Talk:Dubbing (poultry)

Birds Mid‑importance

Dubbing (poultry) is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Agriculture: Livestock 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.
	This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Animal rights Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veterinary medicine Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine 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.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality[edit]

The practice may or may not be valid/good etc. However, the article is arguing only one side, and using biased sources. Either neutral sources need to be found, or the opposite argument added, or the pov/negative material needs to be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly states why dubbing is done, i.e. the supposed benefits Surely this makes the article balanced. After considerable research, I can find no objective 'evidence' that dubbing has the benefits it is supposed to. DrChrissy (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:OR. Someone else has to do that research and publish it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspects of the lack of research are you taking issue with? Dubbing clearly occurs and interested organisations have commented on the ethical and welfare aspects of this. Is this not simply reporting facts? DrChrissy (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After considerable research - That is what I mean. You can certainly put criticism in. However, no input from farmers groups, etc has been included. That creates pov. Your saying that based on your research - such evidence does not exist, is original research. Find some neutral source (newspaper, magazine, not an advocacy site) that says such evidence does not exist, and then its kosher. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first three references in the article are from people/organisations that appear to be involved in poultry rearing, showing etc so there IS input from 'farmers groups'...they are describing why and how to do the dubbing. DrChrissy (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on that point. In that case, if you qualify the negative information like "According to groups such as the XXXX, dubbing ...." then I would be satisfied to remove the pov template. We just can't take the opposition point of view and make that the "truth" of the article Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dubbing (poultry). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]