Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:29, 10 July 2007

Template:RFMF

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
Nov. 16, 2006 — April 3, 2007 April 4, 2007 — May 24, 2007 23 May, 2007 — June 17, 2007

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

Vote for Pig or Cow lead photo

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 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

oppose the pig pic

support the pig pic

neutral towards the pig pic

--BlindEagle 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 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)

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 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)

Consensus vs. Voting

Misplaced Pages: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 08:47, 29 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 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts without talk page discussion

So... for those who know, what's the appropriate course of action to take when people revert without engaging in discussion on the talk page, even after being asked to do so? (i.e. Crum and SV) Jav43 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Join mediation, everyone? Crum375 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the reasons for its use have been expressed dozens of times, and the constant ignoring of them is getting old, and saying people aren't discussing it is just wrong, as it has been discussed to death. If you disagree with the image, we should use some form of dispute resolution - as there seems to be 2 completely opposing positions.-Localzuk 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in mediation when you refuse to discuss the merits? That said, I won't oppose mediation. Jav43 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed the merits, over and over and over, to death. This Talk page and its archives contain huge amounts of discussions, that got us nowhere. The way to proceed when we clearly disagree, is not to keep talking at each other ad nauseam, but to go to mediation. Crum375 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We had 55,000 words from one contributor alone in three days, so heaven knows how many words overall. If you want to go to mediation to discuss the image and the titles, let's do it. We've been suggesting it for weeks. But you can't have your way completely: multiple titles, images of your choice, no mediation. SlimVirgin 01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with mediation limited to the issue of the current top image and its caption. WAS 4.250 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, those opposed to Slim et. al. should take note of her comment about "can't have your way completely: multiple titles" which seems to indicate the acceptance of not trying to merge other agricultural articles into this one. This was the issue here that I felt could not be compromised on. 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 being too much like that. WAS 4.250 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what's wrong with your approach. We should have merged all the information, all the images, all the POVs, and written two encyclopedic articles, instead of leaving this as a POV fork so that your other articles are free of nastiness. Anyway, Jav, as you can see, you backed the wrong side. And WAS, any mediation must cover all the issues, because they're all linked. SlimVirgin 08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what's wrong with your approach. Everything for you seems to be all about one side versus another and backing a winning side and everything you do comes off as tactics and strategy for winning. Some of us, Slim, just want to incrementally improve a free neutral encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we all do. The point SlimVirgin was trying to make is about the way to get there. Some of us wanted to resolve our differences by mediation, while some refused it. Some of us wanted to have a combined article that coherently presents all aspects of industrialized, intensive or factory farming, while others wanted to have three or more articles that would be susceptible to redundancies and POV forking. The 'sides' SlimVirgin refers to are not POVs - they have to do with constructive approaches to a solution, vs. approaches that keep going in circles, spew tons of repetitive verbiage, and do not converge. Crum375 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I don't know how to respond to you here. I keep answering your queries and rejecting your conclusions, but you just make the same blatantly false statements over and over again. I really find it hard to believe that you want a good encyclopedia - it seems that you just want to "win", whatever that means for you. Please take a step back and look over your statements - maybe you'll realize how ridiculous they are. Jav43 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jav43, accusing your fellow editors as being 'ridiculous', or not wanting a good encyclopedia is uncivil. Please address the issues; attacking other editors will get you nowhere. If you really want to move forward, convince everyone on this page to agree to mediation. Crum375 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse SV of being ridiculous. I accused her ridiculous statements of being ridiculous. Please don't read your own biases into my statements. Jav43 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jav, do you edit with other accounts? The reason I ask is that I said yesterday you were a single-issue editor, and you said you were not, but the contributions of this account clearly show you are. Also, you edit only sporadically, but are also able to turn up quickly if reverted (and you've reverted it nearly 70 times). It's leading me to think you may have other accounts. Please note that it's a violation of WP:SOCK to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. SlimVirgin 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to re-read the rules regarding sockpuppetry. But that's irrelevant. What does this have to do with anything? Jav43 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think she has done, particularly the line which states 'Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions.'

Regarding the image, you do not have consensus to remove it. It has been there for a long while, the normal thing is to leave things be until consensus can be achieved. So far your arguments have not swayed me and your claims that no-one is discussing the issue are baseless - as we have discussed the image many, many times.-Localzuk 23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jav, if you have other accounts, please tell us what they are, or start editing here with the main one. You've kicked up quite a bit of dissent on this page for months, and this is exactly the kind of situation where scrutiny of your edits might matter. Please review WP:SOCK very carefully. SlimVirgin 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have violated no rules. Jav43 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have this account simply to avoid scrutiny of your edits, as it seems, then you have broken the rules. It would simply be better if you used only one account or told us of your other account(s).-Localzuk 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk: have you recognized that at least 6 people agreed the image should be removed, while only 3 support it? This is not an attempt to show a "vote", but merely to show that you are outnumbered -- and that, perhaps, you should take a fresh look at why you are introducing controversy into an article that is meant to be informative. Jav43 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And as you say, majority isn't consensus. The majority can still be wrong... We're not introducing controversy into the article, simply wanting the most representative image at the top.-Localzuk 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(followup question) What attempts at WP:DR have been made? Article RfCs, Article for deletion discussion, User conduct RfC, Mediation, CheckUser, etc.? Also, thank you for the new "one paragraph" section below, it's very helpful. I would very much like to see a single paragraph from each of the main participants of this dispute. --Elonka 19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been an RFC (in one of the archives) and an attempt to take it to RFM but several parties didn't believe it would be of any use and declined it. No user conduct, afd or checkusers have been completed.-Localzuk 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say: I think this potential underhanded tactic of checkusering or accusing (there was a similar some would call abuse of admin rights during a request for adminship that JayjG let slip, and surprisingly enough some names from here popped up there too and defended that..) has nothing to do with the article at hand. If anyone's conduct needs examining: it's the conduct of editors on here who turn up, tag team revert, avoid discussion, claim mediation is the only way forward. SV, crum375, localzuk: I recommend you stop using personal attacks or allegations of impropriety as a substitute for consultative editing. One might suggest you are showing an inability to accept that agriculture is more than just a synonym for "evil". You also do not own the article and it is not necessary/not recommended for an article to be about controversy. If you are blinded by animal lib activism: take it elsewhere. While I can't say if this (found with a simple google search) is anything other than a joke or attempt to slur, but it does somewhat appear to describe the actions on here of a group of people on this topic.

"The most representative image" means different things depending on view. If you are an animal lib proponent: of course you want the most shocking picture (lifted from an activist anti-factory farming site.. something which "you lot" have argued strongly against doing on the PETA page). So I might put it that "most appropriate" to you means "most shocking". Factory farming isn't JUST about controversy (supplying a very large percentage of food to the industrialised nations is no small feat). And yes there is some messed up stuff getting practised but all agriculture isn't evil. All agriculture terms are not simply "factory farming". There are actual benefits as well as downsides whether you like to admit it or not. I'd suggest you lay off this line of attack and perhaps look at your own behaviour on this article. Gestation crates are one small part of the overall field. There are many more pigs NOT in gestation crates (as they're for pregnant sows). Should the page for steak have a big skull with blood dripping from the eyes because some people think that's representative of what a steak is because they hate meat? NathanLee 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I refer SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Localzuk to the policy on checkuser: checkuser policy. To quote:

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

Now perhaps a reasonable person might think Jav43 deserves an apology? NathanLee 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend you read the WP:SOCK policy - which clearly states Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions.

As we have said, it is simply a case that if the user Jav43 is a sock of another account and is only like that to avoid scrutiny then he is breaking the rules. I don't think anyone has requested checkuser or has used checkuser either - just asking him to use only one account as his use of multiple ones makes us uneasy and makes it difficult to trust him. So, Nathan, please actually read what we say before demanding apologies on behalf of someone else.

