Talk:Foie gras

Health Concerns... that could be faced by the duck or goose?

Clearly a propagandists was intentionally making it unclear who's health was in danger. NPOV demands that we not add ambiguity into the passage in order to imply a point of view. Consistency demands that if we warn of 'health hazards' faced here we also label them across all fatty foods. Leaving it for the reader to take as implied that this food causes fatty-liver is very bad form. It is also implied that being a food-animal is bad for the animal's health as, some half-month after being force-fed the animal is going to be slaughtered. What difference does it make from a neutral point of view how the animal dies and what difference does a fatty liver make to the long-term health of an animal bound for the wood-shed in three weeks time? CredenceHarbor (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) CredenceHarbor 09/20/2009

I agree. Ethical concerns regarding the procedure are worthy of discussion, but references to health concerns for an animal intended for near-term slaughter are (intentionally?) silly. Someone keeps reverting the change, apparently preferring propaganda to sensible encyclopedia production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.96.226 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I understand the phrase "health concerns for an animal intended for near-term slaughter are (intentionally?) silly". Death and suffering are quite separate things. You can die instantly without suffering. Suffering is not necessary in the food chain and the "assumed" levels that a force-fed bird experiences are very rare in nature. Take the fear of being unable to prevent food consumption beyond the point of tissue rupture. What happens when tissues do rupture and the pain becomes excruciating? How does the bird communicate this to the feeder? The fact that no known foie gras producer uses endoscopy to ensure the health of the stomach lining, makes me suspect that it's more a case of "humans first, animals second, move on and count the cash" than a genuine wish to treat the animals in their care in the way they wish to be treated. PaulsComments (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I altered the opening comment to include the fact that many consider force feeding to be cruel and inhumane treatment, which is a reasonable argument and (I hope) the real issue those who oppose gavage are concern with. 143.239.96.226 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

countries that outlawed foie gras

Hello. I came here to find wich countries actually outlawed the product. But despice the introduction mentionning "numbers of countries and legislation", the article only mention turkey, "countries from EU", and chicago for 2 years. Wich european countries ? ONE american state for merely 2 years ? Is that it ? Edit : After searching a bit more, there ARE a lot more countries that outlawed gavage. Although it was not clear wether the product was outlawed or merely it's production. Anyway, the article lacks a more complete liste of those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.46.106 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, and it could use some recipes as well! 75.48.22.98 (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Defense of foie gras in intro

The last sentence of the intro: "While foie gras producers maintain that force feeding ducks and geese is not uncomfortable for the animals nor is it hazardous to their health." That isn't a sentence. The fact that it makes an excuse of sorts for foie gras producers, combined with the poor grammar, make me wonder if this was tacked on surreptitiously by someone. Togamoos (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dietary/Nutrition Info

The article could benefit from a paragraph on the dietary and nutritional breakdown of foie gras: Fats, protein, carbs, and vitamin content per serving of FG. If I knew of that I would add it, but it will have to be added by someone who knows and can reference it. Radzewicz (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice information. Without cooking or preparation it is almost pure fat. Cooking and preparation would change some of it with the added material, but still mostly fat. Typical serving size is so tiny it isn't going to make much difference to a dieter, :). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wouldn't be so sure... Alsatiens have a nasty habit of eating a huge slab of "foie gras poélé" (they obviously think it's not rich enough without being pan fried in butter). As an entrée. yandman 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see some nutritional information. That is the reason I came to this page in the first place. I'm sure there are many others like me out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.11.58 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems fair to add dietary information, and confusing that we can assume only "dieters" would be interested in that info, and that we know the amount they will consume. Sko1221 (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, do we generally add dietary info to articles about food items? I don't remember ever seeing this in a Wiki article about the food item. Also, in respect to Schmucky's point about serving size, this makes about as much sense as adding dietary information on the Caviar article.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dietary information would be nice, but I'm begging you not to make this article look like the side of a packet of Kellogs. I'd keep it as prose (no tables), if possible without percentages, and just a sentence or two ("foie gras contains a relatively high percentage of fat, and traces of vitamins X,Y,Z"). yandman 13:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is a typical serving size, i do think we could argue that this would make a difference to a dieter, if it is mostly fat in content. Sko1221 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge the inclusion of nutritional info in this article as 1)it is a departure from any other food item article and 2)the section relating the info is totally disjointed from the rest of the article (doesn't really fit anywhere). I'd like to know what other editors think of this. I take that back: there 's a template specifically for that on some other articles (Wine and Bread are two examples). I'm suggesting the best thing to do would be to integrate the info in the template. That way it wont look out of place.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Strassburg Pie

I added a mention (with citation of an encyclopedia) that pâté de foie gras used to be called "Strassburg pie". Most old cookbooks (before 1945) will also refer to it as such. Miguel (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article History

I went ahead and updated the headers on the talkpage, condensing the WikiProject banners, and swapping out the GA banner for the {{ArticleHistory}} template. I added a link to the GA-delisting discussion, but couldn't find any corresponding discussion for when the article achieved GA status. As near as I can tell, BorgQueen (talk · contribs), who had already been working on the article, simply placed the {{GA}} template[2] on November 12, 2005, and added the article to Wikipedia:Good articles.[3] At the time, there was no clear "nomination" process, very different from what we have now! Anyway, if anyone does know of an actual GA discussion, please provide a link and I'll get the history template updated accordingly. --Elonka 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

The lead section is getting crowded with images. Do we really need four images in the lead? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the images have been moved to "Preparations" section. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Good thinking. Warrington (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

hi there, i tried to put an image of the ducks being fed, but all that i try to input is deleted by Smucky. how fair is that? Sko1221 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The images make this page seem much more like an advertisement than a fair assessment of facts regarding foie gras. For this reason, unless it gets deleted again, i am adding a picture of the feeding process. The image is not gross, it is reality. I am not from Peta, btw, Thanks,Sarah.Sko1221 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The image has no context, and no evidence that it has anything to do with this food item. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The image was situated right next to the paragraph describing what is happening in the picture. That should be all the evidence and context needed. What more could you suggest, please? Sko1221 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I am baffled. The feeding of the ducks is a huge part of the story (context). This picture comes from the "Foie Gras Controversy" Wiki page. It shows the tube and feeding process being described in the paragraph on "Feeding". What more information should accompany the picture? Why should we not have a picture of the feeding process? Thanks,Sarah.68.13.134.213 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a photo of someone possibly feeding a duck, or at least putting their fingers in its mouth. Where's the evidence that it has anything to do with this food product? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It you have an issue with the legitimacy of the claims regarding this image, take it up with the Wiki from which it comes. I am only citing another Wiki page, which is done all the time in Wiki. Thanks.Sko1221 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's alleged to be the force-feeding of a duck. For all we know, the duck could be being fed some vital medication. Or the person could actually be removing something from the duck's gullet that it was choking on. And just because a photo is alleged to depict something doesn't make it so. You have to prove something is true before you can post it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If pictures have been proven to be true before being posted here, then since that picture come from a Wikipedia page, it follows that it has already been through that process. Please show me verification that the other images on this page are foie gras and not some other meat. If you do not, i will remove them like you are doing. Thanks68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not a safe assumption. The photo is alleged to be something, but it might be something else. If you have doubts about the veracity of other images here, presumably they could be removed. However, unlike the duck photo, they are merely photos of objects, not POV-pushing like the duck picture's advocate is trying to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely any picture of a duck being force-fed is just going to be a picture of a duck with a tube down its throat, though? How could it ever be 100% proved? Would we need a photo with a big sign saying "FOIE GRAS FORCE FEEDING CAGE" behind it? Black Kite 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would help if it came from a reliable source and the source indicated that it was a duck being force fed for the purpose of making foie gras. I don't know that we can rely on an anti-foie gras organization to be an impartial reliable source for this sort of image. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reported this situation to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The file is called "Foie gras" and is clearly a picture of a duck being forced fed. (Hence the reason it is used in other articles). Theresa Knott | token threats 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As seen by more examples here, it's clearly what it is. rootology (C)(T) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree that the image is what it says it is, I vehemently disagree with this specific reasoning. File names have no real bearing on the actual subject of the images. I could upload anything and call it whatever I want, but that doesn't prove that the image is what I labeled it as. Just my side note on a topic I don't have a strong opinion on. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Will add the picture again, thanks all for the input. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing wins the day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm dense but how is it POV pushing by showing the actual technical/physical method used to feed ducks for fois gras? It's common knowledge for people that know about production of fois gras. rootology (C)(T) 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To try to "prove" that it's cruelty to animals. A photo provides better shock effect than simply talking about it. Meanwhile, the guy who originally raised this issue, and claimed Sko1221 is a sock, has stayed away from this for the time being. It's more his battle than mine, as I don't like POV-pushing, nor do I like liver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The technical description in the section is simple, plain, and cleanly written but as described can be hard to visualize; the accompanying image is likewise a perfect representation of what is described. I like fois gras (not as much as plain old liver, however). I like meat. I like veal. I also love my cat, puppies, and have often wished I could beat the living hell out of some people that I see being cruel to animals. The image may be 'shocking', but it's accurate and dispassionate in the context of the article. It's just as much of a POV push to exclude it, though, since it's available, and in one stroke illustrates a multi-part physical operation. rootology (C)(T) 20:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SKO is not a sock, i (sarah) just forgot to log in, so it looks like 2 separate people. one human, no socks. and, i am a meat eater too. i just want truth to be told. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I think we'd be hard pushed to describe the image as POV-pushing. It is a visualisation of the described method, and the label of "cruel" is a subjective one that one reader (such as Bugs) might apply, whilst another (say a producer of foie gras) would not see it that way. The image itself, however, does not make the value judgement being ascribed to it - it is an accurate illustration of method, so let it stand. Certainly not worth edit-warring over though. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including the force-feeding picture in this article. It makes it more encyclopedic.

Murder most fowl? A matter of personal taste.

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add my twopence to the debate. Compare the picture currently in the article with these two: [4][5]. The two pictures here describe just as well the gavage process without putting the emphasis on the cages and the shiny tube being inserted into the animal's gullet (the dehumanizing factor). another example: the Steak article does not show you a picture of rows of animals aligned inside large stables, or of animals being butchered (this one doesn't do the latter either, granted). Why is it so difficult to avoid having a controversial picture in this article?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"dehumanizing factor"??--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dehumanizing factor" as in trying to show that these are "inhumane conditions". I stand by what I said.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would we worry about dehumanizing a duck, who isn't human? But that's the only image we have, I believe. Are the others free? We should also be wary of applying Western standards to the use of any image, here, and be wary first and foremost of whether the image is accurate, as that is what we need to worry about most. rootology (C)(T) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, pray tell why do we call some groups who argue in favor of animal rights "Humane Societies" (e.g.: HSUS). I'd look into getting a free picture of a more traditional form of gavage, but I'm not sure about how to check if it is indeed free. Not sure either what you mean by "Western Standards" in this particular situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with you swapping the picture for one you like better if one is available and if most ducks actually get fed in this way rather than in cages. As for steak i'd argue that the cow is the raw material. The process of making a steak happens entirely after the cow has been killed. Not so here. Force feeding is part of the process of making the foie gras Theresa Knott | token threats 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes this current picture controversial? The issue of foie gras is controversial, as stated at the top of this discussion page. The picture doesn't do anything to change the nature of the controversy, it is about fact-giving. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyone ok with eating foie gras would be ok with seeing this picture. Sko1221 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I would be ok with swapping for another picture too. I did not know that the majority of farms use the method is those 2 pictures suggested above. Does anyone know where that data could be found?Sko1221 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an article specifically about the Foie gras controversy. Let's not make this one mostly about the controversy too. This article is about the food item.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and the very unique way ducks and geese are fed to make fois gras is a key part of the subject matter. The image illustrates one of the more common (the most common?) methods. It's not controversial in the context of this article, it's just a technical illustration of the process in which a bird is gorged to fatten their liver. rootology (C)(T) 21:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "it is about fact-giving". Well, it appears to be about the framing of a "fact" to support a particular point of view, that the process of creating foie gras is inhumane. I believe the earlier comparison made in regards to slaughtered cows and the article on steak is an apt one. I would also take offense at the "Anyone ok with eating foie gras would be ok with seeing this picture" sentiment, as it is a sentiment commonly expressed in anti-abortion rallies to justify the poser-board sized images of aborted fetuses. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If the food item is produced by the method of feeding, then the feeding method is an important part of the food. Sko1221 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at our steak article. You are right it doesn't contain any "nasty pictures" but interestingly going up one level to beef is worth a look at. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Side question for all involved: rootology wrote at 20:43 (UTC) 19 February 2009: "The technical description in the section is simple, plain, and cleanly written but as described can be hard to visualize". Do other editors feel this way? Basically, does the image add anything to the article that someone cannot visualize without the image? Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The size of the tube compared to the size of the duck, immediately comes to mind. Numbers do not convey the same info as an image does. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it actually puts a spin on the description, closely tying it to industrial production, whereas the fact is that a large percentage of the production is still traditional (I would suspect more so than that of most other food products, due to the care necessary to properly feed the geese without hurting them). Also, we definitely should not include a picture for its shock value. Theresa, the way you phrased your last intervention seems to convey exactly that.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No I agree we should not include images for shock value but for information value, and I would be very happy for someone to swap the picture for another one. Perhaps we should all go looking for other free images? Theresa Knott | token threats 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Foie_gras#Fattening describes the process. First para is a description of what birds are fed. The second para says:

The feed is administered using a funnel fitted with a long tube (20–30 cm long), which forces the feed into the animal's esophagus; if an auger is used, the feeding takes about 45 to 60 seconds. Modern systems usually use a tube fed by a pneumatic pump;[44] with such a system the operation time per duck takes about 2 to 3 seconds. During feeding, efforts are made to avoid damaging the bird's esophagus, which could cause injury or death.

