Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result wasDelete primarily the content of the article appears to have come from other existing articles, GFDL violation as there is no indication of what article it came from. I notice the distinct lack of consensus building with the article and recommend that all editors use the mediation process to resolve the content issues of the other articles Gnangarra 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The main one is that this is obviously a POV fork of Factory farming and other related pages, as per a long winded controversy with the editor and supporters that started this page. However, the page itself has serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that cannot be fixed by editing, as they stem from the POV fork motivation. As an example, the page joins, via WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, many unrelated, and in some cases impossible to relate, topics ranging from economic issues in the industry, to health issues, to political and policy issues, most of which already have their own pages or are sections of other pages. This article is unencyclopedic and POV motivated. Cerejota 08:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

*Comment - Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Striking. I'm calmer. I should discuss content, not people. WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am raising this further, this is your second unwarranted personal attack against me. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems WAS started this Administrators%27_noticeboard without notifying any of the involved parties, a further display of incivility. I have merged my AN/I into his thread to keep things central. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that WAS has accused me of vandalism for tagging pages in his "roadmap" with synthesis and mergeto/mergefrom. This is why AfD is necessary, any attempts to move OR material forward is met by uncivil roadblocks.--Cerejota 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as a good article on a notable subject, SqueakBox 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Looks like a POV fork. Merge and redirect, with no independent creation. Editors should resolve the disputes on Factory farming without spinning off their own version. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, Factory farming could be argued to be a POV fork of Industrial agriculture. This isn't as straightforward as I thought. Cool Hand Luke 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply, your impression is entirely incorrect. Factory farming was started at 17:29, 3 January 2004, while Industrial agriculture was created at 06:06, 30 April 2007 (more than 3 years later!) as an obvious POV fork from Factory farming that has since expanded and hence a less clear-cut candidate for AfD. (No coincidence WAS is also heavily involved in that one). However, this are issues to discuss somewhere else, just wanted to clarify that you are incorrect in your view that Factory farming is a POV fork, it is in fact the original article. Thanks! --Cerejota 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but the article now at Factory farming spent most of its life at Industrial agriculture. With this sub-page of Industrial agriculture, we have far too many forks covering the same ground. Deleting this one doesn't adequately address the problem. I think, as I say below, that everything, including this, should be merged into a couple of articles. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in this respect. However, user WAS keeps pushing, with the support of a set of anti-animal rights editors, a WP:SYNTH roadmap, and doesn't allow any discussion. Furthermore, he has turned down several Mediation requests, which where intended to address this very question. Deletion is the only process left, because he WP:OWNs the articles and won't allow merging. I mean, I started a merge discussion, and WAS accused me of vandalism? What kind of bantha pudu is that? I ask you to reconsider your position, delete, and join me in trying to get these articles into a good place. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. You appear to have characterised me as an anti-animal rights editor. You have no knowledge of my personal views, and I would suggest that this comment misrepresents myself and indeed other editors. Thanks!--Spenny 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration, I still think merging back into Industrial agriculture is the best response. This combined article will have to be merged and refactored into Factory farming (under a more neutral title as outlined below), but AfD is not the appropriate forum for this content dispute. POV forks should be merged, not deleted. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge any relevant content into other articles, though all or most of it already exists elsewhere, because this is a POV fork. CHL, you were right the first time. Factory farming was always the main article, though it was called "Industral agriculture." It is WAS 4.250 and a few others who currently want to call it "Factory farming," because they see it as a dumping ground for views they disagree with (what they call "activist" views). WAS 4.250 created Industrial agriculture (crops), Industrial agriculture (animals), and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture as POV forks, as a way of isolating the material he doesn't like in Factory farming. Several editors on the other "side" have suggested splitting all the articles into two: Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops) (or "industrial" instead of "intensive") but WAS 4.250 has rejected the suggestion: he wants the multiplication of pages. He has also rejected two formal requests for mediation. The personal attacks he has made above against Cerejota are typical of his approach on the factory farming page over the last few months, which is why I stopped editing the article and talk page. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a POV fork, but all four of these articles appear to cover similar ground. I think they've all been turned into POV forks. Merging all articles into those suggested two would be the ideal solution, but until then I'm not sure why we should delete just one of three forks. Maybe merge into industrial agriculture with mandate to merge all forks into two articles as suggested. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WAS 4.250 was not the only one to reject the two article split. Slim and Cerejota painting this as "WAS against the rest of us" is bullshit. Claiming all with opposing views as anti-animal rights editors is equally bull. We are either with you, or against you. Right? Intensive farming (animal/crops) and Challenges and issues... can be seen as natural forks that happens when particular sections get too large. Please point out why it is WP:POVFORK and not WP:SUMMARY instead of just claiming POVFORK!!!.--Dodo bird 08:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork created as a WP:POINT to try to remove the criticism in Factory Farming. Most editors in FF agreed to go to mediation to decide on the proper way to structure the FF-related articles. WAS 4.250 went against consensus, refused the mediation and thereby scuttled it, and decided instead to create his POV forks. We need to get back to deciding on the overall structure of FF-related articles and accept mediation to do so. POV forks and WP:POINT are never a solution, and this one is no exception. Crum375 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The debate on the ethics of industrial architecture is a notable subject in its own right and the titling of the subject is designed to avoid taking a position. The problem with merged articles is that it has been difficult to separate the mechanics of farming from the ethical debate, be it in Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture.
 * Whilst comments above have characterised one view, the comments above show a continuing lack of good faith of which Cerejota has been a willing party to. WAS is just more obvious in his personal attacks than the misrepresentations by other parties. It is recognised that there is edit warring and deleting this article is just another means of continuing the edit war, disguised as a noble cause. Unfortunately, Cerojota and SV and now Crum have chosen to see the response to their belligerent approach to editing as personal attacks, and appear to believe that their own involvement is unimpeachable. John was encouraging a fresh start, but the inflammatory and misleading comments about the motivations of editors rather than content just continue to show the lack of good faith. I don't condone WAS's response, but it is justified if you are aware of the context.


