ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Factory farming/Archive 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Factory farming/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Who would prefer which article title(s)

I suggest that people write here what they think the title(s) should be, and why, preferably using sources to back up the argument. Please write no more than one short paragraph each, preferably no more than 150 words. No threaded discussion; just let each person have their say, because we may agree more than we realize.

SlimVirgin

My preference is for us to have one article, which should include crops and animals. I don't mind what the title is: factory farming, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, or intensive agriculture, because mainstream sources use these terms interchangeably (e.g. the BBC using the terms "factory farms," "factory farming," "intensive agriculture," and "intensive farming" in one article to refer to the same phenomenon). If others want more than one article, I'm willing to see two articles: one about crops, one about animals. I'd prefer the animal one to be called "factory farming" because it’s commonly used (e.g. Washington Post, CNN, BBC, CBC. As a compromise, I'd be willing to see Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). I'd be unwilling to see three articles (Factory farming, Intensive farming, and Industrial agriculture), unless someone can show me mainstream reliable sources who use the terms differently and who make clear what the difference is; so far, no one has done that. Wikipedia must not create distinctions that do not exist for reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Examining your links: none of them do what you've said they do: which is to use the terms equivalently:
  • the washington post article only mentions factory farming as something that activists consider gestation crates to be an inhumane practice.
  • the bbc article and other bbc article don't do what you claim they do either (none of them use the terms equivalently, nor are all of the terms in the articles either).
  • nor does CNN
  • nor does cbc article does actually have two terms in it, but unless having a report on intensive farming and a mention of factory farming in the article means they're equivalent (when factory farming is a type of intensive farming technique).
So there's nothing in any of those to support your request for a compromise to make them all the same. Read those articles with the mind that factory farming is a type of intensive farming and it makes perfect sense. None of them use them interchangably as you claim. NathanLee 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum375

I agree with SlimVirgin above. My main concern is that this topic may degenerate into POV forks, and the best way to avoid that is keep it all in one article. If that is impractical, then I could live with one for animals and one for crops, at most. I think a single combined article would still be the most informative and efficient, since many of the issues and controversies are the same or similar. Crum375 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Coroebus

Sorry, I'm very busy at the moment so I won't be able to engage in this issue in much detail. In brief, I think that intensive farming is different from industrial agriculture because there are non-industrial agricultural methods that are still intensive, particularly historically (thinking enclosure, that sort of thing). I would be inclined towards a single article called industrial agriculture covering crops and animals but I think that practically speaking this might be unwise as I think there will be overemphasis and conflict over the animal aspect and associated animal rights issues. Therefore I would favour a short article on intensive agriculture with a very short summary section on industrial agriculture that points you to the industrial agriculture page, which in turn has a short summary section on factory farming which is also an article that expands on the confined animal rearing aspect, and spells out in the intro that factory farming is here taken to mean confined animal rearing but that it can also be used to mean industrial agriculture (with, obviously, a wikilink). --Coroebus 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Haber

Single article is fine. Ideally everything will be lumped under Intensive agriculture, which is a very neutral term and used by the USDA[1] and BBC[2]. Intensive farming would also be acceptable and is neutral, but sounds less encyclopedic to me (matter of taste, and I see the two terms as nearly equivalent.) Also supported by USDA[3]. Industrial agriculture shows up in a negative context[4],[5], and should be avoided. Factory farming is a propaganda term that evokes images of sows in gestation crates. Although activist sites and some media outlets use this term, Wikipedia should not buy into their agenda. I could also see possibly two articles: Intensive ag and Industrial ag, but at present I don't see that there is enough material and would rather lump everything under Intensive for the time being. Haber 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I think it goes without saying that I think that the assertion Intensive ag = Industrial ag = Factory farming is false, but I'll say it again just to avoid any confusion. Haber 12:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FNMF

Concur with Corobeus's conclusion: "a short article on intensive agriculture with a very short summary section on industrial agriculture that points you to the industrial agriculture page, which in turn has a short summary section on factory farming which is also an article that expands on the confined animal rearing aspect, and spells out in the intro that factory farming is here taken to mean confined animal rearing but that it can also be used to mean industrial agriculture (with, obviously, a wikilink)." FNMF 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems to me that if an editor creates an article (e.g. industrial agriculture), it is illegitimate for another editor to simply change it to a redirect (e.g., to factory farming). Changing the article to a redirect is a de facto form of deletion, and thus an attempt to bypass AfD. If somebody creates an article, then it can be contested by other editors who consider it engages in original research, but this must be done through process. One cannot "in advance" decide that an article is OR and therefore summarily change it to a redirect. I have raised this point before, with no response. Denying the right of other editors to create articles without a legitimate justification seems like an attempt to unfairly control the process. FNMF 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Localzuk

Agree with SV and Crum, preferably one article (not too bothered about the title, as all of them would redirect here) or two (one focusing on crops and one on animals, with the 3 titles pointing to a dab page or similar). I wouldn't want 3 articles as this would lead to POV forks and create distinctions where there are grey areas.-Localzuk(talk) 09:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NathanLee

Just read the exhaustive list or here or perhaps even the section on proposed new lead. [...] 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) (copied here by WAS 4.250 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd suggest the version of intensive farming and see if it goes with the version that uses a more accurate description of factory farming (pre-revert version ). Between the two they succinctly shows what intensive farming is and delegates greater detail to other pages (e.g. aquaculture, factory farming).. Which, so long as you don't claim that factory farming IS intensive farming, means you have the higher level one for intensive farming concept which covers the broad concepts and links the sub types.., and then delegates more detail to factory farming, aquaculture etc.
If an agreement/compromise is made to not push for the "they are the same" arguments: then we can have a factory farm page, intensive agriculture page can redirect to if there's a desire not to have the two.. Even though one's a process/concept, the other's talking of a field or farming revolution.. NathanLee 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250

Combining these three is like combining articles on jews, zionists and israelis. Related but different. Even if some people don't get that. But until the content grows enough to force hiving off, factory farming could be a section within indusrtial farming which could be a section within intensive farming, but farming is a big subject - we just currently lack content due to lack of interst by contributors. They will eventually be seperate articles. The real issue here is an attempt to control not only the articles but also the discussion about the articles. Including asking a contributor to not contribute. That is wrong. That is controlling. That is contrary to an honest open thoughtful discussion. That is not helpful in finding consensus. I am against gagging any contributor. I am against deciding against the creation of other articles. No to censorship. Let the articles grow organigally rather than trying to tightly control their development. There is a lot more to farming than controversy. WAS 4.250 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

jav43

Since we're dealing with three distinct topics, we should have three distinct articles. Jav43 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

One article would work if it clearly explained that it merged three distinct topics. Jav43 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis and suggestion

  • SV wants one article, but could live with two (one on animals, one on crops). Does not want three. No preference on titles.
  • Crum wants one article, since he feels the issues are the same and because he fears POV forks. No preference on titles.
  • Coroebus would like three articles — intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming — and could live with one combined one called industrial agriculture.
  • Haber would prefer one article called intensive agriculture or intensive farming, in that order of preference.
  • FNMF would prefer three per Coroebus: intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming.
  • Localzuk would prefer one article, but could live with two (one on crops, one on animals), but not three. No preference regarding titles.
  • WAS 4.250 would like to see three articles: intensive farming, industrial farming, and factory farming, but could live with one called intensive farming.
  • Jav would like to see three articles; no preference regarding titles.

In other words:

  • One article called intensive agriculture or intensive farming: Five editors (SV, Crum, Localzuk, Coroebus, Haber) would either prefer, or could live with, one article, and the only preference expressed for its title (by Haber) is "intensive agriculture" or "intensive farming," in that order. I think WAS 4.250 would also be able to live with one article called intensive farming.
  • Three articles called intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, and factory farming. Two editors have asked for three articles and expressed no second preference.

Could the editors who would like to see three articles say what they would be prepared to accept as a second best choice? The aim is to find out whether there's enough common ground between us to proceed without further argument.

For example, could those editors accept one article called "intensive agriculture"? This would explore the history of intensive farming/agriculture (e.g. along these lines [6]); it would move on to the industralization of agriculture as society in general became industralized; and it would deal in separate sections with the issues raised by the industrialized production of crops, on the one hand, and animals on the other.

If the article became too large at any point, then we could think about creating separate articles for some of the sections, per summary style (so long as this doesn't appear to be POV forking), but we've not reached that stage yet. On the contrary, quite a bit of the content of the three articles was repetitive when I last checked. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jav has agreed to one article, so long as we make it clear that we're dealing with a number of distinct areas. (We could perhaps write a section on the different terms and their usage). Thank you, Jav. Does anyone remaining have a strong objection to one article called "Intensive agriculture"? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I dispute the analysis: by my reading, five editors prefer three articles (Corobeus, FNMF, Nathan, WAS, Jav). There is certainly no clear majority that prefers one article. What this reflects is the current deadlock. And thus the real point is not whether these five editors can "live with" one article; the question is whether having one article will achieve a good outcome. In my opinion, one of the main reasons these editors prefer three articles is because they see it as a way of breaking this deadlock, whereas having one article is essentially maintaining the status quo: that is, an apparently interminable waste of energy arguing on the talk page with no improvement to the actual article. Changing the title to "intensive farming" is not likely to change this situation. Insisting on preventing three articles is an attempt to unfairly control the situation, and, in my opinion, it is an illegitimate way of doing so. As I have said, I don't believe editors should be able to de facto delete articles by changing them to redirects. FNMF 21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
FN, I wrote "Five editors (SV, Crum, Localzuk, Coroebus, Haber) would either prefer, or could live with, one article ..." And it's now six, because Jav says he could accept one article too. The proposal is to call it "intensive agriculture."
We can't proceed with deadlock, so there has to be compromise. That is why I looked at people's first preference, but also what they said their second preference was.
I don't see how not having three articles is an exercise in illegitimate control. It's an attempt to avoid repetition and POV forking. There may come a point where the different sections on this article are so large that forking becomes necessary, but that point has not been reached. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
FN, could you say what your particular concerns are about the need for three articles, because I've not followed it, and I'm sorry if I'm being dense. For example, is it that you want a separate article on the history of intensive agriculture, because if so, perhaps we could have one called "History of intensive agriculture," where you deal only with pre-industralization.
The POV fork problem arises only if editors try to turn an article on "intensive agriculture" into something that deals with modern methods, but pretends those methods are not examples of what mainstream sources call "industrial agriculture" or "factory farming." If your history article would definitely only deal with pre-industrial methods, that problem would not arise.
What we have to avoid is erecting any framework that, in and of itself, implies either than intensive agriculture is a good, non-controversial thing, or is a bad, controversial thing. Our content will make both claims per NPOV, but our framework should not. That is why one article would be good, with a neutral title such as "intensive agriculture." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My particular concern is that this is getting nowhere. Once the issue of what to call the article is "resolved," we will be right back where we are right now, that is, at a deadlock about content, which is what lies behind the "article title" issue. I don't believe that three articles means the articles will represent particular points of view, and assuming that in advance is wrong. One article is just as likely to be POV as three articles, but it is just as possible for all three to be neutral and balanced. Insisting that three articles will result in non-neutral articles is inventing a problem in order to control the outcome. Compromise would be if editors said, "OK, let's have more than one article and see where it takes us." The unwillingness of some editors to try this approach is the most obvious thing about the situation at present. FNMF 05:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, can you say once more what you see as the difference between industrial agriculture and factory farming? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It depends on whether factory farming is limited in definition to the confinement of animal stock and associated phenomena. If so, the difference is clear enough. But if factory farming is described more broadly than just stock confinement, then I refer you to my first ever comment on this talk page, here. And, again, my argument is not that there should be three articles, but that this is the most likely means of breaking the deadlock, that is, the most likely means of actually beginning to improve the article(s). If another solution works, that's fine; I just haven't seen much evidence of anything else working. FNMF 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There's still been no reference to why the terms are the same. Britannica's definition clearly states that factory farming only refers to CONFINED ANIMAL raising [7], and that intensive farming is separate [8] (see "extensive farming" and "semi-intensive" as to why). We've still nothing provided that includes crops or aquaculture. SV/crum/localzuk: can you provide any resource that shows "factory farming" as inclusive of these? That's the big reason for why Industrial Agriculture is needed as a broad term. NathanLee 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I have 2 so far, with more if you want them. The first is a farm, [9] and the second is a site for 'hobby farmers' [10].-Localzuk(talk) 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Localzuk: surely you know that those are both not valid/citable references (as per policies). A dictionary/encyclopaedia would surely somewhere have something supporting your assertion. Again you supply some private, unreferenced, unsourced site for anti-factory farming groups or organisations. Is that all you've managed to find? I've supplied britannica, mcgraw hill, oxford, new world encyclopaedia and encarta.. You've supplied nothing that is allowable as a reference (see the PETA page for your side's arguments as to why they're not..). Don't you think this continued lack of any decent source should indicate your argument is unsupported for inclusion.. NathanLee 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That shows a lack of understanding of WP:NOR/WP:RS. The farm would be classed as a secondary source. What we are trying to show is that the terms are used to refer to both crops and animals, and who better to do that than an actual farm? But ok, I will drop the second source, as it wouldn't be suitable.
Why don't you save your fingers and agree to the mediation? We are never going to get past these problems otherwise.-Localzuk(talk) 13:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've read the policy on reliable sources. I'd point out "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "reputable publisher" requirement too. And also dispute resolution (avoidance) as to why your revert warring is a bad idea. That farm is nothing more than an opinion piece from a farm trying to sell itself over it's view of other farms (anyone can put up a site like that..). You're repeatedly going against 100% citable sources with flimsy "personal sites" which SV has argued against (e.g. consumerfreedom.com etc on the PETA page, which actually references stuff, but is unallowed because it has information you lot disagree with). Perhaps it's just time you admit that you have nothing solid to base this whole thing on. SV made the claim of equivalency: onus is/was on her to prove it is correct, and without any sort of proper source you're just fitting the definition of "disruptive editing" that is: frequent, persistent attempts to introduce an "eccentric view" into an article with no proper references. I suggest we go with what is easily provable from proper sources instead of waiting around for you to dredge up every non-useful (as a reference) site as you've done so far.
From the wikipedia founder:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."

I'd submit that your view on this should be easily supported, but here you are dredging up one or two sites that wouldn't be acceptable sources and relying on some strange interpretation of equality by same article mention (contrary to any even moderate English skill interpretation). NathanLee 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


If it matters "industrial agriculture" about 453,000 google hits, "factory farming" about 472,000. Both top links are from critical websites, and wikipedia pages feature promenently in the first few hits for "factory farming".

If you ask me, its "Factory farming" as title "industrial agriculture" as redirect, main page covers a short intro into two sub-pages (crops) and (animal). I have been watching the page since forever but not edited...--Cerejota 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Analysis

If you now seem happy (going off your proposed version) that factory farming is just one type or subset of intensive farming: then is there any problem with having separate articles if it means:

  • smaller articles size
  • more directed (e.g. see how the version of intensive farming is focussed on the concept of what is intensive farming versus extensive farming and directs people to factory farming (see the pre revert version for consistency with that notion) on specific detail on factory farming specifics, just like aquaculture details out details on aquaculture..
  • an avoidance of a POV merge (as per the argument about jew/zionist/israeli not being in the one article for the obvious reason that they are distinct).
  • when/if factory farming disappears from the current state of industrial agriculture (and practised intensive farming techniques): those topics will still make sense. In one big article they're forced to be all together..
  • if we merge one, we'd also have to merge aquaculture: which wouldn't seem to be a good idea..
  • redirecting factory farming to intensive farming creates the assumption that it IS the same thing, when it's clearly a subset. We can put in a bit that talks of the notion of "treating the farm like a factory" to mean Industrial agriculture, but that the main use of the word is to refer to animals/confiend in large operations etc.

Does that sound workable? NathanLee 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with however you want to arrange the articles, but I disagree with the last point. A redirect from a subtopic to a larger topic could just mean that we don't have enough information for a decent subarticle.
I'd also like to reiterate that "Factory Farming" is not an NPOV term, being found almost exclusively on activist websites and in negative articles written by media types. No one builds factory farms or works in factory farms, the government does not keep statistics on factory farms, it's just a made-up term which sounds worse than "farm". Wikipedia should not propagate this terminology, which was invented by critics in order to demonize a legal activity. It reminds me of a Simpsons' quote, "Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... The Killbot Factory." -- Kent Brockman Haber 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I know we shouldn't normally archive stuff which as current but this page is now so long that it is near impossible for someone new to come in and read over it. I suggest we archive as much as possible and reference bits of it in any new postings. It would help things immensly in my opinion.-Localzuk(talk) 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've archived everything but this last section, as we seem to be making progress finally. The previous comments amounted to nearly 52,000 words. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Eight minutes later you do it? I think Localzuk wanted some comment first or otherwise he would have just done it himself. Haber 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It was getting hard to load the page, Haber. I looked through it, and I couldn't find anything that would help us to move forward. It was 52,000 words of personal opinion, almost half of it written by one person. There were a few sources scattered throughout (not many), which any of us can retrieve from the archive. I think we should concentrate on forward progress only from now on. SlimVirgin (talk)
No matter what the reasons, it was appropriate for Localzuk to seek some consensus before making such a radical change to this highly contentious talk page. This was not an emergency and could have waited a day or so. I'm not dwelling in the past, just trying to point out that your methods as of today are not working to build any kind of trust. Haber 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My strategy is to keep us moving forward, not looking back, and to encourage everyone to compromise, because the arguments of the last few days have been very damaging, very toxic. I hope you'll help me with it and assume good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks once again for your unfounded attack and attempt to belittle my and other's contributions. It wasn't personal opinion for a start, if you'd read it: you'd see that. NathanLee 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that this is pathetic. Was and Nathan - you are now commenting on something completely unimportant and pointless. Please stop doing this as it is not helping move the page forward. If you take offence to something an editor did, discuss it on their talk page.-Localzuk(talk) 12:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course everything seems petty to perpetrators. Your response shows that you and SV are so set in your ways and so buried in the system that I cannot hope to change your long-term behavior. All I can do is point it out as it happens, and hope that there are enough reasonable people around who likewise can't stand bullying, dismissiveness, and underhanded tactics. Haber 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim Virgin's proposal

Talk:Factory farming/Slim Virgin's proposal Do I have that right? WAS 4.250 06:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can all edit Talk:Factory farming/Slim Virgin's proposal without getting into a revert war, then we have a compromise. If not, then not. Let's find out. WAS 4.250 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks way better than I thought it would. Take a look and see what you think. WAS 4.250 07:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would make more sense to get an agreement going, then proceed with editing the real thing. All we need to decide is number of articles and title, and content of lead. The rest will probably take care of itself. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Nathan

  • take a look at the current intensive farming as I did a reasonable amount of refactoring to get it where it is now (still needs a bit of referencing etc).. It's a smaller, more manageable article. SV's one that takes that version and combines it with all the other factory farming stuff is massive by any wikipedia article standards..
  • 2 or 3 more manageable ones.. Someone's going to come to the page and go "I think there's too much information here: we need to split it" and there we go again. It's pretty obvious that the material can be split without any big issues I think (given we've got in this new version a tree like structure: why can't it have the "main article" type concept (as it already has if you look at intensive farming)).
  • The massive amount of information (unreferenced) for chickens etc: really seems a bit much too.
  • It's closer to the definition that's supportable, so that's a definite improvement to the one we've got sitting up on factory farming.
  • I'd suggest if you're happy with a version that no longer makes the claims of equal usage of terms: then lumping it together in one article is no different from separating it out.
  • There's extensive farming to consider: it's the "opposite" if you like. NathanLee 12:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently it seems the other articles are going fine as standalone

Also: it seems like industrial agriculture and intensive farming seem to be able to exist on their own as meaningful aricles. If you put the version of factory farming back to the non SV one: it too exists and is consistent. The only thing that's the issue is an OR/ POV (as in unbacked up by any evidence) desire to have them being the one massive article. NathanLee 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of equivalent terms

As this question has gone unanswered since the start of this: SV/Crum/localzuk: As your attempt at compromise is to force people into "moving forward" and to "live with" just one article you still have not provided any source that shows the terms to be equivalent: From my comments on SV's arguments about supported sources:

:Examining your links: none of them do what you've said they do: which is to use the terms equivalently:

  • the washington post article only mentions factory farming as something that activists consider gestation crates to be an inhumane practice.
  • the bbc article and other bbc article don't do what you claim they do either (none of them use the terms equivalently, nor are all of the terms in the articles either).
  • nor does CNN
  • nor does cbc article does actually have two terms in it, but unless having a report on intensive farming and a mention of factory farming in the article means they're equivalent (when factory farming is a type of intensive farming technique).
So there's nothing in any of those to support your request for a compromise to make them all the same. Read those articles with the mind that factory farming is a type of intensive farming and it makes perfect sense. None of them use them interchangably as you claim. NathanLee 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is another site which under its dictionary definition of agriculture it has 'large scale farming' listed with 'syn: agribusiness, factory farming'. This is a feed from [11].

-Localzuk(talk) 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that all large scale farms are factory farms? No, that wouldn't make any sense: What about a large scale extensive farm? Or a large scale organic, freerange farm? Of course not. Yes, factory farms are large scale, that again doesn't mean that ALL large scale farms are factory farms. Nor does this over simplified definition show that "intensive farming" or "industrial agriculture" are equivalent terms.. NathanLee 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you look at what wordnet is: it's not exactly something to be used as a definitive guide: See the FAQ for what it is.. wordnet FAQ. To quote: "groups of words that are roughly synonymous in a given context". It's a computer program making assumptions about synonyms that the definitions that were written by the researchers. I'll stake my money on britannica over this any day of the week. It's akin to quoting google's word suggestions as a dictionary definition. NathanLee 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this site uses the 2 interchangably also [12].-Localzuk(talk) 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an activist site.. NathanLee 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And another [13] (ok, they stick chicken in the middle of intesive farming in that one).-Localzuk(talk) 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they do put chicken in there, so how is that a valid support to your argument other than wasting space on this discussion page? NathanLee 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


And previously at "an exhaustive look":

SV and crum375 have asserted that factory farm/intensive farming, industrial agriculture are synonymous and completely interchangeable.. 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 [14], 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 [15],
  • this one supports the notion that the term means livestock [16],
  • this one refers to concentrated animal feeding operations [17] no mention of "factory farm" anywhere,
  • this one [18] does not mention the term factory farm,
  • webster's dictionary backs up the indoors/livestock definition [19],
  • this article [20] 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 [21].
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..[22] 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)

Which was agreed by Jav43 and WAS by the way and no opposing view or comments.

There's been no attempt to answer this anywhere that I can see: which really is the whole rationale for squashing this article into one big article. Can we finally get an answer, or else I suggest to "move forward" you drop the argument that these terms all belong in one article (which appears to be set to be a massive article). NathanLee 09:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point? We have half the editors thinking that the terms are equivalent and half that don't. All you are doing is going back, again and again, to the same old 'we're right, you're wrong' argument. This is getting us no-where and the entire exercise above is intended to try and move us forward and out of the deadlock that we are in and to compromise. All you have done is once again gone back and repeated your same argument again, filling the page up again. We have all read through this before and simply disagree with your analysis - posting it again and again isn't going to change our minds.-Localzuk(talk) 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk: you can "think" what you like: What we need are some references. I and others have shown that there's nothing that says they are the same and have a definition that fits britannica and dictionary definitions, yours only fits if you have some strange idea of two things mentioned in a news article that they're the same. The rules of the English language also seem to agree. No one from your side has shown any attempt to refute those (and the above) time and time again. No rational being would keep insisting they have a case without any evidence, yet you still do. If inability to provide evidence from your side is "deadlock" then allowing you to force your unreferenced, OR/POV is not a fair compromise. What compromise have you made? That you'll only accept having one article? That is not a "compromise" and moves nothing in any direction. NathanLee 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read my section below. Also, as I have said - we don't think that your analysis is correct of the sources that show the 2 terms are equivalent, whereas you do believe that. We both have shown various things and both sides don't agree. The compromise is getting past that and doing something in the middle. Stop going on about rules of the English language and your own POV because we already know what you think. We want to move on and actually settle this problem, whereas you only seem to be willing to accept our complete and total withdrawal...-Localzuk(talk) 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So if I go and merge the jew/zionist/israeli articles because I can give the same level of "proof" of equivalency of terms: you'll be fine with that? I can show them used to mean the same thing (in your fashion). The rules of the English language are rather important: as they're the thing you're relying on to concoct a definition: and you're wrong. A is a type of B, does not mean B is a type of A. Or X and Y does not mean X is Y or Y is X. But that's your argument. How about a compromise to what's safer and makes no OR: something directly backed by dictionary and encyclopaedic entries? Is that a fair compromise? That's all I'm asking for.. NathanLee 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that people here are missing the point by a long way

Right, I will outline my position: We have evidence that shows the 2 terms (intensive farming and factory farming) are equivalent but some editors disagree that it does so therefore I am willing to compromise and have an article which outlines all 3 in some way (regardless of how obscene it seems to me). On the other hand we have a group of editos who simply refuse to accept our evidence and continually say that we aren't getting anywhere as we are trying to 'trick' them or what have you. How, in your opinions then are we to move forward with this? We have 2 stances and we need a middle point. We have a majority of the editors who are willing to have a single article as I just described but this isn't good enough for some. Please explain how you think we should break this deadlock then as you (I'm looking at you Nathan) are continually repeating yourself and failing to provide a single new idea to this debate.-Localzuk(talk) 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a majority of editors who want more than one article because they do not share your view of equivalency.
As I've said: having two terms used in a sentence or an article does not automagically mean they are the same thing. Your "evidence" is extremely strange. If you expect me to suspend my knowledge of English to cater for your obscure "definition" then I really can't do it. That's why I've asked for you or SV or anyone to explain it via proper reference because it doesn't make sense nor do the articles you say do it even support it. The use of the word "and" seems to be a sticking point. I can say "I believe you are wrong localzuk and I like correct wikipedia entries" does not mean that "localzuk" and "correct wikipedia entry" are the same thing. Yet you argued that a sentence with factory farming AND intensive agriculture meant that they were the same. Additional info was provided about the lack of any reference to crops, or that the definitions match if you take one to be a subset of the other. In SV's proposed version: they say exactly that: yet you still want just one article that says that anyhow? I've got britannica's entry on factory farm and britannica's definition of intensive farming that back up my claim. You have nothing more than a questionable technique of interpreting a few news articles. Surely you can see your position is rather shakey if you have such strong arguments against it and no reliable direct definition to back yours up? NathanLee 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, the long and frequent posts from you are starting up again. They aren't helping. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And the dictatorial/dismissive style is continuing from you SV, please assume good faith that someone contributing with reasoned arguments deserves to be listened to. Why these are getting lumped together I don't know. NathanLee 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


More definitions from online dictionary/encyclopaedias that support the non equivalent position: World encyclopedia 1980 - factory farming, intensive (of agriculture) Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English 2006, extensive (of agriculture), encarta definition factory farm,encarta definition of intensive (agriculture). If you still can't see that the terms are not equivalent, then I can keep digging for more definitions if you'd like, since it is "obscene" to you. NathanLee 18:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You've been given sources that use the terms in the same way, but you deny they're doing it, saying for example that when CNN writes of the need for an end to factory farming and later in the same paragraph (writing from memory) of the need to (forget the word, but another way of saying stop) "intensive farming," you deny they're referring to the same things.
Life's too short for silliness and wikilawyering, and you can't take this talk page hostage again. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
He is not being silly. He is not wikilawyering. He never took this page hostage. WAS 4.250 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only assume you've not read his 22,000 (yes, twenty-two thousand) words of personal opinion posted on this page over eight days, not counting the similar posts he left on user talk pages, because much of it was indeed wikilawyering and an almost wilful refusal to read what the sources were actually saying. I'm not sure I've ever seen a talk page taken over to that extent by a single user; well, I did once, but it was someone talking entirely to himself.
The bottom line is that none of us can get our own way here, because to move on there has to be compromise, about number of articles, titles, and content. I am willing to compromise, but not to the point of being ridiculous, which having three articles on the same subject would be. There are at most two subjects here: intensive farming and industrial farming, which only at a stretch can people argue are different, but fair enough; I'm willing to be educated. There are also two objects of that farming: animals and crops. Whichever way you cut it, it doesn't translate into three articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As predicted, the so-called attempt to reach consensus through a straw poll on the title seems to have failed to achieve anything like consensus.
It's not over yet. If this doesn't work, we can go for mediation, but it seems a waste of time given that (I hope) we're all adults and should be able to mediate for ourselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
How did I know that it would fail? Because it is not, in fact, a genuine compromise at all, but simply an attempt to push through the preference of one "side." It's all very well to speak of "bottom lines" and the necessity of compromise, but I cannot help but note that, rather than then indicating what compromise it is you are prepared to accept, you immediately follow with a statement of what you are not prepared to accept because it would be "ridiculous." Let's imagine for a moment you are right that three articles is ridiculous: so what? Let the three subjects develop until the point where we can see if and how they should be merged. The real point is the insistence that you already know how this will turn out. That insistence is what is preventing any compromise. Editors who are illegitimately controlling the situation by refusing to let things develop are in fact preventing any "forward movement," despite their rhetoric to the contrary. It is hard not to conclude they are simply trying to drive away editors who disagree with them. For my own part, as an editor more concerned with breaking the deadlock than pushing a particular perspective, it does indeed increasingly seem like a worthless waste of energy to continue making the attempt. FNMF 00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to be interested in breaking the deadlock. You seem determined to have three articles, and to hell with compromise. If I've misread your position, I apologize, and would appreciate you reiterating what compromise you'd be willing to accept. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You have misread my position, and I would suggest you have done so because you are dividing everybody into the camp of friend and enemy, rather than really taking a look at the reality of the situation. What compromise I am prepared to accept is really the wrong question: there are a number of committed editors who were clearly always going to disagree with your so-called compromise. I cannot help but note that you tend to simply ignore anything which may be problematic for your own position. FNMF 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but still you won't say which compromise you're willing to accept, if not the one I suggested. :-) Anyway, we're clearly getting nowhere, so I've filed an RfM. Hopefully with some outside help we'll find a way through it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: what compromise have you made? What evidence have you provided outside selective reading and questionable english skills if that is your proof. Your insistence that the CNN article is some magical support for your argument is incorrect: two mentions of a term in a paragraph or sentence do NOT mean they are equivalent. Repeated requests have been made for you to provide something resembling a decent, non-POV/OR interpretation of something. You've pushed and pushed, forced others to make a choice to fit your unreferenced POV but contributed little to this discussion except to revert changes citing your own version of policy ("add don't remove"), belittle the contributions of others, make fallacious arguments about their credibility (you did that to both jav and myself) or contribute in a meaningful constructive way. Three articles seemed to be quite able to exist before your merger and you'd ignored any attempt to discuss (or pay attention to the discussion on various pages that had agreed that the pages should not be merged). Now you've forced the issue to mediation due to your inability to accept others point of view. NathanLee 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a position, therefore I'm not able to "compromise." I put forward a proposal which I felt had a good chance of breaking the deadlock. Apparently I was wrong, given your rejection of that proposal (on what I consider flimsy grounds). I thought you may have been less intractable. I doubt very much I'll participate in any mediation because, as I indicated, it's increasingly clear that this debate is a waste of energy. Rather than trying to genuinely solve the problem, it seems to me there is just a switch from one mechanism to the next, in order to try to "win." I think this is unfortunate and unnecessary, but good luck to all the editors with greater faith than myself in the worthwhileness of the process. FNMF 01:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SV: I would request that you do not call for others to compromise until after you offer a compromise yourself. Jav43 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to compromise, as I have already pointed out. Our position calls for a single article which doesn't distinguish between the 3 topics. Your position is to have 3 pages which does distinguish. The compromise is having 1 or 2 pages which semi-distinguish... (That is in very short summary form, it is a bit more complex than that). As it stands, you have not proposed a single compromisable point.-Localzuk(talk) 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on title

As I see it, we have a consensus (as a first or second choice) for having one article called "Intensive agriculture." My proposal is that we proceed with this, with separate sections on the history of intensive farming; perhaps another section on the industrialization of it in general; and then we split into sections about animals on the one hand, and crops on the other. We could also include a section that discusses the different terms, who uses them, and so on.

