Talk:Industrial agriculture

message: 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:
*Industrial agriculture (animals)
*Industrial agriculture (crops)
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 
:3.1 Aquaculture  
::3.1.1 Shrimp  
:3.2 Chickens  
:3.3 Pigs  
:3.4 Cattle  
4 Crops 
:4.1 History 
:4.2 Examples  
::4.2.1 Wheat (Modern management techniques)  
::4.2.2 Maize (Mechanical harvesting)  
::4.2.3 Soybean (Genetic modification)  
::4.2.4 Tomato (Hydroponics)  
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed major revision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Responses to proposed changes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Industrial agriculture (animals)]] 

message: As per above. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Industrial agriculture (crops)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: NYT

message: In the section entitled "convenience and choice" this article makes the highly contentious claim that "Industrial agriculture treats farmed products in terms of minimizing inputs and maximizing outputs at every stage from the natural resources of sun, land and water to the consumer..." 
While outputs may indeed be maximized in terms of sheer quantity, Inputs are likewise maximized rather than minimized. Industrial agriculture usually involves massive use of intensive irrigation and fossil fuel inputs in the form of natural gas-derived fertilizers, petroleum-derived pesticides and herbicides, and the petroleum-fueled equipment of mechanization. In these respects, the inputs of industrial agriculture are immeasurably higher than those of non-industrialized agriculture systems. It would seem difficult to find what (apart from non-quantifiables such as manual labour and intensive planning) if any inputs are minimized by industrial agriculture. If this claim is to stand in any form, these issues must be addressed and some reliable sources should be added to support it. Otherwise it should be either changed or promptly removed.
WaynaQhapaq (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: False claim based on ideology rather than reality.  Farmers are businesspeople... their goal is to make as much money as they can.  The idea that they would buy as much fertilizer, pesticide, etc as they can and wantonly use it, is just plain stupid.  Of course they want to minimize the inputs - that does not mean "use none", it means "use only as much as you need in order to get the maximum output."  For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimizing inputs

message: For anybody who wants to actually learn more about what industrial agriculture is, this article is quite useless.  It does seem useful for informing readers about criticisms of industrial ag - that is what most of the content describes.  I suggest a rename to "Criticisms of industrial agriculture". Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point that the article is lacking but I don't think it only points out criticisms. The bits about animals read that way. What parts did you think were problematic?  Geraldatyrrell (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well howdy!   As we had discussed on your talk page, I went looking for real information about the history of agriculture, and found this piece of crap.  I am kind of bummed that you cannot see the problem.  Where does WIkipedia actually explain what industrial agriculture is, what techniques and technology are involved, and how were they developed and by whom, what problems were solved and how; what problems do farmers still have?     I will answer -- no where.  This article is much the same as the state in which I found most of the genetically modified food/crops etc articles.  People who know nothing about farming - who don't actually care about farming -  but are full of very strong opinions about what is "good" and "bad" -  have filled it with Big Ideas about What is Wrong with the World.  There is no information here about industrial ag.   Did you notice what the most used source is in the history section?  "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy."   This article is a great example of what is wrong with many articles in Wikipedia.   It takes people who care to write articles.  Too many times, the "care" is actually an ax to grind, not a desire to create a NPOV, well sourced article on the topic.  Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you. This article needs work but I don't think renaming is the way to go. We shouldn't be putting the trash in the basement. It's time for spring cleaning. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of article 

message: — Assignment last updated by Vols22810 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Social Values and the Environment

message: The article never actually gets around to defining industrial agriculture, which is a fairly serious issue. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining industrial agriculture