 * as per a long winded controversy with the editor and supporters that started this page - personal attack not content.
 * However, the page itself has serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that cannot be fixed by editing, - are we to believe that problems in Wikipedia cannot be fixed by editing - a novel view, possibly WP:OR!
 * as they stem from the POV fork motivation. AGF
 * As an example, the page joins, via WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, many unrelated, and in some cases impossible to relate, topics ranging from economic issues in the industry, to health issues, to political and policy issues, most of which already have their own pages or are sections of other pages. If you understand the ethical debate, then it is as complex as the interdependency of techniques, as are most contentious ethical debates.
 * This article is unencyclopedic and POV motivated. Again, AGF and is using the logic of the Bellman's rule of three.
 * most of which already have their own pages or are sections of other pages as is made clear by the linking to those pages. Repetition of content is not inappropriate, and where inappropriate it may be resolved by editing not by deletion.
 * Comments on the mediation are similarly continuing a personal attack, undermining the most involved editor rather than looking at content. Spenny 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ReplyI am sorry, we delete POV forks all the time. This is a POV fork, which has further WP:OR, and now we see WP:OWN. It is that simple. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research, POV fork. Find a way to seek consensus on all the articles around factory farming instead of creating spin-off articles to remove info from the main article. --Alabamaboy 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The argument that consensus on all the articles should be sought is valid. The problem is that there is no content-based reason to call "Factory farming" the "main article." The fact that "Factory farming" is treated as the "main article" by some editors is merely a reflection of a particular agenda, an agenda that emphasizes some of the challenges and issues of industrial agriculture rather than others. I don't believe that those who created "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture were trying to "remove info" from "Factory farming," but rather to construct an appropriate article that was capable of discussing the entirety of these challenges and issues, rather than being limited to those which preoccupy certain editors, however concerning those issues may be. BCST2001 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork. WAS has a history of creating POV forks to get around consensus, often violating the GFDL in the process and he really needs to cut it out. Sarah 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this comment based on a review of content, or an assumption of behaviour? It gives the appearance of a personal attack rather than a considered view of the contents of the article. Spenny 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tentative delete per WP:AN. WAS 4.250 has yet to provide any diffs of misconduct by Cerejota and the POV fork argument looks valid.  I could be persuaded to change my mind if new evidence is forthcoming.  Durova Charge! 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The argument that it is a POV fork ignores the question of whether the article it is supposed to be forking from is itself rather too POV. As user Cool Hand Luke observed, "Factory farming" might itself very well be understood as a POV fork of "Industrial agriculture." The fact that "Industrial agriculture" was started after "Factory farming" does not invalidate this understanding, as "Factory farming" can be understood as a "pre-emptive" attempt to control the representation of agricultural issues on Wikipedia (an attempt that has been quite successful for a long time). The unfortunate fact is that the article on "Factory farming" is contained to a limited interpretation of what the challenges and issues of industrial agriculture really are. These challenges and issues extend far beyond the question of animal welfare. This does not mean that the article on "Factory farming" ought not exist, but the question is obviously begged about the real motivation for deleting "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture." It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the real reason for pushing deletion is an attempt to control what articles there are about modern agriculture, and what the content of those articles is, in order to highlight and emphasize as much as possible the animal welfare concerns that preoccupy certain editors. It would make more sense to delete "Factory farming" and merge it into "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture," on the grounds that the animal welfare issues fall within the scope of that article, but such a move would be opposed out of hand by those editors who (falsely, in my view) feel this would dilute their animal welfare message. I do not write this as somebody unconcerned with animal welfare, but rather as someone concerned not to neglect all the other challenges and issues which arise from modern agricultural practice. I do not see any NOR problems (certainly no serious ones warranting deletion), nor do I think the article is unencyclopaedic. The editor who nominated this article for deletion seems to misunderstand WP:SYNTH, or at the very least has failed to demonstrate in what way arguments are being joined together to advance another position. The fact that this article touches on certain issues that are covered more fully elsewhere is one of its strengths, not a weakness. Finally, I cannot help wondering what point of view the creators of "Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture" are supposed to be pushing: no mention has been made of what that POV could be. In fact, there is good evidence that the article was created in order to increase neutrality in comparison with the "Factory farming" article. BCST2001 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply You have illustrated for the closing admin why this page must be deleted as a POV fork: you say that Factory farming contained to a limited interpretation of what the challenges and issues of industrial agriculture really are. In other words, instead of editing the much older article called Factory farming, you suggest the creation of a POV fork! As to WP:SYNTH, you just have to see the first part of the article, in which without sourcing or any secondary source mention a table relating a relationship between food production capacity was created. That table and accompaying text is the very example of WP:SYNTH. The entire article is like that: it takes sources and makes them fit the WP:SYNTH model WAS has in mind and has published. The corretc way to do this is not to fork over pov difference but to continue seeking consensus. Unfortunately WAS has opposed all attemps at arbitration that have been proposed, and instead has pushed his WP:SYNTH model, with the support of like minded editors. This misrepresentation of the article has to stop. The WP:SYNTH is obvious. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a fork, although I don't believe it's a POV fork. I think the issue is complex enough to merit this page.  . V .  [Talk 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply, It is a POV fork, although I do agree that the issues are complex enough to warrant multiple pages. That is the gist of the matter: WAS has been pushing his WP:SYNTH model, instead of discussing it (or discussing it with like-minded editors) - and being generally uncivil (see this very AfD) - after several instances of disruptive posting, I put his WP:SYNTH "roadmap" into Talk:Factory farming\WASLIST. He also maps out his WP:SYNTH structure in the talk page of Factory farming. He builds a WP:SYNTH desert and calls it "consensus". Yes the issues are deep, but the user pretty much is engaging in wanton WP:SYNTH instead of bibliographical sourcing. Great for college papers, bad for wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why?  . V .  [Talk 08:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why what? --Cerejota 10:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen you make quite a few claims both here and the article's talk page, yet I don't see any evidence (hence the question, "Why?"). Simply saying that something is a SYNTH violation or that it's POV does not make it SYNTH or POV. (And honestly, it sounds like you have more of an issue with WAS than with this article. Your criticism seems to revolve mostly around him.)  . V .  [Talk 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Please re-read. I have clearly stated that WAS has bene pushing around an OR/SYNTH lists of unsourced material (OR) Talk:Factory farming\WASlist, and an inorganic structure that doesn't flow from sources (SYNTH). For the structure, visit Talk:Factory farming as it has been reposted several times by WAS. Furthermore, the clear POV fork of the pages in question is illustrated in that Talk:Factory farming is were all of these things have been given birth: this page is the most egregious examples of POV fork, but not the only one. I hope I have answered your questions. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you've clearly stated that WAS has been doing these things, but I suppose I do not see the same things in this that you see. I'm not convinced by the idea that this a POV fork from factory farming because industrial agriculture is not the same as factory farming (as in, factory farming is a type of industrial agriculture). Although factory farming is mentioned, it really could not be considered a POV fork from that article. I think Jav43 below said it fairly well.  . V .  [Talk 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article addresses industrial agriculture - it does not cover the more narrow subset of factory farming. Industrial agriculture is a separate, distinct issue which is worthy of its own article set.  The article in question here is one of the better articles addressing modern agriculture systems.  There are many problems with the broad set of articles encompassing modern agriculture, but this article is not one of the problems.  Jav43 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am tempted to suggest that the appropriate response to the lack of debate on content is to remove all the text which relates to personality, history, and also to remove unproven comments about breeches of policy, and see what is left. There will not be much left. The Bellman's Rule of Three approach to policy used by Cerejota needs justification. I see an article which is not fully formed, mainly the work of one person. I do not see POV pushing but an attempt to present a wide range of issues, all of which are presented by the protagonists on the ethical debate of modern farming practices, in a factual manner without taking a viewpoint on the rights and wrongs of this. I do not even understand from the content of the article, what POV is being pushed as is claimed. I am sure that an FA status has not been achieved, but that will not be achieved by deletion, and certainly there is strong evidence that the Factory Farming article is not fit for purpose. Spenny 08:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a blatant POV fork of Factory Farming (plus a few other bits), and as this is a long running dispute it is premature to make any fork anyway! This is a typical example of WAS refusing to wait for consensus and simply creating articles willy nilly, replicating information all over the place. Localzuk(talk) 15:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. One persons willy nilly is another persons reasoned creation of a structured framework for articles. Spenny 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is not a personal attack - the user ignored the ongoing debate and decided, unilaterally, to start creating mainspace forks of articles based on his viewpoint - ignoring the views of other editors. This is not good behaviour and my comment stands.-Localzuk(talk) 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll rephrase, can you address the issue, not the personality. It is not helpful language to use. As much as ARBCOM is about behaviour, not content, this process here is about content, not behaviour. Spenny 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the 2 are linked and are important for this AFD. WAS's POV forking and unilateral creation of articles counter to consensus should have some bearing on the result of this AFD. For example, if an editor decided to take all negative information of of the George W Bush article, and put it in its own article - after a 1 year discussion on the fact, counter to any possible consensus - should this not be mentioned?-Localzuk(talk) 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, fundamentally not. The question at hand is: regardless of personal points of view, is this a valid article? If there is one reason why Factory Farming will not move on, it is the insistence on recalling the history of who said what. Move on. Look at the content, not the message. Given that there is not consensus on the structure of the article, and, getting beyond personality, there is a logic to the structure proposed. The whole proposal of this article is based on a point of view which is very much grounded in a personal dispute and positions are being taken based on that point of view, and the simple and obvious statement of bad faith. I am working very hard to be seen to be rising above it. Put it behind you and move on, look at content. Spenny 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Spenny said. Look at things objectively; don't allow personal animosity to cloud your judgment.  Jav43 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have appreciated if you had the same level of vigilance you show now with WAS when he periodically attacks me. But of course, you support his POV Fork SYNTH pushing, so that would be in appropiate. If you think a personal attack happened, go to AN/I and say so, if not, stop poisoning the well. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as this topic is concerned, I have adopted John's principle of a fresh start. I am doing my best to address issues not people. You are mis-characterising me again. I have given reasoned argument as to why I do not believe there is POV Fork and I do not agree there is any exceptional level of synthesis, it is therefore impugning my motives that you suggest that I am doing this to support a person. I hope it is crystal clear that I am being focused on content. It appears that you believe that I am gaming the system by carefully trying to act correctly, as is one principle in dispute resolution and I have been encouraged to do by User:John. The only gaming going on here is that this clearly an element of personality in the debate, when, to paraphrase your own words over in ARBCOM, this is about content not behaviour. There is no need to escalate disputes which can be resolved amicably by discussion. Poisoning the well? The well is a content dispute, the poison is the personal element and behaviour. Yes, WAS does not behave by the book, but given the amount of correction and invective he is given, it hardly needs me to wade in too. The difference in perspective between you and me, I would suggest, is that I see good faith in his efforts. Thanks!--Spenny 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment To explain why I think it is a POV fork... It is a POV fork because it is an attempt to take all the controversy related info (so, any diseases related to the practice etc...) and put them in one place, therefore removing them from the original pages. It is along the same lines that have been called for in only dealing with animal rights related stuff on the Factory Farming article, whilst discussing 'Intensive Farming' on a seperate article. By doing this, we end up with a set of articles that have pro and anti slants - POV forks of the original articles. Localzuk(talk) 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable case for saying that the controversy should be dealt with in the same article. I see two issues (there is always a however with me!): one there is a simple page size issue, and there is great potential for giving the controversy undue weight over the main article, and this latter aspect is of much concern to me. The second issue is that there is no consensus as to what this is a POV fork of, (though I would argue that a less contentious position might be to claim it was an unnecessary spin off argument rather than a POV fork). To a certain extent I see it as an arbitrary split because in the main article there should be a clear separation of a description of process to allow readers to gain a clear understanding of what is being discussed, and then the ethical debate, clearly sectioned off to avoid it gaining undue weight on the subject.
 * A simple test I had was that we might wish to discuss animal rendering plants. These are industrial plants clearly associated with agricultural industry in its wider scope. We are interested in rendering and its relation to the controversy related to the UK BSE crisis and this issues associated with them. I can happily place discussion on that on this proposed page, or I can put it on Industrial agriculture (the big picture), or I can describe the rendering process there, allude to the issues and then deal with the controversy elsewhere. The place I cannot put it is Factory farming, because it is not about farms, nor the process of intensive livestock management.
 * So as I see it, there is no big deal about keeping the split. There is a big deal about casting it as a POV fork. If that argument is accepted, then it is essentially accepting that the article itself should not make a distinction between the ethics and the processes of farming. There is also a big deal about the difference between factory farming and industrial architecture, which is an unresolved dispute as to scope. Spenny 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Updated for typos Spenny 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But why should there be this division of controversy out of the main articles? This is the very defintion of a POV fork - creating an article to cover only one 'side' of an argument! The article itself shouldn't make a distinction between ethics and processes, in so much that if there is an ethical complaint about a process then it should be discussed in the main article - not farmed off (pun not intended) to a seperate article.-Localzuk(talk) 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. If a process is described, and a reliable source criticizes it based on an ethical argument, that criticism must be included. Spenny's argument is rather like saying we should have articles about the war in Iraq that omit any criticism based on moral arguments about just war. As Localzuk said, this is the very definition of a POV fork. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. This is why  has no discussion about criticism based on moral arguments about just war - issues regarding broader topics do not belong in the subset.  Thus this article, addressing industrial agriculture, hosts discussion that does not belong in factory farming.  Jav43 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: what is the logic of claiming delete for a fork? The response for forking should be merging. Spenny 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An AfD is about the title, not the content. The question is: should this content exist under this title, or should it be merged into another existing article? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we have to remember that, as was determined (at one point) in the talk page for factory farming, industrial agriculture and factory farming are separate things. This page cannot be a fork of factory farming since it deals with industrial agriculture.  This page covers issues that do not belong in factory farming (like, as Spenny mentioned, BSE).  Jav43 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never said that those terms are separate things. IIRC, 4 out of the 9 discussing the issue specifically argued that they are the same thing.-Localzuk(talk) 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That they're separate things is your own personal opinion, Jav, and BSE is very much part of the criticism of factory farming. It's why British scientists and the German chancellor called for an end to factory farming. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We take the dispute on scope as an unresolved point: we agree to differ. (I'd like to work through that with John as a moderator over on FF if he engages again). I'd find it helpful if you could comment on the rendering point above, though perhaps you may feel that is spinning outside the scope of a deletion request, it could be helpful to get a handle on the merge/delete perspective. Spenny 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reasons given below. WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - About the length of my below reply: It is shorter than the article, shorter than the sources for the article, shorter than the suite of articles that it is part of, shorter than the talk page of factory farming that explains the points of views involved. So for those who wish to read a short version of  (1) what is this article about,  (2) how does it fit into wikipedia, and  (3) why factory farming is in no way a substitute for this article (how can it be? they aren't even about the same thing! how anyone can read both articles and claim one is a POV version of the other makes no sense), I submit the below condensed version. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

According to thousands of sources, of which these three ( Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand  The Regional Institute article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE Learning Seed ) are representative, important issues regarding industrial agriculture include:
 * what is this article about
 * 1) what it is exactly
 * 2) how it fits into modern science/technology
 * 3) how it fits into modern global and national politics
 * 4) its place in the modern corporate world
 * 5) its effect on traditional farming practices and communities
 * 6) its effect on the environment
 * 7) the ethical issue of causing pain to animals
 * 8) the ethical issue of creating "unnatural" ecologies and lifeforms
 * 9) the need for it to keep billions of people from starving
 * 10) specifically, what it is as applied to Animals
 * 11) specifically, what it is as applied to Aquaculture
 * 12) specifically, what it is as applied to Shrimp
 * 13) specifically, what it is as applied to Chickens
 * 14) specifically, what it is as applied to Pigs
 * 15) specifically, what it is as applied to Cattle
 * 16) specifically, what it is as applied to Crops
 * 17) specifically, what it is as applied to Wheat
 * 18) specifically, what it is as applied to Maize
 * 19) specifically, what it is as applied to Soybean
 * 20) specifically, what it is as applied to Tomato
 * 21) specifically, the part modern management techniques plays
 * 22) specifically, the part mechanical harvesting plays
 * 23) specifically, the part genetic modification plays
 * 24) specifically, the part hydroponics plays
 * 25) industrial organic farming
 * 26) innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods
 * 27) genetictic technology development
 * 28) techniques for achieving economies of scale in production
 * 29) the creation of new markets for consumption
 * 30) the application of patent protection to genetic information
 * 31) globalization
 * 32) historical development
 * 33) current efforts to modify it it including "sustainable agriculture" efforts
 * 34) Cheap and plentiful food
 * 35) Convenience for the consumer
 * 36) The contribution to our economy on many levels, from growers to harvesters to processors to sellers
 * 37) Environmental and social costs
 * 38) Damage to fisheries
 * 39) Cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with animal waste
 * 40) Increased health risks from pesticides
 * 41) Increased ozone pollution and global warming from heavy use of fossil fuels
 * 42) marketing challenges and consumer tastes
 * 43) international trading environment (world market conditions, barriers to trade, quarantine and technical barriers, maintenance of global competitiveness and market image, and management of biosecurity issues affecting imports and the disease status of exports)
 * 44) biosecurity (pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugar smut)
 * 45) infrastructure (such as transport, ports, telecommunications, energy and irrigation facilities)
 * 46) management skills and labor supply (With increasing requirements for business planning, enhanced market awareness, the use of modern technology such as computers and global positioning systems and better agronomic management, modern farm managers will need to become increasingly skilled. Examples: training of skilled workers, the development of labor hire systems that provide continuity of work in industries with strong seasonal peaks, modern communication tools, investigating market opportunities, researching customer requirements, business planning including financial management, researching the latest farming techniques, risk management skills)
 * 47) coordination (a more consistent national strategic agenda for agricultural research and development; more active involvement of research investors in collaboration with research providers developing programs of work; greater coordination of research activities across industries, research organisations and issues; and investment in human capital to ensure a skilled pool of research personnel in the future.)
 * 48) technology (research, adoption, productivity, genetically modified (GM) crops, investments)
 * 49) water (access rights, water trade, providing water for environmental outcomes, assignment of risk in response to reallocation of water from consumptive to environmental use, accounting for the sourcing and allocation of water)
 * 50) resource access issues (management of native vegetation, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, sustainability of productive agricultural resources, landholder responsibilities)
 * 51) the industrial farm owner issue of integrated farming systems
 * 52) the industrial farm owner issue of crop sequencing
 * 53) the industrial farm owner issue of water use efficiency
 * 54) the industrial farm owner issue of nutrient audits
 * 55) the industrial farm owner issue of herbicide resistance
 * 56) the industrial farm owner issue of financial instruments (such as futures and options)
 * 57) the industrial farm owner issue of collect and understand own farm information;
 * 58) the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your products
 * 59) the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your markets
 * 60) the industrial farm owner issue of knowing your customers
 * 61) the industrial farm owner issue of satisfying customer needs
 * 62) the industrial farm owner issue of securing an acceptable profit margin
 * 63) the industrial farm owner issue of cost of servicing debt;
 * 64) the industrial farm owner issue of ability to earn and access off-farm income;
 * 65) the industrial farm owner issue of management of machinery and stewardship investments - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture (IA) is the context for this article and the suite of articles that it is a part of includes: These are articles which contain industrial agriculture information and are appropriately structured. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * how does it fit into wikipedia
 * Intensive farming is the superset IA belongs in.
 * Industrial agriculture is the primary article and introduces summary-style:
 * History of agriculture
 * Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture which introduces
 * Factory farming
 * Industrial agriculture (animals) which introduces
 * Factory farming
 * Chicken industrial agriculture
 * Intensive pig farming
 * Cattle industrial agriculture
 * Aquaculture industrial agriculture which introduces
 * Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture
 * Shrimp industrial agriculture
 * Industrial agriculture (crops) which introduces
 * Green Revolution
 * Wheat to illustrate (Modern management techniques)
 * Maize to illustrate (Mechanical harvesting)
 * Soybean to illustrate (Genetic modification)
 * Tomato to illustrate (Hydroponics)
 * Sustainable agriculture
 * Organic farming methods


