Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Who would prefer which article title(s)

I suggest that people write here what they think the title(s) should be, and why, preferably using sources to back up the argument. Please write no more than one short paragraph each, preferably no more than 150 words. No threaded discussion; just let each person have their say, because we may agree more than we realize.

SlimVirgin

My preference is for us to have one article, which should include crops and animals. I don't mind what the title is: factory farming, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, or intensive agriculture, because mainstream sources use these terms interchangeably (e.g. the BBC using the terms "factory farms," "factory farming," "intensive agriculture," and "intensive farming" in one article to refer to the same phenomenon). If others want more than one article, I'm willing to see two articles: one about crops, one about animals. I'd prefer the animal one to be called "factory farming" because it’s commonly used (e.g. Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CBC. As a compromise, I'd be willing to see Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). I'd be unwilling to see three articles (Factory farming, Intensive farming, and Industrial agriculture), unless someone can show me mainstream reliable sources who use the terms differently and who make clear what the difference is; so far, no one has done that. Wikipedia must not create distinctions that do not exist for reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Crum375

I agree with SlimVirgin above. My main concern is that this topic may degenerate into POV forks, and the best way to avoid that is keep it all in one article. If that is impractical, then I could live with one for animals and one for crops, at most. I think a single combined article would still be the most informative and efficient, since many of the issues and controversies are the same or similar. Crum375 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Coroebus

Sorry, I'm very busy at the moment so I won't be able to engage in this issue in much detail. In brief, I think that intensive farming is different from industrial agriculture because there are non-industrial agricultural methods that are still intensive, particularly historically (thinking enclosure, that sort of thing). I would be inclined towards a single article called industrial agriculture covering crops and animals but I think that practically speaking this might be unwise as I think there will be overemphasis and conflict over the animal aspect and associated animal rights issues. Therefore I would favour a short article on intensive agriculture with a very short summary section on industrial agriculture that points you to the industrial agriculture page, which in turn has a short summary section on factory farming which is also an article that expands on the confined animal rearing aspect, and spells out in the intro that factory farming is here taken to mean confined animal rearing but that it can also be used to mean industrial agriculture (with, obviously, a wikilink). --Coroebus 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Haber

Single article is fine. Ideally everything will be lumped under Intensive agriculture, which is a very neutral term and used by the USDA[1] and BBC[2]. Intensive farming would also be acceptable and is neutral, but sounds less encyclopedic to me (matter of taste, and I see the two terms as nearly equivalent.) Also supported by USDA[3]. Industrial agriculture shows up in a negative context[4],[5], and should be avoided. Factory farming is a propaganda term that evokes images of sows in gestation crates. Although activist sites and some media outlets use this term, Wikipedia should not buy into their agenda. I could also see possibly two articles: Intensive ag and Industrial ag, but at present I don't see that there is enough material and would rather lump everything under Intensive for the time being. Haber 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I think it goes without saying that I think that the assertion Intensive ag = Industrial ag = Factory farming is false, but I'll say it again just to avoid any confusion. Haber 12:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FNMF

Concur with Corobeus's conclusion: "a short article on intensive agriculture with a very short summary section on industrial agriculture that points you to the industrial agriculture page, which in turn has a short summary section on factory farming which is also an article that expands on the confined animal rearing aspect, and spells out in the intro that factory farming is here taken to mean confined animal rearing but that it can also be used to mean industrial agriculture (with, obviously, a wikilink)." FNMF 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems to me that if an editor creates an article (e.g. industrial agriculture), it is illegitimate for another editor to simply change it to a redirect (e.g., to factory farming). Changing the article to a redirect is a de facto form of deletion, and thus an attempt to bypass AfD. If somebody creates an article, then it can be contested by other editors who consider it engages in original research, but this must be done through process. One cannot "in advance" decide that an article is OR and therefore summarily change it to a redirect. I have raised this point before, with no response. Denying the right of other editors to create articles without a legitimate justification seems like an attempt to unfairly control the process. FNMF 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk

Agree with SV and Crum, preferably one article (not too bothered about the title, as all of them would redirect here) or two (one focusing on crops and one on animals, with the 3 titles pointing to a dab page or similar). I wouldn't want 3 articles as this would lead to POV forks and create distinctions where there are grey areas.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee

Just read the exhaustive list or here or perhaps even the section on proposed new lead. [...] SV's version makes claims that terms are the same: they aren't and no reference backs that. The SV version is wrong in the body too because it mentions crops (merged from intensive agriculture) and no article exists to link crop farming with factory farming. It disagrees with the dictionary and encyclopaedic entries referenced in the newer version on that regard. Hence "original" (e.g. SV's ) research. NathanLee 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (copied here by WAS 4.250 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd suggest the version of intensive farming and see if it goes with the version that uses a more accurate description of factory farming (pre-revert version ). Between the two they succinctly shows what intensive farming is and delegates greater detail to other pages (e.g. aquaculture, factory farming).. Which, so long as you don't claim that factory farming IS intensive farming, means you have the higher level one for intensive farming concept which covers the broad concepts and links the sub types.., and then delegates more detail to factory farming, aquaculture etc.

If an agreement/compromise is made to not push for the "they are the same" arguments: then we can have a factory farm page, intensive agriculture page can redirect to if there's a desire not to have the two.. Even though one's a process/concept, the other's talking of a field or farming revolution.. NathanLee 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250

Combining these three is like combining articles on jews, zionists and israelis. Related but different. Even if some people don't get that. But until the content grows enough to force hiving off, factory farming could be a section within indusrtial farming which could be a section within intensive farming, but farming is a big subject - we just currently lack content due to lack of interst by contributors. They will eventually be seperate articles. The real issue here is an attempt to control not only the articles but also the discussion about the articles. Including asking a contributor to not contribute. That is wrong. That is controlling. That is contrary to an honest open thoughtful discussion. That is not helpful in finding consensus. I am against gagging any contributor. I am against deciding against the creation of other articles. No to censorship. Let the articles grow organigally rather than trying to tightly control their development. There is a lot more to farming than controversy. WAS 4.250 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

jav43

Since we're dealing with three distinct topics, we should have three distinct articles. Jav43 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

One article would work if it clearly explained that it merged three distinct topics. Jav43 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis and suggestion

• SV wants one article, but could live with two (one on animals, one on crops). Does not want three. No preference on titles.
• Crum wants one article, since he feels the issues are the same and because he fears POV forks. No preference on titles.
• Coroebus would like three articles — intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming — and could live with one combined one called industrial agriculture.
• Haber would prefer one article called intensive agriculture or intensive farming, in that order of preference.
• FNMF would prefer three per Coroebus: intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming.
• Localzuk would prefer one article, but could live with two (one on crops, one on animals), but not three. No preference regarding titles.
• WAS 4.250 would like to see three articles: intensive farming, industrial farming, and factory farming, but could live with one called intensive farming.
• Jav would like to see three articles; no preference regarding titles.

In other words:

• One article called intensive agriculture or intensive farming: Five editors (SV, Crum, Localzuk, Coroebus, Haber) would either prefer, or could live with, one article, and the only preference expressed for its title (by Haber) is "intensive agriculture" or "intensive farming," in that order. I think WAS 4.250 would also be able to live with one article called intensive farming.
• Three articles called intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming. Two editors have asked for three articles and expressed no second preference.

Could the editors who would like to see three articles say what they would be prepared to accept as a second best choice? The aim is to find out whether there's enough common ground between us to proceed without further argument.

For example, could those editors accept one article called "intensive agriculture"? This would explore the history of intensive farming/agriculture (e.g. along these lines [6]); it would move on to the industralization of agriculture as society in general became industralized; and it would deal in separate sections with the issues raised by the industrialized production of crops, on the one hand, and animals on the other.

If the article became too large at any point, then we could think about creating separate articles for some of the sections, per summary style (so long as this doesn't appear to be POV forking), but we've not reached that stage yet. On the contrary, quite a bit of the content of the three articles was repetitive when I last checked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav has agreed to one article, so long as we make it clear that we're dealing with a number of distinct areas. (We could perhaps write a section on the different terms and their usage). Thank you, Jav. Does anyone remaining have a strong objection to one article called "Intensive agriculture"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I dispute the analysis: by my reading, five editors prefer three articles (Corobeus, FNMF, Nathan, WAS, Jav). There is certainly no clear majority that prefers one article. What this reflects is the current deadlock. And thus the real point is not whether these five editors can "live with" one article; the question is whether having one article will achieve a good outcome. In my opinion, one of the main reasons these editors prefer three articles is because they see it as a way of breaking this deadlock, whereas having one article is essentially maintaining the status quo: that is, an apparently interminable waste of energy arguing on the talk page with no improvement to the actual article. Changing the title to "intensive farming" is not likely to change this situation. Insisting on preventing three articles is an attempt to unfairly control the situation, and, in my opinion, it is an illegitimate way of doing so. As I have said, I don't believe editors should be able to de facto delete articles by changing them to redirects. FNMF 21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FN, I wrote "Five editors (SV, Crum, Localzuk, Coroebus, Haber) would either prefer, or could live with, one article ..." And it's now six, because Jav says he could accept one article too. The proposal is to call it "intensive agriculture."

We can't proceed with deadlock, so there has to be compromise. That is why I looked at people's first preference, but also what they said their second preference was.

I don't see how not having three articles is an exercise in illegitimate control. It's an attempt to avoid repetition and POV forking. There may come a point where the different sections on this article are so large that forking becomes necessary, but that point has not been reached. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FN, could you say what your particular concerns are about the need for three articles, because I've not followed it, and I'm sorry if I'm being dense. For example, is it that you want a separate article on the history of intensive agriculture, because if so, perhaps we could have one called "History of intensive agriculture," where you deal only with pre-industralization.

The POV fork problem arises only if editors try to turn an article on "intensive agriculture" into something that deals with modern methods, but pretends those methods are not examples of what mainstream sources call "industrial agriculture" or "factory farming." If your history article would definitely only deal with pre-industrial methods, that problem would not arise.

What we have to avoid is erecting any framework that, in and of itself, implies either than intensive agriculture is a good, non-controversial thing, or is a bad, controversial thing. Our content will make both claims per NPOV, but our framework should not. That is why one article would be good, with a neutral title such as "intensive agriculture." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My particular concern is that this is getting nowhere. Once the issue of what to call the article is "resolved," we will be right back where we are right now, that is, at a deadlock about content, which is what lies behind the "article title" issue. I don't believe that three articles means the articles will represent particular points of view, and assuming that in advance is wrong. One article is just as likely to be POV as three articles, but it is just as possible for all three to be neutral and balanced. Insisting that three articles will result in non-neutral articles is inventing a problem in order to control the outcome. Compromise would be if editors said, "OK, let's have more than one article and see where it takes us." The unwillingness of some editors to try this approach is the most obvious thing about the situation at present. FNMF 05:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can you say once more what you see as the difference between industrial agriculture and factory farming? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether factory farming is limited in definition to the confinement of animal stock and associated phenomena. If so, the difference is clear enough. But if factory farming is described more broadly than just stock confinement, then I refer you to my first ever comment on this talk page, here. And, again, my argument is not that there should be three articles, but that this is the most likely means of breaking the deadlock, that is, the most likely means of actually beginning to improve the article(s). If another solution works, that's fine; I just haven't seen much evidence of anything else working. FNMF 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's still been no reference to why the terms are the same. Britannica's definition clearly states that factory farming only refers to CONFINED ANIMAL raising [7], and that intensive farming is separate [8] (see "extensive farming" and "semi-intensive" as to why). We've still nothing provided that includes crops or aquaculture. SV/crum/localzuk: can you provide any resource that shows "factory farming" as inclusive of these? That's the big reason for why Industrial Agriculture is needed as a broad term. NathanLee 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I have 2 so far, with more if you want them. The first is a farm, [9] and the second is a site for 'hobby farmers' [10].-Localzuk^(talk) 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Localzuk: surely you know that those are both not valid/citable references (as per policies). A dictionary/encyclopaedia would surely somewhere have something supporting your assertion. Again you supply some private, unreferenced, unsourced site for anti-factory farming groups or organisations. Is that all you've managed to find? I've supplied britannica, mcgraw hill, oxford, new world encyclopaedia and encarta.. You've supplied nothing that is allowable as a reference (see the PETA page for your side's arguments as to why they're not..). Don't you think this continued lack of any decent source should indicate your argument is unsupported for inclusion.. NathanLee 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That shows a lack of understanding of WP:NOR/WP:RS. The farm would be classed as a secondary source. What we are trying to show is that the terms are used to refer to both crops and animals, and who better to do that than an actual farm? But ok, I will drop the second source, as it wouldn't be suitable.

