| Revision as of 08:07, 29 June 2007 editWAS 4.250 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,993 edits →Reverts without talk page discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:21, 5 November 2013 edit undoAvicBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,227,735 editsm Robot: Fixing double redirect to Talk:Intensive animal farming | ||
| (883 intermediate revisions by 84 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Back to content: lead image== | |||
| Alright, I've left this article for about a week now... I'd like to return to discussing the lead image. I do not believe the image of the sows is appropriate for the lead, as I discussed in Archives 1 and 2. Does anyone have thoughts on this topic? | |||
| Also, I don't know how to archive. It would be great if someone could archive this whole argument as Archive 3. Thanks! ] 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My issue is that it is from an anti-factory farming site (which do tend to make exaggerated claims at times) and the caption itself is making assumptions based on content in another article.. ] 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find it to be a good, representative image of factory farming with a descriptive (if verbose) caption, including sources.-]<sup>]</sup> 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If the image were from a non-bias site, I think it would be appropriate. But, because it is known here that it is from a biased site, it violates the NPOV and should be removed or replaced. --'''<font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]~]</font></sup> 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Huh? So would one from a government agency be acceptable? It would be from a Pro-factory farming site then, and would therefore be biased... | |||
| ::The image is a true image, taken on a real farm, engaged in factory farming. How is that biased?-]<sup>]</sup> 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is a government site automagically pro-factory farming? | |||
| :::The problem here is that a) the image is not representative and b) the image is intended to be provocative rather than informative. Gestation crates are outlawed in parts of Europe and Australia, as you and SlimVirgin kindly pointed out, and in at least Florida in the US - and will be outlawed in all of the EU by 2013. Placing a largely illegal image in the lead of this article is irresponsible. Secondly, the image was intentionally captured and placed here in order to oppose "factory farming" practices - not to describe them. Something <i>informative</i> would be best. Since we've finally figured out that a "factory farm" is a CAFO, we should simply have an image of a CAFO in the lead, showing large animal numbers in a small space. ] 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't get me wrong, btw: I'm fine with this image being in the "opposition" section of this article. I just do not believe it fits in the lead. ] 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think a NPOV image would be best. I agree with the prior post. The image is not meant to inform but to inflame. Can this image be removed and another promoted in its place? --'''<font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]~]</font></sup> 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jav, if you had wanted a different image and different content, you should have agreed to compromise or mediation, or to have an article called something other than "factory farming." But as you insist on retaining what you call the "activist" title, then you have to accept that it will be about the controversy. You can't have it both ways. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Stop the distortion. These are '''not''' outlawed. They ''will'' be outlawed by 2013 in the EU, and in the U.S. there are plans to phase them out by (from memory) 2020 in some areas. But they are, as of this time, widely used in Europe and North America. That's why the image is there. It is an iconic image of factory farming. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::First off, I wanted an article called something other than factory farming. Your failure to recognize this simply means that you did not read nor participate in any of the debate we went through, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your first paragraph. | |||
| ::::Second, gestation crates ARE outlawed in parts of Europe, Australia, and at least in Florida. Please stop ignoring that. I don't care whether the image is iconic of animal welfare activists; it is not demonstrative of CAFOs. ] 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vote for Pig or Cow lead photo == | |||
| ]s are confined most of their lives in 2 ft by 7 ft ] crates.<ref>, ''factoryfarming.com''.</ref><ref name=Kaufmann>Kaufmann, Mark. , ''The Washington Post'', January 26, 2007.</ref> Pork producers and many veterinarians say that sows are prone to fighting if housed together in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates from its 187 pig nurseries over the next ten years, because of concerns from its customers, including ].<ref name=Kaufmann/> They are also being phased out in the ], with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy.<ref>, The Humane Society of the United States, January 6, 2006.</ref>]] | |||
| '''Support''', '''Oppose''', '''Neutral''' and sign your name. Reasons need to be given. Majority rules. After a week or so, we'll tally up the votes. Agreed? --'''<font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]~]</font></sup> 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : oppose the pig pic | |||
| : support the pig pic | |||
| : neutral towards the pig pic | |||
| --'''<font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]~]</font></sup> 20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' lead image of sows in gestation crates: not informative, prejudicial, not representative. ] 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' NPOV sited for source of image. --'''<font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]~]</font></sup> 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose''' per ]. -- ] <sub>]</sub> 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == Comments about voting == | |||
| This is a stupid thing to fight about. The image can be moved, the caption can be changed, other images can be found, the size of the image can be adjusted. This is not a binary choice. This is something that can be negotiated. Stop fighting about it as if it is a binary issue. Please. ] 22:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've tried all that. I keep getting reverted. ] 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You could try "all that" ''on this talk page''. Getting reverted means you were trying it on the article page. Which is fine to do once or twice; but then when reverted, the usual thing to do is to take it to the talk page and talk about it. The idea behind "consensus" is to try to find something everyone can live with. Example ideas: | |||
| #move the image down into the article | |||
| #make the image smaller or crop it | |||
| #add a contrasting image (I saw cows on a waterbed image once; the owner said happy cows gave more milk) | |||
| #caption it with "image used by anti factory farming fanatics to misrepresent factory farming" (well, you have to leave room to negotiate ... :) ) | |||
| #combine all the above into some kind of compromise. ] 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your comments. I think the first step is to determine what the majority wants and why. From there we can work on the results of that vote. If you have an opinion on the whether or not the picture should stay, please vote above. --'''<font color="black">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>'''<sup><font color="red">]~]</font></sup> 10:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have tried all that on this talk page, WAS. Then, several times, I waited a few days, then when no one responded, I made a change... and was reverted without comment on the talk page. See Archive 1. ] 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consensus is when everyone involved agrees with some solution ''enough'' that they stop fighting and move on. In cases where someone simply refuses to cooperate in finding that solution, then administrative measures (including arbcom) can be used. I suggest we find a solution to this image issue without bringing up other issues and without both sides insisting on no compromise. It was my impression that moving the image down the page had substantial support. Am I wrong on this? ] 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was the compromise I was willing to go with. ] 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Consensus vs. Voting == | |||
| ] is official policy. Please read it. "Majority rules" is ''against policy''. Consensus rules is policy. ] 07:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We seem to have consensus anyway. ] 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Lead image== | |||
| We have discussed this image and its rationale ad nauseam. It is very representative of factory farming and includes the essence of the concept with its attendant controversy and therefore belongs in the lead. I see no reason to suppress it. ] 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As discussed, it's neither representative nor typical. This article is about more than a controversy - it is also intended to inform as to a certain farming methodology. Controversy isn't everything. ] 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't care if its the lead image or used for the Opposing View section. However, it shouldn't be used for both the lead and Opposing View, and since it is the only photo in the Opposing View section (and it's certainly appropriate there), I don't think it should be moved unless an equally suitable photo is provided to take its place in Opposing View. ]<sup>(]|])</sup> 18:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverts without talk page discussion== | |||
| So... for those who know, what's the appropriate course of action to take when people revert without engaging in discussion on the talk page, even after being asked to do so? (i.e. Crum and SV) ] 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Join mediation, everyone? ] 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thing is, the reasons for its use have been expressed dozens of times, and the constant ignoring of them is getting old, and saying people aren't discussing it is just wrong, as it has been discussed to death. If you disagree with the image, we should use some form of dispute resolution - as there seems to be 2 completely opposing positions.-]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the point in mediation when you refuse to discuss the merits? That said, I won't oppose mediation. ] 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::We have discussed the merits, over and over and over, to death. This Talk page and its archives contain huge amounts of discussions, that got us nowhere. The way to proceed when we clearly disagree, is not to keep talking at each other ad nauseam, but to go to mediation. ] 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We had 55,000 words from one contributor alone in three days, so heaven knows how many words overall. If you want to go to mediation to discuss the image and the titles, let's do it. We've been suggesting it for weeks. But you can't have your way completely: multiple titles, images of your choice, no mediation. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no problem with mediation limited to the issue of the current top image and its caption. ] 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:21, 5 November 2013
Redirect to: