Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

A compromise which should satisfy the requirements

It was proposed in here that we put mention on the factory farming page that the terms are in some cases synonymous with xyz.. Now: if that little snippet of information is added to the version (pre the last revert): does that not satisfy the desire to indicate that some find the terms synonymous? That also satisfies me because we're not merging away legitimate encyclopaedic entries.. Isn't everyone moderately happy with that compromise?

SV/crum/localzuk: you get your desire to assert the terms are used synonymously and the other pages can just hang around as they were doing fine.. There's really no POV fork because the pages were all created separately and with the mind to create an entry for terms used out there in the real world.

Wouldn't this break the impass? The lead section mentions your definition, but the term "intensive farming" doesn't disappear away and that keeps myself and britannica/oxford etc all happy (and the rest of the editors)..

So is that a good enough compromise? Or does this issue REALLY REALLY have to keep going? NathanLee 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Example (subject to refinement of course):

Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility[1] as part of a set of methods designed to produce the highest output at the lowest cost, using economies of scale, modern machinery, modern medicine, and global trade for financing, purchases and sales. It is a type of industrial agriculture and a subset of intensive agriculture that is also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations,[6] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). The practice is also referred to simply as "intensive farming", or "industrial farming" when referring to modern methods of livestock production.

Or something like that? NathanLee 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, it seems to me you are putting the cart before the horse. We need to decide on a top level farming article structure first, then nail down each of the titles, then decide on the lead of each article. To go now into the details of only one of them, Factory Farming (assuming that is in fact the name we end up with), before we agree where it fits in, is simply premature, and diverts us from our main task. Crum375 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming is locked down, not category:agriculture. WAS 4.250 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The page protection is only a minor temporary point. The big issue that we need to resolve is the overall article structure that pertains to a variety of articles of related or equivalent topics, as listed above on this Talk page. Crum375 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crum, I guess the thing is that removing the other articles is probably not going to fly as there's evidence to support the terms being independent from factory farming/CAFO/"modern intensive confined animal farming"/whatever. And FF is big enough that a merge is going to need a split anyhow.. So this way we're putting the "the terms are synonymous" references into the article, which is (from what I can see) one of the core arguments from one side of the debate and is a good way to cater for that bit of information from sources (right or wrong.. if it's something that's strongly pushed and if is believed supported by the references: Then this might be the best way to move on from that).. I know it's not the same as deleting all the articles etc, so it's not going to be a 100% satisfactory solution for those who want to delete 'em.. But it would get that bit in the article that this has been arguing about and is middle ground.. ). What do you reckon? NathanLee 21:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to decide, for example, where Intensive Farming goes. If it redirects to Factory Farming, then we need to decide which name is primary. Similarly for Intensive Agriculture, Industrial Agriculture, etc. We can't just bury our heads in the sand - we need to face these issues and solve them. Crum375 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They existed fine up until a user decided to merge them all.. :) I say let the carefree days of ol' return.. NathanLee 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A few years ago we had nothing at all - so should we just delete the entire encyclopedia? We clearly need to move forward, that's the whole idea of this project, and keep improving the content and structure as we go. We do it based on consensus. If consensus can't be reached on a Talk page after a reasonable amount of time, and I think we are well past that here, we need mediation. I think that's pretty obvious. Crum375 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for another fallacious argument. I think you're just being difficult and avoiding any attempt to get a consensus.. If you truly want to move forward: how about you consider whether this compromise achieves what you've been pushing for: mention of synonymous terms.. If you're unwilling to accept that that is a fair compromise: then mediation is going to achieve sweet f**k all to be honest: because you're not going to accept anything less than deleting all the articles and having them renamed to factory farming AND a bunch of sad looking gestation crate pictures lifted from activist sites.. Can I ask if any of you lot are members of animal liberation organisations (PETA, ALF etc) because I really think this is beyond merely wanting a piece of information included (which I'm offering in this compromise): this is just blatant political POV to be pushing this desire to remove valid articles. There is absolutely no reason to delete other articles if they have decent content and are independent themes: which they are. And after the tone of the RFC that SV wrote it most certainly seems like using the RFC as a way to censor others or to (like the block) use the processes as a tactic.. NathanLee 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Nathan, please try to remain cool and civil, and focus on the message, not the messenger(s). If this case ever goes to ArbCom, I assure you that their main focus will be on our conduct, not on content issues, so your best way to prevail there will be to demonstrate a professional demeanor in every message you post, regardless of your frustration level. May I ask why you think that going to RfM, where we are letting neutral party(ies) evaluate our situation and make suggestions, will result in anyone getting censored? Don't you think that is the best way out of our current impasse? Crum375 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's ridiculous, Crum. First, [1]. Second, you completely avoided answering any of the reasonable points Nathan raised and instead turned this back to RfM. Please actually answer his questions rather than raising new issues. If you read SV's original RfM, before Nathan sanitized it, removing insane bias, you would understand how a slanted RfM request does not encourage people that the RfM will occur fairly. Jav43 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not putting all agriculture-based articles in one page. Sorry. Even if that were the debate here, it would not require that this page be protected. So... yeah, your proposal works for me, Nathan. I'm game. Jav43 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Localzuk: would this compromise to put in the synonymous mention keep you happy? Can we unlock the page and get on with life? NathanLee 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that we have a duplication of information. All this suggestion goes for is maintaining the status quo having a multitude of articles. What we have said is that we wanted a single article. We have suggested having a couple of articles as a middle ground. This is once again ignoring that and asking for the tonne to stay. So, yes, it would satisfy the inclusion of information regarding the words being synonymous but doesn't cover the other issues at all.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The duplication of information is a problem solvable through editing. Editing seems to be the least preferred solution to some editors in this forum. FNMF 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If the complaint is duplication of information, then I would say that I don't think there's an issue that can't be addressed by editing and so on. Factory farming is not the appropriate place for information on the concept of intensive farming, and if there's a factory farming article then that should be the primary spot for specific information and no having too much of that in intensive farming. There's also article size considerations: one big article is unwieldy and going to be too massive an article.. So smaller more directed should be the preference rather than one or two large catch-alls for anything relating to modern agriculture: which is a rather massive field (if you avoid sensationalist activist definitions). So perhaps if the content of this article (the addition to compromise and stop the reverting) is ok with you guys then we can unblock the article and start discussing content rather than deleting/merging of articles.. They are not good candidates for deletion: which is what this is suggesting. Much of the duplication of information was due to the edits to merge/delete intensive farming.. So if we're allowed to clean it up and put things back in the right articles that complaint will no longer be an issue. NathanLee 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, I'm sorry that you want to remove the agriculture section from Wikipedia and everything associated with it, but your biases shouldn't control content here. There is a huge amount of duplicitive information in this encyclopedia, and it generally doesn't cause harm. If we wanted to be proactive on the point, we should remove the discussion of organic farming practices from the organic food article, instead referring readers to the organic farming article. Jav43 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not acceptable? Bias/ Conflict of interest?