If and when that article gets too long, we can discuss again the need to split into more than one article.

We will also carefully discuss the lead in advance of editing so that we have a consensus on images and text, and no revert wars. We can discuss the lead after deciding on the title.

Could we have a straw poll here to see who is prepared to try this? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support
  1. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Let's move forward. Crum375 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. As per Crum375--Cerejota 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. We need to move on this, rather than repeating the same old arguments and getting nowhere. However, if this is not acceptable to people, how about 'Agribusiness' as the title? The article ties in with th subject matter being discussed here and would work well.-Localzuk(talk) 11:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. I presume Localzuk and SV's agreement to this means that they accept(at least as a "compromise") that factory farming is a subset of industrial agriculture is a subset of intensive agriculture. Main conflict solved. Support is not an endorsement of the one article preference. Whether sub sections deserve their main article is not quite relevant here. If they do, we can split them when this page is up. --Dodo bird 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. WAS 4.250 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) This is premature. Let us all edit the subpage in question and if we can do that without reverting each other then it is a possible solution to this revert war.
  2. NathanLee 09:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Forcing people to accept your POV on an article being squashed into one article is not "consensus" SlimVirgin. You've still never provided anything to back up why they're equivalent terms (please see my question that's gone unanswered since this began). Your selective interpretation which is the whole basis is incorrect and Original research. Moving forward does not mean "ignore the fact you've not supported your argument STILL".
Neutral
Votes are Evil
  1. I think that there is a high probability that the results of this straw poll will be misused to somehow assert that the terms are equivalent and certain editors need to be marginalized. It's Memorial Day Weekend (at least in the US). I recommend that SV and Localzuk take a 72 hour break. If so I can do likewise. Haber 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. agreed. If it's the same old argument: it's because it still has the same old complete lack of evidence as to why just one article is needed. More articles can easily work if SV, localzuk and crum375 stop reverting any attempt to improve the article. Pretending that they've made some compromise and want to move forward yet have made no compromise nor provided any new evidence. NathanLee 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

The mediation page says that I am only allowed to say "accept" or "reject". I reject that. The description of mediation page says mediation is not binding. Therefore it is a waste of time. Or else it is no better than someone uninvolved choosing to come to this page and talk. But Slim complains there is too much talk here already. So more talk is gonna help how? Slim appears blind to the possibility that she is wrong. She literally can not understand how I can read what she claims she did not read and come to a conclusion different from the conclusion she came to. That is blind. WAS 4.250 16:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It works both ways, we don't see what you are saying as true and you don't see what we are saying is true. Neither side is blind, they just disagree. The idea of mediation is to get someone who is good with these sort of situations to take a look over things and give their opinion. We would then have faith in the mediation process and either accept what they say or be prepared to move to arbitration due to the inability to come to an agreement (this wouldn't look at content, it would look at the behaviour of editors).-Localzuk(talk) 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have accepted mediation because you need all parties to accept, but I am very busy at the moment so just go ahead without me if I don't respond to stuff. --Coroebus 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Coroebus. WAS, you say I'm blind to the possibility that I might be wrong. Do you accept that you might be wrong? I mean that as a serious question. Do you accept it as a possibility? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Difference is Localzuk that your side's whole argument lies in a rather strange interpretation of a couple of articles. The other has encyclopaedic/dictionary validation (a necessary requirement for addition to wikipedia) and is not really disputable because it is referenced and meaning is incredibly straight forward to extract. Currently the 3 articles exist and have distinct, diirected content.
SlimVirgin, localzuk and crum375 have an overly aggressive editing style with anything to do with animal lib topics and I might suggest that it has clouded your ability to produce a neutral article. Even PETA (a pretty extreme animal lib viewpoint) and other activist definitions disagree with your definition [23] there's problems, yet still you persist with your original research claim. NathanLee 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I will say this one last time: We know what your view is. Stop repeating it. Repeating it is not getting us any closer to breaking this deadlock. We have 2 viewpoints - one which says one thing and is backed up by sources, and the opposite, which is also backed up by sources. Regardless of how many times you say our view isn't backed up by those sources, we still read the sources as backing it up. So, now that I have said that: Can we move on and try something *new* and not repeat this same thing, over and over again. Thank you, Localzuk(talk) 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you just find some decent sources instead of diverting from answering again and again..? As in one that says exactly as you're asserting from a reliable source. Read [24] in a nutshell points: you're violating the 2nd two. Also: "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" is exactly what you're doing: "synthesis" based on your reading of the articles (you can't find a quote that says what you are arguing for.. Just mention in the same article = synthesis). Ignoring it again and again doesn't make you any more correct. If it's so common a fact you should be able to support it easily as per this.. NathanLee 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And yet again, you have just repeated yourself. We are showing the 2 terms are used interchangably - the article uses them interchangably but you disagree. We know this already, and as I have said, repeating it isn't getting anywhere - therefore compromise is the way forward.I would say your constant repetition is disruptive to this entire process as you aren't allowing any thing to move forward.-Localzuk(talk) 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, we give you sources, such as this one, that you insist in interpreting in your own way. Please don't provide us with a list of Wikipedia policies, we are all familiar with them. It is quite obvious that there are differences of opinion among us - blaming each other will not get us anywhere. If you are sincere in wanting to move forward, and to accept outside input, all you need to do is agree to mediation like the rest of us. Crum375 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll approach this from another angle: Whether they appear to be used interchangably or not: you need to get a reference that says the terms are all equivalent (not just appear to be interchangable: one that says they ARE the same thing, not just appear (to you) to be used as synonyms..). Otherwise you are doing synthesis by deciding that they are indeed identical. Particularly as we have other sources which clearly define the terms that you are overriding with your new definition. One article can be a very minority view point, CNN or otherwise. Plenty of articles use the term "muslims" and "terrorists" almost interchangably. But to say that all muslims are terrorists or all terrorists are muslims is synthesis. NathanLee 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
All it takes is one reliable source that specifically says that not all Muslims are terrorists, and you can't say it anymore (unless directly quoting a specific source). Do you have a reliable source that specifically says "Factory farms are not Intensive Farming"? Crum375 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Factory farms are Intensive Farming sites just as dogs are mammals. WAS 4.250 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, finding a reliable source that directly says so, e.g. "Factory farms are not Intensive Farming" or "Factory farms are a subset of Intensive Farming" should be easy, so can we have one? Crum375 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's akin to saying find me a site that says "factory farming is not a type of space shuttle".. But anyhow I can do the quotable proof positive (but naturally I'll not be able to find some reference to counter every possible negative statement required that people can concoct): I've got one from webster's [25] "factory farming, n, a system of large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that is focused on profit with animals kept indoors and restricted in mobility". Will that do you for both my assertions in one definition? I wasn't arguing that factory farming is not an example/system or/instance of/type of intensive farming: Just that the terms are not bidirectional-swappable.. Hence the need for more than one article as they're different things. NathanLee 23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, we've already addressed that source extensively above. It does not say Factory Farming is not Intensive Agriculture. Crum375 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Where? Factory farming IS a type of intensive agriculture, I've never argued it isn't, but it's not the other way around. By your logic "factory farming" is a type of hair product too, cos it doesn't say it isn't. What policy are you referring to that requires dictionary definitions of everything that something is NOT? You're asking the absurd. It's not me that's holding up this whole argument over a selective reading of one CNN article and no dictionary definition that backs it up. I've shown a dictionary definition that proves my stand, all in one hit: find one that proves yours (as so far no one from your side has been able to). Unless you can find a dictionary or encyclopaedic entry: I suggest you drop this argument (as it's outside allowable inclusion to put in uncommon uses of terms) that your claim is in any way common because ultra-niche interpretations do not belong in wikipedia. Here's two from the same dictionary: surely if your claim was correct they'd be the same. From crystal reference dictionary intensive farming def, factory farming def. Just how many more do you want while you insist on providing zero? NathanLee 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Nathan, I agree that the reference.com definition of factory farming does not include crops. We also don't include crops in the current locked version of the article. There are also other reliable sources that clearly equate Intensive Agriculture and other terms to it. And please stop spamming my Talk page – anything that relates to Factory Farming belongs here. Thanks, Crum375 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

By saying it's also known as intensive farming: you include crops. See the current locked version which talks of "early versions" including rice paddies and saying it is also known as intensive farming. If you have a source that says intensive farming is factory farming, rather than factory farming just being a type of intensive (animal) farming: please put it up, stop just saying you have it: as you haven't (as I can tell) yet put up any dictionary definition. Surely this definition would be published if it was anything other than a minor interpretation or viewpoint. All you've pointed to are one or two readings of articles to synthesise the definition. NathanLee 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you could point me to a Wikipedia policy that tells us that reference.com is more reliable, or carries more weight than CNN, Reuters, BBC and CBS? Thanks, Crum375 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you could point me where CNN, Reuters, BBC and CBS claim to be dictionaries? Thanks, WAS 4.250 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rejected the mediation. All along SlimVirgin and Localzuk have been using underhanded tactics including this insincere discussion in which they attempt to wear down good contributors with simple weight of words. Mediation is not a process that can overcome bad faith and dishonesty in an experienced administrator who knows all the tricks. Haber 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Using dictionaries as sources

We must use the terms the way reliable published (preferably mainstream) secondary sources use them. How CNN, the BBC, the Washington Post, and Reuters use the terms is directly relevant. We have never based our work on dictionaries. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That is neither true nor sensible. It is appropriate to use the best published sources for any specific claim and the best editors do. Dictionaries for definitions of words, scientific literature for scientific claims, historians for history and so forth. Prefering newspapers for these claims is nonsense. WAS 4.250 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea from that a dictionary is a good source for Wikipedia, because it's not in any of the policies or guidelines. On the contrary, these say we prefer secondary sources, not tertiary sources, for obvious reasons.
We have to use words the same way reliable mainstream sources use them. Reference.com is a website written by who-knows. The W/Post, CNN, Reuters, the BBC are staffed by professional researchers and writers who deal directly with the issues. That is, they speak to the factory farmers, intensive farmers, industrial farmers, or whatever they call themselves. They speak directly to the governments that regulate them. They speak directly to the public that may or may not have concerns about them. They know what vocabulary is in general use, and they form committees to decide which terms to use for sensitive subjects (e.g. their policies on terrorist versus militant). That is why we take our lead from these mainstream organizations. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We disagree totally on this. We need arbcom or a miracle if you can't accept dictionaries as reliable published sources. To me that's just nuts. And I'm sure you are sincere. So we need outside forces who have the authority to decide this very important attribution issue. I have asked for help at WP:AN/I. WAS 4.250 19:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I recall that there was an ArbCom case that revolved around the use of a dicdef, which as I remember was regarded as not legit. I'll try to find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII, which was unfortunately closed without a decision. It was triggered by one user insisting that a dictionary definition of "capitalism" be used instead of the definitions of reliable sources. It appears to have been resolved by removing his dicdef from the article, but creating a "definitions of capitalism" article, where he could include his material. There was also a discussion about it on the mailing list, and my recollection of that was firmly against dicdefs. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Slrubenstein was involved in that and I consider him an authority on proper sourcing; as is TimVickers - so I have requested help from both. WAS 4.250 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(Hello all, just briefly checking in) But your interpretation that they are using them interchangeably is very much an interpretation, I note someone elsewhere on this page is insisting Nathan find a source that explicitly states that they are not the same. What is sauce for the goose and all that. --Coroebus 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'someone' was me - my point is simply that all those CNN/Reuters sources are equating the terms while we have no reliable sources that say they are not. I agree that reference.com says that Factory Farming is for animals, but dictdefs are not considered as important or relevant for Wikipedia as secondary sources like the major mainstream media, that show us how the terms are really being used in the mainstream. Crum375 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
But the point is that your interpretation of those mainstream sources as using them interchangeably is very much in dispute, whereas there are a variety of other sources (much more than just dictionaries) which define them in ways that are distinct and non-identical. I've said before, and I'll say again, the CNN/Reuters argument is incredibly weak, I'd concentrate on the dictionary definitions and other explicit definitions that are consistent with your position (and there are some, as I've pointed out), rather than depending on fairly unconvincing and circular textual analysis about what a particular usage must mean about the terms. --Coroebus 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You say "there are a variety of other sources (much more than just dictionaries)" – if you can provide us with a secondary source that specifically says that Factory Farming is not equivalent to Intensive Agriculture, that would be very useful. Crum375 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. We need just one reliable mainstream source that either explicitly says they are different phenomena (as the terms are used today, not historically), or that uses the terms in a way that implies a difference. Not one of you has produced such a source yet, despite all the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as you have failed to produce any sources defining them as being the same, only sources that use them in ways that you consider to be synonymous, we have produced sources that draw a distinction between them (e.g. by saying something like "intensive agricuture, and in particular factory farming"), or sources that define them differently (e.g. X defines 'factory farming' as "confined animal rearing", and Y defines 'intensive farming' as "agriculture using intensive methods including intensive animal rearing and monocropping"), but we have not been able to find a source that says "factory farming is not synonymous with 'intensive agriculture' (which isn't particularly surprising). So the onus of proof is at least 50:50, and I'd say that your side is somewhat weaker in that we have sources that explicitly contrast them (the "and in particular" type examples), while your side relies on a rather strained interpretation (as I pointed out to Crum a few talk pages ago). I would urge Nathan and co to try mediation as this argument really isn't going to go anywhere, even if you're right. --Coroebus 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Haber has turned it down, so now what? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. Here goes: I have never supported using dictionaries as sources for two main reasons. For one thing, I aver using them as sources for the same reason I am opposed to using encyclopedias as sources. Granted, since we are competing with them they are useful points of reference ("How do other handle this kind of issue?"). But to use a dictionary or encyclopedia as a source is like raising our arms and saying we give up on writing our own encyclopedia, there is another one out there that is a real authority ... and if we do that, we may as well tell people not to use Wikipedia but to use Answers.Com and Encarta instead. If we are to draw on dictionaries and encyclopedias at all, here i show we should do it: we should ask, how do people writing real (established) dictionaries and encyclopedias do their research? Well, let's try to emmulate the way they do research in writing our own. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my second (and perhaps better) reason: in my experience, dictionaries are good resources principally for only one thing: the correct spelling of a word (and yes, I guess in this regard I would say, we can use them as sources). The OED is unique among general dictionaries in being an excellent source on etymology, and I have no objection to using it that way. But as a source of definitions, I am really opposed, for the same reasons I tell my students every term never to use a dictionary to define a word that is important to the theme of the course (obviously they can use it to look up the words "never" and "theme"): dictionaries privilege the most popular definitions, but when I teach a course the whole point of the course is to get students to stop thinking about something the way everyone else does (i.e. most popular) and to start seeing how people in other cultures, at other times in history, and scholars have thought about the topic. Seldom does a dictionary give the definition that anthropologists, or philosophers, or literary critics use. And when we are talking about a divisive issue and I want them to know the different points of view (e.g. approaches to class, or to capitalism) dictionaries are especially useless. This was my argument with RJII. Marx, Weber, Hayek and others all define capitalism in different ways. An encycklopedia article should provide their understandings of capitalism, and a dictionary definition only obscures the issues. To sum up my view: if the point of view of dictionary writers is one of the views NPOV and good sense demands be included in an article, I guess we can use a dictionary and explain that this represents the view of the editors of Websters or whatever. However, if the major views are those of multinationals like ADM, family farmers, the organic food movement, consumer groups, as well as rural sociologists and other social scientists who have studied changes in the food industry, I would say an article needs to explore the different views i.e. different definitions of each group, and avoid dictionaries. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is intensely misleading to characterise this argument as being about dictionary definitions versus mainstream news organisation usage. At the very least it is interpretations of what mainstream news organisations might imply by their usage, versus a variety of explicit definitions and contrasts from news sources, academia and government reports. I suggest we canvas opinion more widely from some more uninvolved users, for instance, Slrubenstein, have a look at my little summary or some of the previous argument, and see what you think. --Coroebus 09:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd add my thoughts for Slrubenstein: the point SV et al is making is that they're reading an article and deriving a "definition" which a bunch of us disagree and believe is POV. It's not explicitly stated in the article, and I regard it as synthesis. That's why the dictionary/encyclopaedic entries are coming into play as the definition appears to be a bit of a stretch to say the terms are synonymous as it disagrees with the dict/enc entries for the words. My argument is that as the dict/enc definition fits the articles too, it's just a niche/strange view to say that the terms are synonymous and that we should go with the one that fits all the sources. "Recommend move away from intensive farming and a stop to factory farming" to me does not imply intensive farming IS factory farming, only (if you need to draw definitions from it) that factory farming might be a type of/instance of intensive farming (which matches other definitions too, even those of activists and makes sense and is most verifiable).. Although from an English point of view the two can be completely different topics as comma/"and" etc implies separation of themes.
The full sentence that's caused this whole argument:

United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease.

Does that sentence imply a definition of completely interchangeable terms do you think? Is it worth overriding numerous dictionary definitions that paint a far narrower definition of "Factory farming". To my logic if it said "move away from intensive agriculture (known as factory farming)" or even "A call for a stop to intensive ag which would result from a cease of factory farming". But as it stands it seems rather flimsy. Regards, NathanLee 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to get bogged down in this debate - I was really just registering a general view I have. However, if one agree with me, I wouldn't think it too hard to apply to this article. I see no reason to assume there is one definition of factory farming. I have looked at both SV and Nathan's versions and they both seem to include the main elements in the introduction, providing sources for all. I think this is the key thing - just to make clear whose definition -i.e., view - is being presented. With all due respect, Nathan, I think "Does that sentence imply a definition of completely interchangeable terms do you think? Is it worth overriding numerous dictionary definitions that paint a far narrower definition of "Factory farming"" is a non-sequitor. There is no question of "overriding" dictionary definitions. According to NPOV no one view over-rides any other POV. Maybe there is one view that factory farming and intensive farming are the same. So what? No one claims this is the "truth," only the point of view of whoever thinks this. I think you have every right to (1) inssist that this view be properly identified and that (2) other views be included. But I would look to academic researchers, business advocates, consumer advocates, environmentalists, etc. for those other views, not a dictionary. Based solely on the portion of what you wrote that I quoted, it sounds as if you think a dictionary definition is authoritative. i hope that is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of your view because as you surely know Wikipedia's standard is not "truth" but verifiability and I think all of us are better off if instead of trying to find one "authoritative" definition we stuck to Wikipedia policy in providing verifiable definitions without claiming that any of them are authoritative. I would think that there are enough non-dictionary sources (USDA; Small Planet Institute; textbook for a course on agricultural management) that one simply does not have to rely on a dictionary. I realize that this may not at all address what most of you consider the main points of dispute on this page but what can I say? I haven't contributed to this article and do not know a helluva lot about factory farming, and I don't think it is my place to address the various conflicts on this page. Someone asked me to express my views on using dictionaries, that is all I meant to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's funny you should mention non sequiturs: as I believe the deduction SV and others have formes is a type of non-sequitur: affirming the consequent. As such the verifiability of one side seems to be a quite questionable definition: the terms are definitely used in the same sentence, but not in a manner which I would say generally indicates they're reverse-equivalent. e.g.
  • Article says a move away from intensive farming and calls for a stop to factory farming.
  • If factory farming is intensive farming.
  • Then if something is intensive farming it must automatically be factory farming. (this is the deduction I have issues with)
Back to dictionary use: The policy also states: "For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopaedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones.". Britannica has a clear definition of "factory farming" [26] and "intensive agriculture" [27].
[28] indicates that rather than relying on an interpretation in an article: it should be able to be found in referenceable texts. The policy on avoiding neologisms frowns on putting terms in wikipedia to perhaps encourage the use of them (which is also a goal of trying to blanket equate the terms and thus creating a "definition" which I think is the danger here). So I think there's no aversion in the policies towards using dictionary/encyclopaedias as validation. NathanLee 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you admit that what you wrote was a non sequitor. I still do not understand your continued appeal to dictionaries, which you have now widened to encyclopedias. Aside from the fact that your links do not go to signed articles, are you really saying that the best research you are capable of is looking up stuff on other on-line encyclopedias? Surely if you care about this topic you care enough to do serious research, and read books and articles! Don't you care? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. Factory farming refers to animals. Industrial agriculture refers to crops as well as animals. Therefore, factory farming is not interchangeable with industrial agriculture at least when in reference to crops. You don't need a PhD to understand that. And crappy dictionary definitions > assumptions. --Dodo bird 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly did I say I had used a non sequetur? I ignored your comment and stuck to discussion relevant to the topic in hand. Perhaps this is why there are problems: see to me I didn't say ANYWHERE *I* had used a non sequetur.. Yet here you are saying I did. I did however say SV's argument was one..
The argument was ALWAYS for dictionary AND encyclopaedias (it was britannica I talked of all along from the start). My appeal is that as a verification: they suggest one thing and the sole "proof" on one side is a selective reading (the non sequetur derived definition i mentioned).. There's been plenty of research and citations (including tracking down many articles/definitions and putting forward arguments) and yes I do care. Quite frankly I don't get your accusing sounding tone: what on earth would give you cause to attack my motive or effort I've put into this matter say I don't care? NathanLee 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I ignored your comment" - well, quite frankly I don't get why you would ignore a well-intentioned good-faith thoughtful constructive comment. I did not attack your motives, but yes I did question them. Why? Because you seem to value dictionaries and encyclopedias as sources over books and articles. I realize it takes much more effort to read a book or article especially if you have to go to a library. But I think producing a quality encyclopedia requires effort, if we are serious about it. I have suggested several times that books and articles from a variety of sources are better than dictionaries and encyclopedias. You keep arguing for doing the easier work than doing the harder work. That is what motivated my question. For what it is worth I would raise the same question about anyonw who favors dictionaries or encyuclopedias - espeically when they are on-line - over books and articles found in a library, so it is nothing personal. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment I ignored was the (off track) part of your reply that said my statement was a non sequetur (which I didn't think it was.. but debating that achieved nothing).. I obviously didn't ignore your whole reply because I responded to it. I wasn't necessarily favouring them exclusively: but when they have a clear, precise definition and it contradicts with a selective reading (the "selecting the consequent" non sequetur) then it would be worth paying attention to. There's nothing easy or hard: we've got enough resources contradicting it to indicate SV's version is nothing more than a personally synthesised definition that not even activist sites use (well I did see one). It's an "eccentric" view to put it kindly and one that unfairly/incorrectly tarnishes distinct terms with an activist loaded one. And yes: I want a definition that's easy to validate. That's the point. One side is easy to validate, the other requires "special" English interpretation skills. So I favour Britannica over that any day of the week. There's nothing incompaticle about the definitions (assume britannica's and then it works with that article too) UNLESS you insist that the terms are synonymous then it conflicts with common sense and a bunch of references, and then you get this messy debate on here rather than just admitting it isn't backed up.
Also: as soon as someone references offline material: we have a problem. How do we verify that content? I agree there's tonnes of decent material that never makes it online, but it's then very difficult for others to casually go to the original source. See my user page for discussion/issues/suggestions on this exact issue.. So I agree offline stuff is where most of the material on any given non-internet topic.. Perhaps you can read my user page and comment on the talk page on this separate matter.. NathanLee 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Perhaps the pages could recognize that factory farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture are three distinct phenomena -- and provide distinct articles on that basis -- but, under the factory farming article, have a section on "colloquial use". This section on colloquial use would have a line of this sort:

The term factory farming is sometimes used colloquially to refer to any type of modern agriculture-production system. This variant of the term's meaning is most commonly used by animal rights activists, although it can be seen in any forum.