Reading that, I'd ask, "A tube in the throat? Huh? Injecting food?" because for a casual reader without an actual pre-understanding of the process, it would make no sense. An image showing the tube in the bird's mouth just makes it crystal clear what is being described for the action here. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That begs the question: Even if we keep the image, shouldn't we edit the text to make it more clear, then? (Just trying to move this in a positive direction.) ;-) --Ali'i 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am having a difficult time trying to find a nicer image, but will keep looking. Sko1221 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerryzz/3015761305/sizes/l/? It's free, and is more in the traditional gavage style. --Ali'i 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Nevermind... "non-commercial" license. My bad. --Ali'i 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking too, unfortunately for us whilst animal rights organizations usually make their images free, also tend to display the most shocking ones. The kind of happy family farm type of images aren't free. But I'll keep looking :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Ha! http://www.flickr.com/photos/tyagermadden/2912929229/ Gavage image free for any use!! Perfect! --Ali'i 22:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Put it in!68.13.134.213 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Laughs! Actually I'm giving up for now. Whilst looking for nicer images I've come across a whole bunch that are a lot more shocking, and I've had enough. I'm off to bed. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Donald will see you in your dreams. >:) 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, that is the nicest picture (least shocking) of this feeding method i have ever come across. The more i search, the more i realize the problem might not be with the image, but with the idea that we could build complete story here without upsetting anyone. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Further problem, potentially: the source of the image that's currently in this article isn't free, strictly speaking (it requires mentioning source - which we don't do in the article). Can someone more familiar than me with Wiki free content policy take a look at the source and confirm whether it is indeed a free image within our framework? I can supplyt the translation of the copyright notice from French if necessary.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We allow CC by SA which requires attribution. Does the copyright notice state that the source has to be mentioned in the article itself? Theresa Knott | token threats 07:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The commons also has File:Gavage.jpg, plus he:קובץ:Pitum20.jpg. I've also kindly requested the flickr user that Ali'i found change the license so that it can be donated to the project. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any images that aren't from anti-foie gras advocacy groups? I really think that there's a valid WP:NPOV concern if we can't get an image from a less biased party. Advocacy groups will always present the most emotionally shocking images - they're trying to influence people after all. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Even looking at non-advocacy groups, I'm struggling to find an image that isn't (as I said above) simply a duck/goose with a tube being stuck down its throat. This one, mentioned above, at least removes the cage aspect - but the very nature of the operation means that it would be difficult to depict the process in any other way. The process of producing the product is relevant here, and I don't really see any other way of depicting it. One could argue that removing the image is a POV edit in itself, leaving lots of very nice images of food... Black Kite 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I personnally don't have problem with the tube; it is part and parcel of the process. I think the cage and the machine-like aspect of the tube in the particular image being used are what is influencing the depiction. Gavage is gavage. Gavage in crowded-looking battery cages conveys something else than just a depiction of gavage. I don't really know how else to properly define what I find objectionable about this image.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We should try to depict the most commonly used method worldwide, as has been stated. If it's mostly done by hand in the sunshine, great. But we should find the data for this.Sko1221 (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw this on WP:ANI and expected to see the disputed image at the top of the page. I don't think there's a problem with what the image shows and its location certainly doesn't emphasise it. To my sensitive eyes reading that a machine can throw all the food required into the bird in 2 or 3 seconds is much more shocking! Anyhow, it seems that the consensus is that the photo should stay unless a gentler one can be found, which seems like a very sensible way forward, so good luck finding it. There, my first bit of opinion on a content dispute, I hope you all enjoyed it, constructive criticism welcomed!! Bigger digger (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would leave the picture out of this article(I am a deletionist/minimalist if in doubt) but keep it in the contraversey article. Just me. Good luck. Tom 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we consider using an image of both types of feeding method, with data as to the prevalence of both? I have not been able to find this data.Thanks. Sko1221 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What, so now we'd have two pictures of gavage? I am still willing to assume good faith, but this might also pass for subtle trolling, given the spin of your interventions: two pictures of gavage, nutritional info (to demonstrate it's very highly caloric and mostly fat), what next???--Ramdrake (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaia has responded regarding copyrighted image presently in use. If someone could help with translation, here is the email: "Beste Sarah,

Je mag de foto van het gaveren gebruiken als je er de bron bij vermeldt, dit is: Stopgavage.

Met vriendelijke groeten, Sofie Volckaert GAIA "Sko1221 (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Translation: "Dear Sarah, You can use the photograph of talent gaveren if you mention the source, this are: Stopgavage. With pleasant groeten, Sofie Volckaert GAIA " Sko1221 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Which, to answer Theresa's question, means that they do insist on attribution in the article (which was clear in their link to their copyright policy as written in Ffrench). Does Wikipedia usually mention source right in the article when it uses a picture?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Good news everyone, the kind flickr user has agreed to relicense the image Ali'i found under a free license. It is available now at File:Foie gras - gavage in Rocamadour, France.jpg. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, a kinder gentler force feeding. Signed, sealed and delivered. Horrors! Now we'll have to think of a different totally pointless time-wasting activity :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to replace the image then? Is anyone opposed to me getting the keys out? (personally I think the best solution would be the one I suggested at the bottom of the talk page, but this is already a step forward) yandman 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that picture. It has the advantage of illustrating the process without making it controversial, as everyone seems to agree that the stated goal here is to illustrate the process as opposed to fueling the controversy. We could even add in the description that this is an image of the traditional gavage method.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to using this picture. Still it seems we should add info about the predominance of this method over the other. Where is the data? One last look could be taken at the possible POV that exists in the page with images. It still looks like an advertisement for Foie Gras. Why do we need so many shiny gourmet photos? It doesn't appear balanced to me, any thoughts on this? 68.13.134.213 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Also, the issue of the wine bottle image in still unanswered, why is this included in the article? Sko1221 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Errr... Because it's shiny gourmet food? As for the wine bottle, it's a very common combination, but I don't think we need that many images. yandman 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we have input on evening up the images, possibly removing any that might be superfluous?68.13.134.213 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the "foie gras on burger" pic deep-sixed for being a crime against humanity or at least good taste. "Foie gras in aspic" pic is not esthetically appealing and could likewise go.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. How are we supposed to counter accusations of systemic bias towards US-related subjects if we have that aberration? yandman 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I don't know if this is a joke, but we can get a tiny bit of perspective? A duck with a metal rod down it's mouth isn't a war crime for the Hague. rootology (C)(T) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We were talking about this one, which is far more offensive. yandman 18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the fois gras hot dog at Hot Doug's in Chicago. Fois gras on top, with fois gras relish, and duck meat sausage. The fries with it are also cooked in duck fat. rootology (C)(T) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How do they advertise themselves – "Give Your Heart a Real Workout"?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image update: how about this one instead?

File:Foie gras - gavage in Rocamadour, France.jpg - any objections? rootology (C)(T) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been reached above, so I have already replaced the controversial photo with this one in the article. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall we try unprotecting? :) rootology (C)(T) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly done so as there appears to be a reasonable concensus on this talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So my question about possible POV in terms of image usage on this page is going to be ignored? Just wondering. If you all agree that there is no POV going on here, ok. I still would rather see the images more evened out ~ like 1 per section. Looking at the page on Buddhism, for example, the images are very evenly distributed throughout the page. Not so here. Please address this before unlocking. Sko1221 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that our neutrality policy isn't violated by having multiple "food" images but only one "gavage" image. This article is about the food. This includes the various methods of preparation and the method of production. However, since there are about a zillion more ways to prepare the food than there is to produce the food, an imbalance of images isn't slanting the article as a whole. I have no problem with multiple gavage images in the controversy article. That's where the gavage images should probably outweigh the food images. Then again, I personally find eating foie gras pretty gross, so I'd be fine with no images in these articles at all. ;-) And obviously this is just my opinion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sko1221, that's a whole separate issue. Let's just focus on the gavage photo, thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also missing is the data for the types of feeding processes. For instance, the picture claims that this is the traditional feeding method. Should both methods be mentioned, with a statement such as "Traditional feeding methods are used 4 times as often as (non-traditional methods)" ~ and citing source for that info, obviously. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source for that, then that would be a good addition. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the responsibility for citing reference rest with whomever is making the statement in question? I cannot find the data, but realize that if i did, and if it came from an animal rights source, i would be laughed out of this discussion. So i leave it to you all. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you are the one who wants to make the statement! Theresa Knott | token threats 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i was referring to the statement already made underneath current image. Does that statement need source info? I was schooled in this by as earlier entry. My words underneath the picture were "Feeding Process" and even that caused controversy. I was told that every statement we include has to have data to back it up. It seems that my editing is being attacked a lot more energetically than others, which is why i ask that we consider a slight POV going on here. Whatever you all are comfortable with is going to be what stands for now because i am exhausted. Thanks to you all, it has been great working with you. Sarah Sko1221 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have finally found data on prevalence of traditional farming and factory farming of foie gras, the source from our article [6] says "In France, over 87% of ducks and geese used to produce foie gras are trapped in cages on huge factory farms, and force fed twice a day." ~ any thoughts on whether this info has a place here, and how to include it?Sarah Katherine 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those statistics should be included, but that source isn't terribly reliable since it's an advocacy web site. You could note that it needs a better source with a fact tag. Try this one: [7] which doesn't cite that particular figure but is a reliable source. Bob98133 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Try this: [8] p.55, section 6.5. It says about 80% of ducks are raised in cages, and that geese and the remaining 20% of ducks are instead held in enclosures. However if this goes anywhere, it should be in the Foie gras controversy article. Also, the authors of the report note that the problem isn't specific to foie gras production, but is a general problem of industrial animal rearing. Read there that this aspect of foie gras production is no more or no less cruel than the rest of industrialized animal farming.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The addition of statistics wasn't about something being good or bad, but rather, since we mention the "traditional" farming method here (under the picture), it seems like the reader will subconsciously (if they are like me) think, so, what about non-traditional/other types of farming methods? Mentioning one type automatically brings up the fact that there are multiple types, and they should be noted here, with the data on prevalence.Sarah Katherine 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The proportion of animals raised in cages vs enclosures isn't relevant because it doesn't change the nature of foie gras. This might, however, be appropriate in the Foie gras controversy or the Battery cage articles. This article shouldn't be used to further the controversy; it's there to explain waht foie gras is. The method used for raising the animal doesn't change that.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is Howcheng when we need him?Sarah Katherine 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Great picture-- I can't see the duck, just an amiable French farmer. 208.68.128.53 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Price

Need information regarding pricing/cost of this food. Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pricing of this food will vary tremendously from country to country, season to season, etc. We could not possibly list all the possibilities.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As with any other article or subject we cover at Wikipedia, we generally try to do our best. Badagnani (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Prices added under "consumption" section. Does pricing need it's own separate section? Sko1221 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Prices cited are 6 years old... need more research here. Sko1221 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Production Methods query

The article states that force-feeding the birds causes them to consume "more" than they would in the wild and "much more" than if they were domestice birds. So a wild bird eats more than a domestic bird? Because it has more flying and foraging to do? There's a bit of my head that queries if a domestic bird with unfettered access to food wouldn't eat more than a wild bird, is there someone who can point me to a source to salve my query?! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through the refs but it is in the article. Search the text for carrots and you'll find a ref or three. Both wild and domesticated they will gorge themselves. Domesticated and allowed to free graze on carrots they will gorge themselves until they can't walk or fly. In the wild they'll eat several whole fish stored in their gullet. Carrots won't produce a foie gras because of the lack of protein but the fowl will happily eat it until they fall down. SchmuckyTheCat (talk

Refs for this statement needed. Data rather than "more" and "much more" suggested.Sko1221 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced materialSko1221 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you leeave editors appropriate time to research and respond to your requests for citation? Removing a section for lack of reference merely 90 minutes after requesting a ref leaves something to be desired.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is a propagandist running the show here?

As any perusal of the archives will show, this article (and the accompanying controversy article) are periodic battlegrounds. It is almost always stirred up by animal rights propagandists who have no interest in Wikipedia's policies, particularly NPOV - except to extoll relentlessly that our articles aren't NPOV because we haven't included their favorite shock image and their choice of language. The propagandists almost always either 1) get blocked for edit warring, or 2) get bored and leave. In the meantime well-meaning editors get kicked by "non-involved" admins who show up, don't see the conflict for what it is (a shitstorm because of warring propagandists) and start handing out blocks or warnings for trying to keep things neutral.

We get drive-by POV edits here quite often, but most often they are simply removed and the person had no interest in Wikipedia to begin with. Ramdrake and Borgqueen have been essential in spotting that kind of thing. Sometimes someone sticks around and edit wars, which is what we have now. These shitstorms need to be stopped. Anybody who doesn't think that animal rights organizations aren't tacitly encouraging this crap, turning Wikipedia in to a battleground to soapbox their own interests is deluded. They are willing to stand out in the cold, night after night, protesting outside restaurants - stirring up trouble on Wikipedia from the comfort of a laptop and a couch is just a relaxing way to further the cause.

These people do not care about Wikipedia. They know what they are doing when they come here. Sure, we assume good faith, but they should be shown the door the minute the minute they make it obvious that isn't true. Now we have a whole bunch of people here arguing. The AR propagandist has something like 6RR over several IPs and one username and yet they are still here focusing the discussing towards their goal. Good for them, they win, because we're too nice and no admin stopped them in their tracks.

The reason this article, neutrally, does not include a picture of gavage is because it is impossible to present it in a picture. It is human nature to anthromorphize our experience into an animal and no picture of gavage can counter that anthromorphization. It takes paragraphs of text to explain that these fowl have hardened throats, so a tube stuck in it is not uncomfortable; that they naturally gorge themselves in one meal stretching their gullets and throat to contain large amounts of food, so a food pump isn't uncomfortable; and that they instinctively fatten themselves up given the right food sources and the fatty liver is a natural part of their migratory cycle.

The picture does exist on the controversy page, because that is where the POVs come out. The propandists, dutiful soldiers backed and prodded by well-funded organizations with congratulatory praise from their forums, won't be happy until this main page, which is not about the controversy, has their stamp of approval. They have a zeal that cannot be matched by our volunteers.

So good call everybody. An edit warring zealot came to play. Instead of being blocked for edit warring y'all gave them a soapbox. The edit warring trigged protection of the article with their image up. Their timing was perfect to destabilize the article before it could be re-nominated to GA status. They win. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You are making a classic and perfectly understandable mistake here that often happens when people get into edit wars. You are judging the issue by who started it rather than what they started. For you it's important that the animal rights activists must not "win", because that means you "lose". I know how you feel because I have done it myself but that doesn't mean it's right. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he's right on the money. However, he's being vague about who the various socks are. He needs to spell that out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if socks are identified, and even if they get blocked, I'd still argue for inclusion of the picture. What would you do about that? Because I am definitely not one. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I was not too sure what the right thing to do would be here. On the one hand, I don't find it illogical to explain the fattening process, but then again we don't have pictures of cows being killed on Steak: they're at Animal Slaughter. We don't see them being milked at Cheese, that's at Milking; We don't see piggies being cut open at Bacon etc.. I think this image would be better suited being included in Gavage (Oh, look. It is!). yandman 08:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bacon is made form pigs after they are killed, likewise cheese is made from cows after they have been milked. Foie gras is made before the animal is slaughtered. I would argue that this makes this article somewhat unique in that respect. After all we already had the "fattening" title in the article. All we are arguing for is a picture to illustrate a section that already existed. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree yandman, the picture adds nothing. Verbal chat 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) That's a good point. I can't think of any other uses for gavage. Schmucky and Bugs, I can understand your reluctance, as images of this kind have invariably been pushed by zealots (on en.wikipedia and other languages), but then again, it is an image of one of the central concepts behind foie gras. However, I think a good illustration would be far better (showing exactly how the food enters the stomach etc...). The current image focuses far more on the cages/bits of food everywhere than on the actual process, and it doesn't really explain very well. You know, the kind of illustrations we have for some of the sexual articles (for similar reasons: maximum information, minimum emotion). yandman 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very happy with that. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that a diagram would be useful. In the absence of one, though, I'd still say that an image of some sort needs to be in the article, if only to counter the argument - which is actually made by Schmucky above - that a number users are seeking to keep certain views out of the article. Sometimes people are blind to the fact that when they seek to keep certain (what they consider extreme) POVs out of an article, they are skewing the article to an opposite POV instead. Black Kite 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now all we have to do is find one (or failing that a good illustrator). Schmucky, Bugs, Verbal, do you think this would be an acceptable solution? yandman 09:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the contributors to this article, and I think that is an excellent idea. It would be better if we could have an illustration for liver size comparison (bloated one versus normal) as well. We had an image on the topic but it got deleted for copyright reasons. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You guys want my 9 year old to whip something up with her crayons, I am sure she'll love the subject matter when I explain it to her :) --Tom 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No I think we need an adult artist with a working knowledge of bird anatomy. Plus crayons tend not to scan well as they are kinda shiny. Actually what on earth is a nine year old doing still using crayons? Buy the child some pencils! Theresa Knott | token threats 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I am 43 and I STILL use them :) Anyways, looks like alls well that ends well :) --Tom 17:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, fyi, it is about who, and the comparison to yourself for arg:uing for inclusion of a demonstrative picture is not comparable to a new user making these first edits straight from an activist pamphlet. It isn't about me winning, it's about Wikipedia's core policies vs agenda driven activists.

In any case, I'm glad the discussion migrated towards finding an adequate illustration. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I am fully aware that the picture was added by a POV warrior. I think you are completely wrong about our zeal not matching theirs though. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a diagram

Although I can find plenty of pictures of geese and ducks, pictures of their internal anatomy aren't that easy to come by :-( Can anyone help out? Theresa Knott | token threats 11:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Accompaniments - necessary?

Apart from not citing any references, I find this section relatively pointless and think it should be removed. Whether someone eats foie gras and jelly sandwiches or not says nothing about the topic. Unless these dishes were somehow integral to the use or production of foie gras, I think the section should be dumped. Bob98133 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree.Sko1221 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You think that how a food item is commonly served has nothing to do with how it is used? I don't follow that logic. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I could state a few reasons taken from the argument in the images section... 1)If there are no references cited, according to Schmucky, that is reason enough. 2)I think the argument to remove this section is the same as the argument that a picture of each the 2 methods of feeding is overkill and POV. Removal or moving this section is one way we could make this page appear a little more balanced. Earlier, i suggested that a new page be created specifically for Prepared Foie Gras ~ which would go far to help end this battle of the POVs, and it could be a good place for the Accompaniments section. Sko1221 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Find references 2) There is nothing POV about having an accompaniments section and removing it would not alter the tone of the article either way.

Having said that Bob98133 makes a reasonable point in that how it is eaten is kind of irrelevant. There are as many ways of serving it as there are chefs in the world and listing them all would be silly. There is a certain snobbishness about the section and although I am neutral about whether it should stay or go I do think it needs to be trimmed down to only include well sourced statements. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the wine section as it was silly. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the milk article does NOT mention cookies, or cereal or use in coffee. Certainly these are major items that milk is served with but it would be nonsense to have them in the milk article because they aren't relevant to the subject. The same is true for the Accompaniment section in this article, I think. Even the cheese article doesn't mention crackers or wine (as an accompaniment). Thanks Theresa knott for removing the wine mentions. Bob98133 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate Page for Prepared Foie Gras?

Suggestion ~ Consider a separate page for the Prepared Foie Gras? The same way that Meat, Steak, Slaughter have 3 separate pages, it seems that Foie Gras, Controversy, and (whatever we would call the equivalent of Steak/ "Prepared Foie Gras"?) deserve separate pages. Sarah.Sko1221 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally we do that when the article gets too long. I don't think we are at that stage yet, and worry that another page would be another one for animal rights activists to try and influence :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 08:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Consumption Section

This 2 paragraph section seems a bit lacking in references, making it read like a high school essay more than an Encyclopedia, just my opinion.Sko1221 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Try adding some references then. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to practise what I preach I have added a couple. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Wondering why this sentence is under "controversy" ... Celebrity Chef Anthony Bourdain and Chef/Writer Michael Ruhlman have both come down in favor of Foie Gras and pointed out that properly raised ducks for the production of foie gras are treated very humanely, and that the footage seen in the videos of critics is cruel but that no reputable chef would buy such product[61]. Suggest replacing this with something more fitting. See [9]Sko1221 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be completely POV, to replace the opinion and statement of one of the most notable chefs in the entire country with the opposing opinion and statement of another of the nation's most notable chefs (and arguably, Bourdain is more notable than Puck). rootology (C)(T) 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it not POV as it stands, using pro-foie gras chefs under "controversy"? Is there a problem with adding Puck to even out the POV here? Why not include both?Sko1221 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Puck, made new paragraph for chefs. Sko1221 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

These 2 statements need refs. Second statement reads an opinion:

"A far greater number of ducks are force fed for the last 3 weeks of their lives for the Peking Duck dish. The more intense opposition to Foie Gras may be connected to its sybaritic associations."Sko1221 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved this section on chefs to the controversy article. The controversy section is summary style. There shouldn't be information there that is not in the controversy article, and minor mentions (both of the chef statements are minor) from the controversy article don't belong here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Two chefs who were in favor of foie gras were cited in "Controversy" section. The addition of one chef opposed to foie gras brought about the removal of the entire subject regarding chefs. Interesting. Sko1221 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If somebody had brought it up before it would have been moved before. Summarizing is a common Wikipedia practice. If you see other information mark it like {{sync|Foie gras controversy}} and somebody will do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It was brought up, see the first sentence in this topic.Sko1221 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

People need time to respond, We are not all on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's try harder to avoid personal attacks, it's getting old fast.Sko1221 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we get another Administrator to take a look?

This seems to be so controversial, that it might be good to have one more person come in and look at the entire history. I know no one would really want to do that, and i'm sorry to even request it. But it seems that there is a game going on here and i maintain that i am not here to play. I am here to help make things more factual on this and the foie gras controversy page. You may have had horrible experiences in the past with animal rights people, or people you assumed to be, but it's a mistake to paint everyone with the same brush... The truth is, my first 2 edits were ridiculous, and yes, they do show that i am not a fan of the production of foie gras. But, i am not an animal rights activist. I am just enough of a right's activist in general that i was moved to join Wikipedia editing when i saw this page on February 17th. I was shocked to see what looked very slanted toward foie gras. Trying to make that different has caused such a storm that i think we need one more person to look at this to help make sure we are playing fair and not playing games. I hope this process doesn't last too long... Sarah Katherine (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The best places to ask for a second (or third) opinion would be WP:NPOVN, WP:RfC or maybe WP:3O, although I recommend you choose just one venue.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, what exactly is disturbing you in the article? I'm not sure in which way this article could be said to be slanted towards foie gras, but we're willing to discuss the issue. yandman 08:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty NPOV now, especially given the existence of the controversy article as well. The only improvements I'd suggest now would be to get rid of the unsourced and unneccesary "Accompaniments" section. I'm unsure that we need five images of the product in various recipes as well. Black Kite 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can find some sources for that (I'll get out Le Guide Culinaire this weekend). I don't consider it particularly unneccesary, because foie gras is pretty much a dish (more so than "just" an ingredient, I'd say). Kind of like talking about wasabi, soy sauce and sliced ginger on the sushi page. Do you see what I mean? yandman 18:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am most disturbed by the removal a few days ago of the paragraph in "Controversy" which mentioned Amloid cells. Studying the works of Dr. Soloman, it seems to be something people might want to know. He concludes that under the stress from the feeding process, these birds develope Amloid cells, wrinkled cells which create a condition he equates to bird flu. He says that anyone who may be susceptible to Diabletes type 2, Alzheimer's or rh. arthritus, should stay away from foie gras. I have asked the doctor to help with this section of the article or to at least see what we have and give his opinion. If you like, take a look by searching "foie gras, Alzheimer's or cells" Sarah Katherine (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the edit where I did that, you will see that at that point, the same study by doctor Solomon was discussed in two places: once in the "Nutrition" section, and another long, two-paragraph part in the "Controversy" section. Upon reading it, I found out that even the two paragraphs in "Controversy" were duplicating the same info (the same study was discussed twice in a row). All I did was to summarize the issue of this one paper into a single paragraph in the "Controversy" section. Devoting any more space to a single study would have been a violation of WP:UNDUE. Not sure what you find disturbing there.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the "Nutrition" section... help? Anyway, can i share the science i was looking at.... [[10]] "Amyloidosis is a disease process involving the deposit of normal or mutated proteins that have become misfolded. In this unstable state, such proteins form hair-like fibers, or fibrils, that are deposited into vital organs like the heart, kidneys, liver, pancreas and brain. This process leads to organ failure and, eventually, death. There are many types of amyloid-related diseases in addition to rheumatoid arthritis, such as Alzheimer's disease, adult-onset (type-2) diabetes and an illness related to multiple myeloma called primary or AL amyloidosis, an illness that has been a particular focus of study in the Solomon laboratory.

Foie gras is a culinary delicacy derived from massively enlarged fatty livers of ducks and geese. It is produced by gorging the fowl over several weeks. Solomon and his research team analyzed commercially sold foie gras from the U.S. and France and found that it contained a type of amyloid called AA. Amyloid deposits are commonly found in waterfowl, but this condition is noticeably increased in force-fed birds. In their study, mice prone to develop AA amyloidosis were injected or fed amyloid extracted from foie gras. Within eight weeks, a majority of the animals developed extensive amyloid deposits in the liver, spleen, intestine and other organs.

Based on the findings of the study, Solomon and his team concluded that this and perhaps other forms of amyloidosis might be transmissible, like "mad cow" and other related diseases. Until now, no other infectious sources of food products have been found. "It is not known if there is an increase of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes or other amyloid-related disease in people who have eaten foie gras," cautioned Solomon. "Our study looked at the existence of amyloid fibrils in foie gras and showed that it could accelerate the development of AA amyloidosis in susceptible mice. Perhaps people with a family history of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other amyloid-associated diseases should avoid consuming foie gras and other foods that may be contaminated with fibrils."

It's that last sentence that seems imperitive to add to this article, not to make foie gras look bad, but to protect those little old ladies who might think that they can believe everything they see on the "interweb". It's information that if held back or hidden, could be a bit irresponsible on our part, it seems to me. I've requested Doctor Soloman have a look at our assessment and perhaps give his response, so that we are up to date and accurate.

Also, i couldn't find the proof for what we have now, that one must consume excessive and prolonged amounts of foie gras, and that the findings of Soloman and Greger are under dispute. Can anyone point me to those pages? If it is a long PDF, please state the page number. Sarah Katherine 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 (talk • contribs)

There are some misunderstandings and downright wrong statements in what you say. The experiment was carried out with mice known' to have a genetic predisposition for accumulating amyloid fibers. In fact, these mice all develop amyloid disease and normally die within 8 months (compared to 2-3 years for normal mice). So far in humans, such a genetic trait has not yet been found, although it is suspected (the PSEN1 gene is a candidate for late-onset Alzheimer's). Second, the mice were injected a high dose of amyloid fibrils (100 μg). This corresponds to a rather huge consumption of foie gras for a human. Third, the effect of the extract was greatly reduced by cooking the foie gras in question (I haven't heard of people eating raw foie gras yet). Fourth, the authors themselves suggested a possible link between a food with high concentration of amyloid fibers and the acceleration of some diseases such as AD. Fifth, the authors do specify that in addition to foie gras, meat from sheep and also from healthy cattle (that includes beef, among others) also contains amyloid fibers. Lastly the statement Until now, no other infectious sources of food products have been found is just untrue: meat infected with BSD is found every year now, and outbreaks of salmonella and other food-transmitted disease are so common that they don't even make the news most of the timje, unless many, many people are infected. I guess here the issue is to avoid jumping to conclusions. I'll be looking for a specific ref relating to the disputed conclusions next.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm definately no scientist... and still can't find the Nutrition section. help...Sarah Katherine 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 (talk • contribs) oh, i see now, sorry.. you moved the Nutrition section Sarah Katherine 00:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The nutrition section was removed here and the nutritional info was at thaat point placed in the template at the top. As for the blurb about AA, it was summarized in the controversy section.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AA might deserve more than a blurb.Sarah Katherine 20:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 (talk • contribs)

Why would a single paper and another science comment warrant more than a short paragraph in this article? This sounds like a violation of WP:UNDUE.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me try and be more clear, I am wondering why the following paragraph was suddenly removed.Sarah Katherine 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• In June 2007, research uncovered a possible link between foie gras and Amyloidosis-related disorders (including Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, type II diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis).[55] Transgenic mice with predisposition to amyloidosis were either fed or injected with amyloid protein extracted from commercial foie gras. Animals in both groups displayed "extensive systemic pathological (amyloid) deposits". After cooking the foie gras per manufacturer specification, mice injected with its extracted amyloid showed reduced but still noticeable effect. The authors conclude that exposure to serum amyloid A in foie gras is the likely cause, and suggest it could be a contributing factor of certain diseases in a susceptible population.

Please compare with the following sentence: A recent study has speculated that excessive consistent foie gras consumption "may be linked to the onset of diseases including Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.".[68][69] The exact experiment isn't important to the article; the speculations that the authors make based on the experiment is what's important (that consumption of rather large amounts of raw foie gras sped up amyloid fiber production in already genetically defective mice). Why would we need to say the same thing twice, or to add details which aren't relevant to the article?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet, the paragraph was there and its sudden removal looks like spin-doctoring to me. I don't believe that he who cries "POV" the loudest is the one who is most innocent of it. But i am no scientist, like i said... Sarah Katherine 00:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've treied explaining to you twice why it was removed. If that explanation still isn't satisfactory to you, you may want to ask other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the person who added the the bit that got removed. When I added it I did not notice that the info was already in the article at another place. As a general rule we don't duplicate info twice in the same article because, well why would we? Whst would be the point of that? I am perfectly happy with the removal, and you will note that if you look through the history that not only did I not revert, I edited the other sentence myself.The removal was not "sudden" any more than my adding it shortly beforehand was sudden, and the reason for the removal was stated in the edit summary. It has nothing to do with POV it has everything to do with good article writing. To be honest Sarah if you can't see this then you must be letting your own POV influence you here because there seriously was nothing wrong here. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The science part seems like it could use some work. As for my POV, you could be right, it could be a very common thing to be blind to our own motives.Sarah Katherine 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

steak and pasta exotic?

I don't think so. Exotic has a larger meaning than unusual. Besides, what's unusual about steak or pasta? Sorry, exotic has a specific meaning and it doesn't fit here. Bob98133 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly "exotic" here means unusual accompaniments. Although I had heard of foie gras with steak, I hadn't heard of it with pasta or sushi...--Ramdrake (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we can't figure out exactly what it might mean should be reason enough for changing or removing it. Exotic, as it is used in the article, is POV, somehow indicating that the inclusion of foie gras makes the meal or food exotic. Otherwise, I don't think that exotic really fits steak or pasta. Bob98133 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It might, in India. For a thoroughly wretched combination, how about if it's served with tofu? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it isn't very clear what it means. What concerns me more, however, is that "exotic" is somewhat peacock-ish. (Must... try... not... to... think about force-feeding peacocks). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest an expression like "in unusual combinations" since I believe this is primarily what the word "exotic" tries to convey here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Accompaniments

Other food articles do not have a section of what is eaten with the product. If this information was somehow integral to the subject, I would have no problem with it, but the info is unreferenced and pointless. Foie gras can be eaten with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. It's ridiculous to have an entirely unrefenced section that has little to do with the subject. I suggest that this section be deleted; or increased to include everything that could possibly be eaten, drunk, smoked or injecteed while eating foie gras, since those would certainly be as pointless as the existing text. Bob98133 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With the exceptions of cornichons and truffles, none of the other Wiki article about the alleged foie gras accompaniments make any mention of how they are used with foie gras. If this info was vital, you would think it would appear in each of thge food articles mentioned in the section. Bob98133 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You can mention that bread goes well with butter in the Butter article say, but nothing forces you to say it also in the Bread article. That one food item goes well with another doesn't necessarily imply that the first item is what is usually found with the second.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While I will agree that we need citations, the I still don't understand why you object so strongly to including information about how the food item is commonly served (nobody is suggesting that we include all possible presentations, as you seem to be implying, just the most common ones). For example, there are many, many sources that indicate that serving foie gras on toast (or some sort of toast analogue) is a common/traditional presentation. Here's one. [11]. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Once you have a citation, I don't object. Without citations, it just seems really random. It would be good if the other items were also referenced. Ramdrake - agree with your point, too. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What is foie gras?

An entire foie gras (partly prepared for a terrine).

Is it a dish? Meaning, foie gras should be thought of and presented as one or more of its prepared forms [[12]]? Or, is it "fattened liver", the raw material for a variety of dishes?

From what i know, when we say foie gras, we should not be referring to a prepared dish that is made from foie gras on this page. We should be clear about the distinction, if we can agree on what that might be. One way this page might help to clear things up for the public, would be to put the picture of foie gras at the top instead of having prepared foie gras at the top. There is a great misunderstanding that i have seen when asking folks if they know what foie gras is. They usually reflect what was said in another section on this page: because foie gras is pretty much a dish (more so than "just" an ingredient, I'd say). Kind of like talking about wasabi, soy sauce and sliced ginger on the sushi page.

Can anyone clear help clear this up? Are we continuing to mislead the public, or is "foie gras" generally accepted as a term for a prepared food?Sarah Katherine (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree; foie gras can be prepared a number of ways. I don't see how presenting a picture of a prepared dish of foie gras would be inappropriate. However, all your interventions so far come across as wanting to remove anything that might present foie gras in any kind of positive light. My point is, foie gras is a food, not just a huge controversy. You say you don't have an AR agenda but your interventions come across precisely as pushing a strong AR agenda indeed.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My question is directed to the group, to see if we can collectively come up with an answer and to see if we together think that whichever picture best represents the topic be pretty much the first thing we see, which is what one expects when looking at an unbiased encyclopedic page. Suggest you try opening a new subject entitled something like "Perceived motives of the editors of this page". I would be happy to add my two cents there. Sarah Katherine (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article begins with "Foie gras is a food product..." so it is talking about the food, not the liver of a goose or duck, but a food made from it. There is plenty of controversy about how the product is made, but that can stay in its own article and in the controversy section of this article. Moving the controversy to the opening photo image would just be a distraction in this article. I'm OK with whatever picture folks think represents foie gras, the food. Bob98133 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of which photo is used, this item makes lutefisk look appetizing by comparison. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with Bob98133 and Ramdrake,(although I am suspicious of Sko1221's motives I don't think that should sway the argument). I don't see how the picture of a whole foie gras presents it in a negative light, and I don't think there is anything controversial about that picture. Compare the article on beef and bacon for example, the lead pictures show what the food is without any particular presentation. OTOH Chicken (food) shows a prepared and cooked chicken presented with rosemary, so it would seem that both acceptable. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm it seems the lead currently has two photos in it. Why not have a prepared one and the whole liver instead of two prepared photos? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• If the foie gras picture was moved, in its place could be a diagram or better yet, photo of the 2 livers (as requested by BorgQueen earlier) sitting side by side. It is so telling, one barely needs to read the paragraph. The picture i saw was here [[13]] Yes, this is a really ugly picture, but you see what i mean. And if we could find a cleaner, more clinical perhaps, image it might be nice to have, as others have said.Sarah Katherine 07:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 (talk • contribs)
  • It's an animal's organ, so of course it looks ugly - both the "normal" liver and the "diseased" liver. The propaganda makes for some fun reading, though. It can't be too "diseased" if you can eat it and not die from it. Have you ever seen normal calves' liver or chicken liver? That's fairly repulsive-looking also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The Lutefisk article is pretty good. Maybe that could be a model for this one. They refer to Lutefisk as simply a "dish". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If one wants to put two header pictures, one of a whole foie gras (such as the one prepared for terrine) and one of a prepared dish, I wouldn't object. I would, however, strongly object to the picture showing side by side the so-called "normal" and "diseased foie gras" livers. Again, this article is about presenting the food, not furthering the controversy.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. What next, a picture of battery chicken next to a free-range one on Fried chicken? yandman 15:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The place for the comparison photo of the two livers, assuming it's legitimate (and given the propagandistic text, I wouldn't count on it), would be on the controversy page. They've already weaseled some of the controversy stuff into the main page, so watch for that kind of attempt to continue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

nutrition

Do we really need the nutrition percentages? In a global encyclopedia, it seems a bit strange to have a US figure, especially as it's hardly an american food. In addition, the numbers are for "pâté de foie gras", which, according to french legislation, can contain only 60% (I think) foie gras. yandman 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't account for all the other foie gras preparations. For example, freshly cooked foie gras would certainly contain less sodium (much of it is added during the conservation process). As such, it's not really representative of all types of preparation.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its presence seems to be a further attempt at propaganda. I don't see anything like that on the Lutefisk page, and Lutefisk is pretty salty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind it, it's not a bad template if it can be globalized and put on a lot more food items. It should not be the first thing in the right intro space. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree that the US figures could be misleading, but I think that a line or two about the nutritional content of foie gras would not be out of place. Perhaps a reference exists for foie gras itself, not in a prepared product. Since there are questions about the nutritional aspects of foie gras, particularly the fat content which is mentioned and is part of the name, I think that it should be mentioned. I don't see that neutral, scientific, referenced nutritional information would be propaganda unless it came from a biased source. Bob98133 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Prose would be far better than a box that makes the article look like a packet of cornflakes. yandman 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that template is rather common. Just look at the Bread article.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a slight propaganda element because some activists use the tact: "look how bad this is for you" using unrealistic serving sizes. Indeed, the current infobox is for an amount that nobody would eat. That amount is equivalent to eating an entire grocery cube of butter, or squirting half a bottle of salad dressing right in your mouth. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Unfortunately, the infobox is hardcoded for servings of 100 grams.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yuck! It would certainly seem like propoganda quoting such an unrealistic figure. I thought the nutritional info on food labels was for a "typical" serving size. If the infobox is coded for 100g, then the nutritional info is better in the text with some indication of what a realistic serving size might be. I don't think that stating the content of foods is propoganda, per se. Butter or olive oil are 100% fat and most salad dressings come close to that; tofu and avocados aren't far behind, but just indicating the fat or calorie content or other nutritional info, as long as it is not out of context, is still NPOV, IMHO. Kind of like having the cholesterol content in the egg (food) article. Bob98133 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No in the UK at least 100g is standard, although many labels also include a typical serving info as well. However what is a typical serving and who gets to say what it is? 100g is not a large serving for meat generally, I think the serving size is more related to the cost rather than what people might naturally want to eat. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is particularly relevant, but foie gras isn't like a steak. Portions are generally much smaller than you would get with other meat. Regardless, my main problem here is that the nutritional information is for pate, not fois gras. That's just one preparation of foie and I don't know why we'd give it preferential treatment over others. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Excessive and consistant" claim unsourced

I've removed the claim for "excessive and consistant" regarding foie gras consumption and disease in the controversy section as I have not been able to find that sentence in any of the studies cited, nor anywhere else (other than this Wikipedia page) after a good deal of research. It is imperitive that this claim be sourced before it finds it's way back into the article, no? If i've missed it, my apologies. Please share where exactly that line is to be found. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it looks like someone has re-added 2 unfounded and unsourced statements without discussion: 1)"excessive and consistant" and 2) the research is disputed.

Where is the proof for these 2 statements? 68.13.134.213 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The statements made here need to be proven, they are completely made up according to the sources cited here. Maybe we need to cite different sources that support the 2 claims you are trying to make: [[14]]

Until then, we should stick with statements that reflect what the sources are saying. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New Authoritative Source Available

Chicago Tribune reporter Mark Caro has written a highly informative book called "Foie Gras Wars" that was released in March 2009. It is fair and balanced and discusses ALL the issues of concern with interviews and first-hand accounts of gavage done well and gavage done poorly, interviews with producers and animal rights experts, as well as feedback from Temple Grandin on the question of suffering. I have just finished reading it and I shall add comments shortly. Quedude (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Foie Gras Controversy is the place for this discussion. 68.13.134.213 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi there, as you can see by the above discussion, a lot of people spent a lot of time and trouble to decide which images worked and which did not. There were some decisions by the admin team which have been reverted. Please discuss. sko122168.13.134.213 (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted image changes to reflect group decision, thanks. sko122168.13.134.213 (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This all happened during this edit This appears to be a major change to the article with a misleading edit summary.I'm thinkjing we should probably simply revert back to before that edit then carry on from there. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I have done this, and think I have corrected any changes made in the interim (my apologies if I missed one). The paragraph about PETA was added and removed multiple times, I have left it out as it should IMO go in the controversy article. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Theresa - your edits seem more sweeping than just correcting vandalism. I think that they should have been discussed prior to making the changes. I'll review when I have a chance. Since this article is controversial, discussion prior to major rewrite would be appropriate. Bob98133 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits are not sweeping at all, and were not correcting vandalism. What happened was another editor accidental reverted to a much earlier version of the page whilst trying to remove a link that he felt shouldn't be there. No one noticed (quite surprising) and so instead of reverting when it happened simply started editing the old version of the article. All I have done is revert to back before it happen and then try to restore subsiquent edits. See my talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone reverted to an old-old version, eh? You might say the article got "goosed". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Groan - a poor effort. Must try harder. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee jokes. I do not guarantee good jokes. Honk. :) [See next section, for example.] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Accompaniment?

The lead states: "served as an accompaniment to another food item, such as toast or..." Surely, the toast is the "accompaniment" to the foie gras, not the other way around. One does not think "God! I would love a slice of toast, I had better pop out and buy a foie gras." Giano (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you spread something on toast, it would be an accompaniment, be it Smucker's strawberry jam, or overstuffed goose liver. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The President is always accompanied by a nondescript secret service agent. A nondescript secret service agent is never accompanied by the President. Giano (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Either cuisine doesn't work the same way as politics, or you just compared the President to an overstuffed goose in a roundabout way... :) --Ramdrake (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In the last election, it was the lame-duck President who was toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• To put it bluntly, subtlety is obviously wasted here, to denigrate one of the world's finest foods to "an accompaniment to toast" is to rather mislead the reader and show a marked ignorance and lack of comprehension to the culture and ethos of the dish. I see there is, rightly, a section "Accompaniments" to the foie gras. So it seems the accompaniment has accompaniments. Goodness me, has a humble slice of toast ever been so elevated? Giano (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not that subtlety is wasted, everyone understands your point, but doesn't necessarily agree with it. You are making a value judgement about foie gras. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think most people, Ms Knott, are able to work out that foie gras is a little more valued than a slice of toast. In France, and amongst most people of discerning taste, it is treated as something sublime, almost venerated. It is not something akin to a double cheeseburger and chips. Regarding making a value judgement, you really should pop into Fortnum's sometime, you would be astounded at the difference in value and appreciation between a loaf of stale toasting bread (or even a pack of Fortnum's own luxury melba toast) and a foie gras. Never mind, you keep the page, how you like it. I'll just eat the stuff, quite my favourite food. Giano (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? It is clearly an abuse of language to say that foie gras is an "accompaniment to toast", and it's an abuse of foie gras to put it on "toast". What a waste of a tortured goose - they say in France that you can taste the suffering, so to put it on "toast" as an "accompaniment" is to add insult to injury! Simple solution, remove the "such as toast". Verbal chat 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, it takes effort to harm a goose so thoroughly as to make the stuff. Given the amount of labor involved in the stuff, vs. toast, it would be more valuable. Then there is the relative scarcity. Toast is common at any showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show, but Fwaw Gwaw can only be found where rich people try to compete for ostentatious display of bad flavor and ill taste. So, with low supply, high labor, it's far more valuable than toast and therefore needs no value judgment but rather an assessment of value. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• You are such a wimpy lot, you'll be criticising my second favourite dish next. Giano (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• two down four to go. [15] Theresa Knott | token threats 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What a load of old bolox that site is, probably hosted by biased vegetarians (people with pale faces and colds). The foie gras geese are not particularly unhappy, no animal is unhappy that is well fed, and ortalans are not blinded. As for the live sushi, get real - it is not greatly different to a kosher slaughter house, where an animal is bled to death. Do people imagine that on fishing boats, each fish is humanely put to sleep? We shall have the poor veal calves next, but even the veggies want milk, but no one has come up with an idea of what to do with the bull (and surpluss heifer) calves. Fact of life, humans need food, animals are bred to provide it. End of story. Giano (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's well to keep in mind that that site is satirical. It's also well to keep in mind that your comments might be equally satirical. :) As far as being "humanely" killed, I'm reminded of Terry Jones explaining the source of the candy called "crunchy frog" and how each frog was bathed in spring water and then "lightly killed" before being wrapped in chocolate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's bollocks. It's cracked.com! Nothing on that sight is meant to be taken seriously. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not just sadistic. Truth to tell, that lump of foie gras picture in the article looks wretched. Even thinking about eating it makes me nauseous. And this is coming from someone who likes escargot and lutefisk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• A foie gras burger is decadent and delicious, and several other alliterations. As for the other dish you mention, you should only eat one - and hide your shame from God ;) Verbal chat 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Forget the toast. Foie gras and lefse? Now we're talkin'. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Migration of Pekin/Muscovy ducks

Ramdrake - I agree that the section you removed [Mulard ducks do not exhibit pre-migratory gorging instincts because neither the Pekin nor the Muscovy are migratory birds.] was not properly referenced. However the refs did support that these two species are non-migratory. Whether or not they exhibit pre-migratory gorging seems to be OR. If it is true that these species do not normally gorge, then that would be significant for the article. I'd rather see a ref, if one exists, than the copy entirely struck from the article. Bob98133 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Main producers

"The demand for foie gras in the Far East is such that China has become a sizeable producer; however, Chinese foie gras is viewed with some suspicion by the French.[35]"

I removed the bold portion. The cited article gives no reason for said suspicion, and actually mentions that the French producers made a similar fuss when Hungary started production. Veracity aside, the statement adds no value to the article and might be nonPOV. Wylie440 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violation

I'm adding Template:Copypaste because there seem to be some paragraphs directly copied from FLOSS (which doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source, so hopefully it's not the other way around). Checking the page history would probably confirm either way, as the FLOSS article is dated. --Trevj (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nature of Controversy

I do believe a short explanation of the nature of the controversy would be helpful. The foie gras controversy differs from a conventional controversy such as capital punishment, because in the latter case both POV's agree on the harm that is done, but differ on the merits; whereas in this controversy they disagree on both the harm and the merits. This leads to controversy over facts rather than controversy over reason. A much more difficult wikipedia page to balance fairly. PaulsComments (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted National Institute of Agronomic Research section & more

The citation led to a pro Foie Gras website with an article pretending to be the original research from the INRA, but was in fact a heavily biased interpretation of it from the website itself. If anyone can produce the original research of the INRA that supports the same conclusions, the section could return, but for now it should be deleted. I also deleted a one-liner claiming the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that foie-gras is cruelty free with a citation to a Time article that says nothing of the sorts. It seems pro Foie Gras activists are deliberately trying to deceive people here by vandalising this article. Lapzwans (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this belong in the article or not

Text being deleted

Empirical observations by the National Institute of Agronomic Research in Nouzilly, France, concluded that fowl exhibited no signs of aversion, but rather attraction to human fowl feeders, thus indicating a lack of behavioral response that is commonly associated with harmful experiences. They concluded from the lack of nociceptive pain activity (or of any increased corticosterone blood levels as a measure to indicate stress during feedings), that force feeding causes neither pain nor stress for fowl. The study observed culling rates of less than 3%, which were interpreted as evidence against allegations of high mortality rates.<ref>www.artisanfarmers.org/images/Foie_Gras_Study_by_Dr._Guemene.pdf</ref>

I think this is a good section text but it would be better sourced to original material, not a writeup of studies. The writeup doesn't seem to mischaracterize the material it uses. I have not had time to look at this source in any depth. An IP (probably second account of someone) has been removing it daily. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

Controversy section needs to be trimmed down considering there is a dedicated page for the subject. If I remember correctly there was a coordinated attempt by animal activists to hijack the primary article to advance their agenda few years ago (that resulted in accumulating disproportionate amount of information on controversy, of doubtful notability) and it appears that the article now is yet again on its way to re-acquire the same content. Nothing's changed though, the controversy Is either notable and needs to sit on it's own article, or it is not notable and deserves a basic mention. 91.76.124.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC).

Novice question

Have one visit to a genuine fermier foie gras south of Cognac. Only goose products. Full tour including gavage and purchase from family. Products as purchased were: entier, demi. and rilletes. Is that a variant on the french standard? Particularly the rilletes. Idealist707 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Inconsistency

In the opening ¶ is the statement:

By French law, foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck fattened by force feeding corn
with a gavage...

Although the first sentence of that ¶ reads:

Foie gras (French for "fat liver") is a food product made of the liver of a duck or goose
that has been specially fattened.

As a part-time resident of France, I'm aware that geese are also force fed to produce foie gras.

Then, in Production Methods is:

Toulouse geese and Mulard ducks are the most commonly used breeds for foie gras.

Dick Kimball (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Foie gras and human health

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create a Nutrition and health section

I'm proposing the creation of a new section called Nutrition and health and moving the {{nutritionalvalue}} template into it, along with any other health information, such as any content on amyloidosis the article ends up carrying. Reason: Foie gras is a food and so it makes sense to have a section covering its nutrition and health aspects. This is based on how FA- and GA-quality articles like Lettuce, Maple syrup, Durian and Apple do it. Sound OK? Zad68 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. One issue is that there are several FG variants (the livers themselves, paté etc.), so any information may have to be carefully assigned to the right one. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Serious health concerns, some fatal

June 20, 2007 -- If the thought of force-fed fowl doesn’t turn you off to foie gras, this news just might.

New research suggests that a compound found in fatty goose and duck liver may be linked to a rare disease called amyloidosis, opening the door to a potential link between the delicacy and a host of other amyloid-related diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s disease to type 2 diabetes. Researchers say it’s the first known evidence that a food product can speed the production of amyloid protein in animals. An abnormal buildup of amyloid deposits is linked to a variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and others. Amyloid is commonly found in waterfowl, but researchers say their concentration is especially high in force-fed birds, such as those used in the production of foie gras. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that feeding disease-prone mice a steady diet of foie gras accelerated the development of amyloidosis with amyloid deposits found in many organ tissues. “Eating foie gras probably won’t cause a disease in someone who isn’t genetically predisposed to it,” says researcher Alan Solomon, MD, of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, in a news release. “Perhaps people with a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or other amyloid-associated diseases should avoid consuming foie gras and other foods that may be contaminated.” Aside from suggesting a link between foie gras and disease, researchers say the results also raise the possibility that other prion or abnormal protein-related diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease may be passed from affected animal food products to humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.94.37 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the comments above you will see that this was discussed at some length before - see "Could we get another Administrator to take a look?" above. Angrhoiel (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fermented liver paste

Some people use a different approach to making Pâté, by fermenting raw goose liver from a healthy goose, not a force-fed goose. The liver should be finely chopped or pureed in a food processor. Onion, garlic, black pepper and salt can be added to the liver pure before fermenting to improve taste and to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria. Actually, forcing [cyrrhosis] in a goose is pretty much like fermenting the liver in vivo. Seems to me that you can avoid causing unnecessary harm to an animal, and you get the benefit of not eating meat from a sick animal, which it's not a good idea. And [lactic acid] is, in itself, a good food for human cells. Botulism can be easily prevented by destroying botulinum toxin with heat after the fermentation, if there is contamination with Clostridium botulinum.

Map change for Canada

Just coming in now, but there is only Quebec that does Fois Gras within Canada. If we're doing regions on the map, then it's important that places like Yukon etc. are not being represented. I don't have the skills required to change the map accordingly, but I'm willing to do so if there's a way to do this easily or with rudimentary skills. Here' a source if we need one: http://maisonneuve.org/article/2010/03/12/foie-gras-wars/ Cpt ricard (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliability and neutrality?

After some recent editing by DrChrissy this article is now heavy with citations from viva.org

• "Torture in a tin: Viva! foie-gras fact sheet" (PDF). Viva!. 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2015.

- including assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice. I wonder how reliable this source is, and/or how due its advocacy is for inclusion here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I accept that the Viva! source overall is clearly not neutral. However, the edits I have made in this article have been neutral. I have reported facts such as production measure, countries that have banned foie gras and feeding frequency, and used it as a citation for a long standing piece of text that required a citation. These are not included with any source-derived advocacy or my own. If there are any statements which you feel need re-wording, please indicate these specifically and I will consider. As for reliability, I would have expected much more "incriminating" evidence from an advocacy site if they were unreliable. For example, please see the production data I have just added - these do not vary much from production in 2005 - if they wished, Viva! could have easily exaggerated these.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not convinced all is well. I've asked for wider input at WP:NPOV/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WoW! You were quick to escalate to that!__DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Came to this via the NPOVN post, but agree with the sentiment that it should have been dealt with here first. @Alexbrn: you haven't specified any specific issues you've found other than that the source is cited. What are we, the outside parties, supposed to be weighing on on regarding NPOV? If the problem is the source, that belongs at WP:RSN, but ideally, in either case, you will raise what the specific problem is here first. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the source is reliable for its own opinion, but where stated as fact then there is a (separate but related) question of reliability. In general we should build articles on RS, but viva.org is now the most cited source in this article and in part its tone and viewpoint are adopted. To take one example the source has

Despite moves in Europe to ban it, gavage is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage". Foie gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding

Is that true? Wikipedia certainly relays it as fact, complete even with the scare quotes for "heritage":

Despite proposals in Europe to ban gavage, this is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage". Foie gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding.

The problem here is that Wikipedia is taking the stance of a campaigning org by framing this as it does (It would be as bad if it went the other way and said that this "proud artisinal tradition" was now recognized in law). There is also a plagiarism/copyvio problem. I am also not sure why we now have two External links sections, one linking to a blog, another to a news story in the Daily Mirror about Gordon Ramsay's supplier offered as a video of "foie gras production" - is that a good link per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed this quote is a problem for both of the reasons you mention. The external links section is also problematic per WP:ELNO. They are certainly agenda-driven links that do not simply provide a general resource as an external link should. So the article and sourcing needs work. @DrChrissy: Viva seems like a convenient source, but we should be citing whatever more reliable studies/sources they're taking the information from (assuming such sources exist). @Alexbrn: there's something to be said, however, about WP:WEIGHT. It's not directly connected to Viva, but certainly a look across the body of reliable sources on the subject of foie gras will show that the controversy is what is most talked about and hence the article has to address it in a major way. The key is to figure out what the best sources are. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the animal welfare controversy is an important strand to this topic. Wonder if there is good RS that analyses it (rather than campaigns one way or the other). Will search ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(Add) At first glance something like this

• Heath, Deborah; Meneley, Anne (2010). "The Naturecultures of Foie Gras: Techniques of the Body and a Contested Ethics of Care". Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. 13 (3): 421–452. doi:10.2752/175174410X12699432701024. ISSN 1552-8014.

seems to offer a cooler detached view of the various factions in the debate, and suggests a lot of directions worth exploring. I'll abosrb it and read around a bit more and see if this can be worked into the article ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Update As a consequence of this Talk thread, I have moved the External Links I added (I had not realised the article already had this section!) and deleted the controversial statement identified above. I have also been replacing or adding supporting citations for information in the Viva! source.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, coming in from the noticeboard, I think it's a good idea to recall that we should strive to edit based on the best sources, not just the sources we happen to come across. I did a quick search on this issue and came up with these: 1, 2, 3, 4. The source Alexbrn mentions above seems promising as well. --Dailycare (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy sites / cherry-picking

DrChrissy has been adding claims that India's import ban of Foie Gras is a world first based on advocacy cites: peta.org and ciwf.org.uk, neither of which are necessarily reliable. We should build content on secondary sources so that it is reliable and we avoid undue detail. In this edit the source is cherry-picked: the Indian Express article cited is largely about chef's reaction to legislation, and we should reflect it faithfully (as we do in other subsections for legislation). Whether the chefs have a "vested interest" in neither here nor there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy sites are not necessarily inaccurate. If you wish to ban their use then look very carefully at other sources in this article as there are references to pro-foie gras advocacy groups - are these also inaccurate and deserving of a ban? Having said that, I have removed the PETA reference and replaced this with the CIWF reference. CIWF is a highly respected organisation and is a suitable source for statements of fact. This seems to be an incredible amount of energy being spent on "India was the world's first country to ban foie gras"! Regarding edits including the feelings and comments of chefs. If we are to include these, then we should balance them with descriptions of how people from PETA feel about the legislation. I avoided doing that previously, but that seems fair doesn't it?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In accord with the WP:PAGs we reflect what's in good secondary sources and should generally avoid self-published sites, advocacy groups and blogs. "Selectively presenting one point of view from a source that actually includes two or more that conflict with each other" is WP:CHERRYPICKING which compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Stating that India was the first country to ban importation is not a point of view, it is a statement of fact (or is incorrect). Are there other sources which state India was NOT the first country?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's right, but WP:V is a policy: we need good sources. Cherry picking stuff out of sources is non-neutral and wiki-lawyering does not alter that (it's a "fact" that the chefs were dismayed). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way is stating that India was the first country to ban the import non-neutral? I repeat, are there any other contradictory sources?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality problem lay more in removing content from the "Chefs" sources about ... chefs. Anyway, problem solved: I've found a WSJ WP:NEWSBLOG source that covers this, using the more neutral "only country" formulation rather than the advocacy "first country" wording. I've used this and de-crufted. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it is you that is definitely cherry-picking. I found two reliable sources that say India was the "first country" and you have cherry-picked "only ccountry" from a single source and removed my sources - this is hardly presenting a balanced view. I really have no idea why you are doing this but it is disruptive editing.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WSJ is a good neutral source. In fact it attributes the stuff about "only country" to a govt. spokesman, so perhaps we should be as careful. Of course advocacy sites will say "first" because they are in the business of creative a narrative of sequence. Wikipedia shouldn't be playing that game. Accurately reflecting a source is neithing cherry-picking nor disruptive. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Any objections to removing either qualifier, "only" or "first", to just instead state that "India has banned"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that adding "first" alerts the reader to the fact that other countries might have banned the production of foie gras, but they have not banned the import. This is a distinction that I think needs to be made. It was I that included both "first" and "only" to cover all bases and as a compromise to other editors.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Bans" section

I removed this section in these two diffs, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and see also WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I'll also add, WP:NOTNEWS. This content is not encyclopedic; there are probably hundreds of places that don't serve foie gras. Maybe someone wants to start List of establishments that do not sell foie gras, although i have a hard time seeing how that would survive... Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

These arguments are so incredibly flimsy.

re WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The Bans section is about major retailers that have decided to ban the sale of foie gras and notable organisations (i.e. they have their own WP article) that are refusing to serve it. It is not indiscriminate because I have deliberately not included many sources which indicate celebrity chefs (and others) will not cook or eat it (e.g. Gordon Ramsay, Roger Moore, etc). I included Prince Charles as an individual because he is British Royalty and that makes it of interest to some readers. Furthermore, the items discussed are in chronological order to present the reader with a structured presentation of the information. Clearly, the section is not indiscriminate.

re WP:LAUNDRYLIST this essay (note it is not a policy) states "WP:Avoid data-hoarding, describes issues about collecting extensive piles of information about a subject..." I would hardly call 5 lines of text "extensive". The section is not a laundry-list.

re WP:NOTNEWS. This relates mainly to writing about current topics. The latest dae is 2013 - I would hardly call this "current" or a recent event.

• It is of great importance that the previous editor wrote "...there are probably hundreds of places that don't serve foie gras". This is precisely why the Bans section is important. Moreover, the section includes information on bans by retailers and caterers. The section is not being written as a newspaper - it is tracking the history of bans.

__DrChrissy (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The last line is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is all about. We are not writing a chronicle here. Encyclopedic content would be a general paragraph about retail sales that gave some idea of how retail sales have gone, what percentages of places sell it what don't. A paragraph that provides context. This is just some kind of laundry list, without context. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the question could be reframed as "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" Surely some of the bans make sense to include at the Controversy article, but we shouldn't just reproduce them here. What about inserting a single paragraph, or a sentence or two, in an existing subsection, which lists some of the most notable bans (lists, but in prose, with individual citations)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog. Of course you are entitled to include a section on retail sales if you wish, but why should this page not include documentation of retail organisations that are refusing to sell or serve the foodstuff? Is this not of interest to the reader? It is also good reference material as the sources are all robust and verifiable.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

you miss my point almost entirely. this does not make the content encyclopedic, it just changes the format. Encyclopedic content provides context and a high level view, not a collection of events. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites that we should be summarizing here. I found this "Bans" section duplicated word-for-word in the Foie gras controversy article, which is not good: we should be using the principal of WP:SYNC to refer to it there. I also agree with much of what Jytdog has to say about the unduly miscellaneous nature of the "Bans" section, though some of this content can surely be preserved. To sort this out I have:

• Boiled the "Bans" section down to something more compact/due
• Merged it (and the other overlapping legislative content) to the Foie gras controversy article
• Provided a brief summary here and linked with a {{main}} {{further}} template, as we should

I think this tidies and reconciles and improves the content a lot, and solved the duplication problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(Add). Well, DrChrissy has now twice reverted these changes in just one of these articles, which is causing nasty duplication and mess. Probably a better idea to engage rather than edit war as it's messing-up the encyclopedia. Or if reverting, to do it properly at least. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn. You have been making swinging deletions of information that belongs on this page, not the controversy page. Legislation and bans are not part of the controversy, they are about the current status of the foodstuff. You have made attacks on me at my Talk page trying to publically discredit my editing. Your editing history and edit warring make it very apparent that you are against inclusion of any material on this page that might be viewed as negative. This is censorship. I believe RFC is needed here.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You say "Legislation and bans are not part of the controversy page" but they formed a large part of that page; in fact you copy-pasted the "Bans" section there[16] giving us de-normalized content (not good): we can't have swathes of duplicate content in articles and so I moved and reconciled all the legislation content, and summarized and moved the "Bans" content, in one place: the controversy article. It is available from here via the link of a "further" template. Your comments on me as an editor are disruptive and a violation of the WP:TPGs and our WP:NPA policy (and also wrong). Whether or not the material in question should be here or in the controversy article is debatable. It should not however be in both places, as you have repeatedly made it. The Bans section as it was, was laundry-list content and undue as others have said; I have tried to salvage something from it rather than delete it.

A RfC may be a good idea, if it can be decided what question to pose. I'd like to hear from other editors so we don't launch a lame RfC and waste editors' time (as so often happens). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The question to pose is easy "Are your edits disruptive, harassing and amounting to censorship?" As for when a RfC might be launched, I will make my own mind up on that and will not be bullied into dealying tactics on your part. Finally you have agreed that it is debatable whether the placement of the Bans material should be here or on the Controversy article. If this is the case, why did you not discuss this on the Talk page? Where has there been any recent discussion about moving the Legislation section? There is/was duplication, but this is/was only minor and to be expected in two articles that are so closely related. It is censorhip to move material from this article to the Controversy article simply because it may describe negative aspects about foie gras.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That would not be a valid RfC question; the only two community venues for addressing editor behaviour are arbcom and AN/I. So long as we have a "Controversy" article it makes sense to put material relating to the "Foie gras wars" there. Our aim is to apportion content sensibly and not make this article some kind of instrument for advocacy in any direction. At first blush, it seems to me the bans and laws arising from the controversy live naturally in the Controversy article, but in deciding how to apportion content between articles we would best be guided by RS - a book like this for example might give us a steer on whether a topic was part of the "controversy" or not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Before we go to an RfC we need to deal with issues here first. DrCrissy, you have not responded to what Alexbrn said about WP:SYNC. While not policy, that is guideline, and not something we can just toss away without discussion. Please do address the issues with WP:SYNC here - in light of that guideline, an RfC would likely be a SNOW close in favor of the current version. Also, please limit discussion here to content, not contributors, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what question was asked. Initially, the Bans and Legislation sections were both on here. At one point, I copied the Bans section to the Controversy article and then further expanded the Bans section on the Foie gras article, but left the Controversy article alone as a summary. This morning, I found that both sections had been reduced so much in detail that they were effectively useless, and that they had been moved to the Controversey article. So, I reverted the edits to Foie gras to reinstate both the Bans and Legislation sections. I forgot to delete/edit the Controversy article. I accept this leaves duplication and I accept this is not good for WP. However, I have had accusations of 3R directed at me and I am concerned that if I clear up the duplication at the Controversy article, I will be further accused of edit warring. To my mind, we need to address the question of which article contains the detailed material on Bans and Legislation, and which contains only the summaries. Certainly, there has been no discussion whatsoever about moving the Legislation to the Controversy article - it was done unilaterally. There was no discussion about moving the Bans section until after I had moved a summary there. There was previous discussion about content, but not in which article the content belonged.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites suggested above that a question we might ask is "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" I agree that's a question we could usefully ask. The problem in part is that there is some disconncect between the two articles. Ideally, we should be putting all the controversy-related material (decided by using RS as a guide) into the Controversy article, and then briefly summarizing it in this article. My edits are a first step in getting there. I don't detect any consensus for including your long "shopping list" version of a bans section; let's see if my reduced alternative sticks. To your other points:

• The Controversy article already had extensive content on legislation[17] even before I edited it. I merged the rump of legislation content here into it.
• I did not "accuse" you of 3RR, rather I pointed out the plain fact you were at 3RR here, as a courtesy. Since you were unaware of this, I prevented your likely getting blocked for edit-warring!

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't detect any consensus for my contribution (which I have already indicated is not a "shopping list" and editors did not dispute) because it has been moved from the page! How can editors reach any consensus when they can't see what they are supposed to be discussing! So that other editors can read and comment, I have posted this below. __DrChrissy (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you see the problems with WP:SYNC, Drcrissy. Seems like we are done dealing with content here. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording for bans section

collapse section in question for tidiness

Several major retail and catering companies have refused to sell foie gras, and other notable establishments have refused to serve the foodstuff. In 2007, the UK based Harvey Nichols retail chain, which has stores in London, Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Dublin, stopped the sale of foie gras. This followed a long campaign highlighting the methods used to produce foie gras. Vegetarians' International Voice for Animals (Viva) welcomed the decision. "Obviously we are very pleased that Harvey Nichols has stopped selling foie gras," said spokesman Justin Kerswell. Waitrose, Sainsbury's, Lidl and House of Fraser also stopped stocking foie gras in 2007, and Selfridges decided to stop selling foie gras in November 2009. In 2011, foie gras was banned from the biennial Anuga Food Fair in Cologne causing "A high-level diplomatic spat...between France and Germany". Also in 2011, the online grocer Ocado became the latest UK retailer to ban the sale of foie gras. Their decision arose after animal welfare group PETA wrote to the retailer asking it to remove the product from its virtual shelves. In 2012, the British House of Lords bannned foie gras from its in-house menu. The Barry Room removed the controversial foodstuff from their menu following campaigns by PETA. Also in 2012, the Compass Group UK and Ireland removed foie gras from its menus. The contract caterer stated it was removing the foodstuff although it was only used on a few sites. The managing director said he was proud the company had made the decision and that it was being supported throughout the business. The UK associate director, Mimi Bechchi, was quoted as saying "We're delighted that Compass Group has found its 'moral compass' and agrees that serving up the grotesquely enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese is indefensible. In 2013, after being presented with a petition containing 13,000 signatures, the internet retailer, Amazon.co.uk, prohibited the sale of products containing foie gras. The British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the Brit Awards, Wimbledon, Lord's Cricket Ground and the Royal Shakespeare Company have all pledged not to serve or sell foie gras, and Prince Charles does not allow it on Royal menus. References

__DrChrissy (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. This covers the voluntary bans, but where are the laws? Clearly I missed something in the back and forth. "California" is not once mentioned in the current article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. The long-standing Legislation section has been removed unilaterally from this article by an editor. This contentious removal was not discussed on the talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the use of "unilaterally" is not helpful. Everything happens here because someone is WP:BOLD and acts. It's only when someone does something (or proposes something) concrete that editors can try to seek WP:CONSENSUS for it. as discussed above, putting things in one place instead of two accords with WP:SYNC - I support that. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It might not be helpful but it is true. There is "bold" and there is "ignoring taking to the Talk page"! This should have been done and the editor concerned should engage with this discussion and explain their disruptive actions.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Animal welfare expert, Professor Ian Duncan

DrChrissy has added this:

Animal welfare expert, Professor Ian Duncan wrote "During the force-feeding phase, mortality rates are four to 20 times higher than on normal duck farms. These high rates are due to injuries to the throat, liver failure or rupture and to heat stress — all of which are directly linked to the force-feeding practice"

References

I don't think this source meets the standards of WP:SCIRS, or even WP:RS in general for such information, or that Prof. Duncan's views are due. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

These are both large areas of policy. Please be specific about what aspect makes you feel the source is not suitable. The quote summarises several reports of increased mortality - I used the quote as I felt it succintly stated what others have said, and I used Duncan's name so it was correctly attributed to him.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed, for a start ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which newspaper articles are peer-reviwed? Which books are peer-reviwed. Some science journals/publications are not peer-reviewed. I suspect many of the sources in this article are not peer-reviwed. Why have you chosen to raise this issue for this particular source?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Whataboutery. Are you saying it doesn't matter this source isn't peer-reviewed? If so, I disagree: we should adhere to our guidelines for scientific content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that the article has not been peer reviewed - you simply suspect that - is that sufficient to raise this issue?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it your assumption something is peer-reviewed unless proved to the contrary!? The WP:ONUS is on the initiating editor to make a case and achieve consensus for their addition. The lack of any mention of an editorial board or peer-review panel in the publication or its hosting site is good evidence it is not peer reviewed. This comparativly weak document is being used to "however" a scientific EU report. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Of the 7 references in the lead paragraph, I suspect 5 of them have not been peer-reviewed. One of them is a video of a man giving a talk to an audience! This is tantamount to a YouTube video. How can this be acceptable?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References

That the article may have pre-existing poor sources is another matter, and doesn't excuse the addition of more. The issue for this section is the addition of new content. At the least we shouldn't make a bad article worse, now should we. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So is your interpretation that an article about animal welfare written in The Daily Star is more acceptable than an article written by one of the world's leading poultry experts and published by one of the oldest and most respected animal charities?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Star?! What's that got to do with this source? Anyway I now notice you've added more sources, including one by Kozák (impressive that you read Hungarian; you have read the article, right?). This source says in its abstract "Recent experiments have demonstrated that gavage feeding does not cause pain to the oesophagus or the enlarged liver as it is devoid of terminal nerves." How does that match the text you're supporting with this citation? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the Duncan report, is that it is WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn The Daily Star is a British national newspaper that is infamous for publishing news of dubious quality. But, it appears that the way policy (note that is policy, not rules), indicates that an article in this newspaper would be trusted more than a scientific expert with international notability reviewing the work of other scientists. For your information, I am multi-lingual and yes, I did read that paper and I feel insulted that you suggest otherwise. The sentence to which I am referring is "During gavage, as a consequence of intake of feeds in higher amounts than normal the oesophagus may be injured,..." You did read the article, right? Do you understand the differences between injury and pain?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what the Daily Star is, but discussion of it is off topic. For Kozák the bit you quote in English is from the (poorly translated) English abstract, and is representing the opponents' argument, rather than what has been found by Kozák isn't it? The article body says "A szakszerűen végzett töméskor a nyelőcső szövete nem károsodik" which - although my Hungarian is extremely flakey - would seem to say the opposite. No? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog Are you suggesting the article is self published? Ian Duncan is a professor at Guelph University. The article was published by a branch of the SPCA. Why is this self publication?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the credentials of the author are not relevant. I am not suggesting it is SPS, I am saying that it is SPS. The last page names the authors, Prof. Ian Duncan, Special Advisor on Farm Animal Welfare

Caroline Ramsay, B.Sc. (Ag) Farm Animal Welfare Coordinator* Geoff Urton, B.Sc. (Ag) M.Sc., Animal Welfare Coordinator* and notes that the "corresponding authors" (which are the main authors of a paper) are SPCA employees. Additionally this was not published in a journal, but rather by the SPCA itself, which is an advocacy group. It is SPS and also fails WP:INDY. It is as unacceptable of a similar paper would be, that was written for and by, and posted on the site of, a foie gras producer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

something like this would be a great source - position statement by a major authority - the American Veterinary Medical Association.Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn The Daily Star is not off topic. You are claiming that peer-review articles should always be prefered. The point I am trying to make is that the Daily Star presumably has an editorial team and therefore a form of peer review. The interpretation is that it is automatically considered to be a more suitable source than an International expert who has written a review article on other scientists research and is therefore a robust secondary source. The sentence in the Kozack article can be put in the article as a direct quote if you wish to question what it is saying.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog. I agree credentials are irrelevant in this circumstance - I was trying to indicate he was not an employee of SPCA (to the best of my knowledge) but works at a University. I also accept there were collaborating authors who appear to be employees of SPCA, but we have no way of knowing how much was written by them. I am still at a loss as to how an article where the primary author is not an employee of the publishing organisation can make the source "self-publication".__DrChrissy (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

it's the difference between submitting an article to a journal for peer review and publication by the journal, and just posting a report that you commission and co-author, on your own website. The journal is not "self" - it has an editorial staff and owner quite separate from the authors of articles - that is how scientific publishing works. Not self. The SPCA report, written by 2 SPCA employees and a consultant (and you will notice on the last page, is copyrighted by SPCA), is posted on the SPCA website. Self. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

it would be the exact same as citing this as a source for objective science about global warming. That does not fly here. I have you a positive example above. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the scientific publishing process having published over 60 articles in International peer-reviewed scientific journals, including Nature. We do not know that the article was commissioned, but what I do know is that Ian Duncan would not allow something to be published under his name that was in the slightest bit inaccurate. I accept that the unknown collaborative efforts of the SPCA make this rather a grey area in terms of self-publication, so, shall we shake hands and let this go? If you feel strongly enough, delete the reference - the actual information is supported by other references.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

we have no way of knowing what you have published and what you have not; it doesn't matter here. if that is true, you know the difference and i understand even less what you are arguing about. I am glad you agree to get rid of this reference, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC))

hmmm...I thought I was holding out an olive branch...__DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry about changing my comment - i didn't notice that you had replied. striking unncessary remark instead. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy at the controversy article first?

This idea may well go over like a lead balloon, but I'll just throw it out there. The disputes about this page seem to largely concern the controversy section. Not a big surprise, of course. Meanwhile, however, the article foie gras controversy sees very little editing/attention. Might it be easier to work on that article first and then, once coverage of the controversy has been worked out, then determine how best to summarize it here? The alternative, as we've seen, is messy as there are parallel disputes going on: (a) whether sources are reliable, whether statements are verified in sources, whether wording is neutral, and other standard "do we include this text" matters, and (b) is it due weight to include here vs. the controversy article. Working on that article first might be more editing work but might save time/effort in the long run. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about a lead balloon but I actually think these should not be separate articles. Please don't get worried - I am not about to start some massive campaign to merge the two articles - there seems to be enough drama associated with whether India was the "first" or "only" country to ban the import of foie gras! Your suggestion may have great merit in looking to the future of merging the articles - after all, the controversy must surely be an integral part of the food production. I have seen no other articles where this division occurs - but, of course, I am willing to be corrected on that. To be honest, I do few edits on the Controversy page because I believe my efforts are better spent on the Foie Gras article - I consider this to be the parent article, the Controversy is more of a spin off.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There are scholarly sources dealing with welfare which neither of the Wikipedia articles cite. I've listed some possibly useful ones below, including only sources for which the (sometime unofficial) full English text is available.

articles

• Faure J M, Guémené D and Guy G (2001) "Is there avoidance of the force feeding procedure in ducks and geese?". Animal Research, 50 (2): 157–164. doi:10.1051/animres:2001111 Full text
• Guémené D and Guy G (2004) "The past, present and future of force-feeding and 'foie gras' production". World's Poultry Science Journal, 60 (2): 210–222. doi:10.1079/WPS200314 Full text
• Guémené D, Gérard G U Y, Noirault J, Destombes N and Faure J M (2006) "Rearing conditions during the force-feeding period in male mule ducks and their impact upon stress and welfare". Animal Research, 55 (5): 443–458. doi:10.1051/animres:2006028 Full text
• Kaufman C K (2008) "The Foie Gras Fracas: Sumptuary Law as Animal Welfare?" In: S R Friedland (Ed) Food and Morality: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, pp. 124–136 Oxford Symposium. ISBN 9781903018590.
• Rodenburg T B, Bracke M B M, Berk J, Cooper J, Faure J M, Guémené D et al. (2005) "Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems", World's Poultry Science Journal, 61 (4): 633–646. doi:10.1079/WPS200575 Full text

legislative comment

I'm not sure what counts as reliable with articles on Foie Gras legislation, but the following may contain other useful sources:

• Grant J I (2009) "Hell to the Sound of Trumpets: Why Chicago's Ban on Foie Gras Was Constitutional and What It Means for the Future of Animal Welfare Laws". Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy, 2 (52). Full text
• Ma, Vanessa (2013) "Ban on Foie Gras: A Legislative Fowl", Student Scholarship. Full text
• Shapiro M (2012). Wild Goose Chase: California's Attempt to Regulate Morality by Banning the Sale of One Food Product", Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 35 (27). Full text
• Sullivan M and Wolfson D J (2007) "What's Good for the Goose... The Israeli Supreme Court, Foie Gras, and the Future of Farmed Animals in the United States". Law and Contemporary Problems, 70: 139–173. Full text

books

• Caro, Mark (2009) The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World's Fiercest Food Fight Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781439158388.

--Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Some great sources! Many thanks!__DrChrissy (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

On those sources:

• Faure J M, Guémené D and Guy G (2001) this is a WP:PRIMARY source and should not be used in WP. it is also old.
• Guémené D and Guy G (2004) this is WP:SECONDARY and OK, but it is old
• Guémené D, Gérard G U Y, Noirault J, Destombes N and Faure J M (2006) - this is a WP:PRIMARY source and should not be used in WP; is also old
• Kaufman C K (2008) - this is SECONDARY and OK but I tend to steer away from conference proceedings as they are not peer reviewed. also pretty old
• Rodenburg T B, Bracke M B M, Berk J, Cooper J, Faure J M, Guémené D et al. (2005) - this is a SECONDARY source so OK there but is old.
• on the legislative comment articles, i avoid these like the plague and didn't even look at them. articles in law journals are notoriously argumentative/opinion-driven, and if you want to try to use something from them, you have to do a lot of additional reading to figure out where the POV of the author fits in the field, so that you can use it in an NPOV way, providing appropriate context. way, WAY easy for POV-pushers to cherry-pick law review articles that fit their POV. really, to be avoided.
• Caro book looks like a good popular treatment of the issues. he's an entertainment writer, so would use it gingerly with any science-driven content. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How old is too old? Is the Bible too old to be a reliable source?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

unclear to me if your question is authentic or rhetorical. the reference to the bible leads me to believe it is rhetorical. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand from your personal essay on reliable sources that you advocate "all of Wikipedia should be based on reliable secondary sources... we should stay away from primary sources...". You appear to be promoting a position that all of Wikipedia should be bound by the same rigorous requirements that are appropriate for articles about human health and biographies of living persons. Well those standards, and in particular the rejection of primary sources, are simply not appropriate if used indiscriminately in all other areas in Wikipedia. They are not appropriate for very good reasons, reasons which it seems you have not yet thought through. This is not the place to argue the issue. But neither is this the place for you to push what is simply your own POV about what sources are acceptable. If you want your check list above to be taken seriously, and not as a careless set of knee-jerk responses, then you need first to get the necessary consensus and rewrite Identifying reliable sources. You have done a great job bringing some order and rigour to articles on genetically modified food. But perhaps there is a danger of your firm adherence to stringent guidelines for WP:MED articles turning into something like the unthinking certitudes of a believer in the old testament. There are other more appropriate and more gentle guidelines for other parts of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

how lovely that you read my little attempt at an essay.. thank you. the first bullet in it, makes it clear that the preference for SECONDARY sources is deep in the guts of Wikipedia. It is discussed in WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV as well as plain old WP:RS. We aim to give the mainstream view the most WEIGHT and secondary sources tell us that; it is way too easy to do OR by giving UNDUE weight to some cherry picked primary source -- just by picking only that source and not discussing others. Really - throughout WP we should use primary sources rarely if ever, and only with good reason and great care when we do! Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to get into a general discussion about this, but here is an example of a simple primary source which has been cited 33,000 times. It is the seminal paper in it's field, and to write an article without citing it would be unthinkable. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

and because of that, I am sure that there are many secondary sources that discuss the ideas in it; there is no reason at all, to use that source itself to support any content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well good luck with finding any hard scientists who will have sympathy with your campaign to suppress seminal papers on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

yep, i don't edit much in the hard sciences. but even for that kind of statement - "seminal paper" - you would need a secondary source saying that, about the paper. Without that, the claim is OR. I don't mind citing primary sources that are of historical interest, but they should always be supplementary to a secondary source that says so, and that says why it was important -- again the secondary source tells you how much WEIGHT to give it - that is not your call or mine, nor any other editor's (we are editors, not authors, here) Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the logic behind a primary source (scientific article) being unacceptable is fundamentally flawed. A scientific paper published in any reasonable scientific journal will have been through peer-review. It is therefore a secondary source because the editor will have taken peer-reviewers' comments into account before publication. This makes scientific articles way, way more robust than a reporters's article in the Daily Star or any other newspaper which may have been seen by only one editor with no scientific experience whatsoever - a point I made earlier.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

so SO many original reports of research turn out to be not replicable and just go no where. we have no business dealing with WP:PRIMARY scientific sources here, especially not in the life sciences. And doing so goes against the heart of every content policy and guideline we have. we need a really good reason to use one, and they have to be used with care. I will not debate this general principle of WP here. if you want to use any primary sources here, we may well end up tangling over it depending on how... so do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple question reiterated to @Jytdog. You appeared to dismiss articles listed above as being unsuitable sources because of their age. How old does an article have to be before it is discredited simply because it is old?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, it was a real question. as i noted above, it appeared to be rhetorical the first time, so thanks for clarifying. There is no hard guidance in policy on this that I know of, nor in the RS guideline (although RS notes that "some scholarly material may be outdated"). The MEDRS guideline (see WP:MEDDATE) recommends around five years, for content related to health (and one could argue that vet med falls within that). But in any case, we should always try to use the most recent reliable, independent, secondary sources we can as part of the mission to provide the public with reliable, well sourced NPOV content. That's the underlying principle here. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Searching on this topic, there seems to have been a peak of academic interest between 2004-2009ish, and a sharp drop-off of material afterwards. So I suspect we're going to need to reconcile ourselves to using conent from around that period. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that context. So... we should use the most recent secondaries that are available. Looks like the mid to late 2000s ones listed above are good, date-wise. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ortolan bunting

Adding a new "Related foodstuffs" section and a swathe of text about the Ortolan bunting is completely undue. I've added a see also link instead, and even that's quite a tangent ... (Also: the text was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Since when were 3 sentences (I think) a swathe? The text was not copy and pasted from the source...there were in fact two sources. Therefore, you should prove this public accusation accusation or apologise.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

here you go:

• 1999 Wine Spectator article: "For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God."

• content added by drchrissy: "For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'"

copyvio seems pretty clear, yes? could be fixed by quoting the whole thing of course Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish! What I have written is a paraphrasing of the two pieces. Furthermore, I have clearly attributed the ideas to both sources and make no claim whatsoever that they are my own. I am going to make a formal complaint against Alexbrn for this accusation. Do you, Jytdog wish to be included as an offending editor?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

wow DrCrissy, if you think that kind of very close paraphrasing is OK, ... just wow. The far easier solution would just be to say "oops yeah that was a bit too close, I see your point". If you want to go to that mat on this, I think your chances are darn slim. Shall I ping WP's resident copyright expert to get a quick opinion here? Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping away!...make sure you include the second source I used which for some reason you did not copy here.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl would you please have a look at the potential copyvio issue we are discussing here? thx Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid that the content does follow very closely. For comparison:

Source A	Article Text
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God.	For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'"

I have bolded where following is precise to make the issue more plain. The sentence as placed in the article has been expanded but still includes runs of language and structure from the original, especially near the beginning. While blending content together does help avoid copyright issues, I'm afraid that the material needs to also be put into original language. Constructing content like this runs the risk of creating a derivative work, as the original copyright holder retains the right to modify his or her content, including by expanding it.

The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing talks a little bit about these issues and how to avoid them. We ask that aside from brief, clearly marked quotation information taken from copyrighted sources be placed into original language and structure so we can avoid this concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl! Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

anyway that takes care of the copyvio thing. But the real issue was WP:UNDUE/WP:OFFTOPIC - your thoughts on that would be appreciated drcrissy. i am thinking about it and am on the fence. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This absolutely does not take care of the "copyvio thing" which you appear to dismiss gliby but which I take as an extremely serious accusation aginst me by you. This is the view of just one person (Moonriddengirl!, please accept that I am being totally respectful of your input and efforts in this matter). I actually used the other source as the main information (original) yet this source has not even been discussed! I intertwined information from both sources making it original language (e.g. one source mentioned a box, the other mentioned blinding - I put these together) but at the same time, I cited the sources of the information I used. @Jytdog I found the manner in which you knew who to contact so very, very quickly on this matter rather concerning....is there some sort of collaboration going on here?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

oh for fuck's sake. use the interaction tool and see how many times i have interacted with her. if you got around more you would know her reputation. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the exact text you added is a no-go and IF you put it back as-is, you will be a) edit warring and b) breaking WP:COPYVIO. If you want that shitstorm, you are of course welcome to walk into it. The more fundamental issues are whether the content is UNDUE and OFFTOPIC. If you would speak to that, we can decide if it is worth rewriting to avoid COPYVIO to include content on this, in the article. Would you please speak to that? You haven't yet. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To me the Ortolan bunting seems related as a foodstuff. Both originated in France and both involve stuffing a helpless bird which is kept in the dark or semidark. @Alexbrn: Can you produce an argument to support your claim above that it is "completely undue"? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah! Epipelagic i was just about to ping you. I see on your user page that you are part of the copyright cleanup crew. since you and i tangled a bit above, perhaps drcrissy will take your independent opinion on the copyvio here more seriously than mine, as being independent (and if you can comment on moonriddengirl's expertise that would be useful too). responding to your question, as I mentioned i am on the fence on this. it kind of relates - I definitely see how it could get an EL (that is what Alexbrn did with it). But there is so much to say about foie gras per se (I have been intending to add content on retail sales and availability, which the article currently lacks as the emphasis has been on adding content about bans), and above you can see above that we were debating pulling the foie gras controversy content back into this article. The article is a good length now.... so I am not sure (really not sure) that adding something somewhat tangentially related makes sense. We already have an article on force-feeding that pulls the relevant things together (although i note that Ortolan bunting is not there). Should we duplicate that article here and discuss force-feeding in prison, leblouh, and Shen Dzu here too? I don't think so. So why include Ortolan bunting? For those reasons I tend to say leave it out, but I am interested in arguments as to why to include it. drcrissy added it, alex reverted and opened discussion, and drcrissy still has not provided any reasoning as to why to include it. (look above - nada - all she's done is talk about it not being copyvio) Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmph... that's not the Wikipedia way, saying what you think. The proper way is to wrap everything in defensive hypocrisies, oops... I meant civility. Anyway, what the hell; I'll say what I think just for a wee bit.

@Jytdog: DrChrissy is male. He's an excellent contributor to Wikipedia who should be supported. He gets upset with rude and crass editors, and sometimes I want to tell him to calm down and that those editors are just part of the territory and not to be taken personally.

@Alexbrn: You have a clear POV on foie gras and are behaving badly towards DrChrissy. Don't use loaded terms like plagiarism when you mean inadequate paraphrasing. Perhaps it would help if you expressed the anger you seem to have against animal welfare concerns. Then the broader issues could be discussed more calmly.

@DrChrissy: You didn't paraphrase that text anywhere near enough. You should spend time on this, reading and contemplating wp:close paraphrasing. You could perhaps look at what Moonriddengirl does; she is one of the few admin saints on Wikipedia. You could start using tools like Copyscape and Duplication Detector, and maybe examine legacy articles that interest you for copyright violations. I promise you you'll be surprised at how many violations you find. Rewriting copy violations can be surprising hard work. It is also an area on Wikipedia where editors can be unbelievably pompous and obnoxious. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, and my apologies for the gender errors. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic I think you're completely off-base in saying I have a "clear POV on foie gras" (whatever that even means) or that I have anger towards "animal welfare concerns" (which would be just weird) or that I have behaved badly towards DrC (saying the problem edit "takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" was intentionally oblique). Better to avoid guesswork about other editors and stick to content. On content, for my sins I do edit a lot of controversial articles and I do care a lot about how WP:ADVOCACY in one form or another can skew articles into non-neutrality. I find the best way to approach this is to just be strict and firm in application of PAGs and not get distracted into peripheral discussion (as, errm, I am doing right now). I appreciate this can come across as bluntness sometimes. This article has its problems and it shouldn't get worse. I would be very happy to see good content being added based on better sources, and am reading around the topic in the background to that end. But the discussion of content should not be allowed to devolve into a discussion about editors' supposed POVs - as has happened here surprising quickly - as it just wastes time.

(Add) Since I've started going off-topic, I might as well go on: it miffs me that what should be content-focussed discussions about really very basic principles of textual organisation (how main/sub articles exist and summarize each other), or how irrelevant content shouldn't be included (adding "related xxxxxx" is a road to disaster for any article) or how sourcing policy applies (yes, of course we should prefer secondaries) are instead seen as some kind of POV-play. I don't care about foie gras or Deepak Chopra or circumcision or kombucha or cannabis (drug) or any of the myriad controversial topics on which I edit, yet for all of these I have been accused of having vested interests or a "strong POV" and have even been taken to COIN because of it (of course with no result: I make my real life identity completely discoverable from my user page so that you can find out pretty much everything about me you could possibly want, if you wished). I lose track of the number of cabals I am supposed belong to! Thankfully, there are a few experienced/good editors around who don't play the personalization game and make this place tolerable.

(Add more) But in sympathy with DrC I agree that plagiarism can be very hard to avoid, and is something I certainly struggle with, not least since WP:CGTW No 5 applies with special strength to controversial articles! ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have copied below the table from Moonriddengirl so that readers do not have to scroll up. I accept the first 9 words were cut and pasted. Quotes may have been preferred, but in my 30 years of professional writing, if another author "borrowed" 9 words of mine and left a citation to my work, I would be very happy with that. The next collection of words is then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole This is not copy and pasted as the source says they were roasted whole, I wrote they are eaten whole - a completely different meaning. As for then drowned in Armagnac"...can anyone suggest a more succinct, accurate way of describing this? I was attempting to be as succinct as possible because this is only a "related" food stuff and not the main subject matter. I have run my wording through a widely used on-line plagiarism checker and this returned "100% unique"

Source A	Article Text
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God.	For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'"

I will take Epipelagic's advice and thank you for sending the sources for further information__DrChrissy (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am starting this message by reminding Jytdog to be civil in this discussion; some previous comments have not been, including the one where there was an attempt to hide the comment by revising the page with comment omitted. The reason I have not yet spoken more expansively about the dueness of the Ortolan section is that accusations of plagiarism have been levelled at me. To my mind, that takes a much, much greater priority than a couple of sentences of text. I included the Ortolan sentences because I found several overwhelming similarities with fois gras production. The eating of ortolan and foie gras are both considered to be French. Both involve force/over feeding. Both involve a bird species (which is why I did not include force feeding of pigs or humans). Both involve restrictive housing of the bird. The two foodstuffs apparently taste similar or related. Both may be considered as forms of cruelty to animals. There are so many similarities I condider them as related subjects.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply by reminding you to stop discussing contributors and discuss content. I made a motherfucking mistake by editing a comment when I thought no one had replied yet - when you pointed out that you had replied I went back and struck it properly and acknowledged my mistake. That is not "uncivil", it is called being a fucking human being who can make mistakes and is capable of fucking admitting them and even fucking fixing them. (Please read WP:REDACT btw if you are not familiar with it - it is fine to change your own comments before someone else replies, and OK to redact them by using redaction marks after someone replies.) Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking to the issues. You are dealing with relatedness which is great and speaks to OFFTOPIC. That's not an unreasonable line of thinking. It doesn't speak to UNDUE, especially in light of the discussion we are having about demerging the controversy stuff - we have to keep WP:LENGTH in mind. Can you please speak to that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The section contains only 4 sentences which are not overly detailed and succinctly describe a similar food stuff. The section doe not promote any particular point of view (other than the taste). It helps the reader in directing them to other related sections of the Encyclopaedia. Given the length of 4 sentences, I do not think WP:length is an issue. Given the succinctness and NPOV, I do not think WP:UNDUE is an issue.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is: to what extent do reliable sources discuss the ortolan specifically in relation to FG? If it's a common theme then we can have a section, and include sourced discussion of the nature of that relatedness. If not it's OR-ish to make the connection and undue to include it. If it an interesting tangent maybe mentioned here or there, then an external link is sufficient. Wikipedia is a hypertext, people can explore relationships between topics using the navigation features. If we include everything that's somehow related to something else inline, we're heading for a mess. (I note FG is not mentioned in the ortolan article, presumably you'd want a "Foie gras" section there too?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

i am interested in the claim that ortolan is prepared by force feeding. gavage is very different from how ortolan is fattened. the process was apparently banned in France b/c the bird is endangered, not b/c of animal welfare issues... i wonder what what the weight of sources is, in the description of its feeding as "force feeding". hm Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

restoration of duplicate content

Drcrrissy there was no consensus for this restoration. As we discussed above, we don't have duplicate content in two different articles, per WP:SYNC. Instead, we use WP:SUMMARY style. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

drcrissy chose to open a new section below. ok then. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

detailed Legislation section

On March 14, 2015, the detailed Legislation section was moved to the Foie gras controversy article. This was done without any previous discussion on the Talk page, although it was an established part of the article. It is clearly disputed whether this detailed section should have been removed or not. It is stated at [18] that "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." With this in mind, I am returning the detailed Legislation section to this article (i.e. I am getting us back to the status quo), and requesting discussion here about whether it should be removed. I suggest that editors allow a suitable time (1-week) for editors to comment and achieve consensus.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I had already opened a discussion above; drcrissy prefers to open a new section. OK then, I will copy what I wrote there, here: "Drcrrissy there was no consensus for this restoration. As we discussed above, we don't have duplicate content in two different articles, per WP:SYNC. Instead, we use WP:SUMMARY style. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)" Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the original removal of this material. I have restored it to as it was prior to the dispute as per WP:Status quo. I don't see any duplicated information - please can you indicate where this is.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

there is precisely one editor disagreeing with following WP:SYNC here. And two saying that we should. This is a classic content dispute so we should use the methods described in WP:DR to resolve it. I have to do RW stuff now so will respond later. I will not edit war with you - I will leave that behavior to you. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have already stated, the Legislation section was originally removed without consensus being reached. I have therefore taken the article back to where it was before the non-consensual removal, which should reign until the dispute is settled. The dispute is about whether the Legislation section should be removed, not about whether it duplicates material or WP:SYNC because that duplication does not exist.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

this is interesting. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "interesting"?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

we'll probably need an RfC over this.. will propose a draft one here tonight or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I started this new discussion thread as a way of trying to put a line under all the silliness (including myself) that had ocurred previously, and trying to make a fresh start on discussion of what should and should not be included in the article. I have not yet seen any argument for why the Legislation section should not be in the article as it was until March 14, 2015. Are you going to go to RfC without offering a reason why the section should not be included as of March 14?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been said, and your objections have been said too. it is really a waste of time to repeat things. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to make things easier for the RfC you are about to initiate. Arguments in the previous thread got lost in the myriad of edit-warring and personal attacks to which I contributed. This will be difficult for an RfC to make sense of. I am simply trying to make things easier for the RfC so that we can improve the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A well-framed RfC lays out the question clearly and doesn't depend at all on prior discussion. The whole point is to bring in new perspectives. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02:

• Foie gras controversy ought to have its own article, as it currently does. First, it's close to 7,000 words, well within the range set out in WP:SIZESPLIT, justifying the split on an organizational basis alone. Second, if that material were to be included here in Foie gras, it would amount to nearly half of the article, which run afoul of WP:UNDUE. Many readers interested in foie gras may have little or no interest in the controversies around it, and the controversies should not dominate the article.
• Given my conclusion that foie gras controversy belongs in a different article, the question is, where should the detailed information about legislative actions associated with the controversy be placed? To me, the answer is very clear: it should be placed in the article about the controversy, not about the foodstuff itself; it's far more associated with the controversy.
• There is no value, and a host of synchronization issues (see WP:SYNC), with duplicating the material in both articles, beyond the minimum amount needed to give context to the {{main}} template, so the detailed legislative material should not be included here.

Based on the foregoing, I support the split to Foie gras controversy, the placement of the detailed legislation information in that article, and the removal (other than the briefest summary) from this article, substantially as advocated by Jytdog above. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in! Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as there is a foie gras controversy article the details clearly belong in that article, with a summary and a link in this article. And per Jytdog's arguments I think that the foie gras controversy article should stay. Sjö (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, since this discussion affects Foie gras controversy as well as this article, I have left a neutrally-worded note in Talk:Foie gras controversy, inviting editors there to take part in this discussion. TJRC (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ TJRC. Hi, and welcome to the discussion. Unfortunately, your previous edit placing the detailed Legislation information on the Foie gras controversy page may have inadvertently caused a problem. This detailed Legislation information was removed from Foie gras by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)]. This was despite my request it should not be moved because of a RfC to be initiated by Jytdog in the next 24-48 hours. It is worth noting that the IP address who removed the content has made only 2 WP edits - the one on this article where there was no explanation for the deletion, and another on a different article where again there was no explanation. I therefore have some doubts about the sincerity of edits made by this IP address. As a consequence of this removal, you saw the detailed information had been removed from source and understandably re-introduced it into Foie gras controversy. I believe editors contributing to the RfC should see the detailed information back in its original place, i.e. on Foie gras. I am therefore requesting you revert your edit which will take the summary information back to Foie gras controversy and I will then revert the edit by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)] bringing the detailed information back to Foie gras and avoiding duplicity on either page. The RfC being brought about by Jytdog can then proceed, and depending on the outcome, the detailed information can remain here, or be moved to Foie gras controversy. Hope this makes sense.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I had said i was going to propose a draft RfC for discussion. so you just went and launched one. blech. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the question I have asked?__DrChrissy (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

yes it is not neutral. please withdraw it so we can discuss a neutral question. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not neutral?__DrChrissy (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You pushed your RfC in without discussion and instead of being decent and withdrawing it when i object you are dancing around. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Should the detailed information on legislation relevant to foie gras (which has been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009) be moved to the Foie gras controversy page?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Invalid RfC and waste of the community's time. Not neutral in that argues for status quo. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here.

Reasons why the detailed Legislation information should be included in the Foie gras Article.

1) The section is totally germane and essential for a full understanding of the subject of the Foie gras article.

2) The average reader would expect to find the detailed information about the legislation on Foie gras, and not elsewhere.

3) The suitability of legislation information being placed on the Foie gras article is long established. Legislation information has been on Foie gras since at least December 2008.[here].

4) There has been no cogent argument on the Talk page as to why the section should not be on Foie gras.

5) The removal [here] appeared to be initiated by expansion and integrating greater detail, and an unspecified desire not to have the information on Foie gras.

__DrChrissy (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

no that is NOT how you do an RFC. The question should be framed in a clear and neutral manner, and you make your arguments in your own !vote. Again, please withdraw this so we can agree on the RfC question and statement. This is a waste of the community's time. You already wasted slim virgin's. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather than shouting at me by using unnecessary and undesirable uppercase and bold, and again issuing personal attacks and goading with "wasting time", why not suggest your RfC as you indicated you would? I have not initiated an RfC before because I have not encountered editors who have behaved in such a way that meant I needed to; please remain civil and help a fellow editor who is inexperienced in such matters.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, the section on bans should not be removed entirely, but should remain in summary-style on this page. It can be dealt with in more detail on the controversy page. Looking at this version, I would remove the quotes, who has welcomed the bans, etc, and just stick to the basics. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Hi Sarah (SV). Thanks very much for your input. The RfC question was intended to address the detailed Legislation information regarding countries and other jurisdictions, rather than the retail bans. Perhaps I have not made this clear. I consider the retail bans to be a slightly different issue which I will address after we have consensus regarding the Legislation information. Thanks again for your input. __DrChrissy (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)