Talk:Foie gras/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare

I really don't think that the Summary tag is needed on this subarticle. JamesMcGuiggan 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I changed all the GA tags of the projects to B class, because as per this articles Good Article review, it has been delisted, primarily for lack of stability coming into its extremely long article lock. All this stuff about references probably needs to be worked out on your own though, I can tell its quite a complicated subject. Review archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 12. Homestarmy 15:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall we continue?

Gentle people, who'd be interested to get back into the mediation and mediate rather than argue for once, so we can get some consensus on the article and work it back up to GA-status again?--Ramdrake 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still there. I was wondering what happened, the I realized it just got quiet because of the sockpuppet investigation...--Boffob 01:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also got quiet when I realized these guys were just plain unable to use logic and needed to twiste what everybody said to their own paranoid interpretation. I'v up to now been of a mind to assume at least some level of intelligence from somebody taking part in a debate... No more. --Ramdrake 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to chime in if it gets back on track, but all of a sudden I feel less desire to compromise with the Cerberus. At any rate, I'd like to get the article unprotected so we can get back to making slow, violent progress, which is better than the glacial progress we have now. —Trevyn 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Slow, violent progress"? I'd like you te eplain that to me one day. So, do we conitnue on the mediation page, or right here (in which case we probably need to thank ST47 for his help).?--Ramdrake 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lotsa typos there... Anyway, isn't it time for someone who's done it before to archive most of this talk page?--Boffob 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive done. SchmuckyTheCat 05:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Get back to the mediation with who exactly ? With a single person who deemed it OK to resort to sock-puppetry to stall the edit process and cause the whole ruckus with mediation ? Perhaps we should start by reviewing and re-evaluating every single change that was made under the influence of OliverD personalities. I would not be a bit surprised if the multiple personalities was not the only thing that was faked in a process. Alex Pankratov 04:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the amount of scrutiny put on every edit I don't think there are any faked sources. A good once-over might be nice. I'd like to see the article go to FA while we still have eyeballs and attention. SchmuckyTheCat 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm not jumping the gun, as I've already asked for article unprotection. I guess we'll see whatr happends from here.--Ramdrake 14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians and references

Ramdrake, this diff: [1]. I didn't voice this strenuously before but I've been hesitant to change this wording because it has a reference (with page number) after it to a book by McGee. Potentially this wording about the Egyptians is what the book says, and this current change does not reflect the source. I didn't add that reference but I'm tempted to see if I can find the book today. Also, this may be the source for THAT souce "Serventi, S. La grande histoire du foie gras. Paris: Flammarion, 1993." Which would be in French, and possibly a better source. I don't think I have access to this book and my mon français est tres mal faire la recherche academique.

In any case, my point is that we don't want to change the text of a sentence if it doesn't reflect the source. SchmuckyTheCat 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but if you have reliable source that says otherwise, by all means insert it. My French is fluent, so I can help you out with any translation you might need. My apologies if I stepped on anybody's toes, and please feel free to revert that edit of mine if you feel it's not in keeping with reliable sources. My only agenda is to have the best article on foie gras we can.--Ramdrake 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record

Yes, it's been hard on me, but I'm back. For the record, no, I am not the same person as Benio76 or Zelig33; and I don't think that anyone who has followed this controversy had any serious doubts about that. For the record too, getting rid of the opposition is not an argument; if some people have no better arguments than that, I don't think they will end up imposing their POV. David Olivier 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it was clear to me that if you guys weren't sockpuppets, you were at least meatpuppets, which is just as bad in circumstances such as these. That the real opposition comes from a single person impersonating three different people to give the impression his position had more weight is unethical, pure and simple. So, please never bring up ethics in these discussions again.--Ramdrake 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, we were neither sockpuppets nor meatpuppets. You know that very well, since you have followed the discussions and have seen that our contributions were independent. Once again you are denying the obvious. As for ethics: I don't think that your conduct, or that of a couple of others here, qualifies as ethical; I believe that you can act ethically, like most people, and have repeatedly called you to. It seems that those calls have been in vain. That notwithstanding, you are not rid of me. David Olivier 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Denying what obvious?--Boffob 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OliverD, what is obvious and what leaves no doubt whatsoever is that you went (and still appear to go) to substantial lengths to stall the editing process and pushing your minoritarian extremist POV into the article. You had your chance to be taken seriously, and you royally blew it. Pushing forward as if nothing has happened is the worst possible thing you can do at the moment. Alex Pankratov 03:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I note again, Apankrat, your immediate characterization of me as a minoritarian extremist. This has been going on since the start, and is the heart of the current controversy. Instead of discussing arguments, you try to drown them out by aggressive and insulting behaviour.

As for the effect of the dirty tricks that have been played: we will see how reliable the Wikepedian "due process of law" is. You know well that we are neither sockpuppets nor meat puppets, and you know that what you have done is not right. I for my part will continue editing and bringing arguments. I hope that Benio76 will be back online as soon as possible, and Zelig33 too.

