Talk:Meat industry

message: This article is quite clearly written from a strong anti-meat perspective.  It needs editing to remove this bias.  Kelly Martin 03:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I redirected to Livestock. All of the factual information from this article is already present in the appropriate sections of Livestock, including criticms. The definition of livestock used in that article almost exactly matches the definition of meat industry used here. Feco 21:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: This article contains some questionable claims apparently based on opinion.  Only two references are cited currently.  The article does not attempt to provide a reliable, informative, balanced encyclopedia entry on the meat industry.  Instead, following a problematic, four-sentence introduction, the article is wholly devoted to Criticism and Alternatives.
Thus the newly resurrected article appears again (as it did until blanked in May 2005) simply as a vehicle for promoting an anti-meat-industry advocacy agenda.  This is not an objection to inclusion of criticism, but the criticism should be in the form of verified claims based on scholarly review, and when such criticism is included, the article as a whole should be recognizable as a genuine encyclopedia entry on the topic, rather than merely a pretext for presenting the criticism.   
In the article’s opening sentence, the description of the meat industry is inaccurate in several respects.  It reveals  lack of familiarity with the topic and failure to consult credible sources to learn what is actually encompassed by the term “meat industry”.  
Regarding the meat industry, there is an abundance of credible information readily available on the internet from government agencies, the FAO, review papers in the refereed journal literature, industry associations, etc.  These could have been consulted to prepare an informative, balanced article, which could encompass such topics as history of the industry, recent production statistics and economic role of the industry, industry structure, examples of the scope and nature of regulation governing the industry in some countries, major food safety considerations (including inspection and testing practices, adoption of HACCP, development of traceability systems, food recall systems, biosecurity, etc.), some aspects of international trade, industry concentration issues (including some examples of CR4s and/or HHIs), etc.  At present, none of these topics is addressed.  
A POV tag is needed.    
Because the present article appears to use Wikipedia simply as an advocacy platform and does not provide a genuine encyclopedia entry on the meat industry, it does not serve the best interests of Wkipedia and its readers, Considering the scope of the “meat industry” as that term tends to be used by government agencies, by the industry itself, and by many others, blanking the page (again, as in 2005) and redirecting to “Meat packing industry” could be an acceptable option. If the article does not soon undergo substantial improvement, in terms of characterizing the topic and providing appropriate article scope with verified content, that option should be pursued.  Schafhirt (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope, content, verification, POV

message: As interesting as this entry is, there is not enough information and sources under the "Criticism" section. I propose that I would like to add more information about some of these problems that are listed in bullet points. I would also like to add some new information to the section, keeping in mind the Neutrality agreement of Wikipedia. I will remain as unbiased as I can, but will still explain confirmed facts about some of the problems found in the Meat Industry today and will cite the academic sources where the facts are from.  (Joaoeoso (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This article is completely biased. The "Alternatives" section shouldn't be on an article about the meat industry, it should be on the page for Meat itself. Or the section should include the industry for alternatives, not the alternatives themselves. It promotes the eating of Bison, which is an endangered species, making its consumption illegal. It mostly provides criticism on the industry and provides no info that cannot be found on other articles like Meat and Livestock. This article should be either updated to make it neutral and include more info, deleted, or merged with Meat.  TheCoolAadith (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed some of the poorly sourced material. I agree that this article should be merged with the meat article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not written from an NPOV and provides no information that can't be found on other articles.