Also, once again Nathan, you are making unjustified claims of ownership and some sort of conspiracy where there is none. We have a dispute here, which you simply refuse to accept that a legitimate opposite side exists. With regards to removing the image - the image existed there for a while, then was summararily removed without consensus and so far consensus has not been reached to remove it.

Finally, your pointing to the meetup.com link is completely inappropriate and simply makes me think you are using underhanded tactics in order to daemonise SV. You can plainly see that it is a slur, no reasonable person - especially SV - would type such a preposterous pile of nonsense and bringing it up here either shows an acute lack of judgement - and has, I have to say, completely destroyed any respect or trust I had for you.

I think it is you that should be apologising.-Localzuk 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have broken no rules and -- I'll say this without being asked -- I have not lied. Yay. Jav43 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk: if you can tell me how SV's (and your) accusation of sock puppetry is in any way a relevant fact or in some way "assuming good faith" in this discussion then I'd love to hear it. Localzuk: i believe it was you who said you or everyone hated me in the past? Is that correct? In which case you had no respect or trust to destroy I would assume. I think your continued defence of some checkuser type threat/accusation/whatever is grossly inappropriate and yes: you should be apologising. Would it be reasonable to suggest that given crum375/SV and yourself could quite easily be assumed to be sock puppets? I had made a request for this to be checked back at the start which SV deleted (a grossly inappropriate act to start with). The claim of ownership: take a look at how SV keeps "tweaking" the page back to the version that was locked a while back. We went through an awful lot of discussion that seems to have been wasted because one user appears unable to accept a differing page or other input (and frequently ignores the "avoid reverting" part of the dispute avoidance policy). This accusation against jav43 is nothing more than extreme assumption of bad faith (or perhaps indications of abuse of checkuser privileges). What other possible reasons would anyone have to make that accusation?

My posting a link: I didn't say it was anything other than a rubbish thing BUT it SEEMED to describe what was going on (unfortunately).

Needing to "detect patterns": This fallacious line of argument is really just a substitute for having a real argument against the question of content and any logical editor can see that. I could (in an equally fallacious line of argument) point out the common editing patterns of say SV and Crum375: nice to see the interest in vegan, animal lib, factory farming, holocaust, jewish related and revert-heavy editing patterns are so consistent (oh and nice that crum375 is watchful and able to decide what constitutes a revert-worthy edit on SV's talk page like this). I might add a request to checkuser on those two was removed by one of the users in question. But here they are slinging mud at Jav43 for no reason (other than it would be nice to silence someone they disagree with). Is it bad faith for me to be suspicious of an out of the blue accusation and demands to go on record to answer obviously bad faith accusations? NathanLee 22:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, asking someone if they use other accounts is not an assumption of bad faith, it is simply a question based on observations of apparent single purpose editing. Pointing out how things look is not a bad thing either (I agree that the editing patterns of SV and Crum are similar but would not agree that they are sock puppets of one another due to their arguing styles being completely different).

Pointing to a site which is completely inappropriate like you have done is a bad thing and whilst you admit it is nothing more than rubbish, why post it at all other than to cause trouble?

No-one owes Jav43 an apology, as pointing out the rules is not a bad thing. The only assumptions of bad faith are coming from you Nathan...

Finally, I can't remember what exactly I said regarding people liking you as there has been so much talk on these pages, but IIRC it was saying that your behaviour makes people dislike you and I may have said I dislike you - which would be true, but it doesn't mean I can't respect your opinions.-Localzuk 22:20, 7 July 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages 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))

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 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 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 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)

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: ]. 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)

Avoid having a lead image altogether

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I would agree with also.-Localzuk 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Contradictory writing

I'm not going to get involved in editing, but I have been interested in watching this page to see how WikiPolicies might evolve to cope with the situation when sensible people get stuck.

As a phrase, 'Factory farming' clearly can be understood in two ways, as a restricted term that has an image of the 'unhappy pig'. However, it is also quite reasonable to define the term more widely as 'modern techniques', including (perhaps only one of) feed production, supplements, physical constraints and even intensive crop production. This definition appears to be the heart of the issue.

I think it is a really interesting dispute in that both sides have got a reasonable position (hence the characterisation of the other "side" being unreasonable by simple logic). Normally, policy would resolve this, but I think the arguments for each definition are quite well balanced, so it has gone to a stalemate. I don't think the solution rests in consensus on the meaning of the term as I think the problem is in the public domain (regardless of referenced sources for either view).

As it stands, the article is not written with one consistent term in mind. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on which to go with, and so it is difficult to fix the article as each side views edits taking one context as inappropriate.

The lead in is a good example at the moment: the first sentence firmly places the definition in the 'unhappy pig' camp but to me the last sentence on BSE places the definition firmly in the 'modern techniques' camp as there is a fair consensus that BSE is related closely to feeding techniques which affected even happy cows romping in fields their whole lives which is not consistent with the first sentence (put another way, you don't get BSE from "restricted mobility"). So here we see that the introduction is misleading, regardless of which camp you sit in.

I have a few thoughts on a solution, but I know that I might not be seen as being neutral. However, as it stands the article is difficult to assess as it is not clear which definition is being worked to. I think the one thing that should happen is a consensus to use a pair of clear and unambiguous phrases in the article for the two different concepts (Unhappy Pig - the narrow issue defined in the first sentence - and Modern Techniques - the wider effects of industrialisation of farming alluded to in the article). Spenny 20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Spenny, I don't understand your "unhappy pig" versus "modern techniques" dicotomy. Can you explain? SlimVirgin 23:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the broad topic of "all possible industrial farming techniques", including the decimation of forests, overusing land etc. There are then within that, a subset of modern techniques which are associated with intensive animal production, not all of which have to be indoors. Within that there are techniques which are to do with indoor animal production. "Unhappy pig" is the use of indoor techniques where there is a broad consensus that they are not satisfactory for animal welfare, but even so, for whatever reason, they are tolerated. Factory farming is clearly a subset of industrial farming techniques - free range hens are an example where the scale is industrial but there has been some effort to treat the animals humanely (whether that is actually the case is debatable). The trouble is that in seeking to equate that "factory farming" defined by yourself as the narrow term (and I have no real problem with that usage) of extreme and typically cruel farming methods, means that there has to be an alternative article to describe modern industrial farming techniques that fall outside that scope.

To repeat the point on BSE, it was well-understood early on that it was feed that was the issue - farmers were sold protein supplements. A relative of mine asked the question (before BSE happened) "Where does the protein come from?" and the answer was evasive (along the lines of "erm, a protein factory"). My relative stopped feeding his herd these supplements as he could not trust the source (he did a bit more digging and was taken aback). This farm was a typical small dairy farm (less than 100 cows), low intensity, cows in fields, trot in by themselves for milking. Two views, as a modern farm, this farm has milking machinery and so on: industrialised to a degree, but no restriction on movements (aside from during milking, but that is standard practice). Yet, it is just this sort of farm that was hit by BSE as it is common to use feed supplements in winter as simply put, grass isn't growing to be eaten. If that is not a factory farm, then you cannot say that BSE was related to factory farming techniques, because it was actually related to an unsatisfactory technique which is part of standard, not-intensive, not cruel, farming techniques, on element being, put uncritically, "winter feeding".

