Talk:Debeaking

Incomplete Sentence
Under 'Costs and benefits' > 'Acute pain', there is an incomplete sentence as follows: "In Japanese quail, beak-trimming by cauterization caused lower body weights and feed intake in the period just after beak trimming." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.107.151 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

3rd paragraph
The third paragraph presents the an opinion of proponents of debeaking while the opinion is in opposition to the process!?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Misuses "proponent." By context, it should obviously be "opponent."

citation
Can we get a citation for the Appleby study? Since the article mentions his name and the date, publication info for the study would be useful. Vicki Rosenzweig

I'll look around. Thanks for changing boycott to eschew...I really couldn't think of a better word at the time. cprompt

Here's what I found. I'm no good with these things, so I'm hoping someone else will put it into the article.

 C. Dr Michael C. Appleby:

"The main injury caused by humans, knowingly rather than accidently, is beak trimming. It is now known to cause pain, in the short term and probably also in the long term, in a way similar to other amputations" (20).

Michael C. Appleby, Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages? A Review of the Scientific Evidence Commissioned by the Athene Trust. Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, 1991. University of Edinburgh. 

My source of this was: http://www.upc-online.org/debeaking/ota.html

cprompt

Image
We should put an image up here. I found some good images on flikr but unfortunately not licensed accurately. If anyone can find an image that would be great.Eddie mars (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Debeaking and Cannibalism
Is debeaking really to prevent cannibalism? I know that chickens raised in close quarters in a stressful environment peck at their neighbours. However, I was under the impression that the chickens don't eat each other; they just injure each other. Psychonaut 17:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Chickens will naturally peck each other in free-range conditions as part of naturally establishing a pecking order. Chickens in confined conditions will peck to show dominance, and because they feel cramped and confined, will continue to peck their neighbours in order to drive them off.  If the pecked chicken can't move away, then it will continue to be attacked and injured.  Injured chickens can get sick and die, and persistant bullies may kill their neighbours.


 * Saying that beak-trimming/debeaking is to prevent cannibalism is probably a spin which is used to make the practice sound more justifiable. Saying that the practice is used to prevent 'cannabalism' sounds like it's much more vital than just preventing injuries.  Having said that, some chickens may well consume blood or flesh torn from an injured neighbour.


 * Mind you, we're seeing spin from both sides of the fence here. 'Debeaking' sounds much more drastic than 'beak trimming', however when done properly the latter term is more accurate.  Only the sharp tip of the beak is removed, and usually within the first few days after hatching.


 * From an ethical and cruelty standpoint, it's possible to take either side. If chickens are going to be kept in confined quarters, then it's arguably better to trim the beaks of birds rather than have them experience widespread injuries and infection.  Done properly the birds don't suffer any lasting discomfort, and the beak does slowly grow back over time.  I would argue that the crueler sides of beak trimming is that it significantly reduces a bird's ability to preen itself to remove mites, and that very often beak-trimming is not performed correctly, and too much of the beak is removed.  This does cause permanent injury and disfigurement.


 * Of course, the best ethical solution is not to keep chickens in such confined quarters, and if you must keep confined chickens, then to utilise breeds (such as leghorns) that don't have a tendency to bully their neighbours.


 * Currently I don't feel the article presents a NPOV. It's on my list of articles that I hope to expand an improve upon.  Unfortunately finding good neutral references can be extremely challenging.


 * --PJF (talk) 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Even chickens left free to roam in the barnyard are usually debeaked and the spurs of roosters clipped. Confinement is not required to see chickens do serious damage to each other. Simply not spreading food widely enough can cause problems. Quite often than damage can be done to owners. Rooster spurs can do fairly serious damage at times and occasionally beaks get lucky as chickens do often go for the eyes. Debeaked its a minor scratch and bruise at most (barring an open eye hit) but beak intact they may rip a good strip off you or give you a 6-8mm puncture wound depending of course on the size of the chicken and how lucky a shot they get.


