Talk:Free range

message: I am a small scale poultry and waterfowl farmer and I can tell you that this article is biased and untrue in several areas.  First of all - this whole of this article seems to be pushing a political agenda and the fact that PETA is mentioned as the first reference confirms the true motive behind the article. Free range does not mean wholly without fences, that is rediculous.  Free range means that you allow access to a secure pasture/area for your animals to forage naturally.  In addition, no where in the article are the cons of free ranging animals such as predators, nutritional deficiencies, and higher death/injury rate.  That being said  - my geese are the only production animals that free range 24/7 and that is because they can take a fox in a fight.  Believe me - once you lose 30 free-ranging ducks and chickens to a fox in one season you lock them up at night!  For their OWN good.  IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE AN AGRICULTURAL ARTICLE - GET BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY.  And for the record, I believe in free range agriculture (as do most producers), don't medicate or vaccinate the birds, and only harvest eggs so I'm not pushing an opposite agenda - I'm clarifying this one and making good information available - which, in my opinion, should have been the purpose of the original poster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.153.8 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. using the term "illogical" boils down to a logical fallacy (attacking the person). Since wikipedia is intended to be a reference, there is no place for argument within the articles. --Xenolon 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: I would suggest this is not appropriate.  Free range eggs are a distinct category with unique characteristics.  The definition for free range eggs differs widely around the world and a country by country comparison would be of value. --Rotoiti 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. I'm gonna remove the notice since it has been so long since it was put up. The bellman 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Free-range eggs into Free Range 

message: :Organic (ecological), Free range, Barn and Cages, each category being more progressive (in sense of animals' well-being and consecutive eggs quality[citation needed])
This appears to be suggesting that organic eggs are the best quality. This is controversial at the very least and needs a cite Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Leonr (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Egg quality

message: "Free range is a method of farming husbandry where the animals are allowed to roam freely instead of being contained in any manner"
I'm pretty sure even free-range chickens have some kind of fence around them, even if it's a larger one and encompasses fresh air and sunlight :P
perhaps a more rigourous explanation of the term could be found? 82.41.11.155 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - citations are required for such things! and also…
* inclusive of/at least alluding to! the cultural and historical significance of livestock that had/have 'free range' vis-a-vis ranching in North America (and potential disambiguation, as per my new discussion topic)
* definitions from various countries, certification/enforcement  organisations, pro- and anti- lobby groups/political/activist organisations, etc.
* history of definition, notable changes, etc.
* a dictionary of any sort? :'D
There's actually a fair bit of work to be done on this page, and it needs a tempered hand due to its sensitive nature (and that of its proponents!) I can see a spreadsheet in my future… wanna come back and create a profile and help? :D
Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of free range

message: there should be some mention of the purported health benefits of free range meats, to give understanding of why a consumer would seek them out. Tehw1k1 (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  benefits 

message: I just removed a part quoting the PETA "Fact"sheet. It's a biased source,and remember, PETA wants everyone to be vegan, and will lie until that objetive is achieved. --GuyWithGlasses23 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I removed another part citing a non-existing article. --GuyWithGlasses23 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Sources 

message: The passage below is full of mis-information or non-verifiable statements.  I suggest it be deleted.
De-beaking does not address the fact that cannibalistic tendencies stem from stress hormone elevation, which results directly from overcrowding conditions, and that these stress hormones inhibit the conditions necessary for the development of omega-3 fatty acids and drastically diminish the nutritive value of both the meat and eggs. As a result of that, the addition of omegas to chicken feed has been an attempt to address the inability of chickens to have enough access to insects and seeds during daily forage. Chicken's peck at each other out of aggression to disperse their population out to more naturally sustainable levels within a given environment. A rule of thumb is that if debeaking is required to address chickens' excessive pecking and cannibalism behavior, the chickens are under stress and the meat and egg products, as a result, are of lesser quality.
DrChrissy (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual incorrectness

message: I removed the "human" section.  I don't feel it is noteworthy, and in any case I feel that it isn't relevant to this article.  I'm moving it here (in wiki markup format) in case a consensus is reached that it is relevant and should be included:
==Humans==
Many libertarian people consider themselves as treated like animals in a nation state, which they consider identical to a free range farm, e.g. Stefan Molyneux has several of his philosophy programs devoted to this.The history of your enslavement
--Witan (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I changed the level of heading for this section of text, but I did so rather reluctantly at the time because I felt very unsure about its relevance to this article.  I now feel more sure that it is NOT relevant.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Witan. Good call. Steven Walling • talk  00:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Very Soft Disagree If this *is* a real philosophical 'movement' (is that how philosophy works?), and 'free-range' farms or farming practices are a key part of the idea, then it makes sense to have a small reference to it (as above) on this page - if it passes the noteworthy test, it *does* technically fall under this subject, and we oughtn't isolate it just because we don't ascribe to it. That said, if it is noteworthy, it should qualify for its own page, non? Or are the noteworthy rules lesser for headings in articles than for articles themselves? Either way, I say it's up to the Noteworthy Gods - shall I refer it?
Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human" section 

message: What's free range? Miltontnyagono (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Animals naturally live in 'habitats' (or 'ecosystems', depending on the context). 'Free range' is explained in the text of this article. Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the name of a place where animals are kept naturally  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Free range. 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/20130106095841/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_sheets/Meat_%26_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Meat_%26_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206075536/http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt to http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
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) 18:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, humans. Thought there should be a place to list parts of the articles which need citation. That is all.
Charlie Sanders (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Wot Are Needed 

message: Missing from History or United States is discussion of the "Free Range" history of the American plains and mountainous West. Cattle and sheep ranching and droving generally preceded and range laws favored the rancher. Particularly, ranchers had no responsibility for crop damage, especially in fields that were not fenced.  It would be nice to have that written up and added or linked in here. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing livestock history 

message: It seems to me that there is a cultural difference happening here with editors and discussionners who are from the USA, where the term 'range' has a more delicate? meaning and historical significance than it does in common usage elsewhere.
Given that many Wikipedia users are from or live in North America (just as there are many users from other places which equally deserve cultural allowances :D ), it might behoove us to create a disambiguation page or a short explanation of the specific meaning referred-to in this article, and to edit the content to use the hyphenated 'free-range' when referring to the pro-"humane" practices in modern farming (and to use the non-hyphenated [ooo I just got to hyphenate the word 'hyphenated' - twenty points to Gryffindor!] 'free range' when referring to e.g. cattle ranching so as to disambiguate the individual terms 'free' and 'range' - this would require the use of 'free-ranging' as an adjectival variant, but not everyone is as obsessive about hyphens as I am, and 'free-ranging' is not a term used in the practice of 'free-range farming').
Would anyone mind if I did this? It would allow the culturally-significant 'range' to have its own article (or space in an existing article on ranching?) and for each article to address the mostly-discrete issues involved in each subject without appearing critical because of a linguistic misunderstanding, or isolating people whose perspectives don't feel relevant *to us* (whoever we are!)
I'm going to save this discussion topic here, and then find a specialist sociolinguistics editor to advise. Charlie Sanders (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: I'd just like to see consistency. Let's decide which is the standard formatting: hyphenate free-range, or don't, and stick with it through the entire article. It's very confusing to utilize both styles. Once decided, move the article if necessary. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

text: If it will help, I noticed  →  on 10 April 2006, citing compound adjective, then later pluralized to Free-range eggs on 12 March 2007. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiation: free range, and free-range