User talk:Septemberforce

Welcome!
Hello, Septemberforce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Concentrated animal feeding operation ‎ does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Paleorthid (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Expanding on the above, I was specifically intent on removing the word "controversial" that you added. Characterizing CAFO's as inherently controversial is disputable (https://brownfieldagnews.com/news/article-portrays-cafo-proposals-controversial/), and needs a supporting citation, as well as an opportunity to discuss this on the article talk page. Paleorthid (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this and responding with helpful feedback. I do believe this practice is considered controversial as there are many negative health impacts that arise from CAFOs, which are detailed in the 'environmental impact' section of the page. These impacts are incredibly damaging to communities and environmental health, not to mention contracted farmers, the animals themselves, and other industry employees. If these are already referred to later in the page, is it recommended to add another reference at the beginning? Generally, it is difficult to determine that using the term 'controversial' is not value-neutral, but leaving it out is value-neutral. Although it has become standard industry practice, it is widely criticized by various groups for various reasons, so it does seem more accurate to illuminate it in the introduction so as not to defer to the opinions favorable mainly by the profiting industry. This could be compared to pages on fracking and mountaintop drilling, which are also standard practice, but they are widely considered detrimental to the well-being of most people and the environment Septemberforce (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC) septemberforce