David Olivier 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OliverD, please stopping assigning random opinions to other people. You cannot possible know what I "know well". Especially when I clearly expressed my opinion of the situation not more than 10 lines above. Alex Pankratov 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

David, unfortunately, after what just happened, Benio76 will NEVER come back online, and if Zelig33 does, I would advise him to be more than careful. Due Wikipedia process unmasked you as a minority, your views unmasked you as an extremist, I don't think there's anything more to say. I would suggest you take a few steps back and see how you can contribute to this article without being a constant source of disruption. Rememeber when I said I could understand that those who hated foie gras could be offended by any positive description of it? Well, those who accept foie gras are also offended by attempts to demonize the foodstuff based on its production methods. Please take a break and ponder on what I just said.--Ramdrake 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, please refrain from calling others 'extremist'. This is a form of personal attack and is not tolerated on this site.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, MichaelBrock in all likelihood

David Olivier. Please be warned.--Ramdrake 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that OlivierD was indef-blocked from editing Wikipedia as of few days ago and MichaelBrock disappeared at about the same time, I think it is safe to assume these accounts were used by the same person. Alex Pankratov 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why were my additions to this article just deleted? I added useful, relevant information:

1) several groups besides PETA and Farm Sanctuary oppose foie gras (I added APRL, IDA, HSUS and ASPCA, and references to statements from each)

2) I added reports from an independent veterinarian who was invited to Hudson Valley Foie Gras to the "third party observers" section. Lawrence Downes is not a veterinarian and is not qualified to talk about whether the ducks were suffering or not, but I did not delete this passage as someone so rudely did to the information I added.

I am a new user to Wikipedia, but it is obvious to me that this page has apparently been hijacked by pro foie gras forces.

MichaelBrock 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to answer: it it sufficient to say that several AW and AR groups oppose foie gras production methods, and we don't nee to list each and every one of them. Also, Holly Cheever is an active (and activist) member of PETA, so cannot really count as an uninvolved third-party. Therefore, at best, some of her comments might go up in the AR/AW section.

Lastly, your sudden appearance at this exact juncture, your single-mindedness about the Foie gras article makes all of us believe you are but one more meat/sock puppet acting on behalf of David Olivier, which as per WP:SOCK don't make your opinions count for much.--Ramdrake 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I should add that speculation about whether a particular producer of foie gras has tours of its facilities that may or may not represent their actual production methods/ethics is of no encyclopedic value. The extended list of AR groups is unnecessary given the list of external links.--Boffob 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) May I remind you ramdrake to not bite the newbies. Also, it may help if you take a read of WP:AGF too. Have you got any evidence that this new editor is a sock other than the fact that they only just appeared? Also, a sockpuppet is not always a bad thing - sometimes they can be acceptable for single purpose editing in order to reduce the slack aimed at an editor, so long as it isn't for the purpose of disruption.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if this new user agress to abide by WP rules, he is more than welcome. However, given the recent events and the fact of his recent apparation, together with the nature of his edits, makes me think he is yet another puppet of David Olivier. I guess time and his reaction to our reaction here will tell, If I nee to apologize at that point, I will most humbly apologize. Howvwer, his edits showed a POV slant with which I was already far too familiar.--Ramdrake 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake's take on the situation and the revert. Alex Pankratov 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Apankrat, here we expect arguments, not just votes. If you have arguments, please give them.

MichaelBrock: you are very welcome. Please don't pay too much attention to the personal attacks against you; there are people here who feel they have to resort to that kind of "arguments", for lack of more serious kinds.

Boffob: Information about the quality of sources is of encyclopedic value. The information provided by MichaelBrock puts the "third party" testimony by the journalist Lawrence Downes in perspective. I personally feel that testimony is of very poor value itself. Trevyn put it in, if I remember well; and at the same time, the Zogby polls were deleted on the accusation that they were biased.

Whether or not a piece of information is biased does count. I have reinstated the Zogby polls. The wording of the question is stated, so the reader can judge whether or not those polls are biased. If other users have doubts about that, then let's discuss it here. I accept that information critical of those polls should be stated; there is no reason to delete information critical of Lawrence Downes' testimony.

Relatively to the list of groups: There are many groups besides PETA. It is a common tactic from anti-animal groups to try to reduce all pro-animal voices to "PETA". I have nothing against PETA, but I believe that either a plurality of groups should be named, or none.

