Talk:Industrial agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agriculture
Agropedia Portal
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


Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Proposed major revision

After studying a number of agriculture articles relating to the Factory Farming controversy, it appears to me that someone broke this Industrial agriculture article into two sub-topics:

It also looks like they copied and pasted whole sections from the parent article to the two child articles without removing it from the parent, which resulted in a large amount of duplication. I endorse the split as the parent was getting rather long (46.4KB). (See wiki guide on article length.) However, to improve the split to meet wiki standards, I plan to make the following changes to the parent article:

1 History
2 Challenges and issues
3 Animals Change to a one-paragraph summary below the main topic link to the Industrial Agriculture (animals) subtopic article

3.1 Aquaculture Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
3.1.1 Shrimp Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
3.2 Chickens Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
3.3 Pigs Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
3.4 Cattle Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

4 Crops Change to a one-paragraph summary below the main topic link to the Industrial Agriculture (crops) subtopic article

4.1 History Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
4.2 Examples Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
4.2.1 Wheat (Modern management techniques) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
4.2.2 Maize (Mechanical harvesting) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
4.2.3 Soybean (Genetic modification) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article
4.2.4 Tomato (Hydroponics) Delete -- This text exists in the subtopic article

5 Sustainable agriculture

You can compare a number of the table of contents from several Ag articles here.
JD Lambert 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That break into two articles was just a bit of a hack job, so they'll definitely need a cleanup.. There's intensive farming and extensive farming too by the way.. I'd propose that those just focus on the concept rather than the implementation which is industrial agriculture and all the sub articles.. NathanLee 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way: I like your tree structures on that linked page.. Think they show a sensible division of the bits and pieces.. But as you say obviously way way too much info to put under one (and the terms deserve to exist in their own right). NathanLee 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to proposed changes

I quite like having short summaries of each of the subtopics (aquaculture, chickens, etc.) with links to the subtopic articles. I would argue rather for deletion of "Industrial agriculture (animals)" and "Industrial agriculture (crops)." I think the "Industrial agriculture" article should contain a strong general overview, which it will with short summaries of each of the subtopics. Furthermore, the animal and plant aspects of industrial agriculture are strongly linked, so I don't see a great benefit in having a separate article on each. It is a more "natural" division to have articles on each of the separate animals and crops, rather than artificially separating the animal and plant aspects. And I think it would be unnecessary duplication to have "Industrial agriculture (animals)" and "Factory farming." Given that a consensus to delete "Factory farming" is unlikely, I think the best and least divisive outcome would be to retain the following entries: "Industrial agriculture," "Factory farming," each of the "subtopic" articles (on chickens, maize, etc.), as well as "Intensive farming" and "Extensive farming." And to delete the following entires: "Industrial agriculture (animals)"; "Industrial agriculture (crops)." FNMF 01:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Industrial agriculture (animals)" and "Industrial agriculture (crops)" serves no good purpose. Let them retain information not included elsewhere. Let them be articles that detail what is merely summarized elsewhere even as they themselves summarize data that is more fully developeed elsewhere. Farming is a big topic. Leave it room to grow. WAS 4.250 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to retaining them if that's what people think is necessary. But I'm just not sure what information they will contain that is not included either in "Industrial agriculture" or the more specific entries on chicken farming, maize, aquaculture, etc. FNMF 07:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The articles can evolve. Deciding ahead of time is inappropriate as these are top level articles that essentially summarize other articles that go into more depth. Who knows what editors who have yet to join wikipedia will find relevant to add? But reducing redundancy is indeed called for. I deliberatly created these with redundancy because I wanted others to decide where to trim ... should this detail go in this article or that article? I only want all details to go somewhere and some slight redundancy kept for the purposes of multiple context and linking and use of summary style. With wikipedia containing so little farming data, I see our job here as planting article seeds rather than providing a finished article that adequately covers the subject. It would take a freaking library to adequately cover farming. WAS 4.250 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Not if you read the certain sites for the source of truth on agricultural information: It's all just a simple redirect isn't it? ;) NathanLee 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
NathanLee NathanLee NathanLee. Consider yourself slapped with a wet noodle. "Less heat, more light" as they say. Would you like to add material to wikipedia's intensive farming articles? Only factory farming is locked down. ALL the rest are begging for your wise and informed contributions. Please don't waste your writing skills on endless arguing on locked article's talk pages. Add data where you can. Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
C'mon that was worth a chuckle.. :) Have busied myself with missing Australian ice cream articles of late as I went to tell some american friends about paddle popss and they weren't there. Travesty! I'd like to start the cleanup with this section, but I'm a bit worried stuff will get lost.. Still, might as well do a bit along the way. NathanLee 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to or from Industrial agriculture (animals)

The article Industrial agriculture (animals) seems to contain only the same information in the relevant sections of this article. The sections in this article could be severely reduced with the main article at Industrial agriculture (animals), or Industrial agriculture (animals) could be redirected here. Exploding Boy 19:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the ongoing debate over this entire subject area at Talk:Factory Farming and its archives.-Localzuk(talk) 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but from what I read over there this is a separate issue. I'm not especially concerned with what the main part of the article title is ("factory farming," "intensive agriculture" or "industrial agriculture"), only with where the information is and whether or not it's completely duplicated.
To clarify, the issue here is whether this article should include long sections on mass farming of animals, or whether the information should be in its own article (whatever that article may be titled). Exploding Boy 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove most of the duplicated information in the next hour or so. WAS 4.250 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Industrial agriculture (animals)

This strikes me as an attempt at WP:SYNTH structuralization. We need to deeply rework the entire agricultural series and part of it is to consolidate articles so that correct, non-POV forking can happen as needed. I think this freestyle WP:SYNTH has to stop, and encyclopedic quality and approach not be taken. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I object to this merge and related merges. The two subsections have the following characteristics:
  • A logical, justified split between animal and arable agriculture. I do not see how this split can be characterised as a POV fork.
  • In farming, animal husbandry and arable practices are quite distinct. It is not only a logical split, but is a split reflected in the real world.
  • Within each area, there is considerable scope for discussion of the information relevant just to the topic. There are parallels and overlaps but this is true of many topics.
  • There is already sufficient information in each article for them to be justified in their own right.
  • All articles in Wikipedia are synthesised to some extent, it is the nature of how Wikipedia is written. There appears to be a reasonable level of sourcing. If there are particular issues, then demonstrate them specifically.
  • Industrial agriculture as a topic has a considerable overlap with these subtopics, so care needs to be taken not to overlap. However, there are clearly aspects, such as the supporting industrial process around the farming that are not specifically crop or animal related that will find a home there, for example, the specialised farm machinery industry, how technology has enabled agriculture and so on.
  • The names for the articles are well chosen, neutral, uncontentious names which allow good neutral articles to evolve.
  • There is no timescale to be imposed on the production of Wikipedia. There is no urgent need to have these articles at FA status now. Deletion is not generally a good way to progress articles. Divide and conquer is a sound approach to getting articles to a reasonable quality. Spenny 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the SYNTH. Also, these articles are split up along a logical path in order to place content in easily reachable, easily understandable format. I don't see any reason to merge these articles. Jav43 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your entire explanation is unsourced, unpublished, original research, hence the basis for WP:SYNTH. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Industrial agriculture (crops)

As per above. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I don't see the SYNTH. Also, these articles are split up along a logical path in order to place content in easily reachable, easily understandable format. I don't see any reason to merge these articles. Jav43 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis

This article and related subpages should be merged and reworked until they are no longer WP:SYNTH. They include material POV forked from Factory farming, but I think they can be reworked, as factory farming specifically deals with land animals, and these seem to expand into crops and other forms of animals. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained what the synthesis might be. Please justify this claim. The explanation above is nothing to do with synthesis. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia with this inappropriate tagging. Spenny 09:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I will remove this tag as it is unexplained/unjustified. Jav43 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explaned what this synthesis is, but to explain it again: Your POV pushes the assertion that "Factory Farm" is a sub-page of Factory farming. Furthermore, in the context it provides and unpublished synthesis of various form of animal farming (Acuaculture et al) as part of a global entity called "Industrial agriculture". It is the WAS list/structure WP:SYNTH put in practice. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Please address the content, not the editor.
(2) This is a continuation of a content dispute. If you assert it is POV pushing on that basis, your claim of POV is equally tarnished by the same dispute. POV argument is therefore not sustained.
(3) Your argument of SYNTH is still simply claiming synth without any structured argument. What you say 3 times is not necessarily true.
(4) It is normal Wikipedia practice to write articles in English as a flow of text, supported by citations. That is not synthesis, it is editing. Within that editing there may be synthesis, there may be insufficient citation. As a whole the article is not a synthesis as you claim. Please deal with individual content problems constructively.
On this basis I feel the removal of the tag would be justified. Spenny 07:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense, Cerejota. For example, "factory farm" redirects to "factory farming". I don't understand your argument. Jav43 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the tag remain as long as there is a discussion. The basis for WP:SYNTH is clear: instead of using notable secondary sources to provide a narrative, the articles pulls the narrative out of the original research hat. Thats it, its not to complicated. Sources are the be all end all. However, I am waiting for the AfD of the most egregious example of original research and POV forking to be done before editing. The community might yet endorse the monstrous violation of core policy these pages represent.--Cerejota 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NYT

There's a Mark Bittman article on factory farming in the [NYT Week in Review. Useful? Incidentally, a quote: "Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all." Is the use of the word 'growing' common? Perhaps we should consider using it here. Relata refero (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)