Talk:Farmworker

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-04-23 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: The article seems rather negative, it seems to look at farm workers in only a negative light, and obviously from the viewpoint of America.  There is no historical perspective about of agricultural labourers, especially the commonness of the role pre-industrial revolution where it was the main work task of those in rural areas. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very negative article 

message: Much of this article seems problematic with regard to factual accuracy, neutrality and/or balanced coverage of the topic. 
A definition of “farmworker” useful in some discussions of labor law application and seen in some advocacy is approximated by the Wikipedia article’s definition since some editing in 2013.  It differs from common dictionary definitions, general usage and usage by some government agencies.  Whereas the former kind of definition often refers to a person in some subset of hired workers involved in agricultural production (but not in other farm work e.g. packing, not deemed to be “production”), the latter kinds of definitions usually refer more generally to an agricultural worker on a farm.  The difference is important, and the failure to acknowledge the existence of such difference can mislead readers, as the dissimilar definitions apply to various farmworker information in the Wikipedia article.  
As noted in the Talk section above, the Demographics section of the article contains several errors.
Under the heading “United States farm structure”, the article erroneously claims “As farm production has largely moved away from the family farms and towards an industrial agriculture model, there is an increased need for wage labor.”  According to USDA data, the US had 2.73 million hired agricultural workers in 1954 and just 1.063 million in 2012, despite greatly increased production serving a population that had increased by 93 percent over that period.  This reflects very greatly decreased, not increased, need for wage labor.  US Census of Agriculture data indicate that in 2012, 96.7 percent of US farms were family farms and 89 percent of US farmland area was in family farms. A USDA survey conducted in 2011 estimated that family farms account for 85 percent of US gross farm income.  These and other data indicate relatively little movement away from family farms in the US.  The term “industrial agriculture” is not very meaningful unless defined, because it has been used to convey a variety of meanings.  In relation to animal agriculture, the FAO uses a very precise definition based on the fraction of feed produced off-farm.  This has no necessary connection with wage labor.  Moreover, insofar as “industrial agriculture” in some other usage may involve mechanization, mechanized equipment  (especially for harvesting and handling of harvested crops) has greatly reduced labor requirements in several agricultural sectors.  
The article contains a section entitled “Low pay and wage theft”, but does not provide a neutral and balanced section on wages and incomes.  The section states “With an average annual income of $11,000, farm work occupies the second lowest paid job in the country.”  The figure given is far lower than credible recent figures, and comparison of US Department of Labor figures indicates that the “second lowest” comment is incorrect.  For example, for 2012, a tabulation by the US BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) indicates lower pay for 9 other categories of workers.  A reasonably current, balanced section on wages might note that, according to the USDA, the annual average wage rate for US agricultural field workers for 2014 was $11.29 per hour, which can be compared with the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25.  The average of $11.29 does not include the average value of perquisites, such as cash bonuses, housing or meals that are provided to some agricultural workers.  In 2013, of US private sector workers paid hourly wages, the fraction paid less than minimum wage was 2.3 percent for those in “agriculture and related industries” versus 2.6 percent for those in “nonagricultural industries”, according to the BLS.  Inclusion of such information would give readers an overall indication of how wages in agriculture compare with non-agricultural employment.   May 2014 BLS figures for “Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch and Aquacultural Animals” included median and average incomes of $22,930 and $25,160, respectivey.  The 10th  and 90th percentiles were $17,080 and $37,360, respectively.  For “Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery and Greenhouse”, the median and average were $19,060 and $20,820, respectively.  The 10th and 90th percentiles were $17,280 and $27,890, respectively.  Identification of pay-related problems is not the issue.  Instead, the issue is cherrypicked claims, material omissions and problematic editing, failing to provide balanced and credible information on wages and incomes.  Such editing gives the article the appearance of having been hijacked for promotion of an advocacy agenda, even if that was not the intent.  
 
Unfortunately, fixing the above-noted problematic content while leaving the rest of the article unchanged might be construed as an endorsement of the remainder of the article’s content, including its imbalance. Examining one of the cited references, one finds that an issue discussed under the heading of abuses appears to be supported by just 2 documented cases.  Considering that there were recently about 1.9 million agricultural workers altogether in the US, the 2 documented cases would arguably not represent an issue deserving mention in a Wikipedia article on farmworkers.  A generalization claiming what “often” occurs in treatment of US farmworkers is supported only by reference to a single study of one type of farm in one state.  Editing is needed to ensure that claims are commensurate with cited evidence.   Sexual harassment is widely recognized as an important issue wherever it occurs, but the article’s data presented on the subject are simply percentages of farmworker women who agree that it is important; no data are presented on incidence. Much of the associated commentary is anecdotal.  The present content on sexual harassment is unnecessarily long; it could be greatly condensed and supplemented with relevant data.  Over half of the body of the article now deals with farmworker abuses and about a quarter deals with farmworker organizing.  Those two subtopics are important and deserve coverage, but the article’s dominance by these subtopics,  the nature of some parts of their content, and the neglect of some other  kinds of content seem more appropriate for an advocacy website than a Wikipedia entry.  
Perhaps the best immediate course of action would be to flag the whole article to warn readers that there are concerns about factual inaccuracies, compromised neutrality and imbalanced coverage.  There were tags at the top of  this article some time ago, including reference to issues of neutrality and balance, and the need for attention from an expert on the subject.  Those tags were arbitrarily removed by an editor in May, 2013, with no discussion on the talk page and without addressing most issues identified in those tags.  Schafhirt (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed that the article could use a lot of improvement.  it's good you laid you your thoughts, but why not just WP:FIXIT instead of tagging it? Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Jytdog.  I will give it a try.  In doing so, I propose to eliminate anecdotes and unsupported (even if cited) claims.  With regard to the US, the emphasis will be on statistical data that provide a national perspective.  Not that individual or geographically limited issues are unimportant, but a focus on individual good or bad examples can give the appearance of cherrypicking, and can result in giving a distorted overall impression of the topic.  Perhaps a bit later I can add a brief overview regarding farmworkers in Canada, although less statistical information is available there, and much of the available information there is provincial rather than national in scope.   Schafhirt (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I undertook considerable condensation, because the article would otherwise be excessively long when farmworker information for other countries is included.  Schafhirt (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic content and lack of neutrality; tags should be restored

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Farmworker. 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/20080921183210/http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook98/chart2.htm to http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/fbook98/chart2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414120259/http://www.bamco.com/content/uploads/2014/01/farmworkerinventory_all_0428_2011.pdf to http://www.bamco.com/content/uploads/2014/01/farmworkerinventory_all_0428_2011.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20041010091919/http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/research_reports/art7011.html to http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/research_reports/art7011.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205095126/http://leahy.senate.gov//issues/Immigration/GuestWorker.pdf to http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Immigration/GuestWorker.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) 12:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Magsasaka. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Magsasaka until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Magsasaka" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The farmer and farmworker articles seem to have a lot of overlapping scope. Thoughts on combining the two? Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farmer vs Farmworker