Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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^(talk) 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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'." [1] 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dejavu on the arguments I made that this notion of "synonymous terms" is a synthesis, except this time it's Spenny who is coming to the same conclusion.. So just how many people do we need who have perhaps less clouded views of agriculture and normal english interpretation skills for SlimVirgin/crum375 and localzuk to perhaps admit that their definition of "factory farming" doesn't match reality and is not at a suitable level of abstraction. Factory farming is only synonymous with all those fields of agriculture if you've a pretty un-informed or biased view of the field (which is why I referred to britannica's definition of the terms factory farming, intensive, extensive etc). Just like someone can look at a particular car engine and say "that's an engine", someone else with a less simplistic view could say "that's a v4 water cooled, EFI etc etc". Just because 3 editors with a similar overly simplistic view of a topic can't see past that: doesn't mean the article should re-enforce that simplistic view. Otherwise we should redirect everything in biology to "cell stuff" or everything electronic into "computer gizmos". If you can't handle the finer definition points: don't try and force those that can into adopting the least accurate version to suit the comprehension skills. NathanLee 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And once again you have missed the point. The terms are used synonymously, as we have shown - regardless of your interpretation of synthesis. This is the common 'media' and 'real world' usage by people rather than the use within the industry and scientific community. Claiming anything different is simply ignoring that viewpoint. What is wrong with discussing both issues and centralising the entire subject area into a couple of pages?-Localzuk^(talk) 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We've said that the terms are used synonymously - said that again and again. What you don't seem to understand is that we've demonstrated that the terms are not actually synonymous - just that the public misuses them in colloquial speech. What's wrong with putting 5 different topics on one page? Well, other than that they are 5 different topics, each worthy of its own article, nothing! Perhaps you should review whether you actually understand the true meaning of the terms at stake, or whether you fall into the group of the uninformed public which misuse the terms. Jav43 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific sources use them synonymously too, but you ignore them. We've offered links from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In this thread, we offered a letter from three scientists to the European food safety commissioner, where they clearly regard factory farming, intensive farming, and industrially farmed beef as referring the same phenomenon. All ignored because they don't fit your view. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you have links? Jav43 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

As mentioned elsewhere, I haven't got much time at the moment. I decided it would be constructive to put the wording I think is justified by the sources in the article, the bold edit is done as an appropriate technique as suggested by policy. I know it needs the citations, they exist in the prior version, but I didn't want to add them without taking proper care of filtering through the existing ones.

I'd like to think this a structure that can be edited to be improved rather than simply reverted, and it would be nice to see that approach, but we'll see. Spenny 09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Seen Spenny 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea. However, I think it would have been better served if you discussed it here first. Not that I have much hope of any of the major editors backing it. Also, if you noticed the comment left on the revert, you'll see that most of the editors have a very pointed view of the article and have minimal interest in keeping their personailities and agendas out of it. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily expect it to remain, and I don't have a problem with it being reverted. Edit, revert discuss is a legitimate Wiki technique. Spenny 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BlindEagle, please AGF.

Spenny, it wasn't bad, though it would need citations. But it generalized a bit, rather than sticking to facts, and some of it wasn't correct e.g. "However, opponents have successfully campaigned to have some of the more obviously cruel techniques of factory farming ceased ..." The most obviously cruel technique, according to some advocates, is the overcrowding and keeping animals indoors all their lives. No one has managed to get rid of that; indeed, it is part of the very definition of the intensive farming of animals. I assume you're thinking of gestation crates, but these have only been stopped in Sweden, the UK, and in two states in the U.S. Or did you have other things in mind too? Also, it wasn't only opponents of factory farming who campaigned against gestation crates. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's better, constructive criticisms :) I don't disagree that it wasn't entirely correct, it was designed as a first pass (the result of a long drive there and back checking out University Open Days with the offspring) and something that was loose enough to encourage tweaking. Specifically, I was deliberately being general as it was a lead to set the scene: one of my problems with the existing lead that in justifying itself it has spiralled into being too specific (same goes for the image description). I think there is a happy medium to be found. What I was trying to get to was a balanced lead that said that although factory farming has its proponents, there is a consensus amongst the wider population that there are limits to what will be tolerated, and there is clearly continuing reduction in that tolerance. Go back 20 years, I think factory farming had free range on techniques whereas now there are increasing standards, de-beaking has been banned (I think), minimum space requirements have been introduced, the RSPCA in the UK is probably a good source for this legislation. Different countries will have different perspectives. People even are starting to agree that Kentucky Fried Chicken workers shouldn't play football with the live produce - this is progress. Anyway, as part of the mediation, I thought it would be helpful to give people something to hang their hat on rather than a negative, "I don't like your version but I am not saying what my version is", sort of thing, sort of, like. ;) I do think it would have been very fixable, but I am realistic that the atmosphere is not conducive to that. Spenny 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is that I think your version is based on your own ideas of the situation, which may not be correct. Twenty years ago, there was less overcrowding, fewer animals produced, less automation, and more farms were still owned and controlled by farmers. Latest figures I can find from the U.S. Dept of Ag, annual production in the U.S.: 8.04 billion chickens, 250 million turkeys, 21.9 million ducks, 100.3 million pigs, 35.7 million cattle, 3.29 million sheep and lambs, 1.05 million calves. This is an unprecedented output.

Also, you would have to say exactly what has been banned and where. (Where has debeaking been banned?) In trying to be less specific, your version has abandoned facts entirely and is based on ideas which are not accurate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that as a lead in, it should be an overview and will not be accurate, but a pointer to issues to be discussed in detail. I do have a problem with the "false accuracy" of the existing lead, so I was trying to see if there was a less controversial way of putting things (e.g. the interchangeable rather than the synonymous, which allows for the wriggle room that the cites on definition only show that people use two undefined phrases interchangeably with no clear understanding of what they meant when they used each of the phrases - on that point, my version is more accurate).

With regard to the statistics, it may well be that Europe and the Americas are diverging, I don't know enough. Simple numbers of animals do not give any indication of improving or worsening conditions, any extrapolation is OR. Certainly in Europe, there is a demand from consumers for "clear conscience" food and it was that element I was trying to get in (the main supermarkets are majoring on organic produce), animal protection bodies do now have an influence over farm animal treatment whereas once it was an irrelevance. I tweaked the wording on lowest cost, highest volume, as it is an over-simplification, lowest cost is not always the highest profit, which is one of the drivers over here to higher quality organic farming. We have a move away from globalisation with Tesco promoting locally produced milk, but again we know that Tesco have an eye on capturing hearts and minds for more long term profit and it does not exclude elements of factory farming philosophy. So the subject scope is vague, you cannot make absolute statements about what it is and is not; the subject encapsulates a wide range of issues which are not for the lead to explore, but it guides us what needs to be explored in detail further on. Spenny 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean this direspectfully, but I feel you're relying on anecdote. There is a trend away from factory farming in Europe, but it doesn't really amount to much yet. There is a high demand for organic food, but still not that much of it available. The animal protection agencies have always been involved in animal welfare on farms, but again, their involvement has never amounted to much (giving rise to some of the breakaway groups, because groups such as the RSPCA do very little). There is no move away from globalization: despite the local-milk thing in Tesco, it's the large chain supermarkets that drove globalization in the first place in the UK, and still do.

This is why we need to stick to facts, because people's firmly held ideas about this area often turn out to be quite wrong, and sometimes based on deliberately misleading propaganda put out by the companies who profit from the practices. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I couldn't agree more. One of the myriad of issues that I am trying to unravel here is that a lot of editing starts out as a POV: that is not a problem as long as we can use the editing process to refine it, it is what Wikipedians do. It is what you have done, you have a perspective on this, and produced an article, except that you are then missing the Wiki step of allowing refinement. You have taken a different point of view to start with and selected and interpreted sources that match, or appear to match that POV, I haven't yet done that step - we could, and are allowed to, let others who are better at it do that, it is why reverting is deprecated as an article editing technique.

Spenny, once again, please stick to facts. I haven't produced an article; I've written the lead, parts of two of the sections, and added some images. I don't see the article as anywhere near a first draft. What would be welcome at this point is not refinement, but actual meat. Once we have a completed article, then we can look to see how to move things around, and what the balance of POVs is like. But if everyone only refines or deletes, that will never happen. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple example is that long list of references about synonymous usage - a beautifully documented piece of OR on linguistics as has ever been presented in Wiki: it makes an original analysis on how those terms were used. I effectively looked at the same sources and said, given those sources, I still cannot justify such a strong interpretation (in good company, I think), looking at those documents as primary sources on usage (in this case a reasonable perspective given the context is researching the usage of terms), and used my personal understanding of the terms to validate what was written to make sure it made sense. It is not advancing a position to observe that those documents do appear to use the terms interchangeably as I am not particularly trying to make use of that interpretation or make any assumptions on what flavour of the terms were being used. However, not one of those sources says "I am a respectable journalist who has researched the meanings of terms and found that the two meanings were used synonymously by the speakers". When you make extraordinary claims based upon this interpretation, as others have claimed you have, then we are entitled to demand the highest quality of sources of the actual claim. Spenny 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've misunderstood what OR is. Which extraordinary claims are you referring to? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Word fail me. That is such an ignorant and offensive comment. Spenny 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really not understand what spenny is saying? It's yet another editor who disagrees with your strange version of what "synonymous" means. THAT is what is original research: your assertion that the terms are identical. Just how many editors do you need to say "this is not what you think it means" before you'll stop trying to revert the article to say they are synonymous. You either can't get the idea of "context" or the idea of subsets/types of.. Factory farming is a TYPE OF intensive farming, nothing more. NathanLee 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, we've been through this countless times. Here is what one of the reliable sources in the article says:

Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet. The policy was supported by guaranteed prices, encouraging high inputs of feed, fertiliser, pesticides and veterinary medicines. The intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions.[2] (emphasis added)

Can you please explain how or why 'factory farms' differ from 'intensive systems', that this source clearly says are the same? Crum375 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly well, based on that quote, which is a definition (there can be others) that I am perfectly content with. Where in the whole of that quote does it say ALWAYS in restricted movement, ALWAYS indoors. It does not. When will you get it? It is the determination to force factory farming to mean ALWAYS indoors, ALWAYS restricted movement, as the definition in the lead says which leads the article into making nonsensical statements (back to square 1 where I came in). This is basic linguistics: you cannot do original research on meanings like this. In easy steps, yes, sometimes people do use the term synonymously, but if they do that they are not using the term in the restricted sense that the article asserts, you require OR to extend to that definition. Look at that example even further: confined does not mean constrained, which I guess you might assert, simply putting a large number of chickens in a shed is confinement at high stocking densities. Are you a language expert? No, I am not either, but I can see idiotic assertions when I see them, and this is so idiotic it is beyond belief. Engage your brain for two minutes, read what people have been saying. Put in simple terms, (though why I bother I do not know), I do not have a problem with a definition factory farming meaning a wide range of techniques, and intensive farming meaning a wide range of techniques and then being defined as used synonymously. However, you cannot take an extreme interpretation of factory farming meaning always indoors, always restricted movement, and claim that is synonymous. Even if you find a dozen sources that a restrictive interpretation of intensive farming, you cannot extrapolate that claim back over other people's usage.

It becomes really offensive when the tag team abuse definitions of primary sources, original research and so on, which they maintain a stranglehold on the wording of, to support nonsense like the above, and they always claim that everyone else misunderstands when they practically display such ignorance of the concepts in day to day editing. Spenny 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have been through this countless times: and here's another person calling your view a strange original research interpretation. You three have an English comprehension process on this definition that differs significantly from the way the majority of people in this discussion do AND from any dictionary/encyclopaedia we've found on the topic. Ok, let's look at that quote: it qualifies what the "intensive systems" refer to: those which are do do with animal production and confinement, high stocking density etc. That's the "context". For you to then assume that that means factory farming is "the same as" intensive farming is (as spenny said) an extraordinary claim. You can have intensive farming which is nothing to do with factory farming. Some examples of similar terms: "intensive solar gardening" [3], intensive organic farm.

It's such a generic term, yet you want to tie it to a particular instance. Some other uses of "intensive" : "energy intensive", "intensive chemotherapy", "CPU intensive", "bandwidth intensive", "intensive questioning", "capital intensive", "time intensive", "intensive driving lessons", "intensive care".. etc etc.. Now why is it that "intensive agriculture" needs to be tied into your specific view of "the horrors of animals in gestation crates" rather than on what it is? NathanLee 05:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

H5N1 Influenza

I am confused as to why there is a reference to H5N1 influenza in this article. The reference source used for its inclusion does not imply that H5N1 is related to factory farming (in fact, it implies that its spread is directly related to migratory birds, and in commercial poultry is more related to small-scale farming where people are intimately associated with the animals, and to live poultry markets, which are the antithesis of factory farming). The reference source also does not imply that vaccination of poultry has had anything to do with the spread of H5N1; in fact, it recommends development and use of vaccines. Since the major vector of infection of commercial poultry with H5N1 is through contact with migratory birds, one could argue that the closed environment of factory farming is more likely to prevent infection than cause it. The discussion of H5N1 is not a key point in this article; it is best to simply remove this reference. Risker 13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Please remove the ref at your leisure. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I added it and I'll answer your questions point by point. But I won't edit this article anytime soon.