 * Yes chickens will kill and eat their dead. Chickens love worms and prefer meat in any form over seeds. Even in the wild the "pecking order" (a real dominance and Darwin survival behavior) often results in the death of the weakest in the flock. Chickens will then eat their dead -- as will many less complex carnivores and omnivores (lizards for example). Note the primary reasons for confinement have to do with harvesting chickens and predators and any health maintenance measures like dusting for parasites. Most breeds of domestic chickens stay close to free food and water sources -- but catching free roaming chickens especially in huge flocks can be laborious and quite ugly for both sides.


 * From a confinement farming standpoint, any restriction on "personal space" will result in more dominance struggles as well as prolonged dominance struggles as hardwired dominance conditions are violated and the weak cannot rapidly retreat. For this reason among many, extreme confinement is generally not profitable when confronted by first world standards standards for chickens intended for human consumption as too much disease and waste occurs....thus extreme confinement is often a sign of poor farming knowledge or bribes to inspectors to accept substandard meat. On the other hand some egg laying operations do make use of unusually tight confinement but also tend to spend more maintenance effort in keeping chickens healthy (fans to keep racks of chickens cool being just one example).


 * Note that except for avoiding extreme confinement -- you cannot really improve the healthy life span of a chicken short of making them a personal pet. In general as more natural conditions are allowed chicken find more sources of trouble such as natural predators and drowning in shallow waters. "Organic free ranged" raised chickens are still raised in relative confinement -- just a far lesser degree of confinement. True free ranged poultry is a hunter-gatherer or rodeo roundup situation at best and is not viable for feeding more than small villages -- not commercially viable. Furthermore


 * Mentally a chicken free to run, fly, and explore is undoubtedly happier than one aware of being unable to escape from more dominant chickens, limits to its roaming, and outright restrains. However, how miserable a chicken can get is a matter of debate given that freedom to roam is connected primarily to searching for food and escaping more dominant chickens. Chickens tend not to run far in a barnyard. I suspect that a cage allowing physical exercise and stretching as well as separation from other chickens would come close to contentment. The question would be how quickly the chicken leaves the cage if you could quietly open the door without the chicken being aware of the change immediately (stressing the chicken over the door opening would violate the experiment).

72.182.15.249 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Made the entry more factual
Hi, I found the current entry on debeaking extremely biased. Especially since the sources mentioned are more or less hippy 'save the animals!' specific.

The only references to this Michael Appleby study I could find were on the peta & animal liberation front websites and similar places. They all cited the study, but not a single source was linked.

I managed to track down the study here: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/do_hens_suffer_in_battery_cages_1991.pdf

I was mostly interested in the pain of debeaking so I tracked down a study that was done in 2000 about animal welfare:

http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/CME/00-72.pdf

And it shows quite a few different results than cited in the wikipedia entry and the places it was copied from. In this study the advantages of debeaking are discussed and found positive in comparison to the alternative, which is cannibalism among stressed animals.

The sources for the pain of trimming in particular, is from a study from 1996 that the '91 Appleby report could not have known about.

The study is a lot more detailed and even has experiments on what happens to birds that are debeaked at different ages, what the angle of the debeaking does, the temperature the blade should be at, a history of beak-trimming, Cauterising time, best practices and lots of alternatives to it.

It mentions cannibalism repeatedly, so I'm assuming this is what they mean. I would think chickens only pecked each other to death, but apparently they eat each other too.

I'm going to fix the entry, I just hope it's sufficiently low traffic that peta fanatics aren't going to change it back right away :P


 * I have reverted the recent additions by user:80.166.147.120. They seemed to be valuable information, but were not written from a NPOV. I regret that I do not have time or expertise to rewrite them. Perhaps user:80.166.147.120 can? MikeHobday 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. And the previous version where the only source is PETA websites, that was perfectly objective? I'm not some meat-loving madman, you know. I found the previous entry completely out of touch with reality as the only science behind it was a 15 year old study that was not thoroughly done. I included all my sources for this where the science is a lot more sound, the Glantz study used over 10 different studies from 94-98 to come to the conclusions about the pain of debeaking.

