Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 2

Images
A few things: a) the image of the sows is clearly POV (see the archived talk page) and thus, if it should be included in this article at all, belongs in the "arguments against" section. b) cattle on a feedlot is much more representative of typical views of "Factory farming" and should as such be included here. c) the image of the sows is incomplete, as it does not explain the gestation crates: it tends to give uneducated viewers the wrong idea about gestation crates and their necessity.  If the image is included, the caption should explain the necessity of the gestation crate. Jav43 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should try our best to adhere to proper sourcing. When you say "cattle on a feedlot is much more representative of typical views of 'Factory farming'", that sounds like WP:OR, unless you can come up with an image and a reliable source that says that in respect to that image. Crum375 00:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You said with respect to the image of the sows, to quote, "I think this one is more typical factory farming". That sounds like WP:OR.  (By the way, how on earth is factoryfarming.org [the source of the image of the sows] a reliable source?  Thinking that a propaganda site is "reliable" is ridiculous.)  Do you deny that a feedlot qualifies as a "factory farm"?  Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the wrong idea it gives readers about gestation crates? You said before they aren't used in North America, and I found you a reliable source that says they are. What is your other issue with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the archived discussion. The crates are severe POV.  Without description of the reasons farmers use the crates, the POV is only expounded.  Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's your OR that they're necessary. The largest pork producer in the States is going to phase them out, so they clearly don't agree with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I misspoke. I should have mentioned the "value" of the gestation crate, not the "necessity" of it.  But with your statement in mind, how are the gestation crates representative of "factory farming" or "industrial agriculture" if "[t]he largest pork producer in the States is going to phase them out"?  Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is going to phase them out. They haven't done it yet. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet, when the farm no longer uses gestation crates, will is still qualify as "industrial agriculture"? See, the problem is that a gestation crate is not a factor that decides whether a farm is or is not a "factory farm".  Thus the image of the hogs in the gestation crates is nothing more than perjorative.  As a gestation crate is not determinative of whether a farm is a "factory farm", including the image of the gestation crates in this article is not helpful.  If it is included at all, it should be in the "arguments against" section.  Jav43 01:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(from SV talk) Which cattle image don't you like? The one with the cows on the feedlot? Why did you relocate the image of sows again? Have you read the relevant discussion from the talk page (which you archived)?Jav43 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The top one that gives no indication what type of farm it's from. Please don't keep moving the sow image. It's an iconic image of factory farming; even the producers are starting to recognize that. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. What's your proof that it's "iconic"?  It's hypocritical for you to say that the sow image is "iconic" while simultaneously removing what I say is a much more common representation:  the feedlot.  Jav43 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is a feedlot more typical of a factory farm (as opposed to any other kind) than a gestation crate? And why do you think that feedlot is in a factory farm? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When people think of a "factory farm" (or rather, "industrial agriculture"), they think of large numbers of animals. A feedlot (or rather, a CAFO) by definition (in the US) has at least 1,000 head.  That makes a feedlot a solid example of "factory farming".  On the other hand, sows in gestation crates are not necessarily "iconic" of factory farming - the few sows depicted may be the only sows living on the farm, and gestation crates are in limited use (where used, they are only used during part of the gestation period).  Gestation crates can be used on very small operations.  Feedlots cannot.  Jav43 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The top image says it's from a feedlot. A feedlot is by nature an example of "industrial agriculture".  Why are you removing that image? Jav43 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the sow image is that the image purports to portray particular hogs on a particular farm, and does not claim to be at all typical of the swine industry - or of the agricultural industry at large. Jav43 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gestation crates are widely used" is your OR. Jav43 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your new caption for the sows image still fails to explain the reason farmers use gestation crates. Jav43 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gestation crates are widely used. We can add something from the WPost about why they're used. Bear in mind, of course, that if sows tend to crush their piglets, the species would not have survived, so the sentence about them being "necessary" has to be carefully written. What is meant is that they are convenient in a situation where sows have been overfed and given growth hormones and are much larger and heavier than is healthy for them or their piglets. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sows crush their piglets in the wild, too. This is why most litters in the wild will only have about 6 piglets, while litters raised on farms will have around 10 piglets.  I don't understand your reference to sows being overfed or whatever - sows specifically are not overweight, as being overweight decreases fertility and leads to birthing difficulty. Jav43 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added what the WPost says is the reason for them. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did SV remove the picture of the chickens? Jav43 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it's overlapping the lead now. You wanted information to be added about the crates to the cutline, and so that fills that section. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, do we have a source that the chicken farm is a factory farm? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but we also lack a verifiable source that the hog farm in question is a "factory farm". Jav43 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Family farms don't use gestation crates. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Prove it. That's entirely WP:OR.  Jav43 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This leaves a question unanswered: why is the lead the image of the sows at all? Is there any reason other than your claim that the picture of the sows in gestation crates is "iconic"? Can you honestly claim that the image gives a fair portrayal of industrial agriculture, from an encyclopediac perspective, rather than being intended to prejudice people against industrial agriculture from the start? Jav43 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it's a well-known signifier of intensive farming of animals. It's iconic. It causes customers, including those who sell meat, a lot of problems. Of all the images there are in the public mind of factory farming, the gestation crate is possibly the most prominent.


 * All you're doing is trying to whitewash the issue, and claiming you know best, but you were arguing until recently that they're not used at all in the U.S., when in fact around one million sows are in crates in the U.S. at any given time. They are in widespread use, they are widely regarded as cruel, and they are very typical of the situations factory farming creates by trying to industrialize the reproduction of living beings. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, you admit that the only reason you include that image is because it speaks out against "factory farming". How exactly is that good encyclopediac style?  Shouldn't an image that portrays "factory farming" without being intended to take a side be the one that leads the article?  Jav43 01:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Slimvirgins assertion that "family farms" do not use gestation crates is unlcear. They are individual families that own pig farms that ue gestation crates...--Agrofe 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it comes down to what your definition of 'family farm' is. The term conjures up images of mom and pop with their little small-holding with a few cows and chickens. Whereas in fact 'family farm', in the sense you are using it means 'a farming business owned by a family' - which could be anything.-Localzuk(talk) 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you equate "family farm" with "hobby farm", then? Regardless, there is no reason why a "family farm" would suddenly not qualify for that term if it made use of gestation crates.  Gestation crates are not a determining factor. Jav43 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Factory farming has a poor reputation. Even McDonald's is starting to worry about this for commercial reasons, as was seen by the welfare committee they established, which pushed its suppliers to start phasing out gestation crates over the next ten years, as they are doing in Europe over the next seven. Wikipedia reflects majority and significant-minority opinion, in roughly the proportion to which they are represented by reliable sources. Agrofe and Jav43 want to write an article that sings the praises of factory farming. That would not be in line with our policies.


 * The gestation crate image is an image that is iconic of factory farming. That is precisely why McDonalds was so concerned about it. It is the type of practise that gives industrial agriculture a bad name, and it does have that bad name. Jav and Agrofe want to stick to images of uncertain origin that show happy cattle and well-fed chickens.


 * From now on, please use only images where you can show that it is an image of a factory farm, either because the source says it is, or because we have the name of the farm and we can find out that it is for ourselves. That is in line with WP:V and WP:NOR. No more WP:POINT. No more endlessly reverting over months. Just stick to the policies. If we end up with multiple images that our sources say are from factory farms that would all be suitable for the lead, then we can discuss which one(s) to use, but at the moment we don't. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are biased, Slimvirgin. Your opinion has been perverted by propaganda.  You want to write this article to show that "factory farming" or rather "industrial agriculture" is bad.  That's wrong.  I think the article should describe "industrial agriculture" from an unbiased point of view.  You seem to say that cows/chickens/whatever in "industrial agriculture" are "unhappy" and aren't "well-fed".  That's ridiculous and is wholly your POV and the POV of propaganda-based animal rights activists.  Remove the bias and prejudice and POV from your edits and I'll be happy.  No more POV, Slimvirgin!  (And the gestation crate image is NOT iconic of "factory farming" - it is iconic of the arguments used by animal rights activists in opposition to industrial agriculture.)


 * Slimvirgin wants to write an article that sings the horrors of factory farming. That would not be in line with our policies.  Jav43 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Jav43, let's focus on the issues and not the editors. I think that much of the focus of this article is on the controversy, so I added a blurb in the lead, and also restored the sows image, as I think it depicts the controversy better than just a bunch of cows feeding. Crum375 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The sows image advocates one side of the controversy and as such is improper POV.


 * Re: issues v. editors: I must admit I agree.  I was prompted to address Slimvirgin directly because Slimvirgin accused Agrofe and myself of attempting to insert POV into this article, while she is actually the one promoting a POV article. Jav43 03:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re the sows image: if it shows what is common practice in factory farming, which is sufficiently controversial that McDonald's plans to stop using it, and is a visually effective image that gets the point across, then I see it as an informative way to explain the controversy to our readers. Just having some cows feeding gives no special information to the readers, as far as I can tell. Crum375 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, you admit you placed the image there because it portrays "factory farming" in a negative light. How can you avoid recognizing your action as POV?  You're including the image of the sows ONLY because it portrays "factory farming" poorly - not because it portrays industrial agriculture in general.  (Gestation crates aren't an intrinsic component of "factory farming".)  You need to remove the POV you continually insert into this article. Jav43 04:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your picture of cows could be from anywhere. It doesn't show anything that is distinctive about factory farming, and you've offered no evidence that it's not from a family farm. The other image does show something that is limited to factory farming, and we do have evidence from a source that it's from a factory farm. Your edits to this page are very disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what picture you refer to. The picture of cows on a feedlot?  A feedlot qualifies as a "factory farm" as discussed supra and in the article.  The picture of dairy cattle?  That has just as good "evidence" as your image of the sows.  (In actuality, the propoganda-based presentation of the image of the sows is very poor "evidence" of anything.  A website dedicated to propaganda (like factoryfarming.org) is not a verifiable source.)


 * Gestation crates are not limited to "factory farming" and to claim that they are is simply ludicrous.


 * To be honest, I find your edits distruptive. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you are only interested in portraying "factory farming" in a poor light and are not interested in creating an unbiased encyclopediac article.  Jav43 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a single-issue editor who has made only 122 edits to articles in two and a half years. You either have no clue what you're talking about and are unwilling to use sources to educate yourself, or you're trying to mislead others intentionally. You wrote recently that gestation crates are illegal in the U.S.  But in fact, they're widely used on factory farms in the U.S.  with 60-70 percent of America's six million breeding sows confined in them.  Your sole contribution to the encyclopedia for months has been to try to remove this image on the grounds that is doesn't represent standard use, although it very much does. If that kind of editing continues, you're likely to be reported for disruptive editing. SlimVirgin (talk)  04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. All you did there was make a personal attack.  That was about as useless as can be imagined.  (As for gestation crates being illegal?  We already went through that on the archived talk page.)  Jav43 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we didn't. Please explain the sense in which they are illegal in the U.S. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We already talked about this. They're illegal in Florida.  Jav43 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Florida does not equal the U.S.! SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but florida is IN the US. Therefore it is fair to say that something is illegal in the US. Had he said "throughout the US". If we're going to talk about single topic I'd point out "Pot Kettle, black".
 * Everyone's here to contribute whether they contribute much over 2 and a half years or not. My contributions so far are motorbikes, techie stuff, a small Australian town, random spelling fixes and a couple of paragraphs on animal welfare..
 * Your interest in wikipedia seems to be fairly narrow too if you run things through your magic tool. I don't see much interest outside Animal Rights and Jewish/Antisemite/Israeli related articles.. Does that mean you have less right to speak than myself (given I have a with a wider range of interest categories than "Jewish related" and "animal rights related"). :P I'd suggest a chill session for a bit and we can sort out fixing up this article without need for referring to people's credentials, especially when it's irrelevant and hypocritical to do so.. NathanLee 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jav43, I am not familiar with your history here, but regarding the image, it is the best one we have that clearly conveys 'factory farming' as opposed to just a 'modern farm', and it also best highlights the controversy between the opponents and proponents of factory farming. If you have another sourced image with these attributes, then let's have it and we'll compare its merits. Crum375 05:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't portray "factory farming". We have nothing that says that gestation crates are unique to "factory farming".  It also is extremely POV.  That's bad.  It doesn't show the controversy - it shows one side of the controversy.  We need a factual image, like cattle on a feedlot.  Jav43 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It shows animals that are confined to a tight space, like in a production line in a factory, and unlike the feeding cows image, we are told by the source that they actually spend prolonged periods of their life there. That to me represents the crux of the article - to the proponents the 'production line' means efficiency and safety, while the opponents see it as abusive and harmful. The key to a good image in the lead is that it has to encompass what the article is about. This image does, while the feeding cows image, which just shows cows lined up to eat, does not convey that message. Crum375 17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only characteristic that seems to be universal to the definition of "factory farming" is the size of an operation. It seems that nearly everyone agrees that a "factory farm" must have large animal numbers.  Animals being confined in a tight space is *not* a characteristic inherent in "factory farming".  It may be an added factor leading to a farm being termed a "factory farm", but it does not by itself qualify a farm as a "factory farm."  You're right about the distinction along a "production line", but the image of the sows inserts POV into that production line - the picture was taken and posted in order to inflame and provoke.  The lead image should reflect the factual nature of "What is a factory farm?"  This should be a feedlot or other collection of large animal numbers.  It should not be a POV image of sows in extremely tight quarters.  The image of the sows is *not* informative, except to explain why some people oppose "factory farming".  The lead image should be informative of the nature of the term "factory farm".  Jav43 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, a 'family farm', at least by the USDA's definition, can be of any size, as long as it's owned and managed by family members. Thus, I don't see how size alone is a distinctive characteristic. OTOH, we agree that efficient 'production line' process is associated with 'factory' farming. So at this point it seems to me that the sow's image is the only one we have to convey a distinctive image of factory farming. I don't see it as POV at all - the proponents consider that technique efficient and safe, while the opponents see it as harmful, and clearly it conveys a 'production line' message, so it seems nearly ideal to represent the contents of this article. Crum375 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "family farm" issue. But I think we need something that's firstly more indicative of the process of factory farming: not just one aspect that's not really inherent to factory farming (e.g. if you were to use this as a criteria in europe where it is phased out: there'd be no "factory farms" So I think we need something showing the process or the "Factory like" nature without tying into what sounds like a process that'll be gone in a few years anyhow).NathanLee 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that 'factory farming' is a controversial issue in western countries - it is regularly discussed by people. This article should reflect this discussion. If major world companies that used 'factory farming' methods are ceasing to do so (such as McDonald's) then this should be reflected within the article. Choosing a picture that is typical of factory farming is not POV. It is simply a picture that shows something that is typical in the industry. To choose an image of cows in a feedlot doesn't show an aspect of the industry that is often discussed, so is not a good all round 'representative' image.-Localzuk(talk) 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article should reflect controversy. It does that.  The article should NOT choose a side, which is what the image of the sows does.  I don't propose removing the image of the sows - I simply propose placing it in the "arguments against" section where its POV belongs.  Jav43 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The WPost says gestation crates are used in factory farming. If you want to say they might also be used by family farms, please find a source. Otherwise you're just giving us your own opinion, which was wrong about the crates being illegal in the U.S. and might be wrong about this too. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The WPost article does not actually say that. It says "[t]he largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming."  Jav43 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it logically the concept is not linked to family ownership of a farm. The WP article says "animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming". That's the only reference to factory farming in the article and it is referring to animal welfare group opinion..
 * There's nothing that says family farm ownership precludes the use of these. The article talks of "contract suppliers" as well as the company owned farms.
 * The emphasis is on the whole industry in other articles (e.g. the humane society and the statements about Europe banning the process). So I'd say that the onus is on you if you wish to assert that firstly family ownership of farms is mutually exclusive to factory farming process (which logically doesn't seem to match.. Nor is it supported by the article, unless an article that mentions a claim by a group means that group's claim is correct automatically). We are talking about a process, nothing to do with ownership (to be honest the only groups that use this family versus factory argument are animal lib groups that I've read information by). Nothing that says an "organic farm" can't use these either, they're entirely unrelated to the rest of the operation of the farm or the farming concept. If you separate pregnant sows using gestation crates, then you use gestation crates. Nothing exclusively linked to factory farming process..
 * I can't help but think that rather than a photo we need some sort of diagram that highlights the defining characteristics of factory (e.g. "production line, repeatable one step-> next step -> product" type concept). Focus on one aspect of pig raising relating specifically to pregnancy is a bit of a niche that will probably have us all arguing for the next decade about its relevance. NathanLee 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately. Jav43 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Break

