Jump to content

Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

More suggestions

Modern farming

As I'm looking through these sources, I'm seeing a lot of them using the terms intensive, factory, industrial, and modern to mean the same thing, so another suggestion would be Modern farming (animals) and Modern farming (crops), if people don't like "intensive farming." Again, this suggestion is dependent on the separate terms not being forked out to different articles as though they mean different things (unless sources can be found showing they do mean different things). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have no grasp of people using levels of abstraction to describe things. Yes factory farming is a form of intensive agriculture, modern farming, large scale farming, industrial farming but THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THEN INTERCHANGEABLE. Here's an example that you'll probably not read (as you constantly say). Global warming is an environmental issue. Agreed? That doesn't mean the two terms are interchangeable: you can't say that all environmental issues are global warming. But by your rationale: the terms are used "synonymously" and thus ARE interchangeable. E.g. you see an article that mentions that factory farming is intensive farming.. Then you assume that intensive farming = factory farming. I'm really surprised this concept seems to escape you. NathanLee 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No, because 'Global warming' and 'environmental issues' have not been used synonymously as far as I have read. So your example falls down there.-Localzuk(talk) 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been used "synonymously" (by your definition) in many articles. [1] "Now, with global warming the pre-eminent environmental issue, those conversations have taken on added gravity.", [2] ""The science performed by NASA as well as scientists around the world shows that global warming is no longer an environmental issue. It's a rapidly advancing human disaster,".. Oh wait: that means I should say "global warming", "environmental issue" AND "human disaster" are synonymous. Here's another one that supports that "synonymous" usage.. [3] and [4] from the BBC says "Researchers describe global warming as "the greatest threat facing the world community". So I'll add that to the list of synonymous terms. So "global warming", "environmental issue" , "human disaster" and "greatest threat". By the patented SV/Crum/localzuk synonym generation process: these terms are all synonymous rather than "types of" or subsets. NathanLee 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Intensive arable and Intensive livestock farming

This BBC webpage is very useful, giving a description of intensive farming (and it's clearly the same as factory farming and industrial farming), so based on their use, another suggestion for titles is Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming, again subject to us not creating the other titles as forks. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you one. Peter Singer uses intensive animal agriculture interchangeably with factory farm in an interview he has with Salon[5] (it's free you just have to click and endure a few seconds of advertising). Of course his opinion that intensive ag of animals deserves the pejorative term "factory farming" is just an opinion. Haber 03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, stop sniping after very single thing. MOVE ON. SlimVirgin (talk)

I don't know how you take that link I put up to say that it's the same as factory farming SV: I see no mention that ties "intensive farming" meaning "confined animal feeding operations". In fact, it merely says "Intensive farming is concerned above all with productivity and uses a high level of inputs to achieve it. ". I don't see any mention of gestation crates which you were earlier arguing had to be at the head of the page because they are what people think of immediately with factory farming. It's an independent concept. One type of it, as applied to animals, as partnered with confinement is "factory farming". NathanLee 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the use and comparison of the terms by reliable sources

Wrong question

As I've tried to explain, this is the wrong question. We cannot show definitions through our interpretations of a person's use of a term: that leads to OR and WP:SYN. Instead, we need to use actual definitions - find where a term is explicitly defined and apply that definition. NathanLee and myself have found definitions for "factory farming" thus far; if you dispute those definitions, please find definitions contrary, rather than providing your own interpretation of various people's dicta. Jav43 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes; it is original research to take a quote that is not a definition and to claim from that non-definition a definition. WAS 4.250 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not engaging in original research is policy. If Slim et. al. can not abide by policy then only arbcom is left. WAS 4.250 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're both serious, I have to say that neither of you understands the policies. We look to see how reliable sources use terms. Then we use them in the same way. There is no OR in it; no SYN. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it is common sense. It is simply reading the pages. Nothing WP:OR about it. Hence we should attempt mediation. What have we got to lose by trying? Nothing. Why are people so against mediation? Arbcom would simply send us to mediation as we haven't done it yet.-Localzuk(talk) 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The existing formal mediation process rules are fundamentally broken. Informal mediation is fine. But I'm not buying a pig in a poke. WAS 4.250 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My own experience is that informal mediation in cases of deeply entrenched disputes between groups of editors produces mountains of words and no results. There is no 'pig in the poke' for either formal or informal mediation - arbitration is the only real binding mechanism, but formal mediation has a more rigid and formalized format, and has a better chance to produce results. I suggest you read up on WP:DR and WP:RFM. Crum375 13:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Informal mediation can be farcical. We had someone turn up once as a mediator who had 30 edits to his name, or else (as I suspected) he was actually a sockpuppet of one of the participants. :-) Anyway, the MedCom is currently in good shape; its members are elected, not just self-selecting, they undergo a training of sorts, and they're respected by ArbCom. There's no point in going straight to ArbCom, because what they'll most likely do is recommend an RfM. If you want to avoid a "pig in a poke" then formal mediation is the best way to proceed, because with them we know what we're getting. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Nathan

CNN/Reuters [6]
COMMENT:It's clear from this that factory farming is but one type of intensive farming. It even qualifies the terms as referring to beef production. industrially farmed beef It is not logical to assume that because one thing is a type of the other that the other is also true. This is known as a type of non sequetur known as Affirming the consequent. NathanLee 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
CBC [7]
COMMENT: The report is on 'Ground water" and "Intensive farming". In that report there's absolutely no mention of the word "factory". By this logic the term "ground water" is synonymous with factory farming. If you read the actual report (found here) you'll see that it's referring to a subset of intensive farming in that report, mainly that to do with cows and hogs. It also however mentions in the "competition for groundwater" section about crops and irrigation. NathanLee 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Committee for Environmental Cooperation [8] (pdf)
COMMENT:It's referring to two separate attributes of a farm, not saying those things are the same thing. e.g. a car can be fast and also red in colour: that doesn't mean red=fast. That paper very clearly (as in for EVERY) use of the word "intensive" qualifies it with either "intensive livestock", "intensive dairy", "intensive cattle". Surely this supports the notion that intensive means more than just "factory farming". The term used in the article was "industrial scale". That would also suggest that it means that industrial = large. Not industrial = confined animal feeding operations. It's not even the same term that is being asserted to be identical "industrial agriculture" does not appear anywhere in the article. It's a hell of a stretch to be trying to say the terms are used synonymously. NathanLee 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Farcical requirement

