Talk:Foie gras: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:18, 27 December 2006 editSchmuckyTheCat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,942 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:31, 27 December 2006 edit undoSchmuckyTheCat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,942 edits →TotallyDisputed tag added Next edit →
Line 1,251:		Line 1,251:

	::I think we're at the same point as in the ] article. I think it's either formal mediation or ]. I'd go for it.--] 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)		::I think we're at the same point as in the ] article. I think it's either formal mediation or ]. I'd go for it.--] 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. ] 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

	== Am I the only one... ==		== Am I the only one... ==

Revision as of 19:31, 27 December 2006

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Foie gras has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Archive 1 contains the following sections: Bans, Health benefits, Consumption, Cruelty, Ban on consumption?, POV, May 8, 2005 edits by 24.127.99.9, Reversion, Proper attribution, Sterile Ducks?, Man, this stuff is good!, Critical response to Michael Ginor, Unclear passage in Criticism section, gag reflex, pronunciation check, Production methods, "Foie gras" and not "Paté de foie gras", Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles, medcabal, medcabal round two, Does the implication that "Animal Rights Activists" are the only objectors meet NPOV?, Removed statement on duck migration that was not found in the listed source, Inline citations needed

Bloated Controversy section

I looked at this article for the first time today and it striked me as being overly chatty in Controversy section. Anti-gavage activity is clearly an important subject, but it does not really belong here. Foie gras is a food item, and I suspect that's what the bulk of readers expect the article to focus on. Discussion of how some people feel about force-feeding issues (either pro- or con-) is interesting and relevant, but it probably needs to go into WP article of its own and be cross-linked from this one. Alex Pankratov 08:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism:

Someone has gone through this article and reworked some of the areas. He is writing about some girl named Kate and renaming the cities after himself and friends (I assume). I'm going to try to remove as much as I can without destroying this article.

Hi,

I've been reading the article foie gras and I would like to remark that some basic information about foie gras are missing:

1. the fact that the fattening of liver (in human as well as in non human animals) is a pathological condition called hepatic steatosis (consequently, there is no link to the Misplaced Pages article concerning this disease);

2. the phisical reactions induced to birds by force-feeding are not described;

3. it is not said that the greatest number of birds raised to product foie gras are battery raised and there is no photo showing this.

These are facts about foie gras, not people's feelings: for this reason, they should be mentioned in the article (answering to A Pankratov).

Benio76 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Benio76, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We encourage users to be bold in editing Misplaced Pages, so if there's something you'd like to see, feel free to add it! As it relates to this article, you may also wish to review WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, which explains why not all factual information may be appropriate for inclusion. For example, it is also a fact that "Foie gras" begins with the letter "F", but this is not mentioned because it is not necessarily relevant in an encyclopedia article. More to the point, the physical reactions of birds to force feeding may be most appropriate in the Misplaced Pages article on force feeding. Similarly, descriptions and pictures of "battery raising" may be most appropriate in the article on industrial agriculture. In this article in particular, there is some concern that the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production are given undue weight that might be more appropriate to other Misplaced Pages articles. I encourage you to read the rest of this talk page for a plethora of comments related to this issue. And again, welcome! —Trevyn 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trevyn,

thanks for your explanations. I will read the policy about neutral point of view. Anyway, let me say that your suggestions to select information are perfectly suitable to other parts too of the article which should consequently be removed elsewhere.

For example, all the historical explanations about Egyptians, Romans and other nice people of the past eating birds' fattened livers may be more appropriate to an article "history of food" or "archaeological gastronomy" - I see that there is no article of this kind, why not start one to put this information in an appropriate place?

Moreover, the author of the historical paragraphs did not furnish any source: isn't this already a good reason to protest? Benio76 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Or a good reason to improve the article. I did a quick search and added a couple of references to that section. However, since the historical section is specific to the history of the dish "foie gras", this would be a good reason to accept that indeed this section belongs in the article on "foie gras" rather than a general article on the history of food (to which it might also belong should there ever be such an article).

Also, how about attaching the food part of this article to the Food and Drink Wikiproject and spinning off the controversy to its own article or as a major part of the Force-feeding article? Right now this article looks more and more like it can't decide what story it wants to tell?--Ramdrake 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the history sections were written when this article was smaller and less contentious, and use the three books that I just moved back from "Further reading" to "References" to clarify their status (see the discussion on that below). I agree that the historical information should be more specifically sourced, but there is not any particular reason to believe it is unsourced. Regarding the articles in which particular information belongs, there is definitely some disagreement about this topic, but I can make some general comments: Like Ramdrake said, the historical information in this article is very specific to foie gras. "History of food", and to a lesser extent "archaeological gastronomy" are incredibly broad topics, and I expect they would be deleted very quickly for lack of specificity. "Battery raising" is relevant to much more than duck, goose, or foie gras production. For example, it shares most of its concerns with intensive pig farming. If the industrial agriculture article isn't specific enough for you, perhaps you could create a battery raising article, or a distinct section in the industrial agriculture article. Of course, a short link to such a discussion may very well be appropriate in the foie gras article as part of a discussion about concerns raised in regard to foie gras production. The "force feeding" debate is a bit more contentious, but I want to note that there is already a discussion in this article about duck avoidance behavior in regards to force feeding, and there is considerable overlap between this article's Controversy section and Force feeding#Force-feeding of animals. Generally, duplicating information in different articles is best avoided in order to avoid conflicts and promote consistency. —Trevyn 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Here again!

I read the NPOV policy about the undue weight: since the text of the article is supposed to give more or less place to the opinions following the major or minor number of people supporting them, I suppose that the only way to solve the controversial is to compare the number of people "supporting" the foie gras (i.e. buying it) and the number of people against it. Only numbers can decide the relevance of the article's paragraphs, isn't it? Benio76 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not particularly clear on this issue, unfortunately. It could be interpreted to mean the relative number of mentions in WP:Reliable sources, the relative numbers of Misplaced Pages editors demanding inclusion of a viewpoint, or being applicable only to points of view, such as the point of view that animal welfare is something to be concerned with, or that foie gras production practices are not uncomfortable for the animals. It may not apply at all to encyclopedic descriptions of facts that are not contentious, or content that could not be considered to promote a viewpoint. —Trevyn 00:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ramdrake!

Of course, I agree that the history of one thing should be mentioned in an article about that thing... but only if all the other information about that thing are mentioned too!!! But once one starts talking of selecting information, well, you can remove everything, pretending that it is more appropriate elsewhere, and what do you leave finally? ...just the name of the thing?

Actually, talking about the "dish foie gras", as you called it, it is made, as I said at the beginning, of fattened liver, and it is the effect of a modification of the liver's cells called steatosis. This information is relevant in an encyclopedic article about foie gras and I insist that it must be inserted in Misplaced Pages's article, even at the beginning of it, with the link to the page steatosis.

Concerning the "references" that you gave on the historical information, I'm sorry but I don't regard a simple website's page without even the author's name as a "source". My standards are higher - are Misplaced Pages's standards higher too? Benio76 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The puported source is that of a commercial vendor of foie gras. I have just read through the Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources page and it appears that that source is just about worthless. David Olivier 01:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The other purported source in that section seems very poor indeed too. That whole section is very poorly sourced. David Olivier 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trevyn!

Following your guidelines to select information about foie gras, since you say that only specifical information concerning the foie gras are relevant, I answer that the existance of a controversy about the foie gras is a relevant information concerning the foie gras. It is not just the point of view of one or two Misplaced Pages editors, it is an international movement leading a political struggle!

In the article capital punishment, the controversial aspect (debate for or against, pools, political movements, indipendent organizations, etc.) is the most part of the text; then, there is also other information about legislation in different countries and, at the bottom od the article, there is a paragraph called "methods of execution" which sends to antoher article called list of methods of capital punishment! This structure does not actually follow your guidelines!

In my opinion, the history, method of production, economical context, legislation and public opinion about foie gras are all equally relevant! Benio76 01:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a discussion of the controversy is relevant. However, a very substantial portion of the controversy appears to focus on the ethics of force feeding, and not foie gras itself — in contrast, the controversy surrounding capital punishment focuses mainly on the ethics of capital punishment itself, and less on the specific methods. —Trevyn 02:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi David Olivierd!

I've been reading the WP:NPOV following Trevyn's suggestion and I found this interesting list of bias WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias among which there are of course the commercial bias! Therefore, I insist that all kind of information about foie gras must be in the article. I see that you people involved in the discussion are especially worried about giving too much place to a minoritarian point of view, the "animal welfarisme" as you call it, but removing the controversy and all the critical references to the foie gras involve implicitly to strengthen another minoritarian point of view: the commercial point of view. Why don't you care about this? It is not at all correct!!! Benio76 02:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point, and I am interested to see how other editors respond. I think the core of the NPOV policy is to characterize things as they exist in the world. Foie gras is largely a commercial product, so it is not surprising that it is discussed in that context. Similarly, the iPod article could also be considered at first glance to have commercial bias, but that is solely because it is an article describing a commercial product. NPOV still requires that we use wording that is as neutral as possible, so emotive phrases like "a luxurious product that is at once velvety and meaty" would likely be rephrased. —Trevyn 02:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Benio76! Welcome to the war zone, where it seems that a few people simply do not know the meaning of good faith. Keep up your spirits! David Olivier 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent removal

Defensers of foie gras often point out studies showing that if the force-feeding is discontinued, the liver returns to normal weight, and the animal generally returns to a normal condition. However, such studies actually show that a significant number of animals die after the force-feeding is ended; It can also be noted that the fact that a condition can heal does not contradict its being pathological.

9 out of 144 birds is a lower mortality rate than US bred turkeys. Those levels seem to be entirely normal for the poultry industry. SchmuckyTheCat 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the fact that a certain mortality rate is similar to that of other forms of animal husbandry does not prove that it is "normal", non-pathological. For that, you would have to show for instance that those other forms themselves do not produce pathological animals. It seems to me that in fact they do, massively; in any case, you have not shown anything to support the contrary.

Second, it is disingenuous to compare a ratio of mortality that happens over a period of a few days (the 9 ducks died during those few first days after the force-feeding was discontinued) to the number of dead that occur among turkeys, for instance, over a period of months. Actually, the European Scientific Committee Report itself states (page 47) that the mortality rate during the period of gavage is 10 to 20 times greater than what it would be without the gavage.

Anyway, it is strange in itself to try to argue that ducks in a condition such that a substantial number of them are not even able to waddle as far as the drinking water are in good health. It is clear that they are not.

Furthermore, in reverting my edits, you put back statements that are not only unsupported, but plainly false, such as: also recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state. I am reverting your edits. Please stop trying to put false information on this page and suppressing the facts.

David Olivier 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, please stop your repeated reversions. If you have arguments, please discuss them. David Olivier 08:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oliverd, many of your changes (esp removals of the content) require reversal because their are substantial and show clear POV bias. They were also not discussed on this Talk page prior to be being made. Please stop altering the content of this page without pre-announcing and discussing the changes first. Given the context SchmuckyTheCat's reversals are justified. Alex Pankratov 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A massive percentage of US bred turkeys die in transit to slaughterhouses when they are not slaughtered onsite. Probably far more than the 1.5%-4% that die during the foie gras fattening process. If you want an indictment of factory farming and poultry raising practices you can go find one, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it.

also recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state. This sentence could be re-worded but is essentially true. The EU report says the most significant damage to birds health begins to occur after 18 days, they are slaughtered at 15. It also states it would be uneconomical (poor quality product) if the birds were as unhealthy as critics charge. SchmuckyTheCat 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"The EU report says the most significant damage to birds health begins to occur after 18 days" Where exactly does it say that? "It also states it would be uneconomical (poor quality product) if the birds were as unhealthy as critics charge." Where exactly does it say that?

