Talk:Debeaking

message: Under 'Costs and benefits' > 'Acute pain', there is an incomplete sentence as follows:
"In Japanese quail, beak-trimming by cauterization caused lower body weights and feed intake in the period just after beak trimming."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.107.151 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete Sentence

message: The third paragraph presents the an opinion of proponents of debeaking while the opinion is in opposition to the process!??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd paragraph

message: We should put an image up here. I found some good images on flikr but unfortunately not licensed accurately. If anyone can find an image that would be great.Eddie mars (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hi, I found the current entry on debeaking extremely biased. Especially since the sources mentioned are more or less hippy 'save the animals!' specific.
The only references to this Michael Appleby study I could find were on the peta & animal liberation front websites and similar places. They all cited the study, but not a single source was linked.
I managed to track down the study here:
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/do_hens_suffer_in_battery_cages_1991.pdf
I was mostly interested in the pain of debeaking so I tracked down a study that was done in 2000 about animal welfare:
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/CME/00-72.pdf
And it shows quite a few different results than cited in the wikipedia entry and the places it was copied from. In this study the advantages of debeaking are discussed and found positive in comparison to the alternative, which is cannibalism among stressed animals.
The sources for the pain of trimming in particular, is from a study from 1996 that the '91 Appleby report could not have known about.
The study is a lot more detailed and even has experiments on what happens to birds that are debeaked at different ages, what the angle of the debeaking does, the temperature the blade should be at, a history of beak-trimming, Cauterising time, best practices and lots of alternatives to it.
It mentions cannibalism repeatedly, so I'm assuming this is what they mean. I would think chickens only pecked each other to death, but apparently they eat each other too.
I'm going to fix the entry, I just hope it's sufficiently low traffic that peta fanatics aren't going to change it back right away :P
:I have reverted the recent additions by user:80.166.147.120. They seemed to be valuable information, but were not written from a NPOV. I regret that I do not have time or expertise to rewrite them. Perhaps user:80.166.147.120 can? MikeHobday 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not saying that the previous version was objective. I was saying that your changes could have been written in a slightly more neutral tone. I am glad you have made some changes, and I have tried to make some more, hopefully heading in the right direction. Perhaps we could collaborate on getting this right? MikeHobday 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this sentence has been changed frequently. How about we remove it altogether? This sentence has no reference, first of all, and second of all, I really do not think it is scientifically arguable that a human could 'guess' at what the pain of having a beak removed would feel like. I certainly have never had my beak removed, you? Eddie mars (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, I will try to add some back in, though I take your point on how the sceinmce should be portrayed. Without being an expert on the science, I cannot argue about that - just about how it is described! I think the article should cover the debate as it exists, but accept that my first stab nneds to be improved on! A number of points: I think the article should be clear that 'chronic pain' is a definitional issue. Following your methodology, I am not sure that the final section cannot be substantially edited down. MikeHobday 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made the entry more factual 

message: "The fitting of 'bits' to deter pecking."
This makes no sense. Needs more detail.
"Others are less contentious, but carry significant cost implications:"
I disagree. Changing the light intensity, dividing the flock or adding bits of grass and lettuce to the pen is not exactly a budget-shaking decision.
Changing the environment around chickens is a one-time investment.
:Have tried to modify to take account of this. MikeHobday 09:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Additions 

message: Unless someone can post here and tell me why I shouldn't, I'm going to remove the entire section and reformat it as an "Arguments against Debeaking" section. As it is right now, it was extremely obvious to me (a first time reader of the page) that it wasn't written by someone attempting to be neutral. Everything from the title of the section to the way that the section is laid out is a NPOV violation. Kyle key 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and do it - probably worded better! MikeHobday 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Animal Activist" section 

message: The article, in its current form, strikes me as rather POV - it essentially reiterates all the reasoning of the proponents of debeaking ("welfare measure", "to control stress", "after a few minutes, the bird behaves normally" etc.) and then sums up the opponent's arguments in an "Animal Activist Version of Debeaking". The title of that section alone is POV; "activist" is a loaded word, and the term "version" implies that this is an intentionally warped version of the facts presented to further an agenda.
What's more, that section doesn't even really discuss the "animal activist version" - instead, it reiterates some claims and then proceeds to explain why they allegedly do not correspond to reality.
I cannot and do not want to comment on the practice of debeaking as such, but the article in its current form *badly* needs to be rewritten. We are an encyclopedia, after all, not propaganda material - neither for animal rights groups nor for the poultry industry. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My, this is a piece of junk, sheer propoganda including lots of outright false and uncited claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.38.214.63 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Reading this portion of the article actually pushed me to look up how to set up a NPOV dispute. To me, the article out right accuses anyone who believes that debeaking is inhumane of thinking of farmers as dim-witted.  This is just silly.  The article itself lists a wide variety of options other than debeaking that can prevent cannibalism . . .therefore, i think it is biased to say that anyone who doesn't assume the POV that debeaking is the best solution considers farmers to be idiots or inherently unethical goes too far.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.130.99 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 04, 2007 NPOV dispute 

message: I don't have time to fix the article or even finish reading it, but the first line of the "history" heading is strongly biased, calling the process "barbaric and heartless".  It should probably be edited slightly to at least call the process something more neutral, allowing the later facts about the pain it can cause to speak for themselves.
76.3.188.189 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The 'barbaric and heartless' wording was only added a few days ago. I've reverted it to the previous, long-standing version. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanted Article 

message: The word 'debeaking' is both inaccurate and in my view, borderline propoganda.  The beak is not removed during this practice, only a portion is removed, therefore it can not be called 'debeaking'.  The term 'beak-trimming' is considerably more accurate.  I can't but help feel it is used by people who wish to make an emotional statement about this practice which does not help in the debate if the inaccuracy is being perpetuated by Wikipedia.  Please note, I am not defending beak-trimming, rather that we need to be accurate in the terms we use. DrChrissy (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, list the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you believe that it should be moved, though I expect that it may elicit some discussion. Have a read of Wikipedia:Article titles first. I'm by no means an expert in this area (I'm aware that the practice occurs and have read the article here, but that's about it) - what do people in the poultry industry/people who actually do this most commonly refer to the act of removing part of a chicken's beak as? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, it might be worth pinging WP:BIRDS and WP:FARM for input on the matter... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Please can we change the name of this article?

message: Aren't the 'Footnotes' in this article really 'References'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Foot notes or references?

message: Right, yeah, the number of column-inches devoted to "pain" is excessive and undue weight.  The section needs some trimming as well as some care taken to present the admittedly-valid issue with avoidance of a POV suggestion or tone.
Also, the section about pain seems to be disguised with the misleading name "Costs and benefits".  "Costs" are generally expected to be costs to the farmers, while the text seems to take it in part as an excuse to natter on about "costs" to the feelings of un-invested observers (i.e. "animal lovers", PETA's, etc.) or to the birds themselves.
108.7.229.92 (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cost:benefit analysis usually applies to all stake-holders.  In discussions of animal welfare, the animals are obviously stake holders as, in this case, they are having part of their anatomy removed. You are incorrect in thinking that costs are generally expected to be costs to the producers.DrChrissy (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight on "pain" POV disguised as "costs". 

message: IP, you are making a series of recent edits that are becoming disruptive.  You are close to WP:3RR.  Your latest edit where you deleted a "Nutty overstatement" was infact a quote from the cited document written by the AVMA.  Please explain why you have deleted this.DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Includability requires more than "Somebody said it and I like it".  It was indeed "nutty" (IMO) and an overstatement and totally out of place for the article for the reasons we've discussed.  It's not includable and it's also more evidence of your inability to control your POV for the sake of an article that's supposed to be NPOV.  108.7.229.92 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, are you calling the AVMA "nutty" for making the statement, or, are you calling me "nutty" for including a quote from the AVMA.DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

text: The statement was not includable in this article in the context it was in -- regardless of how nutty or non-nutty it might have been in its original context.  It's fair to describe melodramatic overstatements as "nutty", IMHO.  The statement in its context appeared as a melodramatic overstatement, and hence was called "nutty" in the edit summary.  Happy now?  I won't play any more such head games with you, it's all very non-productive.  The purpose of a talk page is to discuss editing of the article, not to obsess about such melodramatic ("nutty"?) digressions. DrAlso (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - the purpose of the page and the edit summaries is to discuss content for the article.  However, there are certain rules of civility that must be followed in such discussions.  You may consider it "fair" to call my edit "nutty". I do not.  I consider it to be a WP:Personal attack.  I urge you to read the articles I have linked to and adjust your behaviour accordingly.DrChrissy (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't appreciate your attempt to misrepresent ordinary discussion of subject text as "personal attack".  You're obsessing on a red herring, a simple justified description (of words!) --  that you didn't like.  If you want to continue to taunt, misdirect, or otherwise try to draw me into an actual personal attack, sure, give it a try, but you should move it to my or your talk page.  DrAlso (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You called my edit "nutty".  That is a personal attack. I hardly think a couple of posts on here can be construed as "obsessing" about this, however, you are probably correct in that I should address your incivil behaviour on your talk page, rather than here.  While I am contemplating that, please would you post your objections to the edits that lead to you hatting the article as POV.  Could you also please direct me to where your indentation format is suggested - this is new to me.DrChrissy (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Nice try, but enough is enough, pal.  Take it to the personal talk pages. DrAlso (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent disruptive edits 

message: I just looked up "POV-pushing" and it's supposedly a pejorative and should be used carefully. I mean to use it here only as a descriptive (not a pejorative).  It seems to me that DrChrissy is making lots of effort to retain some charged text supporting his/her POV.  I've attempted to remove it using reasons other than "POV-pushing" such as, WP:undue, uncited, etc. (see edit summaries), but fundamentally it comes off as "POV-pushing" and very unencyclopedic.
In the process, he/she has demonstrated an unabashed POV here on the talk page ("animals are obviously stakeholders", etc.) and in the edit summaries.  While such passion for a subject is normal and good, passion often comes with POV (and vice versa).  We all have our POVs and we all strive to keep POV tone out of the text we make.  But, DrChrissy has been unwilling or unable to put his/her POV aside in the crafting of NPOV text here.  I suggest he/she refrain (self-ban) the editing of this page for that reason.  DrChrissy has had similar troubles in the past resulting in a (current) subject-matter ban elsewhere.  108.7.229.92 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that is rather a combative and inflammatory posting, especially considering I have just opened a thread to cordially discuss disputed content.  Please could you articulate what POV you believe I am pushing?DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have threaded your reply - I hope you don't mind.  Please, I will say this again as your answer is paramount for this discussion, what POV do you think I am pushing?DrChrissy (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Are you the IP from above in this thread?DrChrissy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's hard to avoid calling it [[WP:POVPUSH|POV-pushing]].