So no further thoughts about whether this is an acceptable solution proposed above that includes the synonymous mention? In an earlier question about animal lib group membership: although it doesn't mean you are definitely going to be POV editing: it is a potential conflict of interest as per the policies. So as several editors on here (including myself) have suggested that your side of the editing is skewed towards an animal lib POV: that should be a wakeup call and perhaps result in extension of good faith in erring on the side of "well, maybe all these editors are just trying to improve the article". A concrete example:If you recall that britannica and dictionaries were attempted to be dismissed as not to be used? But it seems that when the term is Animal rights then there's a bit more credit given to Britannica for use in the lead of an article by SV (and localzuk edited that page a bit too) [2], [3]. And the argument about what should go in the lead (as in it's a summary of later stuff): well why does this get chopped out if it means the lead no longer summarises the later material, and ability to fine grain determine difference in often synonymous terms "animal rights" vs "animal liberation movement" but any and all terms even remotely related to "factory farming" need to be made the same as. In short I think this shows there's a bit of a bias by at least two of the editors involved here and similar 3RR "revert without discussion" sequence of events (including jagjg protecting[4] then changing it to SV's version after locking[5]). Or tag teaming again:to protect an obscure term,[6], Spookily similar result. In short: there's a clear bias and the patience we've all shown in trying to accommodate it is just using up goodwill and energy better spent elsewhere. Yes this is article related because it relates to editors' potential conflict of interest with respect to this article and double standards are being applied. For the record I (and have said before) have no affiliation with any animal rights group or with any agriculture groups, nor do I have a belief in animal lib or anything of that sort. So I'd think that perhaps the editors involved might examine and comment on their potential conflict of interest in this matter.. NathanLee 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not myself verified any of these claims; but if they are accurate, then they would constitute behavior issues as opposed to content issues and as such would be appropriately addressed by arbcom. SlimVirgin et. al., will you please agree to the proposals NathanLee et. al. have proposed so we can avoid arbcom? C'mon guys ... WAS 4.250 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No! For god's sake, you are going on and on and on about the same proposals and ignoring our requests. You are not suggesting any form of compromise - maintaining your favoured position is not a compromise. No matter how much you shout 'COI' 'POV', it won't sway me. We have said what we wanted. We have presented a good middle ground that covers the entire subject in a sensible way.

Simply going back to 'you're biased' and 'we're right' isn't helping at all. You have still not grasped the meaning of the word 'compromise'. It means taking your position (where you want duplication and many articles, with 'Factory Farming' being referred to only as a term used by activists) and our position (which is having one article on this subject area, with discussion of the synonymous usage of the different terms) and find somewhere in the middle. NathanLee's proposal is not a compromise.

And I would happily go to arbcom. I don't believe I have behaved out of line, asking for people to compromise, be civil, stay on topic, stay succinct, explaining my views regarding sources etc... I will say, though, that ArbCom would likely pick up on the large amount of incivility coming from a few editors in this situation.

By the way, whilst I am a supporter of animal rights, I am in no way affiliated with any groups or campaigns. Holding views about a subject matter doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest - else the only people able to edit articles would be those not interested in them, which would be ridiculous. I have successfully edited many subjects regarding AR with no bias, providing negative information about the subject etc... So any claims that I am editing in a biased manner are simply false. I would say the same thing about SV and Crum375, as they both have a very good history of NPOV editing - else neither of them would have been made administrators.

So, in conclusion: if you suggest a compromise that is sensible, then we may have some chance of people accepting it. If you keep suggesting thins which are so close to your position that it ignores ours entirely then you aren't going to get a positive response.Localzuk^(talk) 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, please actually read what has been proposed. Not doing so simply makes you appear more biased. We never said that only activists use these different terms interchangeably. Rather, we proposed a fair compromise that, as you just stated, explains that these terms are used synonymously in some forums, as well as being used correctly in many others. [7]. Jav43 16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment about the terms being only used by activists is based on the comments made by various editors over the last week or so. Check through the history and you will see it.

Also, you just said 'synonymously in some forums, as well as being used correctly in many others'. Who are you to say which usage is correct? You can try and back it up with dictionaries, which I personally see as descriptive documents of usage so change regularly but it still doesn't mean either usage is 'correct'.

What I said above, which you have failed to address, is that the 'compromise' that is being suggested only touches on one aspect of this large problem - the use of the term in the article(s). We can't simply do that as it doesn't address the fact that the terms are used synonymously in terms of article structure.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been nothing really mentioned about activists: the issue's been "we want all these pages turned into the one page". The term IS a popular activist term (if you can find a proponent site that uses the term you're probably on about page 20 of the google results.. and britannica sepecifically mentioned that it was favoured by activists). As for "known NPOV": actually SV seems to have has a bit of a reputation with some editors for POV pushing if you start digging in RFCs and RFAs (pro-jewish/israeli, pro-animal lib were the accusations made by various people and that's only after 5 mins of searching).. Or just into the history of her talk page.

Being made administrator shows nothing in relation to NPOV ability, it's also nothing more than a cleanup role (jimbo wale's view).. If you think it means more: it doesn't. ALL editors are equal on wikipedia: so you can throw that argument out the door.

There was at least one revertwar driven arbcom involving the animal rights page that I saw.. And to be honest: your "definition" conflicts with the way the rest of us read those articles AND encyclopaedia britannica/various dictionaries/new world encyclopaedia etc.. So we're making a hell of a compromise to even accept that the terms are used synonymously because basically: they aren't unless you've got a pretty dumbed down view of agriculture..

How most people use "there/their/they're" often isn't correct either, but we're not generally going to redefine the correct usage based on people's incorrect interpretation of that.

I've shown that in one instance you/SlimVirgin are more than happy to use britannica: but on this page (in what can only really be called delaying tactics at this stage) it is unacceptable as it conflicts with POV on how related topics should be presented to the public and warrants SV inviting a friendly editor (jayjg) and another guy to back that view up. I see no mention of any issue whatsoever in using that as a source on the animal rights page by either localzuk or SV. As with the Animal rights page the technique of protection to hold a version up there was used but instead of localzuk reverting and requesting, it was jayjg who firstly protected the non SV version THEN reverted (completely against policy there). And it wasn't that you have an interest in animal lib that I was saying may indicate a POV infection: it was the editing actions. I agree that you can't exclude people who are interested in a topic: and said that, BUT if they are showing a clear bias (which I think if you look at every change made to the pages to do with this topic I think you'll find there's a pro-animal lib slant and a gradual chipping away or marginalisation of negative information.

If you're concerned with civil behaviour: that we've persisted with trying to engage in discussion with difficult/abrasive/evasive editing practices shows an overall civility, assumption of good faith and patience far beyond that which should have to be extended to support a flimsy argument.

Now of course you can disregard all of this as "personal attack" or "incivility" (what isn't these days?), but the rules are not meant to mean we turn a blind eye to disruptive POV pushing or disruption no matter how "senior" or whatever they are or think they are.. The first rule is "ignore all rules if they're getting in the way of improving wikipedia": if that means pointing out that something is biased or an editor is not doing good things to wikipedia: then that's worth being bold for and calling them out on that (which appears to be the case in this situation). NathanLee 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't address everything there as there is too much. I will address your comment about becoming an admin. Administrators are 'voted' in following questions about a variety of situations. Being 'voted' in shows that the user has a good knowledge of policies, and is trusted not to abuse those powers. I know it is a maintenance role, but it is only given to those who can be trusted with it. This is why I brought it up. If Crum and SV had histories of POV editing, there is no chance they would be given the role of admin as they would not be trusted to not misuse their extra buttons.

When I look through SV's history I see a huge number of POV pushing editors who are angry because they have not got their way. I have not seen SV edit in a POV manner anywhere, as yet - every edit has a good reason (same with Crum, and I should say, with myself).

Once again you simply are saying our sources do not say something and yours does, and that because of that we are being biased and that a middle ground between the 2 points is 'one hell of a compromise'. I think you need to start realising that in a polar situation, there has to be give by both sides. You have not shown any give, other than saying you are willing to allow something, that was already in this article, to remain there. How kind of you.

I would suggest, also, that you stop focussing on editor's supposed 'bias' and realise that you, just like everyone else in the world, have a bias also - and this bias is very apparent from your edits. So, rather than getting into a 'your biased' slagging match, how about coming up with a compromise that actually does just that? Compromises?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To Nathan's comment: So True.

To Localzuk: You have yet to propose a viable compromise. Perhaps that's because you don't want anything that contradicts your prejudiced POV on the page -- but I don't know. Regardless, please stop asking us to "compromise" without offering compromises of your own -- particularly since we HAVE offered compromise after compromise, which you have ignored time and time again. (I note that you AGAIN failed to address the compromise proposed [8]. Until you're willing to actually READ WHAT IS SAID, please do not continue your antics on this page.) (Oh, and status [admin or otherwise] means nothing - actions mean everything.) We have demonstrated which meaning of the terms in dispute is correct through peer-reviewed journals and well-respected sources. Please actually look at the evidence, rather than sticking to your rote beliefs. Move past your animal-liberation indoctrination and we might be able to get somewhere. Jav43 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All you have done there is simply ignored the multitude of compromises that have been suggested. All of which have been summarily ignored by yourself. You have not 'shown' that your definitions are 'correct' just that there are these sources, and you believe them to be superior to those presented by ourselves. Neither is 'correct' they are just 2 different meanings. We are going round in circles here. You don't believe that we have attempted compromise, although we have shown that we are (asking for somewhere between the 2 sides to be presented, which you are not doing). Please can all parties go to mediation? I have commented on the above proposal and have said why it is not a compromise as it simply does not address the large problem of structure.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(<---) Please describe "the large problem of structure". WAS 4.250 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that half of the editors here believe that it should be a single article due to the major synonymity of the terms, duplication of information etc... and half think it should be many articles due to the opposite of those views. This is the underlying issue behind this entire mess. The lead is one small part of that.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "it should be a single article" mean? WAS 4.250 23:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem. If you read up the page you will see a large discussion about the entire stance behind merging all the 'Industial Agriculture/Intensive Farming/Factory Farming' articles into one. On one side we have several editors who support this, and on the opposite some that don't. So, it was suggested that we go for a middle option - create 2 pages 'intensive farming (crops)' and 'intensive farming {animals) with a single disambiguation page for all the terms, which points people to either of these articles. This is all discussed in the first topic of the page and goes on for about a half of the page... We are just going round and round in circles.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to stop going round in circles, I think you (Localzuk, etc.) need to genuinely consider the reasons you find yourself doing so. The fundamental reason editors do not want to agree to mediation is because they do not trust how you will behave in mediation. And they do not trust how you will behave because they have observed how editors have behaved. Now, you can talk about how you have been "civil" and supposedly proposed "compromises" all you want, but editors are not persuaded by this, because this is not their perception of your behaviour. Whatever compromises you think you have proposed, the perception of other editors is that your overwhelming agenda is to delete other articles, and to do so in order to control the coverage of animal farming in Wikipedia. And the reason they make these judgments about your agenda is that all your arguments for deleting other articles are based on guessing what those articles will be like: either that they will be "POV forks" or that they will contain "duplicate information." The fundamental fact is: other editors are not persuaded that these guesses about what will happen with multiple articles are good enough reasons to delete the articles in advance. And it is clear to other editors that the last solution you wish to accept is to let these articles run their course or actually to edit these articles, in order to make them into good articles. It seems that you find it preferable to keep going round in circles and keep this article indefinitely protected, rather than consider actually editing this or other articles. Your clear wish to control the situation in advance by controlling which articles are permitted to exist is the fundamental reason other editors do not trust you. In the end, it is fundamentally illegitimate to keep this article protected indefinitely on the grounds that this article cannot be edited until decisions are made about other articles. The persistence with which you have held to this manipulative, controlling and illegitimate argument is the fundamental reason other editors do not wish to pursue other avenues that you claim can lead to a solution. FNMF 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, if two sides disagree, and both seem firmly entrenched in their positions, what alternative is there besides mediation? Crum375 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum, that is a good, and difficult, question. But my answer probably won't please you. Obviously I cannot instruct you or Localzuk, etc., what to do, but it is my genuine belief that your "side" needs to do some genuine introspection about the degree to which your agenda is determined by being a Wikipedian, and the degree to which it is determined by your concern for animal welfare. My saying that is not an accusation, but I do believe that experienced editors should be able to ask themselves such things in a truly self-questioning way. And my saying that your "side" should do that comes from this belief: I don't actually think we are confronted with a situation where two "sides" disagree: I think, rather, that your perception that there are two "sides" is a big part of the problem. My perception is: there is one "side," and then there is everybody else. Like I said: I expect you won't like that answer, primarily because you are likely to see it as "one-sided." But if you can genuinely ask yourself the question, "What is the other side?", I think you will find it difficult to describe what the other side is supposed to be for. The other "side" certainly aren't an anti-animal rights group, or a pro-factory farming group, are they? And if they aren't genuinely a "side," that suggests that the "side" that perceives things in terms of "two sides" should conduct the process of introspection I mentioned. Beyond that, I can only suggest that editors ask themselves whether keeping an article indefinitely protected and insisting on deleting articles is a legitimate approach, or whether it isn't. In my opinion, it isn't. FNMF 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 positions regarding this whole situation - whether you think there are or not. There is one outcome - improving Wikipedia. The use of the word 'side' is a simplification of a complex set of arguments, is all.-Localzuk^(talk) 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and I stand by what I said. I think your response is disappointing, and I can't help noticing how little you tend to respond to the points I have raised in this instance, nor the points I have raised in previous instances. FNMF 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, if there is a simple answer to my simple question above, I haven't been able to find it in your words. There are clearly two sides here, and clearly both are entrenched. The specifics of the 'agendas', if any, of the sides, are not really relevant. The bottom line is that we are stuck, we don't seem to be moving, and we are unlikely to move on our own. So clearly we need outside help, aka mediation. If you believe the facts are on your side, as I assume you do, what do you have to fear from neutral outsiders trying to help us? At worst they'll achieve nothing, while at best they may be able to get us to find a mutually acceptable solution. So why not give it a shot? Crum375 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: a disappointing response. No matter how many times you tell me, I don't believe I'm part of a "side." It is not a matter of persuading me to agree to mediation. What you have to face is that numerous editors have concluded that you prefer infinite postponement and disruption to actually solving the problem. Editors don't believe you want to solve the problem, except on your own terms. And they do not accept that these terms are legitimate. Again, I see no evidence of any willingness to address the points I actually raised:

• Is it legitimate to demand the deletion of articles in advance because of what they might turn out to be like in the future?
• Is it legitimate to demand the deletion of articles because they might turn out to be POV, or because they might duplicate information?
• Why is editing not a potential solution to these problems?
• Is it legitimate to keep this article indefinitely protected because of your desire to delete other articles?

These are the questions you need to ask yourself and need to answer for others. Questions such as these are the reasons editors do not believe it is worthwhile entering into mediation with a group of editors unwilling to honestly address such concerns. FNMF 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you are disappointed, but this is how Wikipedia works. There are groups of editors with different points of views about the issues, and sometimes it is hard to find a middle ground. For the groups to label each other in derogatory terms, or to claim that some are more 'legitimate' than others, is always counter-productive and will achieve nothing. If you really want to move forward, instead of just going around in circles, then mediation is the only solution - surely you can see that? Crum375 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The clear unwillingness of editors on your "side" to say anything whatsoever about the questions I raised (numerous times) speaks volumes. FNMF 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it is legitimate - it is part of the editing process to merge articles
• Yes, again it is part of merging things to remove duplication
• Because we have tried that, and that is what got us here. Editors tried a merge of the articles and all hell broke loose. This was followed by large scale removal of anything remotely critical from the lead, the removal of anything to do with the synonymous usage of terms etc...
• Yes, it is. Until something can be decided on the overall future direction of this entire mess, having an article protected is a normal method of preventing warring.

We are trying to solve this problem. We have tried to present mutliple compromises, but they have been pretty much rejected without anything reasonable being presented as an alternative (other than maintaining the status quo, which as I have mentioned several times is not a compromise).

Whether you like it or not, there are 2 sides, you may not think there are and you may not think you are on one side or the other but you are. There is a deadlock. We need neutral editors to mediate in a formal manner to make any headway on this.-Localzuk^(talk) 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FNMF, we have addressed each of these questions and issues ad nauseam. This Talk page is filling up Wikipedia server space and we are achieving nothing. If you feel confident that the facts and policies are on your side, why not let neutral parties come in and advise us? Crum375 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, thanks for answering my questions. Personally, I find the answers very unconvincing. I find the insistence on keeping this page indefinitely protected because of those answers to be illegitimate. The reality is that the articles aren't going to be deleted without a consensus, and there is no evidence of such a consensus emerging. In the light of the lack of likely consensus, I find the insistence on indefinitely protecting this page to be controlling and illegitimate. You throw your hands in the air and say, "Why won't people agree to mediation?" I'm just telling you the reason. As things stand, a group of diverse editors seem to find your tactics and arguments very problematic. Whether you do anything about that is up to you. Continuing to throw your hands in the air does not count as doing something about it. In the end, I think if you have any sense you will need to recognise there is no consensus for merging the articles and agree to unprotect the page. But I also feel that me saying that to you is just likely to cause you to dig your heels in even harder. What you think that will achieve is beyond me. FNMF 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with everything FNMF said in the last day or two. Jav43 03:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree also.. As was said: you have a bunch of diverse/different editors and the three of you have a common interest in animal lib/animal rights (at least 2 of you..). The above was (I think) a fair suggestion/compromise that incorporates the synonymous claim.. Now we should be moving on. But SV hasn't put any input into this (although doesn't read the discussion): has she lost interest (more just than not reading the discussion normally)? NathanLee 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question...

M'kay. Factory farming. Presumably they breed the cattle that they raise and eventually slaughter. What happens to the placenta after the calves are born? I'd assume they'd just throw it away, but where is it disposed? Does anybody know? Thanks in advance to whoever does.

K00bine 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

With cows, the birthing cow usually eats the placenta shortly after birth, while or after cleaning off the calf. The placenta is a good source of protein that replenishes the cow's body, which may be depleted from calving. (The cow isn't forced to eat the placenta; she does so on her own.) This practice of consuming the placenta is quite common among mammals. The placenta would not be discarded unless the cow did not consume it - in which case it would be disposed of as fertilizer (perhaps in a lagoon), alongside a dead animal, or through normal garbage collection services. Jav43 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Like katie holmes/tom cruise were rumoured to be going to do with their baby huh?[9]  ;) On topic though: it sounds like in some areas the waste disposal is pretty lax (i.e. out and out straight on the fields pollution) and it may just be spread over the farmlands with the manure.. There was a video I watched where the locals were complaining about cow parts spread on fields.. NathanLee 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, placenta would have a very small biological impact on land, pollution-wise. Simply throwing it on a field would be an acceptable method of disposal. But like I said, that would be rare: the cow would nearly certainly eat the placenta. Jav43 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A weekly reminder...

We need to go into moderation. Another week has passed and nothing substantial has been proposed or discussed, just a bunch of "(s)he-said" arguments, personal attacks and wikilawyering. Nothing about content.

If people disagree with the page protection, speak to another admin to evaluate the situation, or raise it at the admin noticeboard or even raise an arbcom on this. But do not continue arguing with involved administrators in this talk page which gets you nowhere. --Cerejota 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The sooner we go into moderation, the sooner this issue will be resolved. Until then, all we'll get is more hot air and going around in circles. Crum375 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well a compromise was proposed that included the "terms are synonymous" (i.e. content), think that got agreement some editors and would seem to answer the required change to content somewhat. The issue of articles getting merged/deleted should be raised some other way: in terms of content on this article as it stands if Crum375 is happy with that and localzuk is happy with the content change to THIS page: then we should be able to remove the protection and they can take up the discussion for deleting pages via the appropriate channels.. There's usually a tag to put in pages which didn't appear on any of the "to be merged" pages.. Can we separate out that argument from what goes on this page as it is currently titled and as it is currently named? NathanLee 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what you expect to get out of moderation, Crum, since you refuse to actually look at the issue/consider any form of compromise. I don't see how moderation can be the magic pill that will make everyone suddenly do whatever you say. I don't oppose moderation - but if we can't get anywhere without moderation, moderation certainly won't be of any assistance. Perhaps you could actually look at the issues with an open mind, Crum, and then we could get somewhere. Jav43 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You imply that I have not looked at issues with an open mind. I will just assume good faith and conclude that you truly believe that. Needless to say, I disagree, and believe that SlimVirgin, Localzuk and myself have gone overboard trying to compromise, while your side have proposed nothing beyond words. We have also agreed to accept mediation from day one, while some on your side refused. The point is, we will all keep spouting words at each other until the cows come home (unless in Factory Farming they are always home ;^)), and nothing of substance will happen unless we get some neutral third parties to move this process along. Crum375 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Hundreds of words and nothing moves forward... moderation now!--Cerejota 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Read above: we'll try unprotecting the page as having it protected is achieving nothing and a pretty good compromise has been offered.. i.e. "consensus". One or two people wanting a page locked indefinitely is not a reason. NathanLee 13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

There is clearly no consensus for deleting articles. And there is clearly no prospect of such a consensus emerging in the near future. The wish to delete articles cannot be a grounds for indefinitely maintaining protection of this article. So the only possible grounds for maintaining protection of this article is the supposedly terrifying prospect of "edit warring." Well, what can we do about that? I propose that all involved editors agree to the following: (a) the opening of the article be adjusted so that it links to the other articles; (b) the opening of the article be adjusted so that it reflects the desire of some editors to say that "factory farming" is sometimes used synonymously with other terms; (c) editors agree not to delete mention of the controversial animal welfare aspects of factory farming from the opening paragraphs of the article. If all editors can agree to these terms, I think we can unprotect the article almost immediately. FNMF 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree You edit conflicted with me just as I was asking a near identical question. Sounds like a good start to move forward. NathanLee 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and in that spirit, I have proposed significant changes on the talk page for Industrial Agriculture. I welcome all input before I make the change, but please put comments on that talk page so that it won't get lost here. JD Lambert 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by not deleting mention of "controversial animal welfare aspects"? I have no problem with the actual text of the lead containing the mention it does, but I still maintain that the image currently in the lead is improper. Jav43 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point getting in to those kind of specifics here. Obviously I am not proposing that everything about the article be set in stone. What I am proposing is that you agree not to just wade in and make changes other editors are going to object to without discussing things on the talk page first. By agreeing to hold back from simply making such changes, it will become possible to unprotect the page and see if things stabilise. I think this is achievable, but only if all editors are mindful of how their own behaviour may escalate the situation. FNMF 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To that I agree. Jav43 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree This seems to me to be just another POV fork. We need to decide at a top level what is the best way for Wikipedia to present the topic of Factory Farming and related Intensive Farming terms. Then, once we agree on a top level structure, we can decide on the lower tiers, if any. To start from the bottom with one article that seems likely to overlap others is contrary to our rules. Crum375 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum: If you want to delete articles then that can be a different topic, that doesn't need this article locked.. But FOR NOW can we focus on the reason why this article is not allowing any future editing which is the content in this article under this heading.. NathanLee 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, we are just going around in circles. You can't build a roof without a foundation. The decision sequence has to be 1) top level structure, 2) titles of top level entries, and 3) contents of leads. If you can't accept this simple outline, we need an outsider to help us. Crum375 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) You have not demonstrated that having multiple articles is necessarily a "POV fork"; (2) you have not demonstrated why, if there is such a problem, it can't be solving through editing; (3) you have ignored the clear fact that there is no prospect of any consensus to delete articles. It is very difficult not to conclude that you prefer to keep the page indefinitely protected to seeking a solution. But putting all that to one side for the moment, is there one or more of my points (a) to (c) in my proposal to which you feel you cannot adhere? FNMF 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to bypass FNMF's question.. So answer both.. Well, if you are unable to see the obvious attempts to move things forward.. well let me recap.. You wanted synonymous: you got a solution that puts that in. You want criticism in the lead (no problem it was there anyhow were you interested, and no one was saying it couldn't be there). You want just one big article or maybe split in 2 but saying the same thing: consensus seems to be against that and there seems to be little to be gained by that.

Holding this page hostage to force deleting articles when one view (the SV/crum/localzuk animal lib collective) versus the various viewpoints of the rest of us is hardly the way to sell the need to merge articles. Take a look at the JD lambert ag stuff before you post yet another "we need mediation, that's all we're open to" that's your camp's sole suggestion of late. Is that structure suitable? If structure is what you want, that one's not a bad place to start cleaning up the duplication..

A crazy thought: if you agree to unlock the page and contribute something other than reverts or undiscussed mass changes: maybe it can evolve. All that can happen while you dig your heels in is indeed go around in circles while you fail to compromise (which is bound to happen in mediation too by the way.. it's just one level of indirection and if you win, we whinge, we win, you whinge, consensus is not reached and thus the circle continues). It seems a bit strange that only the 2-3 of you seem to be pushing this "we need mediation" and the rest of us are pushing for some middle ground.. Just what is the deal? I can't really assume this push for mediation is in good faith when a good faith offer(s) is/are here in front of you.. I'll even give you a sticker barnstar for your troubles.. ;) NathanLee 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please save those poor electrons! (I am an Electron Rights activist). The situation is simple: we disagree over the approach, the titles and the contents. We have gone over every issue a thousand times plus. It's time for outside help. Crum375 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you have no specific problem with any of the three points of the proposal? FNMF 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my Disagree vote above. We have been over every one of your points many times, ad nauseam, and are still on square 0. Mediation will get us back on track. Crum375 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand you still have concerns about the article, and I understand you want to go into mediation. But the question is: is there a way of unprotecting the article in the meantime? Keeping the article protected is a bad thing: the goal here should be to edit. I cannot help but notice you have refused to address every single one of my questions, and have refused to indicate which of the elements of my proposal you cannot abide by. You can pursue your agenda with the article unprotected. Wanting to keep it protected is beginning to look like a will to obstruct the development of this article. FNMF 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Unprotecting at this point will not solve anything - we'll still have all the issues we have now, plus a possible edit war. So let's resolve our differences first. And by the way, the only 'agenda' I have is maintaining Wikipedia's rules. Crum375 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe unprotecting may well solve some problems. You cannot keep an article indefinitely protected just because you feel like it. Unless you are saying you are going to be disruptive if we unprotect, it seems to me we can still unprotect despite your disagreement, so long as other editors are prepared to risk not knowing how you may behave. One or two editors objecting to unprotection on the grounds they don't want it is not a good reason to keep the article protected. The worst that can happen is the article gets protected again. FNMF 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My experience is that leaving an article protected is a good way to get people to resolve their differences. When it is clear there are significant deeply entrenched differences, unprotecting is not a good idea. Mediation is usually highly recommended in such situations. Crum375 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's how you feel. But, as I said, there's really nothing to lose, and it is bad to keep an article indefinitely protected. So regardless of your reservations, and despite your unwillingness to try out solutions, I think the article should be unprotected. FNMF 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've had enough agrees and one disagree to unlock the page. If one user (crum375) can't see a fair and flexible compromise then that's their disruptive editing problem and too blinded by POV to accept consensus, one user shouldn't be holding up a page indefinitely. Deferring all decision making to some random party seems to be the only decision crum's willing to make, so crum: here's 4 people willing to making that decision for you.. Is that ok? Take your concessions and give it a rest. :) You might think mediation is the only solution: the rest of us seem to think compromise was a good way: which we did along several levels and you still rejected it outright.. Where's the scope for any compromise? NathanLee 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The situation is this: one editor disagrees with the proposal to unprotect. Perhaps another editor (maybe even two) will back up the disagreement. What that means is: they are not consenting to be bound by the proposal, and thus editors do not know how they will behave if the article is unprotected. My feeling is that the editors who have agreed to my proposal should trust that the behaviour of Crum et al will not be so disruptive as to make unprotection a bad idea. But when Jav, etc. agreed to my proposal, they did so on the basis that everybody would agree to it. If we are going to unprotect the article without the agreement of all editors, I think those who supported by proposal should be given the chance to say whether they agree to it in spite of Crum et al. Nathan obviously agrees to chance it. I also agree to chance it. I think we should give JDLambert, Jav, WAS, etc., a chance to agree also, before actually unprotecting. FNMF 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct on my opinion on the matter. I think the case for article deletion can be made at some future stage (hopefully not too far off in the future) and in the meantime editors can do the much needed cleanup to at least sort out the duplicate data (e.g. stuff in intensive farming etc). I think the link on ag stuff at the top of this has some good starting points perhaps we can see how that goes.. Both viewpoints will be incorporated into the article.. Should be all sweet with a bit of maturity on both sides.. ;) NathanLee 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree to unprotecting the page. My reluctantance is because SlimVirgin, Crum375, and Localzuk have earned my respect for their many contributions to Wikipedia. However, even though I am not opposed to mediation, I believe it is extremely unlikely to have any useful result, because Wiki policy is that mediation cannot impose a solution and there appears to be an impasse. In addition, seven months is a long time to have an article locked, and in a worst case, it can always be locked again. If we all adhere to posting planned changes and waiting at least a day for discussions, I think we should be able to move forward, even if more slowly than SV/Crum/Localzuk would prefer. JD Lambert 02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seven months? Crum375 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Seven months is how long the total dispute has been going on. However, there is reason to hope that progress can be made on this article by unlocking it and everyone discussing changes before making them. I have no hope of mediation making any difference. JD Lambert 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article unprotected/opening adjusted

The article has been unprotected. Hopefully editors are ready to make the most of this without getting involved in a new editing war. I have adjusted the opening in line with the proposal put above. That is: the opening now indicates that the term "factory farming" can be used synonymously with other terms; the opening links to industrial agriculture and intensive farming; all the discussion of the controversial issues remains. This is no doubt not perfect at the moment. Feel free to change, but if all editors can try to discuss changes on the talk page before acting rashly on the article itself, it may be possible to avoid the problems of the past. This depends on all editors choosing to try to act sensibly and thoughtfully. But I do believe that is within the realms of possibility. FNMF 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also appended a final sentence to the opening paragraph indicating that the term "factory farming" can be used to refer to industrial agriculture generally. I have done so because this seemed to be what some editors were arguing about the synonymous use of the term. Again, if editors disagree with this or any other portion of the article, please discuss on talk page before changing. FNMF 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it might be useful to have more than one proposal for change at a time, and there is a tendency (at least with me) to read only the bottom section, I suggest we put markers in the section names. E.g. If someone wants to change the opening image, create a section header with "(OPEN ISSUE)" as a suffix to the section name. Once there is a consensus and the change is made, the suffix can be removed. JD Lambert^(T|C) 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.. Might be a good idea to archive this discussion page as the body of it was over synonymous usage (e.g. the tonnes of quotes etc). What do people think? NathanLee 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments about voting

This is a stupid thing to fight about. The image can be moved, the caption can be changed, other images can be found, the size of the image can be adjusted. This is not a binary choice. This is something that can be negotiated. Stop fighting about it as if it is a binary issue. Please. WAS 4.250 22:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried all that. I keep getting reverted. Jav43 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try "all that" on this talk page. Getting reverted means you were trying it on the article page. Which is fine to do once or twice; but then when reverted, the usual thing to do is to take it to the talk page and talk about it. The idea behind "consensus" is to try to find something everyone can live with. Example ideas:

1. move the image down into the article
2. make the image smaller or crop it
3. add a contrasting image (I saw cows on a waterbed image once; the owner said happy cows gave more milk)
4. caption it with "image used by anti factory farming fanatics to misrepresent factory farming" (well, you have to leave room to negotiate ... :) )
5. combine all the above into some kind of compromise. WAS 4.250 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think the first step is to determine what the majority wants and why. From there we can work on the results of that vote. If you have an opinion on the whether or not the picture should stay, please vote above. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 10:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried all that on this talk page, WAS. Then, several times, I waited a few days, then when no one responded, I made a change... and was reverted without comment on the talk page. See Archive 1. Jav43 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is when everyone involved agrees with some solution enough that they stop fighting and move on. In cases where someone simply refuses to cooperate in finding that solution, then administrative measures (including arbcom) can be used. I suggest we find a solution to this image issue without bringing up other issues and without both sides insisting on no compromise. It was my impression that moving the image down the page had substantial support. Am I wrong on this? WAS 4.250 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That was the compromise I was willing to go with. Jav43 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

We have discussed this image and its rationale ad nauseam. It is very representative of factory farming and includes the essence of the concept with its attendant controversy and therefore belongs in the lead. I see no reason to suppress it. Crum375 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As discussed, it's neither representative nor typical. This article is about more than a controversy - it is also intended to inform as to a certain farming methodology. Controversy isn't everything. Jav43 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if its the lead image or used for the Opposing View section. However, it shouldn't be used for both the lead and Opposing View, and since it is the only photo in the Opposing View section (and it's certainly appropriate there), I don't think it should be moved unless an equally suitable photo is provided to take its place in Opposing View. JD Lambert^(T|C) 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to add a link

I am trying to add a link to my little idea, FeedlotRadio.com, to raise animals better the same way you can plants, with music, and silence the vegan protest (ideally).For some reason, this novel idea is being rejected outright every time I try to add the link. It was suggested I discuss it here, so I am. I guess I didn't think there'd be an issue, and I'm surprised it wouldn't be included when so many redundant pro-veganism sites are. - comment by User talk:Repeat2341 Contributions

As per your talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the Feedlot (diff), Factory farming (diff diff), Vegetarianism (diff diff), and veganism (diff diff) articles do not comply with our guidelines for external links, and furthermore have misleading edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Slashme 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied by WAS 4.250 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Consensus vs. Voting

Wikipedia:Consensus is official policy. Please read it. "Majority rules" is against policy. Consensus rules is policy. WAS 4.250 07:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus anyway. Jav43 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus for what happened with these articles. What you've achieved is a bunch of badly written POV forks, which is nothing to be proud of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to content: lead image

Alright, I've left this article for about a week now... I'd like to return to discussing the lead image. I do not believe the image of the sows is appropriate for the lead, as I discussed in Archives 1 and 2. Does anyone have thoughts on this topic?

Also, I don't know how to archive. It would be great if someone could archive this whole argument as Archive 3. Thanks! Jav43 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that it is from an anti-factory farming site (which do tend to make exaggerated claims at times) and the caption itself is making assumptions based on content in another article.. NathanLee 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it to be a good, representative image of factory farming with a descriptive (if verbose) caption, including sources.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the image were from a non-bias site, I think it would be appropriate. But, because it is known here that it is from a biased site, it violates the NPOV and should be removed or replaced. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? So would one from a government agency be acceptable? It would be from a Pro-factory farming site then, and would therefore be biased...

The image is a true image, taken on a real farm, engaged in factory farming. How is that biased?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How is a government site automagically pro-factory farming?

The problem here is that a) the image is not representative and b) the image is intended to be provocative rather than informative. Gestation crates are outlawed in parts of Europe and Australia, as you and SlimVirgin kindly pointed out, and in at least Florida in the US - and will be outlawed in all of the EU by 2013. Placing a largely illegal image in the lead of this article is irresponsible. Secondly, the image was intentionally captured and placed here in order to oppose "factory farming" practices - not to describe them. Something informative would be best. Since we've finally figured out that a "factory farm" is a CAFO, we should simply have an image of a CAFO in the lead, showing large animal numbers in a small space. Jav43 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, btw: I'm fine with this image being in the "opposition" section of this article. I just do not believe it fits in the lead. Jav43 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a NPOV image would be best. I agree with the prior post. The image is not meant to inform but to inflame. Can this image be removed and another promoted in its place? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jav, if you had wanted a different image and different content, you should have agreed to compromise or mediation, or to have an article called something other than "factory farming." But as you insist on retaining what you call the "activist" title, then you have to accept that it will be about the controversy. You can't have it both ways. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop the distortion. These are not outlawed. They will be outlawed by 2013 in the EU, and in the U.S. there are plans to phase them out by (from memory) 2020 in some areas. But they are, as of this time, widely used in Europe and North America. That's why the image is there. It is an iconic image of factory farming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, I wanted an article called something other than factory farming. Your failure to recognize this simply means that you did not read nor participate in any of the debate we went through, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your first paragraph.

Second, gestation crates ARE outlawed in parts of Europe, Australia, and at least in Florida. Please stop ignoring that. I don't care whether the image is iconic of animal welfare activists; it is not demonstrative of CAFOs. Jav43 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It still is the case that no one has actually shown how this image is representative of "factory farming", defined as a CAFO system. Jav43 22:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And you have failed to show that the image shown is not representative. Any image from a government agency is going to be staged specifically to ensure that it 'looks good' and any image from the industry itself likewise. On the otherhand we have people who simply go into a random farm and take a photo - this is not staged, it is simply a normal pig farm. In the UK, the RSPCA has visited dozens of such farms and shown images similar to the one in dispute, as have dozens of other welfare and rights organisations. In my collection of video's, I have video evidence from at least 20 uk pig farms, and photo evidence from more. Everything I see shows me that this is representative.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think governments habitually "stage" images, you need to go see a shrink... or at least visit some farms. This is not just people going into a random farm. This is animal-rights activists looking for excuses to call modern farming evil. This not a neutrally-conceived image. AND it is not representative, as has been demonstrated! Jav43 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you don't understand how government departments work do you? A department for agriculture is there to help farms, promote farming, and to provide information about farming. Now, in the capitalist society that we live in, the 3 are linked - and therefore images can't be of a mucky farm.

Also, I have been to farms - quite a few actually and all are like the image in dispute and those in the video's and images I have.

Nothing has been demonstrated showing that it is not representative, due to the above mentioned inherent bias within government agencies etc...

Also Jav, even though you haven't broken WP:3RR your constant reverting is disruptive. Looking at it this way you have removed the image 7/8 times in around 72 hours, without consensus. This is not good for the page and it has to stop.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you're willing to talk.