Update: Okay, I resubmitted the entry now. I removed the offending word 'propaganda' and adjusted a few other things. The last section of the article ought to read as more neutral now. I just wanted to include the PETA version since it seems much more popular on the internet :)


 * I was not saying that the previous version was objective. I was saying that your changes could have been written in a slightly more neutral tone. I am glad you have made some changes, and I have tried to make some more, hopefully heading in the right direction. Perhaps we could collaborate on getting this right? MikeHobday 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Collaboration is a good thing :)

I rewrote a lot this time. I honestly don't like the way you are trying to polarize the entire article by dividing people into supporters and opponents as if everything can be seen from two different points of view and the reader should decide themselves. That's not how science works, it is not a democratic process where you can vote on what you think reality should be like. Some things are just facts, and I think it's those we should try to convey in this article.

The welfare thing is debatable to a certain point, scientists tend to think that animals should be healthy and not in pain, activists tend to think animals should be happy and free as well. But things such as the pain and duration of the pain, those are measurable values and not up for discussion. The discussions of the pain caused are between scientists and activists, not between scientists. There is no dispute about the chronic pain. Chronic pain was suggested by the 91 study and later studies have shown that the pain is not chronic since it goes away. (Chronic == does not go away)

Another example: ''There are different views on the pain caused by debeaking. Some say that the pain is comparable to having a human fingernail removed by the quick of the nail; it is brief and does not leave lasting problems. Others say that the pain of debeaking is acute, but passes after a few minutes, thus enabling the bird to behave normally.''
 * Looks like this sentence has been changed frequently. How about we remove it altogether? This sentence has no reference, first of all, and second of all, I really do not think it is scientifically arguable that a human could 'guess' at what the pain of having a beak removed would feel like. I certainly have never had my beak removed, you? Eddie mars (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Having the nail removed by the quick and having acute pain is the same thing.

By polarizing the article you also unfortunately end up claiming things that are factually incorrect. As an example, ''Supporters of debeaking argue that the measure is therefore a positive welfare measure. Opponments of debeaking suggest that steps should be taken to address the causes of feather pecking and cannibalism.''

That is just blatantly not true. Supporters of debeaking ALSO say this is a last resort, and they provide many alternatives as I have pointed out. These people are scientists, they look at all the options and examine them. Also, the farmers themselves have an interest in keeping their birds healthy and productive and a lot of the non-debeaking measures are cheaper and easier to do than to debeak every single bird.

There is way too much of 'some people think and say' in this article for it to be scientifically sound. I know there is a great debate between scientists and animal activists, but I think that science should take precedence in the factual section of the article and then we can put the discussion in a separate section, perhaps?

I honestly was not sure how to fix all the many changes you made, so I reverted to the old version and tried to add some of the things you bring up and put some things in the right places as you have done (like listing alternatives all in one place). I hope we can progress from here.

(I do apologize if the tone is a bit harsh, I merely wanted to point out that science should be the foundation of this topic and I get so many people around me trying to divide everything into friends and enemies, black and white, so I might have a bit of a short fuse for that sort of thing. I realize it may not have been your intent to make the article look that way.)


 * OK, I will try to add some back in, though I take your point on how the sceinmce should be portrayed. Without being an expert on the science, I cannot argue about that - just about how it is described! I think the article should cover the debate as it exists, but accept that my first stab nneds to be improved on! A number of points: I think the article should be clear that 'chronic pain' is a definitional issue. Following your methodology, I am not sure that the final section cannot be substantially edited down. MikeHobday 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the science. I'd also like to note that unless we can find a more recent credible scientific study to contradict or give a more detailed explanation of any of the science in the report I found, I think we should accept that this is what science says is our current best definition of reality.

You don't need to be an expert on anything, all you have to do is read the studies, that's what I did. I didn't know a thing about debeaking until I researched it a few days ago. It took me some time to dig past the newage activist smoke & mirrors, but I found a few studies and the Glatz was by far the most thorough one on the subject. I checked out a few of its sources as well and they look credible too.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the 'chronic pain' comment. Chronic pain is not a definitional issue, chronic pain is already nicely defined.