David Olivier 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Cheever is an expert with decades of farm animal experience (and graduated #1 from Cornell Vet School in 1980) who has been invited into Hudson Valley Foie Gras three times. What Dr. Cheever witnessed a few months after Lawrence Downes' visit provides context for what he described and is certainly relevant to the Third Party Observations section, which obviously was just added as a one sided slant to discredit claims of cruelty. Additionally, what justification do you have for deleting the comments of Whole Foods Market reps from this section? The rules clearly state that you are supposed to edit things that you think need editing, not simply revert and delete entire additions. Finally, the fact that HSUS and ASPCA oppose foie gras, which are the largest and most mainstream animal welfare groups in the U.S., is far more relevant than the fact that PETA and Farm Sanctuary oppose it. PETA opposes all animal usage so of course opposes foie gras, and Farm Sanctuary is a relatively tiny group. MichaelBrock 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who'd reverted it. There's no need for a laundry list of opposition, just as there's no need for a laundry list of producers. The point about the prominence of the organizations is well-made, however. I've restored HSUS, as it seems the best-sourced, and removed Farm Sanctuary, which seemed poorly sourced. I would support the inclusion of the ASPCA as well, with a better source. ("banfoiegras.com" contains the 2001 letter from the New York regional director to the New York attorney general, but does the NY regional director have the authority to speak for the organization as a whole? This would be better cited by a more official statement than by correspondence.) PETA should remain, as the section elaborates further upon their opposition. Shimeru 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You still need to provide a valid reason for including observations of an opinion editor who was invited to a foie gras farm under its own heading, while censoring observations from a highly qualified and independent veterinarian who was also invited by the same farm, as well as observations of Whole Foods Market representatives also invited by the same farm. Maybe Downes' opinion should be deleted as well and the "Third Party Observers" heading eliminated if you don't want a diversity of third party observations to be a part of this article. I find the whole story interesting, how the farm was able to go from turning off a major supermarket chain to then altering its presentation enough to convince a NYT editor to portray force feeding as no more violent than other farming techniques, and having a vet who took multiple tours over the same timespan to explain the difference. MichaelBrock 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. I wasn't the one who added them, and they hold no particular significance to me, so it would be rather disingenuous to provide reasons for including them. Shimeru 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to cut the pear in half, and rolled both up into the same section of "3rd party observers" as neither of them examined the premises in any official function. One examined the premises after being invited, while the other performed necropsies on ducks that had died from the process (which we know is 2-4% of the ducks undergoing the process, thus a statistically unrepresentative sample). In both cases, these stories have only anecdoctic value.--Ramdrake 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see an alternative source of Mr. Ward Stone's opinion. Having run a number of searches in Google I cannot find a copy of Mr. Ward's facsimile that does NOT come from PETA/AR or other clearly biased group. Therefore I am inclined to question the authenticity of the document.Alex Pankratov 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Call Dr. Stone yourself and ask him then, Apankrat; his contact info is on the letter. There would certainly be legal consequences to a "clearly biased group" forging a document from him. And Ramdrake, even if only 2-4% of the ducks suffer the way Dr. Stone described (if you believe the industry's deflated mortality figures--the European Union Report found mortality to be 20% higher on foie gras farms than ordinary duck farms), that is still relevant information on the amount of suffering this industry causes, even if for only 2-4% of the ducks. The fact that it is the norm to cause ducks to come right up to that state before slaughtering them is also relevant. MichaelBrock 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, OliverD. I am going to do just that - contact Dr. Stone. Alex Pankratov 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, about 2% of the soldiers sent in Irak and Afghanistan died a horrible death. Has their government taken any step to withdraw them from harm? No, their government actually wants to send more of them. I'll be the first to admit, the comparison is odious, but unfortunately a logical kind of odious.--Ramdrake 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was whether the information was properly included and not whether or not it should necessarily lead to your twisted conclusion above. I have just removed the description "unrestricted visit" from the Downes blurb, as his editorial does not say that at all. The source making that unsubstantiated claim was an opinion piece by a pro foie gras author with an axe to grind. The actual article by Downes can be read at tinyurl.com/38es6l. As no one has provided a rational explanation for removing Whole Foods' and Dr. Cheever's observations from the same kind of invitation Downes received, I have reposted abbreviated versions of these observations and appropriate references to each. MichaelBrock 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire "Third-party opinions" subsection only refers to opinions relating to the observations of one particular American farm producing foie gras. As such, they constitute one big anecdote which have little to do with the controversy of foie gras in general. As this is not encyclopedic in content, I believe it should be removed entirely.--Boffob 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary-style tag on the AR section

I would like this one to stay until properly addressed. Currently, it reads with bits in any paragraph and looks like a tit-for-tat argument. I'd like to make it into a more defendable position. So, please leve that tag be for some time yet. Thanks :)--Ramdrake 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about those subsections on "Third party observers" citing only one particular observer to a particular producer, and "Government officials", again, citing only one state official's opinion. These qualify as anecdotes, not arguments with regards to the controversy worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I might as well add that my mom's friend loves foie gras but one of my old classmates thinks it cruel...--Boffob 04:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Cheever

I removed the reference to "Dr. Cheever". She is closely associated with AR groups, therefore quoting here opinion AS IS without clarifying her affiliation with AR activism is misleading. Her opinion is neither unbiased nor uninfluenced. See http://www.theanimalhospital.com/Holly.htm for details. I also agree with Boffob that the whole section needs to be removed on the grounds of not being of an encyclopedic nature. Alex Pankratov 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All the above link shows is that Dr. Cheever is a vet who cares about animals. The fact is she works closely with NYS law enforcement for enforcing the animal cruelty laws and has been invited to tour Hudson Valley Foie Gras multiple times as a member of the AVMA. You also removed the Whole Foods reference AGAIN, without explanation. I am reverting, and we will take this to mediation if need be. You also need to stop accusing me of being David Olivier, who lives across the Atlantic from what I understand.MichaelBrock 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oliver don't start the revert war again and please consider using "I" instead of "we" when voicing your own opinions. Alex Pankratov 04:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Faux Foie Gras

I removed the reference to http://www.banfoiegras.com/fauxfoiegras.htm as it is not backed up by the original news bit from an unbias verified source. Specifically, this article does not appear in the list of those authored by Phil Vettel for Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-philvettel,1,7049268.storygallery?coll=chi-leisure-utl. Secondly - assuming the article is genuine, the fact that the ban forced some restaurants to look for a substitution does not belong to an article on Foie Gras. It is an interesting bit of an info, but completely irrelevant. Alex Pankratov 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This information is at least as relevant as the fact that some restaurants are violating the ban. Just b/c the article doesn't come up on Google News anymore doesn't mean it wasn't published. Go to the library or contact the author. Stop censoring valid and relevant information to push your own agenda. I am reverting this too.MichaelBrock 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.banfoiegras.com website is NOT a reliable or unbiased source of information. Alex Pankratov 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was published in the Chicago Tribune and is posted as it was published. Go to any library and look it up. Further, you can call the restaurants and ask if they are serving faux foie gras. Your ad hominem accusations that I am another user are not helping this discussion. I am taking the time to add relevant information that I have researched that balances out biased information that has been posted, which I have NOT deleted. The solution to bad information is more information, not censorship, as you are engaging in. MichaelBrock 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful here. A source does not necessarily need to be unbiased; it only needs to be a) reliable and b) used in an unbiased (NPOV) manner within the article. One could argue that almost any source is biased -- mainstream media outlets have their slants, academics have their pet theories -- and in dealing with controversial matters, sources are likely to be biased toward one stance or another. This bias doesn't intrinsically make them unreliable sources -- it depends on how they're used. I'd suggest forgetting about the bias of the source and concentrating on its reliability and verifiability -- those are far more serious concerns. Shimeru 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shimeru, I was questioning the reliability of the source, not its bias. The bias of http://www.banfoiegras.com is obvious. They hold and promote extreme point of view (I am not assigning a negative quality to their PoV, just stating the fact that it is radically off the center). The most active participant of this discussion from the AR side was confirmed to be using questionable tactics involving forgery of information pertaining to the discussion. MichaelBrock appeared almost exactly when OliverD disappeared, his editing and discussion style is similar to OliverD's, so it is reasonable to suspect that this is another case of puppetry in one of its forms. Given this context I do question the authenticity of the documents hosted on www.banfoiegras.com that are not backed up by other unaffiliated (non-PETA, non-AR) sources. Alex Pankratov 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware... I may not have said much on this page, but I've been following this on and off for a month or so now. I just wanted to point out that by seeming to emphasize "unbiased" above, you're opening your arguments up to tangential attacks when there's no need to do so. Reliability and verifiability are much better objections. Also, it's not terribly productive to dwell on sockpuppetry suspicions here; there're other pages meant for investigating that. Shimeru 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinions

This is an important section even if it currently only addresses one farm, because that one farm produces 2/3 of the foie gras consumed in the U.S. and is at the center of a public relations and legislative battle here. Regarding recent changes:

