This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the ((WikiProject Food and drink)) project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Meat industry is a poor article that should be merged to this article as it contains little information that isn't already found on this one. There is currently a discussion about this on the talk-page of meat industry [1]. I am suggesting that we merge that article into this one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole I'd probably oppose this, an immediate reason being that Meat is currently nominated for GAN and is just awaiting a reviewer; the last thing I want to do in the middle of that is to carry out a merge.
Aside from that, Meat industry is certainly a notable topic in its own right: indeed, a sensitive and controversial one, with strongly held opinions on both sides. There is obviously scope for improvement in the text, but there is no shortage of sources or of significant things to say. Its 'History' chapter should describe how the industry transitioned from the village butcher to a factory-style mechanised process. Its 'Industry' chapter should describe the size of the business around the world, trade (imports and exports), and destinations (supermarkets, butchers, catering, industrial processing, petfood). Its 'Ethics' chapter should describe the arguments for (tradition, nutrition) and against (cruelty, environmental impact) its existence. These aren't necessarily the same as the arguments for meat as such; a case can be made that small-scale production, slaughter, and consumption do not have the same cruelty and environmental impacts, for example. We should be in no hurry to merge, as this is a substantial topic that editors might well enjoy writing, and indeed given the amount of attention to the whole area (cattle, meat, veganism, etc) it is somewhat surprising that it has been so neglected. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this fine article is doing as a mere GAN: to my mind it has FAC written all over it. But either at GA or FA level it needs to be in a single variety of English, and at present it is a mish-mash of BrE and AmE: fibres and behaviours -v- fiber and behavior, and so on. At first glance I think AmE spelling predominates, but whether you go nap on that or on BrE (and I don't imagine anyone will quibble about WP:ENGVAR whichever you go for) you really ought to stick with one or the other. Over to you for now. I hardly think we need put the review formally on hold (unless you'd prefer it.) Must go: I feel a bacon butty coming on. Tim riley talk 12:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! There seems to be a tradition of AmE in the article, so I've fixed a few fibres and behaviours. Odors, flavors, and colors all seem to be in order. Added an AmE tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you might tidy up carcass-v-carcase, and maybe shove a z into "publicised". Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree. The small amount of protection prevents continual large WP:COATRACK and POV edits and reversions on human health and animal cruelty, both topics that are extensively covered on Wikipedia already, and which are briefly and suitably mentioned here. The article consumed substantial admin effort before it was protected. It should stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Chiswick Chap. The article has been the target of people with a non-encyclopaedic agenda and needs protection. Tim riley talk 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]