Talk:Battery cage

POV

Hiya,

Sorry I've added Template:POV to this page without a discussion on here first, but when I got here no-one had made a major edit to the page for some time - this talkpage didn't even exist yet, so I figured it might quite a long time for anyone to appear.

I'm no expert at Wikipedia rules and regulations (as evidenced by the lack of an account) but I'm pretty sure that this article needs a bit of cleaning up - it seems to spend a lot of time waxing lyrical over the efficiency and cheapness of battery cages without doing much for the other side of the argument. There's a lot of reasoning and quotes supporting battery farming, but almost nothing addressing the huge issue of animal welfare that surrounds the subject. It's not particularly biased in itself, but it's essentially only half the argument. There won't be so much of a problem once someone expands the next section, but at the moment it's unfinished, and because this is Wikipedia that's a very bad thing.

I'd do something about it myself, but I feel quite strongly about animal welfare and I'm not sure about my ability to maintain NPOV on the subject... I tried writing something, but reading it through it just wasn't going to hack it. Anyway, I'll be watching this talkpage for the next few weeks so if anyone has a problem with the template, just say. --81.151.93.183 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is neutral. It doesn't talk about the quasi-religious belief that "cages are chicken jails; we insist that you use chicken concentration camps instead" because I could think of no way of doing so without making the proponents look like idiots. In my opinion, a lot of activism is based on superstition, which doesn't stack up well in a Wikipedia article that's otherwise fact-based. I have a commercial low-density free-range egg farm, and in my opinion, the two methods of raising chickens commercially that allow the chickens to lead the "happy chicken life" to best effect are (1) low-density free-range and (2) colony cages. High-density floor confinement, high-density yarding, and high-density free range all have too high a flock size and it weirds out the chickens, leading to cannibalism, etc. Cages with 1-3 birds in them have too small a flock size and it weirds out the chickens in a different way. Colony cages with, say, 8-12 hens can be a very good method, and this method was popular in the Fifties among farmers who had started out raising hens the old-fashioned way. But activists have arbitrarily branded cages as taboo, so no meaningful dialog is possible, and a perfectly straightforward article that might give some insight as to why cages were adopted in the first place is marked as NPOV because it has an NPOV rather than kowtowing to the taboo. RobertPlamondon 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether one side or the other is right, the fact remains that there is a debate going on, and the reason I marked the article is that it only presents one side of it. This could make it seem to a reader like only one side of the argument exists - after all, it's the only one mentioned in Wikipedia, one of the most trusted sources on the web. If I knew of a template that explained that an article was incomplete, I would have used it, but instead, I used the closest thing I could find.

There's no need for the assertion that all activism is based on "quasi-religious beliefs" and that everyone wants to see the animals released into cramped spaces where the only difference from the battery cages is the lack of separating walls. Granted, some people may be lobbying for that (though I've never come across any) but from what I've seen, most follow the "decent life, decent death" motto - if the animals are contented, there's no problem. Anyway, that isn't the point: even if a view is seen to be preposterous, Wikipedia will generally still acknowledge it as a view. It's neutral - it doesn't present any one view as right or wrong, just the views and the evidence for or against them. It leaves people to make up their own minds.

What you've said about chicken farming does make sense, but it's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the need for a larger, more balanced article, and explaining that I couldn't do it myself - just like, as you've admitted, you couldn't - because of my probable bias. If you want an article on the reasons for the adoption of battery cages, then go ahead and write one, but at the moment this is the only thing Wikipedia has to say about battery cages. That's why I was suggesting that as well as the content you have added, there could be some elaboration. I wasn't making a comment about the tone of your writing, merely the content of the article. No personal insults intended. --86.141.170.222 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! Sorry to double-post, but I found something interesting while I was searching for a "discussion in progress over article POV" template or something similar. It basically illustrates what I was talking about in my last post. Source is here.

2. The moral of the story: Being right is not enough! [5]

3. The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Such editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, which is rare on controversial subjects.

4. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

There was more, but I only included the bits I saw to be relevant here. You can see the rest of the text if you click on the link above. Anyway, I'm going to go look for that template. --86.141.170.222 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that all sides must be represented, only those that are sane. Criticisms only deserve a mention if they are independently relevant. See WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. --Eyrian 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, it's obvious that if there was a theory that the Big Bang was caused by a giant space teapot and the theory was supported by three people living in the Amazon Rainforest, then it wouldn't deserve a place on Wikipedia, but this is a widely supported argument. The UK government (for example) have passed laws regarding it. It's hardly a fringe theory. --86.141.170.222 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So it would seem. If you can construct a cogent criticism section, feel free to include it. --Eyrian 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I mean - I don't think I can write on this subject and maintain a neutral point of view, due to the fact that I feel strongly about it. So, I instead added the template to reflect the state of the article as it stood. I'd like to re-add it for that reason. --86.141.170.222 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide us with some references that would help to build a good section? --Eyrian 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well... I've done a few searches just now and I've got a few references together, but I'm not sure I've really done anything that anyone else couldn't do. Here they are:

BBC search for material relating to animal rights activism

Wikipedia page - for ideas, rather than sources (obviously, Wikipedia can’t be used as a source for itself)

PETA

BBC animal ethics page

News report on banning of battery cages in the UK

Description of battery cages - seems mostly factual, not too emotive (except for the last paragraph)

Obviously if the material comes from an animal rights website such as the one above, it needs to be checked somewhere else for accuracy, but this one seems to be okay. Some of the links down the bottom of the page look interesting too, but I haven't got much time right now. Hope that's helpful. --86.141.170.222 12:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, anybody there? I've waited a day and a half since I posted the sources and there's been no response, which is fair enough - nobody's superhuman - but I'm not going to have access to a computer during the next two weeks and I'd like to get this sorted out before everybody forgets about it. I'd prod Eyrian on his talkpage, but he no longer seems to have one...

Anyway, I'm probably not going to be able to discuss this further with anyone before I go away, but I hope the explanation I provided will be enough to warrant not taking the template off until there's a section on ethics. Sorry to tag and disappear. --86.141.170.222 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The POV issue hasn't been resolved and the article remains strongly in favour of battery farming with little to no content describing the valid opposition to the technique. Thus I'm reinstating the POV tag. Snipergirl (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the section titled Welfare concern?--Dodo bird (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference list

Where is the reference list for this article? I see superscripts but clicking on them does not lead to anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.251.2 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why oh why isn't this citation being displayed properly?

I clicked on a link in this article and it was dead, so I thought I'd update it. I decided I'd learn the Wikimedia cite syntax. I tried it myself and it didn't work. So I tried an online citation generator, which came up with this:

<ref> {{cite web | url = www.uepcertified.com/pdf/2010-uep-animal-welfare-guidelines.pdf | title = Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks | author1 = United Egg Producers | year = 2010 }}</ref>

But it's displayed with a Check |URL Scheme error.

Why does this happen?

The url has to be in http:// format.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU PRAISE THE LORD GOD BLESS YOU Itwastrees (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For fun, check out Category:Pages with URL errors and you can see the other 2000 pages that made the same mistake. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 23:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Change of first line

I changed the first line of this article for two reasons. First, having worked in the industry in the UK for over 20 years, rarely have I heard battery cages being referred to as 'battery farming'. (In modern parlance they are referred to as conventional cages to distinguish them from furnished cages. Second, it seems rather odd to atribute 'Factory farming' to just the USA. The term is used here in the UK and in other countries in the EU. It is also not strictly accurate as 'Factory farming' includes other species such as pigs and broilers.___DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why has this page been moved

An editor has recently renamed this article, specifying that it refers to egg farming. But, this now means the article looks ridiculous as it contains images of other animals farmed for their fur. If there is a need to split the article, let's discuss this here first. The vast majority of information relates to the housing of egg layers, so a split into Battery cages and Battery cages (egg farming) may be appropriate.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with the move/split. I've already tagged it for an admin to move it back for now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support the split. Cages for fur are very different to cages for eggs(they do not have egg collecting chutes) LL221W (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Globalization banner

I disagree with the globalization banner that has been placed in the Examples section. There are 4 examples: Two are the mink and fox - mainly European; The other two are Civets and sun bears - mainly Asia. How can there be a European bias when they represent 50%?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It has the practices only legal in the European Union.220.245.49.25 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Split article

In the past, this article was only for chickens. Now, it also includes other animals. I think this article should be split into two articles, one for chickens and one fore other animals, because there are major differences between the two cages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.49.25 (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What would you call the page of Battery cages for non-chicken animals?__DrChrissy (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to split the page.--LL221W (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Title photo

Please see Talk:Poultry_farming#Title_photo. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battery cage. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vegsoc.org/info/laying.html#male

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battery cage. 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/20120712174941/http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf to http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DIAXlvM8?url=http://www.cok.net/feat/article-wp.php to http://www.cok.net/feat/article-wp.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926222924/http://ec.europa.eu:80/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out33_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out33_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battery cage. 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/20120524214925/http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep06/060915e.asp to http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep06/060915e.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920142107/http://www.aact.org.au/battery_hens.htm to http://www.aact.org.au/battery_hens.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125001410/http://www.chooseveg.com/eggs.asp to http://www.chooseveg.com/eggs.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out33_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Map of US restrictions

The map of US restrictions does not align with the text--Connecticut is marked instead of Massachusetts. 2600:8805:9398:3100:54DF:9AE5:B47B:3AD9 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)