Talk:Free range

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] neutrality

The contention that concern for the welfare of animals is "illogical" would not be considered a neutral position.

Quote: "Such illogical humanization of animal behavioural patterns is called Anthropomorphizing."

Agreed. using the term "illogical" boils down to a logical fallacy (attacking the person). Since wikipedia is intended to be a reference, there is no place for argument within the articles. --Xenolon 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"By no means free from cruelty" assumes that cruelty is an undisputed characteristic of commercially raising hens. This is almost certainly not the case, and if it is that case hasn't been made. I'm going to mark this npov if there's no objections. 69.142.140.177 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While the main part of the article makes clear that there are rarely standards for what can be called "free range," and when there are they are minimal, no mention of this is made above the table of contents. I would like to add a sentence to the very first paragraph. It would go after the sentence that begins "The principle" and it would would read "In practice, there are few regulations imposed on what can be called "free range," and the term may be used misleadingly to imply that the animal product has been produced more humanely than it actually has been." I would like to invite comments on this wording and the inclusion of any sentence of this type. Thanks. Msheskin 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Free-range eggs into Free Range

I would suggest this is not appropriate. Free range eggs are a distinct category with unique characteristics. The definition for free range eggs differs widely around the world and a country by country comparison would be of value. --Rotoiti 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm gonna remove the notice since it has been so long since it was put up. The bellman 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)