Talk:Horse slaughter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Horse slaughter is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Start	This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 discussion re intro 2 Proposal to rename 3 Challenge to improve it 4 Violation of copyright 5 Added assertion 6 Need to Update

[edit] discussion re intro

I am trying to edit this page, but was only able to make changes in the first section. When I saved it, that is all that now exists.

There are other changes that need to be made. HR 503 sponsored by John Sweeney expired with the 109th Congress. HR 503 has been introduced again in the 110th Congress on 1/17 by Rep. Janice Schakowsky. The Senate bill is now S.311.

The article also needs to be updated re: the 1/19 decision by the 5th district appellate court: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-11499-CV0.wpd.pdf

The 1/6 changes added many pro-slaughter paragraphs, including the pro-slaughter view of the against slaughter side.

The sentence: "The current bills are intended to govern private ownership decisions." is editorializing, not fact.

This: "While some actual horse breed associations support the ban on slaughter, the majority of organizations supporting the proposed ban on horse slaughter are equine rescue groups and animal rights groups." is misleading.

I'm a new editor and don't understand why I was not able to edit the full article this time, everything I did in December worked fine.

Jrstark 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Added deleted content back, updated and reworded. Added judicial ruling section. Updated legislation section. Added/updated links. Still need to add citations.

Jrstark 07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article badly needs to be cleaned up to source commentary which is made and claims which are made. It currently does not adhere even remotely closely to wiki standards. 68.96.255.13 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed some pro-slaughter material. 72.241.188.156 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

>>72.241.188.156, Could you give me the reason to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.233.54 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename

[edit] Challenge to improve it

Well, I disagree, obviously. The article's title is wide and its contents limited; I proposed changing the title to match the content but was over-ruled. Am I correct that within the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's rules, it is up to those who have opposed the limitation of the title to flesh out (if you will excuse the pun) the article, to ensure it lives up to its broad title? I have no interest in researching the content, but will happily assist with style, links and so on. BrainyBabe 12:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about the spirit and letter of the rules, but it's a fair enough expectation IMO that those of us who opposed the move should contribute at least a little to fixing the article.

And how I wish this principle were more universally applied! People stick cleanup tags on articles (and particularly fact tags asking for citations) with gay abandon. See nettiquette for a sad example. Only one of the five cleanup tags has any mention on the talk page. It's a fair bet that none of the four people who tagged what isn't IMO too bad an article but couldn't be bothered to say why they tagged it have any intention of trying to improve it. Andrewa 07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this positive response. I look forward to your contributions. Have you looked at horse meat? In addition to the section on production, there is a small section on "opposition to production" there, pointing to this as the main article. That would be fine in theory (ie from what the current title leads one to expect), but this article doesn't justify that global status. BrainyBabe 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm finally going to make a start on this.

First off I think is to refactor the intro. Andrewa 09:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of copyright

I appreciate the recent attempts by one editor to add material, and then by another to remove that which is too biased or otherwise unfit. I am concerned, however, that the following paragraph has been allowed to remain, even through these steps of editorial scrutiny.

From the Mail article:

Indeed, while it's perfectly legal to sell horsemeat in Britain, there are no restaurants or butchers that do so as there is no demand. That, however, does not mean Britain has no role to play in the production of those Parisian steaks. The Mail has discovered that as many as 5,000 horses are being slaughtered here in abattoirs every year and their carcasses shipped to France, where they are enjoyed by the likes of The Pony Club.

From the Wikipedia page:

While it is perfectly legal to sell horse meat in Britain, there are no restaurants or butchers that do so as there is no demand. That, however, does not mean Britain has no role to play in the production of horse meat. The Daily Mail has reported that as many as 5,000 horses are being slaughtered here in abattoirs every year and their carcasses shipped to France.

