![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
We need a category! Keaze
I saw a few proverbs on the internet. I don't know if they should be added in wikiqoute. Keaze
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
We need a category! Keaze
I saw a few proverbs on the internet. I don't know if they should be added in wikiqoute. Keaze
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)