Firstly: you either show the terms to be equivalent or to be different, not "have to show the terms in question being used in a different way and it must say that they are not the same" (which is the impression I get from your requirement). That's not how verifiability or validation works. If we can show that the terms exist in their own right and have different uses: then that's one half the argument. You've now widened the scope to mean that "modern farming" by the once again dubious technique. I really can't see how we can proceed with rational debate if a) you're going to chop out anything you disagree with and b) read any article with the two terms mentioned to mean they are then able to be used synonymously. The term synonymously: "you keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means". You simply cannot be saying now that "factory farming" is synonymous with "modern farming" for all cases. There's modern extensive farming and modern organic, small scale farming.. Intensive farming might be a common type of modern farming, but to now be saying that all modern farming is "Factory farming" is beyond ridiculous. NathanLee 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see where a problem exists then. You think that we are simply saying that the terms are always used synonymously. I'm not saying that, so of course there are examples of them not being used synonymously. The issue is that they most of the time, by mainstream media, are used synonymously - something which, it seems, you think is such a marginal issue that it shouldn't appear in any of the pages.-Localzuk(talk) 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Coroebus

Many of these sources compare rather poorly with e.g. these explicit contrasts of 'factory farming' and 'industrial agriculture', for instance, the last one added by Crum ("The term "factory farming" used in relation to grape growing in Sonoma County.") simply says "Measure M had the backing of farmers, ranchers and vintners skeptical of factory farming and laboratory tinkering. But it drew strong opposition from others in agriculture, including the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. The measure would establish a 10-year moratorium in Sonoma on the "propagation, cultivation, raising, growing, sale or distribution of transgenic organisms." The second link better supports the position (""It certainly would not be good for our image to have genetically engineered grapes, if we can at all avoid it," said George Davis, owner of Porter Creek Vineyards in Healdsburg and a supporter of Measure M. "We have an image of pure, wholesome wine that comes from very traditional, wholesome sources, grown by small farmers using traditional methods -- certainly not by factory farming and laboratory tinkering."") but the poor quality of these sources which are suddenly flooding the page, when contrary and explicit quotes were ignored, is not achieving anything. I'm sure there must be a way of resolving this issue where we don't actually need to take a position on whether 'factory farming' is synonymous with 'industrial agriculture' or not, and I think that routes lies down the road of deciding what the articles are about, not what they are called, since this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Coroebus 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the terms factory farming and the others are sometimes used interchangeably. So we cannot flat out say that they are different or that one is a 'subset' of the other. Crum375 18:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion that we might want to decide what the articles are going to be about (irrespective of name) and then attempt to say what terms can be used to refer to them. --Coroebus 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd beg to differ Crum: if they are "sometimes used interchangeably" but not other times: might that not suggest that they are firstly different things (so why the desire to delete articles for a "sometimes interchangeable" use) and secondly if it's "sometimes" surely that means "for some of" or "in some cases" (and therefore would it be reasonable to say "a subset" or factory farming is a type of..). If that article on grapes means it's interchangeable: then so is the term "laboratory tinkering" as it's used in exactly the same way. I agree with Coroebus in that we can mention the terms can be used (we just need to supply the context because without context it isn't fair to say they are synonymous) NathanLee 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Argument

Please re-read section 8 of this page, where I suggest a compromise.

SV: Please remember that interpreting documents is OR. If a document provides an explicit definition of a term, it can be used as a source for the term's meaning; if it doesn't, then extrapolating a meaning from the way a term is used is OR interpretation and SYN.

I don't have time right now to read all of the posts and arguments made here in the last however-many hours. I'll get to it in the next few days. Jav43 17:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly helpful to tell people to "remember" a claim that is contention in the first place. From my reading it appears the terms are used synonymously; it's not OR to use them the same way that the sources do. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
From my reading of synonymous those articles do not use them in such a way.. Taking a step back we've got clear definitions that describe exactly what the terms are which are being ignored to pursue this derived definition of synonymous terms. "used together often" =/= "synonymous".. That's a synthesis or OR definition.. It's pretty obvious that factory farm means confined animal intensive farming practices. NathanLee 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I very quickly found four sources that used them as synonyms, not "used together often". Did you read them, above? No doubt there are many more. That's not a synthesis. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone summarise the different positions very briefly for me, having been away a few days I find I'm having trouble following what is going on. --Coroebus 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to jayjg (here because SV asked for someone to support her assertion that the terms were synonymous). You're still not aware I think of what synonymous means and the concept of context (as the comments on your "synonymous" links said).

  • Your first one is within the context of animal farming (the report is on animals). Which is what factory farming is: a form of intensive animal farming.
  • your second one backs the notion that it's just relating to animals. Again it's within the context of animals..
  • 3rd one was a statement by the "Farm animal reform movement": so obviously they're referring to animals. Also read the sentence again and you'll see that it's just a big lot of qualifications of what the "are

cruel to animals.." part is all about. It refers to the intensive farming technniques referred to as factory farming. Not "all of intensive farming techniques".

  • and your final one is clearly again about animal only farming context.

