Talk:Dairy and poultry supply management in Canada/Archive 2

Changes in retail price of milk make these statements redundant?
Removed this from article for discussion here. This is from a report undertaken six years ago. The more recent report above changes the relevance.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hall Findlay has been saying since 2012 that Canadian consumers pay one and a half to three times as much for dairy, poultry and eggs than they otherwise would without the supply management system, or pay up to around C$450/year per household and $600/year for households with children. This has been criticized as a regressive tax on the poor (around 37 cents per litre), for whom food is a large portion of their budget, and who are in effect subsidizing well-off farmers.

In addition, a study pointed out that supply management was costing Canadian consumers $2.6 billion per year (compare to supply management dairy product bringing in $970 Million into the economy). The study stated that supply management impacts the poorest households five times (2.4% of income or almost 25% of income on food) more than wealthy families (0.5% of income or almost 6% of  income on food) in relative household income, while another study point to that around 133,032 to 189,278 Canadians (or 67,000 to 79,000 households) are pushed into poverty due to burden of SM.

Removed this outdated content from opinion piece by a critic of supply management. Comments, concerns?:
 * and costly with money transferred from consumers to producers through higher prices on milk, poultry and eggs which some label as a subsidy.


 * Removed this outdated 2013 Kline opinion piece as reference again. The article has a number of RS from think tanks by SM critics that are more recent.

Does any body feel like we need to reduce the weight of the article
Just asking, I feel like this page might be violating Reliable sources and undue weight rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tor19 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hall Findlay "drove me crazy" comment
Wikify or delete. The article cited presents a balanced view of SM using a variety of sources that support SM or are open to modernizing or recalibrating SM, along with the dissenting voice of Hall Findlay. To choose this quote from that article is cherry picking.Oceanflynn (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hall Findlay states in an interview when she was working on Parliament Hill she encountered a great number of fellow MPs who would secretly say, “We know [supply management] has to go, but we just don’t have the votes.” "“That just drove me crazy,”

The reason why this was added in was to point out that people that oppose supply management are not only Conservatives. Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.113 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Non free material
Hi Diannaa 🍁 (talk) I may have generated an automated maintenance template by adding the template 'subscription required' to the Globe and Mail articles cited in this article. It was an error as the Globe and Mail does allow for readers without subscriptions to access their articles, just not all of them all the time. I removed the templates. I am sorry for the inconvenience.

If there are other non-free materials in the article, please list them below: Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This citation from an article published in the Toronto Star should not be considered to be "non-free material" and should therefore not be deleted. I may revert the deletion unless another reason is provided.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When dozens of Wisconsin farms lost their milk contracts with buyers in 2016, a "decades-old state office that helps struggling farmers worked around the clock to find new buyers.


 * Is this Hall Findlay 2012 article, the non-free material the reason for the June 2018 maintenance template Diannaa (talk)? ("This article may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. June 2018) It is cited directly 18 times. However, a number of think tank articles and the media used as RS here, also quote the University of Calgary's 2012 study's statistics and conclusions etc. I have been working on using the sources she used to gradually replace her work as the source to shorten the list of RS traced back to this one 2012 report.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

naturalnumber (talk) you raised this concern in May 2017, over a year before I began to work on the article. Do you have any suggestions on how to pare down dependence on this one source and one person? Could you suggest alternative, up-to-date resources? Thank you. Oceanflynn (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article consists almost solely of quotations. Wikipedia articles need to be written in our own words; they shouldn't consist solely of a series of quotations from other publications. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I just ran Duplication Detector again to look for non-free materials and quotations to be paraphrased or deleted. I deleted this quote from Hall Findlay. "The Dairy Commissioners arrive at the target price by analyzing production costs, market conditions, other stakeholder input, and what they determine is a fair return to the producers. Other factors include assessments of overall demand for milk and dairy products, and what the current production levels are." I had originally left it as this article was subject to a number of deletions and reverts and I wanted to avoid unnecessary editorial conflicts. I am also attempting to replace the over-dependence of this article on Hall Findlay's 2012 article mentioned by naturalnumber (talk) 27 May 2017 (UTC) Oceanflynn (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Secret thoughts of MPs
Removed this sentence with quote on MPs secret thoughts.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hall Findlay states in an interview when she was working on Parliament Hill she encountered a great number of fellow MPs who would secretly say, “We know [supply management] has to go, but we just don’t have the votes.”

Problematic sentence
I removed this sentence which is a speculation by a journalist made in 2014 and added September 21, 2018 on what might happen in ongoing NAFTA re-negotiations? Spelling, grammar, sentence construction.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mckenna argues that ending Supply Management chould Canada's case for concessions from the U.S. on government purchasing (Buy America), non-tariff barriers (country labelling for meat) and on agricultural export subsidies.

Incomprehensible sentence
Good content perhaps but needs some work.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On August 30 2018, the federal government announced that Canadian Dairy farmers were entailed to new federal program entitled, Dairy Farm Investment Program a $250-million fund which would where its intention is to increase productivity and competitiveness and prepare each farm for the implementation of the agreement.

Move this content to another subsection?
2001:56a:f0d5:9300:fc8c:751a:5787:c1ec (talk) made useful edits to the subsection "background." I filled in references and added the final sentence. Should this be moved to reflect his current views to another section?Oceanflynn (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University, a well-known critic of supply management, has argued since 1998 that the system needs to be reformed. He has published numerous studies on the issue, suggesting the system would need to make sectors more competitive, and open to international trades. However, in an August 2018 CBC interview, Charlebois cautioned that it would be "too dangerous" to abolish the SM system now: Canadian farms are not competitive. As well, the multi-billion-dollar quotas held by thousands of individual farmers, have been used as collateral to take out government loans and invest in farm improvements. He called for a debate on an SM phase out instead.

Readability issuse
The Wikipedia guidelines for readability states that articles need to factor these considerations "Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc." This page does not take into consideration of these factors.

To improve it. Please remove descriptive words, and duplication and not adding pointless comments. Also rework structures so they are related to the topic of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:110:1FFE:4A72:99F3:2250 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As an interested but uninformed reader, I found the lead paragraph ('Supply management') to be, essentially, unreadable. Are 'executive summaries' - suitably titled and euphemized, of course - permitted here?Gaussgauss (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! And so would be so much appreciated. Not just in the lead.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Process for removing maintenance templates
Help me to improve this article. This article has had issues with neutrality since at least 2017 when the Neutral point of view maintenance template was added. A more recent NPOV maintenance template was dated June 2018. In June, the maintenance tag regarding "excessive or improper use of non-free material" was added as well as the multiple issues template.

Supply management system is very complex. It has also a highly contentious issue, covered extensively in the media. There have been many editors contributing small edits but only a few who have remained active here.

I would like to work towards removing these maintenance templates. What are the other options for getting help with this article from experts or from those with more experience in these fields?

Readability
I believe is offering to help shorten and simplify the lede? That would be great.

Non-free material
pointed on June 29 that, "The problem is that the article consists almost solely of quotations. Wikipedia articles need to be written in our own words; they shouldn't consist solely of a series of quotations from other publications." Since then I have removed a number of direct quotes. I have also found content that had been added prior to June, where there was a copy and paste of sentences from RS without quotations. I either removed them, paraphrased them or, in some cases, added quotation marks. Has there been enough improvement for that template to be removed? If not, could examples of where improvements are needed by given?

Neutrality
WikiChecker shows that and  and I have been the most active editors. Other editors who have been involved in some way include, , , , , , , , , , and.

How can we work towards consensus on neutrality?

Thanks "Help Me" people for any suggestions you might have.Oceanflynn (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, you can be bold and fix any issues you see yourself. That said, a WikiProject (particularly one of those listed at the top of this talk page) may be a good place to ask for help with improving the article. Regarding the non-free material issue, if you think you fixed it, you may want to wait a week or so for others to comment here, and if no one points out that there are still problems (I haven't checked), you can remove that template. Huon (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions.

I will remove the template re: non-free material first c. October 12 which should leave only the multiple issues template? I will wait another week and remove the neutrality template. I would like to add this to the WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge but would prefer to not start with the maintenance templates in place.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oceanflynn (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am removing the maintenance templates.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Added NPOV to the Price of Milk
Added a NpoV to the section based on the fact that it relies only on this article:https://www.exportactionglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Dairy-Systems-Around-The-World_Export-Action-Global_April-2018.pdf which was paid by the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Their needs to be another point of views in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.113 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Earlier this summer I raised the three above issues with this article, hoping to prompt a discussion on how to improve this article but no such luck. Thus I nominated this article for a neutrality check, if only because it is basically a restatement of "SUPPLY MANAGEMENT: PROBLEMS, POLITICS – AND POSSIBILITIES" by Martha Hall Findlay, which is decidedly one sided. This is my first time doing this so apologies if I've missed a step.

naturalnumber (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This page was clearly written by someone with a strong ideological opposition to Canada's supply management system. The sources given are largely from opinion pieces in right-leaning news media and neoliberal think-tanks. I have given the page a quick edit to remove the most egregious violations of Neutral point of view, by removing scare quotes and changing the tone. A much more through edit is needed by someone who holds and unbiased understanding of supply management.

--Obanwinter (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've only read the "Dairy, poultry and egg farmers" section, but the non-neutral tone jumped out at me too ("...Australia, New Zealand – and yes, the United States – have either eliminated or drastically reduced dairy subsidies..."). Improving the citation quality would be beneficial. A couple of the links are dead or behind a paywall, and another requires you to watch an eight-minute YouTube debate (why not link to a primary source?). There are also numerous errors in grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. 184.146.207.47 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am attempting to address the NPOV issues. It is quite rough at this stage as I do not want to delete content and RS. To be continued...Oceanflynn (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to feel somebody is trying to make this page in favor of pro supply management. Remember, we need to keep this page to have both sides of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tor19 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I don't contribute very often anymore and just noticed the flurry of activity last summer. The article at present is much improved. Thank you to all involved. I was hesitant to contribute myself as my only remotely relevant academic expertise is a year of master's level coursework in economics (and that largely in environmental economics) before I got too fed up with how poorly economists seem to understand math, in particular how to evaluate the relevance of mathematical models based on the accuracy of their assumptions. Other than that my experience with supply management has largely been personal. (I grew up on a small dairy farm and now live on a small egg farm.) As such, I was worried about my own impartiality, though it is worth noting that my family's experiences with supply management have not been universally positive. I still feel the article gives too much weight to economists/politicians with agendas (whether they be in support of foreign markets or ideologically opposed to SM on the basis of market distortion, which is at best debatable) but that may just be my own biases. Also there isn't much that can be done about it anyways, as it is largely the result of the current zeitgeist in Economics. Thanks again. (Also, I fixed a few minor typos while reading.) naturalnumber (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)