Talk:Good agricultural practice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Comments)[edit]

Good Agricultural Practices is 4,870 hits on the web, when Bonnes Pratiques Agricoles are as much as 2,790.

That's hardly fictional...And indicate French are in advance on English on the issue.

Calling something "Newspeak" is not the same as calling it "Fictional". I'll rewrite the article to reflect what I meant. -º¡º

Which specific other GAPs are you refering to, BFB? Please cite some appropriate references. Tannin

Sure:
University of California/Cornell GAPs: [1] [2] [3] [4]
US Food and Drug Administration GAPs: [5]
New England Food Safety Consortium GAPs: [6]
UN FAO GAPs: [7] [8]
UN FAO GAPs: [9]
hum...if Cornell University GAP are different from other american agri universities, you sure are strange people. GAP as managed in France is a global concept, and is currently being worked out to be defined properly on all issues. Parts are already done, and very precisely defined. I should mention maybe that this is done along the guidelines defined by the FAO in Agriculture 21, as part of Agenda 21. Hence, by definition, these are guidelines proposed to be defined at world level, but implemented at nation level, depending on the specificities of each countries soil/climate/agricultural system. In any case, I *very deeply* inspired myself of the FAO for this [10]. plus some info from my job and personal knowledge I wish to add little by little. You will see that guidelines of several topics are still missing compared to the FAO guidelines. Explaining concepts is difficult for me. You are most welcome to add a paragraph explaining that these general guidelines are based on the FAO guidelines, but that the interpretation added to each point is personal. I would be quite happy if my commented guidelines became references one day :-)
but, right, it is possible that american universities work on the same concept but with different guidelines than the ones set in world conferences. Quite possibly.
I doubt it a bit though, for FAO mention that "National agencies have also promoted GAP for both quality assurance and environmental management. These include the government agencies of Canada, France, Malaysia, New Zealand, Uruguay, the United Kingdom and the United States." But well...in my country, as I said, all government agencies, technical organisations, and many NGOs are working along these guidelines.
I may be wrong sometimes boudda for sure (no doubt), but usually here on Wikipedia, I try to develop the notions that are the most widely used, at least in western world. (I know little of oriental world, sorry). I tried to work on defining soils as defined by international organisations. This is not the system I use on everyday life. I use three different ones, depending of whether I work with french, british or americans. I try to work on an international classification of geographical areas, which could be the most widely acceptable. Similarly, I would like conservation classification most widely used by wikipedia editors to be the more general possible and the most widely used, not necessary the us classification system. (But, very likely, it will be one of the systems used by american)
If you have other input about other american GAPs, I will be glad that you add about them. For the sake of people seing the work of international organisations being called newspeak.
user:anthere
How many different GAPs do you want? -º¡º
there is a cloth shop in every middle size and big size city in France called GAP. Don't remember whether it is american or italian though... it is of rather poor quality...
If you feel that this article needs disabiguation for the case of your "poor quality cloth shop", then feel free to do so. -º¡º

Excellent! Thankyou. I have to get some sleep, but I'll look at them with interest in the morning. Tannin

Direct quotation(s)[edit]

this google search suggests that parts of this article have appeared elsewhere. However this does not suggest plagiarism by wikipedians: the Wikipedia article first appeared in 2003, and this book was published in 2006 (see page 28). Is there a possibility that there is another primary source that various authors have forgotten to attribute, or that the original text has been placed in the public domain? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good agricultural practice. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Good agricultural practice. 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) 02:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Good agricultural practice. 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) 03:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_agricultural_practice&oldid=1195395429"