1) A better source for Dr. Cheever's position with AVAR is the AVAR website itself, rather than an unreferenced discussion page on an anti-AR site. 2) There is NOTHING in Lawrence Downes editorial stating that his visit was "unrestricted." This phrase keeps being added back in and referenced to an opinion piece by a different, blatantly pro-foie gras writer who has NO firsthand knowledge, in a separate article. See tinyurl.com/38es6l for what Downes actually wrote. Please stop including the wholly unsubstantiated claim that his visit was "unrestricted," whatever that is supposed to mean anyway. 3) Dr. Stone is not just any wildlife pathologist. He is THE Wildlife Pathologist for the NYDEC and has been for over 36 years. It's part of his credentials, just like "Adjunct Professor at SUNY." Whether or not the editors of this page feel it is within the "purview" of NYDEC to conduct necropsies on foie gras ducks, the fact is he has done this--at the Wildlife Pathology Unit of NYDEC--and provided these reports on NYDEC letterhead, referenced in the article. Therefore it does not make sense to keep removing the reference to NYDEC. MichaelBrock 18:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Still, for Dr. Stone, since the work on farm ducks is not in the purview of the NYSDEC (which deals with wild animals), that work cannot have been mandated by the NYSDEC (unless you have a reference that says so, in which case I will withdraw my objection). Thus, he is conducting those necropsies in his quality as a pathologist. "Adjunct professor at SUNY" just establishes the seriousness of his credentials. However, mentioning NYSDEC when this work is outside of its purview is a false appeal to authority, the way I see it. And for Dr. Cheever's position with AVAR, it's on anumber of sites, verifiable and sourced. You can't remove it because the source is biased. However, if you find an AR source that says the same, please feel free to substitute it.--Ramdrake 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether NYDEC "mandated" that he do this or not. You still included that Lawrence Downes is an editor for the NYT, even though the NYT probably did not mandate that he visit the farm, and AVAR probably did not mandate that Dr. Cheever visit and provide her report. "Adjunct Professor" is not a particularly important title. There are a lot of adjunct professors. What establishes Dr. Stone's credentials is that he is the Wildlife Pathologist for NYDEC. This gives him extensive experience with waterfowl, important b/c one of the claims of the foie gras producers is that force feeding mimics pre-migratory gorging, a claim vigorously disputed by Dr. Stone. Further, "research activities by the WPU have historically made many significant contributions to the sciences of wildlife pathology, physiology and toxicology." (www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/wpu.htm). Therefore, it makes sense that Dr. Stone would perform these necropsies in his official capacity in order to acquire more data in the area of waterfowl pathology and physiology. I request that you re-add the NYDEC link. MichaelBrock 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Then just supply a verifiable source that says he did it within the purview of his NYSDEC mandate. Having other titles, he has other mandates, and he could he been called upon as part of one of those other mandates. A wildlife pathologist and Adjunct University Professor is still a pretty serious credential. And between you and me, it's pretty certain that Lawrence Downes visited as part of his mandate, as he wrote a piece on it for the NYT. Same goes for Dr. Cheever, as this activity is fully within the purview of AVAR. Analysing dead farm ducks is not part of the mandate of the NYSDEC.--Ramdrake 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Other people should weigh in on this, b/c this discussion is getting nowhere. Just b/c Downes wrote a piece does not mean he had to, yet obviously it is still okay to state that he is a NYT editor. Conversely, just b/c Dr. Stone may not have been required to perform those necropsies doesn't mean that he didn't do it as part of his WPU work--in fact he did it at the WPU and provided a report on NYDEC letterhead, yet you don't want to include that fact. One change you made that is absolutely intolerable and which I am going to change back right now is the link to the so-called source stating that Downes' visit was unrestricted. That is not the way to properly source a claim, by linking to a biased opinion piece that has no substantiation. The article you link to is entitled "I want my foie gras! Outspoken foodies Anthony Bourdain and Michael Ruhlman sound off about New Jersey's plan to ban the duck delicacy -- and how the food police are ruining America." In one sentence on the second page, one of these "outspoken foodies" makes the bald assertion that Lawrence Downes paid an "unrestricted visit" to HVFG. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the actual article Downes wrote does not say that at all. The "outspoken foodies" you cite to have no basis for making that claim, and none is given. Therefore, the claim and the citation should be removed unless and until you can provide a source with firsthand knowledge stating that Downes paid an unrestricted visit. MichaelBrock 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Downes "had to" write that piece, I said he did it within his mandate as a NYT reporter, and his piece appeared in the NYT. And no, you cannot remove sourced fact because you feel the source is biased. And yes, you're more than welcome to start a straw poll on any or all of these issues, although I have an idea of the result you're likely to get. Oh, and the ref provided for Dr. Stone's opinions shows nowhere the NYSDEC letterhead. If you have a source that uses that specific letterhead, I will of course also withdraw my objection. The current ref is just a fax that looks like it was sent personnally.--Ramdrake 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And Dr. Stone performed necropsies on ill or injured waterfowl within his mandate as Wildlife Pathologist and researcher for NYDEC, and his report appeared on NYDEC letterhead (see footnote 63 in the article). BTW, Downes is not a reporter, he is an opinion editor, and there is a big difference. It's fine to state what he said he saw, but to state what someone else--who is clearly biased--said that they think he saw, even though Downes himself never said it, is not proper. My objection is not just that your "outspoken foodies" you keep citing to are biased, but that there is no substantiation for what they say Downes did or saw. There is no indication that they have any more information other than what was in Downes article, and that is the proper source, not their telephone game parroting of what they think he did or saw. I see that someone else already reverted my change, but I am hoping that reason will prevail here. MichaelBrock 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I took your objection into consideration, and pulled from Downes' piece that he specifically saw the gavage process, which I think everyone will agree is the most objectionable part of foie gras production. So, this is now impeccably cited. And the fact that Mr Downes writes an op-ed piece doesn't mean he isn't a journalist, it just means he is a journalist with a license to give his own opinion of a newsworthy fact.--Ramdrake 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! Now you're admitting that the link to the "outspoken foodies" article adds no real information that wasn't in the original source, yet you are still linking to it! The only thing that needs to be cited for what Downes observed was what Downes actually wrote. The "outspoken foodies" only add inflammatory rhetoric, not direct observations or fact. Also, as an aside, the insertion of the feeding tube is not the most objectionable part of foie gras production. The main source of suffering the ducks endure is from the long term cumulative effect of the force feeding over time, which causes their livers to expand to up to 10 times their normal size. MichaelBrock 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not argue for the sake of arguing. The link is still there as it co-validates the direct source. Nothing says you can't have two sources for a statement.