 * why factory farming is in no way a substitute for this article Reading factory farming shows that it is mis-titled and is actually all about "Animal rights issues concerning factory farming" which is one of many important issues regarding industrial farming and so the content of factory farming is rightfully a subset of Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture and as such should be a sub-article of it. And it is. - WAS 4.250 11:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I rest my case, the guy posted his WP:SYNTH in here. Will someone please bring him under control? Thanks!--Cerejota 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just noting here that WAS is the one who wants the title "factory farming," and who has resisted all attempts to move it to Intensive farming (animals), including scuppering two requests for mediation by refusing to take part. He has admitted he wants that title as a dumping ground for what he sees as animal advocacy criticism of intensive/industrial farming, in violation of Content forking. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are personalising the issue rather than considering the content. As an administrator you are held to the highest levels of conduct and with your experience you should be setting an example rather than continuing what has every appearance of a personal vendenta against WAS rather than debating the content. Spenny 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, every charge you just made against me is false. You insist on continuing your unfounded personal attacks against me. I do not care if there is a wikipedia article with the title "factory farming". I think the material that you want to put in the article factory farming has a place on wikipedia and I don't care that much what it is named. I have not resisted any effort to move it to Intensive farming (animals); I resist the redefining of agriculture to be only what is currently at factory farming. Agriculture is so much more than that. I have tried to assist a requests for mediation by agreeing not to edit factory farming and having my name removed. I have not said that I want any article "used as a dumping ground". Summary style is valid and common and not a POV fork. WAS 4.250 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not using summary style. You're just copy and pasting the same material into different articles (in violation of the GFDL) to leave behind the criticism you don't like. Can you point to a single piece of text that you have actually written, rather than moving other people's work around? Here is your comment implying that you see Factory farming as a dumping ground: "As long as the other agricultural articles aren't also made into being all about angst for animals then I don't feel its worth the time to fight over this article [factory farming] being too much like that." As Localzuk said, this is the very definition of a POV fork.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is only SYNTH to the extent that every single wikipedia article is SYNTH, Cerejota, by using more than one source. Providing an outline based upon sources is not synth, but rather is good planning.  Jav43 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what, I briefly entertained this notion at one point! Yes, I did! Contrary to the accusations by WAS, you and others, SlimVirgin and I do not share off-wiki POVs in a number of topics, and have clashed in the past over wikistuff and even controversial topics. This isn't about POV pushing.


 * However as I analyzed WAS' proposal, and engaged him in debate, it became clear to me that


 * 1) Articles have to be notable, verifiable, neutrally presented AND reliably sourced, not one, not the other, but all. WP:ATT makes sense (another point of agreement I share with SV).
 * 2) The source that WAS uses is not verified and hardly notable, and in fact, to a certain extent partisan.
 * 3) His co-mingling of a primary and unrelated secondary source is pure WP:SYNTH: primary material cannot be used to support secondary material, it must be the other way around.
 * 4) Creating a summary for structuring articles is indeed a positive one, however, this summary neither stems from WP:ATT sources, nor meets NPOV, nor has had wider community support, nor comes from a long discussion. He just was bold and started making them, with congratulatory messages from supporters. This is AfD is an attempt to revert the instances when this was too bold.
 * 5) He implemented his summary, to a large extent, as a meta-POV fork of factory farming, in order not to expand wikipedia, but bury factory farming. Most of these articles in fact contain very little material, and answers like "expand it" are very disingenious. None of these articles, in their current form, meet WP:SUMMARY criteria for legit forks, and in some cases overly repeat the same material and pictures.
 * 6) Disregards completely previous content, violates GFDL in many cases, in particular when forking content. This is an egregious mis use of the ability to freely edit and shows a complete disrregard for the effort that for years other editors have put into this. Just because WAS decided his way was the best, and found a receptive audience in a defined set of POV activists, doesn't make his contribution a good one.
 * 7) The contents of many of the articles is WP:SYNTH in that it presents an unverified, and lightly sourced multi-page narrative. Articles must stand alone as a narrative, they do not. In fact, Industrial farming (animals) is a conflagration of several loosely related topics that already have their own pages, or belong in factory farming. Farming cows and fish is not even the same professional field. This is another POV fork, but I proposed merge instead of deletion, because Industrial agriculture is actually a highly verifiable topic, and indeed Factory farming can be turned into a subpage of it, if properly structured and sourced. For example, many sources speak of factory farming and industrial farming as synonymous, but a number do speak about factory farming as part of a wider field. After this AfD, and the related industrial agricultures, I am going after "intensive" and other such POV forks: there is no contemporary form of intensive agriculture that is not industrial. And while there is indeed industrial agriculture that is not intensive, the difference do not meet WP:SUMMARY criteria for forking. These forks are all the creation of WAS' mind and proposal. I cannot understand how editors, so keen in pushing POV, are letting their personal vendettas blind them to the extreme damage we are doing to wikipedia by allowing this type of WP:OWN structure to exist unfettered.
 * 8) WP:SYNTH clearly establishes the primacy of verified secondary sources, before primary or tertiary sources come into place. In wikipedia, I think, there are two types of editing: one is the debate and talk page, which should be about discussing sources, narratives, etc. In there, we can perform original research, synthesis, etc. Pretty much anything is allowed. But in the article, we must follow rules. For example, we cannot say "factory farms posion people", but we can say "Mr Notable, saiid that factory farms poison people".
 * 9) You are correct, the vast majority of wikipedia doesn't meet its own content policies. However, it is a long established practice to prefer inclusion to deletion, with some exceptions like WP:BLP. This is why we have cleanup tags for OR, verification, OR synthesis etc. However, it is also long established practice to have extra care with controversial subjects (which is why WP:BLP exists!). Some controversial topics have citations on almost every sentence, and sometimes multiple citations per sentence. Likewise, the community has a longstanding tradition of opposing POV forking, specially in controversial articles. It is particularly harsh with POV forks that happen in the middle of ongoing controversies. That is the case here, and why it should be deleted, and why I have proposed merges of other pages.
 * 10) Lastly WAS' constant personal attacks (which you and others don't even deny but simply dismiss as "harshness" and are so WP:POINTy editors have abandoned the talkpage in protest) his denial of formal mediations accepted by almost all involved editors, and in general despicable behavior (he even wikistalked to other articles, even an ArbCom I am involved in to try to propose stuff, on a topic and article he has never edited or participated on until he saw I did), led me to invoke the clause in WP:AGF that allows editors to stop assuming good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.