Within a certain context the terms may be synonymous. Absolute synonymous usage is highly unlikely and in this case VERY disputable.. This attempt to make out that the terms are synonymous is consistent with an animal liberation driven POV and that's all. It requires a pretty selective way of reading articles to ignore context and the notion that it is a TYPE OF.. In case you missed it [9], [10], [11] and any other dictionary or encyclopaedia you care to look at.. But Jayjg: you're entering this late, and at SV's request, so rather than us going the full cycle of the same arguments (that SV failed to bother reading), perhaps just leave the debate to those who have been following it.. NathanLee 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Why do you keep missing the point? No-one is saying the terms are 100% synonymous. They are saying that sometimes they are used synonymously. Did you even bother reading my comments above?-Localzuk(talk) 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But my recollection is that the argument started over the line that defined 'industrial agriculture' as being synonymous with 'factory farming' right in the intro of the article. --Coroebus 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is what we want. As the 2 terms are used synonymously sometimes. To not include it would be to ignore the widespread synonymous usage of the terms by the mass media and other forms of publication.-Localzuk(talk) 18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So you wouldn't accept saying that 'industrial agriculture' can be used to refer to 'factory farming' without saying they're synonymous? That's a bit extreme as a position given that you have agreed that they are only sometimes used synonymously (i.e. it would be a false claim on our part). --Coroebus 19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? That wasn't what I said. This entire argument has become twisted and winding. We had a claim in the lead that the 2 terms were used synonymously - which was removed by NathanLee and the rest of 'that side' of the argument (the last one was Jav43). This complete removal of the information was one of the problems that we are arguing about. Another was the issue with crops, and another was the overall culling of large amounts of important information from the lead. All we wanted was things to not be removed due to the over use of academic sources at the expense of other mainstream sources.-Localzuk(talk) 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't follow from the earlier arguments: If you're now ok with not enforcing this idea of "exactly synonymous"/"the same" that SV's pushing for..? There's also a difference between "this term is synonymous" with "this is synonymous in this particular context". The argument was merely against the "absolute" or complete synonymous argument (and corresponding push for all the articles to be lumped into "factory farming" which also doesn't indicate much leeway on the terms being "sometimes" synonymous you know..) If it was "sometimes" I believe that's exactly what I and others have been saying since the start:"Sometimes" or "in some context" means you're talking "type of" or "subset" because it obviously doesn't mean "all the time" which is all I was after, look at what I changed it to.. Just to say it was a subset. If you put an unqualified "also known as" as the first sentence of the lead and want to get rid of the other articles for the other terms: that implies synonymous "all the time". Perhaps we're edging towards consensus on something :) NathanLee 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk: this was the specific question to try and work this out. You voted that they were A -"It appears "Factory farming" is an exactly synonymous term for intensive farming (e.g. intensive crop farming, intensive animal farming). So any type of intensive farming is factory farming as well.". Which you voted for.. The rest of us (that voted) went with B which was that it was a type of/subset of.. NathanLee 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and I still stand by that statement - I am willing to compromise to get things moving. The statements are synonymous - and that includes Crops also - the term 'synonymous' means words with 'similar or identical meaning'. That is what we have here, and that is why ideally we would have a single article discussing the entire lot but just pointing out that sometimes the terms are used for specific things (as far as I can see, the majority of the time, the terms are used synonymously so the individualistic uses of each are sub-uses of them according to the naming policies and POV policy. But, as I said, we have accepted that we can have a couple of articles which state their usage (this was accepted many many paragraphs ago) but since then it has degraded into your demands for our complete acceptance of your demands.-Localzuk(talk) 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So if we can all agree that it would be acceptable to have an intro that acknowledges that different terms can be used to refer to whatever our article is about (but that may refer to something else, and give a link - I think this is necessary to deal with ambiguous redirects), the disagreement comes down to how many articles and what those articles are about, am I correct? If we can resolve that then presumably the next argument is about what to call those articles although I get the impression that Slim, Localzuk and co are admirably flexible in that regard. --Coroebus 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for that if that gets things moving again, I don't think it's a common thing (the struggle to find many articles that even mention the two terms together is proof of that).. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of how context and "synonymous" relate with this topic and as such the disagreement of "100% interchangeable" continued on. I don't think "factory farming" has been synonymous with crop type intensive farming as far as all the articles I've come across. As intensive farming/extensive farming/semi-intensive farming are concepts that's where the confusion between "the instance of intensive animal farming as is the current state of industrial agriculture in the developed world" and "abstract concept of using more input to boost productivity per land area".. NathanLee 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this resource got lost in the mix, I think it clearly delineates that factory farming is referring to a subset of the overall "thing" that is "industrial agriculture" (talking of "intensive monocultures" being the crop based side of industrial agriculture). It also talks of "intensive" with relation to resource and chemical etc.. NathanLee 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that we move away from arguing about whether 'industrial agriculture' means 'factory farming' means 'confined animal rearing' and instead focus on what we actually want articles on (rather than called). Then we could solve questions of words being, or not being, synonymous with intros like "Industrial animal rearing under confined conditions is often known as Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture (although these terms can also refer to industrial practices in agriculture generally, including in arable crop production, see XXXXXX)." So I'd appreciate it if soemone could either briefly summarise where we're at with this question, or people could very briefly indicate their own position. --Coroebus 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My position is that we could have one article on intensive farming with sections on the different aspects, but others have said no to that, so another suggestion would be to observe the natural split between animals and crops, and have one article on each. I've seen people object to this, but I'm still not clear why. We could look at the history, the process of industralization, the benefits (cheap food), the criticism (cruelty allegations, human health problems), the different position of various farmers' groups, whether and why there's a move away from it (in Europe anyway) back to pre-industrial/organic farming, and whether that's still feasible. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I wasn't initially that fussed about the intensive agriculture page, looking at it now I think it covers some actual content we wouldn't otherwise have anywhere else (the historical stuff), but it doesn't cover that much on the industrial/modern intensive agricultural side. I wonder whether we could refactor the industrial agriculture stuff that might warrant a combined article (from industrial agriculture) into intensive agriculture (into the 'industrial agriculture' section) then split out the animals bit into a specific article summary style (aquaculture is already an article), and perhaps keep the crops stuff as the crops section of the industrial agriculture article is the same as the crops only article. --Coroebus 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Terms

I completely object to the way SV has altered my additions to this section by declaring them to be supportive of the other side of the argument. I requested that the user undo the messing around with my contributions to this section but it has gone unheeded (and was archived off that users talk page with no reply or action). Also: SV's definitiobn of "The same" is way out of normal english rules of "equivalent" or "synonymous". Used in the same article does not mean synonymous. I'd appreciate SV put back my contributions that she either deleted [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], hidden in "added now content" comment or modified [17],[18] and reworded to add to her side via chopping of the quote,[19]. This then followed by an accusation of ME doing the changing of her edits when I changed no content whatsoever of hers [20]. NathanLee 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources with definitions of terms, rather than sources that merely use terms. Our interpretation of term use is OR and extrapolating definitions from dicta is simply irresponsible. I have provided actual definitions for factory farming above; please do the same. Jav43 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Are people listening to each other...

... or this has become a contest to see who wins?

Mediation is obviously needed, as it is obvious that familiarity and thousands of words have made arguments circular and almost inside jokes. A fresh, neutral perspective is needed, badly. Why not?--Cerejota 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

SV/Crum/Localzuk "win" by retaining the status quo, as the locked version of the "factory farming" page supports their POV. That removes their incentive to compromise... which has yielded this stalemate. Jav43 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We must go into moderation...

I haven't seen a really fresh idea here in weeks, we are just rehashing the same arguments and propossals, and this has to stop.--Cerejota 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Constantly reverting back to the initial stances by involved parties is not helping anything. Mediation would hopefully make some sense out of all this.-Localzuk(talk) 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless everyone agrees to 2 articles or less, mediation is the only way out. Crum375 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you are unwilling to compromise? Jav43 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. I think one (with sections for each type) is the correct and most logical number. Two is a stretch – sub-optimal (since there are many overlapping issues) but I can live with it if there is no other choice. Three or more would be just a mess and unacceptable to me. Crum375 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, with a preference for mediation with the MedCom. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ambivalent. Jav43 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Side issue - please vote

I would like to propose that we remove the lead from the current version of the protected "factory farming" article for as long as it is protected. As I mentioned [21], I feel that having the lead support a particular POV in this dispute is not facilitating movement toward consensus. Removing the lead is contrary to everyone's wishes for the final product, but it will remove the disputed text from the article. Thus, removing the lead would not sponsor a request to "remove The Wrong Version", as it does not choose any version as "right", but rather would simply remove all disputed text from the article so that everyone may move forward equitably and on equal footing. Please express whether you support or oppose this proposal.