--Ramdrake 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the Salon.com dialogue is nothing more than a vicious and longwinded attack on Assemblyman Panter of NJ and others. It calls people "nitwits" and other names, and advocates throwing "shit pies" in people's faces. It's not scholarly and it's not from a reputable source. It certainly doesn't belong in an encylopedia, especially since it is being used simply as a secondary hearsay source for information that is already adequately referenced from a primary source.MichaelBrock 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarliness is not a requirement. There are other references in this article which also are downright attacks, but from the other (AR) side. Nobody calls for their withdrawal based on how vicious or not the attck is. People say what people say.--Ramdrake 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be scholarly. Now where have I heard that exact same objection before? Anyway, I still believe this entire "Third party opinions" subsection should be deleted because it concerns strictly the opinions of 3 individuals (with one affiliated with AR groups, already mentioned in their own section) on one farm producing foie gras in the US. It has no encyclopedic value.--Boffob 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a straw poll on whether to remove this section or not. I tend to agree with Boffob on this that this represents a handful of personal opinions which are at odds with each other and adds nothing to the article, except to make it look like a mess. Straw poll, anyone?--Ramdrake 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny that no one had a problem with this section when it only contained one set of observations from a single individual seeming to validate foie gras production. Now that it has been rounded out with observations from Whole Foods representatives, the NYSDEC wildlife pathologist, and an experienced veterinarian (and with a considerable amount of time and effort spent working out these details), you think it should be removed? The only part of this section that has no encyclopedic value is the citation to an outrageous article that adds no factual basis to the passage unecessarily referencing it.MichaelBrock 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say remove. Whether then or now, it is only a set of anecdotes relating to a single foie gras-producing facility. Seen that way, it has little to no encyclopedic value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I say Remove as well. I personally did not notice that subsection until recently. I don't care on what sides the opinions are, because it is still 3 individuals talking about the practices of one specific farm. Not encyclopedic.--Boffob 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what about the anecdotes appearing directly under that section from Michael Ginor, owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, making a series of absurd and unsubstantiated claims, including that his ducks come to him? That section contains NO references at all, just a bunch of opinions from the same producer. If you're going to talk about removing a section, I would start there.MichaelBrock 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absurd claims? Why do you think they are absurd (and where I have heard this before)? It is one anecdote, I guess in this case it could be rephrased and referenced, as it is one argument from a foie gras producer or industry group, which is what this subsection is about (that is, this subsection has a general encyclopedic purpose). The "third party opinions" section has nothing relating to foie gras in general, only issues with a specific producer.--Boffob 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If the ducks came running to him to be force fed, don't you think a Third Party Observer (such as Lawrence Downes) would have seen this? That is why that section is important, because it gives the direct observations of individuals who are neither profiting from foie gras nor attempting to abolish all animal husbandry.MichaelBrock 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The visit from a NYT editor was a significant event that foie gras producers rely on. The decision of Whole Foods not to sell foie gras after direct observation is also significant information that anti foie gras folks rely on. The NYSDEC necropsies are certainly significant. To say that no one interested in this issue would care about these facts is a stretch.MichaelBrock 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Significant for local foie gras producers and local AR activists maybe, but of no enclyclopedic value. This article is about foie gras, not Hudson Valley foie gras. Whole Foods doesn't sell prosciutto from Parma because they couldn't inspect the italian facilities, and for prosciutto lovers in the US this had a significant impact, but you don't see that mentioned in the prosciutto article.--Boffob 22:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You can feel free to add observations from 3rd parties from wherever you are from--I happen to be from the U.S. and have added information from U.S. observers. Since the production methods are the same, the info has general value as well.MichaelBrock 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Besides, the only "3rd parties" I ever encounter are journalists writing opinion pieces when there are foie gras related important news events (such as the Chicago debate and subsequent ban). They usually just parrot the arguments supplied by whichever group (AR orgs or foie gras producers/consumers) they agree with.--Boffob 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, may I ask why you removed the word "unrestricted"? Do you have an issue with the reliability or verifiability of Salon.com? Regarding the straw poll, I say keep, but restrict to factual descriptions of actual events observed. The section got distorted from "Third-party observers", which I think does add encylopedic color to the actual events that occur in foie gras farming to "Third-party opinion", which opens it up to unencyclopedic digressions. I believe that Downes helps fill out the discussion of the controversy, because he describes little more than what he saw during his visit. The Whole Foods representatives only mention that they found their visit "upsetting" -- they don't actually say what they saw. Stone similarly goes off on a rant about how it should be outlawed, without describing the actual events he observed. Cheever, aside from not being third-party at all, similarly does not say what she actually saw, but simply makes accusations. —Trevyn 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As an attempt to compromise, since the reliability of the source was hotly disputed, I found another source which detailed which part of the operation was witrnessed, and since it looked AFAIK as possibly being the most objectionable (the gavage operation), and the source was not disputed, I made the switch. Please feel free to add it back if you think the distinction is of consequence. --Ramdrake 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed from "Opinions" to "Observations," to make clear that this section is only for reports from third parties who have directly observed some element of foie gras production, not just abstract opinions or hearsay statements. If you read the cites for Dr. Stone and Dr. Cheever, they clearly give detailed scientific descriptions of their actual observations. The Whole Foods memo is also at least as relevant as Downes' observations, which if you read his whole article goes into a lot of abstract opinion as well (not to mention the totally inappropriate cite to the Salon.com diatribe cited that adds nothing factual).