 * Man, everyone here can tell you I make a religion out of "assume good faith". To the point people call sanctimonious and shit.


 * I have collaborated with people I have had serious confrontations with. I am not easy to get to abandon good faith, not after learning how useful it is to move the encyclopedia forward.


 * This guy is really the first editor ever that makes me do this. This individual must be brought under control. And his bad-faith POV forks, like this one, fixed. In my view, bad faith is inherited - a taint - and those who defend might get a tad of it too if they are not careful. He has shown some willingness to repent in the past, as he did here, and then almost immediately over turn it, as he did here. How can I trust him if all he gives is reasons not to trust him?--Cerejota 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cerejota, I have never even clicked on your contributions list link. WAS 4.250 06:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is a grab bag of pretty much any controversial subject having to do with agriculture. Lots of the subjects don't have anything to do with commerce on any scale (e.g. the section on fois gras). If we should even talk about the ostensible subject, it would obviously be a major section within industrial agriculture (which is pretty empty). In the ongoing attempt to get away from the term "factory farming", this is not the solution. Mangoe 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What you say has some merit, I've noted that some topics associated with factory farming are simply unsavoury practices, and there is a logical assumption that if it is unsavoury and farming then it must be factory farming. The grab bag argument does rather apply to farming in general if you try and relate independent methods of farming different crops and animals, each having their own distinct issues into one article. On that basis I'd suggest that it is a reflection of an immature article, rather than fatally flawed. Spenny 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an article that doesn't get beyond the "immature" stage because of the constant disruption of efforts to write it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Spenny is talking about Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. SlimVirgin is talking about factory farming. Misunderstandings like this are the very basis of the problem. As slim and I have joked, it seems like we all have bananas in our ears - but everyone is absolutely sure it is the other guys who have bananas in their ears. WAS 4.250 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the same article, because it is one article. All you've done is create content forks because you don't like it, while at the same time disrupting efforts to improve it. And you and I have not joked about anything. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a fact based statement. The sources I used to identify relevant content are ( Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics article Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand  The Regional Institute article EVOLUTION OF THE FARM OFFICE Learning Seed ). Further this article is a subarticle of  industrial agriculture because it is too large to go there. In fact this article needs to be expanded to the point that it has many more subarticles. Finally your assumptions about my motivation "getting away from factory farming" are irrelevant, incorrect, and a personal insult.  WAS 4.250 22:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POTty training you need. You see what we have to deal with? Any rational argument is met by this person in this fashion. And his cheerleaders/meapuppets just urge him on, hiding behind "civil" faces. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Unbelievable.  And you claim WAS is the one being incivil?  Jav43 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After excusing the wanton, uncalled for uncivility, you have no right to speak about civility. You should have thought about it before not defending a fellow wikipedian before a wanton attack for POV reasons. I am incresingly unable to assume good faith after the behavior you exhibited in defending WAS after his latest round of attacks. --Cerejota 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Random break 1

 * Keep but rename, refocus Delete and merge most of contents into factory farming and other articles. The movement against factory farming, and the body of popular and academic literature on the subject, is itself a notable and worthy subject for an article.  It's quite an important thing in the evolution of agriculture and food in the US and probably the rest of the world.  Much of the slow food movement, organic movement, local / sustainable food, farmers markets, and even perhaps changes in diet and cuisine, can be traced to an opposition to factory farming.  The actual details about factory farming belong in a factory farming article.  I'm not sure you can resolve this without resolving the dispute over there, because any well-sourced, valid, useful information should not just be deleted because the people editing the target article are too busy disputing things to accept it. Wikidemo 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikidemo, would you mind clarifying for the sake of the closing admin. You are voting to delete the title, is that right, but move the content to factory farming and other appropriate articles that already exist? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and/or merge is ok with me. I just want people to add sourced data instead of delete sourced data, or waste all their time reverting between versions. SlimVirgin and I have both repeatedly asked people to add sourced data instead of revert war. This article is an effort on my part to do just that. WAS 4.250 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin and you have not asked people to add sourced data. I have asked for that. You've repeatedly added your own opinions and created POV forks. And there's no need for you to add a comment every time someone else expresses a view. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On 17 May 2007 I said: "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)" Copied from Talk:Factory farming/Archive 2 WAS 4.250 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the comment to my view. 90-95% of the sourced material is about the subject of factory farming and related matters so they belong in Factory Farming or related articles.  "Challenges to" an industry, in the sense of adversities and problems, is not a notable subject.  Every industry has challenges.  The other 5-10% concerns critics and criticism of factory farming, which is a bona fide movement that is notable and worth its own article.  If there is already such an article it should be moved there.  Earlier I had thought we should keep the article for that 5-10% but now that I look closer I've changed my mind.  What's salvageable here is barely worth a stub.  If someone wants to create or expand an article about the anti-factory farming movement they should just save a copy of this article and start a new one from scratch.  For anyone who really wants to see this all in one place, a properly sourced article with that focus would be fine I think.  So I "vote" for deletion...even though this isn't a vote, and if it were mine as a casual observer is not much.  Cheers, Wikidemo 00:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just ask that you please remember that this article is about industrial agriculture, not factory farming. There IS a difference, and that difference is important.  Confusing the two terms would reasonably result in deleting this article - please do not confuse the terms.  Jav43 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please produce reliable sources that show there's a difference. We've produced dozens of mainstream sources that show the terms industrial farming, intensive farming, and factory farming are used interchangeably. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. You have provided exactly one source.  If I have enough time, I'll try to find another half-dozen, but finding additional sources for you becomes tiring when you don't read those I provide.  Jav43 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Horrigan, Leo et al. How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environment and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture.  Environmental Health Perspectives; May2002, Vol. 110 Issue 5, p445 | "The grain raised to supply feedlots (cattle) and factory farms (chickens, hogs, veal calves) is grown in intensive monocultures that stretch over thousands of acres, leading to more chemical use and exacerbating attendant problems . . . In recent decades, however, industrial agriculture has increasingly separated animals from the land. More and more meat production is occurring in concentrated operations commonly called factory farms." -- Not a pure definition like those I provided before, but I ran out of time to locate more relevant articles.  Jav43 13:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That writer is using industrial agriculture as another term for factory farming, at least in relation to animals. I see you didn't supply a link for some reason. Here is the article. Jav, in all your months of arguing, you've not produced one source that makes a distinction between the two. We have provided dozens of mainstream sources, including the BBC, Reuters, and CNN, that use the terms interchangeably. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

-

I'm responding here to today's latest physically scattered comments by SlimVirgin. This is what a merge looks like without even merging in Industrial agriculture (animals) or Industrial agriculture (crops). It is too big. The solution to summaries that you find lacking in criticism is to add the criticism to the summary. Summaries of existing articles were taken from the lead sections of those articles so I did not delete any summary criticism. And if needed criticism is lacking then it is also lacking in the lead of those articles. The solution is to add it to the article lead and to the summary both. Far from trying to move all criticism to some dump article (and my comment that you go on about is about others making it a dump, not me wanting it to be a dump), I encourage a summary style in which the summaries and the leads of the articles both accurately reflect the article and the article accurately and with due weight covers the topic of the article. Again the solution is add sourced data. You either know full well that I have added sourced content not from other articles or else you have not bothered reading the article you voted to delete. Or did you vote to delete? Now you say you just voted to merge the content. So if this article is deleted you won't mind me adding the contents elsewhere, right? Tell you what. Why don't we keep this article and all the others and improve them? Add sourced criticism to where it should be and not only won't I delete it, but I'll copy it to the lead of the main article that is being summarized. You and your friends simply do not seem to get it into your heads that I am not trying to do what you think I'm trying to do. You threw good faith out the window before I ever arrived at factory farming and because I disagreed with you you assume bad faith. Let us add sourced data. No one is stopping you from fixing article leads that lack balance, and I'm not at fault for article leads that I did not write. And the material (half to a fourth?) in the article that I wrote is balanced in my opinion. WAS 4.250 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WAS, you might well have a point on length etc. I am sympathetic to it. What I dislike is the inclusion of material based on a WP:SYNTH map of your own creation. Please read WP:OWN. I say we merge, and then we start a WP:SUMMARY discussion, in which we measure the notability, reliability and verifiability of the material in question. I am willing to bet that the article can be shortened significantly, and that there Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and in many specialized scientific subjects, thigs like specific species of life etc are not included, or included in large articles, because they fail notability on their own. Simply because *you* want to disucuss some obscure technique of zero-emissions aquaculture in great detail, it doesn't mean it belongs in wikipedia. Notability also applies to technical and scientific material. This is all part of my sense of WP:SYNTH., which includes this article as an egrerious POV fork that even copies images and text in violation of GFDL. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is definitely a big difference in what is viewed as notable between the two contending sides at factory farming. Forgive me if I poorly state the difference, but I would describe it as "your" side highly valuing content from newspapers and "my" side highly valuing content from academic and other experts. So for example, an important politician's comment about a factory farming bovine spongiform encephalopathy problem gets in the news and y'all figure that means it belongs in the lead at factory farming. While experts who evaluate industrial agriculture issues list bovine spongiform encephalopathy as one of many biosecurity problems (e.g. pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut) and list biosecurity as just one of many challenges and issues faced by the industrial agriculture industry (marketing, consumer tastes, international trading environment, infrastructure, management skills and labor supply, coordination, technology, water and other resource access issues issues). So from the point of view of using experts to decide what is notable, the approach of using whatever appears on the newspaper's front page looks like original research and synthesis. And just because an expert says it, that does not make it a primary source. WAS 4.250 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Your side" has not used academic and other expert sources to support your argument. You haven't used any! It's your own personal opinion that industrial, intensive, and factory farming refer to different practices as they relate to animals. You've not produced one source who supports you. All the sources produced so far &mdash; including industry sources and mainstream news organizations &mdash; use the terms interchangeably. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim you are talking about something completely and totally different than what I am talking about. And you are also incorrect. WAS 4.250 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am asking you to produce one reliable source who clearly and unambiguously uses the terms "industrial farming," "intensive farming," and "factory farming" differently as they relate to animals. As for your OR argument, you've never understood the OR policy; looking around to see how mainstream sources use terms is exactly what we're supposed to do when there's a dispute about how to use them. As for this &mdash; "While experts who evaluate industrial agriculture issues list bovine spongiform encephalopathy as one of many biosecurity problems (e.g. pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut) and list biosecurity as just one of many challenges and issues faced by the industrial agriculture industry (marketing, consumer tastes, international trading environment, infrastructure, management skills and labor supply, coordination, technology, water and other resource access issues issues)," &mdash; it's not a sentence so I can't work out what you're trying to say. I also don't understand "And just because an expert says it, that does not make it a primary source." You seem also not to understand what a primary source is.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You changed your post after I had replied to it. Please don't do that again. Here is what you added: "You are talking about the definition of "factory farming". I don't care all that much what definition we use so long as we don't use two different definitions in one argument. One can say "factory farming is industrial agriculture" or one can say "factory farming is "intensive animal farming" or even other definitions. But that no more makes one definition equal to another than the fact that the word "inflammable" means both can not catch fire and can catch fire means that things that can catch fire can not catch fire. Natural language word definitions do have a mathematical transitive relation."