Why don't you save your fingers and agree to the mediation? We are never going to get past these problems otherwise.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the policy on reliable sources. I'd point out "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "reputable publisher" requirement too. And also dispute resolution (avoidance) as to why your revert warring is a bad idea. That farm is nothing more than an opinion piece from a farm trying to sell itself over it's view of other farms (anyone can put up a site like that..). You're repeatedly going against 100% citable sources with flimsy "personal sites" which SV has argued against (e.g. consumerfreedom.com etc on the PETA page, which actually references stuff, but is unallowed because it has information you lot disagree with). Perhaps it's just time you admit that you have nothing solid to base this whole thing on. SV made the claim of equivalency: onus is/was on her to prove it is correct, and without any sort of proper source you're just fitting the definition of "disruptive editing" that is: frequent, persistent attempts to introduce an "eccentric view" into an article with no proper references. I suggest we go with what is easily provable from proper sources instead of waiting around for you to dredge up every non-useful (as a reference) site as you've done so far.

From the wikipedia founder:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."

I'd submit that your view on this should be easily supported, but here you are dredging up one or two sites that wouldn't be acceptable sources and relying on some strange interpretation of equality by same article mention (contrary to any even moderate English skill interpretation). NathanLee 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If it matters "industrial agriculture" about 453,000 google hits, "factory farming" about 472,000. Both top links are from critical websites, and wikipedia pages feature promenently in the first few hits for "factory farming".

If you ask me, its "Factory farming" as title "industrial agriculture" as redirect, main page covers a short intro into two sub-pages (crops) and (animal). I have been watching the page since forever but not edited...--Cerejota 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Analysis

If you now seem happy (going off your proposed version) that factory farming is just one type or subset of intensive farming: then is there any problem with having separate articles if it means:

• smaller articles size
• more directed (e.g. see how the version of intensive farming is focussed on the concept of what is intensive farming versus extensive farming and directs people to factory farming (see the pre revert version for consistency with that notion) on specific detail on factory farming specifics, just like aquaculture details out details on aquaculture..
• an avoidance of a POV merge (as per the argument about jew/zionist/israeli not being in the one article for the obvious reason that they are distinct).
• when/if factory farming disappears from the current state of industrial agriculture (and practised intensive farming techniques): those topics will still make sense. In one big article they're forced to be all together..
• if we merge one, we'd also have to merge aquaculture: which wouldn't seem to be a good idea..
• redirecting factory farming to intensive farming creates the assumption that it IS the same thing, when it's clearly a subset. We can put in a bit that talks of the notion of "treating the farm like a factory" to mean Industrial agriculture, but that the main use of the word is to refer to animals/confiend in large operations etc.

Does that sound workable? NathanLee 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with however you want to arrange the articles, but I disagree with the last point. A redirect from a subtopic to a larger topic could just mean that we don't have enough information for a decent subarticle.

I'd also like to reiterate that "Factory Farming" is not an NPOV term, being found almost exclusively on activist websites and in negative articles written by media types. No one builds factory farms or works in factory farms, the government does not keep statistics on factory farms, it's just a made-up term which sounds worse than "farm". Wikipedia should not propagate this terminology, which was invented by critics in order to demonize a legal activity. It reminds me of a Simpsons' quote, "Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... The Killbot Factory." -- Kent Brockman Haber 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that people here are missing the point by a long way

Right, I will outline my position: We have evidence that shows the 2 terms (intensive farming and factory farming) are equivalent but some editors disagree that it does so therefore I am willing to compromise and have an article which outlines all 3 in some way (regardless of how obscene it seems to me). On the other hand we have a group of editos who simply refuse to accept our evidence and continually say that we aren't getting anywhere as we are trying to 'trick' them or what have you. How, in your opinions then are we to move forward with this? We have 2 stances and we need a middle point. We have a majority of the editors who are willing to have a single article as I just described but this isn't good enough for some. Please explain how you think we should break this deadlock then as you (I'm looking at you Nathan) are continually repeating yourself and failing to provide a single new idea to this debate.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a majority of editors who want more than one article because they do not share your view of equivalency.

As I've said: having two terms used in a sentence or an article does not automagically mean they are the same thing. Your "evidence" is extremely strange. If you expect me to suspend my knowledge of English to cater for your obscure "definition" then I really can't do it. That's why I've asked for you or SV or anyone to explain it via proper reference because it doesn't make sense nor do the articles you say do it even support it. The use of the word "and" seems to be a sticking point. I can say "I believe you are wrong localzuk and I like correct wikipedia entries" does not mean that "localzuk" and "correct wikipedia entry" are the same thing. Yet you argued that a sentence with factory farming AND intensive agriculture meant that they were the same. Additional info was provided about the lack of any reference to crops, or that the definitions match if you take one to be a subset of the other. In SV's proposed version: they say exactly that: yet you still want just one article that says that anyhow? I've got britannica's entry on factory farm and britannica's definition of intensive farming that back up my claim. You have nothing more than a questionable technique of interpreting a few news articles. Surely you can see your position is rather shakey if you have such strong arguments against it and no reliable direct definition to back yours up? NathanLee 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, the long and frequent posts from you are starting up again. They aren't helping. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And the dictatorial/dismissive style is continuing from you SV, please assume good faith that someone contributing with reasoned arguments deserves to be listened to. Why these are getting lumped together I don't know. NathanLee 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More definitions from online dictionary/encyclopaedias that support the non equivalent position: World encyclopedia 1980 - factory farming, intensive (of agriculture) Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English 2006, extensive (of agriculture), encarta definition factory farm,encarta definition of intensive (agriculture). If you still can't see that the terms are not equivalent, then I can keep digging for more definitions if you'd like, since it is "obscene" to you. NathanLee 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been given sources that use the terms in the same way, but you deny they're doing it, saying for example that when CNN writes of the need for an end to factory farming and later in the same paragraph (writing from memory) of the need to (forget the word, but another way of saying stop) "intensive farming," you deny they're referring to the same things.

Life's too short for silliness and wikilawyering, and you can't take this talk page hostage again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He is not being silly. He is not wikilawyering. He never took this page hostage. WAS 4.250 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume you've not read his 22,000 (yes, twenty-two thousand) words of personal opinion posted on this page over eight days, not counting the similar posts he left on user talk pages, because much of it was indeed wikilawyering and an almost wilful refusal to read what the sources were actually saying. I'm not sure I've ever seen a talk page taken over to that extent by a single user; well, I did once, but it was someone talking entirely to himself.

The bottom line is that none of us can get our own way here, because to move on there has to be compromise, about number of articles, titles, and content. I am willing to compromise, but not to the point of being ridiculous, which having three articles on the same subject would be. There are at most two subjects here: intensive farming and industrial farming, which only at a stretch can people argue are different, but fair enough; I'm willing to be educated. There are also two objects of that farming: animals and crops. Whichever way you cut it, it doesn't translate into three articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As predicted, the so-called attempt to reach consensus through a straw poll on the title seems to have failed to achieve anything like consensus.

It's not over yet. If this doesn't work, we can go for mediation, but it seems a waste of time given that (I hope) we're all adults and should be able to mediate for ourselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How did I know that it would fail? Because it is not, in fact, a genuine compromise at all, but simply an attempt to push through the preference of one "side." It's all very well to speak of "bottom lines" and the necessity of compromise, but I cannot help but note that, rather than then indicating what compromise it is you are prepared to accept, you immediately follow with a statement of what you are not prepared to accept because it would be "ridiculous." Let's imagine for a moment you are right that three articles is ridiculous: so what? Let the three subjects develop until the point where we can see if and how they should be merged. The real point is the insistence that you already know how this will turn out. That insistence is what is preventing any compromise. Editors who are illegitimately controlling the situation by refusing to let things develop are in fact preventing any "forward movement," despite their rhetoric to the contrary. It is hard not to conclude they are simply trying to drive away editors who disagree with them. For my own part, as an editor more concerned with breaking the deadlock than pushing a particular perspective, it does indeed increasingly seem like a worthless waste of energy to continue making the attempt. FNMF 00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be interested in breaking the deadlock. You seem determined to have three articles, and to hell with compromise. If I've misread your position, I apologize, and would appreciate you reiterating what compromise you'd be willing to accept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You have misread my position, and I would suggest you have done so because you are dividing everybody into the camp of friend and enemy, rather than really taking a look at the reality of the situation. What compromise I am prepared to accept is really the wrong question: there are a number of committed editors who were clearly always going to disagree with your so-called compromise. I cannot help but note that you tend to simply ignore anything which may be problematic for your own position. FNMF 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but still you won't say which compromise you're willing to accept, if not the one I suggested. :-) Anyway, we're clearly getting nowhere, so I've filed an RfM. Hopefully with some outside help we'll find a way through it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: what compromise have you made? What evidence have you provided outside selective reading and questionable english skills if that is your proof. Your insistence that the CNN article is some magical support for your argument is incorrect: two mentions of a term in a paragraph or sentence do NOT mean they are equivalent. Repeated requests have been made for you to provide something resembling a decent, non-POV/OR interpretation of something. You've pushed and pushed, forced others to make a choice to fit your unreferenced POV but contributed little to this discussion except to revert changes citing your own version of policy ("add don't remove"), belittle the contributions of others, make fallacious arguments about their credibility (you did that to both jav and myself) or contribute in a meaningful constructive way. Three articles seemed to be quite able to exist before your merger and you'd ignored any attempt to discuss (or pay attention to the discussion on various pages that had agreed that the pages should not be merged). Now you've forced the issue to mediation due to your inability to accept others point of view. NathanLee 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a position, therefore I'm not able to "compromise." I put forward a proposal which I felt had a good chance of breaking the deadlock. Apparently I was wrong, given your rejection of that proposal (on what I consider flimsy grounds). I thought you may have been less intractable. I doubt very much I'll participate in any mediation because, as I indicated, it's increasingly clear that this debate is a waste of energy. Rather than trying to genuinely solve the problem, it seems to me there is just a switch from one mechanism to the next, in order to try to "win." I think this is unfortunate and unnecessary, but good luck to all the editors with greater faith than myself in the worthwhileness of the process. FNMF 01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SV: I would request that you do not call for others to compromise until after you offer a compromise yourself. Jav43 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to compromise, as I have already pointed out. Our position calls for a single article which doesn't distinguish between the 3 topics. Your position is to have 3 pages which does distinguish. The compromise is having 1 or 2 pages which semi-distinguish... (That is in very short summary form, it is a bit more complex than that). As it stands, you have not proposed a single compromisable point.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Perhaps the pages could recognize that factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are three distinct phenomena -- and provide distinct articles on that basis -- but, under the factory farming article, have a section on "colloquial use". This section on colloquial use would have a line of this sort:

The term factory farming is sometimes used colloquially to refer to any type of modern agriculture-production system. This variant of the term's meaning is most commonly used by animal rights activists, although it can be seen in any forum.

