Talk:Foie gras/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Regarding references

WP:CITE: "It is helpful to briefly mention in the citation what claim it is that is being referenced. This allows later editors to tell whether it's a phrase, sentence or paragraph that's being documented, and also to find undocumented claims sneaking into paragraphs that were otherwise referenced."

I think it is wise to use <ref> </ref> footnote style, as many claims in this article are likely to be challenged. I've renamed the "Notes" and "References" sections to "References" and "Further Reading" respectively, as these were misnamed as per WP:CITE. Some of the material in what is now "Further Reading" is clearly being used as sources, but the specific passages being documented are not specified. It would be great if someone familiar could reference the specific passages that use these sources, so that they can be moved into "References". After this is done, I'd like to see the "Further Reading" section merged with "External Links". —Trevyn 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved 3 books from "Further reading" to "References" since they were being used as references. More inline references encouraged. —Trevyn 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Stopgavage / "the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage"

Currently in the article: "Late in 2003, a French coalition of animal rights groups published the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage, claiming that the practice of forced feeding is already illegal based on existing animal protection laws in France and the European Union."

Is there any source for the notability of Stopgavage? Unlike PETA, etc., there is no Wikipedia page, which says to me that their inclusion isn't any more relevant than, say, my blog—unless you can provide some reputable secondary source that we can use for this passage. Thanks. —Trevyn 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, apart from Stopgavage being a coalition of over 80 French animal welfare or rights associations, and over 100 more in the rest of the world (among which PETA), as listed on their site; apart from their being listed in position 4 by Google when you type <"force feeding" gavage>; apart from their being the main organization struggling against foie gras in the country that is by far the world's greatest producer... David Olivier 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. Please provide a Wikipedia:Reliable source. —Trevyn 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a source to say that they are notable. That is a judgement made by the editors on the page. David Olivier has provided a list of organisations and a google ranking which shows how notable the organisation is. Don't get confused about the requirements for sources - we have to have sources for statements made, not for the notability of the organisations that make them etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I got a little muddled there. What I'm asking for is a Wikipedia:Reliable source that mentions Stopgavage and/or "the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage" that we can source this statement to, because Stopgavage itself is not a reliable source. —Trevyn 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn, Stopgavage is a reliable source at least as to what it's members and supporters are. It could not list PETA's support on its pages without PETA's real consent.

Stopgavage regularly features in the media as the main French organization against foie gras. See this recent article in Le Figaro (Dec. 21, 2006).

Now look Trevyn, you have deleted that paragraph again. What exactly are you saying is unsourced? Why do you feel you have to resort to warring rather than discussion? You proclaim your policy is WP:V: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. Did you "agressively remove" the false information repeatedly put in by SchmuckyTheCat? No, you did not. And now if I proceed to "agressively remove" all the unsourced or lamely sourced information on the foie gras page, I am going to delete half of it or more. This page currently reads like a foie gras commercial, and it seems that that suits you. Talk of being biased!

David Olivier 12:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That article would be a great source for "Antoine Comiti is an activist for Stop Gavage", but that's all it says about the organization. If they are regularly featured in the media, then it should be easy to find a reliable source that says who Stopgavage is, what they are doing, and why they are notable. Right now, it looks like the statement about them is OR based on a self-published website. —Trevyn 13:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking to be sourced, Trevyn? The fact that Stopgavage has launched a manifesto for the abolition of gavage? That is public information. Their site is quite enough source for that. David Olivier 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody pay attention? Source that. SchmuckyTheCat 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A reliable source that states what the article would say. Specifically, I am concerned with "[Stopgavage is a] a French coalition of animal rights groups" and that the proclamation "claim[s] that the practice of forced feeding is already illegal based on existing animal protection laws in France and the European Union". —Trevyn 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn, the part of the article we are talking about said: "Late in 2003, a French coalition of animal rights groups published the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage, claiming that the practice of forced feeding is already illegal based on existing animal protection laws in France and the European Union." The source for the fact that they launched that proclamation is their website itself. Go to the website, click on the English flag at the top, and then on "Manifesto" on the left. That is the proclamation. The fact that it's on their website is a valid source for the fact that they proclaim it. To ask for an alternative source is as absurd as asking for an alternative source for the fact that there is the U.S. president seal on the White House Web site, while not accepting that site itself as a reliable source!

Now you ask to source the fact that that proclamation claims that force feeding is already illegal. Well, read the proclamation, you will see that it claims that. It says:

We ask our judges to remember that there are laws limiting the suffering that can be inflicted on a sentient being, and that consequently the production of foie gras is illegal.

The fact that they say it on their website is sufficient source for the fact that they say it on their website.

Ah yes, you also want to source the fact that it is a coalition of AR groups. Well, what do you think they are? Martians? They define themselves as a coalition of groups, and they give a list on their website, and they could hardly do that without it being true. But now, that is really a minor point. Since that is all that bothers you, let's just call them Stopgavage, for the moment.

David Olivier 00:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago "considering overturning the ban"

Chicago has been "considering overturning the ban" for over four months now. The only source given for that information is a September 12 article that states: "We've heard rumblings that there may indeed be support to overturn it. We should find out in about a month, when an ordinance to repeal the ban comes up for a vote." I've deleted that "information". I've also changed the wording of the Chicago chefs "performing acts of civil disobedience". That is POV hype. David Olivier 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that, given what the source says, a more current cite would be helpful. I didn't find anything about the City Council response in particular, but I found and inserted some more information to characterize the current political response to the ban, which seems sufficient. I disagree that "civil disobedience" is non-neutral, but I tried a third wording that maybe we can agree on. —Trevyn 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Prominence of the controversy

Central to the debate here is how prominent the controversy over foie gras is, vs the culinary aspects of the product.

(To Alex Pankratov: OK, include history and all the rest if you want under what I call "the culinary aspects".)

Some have stated that the controversy aspect is of interest only to a tiny vocal minority. As I already argued, that is not at all the case. Actually, on the face of it it appears interest to more people than there are who want to know what it tastes like or whether or not it was invented by the Egyptians.

How do you know how prominent an issue is? You might want to take polls, to know what the general population thinks about it. You might also look to see if it has a bearing on the decision-making of official authorities. Those may not be the only aspects to consider, but they are among the major ones.

• 1. A series of five polls were conducted by Zogby International at the request of the Animal Rights organization Farm Sanctuary between 2004 and 2004. They can be found here. Each of these polls shows between 77 and 85% of the U.S. public supporting a ban on force-feeding for foie gras.

As an example, the March 2005 New York poll reads:

19. Foie gras is an expensive food item served in some upscale restaurants. It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals’ livers to swell up to ten times their normal size. A long metal pipe is inserted into the animal’s esophagus several times a day. Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture. Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed this practice as cruel.

Do you agree or disagree that force feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned by law in New York? Agree: 78%; disagree: 15%; not sure: 7%

We may quibble over how fair the wording of the question is; but whatever we think of that, it is not possible, in light of these results, to maintain that the issue is of interest only to a tiny vocal minority. Banning the production of a foodstuff is a drastic measure, and if people go so far as supporting such a ban, it means that they feel strongly about it.

• 2. As the intro used to state, all animal rights organizations and almost all animal welfare organizations support a ban of foie gras. I know of no such organization that doesn't. AR organizations are not just "tiny vocal minorities" - they are millions of people. Google, for one, gives almost three million references for <"animal rights"> - more than for <"foie gras">. Given that opposition to foie gras is far from being limited to AR activists, it would seem that there are many more people opposed to foie gras than there are who care for its "delicate flavour".

• 3. France is the world's major producer and consumer of foie gras (some 75% of world production, over 80% of world consumption, see ITAVI, French official statistics page). In the French Senate debate over the law that states that foie gras is part of the French national heritage, an opponent to the law argued that it made no more sense to protect foie gras than any other French gastronomic specialty. One of the defenders of the law replied: "True, force-feeding of geese is controversial. But it is precisely for this reason that it is necessary for the law to mention it." This is a clear statement that foie gras is not just any other foodstuff, it is a highly controversial foodstuff.

• 4. The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, commissioned by the European Union, adopted in Dec. 1998 a report; the conclusion paragraph (8.2) states:

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concludes that force feeding, as currently practised, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds.

That is the entire text of the conclusion, there is nothing to "balance" it. The Committee then proceeds to give its recommendations, in which the last paragraph states: "The evidence however suggests that it is very important for the further development of foie gras production to introduce alternative techniques that do not require force feeding." To this day, no such further developments have been produced, and as already noted, the French government adamantly opposes any research in that direction.

• 5. Following that report, the Council of Europe adopted a 1999 recommendation (a binding text) that states:

1. Countries allowing foie gras production shall encourage research on its welfare aspects and on alternative methods which do not include gavage.

2. Until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available, the production of foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in domestic law.

The Council of Europe comprises 46 states, and only 4, to my knowledge, currently produce foie gras: France, Spain, Hungary and Bulgaria. Poland and Italy produced foie gras at the time of the recommendation, but have since banned its production. Clearly, foie gras production is banned in a large majority of European countries, following this text and following a number of explicit country regulations, such as the German animal protection law ("It is forbidden (...) to make an animal eat food by means of force, except when this is necessary on health grounds."). These are strong decisions by government authorities that democratically represent hundreds of millions of people.

• 6. Foie gras production has been explicitly banned in several other jurisdictions: at least Israel (which used to be a major producer), California and Argentina.

• 7. It has been argued that such government decisions do not reflect real public opinion, because most people don't even know about foie gras. Public opinion does, however, know about animal welfare in general, and the laws that ban cruelty to animals are a reflection of that opinion. That means that people care about foie gras, if its production is a form of cruelty to animals. The bans edicted against foie gras follow scientific opinion that states that foie gras production is detrimental to animal welfare; as such, those bans represent public opinion.

As a side-note: The above points show that the animal welfare issue is a major aspect that the article should cover, because humans see it as important. I believe my arguments to that effect are conclusive. However, it is also of crucial importance to the hundreds of millions of ducks and geese whose destiny is to be fattened for this "delicacy". Their opinions may carry no weight on Wikipedia, and especially in the minds of some of the people editing this page. Despite that, I have mentioned them, because I do not believe that might makes right.

David Olivier 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Polls conducted for animal rights organizations (or any other lobby for that matter) with loaded questions to an apathetic populace do not represent the actual opinion of the masses. They are tailored to produce the desired answer from a sampled population that is ignorant of the issue (so that the poll question presents only the information the pollers want the subjects to know). I was watching Frontline on PBS the other day, and they showed how refering to estate tax as death tax completely flipped the results of public opinion polls on the same issue. Polls of this kind are to be taken with a strong grain of salt.--Boffob 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to the others in a minute, but for #5, I want to point out that Council of Europe recommendations are not binding. "Recommendations are not binding on member States"[1], "As their name suggests, Recommendations are not binding on Member States."[2] Even CoE treaties are only binding on states that choose to ratify them. —Trevyn 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Public opinion does, however, know about animal welfare in general, and the laws that ban cruelty to animals are a reflection of that opinion. That means that people care about foie gras, if its production is a form of cruelty to animals. - this is the logical fallacy. The fact that someone knows about "animal welfare in general" does not in any way mean that they find the subject worthy of attention. Almost everyone knows of UFO theories, but it does not mean anything beyond that. You demonstrated that this is in fact a vocalized subject, which was never questioned.

The existence of the laws concerned with Foie Gras is not much of an indication of a public opinion. I.e. the fact that Foie Gras is prohibited in Norway has about the same level of importance as prohibiting ethnic African cuisine in Mongolia. It is easier for the state to give in than to waste time and resources arguing with pushy activists.

I am going to repeat again my take on this "trench war" - the controversy needs to go onto its own page. There is one already - Force-feeding. Pushing for more content on the controversy in this article is simply a lame attempt to piggyback on the popularity of Foie Gras subject itself. If a lot of people (as you are saying) are interested in Force-feeding issue, they should be able to find all relevant information on its respective page. This is how encyclopedias work. You don't put A where B is, because B is more popular and you want more people to read about A.

Alex Pankratov 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know the rules of Wikipedia, if there already is an article about Force-feeding, nearly all of the controversy explained at length in this article should be transferred there, and the controversy section in this article should be only a brief summary with a link to the main Force-feeding article.--Ramdrake 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming more clear to me that, right now, there just isn't much to say about the controversy, even if animal welfare concerns were incredibly widespread. In a nutshell, some people and organizations believe that concerns about animal welfare should influence legislation and personal decisions, that foie gras production, and force feeding in particular, is detrimental to the welfare of animals, that some courts and legislative bodies agree, and that some people and companies and legislative bodies don't (yet?) agree. There is some discussion of all of this in reliable sources, but very little scientific evidence either way; the summary section of the EU report repeatedly includes phrases like "not known", "not been documented", "not been studied", "no conclusive scientific evidence", "no scientific study has been carried out", and "not been investigated". As such, the concerns are largely speculative, and thus not relevant to the factual sections of the article. There are a reasonable number of arguments and sources for all of this, and it all traces back to the same "animal welfare" point, and since it is easily reduced to a single issue, it belongs in its own section. —Trevyn 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Trevyn: the recommendations of the Council of Europe Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes are binding. See here:

For this purpose, the T-AP [i.e. Standing Committee] follows the developments in scientific research and new methods in animal husbandry. These Recommendations are different from those adopted by the Committee of Ministers as they become binding on the Parties six months after their adoption.

David Olivier 22:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call, they appear to derive their authority from ETS 87. I replaced the paragraph with tweaks. —Trevyn 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ramdrake: The article about force-feeding is not specific to foie gras. The issue of force-feeding a sick cat, or of force-feeding prisoners undertaking a hunger strike, or as a sexual fetish and so on, have hardly anything to do with the ethical issues of force-feeding an animal for the purpose of producing a "delicacy" food. If there were many different kinds of animals who were force-fed for producing such food, a specific article on that issue might be justified. But there is but one kind of food that is produced by force-feeding, and that is foie gras.

If you do think the culinary and ethical issues should be separated, why should it be the ethical issues to go, rather than the culinary aspects? There are already articles about meat as a food, and indeed an article about pâté - and foie gras is a kind of pâté. Certainly foie gras as a food has more to do with pâté in general than the ethical issue of producing it has to do with the ethical issue of force-feeding as a sexual fetish!