 * What I am asking for, for the millionth time, is a reliable source that shows the terms are used differently in relation to animals. Please don't give me any more of your personal opinions. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care all that much what definition we use. You continue to not understand what I say. WAS 4.250 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While experts who evaluate industrial agriculture issues list bovine spongiform encephalopathy as one of many biosecurity problems (e.g. pests and diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), avian influenza, foot and mouth disease, citrus canker, and sugarcane smut) and list biosecurity as just one of many challenges and issues faced by the industrial agriculture industry (marketing, consumer tastes, international trading environment, infrastructure, management skills and labor supply, coordination, technology, water and other resource access issues issues). WAS 4.250 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and? It's not a sentence. While experts do X and Y, then ...? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "while" refers to the preceding sentence. WAS 4.250 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't make sense. You need to stop offering us your personal views. The chancellor of Germany called for an end to factory farming because of the BSE crisis. This is true, very significant, and well-sourced to the BBC, CNN etc. He did it because British scientists blamed BSE on factory-farming practises. This is also highly significant and well-sourced to the BBC, CNN etc. Whether other unnamed experts blame issues other than BSE on factory farming, and publish their concerns somewhere few people pay attention to is irrelevant; just because B is also true doesn't mean A should be minimized. If the Washington Post, the BBC, and CNN focus on an issue, it means it's a notable controversy, and it should be included in the lead according to WP:LEAD. Follow the policies and cite your sources, WAS. No more personal essays and POV forks. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When others speak it is their "personal views" and when you speak it is ... ? WAS 4.250 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've spent hours producing mainstream sources. I ask that you produce some too. As NOR says: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." If you would do that, this dispute would melt away. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Random break 2
(<---)Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture WAS 4.250 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't alter that it's a POV fork, and that all you did was copy and paste material from other articles in an effort to lose certain criticism. It seems to have been the addition to Factory farming of criticism from the German chancellor (a well-known animal rights extremist!) that set you off. Others have said you have a habit of creating POV forks. You've created at least three in this case, and it's caused a lot of disruption and ill-feeling, not to mention the personal attacks, so I can only join the many voices asking you to stop. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your unwarranted personal attacks and false unsubstantiated personal opinions are inappropriate. Please stop. WAS 4.250 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't stop. It's all justified criticism, made by several editors now, including completely uninvolved ones, which can be amply supported with diffs. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I also want to add here that I think you're in violation of the GFDL. You've copied material I've written and pasted it into other articles (and a lot of it, not just a few sentences), but without attributing it to me. Your edit summaries make it look as though you wrote that material, which is plagiarism. I pointed out at the time that it was a GFDL violation, and you told me I was talking nonsense, but I see others have said here that you've violated the GFDL elsewhere with the creation of POV forks. It's worth checking with someone who knows about these issues, because I think you're showing complete contempt for other people's work. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. I would be happy to work with you to insure there exist edit summaries that you find satisfactory. WAS 4.250 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You misrepresented your query, and you were told that it was GFDL compliant if attributed. You did not attribute it. You plagiarized. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SV, I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is the over-specialization and over-description of specialized topics that create this whole situation. Its exactly the same thing over "Factory farming" vs "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations". Some want to make this an unencyclopedic specialist source for agricultural information, while that is well beyond our mandate as an encyclopedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the aim may be to disarm people with technical terms. "Concentrated animal feeding operation" sounds more benign than factory farming. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(<---)There are several ways of looking at that.
 * 1) It could be argued that you just admitted that "factory farming" is a POV term compared to more technical and neutral terms that you disapprove of because they evoke less emotion.
 * 2) What I think is really going on in the dispute between me and Slim (I just figured this out today, but I may be wrong) is her desires to write about factory farming as represented by newspapers - in other words news of interest to the general public concerning factory farming; while I have an interest in writing about the history,  science (university and corporate research and development), and management (by national entities, corporations, and individuals farmers) of industrial farming. Maybe the titles of the articles could be adjusted to deal with this? Management issues of industrial farming and so forth? WAS 4.250 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * CAFO is not a "technical and neutral term." It was invented, as I recall, by the U.S. government. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't written anything that I'm aware of. You've copied (actually stolen, because you don't attribute it anywhere) other people's work. If I'm wrong, please supply some diffs showing what you've written yourself. I've asked this before, but you've never produced any.


 * And this is not a dispute between you and me. There are several people trying to deal with you on the talk pages, and I see other uninvolved editors here making the same point about your POV fork habit. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have no right to make nasty assumptions and accusations based on "so far as I know". You have not presented evidence proving your personal attack, so stop making it. The slightest effort on your part would uncover text I wrote in this article.


 * I've looked and I can't find any. Please show us some diffs. As far as I can see, all you've is copy other people's work without attribution. It is plagiarism &mdash; intellectual dishonesty. Here are two examples: . These are POV forks of other people's work. You don't say who the originating editors are in the edit summaries; you don't say which articles you've copied the material from; you don't move the titles and merge the histories. It's theft and I believe it's also a GFDL violation. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is your job to provide evidence of your allegations and not my job to obey your every arrogant command. You keep repeating yourself with nothing new and no evidence and no attempt to work together. I am not a masochist. Signing off for today. WAS 4.250 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See above for examples, and there are others. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any useful content. Right now the article looks like an argumentative (or apologetic) essay which isn't surprising since the title lends itself to subjective writing. Type 40 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is potentially an encyclopaedic topic but the article is bedevilled by POV and unbalanced, unsourced statements. Each topic should be treated in a 'On the one hand', 'On the other hand' manner, with sources for both. Sadly, as many editors have commented above serious, important subjects are now splintered across too many articles. TerriersFan 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.