Jav43 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. WAS 4.250 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

works for me too. I'd say "any forum" might be better defined as "media and politics" (or if there's other ones we've got references for?) as we've got references for both of those.. Britannica's and others def agrees with that. NathanLee 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between factory farming and industrial agriculture, according to reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You've asked this exact question on this talk page SV. Scroll back up and search for "can you say once more what you see as the difference between industrial agriculture and factory farming?". You got answers from several people. NathanLee 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And here's one that talks of the notion Jav43's proposing: [11] first paragraph. Views the farm as a factory.. But as per britannica and others the term "factory farm" means something else. NathanLee 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I ask a question, someone says "it's been answered already; see above." I wouldn't be asking it again if I could find the answer.

What exactly is the objection to having Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals)? Okay, it might not be ideal for everyone (it wouldn't be my first choice either), but what is actually wrong with it as a compromise? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Everyone take a look at Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) and see what you think. WAS 4.250 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the content, the former looks fine; the latter obviously not as it seems not to discuss animals. We have to decide on titles and numbers of articles before content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Take another look. I deleted some stuff and added some stuff. WAS 4.250 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, something along those lines perhaps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I gave you the search string to find it (it was your question) :)

So anyhow: if those two are acceptable: then logically you'd have to see that "intensive farming" exists in its own right (as the common element or process between those two pages? Just as a general concept as it is now intensive farming versus extensive farming being the "opposite"). With Industrial agriculture being the overall field across animal, aquaculture and crops that may regard the farm/patch of water as factory, make use of intensive farming and mechanisation etc.. Because there's a reasonable amount of history attached to that process of industrialisation, but maybe that's not enough..? But how about we see what ends up there and if it's not too unique then maybe it gets chopped up into the two articles you're talking about?

On the titles: I think those might be good choices as you can (i'd say) have intensive animal farming that's outside the realm of what's attached to the term "factory farming" (with the current state of animal agriculture today: confinement, cramped conditions etc as per your desire to put the gestation crate picture in), so I'd suggest that your title is more appropriate than "factory farming" which wouldn't generally cover things like intensive fur farming, captive panda breeding or intensive rabbit breeding (just plucking examples out of animals farmed intensively outside the definitions for FF)..

Would that keep everyone happy: you get your two articles, the naturally implied common one between 'em (higher concept, would not be a huge article, instead delegating to Intensive farming (animals), intensive farming (crops) and Aquaculture) and to Industrial Agriculture too. And Industrial agriculture referring not to the concept of "more inputs to make more outputs", but to the modern agricultural industry and it's history. I just think that there's sufficient need to separate out the concept of intensive farming from industrial agriculture.. NathanLee 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya but for now let's just run with this idea and see where it takes us. Let's just see if we can all contructively edit Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) or not. OK? WAS 4.250 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because all you're doing is transplanting the edit conflicts from this article to others. I would like to see an agreement to have 1, 2, or 3 articles; an agreement on the title(s); and an agreement on the content of the lead section(s). Then we can request that this page be unprotected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(<---)I disagree that we disagree ... except of course for the disagreement on whether we disagree; meaning that I agree with what you just said. Only the mechanism to achieve that that I suggest is "Let's just see if we can all contructively edit Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) or not." So we have tentatively agreed on two articles with these names; now let us edit those articles and find if we can reach "an agreement on the content of the lead section(s). Then we can request that this page be unprotected." The lead summarizes the article. Without an article to summarize it is hard to know what the lead should be. So slim (and everyone else), edit the lead to reflect the article and let us see where we stand. Of course, adding content to the nonlead parts is also good. But let's not delete content relevant to the article title. I am especially concerned with people deleting farming information. These are articles on farming. The challenges and issues are what newspapers report, but those are a minor part of an encyclopedic coverage of a major sector of the economy. Read up on what universities teach about farming to see what I mean. If someone wants a lead all about the "challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals)" then perhaps they need to have such an article: Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals) WAS 4.250 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The latter would be a POV fork, which is what we're trying to avoid. Leads must contain the subject's notable controversies. What would you agree are Intensive farming (animals)'s notable controversies, according to reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "The latter would be a POV fork". Intensive farming (animals)'s notable controversies would be a POV fork. But not Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals) which would contain notable controversies as a part because the issues and challenges of intensive farming, while encyclopedic, are rarely news. Please skim

• Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand
• The Regional Institute article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE
• overview of industrial agriculture and agribusiness with pros and cons

The last one gives a good summary of "Intensive farming (animals)'s notable controversies, according to reliable sources" while the first two give a good idea of Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals) from the point of view of the farming industry and government. WAS 4.250 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree

I disagree with the notion of having one article about animals and one article about crops. It is an artificial distinction, imposed to try to solve a problem rather than reflect any reality about the phenomenon. For one thing, there are interconnections between the two: the same corporation that wants to patent pig genes is the corporation that produces genetically modified animal feed, and this has raised questions about the connection between these two facts. More to the point, what this reveals is that the phenomenon of industrial agriculture, and the questions it raises, are more profound than just the "treatment" of animals. Splitting the article in two in order to appease those whose concern is specifically to do with animals makes it much more difficult to describe the character of the phenomenon itself. In my opinion, this is the worst of all possible solutions, and would be a political decision in the worst way. The fact of the industrialisation of agriculture is a profound adjustment in the relation of human beings to nature, and to artificially break this complex phenomenon into two halves would diminish the encyclopaedia. FNMF 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it for the RfM. I was just looking to see whether it could be headed off. FNMF, you strongly argue against one page, then against two, and yet you say you're willing to compromise, when the only solution left is three pages, which is what you want! Then in addition you say you don't want to take part in mediation. It's all somewhat unhelpful. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not strongly argued against one page. In fact, I have not strongly argued against anything, until now, when I strongly argue against an entry on crops and one one animals. I feel you have persistently misread my position. In fact, my position has been almost entirely a matter of encouraging others to try out solutions and see where they lead. I'm sorry you feel this has been unhelpful. And I'm bemused by the fact that the first time I do strongly argue against something, it has to be "left for mediation"! FNMF 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can that be catered for in intensive agriculture (as the common parts?) I think intensive agriculture is needed as we have extensive agriculture and there's mention i've seen of semi-intensive agriculture which would probably be a new article one day.. NathanLee 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean, would it be ok if there was a single article called "intensive agriculture"? If so, I have no objection to that. As I hope I have made clear, I am not fussed by how many articles there are. I think there is a good case for three articles, especially if that would enable the deadlock to be broken. But I have no objection to a single article other than the fact that editors are unable to actually work on such an article due to deadlock. I do, however, object to the artificial division between crops and animals which does not reflect the phenomenon and obscures the profound character of the transformation of human life it involves. FNMF 23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We can not fit all of modern farming into one article anymore than we can fit all of the television industry into one article. We can use transclusion. We can use sections that summarize other articles using the main template. The point is to evolve forward rather than revert war in a standstill. Write a section describing what you are talking about and put it somewhere. It can then be added to, transcluded, made a seperate article. I agree with the points you are making. I disagree that they are a reason to not give this a try. Work with me and see if what you write can't be dealt with appropriately. WAS 4.250 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "fitting everything in." It's a question of having entries that accurately reflect the phenomena they are describing. And I strongly believe there should be an overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. To simply have an article about one aspect of it, and an article about another aspect of it, without any article indicating what these things are aspects of is a bad solution made for the wrong reasons. FNMF 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So write your overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. Pick some article name not currently locked or write it on a subpage somewhere. I'll move it to mainspace if that's a concern and add links to related artcles and maybe summarize it in sections of other articles. Write it. No one is stopping you. WAS 4.250 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that an odd response. I think industrial agriculture as it currently exists does largely cover what I am talking about, or is at least on the way. I don't believe it's a matter of finding some new article name. I can't think of anything worse, since it will just lead to more arguments. Writing "pick some article name not currently locked" tells the whole story: the article is locked. That's the problem, and it's a problem that exists because the environment is presently so little conducive to writing anything. I feel that you are venting frustration because I have not supported the proposal to have an article on animals and one on crops. I just think that is a bad solution, being no solution at all. FNMF 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god, FNMF, you said above you didn't want one article, [12] now you say you weren't "fussed." Please make up your mind so we can move on. I am happy with one title. And I am happy with one for animals, one for crops. I am happy with any of the titles. The only things I object to are three articles, anything that smacks of a POV fork, and leads without detailed criticism. Otherwise, I will accept any compromise.

Please let us decide how many articles and be done with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You asked all editors to state their preference. I stated my preference. From my very first post until my last I have not stated I will not accept one article, nor have I stated that there must be three articles. My argument all along has been that letting three articles develop will enable decisions to be made later on about whether merges are required. It is a pity you don't bother to read what is written with more care. Your pretence that you will "accept any compromise" is unconvincing. FNMF 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But others were stating their preference and what they would be willing to accept, so that we can compromise, so that we can work out whether we have any common ground, and so we can do that without behaving like a bunch of four-year-olds. Come on, guys, this is getting silly. We all know what the content policies say the content must include, and most of us are experienced editors, so there's no excuse for this incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio. Let's make a decision about numbers of titles, please, find out whether we have an agreement, and move on to discussing content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for SlimVirgin: say you'll accept three articles for now. Then you can go straight to talking about content. If three articles is a problem, it can be sorted out later. At present, content is what is being perpetually postponed. FNMF 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, three articles is silly and POV forkish. One, yes (my first preference). Two, yes. Three, no. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Exactly! My position is the same as SV's. FNMF - you have only pushed for a single goal - 3 articles. You have not tried pushing for any other ways of doing things, other than that goal. Please start compromising else we won't get anywhere.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The real issue with the edit warring isn't the number of articles: that's just us all getting side tracked. Without solving the equivalent terms issue: the edit warring will continue regardless of the number of articles. If we avoid lumping or merging articles we'll have less contention over definitions I think is what FNMF is getting at. Without the need to link all the terms the articles can each be fine grained and specifically directed (with neutral tone to avoid it being a POV fork). If one article is looking like the other in a month's time: it's a candidate for a two into one merge. But the 3 into one merge is the sticking point and (i think) major cause of disagreement.. NathanLee 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How absurd. Do whatever you like: the point is you aren't getting anywhere doing what you are doing. The only thing I strongly object to is having one article on animals and one article on crops, an artificial distinction that would mean the encyclopaedia has failed when it comes to this topic. Other than that very recent development, I haven't pushed for anything, no matter how many times you say I have. But that doesn't mean I believe that having three articles is necessarily "POV forkish": in my opinion that is a ridiculous objection based on second guessing the outcome of a process you are stubbornly unwilling even to contemplate. FNMF 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how three articles would be POV fork and not merely WP:SS. Would having three articles in itself be a POV fork or are you predicting a POV fork? --Dodo bird 06:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Can we just start with the one article (Intensive farming) and then farm out the individual sections as needed, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style? --Dodo bird 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree --Dodo bird 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree WAS 4.250 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Probably agree (snap decision as busy). --Coroebus 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is obvious we need mediation and cannot reach consensus, as a previous compromise proposal with some support is ignored to start another one.--Cerejota 11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Ok, if you merge all the contentious topics together, you would get a structure that vaguely looks like this:

Intensive farming

Pre modern intensive farming

Modern intensive farming

Industrial agriculture

History

Challenges and issues

Animals

History

Terminology

Chicken/Intensive pig farming etc

Current status/criticism

Aquaculture

Shrimp farms etc

Crops

History

Sustainable agriculture

Wheat/maize etc

Not much different from SV's suggestion which looks like this:

Intensive farming

History

Industrialization

Crops

Etc.

Animals

Terminology

Etc.

If the article is too long, you would then split Industrial agriculture into another article, leaving behind a summary that is reflective of the new article as a whole so as not to violate NPOV/content forking rules. You would then want to split the new article sections on Animals, Aquaculture, and Crops again if the article is still too long.

We could make reasonable guesses as to how the split will occur and work accordingly, or we could waste a lot of time and effort to merge the current articles into one and then split it. Or we could split it into two articles. --Dodo bird 15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Including Aquaculture into some massive overarching article brings with it a new set of problems. For those of you who enjoyed finding and debating subtle distinctions between terms discussed above, but are bored of the current debate, I propose the discussion move on to the relationships between

Aquaculture, Fish farming, Mariculture, Algaculture, Cultured pearl ( 'pearl culturing'?), etc., and whether these should all be one, or, at the limit, including everything from Category:Fisheries science, 68 separate articles. Dialectric 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comment more carefully, you would realize that I don't favor one giant ass article but a number of articles split from that general structure. The rest of your comment is irrelevant.--Dodo bird 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the sort of divided hierachial structure: but that's what we've got currently and the articles ARE too big to merge 'em into one for no reason (e.g. the current intensive farming article): the trouble is that SV/crum/localzuk will not let it stand as it is: because they insist intensive farming IS factory farming (despire all evidence of intensive farming being a standalone topic).. That's why they don't want the article divided up, and the structure of the single big article will still have to be written as "intensive farming" same as "factory farming" same as "industrial agriculture" which, no matter how many times we show: they still regard as all being the same. 1, 2, 10 articles the sticking point is still the insistence of the interchangeability of terms when it's obvious (to a reasonable person) that factory farming does not refer to intensive crop production. NathanLee 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lying back and thinking of England one last time

Is there anyone who objects to this proposal (please say so very succinctly; size does matter, and less is definitely more!!):

We have two articles only, and they will be called Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). All other titles are directed to Intensive farming, which will be a disambig page, and will say something like "other terms used to describe intensive farming are industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, and factory farming. Please see IF (crops) and IF (animals) for more information."

• Yes, I agree!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. The worst possible solution. FNMF 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree -Localzuk^(talk) 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• clarification needed: so is the argument still going over whether the terms are all the same? Number of articles fairly irrelevant versus that sticking point (which will cause edit warring still, regardless of number of articles). I may have satisfied crum with a definition he/she asked for..? NathanLee 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Nathan, one day you'll be able to say just yes, or just no. :-) I don't think it would matter with this proposal whether we all thought the terms were identical or not, except that, as always, the leads would say "also sometimes known as x and y." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• disagree then, as those two logically mean a 3rd called intensive farming (which doesn't have to have a huge amount, just the common concept to oppose extensive farming). NathanLee 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Makes the most sense if people cannot accept a single article. Crum375 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree This makes no sense. It also isn't a compromise; it's a victory for SV's side, since it fallaciously equates "factory farming", "intensive agriculture", and "industrial agriculture". Jav43 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Good enough for now - We don't make choices for all time. We only make choices for now. I swear, some of you guys seem to like fighting more than encyclopedia writing. Write content. We can place good data. We can find sources for good data. But it makes no sense to structure our articles around content you have yet to write. (Note: The "All other titles are directed to" part can not be mandated and is null and void. Think about what "All other titles" refers to. Who is to say that the content of some other article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect? Can we decide that here? No! There are article deletion processes and procedures for that.) WAS 4.250 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree Google likes "Factory farming" better, but hey, I don't want to be the party pooper... Question does remain what to do with intensive farming?--Cerejota 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• disagree It doesn't make sense to split it like this. You need a higher tier topic to tie the two together.(eg:Intensive farming or farming#intensive farming) Just a see also link is not good enough. Can we just start with the one article(Intensive farming) and then farm out the individual sections as needed, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style? --Dodo bird 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I cautiously agree with this, since factory farming is a loaded term. Intensive farming is much less loaded. That does not mean we ignore the controversy or indeed that we don't discuss the terminology. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - I support the 2 article Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) plan, with 'factory farming' discussed in Intensive Farming (animals). This solution would lead to grouping of relevant information together in a meaningful way, whereas the one-article solution would be a mess of (animal) and (crops) subheadings - I'm thinking about 'criticisms' sections in particular. Intensive farming (crops) could have a history section discussing non-industrial intensive agriculture. FNMF's objection brings up the question of what to do with the Agribusiness article. Dialectric 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we have enough of a consensus here to proceed with this option. The term "industrial agriculture" can be discussed within Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). Dialectric, perhaps Agribusiness can be merged into the others and redirected unless and until someone wants to expand it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh you do? This is just a diversion SlimVirgin: you're just going to keep edit warring over the as yet unsupported equivalency of terms issue. E.g. you'll be saying that intensive farming (crops) is known as factory farming.. NathanLee 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Nathan, can we take this one step at a time. You are constantly trying to deal with all the issues at the same time - which we cannot do. Lets sort out structure, then content.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's only one issue over a definition that's the whole cause of this (or have you forgotten). Without having to cater for it: all the rest of the articles seem to exist and have suitable content (look at intensive farming: that exists on its own (as it should regardless as it is a concept). So bear in mind this need to determine articles is SOLELY to cater for that view of SV's. Nothing else. There was no need to merge them until SV decided that a CNN article read in a special way meant they needed merging. So although you're trying to make it seem like a compromise: you've made no concession whatsoever other than to divert the topic onto numbers of articles.NathanLee 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't provided us with a non-dictionary or non-encyclopedia reference either.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why britannica or dictionaries don't count: there's been no policy that's shown that's not the case (closest we got was a specific arbitration that wasn't even a finding.. and this term isn't in some strange context..). Britannica is specifically mentioned as a secondary reliable source in the policies. But your articles all support my definition, without the need for non-sequitur derived definitions. Can you point to one of yours that doesn't work with the concept of a subset of the other.. The BBC site on intensive farming talks of the concept as a standalone issue (no mention of factory farming). The CNN one, if you must read the two statements together then try reading it like: "move away from intensive farming, (one part of that overall process is to) stop factory farming (which will) end mad cow disease".

Here's some quotes from articles see the block of tonnes of 'em from Coroebus at the end of the section: [13] NathanLee 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

reasons to reject mediation?

Haber has rejected mediation, which probably means mediation will be rejected. While he is entirely in his rights to do so, I think he owes an explanation. Why reject a process that might lead to a better article?--Cerejota 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a few seconds to listen to other people. Use the history button if you have to. Haber 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it. It is the one above where you say we have been using underhanded tactics and are acting dishonestly, without any supporting evidence so as to make his outburst sound like an attack on the names of several editors. Ok, understood.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Haber, I was feeling a tad uneasy about any mediation that has no enforceability and has been put forward with clauses that seem like personal attacks or attempts to censor another editor (SV put the version up with her POV that requests that my contributions be considered for review.. which made it look like it was just another trick in the grand scheme of winning the edit war and a thinly veiled attack on credibility of one side's arguments: so I added in her behaviour as well since she neglected to put her own behaviour as questioned by more than just one user). I also think that as a so-called-senior editor who is making the request: it's already skewed towards that editor due to "being well known"/having a set of editor buddies and when she's freely admitted she didn't read the talk page it's a bit premature. I'd really think that someone with animal liberation views (a fairly radical standpoint) would just realise they're maybe clouding their view of an article and assume a bit more good faith of opposing arguments than to use mediation as a tool to censor/push a POV and somehow validate abrasive/dismissive/disruptive editing. NathanLee 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to WP:AGF and WP:NPA here?--Cerejota 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the only one who makes personal attacks here, Cerejota. When the others insult me, they're not really attacking me, just telling the truth. I'm also the only one who has a POV, and my filing an RfM wasn't an attempt to use dispute resolution; it was just more manipulation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously! Because that is why you edit here isn't it? To annoy people rather than improve the encyclopedia... :D-Localzuk^(talk) 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and in that endeavour I find myself singularly successful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith does not mean blindly accept that every action was good faith when multiple attempts seem to indicate the contrary (otherwise no one would ever be banned from wikipedia would they?). A belief in animal liberation might well be assumed to bias a viewpoint on this topic. I was asked to hold off discussing and did so as a favour to SV ...

Erm, Nathan, you held off for about 20 seconds. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I held off for a while, but as you just attacked me and then started ignoring my position it was pretty obvious that all I was doing was a favour to a disruptive editor who just wanted one less opposing voice. NathanLee 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

... but what immediately followed: personal attacks on me, attempts belittle/discard my contribution (which wasn't even read by own admission). Originally I asked SV "as a sign of good faith" to hold off the massive changes and discuss: she didn't and here we are today deadlocked over a strange interpretation of equality. Revert is recommended in policies as a last resort, yet here it was used in place of discussion. That's not showing good faith at all. NathanLee 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At some point you're going to have to let go of the past, Nathan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At some point you'll maybe LEARN from the past, consult others, don't use the revert and maybe you'll not be selectively clearing your talk page every 2 seconds to remove the negative comments from other editors you've annoyed by only having a revert button as your sole tool. NathanLee 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well isn't that a useful and helpful comment for dealing with the issue on this page! Please Nathan, if you are going to make comments such as this, take a look at SV's edit history and see how many ranting, rambling trolls post things on her talk page because she has 'annoyed them'?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you assume everyone that disagrees with SV is a troll: that's a problem. So many issues over a long period of time with such a large number of people? From a link from a wp article: people that annoy that many people consistently and don't alter their style.. well.. Let's just say that a different approach might win more friends, avoid more conflict and result in less 3RR warnings and a few more constructive additions on the whole.. Pick any day and in 20 seconds you'll find issues with multiple people [14], [15], [16], [17]. Now you can take this as a personal attack (quite likely) or as a helpful suggestion (as I've done in the past) to adopt a less aggressive approach. That would be constructive: yes? NathanLee 21:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Random defs of Factory Farming from decent sources

So... so far, we have good, solid defs of factory farming from dictionaries and encyclopedias. Other than that, we only have POV. I'm going to now provide some peer-reviewed articles that define factory farming. (One interesting thing to note is that VERY few peer-reviewed journals use the term factory farming, presumably because it is a pejorative term. A question we may wish to ask is why, if factory farming is a pejorative term, we would use that term in this encyclopedia to refer to a class. Look at the niggers article for a preferred means of dealing with pejoratives.)

If you look at journal articles, you will see that factory farming is universally equated with CAFOs. That, however, does not serve as a definition. I have found the following definitions:

"Factory farms" refers to those plants where large numbers of animals, who live a miserable and even terrified existence, are raised in confined spaces for purposes of minimizing the costs of meat production.<ref="George Schedier, Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 2005), P. 499">

Focuses on environmental and consumer impacts of confined animal feeding operations, also known as factory farms, in the United States (U.S.).

<ref="Floegel, Mark, Multinational Monitor; Jul/Aug2000, Vol. 21 Issue 7/8, p24, Abstract">

Other interesting tidbits

Because factory meat producers must break the law in order to survive, the industry's business plan relies on the assumption that pork factories will be able to evade prosecution by improperly influencing government officials.

<ref="T H E E C O L O G I S T D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 4, P. 52"> (I guess factory farming is illegal after all.)

Rather than being controlled by individuals who generally live on the premises, livestock factories are controlled by corporate entities which often hire outside workforces or use family farmers as "franchises" or contractors to produce their pigs and chickens. On the giant factory farms, the corporate entity owns the farm animals; the contractors raise the animals and provide the buildings. The corporation pays the contractors on a per-head basis.

The poultry industry pioneered the factory farm approach more than 25 years ago. In the early 1980s, factory hog operations emerged in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest. Now they are spreading like a prairie fire across the U.S. heartland. In the last 15 years, the number of hog farms has dropped from 600,000 to 157,000 while the number of hogs raised in the United States has remained constant.

<ref="Tolchin, Tanya, Multinational Monitor; Jun98, Vol. 19 Issue 6, p13, 3p">

Jav43 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Add this one to the mix, it has quite a bit of discussion on definitions [18] NathanLee 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also:

Definition: A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farm or large farming operation is defined by federal and state statute as a facility that contains 1,000 animal units. The calculation of animal units varies by type of animal. For dairy cattle, a facility that contains 700 milking and dry cows is considered a CAFO.

[19] Jav43 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)