David Olivier 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex Pankratov: Public opinion knows that there are laws prohibiting cruel acts on animals, and generally approves of the existence of those laws. If they didn't, there would be no such laws. Now if you believe that by virtue of some paranormal phenomenon (or of UFO) democratically elected governments pass laws that no one cares about, then it's up to you to bring reliable evidence to that effect. Until you do that, the fact that laws are passed that protect animals is valid evidence that the people they represent care about protecting animals. David Olivier 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal welfare to the public is entirely different than it means to you. The public believes animals shouldn't be abused. They care far less about normal procedures in farming. The average person doesn't know, and doesn't care to know, how their food gets on the table. This article isn't your soapbox to teach them. SchmuckyTheCat 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To Boffob: Yes, those polls were ordered by an AR organization. By what magic will that fact change people's response to the questions? The questions are what they are; they may be "loaded", but they only state the facts. Yes, the facts make foie gras look bad.

Now do you believe that if the questions were more balanced - including perhaps the information about foie gras having a "delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver" - the answers would have been very different?

In any case: screech as you will, the results of those polls are all too clear for anyone to be able to claim that the only people who oppose foie gras production are a tiny fringe group.

David Olivier 23:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Foie gras is an expensive food item served in some upscale restaurants. It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals’ livers to swell up to ten times their normal size. A long metal pipe is inserted into the animal’s esophagus several times a day. Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture. Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed this practice as cruel. The strike zone shows just how loaded that question is. SchmuckyTheCat 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is also loaded. By calling it expensive and saying it's served in some upscale restaurants, you're saying its not something that affects the life of the average joe, setting it up so that the polled person is less likely to oppose changes to the status quo.--Boffob 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah you mean that it's "loaded" to say that foie gras is a delicacy? :-D David Olivier 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the choice of word that makes the difference. Estate tax vs death tax. It's the same thing under a different name. Call foie gras a delicacy in your poll question and you're probably setting it up for a favorable response towards foie gras. In a wikipedia article, calling it a delicacy or saying it's an expensive upscale resto food is not a problem (as long as you balance the info), because those are verifiable facts (unless one wants to quibble over the definitions of delicacy, upscale, expensive, etc). An encyclopedic article is there to give information, not to provoke an emotional response. For a poll question regarding a ban on foie gras, the most neutral version would be "Are you for or against a ban on foie gras?", but since many people don't know about it, the most common response would likely be "I don't know" or "What's foie gras?". Now a lot of non-responses in a poll looks bad, so giving some information in the poll question becomes necessary. But a poll question can only present a very limited amount of info, so the use of specific words is tailored to trigger a quick response from the uninformed. Hence it's very easy so poster to present the information they give in a way to get the desired "vox populi". Just like the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, present water under a different (but accurate) name, mention it's a chemical substance (true) that causes a lot of death (true) and you can get a sample where 80%+ of responders will be in favour of a ban. Now I'm sure there are more people that are truely in favor of banning foie gras than there are people who wish to ban water, but you can see why I don't think the poll numbers give an accurate representation of the opinion of the general population.--Boffob 17:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The wording is not only an exact description of what is needed to produce foie gras, but there is no short description of the issue that could make foie gras appear much better. Ah yes, you could blank out entirely the facts about how foie gras is produced, like you want to do in this article, and just say "foie gras is a delicacy that has a buttery taste, do you want to ban its production?" See how absurd you get!

Now I have never asked you to accept that ethical issues about the production are more prominent than the culinary aspects, or that already 80% of the population is resolutely opposed to foie gras. All I am asking is that you recognize that the ethical issues, the debate over the way foie gras is produced, should be recognized as a major aspect of the topic and not specifically limited, either in space or in scope. Up to now, you have not accepted that very reasonable request.

David Olivier 17:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only a major issue to a vocal minority. This article is not their soapbox. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of 'animal welfare' in the context of farming as very much inconsistent, bordering hypocritical, to begin with. It is OK to slaughter animals, but to force-feed them is a big evil ? Perhaps I am missing some crucial point here, and what can be more detrimental to animal's welfare than a forced premature death ? This reasoning flaw is obvious to any casual observer, which is what the vast majority of the population is. Therefore the anti-force-feeding stance is in fact a minority view between people with rudimental logical skills.

And, David, can you please post the answers inline using the indentation. It is kind of hard to follows the "To Xxxx:" style you are using. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 18:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, SchmuckyTheCat, your strike zone shows the "loaded" parts of the question. But they also happen to be simply facts.

"causing the animals’ livers to swell up to ten times their normal size" The EU report, page 39, gives the figures (for geese): force fed, 982g; not force fed, 76g. Do your arithmetic.

"A long metal pipe is inserted into the animal’s esophagus several times a day." Yes, that is the standard proceedure. Page 21 of EU report: "The person who will commence the force feeding grabs the neck of the bird, retrains the wings if the bird is in a pen, draws the bird towards the feeding pipe, thrusts the 20-30 cm long pipe down the throat of the bird and initiates the food pumping procedure." OK, perhaps it is not metal.

"Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture." Yes, that is frequent. Often the crop bursts. The animals are manipulated with just enough care for it not to happen too often - replacing them does cost something!

"Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed this practice as cruel." Is a fact.

Yes, the question would have been more balanced if it had added that foie gras had a buttery texture. I'm sure that would have really changed the results!

David Olivier 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to your answer to me. No magic at all is required. Make a poll about an estate tax and people will be in favor of keeping the estate tax as it is. Call it a death tax and insure that those polled will want it repealed. Why? Because people don't know about estate tax legislation, but taxes paid after death have strike an emotional chord in uninformed people's psyche, and paying money after death just sounds bad. It's exactly the same with foie gras, people don't know anything about it, and someone comes up with a poll saying it's something pricey for rich people that hurts cute little animals. A ban doesn't affect the lives of those who answer the poll so they go for the emotional response suggested by the poll question. It doesn't represent an informed opinion, just an emotional gut response based on a biased representation of the issue (just like polls on banning dihydrogen monoxide, where all the information given is completely factual).--Boffob 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, Boffob, that's what you believe, I'll let you believe it. The fact is that there is a poll about banning foie gras, it gave only factual information, and about 80% of the opinions were for a ban. If you have polls that show otherwise, or other verifiable information that shows otherwise, please do show it. David Olivier 01:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

People vote with their forks. Jooler 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Argentina

Could we get a more specific legal source for the status of foie gras production in Argentina? If it is illegal, there should be a specific law somewhere. The rest of the jurisdictions mentioned (except for Austria) have very specific legal references. A quick web search came across mention of Argentina's foie gras industry as recently as 2004, and no mention of any Argentinean law. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I think this section benefits from very solid references for the actual legal status. —Trevyn 05:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That source seemed perfectly OK to you when it was used to specify that a list of countries had never produced foie gras in the first place! Ah but now that it serves to show that Argentina has a law against foie gras, it is no longer reliable? David Olivier 10:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, and I didn't say it wasn't reliable, I just asked if anyone had a reference to the actual law. —Trevyn 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found the law and included the source in the article. David Olivier 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! —Trevyn 01:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most of those countries never produced foie gras to start with"

Apart from that sentence being irrelevant, it is plainly not supported by the purported source. That article lists sixteen countries where foie gras production is illegal, and adds "most of which never produced foie gras in the first place". The sentence as it is in the foie gras article refers to a only nine of those countries. The source attests that a majority of the sixteen countries never produced foie gras, but that does not imply that a majority of those nine never produced it. Is that really so hard to understand? Ramdrake, after I have deleted that sentence, you have repeatedly reverted my edit. Do I really have to spell it out to you? Or are you just trying to waste my time? Talk of POV pushing! David Olivier 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about listing all 16 countries of the source then? Chances are that if most of the 16 countries were never producers of foie gras, then most countries of the subset of 9 presented in the current article also never were producers of foie gras, but unless one has specific cites it's hard to verify the exact details.--Boffob 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is a historical view of foie gras production by country, but I'm having trouble finding good sources. Does anyone have any? —Trevyn 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All that is fine, but I am happy that you recognize that the statement as it is is not supported by the source that is given. As a consequence, it is to be deleted.David Olivier 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no the statement is supported, except through some exercize of twisted logic. I'd strongly suggest you gather consensus on whether this is really unsupported in the eyes of the other editors here. I think you'll find you're part of the minority.--Ramdrake 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If two and two is four is declared twisted logic by Ramdrake and some majority, should we leave in the statement that two and two are five? David Olivier 00:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There, I've completed the list of countries so the citation is complete and irreproachably sourced now.--Ramdrake 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New changes

As nobody answered my requests to add the information about steatosis, I have done it by myself. Since it is a fact about what foie gras is, it is not in contradiction with Wikipedia NPOV. Benio76 13:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(Truffles being among the delicacies of French cuisine does not concern the foie gras: this is why I removed it.

I also deleted the sentence about delicate flavour because "flavour" is obviously a subjective matter...) Benio76 13:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if you have tastebuds that do not conform to the norm for human beings. Flavour is the essense of cuisine. A lemon tastes of lemons and so does lemongrass. Curry and liver, vension have strong flavours, other foods have a more delicate flavour. It is not flavour that is subjective it's whether you like the flavour! Jooler 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is what is said in the article, that liver tastes of liver.

But foie gras doesn't take like ordinary liver. Geddit? Jooler 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And please, tell me, why the reference to truffles should be included in a description of foie gras? What is the relevance?

And please, telle me also why the reference to steatosis, which is the scientific description of foie gras and is far more objective than your flavour thing, should not be included in a description of foie gras? Benio76 19:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. What is said in the article is that foie gras doesn't taste like liver, not that "liver tastes like liver".
2. The relevance is that foie gras is considered one of the top delicacies of French cuisine. Truffles is another example. it is relevant.
3. I think steatosis should stay, as it describes physiologically the result of liver fattening process. However, probably fewer people still are familiar with steatosis than are familiar with foie gras to start with. Hope this answers your concerns.--Ramdrake 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1 And that is what I wrote, that foie gras have a different taste from "normal" liver.

But different how? - Just saying different without explaining in which way it is different imparts no information whatsoever. Jooler 23:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

2 An example is not relevant in a basic description. If you dont't furnish better arguments, I will remove truffles elsewhere.

3 Wow! What an answer! Is Wikipedia supposed to give "familiar" descriptions or objective descriptions?

Benio76 20:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake's second point. It establishes the context for the fact that Foie Gras "is one of the greatest delicacies ..". Alex Pankratov 20:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference to truffles does not add more information, it is completely superfluous in a basic description to start. Benio76 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To Trevyn:

you encouraged me to be "bold", I proposed changes and I gave reasons, now you modify my changes and you give no reasons... Honestly... if you find correct to cancel the scientific definition of an object from its decription and to keep subjective remarks instead, well, it's you that should review the WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight...

Benio76 19:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Modifying other people's changes is how Wikipedia evolves. As noted in the edit summaries, I did not delete your changes, I merely moved them to a place in the article that I felt helped the article flow better and provide information where it was relevant in context. As it is now (yes, I moved your change again), the article mentions "Storage of fat in the liver produces steatosis of the liver cells." in the Physiology and preparation section, and "...force feeding induced hepatic steatosis in the duck or goose" in the Controversy section. I hope you agree that these are appropriate placements of these facts. If not, I want to point out that, considering the controversy surrounding this article, it could be considered undue weight merely to wikilink steatosis, a highly technical term unfamiliar to most people, in the second sentence of the article. In addition, few people would find that fact about liver pathology relevant in that location. —Trevyn 04:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See Trevyn's answer from 22:50, 23 December 2006 (which was a direct answer to your post by the way). He explained why steatosis need not to be in the article. I will rehash his answer for you - the chances of someone being interested in learning that Foie Gras is related to steatosis are minimal (if compared to the information on the subject - be it culinary, historical or controversy-related). Therefore steatosis should not be included as per WP's notability criteria. Combining this with a negative POV bias it carries, it also violates Undue Weight criteria. Alex Pankratov 20:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

please, answer to the following questions:

Are you in people's mind, to decide a priori what people are interested in and what they're not interested in?

Is the steatosis thing a part of the objective description of foie gras, or it is not?

Is Wikipedia supposed to give objective descriptions of things, or just "positive", or "familiar" descriptions?

Is it because, as you said, steatosis put a negative bias on the foie gras that you guys removed it?

Benio76 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Moreover,

you say that "steatosis carries a negative POV bias". Well, here is the definition of a bias in WP:NPOV: "A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology".

Please, tell me in what sense the simple statement "foie gras is produced by the steatosis of liver cells" would be "a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology".

Please, tell me also in which category of bias among those proposed in WP:NPOV you would put the statement "foie gras is produced by the steatosis of liver cells".

Finally, tell me: do you think that the statements about the tasty flavour of foie gras do or do not put a positive bias on foie gras? Do you think that those statements do or do not put a commercial bias on foie gras?

Benio76 22:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to others. Explaining what the flavour of foie gras is like explaing the different flavours of cheese. Our article on Pepperjack cheese even uses the same words buttery and rich. This is purely descriptive . Would you suggest that our article on canibalism should remove the description of the flavour of human meat because of commercial bias? Jooler 23:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And please, read WP:NPOV about the difference between facts and opinion before removing my last change: foie gras being one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine is an opinion, not a fact; Benio76 22:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please please read the rest of this page about that subject. Delicacy means prized, (as you can tell from our own article on the subject). It does not mean good. In China bird's nest soup is a delicacy. In Korea dog meat is a delicacy. In France another delicacy is frogs legs. People may have an oopinion of whether the like it or don't but that is not the point. Jooler 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my "carrying a negative bias" remark - please re-read my comment. The non-notability alone is a reason for not including steatosis reference in the introduction section. I just further explained that given it's slight negative bias (which you appear to agree it has), it also does not conform to UndueWeight criteria.Alex Pankratov 03:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, to be perfectly blunt, reference to the disease steatosis in the intro certainly looks like it's there to make people think that eating foie gras is eating diseased liver. While this is technically correct, it imparts a strong negative bias on the introduction. So, for NPOV purposes, it doesn't belong in the intro.--Ramdrake 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Telling what foie gras is, is having bias? Benio76 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Which kind of bias is, telling the objective fact that foie gras is a diseased liver? Benio76 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you, or do you not want furnish an objective description of the object of the article? Benio76 20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for the reference to the delicacy article! Benio76 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting sources re: gag reflex

Ok, so we all know that the EU report that everyone loves states that ducks and geese have a gag reflex. There are also numerous reliable sources easily found on Google that say that they don't have a gag reflex. The EU report does have an extensive references section, but does not reference this statement or section at all. Does someone want to dig through the references to find the actual source they're using and get closer to the truth, or should we assume that the EU report is in error, since they don't reference this statement, and there are numerous reliable sources declaring the opposite, which reference a veterinarian[3] and the people who actually stick things down the ducks' throats, as well as unreferenced assertions à la the EU report? —Trevyn 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

the AMVA testimony also said they don't. SchmuckyTheCat 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hi guys, The Wikipedia guidelines to reliable sources [WP:RS] says that about non scholarly:

• Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organisation or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure of the authority of the content:

• Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics.

• Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.

The author of the book you used as a reference for the whole historical part about foie gras is "foie gras producer and connoisseur Michael Ginor" (see [4]). Therefore:

• he is not an expert at all but just a "connoiseur"...
• he is obviously biased

Benio76 21:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the top two producers of the stuff in the United States isn't an expert? What? SchmuckyTheCat 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• A "connoisseur" is actually derived from a French term (connaisseur) which has an almost identical meaning to "expert". In English, a "connoisseur" is a subject expert, but in matters related to taste (culinary, artistic, or other) rather than facts or figures.
• He is probably no more biased than anyone from any of the AR organizations mentioned in this article. Everybody has their own biases. We just need to report what they say in as unbiased a way as possible (usually, sticking as close as possible to what they actually said is a good start).--Ramdrake 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To SchmuckyTheCat

You are obviously more familiar with Wikipedia than with academical research, otherwise you would not even dream to make comparisons between a bird raiser and a historian.

Do you know what a historian is?

Benio76 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To Ramdrake

The only "connaissances" of a foie gras producer are about how produce it. He can know a lot of things about putting a tube in the birds throats and other thrilling matters of this kind ... but that does not make him a historian, this does not give him the technical authority to teach us history and talk about Plinius and other nice people of the ancient times.

So, he can be a "source" about producing and commercializing his product, and even "in matters related to taste", as you said, but certainly not a source on historical topics.

Benio76 19:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Without being a trained historian per se, a man might know enough about the history of a subject to give you a quick overview. You're not a historian, but I'm sure you could explain the history of your country to someone unfamiliar with it. True, this person may be trained in any trade, but it is his interest in the subject and the general knowledge of the subject (not just related to the more repulsive parts of what he does) that make him a connoisseur. I believe you're setting unnecessarily high standards of competence; do you ask that it be the doctor and not the nurse who takes your temperature whenever you're getting examined? Same difference applies here.--Ramdrake 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Knowing enough" about something does not involve that you can write serious books about it. I can obviously explain a lot of things about my country, but this does not mean that I would take the charge of writing books about it. I use to write only about things related to my certified skills, you know...

And you, do you ask to the nurse to explain to you the causes of your disease? you should better ask the doctor, you know...

I would really like to know if you "connaisseur" has ever been in a library, if he has ever touched a text by ancient authors... Do foie gras producers know latin and ancient greek? If so, they are employing their skills very poorly...

Benio76 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are really poor in Linguistics, Ramdrake. "connoisseur" is not "derived" form French, as you said, but comes from ancient French. In ancient French, the verb "connaître" was "connoistre", "connaissance" was "connoissance", etc. You see? "Knowing things" does not make you a real expert... Benio76 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Benio, Michael Ginor is more than competent as a source. We do not need condescending derisive commentary about old french words. Else, maybe we should remove all references to "force feeding", since an accurate translation of the old french roots of gavage is simply "stuffing le gavion (gullet) or le gavier (throat)".

Please stop insulting other editors standards, rhetorically or directly. SchmuckyTheCat 20:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ginor being a foie gras producer implies no particular knowledge of the history of foie gras. He may or may not know about its, just like any one of us. He is plainly not a reliable source for the history of foie gras.

Furthermore, the occupation of Michael Ginor, and the title of the book he wrote (Foie gras: a passion), are enough to know that he is a heavily partisan source.

I will remove the passages that are purportedly sourced by that book if no more reliable sources are found.

David Olivier 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find this interesting etimological controversy about old French, in your recipes book?

Your friend Ramdrake should just stop pretending to teach the others things that he actually does not know.

And Monsieur Ginor is not "a competent source" in history just because you say it. You can repeat this a thousand of times, but it will be not more true.

Benio76 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. I know we disagree heavily on some issues, but please be civil. Regarding WP:RS on bias: "This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view." We are sourcing uncontested facts about history. If you have sourced contrary evidence, please put it in the article. If you have better sources, please put them in the article. If you feel the need to qualify the Ginor mention with ", a foie gras producer," feel free to do so. But while Ginor may not be the best source, he is an acceptable published source, with Replicability, Recognition by other reliable sources, and Persistence. —Trevyn 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Replicability, Recognition by other reliable sources, and Persistence. says:

"Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics"

which implies that a foie gras producer and "connoisseur" can talk about foie gras production and "taste" and recipes, but is definitely not reliable about history.

Benio76 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of non-academic sources is not black and white, it is a continuum. You are correct that Ginor may not have much on the "Attributability" scale when writing about history, but again, this particular published work provides good reliability by other measures, no matter what it may be discussing. Barring more reliable sources that conflict, it is my opinion that this source is more than sufficient for inclusion. —Trevyn 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn, instead of removing other's contributions saying that their source (PETA) is not reliable, you should do what you recommendes to me:

"If you have sourced contrary evidence, please put it in the article. If you have better sources, please put them in the article".

Benio76 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I neither removed the contribution nor claimed that PETA was unreliable. I moved it to the section that discusses PETA's views, which is appropriate for such a heavily and overtly biased source. —Trevyn 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, Ginor's biased contribution must be moved in another section of the article, explaining producer's views about foie gras. Benio76 12:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ginor's statements explaining producer's views about the controversy are already in the Controversy section. I would be fascinated to hear how his contributions of the details of Jewish culinary history express bias. —Trevyn 12:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of summary-style section to the EU report section

I've added the warning, as compared to the two other sections on contrversy, this section is much longer, but much more importantly, the citations and bits taken from it seem to somewhat contradict each other, making it look like the report is undecisive (rather than being either inconclusive or conclusive on either side).--Ramdrake 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed "good article" template

I removed this article from the "good article" list, and removed the {{GA}} template at the top of this talk page.

It is uncontroversial that this article is controversial, and thus does not satisfy condition 5 listed on the What is a good article? page: "It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars."

Furthermore, it is currently in a heavily biased state, being the victim of a group of biased pro-foie gras warriors who have no consideration for honesty or sincerity. Thus it does not satisfy point 4 (NPOV).

It doesn't satisfy point 2 either, which states that it should be factually accurate and verifiable.

Nor does it actually satisfy point 1, because the current edit war makes it impossible to make it clear and well written.

It does have pictures in it (point 6) but that's about all there is to say for it!

David Olivier 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Step 5 of delisting a GA is "Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article." I've restored the GA template.

It actually isn't changing significantly from day to day. There is edit warring, but it's generally removed towards what was last stable.

An assertion of bias isn't evidence of it.

If anything it suffers from over-verification.

SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, are you not even capable of accepting, without controversy, that there is a controversy? There are currently two opposing groups, and the page is going back and forth. In any case, whatever you may try to argue, there is an edit war, and that is a condition enough to delist it.

To wait longer for the "editors to improve the article" is meaningless in this context. The edit war has been going on for weeks, and there is no reason to wait longer. I have deleted the template again.

David Olivier 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the article from GA requires more than just David Olivier to state it so. Put it up on the GA review page and let someone who is not involved look into it. SchmuckyTheCat 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting an article on the GA review requires more than just SchmuckyTheCat to state it so. David Olivier has showed that the article does not satisfy the conditions required to be a good article. You showed nothing. you didn' answer to his arguments, you never answer to arguments. You are just abusing. Benio76 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The template itself states: "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review." The word "you", when I read the page, means me, OK? The word "can" means that I can do it. The expression "delist it" means delisting it. OK? If you want to ask for a review, do it. In the meantime, it is clear that there is an edit war. Can't you just accept plain facts? David Olivier 12:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Good articles review page states:

If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.

1. Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.

2. If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!

3. However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be re-listed as a Good Article.

That is what you are supposed to do, SchmuckyTheCat, if you wish to put the article back as a Good Article. You are to read the explanations I put as to why the article was delisted (I'm not sure you have). You could address the concerns - the constant POV warring you and a few others are raging - but you apparently do not wish to; and anyway that would imply going back to the nominations process. So that leaves you point 3: you are to ask the editors to review the article and have it relisted. You are not to relist it yourself.

David Olivier 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It actually says the same in the "delisted" template at the top of the page. I hope you can go that far. David Olivier 13:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that he should not singlehandedly reinstate the article as a GA without taking it to review. However, you should also not singlehandedly remove the article as a GA as a result of an edit war you are involved in without taking it to review. The semantics of the page may technically allow it, but it is, at best, a questionable thing to do -- it presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. It is currently listed at review, and I ask all involved to leave it listed as a GA (as it is currently) until that review ends. If necessary, I will reinstate it myself if it is removed before then. A check of my contributions will reveal that I have no involvement with this article before now, nor, to the best of my knowledge, with any of the main partisans to the argument, so I hope that this will be acceptable to both sides. Shimeru 22:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trimming external links

Per WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, I think we need to trim the External Links section. The "news reports" and the German law link seem like obvious places to start, since these are basically repeating the numerous references that have been added to the article. Linking the EU Report again also seems more than a bit redundant. Opinions? —Trevyn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Trevyn, the German law makes foie gras look bad, so of course you want to get rid of it! The German law reference is the direct source for the illegality of foie gras production in Germany, and must stay there. The news reports section give an image of the controversy, and of course you don't like that! How NPOV you are! But no, those reports are important references and are to stay. David Olivier 12:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

References belong in References, not External links. —Trevyn 12:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

WP is not for advertisement

The intro states: "Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine—with an 80%[2] fat content, it is very rich and buttery, with a delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver." That sentence could have been concocted by an advertisement agency.

"Is one of the greatest delicacies": Delicacy is a subjective term. The Fried spider page, speaking of the spider's abdomen, "Some call it a delicacy while others recommend not eating it." The fact that some call it a delicacy and others do not implies that there is a subjective judgment. That phrase is in standard English and anyone reading it understands it; it is standard use of the term "delicacy" to mean something good.

What have truffles to do with foie gras? Nothing, except that mentioning them contributes to giving an atmosphere to the article.

David Olivier 12:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting spider article. I find it amusingly poignant that "while others recommend not eating it" is at the absolute end of the article's text. We've discussed the meaning of the word "delicacy" before, and just because another article uses it incorrectly doesn't mean we should too. —Trevyn 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Many porpositions of improving the Introduction of the article having been boycotted, I wish to invite the editors to read carefully the Wikipedia:Lead_section and follow its guidelines. Benio76 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the guidelines, it is said that "The first paragraph needs to establish the context in which the topic of the article is being considered". This formulation does not justify the reference to truffles, as it has been said: the context of foie gras is defined as "French cuisine delicacies", while the reference to truffles is just an example of the context, it does not "establish the context". Therefore, it is totally redundant and must be deleted. Benio76 12:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the intro is totally not long enough for an article of this size. I've added a paragraph summarizing the History and Main Producers sections. —Trevyn 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your insertion is far too long - I will check the undue weight guidelines. Benio76 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The ideal structure of the introduction is defined as follows:

"1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs. 2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context. 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background. 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate. 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism."

Point 3. allows to insert the scientific explanation about foie gras, which is also a useful information to link the point 5., i.e. criticism of foie gras. Benio76 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The ideal structure you quoted was preceded by When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), and last I checked, foie gras is not an abstract idea or concept such as "truth". —Trevyn 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The guidelines recommend to avoid technical terminology:

"In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked."

This recommendation has been invoked to refuse to insert the pathological aspect of foie gras in the introduction. But the steatosis pathology is also knew as fatty liver, which is a term perfectly understandable, related to the name of foie gras (as "gras" in French means equally well "fat" and "fatty") and which is, finally, linkable with a WP page. Therefore, a reference to the fatty liver is not in contradiction with the guidelines. Benio76 13:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But a discussion of the physiology of hepatic steatosis is not essential to describing a fattened duck liver that you eat. —Trevyn 13:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A description of what foie gras is is essential to describing the topic. Furthermore, the fact that foie gras is actually the result of a process that induces steatosis is central to the ethical debate over foie gras. David Olivier 13:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What Trevyn said does not involve that there must be no mention at all of fatty liver in the intro.

Trevyn, go and see in the dictionary the English translation of the French "gras"... it is most interesting... did anybody look at a dictionary before establishing the English translation of "foie gras"?

And read again my quotation of Wikipedia:Lead_section about the introduction structure: "3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background"... Benio76 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then let me try to explain something to you: there generally exists a societal taboo about not eating diseased animals. This taboo is pretty global (not sure if it truly is, but it exists pretty much in every society I know). By putting in the introduction that foie gras is equivalent to steatosis of the liver, we are making it sound like eating foie gras is eating diseased animal, which is pretty repulsive, and a rather certain way to make sure people don't eat foie gras. Therein lies the problem: we aren't there to tell people what to do, or even to hint at what they should or shouldn't do. That would be inappropriate, and bordering on the arrogant. Therefore, while we certainly can mention steatosis in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. To put it there is POV-pushing, plain and simple.

And for the record, I am not "pro-foie gras"; rather I am of the opinion people are entitled to making their own opinion without being indoctrinated by POV-pushing. At the limit, saying foie gras is bad and shouldn't be eaten is POV pushing, while reporting that a lot of people like it and think it tastes good isn't necessarily POV-pushing: after all, it is a food, and is meant to be eaten. People can read about the controversy and make up their own minds about whether they personnally want to eat any, but putting in the intro that this food is diseased and removing references to other delicacies (as contextual references) such as truffles is definitely and objectively pushing the POV one shouldn't eat it.--Ramdrake 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really are not "pro-foie gras", if you really are concerned in NPOV, you should better criticize other parts of the intro which are openly POV:

- "foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine", which I corrected in "reputed to be", as the delicacies list is not a fact, but an opinion.