  • Support - Yes: I initiated this proposal AND I believe it would be good. Jav43 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If we leave the rest of the entry there, then the reader will get the same information in a more expanded form. I fail to see how by eliminating a summary of what's there anyway we are helping anything. In addition, I feel this issue is a diversion - I think we need to focus our attention, priorities and efforts on resolving our differences and agreeing on the real issue, which is an entry (or entries) we can all accept. Since it seems to me that the odds of agreeing to such a compromise on our own here are negligible at this point, I repeat the call for mediation, preferrably via the Mediation Committee, that would have the best chances to help us reach real results. Crum375 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Though how do you edit the article if it's protected? Haber 03:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Any admin could help with that, including the ones participating in this discussion, if it came to that. But I think that's a moot point because it would require total consensus. Crum375 04:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If called upon by the people, I am prepared to serve. FNMF 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's reach a decision

All in favor of removing the block and having this page redirect to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation say aye. WAS 4.250 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Aye WAS 4.250 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No definitely not. That's a technical term not used by any mainstream sources. We should stop making new proposals and instead act on the one that has the most support so far, whichever it is; or else agree to mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye It's a more descriptive, non loaded term. So long as we make mention of the use of the term to mean the same thing, that should be all good. We've got several sources that mention the term. NathanLee 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" on Google = 101,000 hits
  • "Factory farming" = 490,000
  • "Industrial farming" = 115,000
  • "Industrial agriculture" = 460,000
  • "Intensive farming" = 433,000
  • "Intensive agriculture" = 532,000
Good idea to choose the term with the fewest hits. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Terminology should reflect expert use not ignorant use. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Google has nothing to do with anything. The most accurate and NPOV term should be used: here, that is CAFO. Jav43 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Terminology should reflect expert use not ignorant use. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - I think terminologies on Wikipedia should follow their popular names, not the esoteric technical ones (which can always be redirected), because we write for the man/woman on the street, and they are most likely to search the more common terms. Crum375 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Factory farming can redirect to CAFO, although it would be better to treat "factory farming" as wikipedia treats other pejorative terms, like nigger. Jav43 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The more popular term is most likely to be heard or read by our readers, and that's what they'll look up most. That CNN, BBC, Wash Post, Reuters, with their fully-staffed PC departments use Factory Farming means it's not a pejorative. Crum375 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Terminology should reflect expert use not ignorant use. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye - fact is fact... no need to bow to colloquial ideas. Encyclopedias should represent fact. Those who haven't heard of CAFOs before should benefit by reading this encyclopedic article. There is absolutely no way we should use "factory farming", which is a pejorative term. Jav43 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I love the twists and turns on this page; they're a real testament to the flexibility of the human brain. If the "other side" had suggested using a term no one had ever heard of, we'd have had another 55,000 words of shock and awe. But if someone you agree with suggests it, it's hey! let's all learn something new! :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Both sides are human, slim. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye I can't understand the argument that it's bad to look up "factory farming" and be redirected to CAFO. Even if it is a "technical term," I can't see how it will hurt them to learn the term via the redirect. It seems to me that when people oppose "technical term" to "popular term" this is a bit disingenuous: what the insistence on the so-called "popular term" really reflects is the desire of some editors to have a non-neutral term as the article title. If so, these editors should recognise that this desire is obstructing progress on these articles, and isn't helpful (not even to the cause they are championing). FNMF 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not so. We have all agreed to industrial farming, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, factory farming, intensive farming (animals), and intensive farming (crops). These are all terms used by mainstream sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this will help?
  • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"
  • "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists"
Does this explain the 'insistence' on the popular term? Crum375 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. It doesn't convince me these arguments aren't disingenuous. I just don't believe that what is motivating editors such as yourself is your strong commitment to naming conventions policy. I find it incredible that editors clearly prefer a ridiculous deadlock to giving way on a minor question such as this. There is so little to be gained from this kind of stalling. FNMF 04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of distorting our position? Look above for the seven terms we have agreed to. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you say "aye" to "All in favor of removing the block and having this page redirect to Industrial agriculture (animals) say aye." ? I would accept that as a compromise, altho perhaps others wouldn't and we'd still have a deadlock. WAS 4.250 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not a propaganda term. It is now used by mainstream sources. Perhaps it used to be a propaganda term, but now it isn't, and we've supplied sources to demonstrate this e.g. BBC, CNN, and Washington Post, hardly bastions of animal rights activism. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you feel the need to insert your personal opinion after every "Aye" vote? Haber 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as we don't do votes on this site, we do discussions, I would say it is perfectly normal to try and disprove blatantly false statements and positions. Saying things like 'Factory farmin is a propaganda term' when there is huge amounts of evidence to the contrary in the form of news media deserves a response.-Localzuk(talk) 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has implored us numerous times to keep the discussion brief, yet seems incapable of taking her own advice. You too have added thousands of words of personal opinion recently. I inserted a one line "Aye" statement and you jumped in with your nerdy "No votes on Wikipedia!" comment. Now how does that help? Haber 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no intension of heating this discussion, I am just a passer by. I would have never come up with the term CAFO to look up something on agriculture or farming, I made a logical assumption: This is a farm, a lot of machines are used, so much that it looks like a factory or industry. I mean you can't deny that it is an industry, millions of animals are "produced" for consumption. Also it reads in the article Farms producing animals this way are also known as confined[8] or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and intensive livestock operations (ILOs). So this would mean CAFO and ILO together are Factory Farms. Again don't shoot me since this seems to be a very heated discussion and I don't want to troll or feed them. yours humbely Teardrop onthefire 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on naming at wikipedia

The scientific and technical articles that are based on peer reviewed sources often have the scientifically or technically correct name as the common name is ambiguous and/or means something different altho the average person would not know that until they read the article. Like avian flu versus H5N1. Even tho people will use one to mean the other, they don't mean the same thing. Or Flu vs. Influenza. I get the impression that slim belives newspapers are at least on an equal footing with peer reviewed sources and sometimes I think her beliefs concerning secondary sources versus primary sources mean that she thinks wikipedia should prefer newspapers overs peer reviewed sources. I believe the scientific and technical editors at wikipedia disagree with this. Farming in today's world is a highly technical information-management-intensive economic activity. Newspapers are a joke of a source for that. WAS 4.250 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Time for arbcom