If you are content with the narrow definition, which to be fair does dominate the definitions, then make the article consistent with it. However, that means that there has to be a wider article that can cover other modern techniques of agriculture that are not intensive indoor techniques. Some of these will still be worthy of criticism (such as feeding animal protein to vegetarian animals) but does not fall within the topic "practice of raising farm animals indoors under conditions of restricted mobility". By defining it so narrowly, but at the same addressing wider industrial farming techniques in the article, it means that sound agricultural practises will be tainted with the "unhappy pig" association. It is at that point, the article gains a misleading POV by synthesis on those topics that fall outside the narrow scope. Note that this suggests two articles, both of which may need critical comment of some techniques. It is not the split of cruel farming vs. the rest, but intensive, indoor farming, and another one of general modern farming, perhaps on an industrial scale, perhaps just modern farming. I think you could quite happily scope out the superset and subset contents, and link factory farming in as a subtopic of the superset. I don't think that is a POV fork. Spenny 15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting input. Two things: first, it wasn't me who determined the scale of the article. It was the editors on the other "side" who decided this page, whatsoever called, had to be about animals only, and that the scale was about animals kept in conditions of restricted mobility. Secondly, you wrote "The trouble is that in seeking to equate that "factory farming" defined by yourself as the narrow term ..." Just a point: I'm doing source-based research only: I'm using the terms and repeating the content of reliable published sources only.

You also say that BSE wasn't related to factory farming, but the scientific sources say it was caused by factory farming. Bear in mind that they're talking about the cause of the epidemic; if those affected included non-factory-farms, that doesn't affect their hypothesis. My understanding is that no organic farms were affected, except for cattle who had been raised on conventional farms.

I would personally prefer to get away from factory farming or industrial farming, and focus on intensive farming, because it's intensive techniques we're talking about. Hence the proposal to have two articles: Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). As you seem to know what you're talking about, your input here would be greatly appreciated. SlimVirgin 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is probably unhelpful to phrase things as who said what. I also haven't got an absolutely firm idea on what the right set of articles is as I haven't got a good sense of what the total structure of Farming is on Wiki. There are many ways to cut it up - the continuum from prehistoric farming techniques to today, which is typically split between arable and animal, so that all makes sense as a general structure - it follows what I remember from school days (all I revised was the Corn Laws, Agricultural and Industrial Revolution and I got lucky and hit the jackpot so have a fraudulent A at O Level).

To change my position a little, (or a lot), I think I have come down in favour of Factory Farming as best aligned to the "unhappy pig" and only that. Factory Farming in this context is meant to have negative connotations, so if the article is to stick to this definition, then I think it should be trimmed to being simply about indoor restrictive movement. I think the title is a POVish in itself (taking the hint from www.factoryfarming.com !) and so leads to too much button pushing. Perhaps as a temporary position it might be helpful to call the article itself, "Intensive Indoor Animal Farming", a very clear neutral term around which it should be possible to clearly define the scope. Make factory farming redirect to that as an alias, and define the term as within the article, but then the scope becomes uncontroversial. I think then it is easier to define the what, when and why and then have a section on the debate (the why not) which can neutrally describe the passionate positions of the anti-lobby, and the tolerance of the population. I do think that the intertwining of criticism into the heart of the article is going to be very difficult, and it would be better to have the article structured so the intro is a simple statement of what they do in as tolerant language as possible and a statement that the approach is offensive.

With regard to the organic farms comment on BSE: absolutely, BSE did not occur on what would now be termed organic farms (don't believe the concept was current in the mid-80s so I don't think it is a good term to use) but again, the terminology is dangerous not being organic does not necessarily mean industrial nor factory farming. I think the BSE is a really good test of this topic because it doesn't really belong in indoor confinement, although it clearly is a product of (dreadful) industrial farming technique (which Margaret Thatcher's Government were very involved in permitting and defending).

Further note: the terminology is critical here. I just read through the Reuters link used in the BSE link, and there is a fair amount of synthesis in the statement that "British scientists blame factory farming". "British scientists blame intensive farming techniques" is the comment in the cited piece. Those terms are not synonymous in the cite, but they are in the lead, which would make the citation read in the context of the article appear to state something it does not really do. The cite is too high level to be the basis of these specific statements. Spenny 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

One brief point before I head off. One of the difficulties I find reading around this subject is that reliable sources (BBC, Washington Post, CNN, but also Centers for Disease Control and other more scientific sources) use certain terms interchangeably (factory farming = intensive farming = industrial farming) that people within the industry might not. This presents us with a problem. On the one hand, we want to be accurate and use the most knowledgeable sources available. On the other hand, we don't want to be forced to assume industry-created vocabulary, which may be designed to create distinctions that no reasonable person would observe.

Therefore, this is one of those articles where you almost need to decide in advance what your sourcing policy is going to be. SlimVirgin 23:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, we've already been through this. You did not use "reliable sources", nor did you actually take your conclusions from those sources. Instead, all you found were hints and suppositions, where you used synthesis and your own opinions to create the outcome you desired. Contrarily, I actually reviewed peer-reviewed articles to determine the meaning of the term -- as fully outlined in the archives to this discussion page. I don't know how long it will take before you finally understand that peer-reviewed articles are more reliable than a reporter's quick typing at 1:00am to meet a 1:15am deadline. Jav43 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And there lies the problem - neither type of source is better. One reflects the scientific community and the other reflects real world usage. These are both suitable for inclusion, as has been said dozens of times before. The rule of thumb has and always will be: If something is in the article and is sourced but you have a source that disagrees, introduce your source also. Don't remove the existing information.-Localzuk 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that help move this debate onto more neutral ground to move forward? The one line summary is: there is a split but not on a critique of techniques, but on scope of techniques. Spenny 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your first point would be difficult to implement (keeping this article negative), in part because of NPOV, and in part because the same facts speak very differently to both sides. Much of what is regarded as negative by opponents (and probably the general public insofar as they know or care) is regarded as positive by proponents. That's why I added Denis Avery to the lead because I think he illustrates that point very well: he feels that factory farming is a conservation triumph and that we had better hope our three billion pigs killed annually are kept in big confinement barns, for environmental reasons. I can imagine opponents choking on their breakfast reading that. But both are dealing with exactly the same facts, which is unusual when writing about deeply entrenched positions — usually, you find different sides emphasizing different points. But here: both cite the same issues, and describe them in very similar terms, and yet reach radically different conclusions.