- "Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited and inconclusive" which is unsourced and is not a fact, but an opinion of foie gras supporters.

You are free to prove that you are not a foie gras supporter, prove that you are neutral, delete these statements!!!!

Benio76 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, when you say "By putting in the introduction that foie gras is equivalent to steatosis of the liver, we are making it sound like eating foie gras is eating diseased animal, which is pretty repulsive, and a rather certain way to make sure people don't eat foie gras.": it' not "we" who "make it sounds so", it is the evidence - hélas for the foie gras amateurs.

Moreover, this statement hiddens an implicit POV: "we have to prevent people from knowing what they eat".

Benio76 14:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Benio76, please read again my note that the point 3 which you quote is explicitly not relevant to an article about a non-abstract topic. —Trevyn 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a Wikipedia rule or a Trevyn rule? If it is a Wikipedia rule, please furnish evidencies; if it is a Trevyn rule, propose it elsewhere: this is not the right page to propose improvements to Wikipedia guidelines.

Benio76 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lead_section: (emphasis added)

Writing about concepts

When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts (such as "truth"), it can be helpful to introduce the topic as follows:

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the idea belongs.
2. Characterization - what the term refers to as used in the given context.
3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
5 Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.

—Trevyn 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, yes there is a general unwillingness by people to eat diseased organs. You call that a taboo, i.e. something irrational. Well, that is your opinion, and no more than that. To hide from people that foie gras is a disease - called fatty liver in English - just because they would have what you believe is an irrational reaction is plainly patronizing.David Olivier 14:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, foie gras isn't a disease, but a food. If you present yourself at a French hospital saying you "suffer from foie gras", you'll get a pretty amused reaction, I bet. And no, it isn't patronizing, just avoiding to unnecessarily shove a particular POV in their faces. Mediation cabal, anyone? Or should we just skip to adding this one directly to Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars. I believe User:Olivierd and myself are already familiar with both.--Ramdrake 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We are by no means hiding it; we are simply trying not to SHOVE IT IN THEIR FACE. —Trevyn 14:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's strange that that informations seems so much like a hot potato that simply mentioning it appears to you tantamount to shoving it in their face! That goes for the information about foie gras being a disease; and it also goes for every other aspect of foie gras, that you try to keep out of the page, or put in the most inconspicuous position possible; except, of course, for it having a delicate flavour (in your opinion). David Olivier 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we want people to come to a Wikipedia page expecting encyclopedic coverage of a topic organized in an encyclopedic manner. I know we disagree on how foie gras should be covered encyclopedically. I agree that revert counting is not the way to go. I don't know the answer, but I think formal mediation is worth a shot. Many Wikipedia policies have evolved as a result of similar disputes, so maybe there's some wisdom in there. —Trevyn 14:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I live in France. I can perfectly imagine a doctor telling me I have a foie gras, or a pancréas gras or whatever; they might start saying I have a stéatose hépatique, and then explain that saying it is un foie gras. That is simple unproblematic French, it plainly describes the disease. David Olivier 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

David, I live in Québec, also in French. I'm sorry if maybe I made some unwarranted assumptions, but here, a doctor speaking about the liver condition would exclusively use "stéatose" or "stéatose hépatique", and explain where necessary. He'd have a very hard time telling me "vous souffrez d'un foie gras" with a straight face, and likely wouldn't even try this formulation.--Ramdrake 15:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn, thank you for stating "I agree that revert counting is not the way to go." But you might have come around to such a wise attitude before, specifically before pretending as you did Sunday that I had violated 3RR, supporting your complaint with information you knew was false and stating that I disrupted the page and so on, instead of recognizing that there is an ongoing conflict, which means disruption is from both sides. Your show of wisdom has slightly less worth now that you find that some on your side are not really respecting the 3RR rule. David Olivier 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah and also: As an additional show of wisdom, you might have refrained from adding the useless and absurd sentence "This article is a battleground in an epic ideological struggle, with edit wars, recriminations, and arguments over every little phrase." to the article TotallyDisputed template. We might as a start at least agree about the fact that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed, and leave it at that, instead of attempting to make that template itself part of the battleground. David Olivier 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't agree that there is much dispute on the factual accuracy of the article, while its neutrality is very much under dispute. The only fact-based dispute is the inclusion or eclusion of some specific tidbits, mostly in the intro. This is really turning into a lame argument, and very little else.--Ramdrake 15:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, do you have to dispute absolutely everything? It is not for you to agree or disagree with there being dispute on the factual accuracy of the article. The factual accuracy of the historical assertions is under dispute; the sources were asked for several times, and they all amount to a couple of books by people who, by their own avowal, have "a passion for foie gras" and have no title to academic authority. It would be just as reliable if the source for that section was "Ramdrake says it"! Those historical assertions - about the Egyptians and so on - are part of the classical advertisement strategy that attempts to give an amosphere of nobility to foie gras. If they are not reliably sourced, they are not to stay there. There are other important factual statements that are in dispute, such as the one Trevyn came up with in the intro, with no source, as to scientific evidence concerning the welfare issue being limited and inconclusive. David Olivier 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please. An expert who writes a book is an excellent source. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pauvre SchmuckyTheCat! You still have not understood the difference between a historian and a bird raiser... Benio76 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For all we know, this Ginor could have formal academic training as a historian before he turned to raising birds, so where would your argument be? Please either come up with evidence that at least some of his historical narrative has errors, or desist. The attack you are mounting on this fellow is no less than an ad hominem: because he raises birds, he's not an expert on history, so he can't write about the history of a dish??? I'm sorry but this is the lamest argument I've seen in a very long time.--Ramdrake 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, if we are to start accepting as reliable sources every uttering from someone who "could have formal academic training", there is going to be a problem! Currently, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the person who cites a source. If you can prove that Ginor has academic training as a historian, do it. Apart from the fact that it would be far from enough: his having historical training would not make him an historian, and does not give his opinions the status of academic research. Furthermore, his being a foie gras producer implies that there is a conflict of interest between his occupation and the neutrality of his writings. Yes, all this amounts to an ad hominem argument; but the whole issue of reliability vs "original research" is by nature ad hominem, in a positive sense. This has nothing to do with the ad hominem attacks against other Wikipedians, such as those made against me by SchmuckyTheCat and Boffob. Ah yes, and finally: constantly hollering in want of arguments that the opponents view is lame is... well, lame. David Olivier 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not Ginor has training as a historian. That's a complete red herring bag of bogosity. His training, his profession, and the research in his book is impeccable. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are now two sources in the history section, one from Ginor, a producer of foie gras, which, while that doesn't make him an academic, would most probably make him more knowledgeable about the history of the subject than some random historian (most historians study other things than the history of food). The second is from Toussaint-Samat's History of food, which I figure counts as an acceptable source. Now if you think those references are outright wrong on the history of foie gras, try to provide evidence (more reliable references) to the contrary. As it stands, they are the best sources on the subject your fellow wikipedians have found. Until someone comes with better sources, I don't see why they shouldn't be trusted.--Boffob 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Ginor "probably" is more knowledgeable about the history of foie gras is not the matter. The matter is that Ginor is not held to academic standards of scholarship and accountability. As to the second source, I haven't looked into whether it is reliable or not. If it is, then take out what Ginor says and leave what that source says. If no reliable sources can be found for the history section, then the history section should remain empty. That is the rule here. There are no reliable sources for what the inhabitants of any specific distant planet look like, that is no reason to start making it up or accepting some science fiction author as a reliable source. David Olivier 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That Ginor is not an academic does not exclude him from being a source according to Wikipedia policy.--Boffob 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Boffob, not to mention that you have yet to turn up one source which contradicts anything said in the history section. One of the main differences between your science-fiction scenario and history is that history is mostly verifiable. By the same token, should we take out any and all objections formulated by AR groups about foie gras because those who make them aren't veterinarians or physiologists? No, we shouldn't, and the same should apply here: until you have a source which disproves the historical account, the source we have should be considered good enough.--Ramdrake 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not just good enough, but Ginor is an excellent source. He speaks world-wide on the subject. His book wins awards, is called a reference, has four author credits, makes citations of its own, and is cited by others. That Benio and David are discounting him as a reliable source is just plain bad faith. SchmuckyTheCat 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It just seemed so apropos. I will self-revert. Regarding 3RR, there is some disagreement over whether an initial deletion counts a a revert or not, see Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Does_a_first_delete_count_as_the_first_revert.3F. I read the 3RR page and took it at face value, "undoing the work of another editor". It appeared that you were repeatedly reperforming the exact same edit, trying to make it "stick"; the very essence of edit warring. I have tried very hard to not make outright reverts; I have rephrased, moved, marked as unsourced, found sources, etc. We may not be able to agree on a philosophical stance, but I honestly think that there might be a chance that, with effort, we may be able to agree on an article. —Trevyn 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn, I feel there would be a lot of things that would be very apropos to say concerning some of my fellow Wikipedians here, but I do not say them. David Olivier 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, The liver used to produce foie gras is affected with fatty liver, which is the common English name to a form of steatosis. This assertion has been sourced, citing the official INRA study. And, if you go to an hospital and ask to be attended because you suffer of fatty liver, they will attend you, they will not call for the psychiatrist. Then, if you think that fatty liver is not a disease, go to the page fatty liver and change it. Benio76 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The liver of migrating birds, after gorging themselves in preparation for the migration, is also affected with steatosis (the French WP article on "stéatose hépatique" says so, at least. So, it is a condition (sometimes pathological, sometimes physiological, such as in preparation for migration), not a disease per se. In all fairness all those points need to be raised, and the proper palce for it is the physiology section.--Ramdrake 15:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Steatosis is the name of a pathology. The English Wikipedia says so, and that is common knowledge. The fattening of the liver of birds preparing for migration is not a pathology, and thus is not steatosis. David Olivier 15:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on steatosis says right in the intro that it is a condition. I'm sorry if you don't know the difference between a condition and a disease. Also, please bear in mind that the article was written with humans in mind, in which case steatosis is always a pathological condition, never a physiological one. But your insistence on saying it is a pathology only serves to prove you want to insert this phrase in the intro to make people think that eating foie gras is eating diseased liver. That is just unencyclopedic.--Ramdrake 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on steatosis starts by "In cellular pathology"... Doesn't "pathology" refer to a disease? I'm really surprised, Ramdrake! And in any case, even the French scientists who, on contracts paid by the foie gras industry, attempt to hide that it is a pathology speak of an "extra-physiological condition" which means, in plain language, that it is pathological. Actually, no one really disputes that! David Olivier 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The AMVA testimony disputes that. Dr. McCarthy, for example, insisted that the practice isn't part of a pathologic process, and Dr. Harris said it is a physiologic not a pathologic process. Nebraska delegate, Dr. Theodore Evans Jr., pointed out that feeding enriched diets in cattle is an existing practice that also induces diseases such as laminitis, acidosis, and fatty liver.

So, not only are there people with doctorate degrees who dispute that the steatosis in foie gras is pathological or diseased, but others add that if foie gras is diseased than so are dozens of other food products.

That is of course, the goal for activists, to damn the entire modern meat industry. Foie gras is a great wedge to start with. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I inserted both opinions, following WP:NPOV, and I sourced both. Benio76 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn: "last I checked, foie gras is not an abstract idea or concept such as "truth"." Who is to decide, as you are attempting to do, that foie gras is a concrete topic? Especially since that is tantamount to deciding that the dispute over the ethics of producing foie gras are not to be part of the article! - that the article is to cover only its "delicate flavour" and so on!

In that case, what is the history section doing there? The history section does not describe the product, but refers to the practice. A practice is an abstract concept. What the Egyptians did (if they in fact did it) thousands of years ago is not part of the description of the product. It is relevant to the article (if it is in fact verifiable) because the topic "foie gras" does include abstract aspects, and is not to be reduced to the purported delicacy of its flavour. History is one of those abstract aspects, and so are the ethical and legal debates.

Capital punishment is a concrete act - the execution process - but the article about it hardly touches on that at all. It centers on the debate over the ethics of producing that concrete act. I do not call for such an extreme reversal of emphasis in the foie gras article; I do not call for the culinary aspects to be minimized. I call for all sides to recognize the relevancy of the various issues concerning the topic, whether it be history, taste or the ethical and legal controversies (all being treated in a NPOV and verifiable manner).

David Olivier 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I balanced the introduction as recommended in WP guidelines, I furnished sources, I argued my changes. So, don't revert my edits without discussion just because you don't want others editing: WP is not your personal playground. Benio76 21:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Point is, you argued your changes and they were rejected by a majority of editors here (by my count 4 to 2 to be precise). So, putting them back up unilaterally will only get them removed once more. WP is not anybody's personal playground; neither mine nor yours. If you'll hold off for just a bit, I've called in a mediator. You can argue your points then.--Ramdrake 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your count is false: there are at least three editors who agree that fatty liver (not steatosis) must be in the intro. And my editing respects WP:NPOV. If you want to call a mediator, do it. I have arguments enough. Benio76 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I will help you to count: Olivierd, Chainofflowers and me agree with my editing: this make three. Benio76 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would really like Chainofflowers to come back, and participate on the talk page, so I can build up my WP:SOCK case. —Trevyn 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a very timely reference, Trevyn. It does start to look like a book example of a sock puppetry. Alex Pankratov 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Chainofflowers it's not me.

And this diffamation from you will be held against you. Benio76 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Benio, please refrain from descending to personal threats. Neither Trevyn nor myself said it was you; for some reason you just assumed that yourself. Alex Pankratov 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly: since you are convinced that there are only two editors "against you", your accusation concerned those two persons, and there are only three possible interpretations: you accused the two of us, or David Olivier only, or me only. Therefore, the 2/3 of the accusation concern me. It is quite obvious and easy to understand. Again, stop diffamation. Benio76 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed tag added

I have added that tag, which is appropriate when both the neutrality and the factual accuracy of the article are disputed.

These disputes concern numerous issues. One party wishes references to the existing controversy about foie gras to be reduced to a minimum or taken out from the article, while the other party wishes that controversy to be recognized as a major aspect and have no specific size limitations. The disputes concern also the POV tone of the introduction, that reads like an advertisement; the factual claims about the history of foie gras, which are very poorly sourced and seem to be mostly part of the glamourous legend spinned by foie gras advertisement; about the wording of the references to the controversy and the scientific judgment on the welfare aspect of force-feeding; and on many other points.

It cannot be disputed that the article is disputed. When the dispute is solved, that tag will be deleted.

David Olivier 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm always up for formal mediation. Didn't you reject that last time? —Trevyn 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're at the same point as in the Cat article. I think it's either formal mediation or WP:LAME. I'd go for it.--Ramdrake 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed this tag. This is certainly getting lame. The adversarial process has resulted in improving the article but I'm not sure how much further it can go. I can still see improvements, but I'm not sure how much further this bickering is going to be useful. SchmuckyTheCat 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The only improvements I've seen are the added references when necessary. Aside from that, I think it's just getting too big. Add this argument, add that counterargument. This isn't getting encyclopedic, it's becoming a long dialogue/set of parallel diatribes between two opposing views.--Boffob 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The talk page and edit wars are a nightmare, for sure, but I think the article is getting closer to WP:FA by more than just the addition of references. Article growth itself is not a bad thing, and I fully expect this article to adopt full Wikipedia:Summary style in time. —Trevyn 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is going into mediation. On the pro-foie gras side both Trevyn and Ramdrake have asked for it, and cannot deny that the article is disputed. So let's leave at least this issue at that. David Olivier 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that NPOV is disputed, and you appear to have a reasonable and prolific argument. However, your claim of factual inaccuracy does not seem to hold water. The claims of fact you mention are referenced, verified, the sources are considered reliable by a majority of editors, and you have provided no counter-claims. According to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, "The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references", as well as three other cases that are not applicable to your argument. I will change the template to NPOV dispute only. —Trevyn 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn, whatever you think of my claims about the factual inaccuracy of the article, I happen to have them. It is not up to you to decide that I don't have them. And I am not the only one to have them. Also, please avoid useless citing of guidelines. Yes, the article is in dispute, both on the everyday meaning of the word and according to the conditions in the guidelines. Please don't waste my time by asking you to spell it out to you. I have reverted the tag on the article to TotallyDisputed. Please stop trying to dispute that it is disputed. David Olivier 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one...

...who thinks the entire article is now bloated? Just look at the external links and list of references. It shows how much has been added everywhere. There is a serious need for trimming and/or splitting into seperate articles. Instead of arguing over what to add and where to add it, trying to balance other edits with more material, why don't we try to agree on a trim, and find out what should be kept?--Boffob 15:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from above, I would support a conversion to Wikipedia:Summary style soon. I don't think it's necessary to trim content just for the sake of reducing size, though I do support trimming those external links which mirror a reference used in the text. —Trevyn 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record

Apart from the 3RR violation by Ramdrake noted by benio76 yesterday, we now have 4 reverts by SchmuckyTheCat, on exactly the same issue:

(All times in UTC)

1. Dec 26, 22:37
2. Dec 26, 23:43
3. Dec 27, 19:18
4. Dec 27, 22:08

As I said, this dispute is not going to be resolved by revert counting. But you, Trevyn, who were so eager to report what you made up as a 4RR violation by myself last Sunday, where are you when Ramdrake (yesterday) or SchmuckyTheCat do real 3RR violations?

David Olivier 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record also: Benio reported me and the admin's verdict was that it wasn't a 3RR violation at all. But this is turning into a very real edit war, at least until someone manages to build a real consensus.--Ramdrake 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake, "users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule". It is Trevyn who wrote this to me. Mind. Benio76 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Ramdrake: For those 4 reverts you were blocked for 24 hours, starting 29 Dec., 01:50. You could at least acknowledge the obvious. David Olivier 01:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also for the record, David: First the orginal verdict by CSTAR found that 3 of these reverts weren't reverts, until you insisted and persuaded CSTAR that these were complex reverts which got me blocked for 24 hours. And second, it's kind of hard to "acknowledge" something like that while I was blocked from editing, thanks to you. So, I guess between that and the report you made on STC, you seem to have changed your tactics. Duly noted.--Ramdrake 13:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So go report it. I've actually followed the procedure for Good Article review, even though I don't believe it needs it - that's the job you should be doing trying to remove the template. I don't think restoring an improperly removed template on the talk page is subject to 3RR. Consensus develops at the review page, not on your whim. SchmuckyTheCat 22:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You will tell this to the mediator. Benio76 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the dispute is going to be resolved by revert counting, but given the circumstances, I do not intend to let one party do all they please, as they seem to think they can. I have reported SchmuckyTheCat. David Olivier 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: SchmuckyTheCat has been warned for those reverts. The following is copied from his talk page:

Regarding reversions[5] made on December 2006 to Talk:Foie_gras

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Please stick within 3R, even for such things as GA tags; it helps avoid confusion

William M. Connolley 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I will not hesitate to report 3RR violations in the future. SchmuckyTheCat got off with a warning because of the delay with which he was reported; that delay was due to my prefering to warn him myself on this talk page; see beginning of this section. There is a limit to how much one can assume good faith. David Olivier 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

David, first, you could at least get your story straight: STC got off with a warning because two of the reverts held against him were on the talk page (the GA template) and two others were on the article page itself. That's two reverts on two pages, so it doesn't add up to four. Second, I don't think you have any business copying user talk page content to an article talk page, especially since it doesn't concern the content of the foie gras article, but rather the edit war surrounding it, which isn't germane to the content, but just an artifact of our profound disagreement.--Ramdrake 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get beyond the bickering

Ok, I'll ask again: considering that steatosis is already mentioned in the physiology section of the article, why is it so important to also have it mentioned in the introduction that the medical term corresponding to the condition is steatosis? It's a detail, but as a detail, I just don't see how it fits in the intro. However, I do see the drawback that it can certainly make the reader think they are eating diseased organs, which is not an impression we want to impart on the readers. So, under the circumstances (it's a detail with a definite negative impact), why should we include it in the intro?--Ramdrake 22:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I already gave reasons following WP guidelines.

It is you and your fellows who will have to explain the mediator why you mantained in the intro details like truffles, why you inserted unsourced opinions as facts, why you removed the disputed article tag while this article is disputed from a long time, etc.

I invited you to prove your good faith, but you didn't. Now, you will prove it to the mediator.

Benio76 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And here I was hoping we could drop the bickering and start the discussion afresh. I guess not. And BTW, I don't agree with your positions on the article, that doesn't mean I'm not in good faith. Your writings do give the impression you assume that anybody with views adversarial to your own isn't in good faith. Please remember to assume good faith.--Ramdrake 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume that people who make insertions and reversions without discussion are not in good faith. People like SchmuckyTheCat who delete whole paragraphs just pretending that there is a wrong word, instead of make corrections, are not in good faith. People like SchmuckyTheCat who insist to show to the readers that the article is undisputed while it is actually disputed are not in good faith. People like you who want to remove from the introduction "details with a negative impact" and leave details with a positive impact are not in good faith.

By the way, you should recommand to you friends Trevyn and APankratov to assume good faith, since they accused me of having created a sockpuppet, which is false. Benio76 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

In response to Trevyn above: I have read the resolving disputes page. It states that formal mediation is supposed to take place only after other steps have been attempted. I propose informal mediation (aka the Mediation Cabal). I think it will make matters clearer. David Olivier 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That was already requested, two days ago to be precise. I believe I've already mentioned it, too.--Ramdrake 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no you didn't say here you had asked for informal mediation. Nice to know. David Olivier 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said. Quite possibly, I wasn't clear enough. If so, my apologies.

If you'll hold off for just a bit, I've called in a mediator. You can argue your points then.--Ramdrake 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

--Ramdrake 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to participate in informal mediation as well. This article has already gone through a round of that in June, over a related issue, which is why I suggested formal mediation. —Trevyn 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA template

Can people stop revert warring over the inclusion of the GA template? This article is not listed at the Good articles page as far as I can see, so listing it as 'delisted' is correct...-Localzuk^(talk) 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Localzuk! At this moment it is not on the GA page, but unfortunately I expect someone will put it back there soon.

See the discussion above ("Removed "good article" template" section). It is one of the most implausible discussions I have had, where SchmuckyTheCat even denies that there is a conflict going on.

David Olivier 02:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed someone will. I have reinstated it per my comment in the section above, and I repeat my earlier request that nobody unilaterally delist it until the review, currently in progress, has been closed. Shimeru 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation of gavage

...is "force feeding". I reverted the edit by 208.54.14.29. David Olivier 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC for factual accuracy dispute

(posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography) —Trevyn 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources again

Concerning the insertion of the primary source about Plinius made by BorgQueen, the English translation of book 8, Chapter 77 of Plinius' Natural History has been given but I didn't find the corresponding text in the latin text of Liber VIII of Historia Naturalis. See English translation and Latin text and also Latin text. Please find the exact source. Benio76 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Latin text is here. --BorgQueen 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

then you have to correct the referency in the quotation. Benio76 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no trace of force-feeding in Plinius' Historia Naturalis, VIII, LXXVII. Please correct the quotation in the article. Benio76 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The wrong placement of the corresponding Latin text seems to be an editing error on the part of Perseus Digital Library. If you look at this source the chapter lxxvii contains the sentence adhibetur et ars iecori feminarum sicut anserum, inventum M. Apici, fico arida saginatis ac satie necatis repente mulsi potu dato, not the chapter lxxxiv. I suppose I will mention this oddity in the reference section but the chapter number will stay as it is in the John Bostock's English translation. Would you agree? --BorgQueen 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is an error. I verified on a printed edition and the good chapter is indeed LXXVII. Benio76 10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Status under review

Well, as the template that points people to the discussion regarding the review of this articles 'Good Article' status has been removed, I will provide a direct link to the discussion on whether this article should be a GA. So, if you are interested in discussing this issue, please click here. Localzuk^(talk) 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

For the sake of NPOV, I was wondering if this image would be acceptable to both sides. We already have an image of a goose being subjected to gavage, so another of such picture would be considered redundant. But this image shows the pipe used for the procedure closely, is informational and not so biased, since the pipe itself does not only concern the animal right aspect but also is a necessary tool for the foie gras production. --BorgQueen 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The image of the goose subjected to gavage is almost irrelevant: the vast majority of foie gras production concerns ducks housed in small cages. To put an antiquated "back on the farm" picture is misleading. The funnel in the picture you suggest is not relevant either, for the same reasons. I see no reason why a picture of the actual practice of force-feeding, such as the one I put in, should not be kept. It simply shows what the practice typically is, and there is no reason to hide that from the readers. David Olivier 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would support swapping the existing image of force feeding for David's one.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"the vast majority of foie gras production concerns ducks housed in small cages" - I would like to see this sourced please. Otherwise we can put a picture of a goose on a pastry force-feeding itself a milk-shake via a straw and say that how the vast majority of ducks (why ducks btw ?) is housed.Alex Pankratov 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to the opposing end - can you show me a source that says that geese are the typical bird, and that they aren't housed in small cages? It works both ways. Either way, the image that has been restored is of much lower quality than the new one - the contrast between the background and the tube is low (so low as to make the viewer strain to see that there is a tube there - and yes, I have a good monitor).-Localzuk^(talk) 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to consider the context of the change. The argument that "this horrible picture is typical" coming from any "animal welfare" activist (including OliverD) needs a lot of backing to be credibile, because it really needs to be shown that it lacks natural bias. We should also probably consider what the image should be - the illustration of force-feeding process or the demonstration of how inhumane and welfare altering it is. Given "WP is not a SoapBox" rule, it must be former, not latter. With regards to the image quality - I tend to agree with your comment, details are hard to make out on this image. Alex Pankratov 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) "the vast majority of foie gras production concerns ducks [housed in small cages]" - "I would like to see this sourced please". Here it is :

=> As stated on the current wikipedia page, in 2005, 78.5% of the world's total production was produced in France, of which 96% was duck liver.

=> Hungary produced 8.2% of world total, of which 38% was duck liver (figures for 2004, as reported in "CIFOG [French foie gras producers association] economic report" published in 2006).

=> Bulgaria produced 6.4% of which 98% was duck liver (same source as for Hungary).

==> Even if no other country produced duck foie gras, that already means that more than 84% of the world foie gras is of ducks. But as other countries (Spain, USA, Canada, ...) do produce duck foie gras, so the real figure is even higher that 84%. -- Zelig33 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(b) "the vast majority of foie gras production concerns [ducks housed in] small cages" - "I would like to see this sourced please". Here it is :

=> France : individual cages « represented in 2000 more than 87% of force-feeding places [...] according to a study by CIFOG [the French foie gras producers association] » (source : "Contexte, structure et perspectives d'évolution du secteur français du foie gras", June 2003, page 20 ; an industry report available for purchase on http://www.office-elevage.fr/publications/cahier/palm/Avic-pub.htm)

=> Hungary : "50% of ducks are force-fed in individual cages ("CIFOG [French foie gras producers association] economic report" published in 2006, regarding data for 2004). -- Zelig33 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(a)+(b) => most of the world's foie gras is produced by force-feeding ducks (not geese) in individual cages (not pens). So Olivierd's replacement of the image of a geese force-fed in a pen, by an image of a duck force-fed in an individual cage, is indeed legitimate. Alex Pankratov's reverting to the old geese/pen image is not. -- Zelig33 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Zelig33's explanation are convincing, therefore I restored the force-feeding image.

By the way, Ramdrake said that arguments from "animal welfare activists" are not trustworth until he/she demonstrate that he/she is not biased. Well, I'm still waiting for a demonstration that foie gras producer Michael Ginor is not biased when he makes up the glorious history of foie gras through the centuries: a demonstration would be that he claims some skills in Archaeology, History, Languages, independently from his current activity. I will not wait longer: I'll remove his book from the bibliography and all the statements founded on it from the article. Benio76 10:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ginor does not need to be an archaealogist to write on the history of foie gras. This has been explained to you over and over: foie gras is his field of expertise, not just in raising geese, but from his bio, it is also obvious he is a chef (quite possibly specialized in foie gras). As a culinary expert, it would be normal that he be cognizant with the history of cooking, especially his specialty, foie gras. From his [[6]], I'm convinced he qualifies as a subject matter expert on things related to foie gras, including its history. Removing all statements derived from Ginor in the article just to make your point would be a violation of WP:POINT and as such unacceptable.--Ramdrake 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, please stop trying to scare people off by citing random guideline pages. The Ginor issue has been discussed at length, it is clear that he is a self-appointed expert at best, and a self-described passionate defender of foie gras. Sourcing anything on Ginor is decidedly weak. Apart from repeating that he must be a good source since foie gras amateurs love him (ah yes and also that he went to school), you have provided no argument in his defense. All references to Ginor should be removed, and the corresponding statements removed or marked as unsourced. David Olivier 13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained in the Good Articles review why it is doubtful that Ginor can teach us something about ancient history. Thanks for giving us the link to Ginor's bio: it is really touching, but there is nothing proving that he is trained in Human Sciences, and this reinforce my doubts. He can know a lot of things about how to cook foie gras, but as far as we know his knowledge about its history can only be founded on what he read here and there in others' works. To give you an example: you can be a great Yoga teacher, have a lot of students, join a lot of humanitarian events etc., and you can also be interested in Yoga in the past and read a lot of secondary literature about Yoga schools, history and doctrines through the centuries and know more than me about it: but this does not means that you are a source about Yoga history, especially if you don't know Sanskrit. Understood?

And, by the way, Ginor is commercially biased: having him as source is a violation of WP:NPOV Bias. Benio76 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All the AR sources are biased on the other side of the argument. I would not use that to remove all of them.--Ramdrake 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

David, I'm not trying to scare anyone off. The Ginor issue has been discussed at length, yes, and you and Benio are the only ones not accepting him as a legitimate source. Even Shimeru expressed the opinion he was more than acceptable as a source in the GA Review and I would consider his opinion as quite impartial. Removing properly sourced content because you don't like the source is indeed a violation of WP:Point whether you like me saying it or not.--Ramdrake 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to deny that Ginor is biased is just silly. Trying to make him out as a scholar despite all the arguments given by Benio76 to the contrary is absurd. Ramdrake, Wikipedia is not governed by voting, but by guidelines. You cannot trump NPOV, reliable sources and so on with votes. We've been through this before. As for Shimeru: I see no reason to see him or her as neutral by definition. As for WP:POINT, it refers to disruptive editing to prove a point. Good faithed editing based on good arguments and in face of some "majority" that doesn't care for good arguments has nothing to do with WP:POINT.

I perfectly agree that AR sites may count as weak sources when it comes to contentious issues, such as the list of countries that ban foie gras production. That is why I have searched for (and found) independent sources for a few of those countries; I have not yet completed that work, because it is time-consuming. Please don't confuse this with the issues such as the Stopgavage site counting as a good source for the fact that they have launched a manifesto. That site is material evidence of that assertion, and thus counts as a direct material source (just like I can credit the White House website to be a reliable source for the assertion "The White House website displays the US presidential seal", while not holding it to be a very good source for the existence of weapons of mass distruction in Iraq).

David Olivier 14:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alex Pankratov, Wikipedia indeed is not a soapbox, which means that we should show things as they are, without taking into account the positive or negative effects it will have on the image of foie gras. Pictures of typical foie gras production may make the product look bad; that is not our problem.

Typical foie gras production is of ducks housed in individual cages, as shown by Zelig33. Now if you have any doubts about what such cages are like, take a look around the Web, with keywords "épinette" (the name of the cages) and "gavage". You will find pages like this one, which is from a veterinary school; it's not an AR page, rather a student instruction page for foie gras production. You will read that in individual cages ducks typically have 1000 square centimeters of space each. That is the kind of size you see in the picture I put in and that you deleted. Note again that that page confirms those 1000cm² cages are the most common housing system. Ducks housed in these systems are force-fed with pneumatic pumps such as those you see on this equipment vendor page. See also this page, hardly an AR page either, which confirms that today force-feeding is typically done with a pneumatic pump.

The picture I put is not biased, in the sense that it shows nothing more than the act itself. I do not think that act can be made to look better. Try taking a still from one of the gavage scenes in the videos produced by Stopgavage and make it look good! No, that is not some magical effect of those videos being produced by an anti-gavage group; they didn't invent things, they just filmed them. Try finding a picture anywhere of force-feeding in individual cages that makes it look good!

If you have any further objections to this picture, please state them without ad hominem pseudo-arguments. Whether a picture is or not justified does not depend on my being or not an AR activist.

David Olivier 10:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of typical foie gras production may make the product look bad; that is not our problem. Actually, it is our problem. Why does foie gras have a negative POV image but beef does not? It is because activists have put their focus on foie gras but not beef. Any visit to a cattle slaughterhouse could certainly get you disgusting images. The images we have of gavage come from anti-foie gras activist groups, who certainly are not going about putting positive or neutral images out there for free use. They deliberately choose shock images for shock value - to evoke an emotional response. SchmuckyTheCat 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have pictures that show what animals go through in slaughterhouses, please do not hesitate to add them to the meat article! Now as I said, whether or not showing the truth will shock people is not our problem; or rather, it seems to be your problem, but it is not a problem from an NPOV perspective. As for your idea that AR activists somehow prevent foie gras producers from taking everyday pictures of their activities, it is, well... implausible. If the only pictures that are available that depict modern industrial foie gras production are indeed from AR groups, I think it says something about that production. David Olivier 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Trevyn: At 3:36 (UTC) you edited the caption of the force-feeding picture, changing it to "Use of shock value is common in activist criticism, such as in this photo of force-feeding from Belgian animal rights group GAIA". You knew that that was too exageratedly POV to be justifiable in any way. You have not once attempted to discuss the issue of the image on the talk page. Please do not repeat such intentionally disruptive behaviour. David Olivier 09:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture needs context and a connection to the Controversy section. I have no doubt the photo was very carefully selected to highlight the worst qualities of force feeding, as it is sourced from an animal rights organization. There are well-documented cases of footage and photos produced by animal rights groups being extensively edited and culled before being released, there is no reason to believe this situation is different. As such, it needs to be presented with explanation. The goal is not to mislead, and this requires a different approach than "showing nothing more than the act itself". —Trevyn 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a little context, but stating that it is shock value would require an external source - else your summary is a piece of original research (taking the fact that shock value images are used by AR groups as one point and this image as another and then saying that this image is an example of shock value (A+B !=C unless sourced)). I would simply attribute the image to the organisation that released it and leave it at that.-Localzuk^(talk) 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I removed the OR connection. —Trevyn 10:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The OR connection that Localzuk pointed out is relative to the "shock value"" attribution. You have not removed the OR connection. Stating that you have is dishonest. Furthermore, the present wording still strongly suggests that the shock connection is relative to this image. If it is not, then it is irrelevant. This manner of weaseling the attribution of shock value to Gaia is also dishonest.

You have no right to assert in a Wikipedia article that a picture is fabricated, heavily edited or "carefully selected" if you have no evidence that it is. Resorting to insulting your opponents in lack of argument is disruptive behaviour.

David Olivier 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Localzuk's comment again. "and then saying that this image is an example of shock value (A+B !=C unless sourced)". I am stating A (sourced) and B (sourced). This is source-based research, not original research. —Trevyn 10:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If by inserting that caption you are implying that the picture is a "shock value" picture, you are doing OR. If you are not implying that, that caption is irrelevant. David Olivier 11:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. —Trevyn 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the 'shock value' information is completely unrelated to the image - as there is no evidence to show that it is related. I am going to remove it because, as it stands, it is trying to infer something by being in the caption box.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Trevyn claimed that "there is no reason to believe" that the current force-feeding photo was not "extensively edited and culled before being released". Trevyn provides no data supporting his claim. On the contrary, I've located the page where the photograph published the whole set of shots taken seconds before and after that very photo (see bottom of [7] and top of [8]). They all look very much like the one currently chosen. -- Zelig33 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, here's a nice image: [9]. Thoughts? —Trevyn 09:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Trevyn, that picture does not show pneumatic pump force-feeding. It is not typical. David Olivier 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That "in the first place" stuff

Ramdrake repeatedly adds the sentence "Most of these countries never produced foie gras in the first place." at the end of the paragraph that lists 14 European countries that prohibit foie gras production following national laws.

I will leave that sentence in for the moment, because however absurd it is, it is not that damaging. I leave it in also as a token to the level of absurdity that the pro-foie gras side can reach.

The article cited by Ramdrake in support of that sentence lists sixteen countries, two of which (not being European) are not in the list given on the Wikipedia page. The article thus supports that a majority of those 16 countries has never produced foie gras; which does not imply that a majority of a subset of 14 of those countries never produced foie gras. That is simple math; Ramdrake, can't you recognize it?

Furthermore, that sentence, supposedly sourced on a casual men's magazine, is in stark contrast with what the history section of the article states: "The practice gradually spread north through the Roman Empire, and then further into Europe with the Jewish migration." It is hard to imagine that it spread throughout the Roman Empire and then further into Europe, and that at the same time a majority of the countries cited have never had a foie gras production!

We've debated it before, to no avail. If Ramdrake wants to say 2 and 2 are 5, let's let him have his way, at least for the moment.

David Olivier 17:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

David, simple math: the majority out of sixteen is at least nine. "Most" is quite likely to be more than that. Subtract two countries from the set of 16 means at most you'll subtract two countries from the list of non-producers, so there are at least seven non-producers in the list of 14, with the probability of there being in fact more than 7 being extremely high (the probability of that is at least 98,7%, worst case scenario, by my count). So, it is fairly reasonable to say, given the available info, that the statement holds true for the subset. In any case, I did add Argentina and Israel to the list, even if they weren't European countries, but somebody deleted that part of the list). As for your "stark contrast", just take a look at the list of foie gras producing countries; it should pretty much speak for itself.--Ramdrake 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is based on changing the meaning of the word "most" halfway between your premise ("most of 16") and your conclusion ("most of 14"). If you take "most" to mean more than half, that is at least 9 out of 16, and also at least 8 out of 14. If you take it to mean something stronger, then it may mean more than 9 out of 16, and also more than 8 out of 14. Either way, most of a list of 16 does not translate into most of a list of 14. I'm sorry to go into this; if you stopped trying to invent new tricks we might discuss more important matter. True, you tried to add back Argentina and Israel in the list of European countries, to make your "most" assertion stick; look on a map, you will see that that will not do. Lastly, the sentence you repeatedly add says "never produced foie gras", and never means never ever; the list of currently producing countries is irrelevant. David Olivier 12:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(conflict):Not to mention that it is a terrible sentence. The term 'most' is not representative of the actual list, 'in the first place' just doesn't seem encyclopedic and the sentence is too short and just reads badly (not that my use of the English language is any where near perfect though).-Localzuk^(talk) 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is a pointless fact really - as it doesn't actually inform the reader of anything other than the fact that countries banned the production of this food regardless of whether it was produced there...-Localzuk^(talk) 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless how the sentence is phrased, it does deliver an important bit of information. Prohibition of Foie Gras production in countries that never produced it (eg Norway or Poland) is nothing more than a way for politicians to deal with vocal animal activist groups, because it does not affect anyone else. It is quite a bit different from a prohibition in a country that actively involved in Foie Gras production/consumption, eg France. Therefore the fact that "the most of the countries never produced the Foie Gras" is highly relevant. Alex Pankratov 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually, the point of the sentence just goes to demonstrate that in those countries where foie gras and/or gavage have been outlawed, it was to prevent the practice from starting. Very few countries that produced foie gras in any significant quantity (with the notable exception of Israel) have actually stopped producing it. That means that globally, the production of foie gras hasn't significantly decreased due to these bans, which I think is an important point. Moreover, with the entry of China as a new producer of foie gras, global production may in fact significantly increase in the foreseeable future. I hope this is reason enough to justify that the sentence isn't pointless at all.--Ramdrake 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but something definitely needs doing with it to make it fit a little better.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just gave a shot at refactoring the sentence.--Ramdrake 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your refactoring, apart from perhaps improving somewhat the wording. You have made it: "Most of these countries aren't currently producing foie gras, nor have they been in the past.". The first assertion is obvious - if foie gras production is prohibited in those countries, they are of course not currently producing it; and the second part is equivalent to what the sentence stated before, "Most of these countries never produced foie gras in the first place." David Olivier 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the fallout of this debate was a change from the list of European countries with explicit laws against force feeding to this fuzzier "interpretation of general animal protection laws" that I take great issue with. It's fine if there is specific case law, like Israel, and we cite it, but the existing sources do not really support this kind of "it's currently illegal" statement. e.g. for the UK, our source says things like "They have made it clear they would seek legislation to ban this practice if there was a prospect of it developing in the United Kingdom." This is a far cry from it being currently prohibited, which is what we claim. Comments?

Also, regarding South Africa, nowhere did they legislate or otherwise concern themselves with foie gras production as a whole, only one specific producer. I am concerned that there is a tendency towards generalization here. Just because one foie gras producer may have treated his animals in an inhumane manner does not mean that all foie gras production is inhumane, a leap that I think we are taking more often than we should. —Trevyn 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the statement about South Africa to explicitly state that neither gavage nor foie gras were banned in that country. I'll see what I can do about the list.

Legal issues are often complex, and I agree that stating that the UK has implicitly banned foie gras is an oversimplification. In any case, foie gras production in the UK is banned by the Council of Europe recommendation.

I agree that for some other countries, the legal situation should be described in more detail, in a more nuanced way. This implies describing the situation in South Africa in a nuanced way; but also perhaps describing the situation in many countries that are currently not listed and where laws do implicitly prohibit foie gras production, in a nuanced way. Perhaps also mentioning a few legal technicalities about France, where there is a strong case that foie gras production is de jure illegal.

David Olivier 14:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, as I understand it Ramdrake is trying to make the point that many of the prohibitions of foie gras production are of little significance, because they imply nothing for those countries. Well, that may be a legitimate argument; I mean, if it is indeed held by notable foie gras defenders. If so, it should be stated clearly in the article; the way it is currently just suggested is like trying to sneak it in. It should not be in the section about the legal status in Europe, as it is not particularly relevant to Europe. Ramdrake, would you just take that sentence out, and perhaps make what you want to say explicit, if that is indeed what you want to say? David Olivier 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake: Just adding as you have now that "Thus, these bans have stopped actual foie gras production in very few countries, with the notable exception of Israel." does not fix the problem. Not only because Israel is not in Europe and Poland actually was a notable producer before the ban. Mainly, because the sentence still does not state its point. What is the relevance of those countries not having stopped any existing production? Is there anyone who has made an argument of it, for instance to support that those bans are worthless? David Olivier 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion in the US

This entire section was based on a push poll from an AR group. It's discussed above. It's a worthless poll from a worthless source worded in order to get the results they wanted. I've removed the section. SchmuckyTheCat 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, since this poll is very demonstrably a push poll, it only serves to demonstrate the bias from this group. It is not really representative of public opinion, since a third to half the respondents' only exposure to foie gras was the very biased presentation of the question itself.--Ramdrake 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, your opinion about those polls being worthless is, well, IMHO just about worthless. The polls exist, and the readers are to make up their own minds about them. The phrasing of the question is stated in the article, and also the fact that the polls were paid by an AR group.

The above discussion came to no conclusion apart from your side's repeated ranting about the magic powers AR groups have to alter the respondents' answers.

Not knowing exactly what a push poll is, I looked it up. A push poll is a fake poll intended to alter the views of the respondents. "One way to distinguish between push polling as a tactic and polls which legitimately seek information is the sample size. Genuine polls make do with small, representative samples, whereas push polls can be very large, like any other mass marketing effort." says the Wikipedia page. The total sample of the five Zogby polls listed is (if I counted correctly) 2213 respondents, which is actually rather smallish.

David Olivier 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It also says in the article on push polls: Another angle on push polling is the practice of(...) structuring the poll question in such a way that the response is limited in some way thus biasing the poll by excluding legitimate responses and exaggerating the real level of support for the choices given. I believe the question as it is phrased does exactly that. And, it is a far more telling feature than the number of respondents. I've added a second poll, held by the Chicago tribune, that demonstrates respondents are actually opposed to the ban in majority. Please note that the question is much more neutral.--Ramdrake 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And both polls are useless. One is engineered to get a response, the other non-scientific. SchmuckyTheCat 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake just added an information about an "informal poll" conducted by the Chicago Tribune, alongside a heavily hostile article. I suppose that is your idea of an unbiased poll! Such polls are never deemed scientific at all. But let's let it stand, the readers will sort it out. David Olivier 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SchmuckyTheCat that the Chicago Tribune poll is just about worthless. About the definition of push polls, that alternative definition is at great variance with the one given and seems to be held in suspicion. But I'll let you call it a push poll if you want, if you accept that by that you are not saying anything more than what is apparent in the article, i.e. the way the question is phrased. David Olivier 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What? You expect a wikipedia article on push polls to be defining? Don't be ridiculous.

The definition of push polls isn't really relevant anyways. Both the Farm Sanctuary poll and the Chicago Tribune poll are worthless to us. Neither is objective, either in representation of the question or those polled. SchmuckyTheCat 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Section: Controversy

I have NPOV regarding this article, however, the Controversy section is nearly as large as the entire See also Force-feeding of animals article being referenced. Is it possible that we could improve this article by putting more of the Animal Rights information into the Force-feeding article or other animal rights articles with WikiLinks from this article? Lmcelhiney 14:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section is currently less than 40% of the article; the rest of the article reads like a commercial for foie gras. The controversy about foie gras is about foie gras; it belongs to that article. It is also not just "animal rights" information; foie gras production has been declared a form of mistreatment of animals by a large number of countries in the world. David Olivier 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lmcelhiney and thanks for coming! As far I am concerned, I'm scarcely involved in the controversy section, but rather interested in the Introduction and in the Historical section. I raised doubts on the reliability of the sources which found the history of foie gras (you can read my remarks in the Good Articles Review) and I insist for having this editing of mine restored in the intro. Benio76 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David Olivier, Of course, you can have your POV, not an issue. It appears that this article is trying be too many things to its editors. If it is meant to be an article about food, then it should be so. If it is meant to be an article about animal cruelty to produce food, then so be it. I'd believe that the "40%" you mention constitutes a major portion of the article. Maybe it is time to split the article or have a disambiguation page which deals with the two separate areas (not two separate POV articles, however.) Oh, by the way, as an editor, you could change the portion of the article which you feel reads like a "commercial for foie gras." That is what NPOV is all about to me. Thanks for thinking about this. Lmcelhiney 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like Lmcelhiney's idea. This may be the only way we could have of having an article on the food item and an article on the controversy without the both of them vying for importance. Readers wanting to learn about the food, its history, preparation, consumption (as one would probably want to learn about a non-controversial food item) would be able to do so without hearing that it's a diseased organ, and readers who want to read about the serious controversy surrounding its production methods could read about the controversy without being offended by anyone praising the merits of this food item. We could certainly leave a summary paragraph about the controversy in the food item article with a wikilink to the controversy article, and a one-liner at the beginning of the controversy article along the lines "For the food item,please see such-and-such".--Ramdrake 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is simply a POV fork. Even if you think it isn't, you are relegating information which 'you' do not see as 'important' to a different page based on what 'you' think other people want to read. Personally, every reference to foie gras I have seen in the UK has some sort of comment regarding its controversial nature. So does that mean we should put the controversy stuff here and move the food related stuff elsewhere?

This is really where having a specific 'controversy' section falls down. It means that when it gets too large it will end up being split off from the main article - thus making it harder to find. How about we try and integrate it into the main body instead? For example, the production methods through the history of the food could be discussed and the controversy added as a point related to modern method etc... This would mean that rather than a single 'side' being split off, sections that are not POV would be split off instead - which is much better.

From my experience of removing such sections and articles (and weaving the info throughout articles) it leads to a significant drop in unsourced pov trolling and leads to a general increase in article quality.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is right there in the table of contents. It would be harder to find if you stuck it where people aren't expecting it. —Trevyn 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is not the point. The article is here to provide information about Foie Gras. Why should it be split into a 'positive things' and 'negative things' structure? Also, you have ignored the points I made about reduced trolling. Take a look at Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures which can imply a view. These cover this area quite well I think.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, it appears that Controversy as a section heading is too vague. The controversy appears to be essentially over one topic: Animal welfare concerns, and these concerns specifically involve Production. So a re-title and moving of the section would make sense.—Trevyn 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually, Localzuk may have a point. Something very much like this was done to the PETA article, and insofar as I am concerned, it worked. The article comes across as neither particularly praising nor deprecating PETA, which I think is what everybody here wants for this article (correct me if I'm wrong). The flipside is that there are a dozen users a month who come in and complain about the lack of a "critics" section in the article, and someone ends up having to explain it to them all over. As far as I'm concerned, I can live with that. We do, however, need to make sure the article is balanced in every section, which can take quite a bit of negotiation; however, at this point, I don't think we have anything to lose. I would recommend waiting until we hear from the MedCab mediator before starting. Last time I checked our article was second-to-next in line to be taken up by a mediator. What say everyone?--Ramdrake 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PETA seems to be substantially criticized for just about everything it does, so it makes sense in that article. Here, we have a "significant minority" view, as discussed earlier, regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production. I do not see any other notable criticism. Like I said above, it would make sense to clarify the title of this section and put it under Production, but I think it still needs to be clearly delineated as what it is. Otherwise, we risk giving free reign to non-notable minority views, like "Some people think you shouldn't eat ducks", or "Some people think foie gras doesn't taste very good." Absolutely agree that we need to get a mediator in here. —Trevyn 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Trevyn (00:49 UTC): Whether the opposition to foie gras production is a minority view is contentious, and has been debated on this page; see the polls that you suppressed from the article, and the fact that it has been outlawed in most of Europe.

Now I agree that the core of the criticism concerns the welfare of the birds. But the controversy over that issue does have an impact on all aspects of the article. The history section, for instance, currently makes foie gras appear as a time-honoured product. The sources and the logic of that section are poor, but presenting foie gras as time-honoured is a long-standing defensive strategy of the foie gras industry. I don't care about how time-honoured practices are, whether foie gras or rape; I just don't see why they should be allowed to fake things up. As another example, basic food information that would be seen as significant for any product, i.e. that foie gras is made from a diseased organ, has been repeatedly suppressed from the lead, and even from the article as a whole. Again, I don't care how diseased the organ is, apart from the impact on the bird's welfare; but it happens to be that it is the case, and I don't see why the pro-foie gras lobby should be allowed to suppress significant information just because they don't like it. There is also the physiology section, which is tailored to make it appear that the animals hardly need to be force-fed at all. The "fattening" section itself hardly touches on the reality of typical modern foie gras production; it doesn't mention that the ducks are held in individual cages (87% of the ducks in France), and only mentions that they are typically fattened in 2 or 3 seconds by a pneumatic pump because I added that yesterday and the page was blocked before someone came around to delete it (as has happened repeatedly for perfectly verifiable information in the past).

In other words, it is not those who are critical of foie gras who want to spread the controversy all over the article. It was already all over the article, by its being heavily and consistently influenced by the defensive strategy of the foie gras industry. It may not have been intentionally so, because you find all that spin about foie gras and the Egyptians, etc. just about everywhere in books, the media and the Web, and people in good faith can easily be brought to believe it. But on Wikipedia we must make sure that the information is verifiable, i.e. is based on more than books such as Foie gras, a passion.

David Olivier 09:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it another way: fifty or say, a hundred years ago, the controversy about foie gras didn't exist (after researching, I could only trace it back to about an 1970 start time frame). And honestly, I think a good part of the controversy is related to how the foie gras production methods were modernized. However, you can find a couple of references from before the start of the controversy about the history of foie gras (I wouldn't be surprised if Brillat-Savarin wrote a piece about it) which are rather similar to what is in the article. This would go to prove that at that time, foie gras was considered a time-honoured dish, uncontroversially. Thus, could we allow the controversy over its modern production methods (especially in the light that Spain now produces a foie gras without any force-feeding which has won an international award last year) to tarnish the historical image of the dish? Please think it over. And for the record, I don't particularly like foie gras; I just don't think people should be forcibly turned away from it through a smear campaign because of its controversial production methods.--Ramdrake 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah! I'm sorry but that has to be one of the biggest set of POV assumptions I have seen in a while. You are trying to say that because the controversy surrounding this food is relatively new, it should be kept to a minimum? Why? In the here and now the controversy is a major issue with this food and trying to reduce the amount of criticism in the article based on ideas that 'once upon a time' it as a 'time honoured dish' is POV to say the least.

As I have said before, all aspects of this subject should be covered - not just what you think is important. There is quite adequate information available to show that the controversy surrounding it is mainstream and not just a fringe ideal.

Also, please refrain from making accusations of 'smear campaigns' as there is no evidence of this. I have only seen people trying to improve an article through presenting sourced information, countered by a group of people who say that the controversy is a non-issue (in effect) and the deletion of sourced material. OK some of the sources (such as the poll) are low quality but there have been many other removals also. Also, no one is being 'forcibly turned away' from anything. This is an encyclopedia, not a law.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, I'm sorry, I must have expressed myself wrong. What I'm saying is that the fact of the controversy over the production methods shouldn't make one doubt, for example, the history section, which is based on reliable and verifiable sources. My contention is that opposition to the production methods is a significant viewpoint; opposition to how history of foie gras is told I think is a marginal rather than a significant viewpoint. Of course, if you have reliable sources that bring up specific inconsistencies (or prove the story is exaggerated) about the history of the dish, please bring them forth and we will adjust the article accordingly. What I'm saying is just controversy over the production methods of foie gras doesn't warrant seeing everything else about foie gras as controversial, unless there are reliable sources stating that those other aspects are also controversial. I'm hoping this makes more sense phrased this way.--Ramdrake 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is much better. And I agree. We can only include controversy if it is sourced and relevant to the section - but this is just common sense really.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, do you have any reliable sources for any criticism that does not pertain to the welfare aspects of modern foie gras production? We can argue all day about removing POV, but in order for criticism to enter the article itself, it needs to be sourced. Also, because the criticism is related directly to production, I did propose making it a distinct subsection of the production section. We know there is criticism, and there is a place to discuss it, but whether ducks are in cages or pens is not otherwise particularly relevant to their livers, which is what this article is about. Similarly, whether the ducks feel pain or enjoy being force fed or whether people should eat diseased liver is relevant only in the context of the criticism. —Trevyn 10:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The steatosis, or fatty liver, is a relevant information about the birds liver, i.e. about foie gras itself. It does not pertain animal welfare, it is not a criticism or an opinion by animal right activists. It is a simple, neutral and sourced information which does not imply a judgement about wheter it is or it is not good to eat diseased organs. Therefore, it is worthy of being in the Intro, much more than the amazing technicolor dreamstory about Egyptians & co. Benio76 11:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an opinion of animal rights activists. The AMVA testimony from professional veterinarians insisted it was not a diseased state. Plenty of the modern practices for any meat or dairy product aren't the healthiest thing for the animal, foie gras is little different. The insistence on profiling this "disease" is the activity of activists. SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guy, can you read? In my last editing - which is the editing I want to restore - I did not say that it was a disease! Benio76 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Benio, the intro already says this: Due to this force feeding procedure, and the possible health consequences of an enlarged liver,, while the phsyiology section says this: Storage of fat in the liver produces steatosis of the liver cells and the controversy section reads: force feeding induced hepatic steatosis in the duck and: some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not. Is it really necessary to add a fourth passage on the effects of force-feeding on the liver?--Ramdrake 15:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Ramdrake (21:39 UTC): Thank you (seriously) for noting that some readers can be offended by all the praise the article loads on foie gras. I hadn't thought of mentioning it, but it is quite to the point: you have repeatedly insisted that it should not be mentioned in the lead that foie gras is from a diseased organ, because it can hurt the feelings of those who want to eat it. All the nice pictures of foie gras with figs and so an can also hurt the feelings of people such as me, but I had not even thought of mentioning it.

But actually I think that on Wikipedia one must be prepared to have one's feelings hurt. I can stomach praise for foie gras; as others should be prepared to stomach hard facts about how it is produced. This is also supported by official policy, on What Wikipedia is not, "not censored" section: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. (...) some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content".

Lastly, it seems clear to me that splitting the article along food / controversy lines would be a POV fork. The editors who are foie gras enthusiasts would flock to the "food" article, and those who care about the welfare of the birds would flock to the "controversy" article. It would be even harder than it is now to correct all the POVity of the "food" article (see my criticism above); and perhaps even more damaging would be that the foie gras opponents may essentially have a free hand on the "criticism" article, depriving it of its credibilty. I want all aspects of the issue to be stated with equal standards of neutrality and verifiability.

I do not see why there should be a problem with my proposal not to specifically limit the size of the different aspects covered by the article. That is how it is on most articles, without people warring over how much space is covered by each aspect. How large each aspect is depends essentially on how much relevant NPOV information there is to put in it. Trevyn said above (22 Dec. 22:05 UTC): "It's becoming more clear to me that, right now, there just isn't much to say about the controversy, even if animal welfare concerns were incredibly widespread." If that is so, don't fret that the controversy section will become too large! If you feel that it is becoming too large, criticize the relevance or the NPOVity of the information there, not how large it is.

I do not "want to see the controversy section expanded with no limits", as Ramdrake contends on his request for informal mediation. I want there to be no a priori specific limits, because I don't see any need for them and because the limits Ramdrake and others want to put on the controversy section are clearly partisan. The limits I accept are those of NPOV and relevance. Perhaps size limits may be also justified in the future, if one section get absurdly large, but that is certainly not the case today.

David Olivier 11:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A controversy section of unlimited size is a violation of undue weight. That isn't partisan. David won't be satisfied until the article reads like a damnation with a laundry list of criticism. SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(conflict)

But this is you making the distinction between the food and its criticism. The article should discuss, in an NPOV manner, all points relating to Foie Gras that are important and to an extent, interesting.

Saying that things should be listed in the context of criticism is polarising the subject rather than treating it as a single subject. Therefore, if foie gras production methods have been criticised for various things, this should be included at the same time as discussing these methods - that way there isn't a split in the information. It shouldn't be in subsections or any form of seperated structure - it should be involved in the prose related to the description of whatever it is criticism of.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with a fork. Last time I edited an article and the animal rights controversy section was split off to a separate article the other article was deleted as a POV fork.

Section: Controversy II (arbitrary section break)

Maybe it would be the time to look at these other articles? Veal, for example, is short and comprehensive and follows the "interleaved" approach. I suspect that there are many other articles which indicate the commercial approach to food production. After all, it is economics, I don't believe anyone has shown evidence that the geese are being mistreated as a sport. Lmcelhiney 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Polls

In the course of a discussion over the prominence of the foie gras controversy, in which I put forward the fact that democratically designated authorities representing hundreds of millions of Europeans have outlawed foie gras as detrimental to the bird's welfare, pro-foie gras user Boffob rashly responded (6 Dec., 22:31 UTC):

Unless you have a little poll with "hundreds of millions" of people, or a representative sample for the population from which "hundreds of millions" are against foie gras, your prima facie is nothing but your own perception

But when I did come up with such a little poll, it didn't seem to make the pro-foie gras side happy. I inserted it in the article:

Public opinion

A series of five polls were conducted by Zogby International in the United States at the request of the Animal Rights organization Farm Sanctuary between 2004 and 2004. They show between 77 and 85% of the U.S. public supporting a ban on force-feeding for foie gras in answer to questions such as this:

Foie gras is an expensive food item served in some upscale restaurants. It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks large quantities of food, causing the animals’ livers to swell up to ten times their normal size. A long metal pipe is inserted into the animal’s esophagus several times a day. Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture. Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed this practice as cruel. Do you agree or disagree that force feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned by law in New York? Agree: 78%; disagree: 15%; not sure: 7%

Trevyn suppressed the poll, commenting that "poll used a question with numerous factual errors, hence not worth reporting". Let's see about that.

• Foie gras is an expensive food item: Not contentious.
• Served in some upscale restaurants: Hostile wording, perhaps, but in substance not contentious.
• It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks: Not contentious.
• Large quantities of food: Not contentious.
• Causing the animals’ livers to swell up to ten times their normal size: Not contentious. The EU report, page 39, gives the figures (for geese): force fed, 982g; not force fed, 76g.
• A long metal pipe is inserted into the animal’s esophagus several times a day: Not contentious, except that the pipe perhaps is not always metal. Page 21 of EU report: "The person who will commence the force feeding grabs the neck of the bird, retrains the wings if the bird is in a pen, draws the bird towards the feeding pipe, thrusts the 20-30 cm long pipe down the throat of the bird and initiates the food pumping procedure." Page 61: "the procedure is repeated 2-3 times a day".
• Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture: Not very contentious. The EU report, page 62: "The mortality rate in force fed birds varies from 2% to 4% in the two week force feeding period compared with around 0.2% in non force fed ducks. (...) The precise causes of this mortality have not been documented but are likely to include physical injury, heat stress and liver failure." Note also that Maggie Gorman, a self-described animal loving foie gras producer, explains [10] the lower mortality rate she obtains with her ducks from the fact that she (alledgedly) makes sure the crop is empty before filling it up again. Others do not. See typical force-feeding in the videos on this page. Note also that in the EU report description above, there is no mention of the operator making sure the crop is empty.
• Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed this practice as cruel" Actually, most European countries have outlawed the procedure. Ramdrake disputes that they declare the procedure cruel; it is not disputed that they outlawed it in name of the welfare of the birds, which amounts to the same.

Trevyn, do you recognize that stating that the question contained "numerous factual errors" was... a factual error? And do you consequently accept that the reference to the poll should be reinstated?

David Olivier 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my reply at the top here, since Olivierd appears to be addressing this directly to me.

• It is produced by force-feeding geese and ducks: Not according to Patería de Sousa, and I'm sure you're aware of the debate on this subject.
• A long metal pipe is inserted: As you mentioned, the pipe is not always metal.
• Often, this process causes the animals’ internal organs to rupture: I note that you didn't provide any sources for internal organ rupture, and I'm starting to think there is no reliable source for this, because it doesn't happen.
• California has not outlawed the practice "as cruel". The law is under their Health and Safety code, and makes no mention of animal welfare aspects. This is particularly damning, as this survey was given to U.S. residents, and California is the only local example of a foie gras ban. I am also skeptical of the wording of "have outlawed", when the sections doing the outlawing are to take effect in the future, but I do not know if it is semantically correct to say "have outlawed" in this context or not.
• Also, in Chicago, foie gras is free. ;)

—Trevyn 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have done a fine job of dissecting the question, I must say. However, this doesn't change the fact that the wording is hostile and imparts a very definite spin on the question: "several times a day" may be in people's minds much more than two or three times a day, the pipe isn't necessarily metal, "long" is subjective, "metal pipe" suggests a plumbing pipe, whereas the real pipe is much thinner than that, "organs rupture often": 2% isn't "often" and far from all of the mortality rate comes from organ rupture (more likely to come from toxin accumulation, unless you can prove the contrary), the countries and localities that have banned the practice haven't necessarily declared it cruel (most haven't, AFAIK, although they have banned it).

All in all, it depicts the picture of a product, resevred only for the rich, and which has been produced through the suffering of countless animals, and which has been declared cruel by many countries. It is definitely worded to give a repulsive first impression to people; otherwise, how could 80% of people back a ban of foie gras when half of them (30-50% of respondents) have never heard of the product before? Precisely because the question gives a negative impression of the product. You just can't prejudice people you survey by how you phrase your question; that makes the poll invalid right there and then. And that's precisely the point that makes it a "push poll"--Ramdrake 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this point - the poll is of low value really, as it is written in such a way as to cause people to have an emotive response. I think it should be left out.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've outlined why I also think the results from this push poll are completely useless something like 2 weeks ago. But for the sake of argument, I'll give again the example that dihydrogen monoxide polls have produced similar proportions of respondants in favor of banning water, using only factual information.--Boffob 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you asked for a poll, and got one. How else would you have phrased the question? "Foie gras has a delicate flavour, should it be banned?" You refused to accept that the opinions of democratically appointed government bodies are significant; you refuse to accept that public opinion polls are significant; perhaps all you accept is the opinion of Michael "Passion" Ginor and some odd journalist? David Olivier 15:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of: Foie gras is a dish that is considered by many to be a delicacy. However, there is much controversy over its production methods concerning its effects on animal welfare. Under these circumstances, would you favor a ban of foie gras? I'm no pollster and admittedly my phrasing is still far less than ideal, but I dare say it is far less biased than the phrasing used in the Zogby polls. See how it doesn't try to push people towards a preordained conclusion and tries to balance positive with negative highlights within the question, and avoids eliciting an emotional response?--Ramdrake 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To David: I've also said it before, the most neutral question would be something along the lines of "Are you for or against banning the sale/production of foie gras?". And the results should include the (likely high) proportion of non-responses (e.g. "I don't know what's foie gras").--Boffob 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal would certainly be much more biased than the existing Zogby polls; it does not say anything about the production methods. Why do you want so much to leave that information out?

Anyway, if any such polls have been conducted, I support them being included on the page. It seems they have not. The foie gras industry spends fortunes in advertisement for its product, doesn't seem to have the money to test public opinion; or if it has, seems shy of making the results known.

David Olivier 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I understand that you for the most part agree with me at least that there were not "numerous factual errors" in the question. I don't think "long" suggests more than the truth: no one will think the pipe goes down further than the stomach! "Several times a day" may slightly suggest more than 2 or 3 times, but that is hardly a factual error. "Often rupture" may also be suggesting more than the truth, but hardly. As for the "cruel" issue: it is plainly moot. When a country bans force-feeding in an animal protection law (see the German, Italian, Polish, Danish and Norwegian laws), it means that the ban is to protect animals. From what? From making them happy? No, from making them suffer.

Actually, I think the question can be criticized for much that it omits: that the birds get so sick that the suffer permanent diarrhea, temperature regulation problems and constant breathing difficulties. That is not just 2 or 4 percent of the birds. That is all the birds, who can be seen permanently panting during the last days of the force-feeding. They are indeed in a very bad state at that time. See this foie gras production manual:

Aucun signe particulier ne permet de déceler à l’avance le moment où le foie parvient à sa qualité optimale. L’aspect fatigué des volailles grasses, leur taille énorme, leur respiration haletante, l’animal, qui montre de plus en plus de difficultés à se déplacer, sont autant de points de repère. Les oies et les canards gras doivent être sacrifiés sur place pour éviter d’éventuels décès pendant le transport.

The birds don't always die of a ruptured crop, but sometimes they do, and when they die of toxin accumulation, as you say, I'm not sure that is much more fun for them. And perhaps an even less fun way of dying is of heat collapse. So all things summed up I don't think the wording of the question make things look worse than they really are.

The wording of the poll was chosen by an animal welfare group. I didn't attempt to hide that, and the readers can make what they want of it. But also, Ramdrake, could you please tell me how the wording should have been? You protest that "it depicts the picture of a product, resevred only for the rich, and which has been produced through the suffering of countless animals, and which has been declared cruel by many countries" - but if all that is true, why shouldn't it be said? Perhaps you would have preferred something like "Foie gras dates back to the Egyptians, should it be banned?" All that this discussion amounts to is that the terms of the controversy cannot be stated without making foie gras look bad. Is that a reason for suppressing the polls that do exist?

You found that poll by the Chicago Tribune; but apart from such Web polls being universally recognized as unreliable, the context of the question hardly mentioned the reason for banning foie gras at all! And even then, the results are over 40% of the respondents voting for the ban!

David Olivier 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

David, this is bordering on bad faith. You can't possibly believe the Farm Sanctuary poll isn't biased. You want it included because it is negative not because it has any value in educating a reader. SchmuckyTheCat 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, whatever you or I think of the Farm Sanctuary is irrelevant. They cannot change the respondents' answers just by virtue of their "bias". Only the question and the responses are relevant, and I propose to let the readers judge for themselves. Why I want the poll included is also irrelevant (and is not your business). The fact is that such a poll exists. Boffob seemed to believe that such a poll would be significant. I don't see why it wouldn't be. If other polls show a different result, they may be significant too. David Olivier 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

David, I'm wondering how you can construe Boffob saying: I've outlined why I also think the results from this push poll are completely useless something like 2 weeks ago. But for the sake of argument, I'll give again the example that dihydrogen monoxide polls have produced similar proportions of respondants in favor of banning water, using only factual information means that he thinks your poll is significant? As far, as I can tell, no one here (with the possible exception of Benio) agrees with you this poll should be included. Your insistence that it is worthy of inclusion despite all the criticism that has been raised here borders on bad faith (as STC already said) or self-delusion, I won't venture to guess which one. And as for the Chicago Tribune poll: I expect foie gras to be a contentious matter, so an opinion split down the middle (or close to that) is actually fairly close to what I would honestly expect.--Ramdrake 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, David, you come across as someone who opposes anything positive being said about foie gras, or at least any effort trying to depict it without demonizing it. Either position is an extreme POV and cannot possibly be the base for a balanced article about anything, even less so about anything controversial. The fact that you don't seem to realize that the Zogby poll question didn't have anything positive to say about foie gras, and a lot of very negative things to say, some being misleading, some exaggerations and other statements that smacked of demagogy seems to indicate that this is in fact the case.--Ramdrake 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I want the poll included is also irrelevant (and is not your business). Incorrect. You have a non-neutral agenda which you make explicit on your user page. SchmuckyTheCat 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is a consensus (not unanimous, just that of a large majority of editors) against using the poll in the article. Right or wrong? I must say I'm tired of the fighting and I'd like these discussions to close some subjects rather than to keep opening up new ones. Comments are welcome.--Ramdrake 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal has picked up the case

Fellow editors, please take note that the Medcab has picked up the case here. Any and all wishing to comment on the current situation may do so there, although my guess is that part of the mediation will also take place on this talk page. Just an FYI, really.--Ramdrake 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent AP release about Chicago

[11] SchmuckyTheCat 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? I can surely also document that in defiance to the anti-battering laws, a number of Chicago men beat their wives. David Olivier 13:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But anti-battering laws are enforced (that is, authorities go after reported cases), while the foie gras ban is not.--Boffob 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Chicago, but there are many places where anti-battering laws are very poorly enforced. It has been a long-standing battle to get them enforced. That is the way things are, for battering as well as for force-feeding. David Olivier 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But men that beat their wives aren't praised by the newspapers. Significant difference here.--Ramdrake 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apples to oranges. Alex Pankratov 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)