I'm open to suggestions about the final section, I meant to keep it there in the hopes that someone who stumbles across wikipedia will become informed that most of the other, somewhat contradictory articles on debeaking found on many other online encyclopedias and dictionaries are in fact ripped right from the PETA webpage, and that what little science it does hold is 15 years old and has been discredited by new discoveries.

In a perfect world, the final section wouldn't even have to be there, but exactly because that quoted section is not scientifically sound and is much more prevalent on the internet, I thought it would be good to keep it.

Recent Additions
"The fitting of 'bits' to deter pecking."

This makes no sense. Needs more detail.

"Others are less contentious, but carry significant cost implications:"

I disagree. Changing the light intensity, dividing the flock or adding bits of grass and lettuce to the pen is not exactly a budget-shaking decision. Changing the environment around chickens is a one-time investment.
 * Have tried to modify to take account of this. MikeHobday 09:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Animal Activist" section
Unless someone can post here and tell me why I shouldn't, I'm going to remove the entire section and reformat it as an "Arguments against Debeaking" section. As it is right now, it was extremely obvious to me (a first time reader of the page) that it wasn't written by someone attempting to be neutral. Everything from the title of the section to the way that the section is laid out is a NPOV violation. Kyle key 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold and do it - probably worded better! MikeHobday 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
The article, in its current form, strikes me as rather POV - it essentially reiterates all the reasoning of the proponents of debeaking ("welfare measure", "to control stress", "after a few minutes, the bird behaves normally" etc.) and then sums up the opponent's arguments in an "Animal Activist Version of Debeaking". The title of that section alone is POV; "activist" is a loaded word, and the term "version" implies that this is an intentionally warped version of the facts presented to further an agenda.

What's more, that section doesn't even really discuss the "animal activist version" - instead, it reiterates some claims and then proceeds to explain why they allegedly do not correspond to reality.

I cannot and do not want to comment on the practice of debeaking as such, but the article in its current form *badly* needs to be rewritten. We are an encyclopedia, after all, not propaganda material - neither for animal rights groups nor for the poultry industry. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My, this is a piece of junk, sheer propoganda including lots of outright false and uncited claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.38.214.63 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

The activist section needs reworking. The rest isn't biased. It is a welfare measure. Whether it's effective to that end is a matter of controversy, but the nature of the goal isn't disputed. It's not performed for the hell of it, or because farmers derive pleasure from torturing animals. 69.142.140.177 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The line that debeaking is a "last resort" isn't true in the U.S., where debeaking is an accepted practice. If the context is the U.S., the statement presents either a level of reluctance or a level of hypocrisy that isn't actually present. Don't know about other countries. RobertPlamondon 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV warning, etc. on this page because it's gotten a lot better. Lots of references, etc. RobertPlamondon 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

December 04, 2007 NPOV dispute
Reading this portion of the article actually pushed me to look up how to set up a NPOV dispute. To me, the article out right accuses anyone who believes that debeaking is inhumane of thinking of farmers as dim-witted. This is just silly. The article itself lists a wide variety of options other than debeaking that can prevent cannibalism. . .therefore, i think it is biased to say that anyone who doesn't assume the POV that debeaking is the best solution considers farmers to be idiots or inherently unethical goes too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.130.99 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to make the arguments against section more neutral, by removing some loaded language (like paternalism) and the charge that farmers who debeak are dim-witted, which seems to be a very loaded way to characterize the ASPCA's position. escowles 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.47.169 (talk)

Slanted Article
I don't have time to fix the article or even finish reading it, but the first line of the "history" heading is strongly biased, calling the process "barbaric and heartless". It should probably be edited slightly to at least call the process something more neutral, allowing the later facts about the pain it can cause to speak for themselves. 76.3.188.189 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The 'barbaric and heartless' wording was only added a few days ago. I've reverted it to the previous, long-standing version. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please can we change the name of this article?
The word 'debeaking' is both inaccurate and in my view, borderline propoganda. The beak is not removed during this practice, only a portion is removed, therefore it can not be called 'debeaking'. The term 'beak-trimming' is considerably more accurate. I can't but help feel it is used by people who wish to make an emotional statement about this practice which does not help in the debate if the inaccuracy is being perpetuated by Wikipedia. Please note, I am not defending beak-trimming, rather that we need to be accurate in the terms we use. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means, list the article at Requested moves if you believe that it should be moved, though I expect that it may elicit some discussion. Have a read of Article titles first. I'm by no means an expert in this area (I'm aware that the practice occurs and have read the article here, but that's about it) - what do people in the poultry industry/people who actually do this most commonly refer to the act of removing part of a chicken's beak as? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it might be worth pinging WP:BIRDS and WP:FARM for input on the matter... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I will check out those sections...thanks for the information. I work in the science of animal welfare, particularly poultry, and here in the UK, scientists and the layer industry would never (never say never!) use the term debeaking. It may persist in the US, but the scientists I know over there would not use the term. I actually feel much of this article needs a bit of an overhaul/update. DrChrissy (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Foot notes or references?
Aren't the 'Footnotes' in this article really 'References'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on "pain" POV disguised as "costs".
Right, yeah, the number of column-inches devoted to "pain" is excessive and undue weight. The section needs some trimming as well as some care taken to present the admittedly-valid issue with avoidance of a POV suggestion or tone.

Also, the section about pain seems to be disguised with the misleading name "Costs and benefits". "Costs" are generally expected to be costs to the farmers, while the text seems to take it in part as an excuse to natter on about "costs" to the feelings of un-invested observers (i.e. "animal lovers", PETA's, etc.) or to the birds themselves.