I have to head off for a bit. I'll reply to the rest when I come back. SlimVirgin 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...folk lore has it you don't have a life ;) I think I was really saying, in my usual confusing way, force the scope of this article to be indoor livestock farming, then the problems of confusing terminology may fall away and it should be possible to structure a neutral point of view around it. Also the need for other articles will become clear. I know the language is heated here, but there is something of merit in WAS's article structure. Stepping back, farming is a big topic, there should be a whole project's worth of articles, so I wouldn't get too hung up, there are parts of Wiki in far worse shape (computer stuff is pretty shocking which is surprising in what should be a land fertile with computer nerds - myself included). I think a bit of tolerance of constructive anarchy here wouldn't go amiss. Spenny 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming your summary is correct Spenny, we can reason a solution. Per WP:NPOV, all Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). The question is whether unhappy pig and modern techniques represent two significant views of the same topic. Being two different concepts, I do not thing they represent two significant views of the same topic. Here, they represent two significant topics using the same term (factory farming). My proposed solution is that the two topics be split into two articles. As for the naming of the articles, I think that can be resolved once the two topics have been split into two articles and each of those article have had time to develop. To get started, Modern techniques of factory farming and Critique of factory farming seem like good article titles to me. Of course, Modern techniques of factory farming will have a section entitled Critique of factor farming per Misplaced Pages:Summary style, include a link to Critique of factory farming, and include a cogent summary of Critique of factory farming in its section as a spinoff of Modern techniques of factory farming. -- Jreferee 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting an article about X to 'X (main)' and 'X (critique)' is a very bad idea, and we refrain from doing so on Misplaced Pages. The reason is that the critique article tends to collect all the criticism, and becomes a POV magnet. OTOH, the main article, by sheer logic, only retains the praise for X and thus violates NPOV, since any significant criticism would naturally be moved to the critique article. This is also why we don't want a 'Critique' section - for similar reasons, it will leave behind uncriticized statements in the other sections, also violating NPOV. So by NPOV and logic, it means that the proper way to handle an article about X is to interweave criticism and praise wherever possible, in a neutrally balanced fashion, per WP:NPOV. We break the article into substantive topics, and for each one we provide all significant reliably sourced views, per NPOV, both the praise and the criticism. Crum375 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like such an in-your-face approach. Also, I don't think they interweave criticism and praise wherever possible in the abortion article. As the factory farming article appears now, NPOV Article structure seems to be relevant. However, there is an entire List of controversial issues and I'm sure that some of the articles listed there has the answer needed to help bring some stability to this matter. -- Jreferee 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As well as being POV (and we already have too many articles, so we definitely don't need one more), it would inappropriate for other reasons to split the article into main and criticism, because the two can't easily be told apart. Take the second paragraph of the lead, for example. Most of these issues (one worker per 90 consumers; 80 million pigs raised each year in confinement in the U.S. etc) are regarded as some of the benefits of factory farming by its proponents, and exactly the opposite by its opponents. Same facts, different values. SlimVirgin 00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the too many articles, there may be aspects of what I call ownership forking - an attempt to evade consensus policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid decisions or the likely decisions of a discussion about that material.-- Jreferee 00:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the 'too many articles' issue - I believe it is incorrect as it stands, and that there should be one, or at most two articles about Factory Farming (or Intensive Farming, etc.). There are editors, however, who are doing exactly what you say - they support forking off articles to try to create POV forks. This is one of the main issues we have been debating on this Talk page, so far without results. Crum375 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what has happened in this case, Jreferee. We need to reduce the number of forks and keep the material on one page, length and summary-style permitting. Instead, the same material has been copied and pasted word-for-word into forks. We submitted a request for mediation, but some editors turned it down, so it couldn't go ahead. SlimVirgin 00:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the RfM. WAS 4.250, Haber, and NathanLee turned it down. Since doing that, WAS has created yet more articles: Industrial agriculture (animals), Industrial agriculture (crops), and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture, which now exist alongside Factory farming, Intensive farming, and Industrial agriculture. WAS has recently suggested creating another one: Concentrated animal feeding operation, which is just one of the industry terms in the U.S. for a factory farm. These are mostly POV forks, involving material cut and pasted from other articles, including this one. Not one of the editors who has been causing problems on these pages has actually done any writing, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page represents a lot of hard work towards consensus. The material at issue regarding the consensus is no longer here, which removes the basis for some people to return to this page to conclude the consensus talk. Disbursing the material over a variety of ownership forks creates a situation where a consensus cannot be reached by all interested parties. If you think about it, how are you, Crum375, and whoever else is still posting on this page supposed to run around to each of the ownership fork talk pages to participate in a consensus on this topic? And if the consensus on those talk pages is going towards the minority view's disliking, what is to prevent them from again running off with the material and starting new articles? I think the material needs to be kept localized for the time being so that the present consensus discussions on this talk page can develop on what to do with the material. A way to do that is to list the forks at AfD with the basis being that the ownership forks prevent concluding the on-going consensus discussion on this talk page. If people want everyone to return to one table to finish the consensus discussions, they may vote to deleted the fork articles. If this is the only article left, then the consensus on this talk page can continue. -- Jreferee 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have the stomach for it. This page has seen some serious personal attacks; massive presumptions of bad faith; filibustering (22,000 words posted in 115 posts from one user alone in a week); misuse of the content policies (finding mainstream and scientific sources who use the term "factory farming" was deemed original research); and WAS 4.250 has said he'll continue to create new titles as he sees fit no matter what we do here.

My suggestion was to have two articles: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops), which I felt would be very neutral; and then to create an Intensive farming disambiguation page to redirect all the other titles to. But for reasons I still don't understand, this was deemed POV by about four editors, so it didn't happen. SlimVirgin 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment, do you see the version (15:00 UTC today) representing Intensive farming (animals), do you see that as synonymous with factory farming, or is the expectation that with such a rename you would alter the content somewhat? Cheers. Spenny 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm writing it based on the current title, but it's in the process of being written, so it's in a state of flux. I think it could stand to be called Factory farming or Intensive farming (animals) at the moment. SlimVirgin 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Spenny: SV's appearing unable to accept that there is any other type of farming activity other than "factory farming". Check britannica for some definitions that give a less animal lib centric view of the terms (although this was argued un-admissable as a source or reference by SV in favour of a selective non sequiter reading of some articles). The field of agriculture is wider than activist terminology and views on how shocking and controversial farming is. Fact is "intensive farming" is a concept that exists beyond and before "factory farming" with sad looking pigs in cages or depressed debeaked chickens even existed. But if someone is to read any article with the two terms in it together and then demand that they're synonymous while ignoring the context they were mentioned: then there's little hope for the finer points of the term to be understood. NathanLee 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Intensive farming fits with the scoping I am suggesting and the lead there appears to be a logical and sensible scoping statement now I look at it. I'm trying not to get sucked in too much (I know Wiki is quicksand and I am up to my neck!) so I will stick with just the contradictions in this article. I actually went against character and did some proper checking of sources as I wasn't happy about the BSE link to indoor farming and the British Inquiry essentially puts its blame to recycling of beef in cattle feed which is quite a narrow blame rather than the whole of factory farming (or worse Intensive farming). In fact it is interesting that to come to this conclusion it relied on the fact that BSE cropped up in a diverse range of farms which allowed it to eliminate issues such as animal husbandry to get to the root cause. I'd put that British Inquiry document as a secondary source of the highest quality. Spenny 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian, what you say about the inquiry isn't accurate. It blamed factory farming for the epidemic. You have to read the entire report to find that, of course (and it's long), but journalists were briefed, and those journalists reported that factory farming was being blamed, which led Germany's chancellor to call for an end to it. We can't use our own interpretations of primary sources (and the inquiry is a primary source for our purposes); we have to go with the interpretations of reliable secondary sources.

Yes, the primary way the disease was spread was feeding cattle to cattle, but it was the entire system allowing that practice (and feeding supplements to calves instead of milk, spraying animals with pesticides, and on and on) that was identified as the facilitator. Bottom line: we can't insert our own opinions. We must stick to what reliable secondary sources say. SlimVirgin 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't factory farming issues. Factory farming has to do with scale - number of animals per area. That's all. What you're talking about would be industrial agriculture or perhaps intensive farming. These are different things, regardless of your attempt to lump all agriculture under one title and call it "bad". Jav43 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