Jav43 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. WAS 4.250 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
works for me too. I'd say "any forum" might be better defined as "media and politics" (or if there's other ones we've got references for?) as we've got references for both of those.. Britannica's and others def agrees with that. NathanLee 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between factory farming and industrial agriculture, according to reliable sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You've asked this exact question on this talk page SV. Scroll back up and search for "can you say once more what you see as the difference between industrial agriculture and factory farming?". You got answers from several people. NathanLee 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And here's one that talks of the notion Jav43's proposing: [29] first paragraph. Views the farm as a factory.. But as per britannica and others the term "factory farm" means something else. NathanLee 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Everytime I ask a question, someone says "it's been answered already; see above." I wouldn't be asking it again if I could find the answer.
What exactly is the objection to having Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals)? Okay, it might not be ideal for everyone (it wouldn't be my first choice either), but what is actually wrong with it as a compromise? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Everyone take a look at Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) and see what you think. WAS 4.250 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If you mean the content, the former looks fine; the latter obviously not as it seems not to discuss animals. We have to decide on titles and numbers of articles before content. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Take another look. I deleted some stuff and added some stuff. WAS 4.250 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, something along those lines perhaps. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's why I gave you the search string to find it (it was your question) :)
So anyhow: if those two are acceptable: then logically you'd have to see that "intensive farming" exists in its own right (as the common element or process between those two pages? Just as a general concept as it is now intensive farming versus extensive farming being the "opposite"). With Industrial agriculture being the overall field across animal, aquaculture and crops that may regard the farm/patch of water as factory, make use of intensive farming and mechanisation etc.. Because there's a reasonable amount of history attached to that process of industrialisation, but maybe that's not enough..? But how about we see what ends up there and if it's not too unique then maybe it gets chopped up into the two articles you're talking about?
On the titles: I think those might be good choices as you can (i'd say) have intensive animal farming that's outside the realm of what's attached to the term "factory farming" (with the current state of animal agriculture today: confinement, cramped conditions etc as per your desire to put the gestation crate picture in), so I'd suggest that your title is more appropriate than "factory farming" which wouldn't generally cover things like intensive fur farming, captive panda breeding or intensive rabbit breeding (just plucking examples out of animals farmed intensively outside the definitions for FF)..
Would that keep everyone happy: you get your two articles, the naturally implied common one between 'em (higher concept, would not be a huge article, instead delegating to Intensive farming (animals), intensive farming (crops) and Aquaculture) and to Industrial Agriculture too. And Industrial agriculture referring not to the concept of "more inputs to make more outputs", but to the modern agricultural industry and it's history. I just think that there's sufficient need to separate out the concept of intensive farming from industrial agriculture.. NathanLee 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ya but for now let's just run with this idea and see where it takes us. Let's just see if we can all contructively edit Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) or not. OK? WAS 4.250 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, because all you're doing is transplanting the edit conflicts from this article to others. I would like to see an agreement to have 1, 2, or 3 articles; an agreement on the title(s); and an agreement on the content of the lead section(s). Then we can request that this page be unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(<---)I disagree that we disagree ... except of course for the disagreement on whether we disagree; meaning that I agree with what you just said. Only the mechanism to achieve that that I suggest is "Let's just see if we can all contructively edit Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) or not." So we have tentatively agreed on two articles with these names; now let us edit those articles and find if we can reach "an agreement on the content of the lead section(s). Then we can request that this page be unprotected." The lead summarizes the article. Without an article to summarize it is hard to know what the lead should be. So slim (and everyone else), edit the lead to reflect the article and let us see where we stand. Of course, adding content to the nonlead parts is also good. But let's not delete content relevant to the article title. I am especially concerned with people deleting farming information. These are articles on farming. The challenges and issues are what newspapers report, but those are a minor part of an encyclopedic coverage of a major sector of the economy. Read up on what universities teach about farming to see what I mean. If someone wants a lead all about the "challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals)" then perhaps they need to have such an article: Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals) WAS 4.250 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The latter would be a POV fork, which is what we're trying to avoid. Leads must contain the subject's notable controversies. What would you agree are Intensive farming (animals)'s notable controversies, according to reliable sources? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that "The latter would be a POV fork". Intensive farming (animals)'s notable controversies would be a POV fork. But not Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals) which would contain notable controversies as a part because the issues and challenges of intensive farming, while encyclopedic, are rarely news. Please skim

The last one gives a good summary of "Intensive farming (animals)'s notable controversies, according to reliable sources" while the first two give a good idea of Challenges and issues of intensive farming (animals) from the point of view of the farming industry and government. WAS 4.250 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree

I disagree with the notion of having one article about animals and one article about crops. It is an artificial distinction, imposed to try to solve a problem rather than reflect any reality about the phenomenon. For one thing, there are interconnections between the two: the same corporation that wants to patent pig genes is the corporation that produces genetically modified animal feed, and this has raised questions about the connection between these two facts. More to the point, what this reveals is that the phenomenon of industrial agriculture, and the questions it raises, are more profound than just the "treatment" of animals. Splitting the article in two in order to appease those whose concern is specifically to do with animals makes it much more difficult to describe the character of the phenomenon itself. In my opinion, this is the worst of all possible solutions, and would be a political decision in the worst way. The fact of the industrialisation of agriculture is a profound adjustment in the relation of human beings to nature, and to artificially break this complex phenomenon into two halves would diminish the encyclopaedia. FNMF 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it for the RfM. I was just looking to see whether it could be headed off. FNMF, you strongly argue against one page, then against two, and yet you say you're willing to compromise, when the only solution left is three pages, which is what you want! Then in addition you say you don't want to take part in mediation. It's all somewhat unhelpful. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not strongly argued against one page. In fact, I have not strongly argued against anything, until now, when I strongly argue against an entry on crops and one one animals. I feel you have persistently misread my position. In fact, my position has been almost entirely a matter of encouraging others to try out solutions and see where they lead. I'm sorry you feel this has been unhelpful. And I'm bemused by the fact that the first time I do strongly argue against something, it has to be "left for mediation"! FNMF 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Can that be catered for in intensive agriculture (as the common parts?) I think intensive agriculture is needed as we have extensive agriculture and there's mention i've seen of semi-intensive agriculture which would probably be a new article one day.. NathanLee 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean, would it be ok if there was a single article called "intensive agriculture"? If so, I have no objection to that. As I hope I have made clear, I am not fussed by how many articles there are. I think there is a good case for three articles, especially if that would enable the deadlock to be broken. But I have no objection to a single article other than the fact that editors are unable to actually work on such an article due to deadlock. I do, however, object to the artificial division between crops and animals which does not reflect the phenomenon and obscures the profound character of the transformation of human life it involves. FNMF 23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We can not fit all of modern farming into one article anymore than we can fit all of the television industry into one article. We can use transclusion. We can use sections that summarize other articles using the main template. The point is to evolve forward rather than revert war in a standstill. Write a section describing what you are talking about and put it somewhere. It can then be added to, transcluded, made a seperate article. I agree with the points you are making. I disagree that they are a reason to not give this a try. Work with me and see if what you write can't be dealt with appropriately. WAS 4.250 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of "fitting everything in." It's a question of having entries that accurately reflect the phenomena they are describing. And I strongly believe there should be an overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. To simply have an article about one aspect of it, and an article about another aspect of it, without any article indicating what these things are aspects of is a bad solution made for the wrong reasons. FNMF 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So write your overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. Pick some article name not currently locked or write it on a subpage somewhere. I'll move it to mainspace if that's a concern and add links to related artcles and maybe summarize it in sections of other articles. Write it. No one is stopping you. WAS 4.250 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I find that an odd response. I think industrial agriculture as it currently exists does largely cover what I am talking about, or is at least on the way. I don't believe it's a matter of finding some new article name. I can't think of anything worse, since it will just lead to more arguments. Writing "pick some article name not currently locked" tells the whole story: the article is locked. That's the problem, and it's a problem that exists because the environment is presently so little conducive to writing anything. I feel that you are venting frustration because I have not supported the proposal to have an article on animals and one on crops. I just think that is a bad solution, being no solution at all. FNMF 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For the love of god, FNMF, you said above you didn't want one article, [30] now you say you weren't "fussed." Please make up your mind so we can move on. I am happy with one title. And I am happy with one for animals, one for crops. I am happy with any of the titles. The only things I object to are three articles, anything that smacks of a POV fork, and leads without detailed criticism. Otherwise, I will accept any compromise.
Please let us decide how many articles and be done with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You asked all editors to state their preference. I stated my preference. From my very first post until my last I have not stated I will not accept one article, nor have I stated that there must be three articles. My argument all along has been that letting three articles develop will enable decisions to be made later on about whether merges are required. It is a pity you don't bother to read what is written with more care. Your pretence that you will "accept any compromise" is unconvincing. FNMF 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
But others were stating their preference and what they would be willing to accept, so that we can compromise, so that we can work out whether we have any common ground, and so we can do that without behaving like a bunch of four-year-olds. Come on, guys, this is getting silly. We all know what the content policies say the content must include, and most of us are experienced editors, so there's no excuse for this incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio. Let's make a decision about numbers of titles, please, find out whether we have an agreement, and move on to discussing content. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for SlimVirgin: say you'll accept three articles for now. Then you can go straight to talking about content. If three articles is a problem, it can be sorted out later. At present, content is what is being perpetually postponed. FNMF 00:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, three articles is silly and POV forkish. One, yes (my first preference). Two, yes. Three, no. SlimVirgin (talk)
Exactly! My position is the same as SV's. FNMF - you have only pushed for a single goal - 3 articles. You have not tried pushing for any other ways of doing things, other than that goal. Please start compromising else we won't get anywhere.-Localzuk(talk) 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The real issue with the edit warring isn't the number of articles: that's just us all getting side tracked. Without solving the equivalent terms issue: the edit warring will continue regardless of the number of articles. If we avoid lumping or merging articles we'll have less contention over definitions I think is what FNMF is getting at. Without the need to link all the terms the articles can each be fine grained and specifically directed (with neutral tone to avoid it being a POV fork). If one article is looking like the other in a month's time: it's a candidate for a two into one merge. But the 3 into one merge is the sticking point and (i think) major cause of disagreement.. NathanLee 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
How absurd. Do whatever you like: the point is you aren't getting anywhere doing what you are doing. The only thing I strongly object to is having one article on animals and one article on crops, an artificial distinction that would mean the encyclopaedia has failed when it comes to this topic. Other than that very recent development, I haven't pushed for anything, no matter how many times you say I have. But that doesn't mean I believe that having three articles is necessarily "POV forkish": in my opinion that is a ridiculous objection based on second guessing the outcome of a process you are stubbornly unwilling even to contemplate. FNMF 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how three articles would be POV fork and not merely WP:SS. Would having three articles in itself be a POV fork or are you predicting a POV fork? --Dodo bird 06:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lying back and thinking of England one last time

Is there anyone who objects to this proposal (please say so very succinctly; size does matter, and less is definitely more!!):

We have two articles only, and they will be called Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals). All other titles are directed to Intensive farming, which will be a disambig page, and will say something like "other terms used to describe intensive farming are industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, and factory farming. Please see IF (crops) and IF (animals) for more information."

  • Yes, I agree!! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. The worst possible solution. FNMF 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree -Localzuk(talk) 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • clarification needed: so is the argument still going over whether the terms are all the same? Number of articles fairly irrelevant versus that sticking point (which will cause edit warring still, regardless of number of articles). I may have satisfied crum with a definition he/she asked for..? NathanLee 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    Nathan, one day you'll be able to say just yes, or just no. :-) I don't think it would matter with this proposal whether we all thought the terms were identical or not, except that, as always, the leads would say "also sometimes known as x and y." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • disagree then, as those two logically mean a 3rd called intensive farming (which doesn't have to have a huge amount, just the common concept to oppose extensive farming). NathanLee 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Makes the most sense if people cannot accept a single article. Crum375 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree This makes no sense. It also isn't a compromise; it's a victory for SV's side, since it fallaciously equates "factory farming", "intensive agriculture", and "industrial agriculture". Jav43 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good enough for now - We don't make choices for all time. We only make choices for now. I swear, some of you guys seem to like fighting more than encyclopedia writing. Write content. We can place good data. We can find sources for good data. But it makes no sense to structure our articles around content you have yet to write. (Note: The "All other titles are directed to" part can not be mandated and is null and void. Think about what "All other titles" refers to. Who is to say that the content of some other article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect? Can we decide that here? No! There are article deletion processes and procedures for that.) WAS 4.250 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Google likes "Factory farming" better, but hey, I don't want to be the party pooper... Question does remain what to do with intensive farming?--Cerejota 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • disagree It doesn't make sense to split it like this. You need a higher tier topic to tie the two together.(eg:Intensive farming or farming#intensive farming) Just a see also link is not good enough. Can we just start with the one article(Intensive farming) and then farm out the individual sections as needed, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style? --Dodo bird 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I cautiously agree with this, since factory farming is a loaded term. Intensive farming is much less loaded. That does not mean we ignore the controversy or indeed that we don't discuss the terminology. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - I support the 2 article Intensive farming (crops) and Intensive farming (animals) plan, with 'factory farming' discussed in Intensive Farming (animals). This solution would lead to grouping of relevant information together in a meaningful way, whereas the one-article solution would be a mess of (animal) and (crops) subheadings - I'm thinking about 'criticisms' sections in particular. Intensive farming (crops) could have a history section discussing non-industrial intensive agriculture. FNMF's objection brings up the question of what to do with the Agribusiness article. Dialectric 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we have enough of a consensus here to proceed with this option. The term "industrial agriculture" can be discussed within Intensive farming (animals) and Intensive farming (crops). Dialectric, perhaps Agribusiness can be merged into the others and redirected unless and until someone wants to expand it? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh you do? This is just a diversion SlimVirgin: you're just going to keep edit warring over the as yet unsupported equivalency of terms issue. E.g. you'll be saying that intensive farming (crops) is known as factory farming.. NathanLee 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please Nathan, can we take this one step at a time. You are constantly trying to deal with all the issues at the same time - which we cannot do. Lets sort out structure, then content.-Localzuk(talk) 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it's only one issue over a definition that's the whole cause of this (or have you forgotten). Without having to cater for it: all the rest of the articles seem to exist and have suitable content (look at intensive farming: that exists on its own (as it should regardless as it is a concept). So bear in mind this need to determine articles is SOLELY to cater for that view of SV's. Nothing else. There was no need to merge them until SV decided that a CNN article read in a special way meant they needed merging. So although you're trying to make it seem like a compromise: you've made no concession whatsoever other than to divert the topic onto numbers of articles.NathanLee 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't provided us with a non-dictionary or non-encyclopedia reference either.-Localzuk(talk) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why britannica or dictionaries don't count: there's been no policy that's shown that's not the case (closest we got was a specific arbitration that wasn't even a finding.. and this term isn't in some strange context..). Britannica is specifically mentioned as a secondary reliable source in the policies. But your articles all support my definition, without the need for non-sequitur derived definitions. Can you point to one of yours that doesn't work with the concept of a subset of the other.. The BBC site on intensive farming talks of the concept as a standalone issue (no mention of factory farming). The CNN one, if you must read the two statements together then try reading it like: "move away from intensive farming, (one part of that overall process is to) stop factory farming (which will) end mad cow disease".
Here's some quotes from articles see the block of tonnes of 'em from Coroebus at the end of the section: [31] NathanLee 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Can we just start with the one article (Intensive farming) and then farm out the individual sections as needed, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style? --Dodo bird 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree --Dodo bird 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree WAS 4.250 09:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably agree (snap decision as busy). --Coroebus 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is obvious we need mediation and cannot reach consensus, as a previous compromise proposal with some support is ignored to start another one.--Cerejota 11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

reasons to reject mediation?

Haber has rejected mediation, which probably means mediation will be rejected. While he is entirely in his rights to do so, I think he owes an explanation. Why reject a process that might lead to a better article?--Cerejota 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a few seconds to listen to other people. Use the history button if you have to. Haber 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, found it. It is the one above where you say we have been using underhanded tactics and are acting dishonestly, without any supporting evidence so as to make his outburst sound like an attack on the names of several editors. Ok, understood.-Localzuk(talk) 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While I can't speak for Haber, I was feeling a tad uneasy about any mediation that has no enforceability and has been put forward with clauses that seem like personal attacks or attempts to censor another editor (SV put the version up with her POV that requests that my contributions be considered for review.. which made it look like it was just another trick in the grand scheme of winning the edit war and a thinly veiled attack on credibility of one side's arguments: so I added in her behaviour as well since she neglected to put her own behaviour as questioned by more than just one user). I also think that as a so-called-senior editor who is making the request: it's already skewed towards that editor due to "being well known"/having a set of editor buddies and when she's freely admitted she didn't read the talk page it's a bit premature. I'd really think that someone with animal liberation views (a fairly radical standpoint) would just realise they're maybe clouding their view of an article and assume a bit more good faith of opposing arguments than to use mediation as a tool to censor/push a POV and somehow validate abrasive/dismissive/disruptive editing. NathanLee 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What happened to WP:AGF and WP:NPA here?--Cerejota 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm the only one who makes personal attacks here, Cerejota. When the others insult me, they're not really attacking me, just telling the truth. I'm also the only one who has a POV, and my filing an RfM wasn't an attempt to use dispute resolution; it was just more manipulation. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously! Because that is why you edit here isn't it? To annoy people rather than improve the encyclopedia... :D-Localzuk(talk) 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and in that endeavour I find myself singularly successful. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith does not mean blindly accept that every action was good faith when multiple attempts seem to indicate the contrary (otherwise no one would ever be banned from wikipedia would they?). A belief in animal liberation might well be assumed to bias a viewpoint on this topic. I was asked to hold off discussing and did so as a favour to SV ...
Erm, Nathan, you held off for about 20 seconds. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I held off for a while, but as you just attacked me and then started ignoring my position it was pretty obvious that all I was doing was a favour to a disruptive editor who just wanted one less opposing voice. NathanLee 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
... but what immediately followed: personal attacks on me, attempts belittle/discard my contribution (which wasn't even read by own admission). Originally I asked SV "as a sign of good faith" to hold off the massive changes and discuss: she didn't and here we are today deadlocked over a strange interpretation of equality. Revert is recommended in policies as a last resort, yet here it was used in place of discussion. That's not showing good faith at all. NathanLee 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
At some point you're going to have to let go of the past, Nathan. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
At some point you'll maybe LEARN from the past, consult others, don't use the revert and maybe you'll not be selectively clearing your talk page every 2 seconds to remove the negative comments from other editors you've annoyed by only having a revert button as your sole tool. NathanLee 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well isn't that a useful and helpful comment for dealing with the issue on this page! Please Nathan, if you are going to make comments such as this, take a look at SV's edit history and see how many ranting, rambling trolls post things on her talk page because she has 'annoyed them'?-Localzuk(talk) 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If you assume everyone that disagrees with SV is a troll: that's a problem. So many issues over a long period of time with such a large number of people? From a link from a wp article: people that annoy that many people consistently and don't alter their style.. well.. Let's just say that a different approach might win more friends, avoid more conflict and result in less 3RR warnings and a few more constructive additions on the whole.. Pick any day and in 20 seconds you'll find issues with multiple people [32], [33], [34], [35]. Now you can take this as a personal attack (quite likely) or as a helpful suggestion (as I've done in the past) to adopt a less aggressive approach. That would be constructive: yes? NathanLee 21:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Ok, if you merge all the contentious topics together, you would get a structure that vaguely looks like this:

Intensive farming

Pre modern intensive farming
Modern intensive farming
Industrial agriculture
History
Challenges and issues
Animals
History
Terminology
Chicken/Intensive pig farming etc
Current status/criticism
Aquaculture
Shrimp farms etc
Crops
History
Sustainable agriculture
Wheat/maize etc

Not much different from SV's suggestion which looks like this:

Intensive farming

History
Industrialization
Crops
Etc.
Animals
Terminology
Etc.

If the article is too long, you would then split Industrial agriculture into another article, leaving behind a summary that is reflective of the new article as a whole so as not to violate NPOV/content forking rules. You would then want to split the new article sections on Animals, Aquaculture, and Crops again if the article is still too long.

We could make reasonable guesses as to how the split will occur and work accordingly, or we could waste a lot of time and effort to merge the current articles into one and then split it. Or we could split it into two articles. --Dodo bird 15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Including Aquaculture into some massive overarching article brings with it a new set of problems. For those of you who enjoyed finding and debating subtle distinctions between terms discussed above, but are bored of the current debate, I propose the discussion move on to the relationships between
Aquaculture, Fish farming, Mariculture, Algaculture, Cultured pearl ( 'pearl culturing'?), etc., and whether these should all be one, or, at the limit, including everything from Category:Fisheries science, 68 separate articles. Dialectric 16:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read my comment more carefully, you would realize that I don't favor one giant ass article but a number of articles split from that general structure. The rest of your comment is irrelevant.--Dodo bird 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with the sort of divided hierachial structure: but that's what we've got currently and the articles ARE too big to merge 'em into one for no reason (e.g. the current intensive farming article): the trouble is that SV/crum/localzuk will not let it stand as it is: because they insist intensive farming IS factory farming (despire all evidence of intensive farming being a standalone topic).. That's why they don't want the article divided up, and the structure of the single big article will still have to be written as "intensive farming" same as "factory farming" same as "industrial agriculture" which, no matter how many times we show: they still regard as all being the same. 1, 2, 10 articles the sticking point is still the insistence of the interchangeability of terms when it's obvious (to a reasonable person) that factory farming does not refer to intensive crop production. NathanLee 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on whether the terms factory farm and intensive agriculture equivalent

As a parallel and as this is the core issue to whether we need any merging of intensive farming

A - It appears "Factory farming" is an exactly synonymous term for intensive farming (e.g. intensive crop farming, intensive animal farming). So any type of intensive farming is factory farming as well. Or

B - Factory farming is a TYPE OF (or subset of) intensive farming practices (usually linked to confined animal productions)? (e.g. not all types of intensive farming are "factory farms")


B gets my vote. Plenty to show it's a subset (britannica etc) NathanLee 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A I'd go for A - as the terms are used synonymously - as has been said and shown before. Please can you provide a non-dictdef/encdef to back up your claim?-Localzuk(talk) 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is an allowable secondary source.. And common sense says that it should be used as part of the definition for a term. Along with the multiple dictionary definitions. What policy do you discard it for? An arb committee finding was never made on that as I read SV's comment..[36] got plenty, or this one a good one NathanLee 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


B. Obviously. Please can you provide a non-WP:SYN source to back up your claim? Nathan has already shown why it can't be A. Jav43 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

B. But Slrubenstein is right that part of the problem here is that no one is doing real in depth research and further that the proper way to present the data is to give all important points of view and labeled as whose point of view rather than simply presenting one view as the truth. I'm beginning to think the underlying problem is simply a lack of content. Whole books are filled with encyclopedic data on intensive farming. WAS 4.250 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WAS, you have the nail hit right on the head there. I pointed out this same thing quite a long time ago in this whole debacle - we should be representing both sides in the article and not just one.-Localzuk(talk) 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Only if both sides are verifiable. A selective reading to synthesise a definition isn't verifiable. Also: One side wants the articles merged, the other wants them separate (which can accommodate more than just the one view then). If you move past needing 'em merged and forcing terms to be equivalent at the exclusion of the evidence they are separate: you can have mention of whatever you like.. But enforcing the terminology to all be lumped means only one side can exist.. NathanLee 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

B. People who think is should be A should read Miguel Altieri, Wendell Berry, Norman Borlaug, Sir Albert Howard, J.I. Rodale, etc... for some perspective. -- Agrofe (thanks Jav) --Agrofe 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

B A reasonable interpretation of the sources on this talk page overwhelmingly supports B. Haber 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

B Factory farming may sometimes be used synonymously with intensive farming, but it seems clear that it is more commonly and more precisely used to refer to a particular way of raising animals. FNMF 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This entire exercise is roughly like asking "When did you kill your wife?" I feel dirty witnessing it...--Cerejota 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs to be resolved.. The reason for the merge is to force these terms to be equivalent.. If we can "get consensus" on this, then there's really no more reason to edit war and we sort out the core issue. I'm not too fussed on how many articles (although I prefer more rather than less for more directed, concise articles) but I don't want a synthesised definition that's not backed up properly infecting the use of the term. It's blurring of the meanings. NathanLee 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean, Cerejota. Jav43 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a general consensus. Six people have come to the same conclusion, and only one disagreed, citing insufficient references. Those references have since been provided and have not been disputed. Nearly all parties in this thread have posted on it since this question began. Therefore, it seems that we have concluded that what is commonly known as "factory farming" is a TYPE OF (or subset of) intensive farming practices: specifically, large-scale confined animal operations. Let's move on. Jav43 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Random defs of Factory Farming from decent sources

So... so far, we have good, solid defs of factory farming from dictionaries and encyclopedias. Other than that, we only have POV. I'm going to now provide some peer-reviewed articles that define factory farming. (One interesting thing to note is that VERY few peer-reviewed journals use the term factory farming, presumably because it is a pejorative term. A question we may wish to ask is why, if factory farming is a pejorative term, we would use that term in this encyclopedia to refer to a class. Look at the niggers article for a preferred means of dealing with pejoratives.)

If you look at journal articles, you will see that factory farming is universally equated with CAFOs. That, however, does not serve as a definition. I have found the following definitions:

"Factory farms" refers to those plants where large numbers of animals, who live a miserable and even terrified existence, are raised in confined spaces for purposes of minimizing the costs of meat production.<ref="George Schedier, Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 2005), P. 499">

Focuses on environmental and consumer impacts of confined animal feeding operations, also known as factory farms, in the United States (U.S.).

<ref="Floegel, Mark, Multinational Monitor; Jul/Aug2000, Vol. 21 Issue 7/8, p24, Abstract">

Other interesting tidbits

Because factory meat producers must break the law in order to survive, the industry's business plan relies on the assumption that pork factories will be able to evade prosecution by improperly influencing government officials.

<ref="T H E E C O L O G I S T D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3 / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 4, P. 52"> (I guess factory farming is illegal after all.)

Rather than being controlled by individuals who generally live on the premises, livestock factories are controlled by corporate entities which often hire outside workforces or use family farmers as "franchises" or contractors to produce their pigs and chickens. On the giant factory farms, the corporate entity owns the farm animals; the contractors raise the animals and provide the buildings. The corporation pays the contractors on a per-head basis. The poultry industry pioneered the factory farm approach more than 25 years ago. In the early 1980s, factory hog operations emerged in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest. Now they are spreading like a prairie fire across the U.S. heartland. In the last 15 years, the number of hog farms has dropped from 600,000 to 157,000 while the number of hogs raised in the United States has remained constant.

<ref="Tolchin, Tanya, Multinational Monitor; Jun98, Vol. 19 Issue 6, p13, 3p">

Jav43 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Add this one to the mix, it has quite a bit of discussion on definitions [37] NathanLee 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Also:

Definition: A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) or factory farm or large farming operation is defined by federal and state statute as a facility that contains 1,000 animal units. The calculation of animal units varies by type of animal. For dairy cattle, a facility that contains 700 milking and dry cows is considered a CAFO.

