Talk:Anita Krajnc case

Notability
It's current news in Canada and elsewhere. MaynardClark (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

doctoral thesis
Isn't the correct terminology "doctoral dissertation"? ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can change it. The source uses "thesis"  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In India the term 'thesis' is preferred over 'dissertation'. I suggest leaving it alone. --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about a Canadian not an Indian.Correctron (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I guess I wasn't paying attention. --regentspark (comment) 01:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
The article as currently written seems to be overtly sympathetic to Ms. Krajnc. In addition, the inclusion of supportive hashtags is coming rather close to advocacy. I haven't added the NPOV tag however, because I would like to hear some opinions from others first. Philip72 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate how it is sympathetic? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Stanzas like "A Huffington Post Canada story titled "Meet The Compassionate Canadians Who Give It All To Animals" includes Krajnc as one of the five chosen and describes her as having "a mighty heart to bear witness to any creature's grim odyssey to death" for "she has been standing "vigil" at the gates of death for thousands of pigs"" give quotes that are hagiographic in tone, rather than objective. The only quotes given in the Reaction area are also highly laudatory, and no opposing views are presented. Finally the inclusion of "Instagram and Facebook pages have been created with the hashtags #compassionisnotacrime and #StandbyAnita." is problematic as they are obviously placed to guide sympathetic readers to places where they can advocate. Philip72 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Now just to clarify, I personally think what Ms. Krajnc did was wonderful. However I also believe that for Wikipedia to be respected as a non-partisan, objective resource, neutrality must be observed. Philip72 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't know policy regarding hastag, please quote relevant one. (2) Regarding Huffpost's quote, the text is like a citation in support of their choice - so its inclusion. (3) Opposing views are there in the incident section, if you wish they may be shifted there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try and flip this around for you. Imagine for a moment that the paragraph quoted said this; "Meet The Compassionate Animal Haulers Who Work For Most Humane Pork Processors" includes Veldjesgraafas one of the five chosen and describes him as having "a mighty heart to ensure only the best treatment of his animal cargo" as "he's the pinnacle of responsible and ethical animal treatment".
 * Furthermore, imagine that hashtags #approachinglivecargoisdangerous and #StandbyJeffrey were added. I think you'd agree that the tone in these additions is not neutral.
 * This is my opinion though, and I'm grateful you've added yours. As I said at the start, I'd like to hear from a few others before any changes are made or any tags added. Philip72 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if wp:RS had reports about such tags, we would use them, or such quotes, We've used the other side's quote too for balance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I took them out of main text and moved them to a note. At best they are peripheral.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 04:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"An unknown substance"
In this edit, amongst other changes, an editor has changed "water" to "an unknown substance", despite all the sources describing what was given as being water. I would like to be informed of the reasoning behind this. This has now been reverted back into the article a couple of times. MPS1992 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this change after no explanation was forthcoming here for several days. Also both of the accounts making this change have been blocked for sockpuppetry. MPS1992 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Police Report: "Unknown liquid" -. . .Both said they worried about the contents of Krajnc's bottle, which Halton Police called "unknown liquid" in their report. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/anita-krajnc-trial-day-two-1.3736351 I believe the police report definition should replace "water" as we have no clue what Anita gave the pigs. They told me that it was impossible to test the unknown liquid as she had fed it to the pigs. Anita's word is not good enough. CBC is a reliable source. A police report is fact.

Being Neutral is a Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.148.143 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks. baconforbreakfast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.148.143 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added the detail about what the police report said to the article, since it is reported in an independent reliable source. However, I cannot see any justification for the mass replacement of "water" with "unknown liquid" throughout the article, because that is not what any of the reliable sources say. Police reports are not used to source controversial information about living people. MPS1992 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Compassionate to Others
" . . . matter and that being compassionate to others should not be considered criminal" - it does not state this in the article cited. Pigs are animals, livestock, food, or simply just pigs. "A pig is any of the animals in the genus Sus, within the Suidae family of even-toed ungulates." Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig. Citing is a rule- Wikipedia policy. Opinions should not be stated in a Wikipedia article, another Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate it changed to one of the three, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.152.86.13 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The cited source -- written by Krajnc herself -- only mentions "others" in a quote by Tolstoy, who was not referring to pigs. I have therefore replaced "others" with "them", which makes sense and still conveys Krajnc justification for her actions. If any of the other sources indicate that there were claims along the lines of pigs being people, then I would support mention of these claims being added to the article, duly sourced. Where I come from, pigs are not food nor livestock, but they are definitely not considered people either, no matter how even their toes are. MPS1992 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. I consider pigs on my farm pets and treat them as such- but at the end of the day a person must eat, and vegetables just don't cut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.152.86.13 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Farmer Fined
"A story reporting the incident noted that breeding facilities owned by the same Eric van Boekel were charged with polluting the Thames river in April 2007 and fined $120,000.[5]" This statement is not relevant to Anita Krajnc's Case. Open a new Wiki and call it farmer fines, Eric V. B. Case, polluting the Thames River -etc. Keep it relevant. 162.253.130.35 (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)thanks162.253.130.35 (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree -- the independent reliable sources mentioned the farmer's convictions as being relevant and mentioned in the legal proceedings which were, after all, instituted by the same farmer. MPS1992 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please state the reliable sources or source, I can't find the one you are talking about. Thanks. If there isn't one, please delete the farmer fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.152.86.13 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The source cited inline at the end of the sentence in question, includes the text who has in the past pleaded guilty and paid a fine for dumping pig manure into Ontario’s Thames River. MPS1992 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

See also:
Since we are just throwing anything on this page, also include pig slaughter under see also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_slaughter&ved=0ahUKEwj9oeK3q53PAhXIDj4KHdEjDiAQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNH26f3kocR3aiGbEB8qiDMGaWJiGQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.148.143 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pig and slaughterhouse are already linked in the lede. I've added pig slaughter as an additional wikilink under the description of the incident. MPS1992 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Juniper (friar) has nothing to do with article, (I know you are going to just say you disagree, you added it-maybe someone else can take this one at wiki)

why isn't deletion of this article being discussed if it is up for deletion?
If this article is to be deleted it should not be deleted without community discussion. Why can't I find a link within the notice to the AfD discussion if there is one? I would grant that the article is at least somewhat biased but bias only is rarely sufficient grounds for deletion.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The link is at the top of this page in one of the header templates. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not "up for deletion". And it (I mean the article, not the tag) should not be deleted.  Clearly supported by WP:GNG.  Someone has a concern about alleged bias and posted a tag.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't it tagged NPOV as opposed to giving a specific time when the article could be deleted? I object to the idea of having a no discussion delete tag.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Reason for deletion: Wikipedia is trying to make Anita a saint, but she is clearly a misguided soul. When the bible was written people kept animals for food, clothing, etc. (property) It is unclear how she got so twisted, but that is another article for Wikipedia. . . In the bible they even sacrificed animals to god - (gasp!) History is not pretty, I admit. Anyway, Wikipedia clearly believes she is innocent of a crime and will not make edits to create a neutral article, simply stating "I disagree" or add something that is clearly favoring the accused. Articles should not have hash tags in my opinion, delete them. This article is so skewed that it should be deleted, and possibly started from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.121.122 (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The box up above says that the article was nominated for deletion in November and the result of the discussion was "keep" David in DC (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

New vote. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.14.241 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC) free to edit wikipedia, no. Think I will ever donate. NO. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.130.84 (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Anita Krajnc case. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.14.241 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anita is in the news again! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/woman-already-on-trial-for-giving-water-to-pigs-arrested-after-pig-truck-rollover-1.3791972

Make sure to include she has been arrested again for obstruction of a police officer. Thanks, since I can't add it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.131.53 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's ✅, thank you for providing this important update. What a bizarre incident. MPS1992 (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No justification provided for NPOV tag, neither here nor at the notice board, pl provide or allow removal. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is another article on the case, this one written by the defendant and run in The Guardian. I am not sure if or how to add it to this page.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)