I actually doubt very much that it says anything like that, except if in your mind ill health starts at being dead. In any case, your interpreting the EU report as saying that the animals are not in a pathological state is a wild interpretation to say the least. It is not supported by any citation, and is directly contradicted by at least one explicit citation ("For this reason, and because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological." p. 41) and by the numerous citations I quote below (in the "Clearly POV reverts" section).

David Olivier 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I put up the tag because this edit war that has been going on between 2 or 3 users means it's time to have more people discuss what should and shouldn't be in this article.--Boffob 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV of the Controversy section is manifested by the very size of it. If the controversy is of a limited/specific importance, it does not deserve the section this long. If it is in fact a widely recognized issue, it should go to its own WP page. In other words, before debating finer points of the effects of the overfeeding, we should agree if this information really belongs here to begin with. Alex Pankratov 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If a practice that has been banned in a significant number of countries in the world, the issue is not of "limited/specific importance".

What you want is actually for there to be a nice article on foie gras, with cute pictures and recepies and tales about the Egyptians and what not, and completely obscure what the sentient animals are put through to produce the stuff.

That is what the foie gras industry wants generally: a blackout on the truth. Call that NPOV...

David Olivier 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it was. All I said that if it was a big issue, it needs to be moved to a separate WP page.Alex Pankratov 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. You cannot know what I "want".Alex Pankratov 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people may consider not kissing a cow after an artificial insemination to be cruel and detrimental to their physiological health. It does not mean that the dairy industry trying to "blackout the truth". In general - there is a very big difference between a controversy being recognized and it being vocalized. If debates on this page demonstrate anything, that'd be that in Foie Gras case the controversy appears to be more of second kind. Alex Pankratov 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not intersperse comments between my paragraphs. That makes the discussion unreadable. I have moved your comments above into a single block. David Olivier 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been protected due to the ongoing edit war. The involved editors are requested to resolve the issue through discussion. Please note the protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. --BorgQueen 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly POV reverts

(Answer to Alex Pankratov et al.)

That my edits are "substantial" is not a defect. Neither is that they were not discussed beforehand; there is no rule saying that changes must be discussed beforehand.

You have not even started to show that my edits are POV. Neither has SmuckyTheCat.

Specifically, starting with my first Nov. 26 edit:

- I deleted the assertion that the EU report "also recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state." That statement is unsourced. SchmuckyTheCat has not attempted to source it. It is also in stark contradiction with the following statements made by the EU report:

However, if force feeding is continued after three to four days (Bogin et al., 1984), the level of cell damage rises significantly. This is consistent with reports from farmers that indicate that mortality increases if feeding continues for longer than usual. Hence it appears that the level of steatosis normally found at the end of force feeding would not be sustainable for many of the birds. For this reason, and because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological. (p. 41)

During the force feeding period, liver function is impaired. (p. 61)

The large amount of food which is rapidly intubated during the force feeding procedure leads to immediate oesophageal distension, increased heat production and panting, and production of semi liquid faeces. (p. 61)

Those who conduct force feeding limit its duration and, in general, endeavour to avoid excessive steatosis that can result in livers of poor quality and eventually in death. (p. 61; note that the steatosis is qualified as "excessive" in reference to its producing poor quality livers (in which the cells have bursted) and death; a condition that borders on bursting the cells and killing the animal can hardly not be qualified as pathological.)

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. (p. 62)

There is some evidence indicating that if ducks or geese are force fed for longer than that which occurs commercially, mortality can be very high, largely as a consequence of failure of liver function. Hence it is clear that steatosis and other effects of force feeding are lethal when the procedures are continued. If force feeding is stopped and normal feeding resumed, mortality rates return to normal. However, the mortality rate if the steatosis is maintained at the level which occurs at the end of force feeding is not known. (p. 62)

- I completed a sentence stating "The timing of liver fattening is carefully controlled so the animal is slaughtered before mortality rates rise to uneconomical levels." I think that is plainly supported by the above EU Committee statements. I also supported it by a reference, taken from a practical book for force-feeders, that states that "No clear-cut sign indicates the moment the liver reaches its optimal quality. The tired aspect of the fattened birds, their enormous size, their gasping respiration, the increasing difficulty the animal displays in moving, are all indications. The fattened geese and ducks must be slaughtered on the site in order to avoid eventual deaths during transportation."

- I specified that while it is true that the force-feeding is reversible for most of the animals, if it is discontinued early enough, a significant number do not recover and die. I supported that by a reference.

- In specified that "It can also be noted that the fact that a condition can heal does not contradict its being pathological." That is plain common sense (and, if you really need to know, is supported by uncountable articles documenting non-lethal, reversible, pathological conditions in humans and other animals). It is also relevant, given that the argument is always quoted that the condition is not pathological since it is reversible.

- I noted that the dispute over whether the condition is or isn't pathological (independently from its being a source of suffering for the birds) is significant. I also noted why it is. I supported that by a quotation by a pro-foie gras journalist in a pro-foie gras newspaper.

- I deleted the qualification that the production of foie gras is "reportedly" illegal in Israel. There is no particular reason to doubt that. I can give you a reference to the Israel Supreme Court ruling if you really want to make me waste my time.

- I deleted the sentence "Several chefs have filed suit and the City Council is considering overturning the ban which generated outrage across the city." This is just POV hype. There are no mass demonstrations against the ban in Chicago. If you call "outrage across the city" the opinion of those who are strongly opposed to the ban, you should also call "outrage across the city" the opinion of those who are strongly opposed to foie gras. And mention both equally.

- I deleted a qualification saying that in the countries that are listed as prohibiting its production, its sale is not prohibited. That is true, but also badly worded as it was, and not necessary. Instead, I added a word about the sale itself being prohibited in Chicago; which makes clear that in the other places only the production is banned.

None of these points have been addressed by SchmuckyTheCat, or by anyone else. They have just been directly reverted, with no reason given, putting back among other things the dubious (to the least) statement about the EU Committee conclusions.

So please stop your senseless POV edit war. This is not the place for that.

David Olivier 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I kept the "reportedly" illegal in Isreal edit.

The Chicago issue is supported by the referenced newspaper article. When you have chefs who never serve foie gras decide to put it on their menu after its sale is declared illegal, that's about as close to outrage and civil disobedience as you can get. Your blanket removal of this sourced comment with the edit summary "removing unsourced statement" is... what?

The ban qualification, sale vs production, can be addressed easily in the leadup to the list (The following jurisdictions ban either the sale or production...)

The rest of that mumbo you've added is called undue weight. The article addresses increased mortality during gavage. Going on about it isn't necessary, especially because, as said repeatedly here on the talk page and in the article, deaths from gavage are less than other poultry raising techniques. The everyman accepts that modern farming has incidental mortality; going on about it is unbalancing to NPOV.

"The timing of liver fattening is carefully controlled so the animal is slaughtered before mortality rates rise to uneconomical levels." Isn't something like that already in the article? The EU report makes not that the bird is slaughtered after 15 days, and the "pathological" conditions don't tend to show up until 18 days. "to uneconomical levels" doesn't need to be stated, you can't get a good foie gras from a sick bird, it's not just economics, it's the entire point of gavage.

The EU report does not come to the conclusion that foie gras production puts the bird in a pathological state, and that's a significant non-finding. It weighs several studies on a range of opinions on this issue and says some research claims it is pathological. It is again why the report mentions that only continued force feeding past the time when the bird should have been slaughtered is there a big issue.

SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You say: The EU report does not come to the conclusion that foie gras production puts the bird in a pathological state. The EU report states: For this reason, and because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological. (p.41). Who are we to believe: what you say it states, or what it actually does state? David Olivier 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you kept the "reportedly" illegal in Israel edit, thank you for the information. However, you forgot to justify why you did so. That foie gras production is illegal in Israel is a fact, and there is not more justification for calling it in doubt than there is for any other fact stated on this or any other page.

The 2003 ruling of the Israel Supreme Court banning foie gras production can be found here (in Hebrew and in English). The majority opinion (by judge T. Strasberg-Cohen) states (p. 38 of English translation): "Therefore I propose to accept the appeal and to rule that the provisions of the regulations, with respect to the force-feeding procedure, be annulled and that the practice of force-feeding, according to the regulations, be banned. And yet, the decision, with respect to annulment of the regulations and banning the use of the above mentioned practice, shall be suspended until 31st March 2005." The ban has since come into effect. There are dozens of pages on the Web, some by mainstream news sites, that testify that.

You can add a "reportedly" qualification to any information whatsoever, however well supported. It is clear that all you gain by that is wasting people's time.

David Olivier 09:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you going on about this reportedly statement? I didn't add it, didn't revert to it, purposefully kept it's removal when reverting other statements, and agree that it shouldn't be there? SchmuckyTheCat 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, now please answer about your contention that "The EU report does not come to the conclusion that foie gras production puts the bird in a pathological state." How exactly do you make that compatible with what the report actually states: "For this reason, and because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological." (p.41)? David Olivier 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Tokaji

A Tokaji website () lists foie gras as a "classic" food to pair with Tokaji wine. Perhaps this could be mentioned under "presentation" such as »It is often served with a dessert wine such as Sauternes or Tokaji Aszú« because I also remember someone mentioning it when I was in Hungary. -Ich (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's because, here in SW France, Foie Gras is often served with a sweet wine called Jurançon, which is comparable to Tokaji. Although comming from different places Matthieu 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Still no answer

It would seem that the ardent defensers of duck and goose stuffing have suddenly fallen silent; it seems they don't care to bring arguments, as long as the current state of the page satisfies their POV.

So I repeat my above question:

The page currently states that "The EU report does not come to the conclusion that foie gras production puts the bird in a pathological state." How exactly do you make that compatible with what the report actually states: "For this reason, and because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological." (p.41)?

David Olivier 08:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's out of context single sentence at the end of a paragraph that discusses reversibility and what would be the case if farmers continued the force feeding past the normal time of slaughter. The quote you make above is already in the article. The sentence in the next paragraph that you object to: "It also recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state." should be removed. It is situated between two sentences that qualify the issue, which should probably be joined with a conjuctive "; however, ".

This whole section on how pathological steatosis is, is balanced in the next sections of the EU report - and not balanced in our article. The next sections of the EU report go on to say that steatosis a normal, natural process of these waterfowl, "susceptibility to hepatic steatosis is a natural response of waterfowl which is over expressed in response to force feeding" and that lesions, which you would find on unhealthy animals (and which would make the foie gras commercially useless) only have an incident rate of 0.5%.

And, in the conclusion section of the report, it only says "Some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not." It then again makes note it is entirely reversible, that it only gets unhealthy after the point where a bird should be slaughtered, and that an unhealthy liver would be commercially useless.

It is the conclusion section that I based the above statement on. With all of the other disclaimers in the EU report on this, it's unbalancing to repeat it multiple times. SchmuckyTheCat 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, no reason to repeat the quote frome the EU report that says the liver is pathological; its just that you repeatedly wanted to add an assertion of yours saying that the condition was not pathological, while attributing that position to the same EU report. I am happy that you now agree that that assertion should be removed.