[38] Jav43 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

title again + farmer income

Let's change the name of this article to "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)". Haber 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? You need to study the definition of "or"? "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" about 102,000 google hits, "Factory farm" about 223,000, notability means we redirect to Factory Farm, not the other way around - not to mention CAFO is something a bureaucrat could have cooked. Enough for a redirect, which is what "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" has been since May 15.--Cerejota 06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
At least according to the above source, CAFO is defined by federal and state statute, so no this is not OR. Also, this is the third time I have heard you mention using Google hits to make editorial decisions. Remember this is not Googlepedia. Maybe if the farmers of the world had the means to fund and operate dozens of attack sites Google would tell a different story. Haber 11:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, CAFOs are defined by statute. They're part of farm plans and other requirements. Jav43 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha! You've made me laugh so hard Haber. Do you think the people who operate protest sites are all rich then? I can point you to hundreds of rich farmers, compared with not a single rich protester...-Localzuk(talk) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a single one? Not even Paul McCartney? --Coroebus 11:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ingrid newkirk? Activists tend to be a bit more internet savvy as compared to ol' farmer joe.. (complete and utter assumption there) Anyhow boys and girls back to references.. I've dug up a few that would probably good but require payment to get into 'em *sigh*. Bloody research journal wanting to make money.. How dare they!? :( Anyone else found any good ones? NathanLee 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so this isn't left hanging, well done - you have named 2 famous people. I mean your run of the mill people, like your run of the mill farmers. But as you say, back on track.-Localzuk(talk) 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If you think farmers are generally wealthy, then you are not only biased, but also delusional. Jav43 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Coming from a farming community and living in a farming community (not the same one) I can say that most farmer owners are well off (that doesn't include those who are simply hired to manage said farms). To put it simply, I have not met a farmer who earns less than £40k profit per year from their business.-Localzuk(talk) 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Then your area must have some massive subsidies above and beyond what the US offers or a completely different economic climate. Average farmers here don't earn $80,000 a year. Jav43 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree from the point of farming in Australia: droughts etc hit farmers pretty badly (suicide rates are fairly high as a result [39]).. I don't think on the whole it's regarded as a super lucrative or reliable source of income.. NathanLee 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Proven: farming in the US yields an income of less than $40,000 per year. [[40]] Jav43 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not proven - that doesn't show what it means by 'farmers and ranchers'. Does it include farm hands and farm workers? If so, then the amount is being skewed by them.-Localzuk(talk) 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes proven. Maybe in the UK people use different terms, but here in the US, a farmer is not a farmhand - the two are different. Jav43 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

What do you guys think of (and please read and add to; redundancy can be eliminated when we find consensus for where stuff goes):

WAS 4.250 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture has a lot of potential. WAS 4.250 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have these articles:

Jav43 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support either. Both the suggestion by WAS and the suggestion by Jav43 are acceptable to me. Lean to WAS's. FNMF 00:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would really prefer to see Industrial agriculture and Industrial crop agriculture as one...--Agrofe 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong objection to the suggestion by Agrofe. FNMF 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please say why. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe industrial agriculture is an important phenomenon which merits an entry. It's fine to have an entry on animals and an entry on crops, if that will resolve a dispute which is impeding progress in these areas, but not at the expense of an entry on industrial agriculture itself. FNMF 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What would it discuss if not the industrialized production of animals and crops? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ornamental plants? Psychoactive plants]]? :D--Cerejota 06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The latter could explain some of the behavior on this talk page. ;-D (I meant mine, of course.) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A sense of humor is a wonderful useful addition to this discussion :) WAS 4.250 08:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems I forgot an additional one in my haste: Cabbage Patch Kids--Cerejota 06:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim asks "What would it discuss if not the industrialized production of animals and crops?" Earlier FNMF said "It's not a question of "fitting everything in." It's a question of having entries that accurately reflect the phenomena they are describing. And I strongly believe there should be an overarching article describing the process of what is happening to agriculture. To simply have an article about one aspect of it, and an article about another aspect of it, without any article indicating what these things are aspects of is a bad solution made for the wrong reasons. FNMF 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)" I think the globalization and genetic patents aspects are two examples that belong in Industrial agriculture and Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture with a historical/structural perspective in the first and challenges/issues in the second. WAS 4.250 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Jav's proposal except I don't see the need for Industrial crop agriculture. Just three articles would be sufficient for now, and I'm starting to really like the idea of renaming Factory farming to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Haber 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm for that too, concentrated animal feeding operations cos we've got lots of material, the crop stuff can live in Industrial Agriculture (or intensive farming if it's more suitable there). Intensive farming really just needs to be the partner to extensive farming.. (earlier edit: add NathanLee 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

intensive farming

i don't want to get involved into this whole argument, but there is at least one specific meaning to intensive agriculture that is not in factory farming or industrial agriculture (i tried to move this article from factory farming to industrial agriculture) Intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system characterized by the high inputs of capital or labour relative to land area as opposed to extensive farming. extensive farming does not necessarily mean small farms without machines. there are huge farms in australia for instance with thousands of hectars and tens of thousands of animals, which could be perceived as 'factory farms'. Intensive just means the soil is so good, so you can get high returns from high inputs. the article on extensive farming could be improved to better reflect that and this article is better off being called either factory farming or industrial agriculture.trueblood 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Trueblood raises an important issue. There is a sense in which it is legitimate to call industrial agriculture a subset (to use the terminology popular on this talk page) of intensive farming. That sense is if we think of intensive farming as a particular method of doing farming, and industrial agriculture as a way of harnessing that method for particular ends (that is, industrial ends). Putting it very crudely, this is thinking of intensive farming as a particular technique, and industrial agriculture as the way in which this technique is then deployed within or according to a certain economic/political system. But there is another sense, perhaps even stronger, according to which the greater phenomenon is the industrialisation of agriculture, and according to which both intensive and extensive farming are aspects of this greater process. What does the fact that this relationship can be understood in these two ways show? In my opinion it shows up a problem with the "nesting" articles idea: it is forcing the definitions a little to conceive things as factory farming inside industrial agriculture inside intensive agriculture. Rather, these are complex and inter-related concepts, the relations between which are not quite as obvious as people are striving to make out. Perhaps this is one reason for the interminable problem apparent on this talk page (clearly it is not the only reason). But if this is the case, the only solution is to recognise that each of these concepts (industrial agriculture, intensive farming, factory farming) is most likely deserving of an entry in its own right, and not simply as an entry that falls within the greater umbrella of whatever is nominated as the big daddy of entries on this topic. FNMF 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree; and I more and more think that the solution is to do actual research and add that research with sources to the articles and let the aticles evolve according to the sourced content in the articles rather than to vote on our preconcieved ideas about farming when none of us is an expert in farming. WAS 4.250 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Jav43 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Calmed down enough to remove the block?

Has this all settled down enough to have the page edited in an orderly, talk page contribution based way? NathanLee 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that anything's been resolved. I still think mediation is the best way forward, because it would give us an entirely independent party to help us reach a decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus seems to have been reached on your rationale for the merging and reverting SV (e.g. the equivalency of terms).. See above for the choice of A or B. We're looking into more thorough research for fleshing things out if you want to help, but until we get some decent sources other than a disputable reading it's best you drop that line of argument.. If there's other reasons to merge the articles (research articles etc), then by all means. But as the terms seem to be regarded as distinct terms.. How about we see how the articles develop without forcing that definition in there.. NathanLee 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what the dispute is about. You can't simply declare it's resolved, because not everyone (or even nearly everyone) agrees with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The entire dispute resolves around that problem and you simply saying 'we think it isn't supported' isn't going to work, as we think it is...-Localzuk(talk) 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what your "it" is, Localzuk, but the meaning of the colloquial term factory farming is obvious and no matter how many times you say you have, you have not provided a source that supports your definition. This isn't even at issue: you simply have not provided a source, so please stop pretending you did. Read the sources that were actually provided, instead, by Nathanlee and myself, and ignore your petty biases and prejudices when doing so, so that you actually learn some fact about this subject for the first time in your life. Jav43 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And once again you start trying to dictate - please stop that, it is annoying. We have now got many thousands of words of discussion about this. We have presented the case where using the term 'Factory Farming' is the correct usage - namely because it is the most common term. We have also shown equivalence between it and the other term but you still refuse to accept it. As I have said before, repeating your argument is not going to make it any more 'true' to us.-Localzuk(talk) 08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok: it's down to 3 people still clinging to an obscure "definition". Yes you 3 disagree: fine. Had SV sought discussion on her changes back at the start: this wouldn't have been so drawn out. Do you really need the consensus definition posted up? What you're now doing is called "disruptive" editing (against consensus: eccentric view etc).
Consensus has been reached on your idea: you're mistaken or there's not enough proof to support it currently to convince enough interested parties. Move on. You're forcing the page to stay blocked (on the revert-request block version that was a questionable tactic) because you are unable to see that your reading of a definition is obscure and not what the majority seem to think. You 3 are dictating that your opinion overrides the majority on here. That needs to stop guys, whether that's dictating or not: there's been infinite patience shown and all you've done is keep the page at a standstill while you cling to selective reading of two articles. There are improvements to be made and you're never going to budge on this, so it's down to consensus which was against you. Not every view belongs in an article, and if it's a not very common one: then that's one that doesn't belong. The naming of the page is a separate matter, but on the equivalent definition one: case closed I'd hope.. NathanLee 11:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Last count I had 4 people supporting our side and 4 or 5 supporting yours. That is not a 'majority' let alone a consensus. Stop making out like there is one, as there isn't.-Localzuk(talk) 11:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Last count we had 6 to 1 for your definition. From the policy on consensus "insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus;". I (and I assume the 6 others.. but I can't speak for them) would regard your "definition" based on a questionable reading of an article (see "non sequitur" for why) as an insignificant factoid.. Especially since the 3 of you have just that same rather strange reading of the CNN article as your only basis, nothing else to back it up except requests that we discard encyclopaedic entries, other references and have to find a specific phrase to discount your selective reading. The rest of us have various reasons: encyclopaedia/dictionary, crop exclusion, other sources, non nuetrality of the term, various logical argument. You 3 just have the same one article you keep relying on and if only we'd get a glowing reference from an editor SV trusts[41], maybe we'd not be copping the lack of good faith, unwillingness to work and "acerbic onslaught" that we've had to endure on here. NathanLee 12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Who would the six and who is the 1? Last count, I had counted myself, SV, Crum375 and Cerejota for supporting 'Factory farm', and you, haber, WAS, FNMF, Coroebus and Jav as not. I make that 4 to 6... So that means you just about have a majority, but not a consensus.-Localzuk(talk) 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
NathanLee, as best as I can tell, both sides feel frustrated over the incomprehensible behavior of the other side. Both sides feel they are obviously right and can't imagine how the other side could possibly be behaving in good faith. Humans are like that. We see things from our own point of view. The fact that no one here is an expert in the subject matter and precious little actual reseach is being done is not helping. WAS 4.250 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's reach a decision

All in favor of removing the block and having this page redirect to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation say aye. WAS 4.250 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Aye WAS 4.250 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No definitely not. That's a technical term not used by any mainstream sources. We should stop making new proposals and instead act on the one that has the most support so far, whichever it is; or else agree to mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye It's a more descriptive, non loaded term. So long as we make mention of the use of the term to mean the same thing, that should be all good. We've got several sources that mention the term. NathanLee 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" on Google = 101,000 hits
  • "Factory farming" = 490,000
  • "Industrial farming" = 115,000
  • "Industrial agriculture" = 460,000
  • "Intensive farming" = 433,000
  • "Intensive agriculture" = 532,000
Good idea to choose the term with the fewest hits. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Terminology should reflect expert use not ignorant use. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Google has nothing to do with anything. The most accurate and NPOV term should be used: here, that is CAFO. Jav43 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - As SV says, this is a technical term and also one with very few hits. Before it being brought up here, I had never heard this term used.-Localzuk(talk) 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Terminology should reflect expert use not ignorant use. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - I think terminologies on Wikipedia should follow their popular names, not the esoteric technical ones (which can always be redirected), because we write for the man/woman on the street, and they are most likely to search the more common terms. Crum375 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Factory farming can redirect to CAFO, although it would be better to treat "factory farming" as wikipedia treats other pejorative terms, like nigger. Jav43 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The more popular term is most likely to be heard or read by our readers, and that's what they'll look up most. That CNN, BBC, Wash Post, Reuters, with their fully-staffed PC departments use Factory Farming means it's not a pejorative. Crum375 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Terminology should reflect expert use not ignorant use. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye - fact is fact... no need to bow to colloquial ideas. Encyclopedias should represent fact. Those who haven't heard of CAFOs before should benefit by reading this encyclopedic article. There is absolutely no way we should use "factory farming", which is a pejorative term. Jav43 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I love the twists and turns on this page; they're a real testament to the flexibility of the human brain. If the "other side" had suggested using a term no one had ever heard of, we'd have had another 55,000 words of shock and awe. But if someone you agree with suggests it, it's hey! let's all learn something new! :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Both sides are human, slim. WAS 4.250 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye I can't understand the argument that it's bad to look up "factory farming" and be redirected to CAFO. Even if it is a "technical term," I can't see how it will hurt them to learn the term via the redirect. It seems to me that when people oppose "technical term" to "popular term" this is a bit disingenuous: what the insistence on the so-called "popular term" really reflects is the desire of some editors to have a non-neutral term as the article title. If so, these editors should recognise that this desire is obstructing progress on these articles, and isn't helpful (not even to the cause they are championing). FNMF 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not so. We have all agreed to industrial farming, intensive farming, industrial agriculture, intensive agriculture, factory farming, intensive farming (animals), and intensive farming (crops). These are all terms used by mainstream sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this will help?
  • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"
  • "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists"
Does this explain the 'insistence' on the popular term? Crum375 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. It doesn't convince me these arguments aren't disingenuous. I just don't believe that what is motivating editors such as yourself is your strong commitment to naming conventions policy. I find it incredible that editors clearly prefer a ridiculous deadlock to giving way on a minor question such as this. There is so little to be gained from this kind of stalling. FNMF 04:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of distorting our position? Look above for the seven terms we have agreed to. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you say "aye" to "All in favor of removing the block and having this page redirect to Industrial agriculture (animals) say aye." ? I would accept that as a compromise, altho perhaps others wouldn't and we'd still have a deadlock. WAS 4.250 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye - Factory Farming is a propaganda term used to criticize CAFOs. Haber 12:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not a propaganda term. It is now used by mainstream sources. Perhaps it used to be a propaganda term, but now it isn't, and we've supplied sources to demonstrate this e.g. BBC, CNN, and Washington Post, hardly bastions of animal rights activism. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you feel the need to insert your personal opinion after every "Aye" vote? Haber 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as we don't do votes on this site, we do discussions, I would say it is perfectly normal to try and disprove blatantly false statements and positions. Saying things like 'Factory farmin is a propaganda term' when there is huge amounts of evidence to the contrary in the form of news media deserves a response.-Localzuk(talk) 17:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin has implored us numerous times to keep the discussion brief, yet seems incapable of taking her own advice. You too have added thousands of words of personal opinion recently. I inserted a one line "Aye" statement and you jumped in with your nerdy "No votes on Wikipedia!" comment. Now how does that help? Haber 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no intension of heating this discussion, I am just a passer by. I would have never come up with the term CAFO to look up something on agriculture or farming, I made a logical assumption: This is a farm, a lot of machines are used, so much that it looks like a factory or industry. I mean you can't deny that it is an industry, millions of animals are "produced" for consumption. Also it reads in the article Farms producing animals this way are also known as confined[8] or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and intensive livestock operations (ILOs). So this would mean CAFO and ILO together are Factory Farms. Again don't shoot me since this seems to be a very heated discussion and I don't want to troll or feed them. yours humbely Teardrop onthefire 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on naming at wikipedia

The scientific and technical articles that are based on peer reviewed sources often have the scientifically or technically correct name as the common name is ambiguous and/or means something different altho the average person would not know that until they read the article. Like avian flu versus H5N1. Even tho people will use one to mean the other, they don't mean the same thing. Or Flu vs. Influenza. I get the impression that slim belives newspapers are at least on an equal footing with peer reviewed sources and sometimes I think her beliefs concerning secondary sources versus primary sources mean that she thinks wikipedia should prefer newspapers overs peer reviewed sources. I believe the scientific and technical editors at wikipedia disagree with this. Farming in today's world is a highly technical information-management-intensive economic activity. Newspapers are a joke of a source for that. WAS 4.250 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Time for arbcom

  • yes - WAS 4.250 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • ArbCom doesn't rule on content - this is a somewhat over-verbose but otherwise fairly civil content dispute. Crum375 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • We'd need to go through mediation first, and then there would have to be issues other than content before the ArbCom would look at it. But other steps in dispute resolution must be tried first in any event. Why not sign up for mediation, WAS, if you want outside help? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Because if someone wants to help, they don't need my approval to help. WAS 4.250 10:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, they do. If we want mediation, all parties have to agree. I can't see why anyone wouldn't agree in this case, because we clearly need it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm saying that anyone who wants to can come to this page and talk. You are refering to the anti-wiki rules currently insisted on by a specific group here at the English language Wikipedia that you submitted a mediation form to. WAS 4.250 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, that's how we do formal mediation on Wikipedia; and formal mediation is the best way to proceed because the mediators go through some training, and the process is respected by the ArbCom. That is, I am proposing that we initiate formal dispute resolution, which you agree with, because you suggested ArbCom. The only difference between us is that I want to start at Step 1, and you want to start at Step 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Please supply links to support your claims. Maybe I'll change my mind. WAS 4.250 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Which claims are you doubting that you need links for? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(<--)All of them. I don't know anything about this whole wiki-formal-mediation thing and I am wary of being asked to agree to something I know nothing about. Would you sign something before you read it? If agreeing is nothing then why do I have to do it? If agreeing is something then what could it be since they claim it is not binding. WAS 4.250 16:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The processes are described at WP:DR - Arbcom is the 'last resort' and before that is formal mediation.-Localzuk(talk) 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere where arbcom members were disparaging the mediation process and the mediators with an example showing how bad it was and one remarked they found it useless. I can't find it and it is possible I'm misremembering and were talking about advocates or some such thing. WAS 4.250 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There has been individual criticism of individual cases, and sometimes the MedCom has been slow to respond because it's volunteer work the same as anywhere else on WP, but in general they are very good, and the ArbCom does trust them. The outcome is not binding in the sense that the mediator can start banning people who ignore it. But if, for example, a mediated agreement led to us installing version X, and then three days later, one of us started reverting to version Y, that person could then be taken to the ArbCom over that behavior (not over the content), and the ArbCom would almost certainly respect the mediated agreement and would take action against the reverter. So the results are not formally binding, but are de facto highly respected. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • no - How about following the dispute resolution process and attempting mediation first?-Localzuk(talk) 08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We've reached consensus on one of the matters: that the terms are equivalent/synonymous. That was the big sticking point. That was the revert war reason to start: if that's resolved then anything else is a separate matter isn't it? If the 3 editors are happy to start a revert war on that again: then arbcom can be used for determining the disruptive editing claim for going against consensus. NathanLee 11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Yes - There is a strong user conduct component to this case that makes it highly unlikely that mediation will work. That said, I don't expect good things to come out of ArbCom either. Haber 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Changed vote. Haber 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation 2

Can people please agree to formal mediation? This back and forth is a waste of time, getting us nowhere. I can't understand why someone would agree to ArbCom but not to mediation, as the latter is the stage that needs to be gone through before the former can be considered.

To those who objected and failed to respond to the request, please signal here if you're willing to reconsider. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation is suggested at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Let's try that. Let whoever would be doing formal mediation try informal first. WAS 4.250 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Informal mediation is fine if you can't find a formal mediator. But I think we would be able to. I can't see why you'd prefer informal to formal, if both are available. SlimVirgin (talk)
So you're paying attention to dispute resolution NOW? How about the bit about "discuss" or "revert only as a last resort" type recommendations? I can't see why you lot are STILL clinging to your non-sequitur "definition" after all this time. It's really just seeming ridiculous. You've tried to get dictionary and encyclopaedia's disallowed to try and support your skewed view.. Demand we find a quote that says the opposite of your factoid.. And here we still are trying to get you to just drop your absurd definition.. Senior editors or not: you're just being stubborn. You ask for a reference that says exactly one thing, when it's supplied you try to discredit it.. HOW ABOUT YOU JUST ACCEPT YOU ARE WRONG. How many more thousand words of discussion do you need before you'll assume good faith and accept that someone else might have a reasonable input to provide beyond yours. SV: you'd admitted elsewhere that you don't assume good faith and attack a user until you get someone you trust to recommend the user: Please do us the same courtesy. And then we don't have to try and work around your bizarre definition or cater to your inability to understand normal rules of English. NathanLee 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Listen, you are the ones who are stalling. We have agreed to one article. We have agreed to two articles. We have agreed to seven titles. We have filed an RfM, which might have been underway by now had others not blocked it.
Please people, let's get mediation started so we can get on with the rest of our lives. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
So have you agreed the terms are not synonymous yet? That's the important one.. NathanLee 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I still believe they are used synonymously and still stand by the earlier evidence that was presented. I think this has been made pretty clear many times now.-Localzuk(talk) 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Slim, what you have agreed to is what you have proposed and not what the other side has agreed to proposing. Both sides have agreed to their own proposals. I see no compromise with the other side's agreed on proposals. I see no evidence of your side doing real research or creating sourced intensive farming content. Why can't you agree to not do original research? Why can't you agree to discuss the evidence? Why can't you agree that we should present all sides of the issue instead of phrasing the definition of "factory farnibg" as if we are presenting truth rather than merely repeating others' claims? WAS 4.250 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
WAS, we are going around in circles, and we'll never get anywhere unless we find some common ground. Accusing each other of engaging in OR, or 'not doing real research', will get us nowhere. We obviously have clear disagreements here, about the number of articles needed, their titles, their contents, the definition and equivalence of the terms, etc. It seems clear to me that there is only one way to proceed, and that is via mediation. ArbCom won't take the case because we are all too civil, and I highly recommend formal mediation because we'd be more likely to get tangible results. Crum375 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. WAS, I'm very surprised by your behavior here, I must admit. This is exactly the kind of situation that mediation is designed for. Let's move forward with it and stop wasting time. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Slim, I'm very surprised by your behavior here, I must admit. This is exactly the kind of situation that ARBCOM is designed for. Let's move forward with it and stop wasting time. Why can't you agree to not do original research? Why can't you agree to discuss the evidence? Why can't you agree that we should present all sides of the issue instead of phrasing the definition of "factory farnibg" as if we are presenting truth rather than merely repeating others' claims? WAS 4.250 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the terms by reliable sources

Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory," and "modern" in the SAME way

BBC

BBC using "intensive farming" and "factory farming" to mean the same:

Factory farming in Britain began with the Agriculture Act of 1947 which granted subsidies to farmers to encourage greater output by introducing new technology, specialisation and improved breeding and management of animals ... In the 1990s outbreaks of BSE and foot-and-mouth - as well as swine fever and TB in cattle - devastated the agriculture industry and British tourism and forced a change in attitude to intensive farming. The emphasis was now on welfare of animals, the land and the consumer as much as on welfare of farmers.[42]

BBC again

"Intensive farming," "intensive agriculture," industrial agriculture," "factory farming," and the "modern way of agriculture" used to mean the same.

The BBC quotes Caroline Lucas, MEP, and Oliver Wolston, a farmer, using "intensive agriculture," "industrial agriculture," and "factory farming" to refer to the same phenomenon when discussing the practises that led to BSE, and the BBC headline is "Head to head: Intensive farming" and in the same intro it refers to "intensive farming" and the "modern way of agriculture."

Here, Green MEP Caroline Lucas takes issue with the intensive farming methods of recent decades, while farmer Oliver Wolston defends the modern way of agriculture.

– BBC intro [43]

The German Government has appointed an Agriculture Minister from the Green Party. She intends to end factory farming in her country. This must be the way forward and we should end industrial agriculture in this country as well.

– Caroline Lucas, quoted by the BBC in the same article. [44]

The green movement ... claims that the disease is a direct result of intensive agriculture.

– Oliver Wolston, farmer, quoted by the BBC in the same article. [45]

Globalinfo.org citing industry sources

  • Sources discuss "factory farming," "industrial agriculture," "intensive farming," "Industrial-scale farms," and CAFOs in the same terms:

Countries will turn increasingly to intensive forms of production because they offer economies of scale ... It's a myth that factory farming is efficient ...

Factory farms, or concentrated animal-feeding operations, account for more than 74 percent of the world's poultry and 68 percent of the eggs, said Danielle Nierenberg, a research association at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington ... About half of all pork and 43 percent of all beef in the world comes from these industrial-scale farms.

Around the world, small-scale farms are in decline as the U.S. and European model of industrial agriculture is being exported, said Mark Rosegrant, a director at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington ... Factory farming in the developing world has expanded enormously in the past 15 years ...

CNN/Reuters

  • From the U.S./UK: CNN/Reuters using "intensive agriculture," "factory farming," and "industrially farmed" to refer to the same phenomenon:

United Kingdom scientists urged Europe on Monday to help farmers move away from intensive agriculture, saying the end of factory farming was the only way to kill mad cow disease ...We would urge that the EU should both promote, and provide substantial funding for ... a scaling down of industrially farmed beef throughout Europe ... 'The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming ...' ... 'The U.K. BSE inquiry also came to the conclusion that BSE was a product of intensive agriculture — a 'recipe for disaster.'"[46]

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

  • From Canada: CBC using "factory farming" and "intensive farming" to refer to the same phenomenon:

Commissioner points to factory farming as source of contamination ... The commissioner's report, entitled Protection of Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming, questions the safety of groundwater ... ...[47]

Committee for Environmental Cooperation

  • Committee for Environmental Cooperation using "intensive livestock operations" to mean "industrial-scale farms":

Comparative standards for intensive livestock operations in Canada, Mexico, and the United States ... Canada has recently attracted ... investment in intensive livestock operations ... [ILOs]. And ILOs have engendered controversy ... News reports have asserted that the federal governments own investigations show [that] industrial-scale farms ..." (title page and p. 19)[48] (pdf)

Chemistry and Industry

  • Chemistry and Industry uses "intensive farming" and "modern farming" to mean the same:

Intensive farming is 'conservation triumph' ... Describing modern farming as 'the greatest conservation triumph ..."Intensive farming is 'conservation triumph.'

USA Today

  • "Factory farming" and "intensive farming" used to mean the same (CAFO also used to mean factory farm):

Factory farms mainly responsible.(Avian Flu) ... Higher demand for meat has helped drive livestock production away from rural, mixed-farming systems--where farmers raise a few different species on a grass diet--toward intensive urban production of pigs and chickens ... Because of unregulated zoning and subsidies that encourage livestock production, chicken and pig "confined animal feedlot operations" (CAFOs), or factory farms, are moving closer to major urban areas ... Intensive animal farming is deleterious to human health and economies as well as causing a great deal of ecological destruction.[49]

British government's BSE inquiry

Statement from Dr. Alan Long, Vegetarian Economy and Green Agriculture using "intensive farming" and "factory farming" to refer to the same thing. See paragraphs 6.4.2.3.1; 7.6, and 19.6. [50] (pdf).

Intute.ac.uk

Equates "factory" and "intensive farming" [51]:

The Meatrix [shows] ... modern farming techniques. Whilst it may be seen as 'anti' factory or intensive farming, it could be used as an interesting introduction to the subject.

Mark Berstein

  • "Applying PGS to these data will demonstrate that we are morally obligated to end all our factory (intensive) farming." Mark H. Bernstein, Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship With Animals, University of Illinois Press, 2004, p. 92, ISBN 0252071980

Brooman and Debbie Legge

  • "A major reason that animals are still reared in huge numbers in intensive farming systems is that consumer demand for meat and other animal products at the cheapest possible price remains strong. Many surveys have found that the public find factory farming practices abhorrent and would like to see them stopped. Yet, at the same time, evidence shows that roughly the same number would vote in favour of retaining an ability to buy inexpensive animal products." Simon Brooman and Debbie Legge, Law Relating To Animals, Cavendish Publishing, p. 173, ISBN 1843141299

Karl Kunkel

  • "Formed in 1981, the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) claims that modern, rational, intensive farming techniques, referred to as "factory farming", are cruel to animals raised for human consumption." Karl R. Kunkel, "Factory Farming as a Social Problem", in Donileen R. Loseke & Joel Best, Social Problems: constructionist readings, Aldine Transaction, 2003, p. 101, ISBN 0202307034

Robert Garner

  • "It is in the United States, the birthplace of 'factory farming', that most remains to be done. No federal laws exist to regulate intensive farming and state anti-cruelty laws often exempt farm animals. It is clear, though, that there is much opposition to 'factory farming', or certain aspects of it, and this opposition is not restricted to radical animal rights activists." Robert Garner, Animals, Politics and Morality: Second Edition, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 118, ISBN 0719066212

The agriculture correspondent of the Guardian, 1964

  • "Factory farming, whether we like it or not, has come to stay. The tide will not be held back, either by the humanitarian outcry of well meaning but sometimes misguided animal lovers, by the threat implicit to traditional farming methods, or by the sentimental approach to a rural way of life. In a year which has been as uneventful on the husbandry side as it has been significant in economic and political developments touching the future of food procurement, the more far-seeing would name the growth of intensive farming as the major development." [52]

The Guardian 2003/4

"Intensive salmon farming has resulted in the spread of disease and parasites ... Intensive farming of prawns is dependent on the use of antibiotics and chemicals to kill parasites ... Grass-fed animals live in much better conditions than their cousins on intensive pig and poultry farms ... The intensive factory farming of chicken is associated with pollution ... The biggest environmental problem with intensively reared and fed pigs is faeces ... Intensive rearing is dependent on the routine use of antibiotics ... The British pig industry is currently in steep decline in the face of competition from intensive farming in other European countries. ... [53]

"Why factory farms and mass trade make for a world where disease travels far and fast ... Although Britain has so far escaped avian flu, groups campaigning against intensive factory farming say there is an inevitability about each new panic. [54]

The Observer

"Nor is a return to 'primitive' farming practices the only alternative to factory farming and highly intensive agriculture ... What price, for instance, should society put on the destruction of so much of our rural heritage, the loss of our water meadows and ancient hedges, the disappearance of so many songbirds? It may be impossible to calculate that sort of thing in hard cash, but much else can be quantified. There are the taxes we pay to finance farming subsidies. There is the cost of cleaning chemical pollution from our drinking water. There are the consequences for the National Health Service of factory farmers abusing antibiotics ... There is the terrible impact and vast cost of a tragedy such as BSE. And now, as I write, we are in the midst of another epidemic, foot and mouth disease. It would not be fair to say it is the direct result of intensive agriculture. But modern practices of food production and supply have enabled it to spread at a terrifying speed across the entire country. [55]

Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory, and "modern" in DIFFERENT ways

Please add examples here of sources who are using the terms to refer to different phenomena:

Encyclopaedia britannica

Has separate articles on "factory farming" and "intensive agriculture". Factory farming:

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

Intensive agriculture is separate/standalone concept (see [http://www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/intensive&extensive.htm for the full definitions):

System of cultivation using large amounts of labour and capital relative to land area. Large amounts of labour and capital are necessary for the application of fertilizer, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides to growing crops, and capital is particularly important to the acquisition and maintenance of high-efficiency machinery for planting, cultivating, and harvesting, as well as irrigation equipment where required.

Examples of the uses of the individual terms by reliable sources (not comparisons of more than one term)

Use of the term "factory farming"

BBC

In Germany, which discovered its first two cases of BSE last week, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy. He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy."[56]

  • "Factory farming" used in relation to cows. [57]
  • "Factory farming" used in relation to fruit. [58]

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Factory Farming: The Impact of Animal Feeding Operations on the Environment and Health of Local Communities.[59]

Seattle Times
  • "Factory farming" used in relation to cattle [60]

The Washington Post

The largest U.S. pork supplier, Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, said yesterday that it will require its producers to phase out the practice of keeping pregnant pigs in "gestation crates" -- metal and concrete cages that animal welfare advocates consider one of the most inhumane features of large-scale factory farming."[61]

British House of Commons

[62]

Mcleans magazine

Nikiforuk, Andrew. "When Water Kills: Dangerous Consequences of Factory Farming in Canada." Maclean's. 113:24 (June 12, 2000): 18-21.

The Ecologist

O'Brien, Tim. "Factory Farming and Human Health." The Ecologist. 31:5 (June 2001 supplement): 30-4, 58-9.

Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy

Spira, Henry. "Less Meat, Less Misery: Reforming Factory Farms." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. 11 (Spring 1996): 39-44.

Sierra Club
  • "Factory farming" discussed; used syonymously with CAFO. [63]

Soil Association
  • History of "factory farming" discussed:

1950s ... Widespread use of antibiotics to control disease and promote animal growth begins in US factory-farms.[64]

San Francisco Chronicle

Use of the term "intensive farming"

Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College
  • Intensive farming described. [67]

Oxford dictionary
  • "Intensive farming"

Intensive (of agriculture) aiming to achieve the highest possible level of production within a limited area, esp. by using chemical and technological aids: intensive farming. Often contrasted with extensive.

BBC (very useful source for our purposes)
  • "Intensive farming" [68]

Use of Terms

I completely object to the way SV has altered my additions to this section by declaring them to be supportive of the other side of the argument. I requested that the user undo the messing around with my contributions to this section but it has gone unheeded (and was archived off that users talk page with no reply or action). Also: SV's definitiobn of "The same" is way out of normal english rules of "equivalent" or "synonymous". Used in the same article does not mean synonymous. I'd appreciate SV put back my contributions that she either deleted [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], hidden in "added now content" comment or modified [74],[75] and reworded to add to her side via chopping of the quote,[76]. This then followed by an accusation of ME doing the changing of her edits when I changed no content whatsoever of hers [77]. NathanLee 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources with definitions of terms, rather than sources that merely use terms. Our interpretation of term use is OR and extrapolating definitions from dicta is simply irresponsible. I have provided actual definitions for factory farming above; please do the same. Jav43 21:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the use and comparison of the terms by reliable sources

Wrong question

As I've tried to explain, this is the wrong question. We cannot show definitions through our interpretations of a person's use of a term: that leads to OR and WP:SYN. Instead, we need to use actual definitions - find where a term is explicitly defined and apply that definition. NathanLee and myself have found definitions for "factory farming" thus far; if you dispute those definitions, please find definitions contrary, rather than providing your own interpretation of various people's dicta. Jav43 04:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes; it is original research to take a quote that is not a definition and to claim from that non-definition a definition. WAS 4.250 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Not engaging in original research is policy. If Slim et. al. can not abide by policy then only arbcom is left. WAS 4.250 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're both serious, I have to say that neither of you understands the policies. We look to see how reliable sources use terms. Then we use them in the same way. There is no OR in it; no SYN. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it is common sense. It is simply reading the pages. Nothing WP:OR about it. Hence we should attempt mediation. What have we got to lose by trying? Nothing. Why are people so against mediation? Arbcom would simply send us to mediation as we haven't done it yet.-Localzuk(talk) 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The existing formal mediation process rules are fundamentally broken. Informal mediation is fine. But I'm not buying a pig in a poke. WAS 4.250 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
My own experience is that informal mediation in cases of deeply entrenched disputes between groups of editors produces mountains of words and no results. There is no 'pig in the poke' for either formal or informal mediation - arbitration is the only real binding mechanism, but formal mediation has a more rigid and formalized format, and has a better chance to produce results. I suggest you read up on WP:DR and WP:RFM. Crum375 13:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Informal mediation can be farcical. We had someone turn up once as a mediator who had 30 edits to his name, or else (as I suspected) he was actually a sockpuppet of one of the participants. :-) Anyway, the MedCom is currently in good shape; its members are elected, not just self-selecting, they undergo a training of sorts, and they're respected by ArbCom. There's no point in going straight to ArbCom, because what they'll most likely do is recommend an RfM. If you want to avoid a "pig in a poke" then formal mediation is the best way to proceed, because with them we know what we're getting. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Nathan

CNN/Reuters [78]
COMMENT:It's clear from this that factory farming is but one type of intensive farming. It even qualifies the terms as referring to beef production. industrially farmed beef It is not logical to assume that because one thing is a type of the other that the other is also true. This is known as a type of non sequetur known as Affirming the consequent. NathanLee 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
CBC [79]
COMMENT: The report is on 'Ground water" and "Intensive farming". In that report there's absolutely no mention of the word "factory". By this logic the term "ground water" is synonymous with factory farming. If you read the actual report (found here) you'll see that it's referring to a subset of intensive farming in that report, mainly that to do with cows and hogs. It also however mentions in the "competition for groundwater" section about crops and irrigation. NathanLee 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Committee for Environmental Cooperation [80] (pdf)
COMMENT:It's referring to two separate attributes of a farm, not saying those things are the same thing. e.g. a car can be fast and also red in colour: that doesn't mean red=fast. That paper very clearly (as in for EVERY) use of the word "intensive" qualifies it with either "intensive livestock", "intensive dairy", "intensive cattle". Surely this supports the notion that intensive means more than just "factory farming". The term used in the article was "industrial scale". That would also suggest that it means that industrial = large. Not industrial = confined animal feeding operations. It's not even the same term that is being asserted to be identical "industrial agriculture" does not appear anywhere in the article. It's a hell of a stretch to be trying to say the terms are used synonymously. NathanLee 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Farcical requirement

Firstly: you either show the terms to be equivalent or to be different, not "have to show the terms in question being used in a different way and it must say that they are not the same" (which is the impression I get from your requirement). That's not how verifiability or validation works. If we can show that the terms exist in their own right and have different uses: then that's one half the argument. You've now widened the scope to mean that "modern farming" by the once again dubious technique. I really can't see how we can proceed with rational debate if a) you're going to chop out anything you disagree with and b) read any article with the two terms mentioned to mean they are then able to be used synonymously. The term synonymously: "you keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means". You simply cannot be saying now that "factory farming" is synonymous with "modern farming" for all cases. There's modern extensive farming and modern organic, small scale farming.. Intensive farming might be a common type of modern farming, but to now be saying that all modern farming is "Factory farming" is beyond ridiculous. NathanLee 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see where a problem exists then. You think that we are simply saying that the terms are always used synonymously. I'm not saying that, so of course there are examples of them not being used synonymously. The issue is that they most of the time, by mainstream media, are used synonymously - something which, it seems, you think is such a marginal issue that it shouldn't appear in any of the pages.-Localzuk(talk) 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Coroebus

Many of these sources compare rather poorly with e.g. these explicit contrasts of 'factory farming' and 'industrial agriculture', for instance, the last one added by Crum ("The term "factory farming" used in relation to grape growing in Sonoma County.") simply says "Measure M had the backing of farmers, ranchers and vintners skeptical of factory farming and laboratory tinkering. But it drew strong opposition from others in agriculture, including the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. The measure would establish a 10-year moratorium in Sonoma on the "propagation, cultivation, raising, growing, sale or distribution of transgenic organisms." The second link better supports the position (""It certainly would not be good for our image to have genetically engineered grapes, if we can at all avoid it," said George Davis, owner of Porter Creek Vineyards in Healdsburg and a supporter of Measure M. "We have an image of pure, wholesome wine that comes from very traditional, wholesome sources, grown by small farmers using traditional methods -- certainly not by factory farming and laboratory tinkering."") but the poor quality of these sources which are suddenly flooding the page, when contrary and explicit quotes were ignored, is not achieving anything. I'm sure there must be a way of resolving this issue where we don't actually need to take a position on whether 'factory farming' is synonymous with 'industrial agriculture' or not, and I think that routes lies down the road of deciding what the articles are about, not what they are called, since this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Coroebus 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the terms factory farming and the others are sometimes used interchangeably. So we cannot flat out say that they are different or that one is a 'subset' of the other. Crum375 18:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion that we might want to decide what the articles are going to be about (irrespective of name) and then attempt to say what terms can be used to refer to them. --Coroebus 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd beg to differ Crum: if they are "sometimes used interchangeably" but not other times: might that not suggest that they are firstly different things (so why the desire to delete articles for a "sometimes interchangeable" use) and secondly if it's "sometimes" surely that means "for some of" or "in some cases" (and therefore would it be reasonable to say "a subset" or factory farming is a type of..). If that article on grapes means it's interchangeable: then so is the term "laboratory tinkering" as it's used in exactly the same way. I agree with Coroebus in that we can mention the terms can be used (we just need to supply the context because without context it isn't fair to say they are synonymous) NathanLee 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are people listening to each other...

... or this has become a contest to see who wins?

Mediation is obviously needed, as it is obvious that familiarity and thousands of words have made arguments circular and almost inside jokes. A fresh, neutral perspective is needed, badly. Why not?--Cerejota 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

SV/Crum/Localzuk "win" by retaining the status quo, as the locked version of the "factory farming" page supports their POV. That removes their incentive to compromise... which has yielded this stalemate. Jav43 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of terms

NathanLee: Your ad hominems do not help this become a better article. I am not going to get to the validity or invalidity of your argument, however, try to not let your obvious contempt for S.V. get in the way of reaching consensus. Remember that consensus is always imperfect from X or Y point of view, and that includes yours. S.V, for example, has been willing to compromise *his* position in order to reach consensus. You should do the same.--Cerejota 15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been no concession or compromise from SV by the way: the number of articles was a distraction argument and completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. The main push was that the terms are equivalent based on selective reading of a couple of articles. No new links or references have been forthcoming on that side.. NathanLee 23:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There have been a lot of concession from myself and the others. We concede on having two articles rather than one. We concede on calling it something other than factory farming. We concede on separating animals and crops into different articles. What concessions have you made? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I concede to use your sources as well as ours, to quote the sources exactly, to tell the reader the source of the quote, and to let the reader make up their own mind. What's wrong with that compromise? WAS 4.250 23:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. What concessions have you made? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The one I just said. Read it again. Look up the words. WAS 4.250 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being so rude. These are not concessions; these are what we all have to do anyway. I would like you to tell us what compromises you have made; what you have agreed to do that you would prefer not to do. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Nathan, could you please add examples of "reliable sources using the terms "intensive," "industrial, and "factory" to mean different things in relation to "farming" and "agriculture"," as the section header says? If you want to add examples of other uses and other terms, please create a new header. It'll be useful to see all the different kinds of sources, but it won't be useful if we mix everything up again, as is done elsewhere on the page. No point in repeating the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Promise not to complain about the number of words he adds? Because you ask him to add stuff and you complain about him adding stuff. WAS 4.250 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just examples in these sections, please, so that they don't get buried under comments again. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
SV: if you're going to try and own this talk page by deleting other's comments and shifting them around: I can't contribute meaningful (all of the stuff you removed was 100% not POV and 100% references) content and I'll be lodging a request for your account to be blocked from editing as it's nothing more than vandalism and an attempt to interfere with the talk page. I cannot imagine how many policies you are violating by doing this. The talk page is NOT yours to dictate what is written and what isn't. Quite frankly your conduct is appalling to be censoring attempts to provide references that answer a request YOU made. Showing that the terms are something different from your limited definition is EXACTLY what that section is about. Please undo your changes and put the page back how it was pre-SV's censoring/mucking around with the page efforts. NathanLee 00:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not following close enough to notice what is being deleted. Could you provide a list of diffs on my talk page please? WAS 4.250 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's mucking around with the talk page

Slim: you've asked for references to support an argument: you're not only removing the ones you disagree with, you're shifting my comments off to another section AND then butchering the page beyond recognision. Can you please put back the stuff you chopped out, and un-mash the page (e.g. you're essentially censoring the talk page and editing others comments which is HIGHLY questionable). You can't ask someone to find JUST references that state the opposite of something. That's just rubbish. If so: find me an article that says that factory farming isn't a type of internal combustion engine used by french explorers in the 1800s. Please stop changing other people's contributions to this page and the selective reformatting to remove other's contributions or comments. NathanLee 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think SV's editorial habits are untenable to a rational discussion on this topic now.. If your contributions on a talk page cannot be assumed to be left alone and not deemed to be able to be changed and chopped around at will: then how exactly can meaningful contributions be made that SV disagrees with? NathanLee 00:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather disturbed by your examples, Nathan. You added examples of sources who use the terms differently, but when I read the articles, they are actually examples of sources using the terms synomymously. I hope it's only that you're not sure what the word "synonymous" means. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of your personal view: you don't have the right to go and chop around my contributions to suit your own argument if you want to add it to your own side by your weird logic: then that's fine, but you can't chop out my arguments in doing so. If this is the final stage of stifling dissenting views: congratulations because I cannot contribute with the knowledge that you believe you can do whatever you like to other people's contributions on the discussion page. Hence I think your ability to edit this page be removed until you respect the right of others to contribute. It's bad enough your "refactoring" to separate out any contribution I make into a separate section: but now you're deleting content because YOU think it's not right. Someone back me up on why this is completely inappropriate..? NathanLee 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Nathan, it was you who was changing my edits. I added two sections: one for synonymous comparisons, and one for contrasting comparisons. You then started adding to the second section sources who actually said the opposite. So I have moved the sources to the correct sections. Please read the sources carefully in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: no content has been deleted. It was been moved into sections so we can see a list of which sources use the terms to mean the same, and which use them to mean different phenomena. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I have read in other places that you are known for using underhanded talk page tactics including moving comments around and shady archiving. Now that I am seeing it for myself it is causing a good faith problem with your edits. Please desist. Haber 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that you've seen my incredibly underhanded tactic of sitting here for hours to find and post sources, and come up with two new suggestions, I'm not surprised that you find me despicable! SlimVirgin (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Haber, please comment on article content, not other editors. The former is the purpose for article Talk: page; the latter is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
JayG: the trouble is that your buddy slimvirgin here has taken to deciding whether someone's contributions are his/hers to shift around or dismiss as she/he pleases. Surely you can't be supporting that sort of behaviour: but here you are weighing in out of nowhere to defend actions that deserve a block.
SlimVirgin: actually *I* spent the time researching those links and you have now chopped them out of my side of the argument and declared them yours. But as you've said time and time again: you don't bother reading my comments: which explains a lot in this debate and is entirely unacceptable to be just ignoring them and still claiming a right to contribute on this discussion. I'll ask again (as you've archived away the request on your talk page): please undo your mucking around with the page and the removal of my contributions to one side of the argument. NathanLee 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
NathanLee, phrases like "your buddy slimvirgin" are, again, personal comments; please use the Talk: page to discuss article content, not your personal view on various editors' likes or dislikes. Jayjg (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg:It was nothing more than a flippant reference: but do you have anything to say on the actions of SV in deciding that because her PERSONAL view was that the articles put up were not arguments for one side, that she should delete, modify and repost as her own arguments the comments of others on this discussion page.. I would have thought that someone skilled in picking OR/NPOV/whatever would see that there's an issue if one editor decides that content from another editor can be moved around from one side of the argument to the other based on her personal interpretation? Or is that personal comment to expect another editor to not censor your input on a discussion topic? NathanLee 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, it's my view that you're spending far too much energy complaining about process rather than focusing on product. "He said, she said" arguments often fill Talk: pages, but nobody really cares about them besides the people who post them in the first place. The remedy is to devote oneself to discussing article content, not other editors. I recommend it. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And how do you suppose I discuss article content if I cannot safely assume another editor will just delete and skew input to his/her own ends? Surely you can see the issue there, or would you like to instead have another go at me and my actions to defend SV's dodgy tactics? I contributed, SV removed and/or "selectively POV refactored" it to suit her argument.. If that's the "process" then yes: I'll continue to question it. NathanLee 18:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, refactoring of talk pages to aid in readability and to make them make sense is commonplace. If one editor, yourself, posts comments in the wrong place for a thread which is set up in a certain way then moving them is perfectly normal. Demanding things like blocks and reverts won't get you anywhere and is a side-track from the issue being discussed - people never get blocked for moving comments around on talk pages, or at least I have never seen someone be blocked for it.
Also Nathan, you seem to be trying to polarise the situation, rather than reduce the problem. If the things you posted make sense to both sides and work towards a consensus then that is good - stop thinking about it as 'my argument vs your argument'.
Finally, I cannot blame SlimVirgin for not reading your comments as they seem to always degrade into incivility and claims of misbehaviour by the person you are replying to. Why would someone want to read through accusations constantly?-Localzuk(talk) 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Firstly refactoring does not mean "I disagree or it doesn't suit my argument, so I'm going to delete it and then re-add it with different wording to my argument" which is EXACTLY what happened here. SV finds no problem making accusations or attempting to dismiss contributions of others (and has on a number of times said that she hasn't bothered reading my contributions anyhow). It's not her place to declare my arguments to one side as being wrong: that's just underhanded no matter which way you look at it. NathanLee 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring means moving things around so that they fit into the formatting of a page - if that means rewording then so be it. If nothing specific was lost in the move then good. I don't see any deletion of specific content. I suggest you simply move on as arguing about it isn't going to help.
My comment about polarising arguments still stands though.-Localzuk(talk) 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't checked to history to see what quotes SV has moved around, but I would say that even if you disagree that Nathan's examples show what he thinks they show it is unwise and rude to move them, particularly as many of your examples rely on arguably dubious interpretation of usage, and thus could well be interpreted the other way. --Coroebus 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions

Modern farming

As I'm looking through these sources, I'm seeing a lot of them using the terms intensive, factory, industrial, and modern to mean the same thing, so another suggestion would be Modern farming (animals) and Modern farming (crops), if people don't like "intensive farming." Again, this suggestion is dependent on the separate terms not being forked out to different articles as though they mean different things (unless sources can be found showing they do mean different things). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have no grasp of people using levels of abstraction to describe things. Yes factory farming is a form of intensive agriculture, modern farming, large scale farming, industrial farming but THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THEN INTERCHANGEABLE. Here's an example that you'll probably not read (as you constantly say). Global warming is an environmental issue. Agreed? That doesn't mean the two terms are interchangeable: you can't say that all environmental issues are global warming. But by your rationale: the terms are used "synonymously" and thus ARE interchangeable. E.g. you see an article that mentions that factory farming is intensive farming.. Then you assume that intensive farming = factory farming. I'm really surprised this concept seems to escape you. NathanLee 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No, because 'Global warming' and 'environmental issues' have not been used synonymously as far as I have read. So your example falls down there.-Localzuk(talk) 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been used "synonymously" (by your definition) in many articles. [81] "Now, with global warming the pre-eminent environmental issue, those conversations have taken on added gravity.", [82] ""The science performed by NASA as well as scientists around the world shows that global warming is no longer an environmental issue. It's a rapidly advancing human disaster,".. Oh wait: that means I should say "global warming", "environmental issue" AND "human disaster" are synonymous. Here's another one that supports that "synonymous" usage.. [83] and [84] from the BBC says "Researchers describe global warming as "the greatest threat facing the world community". So I'll add that to the list of synonymous terms. So "global warming", "environmental issue" , "human disaster" and "greatest threat". By the patented SV/Crum/localzuk synonym generation process: these terms are all synonymous rather than "types of" or subsets. NathanLee 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Intensive arable and Intensive livestock farming

This BBC webpage is very useful, giving a description of intensive farming (and it's clearly the same as factory farming and industrial farming), so based on their use, another suggestion for titles is Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming, again subject to us not creating the other titles as forks. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you one. Peter Singer uses intensive animal agriculture interchangeably with factory farm in an interview he has with Salon[85] (it's free you just have to click and endure a few seconds of advertising). Of course his opinion that intensive ag of animals deserves the pejorative term "factory farming" is just an opinion. Haber 03:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, stop sniping after very single thing. MOVE ON. SlimVirgin (talk)

I don't know how you take that link I put up to say that it's the same as factory farming SV: I see no mention that ties "intensive farming" meaning "confined animal feeding operations". In fact, it merely says "Intensive farming is concerned above all with productivity and uses a high level of inputs to achieve it. ". I don't see any mention of gestation crates which you were earlier arguing had to be at the head of the page because they are what people think of immediately with factory farming. It's an independent concept. One type of it, as applied to animals, as partnered with confinement is "factory farming". NathanLee 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources show these terms refer to the same phenomenon, and that "factory farming" is in mainstream use

I believe I've produced enough mainstream sources by now (see Examples of articles in which reliable sources use the terms "intensive," "industrial," "factory," and "modern" in the SAME way) to convince any reasonable person that these terms — intensive farming, industrial farming, intensive agriculture, industrial agriculture, modern farming, and factory farming — are used to mean the same thing. Although the first five terms refer to animal and crop farming, "factory farming" is usually used to refer to intensive animal farming. The sources include the BBC, CNN/Reuters, CBC, USA Today, Chemistry and Industry, and the British BSE inquiry.

I have also shown that the term "factory farming" is in mainstream use, and is not a term simply used by activist groups. The sources I produced above (see Use of the term "factory farming") include the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, The Washington Post, CNN, the BBC, the Seattle Times, Mcleans magazine, The Ecologist, and a statement in the British House of Commons. Please don't anyone here keep saying that "factory farming" is mostly an activist term. Perhaps it used to be, but it's not anymore.

I repeat my suggestion that we have two articles: Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming, basing our descriptions on this helpful BBC page, and adding the other terms in the leads as "also known as," and linking to the sources I've supplied.

I think this is the best suggestion so far. Will people agree to it? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research allegation

Slim, your behavior is, in my opinion, exactly what "no original research" was meant to stop. Would you agree to seek arbcom's decision on just this one question? WAS 4.250 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand the NOR policy if you think this is an example of it. I thought you asked Slrubenstein's opinion. Two of the editors who have an excellent understanding of what OR is are Slrubenstein and Jayjg. Ask one or both to comment here.
As for the ArbCom, they do not do content disputes, and they don't do disputes in general that haven't been through some prior form of dispute resolution.
Can you please answer the question I've asked several times. What concessions or compromises have you made in this dispute? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
For the 100th time: a)ArbCom won't even listen until we have gone through Mediation b)they don't judge on editing disputes. I see nothing here that ArbCom would wish to rule on.
If you want to raise an ArbCom, no one here can stop you, you can open one at any time. Of course, making ArbCom lose there time with a spurious request will gain whoever had the brilliant idea of requesting it without first going through mediation no friends among the sysops. Please read and understand WP:DISPUTE. (This is me covering my ass: I do not want you opening an ArbCOm, having your ass handed to you, and then claim I tricked you!)
Mediation might help to break the obvious impasse we have here by bring in third-parties that do not have a shared history (ie don't hate each other). Of course, it might help the case if S.V. stopped being all ironic and sarcastic, on the other hand NathanLee could actually listen to other voices other than his own.--Cerejota 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Jayjg

I'm pretty strict about original research, but when terms are used synonymously, it is not original research to treat them as the same thing. There are many sources that use the terms as synonyms, including ones not mentioned by SlimVirgin. For example:

  • "Applying PGS to these data will demonstrate that we are morally obligated to end all our factory (intensive) farming." Mark H. Bernstein, Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship With Animals, University of Illinois Press, 2004, p. 92, ISBN 0252071980
  • "A major reason that animals are still reared in huge numbers in intensive farming systems is that consumer demand for meat and other animal products at the cheapest possible price remains strong. Many surveys have found that the public find factory farming practices abhorrent and would like to see them stopped. Yet, at the same time, evidence shows that roughly the same number would vote in favour of retaining an ability to buy inexpensive animal products." Simon Brooman and Debbie Legge, Law Relating To Animals, Cavendish Publishing, p. 173, ISBN 1843141299
  • "Formed in 1981, the Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM) claims that modern, rational, intensive farming techniques, referred to as "factory farming", are cruel to animals raised for human consumption." Karl R. Kunkel, "Factory Farming as a Social Problem", in Donileen R. Loseke & Joel Best, Social Problems: constructionist readings, Aldine Transaction, 2003, p. 101, ISBN 0202307034
  • "It is in the United States, the birthplace of 'factory farming', that most remains to be done. No federal laws exist to regulate intensive farming and state anti-cruelty laws often exempt farm animals. It is clear, though, that there is much opposition to 'factory farming', or certain aspects of it, and this opposition is not restricted to radical animal rights activists." Robert Garner, Animals, Politics and Morality: Second Edition, Manchester University Press, 2005, p. 118, ISBN 0719066212

There are many other sources that use them synonymously. And just a note, ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. Jayjg (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are also many sources explicitly defining them as being non-synonymous (or which explicitly define the words, and these definitions are non-synonymous), as well as an unusual reliance on sources that do not in fact define them as being synonymous, but which have been interpreted as using them synonymously (even though there are other, better sources that do say they are synonymous, or define them synonymously), and for which the interpretation is arguable (which gives rise to the accusation of OR), to say the least. All this talk about mainstream usage versus dictionary/encyclopedia definitions is so much hot air. What we need to do is decide what the articles are to be about and pick titles, and then try to introduce how the various phrases ('factory farming', 'industrial agriculture' etc) can relate to the articles (i.e. do not start an article on confined animal rearing called 'factory farming' by saying that 'industrial agriculture' means confined animal rearing. Better to say that the article (which we'll assume is called 'factory farming') is about confined animal rearing, and note that 'factory farming' can sometimes be used to refer more widely to all industrial agriculture (including crop rearing) but that this is covered in article X. The real problem here is that we are both trying to write an article on a topic (confiend animal rearing, industrial farming practices etc; which is obviously what we're supposed to be doing) and also defining what words mean (factory farming means X, factory farming and industrial agriculture mean the same thing; which is not what we're supposed to be doing). --Coroebus 14:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Perfect examples that the use of the term "factory farming" is limited to intensive ANIMAL farming only. --Dodo bird 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Concur with the Dodo. FNMF 08:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not the issue though. The issue is whether to have two articles, Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming (or similar titles), with the other terms, including factory farming, as akas in the lead — so please focus on that issue, so we can finally move on. The sources show the terms are used synonymously. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you agreeing then that factory farming refers to the intensive farming of animals? FNMF 08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I've said many times it's mostly used for livestock. That was never a big issue. What's at issue is whether factory farming is the same thing as intensive and industrial farming when it comes to animals (and it is), and whether intensive and industrial are the same when it comes to crops (and they are). SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry if I'm sounding dense. So it sounds like you agree that factory farming is a "subset" of intensive farming. FNMF 08:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's used mostly to refer to the intensive farming of animals, though I found sources who used it to refer to animals and crops. I don't know whether that would make it a subset. Why would that matter? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it seems that a lot of the argument here is about whether or not factory farming is a synonym for intensive farming, or whether it is a subset of intensive farming. Editors such as NathanLee, etc., seem to me to be arguing that, as a subset, it is not a synonym. If you agree that the term "factory farming" pretty much refers to the intensive farming specifically of animals, then it seems that the distance between yourself and the "opposing" editors is not so great. Am I wrong? FNMF 09:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole subset thing is a red herring, and I honestly have no idea what the opposing editors are saying. I don't read most of Nathan's posts because they're too long and blustery, and WAS 4.250 keeps accusing me of original research but refuses to explain why (except to refer me to a previous post that also doesn't explain why). The substantive point, which I wish someone would address, is this: would you accept an article that was called Intensive arable farming, and which began "Intensive arable farming, also known as intensive or industrial agriculture, is ..." And another article called Intensive livestock farming, which began "Intensive livestock farming, also known as intensive or industrial agriculture, and factory farming is ..." With the other terms directed to those articles. Yes/no? If not, why not? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We can get to your question, but before we do that: it seems you are being somewhat evasive about whether or not you agree with the proposition that factory farming is pretty much the intensive farming specifically of animals. Regardless of whether or not it is a red herring, I think it would be helpful if you simply confirmed that you agree with this proposition. It seemed to me to be what you were stating earlier: would I be right to conclude that you agree with this proposition? FNMF 09:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm hedging because I've seen factory farming used as a catchall for intensive farming in general. But I don't see that it matters. We can go with most of the sources and say it's synonymous with intensive livestock farming. I feel that arguments are being kept going here for the sake of it. Let's get to a solution, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just don't see how on the one hand you can keep saying "Let get to a solution," while on the other hand say "I'm hedging." Perhaps there is a connection between your hedging and the difficulty in finding a solution. I don't see how you can start by saying, "Yes, as I've said many times it's mostly used for livestock," call it no big deal, but then refuse to acknowledge what is clearly implied by that: that factory farming is a subset of intensive agriculture. If one is "mostly used for livestock," but the other is used for crops as much as livestock, that would seem to indicate a difference in meaning, hence that they are not synonyms. Yes? A clear statement about this from you would, I believe, help. FNMF 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. You're trying to create some extra category of "intensive farming" that is independent of the things that are farmed. Farming farms stuff. Some of that stuff is livestock and when it's farmed intensively, it's called intensive livestock farming. And some of that stuff is crops, and when it's farmed intensively, it's called intensive arable farming. There is nothing called "intensive farming" that doesn't have an object. So yes, if you want, we can have a bunch of subsets with no set. How does it advance us, one way or the other? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not doing that at all. I am saying that if one word "mostly" refers to livestock, and the other doesn't, then they aren't quite the same word. You can call that splitting hairs, but it would seem the hair is there to be split. Whether it is splitting hairs or not, it has nothing to do with "having a bunch of subsets without a set." Aren't you admitting that factory farming is the subset and intensive farming is the set? It seems you will say anything except dealing with the question directly. I repeat: a clear statement about this from you would, I believe, help. FNMF 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Tell me why it matters for our purposes. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thousands upon thousands of words have been exchanged here about whether or not factory farming and intensive farming are synonymous terms (and, I note, virtually none of those words have been written by me). It seems to be a clear sticking point between two sides (of which I am a member of neither). You then write that you agree that factory farming mostly refers to animals. This seems to me to indicate a clear margin of difference between the terms. You then refuse to answer whether you acknowledge this difference. The reason you should answer is to try to escape having to write a few more thousand words on this question. When somebody says a question is unimportant, but then refuses to answer it, it suggests there is more going on than they are admitting. FNMF 10:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't keep repeating myself. The dispute was (a) how many articles, (b) which title(s), and (c) contents of lead. I was never aware of any sticking point about subsets, though if that came from Nathan, as I said, I wasn't reading the posts. But you seem not to want to answer my question: what substantive difference does it make to the creation and editing of these articles? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to answering any question. In fact, I answered it: the reason to admit the terms are not synonymous is to avoid having to write thousands more words about this question. You yourself have spent countless hours compiling sources for your view on this question, so I don't really see how you can act like the answer to this question is completely trivial. Now, why don't you want to answer my question: do you acknowlege that if factory farming refers "mostly" to animals, then it means something different from intensive farming, which does not refer "mostly" to animals? I'm not asking you to repeat yourself; I'm asking for a "yes" or "no." FNMF 10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is that there is no clear demarcation of the terms in normal usage. When SlimVirgin says that Factory Farming refers 'mostly' to animals, she means that the term is mostly used to refer to animals, but some reliable sources use it to refer to crops too. So you cannot draw a logical conclusion of a subset from such a situation, nor that Factory Farming is always different than Intensive Farming. Crum375 13:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Where are the numerous references to using it to refer to crops? We've got pretty much every reference so far to mean confined animal intensive farming.. But this widening to include crops and now "modern" farming.. Well.. NathanLee 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources which use Factory Farming synonymously with Intensive Farming and the other terms that include all farm products. There are some that limit it to animals only. See the references in SlimVirgin's list. Crum375 14:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way: I don't see how much clearer and persistent FNMF needs to be and SV STILL just avoided a simple question. Can SV just answer the simple question from FNMF with no more stalling/deflecting/return questions etc..? NathanLee 14:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WAS: my position

Slim says: "The dispute was (a) how many articles, (b) which title(s), and (c) contents of lead." WAS 4.250 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My position on number of articles is that we should "just start with the one article (Intensive farming) and then farm out the individual sections as needed, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style" as per Dodo bird in the talk section "Another suggestion". I'm not at all picky about the names of whatever articles are created but I like the names and contents of (except better reseach and sourcing is needed):

WAS 4.250 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the contents should quote the sources exactly, to tell the reader the source of the quote, and to let the reader make up their own mind. We do not do that in the article factory farming. Instead factory farming says: "Factory farming, also known as intensive farming, industrial agriculture, and intensive agriculture, refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, and fish." which is original reseach. WAS 4.250 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

At User talk:Slrubenstein I said: "If you are willing to take the time to read the gathered source material on the talk page and to skim the various articles under discussion that are listed on the talk page, then I would be both very very very grateful and fully willing to abide by whatever decision you make with regard to the issues involved. Thank you very much for the time you have already provided." WAS 4.250 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why slim and I can not successfully communicate on this, but I am sure it is a communication problem. WAS 4.250 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But my best guess was supplied at the subsection "Comment on naming at wikipedia" where I said : The scientific and technical articles that are based on peer reviewed sources often have the scientifically or technically correct name as the common name is ambiguous and/or means something different altho the average person would not know that until they read the article. Like avian flu versus H5N1. Even tho people will use one to mean the other, they don't mean the same thing. Or Flu vs. Influenza. I get the impression that slim belives newspapers are at least on an equal footing with peer reviewed sources and sometimes I think her beliefs concerning secondary sources versus primary sources mean that she thinks wikipedia should prefer newspapers overs peer reviewed sources. I believe the scientific and technical editors at wikipedia disagree with this. Farming in today's world is a highly technical information-management-intensive economic activity. Newspapers are a joke of a source for that. WAS 4.250 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WAS, per our naming policy:
  • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"
  • "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists"
So clearly, though highly regarded for technical information, the scientific peer reviewed papers are not the best sources for Wikipedia article titles. Crum375 14:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I can see where the problem is. The term 'Factory Farming' is normally used to refer to industrial agriculture and intensive farming in reference to animals (not as a subset, but synonymously) but both the terms are also used to describe something else (crop production) also. This doesn't mean that 'factory farming' is a subset, it simply means that the mainstream media use the terms to describe the same thing.
So, for example, we have some sources that say that 'factory farms' are the same as intensive farms - when the subject matter is animals (that is a rough summary of the sources above). We also have other sources saying something different. The issue is that we are simply wanting to create 2 pages (see slim's comment above) which contains these synonymous terms in their lead's. (To SV: I hope I summarised it correctly).-Localzuk(talk) 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is your assertion of synonymous use isn't correct. You are then creating a definition that doesn't match any dictionary or encyclopaedia out there and is based on non logical reasoning at any rate. "Used commonly together in article" is NOT the same as synonymous/interchangeable. It's pushing a POV to try and widen the term so that you'll gain more exposure. Intsnive crop farming is not generally referred to as "factory farming". In fact: "factory farming" is not a term used by government or the people working in those farms themselves. Even activist sites use it to mean just concentrated animal feeding operations. It's just intellectually lazy to deduce a definition like this. If you assume that the good folks at britannica, websters, oxford etc know their stuff then the articles all make sense still. Which one is the simplest and most accurate explanation? NathanLee 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But you are hugely missing the point - we are not here to simply say what other dictionaries and encyclopaedias say. That would completely defeat the object of this site. Stop relying on Britannica. If you support their work so much, go and get a job there. And yes, using them interchangeably in articles does mean synonymous.
So, I will restate the situation: We aren't saying the terms always mean the same thing, just that they are sometimes used to mean the same thing. The evidence above shows this quite clearly. You are simply refusing to accept something that is blatant and obvious - because you are too hung up on academic sources.-Localzuk(talk) 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to create our own conflicting definitions. Can I say in response: If you like pushing animal lib positions so much: go work for PETA (if you're not already). You ARE saying they're the same thing (that's what synonymous means), although SV seems to be admitting they're not in the section above where FNMF tries to get an answer out.. The evidence is very much that they are NOT synonymous no matter how many times you keep saying it is but then fail to see that it contradicts with dictionary and encyclopaedic entries AND the articles themselves.. Two terms used in an article does not mean they are then interchangeable: it's generally pretty hard to find terms that are synonymous: but here you are arguing that they should be introduced as being synonymous. "Motorcycle" and "motorbike" are synonymous: any place you use one, you can use the other (although one sounds more formal.. so probably not even 100% synonymous.. but pretty close). Someone might refer to motorbike as "transport", that doesn't mean it's a synonymous term in all contexts. "Factory farm" however is not even close to being synonymous with "intensive farming" OR "aquaculture" OR "industrial agriculture" OR "modern farming". Saying factory farming is synonymous with "modern intensive confined animal farming" is a lot closer or if you were talking within the context of "current US modern animal farming practices" it could be said to be synonymous WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. But it needs the qualifiers, and a dictionary entry is inherently context free. You'd also have to be pretty weird to think of "factory farmed wheat", or "factory farmed oats". But "intensively farmed wheat/barley/corn" concept isn't that strange a concept.. Move beyond trying to grab attention to the sad looking sows in crates for any google hit on "intensive farming" and try reading those definitions of Britannica you seem so willing to dismiss. That's like arguing that the dictionary has spelt something wrong because you spell it differently and have a few references on the web that also make the same mistake: doesn't make the dictionary wrong or invalid, it just makes you pigheaded for insisting that it be ignored to cater for your spelling. NathanLee 15:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of patience

I came into this debate without realising just how persistent and intractable the disagreement really is. My concern was firstly that this deadlock was preventing the composition of good articles about this material. My second concern was that I believe Wikipedia should have a strong entry on the phenomenon of the industrialisation of agriculture. My initial comment posted here was an attempt to indicate the importance of this topic and try to suggest a way out of the deadlock.

I now recognise this was a naïve intervention, given the character of the ongoing problems here. All sides are culpable in this, but I have reluctantly concluded that those editors who appear to be supporters of an animal rights agenda are especially so. My impression is that these editors are not, in the end, interested in pursuing the best interests of Wikipedia, but rather what they consider the best interests of their cause. Because they have this agenda, these editors mistakenly presume that whomsoever disagrees with them is on the other side, and that the best strategy is in every case to treat them as belonging to an enemy camp. I am sure these editors will disagree with this analysis, and I myself have a lot of respect for SlimVirgin's practice, views and approach in other areas, but I have reluctantly reached this conclusion based on what I consider fairly objective observations. I have thus concluded that it really is a pointless waste of energy to try to intervene in this dispute at the moment.

I would like to make the following points:

(1) Industrial agriculture and intensive farming are important topics not just because of the question of the treatment of animals, and thus dividing this topic into an entry on animals and an entry on crops is truly the wrong approach. The industrialisation of agriculture is a profound transformation of the technical and biotechnical system which now covers the entire planet. The interconnections between plant and animal agriculture are just as important as the specific features of each, and no proper understanding of either can be obtained without a consideration of the total phenomenon. I thus strongly believe there should be an entry entitled Industrial agriculture that reflects this phenomenon and process.

(2) I do not at all understand the objection to a plurality of entries, and I think that would be by far the best solution. Intensive farming, Industrial agriculture, Factory farming, are all entries that deserve to exist, and perhaps more besides. None of these articles is at present being developed because of the impossible working conditions that prevail here.

I urge all editors to see that, however much they imagine they are fighting an important fight, they are achieving absolutely nothing with their current tactics. Nothing worthwhile will occur unless there is a genuine attempt by all editors to look past their partisan positions. Best of luck to those with greater forebearance than myself. FNMF 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the arguments are going no where and improvements have ground to a halt.. The core issue I've been arguing for is that all the articles are entities in their own right. I've not been willing to compromise on this "the terms are all the same" because it seems counter intuitive and defies common sense/references on the matter to be insisting that all the terms are one (or that "compromise" to split this into 2 articles that state the same thing.. either way). I think when people have a strong POV on a topic (such as animal lib) then the abstraction process gets messed up. It also hinders your ability to see the distinctions in terms e.g. "factory farming", "concentrated animal feeding operations", "intensive agriculture", "evil animal torture houses", "animal equivalent of nazi gas chambers" etc.. "Hedging your bets" that the terms should be synonymous to include a very niche view of something isn't sensible.. NathanLee 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Argument

Please re-read section 8 of this page, where I suggest a compromise.

SV: Please remember that interpreting documents is OR. If a document provides an explicit definition of a term, it can be used as a source for the term's meaning; if it doesn't, then extrapolating a meaning from the way a term is used is OR interpretation and SYN.

I don't have time right now to read all of the posts and arguments made here in the last however-many hours. I'll get to it in the next few days. Jav43 17:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly helpful to tell people to "remember" a claim that is contention in the first place. From my reading it appears the terms are used synonymously; it's not OR to use them the same way that the sources do. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
From my reading of synonymous those articles do not use them in such a way.. Taking a step back we've got clear definitions that describe exactly what the terms are which are being ignored to pursue this derived definition of synonymous terms. "used together often" =/= "synonymous".. That's a synthesis or OR definition.. It's pretty obvious that factory farm means confined animal intensive farming practices. NathanLee 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I very quickly found four sources that used them as synonyms, not "used together often". Did you read them, above? No doubt there are many more. That's not a synthesis. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Could someone summarise the different positions very briefly for me, having been away a few days I find I'm having trouble following what is going on. --Coroebus 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to jayjg (here because SV asked for someone to support her assertion that the terms were synonymous). You're still not aware I think of what synonymous means and the concept of context (as the comments on your "synonymous" links said).

  • Your first one is within the context of animal farming (the report is on animals). Which is what factory farming is: a form of intensive animal farming.
  • your second one backs the notion that it's just relating to animals. Again it's within the context of animals..
  • 3rd one was a statement by the "Farm animal reform movement": so obviously they're referring to animals. Also read the sentence again and you'll see that it's just a big lot of qualifications of what the "are

cruel to animals.." part is all about. It refers to the intensive farming technniques referred to as factory farming. Not "all of intensive farming techniques".

  • and your final one is clearly again about animal only farming context.

Within a certain context the terms may be synonymous. Absolute synonymous usage is highly unlikely and in this case VERY disputable.. This attempt to make out that the terms are synonymous is consistent with an animal liberation driven POV and that's all. It requires a pretty selective way of reading articles to ignore context and the notion that it is a TYPE OF.. In case you missed it [86], [87], [88] and any other dictionary or encyclopaedia you care to look at.. But Jayjg: you're entering this late, and at SV's request, so rather than us going the full cycle of the same arguments (that SV failed to bother reading), perhaps just leave the debate to those who have been following it.. NathanLee 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Why do you keep missing the point? No-one is saying the terms are 100% synonymous. They are saying that sometimes they are used synonymously. Did you even bother reading my comments above?-Localzuk(talk) 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But my recollection is that the argument started over the line that defined 'industrial agriculture' as being synonymous with 'factory farming' right in the intro of the article. --Coroebus 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is what we want. As the 2 terms are used synonymously sometimes. To not include it would be to ignore the widespread synonymous usage of the terms by the mass media and other forms of publication.-Localzuk(talk) 18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So you wouldn't accept saying that 'industrial agriculture' can be used to refer to 'factory farming' without saying they're synonymous? That's a bit extreme as a position given that you have agreed that they are only sometimes used synonymously (i.e. it would be a false claim on our part). --Coroebus 19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? That wasn't what I said. This entire argument has become twisted and winding. We had a claim in the lead that the 2 terms were used synonymously - which was removed by NathanLee and the rest of 'that side' of the argument (the last one was Jav43). This complete removal of the information was one of the problems that we are arguing about. Another was the issue with crops, and another was the overall culling of large amounts of important information from the lead. All we wanted was things to not be removed due to the over use of academic sources at the expense of other mainstream sources.-Localzuk(talk) 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't follow from the earlier arguments: If you're now ok with not enforcing this idea of "exactly synonymous"/"the same" that SV's pushing for..? There's also a difference between "this term is synonymous" with "this is synonymous in this particular context". The argument was merely against the "absolute" or complete synonymous argument (and corresponding push for all the articles to be lumped into "factory farming" which also doesn't indicate much leeway on the terms being "sometimes" synonymous you know..) If it was "sometimes" I believe that's exactly what I and others have been saying since the start:"Sometimes" or "in some context" means you're talking "type of" or "subset" because it obviously doesn't mean "all the time" which is all I was after, look at what I changed it to.. Just to say it was a subset. If you put an unqualified "also known as" as the first sentence of the lead and want to get rid of the other articles for the other terms: that implies synonymous "all the time". Perhaps we're edging towards consensus on something :) NathanLee 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk: this was the specific question to try and work this out. You voted that they were A -"It appears "Factory farming" is an exactly synonymous term for intensive farming (e.g. intensive crop farming, intensive animal farming). So any type of intensive farming is factory farming as well.". Which you voted for.. The rest of us (that voted) went with B which was that it was a type of/subset of.. NathanLee 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and I still stand by that statement - I am willing to compromise to get things moving. The statements are synonymous - and that includes Crops also - the term 'synonymous' means words with 'similar or identical meaning'. That is what we have here, and that is why ideally we would have a single article discussing the entire lot but just pointing out that sometimes the terms are used for specific things (as far as I can see, the majority of the time, the terms are used synonymously so the individualistic uses of each are sub-uses of them according to the naming policies and POV policy. But, as I said, we have accepted that we can have a couple of articles which state their usage (this was accepted many many paragraphs ago) but since then it has degraded into your demands for our complete acceptance of your demands.-Localzuk(talk) 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So if we can all agree that it would be acceptable to have an intro that acknowledges that different terms can be used to refer to whatever our article is about (but that may refer to something else, and give a link - I think this is necessary to deal with ambiguous redirects), the disagreement comes down to how many articles and what those articles are about, am I correct? If we can resolve that then presumably the next argument is about what to call those articles although I get the impression that Slim, Localzuk and co are admirably flexible in that regard. --Coroebus 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for that if that gets things moving again, I don't think it's a common thing (the struggle to find many articles that even mention the two terms together is proof of that).. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of how context and "synonymous" relate with this topic and as such the disagreement of "100% interchangeable" continued on. I don't think "factory farming" has been synonymous with crop type intensive farming as far as all the articles I've come across. As intensive farming/extensive farming/semi-intensive farming are concepts that's where the confusion between "the instance of intensive animal farming as is the current state of industrial agriculture in the developed world" and "abstract concept of using more input to boost productivity per land area".. NathanLee 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this resource got lost in the mix, I think it clearly delineates that factory farming is referring to a subset of the overall "thing" that is "industrial agriculture" (talking of "intensive monocultures" being the crop based side of industrial agriculture). It also talks of "intensive" with relation to resource and chemical etc.. NathanLee 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that we move away from arguing about whether 'industrial agriculture' means 'factory farming' means 'confined animal rearing' and instead focus on what we actually want articles on (rather than called). Then we could solve questions of words being, or not being, synonymous with intros like "Industrial animal rearing under confined conditions is often known as Factory Farming or Industrial Agriculture (although these terms can also refer to industrial practices in agriculture generally, including in arable crop production, see XXXXXX)." So I'd appreciate it if soemone could either briefly summarise where we're at with this question, or people could very briefly indicate their own position. --Coroebus 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My position is that we could have one article on intensive farming with sections on the different aspects, but others have said no to that, so another suggestion would be to observe the natural split between animals and crops, and have one article on each. I've seen people object to this, but I'm still not clear why. We could look at the history, the process of industralization, the benefits (cheap food), the criticism (cruelty allegations, human health problems), the different position of various farmers' groups, whether and why there's a move away from it (in Europe anyway) back to pre-industrial/organic farming, and whether that's still feasible. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I wasn't initially that fussed about the intensive agriculture page, looking at it now I think it covers some actual content we wouldn't otherwise have anywhere else (the historical stuff), but it doesn't cover that much on the industrial/modern intensive agricultural side. I wonder whether we could refactor the industrial agriculture stuff that might warrant a combined article (from industrial agriculture) into intensive agriculture (into the 'industrial agriculture' section) then split out the animals bit into a specific article summary style (aquaculture is already an article), and perhaps keep the crops stuff as the crops section of the industrial agriculture article is the same as the crops only article. --Coroebus 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

People are wikilawyering. It doesn't matter whether the terms are strict synonymous on every single occasion that they're used. What matters is whether we can have articles that say "also known as X, Y, and Z," without having those terms removed just because people can cite examples of them being used differently. The terms Holocaust and Shoah can be used differently but they're still akas.

I'm appealing to the opposers on this page who have common sense to take a stance against the filibustering (even if you agree with some of the sentiments) and to join us in trying to advance a sensible solution.

Please either agree to Intensive arable farming and Intensive livestock farming (with the other terms as aks in the leads, and redirects), or similar titles, or agree to formal mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've established with Localzuk that the idea of having a mention that puts the terms in context or "sometimes known as" is acceptable. Would that be acceptable to you? To be honest: if you simply acknowledged before now that it wasn't 100% synonymous then you wouldn't have pushed to delete pages and squash everything under "factory farming". Easy solution, pages can co-exist. It's your insistence that they ARE the same for every single instance that means you need just one page to represent what I think we can all see now is more than one concept. NathanLee 01:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
NathanLee, I beg to differ. Even if the terms were not synonymous in all instances, what you propose would be a POV fork: those sources that allege dis-similarity between the terms do so on differences that do not justify separate articles, or in totally POV-driven terms. The solution of two articles (one for animals the other for plants) with "known as" is the only one that allows to cover th whole range of issues in a neutral and verifiable manner.
It has been your insistence (wholly and repeatedly disproved) that "Factory farming" is a controversial propaganda term, that leads to this entire conversation - Not SV's or anybody else's insistence on anything. Please do not lose that from sight.--Cerejota 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My eyes glaze over. (Why am I just now understanding Slim's comment about not reading all the comments?) WAS 4.250 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Cerejota: That's just wrong and not my argument at all. Actually I haven't made that insistence that it's purely a propaganda term (although I have said in the past that it's a loaded term), I acknowledged that it was used by politicians and in the media and it was/is primarily a term that has activist connotations [89] (and the fact that "factory farming" isn't a term used by those who are "Factory farmers" or government agencies), but moving on from that: my argument has been that the term "intensive farming" is NOT synonymous with factory farming (and as the debate has gone: I and others think it's based on questionable WP:SYN or WP:OR to be making that determination).
What you're talking about by merging all the articles is a POV MERGE (e.g. making "intensive farming" the same as "factory farming" when it's pretty damned obvious that it refers to more than factory farming does). Namely some strange activist concept that there's only "factory farming" and no other term for farming (SV even widened it to be the term "modern farming" which is simply ridiculous). I'm arguing against that because the term "intensive farming" refers to a concept that's pretty much got nothing to do with animals cramped in cages[90],[91],[92] (see extensive farming for the logical opposite). Dictionary and encyclopaedias talk of it in neutral /independent terms and there's any number of references that talk of intensive farming without any link to factory farming or animals. THAT is what I'm against.. Although I think it best to choose the most neutral term when one has POV attached (e.g. "this is a bad/nasty thing" and is primarily used by opponents). NathanLee 09:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You're never wrong about anything, are you Nathan? Everyone else is wrong, but you are always right. Everyone else's sources (no matter how many dozens they find) amount to OR and SYN, while your ONE source must be correct. Anyone else who for one day posts more than you is taking ownership of the talk page, but it's fine for you to post very long, repetitive posts amounting to scores of thousands of words in response to everything that anyone else says, to the point where no one can make their way through this discussion anymore. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is enough to make anyone lose their cool, huh? ... Slim, you have to remember that both sides honestly think they are helping wikipedia and the other side just doesn't get it or else must be wikilawyering. Honestly, your behavior looks like wikilawyering to me, but I am sure your behavior does not look like that to you. It is when one is sure that AGF does not apply, that it is most important to act like it does anyway. WAS 4.250 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact still remains that Nathan is repeating the same 'your sources are OR and SYN' argument without accepting that just because he thinks that, doesn't mean it is true. I think SV's response there is well within the realm of reasonableness due to the constant lack of good faith shown by Nathan (this has been a problem since the very beginning, far before SV made changes as far as I remember). I simply say that we should drop this all and move on to sorting out the structure - let the past be the past, and move on.-Localzuk(talk) 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Take a look back at the start of this whole thing and my plea on SV's page, and the ignored discussion attempts that were very much assuming good faith and very much attempting to follow the policies on dispute resolution. Take a look at the "avoid" part and you'll see it recommends against reverting without discussion.. Who did that? NathanLee 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Intensive farming to Factory farming

Well I see that a lot has happened while I have been gone. Thank you FNMF for helping to clear up the synonymous terms issue a little bit. SlimVirgin's evasiveness regarding this simple question has destroyed a lot of good will around here and helped to lead to the "toxic" "wikilawyering" environment of which she complains.

Stop these endless personal attacks. I've done nothing but try to be flexible and make suggestions since page protection. I've found sources, and I've filed an RfM, while a bunch of you sat around trying to define "synonym" and posting about how evil I am. I'm tired of being your punchbag. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a possible point of agreement that has to do with writing the encylopedia. One of the things that originally drew me to this discussion was the redirect [93] of Intensive farming to Factory farming and other similar redirects that SlimVirgin et al. seemed ready to edit war to the death to protect.

Hang on right there. I redirected other titles to factory farming only after someone else decided that should be the name of the article. It had been industrial agriculture. [94] It had also before that been split into animals and crops. I've gone along with all title suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well you have reverted my change to make this section easier to read, but I will let it stand so as to avoid a pointless edit war.
  • May 14[95], mislabelled as a minor edit.
  • May 16[96], in spite of WAS' opinion that this was not a proper redirect
  • May 18 - Industrial ag [97] edit summary "no, these terms are used interchangeably; see factory farming talk page; it is absurd to have three articles on the same topic"
This does not sounds like someone who has gone along with all title suggestions. Haber 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now thousands of words later and after exhausting the patience of several good Wikipedia editors I think we might have made some progress.

Can we agree *not* to redirect Intensive farming to Factory farming?

Yes Haber 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Premature - you are jumping the gun - we need to first agree on what the overall structure is, then we can agree on redirects. Crum375 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's premature. My own idea would be to direct all the terms to the one or two article titles we choose, but let's get there first. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - you have missed the point wildly. We are discussing a set of articles based on a 'crops' and 'animals' split at the moment - the terms would all change to different things, it seems. So, I'd say wait a while and see what the final outcome for the structure is.-Localzuk(talk) 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, don't agree to anything you don't want to. This just illustrates how inflexible the three of you are. Haber 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Inflexible? How is wanting to wait until we have sorted out the structure inflexible? It is common sense.-Localzuk(talk) 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You three are refusing to compromise, refusing to reference reliable sources that actually contain the information for which you are citing them, and refusing to review any sources that contradict your pre-conceived biases. That certainly is inflexible. Jav43 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that suggesting a position between the one of having dozens of articles based on the 'peer reviewed' definitions, and the stance by ourselves for one article with everything in is a compromise. Repeatedly suggesting that we pay no attention to the common usage/media usage of the terms, other than in a POV 'colloquial use' section is not compromise.-Localzuk(talk) 08:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - these are separate issues Jav43 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As I say below, you have ignored everything that has been said. Please take some time to read the sources and discussion, see the compromise being suggested by having a couple of pages and realise how inflexible you are being.-Localzuk(talk) 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I have read everything. I have ignored nothing. Please take a step back and attempt to objectively look at what you're proposing. It is ridiculous. Jav43 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

~Yes god yes. NathanLee 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Could people please say whether they agree or object:

  • A disambiguation page called Intensive farming that lists common terms used when discussing different kinds of intensive/industrial farming, and refers the reader to the two articles below.
  • Two articles, one called Intensive arable farming, one called Intensive livestock farming.
  • Factory farming to be redirected to Intensive livestock farming
  • CAFO to be redirected to Intensive livestock farming
  • Any other titles created since this dispute began redirected to the most suitable of the two titles, and if neither suggests themselves, then to the disambig page.
  • Agree. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - Makes most sense.-Localzuk(talk) 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - leave other pages out of this. They are doing just fine not being mixed up in this comedy. WAS 4.250 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a dispute about how many articles we have on this subject. If it's not about that for you, what is it about? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How would you react to someone arguing for X number of articles about Jews? That's how I feel about you arguing about X number of articles about modern agiculture. WAS 4.250 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - though 'livestock' is not a good name for poultry, for example, and 'arable' may not be a good fit for some crops, so I would recommend (crops) and (animals) as the two categories of Intensive Farming. Crum375 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - this does not resolve the dispute and does not distinguish between different subjects Jav43 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does. Please read the sources above. Please understand what content would be included (the exact uses of each term can be discussed within the articles). Just saying no, whilst giving a suggestion of doing what we have specifically said we don't want, isn't helping. Please try and compromise.-Localzuk(talk) 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This proposal does not explain how it would represent "exact uses of each term". My suggestion is a more viable compromise that more accurately represents fact. Please try to look at it objectively. Jav43 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - per WAS and Jav. Haber 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - althought I am not sold on Intensive livestock farming and Intensive arable farming for lingusitic reasons. Livestock and Arable are much less common in usage than "crops" and "animals" - and on top of that not all animals intensively farmed are livestock (ie pork and beef): the fur industry in particular uses the same processing technologies, as does poultry and even farm fishing. But a compromise on organization must happen and I am sure not goign to let details over titles get in the way of content.--Cerejota 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No - this is just the same idea over and over again to push the idea that the terms are the same. Which they aren't, it's purely POV. For the umpteenth time: extensive farming contrasts with intensive farming, it's got nothing to do with confined animal operations.. The concept was around long before them.. NathanLee 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But if you just have "intensive farming" listing the common concept and with links to the other pages.. Without insisting the term doesn't exist except to be equivalent term to "factory farming".. Then.. NathanLee 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal!

I propose we have these articles with the associated basic content:

  • Agriculture: remains as is: covers general farming history and practices
  • Intensive agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices intended to maximize use of natural resources
  • Extensive agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices intended to use minimal inputs on land
  • Industrial agriculture: remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize production
  • Industrial agriculture (animals): remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize livestock production
  • Industrial agriculture (crops): remains as is: covers farming practices using modern technology and industry to maximize crop production
  • CAFO: contains the current information from the factory farming page, with an updated and unbiased lead
  • Factory farming: discusses the origin of the term factory farming and its uses and meanings in various settings; directs the reader to CAFO for a discussion of issues related to what is popularly known as factory farming

Please share your thoughts. Jav43 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

  • Agree - This makes sense to me! I'll agree with myself. Jav43 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree - WAS 4.250 08:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this approach

  • I think this clearly violates POV forking, as Industrial agriculture (animals), Industrial agriculture, CAFO and Factory farming all cover essentially the same topics. Crum375 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean you think this is a content fork? I don't understand how this is a POV fork. Regardless, since these are all different topics that cover different issues (read the relevant articles), I don't see how they are all "cover[ing] essentially the same topics". Jav43 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, it completely ignores all the evidence of the fact that the terms are sometimes used synonymously. It goes against the naming guidelines and it is a set of POV forks, depending on your views that the subject matters are different. So, you have simply suggested that we ignore the last week or so of discussion and move with the exact thing we complained about. Doesn't seem like much of a compromise to me. Instead of 1 article, which is what we want, you want 6 to cover the same topics. We suggest a compromise with 2 articles and a disambiguation page and you say no, going back to wanting tonnes of articles. This is simply amazing.-Localzuk(talk) 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The "evidence of the fact that the terms are sometimes used synonymously" is all your OR. Regardless, this provides for that, while simultaneously providing distinctions between the terms for readers to learn. Just because people use terms improperly doesn't mean we should also do so. Your "compromise" is entirely your POV and completely neglects the fact that these terms address separate, distinct issues - and is not close to a compromise of any sort. When we have terms with separate meanings, each capable of supporting its own article, we should provide a separate article for each term. Your failure to comprehend this obvious approach is simply amazing. Jav43 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Jav, for repeating the same arguments that have been repeated over and over again. There are roughly half the editors here who agree with you and half who don't. Move on, COMPROMISE!-Localzuk(talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed two explicit compromises. This is one of them. This proposal retains your pseudo-science while simultaneously providing solid articles. Please end your false characterizations of those of us who share a well-reasoned understanding of the topics here. Jav43 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've not seen any compromises proposed by you Jav, or anyone else who supports you; and where is the pseudo-science? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please actually read this discussion page, then. Here are my proposed compromises: [98] and [99]. Others have proposed other compromises. The pseudo-science is "defining" a term through its use in media and activist circles -- rather than through reference to actual definitions in peer-reviewed journals or equally well-respected sources. Jav43 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Content and POV forking are effectively the same, because once you separate out overlapping topics, they tend to collect one-sided POVs, since editors with opposing views tend not to maintain all the different versions equally, and doing so would violate the guideline. Crum375 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But these topics aren't overlapping. Jav43 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal is good, except that a new article is not needed. Specifically, no CAFO article -- just improvement of the objectivity of the Factory farming article. A strength of Wikipedia is the variety of articles that are heavily interlinked. It's not content forking when multiple terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing. If the terms are ever used with distinct meanings, a separate article is justified, if there is enough to be said on the topic.
Agriculture is the top level topic. Intensive agriculture, Extensive agriculture, and Industrial agriculture are subtopics of Agriculture that have enough distinctive use to justify their separate articles. Industrial agriculture (animals) and Industrial agriculture (crops) are excellent ways to break out major subtopics of Industrial agriculture. Factory farming is an accepted term in common use and cited in dictionaries and other encyclopedias, and deserves its own article. The primary definition for the Factory farming article should be based on the definitions in highly regarded sources, such as other encyclopedias, and any other meanings can be sited and referenced outside the primary definition.
Summary: Leave all the articles. Leave them named as they are. Improve the objectivity of the Factory farming article. JD Lambert 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Duplication of information is bad, why do it? Why make POV forks just because one source says one thing and another says another thing?-Localzuk(talk) 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Duplication of info is bad. No, some duplication is bad, but it's is a question of how much. If a subtopic is lengthy it should be broken out into its own article to avoid parent articles that are too long. If a subtopic article needs a little duplication to round it out and make it a good stand-alone article, that's fine. If you see that something specific is duplicating too much, please remove it, while ensuring there is at least one link to the article where it remains. JD Lambert 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not only duplication: it's creating a definition by lazy POV deductions of a definition at the expense of a term.. NathanLee 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So I'm with your suggestion to leave all the articles. Insisting something is a POV fork when the pages currently exist and have distinct dictionary entries elsewhere is a POV merge.. NathanLee 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We must go into moderation...

I haven't seen a really fresh idea here in weeks, we are just rehashing the same arguments and propossals, and this has to stop.--Cerejota 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Constantly reverting back to the initial stances by involved parties is not helping anything. Mediation would hopefully make some sense out of all this.-Localzuk(talk) 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless everyone agrees to 2 articles or less, mediation is the only way out. Crum375 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you are unwilling to compromise? Jav43 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. I think one (with sections for each type) is the correct and most logical number. Two is a stretch – sub-optimal (since there are many overlapping issues) but I can live with it if there is no other choice. Three or more would be just a mess and unacceptable to me. Crum375 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, with a preference for mediation with the MedCom. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ambivalent. Jav43 22:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposal

The debate on this talk page amounts to whether or not other articles should be deleted. This discussion is getting nowhere. I propose that all editors who do not mind the existence of multiple articles ignore this debate. The articles exist: work on them. If some editors wish to delete articles, let those editors open AfDs for those articles. If they win the AfDs, they will have achieved their goal. If they lose the AfDs, then we have multiple articles. Clearly the problem is not going to be solved by debating the issue here. FNMF 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of us regard them as POV forks. Others do not. That's what the dispute is about, and because we can't resolve it, we need mediation. There's no point in just telling us to get over it, because we disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Slim, I'm not telling you and Crum and Local to get over it (I do believe you should get over it, but I don't think there's any point in me telling you to do so). I'm telling everyone else to ignore it. Jav is right that, if this page is going to remain protected, it would be better to delete the opening. But, given that there is not going to be agreement about anything whatsoever, I recommend all editors who are happy to have multiple articles not get too hung up over Jav's issue. FNMF 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So, you are suggesting that those that disagree with our POV ignore our objections and carry on anyway? That is not how to build a consensus FNMF, that is a way of being disruptive - it just discounts everything that is being said as unimportant, which it isn't.-Localzuk(talk) 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am suggesting: if you don't like the articles that currently exist, open an AfD. Given that consensus is highly unlikely, an AfD is the only legitimate way to get rid of articles. I believe editors are being sucked into a pointless debate that is going to go nowhere. You have your view of who is being disruptive and obstructive, and I have mine. FNMF 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That works, FNMF. Sounds good. All that leaves is the content of this page.
For that, I would like to reiterate this proposal [100] and this [101]. Jav43 02:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jav, can you say exactly why you won't agree to mediation? This is a question for Jav, by the way, not for anyone else. I would like to hear what he says independently of anyone else's input. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I did agree. [102] Jav43 05:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jav, saying that we should split the concepts entirely, completely ignoring our refs and examples, relegating it to a section named 'Colloquial Use', treating a widely used term the same as a racist/derogatory term, is not a compromise. It is pushing ahead with what you wanted and ignoring us entirely. A compromise is somewhere between the 2 sides - a middle area, with aspects from both. Please agree to a compromise (either propose a sensible one or agree to an existing one)-Localzuk(talk) 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This will be the second time today I have asked you to stop mischaracterizing me and lying about my position. As I have explained, the term "factory farming" ideally should not be used at all, as it is a pejorative and is not conducive to a quality encyclopedia. I am proposing a compromise here: provide an explanation of usage of the term. Jav43 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We have already shown that it isn't a perjorative term. It is used by a wide range of media, academic and mainstream sources to describe this subject matter. It *used* to just be a term relating to activists, but has adapted and been picked up by many other aspects of society.
Your proposal is simply to ignore mainstream usage, counter to WP:NPOV and lump it into a single section regardless of its credibility or verifiability - based on your own perception of the term. That is not a compromise, that is pushing for the same thing that was proposed originally (which was to remove the info from the lead and only discuss it in the article).-Localzuk(talk) 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And as we've debated: your point of view disagrees with dictionary and encyclopaedias and appears (to myself and I'm sure others) to be a non logical deduction.. But yet you still campaign to delete existing articles, surely that those sources suggest the articles should all exist is worth erring on "the safe side" and not pushing for deletion.. You're just arguing to delete stuff to get a "sometimes" used the same definition enforced. I look forward to your arguments on why jew/zionist/israeli should be merged into one article: because that's what you're doing here based on your notion of interchangeable.. NathanLee 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Side issue - please vote

I would like to propose that we remove the lead from the current version of the protected "factory farming" article for as long as it is protected. As I mentioned [103], I feel that having the lead support a particular POV in this dispute is not facilitating movement toward consensus. Removing the lead is contrary to everyone's wishes for the final product, but it will remove the disputed text from the article. Thus, removing the lead would not sponsor a request to "remove The Wrong Version", as it does not choose any version as "right", but rather would simply remove all disputed text from the article so that everyone may move forward equitably and on equal footing. Please express whether you support or oppose this proposal.

  • Support - Yes: I initiated this proposal AND I believe it would be good. Jav43 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If we leave the rest of the entry there, then the reader will get the same information in a more expanded form. I fail to see how by eliminating a summary of what's there anyway we are helping anything. In addition, I feel this issue is a diversion - I think we need to focus our attention, priorities and efforts on resolving our differences and agreeing on the real issue, which is an entry (or entries) we can all accept. Since it seems to me that the odds of agreeing to such a compromise on our own here are negligible at this point, I repeat the call for mediation, preferrably via the Mediation Committee, that would have the best chances to help us reach real results. Crum375 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Though how do you edit the article if it's protected? Haber 03:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Any admin could help with that, including the ones participating in this discussion, if it came to that. But I think that's a moot point because it would require total consensus. Crum375 04:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Look, just agree to mediation and we can get it sorted. You're holding up the process, then complaining about how long it's taking. :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That is one of the main issues that brought all this about, how is simply proposing the same thing again a useful proposal? Please,lets go wit mediation.-Localzuk(talk) 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Huh? This is not proposing the same thing again. Please actually read what I wrote. This suggestion would put us all on equal footing so that we all have equal motivation for mediation or other resolution. Jav43 08:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • FNMF - that's my vote. WAS 4.250 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If called upon by the people, I am prepared to serve. FNMF 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I'm actually very curious to know if Wikipedia is really committed to NPOV or if it is just full of crap. Because as it stands now I see an admin with years of experience, two obedient sidekicks, and a stated "Animal liberation" agenda plowing through topics relating to animals and warping them to her own ends. To be honest, I feel that no matter how many well-intentioned Wikipedians show up to discuss the matter, we won't make headway against the bullying tactics (moving comments, asking people to shut up), mindless verbosity (anything Localzuk says), and the fanaticism of experienced users who employ wolfpack tactics. (What was Jayjg doing here anyway?). I actually feel kind of stupid for helping them make a popular site that they could then turn into a sophisticated collection of attack pages. Haber 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:NPA, calling everything I say 'mindless verbosity' is a personal attack. This is the exact behaviour that is holding this entire process back - you are focusing on editors rather than working on achieving a compromise/consensus.-Localzuk(talk) 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I have a feeling that you wanted to mention Arbcom, as you titled the section but haven't mentioned it as such. Are you wanting to move forward with an ArbCom case?-Localzuk(talk) 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Haber: if you jump the gun to ArbCom you are going to get banned for personal attacks, and pretty much that is the only thing that will happen, as this is an editing dispute over which ArbCom doesn't rule, and pretty much everyone here has been generally civil and refrained from personal attacks, except for yourself. That is my prediction. If you really have concrete proposals for content, then mediation in good faith is the best way to go.--Cerejota 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, remember that you don't need support from others in order to go to Arbcom, you can propose the case alone, forcing everyone else into the arbcom.-Localzuk(talk) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration will not be accepted for content disputes. Mediation cannot impose a solution, it only helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone and that doesn't appear likely. JD Lambert 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
JD, I disagree with that assessment. I think an outside voice with experience of content disputes and knowledge of the policies would be able to guide us. It's at least worth a try, because we currently don't have another option. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully with the comment form S.V. The only other alternative is to continue filling this talk page with circular arguments and yet another iteration of "Strawpoll vs Straw-poll". If you don't trust the good faith of wikipedia admins, then get the fork out of here. :D--Cerejota 01:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Haber, I was asked for my opinion on some issues of alleged original research, and I gave it, and provided sources for my views. Please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim/Cerejota, I have no problem with accepting mediation, I just don't think it's likely to result in a solution. I like to be optimistic, but I need at least a meager reason, and I don't see one here. It's not a matter of admins working in good faith, which I expect, it's a matter of an inability to sufficiently compromise. If one person insists on eliminating an article, and another person insists on keeping it, that's an impasse. Mediation will not impose a solution. That's not an assessment, that's Wikipedia policy. And as long as at least one person is not willing to invoke mediation, it won't happen. JD Lambert 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

It seems that someone cites some civility or disruption or similar Wikipedia policy page almost daily. Grow up. If you have a concern, then deal with it. Don't go yelling for authorities or crying, "He broke the rules!!!!" Civility is difficult to come by when people refuse to deal with content and instead continuously complain about format. Move on. Jav43 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jav43, but civility is the only way we are going to get through this. If you can't deal with that then you shouldn't be here.-Localzuk(talk) 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm always moaning at Jay for his excessive references to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and so on, but in this case we're generating more heat than light here, and it won't do us any harm to at least keep the attacks to a minimum, they haven't done us any good so far, and I think we all know where we all stand. --Coroebus 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, just move on. Unless people are actively making attacks against you for the sake of insulting you for reasons unaffiliated with your statements on this page, there's no reason to cite any rules. Citing conduct rules every five seconds just makes more people angry. Snap out of it. Learn to resolve disputes without crying for playground moderators. Jav43 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand my point Jav43. An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not condusive to a useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If users are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.
If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the 'right' answer and find it difficult to assume good faith of the other parites, but we must force ourselves to as much as possible, and to stay civil. Else we are just a bunch of arguing editors who are doing exactly nothing for improving the site.
So, 'crying to the playground moderators' is a good thing as it reminds people to stay useful.-Localzuk(talk) 23:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am turning this into an essay. I am just feeling kinda bold... :P WP:POOR--Cerejota 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that civility is good and is conducive to a good work environment. However, whining about imagined or real instances of incivility does not get us anywhere. Save the references to "civility" rules for truly egregious wrongs and everyone (other than you) will be much happier. Jav43 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Even Coroebus, a self-admitted critic of the (in)famous Jay agrees this instance is called for. Please refrain from falsely accusing other editors of excess... that is being uncivil! (And I have had my share of unsightly encounters with Jay too, he is harsh like a Russian steppe, and likes the wikilawyer part a bit too much, but in reality he tends to be helpful and civil.) --Cerejota 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not look at any particular instance, but rather saw two citations to conduct rules in little more than a day... after weeks of continued citations to conduct rules. If particular instances do absolutely require such citations, then so be it, but nothing requires the multitude of citations to conduct rules that we have seen. Jav43 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there is a simple answer to this problem then - be civil and then citations won't be necessary. What you are doing is complaining because people are trying to keep things in order here. If someone warns others about civility, I doubt they are doing it for minor reasons.-Localzuk(talk) 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see someone give a civility warning for a "major" reason. Seriously, just let some things go. We don't need to whine every time someone ruffles our feathers. Jav43 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A compromise which should satisfy the requirements

It was proposed in here that we put mention on the factory farming page that the terms are in some cases synonymous with xyz.. Now: if that little snippet of information is added to the version (pre the last revert): does that not satisfy the desire to indicate that some find the terms synonymous? That also satisfies me because we're not merging away legitimate encyclopaedic entries.. Isn't everyone moderately happy with that compromise?

SV/crum/localzuk: you get your desire to assert the terms are used synonymously and the other pages can just hang around as they were doing fine.. There's really no POV fork because the pages were all created separately and with the mind to create an entry for terms used out there in the real world.

Wouldn't this break the impass? The lead section mentions your definition, but the term "intensive farming" doesn't disappear away and that keeps myself and britannica/oxford etc all happy (and the rest of the editors)..

So is that a good enough compromise? Or does this issue REALLY REALLY have to keep going? NathanLee 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Example (subject to refinement of course):

Factory farming describes the raising of farm animals indoors under conditions of extremely restricted mobility[1] as part of a set of methods designed to produce the highest output at the lowest cost, using economies of scale, modern machinery, modern medicine, and global trade for financing, purchases and sales. It is a type of industrial agriculture and a subset of intensive agriculture that is also known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), concentrated animal feeding operations,[6] or intensive livestock operations (ILOs). The practice is also referred to simply as "intensive farming", or "industrial farming" when referring to modern methods of livestock production.

Or something like that? NathanLee 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, it seems to me you are putting the cart before the horse. We need to decide on a top level farming article structure first, then nail down each of the titles, then decide on the lead of each article. To go now into the details of only one of them, Factory Farming (assuming that is in fact the name we end up with), before we agree where it fits in, is simply premature, and diverts us from our main task. Crum375 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Factory farming is locked down, not category:agriculture. WAS 4.250 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The page protection is only a minor temporary point. The big issue that we need to resolve is the overall article structure that pertains to a variety of articles of related or equivalent topics, as listed above on this Talk page. Crum375 20:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crum, I guess the thing is that removing the other articles is probably not going to fly as there's evidence to support the terms being independent from factory farming/CAFO/"modern intensive confined animal farming"/whatever. And FF is big enough that a merge is going to need a split anyhow.. So this way we're putting the "the terms are synonymous" references into the article, which is (from what I can see) one of the core arguments from one side of the debate and is a good way to cater for that bit of information from sources (right or wrong.. if it's something that's strongly pushed and if is believed supported by the references: Then this might be the best way to move on from that).. I know it's not the same as deleting all the articles etc, so it's not going to be a 100% satisfactory solution for those who want to delete 'em.. But it would get that bit in the article that this has been arguing about and is middle ground.. ). What do you reckon? NathanLee 21:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to decide, for example, where Intensive Farming goes. If it redirects to Factory Farming, then we need to decide which name is primary. Similarly for Intensive Agriculture, Industrial Agriculture, etc. We can't just bury our heads in the sand - we need to face these issues and solve them. Crum375 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
They existed fine up until a user decided to merge them all.. :) I say let the carefree days of ol' return.. NathanLee 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A few years ago we had nothing at all - so should we just delete the entire encyclopedia? We clearly need to move forward, that's the whole idea of this project, and keep improving the content and structure as we go. We do it based on consensus. If consensus can't be reached on a Talk page after a reasonable amount of time, and I think we are well past that here, we need mediation. I think that's pretty obvious. Crum375 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for another fallacious argument. I think you're just being difficult and avoiding any attempt to get a consensus.. If you truly want to move forward: how about you consider whether this compromise achieves what you've been pushing for: mention of synonymous terms.. If you're unwilling to accept that that is a fair compromise: then mediation is going to achieve sweet f**k all to be honest: because you're not going to accept anything less than deleting all the articles and having them renamed to factory farming AND a bunch of sad looking gestation crate pictures lifted from activist sites.. Can I ask if any of you lot are members of animal liberation organisations (PETA, ALF etc) because I really think this is beyond merely wanting a piece of information included (which I'm offering in this compromise): this is just blatant political POV to be pushing this desire to remove valid articles. There is absolutely no reason to delete other articles if they have decent content and are independent themes: which they are. And after the tone of the RFC that SV wrote it most certainly seems like using the RFC as a way to censor others or to (like the block) use the processes as a tactic.. NathanLee 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Nathan, please try to remain cool and civil, and focus on the message, not the messenger(s). If this case ever goes to ArbCom, I assure you that their main focus will be on our conduct, not on content issues, so your best way to prevail there will be to demonstrate a professional demeanor in every message you post, regardless of your frustration level. May I ask why you think that going to RfM, where we are letting neutral party(ies) evaluate our situation and make suggestions, will result in anyone getting censored? Don't you think that is the best way out of our current impasse? Crum375 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's ridiculous, Crum. First, [104]. Second, you completely avoided answering any of the reasonable points Nathan raised and instead turned this back to RfM. Please actually answer his questions rather than raising new issues. If you read SV's original RfM, before Nathan sanitized it, removing insane bias, you would understand how a slanted RfM request does not encourage people that the RfM will occur fairly. Jav43 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We're not putting all agriculture-based articles in one page. Sorry. Even if that were the debate here, it would not require that this page be protected. So... yeah, your proposal works for me, Nathan. I'm game. Jav43 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


SlimVirgin and Localzuk: would this compromise to put in the synonymous mention keep you happy? Can we unlock the page and get on with life? NathanLee 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that we have a duplication of information. All this suggestion goes for is maintaining the status quo having a multitude of articles. What we have said is that we wanted a single article. We have suggested having a couple of articles as a middle ground. This is once again ignoring that and asking for the tonne to stay. So, yes, it would satisfy the inclusion of information regarding the words being synonymous but doesn't cover the other issues at all.-Localzuk(talk) 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The duplication of information is a problem solvable through editing. Editing seems to be the least preferred solution to some editors in this forum. FNMF 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If the complaint is duplication of information, then I would say that I don't think there's an issue that can't be addressed by editing and so on. Factory farming is not the appropriate place for information on the concept of intensive farming, and if there's a factory farming article then that should be the primary spot for specific information and no having too much of that in intensive farming. There's also article size considerations: one big article is unwieldy and going to be too massive an article.. So smaller more directed should be the preference rather than one or two large catch-alls for anything relating to modern agriculture: which is a rather massive field (if you avoid sensationalist activist definitions). So perhaps if the content of this article (the addition to compromise and stop the reverting) is ok with you guys then we can unblock the article and start discussing content rather than deleting/merging of articles.. They are not good candidates for deletion: which is what this is suggesting. Much of the duplication of information was due to the edits to merge/delete intensive farming.. So if we're allowed to clean it up and put things back in the right articles that complaint will no longer be an issue. NathanLee 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk, I'm sorry that you want to remove the agriculture section from Wikipedia and everything associated with it, but your biases shouldn't control content here. There is a huge amount of duplicitive information in this encyclopedia, and it generally doesn't cause harm. If we wanted to be proactive on the point, we should remove the discussion of organic farming practices from the organic food article, instead referring readers to the organic farming article. Jav43 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Still not acceptable? Bias/ Conflict of interest?

So no further thoughts about whether this is an acceptable solution proposed above that includes the synonymous mention? In an earlier question about animal lib group membership: although it doesn't mean you are definitely going to be POV editing: it is a potential conflict of interest as per the policies. So as several editors on here (including myself) have suggested that your side of the editing is skewed towards an animal lib POV: that should be a wakeup call and perhaps result in extension of good faith in erring on the side of "well, maybe all these editors are just trying to improve the article". A concrete example:If you recall that britannica and dictionaries were attempted to be dismissed as not to be used? But it seems that when the term is Animal rights then there's a bit more credit given to Britannica for use in the lead of an article by SV (and localzuk edited that page a bit too) [105], [106]. And the argument about what should go in the lead (as in it's a summary of later stuff): well why does this get chopped out if it means the lead no longer summarises the later material, and ability to fine grain determine difference in often synonymous terms "animal rights" vs "animal liberation movement" but any and all terms even remotely related to "factory farming" need to be made the same as. In short I think this shows there's a bit of a bias by at least two of the editors involved here and similar 3RR "revert without discussion" sequence of events (including jagjg protecting[107] then changing it to SV's version after locking[108]). Or tag teaming again:to protect an obscure term,[109], Spookily similar result. In short: there's a clear bias and the patience we've all shown in trying to accommodate it is just using up goodwill and energy better spent elsewhere. Yes this is article related because it relates to editors' potential conflict of interest with respect to this article and double standards are being applied. For the record I (and have said before) have no affiliation with any animal rights group or with any agriculture groups, nor do I have a belief in animal lib or anything of that sort. So I'd think that perhaps the editors involved might examine and comment on their potential conflict of interest in this matter.. NathanLee 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not myself verified any of these claims; but if they are accurate, then they would constitute behavior issues as opposed to content issues and as such would be appropriately addressed by arbcom. SlimVirgin et. al., will you please agree to the proposals NathanLee et. al. have proposed so we can avoid arbcom? C'mon guys ... WAS 4.250 05:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No! For god's sake, you are going on and on and on about the same proposals and ignoring our requests. You are not suggesting any form of compromise - maintaining your favoured position is not a compromise. No matter how much you shout 'COI' 'POV', it won't sway me. We have said what we wanted. We have presented a good middle ground that covers the entire subject in a sensible way.
Simply going back to 'you're biased' and 'we're right' isn't helping at all. You have still not grasped the meaning of the word 'compromise'. It means taking your position (where you want duplication and many articles, with 'Factory Farming' being referred to only as a term used by activists) and our position (which is having one article on this subject area, with discussion of the synonymous usage of the different terms) and find somewhere in the middle. NathanLee's proposal is not a compromise.
And I would happily go to arbcom. I don't believe I have behaved out of line, asking for people to compromise, be civil, stay on topic, stay succinct, explaining my views regarding sources etc... I will say, though, that ArbCom would likely pick up on the large amount of incivility coming from a few editors in this situation.
By the way, whilst I am a supporter of animal rights, I am in no way affiliated with any groups or campaigns. Holding views about a subject matter doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest - else the only people able to edit articles would be those not interested in them, which would be ridiculous. I have successfully edited many subjects regarding AR with no bias, providing negative information about the subject etc... So any claims that I am editing in a biased manner are simply false. I would say the same thing about SV and Crum375, as they both have a very good history of NPOV editing - else neither of them would have been made administrators.
So, in conclusion: if you suggest a compromise that is sensible, then we may have some chance of people accepting it. If you keep suggesting thins which are so close to your position that it ignores ours entirely then you aren't going to get a positive response.Localzuk(talk) 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk, please actually read what has been proposed. Not doing so simply makes you appear more biased. We never said that only activists use these different terms interchangeably. Rather, we proposed a fair compromise that, as you just stated, explains that these terms are used synonymously in some forums, as well as being used correctly in many others. [110]. Jav43 16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
My comment about the terms being only used by activists is based on the comments made by various editors over the last week or so. Check through the history and you will see it.
Also, you just said 'synonymously in some forums, as well as being used correctly in many others'. Who are you to say which usage is correct? You can try and back it up with dictionaries, which I personally see as descriptive documents of usage so change regularly but it still doesn't mean either usage is 'correct'.
What I said above, which you have failed to address, is that the 'compromise' that is being suggested only touches on one aspect of this large problem - the use of the term in the article(s). We can't simply do that as it doesn't address the fact that the terms are used synonymously in terms of article structure.-Localzuk(talk) 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There's been nothing really mentioned about activists: the issue's been "we want all these pages turned into the one page". The term IS a popular activist term (if you can find a proponent site that uses the term you're probably on about page 20 of the google results.. and britannica sepecifically mentioned that it was favoured by activists). As for "known NPOV": actually SV seems to have has a bit of a reputation with some editors for POV pushing if you start digging in RFCs and RFAs (pro-jewish/israeli, pro-animal lib were the accusations made by various people and that's only after 5 mins of searching).. Or just into the history of her talk page.
Being made administrator shows nothing in relation to NPOV ability, it's also nothing more than a cleanup role (jimbo wale's view).. If you think it means more: it doesn't. ALL editors are equal on wikipedia: so you can throw that argument out the door.
There was at least one revertwar driven arbcom involving the animal rights page that I saw.. And to be honest: your "definition" conflicts with the way the rest of us read those articles AND encyclopaedia britannica/various dictionaries/new world encyclopaedia etc.. So we're making a hell of a compromise to even accept that the terms are used synonymously because basically: they aren't unless you've got a pretty dumbed down view of agriculture..
How most people use "there/their/they're" often isn't correct either, but we're not generally going to redefine the correct usage based on people's incorrect interpretation of that.
I've shown that in one instance you/SlimVirgin are more than happy to use britannica: but on this page (in what can only really be called delaying tactics at this stage) it is unacceptable as it conflicts with POV on how related topics should be presented to the public and warrants SV inviting a friendly editor (jayjg) and another guy to back that view up. I see no mention of any issue whatsoever in using that as a source on the animal rights page by either localzuk or SV. As with the Animal rights page the technique of protection to hold a version up there was used but instead of localzuk reverting and requesting, it was jayjg who firstly protected the non SV version THEN reverted (completely against policy there). And it wasn't that you have an interest in animal lib that I was saying may indicate a POV infection: it was the editing actions. I agree that you can't exclude people who are interested in a topic: and said that, BUT if they are showing a clear bias (which I think if you look at every change made to the pages to do with this topic I think you'll find there's a pro-animal lib slant and a gradual chipping away or marginalisation of negative information.
If you're concerned with civil behaviour: that we've persisted with trying to engage in discussion with difficult/abrasive/evasive editing practices shows an overall civility, assumption of good faith and patience far beyond that which should have to be extended to support a flimsy argument.
Now of course you can disregard all of this as "personal attack" or "incivility" (what isn't these days?), but the rules are not meant to mean we turn a blind eye to disruptive POV pushing or disruption no matter how "senior" or whatever they are or think they are.. The first rule is "ignore all rules if they're getting in the way of improving wikipedia": if that means pointing out that something is biased or an editor is not doing good things to wikipedia: then that's worth being bold for and calling them out on that (which appears to be the case in this situation). NathanLee 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't address everything there as there is too much. I will address your comment about becoming an admin. Administrators are 'voted' in following questions about a variety of situations. Being 'voted' in shows that the user has a good knowledge of policies, and is trusted not to abuse those powers. I know it is a maintenance role, but it is only given to those who can be trusted with it. This is why I brought it up. If Crum and SV had histories of POV editing, there is no chance they would be given the role of admin as they would not be trusted to not misuse their extra buttons.
When I look through SV's history I see a huge number of POV pushing editors who are angry because they have not got their way. I have not seen SV edit in a POV manner anywhere, as yet - every edit has a good reason (same with Crum, and I should say, with myself).
Once again you simply are saying our sources do not say something and yours does, and that because of that we are being biased and that a middle ground between the 2 points is 'one hell of a compromise'. I think you need to start realising that in a polar situation, there has to be give by both sides. You have not shown any give, other than saying you are willing to allow something, that was already in this article, to remain there. How kind of you.
I would suggest, also, that you stop focussing on editor's supposed 'bias' and realise that you, just like everyone else in the world, have a bias also - and this bias is very apparent from your edits. So, rather than getting into a 'your biased' slagging match, how about coming up with a compromise that actually does just that? Compromises?-Localzuk(talk) 20:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
To Nathan's comment: So True.
To Localzuk: You have yet to propose a viable compromise. Perhaps that's because you don't want anything that contradicts your prejudiced POV on the page -- but I don't know. Regardless, please stop asking us to "compromise" without offering compromises of your own -- particularly since we HAVE offered compromise after compromise, which you have ignored time and time again. (I note that you AGAIN failed to address the compromise proposed [111]. Until you're willing to actually READ WHAT IS SAID, please do not continue your antics on this page.) (Oh, and status [admin or otherwise] means nothing - actions mean everything.) We have demonstrated which meaning of the terms in dispute is correct through peer-reviewed journals and well-respected sources. Please actually look at the evidence, rather than sticking to your rote beliefs. Move past your animal-liberation indoctrination and we might be able to get somewhere. Jav43 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
All you have done there is simply ignored the multitude of compromises that have been suggested. All of which have been summarily ignored by yourself. You have not 'shown' that your definitions are 'correct' just that there are these sources, and you believe them to be superior to those presented by ourselves. Neither is 'correct' they are just 2 different meanings. We are going round in circles here. You don't believe that we have attempted compromise, although we have shown that we are (asking for somewhere between the 2 sides to be presented, which you are not doing). Please can all parties go to mediation? I have commented on the above proposal and have said why it is not a compromise as it simply does not address the large problem of structure.-Localzuk(talk) 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(<---) Please describe "the large problem of structure". WAS 4.250 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that half of the editors here believe that it should be a single article due to the major synonymity of the terms, duplication of information etc... and half think it should be many articles due to the opposite of those views. This is the underlying issue behind this entire mess. The lead is one small part of that.-Localzuk(talk) 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What does "it should be a single article" mean? WAS 4.250 23:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You see, this is the problem. If you read up the page you will see a large discussion about the entire stance behind merging all the 'Industial Agriculture/Intensive Farming/Factory Farming' articles into one. On one side we have several editors who support this, and on the opposite some that don't. So, it was suggested that we go for a middle option - create 2 pages 'intensive farming (crops)' and 'intensive farming {animals) with a single disambiguation page for all the terms, which points people to either of these articles. This is all discussed in the first topic of the page and goes on for about a half of the page... We are just going round and round in circles.-Localzuk(talk) 23:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to stop going round in circles, I think you (Localzuk, etc.) need to genuinely consider the reasons you find yourself doing so. The fundamental reason editors do not want to agree to mediation is because they do not trust how you will behave in mediation. And they do not trust how you will behave because they have observed how editors have behaved. Now, you can talk about how you have been "civil" and supposedly proposed "compromises" all you want, but editors are not persuaded by this, because this is not their perception of your behaviour. Whatever compromises you think you have proposed, the perception of other editors is that your overwhelming agenda is to delete other articles, and to do so in order to control the coverage of animal farming in Wikipedia. And the reason they make these judgments about your agenda is that all your arguments for deleting other articles are based on guessing what those articles will be like: either that they will be "POV forks" or that they will contain "duplicate information." The fundamental fact is: other editors are not persuaded that these guesses about what will happen with multiple articles are good enough reasons to delete the articles in advance. And it is clear to other editors that the last solution you wish to accept is to let these articles run their course or actually to edit these articles, in order to make them into good articles. It seems that you find it preferable to keep going round in circles and keep this article indefinitely protected, rather than consider actually editing this or other articles. Your clear wish to control the situation in advance by controlling which articles are permitted to exist is the fundamental reason other editors do not trust you. In the end, it is fundamentally illegitimate to keep this article protected indefinitely on the grounds that this article cannot be edited until decisions are made about other articles. The persistence with which you have held to this manipulative, controlling and illegitimate argument is the fundamental reason other editors do not wish to pursue other avenues that you claim can lead to a solution. FNMF 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
FNMF, if two sides disagree, and both seem firmly entrenched in their positions, what alternative is there besides mediation? Crum375 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Crum, that is a good, and difficult, question. But my answer probably won't please you. Obviously I cannot instruct you or Localzuk, etc., what to do, but it is my genuine belief that your "side" needs to do some genuine introspection about the degree to which your agenda is determined by being a Wikipedian, and the degree to which it is determined by your concern for animal welfare. My saying that is not an accusation, but I do believe that experienced editors should be able to ask themselves such things in a truly self-questioning way. And my saying that your "side" should do that comes from this belief: I don't actually think we are confronted with a situation where two "sides" disagree: I think, rather, that your perception that there are two "sides" is a big part of the problem. My perception is: there is one "side," and then there is everybody else. Like I said: I expect you won't like that answer, primarily because you are likely to see it as "one-sided." But if you can genuinely ask yourself the question, "What is the other side?", I think you will find it difficult to describe what the other side is supposed to be for. The other "side" certainly aren't an anti-animal rights group, or a pro-factory farming group, are they? And if they aren't genuinely a "side," that suggests that the "side" that perceives things in terms of "two sides" should conduct the process of introspection I mentioned. Beyond that, I can only suggest that editors ask themselves whether keeping an article indefinitely protected and insisting on deleting articles is a legitimate approach, or whether it isn't. In my opinion, it isn't. FNMF 01:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There are 2 positions regarding this whole situation - whether you think there are or not. There is one outcome - improving Wikipedia. The use of the word 'side' is a simplification of a complex set of arguments, is all.-Localzuk(talk) 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and I stand by what I said. I think your response is disappointing, and I can't help noticing how little you tend to respond to the points I have raised in this instance, nor the points I have raised in previous instances. FNMF 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
FNMF, if there is a simple answer to my simple question above, I haven't been able to find it in your words. There are clearly two sides here, and clearly both are entrenched. The specifics of the 'agendas', if any, of the sides, are not really relevant. The bottom line is that we are stuck, we don't seem to be moving, and we are unlikely to move on our own. So clearly we need outside help, aka mediation. If you believe the facts are on your side, as I assume you do, what do you have to fear from neutral outsiders trying to help us? At worst they'll achieve nothing, while at best they may be able to get us to find a mutually acceptable solution. So why not give it a shot? Crum375 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: a disappointing response. No matter how many times you tell me, I don't believe I'm part of a "side." It is not a matter of persuading me to agree to mediation. What you have to face is that numerous editors have concluded that you prefer infinite postponement and disruption to actually solving the problem. Editors don't believe you want to solve the problem, except on your own terms. And they do not accept that these terms are legitimate. Again, I see no evidence of any willingness to address the points I actually raised:

  • Is it legitimate to demand the deletion of articles in advance because of what they might turn out to be like in the future?
  • Is it legitimate to demand the deletion of articles because they might turn out to be POV, or because they might duplicate information?
  • Why is editing not a potential solution to these problems?
  • Is it legitimate to keep this article indefinitely protected because of your desire to delete other articles?

These are the questions you need to ask yourself and need to answer for others. Questions such as these are the reasons editors do not believe it is worthwhile entering into mediation with a group of editors unwilling to honestly address such concerns. FNMF 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry you are disappointed, but this is how Wikipedia works. There are groups of editors with different points of views about the issues, and sometimes it is hard to find a middle ground. For the groups to label each other in derogatory terms, or to claim that some are more 'legitimate' than others, is always counter-productive and will achieve nothing. If you really want to move forward, instead of just going around in circles, then mediation is the only solution - surely you can see that? Crum375 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The clear unwillingness of editors on your "side" to say anything whatsoever about the questions I raised (numerous times) speaks volumes. FNMF 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it is legitimate - it is part of the editing process to merge articles
  • Yes, again it is part of merging things to remove duplication
  • Because we have tried that, and that is what got us here. Editors tried a merge of the articles and all hell broke loose. This was followed by large scale removal of anything remotely critical from the lead, the removal of anything to do with the synonymous usage of terms etc...
  • Yes, it is. Until something can be decided on the overall future direction of this entire mess, having an article protected is a normal method of preventing warring.
We are trying to solve this problem. We have tried to present mutliple compromises, but they have been pretty much rejected without anything reasonable being presented as an alternative (other than maintaining the status quo, which as I have mentioned several times is not a compromise).
Whether you like it or not, there are 2 sides, you may not think there are and you may not think you are on one side or the other but you are. There is a deadlock. We need neutral editors to mediate in a formal manner to make any headway on this.-Localzuk(talk) 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
FNMF, we have addressed each of these questions and issues ad nauseam. This Talk page is filling up Wikipedia server space and we are achieving nothing. If you feel confident that the facts and policies are on your side, why not let neutral parties come in and advise us? Crum375 02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Localzuk, thanks for answering my questions. Personally, I find the answers very unconvincing. I find the insistence on keeping this page indefinitely protected because of those answers to be illegitimate. The reality is that the articles aren't going to be deleted without a consensus, and there is no evidence of such a consensus emerging. In the light of the lack of likely consensus, I find the insistence on indefinitely protecting this page to be controlling and illegitimate. You throw your hands in the air and say, "Why won't people agree to mediation?" I'm just telling you the reason. As things stand, a group of diverse editors seem to find your tactics and arguments very problematic. Whether you do anything about that is up to you. Continuing to throw your hands in the air does not count as doing something about it. In the end, I think if you have any sense you will need to recognise there is no consensus for merging the articles and agree to unprotect the page. But I also feel that me saying that to you is just likely to cause you to dig your heels in even harder. What you think that will achieve is beyond me. FNMF 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with FNMF. WAS 4.250 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with everything FNMF said in the last day or two. Jav43 03:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree also.. As was said: you have a bunch of diverse/different editors and the three of you have a common interest in animal lib/animal rights (at least 2 of you..). The above was (I think) a fair suggestion/compromise that incorporates the synonymous claim.. Now we should be moving on. But SV hasn't put any input into this (although doesn't read the discussion): has she lost interest (more just than not reading the discussion normally)? NathanLee 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question...

M'kay. Factory farming. Presumably they breed the cattle that they raise and eventually slaughter. What happens to the placenta after the calves are born? I'd assume they'd just throw it away, but where is it disposed? Does anybody know? Thanks in advance to whoever does.

K00bine 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

With cows, the birthing cow usually eats the placenta shortly after birth, while or after cleaning off the calf. The placenta is a good source of protein that replenishes the cow's body, which may be depleted from calving. (The cow isn't forced to eat the placenta; she does so on her own.) This practice of consuming the placenta is quite common among mammals. The placenta would not be discarded unless the cow did not consume it - in which case it would be disposed of as fertilizer (perhaps in a lagoon), alongside a dead animal, or through normal garbage collection services. Jav43 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Like katie holmes/tom cruise were rumoured to be going to do with their baby huh?[112]  ;) On topic though: it sounds like in some areas the waste disposal is pretty lax (i.e. out and out straight on the fields pollution) and it may just be spread over the farmlands with the manure.. There was a video I watched where the locals were complaining about cow parts spread on fields.. NathanLee 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, placenta would have a very small biological impact on land, pollution-wise. Simply throwing it on a field would be an acceptable method of disposal. But like I said, that would be rare: the cow would nearly certainly eat the placenta. Jav43 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A weekly reminder...

We need to go into moderation. Another week has passed and nothing substantial has been proposed or discussed, just a bunch of "(s)he-said" arguments, personal attacks and wikilawyering. Nothing about content.

If people disagree with the page protection, speak to another admin to evaluate the situation, or raise it at the admin noticeboard or even raise an arbcom on this. But do not continue arguing with involved administrators in this talk page which gets you nowhere. --Cerejota 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The sooner we go into moderation, the sooner this issue will be resolved. Until then, all we'll get is more hot air and going around in circles. Crum375 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well a compromise was proposed that included the "terms are synonymous" (i.e. content), think that got agreement some editors and would seem to answer the required change to content somewhat. The issue of articles getting merged/deleted should be raised some other way: in terms of content on this article as it stands if Crum375 is happy with that and localzuk is happy with the content change to THIS page: then we should be able to remove the protection and they can take up the discussion for deleting pages via the appropriate channels.. There's usually a tag to put in pages which didn't appear on any of the "to be merged" pages.. Can we separate out that argument from what goes on this page as it is currently titled and as it is currently named? NathanLee 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know what you expect to get out of moderation, Crum, since you refuse to actually look at the issue/consider any form of compromise. I don't see how moderation can be the magic pill that will make everyone suddenly do whatever you say. I don't oppose moderation - but if we can't get anywhere without moderation, moderation certainly won't be of any assistance. Perhaps you could actually look at the issues with an open mind, Crum, and then we could get somewhere. Jav43 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You imply that I have not looked at issues with an open mind. I will just assume good faith and conclude that you truly believe that. Needless to say, I disagree, and believe that SlimVirgin, Localzuk and myself have gone overboard trying to compromise, while your side have proposed nothing beyond words. We have also agreed to accept mediation from day one, while some on your side refused. The point is, we will all keep spouting words at each other until the cows come home (unless in Factory Farming they are always home ;^)), and nothing of substance will happen unless we get some neutral third parties to move this process along. Crum375 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


New proposal

There is clearly no consensus for deleting articles. And there is clearly no prospect of such a consensus emerging in the near future. The wish to delete articles cannot be a grounds for indefinitely maintaining protection of this article. So the only possible grounds for maintaining protection of this article is the supposedly terrifying prospect of "edit warring." Well, what can we do about that? I propose that all involved editors agree to the following: (a) the opening of the article be adjusted so that it links to the other articles; (b) the opening of the article be adjusted so that it reflects the desire of some editors to say that "factory farming" is sometimes used synonymously with other terms; (c) editors agree not to delete mention of the controversial animal welfare aspects of factory farming from the opening paragraphs of the article. If all editors can agree to these terms, I think we can unprotect the article almost immediately. FNMF 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree You edit conflicted with me just as I was asking a near identical question. Sounds like a good start to move forward. NathanLee 18:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree, and in that spirit, I have proposed significant changes on the talk page for Industrial Agriculture. I welcome all input before I make the change, but please put comments on that talk page so that it won't get lost here. JD Lambert 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by not deleting mention of "controversial animal welfare aspects"? I have no problem with the actual text of the lead containing the mention it does, but I still maintain that the image currently in the lead is improper. Jav43 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any point getting in to those kind of specifics here. Obviously I am not proposing that everything about the article be set in stone. What I am proposing is that you agree not to just wade in and make changes other editors are going to object to without discussing things on the talk page first. By agreeing to hold back from simply making such changes, it will become possible to unprotect the page and see if things stabilise. I think this is achievable, but only if all editors are mindful of how their own behaviour may escalate the situation. FNMF 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To that I agree. Jav43 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree This seems to me to be just another POV fork. We need to decide at a top level what is the best way for Wikipedia to present the topic of Factory Farming and related Intensive Farming terms. Then, once we agree on a top level structure, we can decide on the lower tiers, if any. To start from the bottom with one article that seems likely to overlap others is contrary to our rules. Crum375 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Crum: If you want to delete articles then that can be a different topic, that doesn't need this article locked.. But FOR NOW can we focus on the reason why this article is not allowing any future editing which is the content in this article under this heading.. NathanLee 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Nathan, we are just going around in circles. You can't build a roof without a foundation. The decision sequence has to be 1) top level structure, 2) titles of top level entries, and 3) contents of leads. If you can't accept this simple outline, we need an outsider to help us. Crum375 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(1) You have not demonstrated that having multiple articles is necessarily a "POV fork"; (2) you have not demonstrated why, if there is such a problem, it can't be solving through editing; (3) you have ignored the clear fact that there is no prospect of any consensus to delete articles. It is very difficult not to conclude that you prefer to keep the page indefinitely protected to seeking a solution. But putting all that to one side for the moment, is there one or more of my points (a) to (c) in my proposal to which you feel you cannot adhere? FNMF 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Not to bypass FNMF's question.. So answer both.. Well, if you are unable to see the obvious attempts to move things forward.. well let me recap.. You wanted synonymous: you got a solution that puts that in. You want criticism in the lead (no problem it was there anyhow were you interested, and no one was saying it couldn't be there). You want just one big article or maybe split in 2 but saying the same thing: consensus seems to be against that and there seems to be little to be gained by that.
Holding this page hostage to force deleting articles when one view (the SV/crum/localzuk animal lib collective) versus the various viewpoints of the rest of us is hardly the way to sell the need to merge articles. Take a look at the JD lambert ag stuff before you post yet another "we need mediation, that's all we're open to" that's your camp's sole suggestion of late. Is that structure suitable? If structure is what you want, that one's not a bad place to start cleaning up the duplication..
A crazy thought: if you agree to unlock the page and contribute something other than reverts or undiscussed mass changes: maybe it can evolve. All that can happen while you dig your heels in is indeed go around in circles while you fail to compromise (which is bound to happen in mediation too by the way.. it's just one level of indirection and if you win, we whinge, we win, you whinge, consensus is not reached and thus the circle continues). It seems a bit strange that only the 2-3 of you seem to be pushing this "we need mediation" and the rest of us are pushing for some middle ground.. Just what is the deal? I can't really assume this push for mediation is in good faith when a good faith offer(s) is/are here in front of you.. I'll even give you a sticker barnstar for your troubles.. ;) NathanLee 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, please save those poor electrons! (I am an Electron Rights activist). The situation is simple: we disagree over the approach, the titles and the contents. We have gone over every issue a thousand times plus. It's time for outside help. Crum375 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean you have no specific problem with any of the three points of the proposal? FNMF 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
See my Disagree vote above. We have been over every one of your points many times, ad nauseam, and are still on square 0. Mediation will get us back on track. Crum375 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, I understand you still have concerns about the article, and I understand you want to go into mediation. But the question is: is there a way of unprotecting the article in the meantime? Keeping the article protected is a bad thing: the goal here should be to edit. I cannot help but notice you have refused to address every single one of my questions, and have refused to indicate which of the elements of my proposal you cannot abide by. You can pursue your agenda with the article unprotected. Wanting to keep it protected is beginning to look like a will to obstruct the development of this article. FNMF 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Unprotecting at this point will not solve anything - we'll still have all the issues we have now, plus a possible edit war. So let's resolve our differences first. And by the way, the only 'agenda' I have is maintaining Wikipedia's rules. Crum375 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe unprotecting may well solve some problems. You cannot keep an article indefinitely protected just because you feel like it. Unless you are saying you are going to be disruptive if we unprotect, it seems to me we can still unprotect despite your disagreement, so long as other editors are prepared to risk not knowing how you may behave. One or two editors objecting to unprotection on the grounds they don't want it is not a good reason to keep the article protected. The worst that can happen is the article gets protected again. FNMF 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
My experience is that leaving an article protected is a good way to get people to resolve their differences. When it is clear there are significant deeply entrenched differences, unprotecting is not a good idea. Mediation is usually highly recommended in such situations. Crum375 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that's how you feel. But, as I said, there's really nothing to lose, and it is bad to keep an article indefinitely protected. So regardless of your reservations, and despite your unwillingness to try out solutions, I think the article should be unprotected. FNMF 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we've had enough agrees and one disagree to unlock the page. If one user (crum375) can't see a fair and flexible compromise then that's their disruptive editing problem and too blinded by POV to accept consensus, one user shouldn't be holding up a page indefinitely. Deferring all decision making to some random party seems to be the only decision crum's willing to make, so crum: here's 4 people willing to making that decision for you.. Is that ok? Take your concessions and give it a rest. :) You might think mediation is the only solution: the rest of us seem to think compromise was a good way: which we did along several levels and you still rejected it outright.. Where's the scope for any compromise? NathanLee 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The situation is this: one editor disagrees with the proposal to unprotect. Perhaps another editor (maybe even two) will back up the disagreement. What that means is: they are not consenting to be bound by the proposal, and thus editors do not know how they will behave if the article is unprotected. My feeling is that the editors who have agreed to my proposal should trust that the behaviour of Crum et al will not be so disruptive as to make unprotection a bad idea. But when Jav, etc. agreed to my proposal, they did so on the basis that everybody would agree to it. If we are going to unprotect the article without the agreement of all editors, I think those who supported by proposal should be given the chance to say whether they agree to it in spite of Crum et al. Nathan obviously agrees to chance it. I also agree to chance it. I think we should give JDLambert, Jav, WAS, etc., a chance to agree also, before actually unprotecting. FNMF 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You are correct on my opinion on the matter. I think the case for article deletion can be made at some future stage (hopefully not too far off in the future) and in the meantime editors can do the much needed cleanup to at least sort out the duplicate data (e.g. stuff in intensive farming etc). I think the link on ag stuff at the top of this has some good starting points perhaps we can see how that goes.. Both viewpoints will be incorporated into the article.. Should be all sweet with a bit of maturity on both sides.. ;) NathanLee 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree to unprotecting the page. My reluctantance is because SlimVirgin, Crum375, and Localzuk have earned my respect for their many contributions to Wikipedia. However, even though I am not opposed to mediation, I believe it is extremely unlikely to have any useful result, because Wiki policy is that mediation cannot impose a solution and there appears to be an impasse. In addition, seven months is a long time to have an article locked, and in a worst case, it can always be locked again. If we all adhere to posting planned changes and waiting at least a day for discussions, I think we should be able to move forward, even if more slowly than SV/Crum/Localzuk would prefer. JD Lambert 02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Seven months? Crum375 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Seven months is how long the total dispute has been going on. However, there is reason to hope that progress can be made on this article by unlocking it and everyone discussing changes before making them. I have no hope of mediation making any difference. JD Lambert 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Hundreds of words and nothing moves forward... moderation now!--Cerejota 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Read above: we'll try unprotecting the page as having it protected is achieving nothing and a pretty good compromise has been offered.. i.e. "consensus". One or two people wanting a page locked indefinitely is not a reason. NathanLee 13:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article unprotected/opening adjusted

The article has been unprotected. Hopefully editors are ready to make the most of this without getting involved in a new editing war. I have adjusted the opening in line with the proposal put above. That is: the opening now indicates that the term "factory farming" can be used synonymously with other terms; the opening links to industrial agriculture and intensive farming; all the discussion of the controversial issues remains. This is no doubt not perfect at the moment. Feel free to change, but if all editors can try to discuss changes on the talk page before acting rashly on the article itself, it may be possible to avoid the problems of the past. This depends on all editors choosing to try to act sensibly and thoughtfully. But I do believe that is within the realms of possibility. FNMF 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also appended a final sentence to the opening paragraph indicating that the term "factory farming" can be used to refer to industrial agriculture generally. I have done so because this seemed to be what some editors were arguing about the synonymous use of the term. Again, if editors disagree with this or any other portion of the article, please discuss on talk page before changing. FNMF 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it might be useful to have more than one proposal for change at a time, and there is a tendency (at least with me) to read only the bottom section, I suggest we put markers in the section names. E.g. If someone wants to change the opening image, create a section header with "(OPEN ISSUE)" as a suffix to the section name. Once there is a consensus and the change is made, the suffix can be removed. JD Lambert(T|C) 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good.. Might be a good idea to archive this discussion page as the body of it was over synonymous usage (e.g. the tonnes of quotes etc). What do people think? NathanLee 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -