Talk:Savaging

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
This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine.

This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
To-do list for Savaging: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 6  

    Why do Pigs eat their own?20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    Have you read the article? Pigs eat their own young when they are stressed, malnourished, or otherwise in discomfort. Nimur 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Proposed merge from Cannibalism_(zoology)#Filial_cannibalism

    no merges. I think that the section on filial cannabilism needs to stay in the Cannibalism (zoology) article, otherwise that article would be incomplete. Savaging seems to be an animal science term while filial cannabilism is a broader scientific term. Infanticide is another even broader concept. -- Diletante 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I vote Do not merge, I believe these are separate (related) concepts as mentioned above. Nimur 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Is there any difference between the terms, other than that they are used by a somewhat different group of people? That can't be it - If that were a reason to keep two articles then we would need to separate horse from Equus caballus. — Sebastian 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    • No merge - To answer the above concern, in my opinion the difference is in the usage of the term(s). The section in Cannibalism (zoology) deals with this issue from an evolutionary and animal behavior standpoint, while savaging looks at it from an agricultural and veterinary standpoint, which is naturally going to be more concerned about economic ramifications and prevention. Both articles need expansion on these points. --Joelmills 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    This doesn't answer the above concern at all. It still holds: You can look at a horse from a biological or from an agricultural standpoint; it's still a horse, and we don't split the text by the term used for a horse. In all the answers above, I have not seen a single reason why that should be different for this article, nor do they contain any evidence for an article that is split up for that reason. The information in the Filial cannibalism section is absolutely pertinent to an article about "cannibalistic behavior of a mother animal to newborn babies." (Unless you want to change the introduction so that this article only deals with pigs or livestock, but that would be an arbitrary distition. Do dogs count? Or how about dolphins?)
    Maybe there's misunderstanding; the first argument hints in that direction: "[T]he section on filial cannabilism needs to stay in the Cannibalism (zoology) article, otherwise that article would be incomplete". Of course there should be such a section in that article. Just like there is one for sexual cannibalism and one for intrauterine cannibalism, both of which have an article on their own, too. — Sebastian 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think I was confused. Do you just want to have the info under filial cannibalism also included in this article, but still have a section on it in Cannibalism (zoology)? I guess that would be what "merge from" usually means, duh on my part. I think that's fine, but it shouldn't include examples of males coming in and killing newborns of other parents, because savaging is limited to a mother and her offspring. Actually, those examples shouldn't even be included under filial cannabilism, since filial specifically relates to an individual's own offspring. Sorry, my argument above didn't really address the discussion at hand. I change my above vote to merge, for the two or three sentences that actually apply to this article. --Joelmills 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your considerate reply; sorry that I got a bit more emotional than appropriate. This is basically what I meant; but I now realize it isn't as simple as I thought. First off, I must admit that I was the one who created the confusion about males killing newborns of other parents; that was the result of my careless change. (I'll fix that tomorrow.) The bigger question, of course is how specific this article should be:
    • Only mothers killing their offspring - "savaging"
    • Only parents killing their offspring - "filial cannibalism" (or "filial cannibalism (animals)")
    • Animals killing offspring of their own species - "infanticide (animals)" (since infanticide covers mostly humans)
    Sorry that it's getting so complicated; I realize that that strenghtens the case for leaving it as is. — Sebastian 02:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Those topic revisions seem appropriate. Most of those articles should contain links between others, since all are topically related. Nimur 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. You're not proposing to create an article for each of the possible names, are you? — Sebastian 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have no opposition to that, but I don't have enough material to fill out any of those articles. Any enthusiastic editor with good information could create these as separate articles. The savaging article should be focused on those attacks (which may or may not involve cannibalism) that would be classified as a parental aggression against young for no beneficial reason. Nimur 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Requested move

    I think filial cannibalism and savaging should come under one article, however I have recently created an article on infanticide in animals as well which was mentioned above. All of the content could potentially be merged there, but I think it would be getting a bit large, filial infanticide as a daughter article of both is a better option. The agricultural aspects could be given its own section, but I don't think it should be the main focus - as far as I know it only occurs in pigs as agricultural animals, but certainly occurs in many other species in nature. It should of course be summarized in cannibalism (zoology) and in infanticide (zoology). I think it should be named filial infanticide, as cannibalism implies infanticide but infanticide doesn't necessarily imply cannibalism. Richard001 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    The more I think about it, I prefer to keep the separate articles. The content is related, and there should be comparison and inter-linking between these related articles, but savaging is sufficiently important to deserve its own article. There are numerous reliable third-party sources which specifically focus on the term "savaging" as a distinct phenomenon. I suggest no merge at this time, given the current state of these articles. Nimur 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)