The rest of what you say is pure interpretation; and it is a wild interpretation, as can be readily recongnized by anyone who takes the trouble of reading the report itself.

David Olivier 12:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More specifically:

1. In what sense is the p.41 sentence of the EU report out of context? ("For this reason, and because normal liver function is seriously impaired in birds with the hypertrophied liver which occurs at the end of force feeding this level of steatosis should be considered pathological.") As you say, it is at the end of a paragraph; that only gives it more weight. In fact, it is the conclusion of the paragraph, as is clear when you read it. The opening sentence is: "These various data show that the liver steatosis obtained by force feeding induced an impairment of hepatic function". Yes, it also goes on to mention reversibility, immediately affirming that "The reversibility of steatosis which is reported above for many birds which have been force fed does not mean that the changes in the liver are not pathological." The whole paragraph is an indictment of the force-feeding proceedure, and it is a lie to try to make it look otherwise.

2. You state vaguely that that section is "balanced" by the next sections. Which next sections exactly? The only quote you adduce from those "next sections" is that "susceptibility to hepatic steatosis is a natural response of waterfowl which is over expressed in response to force feeding" (p.43). That does not support your positions at all, since an over-expression of something is by definition not a normal expression. Furthermore, you can actually say such a thing for almost any pathological condition. The condition of an extremely overweight human just is an "over expression" of a natural process of fat accumulation; that doesn't make it non-pathological.

3. You also note that those next sections say that there are few lesions in the livers of the fattened animals. True, but the report does not say that lesions are the only way for a liver to be pathological. It actually says the opposite in the two sentences quoted in point 1 above. True, lesions are one thing that can make the pathological condition irreversible, and everyone agrees that the foie gras condition is (largely) reversible. That just does not mean that it is not pathological.

4. Yes, in its conclusion, the report states that "Some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not." That is not a statement of the opinion of the authors themselves. That opinion can be grasped from the whole paragraph:

The changes in hepatocytes and other cells in the liver of force fed ducks and geese are substantial. The most obvious change is the increase in the number of large fat globules visible in the cells. A limited increase in the presence of fat globules in liver can occur in normal liver in certain conditions but no normal animal has steatosis of the liver to the extent which occurs in all force fed birds. During the force feeding period, liver function is impaired. Some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not. The steatosis is reversible in many birds but reversibility exists for many pathological states.

5. Yes, the EU report is full of disclaimers. The EU report tries to balance its conclusions. And the outcome of this balancing is damning for the foie gras industry. That is clear from everything that is quoted up to now from that report. And if you go on insisting that each and every quotation that can be made of the report "out of context", without ever giving any clear arguments or citations to that effect, all I can do is ask impartial people to go and read the report itself.

You may disagree with the EU report, you may also cite other sources, but you may not try to make it look like the EU report says what it does not say.

For example, you might want to cite what some French scientists say about the foie gras process: "(...) la stéatose hépatique, qui reste un processus extraphysiologique (...)" (D. Guéméné et al., "Foie-Gras, Gavage et Bien-être animal: vers un peu d'objectivité!", Actes des 6e Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, Arcachon, 2004). Translation: "(...) the liver steatosis, which remains an extra-physiological process (...)" That is another term for "pathological" - of course, these people, whose studies are largely financed by the industry, prefer to use such euphemisms. Or you might also wish to cite that practical guide for force-feeders that I quoted, which states p.32 that "No clear-cut sign indicates the moment the liver reaches its optimal quality. The tired aspect of the fattened birds, their enormous size, their gasping respiration, the increasing difficulty the animal displays in moving, are all indications. The fattened geese and ducks must be slaughtered on the site in order to avoid eventual deaths during transportation." A practical guide for force-feeding, please note, is not an animal rights tract. Please note also that it make clear not only that the birds appear very ill and on the verge of dying, but also that their welfare is heavily impacted.

Please note also that that is the second time (at least) that the EU report takes the trouble to specify that the reversibility of a condition does not imply that the condition is not pathological. Since the pro-foie gras party goes on and on about that issue of reversibilty, it is not undue weight to say what the opinion of the EU report on that issue is. So please say why you deleted it, or state that you now agree that it should not be deleted.

Now this brings us to the other points you deleted. No one really cares whether or not the birds are in a diseased state; the controversy is about how much they suffer. It is perfectly to the point to note that in the article. Why did you delete the following sentence:

it would be illegal to sell the organs of an animal that was recognized as sick; the foie gras industry thus depends on the condition being declared non pathological

That sentenced was sourced by a quotation from a French newspaper ("Si le foie gras était reconnu comme étant celui d'un animal malade, le gavage tomberait fatalement sous le coup d'une interdiction. L'interprofession, s'appuyant sur les travaux de l'Inra, défend la thèse selon laquelle le foie engraissé n'est pas un foie malade.")

Please explain why you deleted that, or accept that it should be in the article.

Now concerning the "outrage across the city" about the foie gras ban in Chicago ("the City Council is considering overturning the ban which generated outrage across the city"), an unsourced qualification that you attempt to keep in the article. In defense of that, you state above: "When you have chefs who never serve foie gras decide to put it on their menu after its sale is declared illegal, that's about as close to outrage and civil disobedience as you can get." Well no. A few chefs practicing what you call "civil disobedience" does not qualify as "outrage across the city", no more than car drivers defying speed limits qualifies as "outrage across the city". I think in the case of foie gras it could be better termed fascist criminality; however, I simply propose to leave it out, or to simply mention that some chefs have defied the ban. Do you now agree with that?

Readers of this page may find this controversy tedious. So do I. It is always tedious to give serious answers and to cite sources. Unfortunately, you do not go to such trouble. It appears that you have any substance in your objections to my edits, other than your simple desire to protect your POV. If you have no better arguments than you have given, I ask you to stop wasting my time and that of the reviewers who will be called to settle the dispute.

David Olivier 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

I have requested unprotection for this page. No one has answered my arguments above, so I conclude that the debate is over, and that I may implement the changes that explicitly or implicitly have been accepted. David Olivier 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're above discussion is too long to respond to. What's obvious though is that you wish to write into the article that (a) the condition is pathological and (b) jurisdictions (like France) don't allow pathological birds to be sold so the reader concludes (c) birds shouldn't be sold. Whether or not you agree with me that isn't the conclusion of the EU report. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm slow to edit, but this is a response to Olivierd. I don't see the issue is resolved at all. You just want to push the "foie gras is evil and cruel" POV (I'll use your 22:26 26 November 2006 edit as argument, several chefs have filed suit and it was sourced to this IHT article, while you claimed it was unsourced POV), and you and two other users have gone on edit wars. More people should be brought to the discussion before anyone should be declaring victory.--Boffob 16:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to SchmuckyTheCat: My above discussion is too long simply because it goes to the trouble of sourcing what it says. It is not correct behaviour to contradict someone, give false arguments to that effect, and then just shun the answer when it is given. Please respond to my arguments (citing your sources) or desist.

In response to Boffob: About 80% of the article is about "look how tasty and glamourous and natural and traditional foie gras is". You want that to stay, but any contradictory evidence you call POV. That is as POV as you can get.

Concerning Chicago: That a couple of chefs in Chicago (your source says "a handful") are defying the ban is a rather tiny piece of information hardly worth inclusion, as anyone can easily recognize. To qualify that as "outrage across the city", as the sentence I deleted said, is a gross exageration, aimed at giving the impression that there was some kind of revolution there. Also unsourced and extremely vague was the contention that the City Council was considering overturning the ban. Frankly, that too is about as POV as you can get.

I don't intend to make the Foie gras article say that foie gras is pathological. It just happens that a serious study exists - the EU report - and it is fair to state its conclusions on that matter. Since foie gras defenders constantly repeat that the fattened liver is not diseased, it is also relevant to explain why (in their own words) that issue is important. Yes, all that is negative information concerning foie gras. That doesn't make including it POV. To state otherwise is preposterous.

I developed a long argument above. If all you have to say in response is three lines labeling my position POV, it means that you have no substantive answer to my arguments. The page should thus be unblocked.

David Olivier 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is 50-50 on the pro-vs-con description (and could use some improvements still, it should say "foie gras is considered one of the greatest delicacies..." as what qualifies as a delicacy is a matter of opinion, no matter what we're talking about) . Most of the rest is technical, except for the controversy section, which is where all the edit wars go. I wouldn't say this article endorses the production and consumption of foie gras, and I don't think it should be "balanced" in the sense of saying whether it's good or bad. Description of what it is, how it is produced, and that it is controversial (including where it is banned, for example, that is neutral) is what is needed. There is no need to address details of the arguments from both sides of the pro-vs-con debate, just the general points, otherwise the controversy section will remain an oversized perpetual battlefield.--Boffob 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Boffob: Please do not insert answers between two paragraphs of the person you are answering to. That just makes the discussion impossible to read. I have moved your answer to after mine. David Olivier 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"About 80% of the article is about"... Please read the undue weight part about our NPOV policy. The controversy is important to activists, not the general population. The article does represent the negative aspects of the production of foie gras, the negative aspects should not be anymore than a minor part of the article. There has already been commentary on this talk page that the controversy section is too long and should be cut, not lengthened.

"If all you have to say in response is three lines labeling my position POV, it means that you have no substantive answer to my arguments." It isn't for lack of argument that I'm not going to answer every point of yours. Judging by other talk pages you're not just an activist, you're an extremist. You want this page to be a devastating conviction of a bit of food. SchmuckyTheCat 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that foie gras has been banned in a substantial part of the world - for instance in all 46 states of the Council of Europe, for instance, except in those three countries where it is already "current practice" (Recommendation Concerning Muscovy Ducks (...) (a binding text), Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, June 1999), in Israel (which was a substantial producer), in one of the two US states where it was produced, and so on, and eaten only by a tiny fraction of the world population, it is hardly giving undue weight to give at least as much weight to the controversy as to the various ways you can cook the stuff which are of interest only to those few.

Your explanation as to why you do not answer my arguments is purely ad hominem, and thus in no way counts as an argument. You have engaged in an edit war against my edits, the page has been blocked, I have defended my positions with arguments, and you are to do the same or desist.

David Olivier 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

David, you might want to take a look at this: Disconfirmation bias--Boffob 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that the only jurisdictions on the entire planet that actually ban the sale of foie gras today are Israel and the city of Chicago. David and the article twist the wording of the bans to suit a POV position, and this is unacceptable. This is an article about foie gras, not the current political posturing surrounding it. I agree that mention should be made of current legislation and debate, but to assert that 50% or more of the article length should be dedicated to the controversy is utterly absurd. —Trevyn 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this point.Alex Pankratov 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Boffob: Just pointing to some article is not an argument. If you are suggesting that I suffer disconfirmation bias, you have to argue that.

Trevyn: A ban on the production of foie gras is a clear statement against that production.

Just saying that I twist words doesn't in itself prove I do. If you can find specific word twisting in my edits, please say so. Specifically, nothing in my edits suggested that the bans concerned the sale of foie gras.

Legislation reflects public opinion, at least in democratic countries; are you suggesting that California, Chicago, the 46 countries of the Council of Europe and Israel, for instance, are not run by democratic rule?

There are many more people living in countries where the production of the substance is banned than there are who eat the substance. The bans are based largely based on independent scientific expertise, such as the EU report, which clearly state that the production of foie gras inflicts suffering on the birds.

