Jump to content

Talk:Horse slaughter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

discussion re intro

I am trying to edit this page, but was only able to make changes in the first section. When I saved it, that is all that now exists.

There are other changes that need to be made. HR 503 sponsored by John Sweeney expired with the 109th Congress. HR 503 has been introduced again in the 110th Congress on 1/17 by Rep. Janice Schakowsky. The Senate bill is now S.311.

The article also needs to be updated re: the 1/19 decision by the 5th district appellate court: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-11499-CV0.wpd.pdf

The 1/6 changes added many pro-slaughter paragraphs, including the pro-slaughter view of the against slaughter side.

The sentence: "The current bills are intended to govern private ownership decisions." is editorializing, not fact.

This: "While some actual horse breed associations support the ban on slaughter, the majority of organizations supporting the proposed ban on horse slaughter are equine rescue groups and animal rights groups." is misleading.


I'm a new editor and don't understand why I was not able to edit the full article this time, everything I did in December worked fine.

Jrstark 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Added deleted content back, updated and reworded. Added judicial ruling section. Updated legislation section. Added/updated links. Still need to add citations.

Jrstark 07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article badly needs to be cleaned up to source commentary which is made and claims which are made. It currently does not adhere even remotely closely to wiki standards. 68.96.255.13 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed some pro-slaughter material. 72.241.188.156 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

>>72.241.188.156, Could you give me the reason to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.233.54 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from Horse slaughter to Opposition to horse slaughter in the United States. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for more than a week as being limited in its geographic scope. Also, although the title is "horse slaughter", it doesn't focus on how to slaughter horses, as the naive might expect. I propose to rename the article something like "Opposition to horse slaughter in the United States", which would be clear and accurate. Now I will go and find the template to begin this process.... BrainyBabe 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not including the "opposition to" part, renaming it to horse slaughter in the United States, recognizing the geographical scope. Terjen 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your half-support, but would press the first point. A link to "skinny-dipping" would not be expected to lead to a diatribe on how immoral skinny-dipping is. An article on "cycling" wouldn't be only about efforts to ban or restrict the activity. The other article at horsemeat does include some info on its production, so I think this one here is really the place to signal and direct the opposition. Does that make sense? BrainyBabe 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If an article is one-sided, I would think it would be better to fix the article rather than the title. Not including "opposition" in the title encourages a more well rounded article about horse slaughter in the United States. Terjen 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. This article is about horse slaughter generally, and has some issues admittedly. But if we just move it, we lose what content there is on the more global topic, and complicate the edit history if the global article is then recreated. We should instead round this article out. Andrewa 09:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Challenge to improve it

Well, I disagree, obviously. The article's title is wide and its contents limited; I proposed changing the title to match the content but was over-ruled. Am I correct that within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's rules, it is up to those who have opposed the limitation of the title to flesh out (if you will excuse the pun) the article, to ensure it lives up to its broad title? I have no interest in researching the content, but will happily assist with style, links and so on. BrainyBabe 12:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about the spirit and letter of the rules, but it's a fair enough expectation IMO that those of us who opposed the move should contribute at least a little to fixing the article.
And how I wish this principle were more universally applied! People stick cleanup tags on articles (and particularly fact tags asking for citations) with gay abandon. See nettiquette for a sad example. Only one of the five cleanup tags has any mention on the talk page. It's a fair bet that none of the four people who tagged what isn't IMO too bad an article but couldn't be bothered to say why they tagged it have any intention of trying to improve it. Andrewa 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this positive response. I look forward to your contributions. Have you looked at horse meat? In addition to the section on production, there is a small section on "opposition to production" there, pointing to this as the main article. That would be fine in theory (ie from what the current title leads one to expect), but this article doesn't justify that global status. BrainyBabe 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm finally going to make a start on this.

First off I think is to refactor the intro. Andrewa 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the recent attempts by one editor to add material, and then by another to remove that which is too biased or otherwise unfit. I am concerned, however, that the following paragraph has been allowed to remain, even through these steps of editorial scrutiny.

From the Mail article:

Indeed, while it's perfectly legal to sell horsemeat in Britain, there are no restaurants or butchers that do so as there is no demand. That, however, does not mean Britain has no role to play in the production of those Parisian steaks. The Mail has discovered that as many as 5,000 horses are being slaughtered here in abattoirs every year and their carcasses shipped to France, where they are enjoyed by the likes of The Pony Club.

From the Wikipedia page:

While it is perfectly legal to sell horse meat in Britain, there are no restaurants or butchers that do so as there is no demand. That, however, does not mean Britain has no role to play in the production of horse meat. The Daily Mail has reported that as many as 5,000 horses are being slaughtered here in abattoirs every year and their carcasses shipped to France.

That is virtually verbatim copying, and merely giving the reference link to the original newspaper article is not sufficient to escape the charge of copyright violation, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I will remove the offending paragraph, and look forward to the inclusion of its information in another form: preferably integrated into more text, or substantially reworded, or even as a direct quote, sourced and cited as such. BrainyBabe 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brainybabe. That info was moved over from Horse meat by yourself in this edit. The copyvio status when you moved it here was as bad then as it was just prior to your removing it as mentioned above. I edited the snippet a couple of times in the meantime, seeking to make it fit this article better (vs. Horse meat, from whence you moved it). I've added it back and edited it a bit to make the content in this article more a paraphrase of bits and pieces from the Daily Mail article, vs. a restatement of snippets. Incidentally, see Fair use. -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. The paraphrases is fine. Yes, it was me who moved it -- it was entirely inappropriate in horse meat and my first instinct was to cut and paste to horse slaughter, ie to help the new anon editor and assume good faith, rather than to examine its provenenance. Next time someone does a big text dump, perhaps I'll look for the source first! BrainyBabe 08:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just made slight tweaks to the paraphrase to render it more encyclopedic as opposed to journalistic language. BrainyBabe 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Added assertion

The existing cite does not appear to support the assertion added by your tweak, so I've moved the cite and added a {{cn}}. -- Boracay Bill 10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the Mail article is as follows:
"While no live horses are exported from Britain to Europe to meet this demand (legislation effectively prevents it), other nations are happy to cash in."
The paraphrase I added to the page is:
"UK law effectively forbids the export of live animals for slaughter."
I hope that is sufficient to persuade you to remove the {{cn}}. BrainyBabe 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to Update

This article is now outdated (horse slaughter is now banned in the US; all three slaughterhouses have been shut down). I am going to do some research and add some info in a bit.... --AeronM (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, you and I may be on the same side on this one. However, what's missing from this article is the fate of US horses since the ban went into effect. It's scary. You may want to look at Canadian issues and the Horse feedlot on the Canadian border in Montana that ships up to Calgary as well as the horror stories from Mexico in the New York Times and the increased export rate. Just depresses me some days. Do as you wish, just providing sources. This article needs some work, it may be just the place for your energy level. I mean that sincerely. Montanabw(talk) 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Montanabw, please skip the ad hominem remarks ("it may be just the place for your energy level") and expressions of ownership ("Do as you wish"). Even if you intend a compliment, or to say you don't own the article, these remarks are likely to offend. --Una Smith (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am all too aware of what is happening since the ban went into effect. Not to illustrate a bias one way or the other, but I have a section on my website that discusses the fate of the horses since the ban. It's very sad what is happening now. I go to a local auction every month and talk to the dealers about what is going on in the industry. Horse prices are in the proverbial toilet, and horses are literally starving in their pastures as the price of hay, etc. has gone through the roof. I recently picked up a very nice 2-y-o Palomino filly for $100. She's the one I'm working with right now on my 'reality show.'

Anywho, I think this article needs a clean-up and streamline. I will check it out later, maybe do a version in the sandbox for you all to look at. Right now it's too beautiful outside, so I must ride! --AeronM (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For pete's sake, Una I was TRYING TO BE NICE! And dear, you are NOT the judge, jury, and executioner of wikipedia. Likely to offend? Oh for pete's sake. Can't you ever Assume good faith about ANYTHING I do? Aeron does in fact have a lot of energy to put into editing articles. That is a simple statement of fact. This is one that needs a lot of help. She has learned a lot about editing and is getting better all the time. And I was trying to explain that I wasn't going to get involved at all so that she was reassured and not put on the defensive. Take it at face value. Montanabw(talk) 07:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, montana, I did find your comment, and the one above, offensive. I would argue that I am not getting better at editing (as I have done it professionally for many years), but am getting better at ignoring your snarky remarks. Attacking Una for defending me was unnecessary. --AeronM (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs below from the Animal Welfare Information Center (USDA). --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref below from Associated Press. --Una Smith (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • October 2007 US/Mexico border crossing in Texas: [1]

this USDA web page has links to several PDFs concerning requirements for export from the US to Mexico of horses destined for slaughter. --Una Smith (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed reference to AVMA as supporting the slaughter ban, the reverse is true.Ratinabox (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I restored the removed material, including the supporting cite. The cite was a dead link, so I ressurrected it from an internet archive. I have also added another cite: Frequently asked questions about unwanted horses and the AVMA's policy on horse slaughter, AVMA, September 5, 2008. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Companion animals

I just reverted the anonymous unsourced addition of the assertion, "Horses are not considered companion animals by the USDA they are considered livestock." I don't know whether or not the USDA categorizes animals into categories such as "companion animal" and "livestock"; whether, if they do, categorized animals are restricted to listing in a single category; or, if USDA-maintained categorized lists of animal types exist, those lists include horses in any of the categories. I do note that the USDA Companion Animals page, currently spotlights a link to an online USDA publication titled Information Resources on the Care and Welfare of Horses. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about USDA, but in many individual states, horses are specifically included in state statutes and codes under the legal definition of "livestock." (Definitely true in Montana and Kentucky, anyway) I suspect this is also the case for the IRS, as things like farm income tax treatment are implicated in horse ownership. I deliberately don't spend my time editing this particular article as there is far too much wiki-drama on all sides -- but I can say pretty firmly that if people look up the statutes for their individual states, there will be a definition of "livestock" in there somewhere, and many include horses. Montanabw(talk) 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the USDA-specific assertion because I could not verify it and saw indications that the reverse might be true (the horse link on the USDA Companion Animal page).This isn't a topic of much interest to me, I just happened to have this article watchlisted and tried to verify the assertion which I saw added to it. Re youor comments, I tried to make the point that classification (by some classifier) as "livestock" does not necessarily preclude classification (by the same or another classifier) as "companion animal". Re classification by state-level classifiers, some googling turned up this, re California, which says in part,

Section 12731(b) The term "livestock" includes cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, and goats.

and

Section 4825.1(d) in reference to veterinary practice: Animals…raised, kept, or used for profit, and not including those species that are usually kept as pets such as …companion animals, including equines1 (see end note) 1 The term "companion animal", although used in the definition of "livestock" under Cal Bus and Prof Code 4825.1(d), was not found or otherwise defined elsewhere in the California Code.

(emphasis added). Also see the section headed "The human-horse relationship within the context of interest in companion animal bonds" in D. S. Mills; Sue M. McDonnell (2005), "Chapter 11. The rider-horse relationship", The domestic horse: the origins, development, and management of its behaviour, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521891134.
It doesn't look to me as if horses can be legitimately excluded from being termed either "livestock" or "companion animals". Some individual horses may be clearly one and not the other, but it doesn't look to me as if horses in general can be termed one and not the other. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with your conclusions. What I can add is that the very question is a huge political hot potato in some places, I think Kentucky had quite a debate about it. I suspect tax treatment of horse farms is the driving force behind those wanting to keep livestock status. I don't think, say, dog kennels get treated as favorably as horse farms! Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Sale and consumption of horse meat is illegal in California and Illinois"

I removed the lead sentence of the United States section which asserted "Sale and consumption of horse meat is illegal in California and Illinois", supporting that assertion with a cite of this news article titled " Last US Horse Slaughterhouse to Close". The cited source does not touch on the issues of illegality of sale or of illegality of consumption of horse meat. This apparently goes back to this February 2007 edit which inserted, among other things, "Sale and consumption of horsemeat is illegal in Illinois[2] and California." That inline link is now a dead link and is not available at archive.org. However, I see from this that the link apparently pointed to an article titled "Bill banning horse slaughtering fails". I'm guessing that that article did not touch on the issues of illegality of sale or of illegality of consumption of horse meat in Illinois. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki and translation problem

Hello, I've worked on the article hippophagie (hippophagy - eating horses) in french, because there's actually a law proposed to banish the horse meat sale in France since january 2010 (source : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/propositions/pion2361.asp from the "assemblée nationale") . I've used some informations from this article about situation in the United States, and haved put it in fr:Hippophagie. But I'm not a specialist about history of fooding and animal rights in the U.S. (clearly I know nothing about, nether in Australia for another example) So, have you sources to explain why eating horses and killing them is a taboo in anglosphere ? It is a religious taboo, cultural taboo, another explication ? Native americans eated horses, or not ? And when/why the Irish people, who eated horses in the 1800's, refused horse meat now ? Thanks, and sorry for my syntax ! PS : It's a fact that a great numbers of cultural changes in the US happens on France ten years (around) later. So I think your answers will be very interesting... --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tsaag, hope I can give an answer that touches on all sides of this very emotional debate. I come from a USA perspective, so won't speak to the UK or Au. I think it's fascinating that France is considering a ban. In the USA, some people have a specific prejudice against the French on the grounds that they are horsemeat eaters! There is no particular religious taboo here, though there may be some obscure Biblical reference in the Old Testament to only eating "cloven hooved" animals. (I have no idea if horsemeat is kosher or not) For the average person, it's just considered crass, low class, and a rather disgusting thought. It would be an enormous insult to accuse a chef of putting horsemeat into a dish! However, the strongest anti-slaughter advocates are in the animal rights community (see wikilink), though there are also a lot of non-animal rights but still anti-slaughter advocates in the broader animal welfare community who have serious issues with the inhumane practices in the shipment, processing and kill techniques used in North American slaughterhouses (Mexico is the worst). For everyone else, I think it's the view that the horse is a companion animal and working animal, so not raised expressly for human meat. You'll often hear people say, "we don't eat our dogs or cats, either." Even pro-slaughter advocates are quick to insist that they personally would never stoop so low as to eat horsemeat, but they "don't want to judge other cultures." Also, because the only horses in the US that go to slaughter (now shipped to Canada and Mexico as we have no open plants in the USA) are usually older/sick/lame ones no longer able to do work, hence with tough, stringy and often medication-loaded meat, the meat was either exported (often to Asia) or used for pet food. Obviously, if you go back to the 1800s, if people were starving, they'd eat horsemeat. But pretty much that's the belief; maybe you'd eat it if you were starving, but otherwise, it's only fit as animal food and besides, we don't eat our companion animals. The Native people of the Americas varied widely in their cultural practices, you can't generalize there. The horse was a late introduction to Native culture (arriving with European explorers) so they tended to adopt the practices of whomever they obtained horses from. Some ate horsemeat, some didn't. Some ate dogs too, some didn't. Today, Native people tend to follow the practices common to the region where they live, hence most do not eat horsemeat. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Really interesting ! So I understand that is a cultural repulse in the US (since how many years ? 50 ? 30 ?). One thing concerns me : you say that american horses are slaughtered in Mexico and Canada and shipped to Asia for pet food. Actually, 81% of horsemeat eaten in France come from foreign countries : Mexico, Brasil, Argentina, Canada and Poland mainly (source from this lobbying but very official website : http://www.civ-viande.org/10-69-cheval-chiffres.html). So not all the meat from these lands seem shipped to Asia ? The law I've quoted above is for changing status (statute ?) of the horse, actually they are considered as farm animals just like cattle, and the law propose to change for a companion animal status (like dogs and cats) and to banish sale of horse meat. Some animal right groups are denouncing the transport conditions and slaughter conditions of animals whose meat is imported, as you pointed out (source : http://www.one-voice.fr/fr/article/chevaux-voyage-au-bout-de-l-enfer-au-bresil-et-au-mexique, and here for Belgium : http://www.gaia.be/fra/control.php?&topgroupname=&groupname=faits_chevalalassiette), It's one of the reasons for the law. Actually It's a great debate in France and there's various reaction. 60 % of people totally refuse to eat horse mainly for ethical and emotional reasons in 2006 (source : Emmanuelle Dal'Secco, Les chevaux de trait, Éditions Artemis, 2006, ISBN 9782844164599, p.66). An argument commonly used to justify the horse meat is : you must eat the draft horses to save these breeds. But 81% of all meat eated is imported. There's some powerful lobbies are saying that horsemeat is a part of french traditional culture and cooking (so that banish horsemeat is like banish wine or cheese according to them). I don't know how it will end, but now tpeople are mainly opposed to the idea of eating horse meat. Thanks for your answers ! Perhaps somebody will be interested by a translation of fr:hippophagie one day --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the cultural opposition to eating horse meat in the US goes back well over a century, but I've have to research the question to be sure; I know that the first horses brought to America with the early European explorers were few and precious, the attitude may trace that far back. There also was a huge rise in beef consumption following the American Civil War, but even before then, it would have, at best, been considered undesirable, maybe something really poor and hungry people might eat, along with squirrels, opossum and snakes. I checked kosher laws, horsemeat is not kosher, so there's that aspect also. When USA plants were open, virtually all horsemeat was exported from the US and people didn't really care if it went for human consumption or for pet food, nor where. This was, in part, because a lot of Americans would sort of just close their eyes and pretend it wasn't there at all. There was once a pet food market for it in the USA, but once food labeling laws went into effect, people wouldn't even buy pet food if they knew it contained horse meat. (I remember in the early 1970s a few brands of dog food would say on the can "contains horsemeat" and they would be left on the shelf, no one would buy them) I would comment that horses from Canada or Mexico that originated in the US would be likely to be "salvage" animals -- Thoroughbreds and Standardbreds washed-up from the track (and given many drugs during their lives- lasix, bute, etc.) , leftover Quarter Horse yearlings and 2-year olds from "production sales," PMU foals, and the general unwanted animals. Canadian slaughterhouses at least follow safe food guidelines as well as any cattle slaughter facility might, but Mexico... hoo boy. Dreadful conditions in many of those, see here. You may find it interesting. Montanabw(talk) 20:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the discussion in this talk page section has nothing to do with the topic of this article -- being much more closely related to the Horse meat article. The link just above to that NY Times article is an exception. I've added some info taken from there to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the two are interconnected, you can't get to one without the other, and the opposition to slaughter does stem in part from humane issues and in part cultural taboos. I see the article being centered on the food itself more than the processing thereof, but not a big deal either way, really. Montanabw(talk) 20:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Equine Destiny

Equine Destiny is a documentary on the slaughter of American horses by the young documentary team Change for Balance Productions. They are new to Wikipedia, so I am trying to help them with their editing. Because I usually edit topics on machines, I may make mistakes as well. Prof McCarthy (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I temporarily removed it. They need to first create an article on the documentary that meets the notability criteria of wikipedia. Then, they can add it to the see also section, but without all the commentary, just a few word summary. Or, in the alternative, if it's online, they can put a link to the URL into the external links section. Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New Discussion 11-21-2011

Another reason for the huge concern among those in the US that are aware of the practice is the huge ethical problem of destroying a horse in this manner that earned its owner a small fortune. When a Japanese slaughterhouse "processed" Ferdinand, winner of the 1986 Kentucky Derby and winner of over $3.6 million the die was cast. He had been sent to stand stud in Japan and made his new owners uncounted millions more. He deserved better and subsequent sales of champions to the Japanese have contractually required them to return these horses after their breeding career is over. But this only accounts for the top horses. It is like legally executing your business partner.

It is almost impossible to be completely impartial on this issue as anyone who knows the facts, which appear to be very well-stated in the article based on my independent research on the industry.

Having seen a horse like Leave Seattle, a fairly unsuccessful son of Triple Crown winner Seattle Slew(one example), at Old Friends Retirement Facility and knowing he was bought from a slaughterhouse auction, makes me convinced that this article is needed to inform the public on what is happening. Facts are Facts and the references were provided - just not in perfect "format". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillFloyd (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

EU directive

Based on these rules, the EU has banned the importation of US horsemeat due to contamination from bute and assorted steroids. I don't edit this article, but those who do might want to work in this latest development. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC) More:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Horse slaughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horse slaughter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Horse meat is quite tasty

Sometimes I eat a horse meat, and it is quite tasty :P IMHO, horses are ordinary livestock, like cows, pigs, sheeps etc. --217.118.83.154 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horse_slaughter/Archive_1&oldid=1083515638"