refute those (and the above) time and time again. No rational being would keep insisting they have a case without any evidence, yet you still do. If inability to provide evidence from your side is "deadlock" then allowing you to force your unreferenced, OR/POV is not a fair compromise. What compromise have you made? That you'll only accept having one article? That is not a "compromise" and moves nothing in any direction. NathanLee 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read my section below. Also, as I have said - we don't think that your analysis is correct of the sources that show the 2 terms are equivalent, whereas you do believe that. We both have shown various things and both sides don't agree. The compromise is getting past that and doing something in the middle. Stop going on about rules of the English language and your own POV because we already know what you think. We want to move on and actually settle this problem, whereas you only seem to be willing to accept our complete and total withdrawal...-Localzuk^(talk) 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So if I go and merge the jew/zionist/israeli articles because I can give the same level of "proof" of equivalency of terms: you'll be fine with that? I can show them used to mean the same thing (in your fashion). The rules of the English language are rather important: as they're the thing you're relying on to concoct a definition: and you're wrong. A is a type of B, does not mean B is a type of A. Or X and Y does not mean X is Y or Y is X. But that's your argument. How about a compromise to what's safer and makes no OR: something directly backed by dictionary and encyclopaedic entries? Is that a fair compromise? That's all I'm asking for.. NathanLee 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on title

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

As I see it, we have a consensus (as a first or second choice) for having one article called "Intensive agriculture." My proposal is that we proceed with this, with separate sections on the history of intensive farming; perhaps another section on the industrialization of it in general; and then we split into sections about animals on the one hand, and crops on the other. We could also include a section that discusses the different terms, who uses them, and so on.

If and when that article gets too long, we can discuss again the need to split into more than one article.

We will also carefully discuss the lead in advance of editing so that we have a consensus on images and text, and no revert wars. We can discuss the lead after deciding on the title.

Could we have a straw poll here to see who is prepared to try this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's move forward. Crum375 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As per Crum375--Cerejota 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to move on this, rather than repeating the same old arguments and getting nowhere. However, if this is not acceptable to people, how about 'Agribusiness' as the title? The article ties in with th subject matter being discussed here and would work well.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I presume Localzuk and SV's agreement to this means that they accept(at least as a "compromise") that factory farming is a subset of industrial agriculture is a subset of intensive agriculture. Main conflict solved. Support is not an endorsement of the one article preference. Whether sub sections deserve their main article is not quite relevant here. If they do, we can split them when this page is up. --Dodo bird 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

WAS 4.250 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) This is premature. Let us all edit the subpage in question and if we can do that without reverting each other then it is a possible solution to this revert war.
NathanLee 09:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Forcing people to accept your POV on an article being squashed into one article is not "consensus" SlimVirgin. You've still never provided anything to back up why they're equivalent terms (please see my question that's gone unanswered since this began). Your selective interpretation which is the whole basis is incorrect and Original research. Moving forward does not mean "ignore the fact you've not supported your argument STILL".

Neutral

Votes are Evil

I think that there is a high probability that the results of this straw poll will be misused to somehow assert that the terms are equivalent and certain editors need to be marginalized. It's Memorial Day Weekend (at least in the US). I recommend that SV and Localzuk take a 72 hour break. If so I can do likewise. Haber 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
agreed. If it's the same old argument: it's because it still has the same old complete lack of evidence as to why just one article is needed. More articles can easily work if SV, localzuk and crum375 stop reverting any attempt to improve the article. Pretending that they've made some compromise and want to move forward yet have made no compromise nor provided any new evidence. NathanLee 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)