![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A puppy mill is a horrible place where people breed any breeds of dogs unaware of issues of any kind to sell puppies to pet stores and horrible places like that.
"Puppy Mill" may or may not be a pejorative. That it seems to have been invented for mass media consumption is, defacto, evidence that it is not a neutral term.
A point that has been ignored by this group, as well as by those who condemn raising puppies "in unsanitary conditions and without proper regard for genetic ailments, socialization, etc.", is the fact that, in the United States at least, commercial dog breeding operations are licensed, regulated, inspected and policed by the USDA. The regulations (over 60 pages of detailed specifications covering exactly these issues) provide a clear guide. These regulations are enforced by periodic inspections by USDA's professional animal health inspectors. Violations will lead to loss of the kennel license and fines.
So, absent a clear definition within THIS or ANY group (how many brood females, specific genetic guidelines, specifications for kennel size, etc.) the use of he term "puppy mill" means whatever the user SAYS it means. I have never heard it used used in any but a pejorative sense. Mike Spies (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely it's incorrect to say that "puppy mill is a pejorative term (etc)"? After all, isn't "puppy mill" a specific term referring to the type of illegitimate operation that keeps animals in inappropriate, often cruel conditions and Boy|Exploding Boy]] 01:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for that little explanation. I'm quite aware what pejorative means. Are you? A pejorative is something that disparages or belittles; a puppy mill is a specific type of breeding operation. Thus, while one could not legitimately call a responsible, reputable breeding operation a "puppy mill," one could legitimately call an irresponsible, unreputable breeding operation where the dogs were confined in small cages in inhumane conditions and bred without heed for their well being or health a puppy mill, because that's exactly the type of operation the term describes. Do you follow? When you call something what it is it's not a pejorative. To give an example, saying that George Bush is a Nazi is pejorative; calling Hitler a Nazi is not. Exploding Boy 17:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Footnote 4 is an article from the UK Kennel Club. It is tagged to a sentence that says "many" pedigrees are faked. The article cited never says that--it does say that the pedigrees are of low quality. Could the footnote be moved to mid-sentence to be at the correct point? My overall feeling is that the article is so one-sided it puts the casual reader on guard from the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.243.9 (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the description is accurate, however, it's not a pejorative term. Exploding Boy 21:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah well, I've rewritten the article to make it much more accurate. Exploding Boy 22:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Herein lies the dispute (in my eyes): Elf's complaint regards the unencyclopedic nature of a phrase coined in opposition to the object of the phrase. Elf perceives the article to be about the object of the phrase (the "mills" themselves) and, deeming their mill hood subjective in nature, seeks to remove the phrase, thereby eliminating bias. Exploding Boy perceives the article to be information about the phrase itself and everything that qualifies. The inclusion standard of "qualification" insures lack of description. Correct?
Bleedingcherub 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the word I was looking for. I could get it. Sounds good to me. Maybe we could wikilink to an appropriate article (any suggestions?). Exploding Boy 02:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Heh. I just discovered that people who keeps and show rats do rat agility! Who knew! Exploding Boy 03:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think your last paragraph is in desperate need of citation, "this is often untrue or is a difference in name only". Otherwise I do think it is a good article.
Then entire 3rd graph seems out of place. It's not very objective. Instead of saying what puppy mills do, it just says what "reputable breeders" do. I'd like to see it rewritten - or even deleted - but don't have the knowledge/gall to do so. Bderwest 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section on the skin of the west highland white terriers as I know that this is one thing which puppy farmers tend to allow to get into a very bad condition. Do you think that an example of a health problem faced by dogs which is very bad within the puppy farm population should be added to the page as an example for the readers to see.
~~Kimberly
I removed most of these as Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a link directory. I left the HS link as a reference however. -- Moondyne 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What are the "most of these" you are referring to? That is, specifically what links did you remove? Also, what criteria did you use in deciding to remove them from the page? Yes, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a link directory; however, precisely because the "Puppy Mill" page is considered a disputed page it would seem that the more references to outside sources would be exactly what is needed to help the page no longer be a disputed page. -- 27 April 2007
Could we change the name from puppy mills to animal mill? There are "breeders" who mass-produce animals besides dogs in awful conditions: cats, birds, fish, rodents, etc. I recently found out that the pet store I got my quaker parrot from buys from mills, which is why he is permanently sick. bahamut0013 ( ♠♣§ ) 14:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.122 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me the most effective use of the page would be explaining what the term refers to and its specific connotations rather than being a body of commentary on ethical/effective dog breeding. The information about what reputable breeders do seems irrelevant when not in more immediate juxtapositional contrast with the connotations of "puppy mill." The primary categorization of this as an animal rights issue rather than an industrial phenomenon seems to have overbroadened the scope of the article.
Bleedingcherub 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This page is amazingly bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.96 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The "puppy mill" page here is so one sided and not a true defintion, but rather a push of a politcal agenda, i am surprised it was even allowed to remain as it is. "Puppy Mill" is a derogatory name and has no true defintion. Most people understand it to mean "nasty, dirty, unlicensed , uncared for dogs". The correct defintion would be "sub-standard kennel" There are basic care guidelines usually called "Animal Welfare Act" which provide appropriate guidelines for feed, water, medical care and housing requirements for all canine companions. Failure to meet these guidelines result in sub standard care. Sadly, many people use the term "puppy mill" to mean any kennel that breeds dogs, no matter the quality of care. Breeding kennels come in a variety of sizes and types. The quantity or type of dogs raised is unimportant compared to the care level. Many people with one dog can neglect and abuse that dog far more than some kennels with 100. CaptBarbossa 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)CaptBarbossa
I agree that Wikipedia is totally biased with this article. When perusing your article "Niggers", there is an extensive history of the usage of that derogatory term, and many contradictory schools of thought are noted. There are also more up to date pictures. On the other hand, your references cited in the "Puppy Mill" article are MAINLY animal rights organizations or their publications, with the only pictures being old, out-dated ones that were probably also supplied by an animal rights group, which makes their validity questionable(these groups have been known to use pictures of kennels from other third world countries with articles on U.S. dog kennels). Oh, I see below that one of your editors has a sister with PETA. That makes the bias a little more understandable? Since when is such a small, opinionated, special interest faction of the general public considered the end-all source of reference on any subject? Especially the Humane Society of the United States, which is under investigation by the IRS, has lost RICCO lawsuits, and is at present being charged with fraud by the state of Oklahoma! Google that and you will find REPUTABLE sources to prove it! If indeed you are inclined to leave the content of your article as it is, you should at least research opposing thoughts, and in all fairness, include up to date pictures of commercial kennels such as these: Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://realanimalwelfare.org/what-dog-breeding-kennels-loo…/ Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). I again submit to you what SHOULD be the sum TOTAL of your article on "puppy Mills". [({ There is no such thing as a "puppy mill". "Puppy mill" is not a legally defined term. It is slang invented circa 1973, by the “animal rights” extremists, originally coined to denote an unlicensed place where dogs were raised in horrible, inhumane conditions. The extremists later decided to use the term to denigrate any and all dog breeders -- small or large, standard or substandard. It's the "N-word" of dog breeders. The phrase “puppy mill” has been promoted in the media by the animal “rights” movement, people who want to end all animal ownership. It is applied indiscriminately by this small minority faction to anyone who breeds dogs, and through canny use of the media, it has become a household term. The correct term for a place that breeds or raises dogs, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, who licenses and inspects them, is a kennel facility, or a commercial kennel. If you "Google" the term "puppy mill", you will find that most of the sites noted are animal rights oriented, or sites that are trying to rectify the damage done to dog breeders by the animal rights movement.})] Why would you want to use this? Because it is the TRUTH, something the animal rights organizations are quite unfamiliar with! PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) PityPat247 PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 4:57 A.M. CST 6/3/2016
I have used search engines and state legislative searches for many variations trying to find the exact statutes widely cited making it a felony in several states to photograph or videotape a puppy mill. While references to these laws (or to failed attempts to pass such laws) abound, there are never references to specific legislation. State legislative searches have also failed to come up with anything more substantial than "trespassing on a farm", which has in fact been beefed up from previously minor to now major violations in several states. I believe the farm trespassing law has been twisted by advocates into the widely discussed ban on photography and video. I believe there is no actual law banning the surreptitious photography or video of a puppy mill. If the person is not trespassing there appears to be no actual law to prevent photography of a puppy mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavesPlanet (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, actually you are reinforcing the very point I claimed. As I claimed, there are a great many allusions to such a law on the web. There are not, however, any references to the exact statute. Even if you go to the Kansas legislative web site and search for a variety of likely terms I don't believe you will come away with the specific law in question. I think it's an urban legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavesPlanet (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No recent update, no citation of specific law, marking the item as dubious. DavesPlanet
Try researching your own website under AG-GAG. You will find that there are quite a few states that have signed bills into laws and that they have language forbidding undercover photography and recording in animal facilities. [1] PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)PityPat247 PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 3:12 A.M CST 6/3/2016.
The concept of a puppy mill still seems really generic. Either a list, or a set of parameters that show what is and is not a puppy mill would be really helpful. Unless the term is generic, by definition.
Some online definitions:
Something to chew on while I think about rewriting the introduction. :-P —Rob (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to see the NPOV issues adressed. As someone stated previous, the categorization of this as an animal rights issue, especially in the lead is not neutral as this is also a legitimate industry. The article should be primarily a description and the controversy should stay within the controversy section. --Neon white (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
When I toned this section down, I wondered if it really fits in with the article. However, I think that Oprah is such a powerful force in American culture, that her showing these images and reporting about this is a valid inclusion. I agree with Lpangelrob that it does fit better in a "media" section. Bob98133 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not denying that there are still non-compliant kennels in the U.S., it is no longer the norm. The filmed segments on the Oprah Winfrey show, depicting "puppy mills" were undercover videos shot and edited by animal rights extremists, and obviously filmed in substandard kennels quite a few years ago. Television shows like hers are sensationalism based, because it is a fact that sensationalism and scandal make money for television. So how does that make her a viable reference, a powerful force, possibly, but a reference? Encyclopedia Britannica and even World Book would roll over in their graves! PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)User talk:PityPat247PityPat247 (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 4:16 A.M CST 6/3/2016
The article should be more objective. Instead of referring to a "good" breeder (vs. a "bad" breeder?) the article should refer to common and socially accepted practices, compliant breeders vs. non-compliant breeders, or even responsible vs. irresponsible (although these last two terms may be too emotionally attached to the subject like "good" and "bad"). Nobody likes puppy mill operations but this is a place for objective information and not soap-boxing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcascio (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the Baboon picture for the animal rights box as big if not bigger than any images related to this article? Hell, the whole animal rights box is as big as the whole article. I'm all for the animal thing but that box shouldn't look like it is taking over the article.
"The high numbers of euthanized animals (4 million dogs per year in U.S.) has led animal rights advocates to oppose the mass breeding of pet animals, a view that the profitable breeding industry opposes."
This euthanasia statistic needs a source or should be removed. The Wiki-link to "euthanized animals" shows a statistic of the American Humane Society that is more than double what is quoted here. Frosty73 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I was surfing through facebook and i saw a petiton to stop petstores from selling puppies from puppy mills and i thought it would be a good idea to make the link for it available to everyone to try and help make a difference to these poor abused animals. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zia89 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is NOT a place to advocate for petitions. That is considered being biased to one side of an argument. Puppy Mills may be wrong, but Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.221.207 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't there be something about this? Zia89 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if it is true that puppy mills are often done in substandard conditions, this article massivly fails the MORALIZE test. Just present the facts, this article reads more like a PETA page than wikipedia. The article is populated by sensationalist claims and greatly overlooks commercialized facilities that treat the animals with all due care. I will tag and try to work on this in the mean time.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the refs, my mobile device has an inability to scroll down an edit box. Your concerns might be valid if you can find me an article on commercial dog breeding, then fine. However, no such article exists. This page is filled with anti-commercial dog breeding rehtoric backed up with unbashedly biased sources. I removed the referenced material because of this. Now I would like your help in bringing this article to a neutral stance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs)
It is clear that in the sense of other articles, puppy mill is used to refer to mass commercial breeding operations, not just irresponsible ones. Therefore the article caracterizes all commercial breeding facilities as bad, which fails WP:BALANCE.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Just read the opening paragraph, horribly bias! Why isn't this changed?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
But if we're calling them "Puppy mills" aren't we calling them inhumane? I've never heard the term "Puppy mill" used positivly, or even neutraly. If we're going to talk about them being humane and acceptable, wouldn't they be called "puppy breeders" or something like that? However, I do agree with the scentence being taken away. Using words like "All" "None" or "Every" is usually a sign there's a baised opinion. As in, all puppy mills are bad. None of them take care of puppies. It doesn't work, right? 69.209.119.213 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Jenny
It seems this article has been largly fixed, well done editors! --Ipatrol (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have found research correlating the production of puppy mills with animal stores; I wanted to add a little more information on this topic. Also, the benefits of animal shelters and how you can cut down on the production of puppy mills by purchasing animals from shelters opposed to animal stores. I think this information will add a new dynamic to the page. (Ktchiap (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
I question the overuse of this reference in this article. A review of the people who run the website does not list any notable qualifications for the authors. As well, it states that it is a "newspaper for pet and show dog owners" which seems to indicate that it may have a bias which should be noted. Bob98133 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently added new information to this page. I did this because I think people should be aware of what other choices they have, if they chose not to contribute to the production of puppy mills. I just wanted people to be more knowledgeable to what other options are out there. Feel free to add more information! It the section titled Pro's of Animal Shelters(Ktchiap (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
I just made the entrance a bit more netrual. Old Al (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out earlier in this article (Talk page, Felony to photograph Puppy Mills), I removed the picture at the top of the article. The reason I did this was: it automatically puts the reader in a position of uncomfort, it adds to the bias of the article because it was posted by PETA and it's illegal!!! Also, in my opinion, and according to the photos source, PETA gave free unblocked use of it. An obvious attempt to not have the photo removed based soley on Wikpedia's Image Use Policy. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Bob98133 look at this talk page, someone linked a law source that says it is illegal to photograph puppy mills. I don't care what you say, I'll keep removing it. 71.192.221.207 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Also biased. I looked at the reference and it was good, it came form the ASPCA website. But, it linked to an article on selective breeding. Which is a totally legal and humane form of creating pets. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I can split this down the middle, I removed the wikilink to the page selective breeding, because when I look at "For-profit breeding on a smaller scale is referred to as backyard breeding", I think: Backyard breeding, according to he ASPCA website, is wrong. Let me dissect this sentence: It's For-profit, like selective breeding. That is the ONLY similarity. BECAUSE backyard breeding is illegal, and selective breeding is NOT, then there is no reason to link it to selective breeding, WHICH IS A TOTALLY LEGAL AND HUMANE PRACTICE. Also, linking backyard breeding tarnishes the practice of selective breeding as an industry. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE, BACKYARD BREEDING IS A SPECIFIC TERM ABOUT AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE, at least that is what this article says backyard breeding is. SELECTIVE BREEDING IS A GENERAL TERM, MORE THAN DOGS ARE SELECTIVELY BRED. PLANTS, COWS CATS and PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IS SELECTIVELY BRED, EXCEPT HUMANS.
OMFG your dumb as shit. Look at the reference next to the sentence: "For-profit breeding on a smaller scale is referred to as backyard breeding". That is your cite source, the source is ASPCA, I already explained it to you artard. Here is the direct ref: a b ASPCA (2007). "ASPCA: Fight Animal Cruelty: Cruelty Glossary". http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_crueltyglossary. Retrieved on 2007-12-13.
Proof for the removal of PHOTO
--Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this in forums everywhere. When you know you're beaten, you poke at small things like spelling "your" and "you're" wrong.. Also, you have some balls to poke fun at my god, so that is just totally wrong and f**cked up. Also, here is a taste of your own medicine: you spelled "licenses" wrong and "photo". Here is how you spelled it "licneses" and "hoto".....KELSO BURN!!!. Fix the wording on the article then to make it not look like this article defines backyard breeding as illegal. Because my own sister, who is a member of PETA, said that the wording makes it look like backyard breeding is illegal. From MGS: Phision Mailed to you kind sir. GOOD DAY, KIND SIR!!! LOL!!! --Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you two start by acting like mature adults and be civil? A stupid image is no reason to start a flamewar. Stop playing wiki-tug-of-war and calmly discuss the issue.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I already tried Ipatrol, and he bashed my god and spelling. So, I calmly (no caps) Burnt him to get him off my back. I tried to talk civil (look at beginning of chat), but he was rude back and had no backup to his claims of reverting what I did, but I had plenty of evidence (as you can see). So, I hope you answer this Ipatrol and tell ME what I should do. Thanks --Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There were a number of spelling errors in the second paragraph of this article (Puppy mill). I had corrected those before I saw that this was a disputed article. All of the errors were contained in the paragraph starting with "Puppy mills are cruel...". Only minor spelling errors were corrected, no changes to context.
Also proof-read the rest of the article. The paragraph that I edited does not appear to have been authored the same as the rest of the article. That one paragraph seems biased compared to the rest of the article.
Robertcant (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)