  • yes - WAS 4.250 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • ArbCom doesn't rule on content - this is a somewhat over-verbose but otherwise fairly civil content dispute. Crum375 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • We'd need to go through mediation first, and then there would have to be issues other than content before the ArbCom would look at it. But other steps in dispute resolution must be tried first in any event. Why not sign up for mediation, WAS, if you want outside help? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Because if someone wants to help, they don't need my approval to help. WAS 4.250 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, they do. If we want mediation, all parties have to agree. I can't see why anyone wouldn't agree in this case, because we clearly need it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm saying that anyone who wants to can come to this page and talk. You are refering to the anti-wiki rules currently insisted on by a specific group here at the English language Wikipedia that you submitted a mediation form to. WAS 4.250 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, that's how we do formal mediation on Wikipedia; and formal mediation is the best way to proceed because the mediators go through some training, and the process is respected by the ArbCom. That is, I am proposing that we initiate formal dispute resolution, which you agree with, because you suggested ArbCom. The only difference between us is that I want to start at Step 1, and you want to start at Step 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(<--)All of them. I don't know anything about this whole wiki-formal-mediation thing and I am wary of being asked to agree to something I know nothing about. Would you sign something before you read it? If agreeing is nothing then why do I have to do it? If agreeing is something then what could it be since they claim it is not binding. WAS 4.250 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The processes are described at WP:DR - Arbcom is the 'last resort' and before that is formal mediation.-Localzuk(talk) 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere where arbcom members were disparaging the mediation process and the mediators with an example showing how bad it was and one remarked they found it useless. I can't find it and it is possible I'm misremembering and were talking about advocates or some such thing. WAS 4.250 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There has been individual criticism of individual cases, and sometimes the MedCom has been slow to respond because it's volunteer work the same as anywhere else on WP, but in general they are very good, and the ArbCom does trust them. The outcome is not binding in the sense that the mediator can start banning people who ignore it. But if, for example, a mediated agreement led to us installing version X, and then three days later, one of us started reverting to version Y, that person could then be taken to the ArbCom over that behavior (not over the content), and the ArbCom would almost certainly respect the mediated agreement and would take action against the reverter. So the results are not formally binding, but are de facto highly respected. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We've reached consensus on one of the matters: that the terms are equivalent/synonymous. That was the big sticking point. That was the revert war reason to start: if that's resolved then anything else is a separate matter isn't it? If the 3 editors are happy to start a revert war on that again: then arbcom can be used for determining the disruptive editing claim for going against consensus. NathanLee 11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Yes - There is a strong user conduct component to this case that makes it highly unlikely that mediation will work. That said, I don't expect good things to come out of ArbCom either. Haber 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Changed vote. Haber 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation 2

Can people please agree to formal mediation? This back and forth is a waste of time, getting us nowhere. I can't understand why someone would agree to ArbCom but not to mediation, as the latter is the stage that needs to be gone through before the former can be considered.

To those who objected and failed to respond to the request, please signal here if you're willing to reconsider. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation is suggested at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Let's try that. Let whoever would be doing formal mediation try informal first. WAS 4.250 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Informal mediation is fine if you can't find a formal mediator. But I think we would be able to. I can't see why you'd prefer informal to formal, if both are available. SlimVirgin (talk)
So you're paying attention to dispute resolution NOW? How about the bit about "discuss" or "revert only as a last resort" type recommendations? I can't see why you lot are STILL clinging to your non-sequitur "definition" after all this time. It's really just seeming ridiculous. You've tried to get dictionary and encyclopaedia's disallowed to try and support your skewed view.. Demand we find a quote that says the opposite of your factoid.. And here we still are trying to get you to just drop your absurd definition.. Senior editors or not: you're just being stubborn. You ask for a reference that says exactly one thing, when it's supplied you try to discredit it.. HOW ABOUT YOU JUST ACCEPT YOU ARE WRONG. How many more thousand words of discussion do you need before you'll assume good faith and accept that someone else might have a reasonable input to provide beyond yours. SV: you'd admitted elsewhere that you don't assume good faith and attack a user until you get someone you trust to recommend the user: Please do us the same courtesy. And then we don't have to try and work around your bizarre definition or cater to your inability to understand normal rules of English. NathanLee 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Listen, you are the ones who are stalling. We have agreed to one article. We have agreed to two articles. We have agreed to seven titles. We have filed an RfM, which might have been underway by now had others not blocked it.
Please people, let's get mediation started so we can get on with the rest of our lives. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
So have you agreed the terms are not synonymous yet? That's the important one.. NathanLee 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I still believe they are used synonymously and still stand by the earlier evidence that was presented. I think this has been made pretty clear many times now.-Localzuk(talk) 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Slim, what you have agreed to is what you have proposed and not what the other side has agreed to proposing. Both sides have agreed to their own proposals. I see no compromise with the other side's agreed on proposals. I see no evidence of your side doing real research or creating sourced intensive farming content. Why can't you agree to not do original research? Why can't you agree to discuss the evidence? Why can't you agree that we should present all sides of the issue instead of phrasing the definition of "factory farnibg" as if we are presenting truth rather than merely repeating others' claims? WAS 4.250 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
WAS, we are going around in circles, and we'll never get anywhere unless we find some common ground. Accusing each other of engaging in OR, or 'not doing real research', will get us nowhere. We obviously have clear disagreements here, about the number of articles needed, their titles, their contents, the definition and equivalence of the terms, etc. It seems clear to me that there is only one way to proceed, and that is via mediation. ArbCom won't take the case because we are all too civil, and I highly recommend formal mediation because we'd be more likely to get tangible results. Crum375 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. WAS, I'm very surprised by your behavior here, I must admit. This is exactly the kind of situation that mediation is designed for. Let's move forward with it and stop wasting time. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Slim, I'm very surprised by your behavior here, I must admit. This is exactly the kind of situation that ARBCOM is designed for. Let's move forward with it and stop wasting time. Why can't you agree to not do original research? Why can't you agree to discuss the evidence? Why can't you agree that we should present all sides of the issue instead of phrasing the definition of "factory farnibg" as if we are presenting truth rather than merely repeating others' claims? WAS 4.250 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

People are wikilawyering. It doesn't matter whether the terms are strict synonymous on every single occasion that they're used. What matters is whether we can have articles that say "also known as X, Y, and Z," without having those terms removed just because people can cite examples of them being used differently. The terms Holocaust and Shoah can be used differently but they're still akas.

I'm appealing to the opposers on this page who have common sense to take a stance against the filibustering (even if you agree with some of the sentiments) and to join us in trying to advance a sensible solution.

