Talk:Culling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Human Culling in the Scottish Highlands
This is very important that I find this out. I am trying to find out something about the stronger highland clans started running their less popular members out of the country. Apparently the idea was a social engineering attempt to keep Scotland's rural flavor. Someone told me that this sort of thing happened but I am in doubt. Can someone tell me more?
Piercetp 09:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Population explosion?
In an area with little food but many predators, prey animals will still have ample offspring so as to ensure survival of the next generation. Hence in some cases a cull can be counter productive by causing the population explosion it is designed to prevent.
It's not clear to me how reducing the size of a breeding population, breeding being the key word, could cause a subsequent increase in population or population growth. --24.40.139.209 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] population control
"Culling for population control is most common in wildlife management, particularly on African game farms."
This really isn't right. A farmer culls each year 1) To make money selling surplus stock and 2) Because he has to because he can only run so many animals. So it could be said all farm culling is populations control; income is made from the cull ( and to claim all culled stock is killed is blatant nonsense) and a good farmer will cull to improve his/her stock.
It really is a badly written article but I don't have the expertise to tidy up the wildlife part. Charles Esson 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Illogical
"In an area with little food but many predators, prey animals will still have ample offspring so as to ensure survival of the next generation. Hence in some cases a cull can be counter productive by causing the population explosion it is designed to prevent."
I think the argument is; the manager culls to protect the species that is being hunted but the profession manager is misquided; "the cull is not needed because if the species declines the predictor will decline anyway", i'm not sure but I think that is what is being said. Pity about man isn't it. I think a reference for this argument is needed. My own view; this and the next paragraphs should go but there needs to be something to replace them with. Charles Esson 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Satanist Groups - Reference?
certain Satanist groups have had, allegedly, rituals where certain individuals are chosen to die. Does anyone have a reference for this? The use of allegedly suggests that the authod did not. If there are no references for this, then it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Royhills (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Removed Unsourced Statements
The following is unsourced. Please reintroduce with sources.
Culling is also practiced in North America, where it is more controversial. For example the Canadian practice of culling wolves and seal-cubs. The culling of prey species elsewhere in America is also disputed, since many species moderate their own breeding habits based upon the supply of food and the rate of predator deprivation. In an area with little food but many predators, prey animals will still have ample offspring so as to ensure survival of the next generation. Hence in some cases a cull can be counter productive by causing the population explosion it is designed to prevent.
Some conservationists have claimed that culls are often associated more with the tax revenue that comes from hunting licenses than any actual ecological benefit.
Culling in the Legal Services (ediscovery) deals with filtering out files or documents that don't belong, or is deemed not responsive as evidence in a case of law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pdelongchamp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Chick slaughtering
I'm proposing that the article Chick slaughtering be merged in to this article (and perhaps Chicken), as it's a subtopic of culling and is too specific to be a separate article. The culling of chicks is just one topic of culling chickens, and doesn't deserve separate coverage. VanTucky 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- As it's been some time and no one has chimed in, I'll be merging them presently. Also see the relevant consensus here. VanTucky 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Van tucky you should not merge an article then forget to include that information in the merged article. It's really unhelpful and damages wikipedia. You're effectively removing information. If you want the article merged then please at the very least go to the trouble of including that information in the merged article. Your actions mean notable content has been effectively ommited from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The content was omitted because it isn't appropriate for a general article on culling, and the topic of chick slaughtering is not notable according to the amount of coverage it gets in reliable source material, such as these ones on chickens. None of these books mention chick slaughtering even once. It's not special in culling, and not in chicken keeping. VanTucky 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless your actions however well intentioned have meant notable content has been removed from wikipedia for several months. That is unacceptable and niether do I think it's acceptable for someone to merge an article and include next to nothing in regards to that merge in the new artcle. You can't just expect other people to do it. It's lazy and also suggests you didn't want to merge teh articles but infact wanted them deleted although I will assume good faith in that regard. However for example regarding maceration? That's notable isn't it but it's been removed. So you have removed notable information from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not notable content...which is why it wasn't all merged. You can't merge content that is far, far too specific to fit anywhere on Wikipedia. Notability is determined solely through significant coverage in reliable sources. If the subject isn't mentioned at all in the major recently published sources on chickens, then it's not notable. VanTucky 08:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- van Tucky I encourage you to watch this video which documents the process of chicken slaughtering and includes references to much of the information which you removed from wikipedia for several months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT7Um1GDzk Note also that A maceration has been mentioned on wikipedia on the maceration page. Supposed (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, the name is "VanTucky" not "van Tucky". Second, a YouTube video does not constitute a reliable published source for us to verify facts with. If there can be no proper verification, then we can't have an article on it. Just because there are websites and YouTube videos about something does not make it fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. VanTucky 08:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're being very petty by criticising me for not capitalising your handle (unless people call you that outside of wikipedia). I think your actions demonstrate the problem with wikipedia. You have just seen a video by a highly notable British chef documenting the process and rather than accept this and keep the information you would rather remove the information because the video was hosted on youtube simply because you wish to follow wikipedia's strict criteria. I think this is an instance where we should follow Wikipedia:IAR as it's 100% certain that both Jamie is telling the truth and that this information does exist elsewhere. Thus it would be unhelpful to remove it. Supposed (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- People have a right to be called what they like, it's a matter of simple respect. As for the video: you seem to be unaware of our most basic policies. I quote here directly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." A video has no established editorial system or fact checking, like a news paper or a publishing house for books. It does not meet the definition of constitutes reliability according to Wikipedia. Again, it's not about what I think may or may not be true, it's about what reliable sources can verify. VanTucky 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're being very petty by criticising me for not capitalising your handle (unless people call you that outside of wikipedia). I think your actions demonstrate the problem with wikipedia. You have just seen a video by a highly notable British chef documenting the process and rather than accept this and keep the information you would rather remove the information because the video was hosted on youtube simply because you wish to follow wikipedia's strict criteria. I think this is an instance where we should follow Wikipedia:IAR as it's 100% certain that both Jamie is telling the truth and that this information does exist elsewhere. Thus it would be unhelpful to remove it. Supposed (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, the name is "VanTucky" not "van Tucky". Second, a YouTube video does not constitute a reliable published source for us to verify facts with. If there can be no proper verification, then we can't have an article on it. Just because there are websites and YouTube videos about something does not make it fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. VanTucky 08:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- van Tucky I encourage you to watch this video which documents the process of chicken slaughtering and includes references to much of the information which you removed from wikipedia for several months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT7Um1GDzk Note also that A maceration has been mentioned on wikipedia on the maceration page. Supposed (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not notable content...which is why it wasn't all merged. You can't merge content that is far, far too specific to fit anywhere on Wikipedia. Notability is determined solely through significant coverage in reliable sources. If the subject isn't mentioned at all in the major recently published sources on chickens, then it's not notable. VanTucky 08:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless your actions however well intentioned have meant notable content has been removed from wikipedia for several months. That is unacceptable and niether do I think it's acceptable for someone to merge an article and include next to nothing in regards to that merge in the new artcle. You can't just expect other people to do it. It's lazy and also suggests you didn't want to merge teh articles but infact wanted them deleted although I will assume good faith in that regard. However for example regarding maceration? That's notable isn't it but it's been removed. So you have removed notable information from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The content was omitted because it isn't appropriate for a general article on culling, and the topic of chick slaughtering is not notable according to the amount of coverage it gets in reliable source material, such as these ones on chickens. None of these books mention chick slaughtering even once. It's not special in culling, and not in chicken keeping. VanTucky 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Van tucky you should not merge an article then forget to include that information in the merged article. It's really unhelpful and damages wikipedia. You're effectively removing information. If you want the article merged then please at the very least go to the trouble of including that information in the merged article. Your actions mean notable content has been effectively ommited from wikipedia for several months. Supposed (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