David Olivier 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about calling an edit unsourced when it was clearly sourced (I'll agree it was POV in part). How about your dismissal of non-vegetarian arguments in Talk:Ethics_of_eating_meat... You also seem to confuse the method of production over the product itself (ban on forcefeeding is not the same as ban on sale of foie gras), and refuse to recognize that decisions made by an otherwise democratically elected government may not represent the overall opinion of the population, especially when influenced by particular lobbies.--Boffob 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

75-90% of foie gras production takes place in France, which is clearly not about to ban it anytime soon. I think this fact would be appropriate to mention in the second paragraph of the article, as knowing it leads me to the conclusion that production bans are substanceless political posturing to appease activists like yourself. By the way, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest states that "when editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference". Please consider if you are truly acting in the best interest of Misplaced Pages or acting to promote your own interests. —Trevyn 08:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are no arguments

Boffob: 1. Please specify what sourced edit I called unsourced. 2. This is not the place to discuss what I say on Talk:Ethics_of_eating_meat. In any case, your point is purely ad hominem. 3. Nothing I have written suggests that I confuse production bans with sales bans. All I did was delete an akwardly worded and artificially placed assertion as to the ban not being a sales ban, when nothing suggested it was. I actually think it would be interesting to expand the production vs. sales ban issue, and note that the current situation, where production is frequently banned but not the sale of the product, leads to paradoxical situations; and give explanations of why these situations arise (the difficulties sales bans have with WTO regulations, for instance). That is good matter for expanding the "controversy" section. 4. Democratically elected governments may not represent exactly the state of public opinion, but they are never very far off the mark; in any case, they are a strong prima facie indication of that opinion, and, in the absence of any contrary data, should be taken as such. That prima facie indication is that hundeds of millions of people are opposed to foie gras production. How many people exactly do eat foie gras?

Trevyn: The correct figure is over 90% (I will check that). I have no objections to mentioning that figure in the introduction or elsewhere. That France is not to ban foie gras soon is an unsourced assertion. At least the foie gras industry in France seems to be getting uneasy about the situation! In any case, I do not see that figure as leading to the conclusion that production bans are "substanceless political posturing to appease activists" as you say. Also: I wonder why those politicians care so much about the "activists" if there are so few of them, and if there is not a general sentiment among the population against foie gras production. As for the "Conflict of interest attribution": first of all, any interest I have in the matter is not "my own interests", but an interest I do have in saving sentient beings from suffering, coupled with the fact that I have strong and substantiated reasons (such as the EU report and so on) to believe that foie gras production makes ducks and geese suffer. What about the interests of the others who are active on this page? Do they not eat foie gras and like it? Or serve it in restaurants, or produce it? Does that not count as "promoting their own interests" - self-serving interests at that! If you want to ban from editing this page all those who have a personal interest in the foie gras controversy, let us start by banning all those who eat it, or perhaps even all those who eat animals generally. OK to that?

About this discussion: You look like you are discussing, but you are not. You are just leveling one ad hominem attribution after another. The few non-ad hominem points you make are extremely poorly supported. SchmuckyTheCat, who started the edit war, openly admits he will not answer my points, saying that "Judging by other talk pages you're not just an activist, you're an extremist." You are not trying to discuss the issues, just sitting on the current blocked state of the page, which is the version that satisfies you, and venting your anger against me.

If the situation gets no better, I will again request that the page be unblocked.

David Olivier 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My source for France "not banning anytime soon" was articles similar to this one: . I am having trouble finding something reliable that says definitively whether or not that law was actually passed. If it was not, then I apologize for the error. I was not suggesting that the "political posturing" line be inserted into the article, I was just explaining my reasoning.

You are correct that I have just ranting a little much, and addressing comments you made on the talk page in a different context than you intended them, and I apologize for this. The edits I want to make to the article are clearly unrelated to the edit war and root cause behind the page being protected. David, could you make a list of the specific changes you would like to make so we can analyze them in more detail? I looked above, but only got a general idea of what you wanted to do. I think this would move along better if we did a line-by-line analysis. —Trevyn 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1.The same edit as mentioned directly by me before (22:26, 26 November 2006) and alluded to by SchmuckyTheCat in one of the above sections. 2. You wanted me to argue why I think you have disconfirmation bias, I pointed you to another obvious case. Your complete dismissal of arguments for the ethics of eating meat clearly shows you have made up your mind on the issue and will not accept arguments for the opposing side, while again and again you do no critically examine your own arguments as much as you think you do. 3. Really? You're even suggesting France will ban foie gras soon, claiming any source to the contrary is POV. 4. Hundreds of millions are opposed to it? Hundreds of millions don't even know about it unless someone makes some publicity about the subject, one way or another. People don't eat it mostly because either they don't know about and it's not readily available anyway, or because it's rare and expensive thing you don't find at grocery stores in many places (for example, I can't find apple jelly in this town, but I don't believe it's because the majority is against it). How many, outside vegetarians an vegans, who know about foie gras actually refuse to eat it over ethical reasons, can you come up with some statistics on that? That few people eat foie gras is no indicator that most people oppose it or its method of production, especially when the general population has no problem with eating at KFC (somehow their inhumane treatment of millions of chicken isn't anywhere close to leading to a ban...). So, again, you are confusing the opinion of a lobby with that of the general population.--Boffob 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The source you quote does not prove, or even purport to prove, that France is not banning foie gras anytime soon. The law (which was in effect passed) can also be interpreted as showing that the French foie gras industry is getting jittery about the issue.

Yes, I am planning a list of specific changes. I have already listed and argued the changes I had made, and that had been reverted by SchmuckyTheCat. Neither SchmuckyTheCat nor anyone else has taken the trouble to respond to them. I hope that attitude will change, and we will be able to move on.

David Olivier 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mm, didn't scroll up far enough. Are you trying to make all the edits mentioned in your post of 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)? I think we need to take them one at a time. Also, it's interesting to note that most of them appear to be a disagreement about what should be included in an encyclopedia article, so I don't see why a discussion of your clear bias is inappropriate. —Trevyn 11:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you found the list of changes I had proposed. It is not very promising to see that instead of discussing them "line-by-line", as you announced, you content yourself with a blanket and unargued assertion that they are not appropriate, and justify that instead of any line-by-line discussion, "a discussion of clear bias is inappropriate".

The bottom line seems that whenever you face arguments, you prefer to revert to ad hominem attacks. I am still waiting for arguments.

David Olivier 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Boffob's answer higher up (17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)):

1. My edit was to delete the following sentence: "Several chefs have filed suit,(reference) and the City Council is considering overturning the ban which generated outrage across the city." (Please take the trouble of quoting the sentences you are talking about, rather than giving hard to follow instructions about how to get to them). I deleted it because it is unsourced and POV. OK for the "several chefs filed suit", which is sourced by the reference (though if that is worth inclusion, I have a couple of anti-foie gras suits to mention too), but the rest is clearly militant pro-foie gras hype and not sourced at all. I have already argued that. Someone even tried to call it "civil disobedience"!

2. As already said, this whole "disconfirmation bias" thing is purely ad hominem and shouldn't enter the discussion. Furthermore, in the Talk:Ethics of eating meat page, I do not dismiss any anti-vegetarian arguments at all; quite to the contrary, I called for a serious effort to be made to come up with arguments.

3. I am not suggesting that France will soon ban foie gras; I unfortunately have no means to predict that. I just remarked that you have no means to predict that it won't happen either, so you cannot base an argument on that.

4. Yes, hundreds of millions of human beings are opposed to the infliction of severe suffering on sentient beings for the sake of producing a luxury food. Independent scientists (such as those who wrote the EU Scientific Committee Report) have determined that foie gras implied such suffering, and it is as a consequence of those studies that such bans have been decided. That means that the bans on foie gras are the expression of the informed will of those people.

David Olivier 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to ethics of eating meat, you called for a "serious effort" only because you do not accept the arguments given, no matter their quality. The bigger problem is that you still have no source for your "hundreds of millions" claim. Not even a survey. You are making inference on a population for which you have no real data. The opinion of a handful of scientists is not representative of the population as a whole. And while independent scientists may be informed, you also failed to demonstrate that "hundreds of millions" are informed on the subject of foie gras in the first place. So please, stop pretending that bans are the expression of the informed will of the people, as you are only projecting your opinion and claiming it to be that of the majority.--Boffob 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you want to argue about that "Ethics of eating meat" page, go there and argue. This is not the place for that, and as I said you are only introducing it as an ad hominem (non-)argument.

Concerning the "hundreds of millions" figure: foie gras is banned in all but three or four of the 46 countries comprising the Council of Europe. That means hundreds of millions of people. When we get around to it, we will do our arithmetic if you wish.

The opinion of a handful of scientists is representative of the opinion of the people, when those people choose those scientists and choose to trust their opinion. If a handful of scientists determine that some chemical is toxic, and consequently a governing body bans its use as a food additive, then that ban is the expression of the will of the people, whether or not those people are individually informed about the chemical or would refuse to buy foodstuff with it on the label. The same goes for foie gras. People are opposed to the infliction of severe suffering on sentient beings for the sake of producing a luxury food, scientists that they choose to trust have determined that foie gras production implied such suffering, and a government body that they appointed has banned that production. It seems all very straitforward to me.

David Olivier 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For the nth time, I only brought in the Ethics of eating meat discussion as evidence for your disconfirmation bias, something requested by you in the first place. Determining the toxicity of a chemical is not a matter of opinion. That is an objective fact. The political decisions based on this fact are subjective and may not reflect the will of the population. No one likes pollution, but legislative issues as to banned substances and tolerable amounts are technical problems which have little connection with "the informed will of the people" and much more to do with how it affects economic welfare of the country. People don't care about suffering as much as you think they do unless some activists point out particular cases and resulting legislative action to reduce such suffering do not affect people's lifestyle significantly. That's why there are bans on the production of foie gras but much fewer bans on the sale of it, and no bans on KFC (do you even realize the difference in scale, that report you like to quote so much mentions the use of cages during gavage, the kind of cages your KFC chicken will see for its entire life, while the duck/goose used for foie gras only sees for the last 2-3 weeks of its life, in the places that use such confiment methods), and certainly no bans on oil from countries with appalling human rights records... As Anthony Bourdain pointed out, activists are going against foie gras because it's an easy target. So please, spare me this "hundreds of millions are against foie gras". Hundreds of millions don't care. You certainly do care, but that doesn't give you the authority to decide what is the correct interpretion of Misplaced Pages's policies with regards to content and NPOV. Most users in this discussion think your edits are unencyclopedic and that you are trying to push your POV, which you incorrectly regard as the majority opinion, despite evidence to the contrary.--Boffob 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the nth time, that stuff about disconfirmation bias is irrelevant from the start, since it is an ad hominem pseudo-argument. Perhaps you and I could agree that from now on we will concentrate on arguments, and refrain from all personal attacks?

If you do not get my point about toxic additives, I won't elaborate further. I brought up the point about there being prima facie hundreds of millions of people who oppose foie gras in response to SchmuckyTheCat, who argued above that the controversy section should be reduced because "he controversy is important to activists, not the general population". Instead, it actually prima facie appears that there are many more people opposed to foie gras than there are who eat it. However, I am not arguing that there should be more than 50% of the article devoted to the controversy. It's OK with me that there should be no specific size limit for either aspect. So if that is OK with you and the others too, we can stop going on about bans on KFC and toxic chemicals and so on.