How is this supposed to be representative when a) it is illegal in GB, Australia, at least FL, and a host of other European countries, when b) it deals with an atypical industry, hogs, and c), it is taken from an anti-agriculture, pro-PETA website?

Dep't of Agriculture is there to help farms. Interestingly, most of these departments are set up to help small-scale farms while being adverse to large-scale farms that practice "factory farming" methods. How about that?

Read this page, THEN tell me there wasn't consensus. Jav43 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

CAFO v. "Factory farming"

Suggestion: Let's remove the bias: let's change the title of this article to CAFO, and have "factory farming" link to CAFO. This is per this discussion: [[10]]. Thoughts? Jav43 13:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add a paragraph to the Could someone please give me a single paragraph summary of what the issue is? section above and include this and any other issues you have related to this article and its talk page. Let us give Elonka a chance. This is a chance at an informal mediation and I am unaware of any possible downside to giving it a chance. WAS 4.250 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please give me a single paragraph summary of what the issue is?

(stepping in as an outside opinion) Folks, I've been trying to get a sense of what the actual controversy is here, but mostly it seems to be a lot of finger-pointing and complaining about individual editors. Could someone please give me a single paragraph summary of what the issue is? Preferably focused on the article, and not on the editors who are working on it? --Elonka 22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk:

There are several disputes really - this one is regarding the image at the top of the page. One group of editors believes that the pig picture is representative of the term and the industry and the other doesn't.

The other dispute is over how many articles there should be on this subject. One group thinks that the three terms 'industrial agriculture', 'intensive farming' and 'factory farming' are so interlinked and similar - and in most places synonymous - that they should be combined into a single article, so that there is less of POV fork nature about this article and an apparent wanting to keep negative information out of the other 2. The other group doesn't, as they believe that they are completely different subject matters and should be dealt with separately based on dictionary definitions. (This is what the several pages of discussion spurned from).

Note: There has been something around 100,000 words of discussion about this, so my summary is very short and crude, to say the least.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair synopsis. Jav43 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250:

(1)The definition of "factory farming" and proper weighting of sources for that definition including using offhand comments about "factory farming" in newspaper articles to construct a definition contrary to WP:OR. (2)Proper placement and description of the current top most image. (3)Attempts to limit the number of articles on the subject of industrial agriculture. (4)Attempts to turn agriculture articles into angst for animal articles. Agriculture is not all about or even mostly about newspaper covered ontroversies! (5)Personality conflicts. WAS 4.250 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

The issues for me are that WAS 4.250 and a few others have created a myriad of other titles as forks, I think to avoid very critical material being placed in them, or perhaps to escape the term "factory farming." They claim that industrial agriculture, factory farming, and intensive agriculture are not the same thing, even though we've shown that reliable sources use the terms interchangeably. Because they want to insist they are separate, they've created Intensive farming, Industrial agriculture, Industrial agriculture (animals), Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture, and possibly others I'm not aware of. Apart from NPOV issues, WAS 4.250 has violated the GFDL because he has copied and pasted material from one article to the next without attribution, so it looks as though he has written material that was written by others; he has also caused articles to be virtually duplicated. For example, material I wrote for this page, he has copied and pasted into Industrial agriculture (animals) without attributing the material to me. We have asked that there be two articles only: Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals), but they refused for reasons I still don't understand. I filed a Request for mediation, but WAS 4.250 and one other refused to agree to it, so it couldn't go ahead. In addition to that, Jav is trying to whitewash this article too by removing the main image, which we argue is iconic of the issues surrounding factory farming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

BlindEagle:

As a newbie to the talk page here, I do not feel the pig picture is has NPOV. As I have read, the picture comes from a biased source that is meant to inflame the reader and not inform them. Other sources could easily be found to provide a NPOV image. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee

Is this still going on? Issue is: activist terminology pushed into the article on flimsy reasons. Compromise was offered, but nothing other than total squashing of all semi-related agriculture terminology under the banner "factory farming" and with a picture lifted from an activist site of unhappy looking pigs. An RFM was indeed created by SV: but it was half an attack on myself (on my contributions which were admitted to have not even read) and was incredibly biased. Discussion ensued, compromise was offered to include mention of "synonymous terms within context" which should have been enough, but it seems nothing will be accepted and the insistence on mediation or else continued revert wars. Now it appears personal attacks (and maybe some sly use of checkuser?) on jav43 (which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this article) in order to continue ownership of the article and to force it to have controversy (and thus POV) as the main theme. NathanLee 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of articles

Whee, definitely a complex issue here. If I may, it seems that the image issue is actually minor, so I recommend that it be set aside for now, with the understanding that nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, and whichever state that the article is in for a month or so, one way or another, won't cause the world to end.  :) The larger issue here seems to be, "How many articles should exist on this subject, and under which names?" Could I please get opinions on that, to see where everyone stands? --Elonka 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

It seems to me that, to cut through all the nonsense, it makes sense to have two articles, one on the industrial farming of animals, including its history, benefits, and drawbacks, called Intensive farming (animals) and another called Intensive farming (crops). We could also have a disambiguation page called Intensive farming for all the other titles to redirect to, and the dab page would send readers to the animals and crops articles.

The "intensive farming" title was chosen because it's very neutral: it doesn't contain the words "factory" or "industrial." Several editors agreed to this, but about four didn't. My understanding of their objection is that they don't want criticism of factory farming to be contained in the other articles i.e. they want to keep the other articles "clean," as they see it, or "POV forks," as I see it. One of them came close to saying this explicitly; I'll try to find the diff. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I would agree with also.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Crum375 21:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff from June 29; WAS 4.250 says: "As long as the other agricultural articles aren't also made into being all about angst for animals then I don't feel its worth the time to fight over this article [factory farming] being too much like that." The problem is that what he calls "angst for animals" is, of course, the main criticism of all industralized processes of farming that involve animals, so to try to divert the criticism of the treatment of animals onto one page called "factory farming" turns the other pages into POV forks. Those forks refer to factory farming as a "colloquialism" used by activists, as though the term and the criticism that applies to the practice are somehow unconnected to real industrial farming — even though we've shown that the term "factory farming" is in common use (Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CBC etc); that it is used interchangeably with "industrial farming" and "intensive farming"; and the criticism of it is widespread and mainstream (even McDonalds set up a committee to look into it, and is now asking its suppliers to modify their practices).

Therefore, I would like to see one page that deals with the industrialized farming of animals, whatever we call it, and which gives a three-dimensional view of the practice, including detailed discussion of the benefits and criticism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor below writes: "Let's face it: the reason some editors want to have only two articles (one on crops and one on animals) is so that they can ensure that anybody who looks up something to do with animal agriculture will necessarily find the article they want them to find, about the treatment of animals." That's exactly right. It's an absolutely central issue (for reasons of human and animal health), and we don't want it to be hidden away in a separate article. That's the whole point of the NPOV policy — each article must neutrally describe all majority and significant-minority published positions. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The distortion and misuse of NPOV in the above comment is breathtaking and revealing. BCST2001 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin seems incapable of understanding that important issues regarding industrial agriculture include:

1. what it is exactly
2. how it fits into modern science/technology
3. how it fits into modern global and national politics
4. its place in the modern corporate world
5. its effect on traditional farming practices and communities
6. its effect on the environment
7. the ethical issue of causing pain to animals
8. the ethical issue of creating "unnatural" ecologies and lifeforms
9. the need for it to keep billions of people from starving
10. specifically, what it is as applied to Animals
11. specifically, what it is as applied to Aquaculture
12. specifically, what it is as applied to Shrimp
13. specifically, what it is as applied to Chickens
14. specifically, what it is as applied to Pigs
15. specifically, what it is as applied to Cattle
16. specifically, what it is as applied to Crops
17. specifically, what it is as applied to Wheat
18. specifically, what it is as applied to Maize
19. specifically, what it is as applied to Soybean
20. specifically, what it is as applied to Tomato
21. specifically, the part modern management techniques plays
22. specifically, the part mechanical harvesting plays
23. specifically, the part genetic modification plays
24. specifically, the part hydroponics plays
25. industrial organic farming
26. innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods
27. genetictic technology development
28. techniques for achieving economies of scale in production
29. the creation of new markets for consumption
30. the application of patent protection to genetic information
31. globalization
32. historical development
33. current efforts to modify it it including "sustainable agriculture" efforts
34. Cheap and plentiful food
35. Convenience for the consumer
36. The contribution to our economy on many levels, from growers to harvesters to processors to sellers
37. Environmental and social costs
38. Damage to fisheries
39. Cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with animal waste
40. Increased health risks from pesticides
41. Increased ozone pollution and global warming from heavy use of fossil fuels
42. marketing challenges and consumer tastes
43. international trading environment (world market conditions, barriers to trade, quarantine and technical barriers, maintenance of global competitiveness and market image, and management of biosecurity issues affecting imports and the disease status of exports)
44. biosecurity (pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugar smut)
45. infrastructure (such as transport, ports, telecommunications, energy and irrigation facilities)
46. management skills and labor supply (With increasing requirements for business planning, enhanced market awareness, the use of modern technology such as computers and global positioning systems and better agronomic management, modern farm managers will need to become increasingly skilled. Examples: training of skilled workers, the development of labor hire systems that provide continuity of work in industries with strong seasonal peaks, modern communication tools, investigating market opportunities, researching customer requirements, business planning including financial management, researching the latest farming techniques, risk management skills)
47. coordination (a more consistent national strategic agenda for agricultural research and development; more active involvement of research investors in collaboration with research providers developing programs of work; greater coordination of research activities across industries, research organisations and issues; and investment in human capital to ensure a skilled pool of research personnel in the future.)
48. technology (research, adoption, productivity, genetically modified (GM) crops, investments)
49. water (access rights, water trade, providing water for environmental outcomes, assignment of risk in response to reallocation of water from consumptive to environmental use, accounting for the sourcing and allocation of water)
50. resource access issues (management of native vegetation, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, sustainability of productive agricultural resources, landholder responsibilities)
51. the industrial farm owner issue of integrated farming systems
52. the industrial farm owner issue of crop sequencing
53. the industrial farm owner issue of water use efficiency
54. the industrial farm owner issue of nutrient audits
55. the industrial farm owner issue of herbicide resistance
56. the industrial farm owner issue of financial instruments (such as futures and options)
57. the industrial farm owner issue of collect and understand own farm information;
58. the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your products
59. the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your markets
60. the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your customers
61. the industrial farm owner issue of satisfying customer needs
62. the industrial farm owner issue of securing an acceptable profit margin
63. the industrial farm owner issue of cost of servicing debt;
64. the industrial farm owner issue of ability to earn and access off-farm income;
65. the industrial farm owner issue of management of machinery and stewardship investments

WAS 4.250 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BCST2001

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

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

Let's face it: the reason some editors want to have only two articles (one on crops and one on animals) is so that they can ensure that anybody who looks up something to do with animal agriculture will necessarily find the article they want them to find, about the treatment of animals. That's not a good enough reason to delete other articles that cover equally important phenomena. That said, not all the articles I am proposing deserve equal length. Perhaps, for example, Intensive farming and Extensive farming could be quite brief, referring to the other related entries.

My fundamental point is that a critically important phenomenon should not be concealed by an artificial split into two articles, a split which is being advocated in order to push a particular point of view about modern agricultural practice. I have nothing against that POV, but it should not be at the expense of not properly addressing other important aspects of the globalized process of industrial agricultural production. The questions raised by this process are scientific, technological, philosophical, and political, and they are deserving of a proper encyclopedic treatment. I am certain that, upon reflection, all editors can recognize the importance of these topics. BCST2001 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

jav43

At a minimum, I believe we need articles on CAFOs, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, agriculture, and various specialty agriculture subsets. Jav43 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250

You ask "How many articles should exist on this subject, and under which names?". No other article should be deleted due to talk on this page. They are not POV retreads of this article; they are different articles on different subjects as reflected by their different titles. And I disagree with just about everything SlimVirgin just said. Her claims and accusations are absurd, false, baseless, and seem delusional to me yet my point of view seems to be that to her; so we have joked that we both have bananas in our ears. I could refute her point by point but it seems pointless; besides others here like to argue more than I do so I'll let them do that (as they are doing). WAS 4.250 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Leave the page as it is"

"Leave the page as it is, give Elonka a chance," is the cry on the reverting edit summary. Yet this clearly does not match the behavior of the editors uttering these words. Furthermore, the very same editors that urge "leaving the page as it is" and "giving Elonka a chance" are also those who not only make change after change, but do not bother to discuss any of these changes on the discussion page. It is hard to attribute good faith to the calls for mediation, given this hypocrisy and this preparedness to edit willy-nilly without discussion. In such circumstances, these editors should not feign surprise that mediation is rejected by opposing editors. And I say all this while having no stake in the debate beyond what I laid out above. BCST2001 05:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am finding it extremely difficult to work with Crum/SV/Localzuk. I do not see how they are improving the article - they seem to be doing nothing more than propogating their "animal rights" agenda. Jav43 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One possible solution is for now to edit other articles like Intensive farming, Concentrated animal feeding operation, Industrial agriculture, or Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. For example you could copy your version of factory farming to Concentrated animal feeding operation and work on it there while the minority that prefers Slim's version works their version here. Edit warring back and forth isn't doing any good for anything. Slim et al are not interfering with those other articles, so why not let them (while this informal mediation is going on anyway) edit here while the rest of us edit on the other articles named above? It can all work out in the end if people will add sourced content (however imperfect) and stop simply reverting other people's sourced content. WAS 4.250 15:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge to or from Industrial agriculture

The article Industrial agriculture seems to contain only the same information in the relevant sections of this article. The sections in this article could be severely reduced with the main article at Industrial agriculture, or Industrial agriculture could be redirected here. Exploding Boy 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea was for someone who wishes to add to one of these two articles to remove some of the duplicated information and expand on the rest. If no one steps up to bat for that job, then maybe a merge is the best way to go. Anyone care to accually add to these agricultural articles? By the way, the context for all this can be found at talk:factory farming where people seem to want to revert each other more than add sourced data. WAS 4.250 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove most of the duplicated information in the next hour or so. WAS 4.250 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Pig or Cow lead photo

These sows are confined most of their lives in 2 ft by 7 ft gestation crates. Pork producers and many veterinarians say that sows are prone to fighting if housed together in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates from its 187 pig nurseries over the next ten years, because of concerns from its customers, including McDonalds. They are also being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy.

Support, Oppose, Neutral and sign your name. Reasons need to be given. Majority rules. After a week or so, we'll tally up the votes. Agreed? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

oppose the pig pic

support the pig pic

neutral towards the pig pic

--BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose lead image of sows in gestation crates: not informative, prejudicial, not representative. Jav43 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose NPOV sited for source of image. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Jav43. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

""Oppose"" NPOV, it is not representative of hog farms I have personally visited. Its inclusion is clearly intended to provide editorial content. Flyboy121 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)