Talk:Meat market

Further reading

Algorithme - Hello, thank you for your contributions, [1], [2], and [3] to the article meat market. Your addition of several book titles to the further reading section of the article takes up a large amount of space in such a short article, placing an undue emphasis on the political/sociological/gender theory aspects of meat market. I would recommend writing a separate article on, say, politics of meat, and including a one-line link from this article. Thanks. Infoman99 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you. It is not undue emphasis. The first of the books I informed mentions "meat market" on the tittle and is not about feminism. Because the page in question is for disambiguation and mentions meet market suggestively as an event to find potentially attractive people, and meat market as "A place where one goes for a casual sexual encounter", it is a convenient place to inform feminist views that compare non-human animals used for food or exploited non-human animals with women or with other people that are victims of sexism. That is, 'sexism = racism = speciesism'. I do not know of any specific article on Wikipedia about that topic of feminism. Algorithme (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I incorporated the further reading into the main article.Infoman99 (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but feminist ideology is not relevant to this article. You could tie in intersectional feminism to literally any subject. Does that mean it should be done? Thats tedious and unnecessary. Add that text onto a feminism article if you're so inclined.172.250.65.171 (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Pages were not merged. Cnilep (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

I turned Meat market into an article in December 2013, since the disambiguation related content there included a strange mixture of article-like and DAB-like content. At the time User:BD2412 suggested that there might not be enough content to create an article. I think BD was right; I can't find content to justify this as more than a subsection of Butcher. Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would Oppose this, since meat markets and butchers are two different things. I think the current article is a mess partly because the term is so often used as a metaphor, or as a general commercial concept rather than a specific institution, but nonetheless there seem to be lots of sources out there among all the false positives. Smithfield meat market alone is good for a dozen theses. bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I too would Oppose. I deem this article to need more information. It is currently a stub. It needs more information that would have little to do with butchers, such as the history and development of meta markets, tracing not only their roots but to include also how it evolved over time. Health and sanitation issues would need to be addressed, as well as meat markets in the context of pre- and post-refrigeration times. Fish market could serve as a template, guide, or idea. Mercy11 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, oppose: Very different concepts. Not all butchers have meat markets, not all meat markets have butchers. (Though true, often the two are combined) The article can sit as is, but someone who is interested could do a little research and expand it. There is also the concept of a "butcher shop" - which is both, but usually on a smaller scale. Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.