Talk:Farmers' market/Archives/2012

Top

Added the POV-Check template because several statements made in the article appear to be presenting opinions as fact. I would appreciate if someone else would take a look at things to help determine if NPOV is being maintained here. Specifically:

" Locally-grown produce does not travel thousands of miles to get to your table; this saves fossil fuels, allows farmers to pick produce at the peak of flavor, and more nutrients are preserved in fresh food."

"Farmers' markets help farmers stay in business. Wholesale prices farmers get for their produce are very low, often near the cost of production. Farmers who sell direct to the public without going through a middle man get a better price for their produce. When farmers get paid more for their products, by selling directly to the public, their farms are less likely to be developed into houses and malls. Preserving farmland is important for the health of the environment and water supply. Sustainably-managed farms conserve soil and clean water in our communities, and provide a habitat for wildlife." -pmppk

Statement one: thats a fact, cant argue.

Statement two: sounds NPOV to me

Nessuno834 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the first statement is fact while the second could use some rewriting to become less biased and still maintain the author's original intent.--Nleamy 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the second statement sounds a bit biased. I also noticed that this paragraphs appears biased:

"Farmers' markets often feature produce that is grown naturally or organically, meats that are raised humanely on pasture, handmade farmstead cheeses, eggs and poultry from free-range fowl, as well as heirloom produce and heritage breeds of meat and fowl."

While that is certainly true, a statement should be added to note that farmers markets also feature traditional, conventionally grown produce which is often a mainstay for many consumers. Dandeelion13 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Canned food can sometimes be fresher than fresh food at the grocery store, due to the fact it is canned almost immediately after harvesting. Would fresh food at the farmers market be less or more healthy, nutrient-wise, than canned food? P.S. Has anyone ever been to a farmers market, inquired as to whether they would lower a price for an item, and they were rude and took it personally? - MSTCrow 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV-check template. The article has been revised. For example, the statement "Farmers' markets help farmers stay in business" has been replaces with "Farmers' markets advocates believe the markets help farmers stay in business...". There no longer any reason to question the neutrality of the article. APB-CMX 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Individual Farmers' Markets

Please add individual farmers' markets to List of farmers' markets instead of to the See Also section of this page. There's no reason for list duplication. Charles (Kznf) 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

why was this list deleted? it could be a very valuable resource for people looking up farmers' markets in an area/country. i would like to recreate this.Theledbomb (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For all of the reasons listed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_farmers'_markets. In short because Wikipedia is not a directory. Charles (Kznf) (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a national directory of farmers markets maintained by USDA. Uccjxe (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the apostrophe really necessary? Can't we keep it clean and call these "Farmers Markets"?Uccjxe (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Photos

David Shankbone just removed a perfectly good photo saying that we already have enough photos from the United States. His photo, however, remains at the top of the page, and his photo is from the United States. I don't see any good reasons to remove the photo. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong: the Tibet photo was moved to the top of the page, which is *not* mine, and yours was prominently on the left side in the text (did you look before you reverted?) But could you explain why your off-color photo, half comprised of asphalt, should be at the top as opposed to the Tibet or any of the other photos? Curious as to your reasoning. --David Shankbone 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity *Shankbone* made this edit putting Terrier's picture on the left, this edit shifting the Tibet photo to the top, and culminating in the one cited. Terrier's original edit was this. I still think the one up is better, but let's avoid misleading diffs. Uwmad (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just passing through and thought you might want some outside comment. This page, it seems, is loaded with pictures. Which is good because farmers markets are meant to be diverse. But I would propose making a photo gallery that has an assortment of pictures which highlight the geographical diversity (see, for example, Claude Monet). This should be done within reason, of course, since there's no need for 20 or 30 pictures, but it would definitely reduce the clutter. I also think Shankbone's picture is better and should remain the lead. Uwmad (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Let me know if there are any major objections. I personally think it looks much better and is more conducive to people adding photos. Let me clarify the reasons I think Shankbone's picture is better as the lead: 1) the color balance is better (major issue); 2) there's more green in the picture, looks more natural; 3) it looks more rugged; and 4) the "vegetables" sign is a nice touch. Basically it looks like a farmers market should, in my mind at least. Uwmad (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarities with Chinese wet markets

The farmer's markets seem to be very similar to wet markets in East Asia, but of course modern Western environmentalists will round on wet markets as some stuff sold in wet markets border on heresy, such as live animals killed alive and fruits from California and South Africa. Not sure if anyone has written sources or references on comparisons. --125.238.96.158 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that you will find a written comparison. Fresh fruit imported from another continent would be against the spirit of the farmer's market. Killing animals on the spot would generally be against regulations in Europe or North America. In a farmer's market in France you might be able to buy live poultry with a view to killing it at home. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

US-centric

Re this removal - the article is US-centric anyway, a bit more of that makes little difference. The idea in the content is constructive, but it needs rewriting to make it an example of the general point that small farmers may be affected by regulations which are aimed at big ones. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs way more than a simple rewriting, it needs an actual reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that. I know it's not the best source, but at least it's a source. Most of the article is completely unsourced. Also, the reason the article is so U.S. centric is probably because most of the contributors are from the U.S. Or, perhaps the phrase "farmers market" isn't used in other countries - maybe they have a different phrase for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be that the rest of the article is unsourced, but that isn't an excuse to use a source that doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. You've been around long enough and been told often enough, that you should really, really know not to use "unreliable" sources at all. As far as the rest of the article being US-centric, I think the second and third pictures should resolve your concern about the phrase being US only, Grundle. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I added the info back to the article, but said that it was someone's opinion and not a fact? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No. For one thing, it isn't neutral in the slightest. Secondly, it is crystal ball gazing because it talks about something that might happen. Thirdly, it comes from a source that cannot be considered reliable. It is a transparent attempt to portray the government in a negative light, and frankly this sort of POV-pushing across multiple articles is getting very tiresome. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is not reliable to be used at all on Wikipedia. Even if it is just to source the writer's opinion. The author, in this case, is not a recognized expert on farmer's markets or farming. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe I glossed a bit too much with "rewriting". The Acts mentioned have real and objective content which a quick googling suggests has multiple WP:RS even on the specific subject of farmers markets. Obviously any rewriting would have to avoid the issues mentioned above, which are so major that it's more like taking the idea as a prompt and writing something new. But there is a nugget of relevant information there. I think. Rd232 ^talk 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a "what if" scenario that is US-specific. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there nothing left after stripping the what-if? With better sources? Maybe not, I dunno. But "US-specific" depends on how its done, the regulatory issues involved are much more common (eg I recall EU agricultural policy has some similarly problematic elements). Rd232 ^talk 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit messy

I'm not too happy with this article - not the content, but the layout. What we have is essentially a big block of text without any real structure. Partly this is because there isn't a standard model for Farmers' Markets (not even in the US). The term itself isn't regulated so pretty much anything or anyone can call themselves an FM. I would be happy to have a go at rewriting this in the next day or so, but I don't want to step on the toes of you regular contributors... Duncan (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

History

The history section in this article... I am not sure I can see a single shred of history in it. 122.110.209.27 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for new country section and video footage of a farmer's market

I would suggest adding a "countries" section for the article, in order to differentiate between United States farmer's markets and other countries. I would also suggest adding a video of a farmer's market in action.

I'm involved with the Global Lives Project, a non-profit organization working to create an open video library of human experiences around the world. GLP has video footage of a Chinese farmer's market in Anren, China (in the Sichuan province) at 4am in the morning, which features a convenience store manager bargaining with farmers for their produce. Here is the detailed footage, which can be edited down to 3-5 minutes. -FefeGong (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Better contextualization, Less Bias?

... that was the intent. But I ran out of steam at Product Categories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonestarnot (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations and Bias

This whole article seems to need many more citations to back up stated facts, particularly with regards to the cost savings mentioned. Has anyone actually researched, for instance, the per unit pollution costs of farmers' markets vs. grocery stores? Also, the article seems biased as there is no mention of criticisms or potential drawbacks of farmers' markets, as if the article is a promotion for farmers' markets. 24.71.146.177 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)