Talk:Intensive pig farming

message: Reading this, one comes away with the impression that these practices evolved only recently. But descriptions of pig farming from Roman times and before make it clear that confining of sows in extremely close quarters during pregnancy and farrowing, prevention of commingling with the young, and other practices mentioned here date from thousands of years ago.
This is pretty much common knowledge in agricultural history circles, making me think that this article was solely based on animal rights organization sources.
Columella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella), for one, wrote in detail on Roman pig farming practices, sketching out pen dimensions in detail, detailing the whole process of breeding, giving sow and boar ratios, number of pregnancies, etc.
If I add this sort of information, is it welcome, or will it just be deleted?
:Well I wouldn't: needs more history stuff in it: everyone has a right to contribute good content.. And there does seem to be a push to reduce anything in agriculture down to just the world as animal liberation proponents see it. So be aware of that. Just make sure you've got some references so it's not OR (that's experienced wikipedia game play terminology for "original research"). I'd also suggest creating a user name to give things a bit more credibility and be aware there's a policy called 3RR that means if someone disagrees with you they'll often revert your work rather than adding to it and if you do it more than 3 times they can block you.. Reverting should not generally be used (as per policies) although there are people who use it as a primary form of "contributing". NathanLee 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Context Missing 

message: Overall, I consider this paragraph to be supportive of intensive farming practices and consequently should not be in a section called criticism.
However in detail:
*"All pig systems have advantages and disadvantages" - meaningless verbage
*" and in many cases research may be equivocal." - Again unreferenced, meaningless verbage
*"On the one hand," - Not appropriate for an encyclopedia
*"outdoor systems are less economically productive due to increased space requirements and higher morbidity." - correct but stated previously
*"They also have a range of environmental impacts (e.g. denitrification of soil, erosion) and welfare impacts (e.g. sunburn, heat stress, piglet squashing, increased worms and parasites)." - Again unreferenced and possibly misleading, if this implies that intensive farms are more beneficial from environmental and welfare perspectives. 
*"Depending on local conditions - such as geography, climate, and availability of skilled staff - these problems may be manageable." - more unreferenced verbage
80.189.225.114 10:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Paragraph 

message: Anyone else think this is just an ad? Seems to fail any sort of real "why is this here":
A new development spearheaded by a company called Nature's Bounty Ceylon,<www.ecopeat.com> has proven that using a blend of coconut pith & husk chips, greatly reduces waste smell by entrapping the ammonia gases from intensive farming areas. There are many benefits as the condition of air is far better when compared with traditional farming methods and the animals are far healthier requiring almost 60% less antibiotics and other skin care products. The waste, in this instance makes excellent farmyard compost with a much lower level of dangerous runoff into waterways.
Thoughts? NathanLee 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible ad 

message: User:Beirne to 69.3.72.249 (originally on user talk): I see that you have added links for hog farm so that it points to intensive pig farming, and every place I looked hog farming was referred to in a neutral sense.  Intensive pig farming is not appropriate to describe these.  This was done on a large number of articles and violates the Wikipedia principle of maintaining a neutral point of view.  Please stop this and undo the changes you have made.  Some more recent changes pointed to pig farming, which is better.  --Beirne (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.3.72.249 to User:Beirne: You think Intensive pig farming has neutrality issues and therefore rather than fix the article you refrain from linking to it?  That is a "different" way to write an encyclopedia.  If you cannot decide what kind of hog farm, then I recommend you link to the disambiguation page Hog farm and use the  tag on the link. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to all:  anyone who feels like re-linking the unlinked phrase "hog farm" please see my contributions with edit summary "link" and "fix link" in the 24 hours prior to the date of this comment.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that the Intensive pig farming article has neutrality issues.  I only read enough to see that it covers factory farming, which is a valid topic, which may or may not be covered fairly in the article.  My problem is when a mention of hog farming is directed to the intensive pig farming article when the article getting the link only speaks of hog farming in the general sense and does not imply factory farming.  For example, one of the places where a link to intensive pig farming was made was in the Biltmore article, which says this: "Intending that the estate could be self-supporting, Vanderbilt set up scientific forestry programs, poultry farms, cattle farms, hog farms and a dairy."  This does not say that factory farming was practiced, and linking to intensive pig farming besmirches Biltmore.  --Beirne (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I didn't see anything against this article specifically or that it had neutrality problems, the issue is that simple "hog farming" shouldn't be wikilinked to this article since, while the two are related, they are quite different.  Piping the title of this article through "hog farming" presents an inaccurate and misleading view in whatever articles "hog farming" appears, provided "hog farming" is the simple, non-industrial way.  The POV problems Beirne is talking about are the edits that linked to this article, not this article itself.  Only the exact term ("Intensive pig farming") or a very similar term (like "factory farming") should be linked here.  --JonRidinger (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the exact term ... or a very similar term ... should be linked is a rather absurd argument.  Whether or not the term "hog farm" should be linked to intensive pig farming depends on the actual practices in use on the farm in question. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

text: And actually IP, what I said is not an "absurd statement"; it comes from the Manual of Style: "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context..."  Check WP:LINK to understand more about what should be linked, when, how, and why.  In particular, read link clarity and link specificity.  Mass linking all instances of "hog farming" to this article is neither accurate nor helpful which is what Beirne is saying.  Each one must be taken on a case by case basis and many will not have enough info available to accurately link to this article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This article should not be a redirect from "Piggery", just a disambiguation.  There should be a "Piggery" page proper, for general and non-intensive piggeries; Europe has had piggeries since long before there was an intensive anything.  And there should be a section or full article on Piggery Pie (which is an obvious variation on Cottage or Shepherds Pie). 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piggery [pie] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Intensive pig farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509223658/http://www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/cafo_final_rule_preamble2008.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/cafo_final_rule_preamble2008.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193545/http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/summer2001/hsaintroduced.htm to http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/summer2001/hsaintroduced.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625192517/http://www.kursus.kvl.dk/shares/ea/03Projects/32gamle/_2002/pig%20farming.pdf to http://www.kursus.kvl.dk/shares/ea/03Projects/32gamle/_2002/pig%20farming.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417001124/http://daq.state.nc.us/monitor/projects/NH3_monitoring_around_hog_farms.pdf to http://daq.state.nc.us/monitor/projects/NH3_monitoring_around_hog_farms.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Y'all,
People come here primarily to learn about technical details, so the controversy section should only be 10% of the article. Instead, 90% of the article is about the animal rights movement, and 90% of the media are snuff films/pictures of pig slaughtering. Also, I strongly suspect that those who posted the videos are connected to an animal advocacy party. One should not post his or her own research (recordings of pig slaughtering) to Wikipedia.
Best regards,
Steve RealIK17 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy