Talk:Pig slaughter

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Agriculture Mid‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

text from gradiste.com

Should this be transated and added? It has something about svinjokolja. http://www.gradiste.com/TRADICIJA/zivot_kroz_godinu.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.226.227 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 May 2006

Hello, I rearranged it a little after seeing a request on BlueMoose's talk page. Its possible I misunderstood what the process is about- dont take offence if I did, unintended Fluffy999 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proverbs

I saw a few proverbs on the internet. I don't know if they should be added in wikiqoute. Keaze

EU stuff

Hello, I added some detail for EU accession- you need to cite it with someone who says it can happen, otherwise it is just an unfounded rumour. Fluffy999 15:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand "with all butchery moving to controlled, inspected facilities". Svinjokolja should be moved to butcheries since it's usually done in courtyards. Oh, and about that citation... my dad told me about it and I think I even saw it on the news. Nevertheless, I decided to search the internet for some confirmation. I saw this on [1]:

U svjetlu novih zakonski odredbi i europskih normi, prema kojima se kolinje iz dvorišta treba preseliti u klaonice, predsjednik udruge Nezavisni hrvatski seljaci Vladimir Novotny predlaže da se kolinje proglasi narodnim i kulturnim običajem te da ga se učini dijelom turističke ponude Hrvatske.

I don't really think that you're Croat so here's translation (more or less):

In the light of new laws and european norms, by which kolinje should be moved to butcheries, president of Independent Croatian villagers Vladimir Novotny suggest that kolinje should be made demotic and cultral custom and part of croatian tourism.

On the same site the text says there is a possibility for svinjokolja to get completely prohibbited (moved to butcheries).

I also saw an interesting poll here: [2]. "What do you think about prohibition of svinjokolja?". Ne, kolinje je naš narodni običaj means "No, kolinje is our demotic custom, Kolinje treba preseliti u klaonice means "Kolinje should be moved to butcheries" and "Yes, that's a right thing to do, enough with the slauthering in houses". --194.152.209.145 18:30, 29 May 2006

cellaring

This article uses the word "cellar" as a verb twice. I am unaware of "cellar" having any such meaning, nor is it listed as a verb in the Wiktionary. Can someone please define or clarify? Thanks. --Keeves 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed that now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romania & Hungary

I am thinking of modifying this page a bit, as this tradition is also still present in some other Eastern-European countries, most notably Hungary and Romania. Bandi669 07:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved to a generic title now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

general issue

12:04, 8 September 2009 207.215.252.195 (talk · contribs) (this page is supposed to be about pig slaughter but it's really about croatia.)
- adds {{cleanup}} {{npov}} {{neutrality}}
22:28, 8 September 2009 Steven Walling (talk · contribs)
- replaces that with {{dated prod|concern = Since its creation, the article has focused almost exclusively on Croatian and Serbian cultural and agricultural traditions, not pig slaughter as a general topic. ''There doesn't seem to be any general information about pig slaughter'' that couldn't be merged into either [[meat]], [[domestic pig]], or articles about the cuisine of Serbia and Croatia, and there are no real references.|month = September|day = 8|year = 2009|time = 20:28|timestamp = 20090908202805}}
03:50, 10 September 2009 DGG (talk · contribs) (just needs globalizing; there's an immense amount from the US, Italy, etc etc.)
- drops the proposed deletion template

I agree with the two previous submitters that most of the text in the article is about the Croatian tradition. This is bad for the encyclopedia because it gives undue weight to one issue. However, it's not contrary to NPOV#Undue weight because the actual text is still neutral. The solution to the problem is to expand the article by adding the missing information. I'm adding the {{expand}} template to make it more explicit. In other words, just be bold! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the undo, Eleassar, I just felt that drawing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and all that it entails was excessive :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

The photo of the pig being bled is not the sort of thing Wikipedia publishes. Wikipedia avoids pics that excite disgust, fear, revulsion, or sexual titillation because the boss doesn't want the project to be perceived as a place where tourists can get their rocks off on gore. You won't see a photo of a bloody circumcized penis or a guy with half his head blown off at Wikipedia. So there's no reason to display a photo of a slaughtered pig dying in its own blood, whether it's "informative" or not. A photo of a fresh clitoridectomy or a freshly aborted fetus lying at the bottom of a garbag can would surely be "informative" but they won't be published. Let's err on the side of common decency and good taste on this pig slaughter stuff. OK?

Wikipedia does not do censorship. Breast has many pictures of women's breasts in it. Decapitation has images some might be bothered by. Prince Albert (genital piercing) has images I find disturbing, but I accept that if you want to learn about that topic, they do help illustrate the point. All the sex articles have images. Pearl necklace (sexuality), Autofellatio, etc. Because you personally find something unpleasant to look at, is not a reason to censor it. Two people have reverted you already for that reason. You come to an article about pig slaughtering, you can expect to find some images about that. Dream Focus 20:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody breasts of a dying woman? Well anyway, it isn't censorship. The pics can be sent to Commons with a link at the foot of this page. The curious can get their rocks off there and those who find such photos offensive, disgusting, frightening, revolting, pornographic, or other won't be forced to see them. Let's not get into a big stupid "conflict" over this. The photos can be made available at Commons and the curious can get off over there. Everybody's satisfied. NYFernValley (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get their rocks off? How many others, if anyone, find these images so disturbing they don't think they should be in the article? Dream Focus 21:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of potentially disturbing or offensive pictures has been discussed to death many times over the years. There have been several major conflicts about this. There is a solid consensus that one needs a reason other than "this is sick" to remove a picture from an article. I find pictures of bloody animal bodies as gross as anyone, but it's tilting at windmills to try to change the image use policy, sorry. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian stuff

The Croatian stuff now has its own article: Croatian and Serbian pig slaughtering, processing, and butchery. This Croatian stuff is too particular, too narrow, too local to be a part of this article which takes a broad rather than a narrow view of the topic. NYFernValley (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Its a good example of pig slaughtering. Also, my religious pig slaughtering section should be here, it not that long, and it certainly not fitting in a general page about animal sacrifices. Dream Focus 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR "religious pig slaughtering section"? Please see WP:OWN. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the well referenced religious pig slaughtering section that I added. Stop reading too much into things. Dream Focus 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you disagree. So that's means you can restore unsourced content. The stuff about pig sacrifices belongs in Animal sacrifice. NYFernValley (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its about pig slaughtering. Sometimes its done for religious purposes. If you listed every single group and time period throughout history that did animal sacrifices, it'd be far too long for any single article to contain. I gave some referenced examples about pig slaughtering done for religious reasons both in the modern day, and in ancient times in well known major civilizations, just to illustrate that it is done for religious reasons at times. Dream Focus 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried about unsourced content then why create an entirely new article with that same content? Your creation of the article Croatian and Serbian pig slaughtering, processing, and butchery makes no sense at all in that context. Dream Focus 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYFernValley, please explain why you once again removed a large amount of content from the article. This is the same content you moved over to another article you created. You have protested the speedy delete tag, and asked on the talk page there that the article be kept even though it has no sources. Talk:Croatian_and_Serbian_pig_slaughtering,_processing,_and_butchery Dream Focus 06:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sources for things

I looked around for a bit, trying to find information about pig slaughtering in earlier days of America, but couldn't find anything about the slaughtering aspect of it. People raised pigs quite commonly. They breed fast enough, and can eat most anything, so they surely had plenty of them about. I thought searching for government sites only would have some results, *.gov, and added in the word "homestead" since a lot of people got land in those days from being homesteaders. Dream Focus 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-overlapping material

How is pig slaughter different from animal slaughter generally (either traditional, or in a modern abattoir)?
How is sacrifice of a pig different from animal sacrifice generally?

Until a reasonably well-articulated, well-sourced, non-trivial answer to these (and similar) questions is provided by the article, it is difficult to see this as other than a WP:CFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Czech phenomenon called zabíjačka refers solely to pig slaughter, and it is a really old and important part of national tradition in the Czech Republic. Something like pizza for Italians. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation keeps getting repeated despite the simple fact that there is no forking of content because there is no content at the animal slaughter article that describes pig slaughter, especially not traditional pig slaughter in continental Europe. The two sets of content do not conflict, this content is simply a sub-topic of that one. Describing it in the context of unacceptable forking is completely off base and oblivion to the guidelines on the assumption of good faith. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs are a_n_i_m_a_l_s -- so when you are slaughtering a pig, you are slaughtering an a_n_i_m_a_l. Unless you can demonstrate that pigs are slaughtered in some way radically different to other a_n_i_m_a_l_s, then content describing slaughter of a_n_i_m_a_l_s applies equally to pigs -- so the content is duplicated. Otherwise we'd end up with articles on sheep slaughter, cow slaughter, goat slaughter, deer slaughter, etc etc.
How do the Czechs slaughter their pigs differently from other livestock? Calling it "a really old and important part of national tradition" is more than a little vague, and does little to inform the issue. And the Czech wikipedia article does little to illuminate this -- as it gives little impression of this being "a really old and important part of national tradition" (as well as being badly sourced).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, feel free to use bold type, using this emphasis must be complicated. I think this misunderstanding is caused by different cultural background. I live in a part of the world where pig slaghter is considered something specific, apart from sheep slaughter, cow slaughter, goat slaughter, deer slaughter, etc etc. I believe I could create an article focused solely on pig slaughter in the Czech Republic, and I believe it would be an interesting and well sourced article. I already expanded this article, but someone reduced the information instead of asking me for clarification/further expansion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already demonstrates a substantial amount of specific, unique content and aspects that can not be generalized to the slaughter of other animals. Yes, some content will apply to other animal slaughter, too, so you can say it's duplicated, but that argument's a slippery slope, things don't really have to be radically distinct in order to warrant separate articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely-articulated feelings of 'specialness' are a really poor basis for an article. And much of the article is largely generic, just with a few pig-specific details thrown in (does 'The smoke house' section really tell anybody anything significant not already covered by Smoking (cooking)?). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in the article, please see Pig_slaughter#Czech_Republic. Would you mind to check out and perhaps polish my imperfect English? Ask me whatever. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing particularly vague in the articulation of 'specialness', much of the article is not generic. Indeed, I would say that these are really vague, strawman arguments - the smoking has to be mentioned as an important part of the traditional process - it can be stripped of its own section, sure, but it doesn't make sense to completely omit it. In fact, in the deletion discussion, you said everything could be merged into animal slaughter and slaughterhouse - the mention of smoking is precisely something that wouldn't fit well over there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal sacrifice

I noticed now that we seem to have a direct duplication of content with animal sacrifice#Religious practices involving pigs. This is a matter where I can agree that it's confusing to cover it in two articles in parallel. The main question should be - does the reader who looks up "pig slaughter" expect to see detailed information about religious sacrifice of pigs, or is it sufficient to guide them over there with a link?

My premise is that the same reader can expect to see detailed information about general food-related practices, the production of pig meat -- which is the obvious primary topic. It doesn't seem to me that religious practices (where no edible meat is produced) are the primary topic here, but they do deserve some mention, just like the other secondary matters (such as whether it's really necessary to obtain this food this way etc). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYFernValley, GlasgowGuyScotland, ...

Does someone who looks up "pig slaughter" expect to find an article devoted almost exclusively to the customs of Eastern Europe? I think not. They are more than likely looking for information about pig slaughter in modern slaughterhouses. It's not likely they are looking for backyard slaughter in Croatia. This is an English language encyclopedia. Your references are all in Croatian, making it difficult for English speaking editors to verify the reliability and quality of your sources. Stop entering more and more "how to" trivia on the topic. Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Ancient Greeks set aside a portion of a sacrificed pig for the gods and the people consumed the rest. So edible meat was produced at sacrifices. It seems to me you're trying to claim "ownership" of this article and shaping it into a screed about Eastern Europe. Pig slaughter is universal -- not something exclusive to Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is being given undue weight.GlasgowGuyScotland (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GlasgowGuy, feel free to expand the article with your knowledge. It is open to anyone, it is not censored or owned. Joy spent a lot of time improving the article and s/he did a good work, although the scope of the information is geographically limited. Btw, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovakia are not a part of Eastern Europe. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are a sock ... poor cowardice. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I reported him [3] and they blocked him. He has been blocked dozens of times before though, and will most likely keep coming back and irritating people. Dream Focus 05:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit annoying having to talk to a moving target who may or may not be actually listening :) but just for the record - even if a reference is not in English, an English-speaking person can have it translated and read it still, also when it's properly formatted, they can verify its origin using the provided meta data. I have quickly quoted a few local academic papers that seem to describe the current best agricultural/veterinarian practice, which address the topic usually specifically and in detail, and thereby provide a path of verifiability to the article content. Clearly it would be preferable for English-language sources to be provided, but someone else can lend a hand there. There should be no shortage of modern pig slaughter coverage in the English-speaking academic world, which will cover the generic section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands of pigs slaughtered different times and places for health reasons

In Egypt a couple of years ago, they rounded up 300,000 pigs and slaughtered them, claiming swine flu concerns, but many said it was to upset the Christians.[4] According to ABC news it was only 250,000 pigs . Lot of news articles about pig slaughters. [5] The BBC reports that [300,000] pigs were slaughtered in 1999 to prevent a virus spreading in Malaysia. Dream Focus 07:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughterhouse working conditions

Hello,

My edit was removed for being off topic [6], but I respectfully disagree with that. The conditions of pig slaughterhouse work is very relevant to this article. What do you all think? Is it on topic? Is it completely off topic? Should I alter part of it and make a new edit? I’m willing to alter the material to reach a compromise if needed, but I do wish to add most (if not all) of my material back. RockingGeo (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]