(unindent)I think that is quite a synthesis, and in parts inaccurate (for example, my relative was very concerned about organo-phosphates which were specifically excluded from being a cause of this - though I wouldn't want to go near them). The British Inquiry must be considered a secondary source of the highest calibre, and to switch to vague summary pieces of journalism to synthesise a statement that the Inquiry said intensive indoor farming is to blame for BSE is worthy of inclusion as a real world example on the OR policy page. It pinned the blame fairly and squarely on indirect cannibalistic feeding methods only. Whilst it clearly explored the intensive methods, and contrasted with organic methods, the only real conclusion it came to was that it was possible to demonstrate that the 150 or so cases of BSE on organic farms could be pinned down to conversion or to old feeding practice. The fact that journalists are not consistent in terms is not an excuse for putting words into the Inquiry's mouth. The Inquiry does not use the term factory farming as far as I can see, nor does it seem to discuss intensive farming as a concept, even though it does give a background on farming in the UK and EC. With regard to the Chancellor's statement, you need to consider the context of the time (and that it was a translation). I cannot see the secondary source that the tertiary summary item was referring to, but around that time we had swine fever as a major issue, pollution of the Rhine due to pig farming - and a whole host of problems with intensive (not necessary factory) farming that lead to politicians rightly questioning practices. It is distinctly OR to read these articles using a specific interpretation on issues and terms that cannot be validated. Specifically, given the lead of this article which seeks to make a very specific definition of terms meaning indoor farming, it is synthesising an interpretation to use that definition within other articles. Spenny 09:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's an inaccurate synthesis, it's one made by three of the scientists who were heavily involved in the investigation into BSE, one of whom was Iain McGill who, as I understand it, led the investigation when he was with the Dept of Agriculture. Their words were: "The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming. The UK BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture — a 'recipe for disaster'." These are expert sources, and they are clearly (a) equating factory farming and intensive farming, and (b) saying the Phillips inquiry concluded BSE was a "product" of it. SlimVirgin 10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the same letter to the European Union food safety commissioner, the scientists also argued for "an expansion of extensive and organic systems of beef production...and a scaling down of industrially farmed beef throughout Europe." So they seem to be equating factory farming with intensive farming with industrial farming. SlimVirgin 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is still an interpretation to advance a position. That article says two different things: the Chancellor attacked factory farming, the scientists also made an attack on intensive farming methods. The two are related, but not the same, and it is absolutely a synthesis to equate them. I don't have a problem with a position that says that the scientific view is that intensive farming methods are deprecated by scientists - indeed it would surprise me if there was not a solid body of scientific data to support that view. My confusion here is that there is no need to conflate these ideas to ensure that a neutral POV asserts that viewpoint clearly. By confusing these ideas, it undermines the power of a well written neutral article. Spenny 11:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTH to take two unrelated sources and put them together to advance a position. All we are doing here is quoting real secondary sources. E.g. "Scientists: factory farming drop could end mad cow" - that is the title of the CNN/Reuters article. Then, right below it, it says: "United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease." Then it says "The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming". And the BBC article says: "In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy." These are reliable sources stating a position, which we faithfully report per V and NOR, with no SYNTH involved. Crum375 12:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian, you've misunderstood WP:SYNT. It is the sources themselves (three scientists, at least one of whom is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about BSE), who say in the letter that factory farming, intensive farming, and industrially farmed beef were to blame for BSE, and they call it a "recipe for disaster." A violation of SNYT would be if a Wikipedian were to put together sources to advance a position not advanced by the sources. But in this case, the sources are very clear in what they're saying. SlimVirgin 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a laxity in the article terminology that can only be closed by some subtle synthesis. It is not an academic source of the highest quality and there is a subtle transduction of statements being made by scientists to that being scientific evidence. In the end though, I'm not overly fussed about the citation: the basic point it is making is sound, and not saying anything specific that I have a problem with, it makes the common sense observation that unsound farming methods caused the problem and the issue needs to be addressed.

Ian McGill is a scholarly source of the very highest calibre when it comes to BSE, and he is clearly equating factory and intensive farming, and saying BSE was a product of it. SlimVirgin 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As ever, the but is that however much you try and justify it, the final common sense test is that using the inconsistent terminology, the article ends up saying something nonsensical - as it stands the article reads that the blame for BSE went on specifically indoor intensive farming given the very specific definition made in the introduction, whereas the scientists were scoping practices far worse and insidious and widespread: feeding of apparently innocent foodstuffs that affected the wider industry and suggests that some of the fundamental thinking on farming practices was flawed. The article left as it is almost reads like free-range chickens is the solution to BSE, whereas farming that was clearly not within the scope of the article lead in was affected. I am bemused as to why anyone would want to argue the point, because, using BSE it is support for organic farming methods above and beyond even taking away what might be considered the obviously indoor farming methods. Spenny 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the article is not balanced, why not provide counterpoints from reliable sources? This is what WP is all about. Crum375 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's because it is not about balance, its about it being wrong. I have given a simple example which demonstrates that the article is logically inconsistent and the result is that I am told that it cannot be logically inconsistent because you can synthesize the inconsistency by using an interpretation of a single source. This is Dan Brown research. I give up. Spenny 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP is not about right and wrong, or about 'truth'. It is about faithfully reproducing the published works of reliable sources, with a neutrally balanced presentation. That a WP editor personally disagrees with some sourced statement, or considers it 'wrong', is immaterial. Per V and NPOV, it is our duty to neutrally report the published facts, not to criticize or modify them per our personal knowledge. Crum375 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to even suggest that factory farming caused BSE. That is a simple impossibility. Feeding bone and meat meal to cattle caused BSE - nothing more and nothing less. Jav43 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm incredibly tempted to follow your lead (in giving up). Ah well. At least you got to see what we're dealing with. Jav43 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully who the source is and what he says. He knows more about BSE than probably anyone else in the world (certainly more than anyone on this page), and he says it was a PRODUCT of factory farming. SlimVirgin 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Artificial split

Because you and SV and Localzuk ignore them and just repeat yourselves instead. At one point, Localzuk questioned the integrity of peer-reviewed sources as compared to web blogs. Useless. Jav43 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I did no such thing! I have said many times that the 2 should be used together and that they have equal use (not blogs - they are inherently unreliable, but the media) and neither should 'override' the other. I will ask you to not misrepresent my arguments again please.-Localzuk 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You wanted this site used as a source ] (a web blog) and you denegrated the clear definitions from peer-reviewed sources in this comment:

So, I will restate the situation: We aren't saying the terms always mean the same thing, just that they are sometimes used to mean the same thing. The evidence above shows this quite clearly. You are simply refusing to accept something that is blatant and obvious - because you are too hung up on academic sources.-Localzuk(talk) 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. Jav43 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than that site not being a blog, yes you are right - I did say that... The site in question is a farm which produces organic produce. It is an example of real world usage of the terms, as are the media sources being thrown at you by the dozen. And my comment stands - you are too hung up on academic sources. You seem to think that only academic use of the terms is acceptable and that the media usage is somehow lower quality despite it being common.-Localzuk 16:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-published internet document = web blog. And yes, of course use of terms in peer-reviewed sources is more reliable than use of terms in the mainstream public or in the media. Jav43 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah there. Not all self published sites are blogs. Wow! I've never seen that claim anywhere before. And once again, no, peer reviewed sources are not of more importance than use in the media. -Localzuk 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What a joke

The article as it stands justifies "Factory farming, also known as intensive or industrial farming, is the practice of raising farm animals indoors under conditions of restricted mobility" with original research that illogically ignorantly delusionally claims statements like "She intends to end factory farming in her country. This must be the way forward and we should end industrial agriculture in this country as well." constitute a source for the terms to be called equivalent. What a joke. This is disgusting and absurd and contrary to the original research policy and reflects a POV that blinds an otherwise excellent editor into not being able to parse an English language sentence. WAS 4.250 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Added the qualifier to match what the sources say. Funny how the compromise, discussed changes always seem to head back to one editor's version. Page ownership anyone? NathanLee 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am getting to my absolute wits end with this nonsense. YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO OTHER EDITORS!! JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK ONE THING DOESN'T MEAN IT IS CORRECT!! Please re-read the archives and you will see that some editors have provided very good justification of all this, but you simply disagree - this doesn't mean it is wrong. Learn to accept this please, as you are constantly saying the same, useless and repetitive nonsense.-Localzuk 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan and WAS decided to go off and edit POV forks, and while not ideal, it at least means there is time actually to write this article. What is notable about the editors who've caused trouble here is that none of them contribute to content: it's all shuffling things around, deleting material, and creating a toxic talk page.

Please allow the page to be written — or even help to write it! Once that's done, we'll have a clearer idea of how to judge the content and what to call the thing. But this pointless reverting while it's being written is nothing but destructive — and it can't be written overnight so some patience is required. SlimVirgin 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How are you allowing others to contribute if the only version you will accept is one written by SV? It was your action of deleting the other articles to do a merge without any discussion that started this. The extra pages were created by WAS in an attempt to create some sort of idea on how they could look. Prior to your actions there were the pages "factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture". You attempted to remove those other pages and have them all redirect to "Factory farming". So please keep that in mind as you now place blame on the resulting mess. Any attempt to change or refine the page was reverted if you recall.. Despite a number of editors wanting to contribute.. So if that's not ownership then I don't know what is.NathanLee 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like the pages redirected to something, not necessarily a page called "factory farming." I did not call this page "factory farming": please bear that in mind.

Nathan, you are welcome to write for this page (so long as your edits rely on decent sources), something you haven't done so far. What you're not welcome to do is destroy other people's work. SlimVirgin 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin: can you in any way substantiate that attack on my edits and your lack of assumption of good faith. I've added many references. Can I also remind you that edits that involve changing content does not constitute "destroying" other people's work. This is a wiki. Look up the definition if you're unclear on the concept. Your edits are not set in stone, nor are they magically protected from edits, refinements, deletions, additions or rewordings. You do not own this page, and nor are your edits magically worth more than other people's if they are conforming to policies, references etc. I'd suggest (as I have in the past) that perhaps your animal lib beliefs are clouding your judgement and your editing style can be said to be unnecessarily abrasive in this matter. NathanLee 22:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit with which SlimVirgin changed the opening line of this article. And her edit summary was: "added source and quote in footnotes; tightened writing a little." Needless to say, the description does not match the actuality. Furthermore, SlimVirgin was, with this edit, deliberately introducing a prior and very contentious version of the lead. She shows yet again that she has no interest in anything other than the version of the article which she wishes to create, and that she is utterly prepared to bypass anything written on this talk page. If anything, this behavior evinces an intention to make the situation unworkable. All the while bemoaning that others don't wish to enter a mediation process with her. It is remarkable that such an experienced editor is not ashamed of these controlling and underhanded tactics. Such tactics may for the moment grant SlimVirgin control over the content of this article, but the erosion of good will which her behavior has inevitably produced will not make it any likelier that consensus can be achieved for her other goals, such as the deletion of related articles. The more she insists on a skewed version of this article, the less likely it is that others will feel comfortable with such deletions. The reality is, there is no consensus for deleting articles, and strong arguments have been put for their retention, to which SlimVirgin's response has been limited to the continual refrain: "I can't understand why they want to have more articles," or, "These other articles are POV forks." In the apposite words of WAS 4.250, what a joke. BCST2001 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead image is from an ANTI/hate activist site against factory farming

Since this image seems to HAVE to be in the lead for some editors. I submit the following:

• image is from a hate site (activist against factory farming site)
• text is a synthesis of different articles

This image should not generally be used (as per arguments I've seen on the PETA page by the very same editors to exclude sites critical of PETA). I suggest this image should not be used in the lead or in this article. NathanLee 22:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, we have been through this a thousand times (it seems), but let me try once more to explain it to you. This is an article about factory farming, and this image highlights the key issue of the animal aspect of FF - the fact that animals are kept in very confined quarters. The gestation crates issue is important enough that McDonald's and other large food companies have decided to move away from it. If you have another image that so well exemplifies the key issues of FF, let's have it for discussion. An image of a bunch of feeding cows won't do, since it won't be clear it's not just a regular large farm, and it won't highlight the key controversy about animal confinement, as this one clearly does. Crum375 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So why is it that any reference to an anti-peta site was excluded from the PETA article on these grounds, but it seems "factory farming" has a different set of rules with the same editors because it suits them in this case. THAT is the bit I don't understand. One might reasonably expect that a site that's about ending factory farms and promoting other types of farms might distort, misrepresent or flat out lie about things.. But here we are with an image lifted from that site with synthesised assumptions in the description (saying that information from another article applies to this image) and (as has been explained to you a number of times) about a very specific farming practice that does not necessarily represent anything "typical" other than what a bunch of pro vegan/pro animal lib sources would have you believe. Just because you think it representative from an animal lib background does not mean it's realistic. This is about a modern farming technique NOT about the animal lib's issue with it and a practice that is being phased out. Given that a large chunk of the food that supplies many millions of people is from this practice: might pictures of people having cheap, available meat in supermarkets be more indicative? Certainly. But because you are obsessed with the POV that there is controversy and nothing else that's all you can see. Of course if this didn't have to be called "factory farming" (a favourite term of activists and media when talking negative connotations) then perhaps you'd be able to move beyond "this has to show controversy".

I'll suggest again: avoid having this image and avoid having a lead image. This article should be less about a shocking picture to push controversy and more about text content. 125.215.145.249 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is used in the PETA article, and our source for it is an anti-PETA activist site. SlimVirgin 05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, that image isn't trying to say anything about "common practice", but rather to refer to one event. Your image of sows, on the other hand, is attempting to describe "common practice in the industry as a whole" - obviously in an attempt to inflame. As we've said again and again, it is not representative of the industry - of hogs or of other animal species - and is not NPOV, AND is insufficiently described at the source (you claim it's representative, but have provided no sources showing that THIS IMAGE is representative). Why can't you find another image? Oh, right, because this one is better at inflaming. Jav43 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look for another image that is definitely of a factory farm and that clearly shows the issue of close confinement, and we can look at it. The problem is that the alternative you came up with showed a bunch of ecstatically happy cows with plenty of space on a family farm in New York. But if you come up with realistic alternatives, then of course we'd be willing to look at them. Perhaps you could post them here in the first instance. SlimVirgin 22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand who this "we" is that is the arbitrator who apparantly owns this page. But anyway, I have provided no less than 6 separate images to lead this page, at various times. You've reverted me each time. I don't understand, but whatever. Oh, and that image of cows on what you said was a family farm - that is as cramped as any dairy will ever get. 11:10 cow-stall ratio is the highest imagined by Hoard's Dairyman, and that image seemed to portray that. Jav43 23:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

Nathan, a question for you: why don't you help to write this article? Don't remove anything, just add to it. Find some sources, read them, and add something. The current version is not good. The sooner we get a first draft written, the sooner we can look at what we have and decide what to call it, and also decide what direction it needs to be taken in. SlimVirgin 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you revert whatever we do. Jav43 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've long attempted to get this article to a proper, verifiable definition. You on the other hand just keep protecting your version of it. I dug up a lot of references, and look what you've done to the page again: put it back to your simplistic view of what agriculture entails. Had you bothered to read my discussion (rather than just ignoring the talk page) you might have realised this.

And I'll say again: you are mistaken if you think that you must never remove anything or change anything. But assuming that's correct:There was content added to the lead, references etc (that you say I never use) and rewording which YOU HAVE REMOVED. So can you point me to this policy that you have that says "SlimVirgin's edits must never be removed, and you can only add information which is approved by SlimVirgin". Because that's what you're arguing for and that's what your edits have been doing. You've removed the input of at least 4 or 5 editors to put it back to yours. Any reason for that other than to enforce your version of the page? NathanLee 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, can you show me a diff where you have added text of your own to this article (or any of the related farming articles)? SlimVirgin 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's the "history" tab for the article if you want that information. Specifically back to the contributions around the time when you began one of the edit wars that ended up in the latest round of page protection. I'd advise you instead to assume good faith and stop slandering my edits. I'd also point you to where I referenced britannica and others to put a more accurate description. Perhaps also you can look at the PETA page and the struggle I had to include referenced material from 60 minutes, sydney morning herald etc. Had you also bothered to read my contributions in this discussion page you'd have seen that I've provided many many links as part of an ongoing attempt to refine the page content. How about references that are in the article currently Difference is that unlike you I've made use of the discussion page rather than reverting. Hell: you even shifted around my references at one point because you thought my research fitted your argument. Quite frankly I find your request absurd and an avoidance of answering any real question in the previous post. So I'll ask again: Any reason why you have removed other editors' work to keep reverting this page back to your version if this notion of not "destroying" other's work is so critical to you? 125.215.145.249 05:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready for arbcom?

Are we ready for arbcom? In my opinion SlimVirgin is a wonderful asset to Misplaced Pages and in general a really great editor. It pains me to come to the conclusion that in the area of agriculture, SlimVirgin's POV on animal rights clouds her judgement to the extent that she and those who take their lead from her (is "meatpuppets" the right word??) should not edit on agriculture articles but should be allowed to edit on their talk pages. Further, a year ago or so I looked into SlimVirgin's editing of animal rights pages and found nothing to complain about, so I think she should be allowed to continue editing animal rights pages. She appears blind to things about agriculture that don't involve animal rights but not blind to arguments pro and con concerning animal rights. What do others think? WAS 4.250 13:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this, like everything else on this page it seems, several times. ArbCom won't take a case where normal dispute resolution methods have not been tried. In this case, some of us have accepted mediation, while others keep refusing. Also, in general ArbCom does not accept content disputes, and this one clearly is. Crum375 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A minority is using means that are against policy to foist material that is against policy onto this article in spite of months of effort to resolve the problem. A rigged formal mediation is not required for arbcom to accept. WAS 4.250 14:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what you mean by 'rigged'? Crum375 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you are so convinced that your position has clear merit, then it should prevail in mediation. So why are you resisting mediation? Crum375 14:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Formal mediation works by having people self select for who handles what case. There is nothing preventing someone from having a friend self select to handle their case. It is a rigged game for anyone who plays to win. WAS 4.250 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, it sounds like you are saying that mediation is hopelessly flawed, and therefore will never work. I suspect that if you come to ArbCom and say: "I want you to arbitrate a content dispute - I refuse mediation because I believe it's rigged", the odds of them taking the case are not good. Crum375 15:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And as a separate point, WAS, I suggest you focus on the message, not the messengers. Attacking your fellow editors as having 'clouded judgment', or by calling them 'meatpuppets' of each other, violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA. If you want to achieve results, focus on the message, and in this case, accept mediation. Crum375 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am describing troubling behavior and not attacking anyone. WAS 4.250 14:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By that token, if I call someone 'an idiot', or 'a liar', for example, I could always say it's not a personal attack or being uncivil - I'm just describing his/her 'troubling behavior'. You say your fellow editors have 'clouded judgment' and are 'meatpuppets' of each other. Hopefully you can understand that these are clear violations of CIV and NPA. I really suggest you stop that, and try to focus on getting our differences resolved. Crum375 14:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum asks: why not mediation? At the same time, he reverts the removal of a portion of a sentence for which there is clearly no consensus. I am talking about the claim, re-introduced by SlimVirgin and then restored by Crum, that the terms are synonymous. When Crum restored this claim he did not support it with any talk page discussion, but his edit summary stated that the claim is supported by sources. The fact that there is absolutely no consensus to include this did not prevent him from blithely putting it back in the opening sentence of the article. When editors demonstrate their complete lack of interest in the question of consensus, and yet persistently ask why others do not agree to mediation, they are either blind to their own behavior or else playing a game. BCST2001 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although you have just shown up here, many of us have been hashing these topics here for a long time now. So I have supported my view for the equivalence of the terms, per reliable sources, on this Talk page, many times. I fail to follow your logic, however. If consensus cannot be reached by Talk page discussions, isn't mediation the next logical step? What other possibility do you see? Crum375 14:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation. Perhaps by some recent contributors to this page. It seems to me that is happenning now at a slow pace. If so, arbcom can and should wait for them to see what they can do. WAS 4.250 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am for any attempt by anyone to resolve this dispute, although my own experience with informal mediation is that it produces huge amounts of words and no results. However, I prefer that to just going around in circles. Crum375 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum, I have yet to see you disagree with SV. You seem to at least be a meatpuppet. Jav43 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

evidence?-Localzuk 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen them disagree, they edit the same series of articles at the same time, and they tag-team. That's more evidence than you have that I'm a sockpuppet, at least :P. Jav43 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Although we agree on many issues, we also disagree on some. In this topic, you'll note that I fought hard to keep FF focused on both crops and animals, whereas SV seemed inclined to focus on animals only. While we are at it, can you show me where you disagreed, for example, with NathanLee? Crum375 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

e.g. mediation. Jav43 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps this source could help us with the issue of definitions. It's the Grace Factory Farm project, which is run by farmers. Here they have some information on the definition of factory farm. We could contact them to ask for further, specialist reading material. SlimVirgin 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an activist site, just in case you hadn't noticed. But of course, any peer-reviewed or well-researched sources obtained through that site could be reviewed for individual merit. Jav43 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an activist site, but it's one composed of farmers, so they're likely to know what they're talking about. Jav, you can't claim that industry sources are acceptable only when you agree with them. SlimVirgin 00:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm? No, I haven't done so. But an organization devoted to furthering a particular cause often is partisan and fails to portray both sides of any given issue. Jav43 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's just that you seemed earlier to recommend industry sources, which are highly partisan. Perhaps I'm remembering it wrongly; if so, I apologize. SlimVirgin 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Finally!

My inactivity has been because I think this is the only way out, lets go for it!

--Cerejota 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want the mediation to suceed, I recommend that you remove the names of people like me who will not sign up for formal mediation and I recommend that you limit it to this one article. Who knows, if that goes well, maybe I'll see my fears are unfounded and will join a second formal mediation on the question of number of articles. WAS 4.250 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned there are two obstacles preventing agreement to mediation. The first is the total disregard by SlimVirgin, Crum, etc., for the lack of consensus about certain issues. Most significantly, the insistence by those two editors on re-inserting the statement that "factory farming" is synonymous with other terms, despite the clear lack of consensus to do so. This complete lack of interest in the state of disagreement between the parties shows bad faith, controlling behavior, and a disregard for correct procedure. This has been pointed out and ignored, compounding the problem. The second obstacle is the idea that mediation should determine the number of articles. There is a procedure for deleting articles, and it is very noticeable that those editors wishing to delete articles are very unwilling to follow this procedure. I consider this further evidence of controlling behavior, an attempt to bypass a process these editors fear will not deliver their objectives. Not once has any of these editors commented on the arguments put that industrial agriculture is an important article deserving of existence in its own right. This continual tactic of ignoring whatever does not suit is, again, destructive of good will. If these two obstacles are not addressed by the relevant editors, I shall unfortunately be forced to vote against mediation. BCST2001 04:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is possibly the worst analysis of the situation someone could have made, with it being wrong in nearly all areas. Firstly, adding sourced statements to an article does not need consensus - they are sourced to reliable sources so they should stay. If there is an opposing viewpoint then that should also be stated within the article. It doesn't need to be either/or. Second, this discussion is not about deleting anything, it is about co-ordinating the subject matter in the most effective manner and as such afd would be the wrong venue for that discussion. It is a merge/split discussion and the appropriate place to discuss that is on one of the articles in question. For someone who has never actually edited the article, you sure do throw accusations about people being controlling etc... I would advise you to take a long read of the archives before you make any more statements as you are approaching this problem as if there is a black and white outcome waiting to be reached whereas it is much more grey and needs work from all sides.-Localzuk 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The above tendentious comment by Localzuk unfortunately does not encourage me to agree to mediation. I do not see any good faith argumentation here, nor any genuine reflection on what I have written. BCST2001 07:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic, BCST2001, that you decry improper behavior on the part of others, yet you decline to take the right course of action to counter it – mediation. Think about it – if you are so right about everything, what do you have to fear in mediation? Crum375 11:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your view, however I can't help but noticing that the points I have raised are yet again utterly ignored. I can only consent to mediation if I see some evidence of good faith from opposing editors. Thus far I have yet to see any. BCST2001 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If SlimVirgin, Crum375, and Localzuk really do want to engage in mediation, then they need to ask themselves what it is worth to them. I have indicated that there are two obstacles to my agreeing to mediation. A gesture of goodwill by those editors in relation to these two obstacles will enable me to consent to mediation. Thus far, there is no evidence of any willingness to consider such a gesture. Without such a gesture, I cannot consent to mediation. But if there is such a willingness, I urge those editors to demonstrate it. BCST2001 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that both of your issues are fundamental issues we are discussing here. We have shown one thing but you disagree - there is no way round this issue (btw. I am talking about the synonymity of the terms). We are discussing the overall future of this subject area, and have many, many times tried to compromise to no avail - how can we compromise further without completely abandoning our position. Please read the archives to see the prior attempts at compromise and what our positions are and how we are compromising, otherwise I think you feel we are just being completely stubborn when we are not.-Localzuk 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You could compromise by agreeing to remove, for the duration of the mediation process, the clause from the opening line describing factory farming as synonymous with other terms. BCST2001 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What does that gain us? Nothing as far as I can see. Denying mediation on that basis would simply be ridiculous.-Localzuk 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Clearly several editors find the claim that the terms are synonymous to be false, despite your insistence that it is "well sourced." Furthermore, it is part of an attempt to justify deletion of other articles. That is why deleting the clause during the mediation process would be a goodwill gesture. It seems, however, to be a price too high. Would I be correct in assuming that you are completely unwilling to consider such a gesture? BCST2001 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see the value of it, as it is part and parcel of the entire issue which has been discussed now for over a year. Removing something that one 'side' thinks is correct and the other doesn't won't achieve anything as far as I can see. I am unwilling to remove it due to the fact it is the underlying issue we are discussing - it would be like me asking you to remove any mention of the terms being a subset of each other - which I am not going to do, as there are sources to back them up. The 2 ideas work with each other - one is based on scientific information and one is based on the real world usage of the terms. Neither should be removed, both should be included with an explanation of the discrepancy.-Localzuk 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't see the value of it? OK, no problem. That's your decision to make. BCST2001 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So would I be correct in assuming that Crum375 and SlimVirgin feel similarly to Localzuk, and are uninterested in discussing my requests further? BCST2001 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a contest for which side can write the most neutral set of articles on industrial farming

Arbcom is the right place to deal with a handful of people who are willing to do anything to win. But I hate fighting. So I'm willing to write off this article as I do many others. But I am not willing to write off a whole category of articles. I am not willing to fight so long as the current stand off is maintained: that of slim and friends editing this article and not playing ownership games with other agriculture articles. By the way, slim's request for editors here to add content should be heeded. Add content to the other agriculture articles while slim and friends show what they can do here. Who knows? Slim is usually a great editor. Maybe as she researches and improves this article she will find over time the scales falling from her eyes. Meanwhile it is an excuse to say she reverts your edits here because she is not reverting your or my edits (she tried twice but let it go) on the other agriculture articles. Let's add content and see what happens. WAS 4.250 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a contest for which side can write the most neutral set of articles on industrial agriculture. In my opinion , in comparing factory farming with our suite of articles:

• Industrial agriculture
• Industrial agriculture (animals)
• Industrial agriculture (crops)
• Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture

we are winning hands down. WAS 4.250 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In this contest each side may under the rules of the contest, as well as under GFDL and wikipedia standard practice, take material from the other side so long as that fact is acknowledged in the edit summary as in "Moved content here from factory farming" with the best possible end result being articles that can be trivially merged or the next best thing - articles that are similar yet different in some clear specific ways that can be arbitrated or mediated point by point. WAS 4.250 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I've stumbled onto a useful harness for people willing to do anything to win. Slim, I challenge you to win at writing the most neutral (and otherwise best by wikipedia standards) suite of articles on "Industrial agriculture" and if for you that is identical to factory farming then in my opinion that fact alone will mean you will lose the contest. Let's put your finely honed instincts for winning to a good cause. What do you say? WAS 4.250 13:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a competition, it is not here to 'win' it is here to work together. Working on dozens of articles about the same subject is duplicating information and pointless. We should simply agree on which articles should stay and which shouldn't. All people are going to have to compromise, it is as simple as that.

Mediation down the drain?

As BCST2001 has opposed it... :(--Cerejota 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be odd if an account that only recently arrived on the talk page were able to turpedo mediation just because we didn't agree to remove certain phrases from the article. In fact, if it were allowed to stand, it would suggest a review of the RfM process is needed, because it would be a clear abuse. SlimVirgin 02:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no abuse, and you and Crum and Localzuk really need to start looking at what other editors say rather than attacking the editors. My comments were persistently ignored or rejected out of hand. I do not believe anything I wrote was unreasonable. You yourself chose to ignore everything I wrote. That said, nothing is set in stone, and it remains the case that if I see some evidence of good will and good faith, mediation is always still possible. But as things stand I do not see that mediation is worthwhile. BCST2001 02:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BCST2001 actually makes a good point. I don't understand why SV/Crum/Localzuk require the article to retain statements they say are supported that others say are unsupported while continually reverting additions of statements that others say are supported but SV/Crum/Localzuk say are unsupported. Seems hypocritical. Jav43 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am an editor involved in this dispute. I have a stake in the outcome, which is the reason I am contributing to this talk page. Whether I edit the article or not is irrelevant, especially given that the article is in a long-term dispute. Other editors would we wiser to edit the article less. It is clearly an illegitimate process to list me as a party to the dispute, then try to suggest my vote doesn't count because you don't like how I voted. And, yet again, there is a willingness of certain editors to do anything except consider the actual words written on the talk page. How much easier it would be for you to consider my entirely legitimate request, which is that a highly contentious clause be deleted for the duration of the mediation process. BCST2001 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You only turned up a few days ago, and now you're trying to use the RfM to blackmail us. Have you edited this page with another account? SlimVirgin 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not blackmailing anybody. I made it very clear in advance that I consider the problem here is that I cannot commit to mediation where I have no belief that certain editors are really prepared to moderate their position. I made this clear, and made clear that I thought it was possible to do something about this. Every single word I have written about this has been ignored. Mediation may be a Holy Grail to you, but that is why I urged you to help make it possible. I do not intend to discuss anything unrelated to the issues surrounding this article. Please follow suit. I reiterate: at present I see no evidence of a genuine will to work toward the best encyclopedic outcome. That is the sum of my concern. BCST2001 02:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are using your veto power over the RfM to force change to the article. That is unacceptable.

Please answer the question: have you edited this page with another account? SlimVirgin 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not "forcing change" to the article. I am proposing the deletion of one clause on a temporary basis as a gesture of goodwill. A clause which, by the way, already was deleted until you insisted on restoring it. Clearly neither you nor Localzuk consider my request reasonable. That's fine. I'm disappointed with your decision in this regard, just as you are disappointed with my vote against mediation. As for your question: I am not a sockpuppet. That is all I intend to say on this matter, and I expect you to drop it on this talk page. I have every right to contribute to this talk page, and my behavior on this page has been entirely proper, so please stop diverting attention from the issues. BCST2001 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have posted on this page previously with another account, you're a sockpuppet. It's a violation of SOCK to act in a way that avoids the scrutiny of other editors who might have good reason to track your contributions. As you're now behaving in a highly controversial manner, and attempting to scupper mediation that several editors want, we have very good reason to need to know whether you've been involved in this dispute before as someone else. Please review WP:SOCK carefully. SlimVirgin 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is such a pity that you are so determined to fight an underhanded battle rather than actually try to achieve anything. If you bothered to read and digest what I wrote, and if you had an ounce of flexibility and imagination, I would be voting for mediation. I honestly wonder what you think my agenda is. By the way, I have done nothing controversial. I proposed a condition: the condition was rejected out of hand. So I made the judgment that at present mediation is not worthwhile. That's it. BCST2001 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Extortion and blackmail will achieve nothing. Crum375 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a cheek to talk about anyone being underhand, when you're clearly the account of a previous user. Be honest and say who you are, or please go away and leave this page and the RfM alone. The last thing we need is more shenanigans. SlimVirgin 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "Photo gallery", factoryfarming.com.
2. ^ Kaufmann, Mark. "Largest Pork Processor to Phase Out Crates", The Washington Post, January 26, 2007.
3. "An HSUS Report: Welfare Issues with Gestation Crates for Pregnant Sows", The Humane Society of the United States, January 6, 2006.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics