Talk:Factory farming: Difference between revisions

---

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^(talk) 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

How is a government site automagically pro-factory farming?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, at least you're willing to talk.

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

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

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

Vote for Pig or Cow lead photo

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

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

oppose the pig pic

support the pig pic

neutral towards the pig pic

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

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

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

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

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

Comments about voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus vs. Voting

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

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

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

Lead image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Localzuk:

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

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

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

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

WAS 4.250:

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

SlimVirgin

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

BlindEagle:

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

NathanLee

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

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: [[1]]. 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 Wikipedia is permanent, and whichever state that the article is in for a month or so, one way or another, won't cause the world to end.  :) The larger issue here seems to be, "How many articles should exist on this subject, and under which names?" Could I please get opinions on that, to see where everyone stands? --Elonka 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCST2001

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

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

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

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

jav43

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

WAS 4.250

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

"Leave the page as it is"

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

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

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

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'." [2] 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)

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^(talk) 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You wanted this site used as a source [[3]] (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^(talk) 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^(talk) 17:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What a joke

The article as it stands justifies "Factory farming, also known as intensive[4] or industrial[5] 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^(talk) 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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? NathanLee 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready for arbcom?

Are we ready for arbcom? In my opinion SlimVirgin is a wonderful asset to Wikipedia 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^(talk) 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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)

Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am neither blackmailing, nor extorting, nor being underhanded. BCST2001 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You create a sockpuppet to arrive here to tell us that, unless we remove certain claims from the article — claims that are one of the reasons we are seeking mediation in the first place — you will use your veto power to scupper the mediation for everyone else. But that's not blackmail, underhanded behavior, or dishonesty ... SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that comment is false in every way. BCST2001 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Amusing how SV/Crum/Localzuk only object to BCST's tactics, and (again) completely refuse to address the point made. That certainly vindicates BCST. Jav43 03:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I addressed his points and find them to be unreasonable demands, that's quite simple really and I don't know how I can say it any more clearly. Demanding we do someting else mediation won't be accepted is not good behaviour, especially from an editor who only arrived on the page very recently.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not come close to describing why so-called "sourced" statements with which you agree should be in the article, while truly sourced statements that contradict those should not. Jav43 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of people being Sockpuppets

Why does Slimvirgin continually accuse people of being sockpuppets? The only reason I can think of is a guilty conscience regarding Slimvirgin/Crum375... Perhaps SlimVirgin should give others the benefit of the doubt that she apparently desires to be given herself. Her disruptive behavior should stop. Jav43 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, if someone says: "You must do what I tell you, or else I'll destroy your mediation", do you really consider that as acceptable behavior, regardless of which side he's on? Crum375 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum, I don't see how that makes one immediately cry out "Sockpuppet! Sockpuppet! Sockpuppet!" Jav43 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous analysis. I am an editor. I have the right to agree to mediation, as I equally have the right to disagree. On what grounds do I make my decision? One possibility is through negotiation. Negotiation is not blackmail. The fact that you and SlimVirgin and Localzuk rejected my attempt at negotiation does not make it blackmail. I continue to believe my suggestion was reasonable. And I continue to conclude that the utter refusal to consider it, or to enter into any productive discussion with me, is a legitimate ground for me to reject mediation. As I have said repeatedly, I am not in principle against mediation, and nothing is ever set in stone. But as things stand, and as far as I am concerned, agreeing to mediation does not seem wise at present. Calling this situation "blackmail" is false and unhelpful. I could simply have not responded to the mediation request. What I did instead was indicate clearly what the obstacles to my agreement were, and attempt to initiate a dialogue about how to overcome these obstacles. It is a pity that the relevant editors have not realized there is a wiser course than the one they have followed, if they truly wish to enter a mediation process. BCST2001 04:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have any sense of shame? Do you really call forcing editors to agree to edit according to your edict, that if we disagree with you, you'll scuttle our mediation, acceptable behavior? Next thing you'd want us to pay you for your vote? And if you are a sockpuppet, that is even more shameful, as that would mean that you don't even have the courage to stand up for your own edit history. Crum375 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: I have forced nobody to do anything. I issued no edict: I requested a gesture of good faith, or at least a meaningful response. I didn't get it. Negotiation, flexibility, good faith, imagination: these are the elements required for mediation to succeed. That is why I seek signs of them. Finding such signs gives me a reason to believe mediation is worthwhile. The absence of such signs gives me a reason to think it's not. But if you feel compelled to continue with your abuse and false characterizations, go ahead. BCST2001 04:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that as a gesture of good faith, you should tell us whether you've edited this page before under a different name. Also, you should agree to mediation, so that we can finally get our issues here resolved. AGF means we all assume that others will play fairly - by coming in disguised as someone else, and trying to force us to edit according to your demands, you are starting out on the wrong foot. Crum375 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you feel compelled to continue with the abuse and false characterizations, go ahead. I am already quite aware that you think I should agree to mediation. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to do anything whatsoever to make that more likely. The question I have therefore to ask myself is whether mediation is likely to "finally get our issues here resolved." That is a judgment I have to make, and I have the right to conclude, at this moment, that it is not. Look: the reality is you know that the clause in question is highly contentious, and you know that I am not "forcing you to delete it"; I am asking you to voluntarily remove it for the duration of mediation. In my opinion, the utter refusal to do so suggests that you are more interested in controlling the article than really mediating with other editors. You disagree with that analysis: fine. But that is my feeling. If you can give me reasons to change my feeling, so much the better: that is what I am looking for. BCST2001 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think your actions and words speak for themselves, and believe you should be very ashamed of yourself. Crum375 05:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And I really think you are looking at things the wrong way. BCST2001 05:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll let objective readers of this page and observers of your behavior be judges. Crum375 05:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You can now have your mediation

I deleted me and BCST2001 from the mediation request. You can now have your mediation and see if any progress can be made. WAS 4.250 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS, that makes no sense to me. The whole point of mediation is that anybody who was involved with the topic, or has expressed strong opinions about the issues, should participate. If you and BCST just sit on the fence while we mediate, you may then disagree with the outcome and continue the same disputes we had before. Unless you and all involved parties agree to mediation, continuing it would be an exercise in futility, in my opinion. Crum375 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At any time new editors can arrive on the page and form a new consensus. Mediation can not stop a new consensus from forming. Just treat me and the new guy like we were away on vacation. WAS 4.250 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BCST has made extensive arguments why he feels he is involved in the case. For you to tell us he is not, and to remove his name from the list, while his 'disagree' vote is there, is a little odd. As far as your own position, you are one of the most involved parties on this page. You are a large reason we need to mediate - specifically your refusal to agree to a single or dual page approach, and even refusal to negotiate over it. You have yourself created and supported the POV forks that we will be addressing. I just can't see how you can logically sit this out - if you need to go on vacation, so should we. Crum375 15:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone read the rules to mediation? Accordingly, this mediation will be rejected if people involved do not join or agree to it.

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected.

--BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And WAS is very much involved. Crum375 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS was WAS 4.250 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the Disagree of BCST2001. One disagreement to work with mediation will sink the entire process. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Any involved editor who refuses to sign on within the time limit will sink the process also. WAS is the fourth most prolific contributor on this page (per this tool), and is a large reason for the need for mediation, as he refuses to allow a single or dual page to handle FF, has produced and edited POV forks, and refuses to negotiate over those issues. Crum375 19:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is correct to say that WAS was highly involved, but it is incorrect to say that he is the reason mediation is needed. Quite obviously, mediation is needed because SV/Crum/Localzuk are stuck in a cave, watching the shadows of what appear to them to be the horrors of agriculture and refusing to step out of the cave to see the truth. (Sorry, I just felt pedantic and wanted to use Plato.) Jav43 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel sure that, without WAS 4.250 and NathanLee, the rest of us would have hammered out a compromise by now. If they don't want to be part of mediation and are willing to withdraw from editing these pages entirely, that's fine. But if they want to continue editing them, they can't claim to be uninvolved for mediation purposes only. Otherwise, the rest of us will reach an agreement, and those two will continue to edit war. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually SlimVirgin: without you and your inability to compromise the rest of us (6-7 editors) are in agreement. Without your revert warring, deletion of other terms (like "intensive farming") to protect your version of the page: this whole thing would not be an issue. It's been your inability to ever use the talk page constructively or to accept that there is more to agriculture than your limited view allows that is the sticking point. I would ask what compromise have you made whatsoever to accept anything other than your version of the page? There's been lots of evidence presented that there's a more accurate/correct definition of the terms than your simplistic view. You ignore discussion, come in and contribute either accusations of sock puppetry or fallacious arguments. After a compromise on the lead was reached: you go and undo it to put it back to your version without any discussion or consultation. How about you withdraw from editing (as numerous editors have pointed out you appear biased)? The page could then potentially move forward without your ownership or POV pushing behaviour.. NathanLee 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Nathan, I think your attack on SV above is way out of line. SV is the only one that actually writes in the article, most other people here just talk up a storm or revert. You, for example, were asked to provide a single diff of some writing to the article (after deluging the talk page for weeks) and we are still waiting for it. You may also notice that SV has tried to compromise - she agreed to change the name FF to Intensive Farming (for example), and she agreed to have more than one page to cover the subject. She is also not alone - there are other editors, myself included, who support her views, despite what you say. So please try to be constructive. If you really want to help, instead of again deluging the page with countless edits that seem to go around in circles, how about signing up for mediation? We are waiting for you. Crum375 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many of us have made countless contributions. It's just that you and SV revert them, every single time, so they don't last -- and we aren't as willing to engage in long-term revert wars as you are. Jav43 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum375: what complete rubbish: Why the hell should I do what anyone with a mouse and the ability to click on the history page can do? For someone who can't be bothered reading my contributions.. That request was completely and utterly out of line and just another diversion from ever answering a straight question. How about you lot adhering to the dispute avoidance policy which states NOT TO REVERT others work, and that there are more constructive additions.

But let's look at some diffs then (since I guess that big often hit revert button must be getting in the way): this one showing SV reverting my addition of a referenced definition, an addition, another one, one that was the result of the discussion and consultation of others,more of the consensus editing, to fit the policy on international english terms [4] (and a bunch of other edits), more accurate sourced lead (reverted by SV). In fact all this was able to be found in the first few pages of the history.. Would you like me to explain how to use a mouse to drive a web application or can you do this for yourselves on any of the related pages (e.g. intensive farming that I supposedly never contribute to) since that part of your pointless request is still "outstanding" and I have no intention of wasting further time on doing what you yourselves can (and should) do. Perhaps I need to do more constructive edits (labelled "minor") like this one eh? NathanLee 06:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those edits are riddled with removal of sourced information that is under dispute. The reverts were to get that information back. Also, merging a page back into its original to prevent POV forking is a minor task - similar to mopping up a spill in a supermarket...

What we have got here is 2 large chunks of text which spend their time attacking editors such as myself, SV and Crum. As I have asked, why not include both viewpoints on the subject rather than simply saying that one is wrong and we should all work with yours? Compromising by saying 'sometimes called' and sticking it in an origin section rather than the lead is not a very good compromise as far as I can see - and it still leads us to the place where we have loads of overlapping articles discussing the same subject.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I feel that the thread-based nature of this forum is hindering our ability to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.

I would like to make the following proposal:

Let's have anyone who wants to do so get together in an anonymous chatroom or in an instant messaging program -- or in a VOIP server -- to see whether we can reach consensus during a live meeting. Personally, I feel meeting via VOIP would be most fruitful, but if you don't have access to mics/speakers, any format would work.

If you would be willing to meet in some forum at some time, please say so. We can arrange a date/time after we determine whether anyone is willing to participate.

I hope this works. Jav43 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to doubt it. I think the beauty of WP is that all is out in the open, and recorded for posterity. Any agreements hammered out in secret negotiations in smoke filled back rooms among specific participants, will be worthless once new editors show up. Crum375 00:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind in the least if you recorded everything. But recording for posterity isn't the problem here. We need to reach a solution now. Short term > long term. What is going on right now obviously isn't working. Jav43 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to try it if it would break the deadlock, though I feel we'd make more headway with a mediator involved. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that recording wouldn't help, because we need to get everyone on board, including the WASs and the BCSTs and the future ones too. So any deals we cut secretly in a back room conversation will look suspicious, and will not satisfy others. The whole principle of the wiki is openness. Crum375 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you and SV speak off-wiki about wiki stuff continually, I really doubt that's a huge issue :P. How about just going for talking to one another in hopes of getting somewhere, rather than making everything about "winning"? Jav43 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, it doesn't help that you continue to make assumptions about issues you have no knowledge of. Given that you've edited logged out, and that it revealed your IP address, I could start speculating about what your precise interest here is, but it wouldn't exactly be helpful, would it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any assumptions here. I also have no idea what you're talking about regarding my "precise interest" - my interest is to get an accurate, impartial article. Jav43 04:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, suggesting a VOIP to subject dialog has to be scariest solution I have ever seen in wikipedia. What happened to "in the internet no one knows you are a dog"?--Cerejota 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have bark during a discussion, I'm fine by that :P. What's wrong with VOIP? It's not like voices will reveal your identity any more than an ip address would. Jav43 04:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that having a voice conversation would defeat the whole concept of the wiki. This is not a social club - we develop content by open and recorded collaboration in a wiki process. Crum375 04:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point of view here. A social club? Believe me, I have plenty better means to socialize. But guess what? Your thread-based IS NOT WORKING! *gasp* So what makes you refuse to try a live format? Have you ever engaged in a forum that uses simultaneous thread-based and live conversation to make decisions? Believe me, more gets done in live conversation. Jav43 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I am sure any 2 people could reach agreement by voice or any other means. But that's not the wiki model. If 2 people agree, that doesn't mean that #3 and #4 who arrive tomorrow will agree, especially if the first two just discussed things privately. So our concept here is to have totally open discussions, where every word you utter is recorded and viewed by millions around the world, and anyone can contribute a statement at any point. It may not be as efficient as 2 people one-on-one, but in the long run it works and powers our dynamic project, whereas the private chats will produce your father's dusty dog-eared old encyclopedias. Crum375 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That means nothing. You and I could agree to something here and now, on this thread, but next month SlimVirgin could take a peek, disagree, and make changes contrary to our agreement. Agreement between any individuals never binds all. And two things: a) published encyclopedic articles on this topic are much more accurate/impartial than the current version, and b) I'm not talking about a "private conversation" - I'm talking about letting everyone who's involved get together to try to work something out - but even if I were, there's nothing wrong with you and I forming an understanding *in any forum* that we bring here. Jav43 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree then, I think you just don't understand or appreciate the power of the wiki model. Private chats defeat that concept, as they leave no recorded trace, and don't let others inspect or participate. This is a wiki - if someone comes in tomorrow, they have full records of every discussion, every word that was every uttered. If you don't appreciate and accept that model, you are in the wrong place. Crum375 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand where you're coming from, particularly since you continually converse offline with SlimVirgin. There's a difference between recording *discussion* and recording *changes*. Am I suddenly not allowed to speak offline to anyone about subjects which appear on Wikipedia? I find your position completely illogical. Oh well. Jav43 07:28, 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.[5] (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" [6], 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)

==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: [7] C: [8] SV: [9]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[10]

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)

A suggestion

I was just thought of an idea that might help the editor's here work through the larger issues dealing with the scope articles, etc. If everyone focused on creating a page equivalent to Macedonia (terminology), it may be the first step in a productive discussion about the scope of articles. The major players in this, rather than countries, would various interest groups, regulating bodies, etc and also changing usage over time (maybe once Enclosure was labeled Industrial Ag). I think there is a greater variety to this terminology than has been previously discussed on this talk page. A focused effort to explain the terminology involved without getting into what is "common usage" or "correct", might be the first step towards finding a consensus on what articles need to exist and their scope. I really don't know if this issue would translate well into that sort of article, but I thought I would share the idea.--BirgitteSB 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to start the article? WAS 4.250 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You have found my weakness, I share far more ideas than I would ever want to spearhead. It is a common complaint against myself, so I will spare you the excuses and just own up to the flaw..--BirgitteSB 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a flaw, Birgitte. It's a good idea and that's contribution enough. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What name do you suggest for this article? Factory farming (term) ? WAS 4.250 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You just spent a week yelling at NathanLee for spending more time on the talk page than editing the article. Please, SV -- remove the hypocrisy! Equal standards! And don't you dare tell people to "stop the commentary" when you are the SOLE instigator! Jav43 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked!!! You agree it is a good idea to have yet another article on the subject??? My whole point here was to try to get you to see that setting an arbitrary limit on the number of articles was not proper. Where in the world did the communication between us get derailed? Sign me puzzled. WAS 4.250 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the commentary. It really has gone too far. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an honest try at communication. Your response makes no sense to me at all. WAS 4.250 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

1. Move the current contents of Factory farming to Confined animal feeding operations and edit appropriately including possibly moving some material to other agriculture articles
2. Make Factory farming a disambig page like Modern agriculture
3. Create a page called Factory farming (term) and fill it with all the sourced data dug up in this argument

WAS 4.250 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CAFO is not a common term for it. Factory farming is the common term, and there's no need to have an article about the word. We need one about the concept/practice, and the most common terms for it are factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive farming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Birgitte says "If everyone focused on creating a page equivalent to Macedonia (terminology), it may be the first step in a productive discussion about the scope of articles." Then SlimVirgin says "It's a good idea" Then SlimVirgin says "Factory farming is the common term, and there's no need to have an article about the word." This makes no sense to me. WAS 4.250 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Birgitte says "A focused effort to explain the terminology involved without getting into what is "common usage" or "correct", might be the first step towards finding a consensus on what articles need to exist and their scope." Then SlimVirgin says "It's a good idea" Then SlimVirgin says "Factory farming is the common term, and there's no need to have an article about the word." This makes no sense to me. WAS 4.250 04:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. CAFO is the term used by industry and anyone with knowledge regarding the topic. It is the only term that is actually used in practice. "Factory farm" is a pejorative term used by ill-informed persons or by those intending to disparage the practice. Jav43 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. CAFO is an euphemism concocted by a trade groups and lobbyists as an alternative to "factory farming" in legal discourse. The term "factory farming", according to the Oxford English Dictionary[11] (definitely a rabid animal rights publication keen on disparaging the poor, prosecuted CAFOs) was first used to refer to the topic at hand in the 1890s.

CAFO on the other hand has its origin in the 1970s and the Clean Water Act, and subsequent regulatory attempts by the EPA[12]. The predominance of CAFO links in google is due to its large use in laws and regulatory documents of US State governments and the US Federal government (along with said industry groups).

If we do a google search for "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" on its own, we get 663,000 hits.[13].

If we perform the same search, but limit the results to those under ".gov", we get 441,000[14].

These means only 222,000 pages use the term outside of the Federal government.

However, is we limit the search to the ".us" top level domain, usually used by State goverments and public schools we get 54,300 hits.[15]

This leaves the probable total of pages not related to US government activity, at around 165,000.

A similar search in the ".UK" domain - a major english speaking country - yield 70 hits, most of them similar, and most of them related to publications republishing US material.[16]

(This pretty much proves that the term "CAFO" is only used in the USA, and mostly in a legalistic, non-colloquial way.)

Now, lets do the same with "Factory farming".

Total hits: 521,000 [17]

Total hits ".gov": 355 [18]

Total hits ".us": 10,900 [19]

Approximate total non-US government (federal/state): 510,000, over 345,000 hits higher than CAFO.

Total ".uk": 33,600. Wow. The term is used 33,530 time more than CAFO in the United Kingdom... this means CAFO is obviously a US only term.[20]

CAFO is not only an ugly, legalistic, made-by-committee term, but use of the term would reveal an obvious geographic bias that automatically classifies it as a Geographically biased, and hence completely outside the rules. Use of this term would be a total violation of neutrality, and insistence in its inclusion as a title -after knowing it is geo-biased- is a WP:POINT conduct.--Cerejota 03:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your demonstration that "factory farming" more or less does not appear on government sites should demonstrate that the term is not technically accurate and is largely seen as unusable (pejorative) by said goverment sites.

Perhaps "factory farming" is only used as a pejorative in the US. I don't know; I'm not an expert on variations of the English language. But at least in the US, among farmers and ranchers and among conservation groups and preservation groups, the term "factory farm" is not used; if anything, the terms "feedlot" or "CAFO" are used. Jav43 04:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are complete incorrect. A legal euphemism is a legal euphemism, not a technical term. "feedlot" is a general term of agriculture, that is used in a colloquial way. However, I note you still insist in geographic bias. The term is not used outside the context of the USA, period. Hence, it cannot be used in the title. Period. Is that so hard to understand? --Cerejota 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"factory farming" is not used by those engaged in agricultural production or those affiliated with agriculture, but only by outsiders looking in. Doesn't that equivalently mean that "Factory farming" should not be the title of the article? "Geographic neutrality" is one thing. Choosing a term that, at least, U.S. agriculturists consider pejorative is another. Jav43 05:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin claims dictionaries are not a reliable published source for claims about what words mean and now you claim that the US government is not a reliable source for the meaning of a technical term they use for the purpose of managing billions of dollars of commercial enterprise. WAS 4.250 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "you"? (I hope it's not me.) Jav43 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what lawyers and lobbyist in their enclosed world of doublespeak use as jargon. I do care what reliable sources have to say:

• New York Times: "CAFO" 7 google hits, "Factory farming" 49;

• Time magazine: "CAFO" 0, "Factory farming" 7;

• Washington Post: "CAFO" 7, "factory farming" 59

Even this radical animal rights, anti-capitalist rag:

• The Wall Street Journal, goes "CAFO": 1, "Factory farming": 2.

If we go international to the UK, the numbers are amazing...CAFO is not mentioned in The Economist,The London Times, The Guardian, or (gasp!) the BBC with "factory farming" getting a whooping 353 in the BBC.

CAFO is obviously a term of limited use in reliable sources, technical or not. People simply don't use the term in regular conversation unless they are industry PR types. Even most lawyers know better than to use these kinds of terms outside of work... so this argument is pure sophism that doesn't hold up to any serious scrutiny. This is not used by normal people.

(BTW, I am not establishing notability, for which google is not always best. I am trying to establish commonality of usage of a linguistic term, for which google is a recognized tool - people are doing linguistics PhDs solely on google pattern research).

However, we again are discussing something that we shouldn't even consider, for reasons of geographical neutrality. There are no mentions of CAFOs outside of the USA. Period. The term is not used outside of the USA. This debate is over, unless you want to continue to disrupt this talk page, and face the consequences of your disruption. Next.--Cerejota 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

When daily newspapers are considered more reliable than peer-reviewed journals, we have serious problems.

I'm not saying the term of choice (for this article title) should necessarily be CAFO -- I'm saying it should not be "factory farming". I've said multiple times that a "Factory farming" article should discuss the term "factory farm", while an article on something like "idustrial agriculture", "CAFOs", "large-scale animal production" should be a detailed review of the sort that currently exists under the "Factory farm" title. Jav43 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In the same paragraph that you say "I'm not saying the term of choice (for this article title) should necessarily be CAFO" you mention "CAFO" as a possible title... CAFO!

Please make up your mind and be clear, are you for violating geographical neutrality or not?

Your argument on "peer-review" vs "journalistic is beyond the pale. The entire bulk of wikipedia is built using mostly journalistic sources, popular books, or other forms of media. Peer-review is used mostly in scientific articles if at all. Please read WP:OR, as you obviously haven't, which states, clearly and with no caveats: "In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses." WP:OR, need I remind you, is a WP:5P policy, not open to discussion or WP:IAR.

Nevertheless, CAFO loses the peer-review battle too. While "CAFO" does have a slight 1,610 to 1,390 over "Factory farming" in google scholar (a difference made slightly smaller because 27 articles use both), this is an statically insignificant difference and hardly demonstrates that there is an overwhelming consensus in the peer-reviewed community that "CAFO" is correct and "factory farming" is not, as you seem to allege. The data proves you wrong.

Since there is no objection in the peer-reviewed community to the use of the term "factory farming", and the immense majority of the reliable sources (which should be the only providers of content in wikipedia) overwhelmingly prefer and use "factory farming" over CAFO, and all the other suggestions presented, this debate is ridiculous, and disruptive. All attempts at mediation have failed, and it is obvious you and others are disrupting wikipedia to push your POV. "Factory farming" is the only logical choice: everything else is pure and simple POV-pushing.

To further illustrate: "large-scale animal production": 3,040 google hits, 10 in .uk (the bulk form search directories), and in scholar 126. This cannot hold, it would be original research to use it as a title.

And just in case, "Industrial agriculture" applies to both animals and plants (and even to fungi, which are neither). The only notable terms used to refer to the topic of this page are CAFO and Factory farm, and only factory farm satisfies geographical neutrality, so it is the only choice.--Cerejota 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet it doesn't, as it isn't the term used by US agriculturists. Jav43 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying all along - reliance on 'in industry' terms and 'peer reviewed journal' terms only is a poor choice. We are supposed to be using the most geographically widespread and commonly used term - which in this case is 'Factory farm'. This has been shown time and time again. Claims that CAFO is more appropriate seem bizarre, for the reasons Cerejota has outlined above (I have never heard of this term before its use on this talk page).-Localzuk^(talk) 10:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because the public misunderstands a term doesn't mean we should use the incorrect understanding in the article. Just because you don't know diddly about the subject area (never having heard of a CAFO?) doesn't mean CAFOs aren't at the heart of the issue. Jav43 17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should use the term the way the public uses it - that is what policy calls for! It makes sense, if someone normal comes here looking for 'Factory Farming' they should get this and not some wishy washy 'this is what the term means'. CAFO is only used in the USA in a legalistic manner - not at all in the UK. Just because I don't have knowledge about the pet term of the legal representatives of the farming industry in the USA doesn't mean I know 'diddly about the subject area' - and saying such is simply an ignorant personal attack (this is why we keep quoting civility and attack policy, because you keep breaching it!!)-Localzuk^(talk) 22:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You admitted you don't know much about the industry - you said you'd never heard of CAFO before it was mentioned here! If you did know more than diddly about the industry, you'd know that "CAFO" isn't used by "legal representatives of the farming industry in the USA", but rather is used by the farmers themselves. It -is- the term of use. And admitting you know diddly about the subject area does indeed mean that you know diddly about the subject area.

I have no objection to "factory farming" redirecting to "CAFO", which would alleviate your concerns with regard to the public not finding what they are looking to find. Jav43 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find the search results quite adequately cover the usage of that term... It is simply not used outside of the USA. I have never claimed to know anything about the USA and its farming practices - other than them being bigger and more intensive than over here... That still doesn't mean I know 'diddly' and I would ask you to stop saying that, as it is quite simply an attack. I would ask you to have a read of WP:COMMONNAME which quite plainly outlines the fact we should use the most commonly used term - which CAFO falls short of by a long shot.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (the time won't match, as I forgot to sign)...

Request for Slimvirgin

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

accusations???

This was left in my talk page:

"Do you have the same problems as SV, Crum, and Localzuk? Read [21]. This is re: (cur) (last) 05:06, 20 July 2007 Cerejota (Talk | contribs) (227,126 bytes) (→A suggestion - please do not break up other's constributions, any further reformating will be considered vandalism) (undo)

For the record, the breaking up I did was accidental, although that is not relevant to your strange jump to accusations of vandalism. Jav43 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"

1) Please read my comment again: I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I said that further reformating would be considered vandalism by me. It is an obvious call to having more care.

2) What problems do SV, Crum, and Localzuk have? - I cannot know if I have the same problems as they do, if I do not know what their problem is, so please reply.

Thanks!--Cerejota 07:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You tend to accuse people of violating various rules when there is no reason to do so. Please stop. Jav43 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I dare you to show me one diff in which I do this. Please do not accuse me of trolling if you are not willing to prove it. Thanks!--Cerejota 11:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You made this easy. [22] Jav43 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Errr... There is not a single mention of a rule there, just that repeating your long winded list is not productive and is actually quite disruptive. I don't see any rules mentioned.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Cerejota's favorite cite-to rule appears to be related to so-called "disruptive behavior", I think this is clear. Jav43 22:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, as posting such a long list, that you have posted before, is disruptive on such a complex and fast moving talk page.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the usually thankless job of explaining the obvious, Localzuk ;)

Jav43, I sitll await a diff that shows that I "accuse people of violating various rules when there is no reason to".

There is a difference in trying to provide a better work environment, and promote respect, and launching false of accusations.

In the diff you cite, I didn't address policy, but sheer common sense: posting a long list twice in less than a few days is definetely disruptive, we saw it the first time!

I also took steps not just to point this out, but to try and resolve this problem in a fashion that still respected WAS' valuable contribution to the debate, but eliminated his disruption.

Lastly, please remember to remain civil and assume good faith, in makes for a productive environment. Thanks! --Cerejota 19:10, 23 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)

Merge from Industrial agriculture (animals)#Animals

Most of the contents in that section belong here. As such I am raising a merge request.--Cerejota 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, don't merge. That information is about industrial agriculture, not so-called "factory farming". Jav43 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the material at Industrial agriculture (animals)#Livestock and Poultry being either here or there. Move it here and leave a summary there for all I care. But after you do slim and friends will delete the content because they do not understand how industrial farming methods that do not harm animals are relevant to industrial farming methods. So then I will have to restore the material back to Industrial agriculture (animals)#Livestock and Poultry and we will be back where we started. They maintain this page as a POV fork of Industrial agriculture (animals)#Livestock and Poultry against consensus. If they would allow information on industrial farming methods that do not harm animals onto this page then we would not be having this problem in the first place. WAS 4.250 19:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the merge. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Slim, please help carry out the merge. I have every faith that you intend well and hope that you have learned stuff from this regrettably poisonous discussion. I believe in wiki style editing. So give it a try and let's see what the result is. We can always revert to a prior version if it goes horribly wrong. WAS 4.250 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Repeated, overlong list moved to Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST.--Cerejota 04:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

WAS 4.250 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself with a very long list of stuff is not productive. In the future please refrain from doing so. In the spirit productive discourse, I am placing your text in Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST. Should you feel the need to repeat it again, instead of reposting it, just provide the link. Please avoid disruptive behavior and repetition. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Back from walking amongst some decidedly un-intensively farmed (but possibly still irradiated from Chernobyl) sheep in Wet Wales. The problem I have with the merge is that we have had stability for more than a week on the opening paragraph which seems to have some consensus as to a scope. I think that stability is a big win for both parties as it is a foundation to move forward. I think a merge will disrupt that - and will simply re-open the definition debate. The article needs work to bring it up to a good standard and worrying about structure of other articles misses that. There are plenty more years ahead to worry about the structure. Spenny 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is not only a lack of consensus on the intro, but a majority here want it changed but can not due to revert warring. Further actual discussion in place of revert waring is mis-characterized as being disruptive. And lack of edit warring is misunderstood as indicating consensus. What is stable is the ability of animal rights activists to own this page and maintain its original research and non-neutral point of view (making it animal rights centric and mostly ignoring non animal rights issues) using methods against policy like revert warring and not discussing. Indeed they attack actual discussion with personal attacks equating trying to discuss with being disruptive. What an upside-down view! WAS 4.250 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I'm comfortable with two pages, one on Intensive Agriculture (which may sub-divide naturally into arable and animal) and another on Factory Farming. I don't see that it has to be a POV fork, it is clearly a subject in its own right. In that context I was happy that the intro had moved from being something referenced but wrong to referenced and right, even if it is not the scope you might be seeking. I saw actually getting that wording changed in the current context as a small healthy sign that there was hope of regaining some common sense. Spenny 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow WAS, you are really keen on ignoring the hours of time we have spent showing what we mean and providing sources - which are still claimed to be original research. Stop miscategorising your view as being the one that should be there but 'we're' holding it back. The fact is that you have not disproven the information that we have presented and have not gained a consensus for a change.

Spenny, the issue still remains that the scope of this article overlaps majorly with other articles and we have shown this multiple times. We need to decide on scopes of articles before any stability will ever occur - as we are going to end up with bits being moved back and forth constantly otherwise.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What other articles are about "confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions" as this one defines itself to be? WAS 4.250 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct you, Localzuk: we *did* demonstrate the actual facts while demonstrating the inadequacy of your "sources". Saying that "you have not disproven the information we have presented" is irrelevant as you have not provided any reliable sources backing up your unsubstantiated claims. When you find a reference that says X is Y (as I did) then I will take it to be a source providing a definition and give it due credence. Until then, I cannot buy into the speculation. Jav43 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't cover the old debate about the synonymity of the terms, the fact that we have more articles than actual topics with multiple topics being repeated etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean about "more articles", but with regard to your stance on synonymity of terms, you have failed to provide any reference that actually says terms are synonyms, and rather have used your interpretation of sentence structure to reach that conclusion. On the other hand, I have provided references that actually *define* "factory farming", as has NathanLee. When you provide a reference that actually says that two terms are synonymous, then I will give that reference due credence. Until then, like I said, I cannot buy into the speculation. Jav43 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And you have missed the point regarding synonymity. The point is that the terms are used synonymously by the majority of the media, and normal people. It may not be the technical, legal or as you see it 'correct' usage of the terms, but it is the most common usage of the terms and our policies call for the subject to be called by the most common name.

Also, you have not provided any sources that say the terms are distinct subject areas - you have just provided dictionary definitions - which are not adequate.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions? Did you miss the definitions I provided from peer-reviewed articles?

When you provide references that *say* that particular terms are synonymous, I will give those references due credence. Until then, your speculation that they are synonymous truly is original research. Jav43 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tag on definition of terms

It should be clear by now that "Factory farm" is the only term available to refer to the topic at hand. It is the only geographically neutral, sourced, verifiable, and commonly used term available.

All other terms that have been proposed have issues with geographical neutrality, and/or constitute original research, and/or are not notable, and/or are specialist terms that go against the style of writing that wikipedia seeks.

This discussion must end here, unless a term that satisfies this common sense and policy-based approach are proposed. Please review WP:POINT.--Cerejota 08:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it amazing that you fail to understand something this simple, but apparently you can't grasp that the accuracy dispute is over the definition of the term "factory farming", not over what term to use to title the article. Jav43 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota read this article's first sentence. Factory farming is a system or method of intensive animal farming involving the raising of farm animals characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions. They wish to first define factory farming as identical to "intensive animal farming" and then move all intensive animal farming content here. Then they wish to define factory farming as "the raising of farm animals characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density" and delete content not relevant to that. All discussion that factory farming is the subset of intensive animal farming that is characterised by confinement of the animals at high stocking density is met with a complete lack of comprehension. Experts use technical terms like confined animal feeding operations or concentrated animal feeding operations or intensive livestock operations for the sake of precision. This article sometimes uses factory farming to mean intensive animal farming and sometimes it uses it to mean the raising of farm animals at high stocking density, often in barren and unnatural conditions. It is an inconsistent article due to confused thinking on the part of the page's owners. WAS 4.250 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we wish to define it as the way industrial agriculture of livestock and poultry is performed. The technical terms are in fact subsets of "Factory farming" because of their technical/geographically local use. Ask the average reader what an ILO is and you get a blank stare. But everyone knows what a Factory farm is.--Cerejota 04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. "Factory farming" is much more limited than those other practices - it is the subset, not the parent set. Perhaps you don't know the difference between the terms? If that is so, please don't "guess" at their meanings. Jav43 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand what he was meaning I think Jav43... It is common to call the practices of Industrial agriculture, CAFO or whatever 'factory farming' all over the world, however, those sort of terms are geographically localised (ie. CAFO is local only to the USA as shown by SlimVirgin). The terms are not as popular as factory farming and as such are subsets of factory farming.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I may very well misunderstand. However, outside of linguistics, industrial agriculture, for example, is not a subset of factory farming - factory farming is a subset of industrial agriculture. Jav43 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And the term/practice "factory farming" isn't anywhere near as widespread or practised in Australia and is a term (as I've shown via several references) that is regarded as "activist terminology" (by britannica and by farmers themselves). Also the gestation crate concept isn't a widespread thing in Oz by the sounds of things (e.g. talking to a son of a pig farmer and the less agri-business nature of agriculture in Australia) NathanLee 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the geographical aspect is quite important. Even within Europe there are strong national differences. I'm pretty certain that the use of hormones in cattle production is fairly specific to the US (and it used to be generally assumed over here that the excess of fat bottoms on display at Disney World is related to hormones in meat), they are banned in the EC. It is one place I have a problem with the article: it tends to suggest that factory farms use all these techniques, whereas there are a long menu of techniques available, the combination of which may result in something recognisable as factory farming. The other problem remains that some of the issues being identified as factory farming issues are not specific to factory farming: it was not uncommon in England for a house to have a pig sty in the 19th century where a single pig would live in barren confinement all its life as a waste to food recycling machine. Spenny 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my previous post

WAS:

Your removal of my previous post, and accusation of trolling, not only was highly unproductive, but a personal attack.

My post clearly was meant to explain an edit on the article, and inform editors on why I had done the edit. By no measure of the word is that trolling.

I ask you apologize for this unacceptable behavior or face a formal proceeding for disruptive editing of a talk page and a personal attack.--Cerejota 09:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The personal abuse on this page of regular editors really has gone too far. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It must be brought under control. I will await for an apology in this case, but my usual over-tolerant self is getting strained by the unwarranted form the attacks take.--Cerejota 10:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SlimVirgin, please stop abusing regular editors. Jav43 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, please stop your personal attacks. Try to focus on the issues, not the editors. Crum375 19:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WAS, this is your last chance. I se eyou have added material but not apologized for your personal attack.--Cerejota 04:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have not apologized, and have had ample time to do so, you leve me no remedy but to seek out admin intervention. I do not use empty words. I am sorry I have to do this, but you leave me no other way.--Cerejota 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You really can't handle disputes on your own without crying to "authority"? Amazing. Jav43 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And once again Jav43, you have completely missed the whole point of us having rules about civility. Have you ever even read them? It is getting beyond the joke that, whenever someone complains about personal attacks, civility issues, inappropriate behaviour or similar, you turn up and almost ridicule them for complaining or citing our policies! I would even verge on saying it is edging on trolling behaviour, but it is at minimum disruptive behaviour. Will you please read the policies, and try and understand why these behaviours are a major problem and are causing this entire debate to drag out much more than if it were simply on task and civil?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Yes, I have read all of the wikipedia policies. I also happen to believe that we are more likely to reach a solution if people actually discuss substantive matters rather than continually complaining about form. Jav43 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, please don't remove that image while logged out, as it leaves a false impression of how many times you're reverting. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies. I didn't realize I was logged out at the time, and I do not know of any way to take credit for something done by an anonymous user. Jav43 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there's been a hell of a lot of reverts (and little decent justification/discussion given on this page) to protect having that image put up as the lead image regardless of a) it's from an activist anti-factory farming site (and activist sites are notoriously bad sources e.g. take PETA's various unsubstantiated ads about meat that have had court cases to shut 'em down), b) a practice that is being phased out or not tied into "factory farming" in any way (if it was a key, lasting necessary element of factory farming.. maybe.. But you take it away: factory farming lives on.. ), c) unnecessary to have a lead image (we're adults, writing for adults, not 2 year olds who only notice pictures), d) POV laden and put there to convey the shock/horror quality (immediately setting this article to be negative) and e) not indicative of the conditions that the vast majority of pigs live in (there's a perfectly good example of this that might be used of pigs in pens or cows in feedlots).. All good reasons to remove it or put it down in the "criticisms" section, yet it keeps getting added back up to the very top. Now simply reverting without answering any of those is nothing more than page protection and edit warring. Either provide some answers to those criticisms of why that image is unsuitable or you void your "right" to revert (and are going against policies on reverting in addition). I've witnessed many attempts to create sections to discuss that lead image, but reverting seems to be the only "argument" for. NathanLee 13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. Can you provide evidence that "not indicative of the conditions that the vast majority of pigs live in "? I'd regard this, if it could be reliably sourced, as a reasonable justification for replacing the image. --John 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Without digging up references at the moment (time constraints), I can briefly explain that gestation crates are only used for sows during the few weeks before farrowing. Considering that the vast majority of hogs (at least 10:1) are not sows but rather are feeder pigs, gestation crates cannot be seen as used for much of the hog population. Additionally, since gestation crates are only used for a part of the pregnancy/farrowing cycle, they again cannot be seen as typical living conditions. Finally, since something like half of industrial nations outlaw gestation crates, gestation crates certainly do not typify any agricultural practice. Jav43 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, you're making this up as you go along, and in fact you earlier told us these were illegal in the U.S., when they're widely used. They're currently only illegal (as far as I know) in Sweden, the UK, Florida, and Arizona. The fact is that female pigs on intensive farms spend most of their adults lives in these cages. See Gestation crate for information and sources. After they give birth, they're moved to farrowing crates, which are only marginally bigger. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jav, you're making this up as you go along can be viewed as a personal attack or it can be viewed as an honest exasperated outburst from someone at their wits end trying to communicate. Lots of examples like thie can be found in the communications from both sides. WAS 4.250 18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was intended as a statement of fact. Both of the attacks, sarcasm, filibustering, and obfuscation on this page are from you and Nathan, as I recall. Perhaps it's time to start collecting diffs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SV: I recall earlier he explained that he had meant they were illegal in parts of the US (i.e. "they're illegal in the US" is as true as saying "they're used in the US".. Neither is stating "all" inclusive unless florida and arizona aren't part of the USA). Farrowing crates being "marginally bigger": completely POV and unsupported there.. We've also nothing that really provides any concrete backing for "most of their lives" other than an activist site run by people who have a definite conflict of interest.. I've talked to a first hand source that say they never use them nor did any of the other farms he'd been to or knew of. One might say you are "making it up as you go along" too. See my references below as to why it's a small percentage of animals of one type of animal (pigs) on some subset of the total farms. NathanLee 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can do (hopefully): Pregnant sows are naturally going to be a much smaller portion of the total number than the pigs kept in the areas for growing/slaughter etc. E.g. each sow produces say 6-10 pigs by the looks of a quick google search [23] so even if we look at animals involved in pregnancy/early child (piglet?)hood you're already out by a factor of 6-10. Here's one talking of sows to total pigs breakdown [24] seems like it's a factor of one to ten. Even the activist site(s) only mentions sows. Add to this we've nothing that says this is the standard/majority practice or somehow intrinsically linked with intensive pig farming (e.g. my flatmate's parents had a piggery and they never used anything like this.. that's not a great reference but somewhat confirms I'm on the right track).. Another thing is that there's no real idea whether those pens pictured are not simply temporary pens used for medicating or temporary holding pens for shuffling pigs around. I'm not a farmer, but it sounds like there's lots of cycling of pigs between areas [25]. In short: the focus on this one practice that takes place in some farms (and which is gradually being phased out) means it's furthering a misconception and the source is probably a bit suspect. NathanLee 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation Denied

Anyone notice? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, noticed - three times in fact... Shame, again. -Localzuk^(talk) 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that the powers that be haven't yet grasped the nettle. This page is not unique and a proper review might have served a wider purpose than sorting out the one page. I think there is something missing in the WikiArmoury of oversight and resolution that something can carry on for this long, especially when all parties recognise what is going on here is wrong. Spenny 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's our next step? What can be done? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Add sourced material to agriculture articles like Slim and I and some others are doing. It'll work out in the end. Example here is a primary source for the fact that from 1990 to 2000 the number of pigs fertilized by artificial insemination by hand went from 1 in a hundred to 3 in 4 in the US and that over half the pigs in the world are in China (but that does not tell us about pork production because industrial agriculture methods are more productive per living pig in speed and size). And Current Status of Housing and Penning Systems for Sows is a good secondary source you can use for other things. Add sourced information. Maybe the image at the top should be artificial pig sperm aquisition? Nahhh. WAS 4.250 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

thepigsite.com has a tonne of stuff.. very very specific on parts of pig breeding/feeding etc etc.. Excluding the slow battle to overcome some editors' heavy revert button fingers: the page is making progress.. I think if as much animal liberation type concerns are kept out of agriculture topics as possible then we'd be seeing a lot less issues on this rather straight forward (dare I say it: "boring") field. NathanLee 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean if we eliminate balance then it would be ok? This inability to understand that it is impossible for your POV to be the only one is what has us stuck. We can work on due weight, we can work or notability or reliability, but as long as you insist on violating WP:NPOV, then we cannot move forwd. Is as simple as that.--Cerejota 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee, what an extraordinary statement to make. That just about sums up the problems we've had on this page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}

The problem is that this article isn't supposed to be about animal liberation/welfare -- it's supposed to be about facts. The attempts to make this article reflect animal liberation/welfare issues (mere editor opinions) rather than reflecting fact are truly making it difficult to move forward. How exactly is NathanLee's statement "extraordinary"? It seems quite simple to me. Cerejota, you might consider that some of us aren't interested in POV but rather are interested in portraying fact -- and nothing else. If everyone would focus on fact rather than POV, we'd be much better off. Jav43 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The industrial agriculture suite of articles is also making progress. Check it out. Help improve them! Use of summary style lets us add data to relevant articles. This article can be all about the confined-land-farm-animal methods of industrial agriculture and not get in the way of other articles detailing other aspects of industrial agriculture. WAS 4.250 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on them.. :) Have had other things taking time away (work, life etc), so it's only sporadic.. NathanLee 18:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)