1. I am confused as to why there is a reference to H5N1 influenza in this article. Because some experts believe that the current H5N1 pandemic threat was created by the use of poor vaccines in China.
2. The reference source used for its inclusion does not imply that H5N1 is related to factory farming The use of cheap poor vaccines is directly related to China's migration to the use of industrial methods in food production.
3. (in fact, it implies that its spread is directly related to migratory birds, Migratory birds have spread it from continent to continent but commercial trade has been the main factor spreading it within any specific region
4. and in commercial poultry is more related to small-scale farming where people are intimately associated with the animals, and to live poultry markets, which are the antithesis of factory farming).The reference source also does not imply that vaccination of poultry has had anything to do with the spread of H5N1; how it has spread since it was originally evolved is not the point. The point is that poor vaccines used widely in China are believed to be the original environment that allowed it to evolve in the first place.
5. The reference source also does not imply that vaccination of poultry has had anything to do with the spread of H5N1; in fact, it recommends development and use of vaccines. Good vaccines can be helpful, but bad vaccines allow poultry to catch H5N1, not die from it, and allow the virus to both infect others (including humans) and to continue mutating which is one way to create a pandemic strain which is a very bad thing.
6. Since the major vector of infection of commercial poultry with H5N1 is through contact with migratory birds, That is not true as was explained above.
7. one could argue that the closed environment of factory farming is more likely to prevent infection than cause it. Yes, now that this current deadly strain of H5N1 is endemic in wild bird populations, indoor housing of poultry is one solution. The irony of industrial practices causing a problem that is best dealt with by more or other industrial practices has been noted by many and is not limited to this case. The presentation of this information in a pro versus con format does a grave injustice to the complexities of the situation. WAS 4.250 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some believe The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu is essentially a problem of industrial poultry practices. Others have a more nuanced position. According to the CDC article H5N1 Outbreaks and Enzootic Influenza by Robert G. Webster et al.:"Transmission of highly pathogenic H5N1 from domestic poultry back to migratory waterfowl in western China has increased the geographic spread. The spread of H5N1 and its likely reintroduction to domestic poultry increase the need for good agricultural vaccines. In fact, the root cause of the continuing H5N1 pandemic threat may be the way the pathogenicity of H5N1 viruses is masked by cocirculating influenza viruses or bad agricultural vaccines." Dr. Robert Webster explains: "If you use a good vaccine you can prevent the transmission within poultry and to humans. But if they have been using vaccines now [in China] for several years, why is there so much bird flu? There is bad vaccine that stops the disease in the bird but the bird goes on pooping out virus and maintaining it and changing it. And I think this is what is going on in China. It has to be. Either there is not enough vaccine being used or there is substandard vaccine being used. Probably both. It’s not just China. We can’t blame China for substandard vaccines. I think there are substandard vaccines for influenza in poultry all over the world." In response to the same concerns, Reuters reports Hong Kong infectious disease expert Lo Wing-lok saying, "The issue of vaccines has to take top priority," and Julie Hall, in charge of the WHO's outbreak response in China, saying China's vaccinations might be masking the virus." The BBC reported that Dr Wendy Barclay, a virologist at the University of Reading, UK said: "The Chinese have made a vaccine based on reverse genetics made with H5N1 antigens, and they have been using it. There has been a lot of criticism of what they have done, because they have protected their chickens against death from this virus but the chickens still get infected; and then you get drift - the virus mutates in response to the antibodies - and now we have a situation where we have five or six 'flavours' of H5N1 out there." Keeping wild birds away from domestic birds is known to be key in the fight against H5N1. Caging (no free range poultry) is one way. Providing wild birds with restored wetlands so they naturally choose nonlivestock areas is another way that helps accomplish this. Political forces are increasingly demanding the selection of one, the other, or both based on nonscientific reasons. WAS 4.250 22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps it is relevant to industrial agriculture or intensive farming but not to factory farming? Jav43 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant to poultry agriculture practices that are based on science and technology and cost reduction. Cost reduction techniques that include the immoral risking of consumer and worker lives thru pollution, poison in the air, water and food, and similar behavior is well documented in the West's industrial revolution as well as China's current efforts (eg toothpaste, dog food, ...). Science as a tool is a key. Cost reduction as a driving force is a key. Democratic forces forcing public safety is a key. Modern industry providing the wealth to pay for modern human health and animal care efforts is a key. There is a process occuring that does not neatly fit into a pro and con framework. WAS 4.250 02:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Industrial, indoor (?) farming

I was rereading the article and noted the first few sentences quoted a source as industrial farms are confined and indoors. There is a picture down the article labeled, "Cows in a CAFO in the U.S" that appears to be of an outdoor confinement. Can someone clarify the picture if I'm viewing this incorrectly? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Indoors" is not characteristic of anything. The correct definition of factory farming entails animals being kept in confined quarters. "Indoors" or "outside" is irrelevant. Thank you for pointing that out. Jav43 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, removing that produces a better sounding description.. Confined is the more important thing in terms of overall practice and the part that makes it "intensive" versus "extensive" agriculture. Although pig/chicken farming appears characterised by indoors, cow lots don't appear to have this. A lot of the historical reason behind it was to reduce the impact that the weather had on the animals (one of the references somewhere mentions this..) NathanLee 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

==3RR==

I have left a warning on SlimVirgin's and Crum375's user talk pages to highlight the fact that they 3RR'd on the disputed meaning tag last night. Take care out there. Spenny 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR before accusing fellow editors of violating it. While you are at it, reading WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:ICA regarding improper accusations would also be useful. Crum375 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with its provisions and acted accordingly. As an admin I would expect you to understand those policies clearly. Spenny 11:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite the specific policy and provision that you allege were broken? And I strongly suggest that you refrain from making attacks on fellow editors, per WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:ICA and WP:AGF. Crum375 11:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The specific edits are:

SV: [4] C: [5] SV: [6]

The assertion is that 3 reverts of the tag occurred is proven by these diffs and the edit comments make it clear that the edits were specifically about the tag. That does not make this sort of accusation entirely "baseless". The principle of multiple accounts is that it is understood that people may evade the 3RR rule by working together. I don't accuse you of being a meat-puppet (which I am sure is what you are angling at and appears in this strange world to be a particularly offensive term, but is not synonymous with tag team or working in harmony), I do assert that you continually work in harmony which is clearly against the spirit of the multiple users provision.

The point of a warning is exactly to assume good faith and to let someone know that you feel they have broken policy so that if the behaviour continues it is understood to be causing a problem rather than simply asking for a block on the 3RR incident page. You are asserting that to follow this procedure is in itself an act of ill-faith. I simply note that if that notice is reverted again in the next few hours, an incident will be raised and assessed appropriately. There is nothing uncivil about such an approach. Spenny 11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian, I asked you to please cite the specific policy and specific provision that you believe I or SV have violated. I ask again: please quote them below, so that we can examine your allegations. To use vague allegations against fellow editors constitutes a violation of the no personal attacks and civility policies. Crum375 11:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Spenny but you are simply wrong here. 3RR doesn't work across multiple accounts - it only applies to individual users or individual people via multiple accounts. There has not been any evidence put forward in support of any sock puppetry so your warning is premature, leaning on uncivil. Your claim may not be directly stating that they are meat or sock puppets but it is inferring or implying it - which is just as bad without evidence. I would suggest you drop your use of 3RR here and, if you think something is wrong here, follow other policies to deal with the problem - supporting yourself with evidence.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about you read the policy on dispute avoidance? It recommends AGAINST reverting.. But it seems any time you feel like it you revert without discussion, reason or right. You 3 usernames have a long history on this page and other animal lib related for using up your reverts and then one of the others appears out of nowhere and continues the revert.. That's tag team reverting and is against policy as far as I know. I think there's quite a lot of evidence of collusion off wiki.. As for your worry about whether or not that's stating you are sock/meat puppets: can I refer you to earlier comments by you lot that accused people of using other accounts and being sock puppets completely out of the blue.. NathanLee 07:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, there is a major difference between asking a user, that appears to have a single purpose, if they have another account (which is not an accusation, it is a question) and calling people meatpuppets/sockpuppets simply because they have the same pages in their watchlist. Anyone with any research ability would be able to confirm that we are indeed separate people. If someone else turns up to revert something that simply means they agree that the change was incorrect, nothing more, nothing less.

With regards to off-wiki collusion, I think you are way off the mark here. You have absolutely no evidence to support yourself other than gut feeling.

So, once again, you have come to the support of another editor without getting any facts straight - this is becoming a habit Nathan.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's accusations of sockpuppetry have been far more adamant than anything NathanLee has said here.

I don't know about you, but Crum and SlimVirgin communicate off-wiki regarding at least this article. Jav43 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of that? -Localzuk^(talk) 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On multiple occasions, either Crum or SV have noticed a not-so-recent change I made to an article, then reverted twice... then the other would revert the third time, all 3 reversions occurring within an hour, without any communication between the two on Wikipedia. What's the saying? Something like... One is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three+ is proof? Jav43 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of watchlist? Crum375 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, and I use it. But when you pop on to revert after four hours of no edits - and immediately after SlimVirgin reverted - well, I can only draw one conclusion. Jav43 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Which conclusion is that, Jav? Hint: a fresh edit on a watchlist item causes it to show up on top, while older ones scroll down. Crum375 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk: something I find a bit of an indication is that Crum375 feels enough of a buddy to chop things out of SV's page: seems a tad strange. Can you think of any cases where other users feel significantly authorised to revert contributions on another user's talk page?

I have removed stuff from other people's talk pages on occasion, including SV's IIRC. SV receives a lot of bizarre ranting on her talk page and as such it is only neighbourly to remove it.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no justification for what you are describing: if someone wants to edit single issues they can. That's hardly any justification to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet whatsoever. I can quite easily work out (from a tool that SV used during one attack on more than one user on this page) that there's not a whole lot of editing going on aside from certain select topic areas. The way you all kept pushing on this issue against jav would tend to suggest to a reasonable person that you have some evidence via checkuser (another close-friend editor has been recently questioned by many over the dropping of such checkuser knowledge and questioning along those lines to discredit an RFA). I guess I've escaped checkuser accusations (perhaps because there's nothing to find): As I have no other usernames and no contact with any other editor off wiki. I'm also able to say I have no affiliations with any pro or anti-farming groups, no animal lib groups etc.

No, you misunderstand. Asking an editor if they use other accounts as they appear to be a single purpose account is perfectly normal. It is against policy to have multiple accounts like that and asking if they have is not a bad thing. Coming out and saying pretty much that Crum/SV/Myself are meat puppets or sock puppets is in no way the same thing - considering no actual evidence has been presented (vague hand waving is not evidence).-Localzuk^(talk) 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any of this: you should not be tag team reverting in the fashion you do as it contravenes the recommended practice for dispute avoidance and is not a conducive editing style.. I've yet to see some of you use the discussion page until you've used up your reverts and have no choice. Discussion should be preferred rather than reverting. Also shouting about "add don't remove" is probably viewed as appallingly hypocritical by the average person I would think. NathanLee 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If something is so blatantly wrong that it should be reverted, then it should be reverted. Removing sourced information is seen as a bad thing (and is actually in a couple of our policies and guidelines as such). Restoring removed material, whether it is seen as tag team editing or not, is a good thing. I can say the exact same thing applies to you, Jav43 and a couple of others - you exhibit the same behaviour.

My personal reverting policy is revert, see if someone reverts, revert again and post on the talk page at the same time. A kinda variation of the 'post, revert, discuss' idea if you will.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Slimvirgin

SlimVirgin, please create the article that you praised Birgitte for suggesting. WAS 4.250 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility and Etiquette

Please stop accusing people of being uncivil or <insert random WP:Whatever cite here> every other post. It's unnecessary - and at the risk of being hypocritical, it's uncivil. Jav43 17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is, as I have said before, another solution to this - people should stop being uncivl and stop breaching policy and then there would be no need...-Localzuk^(talk) 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If only that would happen. There are lots of wise words in Wikipedia about good behaviour. However, you cannot selectively assert some elements of behaviour and not others. WP:TEND comes to mind. I am sure some of those comments fit me, I see the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors fitting very well others. It is for this reason I find selective quoting of Wiki rules rather offensive when the accusers do not abide by them or their spirit - especially when that approach is clearly recognised and has a name. Spenny 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tendentiousness is hard to assert when most of us have agreed to mediation, which is being held up by a couple of editors. For you to issue vague allegations and innuendos against others that you disagree with is extremely uncivil and constitutes a personal attack. I suggest you either provide actual diffs with the specific policy and provision that you feel are being violated, so the accused can defend themselves, or retract your statements and apologize. Leaving the allegations vague and open ended without such supporting evidence is unacceptable behavior. Crum375 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You really can't take a hint, can you, Crum? Jav43 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to spend my time WikiLawyering these accusations. If you want to pursue a complaint about those accusations, feel free. The accusations are not vague: they are very clear and the supporting evidence is there to be seen in the talk pages and edits of this page and policy pages. I have attempted to demonstrate this before with you, but rather than try and understand you see it as a point of honour not to be in the wrong. But I've stopped sulking now, have moved into some constructive editing so I am not going to dredge through the past. I live in hope that much as I am a bad tempered old scrote that one day you will see you have played your part. Spenny 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This page has seen a lot of personal attacks, which you are also engaged in, Spenny, referring to other editors' posts as ignorant and offensive, telling me you thought I had no life, and accusing editors of tag-teaming. All the personal attacks needs to stop, and the issues focused on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have made attacks, they are plain to see, and the context they are made in. Sometimes there comes a point where to me it is inappropriate to hide frustration and pretend all is well when it is not.

I will just comment specifically on one issue, that the comment on you having to go out was said with a clear smiley, when you must be aware that you have a reputation for extensive hours spent editing on Wiki. It was meant as an acknowledgement that your reputation was not necessarily deserved, at a time when we were having a constructive discussion. As I see you have misconstrued my intent, and it was not my intent to be offensive, I most happily apologise for that and as it refers to issues outside the context of Wikipedia it was most inappropriate and I will do my best to avoid such comments again. Spenny 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think personal comments are best avoided by all sides in the hope of getting this resolved. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCEPE :D--Cerejota 07:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming (term)

Does anyone care to write Factory farming (term)? WAS 4.250 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't that be what this page is really? We've got origins of the term etc.. NathanLee 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin said this or something like it would be a good idea. I'm trying to figure out what the name of the article would be that slim said was a good idea. If this name does not capture what she thought was a good idea, I wish she would say what the name of the article to be created might be. WAS 4.250 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Big Picture

I think we argue too much on this page. I thought I would discuss the big picture for a moment. The context of factory farming if you will.

• 30,000 years ago hunter-gatherer behavior feed 6 million people
• 3,000 years ago primitive agriculture feed 60 million people
• 300 years ago intensive agriculture feed 600 million people
• Today industrial agriculture feeds 6000 million people
• In the future sustainable agriculture will feed maybe twice that many people. WAS 4.250 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bigger Picture: we need to realize that this page is not a soapbox for our personal opinions, and instead a place where we identify verifiable reliable sources and agree on how to present them neutrally and in a balanced fashion. Crum375 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that current industrial agriculture practices are temporarily increasing the carrying capacity of the earth for humans while slowly destroying the long term carrying capacity of the earth for humans causing the necessity of shifting to a sustainable agriculture form of industrial agriculture. http://www.populationpress.org/ has an interesting real time clock counting the number of humans (going up) and the hectares of productive land (going down). WAS 4.250 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing prevents relevant and well-sourced information from being added to the article. But this has no bearing on our substantive issues. Crum375 14:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Industrial farming is the only thing preventing billions of humans from starving. Any one specific method such as gestation crates can be phased out over time without harm. Modern societies manage their food supply with numerous factors taken into consideration. All of those factors are encyclopedic. Not just the ones you know about. WAS 4.250 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. The bullet points were well presented and then there was a very biased paragraph noted afterwards. I would be for adding the bullet points to the article (if it fits appropriately) and cited as well. But, the second paragraph later is an abvious biased statement no matter if it comes from a sourced cite or not. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS THE MOST IRRELEVANT THREAD EVER How this contributes to article quality is beyond me. If you can find reliable sources that verifiably state these ideas, you could create Evolution of agricultural practices or some such. But this article is not about Agriculture in general, but about contemporary (and possibly historical) "Factory farming" which is the utilization of industrial methods to the farming of livestock, poultry and other animals, and to the debates around this farming practices.--Cerejota 07:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not blanket revert

Specially without discussion. Being bold allwos me to edit without discussion, but if you disagree please explain.

My edits are consistent with the fact that a separate Factory farming article exists that deals with Livestock and Poultry in an industrial setting. Taking redundancy out. Please do not attempt to confuse our readers and undermine process by adding redundant content to a page that is not about the topic. This is a POV merge, and is unacceptable.--Cerejota 08:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

references in lead

This is a reminder to myself and/or others that we need to go back through the lead, review the references cited for various points, and dig through the discussion page archives to find more accurate/closely tied/relevant references. Jav43 21:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, I asked you earlier, but you didn't answer: do you have alternative suggestions for the lead image that would illustrate animals being kept in conditions of restricted mobility, but which you would find more acceptable? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Butting in SV, sorry, but I came across some good images of the chickens in barns which I thought was very appropriate: not entirely pleasant, but not at the extreme end. I didn't find a free image of this, but I haven't looked very hard. It was good because it conveyed confinement as opposed to imprisonment which might be seen as POVish. Don't have a problem with the pig image lower down, though the text has inappropriate detail for the caption which should be moved into the body. There should also be some images of less intense systems. Spenny 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If this article is to be about factory farming only, which is what Jav etc (and you, I believe) are arguing, then it can't wander off into the issue of less-intensive systems. What we are writing about here are the practices that are routinely referred to as "factory farming" by reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I perhaps was not clear enough. Given a definition of intensive animal farming, within that there is a still a range of activity: it covers anything from simply penning in many chickens so that they do not have the room they would have in an old fashioned farm through to putting them in wire cages. You can have pigs in barns, never seeing daylight, but they are not restrained, just confined. The problem I have with the pig picture is that it relates too closely to the extreme end of the range of factory farming. I think if we can get to a position of accepting the UN definition of factory farming, then I think the issue of the picture should clarify. If it would stop raining here, I could pop down the road and take a picture of our local "free range" farm that would still surprise the average member of the public as to how many and how intense a free range chicken farm is allowed to be to meet standards. Spenny 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition doesn't involve restraint but confinement. Which UN definition are you referring to? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The UN definition is the one block highlighted in the Lead section above - somewhere around where I went bananas :) I reworded the lead in the article using that definition referenced to what appears to be an impeccable source. I guess the point that the picture shows something that is going to be banned in two significant areas of the world suggests that it is extreme. The difference I am making between confinement and restraint is that in confinement you might reasonably expect to move about (eg solitary confinement) whereas restraint suggests a restriction that might include being unable to walk about - though I wouldn't care to be held to an absolute definition of terms. Spenny 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any UN definition. Can you post it here, please?

As for restraint/confinement, sometimes the confinement may as well be restraint, yes, but it remains confinement, unless you can find sources who call it something else. Everything we do must be source-based. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But your beloved picture shows restraint. Jav43 00:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It shows animals confined in extremely small pens. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did answer. I told you that I had provided about 7 images on various dates, all of which you reverted without explanation. Jav43 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't provide any realistic options that I recall. If you think you did, please re-post them here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:Gestcrate02.jpg? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be better, but you have yet to provide any realistic options. I have, on the other hand, provided, e.g. (I'm not going to waste my time looking for all the images I tried that you randomly reverted):

File:Factory-farm-exterior.jpg

File:Factory-farm-dairy-barn.jpg

03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

UN quote:

Fifty years ago in Europe, intensification of animal production was seen as the road to national food security and a better diet. The policy was supported by guaranteed prices, encouraging high inputs of feed, fertiliser, pesticides and veterinary medicines. The intensive systems - called ‘factory farms’ - were characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions.[7]

I think that is a really good cite that Crum highlighted and I think it resolves the main conflict, it ties the two phrases together, but is clear what the synonymous usage is. Qulaity source, no OR. Job done :) Spenny 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the fist image here is of little value to this article. It shows a bunch of chicken coop buildings at a great distance, and doesn't covey the potential density of the chickens. Do they house one chicken per building or 100 per square foot? -- we can't tell from this picture. JD Lambert^(T|C) 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the pigs in stalls one is much more suitable than the ones in gestation crates because:

• far more pigs are kept like that than in gestation crates
• the gestation crates that I found commercially were nothing like that..
• talking to my flatmate who has parents who used to own a pig farm they never used anything like that except to possibly medicate/treat animals (so very much temporary).
• the practice is being phased out: that doesn't mean "factory farming" goes away.. So it's hardly a key thing
• it furthers an activist view (e.g. the site it came from) and is quite one-sided view of factory farming

That's if we NEED a lead image anyhow, which I don't think we do. Put the farming template at the top right of the article instead perhaps? NathanLee 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Need is certainly a strong word around here. But, a good third-party, non-bias source for the picture would be a good idea, if we agree to have one at all as noted above. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've provided a number of images again. Again, a number of people agreed to remove the image of sows in gestation crates. I'm going to remove it. There is absolutely no consensus to keep it, and no evidence that it is characteristic of anything. If SlimVirgin/Crum/Localzuk wish to choose another image upon which the group as a whole may render a verdict, they are welcome to do so. Jav43 17:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)