Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 3

Proposed new lead in paragraphs - Comments welcome
I would like to make the following edit (which has been reverted by SlimVirgin diff of my change to the intro and the many attempts to get discussion from SV most recent, finally a response indicating that it was not read then an attack. So as I don't believe SV has any desire to permit this (assumptions of good faith have seemed fruitless), nor inclination to allow anyone to contribute constructive input so I'm going to put my proposal here (like my other comments) because it appears my ability to edit this article is going to result in more reverts from SlimVirgin and the threat of 3RR violation as a way to prevent my editing this article further.. Rather than just letting me contribute to this article to fix the POV. The runaway changes that SV made to merge this page and Intensive Farming despite ongoing discussions (and my request that she hold off and use the discussion area) in both page's talk pages. It's slow (I've now had to re-iterate arguments from before, make this page, try to reason with SV etc etc), painful to have to do this and making my contributions difficult.. But I still think the discussion area is the best way to resolve this because I want wikipedia to have a non-biased, factual article (which currently it doesn't appear to have). Moving on to content:

Proposed First paragraph
Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility.

Does anyone have issue with this as to why this is unacceptable as the first, succinct description (non OR view, it's backed up by the reference). I think it most accurately nails what the term "factory farm" has come to mean. The current first paragraph contains a statement which equates the term factory farming with numerous other terms which creates a false fact and is definitely Original Research. There's been a lot of information put forward on this discussion page, which was cited during my change, and then summarily reversed by SV before an unrelated personal attack accusing me of being disruptive for making this change rather than addressing what was wrong with this (SV mentioned that it was inappropriate to have a definition up front, this to me seems counter to what it SHOULD be). Perhaps if there's other conflicting proper sites that show conflicting views (e.g. I've been trying to find the US/State definitions of factory farms.. other definitions just list it as "large scale"). I would insert the word "generally" or "often", but that tends to be something that's frowned upon here.. Suggestions?
 * Would it benefit to make this refer also to the use of "factory farm" to refer to certain (large) size farms (as per all the legislation stuff.. Would still need a good reference to govt definitions).. Or something to indicate it is synonymous with much of the current state of cattle/livestock farming in the US? (as per britannica's definition and supported by the large number of media references) NathanLee 02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the more generally used definition of the term "factory farming" simply relates to large farms with large animal counts. I don't think free space per animal is the deciding factor - although it certainly is a contributing factor.  I would suggest preliminarily focusing on overall farm sizes. Jav43 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does seem to have been used just to mean large. Particularly the articles that have mentioned factory farm permits.. They don't seem to be needed for small farms using similar techniques.. So I think for "factory farming" there's the extra meaning of the phrase when used by animal welfare/activists and also the one associated with the POV that they're unhappy, cramped type conditions of livestock.. I mean that's why we've been stuck having this conflict over what this page should be since it changed from "Industrial agriculture" to one with POV attached. So I think that's worthy of mentioning if we're talking just the term "Factory farming", so it can just refer to large AND referring to the (perceived or otherwise) "horror of cramped animals" type view that people have when the term is mentioned (sensationalist or emotive). As distinct from industrial agriculture (no POV or emotion generally appears to be attached) or intensive farming (which is just a concept of extra inputs to get more out of one patch of land, water or whatever). NathanLee 11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph
The term is frequently used by animal welfare activists and the media. It refers to a technique of intensive farming, describing the large scale, confined industrialized production of livestock and poultry.

I've altered this from the reverted one to include a typo fix, some slight wording changes and reference to the media (although the claim that it was frequently used by activists is SUPPORTED by the britannica definition, which SV objected to despite this. I'm not sure what the complaint about using information from britannica's definition as it appears to be a good referable source). This is more correct than saying that factory farming IS intensive farming and IS industrial agriculture and IS intensive agriculture, because we have nothing to support that and nor does it have the same connotations or meanings. The reason it is useful to point out who generally uses this term is that if the farmers themselves don't appear to use the term: we should make that very clear from the start.

Third paragraph
A subset of industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture, farms producing animals this way are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations, or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).

Notes:
 * "subset" because we can find reference to support that the term "factory farm" forms part of the wider field of Industrial Agriculture, but nothing that suggests the entire Industrial Agriculture field is accurately represented by saying "factory farm". E.g. I've got references that link factory farms specifically to animals rather than crops.
 * the link to concentrated animal feeding operations is made all over the place.. So that one is fine to link I think.
 * Would it worry people less if it was "a type of industrial agriculture" if the term "subset" appears to be a sticking point? I think we can all agree that it's a type of industrial agriculture (and thus a subset) but if it "un-mathematic-ifys" ;) it a bit maybe that'll cause less contention? Same meaning, just different way of saying it.. NathanLee 11:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Original text
The text that I was attempting to clean up.  Factory farming, also known as intensive farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture, refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, fish, and crops. Farms producing animals this way are also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations, or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). 

Reasons:
 * while factory farming may involve intensive farming techniques: it is not interchangable. E.g. Crops with fertiliser, ploughing and irrigation = intensive farming technique that is not called "factory farming".
 * no link that says any two of the terms "Factory farming", "intensive farming", "industrial agriculture" are (all encompassing) equivalent (so that is original research)
 * the term is media and activist specific rather than one used by the farmers themselves, therefore POV laden. (numerous discussion material above in other sections of this discussion). If we're to use sensationalist/anti names of a subset of a field/area to represent the whole: then wikipedia needs a lot of page changes from neutral to POV group's names for them.
 * if the page MUST be called factory farming: it should be clear what factory farming generally refers to. It's unlikely that a freerange feed lot that has hay and water shipped in to be referred to in the media or press as a "factory farm": but it is both industrialised agriculture AND intensive farming.
 * this intro is a new addition (by SV) and as it is not backed up by citations that show the terms are equivalent and interchangeable (or applicable to crops/fishing/algae production/any number of other areas of agriculture) it should be rolled back (an unsuccessful venture as SV just keeps putting it back)

Thoughts?NathanLee 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you simply not reading any of the sources? For example: FACTORY FARMING = INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE, CNN. That's just ONE example. Please read third-party sources, rather than writing so much about your own opinions. SlimVirgin (talk)  01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What a lousy news story! Did you see the credentials on those jokers that the reporter dredged up as sources?  One guy had worked for the Ag Ministry, the second had "worked on BSE", and the third was a lobbyist.  Come on!  Even if you believe these stooges you're still only left with FACTORY FARMING = INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE OF CATTLE. Haber 01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly speaking the CNN story is talking two separate quotes. One's ""The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming," they said." and the other is ""The U.K. BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture -- a 'recipe for disaster."'". It's talking about the intensive farming of cattle in factory farms.
 * Intensive farming encompasses the notion of factory farming is the point I'm trying to get across. NathanLee 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an analogy as the concept of bi-directional substitutability of terms seems to be the sticking point. Instead of "factory farming" think "boarding school", instead of "intensive farming" think "structured education" and instead of Industrial Agriculture think "learning process". It's true to say "boarding school" is a type of structured education, or uses the principles of structured education, but you can't say that Structured Education IS boarding school. Because standard schools are also structured education too. Boarding school is a type of learning process, but it isn't correct to say that the learning process is only boarding school.. We're talking subsets. It's safe to say factory farms are a subset of intensive farming. And they are certainly an example of industrial agriculture. But they are not equivalently swappable terms in both directions. NathanLee 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everyone knows what you mean. Good luck. Haber 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kudos on inserting an actual definition of "factory farming"/"industrial agriculture" into the article. It's been sorely needed for a long time. Jav43 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the changes NathanLee introduced in the lead are not conformant with the sources we cite. It would be better, in my opinion, to introduce changes one at a time, instead of in bulk. Crum375 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crum375 can you back that up? Your revert of this again with no specifics appears to be just edit warring rather than using the discussion area and is not backed up. I've explained how the changes are relevant, there's been no attempt to answer the charge of OR and my changes remove that OR. I don't see any new evidence to warrant your tag team reverting other than to continue an edit war. Can you please revert your changes and either add new material or point out specifically where you find my suggested changes in error. How are they "not conformant"?
 * As explained: the revision you reverted to IS not backed up by the source, the new version does not make those OR claims that the terms are equivalent, sticking instead to what we CAN say. NathanLee 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NathanLee's edits are correct. Jav43 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An article for every POV
Isn't this what is known as a POV Fork? Ag articles all over WP (not just these three) have been mauled. See also Sustainable agriculture. Haber 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the articles should all be neutral, but the concept of factory farming refers to a certain subset of Industrial agriculture.. Perhaps it doesn't warrant a page all of its own.. Because: as you say that can be thought of as a POV fork rather than just treating it as a subsection of the broader page. Does factory farm deserve a page all by itself? Hrm.. It definitely should NOT be the replacement page for Industrial agriculture or intensive farming.. It should probably defer a bunch of coverage to the Industrial agriculture or intensive farming pages rather than duplicating material for what is a subset of the other concepts.. NathanLee 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Three entries, one talk page, plus two comments
Although I agree with the intention behind WAS's suggestion to develop three different entries for industrial agriculture, factory farming, and intensive agriculture, I think using one talk page for all three will rapidly become unwieldy. I can't see that such a procedure can work for very long.