Please either agree to Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming (with the other terms as aks in the leads, and redirects), or similar titles, or agree to formal mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've established with Localzuk that the idea of having a mention that puts the terms in context or "sometimes known as" is acceptable. Would that be acceptable to you? To be honest: if you simply acknowledged before now that it wasn't 100% synonymous then you wouldn't have pushed to delete pages and squash everything under "factory farming". Easy solution, pages can co-exist. It's your insistence that they ARE the same for every single instance that means you need just one page to represent what I think we can all see now is more than one concept. NathanLee 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
NathanLee, I beg to differ. Even if the terms were not synonymous in all instances, what you propose would be a POV fork: those sources that allege dis-similarity between the terms do so on differences that do not justify separate articles, or in totally POV-driven terms. The solution of two articles (one for animals the other for plants) with "known as" is the only one that allows to cover th whole range of issues in a neutral and verifiable manner.
It has been your insistence (wholly and repeatedly disproved) that "Factory farming" is a controversial propaganda term, that leads to this entire conversation - Not SV's or anybody else's insistence on anything. Please do not lose that from sight.--Cerejota 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My eyes glaze over. (Why am I just now understanding Slim's comment about not reading all the comments?) WAS 4.250 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Cerejota: That's just wrong and not my argument at all. Actually I haven't made that insistence that it's purely a propaganda term (although I have said in the past that it's a loaded term), I acknowledged that it was used by politicians and in the media and it was/is primarily a term that has activist connotations [22] (and the fact that "factory farming" isn't a term used by those who are "Factory farmers" or government agencies), but moving on from that: my argument has been that the term "intensive farming" is NOT synonymous with factory farming (and as the debate has gone: I and others think it's based on questionable WP:SYN or WP:OR to be making that determination).
What you're talking about by merging all the articles is a POV MERGE (e.g. making "intensive farming" the same as "factory farming" when it's pretty damned obvious that it refers to more than factory farming does). Namely some strange activist concept that there's only "factory farming" and no other term for farming (SV even widened it to be the term "modern farming" which is simply ridiculous). I'm arguing against that because the term "intensive farming" refers to a concept that's pretty much got nothing to do with animals cramped in cages[23],[24],[25] (see extensive farming for the logical opposite). Dictionary and encyclopaedias talk of it in neutral /independent terms and there's any number of references that talk of intensive farming without any link to factory farming or animals. THAT is what I'm against.. Although I think it best to choose the most neutral term when one has POV attached (e.g. "this is a bad/nasty thing" and is primarily used by opponents). NathanLee 09:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You're never wrong about anything, are you Nathan? Everyone else is wrong, but you are always right. Everyone else's sources (no matter how many dozens they find) amount to OR and SYN, while your ONE source must be correct. Anyone else who for one day posts more than you is taking ownership of the talk page, but it's fine for you to post very long, repetitive posts amounting to scores of thousands of words in response to everything that anyone else says, to the point where no one can make their way through this discussion anymore. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is enough to make anyone lose their cool, huh? ... Slim, you have to remember that both sides honestly think they are helping wikipedia and the other side just doesn't get it or else must be wikilawyering. Honestly, your behavior looks like wikilawyering to me, but I am sure your behavior does not look like that to you. It is when one is sure that AGF does not apply, that it is most important to act like it does anyway. WAS 4.250 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact still remains that Nathan is repeating the same 'your sources are OR and SYN' argument without accepting that just because he thinks that, doesn't mean it is true. I think SV's response there is well within the realm of reasonableness due to the constant lack of good faith shown by Nathan (this has been a problem since the very beginning, far before SV made changes as far as I remember). I simply say that we should drop this all and move on to sorting out the structure - let the past be the past, and move on.-Localzuk(talk) 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look back at the start of this whole thing and my plea on SV's page, and the ignored discussion attempts that were very much assuming good faith and very much attempting to follow the policies on dispute resolution. Take a look at the "avoid" part and you'll see it recommends against reverting without discussion.. Who did that? NathanLee 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Intensive farming to Factory farming

Well I see that a lot has happened while I have been gone. Thank you FNMF for helping to clear up the synonymous terms issue a little bit. SlimVirgin's evasiveness regarding this simple question has destroyed a lot of good will around here and helped to lead to the "toxic" "wikilawyering" environment of which she complains.

Stop these endless personal attacks. I've done nothing but try to be flexible and make suggestions since page protection. I've found sources, and I've filed an RfM, while a bunch of you sat around trying to define "synonym" and posting about how evil I am. I'm tired of being your punchbag. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a possible point of agreement that has to do with writing the encylopedia. One of the things that originally drew me to this discussion was the redirect [26] of Intensive farming to Factory farming and other similar redirects that SlimVirgin et al. seemed ready to edit war to the death to protect.

Hang on right there. I redirected other titles to factory farming only after someone else decided that should be the name of the article. It had been industrial agriculture. [27] It had also before that been split into animals and crops. I've gone along with all title suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well you have reverted my change to make this section easier to read, but I will let it stand so as to avoid a pointless edit war.
  • May 14[28], mislabelled as a minor edit.
  • May 16[29], in spite of WAS' opinion that this was not a proper redirect
  • May 18 - Industrial ag [30] edit summary "no, these terms are used interchangeably; see factory farming talk page; it is absurd to have three articles on the same topic"
This does not sounds like someone who has gone along with all title suggestions. Haber 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now thousands of words later and after exhausting the patience of several good Wikipedia editors I think we might have made some progress.

Can we agree *not* to redirect Intensive farming to Factory farming?

Yes Haber 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Premature - you are jumping the gun - we need to first agree on what the overall structure is, then we can agree on redirects. Crum375 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's premature. My own idea would be to direct all the terms to the one or two article titles we choose, but let's get there first. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - you have missed the point wildly. We are discussing a set of articles based on a 'crops' and 'animals' split at the moment - the terms would all change to different things, it seems. So, I'd say wait a while and see what the final outcome for the structure is.-Localzuk(talk) 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, don't agree to anything you don't want to. This just illustrates how inflexible the three of you are. Haber 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Inflexible? How is wanting to wait until we have sorted out the structure inflexible? It is common sense.-Localzuk(talk) 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You three are refusing to compromise, refusing to reference reliable sources that actually contain the information for which you are citing them, and refusing to review any sources that contradict your pre-conceived biases. That certainly is inflexible. Jav43 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that suggesting a position between the one of having dozens of articles based on the 'peer reviewed' definitions, and the stance by ourselves for one article with everything in is a compromise. Repeatedly suggesting that we pay no attention to the common usage/media usage of the terms, other than in a POV 'colloquial use' section is not compromise.-Localzuk(talk) 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - these are separate issues Jav43 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As I say below, you have ignored everything that has been said. Please take some time to read the sources and discussion, see the compromise being suggested by having a couple of pages and realise how inflexible you are being.-Localzuk(talk) 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I have read everything. I have ignored nothing. Please take a step back and attempt to objectively look at what you're proposing. It is ridiculous. Jav43 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

~Yes god yes. NathanLee 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Could people please say whether they agree or object:

How would you react to someone arguing for X number of articles about Jews? That's how I feel about you arguing about X number of articles about modern agiculture. WAS 4.250 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - though 'livestock' is not a good name for poultry, for example, and 'arable' may not be a good fit for some crops, so I would recommend (crops) and (animals) as the two categories of Intensive Farming. Crum375 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - this does not resolve the dispute and does not distinguish between different subjects Jav43 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does. Please read the sources above. Please understand what content would be included (the exact uses of each term can be discussed within the articles). Just saying no, whilst giving a suggestion of doing what we have specifically said we don't want, isn't helping. Please try and compromise.-Localzuk(talk) 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This proposal does not explain how it would represent "exact uses of each term". My suggestion is a more viable compromise that more accurately represents fact. Please try to look at it objectively. Jav43 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - per WAS and Jav. Haber 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - althought I am not sold on Intensive livestock farming and Intensive arable farming for lingusitic reasons. Livestock and Arable are much less common in usage than "crops" and "animals" - and on top of that not all animals intensively farmed are livestock (ie pork and beef): the fur industry in particular uses the same processing technologies, as does poultry and even farm fishing. But a compromise on organization must happen and I am sure not goign to let details over titles get in the way of content.--Cerejota 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - this is just the same idea over and over again to push the idea that the terms are the same. Which they aren't, it's purely POV. For the umpteenth time: extensive farming contrasts with intensive farming, it's got nothing to do with confined animal operations.. The concept was around long before them.. NathanLee 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But if you just have "intensive farming" listing the common concept and with links to the other pages.. Without insisting the term doesn't exist except to be equivalent term to "factory farming".. Then.. NathanLee 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal!