 * 1) "Family farm" is not defined as "nonfactory farm".
 * 2) You are editing warring on whether the pic goes at the top or in the argumenst section. May I suggest you compromise and put in somewhere not at the top and not in the arguments section?
 * 3) "Factory farm" is like "life" in that it is a process and not any one static thing. Pics capture process badly.
 * 4) Factory farms that don't pollute and don't mistreat animals are still factory farms, just as other factories made safer and unionized are still factories. Mistreated animals is not the essence of factory farming. WAS 4.250 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not clear how a farm could be highly automated and not be regarded as mistreating animals or polluting the environment (for those who regard factory farms as doing that). In other words, I'm not sure your hypothesis of that not being a necessary implication is correct. But regardless, all we have to do here is report what reliable sources say about it. The gestation crates issue is, as the WPost article said, regarded as the single-most controversial aspect of factory farming, and one of the things it is best known for outside farming (i.e. among the public), which is why McDonalds focused on it too. When animal rights advocates and McDonalds both agree on something, you know you have a notable issue. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is clear to me ... but the important thing as you point out is "all we have to do here is report what reliable sources say about it." I disagree that the gestation crates issue is anything like what you just said, but maybe what I hear you saying is less than an adequate representation of your full considered opinion. I have no intention of getting into much analysis right now, but power and value systems are the essense of the issues involved and gestation crates are simply a stalking horse and poster boy for the clash of value systems and the power struggle to prevail in manifesting those value systems. WAS 4.250 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking there's some blurring public dislike of "gestation crates"/"cages" with public dislike of "cramped conditions". Cramped, grubby conditions with sick or distressed animals are what we (well, decent human beings would generally) have issues with. You could equally show footage/pictures of the results of fighting by the animals (e.g. trampled piglets) and you'd get the same response.
 * If you move past the shock value of single images and look at with/without combined with discomfort/distress on average then you get a balanced view of things. You can argue the fundamentalist view that there should be no human intervention in animals' lives, but that neglects the predator protection/disease prevention/food provision etc aspect.. So on the whole we have to examine (and present) the reasons behind some of the choices we see in factory farming techniques.
 * So back to the gestation crates: they weren't just created to torture animals, the reasoning was that without them the farmers were noticing lots of fights/distressed animals. As alternatives are explored and researched the views will change, but in the situation of having lots of animals together (e.g. farming in general) it is (perhaps) a better solution than without (where animals would fight etc). Ideally you'd have each sow able to have as much land without competing females/agressive males.. But farming tends to have constraints that prohibit that. So anyhow, I don't think this article should be focussing purely on criticism/controversy of particular aspects of it: it should be primarily on the process.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Then why are they not used outside factory farming, if sows fight all the time? How were pigs able to evolve if all they do is fight each other and kill their offspring? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are they not used outside factory farming? I haven't yet seen anything that says only factory farms use this technique. As I said we've got a reference to animal welfare groups saying it's a trademark.. But as I said logically there's nothing about the practice of separating sows that is tied to factory farming. To be fair: pigs in the wild (e.g. wild boars) are quite violent (see wild relatives of domestic pigs:, attacks: , and behviour in "normal" farms" ). So it's really vast amounts of space that keeps them apart and squabbles rare I'd say. Just like any animal: given enough room they're fine. But if you have a high population like on a farm then that normal natural check is removed.. The concept of a protective mother in nature is pretty common. Just like the concept of territorial males. So a farm is no different, factory or otherwise.. NathanLee 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument is that they're used both to stop fighting and to stop the mother rolling onto the piglets. But of course this ignores that it's overcrowding that causes the problems in the first place.


 * To the best of my knowledge, these crates are used only on factory farms. I've been looking for some evidence that they're used elsewhere, but so far haven't found anything. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, overcrowding aside: if it's a better solution than overcrowded and killing pigs then that's best of a bad situation.. Farms are never going to be as spaced out as nature. It's a trade off of density of animals vs providing livable/decent enough conditions.. But back to references: I'll find out some alternate names (my flatmate who grew up on a pig farm called them something else) as that might help sort out the issue with some more hits on the google-ma-tron. One of the links I posted in this discussion page (I realise it was a personal page, so not a great reference) talked about visiting farms where the animal had close to natural environments, but they still separated the sows during pregnancy and piglet rearing.. So it sounds like it's necessary anywhere where pregnant sows are likely to come across other sows/pigs.. So I think it's really just a case of the size of the enclosure and the restrictions it places (e.g. as you say an argument is for the "sow crushing piglets", which might happen a lot in nature.. who knows? Like the birds and more eggs than they need because some die/eaten etc). Or perhaps the intent..
 * But is this one activity really a good representation of the concept or intent of Industrialising the farming process? If, as I said, this is to be phased out soon enough: is that the death of industrialised agriculture? I'd say not.. As it's really just a continuation of the industrialisation process.. A refinement of it really. If we want to look at the term "factory" then the concept of an effective factory is quite different from 50 or 100 years ago as different considerations form part of the industrialisation process. e.g. giving a sh_t about workers versus just focussing entirely on the product.. Same with this article, and I think we need to focus more on that for the longevity of this article. Pigs in cages ain't going to represent it for very long.. NathanLee 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding fighting: "Limiting aggression is often given as justification for confining sows in gestation crates, yet antagonistic interactions remain a problem in stall housing systems. Studies have shown that confinement in individual stalls may lead to unsettled dominance relationships and high aggression levels.(114) These unresolved agonistic interactions are likely to cause stress(115) and worsen with successive pregnancies. Crated sows have been found to experience agonistic interactions up to three times more often than group-housed sows and cannot readily practice avoidance.(116) This same study found that stall-housed sows were more aggressive than group-housed sows by the fourth pregnancy.(117) Although aggression can be a welfare problem in group housing, it can be curtailed with responsible management and good practices. In stall housing, minimizing aggression is more difficult.(118)" SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While they may be more agressive, they are limited in the damage they can do I guess. I'd say that "responsible management" links back to what the Vet group said that they support sensible practices that help.. E.g. confinement.. Anyhow, I think the linking of this picture/statement and concept is more to the linking with your and other activist's notion of "factory farms" and all the emotional arguments that follow. Perhaps that's the biggest argument for splitting up not only factory farming (can talk about the perception of what a factory farm is versus reality versus research on the matter). versus Intensive farming (concept of resources supplied etc) verus Industrial Agriculture (the concept of industrialisation of farming similar to manufacturing). What do you think about that then? Then there's no need to keep mashing them all together and finding links to try and say they're equivalent when they're talking different creatures really.. NathanLee 03:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Jav43 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the image of hogs in gestation crates is not intrinsicly representative of "factory farming"

WAS's revert
WAS, WP:LEAD says that leads must include the topic's notable controversies. Schroeder's call for an end to factory farming, backed up by British scientists, certainly counts as a notable controversy. The first para of the lead gives no indication at all of what a controversial practise this is. Therefore, the second paragraph must.SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I should have come here first rather than reverting then coming here. Oh well. I'll compose a reply. WAS 4.250 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, you have me at a disadvantage cuz you love to fight and I hate to fight and all you have to do is turn this into some long picky mess and I'll just walk away. Also the last time we got into such a thing, I kept getting edit conflicts so please give me time to fully reply. WAS 4.250 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction: I don't love to fight. I'm just willing to. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's deal with one thing at a time, ok? You added something that I thought was appropriate for the article but should eventually go in a section called politics or current status or some such, so I parked it in the notes as creating such a section with just that would be unbalanced. The lead section is to summarize the rest of the contents and the added sentence is a detail and not a summary. It summarizes nothing but instead is an example, a detail, a specific, a corroberating specific. Not a summary or an introduction. Does not belong in the lead. WAS 4.250 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added information from the BSE sources in the text. Crum375 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New name

 * Says you who just gave me two conflict edits :P haha
 * On SV's comment: Well that's why this article needs a proper name. Factory farming refers to a loaded term and we should clear that up with the use of the more correct term "Industrial Agriculture". Referring to process and concept rather than loaded phrase used predominantly by activist groups. As it stands we're lumping that all together which has an implicit POV attached. If someone's researching Industrialised Farming concepts they shouldn't be getting "factory farming" alone.
 * Factory farming = subset of the current state of Industrial Agriculture PLUS negative connotations NathanLee 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needs additional articles and details about the actual real economies with its factories, corporations, trade in goods and services, contractual arragements, monopolies, lobbying, power stuctures, worker conditions, trade unions, conditions of employment, tools of the trade, business to business markets and models, business procedures and processes, financial structures. Correct names will follow correct information. Instead of fighting over a name, maybe add some sourced data? WAS 4.250 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The term factory farming if you do a search on google (not a definite thing of course) but look at the first couple of pages of results and the registered domains.. They're anti-factory farm sites. I don't see why there's such a push for a POV term against the acceptable to both sides Industrial Agriculture (which is a broader, more descriptive, less loaded term). Go to amazon also and search for both terms. 15 books for factory farming, 3700 odd for Industrial agriculture. That's got to indicate something in terms of reference-worthy books that use the term to describe this article's content! NathanLee 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post, BBC, and Reuters use the term "factory farming." It's not just activist websites. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And it's ill defined as a result of the use, but as I've said: it's not used by the industry itself. Surely that counts for quite a large say in what something's called. If names used predominantly by opponents, sometimes by media but almost never by the industry itself that should preclude its use. Otherwise we'd have so many unflattering terms used as the primary article heading rather than just a small note that some people refer to them as.. Come on: you're the more experienced editor, what's the policy on referring to groups by names they themselves would not generally use. E.g. which of the following would be the more suitable choices for each set: gays/sodomites/faggots/pillow biters?, or churchies/biblethumpers/infidels/christians?, animal murderers/abattoir workers/degenerate bloodthirsty butchers?, sinners/baby killers/abortion clinic staff? All are widely used (unfortunately) in various circles, but in each case the least loaded and generally acceptable name to that group would be the best choice if you had to chooseNathanLee 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. The term "factory farming" is a perjorative term and should not be used here to describe "industrial agriculture" -- it should only be used to describe the nature of the term "factory farming". Jav43 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A modern form of intensive farming
(moved) As for "a modern form of intensive farming," there is no pre-modern form of it as it relates to animals, and most of what people think of as factory farming relates to the industrialized reproduction and maintenance of animals, not carrots. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of the one shows it to be a subset of the definition of the other. But I put it there for article navigation purposes so maybe what we need are navigation boxes. Argiculture, food production, industrialization, whatever. WAS 4.250 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see the point in having two articles (Intensive farming and Factory farming). We can include everything that's in the former in the latter, surely. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Other way around if you're going to do that. Factory farming is a subset of intensive farming. Not the other way around. I doubt anyone will think of "factory farming" when they think of high rotation crop cycles.. Again: factory farming is an activist term, not one that should be swallowing up other actual non-loaded NPOV recognised terms.. NathanLee 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Factory farming is not an activist term. It is the term used by the Washington Post, the BBC, and Reuters in three of the articles we use as sources. It is the term most commonly used now for intensive farming and industrial agriculture. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the sources on this, Wikipedia seems to be the only publication making a distinction between factory farming and intensive farming, so we're engaged in original research. We need to merge the other article into this one. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd added to this article what very little was there and not here, and redirected. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, there are many cases of articles out there that refer to intensive farming without a single mention of "factory farms" e.g. [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,2059592,00.html[/url], or from the BBC [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/livingthingsenvironment/4foodandsustainabilityrev5.shtml[/url] "Intensive farming is concerned above all with productivity and uses a high level of inputs to achieve it. ". No mention of "factory" anywhere there. Google has hit after hit for sites that define intensive farming with no mention of factory farming anywhere.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NathanLee (talk • contribs) 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Nathan, of course not everyone who uses one word will, at the same time, use the other. The point is whether they are using the terms to mean different things. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why have you merged these without any proof that they are equivalent? I still think you should undo your changes as you have not justified the merging with no citable example. Having them used in similar area and then saying they're equivalent without a reference is original research wouldn't you say? The state/federal laws seem to talk about size.. That's got little to do with a process.. NathanLee 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to undo Mass edits and merging by SlimVirgin
SlimVirgin can you please stop with any merging or articles you are lumping under "factory farming". You're showing complete disrespect for the discussion area and discussions currently in progress and the contributions (in the correct manner) that others are trying to make. You're plowing on in and destroying the separation of topics. It appears that you are very much pushing a personal POV and disregarding the comments here. Please (as a sign of good faith and respect to the discussions here) revert your changes and restore the separation of the articles. i propose that Factory farming is not a descriptive/definitive article name for the things you are merging in here. The reasons that factory farming is not a good name for this article (or the fields you are merging like crazy):
 * I've raised the point that the sheer volume of references in book titles on amazon to "Industrial Agriculture" outweighs "factory farming" by 3,700 odd to 15 for factory farming.
 * Factory farming is a term used by activists almost exclusively. It does not appear to be a term used by those actually in the field, which indicates a significant POV attached to that term
 * intensive farming is a practice, Industrial agriculture is a field, factory farming is a name attached to certain notions of what animal farms (only animal farms) are like.
 * Industrial Agriculture appears to be a NPOV title and is a broader term
 * Intensive farming is NOT known always as factory farming. I have never heard the talk about intensive crop farming processes referred to as "factory farming". Nor have I heard it commonly used to describe intensive fishing as "factory farming", Intensive aquaculture is a term that might be appropriate though.

If you would like to create a separate article on the POV for why animal rights groups regard factory farming is evil: then by all means do so, but to merge Intensive farming/Industrial Agrigculture and to try and shoe horn it into a POV sounding term is reducing the impartiality of the articles. There is no rush! This is not a case of vandalism that needs immediate reversion (although your changes are looking like they need that treatment to restore things to a sensible state). :) We can discuss and there's no need to stomp all over the opinions that are in this discussion area.NathanLee 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am probably doing something wrong, but when I search "Industrial Agriculture" on Amazon I get 1,096 titles, and when I search for "Factory Farming" I get 1,182 titles. I still don't think this should be our selection criterion per my argument above, but I fail to find the "15 books on FF". Crum375 01:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We are engaging in original research by using these two terms differently. No one else does. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me that factory farming = intensive farming = Industrial Agriculture. I'm not sure which google you're using, but mine doesn't find much to support your assertion that they're all the same thing. If you exclude activist (e.g. personal/non cite-able sites) then there's very little mention of factory farming in terms of book titles or scientific research. Regardless, can you put the other article back and abide by the concept of "discussion". It is a bit rude if nothing else to just bypass the discussion that was going on here and on the other page.. An example of intensive farming that I haven't come across as referred to as "factory farming" relates to plants. Intensive simply means lots of inputs to crank up outputs. Industrial Agriculture = application of industrialisation techniques to agriculture. Factory farm = term used by vegan sites to be honest. I think you're attempting to infect what should be at least 2 maybe 3 articles with a POV. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I can't see any evidence of good faith when you've gone off and bypassed the discussion forum and started mass merging. If you can please put things back to where they were prior to you discarding the discussion forum process.. Again: there is no rush, the two articles were quite happy existing and I think the equating all of these terms as equal is Original research and just mirroring a POV from activist sites to push a term not used by the industry themselves. NathanLee 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps activists in your circle of friends equate factory farming with industrial agriculture, SV, but industry folk would only use "factory farming" to speak derogatorily of a farm that engages in inhumane and abusive practices (if they use it at all), while simply using the term "good farm" to speak of industrial/intensive farming. Jav43 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Source request
We need a source for "Proponents of factory farming argue that it makes food production safer and more efficient ..." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We need (and asked for on here) a source that justified your massive merge frenzy, but have yet to receive one. Any reason why we shouldn't adopt a less activist term and make the distinction between the concept of a "factory farm" versus "intensive farming" NathanLee 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been given sources for the use of factory farm = industrial agriculture = intensive farming etc. You're just ignoring them. Here's another one. As we've given you several links showing they're used interchangeably, could you please produce one source that says there is a distinction? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it that all of your sources are from anti-agriculture activist organizations? Jav43 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farm definition by govt statutes
[url]http://www.wsn.org/factoryfarm/factfarmfactsheet.html[/url] Makes mention that "A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farm or large farming operation is defined by federal and state statute as a facility that contains 1,000 animal units. The calculation of animal units varies by type of animal.  For dairy cattle, a facility that contains 700 milking and dry cows is considered a CAFO." It (as a private site) is not the definitive guide, but can we find the definition by law. That would back up the free dictionary definition of "large scale farming" or words to that affect. It may only refer to "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)" term, but another site (again a site suggests something similar, [url]http://www.factoryfarm.org/whatis/1.php[/url]). Maybe we just need some govt agency definitions of these things to settle this issue.. NathanLee 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're trying to create distinctions where they don't exist, which is why you're getting confused. Reliable sources use all these terms, and they use them interchangeably to refer to industralized farming methods. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)
 * And I say that you've blown away a separate article in your desire to merge a concept and a catch phrase.. Your article that talks of intensive farming and factory farming doesn't strictly mention that factory farming is the same as intensive farming. e.g. ""Time will tell if agricultural run-off was the source of E. coli contamination of the wells at Walkerton. However, you don't have to look long or too far to find examples of environmental damage caused by manure management from large livestock operations." The article header says factory farms to blame, there's a paper mentioned that is on Intensive farming techniques, but the idea I've talked about below is that factory farm is such an ill defined term that it can just mean "large", which is what the article is pointing the blame at. I'm not saying there's not overlap in the terms, believe me.. But I think we're talking definitions of things here so distinction is important. Intensive farming means farming that relys on external inputs to get more out of something than would be possible. That's got nothing that forces it to be the same as "Factory". Factory can mean lots of things, but in short it's activist terminology that's used in the media because it's a known term that gets attention. Factory farms may USE intensive farming practices and they may be an example of an Intensive farming practice. Would you say a 1 hectare block of crap dirt that has lots of fertiliser added to enable crops to grow is a factory farm? I wouldn't, but I'd say that's an example of intensive farming practices (e.g. lots of fertiliser, water etc required to get a return far beyond what would have grown). Perhaps that explains why I'm trying to push for a distinction. There's nothing particularly factory like when you start looking at the basics of what the "intensive farming" concept is.. NathanLee 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nathan, if I may make a suggestion, all we really need are good reliable sources. Right now, we need one saying that proponents argue that FF is safer. Can you help with that? Thanks, Crum375 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one arguing for a safer title and a safer division of the articles. The merge was based on unsourced original research and no one has addressed the complaint that I made that this is a loaded/one sided term. If this is not in some way addressed I will be renaming the article to remove this point of view change. Factory farming is an activist term rather than one the industry uses and as such it is a POV held by one side only (and referenced by the media for sensationalist titles). The change to this and the merge was not backed by facts and appears to be contrary to my requests for evidence. That you need a quote to talk about FF safety is irrelevent when the other changes were made with no regard to this discussion. If people can find the time to do mass edits without consensus: they should find time to answer things on the discussion page (note the number of questions that have not been answered by SV, yet that user has plenty of time to do the merging and editing against both article discussion pages). If a source can not be found as to why the loaded POV term factory farm is preferential then I'll be renaming the page and restoring the changes. That I have persisted here to try and do things the proper way when you and SV have attempted to steamroll your POV does not indicate good faith or respect to others' opinions. The definition of what is "factory farm" may just mean "big" according to government agencies. NathanLee 09:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to stick to providing reliable sources. Much, if not all, of what you say is WP:OR. What we need is: "source X says Y. It is reliable and relevant. It should be in the article because of Z." Then we can address and discuss the specifics, such as how to present a neutral and balanced picture. Thanks, Crum375 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nathan, rather than spending lots of time arguing about the title, why not help to produce research that leads to content? The title can always be argued about later. We need a source showing that proponents say factory-farmed food is safer, or that will have to be removed from the lead. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that certain editors are deleting data they say is "unsourced" while simultaneously arguing for the inclusion of other data that is unsourced. Hypocrisy is not an appealing trait. Jav43 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By nature, a CAFO is industrial agriculture - and if you say that industrial agriculture and factory farming are the same, then to be consistent, you'd have to admit that a CAFO is "factory farming". Jav43 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of POV bias, Rename and restoration of Intensive farming article
As a number of large scale changes including a merge were taken: I submit that this has resulted in Original research and a Point of view biased article. example: The washington post article referenced: states: "The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in 'gestation crates' -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming." Points on this : the use of the term "Factory farm" in the article is tied to what animal welfare advocates' POV. From the "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th edition" factory farming (′fak·trē ′fär·miŋ)
 * 1) The is evidence to suggest that the term "Factory Farm" is POV and an activist term that the media uses on occasion.
 * 1) The term "factory farm" does not appear to have usage outside referring to animals. (there's no reference that links the name to crops, fishing. It appears attached to the concept of animals in cramped conditions on large scale farms) examples
 * 2) Factory farming appears to be linked to "large" and little else by some definitions, making the term useless to describe small operations  and
 * 3) Animal and mobility restrictions resources:  (science term dictionary)

(agriculture) Raising livestock indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility. So this is not sounding like the field of industrial agriculture and it is linked to livestock and extreme limited mobility. System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible.
 * 1) Britannica links it to animals, animal rights activists

The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of “day” and “night” are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.

Nothing about crops, or that it is used by the farming industry itself.. It also links it somewhat to the USA, rather than the rest of the world.

Even activist sites place the restriction and link between the term "Factory farm" and animals, cramped conditions etc  These factory farms are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). They emphasize high volume and profit with minimal regard for human health, safe food, the environment, humane treatment of animals, and the rural economy - in other words, factory farms are not sustainable.

The definition of a factory farm varies from state to state; however, these industrial facilities share many of the following characteristics: Hundreds to thousands of animals (mainly cows, pigs, chickens or turkeys) confined tightly together and provided little or no access to sunlight, fresh air or room for natural movement. Some facilities produce millions of animals yearly. Public health problems, including the overuse of antibiotics and food borne illness. Liquid waste systems and "lagoons" to store raw manure. Buildings that confine animals indoors and control their environment. Mutilation of animals such as debeaking poultry, clipping pigs' tails and teeth, and docking cows' tails. The corporation that owns or controls the factory farm also owns the feed company, slaughterhouse, and final stages of production (referred to as vertical integration). Through contract growing, a remote corporation controls all aspects of raising the animals. The livestock owner does not manage the day-to-day operations of the facility. The farmer is left with the risk, debt payments on barns and facilities, waste, and dead animal disposal. A decrease in neighboring property values because of odor and water pollution.

This article mentions "Through the campaign, the member groups of the CFFE worked to grow our numbers, trained highly skilled (and now seasoned) leaders, framed issues (such as the term “factory farm” for large-scale confined animal feeding operations), developed media and political contacts and allies, passed important policy initiatives and advanced others forward in the policy debate, stopped nearly 100 proposed factory farms in our states, and accomplished a host of other environment-protecting and grassroots power-building objectives."

In short: this attempt to create a synonym between "Industrial Agriculture", "Intensive farming" and the activist notion of "Factory farm" was not correct (which was why there was discussion going on, which was ignored and the changes blasted through anyhow). "factory farm" may be synonymous with "large confined animal feeding operations" (CAFO), but not the broader term of Industrial agriculture or the concept of intensive farming and as applied to non-meat related activities.

"Factory farming" means an activist tainted Point of View term that is restricted to large scale animal farms with animals in cramped, indoor conditions. While it may be synonymous with "farming" for some: that is probably a US version of farming. Industrial Agriculture is a broader term and "Factory farming" can refer to the notion of treating a farm as a factory but Industrial Agriculture is a more neutral term that is frequently used (by both proponents and opponents). So to avoid Point of View infection of this article the previous title of "Industrial Agriculture" should be used over the term "factory farm" which as per the links appears to be loaded with other assumptions. There's nothing that says that an industrialised agricultural farm has to fit the narrower definition implied by factory farming.


 * 1) Intensive farming is a process or a concept. It is simply characterised by requiring or using a high amount of inputs (e.g. capital, fertiliser, feed, chemicals, man power) in order to maximise crop or livestock returns.. There are also terms like "semi-intensive farming", and "low intensity" farming . So I would say it deserves to be a standalone article given that it wouldn't make much sense to have the concept of "semi-intensive", "low intensity" but not "intensive". NathanLee 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted the changes as SV has ignored the discussion going on here. The changes made are in the history, we can add them back if/when they are supported. Yes there was a bit of "Baby out with the bath water" but the information is still in the history and can be selectively added in as required. Next up I think we need to fix the title as I think I've shown that "factory farming" is not the appropriate term to apply to the other terms. Neutral POV title is needed. Suggest the discussed "Industrial Agriculture" which is a term understood by pro-and opponents NathanLee 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Jav43 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan
Those edits were close to vandalism. The content you removed had nothing to do with the merge you're complaining about, because you left in the issue of crops anyway. Please add content (with sources); do not remove it.

Also, you're posting so much here and on people's talk pages, it's unlikely to be read. Less is more when it comes to talk. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, if you can't take the effort to participate or listen to requests to justify the massive edits then take some time. You can term it vandalism if you like, but I'm just resetting the page to where the discussion started and you ploughed a bunch of unsupported changes and merged another article. You had plenty of time to make a tonne of changes: but very little to participate. Can you now take some time to answer the issues with your changes. See my section above on why I reverted. I'm aware that the page is not perfect. That's why I've also talked about the need for a rename (refer to this discussion page if you missed that). But it is less polluted with your misconception (see my above reasons) of why you think "factory farm" is the one term to own them all.
 * To summarise my issues with the changes: it's original research to be saying "factory farm" holds identical meaning to "industrial agriculture" and "intensive farming". "Factory farming" has POV and is akin more to an activist notion than a field of agriculture.
 * Now I can go and remove the unsupported and conflicted POV edits and original research. But as you disagree you are quite likely to keep reverting (does that count as "removing others work"). As you have decided to ignore the discussion area there is not really any way for you to pay attention to the opinions of others on this article. If you can't do that: might I suggest you participate more and large scale edit/merge less.. NathanLee 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've made 111 edits to articles overall, and whenever I've seen you edit, you're causing disruption. Look at the lead you added: "Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors [are they always indoors?] under conditions of extremely restricted mobility. [that is not all it is] The term, frequently used by animal welfare activists [but not only them, so why mention them and not everyone else who uses it?] refers a the [sic] specific technique [what specific technique? only one?] of intensive farming ..."


 * This isn't good writing. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then fix up the typo, you're attempting to justify your disruptive editing of my addition that doesn't warrant a revert. I was in the middle of making some changes which you stopped by reverting then threatening 3RR.. I now cannot fix anything because you have threatened that I am will be in violation of 3RR because I dared to edit an article you are appearing to try and own.
 * You accusation is a completely false and an unwarranted attack. Where's the daily conflict in my edits? Can you back up that claim of disruption? Also: 111 edits that have improved wikipedia are useful I would think: rather than 10,000,000 that can easily be called edit warring and POV shaping (reverts, threats of 3RR). This seems to happen with your edits quite often. A quick peruse of your talk history page (which you blank and archive almost constantly) indicates that your editing style is rather closer to disruptive than mine. How many editors have you clashed with Slim as it appears to be relevant to the discussion for some reason? Your attempt to bully anyone from attempting to contribute seems to be almost a hobby of yours. Might I suggest that you review your non-collaborative approach might result in less editwarring and disruptive behaviour on your part. The earliest revisions of your talk page appear to indicate why you are so quick to introduce POV into animal related articles . Which is fine if you are able to be neutral, but the agressive attitude you show towards contributions that don't fit your POV are not suggesting anything positive about your contributions on this article. Why: just check up in this very discussion and you'll see that you've clashed and disrupted editors. NathanLee 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Find a source showing that intensive farming is not the same as factory farming. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim: the point is that i've been making is that since you are the one that made the edit to say that it is the same: the onus (responsibility) is on YOU to back that up.. Find me an reference that says oranges are not to be used as jet fuel. NathanLee 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Google definition search yeilds
 * A system of farming with the aim to produce the maximum number of crops in a year with a high yield from the land available and to maintain a high stocking rate of livestock.www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/glossary.htm


 * a method of farming which produces the largest amount of crops or meat possible from a particular area www.stepin.org/glossary.php


 * Farms which cover small areas but which use either many people or a lot of capital (money). No land is wasted.geographyfieldwork.com/GeographyVocabulary7.htm


 * farming that uses modern machinery/technology to grow vast quantities of produce.www.bridgemary.hants.sch.uk/folders/gcse_revision_guide/glossary/page_1.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_farming WAS 4.250 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system characterized by the significant use of inputs, and seeking to maximize the production. It is sometimes also called productivist agriculture.


 * Just my 2 cents. Nathan is obviously not a vandal.  Factory farming does not equal intensive agriculture, and the negative connotation associated with the term "factory farming" is one reason not to use it in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. Haber 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but repeatedly removing large areas of text without consensus can easily be seen as vandalism. The 2 terms are synonymous. 'Factory' = 'Industrial' (one is a part of the other), 'Farming' = 'Agriculture' - they mean the same thing. The only reason there are negative connotations with one term is because the overall reaction to the practice is a negative one.-Localzuk(talk) 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument is fallacious. Terms are not the sum of their component parts.  Consider the term "silverware". Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If Nathan is a vandal, then I want more like him. He is clearly putting in a lot of work and trying to improve the article.  You and SV should apologize to him. Haber 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know enough about Wikipedia to but would like to bring in a third party editor to review SVs actions, accusations, threats and edits, etc... Do you know how this process is started? I would also suggest freezing the article until SVs hositlity has subsided. --Agrofe 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That might be useful. It would be good to resolve this without such action, though.  SV is clearly outnumbered. Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of apologising for pointing out that the large amount of reverting that Nathan engaged in could be seen as vandalism - it is written in our policies that such actions can be seen as vandalism. That isn't me calling it vandalism, it is simply saying that SV isn't out of line saying that it could be seen as such. I do see his actions as disruptive though, as it is damaging to remove large amounts of work such as he did here.
 * SV does a huge amount to improve this encyclopedia and is one of the most respected editors on this site, any claims against her need to be very well backed up and not just yet another rant. Someone removing a large amount of work and being warned about it is not such a situation - it is simply following our policies.-Localzuk(talk) 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't make you apologize, but you just did it again. What Nathan is doing is not "disruptive", and throwing these sorts of accusatory terms at a well-meaning casual contributor looks like bullying to me. Haber 02:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agrofe, here is an earlier version you approved of. Very few sources; lots of OR; no information or sources in the lead; and completely misleading information such as "According to the United States Department of Agriculture, ninety-eight percent of all farms in the United States are 'family farms'," but without mentioning how little, relative to their number, these farms produce compared to the big corporate producers.


 * If you feel the current version is unbalanced, then please do some research and add material. I have looked for sources that are pro-factory farming. They are hard to find, because even the owners tend not to defend it, beyond arguing that it produces cheap meat and crops. But perhaps you know of sources that I don't. But please add material; do not remove other people's work. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agrofe is acting responsibly. He is not "removing work" any more than what SV has demonstrated is proper. Jav43 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(indents) LocalZuk: there was only a large amount of revision because SlimVirgin chose to charge on ahead rather than discussion. See Nathan's note to SlimVirgin about the mass changes. Which can also be regarded as vandalism since the requests to support the OR material have gone unanswered. If you look at the comment on my change ("revert to pre-massive merging by SlimVirgin. Refer to discussion page. Remove POV and original research"). SV then reverted ignoring the discussion page again. How is that respect worthy behaviour when there's been little evidence of respect for others by SlimVirgin? I was the one in the right in this case and was sticking to the policies. SV was not, so whether the person is well known or not: that is irrelevant if their actions are incorrect, disrespectful of others or overly abrasive. The large amount of conflict SV appears to stir up even just within this discussion forum doesn't seem too much like a constructive thing :at the same time as this. Willingness to fight and inability to listen is not a virtue. :)

SlimVirgin my friend: I have requested a number of times for you to support your additions. I'm not asking to be annoying: I'm asking because you still have not and we have what appears to be an OR broken article. I attempted to revert them so we'd all discuss (as the old page made less OR assumptions, but still needed fixing, hence my views and others on the title), you overrode that, then accused and made threats of 3RR policy violation (that you yourself are more in violation of the guidelines and recommendations as I informed you :deleted note to slimvirgin about 3RR). I had on numerous times asked you to contribute and to halt your massive rewrite and merge. You chose to ignore those attempts and pleas for you to join the discussion. I then did the revert pre-warned on your talk page and on this discussion page (only made large due to your ignoring the earlier requests and pointing out the POV and Original Research concerns.. ): you once again ignored the reasons and overrode it.

As it stands: you've altered the article to introduce original, unsupported research and yet you are protecting that from not only revision, but also from an attempt to fix up your additions to make them neutral and in line with the supported, cited references.

Trying to put the responsibility on someone else to disprove something which you added when that has been asserted is unsupported is not the way it works. Without proof: it is your changes which are closer to vandalism, yes it is not blatant, but you are firstly changing the article dramatically to suit your POV and original research then ignoring polite requests to back it up, then when it is reverted you push it through again ignoring discussion as an option, then threatening and accusing with no justification other than saying you should not remove work from others (something which is an absurd thing to ask when OR has been pointed out)..

My changing the article header to remove Original research is not a revert, nor is it vandalism and it IS adding material and improving the article. There is no ban on removing material from wikipedia that is Original research, Point of view or misleading (which your edits have been) in fact my understanding is that that is encouraged. It's a tired old line, but please assume good faith and accept that your edits are not necessarily 100% correct nor 100% neutral. Mine aren't always going to be, no one's are always going to be..

You did attempt to back up some of your material using an potentially unreliable source/non-citable site and a mirror of wikipedia's page on factory farming: which is reason enough as to why this page has to be correct(the mirroring and muddying of things). But to then go and attempt to start an editing war when you have neglected any and all requests to back up the added material in this article is not good editor behaviour (I would think). As I've said: there was no rush, no need to plough on through, but either you were too busy editing to read the notes, or discussion page, or reversion comment directing you to the discussion page or you are unwilling to accept the polite collaborative behaviour myself and I would think your fellow wikipedians expect. If you have such high personal feelings about animal liberation and about the need to retain your POV/OR material: I'd suggest you take this page off your watchlist and refrain from editing it.

If there's the assumption against good faith that I'm "from the opposition":I'll declare now that I (or immediate family and friends) personally have no membership or affiliation with any activist or lobby groups (other than to donate to some non political environmental and homeless charities), or farming groups, or industry groups nor am I in any way involved with the agricultural industry (other than as an end consumer). So I'm really only here to try and improve wikipedia.

So I'd humbly recommend to SV that they tone down their approach to attempt a more harmonious balance between editorial needs and allowing others to contribute. NathanLee 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the title of this entry
Much of the debate about this entry seems to come down to the question of whether it should be titled "Factory farming" or "Industrial agriculture." A number of points should be clear: (1) the titles are almost interchangeable (factory = industrial, farming = agriculture); (2) if one title redirects to the other, then it doesn't matter which is most commonly used, or which has the most Google hits, since whichever title one prefers will take you to the same discussion, as it should; (3) the question of which title is preferable may be significant, but it is not crucial, and the entry does not stand or fall on this question.

Nevertheless, which is better? I don't believe it is a question of which is more popular, nor which is more neutral. But I do think one title is slightly more accurate than the other. The goals and techniques described in the entry amount to the reduction of agriculture to forms of quantification and calculation to be employed in the achievement of economies of scale in production. The development of these goals and techniques is essentially a matter of industrialisation, where industrialisation is a process occurring on a planetary scale and commencing with the industrial revolution. This process includes but is not limited to the rise of factories and factory methods. Now, it is possible to argue that a factory is nothing but an apparatus for the quantifiable and calculable application of industrial techniques to material, and thus that the title "Factory farming" is an apt and evocative description of the way in which plant and animal life is turned into material made available for such techniques. I would nevertheless argue that the rise of factories is one element within the overall process of industrialisation, and that the real point is the degree to which agriculture has been submitted to the entire process of industrialisation. Industrial agriculture is not only the process of turning living things into material to be "fabricated": more than simply the technicisation of agriculture, it is the entire system whereby technical innovation is devoted to the end of achieving economies of scale, and, in general, profit.

In short, the industrialisation of agriculture means more, and is more significant, than the technicisation of agriculture (which was always technical). For that reason I would argue that "Industrial agriculture" is a more general and yet more precisely accurate description of the process presently unfolding than "Factory farming." I recognise that this kind of argument does not necessarily appeal to editors, since it is based in analysis rather than sources, but I can only say that this is my view of the matter. I apologise also for the length of this comment, for which my only excuse is that it will probably be my sole contribution to this discussion of an extremely important entry. FNMF 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. WAS 4.250 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The entire 'industrial revolution' worked on the idea that economies of scale would be gained by using factories. The entire process was the factory.-Localzuk(talk) 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is ignorant beyond words. WAS 4.250 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Jav43 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming v. intensive farming
The issue of the title is separate from the issue of the writing. The way it's written now is a dog's breakfast. It contradicts itself. Even the lead contradicts itself. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to decide:


 * 1. Do you want to include crops in this article, yes or no? Currently you first say no, and then you include them.


 * 2. Do you want this article to be called factory farming or intensive farming?


 * Then


 * 3. We can tweak the writing to accommodate. You can't change the writing first.


 * And


 * 4. You must source all your edits, including images. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I have restored the last self-consistent version. And we must have some rational decision about the contents. What is this article about? What do we name it? What goes in it? As of now, it was totally inconsistent with itself before I restored it. Crum375 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also want to put in a plea for good writing, regardless of the title, or POV, or anything else. There's no need for poor writing and lack of clarity. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What contradicted itself? The version that Crum just reverted was very much better than the version we see right now. Jav43 23:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the Original research has been removed in the version I've put up. Unless you have a source (as requested multiple times) that somehow counteracts the evidence presented that shows the terms are NOT equivalent then you should leave this one up as it makes no un-justified claims and is all completely referenced.
 * As for whether it is a dog's breakfast: I wonder why that might be? Could it be the attempt to shove POV and unsupported assertions that factory farming refers to all the other terms (which were separate articles). If you want to talk about the factory farming POV then it is a separate article to the concept of industrial agriculture AND intensive farming. Hence my pleas (ignored) to stop, slow down and discuss. Accusations of vandalism when I attempted to reset the article appear to warrant an apology SV/crum375 as you perhaps now see what a mess you've made this article trying to push POV and OR lifted from animal rights.. wait.. not even supported by animal lib sites. Can you examine the arguments (lengthy though they be) and see why there is a significant difference between the terms and why "factory farm" is an entirely inappropriate term to be pushing over the top of the other ones? There should be two or three articles: "factory farming" refering just to the notion of factory farms, "Industrial Agriculture" as per how is was kind of before and "intensive farming" - just restore the article that was called "intensive farming". Factory farming has POV attached (as per my changes to the lead in. If you're going to force the page into "factory farming" then that needs to be made clear and neutral. NathanLee 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As some of many examples, the Schroeder and the British scientists statement calling for an end to 'factory farming', contradicted the statement that it is 'frequently used by the media and activists', since we refer to mainstream politicians (Schroeder) and scientists. Also, it is implying that when people say 'factory farming' they don't mean 'intesive agriculture', yet the sources we provide clearly equate the two (e.g. here). The previous version to mine also eliminated the Schroeder reference. Crum375 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the terms in the same article or even the same sentence does not mean two terms are equal. It's a one way, subset relationship.. Again: Factory farming is a type of Industrial Agriculture. It uses Intensive farming practices.. That's all verifiable, referenced etc.. You assertion that they are all the same is Original research.. Full stop. NathanLee 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this clearly equates the terms:"'United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease.' (my emphasis)"
 * If you claim that one is a subset of the other, that would be your own OR interpretation - I don't see any logical way to read this but as equivalent terms. Crum375 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Using dicta in a newspaper article to prove your point is about the WORST possible source verification around. Jav43 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Using CNN and Reuters as a source to determine the accepted usage of public terminology is quite reasonable, as notability of a source is important also. If we has some obscure scientist writing a very complex and profound scientific paper, it wouldn't be as important a source on public terminology as respected mainstream media sources. Crum375 00:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crum, firstly no one's debating that the term "factory farm" is a term that's not used. It is. I agree it is a term that's used. So does Jav43 I believe. But if you claim that the sentence in that article links the two phrases to be equivalent to each other then it doesn't.. You can even say they are two different requests if you like. Saying that you need to move away from X and stop Y. If you assert that X is linked to Y then the best you can do (still incorrect really) is say that Y is a type or subset of X. Really moving away from is a different concept to stopping. Does the sentence make sense if you say that factory farming is a subset or type of intensive farming? Yes. Is it fair to say the terms are interchangable? No. If the sentence had said "We recommend a stop to factory farming therefore that means all intensive farming will stop (as factory farming is the only form of intensive farming)". But factory farms can disappear and you'll still have monoculture crop farming relying on fertiliser, irrigation and mechanical tilling (e.g. intensive farming)..
 * So Intensive farming is a wider concept. Are you familiar with the mathematical concepts of sets? As in sets, subsets, union, difference etc.. As I think that's the area that myself and jav43 are thinking in terms of that you're missing our point. We can establish evidence to suggest that factory farming forms part of the set of things that makes up "Industrial agriculture" or "agriculture that uses intensive farming". But we cannot find evidence to suggest that industrial agriculture is identical to intensive farming is factory farming. That's the OR part, and if you've got something that says they're completely interchangeable terms from a site we can reference (the only ones that SV came up with were this article itself and a private answering site that may have just ripped it off wikipedia too). That defines the term "original research" and is a dangerous pollution of terms that should not stay sitting in the article regardless of whether crops are out of scope for an article on factory farm (they are: but given the response to any attempts by jav and myself to edit (or indeed revert the massive merging) the article to correct this: a tag team revert against the discussion evidence) you've made it rather difficult to get this article knocked into shape. NathanLee 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but despite all your words, I still don't see how reading that sentence to mean that one is a subset of the other, or that they are not simple equivalents of each other, is anything but your own interpretation, i.e. OR. Crum375 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crum: I can't put it too much more simpler or too many more ways. Cat is an animal. True? Is it fair to say animal is cat (or animals are all cats). No. Easy proof: a dog. Factory farm is a loaded term that as per the britannica encyclopaedia (a source I think you will have to agree knows a lot more about encyclopaedia writing than you, I, SV or jav43) says refers to industrial agriculture with a bunch of conditions on it.. If you put conditions on something that means you NARROW the field to which that can then encompass (e.g. you shrink the set). Factory farm is a term that refers to livestock. That narrows it down from livestock, fish and crops. Therefore: outside your set of things which are able to be called "Factory farm" are agriculture that involves crops and fish. Therefore: to use the term "Factory farm" refers to a subset of industrial agriculture. THEREFORE it is not able to be interchanged as a term for the larger set of things. THEREFORE the terms are not equivalent. Ditto for "intensive farming": there's intensive farming of animals and intensive farming of crops. Crops are not animals, therefore the set of what is able to be called "intensive farming" is larger than the range allowed by "Factory farming" terminology.. If you don't see how this works, then this argument is beyond your comprehension skills (as it depends on notions of sets etc) and that's where the sticking point is and will continue to be unless the notion of sets is sorted out.. NathanLee 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to the same issue on the thread below. Crum375 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Intensive farming article redirects here
Intensive farming redirects to Factory farming. I came a little bit late to this move but it appears to me that the encyclopedia has been damaged by a hasty decision. Fortunately we can correct it. Comments? Haber 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed: this is wrong and should be corrected. Jav43 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed: factory farming, industrial agricutlure, family farming, organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture, indigenous agriculture, etc... can all be intensive farming.--Agrofe 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of family farming being intensive farming and organinc agriculture? Reliable sources use factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive farming synonymously, as opposed to family farming and organic farming, and we have to stick to what sources say, even if you think they are wrong. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any farm owned by a family that engages in intensive organic agriculture production. There are huge numbers of examples.  I could name names of individuals I know who fall into this category, but that would be pointless.  Your sources are not scholarly peer-reviewed articles.  I would put much more credence on them if they were.  I am unwilling to place great weight on media or propoganda sources.  Jav43 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles thrown together by a newspaper reporter and approved by their editor are "good enough" for many purposes but we all know newspapers get stuff wrong all the time. A newpaper article is not a "reliable source" for claims that are contradicted by scholarly peer-reviewed articles. That's the fact. Policy edits that say otherwise are insupportable and efforts to put newspapers on a par with expert sources drive away experts. Wikipedia is not mediocre-pedia. We strive for excellence. We are already more accurate than newspapers. Let's keep moving in the right direction. WAS 4.250 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * SV are you back to "family farming" being mutually exclusive of "intensive agriculture". Listen: this notion that the two are exclusive is just activist rubbish and makes no sense on any level. Example: most of the agriculture in Australia. We don't have the widespread commercially owned farms, most are family run and owned. Yet there are piggeries, chicken and livestock farms that rely on more than just the food lying around the ground (e.g. intensive farming). Easy example #2: intensive means lots of inputs to boost productivity? e.g. fertiliser and piped water. Do you think that all farms owned by families do not use fertiliser or irrigation to grow crops? There's an example of intensive farming owned by a family. NathanLee 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ok when I get some time I'm going to reinstate Intensive agriculture. Haber 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)