In relation to my earlier comment that industrial agriculture and factory farming are nearly interchangeable terms, clearly that is not the case if factory farming is defined as "the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility." With such a definition factory farming is clearly only one aspect of industrial agriculture.

In relation to the definition of industrial agriculture: the definition as it currently stands essentially describes it as agriculture devoted to achieving economies of scale in production. Although this is true, I think the issue is slightly more complex: if it is accepted that one goal of a corporation such as Monsanto is to actually control a very large proportion if not the entirety of food markets, then this objective, while still a matter of increasing profits, is also about manufacturing a situation of global control that is insusceptible to competition, rather than simply increasing profit. Certain genetic strategies employed by such corporations can be interpreted in this light. Such attempts to achieve monopoly domination don't seem quite the same as simply achieving economies of scale, even if in the end they are strategies devoted to ensuring long-term profitability. FNMF 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I ran into this issue on Horizontal gene transfer. "Factory Farming" in no way encompasses all that is entailed in the industrialization of the production of biological entities. WAS 4.250 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is interested in my view - I would say that Slim and Crum are right that historically 'factory farming' has been used as something of a synonym for industrial agriculture (e.g. see OED definition and quotes) but I would agree with NathanLee and others that it is probably more often used nowadays to refer to intensive confined animal rearing as a subset of industrial agriculture (e.g. see my quotes above). Therefore I would favour having two articles, one of industrial and intensive agriculture, the other on 'factory farming' as restricted to animal rearing (but with a referring to industrial agriculture as a possible alternative meaning).  I do not think we should be assigning ownership of articles to people as an effective fork. --Coroebus 11:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So by the sounds of it the factory farm article should just have a clarification or definition of what's generally referred to as "factory farm" (e.g. if there's specific information about the term or its definition) and then the body of the material on the overall process is held in "Industrial agriculture". NathanLee 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I was suggesting that Factory farming could be an expansion of the animal section of Industrial agriculture since it is inevitable that there will be some animal rights issues addressed in the former, while the latter will probably have more of a focus on environmental criticisms which apply to both animals and crop cultivation. --Coroebus 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion : Let's add, not delete.
May I suggest that we agree to have different articles edited by different sides of this little edit war and each side in the edit war agree not delete anything the other side puts on "their" article, but can add stuff, but if its deleted let it stay deleted for now. Then we can compare the different articles to see what is better and what is worse. This could be done on a subpage, but I think we can do it at Factory farming (Slim and friends get to "own" it), Intensive farming (Slim and friends let it alone and don't keep making it a redirect), Industrial agriculture (starts with the non-slim version of this article that is being edit wared between). I would hope we could all borrow from each other and eventually wind up with a way to agree to merge common items and perhaps wind up with three good articles or one good article depending on whatever consensus evolves over time. I think the main thing is to get on with the writing of sourced content. Slim deleted good stuff at Intensive farming and slim's opponets deleted good stuff slim added to this article. Let's add, not delete. WAS 4.250 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What did I delete that was good, WAS. Please show me. SlimVirgin (talk)


 * I can agree to having two articles (factory and intensive) but not three. That would be ridiculous. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed: this should never have been shoehorned (I've used the term god knows how many times) into one article that is a POV laden term. We need 3 pages it seems. Factory farming, Industrial Agriculture and Intensive farming.. This was pointed out in the discussions on both pages prior to moving had SV bothered to read them before pushing through her incorrect OR changes. Despite god knows how many posts on the discussion forum pointing this out. This is why I suggested, then did the revert because the current page is a dog's breakfast.. NathanLee 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need two-three articles. Jav43 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started the process. Everybody, please only edit the articles that are "yours" (for now only, eventually we will have to come to a consensus). Add data, don't revert war. And steal good stuff from each other. WAS 4.250 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WAS, you're engaged in OR. Factory farming and industrial agriculture are used interchangeably by the sources, as is intensive farming. I can see an argument for having intensive farming separate if you want to focus on crops in that one, but there's no argument for separating factory farming and industrial agriculture. If you want to say they are different, produce a source. I've produced sources for all my points so far; I am waiting to see any of you do the same. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SV as this has been stated many times before: there's no source that says that factory farming means the same as any of those sources. It may be a subset and that's a safe assumption from the usage in articles, but it is not equivalent. E.g. apple is a fruit, but is fruit an apple? No. John is a person, but person is not john. You have not provided a source to say that the terms are interchangable. The links you provided were not referrable sites and one was a wikipedia rip of this page. Again: it was you making the merge and the assertion that the terms are equivalent: prove it. That's the way it works, not making some unsupported allegation and asking for a source that proves otherwise. My example above: prove that oranges are not able to be used as jet fuel. It's going to be impossible for you to find a source that proves that statement is wrong because it's unsupported OR with no proof against either.. NathanLee 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nathan, here is the CNN/Reuter article, where I have replaced the terms:"Scientists: X drop could end mad cow. LONDON (Reuters) -- United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from Y, saying the end of X was the only way to kill mad cow disease."
 * Now can you explain to me how anyone could read this simple heading and sentence without the understanding that X=Y? Crum375 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no implication that X=Y and Y=X. Replace X with "Sausage eating" and y with "clown terrorism". The sentence is perfectly valid as the sentence implies no relationship between X and Y. Only that the scientists are warning people away from one and to stop the other. e.g. Move away from "this endless querying", stop trying to find "proof in this one sentence". :P NathanLee 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not following. If X is not Y, then that sentence with that title would not make sense. Crum375 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crum: look at what the title says: X means mad cow end. then the second part of the sentence says the same thing. Drop X means mad cow end. Header is just the second half of the sentence again. Y is a separate thing altogether.. NathanLee 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nathan, if as you say "Y is a separate thing altogether", what does Y mean? How would any reasonable reader understand it? Why would any reasonable writer write it if it's "a separate thing altogether"? I think it's clear to any reasonably person reading this, that X=Y - there is no other logical way to interpret it. Crum375 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(back)Crum: Just read the headline, then read the sentence. The headline can be "Fred says hello", the sentence in the body can be "John eats an apple, while fred says hello". That is EXACTLY the same as your example from the article. I really can't spend or think of another way to explain what is just too simple to come up with another way to say it. If the headline is X.. Just lump the whole thing to be a concept X. Then you have a sentence which says something different (Y) and joins this with saying the exact same thing as X.. e.g. headline = X, sentence = Y and then X. Y is completely unrelated, can be completely unrelated.. IS unrelated by the sentence. What you are trying to argue is that if two things are in a sentence together then they are equivalent.. which is absurd. Try covering up the first half of the sentence in teh first paragraph. Do you now see that the title and the uncovered part are IDENTICAL. So no new information. Now cover up the title and read the sentence. Is there anything that says they are equivalent? No. It's a run on sentence. That is, two different things jammed into the same sentence. It's your brain that's imagining something saying they're the same. NathanLee 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain several times, a reasonable writer (and I suspect Reuter only has reasonable writers) wouldn't say "X drop could end mad cow ... scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from Y, saying the end of X was the only way to kill mad cow disease", unless X=Y. If Y is not X, than that sentence would not make sense. Crum375 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about X='using carcasses as cattle feed', and Y='factory farming', where I think we can agree that X is a subset of Y, but not identical with Y:
 * "Scientists: 'using carcasses as cattle feed' drop could end mad cow. LONDON (Reuters) -- United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from 'factory farming', saying the end of 'using carcasses as cattle feed' was the only way to kill mad cow disease."
 * Ungainly wording yes, but quite meaningful. --Coroebus 11:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your example defines the actual terms as being different, whereas in our real case the X and Y are simply 'factory farming' and 'intensive agriculture', which to an average reader mean the same thing, so there is no other way to interpret it than that they are used synonymously. Crum375 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is entirely circular reasoning. Your X and Y example was intended to establish that the terms had to be the same because of the sentence structure they were embedded in.  I have demonstrated, as you have conceded, that this sentence structure is consistent with X and Y being different.  Therefore, your example does not establish that they mean the same thing, and your argument comes back down to you asserting that they are the same. --Coroebus 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Clearly the article is not directly saying "X is Y", it is only conveying it in the way it is worded. My point has been all along that any reasonable person reading it can only understand it to mean that X = Y. Your example with the carcasses is different because it uses words that clearly mean different things to everyone, whereas in the case in point the terms 'factory farming' and 'intensive agriculture' mean the same thing to an average reader, and their usage in the article just confirms it. Crum375 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that does make your argument circular because you are basically saying that this sentence establishes that the two expressions are the same because they are the same! I would request that you engage with some of the examples provided which draw explicit distinction between the terms. --Coroebus 14:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"The concept ‘industrial agriculture’ does not refer to large-scale and specialised factory-farming. Instead, it is here used to designate farming that depends at least partially on external supply of inputs (e.g. seeds, fertiliser, veterinary services) and on markets, infrastructure, etc. since consumption of its produce mainly takes place outside the farm itself." The European Journal of Development Research "Myths about Agriculture, Obstacles to Solving the African Food Crisis" Holmén (2006).

