Talk:Intensive animal farming/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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 [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] "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" [4] and "intensive agriculture" [5].

[6] 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)

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..[7] 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)

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)

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):

• Intensive farming
• Industrial agriculture
• Industrial agriculture (animals)
• Industrial agriculture (crops)
• Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture

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:

• Intensive farming
• Industrial agriculture
• Industrial crop agriculture
• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

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)

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[8], 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)

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 [9]).. 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. [[10]] 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)

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)

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):

• Intensive farming
• Industrial agriculture
• Industrial agriculture (animals)
• Industrial agriculture (crops)
• Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture

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)

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)