Talk:Environmental impact of pig farming

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ciccotta, Tom (May 9, 2017). "UC Berkeley Professor Banned from Wikipedia over Anti-Trump Edit Project". Breitbart.

Peer Review

Are these sections being added to the article that already exists? And will the original lead section be changed or is this new information that is being added? I can't really tell, but seems to me that the general pig farming information is necessary to keep, in addition to the essential info you all have written about! Throughout the article there a few grammar and wording issues-- I know it is a rough draft so another couple of read-throughs will likely fix them. I would pay particular attention to run-ons, like the first sentence in the EJ section. The lead section would be more effective if it were broad, included more links to related pages and fewer specific citations (maybe move these to more relevant sections). I would also look a little more critically at whether it is neutral or not; some readers may interpret parts as biased. The policy section is well written and effective. Can you link to other articles that go into more depth about such policies? The section on Trump Administration Implications appears long, is there a possibility of cutting it down to key points? Also, the first sentence is unclear: "Scott Pruitt, the new EPA secretary has undermined the past work of his predecessor Drew Edmonson." Edmonson was the Oklahoma attorney general before Pruitt, he did not oversee the EPA like Pruitt is now. The second to last paragraph about a solution is a great idea, but I wonder if it is appropriate in a wiki article? The final section on waste in water has great details, but is lacking citations! There is also some overlap between this section, the lead, and the EJ section. SemiTalia (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I'm also unclear how this will be incorporated into the existing pig farming wiki page? Do you plan on merging the two? I think the existing wiki page provides necessary information about the basic underpinnings of pig farming, so your contribution might be more appropriate as a subsection (for example, subsections for "environmental hazards" "history of pig farming" or"disproportionate effects of farming pollution on minority communities. Even so, I'd be wary of pushback because you're going to be taking this article in a very different direction with such heavy emphasis on EJ. The existing wiki page only touches upon negative aspects of pig farming, mostly dealing with detrimental health impacts on the pigs themselves and you'll be adding many paragaphs about EJ. If I were looking up pig-farming for basic information, I'd probably feel this article was not neutral because of the imbalance of information being presented. I would expect some pushback from other wiki editors after publishing.

Source-wise, we are supposed to stay away from citing primary articles in that it presents a singular finding of the researcher, not a consensus view in the field. (I saw a few primary articles in your sources section.)

Wikibeanie (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

same comments as others, wondering how you will merge the two pages or if you will create a new one? the pig farming wiki and yours are talking about two different things and yours has the EJ portion. But i think there's a way to edit the pig farming wiki and yours to make everything flow and cohesive.Gqueen123 (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter

All quite good...love the quantity of citations.

Are you coordinating with: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:HELI/sandbox

--EJustice (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Ashley

Hi all,

You've got a lot of great information here! Looks like you received some thorough feedback above and I would echo those thoughts.

I'd add that regarding your lead section, I would separate out the EJ information and just get into that in your subtopic below.

Within the EJ subtopic, I'd suggest making additional subsections, such as one dedicated to specific studies and site specific examples.

The sentence "These communities have few legal protections, which is what makes the field of Environmental Justice Studies so important as collecting and publishing data is a powerful tool in advocating and inciting remedies and policy changes" and specifically the phrase "so important" feels unbalanced and I'd find a way to rephrase.

Regarding the "Trump Administration Implications" subtopic, I would move "The average nitrate levels in Oklahoma's ground water ....pollution incidences in Kansas" to the EJ subtopic above and into a site specific subtopic within there.

Lastly, I'd suggest moving the "Trump Administration Implications" subtopic to the end of the article, as these are ongoing and there will likely be a need to expand on the information, which would be less overbearing to the rest of the article if it were at the end.

Keep up the good work!

Ashley.boots (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lower-case prefered in article title

The current title "Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming" is not in current Wikipedia style, which would use lower-case as in "Environmental impacts of pig farming", because the topic is not a proper-noun phrase. This must be covered in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, wp:MOS, somewhere. You might think it should have all initial-caps because it is a title of an article, and usually articles in journals would be referenced by such titles with capital letters. But lower-case phrases are normal in Wikipedia.

I would consider it a non-controversial matter and would simply move the article myself, if this was an inactive article, but there seems to be a lot of energy here. --do ncr am 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

I've trimmed down some of the worse issues of editorializing and promotional/"call to action" content, but there's more to be done. I think this might make more sense as a section of pig farming rather than a standalone article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I'm not sure if these cleanup tags are still necessary, though. Does anything else need to be done in order to make this article more "neutral?" Jarble (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarble Very much so, yes. There's a very clear slant to the article, trying to say "Pig farming is bad", rather than simply stating facts about it. There's a lot of "Butbutbut" style argumentation and editorializing. Realistically, it might make sense to stub it and start over, since this was part of the whole EJustice debacle. But yes, a whole lot more work needs done to make it encyclopedic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I believe that this article is factually accurate, despite its somewhat biased writing style. Have you found any factual errors in this article that need to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but factual inaccuracy isn't what it's tagged for. Biased writing style is exactly why it is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found an issue that I'm correcting

When reading this article, I noticed there was a major issue regarding the legality of lagoon and sprayfield systems. While policy and the hog industry is working towards more environmentally sound waste management systems, lagoon and sprayfield systems remain legal including in North Carolina, the nation's second largest state in the nation for hog production.^[1] I am removing the statement that says this practice is illegal and replacing it with more accurate information that has direct citations. I am also adding some information on Hurricane Florence and the result of its impact on NC hog farms. Killiandavis (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Killiandavis[reply]

References

^ https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/HTML/S1465v7.html

How is this relevent to climate change project?

I took the project off as pigs are not ruminants so produce little methane as far as I know. But please revert I am if wrong and make clear in article.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAFO

...is a US-specific term that has a meaning defined by EPA. It doesn't seem suitable for a general, worldwide article, so I'm removing the term, replacing it with "intensive farm", "factory farm" ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 06:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Environment and Justice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Greenplants2002, Jelope30 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jelope30 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/HTML/S1465v7.html

[1]