I propose we have these articles with the associated basic content:

  • Agriculture: remains as is: covers general farming history and practices
  • Intensive agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices intended to maximize use of natural resources
  • Extensive agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices intended to use minimal inputs on land
  • Industrial agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize production
  • Industrial agriculture (animals): remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize livestock production
  • Industrial agriculture (crops): remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize crop production
  • CAFO: contains the current information from the factory farming page, with an updated and unbiased lead
  • Factory farming: discusses the origin of the term factory farming and its uses and meanings in various settings; directs the reader to CAFO for a discussion of issues related to what is popularly known as factory farming

Please share your thoughts. Jav43 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Discussion of this approach

Do you mean you think this is a content fork? I don't understand how this is a POV fork. Regardless, since these are all different topics that cover different issues (read the relevant articles), I don't see how they are all "cover[ing] essentially the same topics". Jav43 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, it completely ignores all the evidence of the fact that the terms are sometimes used synonymously. It goes against the naming guidelines and it is a set of POV forks, depending on your views that the subject matters are different. So, you have simply suggested that we ignore the last week or so of discussion and move with the exact thing we complained about. Doesn't seem like much of a compromise to me. Instead of 1 article, which is what we want, you want 6 to cover the same topics. We suggest a compromise with 2 articles and a disambiguation page and you say no, going back to wanting tonnes of articles. This is simply amazing.-Localzuk(talk) 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The "evidence of the fact that the terms are sometimes used synonymously" is all your OR. Regardless, this provides for that, while simultaneously providing distinctions between the terms for readers to learn. Just because people use terms improperly doesn't mean we should also do so. Your "compromise" is entirely your POV and completely neglects the fact that these terms address separate, distinct issues - and is not close to a compromise of any sort. When we have terms with separate meanings, each capable of supporting its own article, we should provide a separate article for each term. Your failure to comprehend this obvious approach is simply amazing. Jav43 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Jav, for repeating the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again. There are roughly half the editors here who agree with you and half who don't. Move on, COMPROMISE!-Localzuk(talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed two explicit compromises. This is one of them. This proposal retains your pseudo-science while simultaneously providing solid articles. Please end your false characterizations of those of us who share a well-reasoned understanding of the topics here. Jav43 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've not seen any compromises proposed by you Jav, or anyone else who supports you; and where is the pseudo-science? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please actually read this discussion page, then. Here are my proposed compromises: [31] and [32]. Others have proposed other compromises. The pseudo-science is "defining" a term through its use in media and activist circles -- rather than through reference to actual definitions in peer-reviewed journals or equally well-respected sources. Jav43 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Content and POV forking are effectively the same, because once you separate out overlapping topics, they tend to collect one-sided POVs, since editors with opposing views tend not to maintain all the different versions equally, and doing so would violate the guideline. Crum375 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But these topics aren't overlapping. Jav43 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal is good, except that a new article is not needed. Specifically, no CAFO article -- just improvement of the objectivity of the Factory farming article. A strength of Wikipedia is the variety of articles that are heavily interlinked. It's not content forking when multiple terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing. If the terms are ever used with distinct meanings, a separate article is justified, if there is enough to be said on the topic.
Agriculture is the top level topic. Intensive agriculture, Extensive agriculture, and Industrial agriculture are subtopics of Agriculture that have enough distinctive use to justify their separate articles. Industrial agriculture (animals) and Industrial agriculture (crops) are excellent ways to break out major subtopics of Industrial agriculture. Factory farming is an accepted term in common use and cited in dictionaries and other encyclopedias, and deserves its own article. The primary definition for the Factory farming article should be based on the definitions in highly regarded sources, such as other encyclopedias, and any other meanings can be sited and referenced outside the primary definition.
Summary: Leave all the articles. Leave them named as they are. Improve the objectivity of the Factory farming article. JD Lambert 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Duplication of information is bad, why do it? Why make POV forks just because one source says one thing and another says another thing?-Localzuk(talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Duplication of info is bad. No, some duplication is bad, but it's is a question of how much. If a subtopic is lengthy it should be broken out into its own article to avoid parent articles that are too long. If a subtopic article needs a little duplication to round it out and make it a good stand-alone article, that's fine. If you see that something specific is duplicating too much, please remove it, while ensuring there is at least one link to the article where it remains. JD Lambert 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not only duplication: it's creating a definition by lazy POV deductions of a definition at the expense of a term.. NathanLee 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So I'm with your suggestion to leave all the articles. Insisting something is a POV fork when the pages currently exist and have distinct dictionary entries elsewhere is a POV merge.. NathanLee 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

The debate on this talk page amounts to whether or not other articles should be deleted. This discussion is getting nowhere. I propose that all editors who do not mind the existence of multiple articles ignore this debate. The articles exist: work on them. If some editors wish to delete articles, let those editors open AfDs for those articles. If they win the AfDs, they will have achieved their goal. If they lose the AfDs, then we have multiple articles. Clearly the problem is not going to be solved by debating the issue here. FNMF 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of us regard them as POV forks. Others do not. That's what the dispute is about, and because we can't resolve it, we need mediation. There's no point in just telling us to get over it, because we disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Slim, I'm not telling you and Crum and Local to get over it (I do believe you should get over it, but I don't think there's any point in me telling you to do so). I'm telling everyone else to ignore it. Jav is right that, if this page is going to remain protected, it would be better to delete the opening. But, given that there is not going to be agreement about anything whatsoever, I recommend all editors who are happy to have multiple articles not get too hung up over Jav's issue. FNMF 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So, you are suggesting that those that disagree with our POV ignore our objections and carry on anyway? That is not how to build a consensus FNMF, that is a way of being disruptive - it just discounts everything that is being said as unimportant, which it isn't.-Localzuk(talk) 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am suggesting: if you don't like the articles that currently exist, open an AfD. Given that consensus is highly unlikely, an AfD is the only legitimate way to get rid of articles. I believe editors are being sucked into a pointless debate that is going to go nowhere. You have your view of who is being disruptive and obstructive, and I have mine. FNMF 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That works, FNMF. Sounds good. All that leaves is the content of this page.
For that, I would like to reiterate this proposal [33] and this [34]. Jav43 02:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jav, can you say exactly why you won't agree to mediation? This is a question for Jav, by the way, not for anyone else. I would like to hear what he says independently of anyone else's input. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I did agree. [35] Jav43 05:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jav, saying that we should split the concepts entirely, completely ignoring our refs and examples, relegating it to a section named 'Colloquial Use', treating a widely used term the same as a racist/derogatory term, is not a compromise. It is pushing ahead with what you wanted and ignoring us entirely. A compromise is somewhere between the 2 sides - a middle area, with aspects from both. Please agree to a compromise (either propose a sensible one or agree to an existing one)-Localzuk(talk) 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This will be the second time today I have asked you to stop mischaracterizing me and lying about my position. As I have explained, the term "factory farming" ideally should not be used at all, as it is a pejorative and is not conducive to a quality encyclopedia. I am proposing a compromise here: provide an explanation of usage of the term. Jav43 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We have already shown that it isn't a perjorative term. It is used by a wide range of media, academic and mainstream sources to describe this subject matter. It *used* to just be a term relating to activists, but has adapted and been picked up by many other aspects of society.
Your proposal is simply to ignore mainstream usage, counter to WP:NPOV and lump it into a single section regardless of its credibility or verifiability - based on your own perception of the term. That is not a compromise, that is pushing for the same thing that was proposed originally (which was to remove the info from the lead and only discuss it in the article).-Localzuk(talk) 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And as we've debated: your point of view disagrees with dictionary and encyclopaedias and appears (to myself and I'm sure others) to be a non logical deduction.. But yet you still campaign to delete existing articles, surely that those sources suggest the articles should all exist is worth erring on "the safe side" and not pushing for deletion.. You're just arguing to delete stuff to get a "sometimes" used the same definition enforced. I look forward to your arguments on why jew/zionist/israeli should be merged into one article: because that's what you're doing here based on your notion of interchangeable.. NathanLee 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I'm actually very curious to know if Wikipedia is really committed to NPOV or if it is just full of crap. Because as it stands now I see an admin with years of experience, two obedient sidekicks, and a stated "Animal liberation" agenda plowing through topics relating to animals and warping them to her own ends. To be honest, I feel that no matter how many well-intentioned Wikipedians show up to discuss the matter, we won't make headway against the bullying tactics (moving comments, asking people to shut up), mindless verbosity (anything Localzuk says), and the fanaticism of experienced users who employ wolfpack tactics. (What was Jayjg doing here anyway?). I actually feel kind of stupid for helping them make a popular site that they could then turn into a sophisticated collection of attack pages. Haber 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:NPA, calling everything I say 'mindless verbosity' is a personal attack. This is the exact behaviour that is holding this entire process back - you are focusing on editors rather than working on achieving a compromise/consensus.-Localzuk(talk) 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I have a feeling that you wanted to mention Arbcom, as you titled the section but haven't mentioned it as such. Are you wanting to move forward with an ArbCom case?-Localzuk(talk) 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Haber: if you jump the gun to ArbCom you are going to get banned for personal attacks, and pretty much that is the only thing that will happen, as this is an editing dispute over which ArbCom doesn't rule, and pretty much everyone here has been generally civil and refrained from personal attacks, except for yourself. That is my prediction. If you really have concrete proposals for content, then mediation in good faith is the best way to go.--Cerejota 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, remember that you don't need support from others in order to go to Arbcom, you can propose the case alone, forcing everyone else into the arbcom.-Localzuk(talk) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration will not be accepted for content disputes. Mediation cannot impose a solution, it only helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone and that doesn't appear likely. JD Lambert 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
JD, I disagree with that assessment. I think an outside voice with experience of content disputes and knowledge of the policies would be able to guide us. It's at least worth a try, because we currently don't have another option. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully with the comment form S.V. The only other alternative is to continue filling this talk page with circular arguments and yet another iteration of "Strawpoll vs Straw-poll". If you don't trust the good faith of wikipedia admins, then get the fork out of here. :D--Cerejota 01:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Haber, I was asked for my opinion on some issues of alleged original research, and I gave it, and provided sources for my views. Please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim/Cerejota, I have no problem with accepting mediation, I just don't think it's likely to result in a solution. I like to be optimistic, but I need at least a meager reason, and I don't see one here. It's not a matter of admins working in good faith, which I expect, it's a matter of an inability to sufficiently compromise. If one person insists on eliminating an article, and another person insists on keeping it, that's an impasse. Mediation will not impose a solution. That's not an assessment, that's Wikipedia policy. And as long as at least one person is not willing to invoke mediation, it won't happen. JD Lambert 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

It seems that someone cites some civility or disruption or similar Wikipedia policy page almost daily. Grow up. If you have a concern, then deal with it. Don't go yelling for authorities or crying, "He broke the rules!!!!" Civility is difficult to come by when people refuse to deal with content and instead continuously complain about format. Move on. Jav43 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jav43, but civility is the only way we are going to get through this. If you can't deal with that then you shouldn't be here.-Localzuk(talk) 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm always moaning at Jay for his excessive references to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and so on, but in this case we're generating more heat than light here, and it won't do us any harm to at least keep the attacks to a minimum, they haven't done us any good so far, and I think we all know where we all stand. --Coroebus 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, just move on. Unless people are actively making attacks against you for the sake of insulting you for reasons unaffiliated with your statements on this page, there's no reason to cite any rules. Citing conduct rules every five seconds just makes more people angry. Snap out of it. Learn to resolve disputes without crying for playground moderators. Jav43 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand my point Jav43. An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not condusive to a useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If users are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.
If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the 'right' answer and find it difficult to assume good faith of the other parites, but we must force ourselves to as much as possible, and to stay civil. Else we are just a bunch of arguing editors who are doing exactly nothing for improving the site.
So, 'crying to the playground moderators' is a good thing as it reminds people to stay useful.-Localzuk(talk) 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am turning this into an essay. I am just feeling kinda bold... :P WP:POOR--Cerejota 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that civility is good and is conducive to a good work environment. However, whining about imagined or real instances of incivility does not get us anywhere. Save the references to "civility" rules for truly egregious wrongs and everyone (other than you) will be much happier. Jav43 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Even Coroebus, a self-admitted critic of the (in)famous Jay agrees this instance is called for. Please refrain from falsely accusing other editors of excess... that is being uncivil! (And I have had my share of unsightly encounters with Jay too, he is harsh like a Russian steppe, and likes the wikilawyer part a bit too much, but in reality he tends to be helpful and civil.) --Cerejota 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not look at any particular instance, but rather saw two citations to conduct rules in little more than a day... after weeks of continued citations to conduct rules. If particular instances do absolutely require such citations, then so be it, but nothing requires the multitude of citations to conduct rules that we have seen. Jav43 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there is a simple answer to this problem then - be civil and then citations won't be necessary. What you are doing is complaining because people are trying to keep things in order here. If someone warns others about civility, I doubt they are doing it for minor reasons.-Localzuk(talk) 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see someone give a civility warning for a "major" reason. Seriously, just let some things go. We don't need to whine every time someone ruffles our feathers. Jav43 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intensive_animal_farming/Archive_7&oldid=1037627002"