108.7.229.92 (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cost:benefit analysis usually applies to all stake-holders. In discussions of animal welfare, the animals are obviously stake holders as, in this case, they are having part of their anatomy removed. You are incorrect in thinking that costs are generally expected to be costs to the producers. DrChrissy (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not hard-over on the misnaming of the section, I just thought it looked like the motive (of the misnaming) was to try to disguise an over-large quantity of "pain text" so it looked more includable. Whether there was such an attempt to cover-up isn't really that important. Even if the material was validly label-able as "cost-benefit analysis", it's still hugely WP:undue. Fortunately, it's easy to solve the problem of whether cost-benefit analysis would include un-invested "stakeholders". Just rename the section to something else mutually acceptable, which I'm fine with. The real problem is the number of column-inches and over-detail for "pain text" which really only calls for a short paragraph explaining that some view some forms of the practice as inhumane, and then maybe give an example or two. The present overplay of the matter thus conveys a non-neutral POV. 108.7.229.92 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits
IP, you are making a series of recent edits that are becoming disruptive. You are close to WP:3RR. Your latest edit where you deleted a "Nutty overstatement" was infact a quote from the cited document written by the AVMA. Please explain why you have deleted this. DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Includability requires more than "Somebody said it and I like it". It was indeed "nutty" (IMO) and an overstatement and totally out of place for the article for the reasons we've discussed.  It's not includable and it's also more evidence of your inability to control your POV for the sake of an article that's supposed to be NPOV.  108.7.229.92 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, are you calling the AVMA "nutty" for making the statement, or, are you calling me "nutty" for including a quote from the AVMA. DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement was not includable in this article in the context it was in -- regardless of how nutty or non-nutty it might have been in its original context. It's fair to describe melodramatic overstatements as "nutty", IMHO.  The statement in its context appeared as a melodramatic overstatement, and hence was called "nutty" in the edit summary.  Happy now?  I won't play any more such head games with you, it's all very non-productive.  The purpose of a talk page is to discuss editing of the article, not to obsess about such melodramatic ("nutty"?) digressions. DrAlso (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC) (new account for 108.7.229.92)
 * You are correct - the purpose of the page and the edit summaries is to discuss content for the article. However, there are certain rules of civility that must be followed in such discussions.  You may consider it "fair" to call my edit "nutty". I do not.  I consider it to be a WP:Personal attack.  I urge you to read the articles I have linked to and adjust your behaviour accordingly. DrChrissy (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your attempt to misrepresent ordinary discussion of subject text as "personal attack". You're obsessing on a red herring, a simple justified description (of words!) --  that you didn't like.  If you want to continue to taunt, misdirect, or otherwise try to draw me into an actual personal attack, sure, give it a try, but you should move it to my or your talk page.  DrAlso (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You called my edit "nutty". That is a personal attack. I hardly think a couple of posts on here can be construed as "obsessing" about this, however, you are probably correct in that I should address your incivil behaviour on your talk page, rather than here.  While I am contemplating that, please would you post your objections to the edits that lead to you hatting the article as POV.  Could you also please direct me to where your indentation format is suggested - this is new to me. DrChrissy (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but enough is enough, pal. Take it to the personal talk pages. DrAlso (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid calling it POV-pushing.
I just looked up "POV-pushing" and it's supposedly a pejorative and should be used carefully. I mean to use it here only as a descriptive (not a pejorative). It seems to me that DrChrissy is making lots of effort to retain some charged text supporting his/her POV. I've attempted to remove it using reasons other than "POV-pushing" such as, WP:undue, uncited, etc. (see edit summaries), but fundamentally it comes off as "POV-pushing" and very unencyclopedic. In the process, he/she has demonstrated an unabashed POV here on the talk page ("animals are obviously stakeholders", etc.) and in the edit summaries. While such passion for a subject is normal and good, passion often comes with POV (and vice versa). We all have our POVs and we all strive to keep POV tone out of the text we make. But, DrChrissy has been unwilling or unable to put his/her POV aside in the crafting of NPOV text here. I suggest he/she refrain (self-ban) the editing of this page for that reason. DrChrissy has had similar troubles in the past resulting in a (current) subject-matter ban elsewhere. 108.7.229.92 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say that is rather a combative and inflammatory posting, especially considering I have just opened a thread to cordially discuss disputed content. Please could you articulate what POV you believe I am pushing? DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, please forgive the "POV-pushing" terminology, it's supposedly pejorative, but I mean it as a simple descriptive, I know no other term for it. Inflammatory? I don't think so, is that itself inflammatory :-) ? Combative? Not at all.  Standing up solidly for the importance of neutrality?  Absolutely.  108.7.229.92 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have threaded your reply - I hope you don't mind. Please, I will say this again as your answer is paramount for this discussion, what POV do you think I am pushing? DrChrissy (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you will, I undid the re-threading as unnecessary. OP usually occupies left-most in my experience, it avoids over-rapid progression to the right. Like I said above (previous section), head games are non-productive. It's not other people's responsibility to educate you on what makes for POV and what makes for NPOV. Purpose of a talk page is to discuss edits to a page, not to taunt and draw-out people into pointlessness. Keep the talk page "on-topic", please. DrAlso (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you the IP from above in this thread? DrChrissy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned it in the section above. I should have mentioned it again here. DrAlso (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2024
Debeaking → Beak trimming – WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS since the 1980s (WP:AGEMATTERS), see Google Ngrams and especially Google Scholar 2000–2024 (WP:AGEMATTERS): "debeaking" 1.630 results versus "beak trimming" / "beak-trimming" 3.740 results (with or without hyphen yields the same results). Some people (in talk page discussions above) have also argued that "debeaking" is a WP:POV term that should be avoided if there is a suitable alternative, and "beak trimming" appears to fit. "Debeaking" can definitely stay an WP:ALTNAME, but we should resolve this NPOV dispute at some point. NLeeuw (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Animal rights, WikiProject Agriculture, INACTIVEWP, WikiProject Birds/Poultry task force, and WikiProject Agriculture/Livestock task force have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd be concerned that "beak trimming" is a euphemism created by the poultry industry to make debeaking sound more acceptable in the face of animal rights activism (not something I'm part of on either side). If that's so, then it's a WP:POV term which we should use only in inverted commas, explaining its usage, and we certainly shouldn't adopt it as an article title. On the other hand, if the beak is indeed only partially removed, then "beak trimming" may be more accurate. Editors should note there are multiple threads on the subject above here on this talk page, starting with "Debeaking and Cannibalism". The topic arouses strong reactions and may be subject to canvassing on- or off-wiki. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)