Talk:Harris Ranch

Neutrality of the article, especially the title

Hi, I have raised this problem with the creator of the article already, but in short: Even of the subject of the article is notable, and it is possibly, the title of the article is clearly not neutral. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts also. GregorB (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Cowschwitz → NewName — Neutrality reasons. While the ranch may well be referred to as Cowschwitx, the article title isn't necessarily the title that the ranch is generally known by, and is a breach of Wikipedia NPOV policies —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.
The article was moved, expanded and the tone and POV issues addressed. If for no reason other then the airport, there will be an article of some kind. So having that article be for the entire ranch is reasonable. Of course the AfD is still running. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Delete the whole thing Wow. Its a cattle farm. How notable. Wow. It is a big cattle farm with a hideous source. Yeah. Dross. Screw renaming, just AFD. Narson (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I have made the drive between LA and SF literally "hundreds" of times and I have *never* heard anyone call it 'Cowschwitz' or 'Dachcow'. The reference for this line points to a personal travel page and has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Just because one person says it doesn't mean it should be lumped in with all "travelers". This should be removed.

Article should stay because of the fixes

This article quality, neutrality, and referenced sources have been improved and think it should stay. Community content has also been added and name of article has been appropriately changed (Harris Ranch article did not previously exist) College Watch (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Images

There are three new images in this article. I'd like to strike two of them from the article because I don't think they actually add any value:

• The Harris Ranch Sign
  • Signage displaying the subject of the article isn't the slightest bit useful
• The photo of the restaurant and parking lot through the trees
  • There's nothing distinctive of Harris Ranch in this photo; it could be a photo of any strip mall in Southern California.
  • I do think a photo of the restaurant might be useful, just not this one.

I'd also like to strike the old image of cows entitled Cowschwitz. It's also not very useful in distinguishing Harris Ranch. It could be a photo of any feed lot in the U.S.... —  X  S  G  18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree a better photo of the restaurant complex would be preferable but in the mean time it is better than nothing.
• The Harris Ranch sign is marginal but it is a way of introducing their logo which is used widely in their retail operations such as precooked roasts.
• The feedlot image itself is not interesting but a placeholder until a better and more interesting photo is made. For anyone driving between SF and LA, this is the most obvious, in your face aspect of HR.

I prefer images in articles as it makes them much more interesting.--CSvBibra (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I do like informational images in articles. Placeholders are marginal and, I think, should be deleted, especially in consideration of the overall size of this article. If the article were somewhat longer, four images would be no problem. As it stands, the images take up more space vertically than the article text does, at least on my screen. Also, I'm adjusting image captions so the use case of the images is clarified. —  X  S  G  23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's silliest edit war

...okay that overstates the point but every month or two someone removes the "cowschwitz" reference which, if I can boast, is one of the most wrong pieces of prose in the encyclopedia: "Known to travelers for the smell, the ranch is nicknamed 'Cowschwitz'". How could anyone not love this? It's in very poor taste. And sourced too!

I'm wondering who would be so offended as to delete the sentence. Anyone who spends time in California knows 1) that Harris Ranch smells bad, 2) it's halfway between SF and LA, and 3) it's called Cowschwitz. It just is. Wikipedia is not censored, and sometimes the truth is not politically correct, even in California. Wikidemon (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, this doesn't sound encyclopedic. If a somewhat experienced editor sees this prose, alarms should go off. Unfortunately, some of the somewhat experienced editors also don't bother to check the source and aren't familiar with some of our courtesies- to discuss before striking sourced materials.

Personally, I question whether many travelers actually refer to the ranch as Cowschwitz and therefore the validity of using a single source to justify the prose. I maintain that it's just a neologism and that Wikipedia isn't the place for this. But clearly, this is important to someone (you?), and with a source I can't fully justify striking it. —  X  S  G  15:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This convinces me that it's not just a new neologism. Like it or no, 'Cowschwitz' should stay. —  X  S  G  15:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Important" is not quite the word, but every Wikipedian is allowed a foible or two, no? The smell is a bit of a landmark and has a few more sources than the nickname.[1] There is a second minor but reliable source for the name but it's more of a pop culture / trivia thing - an NOFX song was apparently inspired by it, or at least made the same point in a rather less lighthearted way: "“Bathhouse” is a fast short slab of punk that likens the treatment of concentration camp victims to the treatment of factory-farmed animals (he calls Harris Ranch, the massive cow farm on the I-5 between L.A. and San Francisco, 'Cowschwitz.'"[2] I guess I'll add a couple more sources, not really strong sources but are interesting links. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put some HTML comments in-line in hopes of drawing attention to the text not being struck in the future. At least we'll know that if it's struck without prior discussion, the editor is ignorant, blind, or willfully disrespetful. —  X  S  G  19:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Con using cowschwitz I know there are at least a couple references to using “"cowschwitz" but it leaves an unpleasant taste as being unencyclopedic. On one level it sounds like “cowsh*t” a play on what one smells at the feedlot when one drives by. On another level it is supposedly humorous joke on Auschwitz. To me the joke is disrespectful to the many thousand of people who were treated like cattle instead of humans. I have talked to many people the last 25 years about Harris Ranch and until this reference have never heard the term used.--CSvBibra (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Redux...[3][4] That the ranch has a very strong smell generally regarded as unpleasant is an encyclopedic fact, and well-sourced[5][6] - perhaps the most noteworthy thing about it for many people. That it has been nicknamed "cowschwitz" by critics, supporters, and those indifferent, is also a sourced fact. Facts are not POV matters, and if they seem to reflect negatively on a subject, that's how things are. I believe the article also describes the company's business success and popularity. Those are sourced facts that some might think of as positive. "Ripe" and "tangy" are descriptive opinions, but not far afield. We could simply say it smells of fermenting cow manure, or whatever it is. However, calling cow feed lot odor a "good, honest, American smell" is just a poetic opinion, and probably not a the most apt summary of what most people think when they smell it. Anyway, it's harmless. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And per this one,[7] another harmless edit. The LA Times does describe the "cowschwitz" nickname as having been invented by critics. I don't think that's quite correct - a quick google search will confirm that the use of the name is generally humorous and a bit of a term of affection. We don't have any reliable sources for that, though, only primary sources where the term is actually used. I guess we can just wait. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still offensive and not well sourced. All of the sources are reprints of the LA Times editorial of 10-16-2009 and based on a statement by anti-agribusines author Michael Pollan. One editorial hardly justifies the use of such a offensive term as important to the article. At very least the definition should include an explanation that the name is given by those that wish to compare the slaughtering of cows to the slaughtering of Jews during the Holocaust at the death camp, Auschwitz, rather then saying it is just a way of saying "In reference to the large number of cattle processed at its facilities". We are supposed to be maintaining a "neutral, unbiased point of view", are we not? mailbox101 —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

There are five different sources. One of them refers to Pollan, but does not refer to statements made by Pollan. You may be offended, but WP:NOT#CENSORED. It's a term used for the place that reflects its public perception, and those are the facts. None of the sources make the explicit connection with the holocaust, so it is WP:SYNTH to do so (and probably not terribly accurate) to highlight the offense you take to the term. More likely it's a simple play on words, like carmageddon or rapocalypse. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"ripe, tangy odor"

Proposal
As per this rule of thumb "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias" i propose we remove the statement Known to travelers for a "ripe, tangy odor" [8] ..as you see it has a reference, however i do not see this as being unbias in any way ...maybe i think it smells like mint on the day i happen to stay there !! (get my meaning here could have been the new carpet cleaner smell etc...). The references for this does come form a major news paper..BUT its a review from one person - not a news article and does not seem to be appropriate for the encyclopedia !!....Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact of whether or not Harris Ranch is known for its smell is a POV issue at all. It does, for miles around. That's probably its most salient feature for travelers in that part of California, and I don't see any dispute over that in the sources. People have also nicknamed it "Cowschwitz" - the nickname itself may relate to humane treatment of animals in such a large finishing lot but also a good dose of silliness. Whereas using the nickname to refer to it, or complaining about the smell, may reflect a POV, noting that the nickname and smell exist is simply observing sourced facts. Obviously that doesn't chase everyone away because it is popular, something also noted in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i take it you know it smells because you live near there right??..My point is that as someone who is just reading the article for the first time i get the inspiration that the article was written by a competitor of Harris Ranch..Very odd to see this type of thing i think..Anyways that's Y i am asking for a consensus and did not just remove it... Love love !!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I grew up on and around all kinds of farms back in Ohio and to this day I am actually still very haunted by the smell of Harris Ranch driving through three years ago. It absolutely does have a tangy, rotten, putrid smell and there is absolutely no reason for that if farming is done properly. It is very concerning but it is also a fact. KaylaArielle (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Move Harris Ranch Airport

I think that Harris Ranch Airport should be moved to it's own page an a link left in it's place. On a page about Harris Ranch an airport does not really fit. I am working on improving the section so it could be moved and be close to not being a stub.

Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Location section

The current version of the article has a location section saying that the ranch "is notable for being located almost precisely at the half-way mileage point between Los Angeles and San Francisco". While there is no question that the ranch is approximately half way between the two cities (the word precisely is vague since it depends on the exact starting and ending points), is it really notable for this? there is no secondary reference proving the notability. The way the information is currently presented is original research. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of references mentioning it as a halfway stopping point or marker, but I do think the section was overkill. Nearly everything in there was mentioned elsewhere in the article. So I worked it all in there and added a couple references. There are far more, in major publications (e.g. Los Angeles Times) but they're old articles behind a paywall. It seems to me that newspapers were more interested in covering local color and halfway points in the 1970s and 1980s than they are in more modern times. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)