What you say about there being "no bans on oil from countries with appalling human rights records" is very interesting. In this case too there is a ban on the production conditions, but not on the sale of the finished substance. That doesn't imply that people are not opposed to those production methods; just that trade bans are particularly difficult to implement.

The rest of what you say, about Anthony Bourdain's opinions and so on, is not very clearly articulated and doesn't appear to have much substance.

David Olivier 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it does not appear so. 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 (in fact, if China does as suggested in the first link given in the article, then there's hundreds of millions of people who see no problem with foie gras). Your comparison with the number of people who eat foie gras (which is inevitably small because it is a rare and pricy item) is not valid, because you do not have any data to differenciate those who refuse to eat foie gras out of ethical reasons from those who don't eat it because it's unavailable, too expensive, or simply not part of their diet (I don't drink, say, soy milk myself, that doesn't mean I'm against it in any way). As such, you are extending the opinion of a vocal and not necessarily large group to an apathetic population. Now, until you and the other participants in the article edit war reach an agreement on what to include and what not to include in the controversy section, this discussion will remain deadlocked (because any unlocking of the thread will result in more revert wars). Don't mistake apathy for tacit agreement.--Boffob 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, there can be many arguments about how many people care about foie gras one way or another, and why, and whether they are well informed or not, and so on. All I am saying is that on the face of it it appears that opposition to foie gras is not some kind of side-issue, and should be allowed to be a major component of the article. How large exactly remains to be seen, by how much good quality stuff we can put in it.

Now I am not the one who locked this article. I am not the one who tried to put the clearly false assertion that " also recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state." and reverted all deletions of it - that was SchmuckyTheCat, who later recognized that it was false. I am not the one who decided that sourced and relevant information about foie gras was not to be included when it was not favorable to the product.

I am not the one who, in lack of arguments, resorted to systematic ad hominem aspertions.

By the way, you have not answered to my proposal: Perhaps you and I could agree that from now on we will concentrate on arguments, and refrain from all personal attacks? Could you at least do that?

David Olivier 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of specific editing issues

I don't have time right now to read the entire report, but given the quotes you provided and Schmucky's lack of justification for this statement, I think this deletion is fair. I don't think anyone is really obsessed about the "pathological" state of the birds anyway; lots of things are in pathological states all the time. —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a sentence that needed to be deleted (see above to find the discussion), I'm not sure if this was it. The issue is that David is parsing the report saying "should be considered pathological" as "is pathological" in the body of the report. The summary of the report is clearly wishy-washy in a typically bureaucratic way about this. The EU report doesn't make a claim either way and also repeatedly makes the same argument you do below, that it's irrelevant because the bird will die within hours to days of this condition being met. SchmuckyTheCat 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not seem fair, as the farmers' goal is specifically to kill the animal IMMEDIATELY after these indicators appear. The farmer clearly has no intention of feeding the birds until they die, so a reference to "mortality levels rising to uneconomical levels" if they did something that they have no intention of doing. —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this ever actually happen during foie gras production? Presumably, farmers know about these issues and avoid them as a matter of course. If it does not occur during foie gras production, I do not see it highly relevant to an article on foie gras. —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems correct, but I think we need to re-think the use of the word "pathological", as above. The issue appears to be primarily the comfort and safety of the birds. —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very good. The focus on the term "pathology" is misleading. SchmuckyTheCat 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you include this argument here? —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the a+b=c argument. David wants the article to say a foie gras is pathological (meaning unhealthy), then he wants the article to say France (or wherever) doesn't allow unhealthy animals to be sold. Leading the reader to conclude foie gras shouldn't be sold. It's a red herring statement that really has no place. The only foie gras bans have pointed to the supposed cruelty of the feeding, not the supposed health of the product. SchmuckyTheCat 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems fair, but I also think it is fair to ask you to provide a reference if requested. —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't in the article now is it? I removed this single word as well. SchmuckyTheCat 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Several chefs have filed suit and the City Council is considering overturning the ban" seems highly relevant and verifiable. "Outrage across the city" may be too strongly worded. Perhaps a mention of chefs who did not previously serve foie gras overtly flouting the ban would be enough? —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

, specifically uses the term outrage (outraged Chicago chefs are quacking their defiance), and gives examples of chefs refusing to take it off the menu even at risk of arrest. "If we're the first ones to be hauled off to jail, so be it."

SchmuckyTheCat 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it's important to use the word "outrage" instead of just mentioning the chefs' actions, I'd confine it specifically to outraged chefs, as per the source.—Trevyn 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I agreed before that "across the city" was bad wording. Considering the number of Chicago restaurants that served foie gras, and that the Illinois Restauranteurs Association backed the lawsuit, it's fair to say that "outrage" represented the Chicago culinary world, a slightly larger subset than just chefs. Exact wording can be worked out. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we do need to be explicit about and clarify production bans vs. sale bans. —Trevyn 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To David: Yes, the discussion got derailed. Let's go back to the specific edit points. I agree with most of Trevyn's points. I should add that the pathological issue to me seems to have more to do with the welfare of the birds than to the legality of selling foie gras. Though one could use this approach to argue for banning the sale of fois gras, I do believe the reason why meat from pathological animals cannot be sold has to do with safety concerns, and in that sense, foie gras is safe to eat.--Boffob 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So since David disappeared, should we unlock the page and assume David will establish consensus here before making any edits? —Trevyn 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait a bit, see if he replies to the discussion again. I wouldn't mind hearing from SchmuckyTheCat or Alex Pankratov either. The former, at least, had a big involvement in the edit war.--Boffob 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

done. SchmuckyTheCat 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I "disappeared". Had a small problem. I'm preparing a proposal. David Olivier 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Other changes

We should note that the national assembly of France, via legislation, raised foie gras to the status of a national heritage on par with the Eiffel Tower and sought recognition of that at no less than UNESCO. That's important in the intro. In regards to the controversy the legislation specifically rejects claims of cruelty as incontestable because a stressed or suffering bird will not produce a foie gras.
In discussing American bans it should cite that the American Veterinary Medical Assocation unanimously rejected a resolution opposing foie gras production . Before voting, they heard testimony from their own experts who said being tube fed was less distressing to a duck than a rectal thermometer to a cat, another insisted it was not pathological, another said it was physiological not pathological, and others compared it to diseases in cattle brought on by their enriched diets.

SchmuckyTheCat 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The French Parliament voted on Nov. 10, 2005, an amendment stipulating that "Foie gras is part of a cultural and gastronomic heritage protected in France. By foie gras is intended the liver of a duck or a goose specially fattened by force-feeding." (source) That is a fact I already mentioned, and I believe it is significant not only to mention it in the article, but also expand somewhat on it - explaining among other things why the French Parliament deemed it necessary to vote such a law.

However, that it is "on par with the Eiffel Tower" is a meaningless and unsourced assertion (the law doesn't mention the Eiffel Tower, nor is there a similar law concerning the Eiffel Tower), and is no more than hype.

The legislation does not reject claims of cruelty; it is the government, and those deputies who defended the amendment, who rejected those claims in the discussions. That is not more significant than just stating that they wish to defend foie gras.

It is perfectly OK to cite the opinion of the American Veternary Medical Association. Well, actually, now that I've checked your source, that decision happens to be not that much in favor of foie gras! ""We've looked at the science and current production practices, and have found it is not necessary for the AVMA to take a position either for or against foie gras production at this time," said Dr. Bonnie Beaver, AVMA President. SchmuckyTheCat, could you please stop taking any source and twisting to suit your POV?

Now an interesting point. SchmuckyTheCat again insists that the condition is not pathological. I basically agree with Trevyn that "(...) I think we need to re-think the use of the word "pathological", as above. The issue appears to be primarily the comfort and safety of the birds." Whether liver steatosis qualifies as a disease or not is not relevant in itself; what is relevant is the welfare of the birds. But as SchmuckyTheCat's insistence shows, it is the foie gras defenders who are obsessed at demonstrating that the liver is not diseased, even going so far as falsifying public sources (as SchmuckyTheCat still tries to do with the EU Report). It is clearly abusive to use Misplaced Pages to spread false information. Furthermore, the fact that the foie gras defenders have this obsession about pathology is a relevant fact, and should be mentioned; and existing explanations of it should be mentioned.

I have gone to pains to answer SchmuckyTheCat's assertions. I do not feel that it is fair for one person to continually produce false assertions, only making others spend their time refuting them. SchmuckyTheCat can see as much as anyone else that that is false. The whole edit war leading to the page being blocked started with his insisting on including a sentence that said that the EU Report "recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state", which is plainly the opposite of what it actually says (see above excepts - or read the whole thing if you want!). SchmuckyTheCat knows that is false, but he doesn't care; it's just part of his war of attrition. I am asking him to stop that kind of behavior.

David Olivier 14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How was SchmukyTheCat twisting the source with regard to AVMA? There was a proposed resolution for opposing forcefeeding in the production of foie gras as an official position. The AVMA rejected this resolution, that is an established fact, but rejecting such a resolution is not the same as endorsing foie gras. The AVMA decided to remain neutral with respect to foie gras and its production.--Boffob 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not "meaningless and unsourced" to compare foie gras to the Eiffel Tower in regards to the action by the French parliament. That was their point, UNESCO recognizes "places" as representative of a countries culture, it was the intent of the parliament to raise cuisine as equally representative of culture, and that foie gras was representative of French cuisine - as the Eiffel Tower is representative. So far UNESCO has rejected cuisine (from other countries as well) but that doesn't change the position of the French.

It is equally unfair of you to characterize the EU report as saying the birds are "pathological". It uses typical, bureaucratic, politically wishy-washy statements on this to avoid that conclusion.

If David wishes to discuss the AMVA position, he should read their journal article and not just the outside press release, if he wishes to say I'm twisting it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't think that any proposal can permanently resolve all future disputes on the subject of this page. All specific issues will have to be discussed one by one; the only permanent guidelines for those disputes can be the general Misplaced Pages guidelines, such as NPOV and relevance. As the WP specifications say, we do not have any "jurisdiction" over this page or any other.

However, I do think that all who are in good faith can come to a general agreement about some points, so as to be able to unblock the page without starting the edit war all over.

(Please do not intersperse comments between the following points. Add comments after my signature below.)

The controversy over foie gras production is a major aspect, that the article should cover with no specific limitations. I think I have given convincing arguments that this issue is not of interest only to a tiny fraction of the population. The number of people in the world interested in the culinary aspects of foie gras is not so enormous as to dwarf the welfare preoccupations that have brought its production to have been banned in a great number of countries. We might want to determine the respective sizes of the "cooking" and "controversy" sections by counting the number of people who explicitely or implicitly rejoice in foie gras, vs. the number of people who implicitly or explicitly condemn its production. I think such a discussion is not necessary; instead, let us accept that there be no limitation in size to the coverage of either aspects. The only criterion should be that all information should be NPOV, verifiable and relevant.
The introduction should be balanced; for that, a picture of force-feeding should be added. I appreciate that the text of the introduction currently is (more or less) balanced; however, the leading picture is on the culinary aspect exclusively. I propose that should be added next to that picture a photo depicting foie gras production. Not the most gory photo possible, but not either a wishy-washy propaganda picture of some farm force-feeding of times of old. It should be a picture of the force-feeding of ducks (geese account for less than 3% of the production in France), held in cages (87% of the ducks in France are force-fed in cages), force-fed with an air-pump (almost no force-feeding is done manually these days). The picture should come from France, since France is by far the largest producer. I will search for such a picture.
The controversy is not to be limited to the "controversy" section, allowing the rest of the article to spin out its fairy tales about the Egyptians and so on, weaving a romantic look about the product. There are to be no "territories" in the article. Verifiable and relevant information, whether it makes foie gras look good or bad, has its place everywhere.
I ask that all editors adhere to the general NPOV guidelines, and not try to force into the article information that they know to be false.

Now a couple of specific points. 1. The sentence about the EU report "recognizing" that foie gras is not pathological should obviously be deleted, and no one should try to sneak in such disinformation in another wording. 2. We can say thinks like the fact that the French Parliament has voted such and such a law, but word it in a neutral way; no, it didn't decree that foie gras is equivalent to the Great Pyramid of Egypt. Generally speaking, Misplaced Pages is not the place for such POV wording.

Apart from that, I perfectly agree that the production ban vs. sales ban should be mentioned (and expanded upon); that the French law should be mentioned (and expanded upon); that the opposition of some Chicago chefs may be mentioned (but WP is not to assert that those chefs were outraged; just that they said that they were); that in the context of the "pathological" debate, it may be mentioned that foie gras is not particularly unhealthy for the consumer (within limits) - but it may also be mentioned that certain independent scientific sources explicitly or implicitly qualify it as pathological. The issue of how independent certain scientific sources actually are should also be mentioned.

Ah yes, a last point worth mentioning: I repeatedly asked editors to refrain from personal, ad hominem, attacks. I asked that specifically from one editor, who has not yet responded to that request. Unfortunately, that may mean that such attacks will go on. If that is the case, I will continue pointing them out, and pointing out that such attacks do not do credit to those who resort to them, apparently for lack of better arguments.

David Olivier 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this helpful proposal. --Zantastik talk 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Zantastik. Welcome to the discussion, and thanks for inserting your opinion above everyone else's. Could you elaborate on why you think this proposal, suggested by one of the individuals who caused the edit war in the first place, is a good idea? —Trevyn 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be glad to elaborate on my views. Why do I see this proposal as a helpful one? Let's look at it point by point.
(1) The controversy over foie gras production is indeed a major aspect of the topic. Most foodstuffs are legal to produce the world over with little or not controversy. However some, such as foie gras Absinthe are indeed controversial. Looking at the fée verte's article, we can see this controversy is amply addressed. Of course, if absinthe consumption is controversial, it's foie gras production that is, and this different kind of controversy needs to be addressed in different ways. Which brings me to proposal
(2). What provokes the most controversy when it comes to foie gras? Why force-feeding, of course. Gavage, and especially its modern, industrial iteration is at the very heart of the foie gras controversy, along with the liver damage it entails. Oh, what's that? You say that this would be like requiring a photo of an animal being slaughtered in meat? Actually, it's different. Killing an animal is a rather banal act and has never been illegal in any country. There is no serious debate as to whether to outlaw animal slaughter, and while ethical vegetarians do object to it, these objections are, at present time, quite marginal. Foie gras is different -- its production has been banned in various (economically) important states and countries. It cannot be sold in Chicago restaurants. Why? Gavage. Willfully not showing a photo of this practice would run afoul of Undue Weight.
(3) While the idea of an individual controversy section is a good one, any information or image that could protray foie gras in a negative light should not be cordoned off into this section. Noting that foie gras is controversial in the lead, giving the debate its own section, showing a picture of gavage is a good idea, and though criticism shouldn't be limited to its own section, it should mostly go there.
(4)I wouldn't have used this laguage, but then, I wasn't part of the debate. Nevertheless, it's hard to disagree with it.

Finally, let's all Assume good faith, which would tend to preclude tartly sarcastic thanks. For the record, I inserted my comment under a proposal thinking it might become part of an informal straw poll, not to give them any special weight. --Zantastik talk 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly reject this one-sided proposal. I believe that now and in the future, we need to discuss and achieve consensus on individual edit points that cause disagreement. If you disagree with points made in the previous section, please voice your concern there. —Trevyn 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the history section? It should certainly cite sources (for verifiability issues), but otherwise it is certainly not "spinning fairy tales". That foie gras goes back to antiquity is not a value judgement on its existence or the current production methods. As currently worded, it's a description, not an argument for (or against) the production of foie gras. Just like saying that there was slavery back in antiquity is neither endorsing nor opposing the concept of slavery, it's the statement of a fact. For the rest, it goes back again to issues of undue weight and what constitutes encyclopedic information versus arguments and debate. I don't see the need for a forcefeeding picture in the intro. The finished product is fine, a forcefeeding picture can go either in the production or controversy section. Now, could we please go back to the "Discussion of specific editing issues" and come to a consensus on those points before making general proposals on major rewrites?--Boffob 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all four items. As I stated before we still need to establish the fact that the force-feeding is a commonly recognized issue as opposed to an issue that is being actively vocalized by a non-representative group of people. If/when this is established, then the issue needs to be put into a separate WP article as per the guidelines of Notability. Otherwise the Controversy section is a correct place for this information and it actually needs to be trimmed down not to bring an undue weight to the subject of force-feeding. In other words - the issue of force-feeding is either notable or it is not. If it is, then keeping it in the main article is a clear case of POV pushing by trying to leverage higher popularity ranking of the primary article. Alex Pankratov 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now look, Trevyn, who "strongly" disagrees with my proposal! What precisely do you disagree with? What precise point of my proposal is not neutral, is "one-sided"?

I find your reaction quite incredible. You reject my proposal because "now and in the future, we need to discuss and achieve consensus on individual edit points that cause disagreement". That is precisely what I propose, and have been proposing for weeks. I have been attempting for weeks now to discuss and achieve consensus on individual edit points. What kind of answers have I got? What kind of serious, honest and sincere arguments, based on facts, have I got?

Is it that you want to put back in the lies about the EU report, just because the "general consensus" here is "I couldn't care less about truth, I just want to get rid of that damn AR stuff"? What precisely do you propose?

David Olivier 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If individual edit points are what you want to discuss, why did you not reply to each of the points in the previous section and made a new section with completely new points in your proposal? This constitutes moving the goal posts. If you had read that section you would know that Trevyn does not "want to put back in the lies about the EU report".--Boffob 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Boffob: yes, I have major rewrites to make. And I don't plan to submit those to the "consensus" of a hostile, incompetent and dishonest environment before I make them. I want them to be judged by the criteria of verifiability, neutrality and relevance.

And yes, I plan to put a picture of force-feeding in the intro. Why not? Does that disturb you? You don't want people to know?

David Olivier 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do you want to reach consensus when you qualify your peer wikipedians as hostile, incompetent and dishonest? That you do not address this insult to anyone specifically does not make it less of an ad hominem. Why do you think a picture of forcefeeding is necessary in the intro? Why there instead of in the production or controversy section? What's wrong with having "pâté de foie gras" as a main picture? Do you feel that there are too many pictures? That they look tasty and might encourage people to eat foie gras?--Boffob 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because a picture of force-feeding is not relevant to the intro. Because the significant changes you are proposing are not neutral or relevant. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Neutrality and relevance are not as black-and-white as verifiability. For neutrality and relevance, you must defer to the majority of Wikipedians' views, not concoct meaningless arguments about "implicit support" and assert that your arguments are logically superior to others'. This is why we are being hostile. If your goal is to improve Misplaced Pages, I propose you create a Foie gras controversy article, where you will get much more support with regards to neutrality and relevance. If your goal is to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, you will not succeed. —Trevyn 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I second the idea of Foie gras controversy article. Alex Pankratov 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. They become battlegrounds because POV warriors (from any side) feel welcome. SchmuckyTheCat 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that without a "controversy" article, the POV warriors are left to attack (and lock) the main article. If we give them a battleground, they can fight it out as necessary, and the content can be merged into the main article when it stabilizes. —Trevyn 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is Force-feeding WP article already. This is something to consider and just for everyone's reference. Alex Pankratov 19:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Boffob: I qualify the attitudes I encounter in this discussion as hostile, incompetent and dishonest because I am asking you and my other peer Wikipedians to stop having such attitudes. Hostile: I have made a proposal that may not suit you, but it has been rejected outright, without any mention of the several points which should not be controversial at all (such as the references to quality of information, whether it makes foie gras look good or bad). Incompetent: when you answer me "Do you feel that there are too many pictures?", while I have nowhere said such a thing, it means you have not even taken the trouble to read what I have said. Dishonest because it is not honest to come here and rely on sheer numbers, without taking the trouble to present consistent arguments. That is plain POV behaviour. David Olivier 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

David: If you had said anything in the first place, I wouldn't have asked the question. I feel some of the pictures are redundant myself, but that is besides the point. But if you want me to reiterate on the specific points. 1) Though there are no specific limitations on the size of each section, there remains isssues of undue weight if any of them becomes bloated. As of now, except for the edit wars of the controversy section, the other sections do not violate NPOV though could benefit from minor changes (citations in the history section, and improvements in grammar and wording in a number of places). 2. I still don't see why a picture of force feeding is required to "balance" the intro, which is already 50-50 in description and controversy in the text. Do you believe every meat related article also requires an abattoir picture in the intro to balance them? 3. I don't think the "controversy" section should extend to other sections, simply because it'll only lead to more widespread edit wars. Neutral descriptions without weasel words or undue weight are fine in all sections. 4. There is a concensus on "sticking to the guidelines", but there does not appear to be a concensus on what constitutes NPOV here. Removal of patently false statements is easily done, but there are endless debates on the interpretation of cited sources. Which is why we are in this deadlock. It would have been easier to stick the discussion of the previous section, point by point, before shifting the goalposts and opening a whole new can of worms.--Boffob 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn: "For neutrality and relevance, you must defer to the majority of Wikipedians' views" That is certainly not the case. "Misplaced Pages is not a majoritarian democracy": see Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Consensus is built upon competent and honest efforts from all parties. David Olivier 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Consensus again. Your quote is out of context. I never suggested a vote. —Trevyn 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The process by which foie gras is produced, and the ethical implications that many people hold that process to have, are just as much about foie gras as is the way people cook it or facts about its history. Thus there is no justification for a seperate article. Furthermore, there is no reason for any aspect of foie gras to be immune from controversy; for instance, the "Physiology and preparation" paragraph currently holds several contentious statements. To request a seperate article is tantamount to requesting a blanket immunity for foie gras from all ethical criticism. David Olivier 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is an error in the article, I absolutely believe it should be corrected. However, I also believe that information about how foie gras is produced, and the ethical implications that some people hold that process to have, should be contained within their own sections, as befits an encyclopedia. Further, I believe that the article should be structured similarly to all other articles on Misplaced Pages, with general factual description of the object itself first, then discussion about typical and historical uses (eating it), then discussion about controversies. I do not like the idea of a separate article, but you have not even made attempt to reach consensus on the talk page before you make highly controversial edits, and you have made it clear you will not do so in the future. My primary goal is to get the article unlocked. —Trevyn 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Trevyn: "I propose you create a Foie gras controversy article, where you will get much more support with regards to neutrality and relevance." No, it is here, in this article, that I want to find regards for neutrality and relevance! Neutrality and relevance are not optional qualities that can shoved aside into a discreet "controversy" article. They are requisites for all articles. David Olivier 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, we disagree on certain issues of neutrality and relevance in the Foie gras article. My primary issue is the way in which you want to add undue prominence to a minority opinion. (Note: I am not objecting to the inclusion of the opinion, merely its placement.) If that minority opinion were discussed on its own page, I would have no problem with you doing anything you like with that page. —Trevyn 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As such, David's suggesgtions in the beginning of this section would have the effect, in my opinion of spinning a particular POV straigth into the article, NOT to make it more NPOV. As far as spinning out the criticisms, I don't agree, but I don't agree either that criticism should be added to any part of the article if there is already a criticism section. What I would humbly recomment, as it seem to work in the PETA article, would be to remove the criticism sections per se and weave all the different criticisms into the relevant sections or the articles. This would kill the "magnet" effect this article might have throuhg having a disputed sections containing criticism. As far as having a picture of force-feeding added side by side to the intro picture of the finished product, that would be sending a big POV message. Take for instance an article as Tobacco smoking It has a picture of a cigarette burning in an ashtray in the introduction. But, nowhere do you see a picture of ruined lungs, gums or a damaged heart to prove the point that there is a health controversy attached to the subject. In the same line, I say a picture of force-feeding certainly doesn't belong in the intro, and maybe not even anywhere in the article. Just my twopence'--Ramdrake 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Boffob 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC): 1) a) I have already answered concerning the issue of the relative weights of culinary vs. force-feeding aspects of foie gras, and will get back to that below soon. b) It is not up to you to decide that the various sections of the article are POV; it is something we have to determine on a case by case basis. 2) Since the debate about force-feeding is at least as prominent in the global public opinion as is the issues about how tasty the stuff is or is not, a picture of the production of foie gras is not giving "undue weight" to that issue. And anyway: why does the idea of a picture of force-feeding displease you so? Also, yes I do feel that meat related articles should include pictures of what the animals go through. But that is another issue. 3) I don't intend to extend the "controversy" section to other sections, just make all sections NPOV, which I believe they are not. There are to be no limitations to critical revision of all sections. 4) You say "Removal of patently false statements is easily done", but it is my removing a patently false statement by SchmuckyTheCat that started this edit war, and you among others have persistently sided with him. Also: I have attempted to discuss specific points one by one, but to no avail. As an alternative I have tried to get a consensus on general guidelines, and the answer was a blanket rejection. I have not met with a desire for constructive discussion; just with a desire to make numbers and force prevail.David Olivier 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take exception to at least one statement made in your edit: "the debate about force-feeding is at least as prominent in the global public opinion as is the issues about how tasty the stuff is or is not". While Googling for "foie gras" (quotation marks included) I found 2,510,000 references on the web. While looking for "foie gras" and "forced feeding" (or "force-feeding") I found a grand total of 1,210 references. Based on this, I strongly challenge your contention that the debate about force-feeding is at least as prominent in the global public opinion as is the issues about how tasty the stuff is or is not. Demonstrably, it isn't.--Ramdrake 23:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, Ramdrake. When I google <"foie gras" "force feeding"> I get 49,400 references. Googling <"foie gras" gavage> gives me 94,000. David Olivier 12:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because I used "force-feeding" and "forced feeding" instead of "force feeding". In any case, 50k reference doesn't make a subject as significant as 2,510,000 reference. That's two-and a half orders of magnitude below.--Ramdrake 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

--Ramdrake 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Please note the contribution by Zantastik above (below my proposal; dated 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)). It has been recently added, but at an unconspicuous position. I feel it is generally better to add contributions at the end of the page, even when the points they answer are further up. David Olivier 12:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)c

RFC

Replies to comments from the RFC go in this section

I think that the system of foie's production (section), including a subsection on the controversies surrounding it should be in the article but surely not be the center of it. Maybe about 20-25% of the article at most. --Sugaar 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is part and parcel of foie gras, but like with many substances whose consumption is controversial (absinthe, tobacco, etc.) it should not be the central point of the article. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.--Ramdrake 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlock time?

We've got about six people who've made discussion since the page was locked. Only one indicates they care to make edits without consensus. In that case the page should be unlocked and individual users who want to make trouble can be dealt with individually. SchmuckyTheCat 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Dealt with individually" - you sound like some kind of a Mafiosi! Yes, there are more here on your side than on mine. That does not make you right, and gives no right to "you" to "deal with" me in any way at all.

"Only one indicates they care to make edits without consensus." There is no consensus here, either way. A majority does not make a consensus. If you make edits I do not agree with, you are editing without consensus.

David Olivier 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

David, would you be willing to participate in formal mediation? (Same question to everyone else here.) —Trevyn 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not?--Ramdrake 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No reason not to. SchmuckyTheCat 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the debate seems to be the prominence of the criticism of foie gras. I don't think we have addressed that issue yet in depth, so I think that a formal mediation is not yet necessary. David Olivier 12:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are solidly deadlocked on that issue. If you are not willing to participate in formal mediation, I agree with SchmuckyTheCat's suggestion to unlock the article and take it to arbitration if necessary. Of course, you are welcome to try informal mediation via the Cabal if you wish. —Trevyn 12:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we deadlocked on that issue? David Olivier 12:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it has been discussed heatedly for over two weeks, and I cannot see any path to agreement. —Trevyn 12:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed among other things. We have not yet gone into the specific points. There is also the contribution by Zantastik above to consider. Some specific things have been said that I want to answer to. Now of course, if your position is that whatever evidence is brought to the contrary, you will not budge, then yes, we are deadlocked. I do, however, have the right to present my arguments. David Olivier 12:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

It appears, looking at the above discussion that there are some editors who think that information critical of Foie Gras should either be minimal or not included within this article. This is patently POV. Please can I point you all to WP:NPOV, specifically the part about undue weight. Secondly can I point you to WP:POVFORK regarding doing a split off. The controversy section is not in any way too long. Please realise that this article is not just about 'foie gras as a food' - it is supposed to be an article covering all aspects of foie gras, and the controversy is one of the aspects of that. What are the specific problems that seem to be causing trouble? The above discussion seems to have gone off on wild tangents in some areas so is difficult to follow.-Localzuk 13:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_Weight. It appears there's a bit of a conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, depending on your own personal interpretation. I like what I took away from reading that discussion, which is that we should be describing who has what opinions and in what proportion. Also, I want to note that WP:NPOV makes repeated reference to individual articles devoted to specific views; all forks are not POV forks. Anyway, I think the best course of action is to get this unlocked, avoid revert wars, and improve the article with lots of blood and sweat instead of spending all of that blood and sweat arguing impotently here. —Trevyn 13:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. I think NPOV is easy to misinterpret, because of its name. Misplaced Pages can include points of view, and have articles about points of view, but it must present those points of view neutrally, as if it were a detached, uninterested party. In this article, it is critical to provide sources for the relevance of viewpoints, as well as sources for the facts behind those viewpoints. —Trevyn 13:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On the point of POV forks - the proposal above was that the information surrounding the controversy should be split off into its own article, apparrently because some people think it is not relevant to this subject. This is the very definition of a POV fork - splitting info off in order to remove a pov from an article.

On the undue weight issue. We have here an article about Foie Gras. There has been significant discussion by a variety of sources about the method which it is created. We have several countries that have banned the practice. This is relevant to the subject. We do not need to provide a source saying it is relevant - else then we would also need a source to back up that source and the process is endless.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to present all significant viewpoints. The viewpoint that Foie Gras is produced in an 'bad way' (not going to go into details on this) is a significant viewpoint.-Localzuk 16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the objective legal status of foie gras is relevant. As for other points of the matter, we needs sources to tell us who has these viewpoints, and sources that tell us why these viewpoints are significant. We absolutely need to cover the AR perspective, but we need sources that put it in perspective. Remember, Misplaced Pages is neither for nor against cruelty to animals. —Trevyn 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of needing 'sources that tell us why these viewpoints are significant' before. Please can you provide me with one of our policies that states this? I agree that we have to say 'who' has the viewpoints - as this is just part of citing something correctly though.

The policy on undue weight is summarisable as: If it is a majority view, it is easy to provide citations, if it is a significant minority - it should be easy to provide citations from the major adherents and if it is a non-significant minority - it should not be here.

So, in this particular article, we have citations from a number of governments and the EU. This shows that it is a significant minority. Can someone outline the specific problems as I cannot understand what all this fuss is about?-Localzuk 21:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it comes from WP:NPOV#Undue weight; "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." The fuss is about the quantity and placement of foie gras criticism in the article, as "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". We need something that can tell us the proportion of people who consider foie gras a tasty food, and the number of people who consider foie gras an animal rights travesty, so that we can represent these views proportionally in the article. This is why I suggested a possible fork of what I now believe should be something like "Animal rights criticism of foie gras production", because the undue weight fuss would be completely irrelevant as that article would be entirely about the criticism, and could grow unrestricted. Of course, the main article should still retain a proportional treatment of the topic and a link the the subheading's "main article". —Trevyn 09:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is exactly the definition of a POV fork - splitting off information to circumvent the policy on NPOV.

I don't think we need to go into detail on percentages of people who see it in one way or the other. All we need to do is make a judgement based on the availablility of comments on each side. For example, basing it on the fact that a good numbe of governments and the EU are looking into the issue shows to me that it is a significant viewpoint - we do not need to go into any more depth about the proportion of people who think X or Y.

Also, as ramdrake said above somewhere, we should maybe look at getting rid of the section altogether and attempting to weave it into the article based on each criticism's subject. So, we would have a section about the production methods where both sides of the story are discussed etc...-Localzuk 12:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point on Undue weight being part of NPOV, so even if the article spinout was written in an NPOV style, it would still have to conform to Undue weight of WP as a whole. I'm not sure this is in WP's best interest, but it is clearly a way to interpret the written policy.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the critics are an "insignificant minority" and that all critical viewpoints should be removed from the article. I still maintain that we need some sort of indicator of representation so that we know the correct proportion of article text, images, etc. to devote to the criticism.

I also believe that David and Zantastik were the only two suggesting that criticism be "weaved into" the article. This really makes no sense to me, because the criticism is clearly a well-defined subtopic. Placing it in sections other than the introduction would both be hiding it from people looking for information on this subtopic and shoving it down the throats of people not looking for information on this subtopic. —Trevyn 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that there are to be no "territories" in the article does not necessarily mean that each paragraph should be a battleground for/against foie gras. There is a lot to do just to make the sentences NPOV according to the usual guidelines, and insuring that the information is verifiable and relevant.

The opening lines currently read:

Foie gras (French for "fat liver") is the fattened liver of a duck or goose that has been overfed. Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine—it is very rich and buttery, with a delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.

It is not seen as NPOV to say "ice cream is delicious"; the correct formulation would be some thing like "many people like ice cream". The sentence about foie gras being one of the greatest delicacies should be reformulated; including the idea it is "rich and buttery", its flavour being delicate and so on.

As for the first sentence: "overfed" is an understatement. The official definition in France (by far the largest producer in the world) is that it must be produced by force-feeding; there is no such thing as foie gras without force-feeding. The word force-feeding should be in that statement, since it defines foie gras.

There are many other such points, such as how verifiable the contents of the current "history" section are. I believe that each such point should be debated (if seen as contentious) seperately, according to the usual guidelines.

This is one reason why it seems not very meaningful to want to decide how much of the article must be "pro" and how much must be "con". I think it should simply be recognized that the controversy is a major aspect of the topic, as are the culinary aspects, and that there is no need to edict specific proportions, no more than in any other particular article. If at a point in the future it does appear that the treatment of one aspect has grown out of proportion, then perhaps it will be justified to do something about it, but that is not now.

David Olivier 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah and by the way: type <"foie gras"> in Google and count the pages listed that are interested in the culinary aspect and the controversy aspect. And then try to make out that the controversy is only of interest to an insignificant minority - as many of you have attempted to assert. David Olivier 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Foie gras"+FAQ = 1.3 mil hits, "Foie gras"+FAQ+"force feeding" = 0.014 mil hits, ie two orders of magnitude. It's not culinary aspect vs the controversy. It's the controversy vs. non-controversy, which includes the culinary, cultural, historical and other side of the subject area. And current WP article version is clearly unbalanced from this perspective. Alex Pankratov 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I got a little muddled there. What I'm asking for is a Misplaced Pages: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 " a French coalition of animal rights groups" and that the proclamation "claim 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)

"Is" a delicacy?

I have reworded the part about foie gras "being" a delicacy, to say that it is seen as a delicacy. It has been reversed by Jooler, and I reversed it back. Someone might want to word that better, but it certainly should not be reversed. Please don't start another edit war on this, I think the issue is quite clear.

I have also deleted the part about foie gras's texture being rich and so on. That too is a subjective value judgment. If someone wants to word it in a NPOV fashion, that would be better. I personnaly feel it is not very relevant, and should be deleted.

David Olivier 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"I think the issue is quite clear". Well, yes, Foie gras is the delicacy by WP's own definition of the latter. Jooler's and SchmuckyTheCat's reverts are fully justified. Alex Pankratov 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Foie gras is a delicacy. It's indisputable that it is a delicacy. It isn't subjective, nor a value judgement. Rich and buttery are normal and fairly neutral terms used to describe food. SchmuckyTheCat 01:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying foie gras is buttery is no more subjective or a POV than saying butter is buttery. Jooler 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If saying foie gras is rich is no more than saying butter is buttery, it is vacuous and should not be included. Misplaced Pages is no place for advertisement. David Olivier 08:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... that's not what I said. Please read again. Christmas pudding is rich. "rich fruit cake" is rich. Rich means you only need a little to satisfy. Jooler

Yes, "rich" is a normal term to describe food, just like "delicious" is. It is a value-judgment. Otherwise, what does it mean? That the food has a high calorie content, or a high fat content? If so, it is redundant. David Olivier 07:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"rich" is not a value judgement. It's fat fat fat and fat some more. Sugar is sweet. Water is wet. Habaneros are hot. Foie gras is rich. SchmuckyTheCat 08:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please define "rich". Misplaced Pages is no place for advertisement. David Olivier 08:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. Rich is perfectly normal word to used to describe food. It doesn't mean good. It means it is heavy in cream, butter, sugar or fat and only a little is needed to satisfy. Christ why don't you go to to the wine article and remove all of the ways that the flavours are described there. Jooler 09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the wine article. If "rich" means "heavy in cream, etc." (i.e. heavy in calories), that could be the right word to put there. More specifically, it could be said it has a high fat content. But actually, "rich" has a positive connotation. It is an advertisement word.

Also, please remain calm. Referring to the LAME page is not an argument. David Olivier 09:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... no rich does not have positive connotations in this context. Have you never heard of doctors recommending people to lay off rich foods? They make you fat and people used to think that they gave you gout. Jooler

According to a google define, generally it seems rich has positive connotations. It is, as Olivierd states, a very 'advertisement' minded word (imagine someone selling a 'rich chocolate cake' compared with someone selling a 'chocolate cake' - most people would go for the rich version). We should be specific with the meaning of rich in this case. If it means 'high in calories' or 'high in fat content' then say that - rich is too vague.-Localzuk 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all about context. Is filthy rich positive or negative? Or "pretty ugly"? The words in isolation are at opposite sides of the spectrum. The word white has mainly positive connotations, but in some contexts like white supremacy it doesn't. Ahh right so I suppose we can't use the words "low-fat" either because advertisers use it as a virtue? If there was a cake that was not technnically "rich" describing it rich would be simply wrong. False advertising. Rich is a descriptive word frequently used in catering and if you'd ever eaten foie gras you'd know that it fits and is not vague at all. Jooler 14:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jooler, it may well depend on the context. The current context is: "Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine—it is very rich and buttery, with a delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver." If that does not read like an advertisement, I don't know what might! First the stuff is compared to truffles, then it is said to be a great delicacy, and then that it is rich, buttery, has a delicate flavour. And of course, since some people don't like the taste of liver generally, it says that the taste is completely different.

It doesn't matter to me that foie gras may be seen as rich or buttery or whatnot by whoever eats it. As far as I care, it might taste like cow dung. But it does matter to me that the Misplaced Pages article on foie gras is not the place for full-fledged advertisements of the stuff.

David Olivier 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why you're getting uptight about this. It's purely descriptive and no different from the descriptions of various cheeses on Misplaced Pages. See Pepperjack_cheese for example. Jooler 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not purely descriptive - it is a term that is being used in a POV manner in a way that sounds like advertising. Also, refering to other articles does not mean that you are correct - it just means that either the usage is different or the other article is also incorrect.-Localzuk 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What? would you have all the cheese articles describe the cheeses as "yellow?" What POV is it pushing exactly? that's what I don't get? I just googled "best way to describe foie gras" and found (2nd hit) http://www.chowhound.com/topics/327163 where someone says "I've been thinking of how best to describe foie and it is really hard to do. But, I think if you can imagine cutting that liver pate from christmas with about fifty-percent butter yet not losing the richness, that's sort of what good foie gras tastes like." - couldn't put it better myself. It is a perfect description. Jooler 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about other articles did I? Oh, yes I did - I said we shouldn't be comparing to them. Did you ignore my earlier comment regarding 'rich chocolate cake' and 'chocolate cake'? The term 'rich' is used as a positive reinforcement of the 'goodness' of a product. (I have removed the POV comment about it being one of the 'greatest' delicacies.)-Localzuk 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "it just means that either the usage is different or the other article is also incorrect" - both of which are wrong. Jooler 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

'rich' isn't positive reinforcement. Many people don't like rich foods. I've seen plenty of people leave most of a restaurant dessert saying "it is too rich for me." SchmuckyTheCat 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - I love rich foods! Swedish Glace 'Rich Chocolate' desert is great. I love a 'Rich Belgium Chocolate Cake'. This is just more evidence that the word is used in a POV manner.-Localzuk 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you've just demonstrated people acknowledge the same thing as 'rich' while disagreeing whether it tastes good or not. SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct, if several people can talk about the same thing, and some say they "like" rich food, while others say they "can't tolerate" rich food, it just goes to prove that "rich" is a cognate (a term the significance of which most people agree to) but a neutral one, as some people like it and some dislike it. It is de facto NPOV. It would be like saying "tart" is an advertising word taste-wise. This makes no sense at best. IMHO, this debate about the attributes of foie gras is becoming pretty lame: while one can take grave exception to its methods of production, it is no reason to put down its gastronomical qualities, which have been recognized for centuries, even though as per the guidelines of this encyclopedia, these attributes preferably need to be cited (unless they are obvious knowledge to everyone). The two are separate; let's keep them separate.--Ramdrake 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, cited. SchmuckyTheCat 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'rich' is a measure of intensity. As others repeatedly pointed out whether a lot of intensity is 'good' depends on the context and it depends on a person. Alex Pankratov 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, you have reverted the main page, putting back the NPOV wording about being a delicacy, rich and so on. There happens to be an ongoing discussion here on the issue. You might consider in the future discussing edits in a civil manner.

As for your comment - "rv, the french parliament says it is one of the greatest, so it is not "considered"" - it is patently absurd to see the French Parliament, or any other body, as an authority over what is a delicacy or not. Apart from the fact that the French Parliament actually says nothing of the sort (but I am getting used to your citing lame sources). Ah yes, then you add a source for its being "rich": "Sunset magazine, December 2001 "Foie gras is so lavishly rich..."" Ah what a reliable source!

David Olivier 16:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

David, as you are the one making undiscussed changes please don't put the civility issue in my lap.

And, whether or not foie gras is a delicacy is an objective fact, not a subjective one. When the French parliament raises the food to be a cultural heritage marker, there isn't really any question about it. People don't like many foods but still acknowledge them as a delicacy.

Yes, ] is a reliable source. It just happened to be the easiest one for me to source. SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I said on your talk page. Delicay means prized it does not mean good. In Korea dog meat is a delicacy and in China bird's nests. There is no value judgement in stating the these are delicacies in their respective countires. As for foie gras being rich and buttery. Take my word for it, it does not need to be cited any more than saying that the sky is blue or that camembert is smelly needs a citation. Jooler 16:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Overfed / force-fed

The current intro defines foie gras as "is the fattened liver of a duck or goose that has been overfed". I changed that to "has been force-fed", and Jooler reverted it to "overfed", with the comment "not all foie gras production involves force feeding".

The recent French law (Code rural L654-27-1, see the official French legal site]) states: "On entend par foie gras, le foie d'un canard ou d'une oie spécialement engraissé par gavage." ("One is to understand by "foie gras" the liver of a duck or a goose that has been specially fattened by force-feeding"). There have been attempts to find alternative methods to force-feeding - see this French document, page 45 - but, as that document says, they got nowhere. As the French law makes clear, France oppose any use of the term for a substance produced without force-feeding. France is by far the largest producer and consumer of foie gras in the world. I am not aware of anyone elsewhere claiming to produce foie gras without force-feeding. The two US producers, for instance, use force-feeding (Sonoma Foie Gras: " are tube fed twice per day"; see here about Hudson Valley Foie Gras, whose site prefers to speak only of a special feeding process (!)).

The French law may not have definitive authority about the use of that or any other word, and as for any word, you may always find someone who uses it with another definition. However, I think there is enough evidence to show that the universally recognized meaning of the term implies force-feeding. If Jooler believes otherwise, he or she must bring valid evidence to the contrary.

David Olivier 15:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I saw or read something recently about Maggie and Patrick Gorman an English couple who moved to France and now produce Foie Gras. I was under the mistaken impression that they produced foie gras that did not involve gavage, but I now realise that I was wrong. The Gormans are interviewed here - http://www.jeremyjosephs.com/foiegras.htm Jooler 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a really great article that I think cuts to the heart of the typical person's objection to foie gras. I myself often pay more for products that involve better treatment of animals. Thanks for sharing it. —Trevyn 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the replacement. I haven't read the article yet. David Olivier 07:24, 20 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 Misplaced Pages, 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", "As their name suggests, Recommendations are not binding on Member States." 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

What is said in the article is that foie gras doesn't taste like liver, not that "liver tastes like liver".
The relevance is that foie gras is considered one of the top delicacies of French cuisine. Truffles is another example. it is relevant.
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines to reliable sources 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 ). 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

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

Benio76 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

R. Babilé et al., "Réversibilité de la stéatose hépatique chez le canard mulard", Actes des 2e journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèces à Foie Gras, Bordeaux, 12 et 13 mars 1996, p. 107-110. In this study, funded by foie gras producers, nine animals out of 144 died in the test. "Les animaux morts présentaient des difficultés de locomotion et n'ont donc pas pu s'abreuver" (The animals that died displayed locomotive impairments and thus were unable to drink.)

Categories: