Talk:Horse slaughter

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article overall..[edit]

I tried to balance article a bit as POV from person who lives in country where horse slaughter 'exists, but isn't openly spoken about'.

Problem with 'United States'-part it is woefully dated, states same issues again and again in different parts(hogging big part of article, no less) from extreme POV because malpractice of human elements in industry.

From this POV, Rest Of The World(capitalization pun intended) and article is seen as big, bad and evil. 12:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Several equine and animal welfare organizations oppose slaughter or support a ban on horse slaughter[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and people involved with horse industry.

Several animal organizations and animal agriculture groups support horse slaughter. Temple Grandin, a leading expert in humane slaughter, argues that horse slaughter can be humane provided such facilities are well-designed and managed properly.[20] Included in the animal agriculture groups supporting horse slaughter are organizations representing the interests of traditional food animal industries, such as cattle, sheep, and pork, who are concerned that banning any animal for slaughter will lead to outlawing all meat production.

Horses have been illegally sold to auctions, where they are bought by kill buyers and shipped to slaughter. Auctions provide a means of selling horses without the consent of the owner, either through theft[21] or misappropriation.[22]" Section above is extremely dated, represents USA and refers to time(2007) when horses abattoirs where still active there. (All links lead to American websites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitmince (talkcontribs) 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps rather than deleting content, you could have kept it but placed it under a heading such as "History" or "Historical context". DrChrissy (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its already on the USA-section(which needs work...) 20:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this happens worldwide, not just in the US. DrChrissy (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem was cites were in US/Canada-POV. They have certain attitude to horse slaughter.

21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may have got confused by the rather unusual linking to references which link to others. It makes verification rather difficult. Even if the US and Canada have different attitudes, this is Internationally based content. DrChrissy (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, we have a problem where content is all mixed up with citing and sourcing issues. We can't replace one big mess with a different big mess. The article needs work, and I don't think that is in dispute, but it needs to be improvement, not just more data dumping. Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hear what you are saying. I was trying to both add new content and improve current content at the same time. I'll bear your comments in mind when I return to editing the article, and thanks for taking the time to have a look. DrChrissy (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there does need to be more information added to this article that I don't think would just be data dumping, but I would like some feedback about my idea first. The inclusion of more information on countries like Italy for instance that supply and consume a large portion of the worlds horse meat would be informative juxtiposed to the debate about horse slaughter policy in the US and give a more balanced tone to the article. Is anyone interested in seeing this addition or is there consensus that better citation and organization needs to happen first? Junegloom85 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could it be useful to create a History Section for the United States to move issues that are uniquely a part of US History there to be expanded upon so the general History section can be more of a pre-modern age general world history introducing the origins of Horse Slaughter and introducing the varieties in attitudes that arose in different parts of the world without going into detail?

Junegloom85 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of images[edit]

Recently, all of the images on this page were removed. Let me remind you that wikipedia is not censored. Mariolovr (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reason to include images of the process of killing a horse, and most of these images are of very poor quality anyway and do NOT illustrate the process (you rely too heavily on the caption to describe what the photo is). The intent of including them is to shock readers, but Wikipedia is NOT a tabloid. And your edit moved the table of horse meat production-by-country (an important element of the article) way down to the section on "Legal proceedings". Normal Op (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can think of quite a few reasons why we should add images of the process of killing a horse to an article about the process of killing a horse. The most important reason is equity. A picture tells a thousand words, and there are many readers who are solely visual learners or have reading disabilities and need images. Besides from hurting the quality of the article, refusing to add images to an encyclopedic article just needlessly discriminates against these people who would benefit from it the most.
Yeah, the pictures could be better quality, but they're the best I could find. If you can find better quality ones, let me know. Undercover images like these are the best we're going to get until slaughterhouses start being more open with their practices. Besides, moderate quality photos are leagues better than no photos at all. I don't really know what you mean by "rely too heavily on the caption". Almost all educational images need a caption to give context.
Also, I don't understand why you think my intent is to shock the reader. If my intent really was to shock the reader with images of horse slaughter, wouldn't an article on horse slaughter be the absolute worst place to put those images? Mariolovr (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are exhausting with your constant debating on multiple pages, so I'm going to stop right now trying to be nice and describe what my viewpoints are or explaining my edits in detail like you're a newbie. Either read the policy, or live with the reverts. I'm done explaining because it's like banging my head on a brick wall. Watch and learn in Wikipedia, read every policy you can, because starting to edit in Wikipedia is often a trial by fire. I'll see you after you put in a few hundred more edits (if you survive that long). Good luck. Normal Op (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So after all that racket you made about not using the talk page, when do I use the talk page, you just refuse to communicate with me? That is incredibly frustrating and makes it really hard to assume good faith, which apparently is a thing here.
What policy are you talking about? Since when is exhaustion a valid reason to censor something? I'm also exhausted by your constant undoing of my work with little to no explanation, does that give me the right to re-add these images? Mariolovr (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Refuse to talk to you? Already done too much discussing and nothing has come from it except more debate from you. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Normal Op (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject." Mariolovr (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Normal Op (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we ever going to get back to the original discussion at hand? Mariolovr (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: Removing every image from horse slaughter article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The clear consensus is "No". E.g., keep images in the article. WP Policy, at WP:IUP governs. For more rationale, see WP:DTS. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should every image of horse slaughter be removed from the Horse slaughter article? Mariolovr (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Clarification: This diff [1] is the edit-cluster during which Mariolovr added 6 photos to the (then non-imaged) article four days ago, and this diff [2] is where I removed them. Normal Op (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This version contains the 6 photos, for easy viewing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Strong No. An editor (Normal Op) recently removed every image from this article because they felt the images were shocking and low quality. I strongly disagree on the basis that Wikipedia is not censored, there aren't any less gruesome alternatives, these images follow the "principle of least astonishment" and "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", and these are the highest quality images available on this topic. (Article with images for reference) Because this editor now refuses to discuss this on the talk page (and because it seems like a pretty simple case), I decided to start this RfC. Mariolovr (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No Clearly the article needs at least one image. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE we can include images that are relevant in the topic's context. I say the article should have one or two images. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, not every image should be removed, as at least one illustrative image would be useful, but it should be noted that "every image" was added just four days ago, and if the the RfC had been phrased differently (as it well and fairly could be), my response would have been, No, not every image should be added to Horse slaughter. The bin o' meat is particularly unnecessary, but the stun gun "illustrations" show nothing (they are indeed of low quality).

    A fairer question (which you two should have agreed upon first) would have been something like, "Does the Horse slaughter article need images?" — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, I think at least one of those images may work well for Horse slaughter#Controversy. Perhaps the second image at Horse meat would work for the lead image here. I think ideally we would have an image of a horse about to be stunned with a bolt gun. Per Psychologist Guy; these images are educational; how many people actually know what horse slaughter looks like? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep the pictures I came here from a notice at WikiProject Animal rights‎. The photos seem to match the subject of the article. I see no rationale for removal in the RfC, so the request seems open ended, but I do see some discussion below about why the photos might be removed. I grew up in a farming community and have seen some animal slaughter, although not horses. I see a claim that the photos may be offensive, but to me, this is photographic documentation of the source of animal products. If someone made the claim that these photos were not representative of the process, then I could understand removal. This seems like documentation of a routine process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, at least some of those linked above should be included. I personally have no problem with any of them but agree some could be seen as unnecessary. Cavalryman (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Restore the photos. They clearly contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This RfC seems excessively pointy to me, but really there are two separate questions here, 'should the horse slaughter article contain images?' and 'Are Mariolovr's edit's appropriate?' In my opinion the answer to the first question is Yes, the answer to the second question is NO. I have multiple concerns about the content, quality and origin of the images, which I have listed below
  1. The number of images added to the article (6) is excessive, given it's short length
  2. The images are unnecessarily gruesome, the image of the box of horse meat is especially nasty and serves no encyclopedic content. Although WP:NOTCENSORED states that we can include such content when it adds value to the encyclopedia it The offensive materials policies warns that such content should not be added for the sake of adding it.
  3. Many of the images are of extremely poor quality, the images of the bolt gun are almost impossible to see any details in.
  4. Many of the images are redundant, there is no value in includeing before and after images of what a bolt gun does, one of them will suffice.
  5. This is the big one. The images all come from this page,, from a French animal right organisation that was investigating abuse in french slaughterhouses. The slaughterhouse pictured in the images is a Halal slaughterhouses, and many of the identified parts of the images (e.g. cutting throats while still conscious) are not a standard part of horse slaughter processes but are instead a part of Halal slaughter. When the images were posted online the french government immediately shut the slaughterhouse down for violations of animal slaughter and animal welfare laws. Taking images from such a biased source about an slaughterhouse that was operating so completely out of line with legal and industry standard and presenting them as if they are an example of normal slaughterhouse operations is going to introduce a huge amount of bias into the article (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction, 3 of the images are from the illigal halal slaughterhouse, 2 are from this case where animal abuse and illegal practices lead to 3 slaughterhouses loosing their licence, and the final case is from [[3]], where the revelation that race horses where being slaughtered made a huge social media storm. The last image probably represents fairly normal practice, but at least 5 of the images are explicitly from abusive slaughterhouses engaging in illegal acts. (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your research and discovery into the source of the photos. Normal Op (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep one , per comments of A legitimate image of a legal process is relevant. We don’t need to be a soapbox. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not these ,(Summoned by bot) while images of normal practice MIGHT be informative- we are not here for advocacy, which these images clearly ARE intended to be. NOTCENSORED is used to try to justify all kinds of things which have no useful educative purpose. We don't do photos ofmany things, including medical procedures, abortions, etc where the image is almost inevitably 'meaty', but with little informative purpose. I was going to put a more qualified, but still sceptical answer before reading the IP's analysis. but that makes these clearly inapt.Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, it is relevant to keep at least one image. Idealigic (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No: Removing images like would, in my opinion, be just as bad as removing the Muhammad cartoons. As far as I can tell, the images fairly accurately reflect the subject of modern, industrial horse slaughter. ImTheIP (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please read the rest of the discussion where someone discloses that these particular photos are actually taken from a non-standard slaughterhouse that was closed down for their practices, therefore these photos do NOT depict "modern, industrial horse slaughter" as you put it. Normal Op (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep one - agree with the above there's no need for 6 images - 1 or 2 for illustrative purposes is fine, 6 images is not. –Davey2010Talk 20:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore the photos I would think at least two images are necessary. One of the things I like about Wikipedia, and think is very valuable, is that it is not censored. I see no other reason to remove these images than censorship. Wes sideman (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No They are gruesome and disturbing, but, for better or worse, Wikipedia is not censored. ~ HAL333([4]) 01:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • This is my first RfC, so if I've made a mistake, please let me know. Mariolovr (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: These 6 images which Mariolovr added to the article were, in my opinion, photos which failed to follow the basics of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The Rfc question has been poorly framed. There is no contention that an image might improve the article, but those images did not and do not. Normal Op (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only part of the manual of style that has been referenced here has been about the images' quality. I agree they're low quality, but unfortunately these are the best quality images available. So according to the guidelines, these images should be used until better alternatives arise. Mariolovr (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:ADVOCACY is a concern.  We just have to maintain WP:NPOV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very true. This is definitely a tricky subject to portray neutrally, but as long as we accurately portray all relevant aspects (in accordance to their respective weight), don't omit the "bad" stuff, and don't start inserting our own opinions into the captions, it should be neutral, right? Mariolovr (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are some sample photos that would be informational without being gory or objectionable. Cuts of horse meat, a drawing superimposed on a live horse photo: [5]. A captive bolt, positioned: [6]. A slaughter line with slabs of horse meat hanging [7] which is part of this New York Times article [8]. These are just samples, not suggestions to "copy" these photos. Normal Op (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos of the "killing floor" are not acceptable per the guidelines I posted above. And this one, Wikipedia:Offensive material. Normal Op (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides from the image that just shows the different kinds of meat, I see no reason why we couldn't include those too (except those specific images are copyrighted). They all highlight different aspects and collectively would make this article better. Do you have any commons images in mind? However, they don't replace the photos of the actual process of slaughtering a horse. What other guideline reasons do you think the photos of the actual killing aren't acceptable? I thought the previous concerns about stye and offensiveness had already been addressed. Mariolovr (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide educational material on a process, then images of how a captive bolt gun works is sufficient to educate how a horse is killed for slaughter without showing an actual death in progress. There is no educational value to showing still photos of an actual horse in the process of being killed, or the bloody killing floor while a 1200 pound carcass is hoisted by a winch. I do not know of any available photos you can use (per copyright). Normal Op (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think photos of the killing floor are necessarily against guidelines. The nature of the content may be shocking, but it is educational to show how a horse is processed. Photos which are selected to evoke horror and sympathy obviously would be against guidelines. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small correction, the horse in the photo being hoisted by a winch was still alive, not a carcass. The horse had been stunned by a bolt gun (which doesn't usually kill) and was later killed by a cut to the carotid artery, as shown in another photo. Hoisting animals is done to quicken the blood loss, allowing more animals to be slaughtered faster. Mariolovr (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction, a large animal is hoisted head-down with a still beating heart so that as much blood as possible is pumped out of the body when its carotid artery is severed. The animal is usually still alive at hoist, but unconscious. This is still "the killing floor" and the entire process is grisly and brutal and filthy. What did you expect, a nice clean bloodless injection to anesthetize the animal first? Speed of the processing line is not a factor in why hoist-and-cut is done; most thorough exsanguination is. Animals are hung head down for several reasons, but simply put the blood and offal can leave the carcass without contaminating the meat. Also, not all bodily functions shut down concurrently during death and hearts may still beat after something "is dead". When you listen to animal rights propaganda which is intended to horrify you and stop all animal killing, you get this sort of misunderstanding. Normal Op (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I worked at a slaughterhouse I was told there are multiple reasons why animals are hoisted upside down, including both efficiency and food safety. I didn't list all of them because I was talking about whether the animal was alive or not. That has nothing to do with me being supposedly influenced by animal rights "propaganda", and if you continue with such personal attacks, you may be blocked. Mariolovr (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if there was a delay or mistake in the sticking process, almost every stunned animal I saw became visibly conscious after a few minutes. So despite what the industry PR guys might say, bolt guns don't usually kill animals or make them brain dead. Mariolovr (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Having hopefully demonstrated above that Mariolovr's additions to the article are unsuitable I thought I might offer my opinion on what suitable alternatives could be. I think the primary image of the article should be a non-gruesome image horse carcass, as suggested by @Normal Op: above, or alternatively an image of a horse in a properly run, legal slaughterhouse.
I think a good secondary image for the article would be a compound image, illustrating various types of horse products. Someone with some Photoshop skills (i.e. not me) could combine together a few free use images from commons. something like an image with a caption "Horse meat, Animal glue, Shell cordovan and Horsehair are all products of horse slaughter" would add considerably to the article
I'm not sure that it's necessary to add a picture to the section on methods, but if so perhaps one of the images from the Captive bolt pistol article would be suitable.
Finally maybe one of the less gruesome of Mariolovr's images could be added to the controversy section, but properly identified as showing animal abuse and illegal slaughterhouse practice.
Just my two cents (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mariolovr has been blocked. I also suspect he might be a sock-puppet [9], but I take it the rfc will remain open until it is finished and a consensus is reached. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psychologist Guy: Do you think it would be worth pinging the editors who voted earlier in the RfC, or is that dissalowed? A lot of people voted under the impression that the images were depicting the going on's of a normal slaughterhouse, but the images are actually from animal rights charities investigating abusive and illegal slaughterhouse operations, the majority of which were shut down when the images in the article were published on the internet. (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said there's really 2 questions here muddled together, does the article need images at all and are Mariolovr's images the right ones to go in the article (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I don't think we need Mariolovr's images. We do need a few images but we can find ones that he did not upload. I think the real question should be about including images not the six that he chose. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good sleuthing for the SPI report, Psychologist Guy. I've been poking around and found an image which I added to Horse slaughter, then wound up editing Horse meat and found that the Horse slaughter article is positioned as the animal rights POV fork from Horse meat. Example: heading="Opposition to production, followed by "Main article: Horse slaughter". Normal Op (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I favor one or two representative images of legal processes. On one hand, this article is kind of a content fork, but on the other hand the horse slaughter issue (At least in the US and the UK) is a uniquely political one (as, unlike cattle or pigs, horses are used primarily as companion animals) so this article would be appropriately directed at that side of things. The horsemeat article should stay focused more on the product and it probably is wise to keep two articles. Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why were all of the images removed despite clear consensus?!! ~ HAL333 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked user uploaded images from an illegal operation, that’s why. Consensus was that images of some sort might be ok, but those particular ones were not. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the response. ~ HAL333 00:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Junegloom85.

Possible Inclusion of a New Sub-Section under United States to Discuss BLM Management Challenges[edit]

I have not contributed before so please do not hesitate to correct me here, I am open to any and all help.

I do not see discussion of how overpopulation of wild horses and difficulties faced by the BLM in adoption and birth control effect policy regarding horse slaughter in the United States. I thought it might be helpful to separate different challenges to policy in the United States case into different sections to add more depth to the discussion of challenges in the US policy debate.

I am interested in including the following sources:






Is anyone else interested in or strongly opposed to seeing this particular section added?

Junegloom85 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the US case is particularly interesting because even though general public consensus is that horses should not be consumed there is strong opposition to legislation that would curb or eliminate Us contribution to the International Horse Meat Industry. This is why I would like to see more aspects of the debate represented in this article and see a reorganizing that makes separating facts from advocacy easier. I think this involves more than just this one issue and I think some consideration to the economic debates involved would be prudent as well Junegloom85 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ GAO. Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses; United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2008
  2. ^ Jill Stowe, C. “Home Off the Range: The Role of Wild Horse Internet Adoptions in Informing Sustainable Western United State Rangeland Management.” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 1, MDPI AG, 2020, p. 279–,
  3. ^ Elizondo, Vanessa and Fitzgerald, Tim and Rucker, Randal R. You Can't Drag Them Away: An Economic Analysis of the Wild Horse and Burro Program (May 21, 2012). Available at SSRN: or
  4. ^ Weiss, Emily, et al. “Estimating the Availability of Potential Homes for Unwanted Horses in the United States.” Animals, vol. 7, no. 7, MDPI AG, 2017, p. 53–,
  5. ^ Lenz, Tom R. “Unwanted Horse in the United States: An Overview of the Issue.” Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 253–58.