That is virtually verbatim copying, and merely giving the reference link to the original newspaper article is not sufficient to escape the charge of copyright violation, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I will remove the offending paragraph, and look forward to the inclusion of its information in another form: preferably integrated into more text, or substantially reworded, or even as a direct quote, sourced and cited as such. BrainyBabe 00:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brainybabe. That info was moved over from Horse meat by yourself in this edit. The copyvio status when you moved it here was as bad then as it was just prior to your removing it as mentioned above. I edited the snippet a couple of times in the meantime, seeking to make it fit this article better (vs. Horse meat, from whence you moved it). I've added it back and edited it a bit to make the content in this article more a paraphrase of bits and pieces from the Daily Mail article, vs. a restatement of snippets. Incidentally, see Fair use. -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. The paraphrases is fine. Yes, it was me who moved it -- it was entirely inappropriate in horse meat and my first instinct was to cut and paste to horse slaughter, ie to help the new anon editor and assume good faith, rather than to examine its provenenance. Next time someone does a big text dump, perhaps I'll look for the source first! BrainyBabe 08:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just made slight tweaks to the paraphrase to render it more encyclopedic as opposed to journalistic language. BrainyBabe 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added assertion

The existing cite does not appear to support the assertion added by your tweak, so I've moved the cite and added a {{cn}}. -- Boracay Bill 10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the Mail article is as follows:

"While no live horses are exported from Britain to Europe to meet this demand (legislation effectively prevents it), other nations are happy to cash in."

The paraphrase I added to the page is:

"UK law effectively forbids the export of live animals for slaughter."

I hope that is sufficient to persuade you to remove the {{cn}}. BrainyBabe 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to Update

This article is now outdated (horse slaughter is now banned in the US; all three slaughterhouses have been shut down). I am going to do some research and add some info in a bit.... --AeronM (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, you and I may be on the same side on this one. However, what's missing from this article is the fate of US horses since the ban went into effect. It's scary. You may want to look at Canadian issues and the Horse feedlot on the Canadian border in Montana that ships up to Calgary as well as the horror stories from Mexico in the New York Times and the increased export rate. Just depresses me some days. Do as you wish, just providing sources. This article needs some work, it may be just the place for your energy level. I mean that sincerely. Montanabw^(talk) 02:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please skip the ad hominem remarks ("it may be just the place for your energy level") and expressions of ownership ("Do as you wish"). Even if you intend a compliment, or to say you don't own the article, these remarks are likely to offend. --Una Smith (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am all too aware of what is happening since the ban went into effect. Not to illustrate a bias one way or the other, but I have a section on my website that discusses the fate of the horses since the ban. It's very sad what is happening now. I go to a local auction every month and talk to the dealers about what is going on in the industry. Horse prices are in the proverbial toilet, and horses are literally starving in their pastures as the price of hay, etc. has gone through the roof. I recently picked up a very nice 2-y-o Palomino filly for $100. She's the one I'm working with right now on my 'reality show.'

Anywho, I think this article needs a clean-up and streamline. I will check it out later, maybe do a version in the sandbox for you all to look at. Right now it's too beautiful outside, so I must ride! --AeronM (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For pete's sake, Una I was TRYING TO BE NICE! And dear, you are NOT the judge, jury, and executioner of wikipedia. Likely to offend? Oh for pete's sake. Can't you ever Assume good faith about ANYTHING I do? Aeron does in fact have a lot of energy to put into editing articles. That is a simple statement of fact. This is one that needs a lot of help. She has learned a lot about editing and is getting better all the time. And I was trying to explain that I wasn't going to get involved at all so that she was reassured and not put on the defensive. Take it at face value. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, montana, I did find your comment, and the one above, offensive. I would argue that I am not getting better at editing (as I have done it professionally for many years), but am getting better at ignoring your snarky remarks. Attacking Una for defending me was unnecessary. --AeronM (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs below from the Animal Welfare Information Center (USDA). --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Equine Welfare Issues in the United States: An Introduction
• Information Resources on the Care and Welfare of Horses: Transportation

Ref below from Associated Press. --Una Smith (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• October 2007 US/Mexico border crossing in Texas: [1]

this USDA web page has links to several PDFs concerning requirements for export from the US to Mexico of horses destined for slaughter. --Una Smith (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)