"Firstly, just under 80% of respondents expressed opposition to intensive farming practices, such as factory farming..." UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Complementarities and conflicts between farming and incomers to the countryside in England and Wales" 2000.

"Industrial agriculture is characterized as capital and resource intensive, large-scale, high yielding, and mechanized with monocultural cropping systems directed to local, national, and international markets." Jarosz (2000), "Understanding agri-food networks as social relations", Agriculture and Human Values.

"Just 10 years ago, only a handful of farms in Wisconsin met the definition of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" (CAFO) - or, in environmental circles, a factory farm." Capital Times (Madison, WI) January 22, 2002.

"A factory farm is often defined as one with 1,000 or more animals..." The Associated Press State & Local Wire December 7, 2001.

"To counter the pollution caused by factory farms, the EPA proposed changes to the definition of "concentrated animal feeding operations" to include a larger number of such facilities and bring them under the auspices of the Clean Water Act." Environmental Laboratory Washington Report January 18, 2001.

"This exemption also may protect factory farms, which are, by definition, confinement operations. Some factory farm confinement practices are illegal in other parts of the world, such as the European community, due to their cruelty." Capital Times (Madison, WI.) June 8, 2000.

"Mark Anthony, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said  'factory farm' is purely a political term. It's a neat little phrase used by opponents of our largest farms and it's used, ironically, against family farms that are large. It's a term manufactured by political opposition to generate a negative response. It is polemical in its use....Richard Sahli, an attorney who has worked closely with groups opposing Buckeye expansions, defines factory farm in environmental terms. Do it on the potential to be a nuisance and an environmental threat, which relates to waste materials, he said. He prefers the Environmental Protection Agency standards, which require livestock farms with more than 1,000 animal units (1,000 beef cattle, 2,500 hogs or 100,000 chickens) to have permits and stronger standards for waste management." Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) July 26, 1998.

"...he's not aware of a definition in Ohio of what constitutes an industry-sized farm for the purpose of regulation. I guarantee it's a very, very difficult issue to get a handle on what the definition is of a factory farm, Finan said. One measure is the EPA requirement that any farm with more than 1,000 animal units must have an environmental permit to operate. Columbus Dispatch (Ohio) March 10, 1998.

"...focus on the ways industrial agriculture (and factory farms in particular) harm and abuse billions of animals each year." U.S. Catholic March 1, 2007.

"...much like the factory farms and other industrial agriculture..." The Globe and Mail (Canada) September 21, 2002.

To really mix things up, here's the OED: Factory...6. attrib. (sense 5)...factory farm orig. U.S., a farm organized on industrial lines; hence factory farmer, -farming... ...
 * 1890 A. MARSHALL Princ. Econ. I. IV. xi. 351 Our knowledge..would be much increased..if some private persons,..or co-operative associations, would make a few careful experiments of what have been called ‘*Factory farms’.


 * 1926 19th Cent. June 825 Factory-farms..can be multiplied or spread widely enough to affect the whole of British agriculture.


 * 1952 Economist 7 June 657/1 The operators of the huge western factory farms..resist the rule that no more than 160 acres of a single owner's land can be supplied with federally financed water. Ibid. This so-called ‘160-acre limitation’..is still applied when new lands are irrigated, but *factory farmers, particularly in Texas and California, have been trying..to get Congress to repeal it.


 * 1964 New Statesman 30 Oct. 649/1 Boycott factory farm food?.. Boycott factory farmers?.. The essential thing is to amend the Protection of Animals Act (1911) to cover *factory-farming techinques. 1968 Ibid. 5 Jan. 10/3 Under conditions of intensive ‘factory’ farming, a lot of animals did suffer from true infections. 1968 M. PYKE Food & Society v. 63 It is fashionable to sneer at intensive methods of livestock production; they are called ‘factory farming’.

...

intensive...5. a. Econ. Applied to methods of cultivation, fishery, etc., which increase the productiveness of a given area: opposed to extensive in which the area of production is extended.


 * 1832 CHALMERS Pol. Econ. x. 324 The removal..of the tithes, gives scope both to a more extensive and a more intensive agriculture. 1865 Times 15 Apr., Ruin stares in the face the occupier whose farm premises are inadequate to the requirements of an ‘intensive cultivation’. 1889 Nature 3 Oct. 558/2 The necessity for increased food productions calls for intensive methods. 1899 19th Cent. No. 264. 300 There is little probability of their escaping from being caught..on account of the intensive fishery.

--Coroebus 10:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues: Public health concerns
Why does "public health concerns" have its own section? Shouldn't that section be incorporated into the "arguments against" side of the debate-style outline (unless we're removing the debate-style outline, section-by-section). Jav43 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive look through the linked references to support my change to the header
SV and crum375 have asserted that factory farm/intensive farming, industrial agriculture are synonymous and completely interchangable.. So looking through all the references in the article. The terms are sometimes used in the same article (even in the same sentence in one article) we haven't yet had anything that shows the terms are anything other than a type of the other..
 * The CNN article doesn't use them interchangably, it calls for a move away from intensive and a stop to factory farming. It would have said stop to both if they were the same thing. You can stop factory farms and still be moving away from intensive farming is about all you can glean from that..
 * britannica and the sci-tech dictionary says it applies to animal farming as per cramped conditions ,
 * this one supports the notion that the term means livestock ,
 * this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations no mention of "factory farm" anywhere,
 * this one does not mention the term factory farm,
 * webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock definition ,
 * this article talks specifically about cows..

On and on through the list.. Even if we go to activist sites on factory farming: I haven't come across any that assert that the terms are interchangable. Sure: factory farming IS industrial agriculture and it IS using intensive farming techniques (or is a type of intensive farming). But that just means it "is a type of", or "is a subset of". English use of the word "is" isn't the same as mathematical =. a = b means b=a. But in English a is b doesn't also mean that b is a.

Nothing to back up the claims in the referred links or anything I can find (other than mirrors of wikipedia's mistaken statements.. which is why it is important we do NOT have this definition sitting up there and infecting the common vernacular of agricultural terms), thus: it is original research and has no place on wikipedia. Might I add:
 * Even the PETA link on factory farming (completely un-admissable I would say given PETA are a pro-vegan, anti every type of farming site, and not exactly known for their fact based statements e.g. "meat causes impotence", "your daddy murders chickens") mentions only animals.

So, does this settle the arguments that SV and Crum375 have about wanting the term "Factory farm" to be synonymous with the other terms? No mention of crops, and 3 different dictionary/encyclopaedic entries that suggest there's a link to cramped livestock.. Yet Industrial agriculture definitely includes monoculture crop planting, and intensive farming definitely definitely refers to using fertiliser and irrigation and mechanised ploughing etc..

So unless there's any new evidence: I suggest we move past this and get on with splitting up the articles and back to supportable definitions/synonyms. This has all been a pretty big drain of time, good will and patience that has damaged the accuracy of the information on here, not improved it (although I guess at least this has been exhaustively debated now.. and has firmed up sources/supporting arguments etc). Any thoughts on this? I'm not wanting to be dictatorial on this: just presenting the evidence.. NathanLee 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Jav43 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WAS 4.250 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture, opening paragraph
At the moment the opening says that industrial agriculture's methods involve technology (modern machinery) and science (modern medicine and genetic technology). Obviously this doesn't make much sense, since genetic technology is a technology and not just a science. But it indicates a more general issue, which is: precisely for phenomena such as industrial agriculture, the distinction between science and technology no longer really holds. The pressure to innovate in these fields means that what formerly passed for scientific investigation is now entirely submitted to the needs of technological and industrial innovation. It would be better to say: "Industrial agriculture's methods are technoscientific (including innovation in agricultural machinery and genetic technology) and economic (involving techniques for achieving economies of scale in production as well as the invention of new markets for consumption)." FNMF 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted accordingly. Also, added "intellectual property rights to genetic information" as an economic method. This is key in the sense that without establishing these legal/economic rights on a worldwide basis a great deal of recent innovation in industrial agriculture would not be possible. Only because corporations can establish and count on such rights can they pursue the strategies they devise. FNMF 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality writing
Wow, what a mess. The current lead is terrible. Why has it changed from a well structured set of paragraphs to series of poorly thought out sentences? It is currently representing only one view of what 'Factory Farming' is - some have expressed that factory farming and industrial agriculture are the same thing and have provided sources to back it up (such as the CNN source, which despite your attempts at analysis, and your ignoring of our reliable source guidelines, is a reliable source that is written in such a way as to se the 2 terms synonmymously - any analysis more than simply reading is as it is written is OR), yet we only have 'Factory farming is a subset...' and 'describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility'.


 * I would say that use of the CNN passage to establish the equivalence of the terms is quite probably the crappest argument I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and the repeated attempts to rely on it brazen Humpty Dumptyism with the quotes as mere props. Fortunately for you there is the far superior OED source that says "factory farm...a farm organized on industrial lines". --Coroebus 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to point out is that the intro only covers one POV - that the term is a subset. There are those who see it differntly (including myself) who have shown sources to support that the terms are synonymous. I'm not trying to say that the article should be written one way or the other - just that both views should be represented properly.-Localzuk(talk) 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'm trying to say that the evidence that they are synonymous is pretty much absent - apart from the OED quote I haven't seen any other evidence that stands up to even a cursory glance. On the other hand there is some pretty compelling evidence of it being used as non-synonymous.  But I do agree that at the very least the intro needs to spell out the different uses to avoid confusion. --Coroebus 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Further down the page we have statements such as 'According to Faison:' being changed to 'The animals are better off, according to Faison:' which is a change from a encyclopedic intro to a poorly thought out line.

Futher, we have now had the image removed from the intro and placed down at the bottom of the article. Why? A representitive image of the practices so vividly described in the intro is appropriate is it not? The intro states that animals are kept in strict confinement, so why not have such an image in to lead? -Localzuk(talk) 16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We already went through the discussion of the image. The discussion is on this talk page. Jav43 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, the first 3 paragraphs (if you can call them that) start off talking about the practice, then the term, then the practice. This is a terrible mess. I propose that we go back to the old layout and work slowly from there - proposing each change bit by bit.-Localzuk(talk) 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just improve the writing style, then, without removing content? Jav43 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again the suggestion to put it back to the changes by SV that made it the mess in the first place. I changed those sentences to make it less Original research. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they are at least factual and making no original research claims.. Which is preferable to what was there. NathanLee 01:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

American v. British spelling
I noticed that a few recent modifications changed American spellings to British spellings. Is there some general wikipedia standard regarding spelling choice? If not, we should probably adopt one spelling method or the other, just to be consistent. Jav43 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was Australian spelling I was correcting as part of that.. But same spelling for British/Canadian/South African/Indian/New Zealand English spelling I guess. Don't know that there's any consensus on this.. Those words are either US spelling or "rest of the world" English I guess.. My personal view is to go with the one that applies to most variations of English (in the absence of a wikipedia mechanism to put individual English variations in e.g. Jail/Gaol, colour/color etc). Is there a tag to put the US alternative spellings in..? 89.168.20.5 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care overmuch, although I don't know many of the actual words for British English (i.e. Jail->Gaol, Trunk->Boot, etc). There ought to be a general wikipedia policy on point, if there isn't already. Jav43 18:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, I found the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English; http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/nubio/view.php?id=151 Jav43 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reworded to take out those words.. What do you think? NathanLee 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tweaked a few more.. If we work around the our/or type words I think we're ok for US/other variations.. Just be conscious when using favour/favor, odour/odor, colour/color, stuff that ends in -ize when it's spelt -ise generally.. And we'll be fine and within the guidelines without any trouble.. NathanLee 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

International tags..?
I noticed that there are other language versions that appear to be ones for the other articles.. e.g. intensive agriculture and industrial agriculture..

Anyone got some insane many language skills that can check they're correct? NathanLee 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning to slimvirgin and crum375
You appear to be revert-warring against consensus. Please refrain from undoing justified changes to put a supported view in the lead paragraphs. You have repeatedly failed to produce evidence that backs up the claim of equivalent terms. SV: you are an editor and supposedly experienced, please show respect for the facts presented, the majority support for the change, assume good faith and either provide references that show equivalence (set-wise) of the terms or else leave the less OR infected version as it is. Reverting is not showing any new evidence other than your ability to back up your view in the discussion and a lack of respect for everyone else contributing. Given we have a bunch in favour it is you and crum who are disrupting and interfering with proposed changes that meet wikipedia expected standards. The other version does not. NathanLee 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again.. SV and crum375 seem to be tag team reverting against evidence on here, how exactly is what you are doing anything but vandalism?? I (and others) have been more than patient on this matter, you've shown no good intention, just a desire to push original research into an article and thus damage the factual nature.. NathanLee 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need here is a solution
What we need here is a solution. Both sides have given their evidence and neither side agrees with the other side's evidence. Both sides claim to be following policy and accuse the other side of not following policy. Perhaps a straw poll on which of the two contending versions is best could be a solution. What do others think? WAS 4.250 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WAS, could you answer the question, please, about what in this version you feel is OR. SlimVirgin (talk)  19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your first two paragraphs and the image of the sows are OR and should not be in the lead. Jav43 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems the dispute is already resolved. SV, Crum, and Localzuk are on one side; WAS, Nathan, myself, and Agrofe are on the other -- BUT SV, Crum, and Localzuk cite propaganda-based activist websites rather than decent sources, and at least SV has admitted bias against modern agricultural practices.  The "correct" outcome here is obvious.  (By the way, how on earth did the image of the sows get back in the lead again?)


 * Oh, also, the talk page is working perfectly. Of course, SV/Crum/Localzuk's refusal to actually read it doesn't work so well.  Advice:  read without bias. Jav43 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The talk page is filled with self gratifying nonsense by a couple of editors who are trying to hide their own biases by providing too much info in response to very simple questions. Nearly every time one of SV/Crum/myself have asked a question we have received long diatribes which barely provide an answer and would be more appropriate if a politician had said them. This isn't an attack against any editors, it is an analysis of why we haven't got anywhere with coming to a compromise. We need to stop with the OTT answers and keep things succint. I suggest that we simply archive the page so far and start again - going over each paragraph bit by bit.
 * The introductory paragraph is not original research, it is well sourced. The image is also sourced, how is this original research?
 * Also, regardless of your beliefs of things being 'correct', this site works on verifiability. Everything in the lead is verifiable and sourced.-Localzuk(talk) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of "there is no evidence in ANY of the articles cited to suggest the terms are interchangeable" is so hard to understand? I'll say AGAIN:See my section on exhaustive coverage of the referenced articles.. I've shown there is NOTHING in ANY of them to support SV's lead. The one I changed it to makes NO original claims, cites MORE sources (and doesn't throw away any sources) and is thus infinitely preferable. If you say it doesn't cover the article: I'd like to see you add things to make that so. SV's version is plain WRONG. Inability to contribute or be able to understand extensively supported arguments is not a reason to keep reverting. If SV/crum375/localzuk can't understand why something needs to be fixed if it contains unsupported claims: then there's no reason why the article should suffer because of that. If the discussion page has gotten lengthy it's because we've got a couple of animal rights activists who need to create a biased page.. That's the only explanation at this stage. The article has also had other fixes which have been thrown away (e.g. the english variation neutral changes, spelling mistakes etc). If these editors were doing this from an IP address they'd be banned from editing, but for some reason we're tolerating their un-supported ignorant and lazy "I'll just keep reverting til I win despite all evidence against me" approach to this article. NathanLee 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Localzuk, if you read this discussion page, you'd find out why you're wrong: this version is OR and the image is improper - as we all agreed long, long ago.  Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you'll find that *you* think it is OR and *you* think the image is improper. Myself, SV and Crum all think it is proper and not OR...-Localzuk(talk) 08:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also WAS - a poll isn't a good way to solve this. Every attempt to explain why the article is OR has been made. SV/Crum375/LocalZuk are just unable to either bother reading the arguments, or accept that SV may have polluted this article with incorrect statements (which has been shown god knows how many times on this page). Why are we putting up with such disruptive vandalism of this page in the face of one side providing extensive evidence and the other not contributing, not reading the arguments and edit warring.. NathanLee 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead
The lead which SV has reinstated is a much more well rounded summary of the article. Please do not remove information from the intro, as it is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and the prior version was far from this.-Localzuk(talk) 22:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you not been paying any attention to the dicussion: it is Original research.. It is not supported.. If anything is vandalism it is this repeat of reversion despite numerous changes. SV: I don't really know how many more ways you need to have it pointed out that your opinion is not backed up. Continual reversion over a more accurate lead is just wasting time. For the umpteenth time: either present evidence that backs up the equivalency of the terms (and take the time to read the discussion page) or I'm afraid there's no other conclusion that you're edit warring and disruptive. I'm not just throwing around the terms either like some do: there's been rational, backed up, consensus on the conclusion that your page was broken. If you can't see the merit in the extensive work people have had to go through to show you that your edit is incorrect (see my above section on "Exhaustive.. " which goes through nearly every reference cited on the page. Nothing in it supports your statements. Thus: they needed fixing. NathanLee 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nathan, the CNN/Reuters clearly uses Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture interchangeably. We've gone through that quite a few times above, and I don't see any other reasonable way to read that article. I do not see any source that specifically says that there is a distinction between Factory Farming and Intensive Agriculture or Intensive Farming. The ILO source does not use the term Factory Farming (which includes crops), and is specifically for concentrated confined animals only, which is exactly how we present it. Some sources refer to the animal aspect of Factory Farming, but there are clearly others that refer to both animals and crops, e.g. Webster's New Millenium says FF is "a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility" (my emphasis), and of course agriculture includes crops. So while some sources (and animal rights groups) focus on the animals, other sources include crops, and I have yet to see a single reliable source that specifically excludes crops (i.e. by saying "FF does not include crops", or "FF is for animals only"). I think the reason is simple: animal rights groups, by their very nature, focus on animals, and therefore tend to ignore the crops aspects of FF, and some sources seem to focus on the animal rights groups and Mad Cow, etc. But our article cannot be tailored to animal rights groups or Mad Cow only; we should follow the general and broad application of FF in the published literature, which clearly includes both crops and animals. Crum375 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you paying any attention to what's been said or not? Clearly you haven't read the rebuttal to that (quite frankly idiotic) claim (as was said by another user). That CNN article does not use them interchangeably, nor do any of the articles cited on this page. Again: if you can't read the discussion page that mentions this (scroll back up two or three sections to the one about exhaustive). If you have no new evidence: can I suggest you stop wasting time and effort having to explain things to you again. You put forward another ridiculous argument that because something mentions "Agriculture" and then says it applies to animal production agriculture: that it then must mean crops too.. I really don't get your logic skills: is English your first language as perhaps that explains the missing of the nuance (if you can call it a nuance).. How can a type of agriculture to do with animals kept indoors also magically refer to crops which are firstly not animals and not indoors. What specific article are you referring to that talks of factory farming in such magic broad terms as to fit your definition.. We've got two dictionary and britannica that disagrees with you.. So it'd better be a good reference to override those.. This is just seeming more and more like beating a dead horse and taking up time and energy that I'd rather spend on improving the article. Not arguing for the 50th time on why you should stop reverting articles to the original research. Why exactly couldn't you have put some of this critical review into the massive alteration of the article to prevent the original research in the first place? Rather than trying your hardest to keep it there? Your/SV's view isn't even shared by animal welfare activists (check PETA's description or countless others). NathanLee 04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't refer to crops. Please at least read what you're removing. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nathan, you completely missed my point. The lead you are trying to include does not provide a well rounded summary of all major aspects of the article. It has also taken many comments to get you all to realise that the quality of the writing you are adding is lower than what was there. As SV says, add material, do not delete well sourced material merely because you don't agree with it.-Localzuk(talk) 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Nathan's version is better. It contains a well-referenced set of definitions, while SV's version uses only dicta from newspaper articles.  Nathan's version properly doesn't talk about growth hormones or antibiotics, which don't characterize "industrial agriculture" or "factory farming", while SV's version says that such things are iconic of factory farming.  SV's version cites a number of propaganda-based activist websites, which clearly are not verifiable sources, while Nathan's version moves away from such problems.  Looking at the whole, Nathan's version is much better.  If you object to his sentence structure or the like, then *fix that* without removing his text. Jav43 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Add, don't remove
If anyone feels the lead needs more positive material, by all means add it, but do not remove well-referenced factual material. Please see WP:LEAD. Leads should briefly describe the topic's notable controversies. The BSE thing is certainly that, as is the chancellor of Germany calling for an end to factory farming. It would be absurd to leave that out of the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The various editors involved with this page have an honest editorial difference of opinion on:
 * the definition of "factory farming"
 * which version is the better "well rounded summary of the article"
 * the reletive importance of BSE versus say, avian flu, artificial genetic manipulation, agribusiness political lobbying, e.coli, etc.
 * the the relative importance of a political leader's remark versus say a scientist's scientific study and conclusion or an economist's peer reviewed analysis or an agribusiness spokesperson comment. WAS 4.250 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if reverting between two versions is the best way to handle this honest editorial difference of opinion. WAS 4.250 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which part did you think was OR, as a matter of interest? Your edit summary didn't say. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The bit that was altered. Really SV: if you can't read the discussion page: leave the editing to those who can. Again, since you can't seem to get it via comments on your talk page, comments in the change history, discussion in this talk page or by reading the articles you claim supports your assertions: The term "factory farm" is not interchangable with "Intensive farming", "industrial agriculture". As above: none of the articles show anything other than it is a type of the others. Crop farming does not get called factory farming. Britannica/websters etc talk about confinement and ANIMAL farming. NathanLee 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are the one deleting good and referenced material from the lead, Slimvirgin. The article needs a definition of terms:  the lead provides one.  Also, citing propaganda-based activist websites does not a well-referenced article create.Jav43 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than reverting, thereby removing a large amount of referenced material that summarises the article better, why not add the bits about antibiotics and the like and definition of terms to this version? Regardless of what *you* think of the references to newsmedia, they are reliable sources according to our policies. Removing them is not helping.-Localzuk(talk) 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dicta is not a reference. Sorry.  Dicta doesn't count.  If you had any training in research-based professions, you'd know that.  Jav43 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, also, I'll turn your question back on you, Localzuk. Why didn't you add whatever it is you think is "good" rather than deleting/reverting Nathan's version?  Come on, stop the hypocrisy.  Jav43 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also: Localzuk: do you realise that references were ADDED. By reverting you've removed references to superb 100% citable sources AND based on an incorrect assumption: the articles are still referenced. I'm not sure how you're justifying this? YOU removed good referenced material and put back unreferenced claims. NathanLee 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dicta? Sorry, I don't understand that terminology. And the reason I didn't add what you have added is that I don't think it adds anything good to the article, so I reverted to the last good version.-Localzuk(talk) 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguing about research methods without knowing the first thing is sad. Dicta is statements that are made to explain or enhance, but that aren't the actual point.  Dicta isn't a good source for a citation.  The point made by the article/source is what you should cite. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jav43, can you point us to the relevant Wikipedia policy that addresses the 'dicta' rule? Crum375 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you actually admitting that you don't know the first thing about serious research? :P It doesn't matter whether there's a Wikipedia policy.  Any decent researcher should know what to use as a source and what doesn't qualify.  Jav43 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jav43, perhaps this is part of our problem here. First, please try to remain civil - it will make collaboration much easier. For example, try to focus on the issues, not the editors involved. Second, you seem to think there are some kind of sourcing rules, 'dicta' being an example, that we need to follow, that are not part of Wikipedia policy, and that "[a]ny decent researcher should know what to use as a source and what doesn't qualify". I suggest you read our WP:V, WP:NOR sourcing policies, summarized in WP:ATT. These are the rules we need to adhere to - we cannot ignore them, or invent new ones as we go. Once we all sing from the same page, we can hopefully move forward. Thanks, Crum375 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't any of that, we can cite wikipedia policies til the cow's come home (or in this case: get shunted to a more cramped feeding cage): the important one is Original Research. Can you please provide any evidence to counter the mass of evidence we've provided to show that the page you revert to all the time (the current one that's locked in place) is not original research. To be honest: civil means showing respect for others' editing and to not keep reverting without reason. The overwhelming push by wikipedia is to back up and reference any claims made. We've shown at this stage that the new page is a better article from an accuracy point of view.. This debate is pretty thin on justification on your side and continues to be while you tell others to read the policies while you flagrantly ignore them yourself to keep this POV in the article. You are the only ones circumventing or inventing new rules. The new page makes no claims in the lead that aren't verifiable. SV's one does. NathanLee 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would actually like to hear Jav43 respond to my point about not inventing new policies on the fly, as he seems to be doing. But responding to your message above, can you show me one specific example of WP:OR in the current version? (and please - make it just one so we can stay focused) Crum375 13:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you not just read the exhaustive list or here or perhaps even the section on proposed new lead where I specifically replied to you in both those last ones.. But you went silent again and did not provide the requested evidence.
 * If you can't focus enough to read replies specifically to you on the discussion page: how many times do the same sets of complaints need to be raised before you read them? I'll say it again to summarise the above links AGAIN, SV's version makes claims that terms are the same: they aren't and no reference backs that. The SV version is wrong in the body too because it mentions crops (merged from intensive agriculture) and no article exists to link crop farming with factory farming.. It disagrees with the dictionary and encyclopaedic entries referenced in the newer version on that regard. Hence "original" (e.g. SV's ) research. NathanLee 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagreement with a specific source is not OR. I suggest you read WP:OR carefully. If you are referring to the equivalence between FF and Intensive Farming etc., all that is well sourced, for example here. I have yet to see a single source that says that FF is not equivalent to Intensive Farming. In general, I think the current version is extensively and carefully sourced, and I have yet to see a single example of OR in it. Crum375 14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't see how that source (headline is the only bit to use the phrase "factory farming", then it talks about a report on groundwater and intensive farming", then there is some discussion as to whether an e.coli outbreak was due to manure runoff) fails to establish the point you are trying to make then I think we will need outside input here. Request for mediation anyone? --Coroebus 15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the cbc article Crum just referenced is useless. It only mentioned "factory farming" in the headline (if you know anything about newspaper articles, you'd know that the headline usually isn't written by the journalist) and draws no actual correlation between "factory farming" and "intensive agriculture".  Crum & Co. are grasping at straws in a last-ditch attempt to throw their POV into this article.  It's just tiring. Jav43 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The part that we've got issue with (as per the original research policy) is nothing to do with disagreement with a single source.. It's this bit:"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". The lead and article was changed to remove the extrapolation of the definition to include the unsupported equivalency and extension to include crops (for which there's no reference.. including the one you cite which makes no such claim). The personal position by a couple of you that they are identical terms: is only that: A personal position. Your justification is the same as saying that any two terms used in a sentence are the same and interchangable. "A move away from intensive farming and an end to factory farming": does not mean the two terms are the same. It's even referring to two different groups saying that as I recall.. Your reference from above: mentions factory farming in the heading.. And refers to a report on intensive farming, but the part about "Miller points to larger livestock farms in Ontario, which produce more manure or agricultural run-off, and, hence, a higher risk of groundwater contamination.". Doesn't this support the assertion that the term "factory farm" is referring only to large animal farms? We know intensive farming can include more (crops, fish etc) therefore the BEST we can assume is that factory farm is a subset or type of intensive farming practice. The same can't be said the other way around. NathanLee 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy isn't exhaustive and isn't meant to be exhaustive. I'm not attempting to "invent new policy".  I'm simply restating the obvious... which I wouldn't need to do if the editors here could actually use decent research techniques. Jav43 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a question for WAS. This talk page has reached the point of being almost useless, because of long irrelevant posts, and posts designed to insult rather than just reply. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's useless because you completely ignore it. This argument to "add, don't remove" is firstly stupid because if you look at it: there's nothing been removed. It's a rewording to make it match the references. It actually has more references (ones to britannica and other dictionaries) to support the material. Having Original research (the claims of equivalency of terms was not backed up in ANY of the articles.. Had you paid attention to the discussion you'd see that I'd shown that) is much much worse than having a LEAD that might need an extra sentence or something to round it off. If you value adding material so much, why have you reverted to undo numerous fixes just because you don't like that someone has improved the article? Removing added Original Research or POV is not something anyone should be reverting, let alone an admin. NathanLee 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected page status
Rather than propogate questionable information, I think the entire lead section of this article should be removed while the article is protected. Jav43 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That isn't how page protection works. It stays as it is until we come to a compromise.-Localzuk(talk) 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny how you reverted (against requests for you lot to participate in the discussion) just before it got blocked so that the incorrect Original research about equivalent terms can stay there a bit longer.. I wouldn't mind so much if any of the 3 of you gave any reason for doing so.. But edit warring rather than reading or providing evidence seems to be all the proof you need. It's also a less referenced one too by the way: no link to britannica etc NathanLee 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not funny, I requested page protection... Normal when there is a revert war. Please read the notice at the top - protection isn't a promotion of that version.-Localzuk(talk) 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to be used to protect your own revert. Why revert if there's no promotion involved? Why did you not simply request a protection. So yes: it is funny. Had you requested the protection without having immediately been the one doing the reverting you might have a leg to stand on and have shown good faith and professionalism. What you did was once again ignore the discussion mechanism, revert a bunch of changes to damage the article with OR again.. Then abuse the page protection mechanism to make it stick up while you lot once again fail to provide any evidence or reason for SV's misleading lead to stay there. NathanLee 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So true. Localzuk's actions were completely unethical.  The page should at least be placed in a neutral state if it is to remain locked for a time. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as I made my revert at 18:05 and the page was protected at 19:05, I don't think there is anything wrong with what I did - stop reading into things. Your over the top 'this is a conspiracy' behaviour is not helping - all it does is make me think that you aren't here to improve but to push your own agenda and to troll.-Localzuk(talk) 07:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Localzuk: true you reverted (18:05), but then 5 minutes later (18:11) you requested a block. It took some admin a little under an hour to respond to your request. Response time of admins is irrelevant really, but 5 minutes between your reverting and starting the block process doesn't exactly support your idea that it's an agenda to call you out on perhaps using block as a technique to enforce your POV.. NathanLee 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling me a liar and *still* not getting to the point of how we can compromise on this issue. Being at work and heavily overloaded with work I don't have time to create a possible compromise version.-Localzuk(talk) 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a liar: my apologies if it read that way: you just implied you had given more time between your revert and the block request. Your actions were 5 minutes apart.
 * The "compromise" is that if you/crum/SV want to contribute on this (including right to revert) then your argument needs to be backed by evidence and the talk page used a bit more. As currently it's based on nothing other than some POV e.g "the lead sucks" equivalent and a desire to keep the page from being changed at all costs (pissing others off, trampling over arguments/convention/requests to discuss, personal attacks, unhelpful editing).
 * None of the excuses given appear to have a basis or justification: it is referenced, despite claims: editors can (and are encouraged) to remove/change/add material that improves the article ("don't remove" was one argument for reverting the additions of others strangely), it is less original research, agrees more with other primary sources.. So I still can't see why this debate is there other than to somehow appease a couple of people's unjustified reverting against consensus and backed up reasoning. The improvement process keeps getting knocked back every time you lot decide to revert and stall for more time with no evidence to support it. Might I suggest that if you move beyond clinging to this need to have the original research in the page: we can stop wasting time on you so far fallacious arguments against improving the article.
 * Also if you/SV/crum375 are too busy: consider that we did spend the time out of our also busy days creating a more accurate lead, with lots of reasoning behind to save the disputes: and all you SV and crum really have found time to do is revert and refer to one article with the two terms in the same sentence but which does not back the claims. It appears it's not ok to revert SV's massive changes (which were contributions though.. although against the discussion pages on each of the pages), nor is it ok to ever change them regardless how flawed it is shown time and time again. NathanLee 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which just goes, once again, to show that you would rather rant for several paragraphs than get to the point. I'm sorry but you are missing the concept of 'compromise' if you think 'you lot should give up' is a compromise... Also, consensus by a few people doesn't mean there is overall consensus. There are 3 of us saying the same thing (well 4 if you count that other random user). Anyway, now that I have finished work, I shall try and build a compromise version of the 2 and see if that is acceptable to you.-Localzuk(talk) 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent) If a couple of people say they think "Triumph Daytona 675" and "motorbike" are synonymous: they can even start a revision war on the motorbike page: that doesn't mean some compromise of material on the motorbike page is needed: the person with that personal view needs to pay attention to the evidence or find something that actually supports it. In this case: you have yet to actually show anything that supports the view of equivalent terms OR crop/intensive farming inclusion. In short: you're being pig headed and yes: in this regard unless you provide some proof "you lot should give up" and let the improvements that were made stand. If there's no evidence to support a claim: it doesn't matter how many people you have saying it: it simply isn't able to be included in wikipedia. That's a suitable concept for a blog, but the policy on original research leaves no room for discussion. The previous version makes no claims that aren't supported, hence it is an improvement. Additionally: why is it that britannica's definition, two dictionaries, a million and one articles provided for you, animal activist definitions (and really: come on - surely they would widen the scope as much as possible?) ALL seem to disagree with you. Yet still you persist without any evidence. The compromise would be: "Everyone seems to think of factory farming as this and sometimes this, but Crum375/SV/Localzuk believe against consensus that it is an equivalent term for various fields of agriculture" (with a citation to this discussion page). Would that be a suitable addition? NathanLee 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: I attempted this before I made the changes, and before SV blasted all hers through that got us to this point in the first place. How about you accept to revert your changes and use the channel I created to talk about this stuff "here Proposed New lead-in paragraphs - Comments welcome" and again earlier, oh and again, etc. Those that did contribute through the discussion page rather than "undo" button: approved it was a better edit (albeit not perfect, but better than having OR in it). Forcing a revert war and page lock to justify some sort of "compromise" (rather than just say "oh, I guess that was wrong in my interpretation") when many attempts including requests on user talk pages to engage in discussion were made and ignored is a poor substitute for finding evidence. But that's just another rant.. But if you think your need for discussion now deserves a chance, by all means present your evidence and we'll see how it stacks up. Start with crops and then we'll need an article for each term that you think is equivalent that uses the terms in a way that's not able to be said that the article is saying "a type of" or "subset" of.. Oh and why intensive agriculture should be merged and deleted. Why the term "factory farm" isn't one that's popular with activists/media. And then why the spelling mistakes, regional english fixes etc are worthy of inclusion also. Then why britannica etc definitions of "factory farm" that say animal/confined etc are not suitable and robust citations for the lead. NathanLee 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Update - SuggestionI'm going to request this page be unprotected since I've got improvements to make and the revert gang have gone silent (or stayed silent) once more. When it is unprotected we'll revert to the newer version (the non OR one) and move forward. If the above editors cannot make their case before any further reverts then it's nothing more than disruptive editing/vandalism (in addition to their existing efforts that have yet to be justified). Anyone got comments/thoughts? NathanLee 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, no. I would strongly disagree with unprotection at this time. Please remember that people have jobs. I am working on a compromise version which I will post here when it is done. Unprotecting now would simply lead back to you posting your version and us lot reverting - for the same reasons we have all outlined, over and over again.
 * Stop stating that we are doing things 'against consensus' - the fact that we disagree means that there isn't consensus (there, at last count, are 3 of us complaining and 4 of you pushing for that edit - far from consensus). The simple fact remains that you see something as original research and we don't. You are removing a significant summary of controversy over the subject and we don't want it removed. You disagree with the photo being there and we don't. That is not consensus. We have outlined why the version that I last reverted to is better than the version you are proposing but you simply disagree with it. Compromise doesn't mean 'we've heard your arguments and disagree, so we should go with what we say' it means 'lets draw up something that meets both our requirements'. Stop dictating and get on with compromise.-Localzuk(talk) 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems it's you that's dictating that without proof or effort to contribute meaningfully to the discussion page that you have a right to keep reverting. On the discussion page: you've each popped in, said some POV non-argument, then disappeared when it's shown to be garbage or nothing more than a random statement. How many ways do you need to have pointed out that you have not provided any article that states what you believe. If you are freely admitting that you'll just keep reverting (i.e. "edit warring") but not willing to provide a proper argument against the changes (have you even looked at the page version in question?), or contribute on the discussion page: why don't you just leave the editing to those who will. What exactly is your complaint about the new page? Specifically what in it isn't referenced and is POV? You haven't outlined why it's better, but I have: see the section on "proposed new lead" as to why I made the changes, also the section on the english variant stuff, and the stuff on why there is original research in SV's version. Prehaps start a new section and clearly outline your complaints specifically as saying "I believe it's better" appears to just mean it fits your POV more rather than "is more accurate". Again I'd like to know why you think britannica et al are wrong in their definition and your/SV are right too..? NathanLee 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Haber 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request the article be put into the more correct revision: the page block
Firstly: Localzuk made a revert and then requested the page be blocked. If this is not prohibited by policy: it damned well should be because it's a pretty crap way of forcing a page to stick up there..

I propose that the last revert made by LocalZuk be reverted as that user was the one who requested the page then be locked and it places the page in the less desirable state of having Original research (claims of synonymous terms, with nothing to back this up). I also think that this version is the preferred one in light of the extensive evidence provided on this discussion page in particular: There's been a claim that the lead might need some additional changes, but nothing to support the reason to have a page put back to one that HAS been shown to be incorrect.
 * exhaustive coverage of the links for "evidence" with none found,
 * the section that was on the proposed changes and reasons for making them,
 * changes to make the article fit with policy on international flavour/flavors of English,
 * spelling fixes..

The allegations that the SV page is better are incorrect: I'm hoping that this will not (once again) fall on deaf ears. NathanLee 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * there has not been information just chopped out: a talk about mad cow's disease is still in the article
 * the OR claim against SV's page still stands, with no evidence/link to suggest it is anything other than OR (equivalent terms and the widened scope of the term that's not present in any citation)
 * contrary to any of the cited references (see here for that list again)
 * contrary to dictionary/encyclopaedia definitions (see britannica's definition, the science terms dictionary one and the websters one)
 * even contrary to activist definitions such as factoryfarming.com and PETA who say it refers to livestock.
 * there are numerous other little fixes that got reverted/removed
 * the claim that you should "add not remove" is rubbish: this is a wiki, so information is meant to evolve. Otherwise every piece of incorrect data added (such as SV's claim of interchangeable terms) would have to be maintained. In addition extra references were added which were "removed" by the reverts to SV's version by Crum375/localzuk. Hypocritical to suggest that SV's additions are worthy of protection, but any and all others are to be immediately reverted but not discussed.
 * nothing says the version in the new page is the final one. Reverting because of an argument that the lead needs more work is a) not constructive at all, b) fallacious and c) removing a more factually correct lead in favour of one polluted with original research. If the quote from a german official *really* needs to be in the lead, then by all means ADD IT IN. No one is stopping you, reverting is a piss poor way of adding that back in (so that it appears twice in the article for some reason).
 * reverts are not a substitute for presenting evidence/reading the discussion page/consulting others on the discussion page (e.g. as per the discussion I created about the proposed changes and reasons for changing it)
 * not bothering to read or discuss on the talk page is not an excuse for reverting also.


 * Agreed. Jav43 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NathanLee, please read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version . No matter what version is protected, someone believes the wrong version was protected. The protecting admin is not supposed to pick and choose. Take an eventualist attitude. How long is the protection gonna last compared to the rest of all of time? WAS 4.250 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Thank you WAS. I say we just ignore the fact the page is protected, and try and resolve this little impasse we have reached.-Localzuk(talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why I suggested blanking the lead section, by the way. Jav43 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey WAS, I saw that page too (amusing). The point was more that if you're going to block it: then block it, don't firstly revert it and then block it because it then becomes just another tool in an edit war.. That was my point with that. The requesting person for protection shouldn't have taken part in the reverting immediately prior is all I'm saying there. It wasn't necessarily malicious: just a bit outside what you'd expect should happen. Regardless we've got to resolve the issue (having it locked on either version is irrelevant to that matter). I don't want to get sidetracked from the issue at hand though. There's the unsupported stuff in the "factory farm is the same as" version that (I think.. and others) has been shown to be original research and contradicts the other "official" definitions (and unofficial activist ones even). NathanLee 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As the protecting admin, I will say it was pretty unscrupulous for the guy requesting protection to revert to his preferred version immediately before requesting protection; it doesn't help to foster consensus-building and encourage working together, as it could easily be perceived as an underhanded attempt to keep your favored version in place. Either way though, it's time for you guys to work together and work towards a consensus. Krimpet (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm not made out to be some sort of daemon on here... My intentions were entirely honest, hence my saying 'yes I requested protection'. I will fully admit that revert warring has occurred, my intention with protection was to stop it and for us all to just get on with working on a compromise. Nothing more, nothing less. I honestly do not care which version is protected - so long as we come to a reasonable compromise on here.-Localzuk(talk) 07:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to say that SV/Crum/Localzuk haven't exactly engaged with the argument, rather they have fallen back on repeating that a couple of lines from CNN (which emphatically do not mean what they think they do) somehow define the meaning of a term, while refusing to discuss the sources presented that oppose this interpretation. --Coroebus 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the discussion page (although lengthy) has been the place where one side has taken lots of time to explain and reason.. But the revert button with no significant explanation has been the main "discussion" from the other side. NathanLee 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, it's fairly obvious that an attempt at "compromise" is futile. We've requested, on several occasions, that Localzuk/SV/Crum edit rather than revert.  It hasn't happened.  These individuals have refused to consider the facts.  What needs to happen is this:  Localzuk/SV/Crum need to read this talk page and remove their objections or need to actually provide some reliable sources with express statements that back them up.  Jav43 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * SV and Localzuk have used similar tactics on Animal testing. It's part of an animal rights agenda that they are pushing.  They hide behind Wikipedia's "civility" code while calling people trolls and filling talk pages with this intentionally obtuse blather.  Good faith is long exhausted.  Assume the worst. Haber 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This was the first time I looked at the "animal testing" talk page. The similarities between Localzuk/SV's statements and attacks and positions are amazing - the discussion of "animal testing" and the discussion here are identical, right down to Localzuk's "civility"/"disruption" arguments and SV's discussion of happy animals :P.  I am finding it difficult to understand why these are "respected" editors.  Jav43 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we have done an awful lot of work improving dozens of articles, policies, guidelines, projects etc... We've spent huge amounts of time making things less POV, preventing nonsense from entering articles, removing vandalism, battling trolls who are only here to annoy people, etc... Just because you disagree with our viewpoints doesn't negate those efforts.-Localzuk(talk) 12:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Localzuk: if instead of "compromise" (because basically there's nothing to compromise for without some evidence.. At this stage I'm not accepting anything that says the terms are equivalent without proof that's more than saying because the terms occur in the same article they're equivalent): how about you address the issues in this section at the top in bulletpoint. If you think that any of those are incorrect, please say so. No more distraction: you've yet to answer a single one of the claims between the 3 of you dissenting editors (well.. just you who is contributing since the block). Just address those and perhaps we can see what your issue is with the newer version. There's plenty on this discussion page about why I think the version sucks and the newer one is better. But how about you have a go at the bullet points..? NathanLee 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)