I also propose adding the following news item that just aired:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z96wt-ECAoI

A bilingual friend tells me the journalist concludes by saying something like "when one watches these images we filmed yesterday in Perigord, one can only doubt the claim that these birds do not suffer". Then the section would not just be confined to U.S. observations. I want to see what others think of adding this link and expanding the heading before starting another edit war. The images filmed were by the journalists, not activists, so clearly are third party observations.MichaelBrock 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This video is in French, which makes it of little use for English Wikipedia. It presents arguments and images from Stopgavage (the farm is identical to pictures from that website) and one rebuttal by a scientist, all of which is already covered or linked to in the article.--Boffob 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think the reliability of youtube videos as source for WP articles has been discussed at length a few months ago, and if I remember correctly,they were considered surces of generally very poor reliability.

And Michael,if you don't mind my saying so, you seem to be strangely familiar with French and with the group Stopgavage, just like our friend of old David Olivier. Here's hoping you're not just another sockpuppet of his (and no, I'm not accusing you of anything).--Ramdrake 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the farms look generally alike. The footage in the piece was taken by the journalists. The piece would simply be a citation, and the text in the Wikipedia article would be the English translation of the journalists' conclusion posted above.MichaelBrock 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, just because Dr. Cheever supports the humane treatment of animals does not undermind her credentials or Third Party Observer status. She was invited to the farm in an expert capacity as part of a NY veterinary team, and previously as an observer for Whole Foods. None of her three visits were on behalf of an AR group. Also, her background is in farm animal husbandry, and she clearly is not trying to abolish all animal agriculture, which is the argument for why AR groups themselves may be biased on this issue. One could also argue that Downes is not a true third party b/c the NYT sells ads for foie gras, and they would lose money if foie gras were banned. MichaelBrock 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the NYT would never sell ad space to PeTA and other AR groups?--Boffob 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether they would or not isn't the point. The fact is they do make a lot of money on ads for restaurants that sell foie gras, and virtually nothing on ads for AR groups. Given that, it's unlikely that the NYT editorial page would come out against foie gras as a matter of editorial policy and anger its major advertisers.MichaelBrock 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the biggest stretches of logic I ever heard. Got any statistics on how much ad revenue comes from restaurants that sell foie gras and would pull their ads if the NYT opined against it? How about actual numbers for ads from PETA? How does high-scale restaurant ad revenue compare to ad revenue from other sources?--Boffob 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

I disagree with the removal of South Africa. Just because there is no specific law against force feeding does not mean it isn't prohibited under the general animal cruelty law, as in many other countries. The general animal cruelty law is being enforced in South Africa so as to prohibit foie gras production. See http://www.banfoiegras.com/nations.html MichaelBrock 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation active?

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it is no longer active and you can close it. It turns out one side was a single user using sockpuppets.--Boffob 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, same here.--Ramdrake 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it seems like there is a team of people on here trying to bias the information. GingerGin 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you exactly disagreeing with ? Alex Pankratov 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GingerGin, I don't see any attempts by you to engage in discussion. Without a discussion, there can be no mediation. --Ideogram 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a small group (3-4, perhaps using multiple accounts) on this page controlling the flow of information, and anytime new people try to participate, they accuse them of all being the same person and try to have them banned. Foie gras producers have hired large PR firms to represent their interests, and I wouldn't doubt if they were behind some of this activity.MichaelBrock 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this is proven (you're welcome to try), but what was proven is that there was a single user on this page, using multiple accounts, who tried to control the flow of information and make this article into an anti-foie gras article, and anytime anyone tried to balance POV, he'd revert, add more badly sourced claims, make outrageous claims of his own, etc. This user was found guilty of sockpuppeteering and was indef-banned. It seems there are some radical AR/anti-foie gras groups who will go to lengths to try to show the world they have a following much larger than they actually do. But I'm not talking about you, Michael. ;> --Ramdrake 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have suspicions of sockpuppetry, you can file a request at WP:RFCU. Accusations of conspiracy also cannot be handled by informal mediation. --Ideogram 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just recently became a member. I'd like to be more informed before I make comments, so give me a chance to catch up with all you Daffy Duck experts. GingerGin 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To GingerGin, welcome and read away!

To Ideogram, on second though, you may want to leave that mediation case open for just now. Thanks.--Ramdrake 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Let me check to see if the mediator is still active. --Ideogram 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is unrelated, but I have a question. Why is there so much argument over whether the process of creating foie gras is inhumane to the geese? I thought the position of pro-foie gras people was that they want the right to eat foie gras and it doesn't matter what that entails. I thought it was more of an individual rights vs. animal rights issue, not a debate over whether or not the animal enjoys the process. It's pretty rediculous to argue over that if you ask me, I mean, it's pretty obvious that the animals aren't having a good time. GingerGin 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since basically all butchery animals experience some level of discomfort, the question is more about how much more discomfort are these animals in compared to average butchery animals? Most people probably wouldn't want the animals they eat to suffer needlessly, and much of the debate is about how much suffering is imposed to these animals compared to regular butchery animals. At least, that's waht I understand is at the heart of the issue.--Ramdrake 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make much sense to me since it can be argued that much all slaughtered animals suffer needlessly since people don't "need" to eat animals at all if you think about it. It would really be impossible to say whether the geese suffer more or less than "regular" butchery animals because you'd need to visit every factory farm for every kind of animal and compare how the workers are treating the animals and to what extent abuse is occurring. A better argument would be that foie gras is a luxory that people don't consider part of a "normal" diet and would probably be happy to avoid it if they knew what went into its production. By the way, what's up with the user name "Ramdrake"? It's obvious that this person is fond of ramming things down the throats of ducks. Given that, I think his comments and edits should be looked at very carefully and screened for bias. GingerGin 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny your musing about my username: Ramdrake is a handle I've been using for 20 years, back when BBSes were more or less doing what the internet is doing right now. It has nothing to do with ramming, or with ducks, but rather is a take on "Mandrake". You can't discriminate against foie gras based on the fact it's a luxury item, no more than say lobster or caviar or a myriad other foods. It's true, all butchery animals suffer to some degree, but the argument proposed by anti-foie gras groups is that it's cruel enough it should be outlawed. Now, since they're not asking to ban all meats (at least not all AR groups are), we should be able tologically presume the treatment of other butchery animals isn't "as cruel". I sure do hope you weren't serious about accusing me of being fond of ramming things down the throats of ducks; just looking at my contribution list will tell you I have many, many interests besides this particular article, although I will admit it's okay if my nick confuses you on my intentions in this article.--Ramdrake 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

GingerGin, could you very briefly explain why exactly animals are considered differently from vegetables or, say, shell fish from AR perspective ? I don't mean this as any form of a trick question or anything, I really would like to get an idea of the AR reasoning. Both veggies and animals are highly complex organic substances, and neither is sapient. With an exception of animals being structured (roughly) similarly to humans, what criteria is used to single them out in a category that makes them less suitable for certain human tasks/activities than vegetables ? Thanks. Alex Pankratov 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject, but let me suggest you keep the discussion on this talk page focused on what the article should say. If you wish to continue discussing the issues you raise here, let me suggest one of your user talk pages. --Ideogram 07:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

European Union section

This section is a mess and contains several errors...I have corrected some inaccuracies detailed below:

1) The quote "no definite conclusions can be drawn concerning the physiological activity of birds in response to force feeding" is not an absolute statement but rather is in reference to specific studies being analyzed.

2) The reversing of the steatosis takes approximately four weeks according to the report, which is an important detail regarding the severity of the condition.

3) "The timing of liver fattening is carefully controlled so the animal is slaughtered before it becomes a health hazard."--this terminology appears nowhere in the report. The report does say that mortality drastically increases if force feeding continues longer than usual (p41), hence producers kill the birds right before they would likely die from the practice.

4) "An animal that stops the forced feeding process returns to its normal weight. Producers, and the EU report, also answer the criticism of increased mortality by noting that the overall mortality rate of ducks and geese in foie gras production is much less than that of farm raised chickens and turkeys." -- The first sentence is reduntant (reversibility already discussed above). The allegations of the second sentence appear nowhere in the report.

5) Final paragraph--the Committee did not conduct its own tests on hormone levels and distress. Rather, it found that no real conclusions can be drawn from the INRA studies purporting to show lack of distress. The previous final sentence also makes it appear that the Committee conducted this study which was actually an anecdotal story of a pilot study told by an INRA researcher (p37), so I took it out. Whoever added this paragraph was clearly trying to twist the findings of the EU Committee.

This section still needs work and cleaning up, but at least major inaccuracies have now been removed.MichaelBrock 06:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote this. It was a mishmash of conflicting claims. I moved the claims to subject area paragraphs (physiology, mortality, behavior). On your point 4, the comparison to other poultry was sourced to somewhere but it's been lost in editing. On point 5, all of the behavioral stuff is observation not strict studies. I tried to make that clear.

I also moved the concluding statement that current practices are detrimental to the intro paragraph of the section. By putting that sentence in bold it is clear they wanted that conclusion to be prevalent. It shouldn't have been buried in a subsequent paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning this up. However, the claim that the Committee observed the ducks are more aversive to a third party than to the feeder is not correct. That was a personal communication from an INRA researcher about an unpublished pilot study he supposedly did. See p37 of the report. Faure is an INRA researcher (see p40).MichaelBrock 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras producers and industry groups

Hey ya'll, I really think that you need a reference if you're going to use a word like "affirm" - it's so authoritative and needs some kind of reference to a scientific report or something. Sorry Ramdrake. GingerGin 08:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Because "to assert positively, maintain as true" (affirm) here is more appropriate than "assert or maintain as fact." (claim).--Boffob 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the change that has been made after my edit. I would like to delete the entire line unless a citation can be found. The preceeding paragraph already makes the point and it is unnecessary to add an uncited addition that basically says the same thing. GingerGin 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Claim" is no more acceptable. However, please note that I flagged the sentence with a {{cn}} tag. Please do not delete the line.--Ramdrake 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why dont' I delete the line for now, and we can return it when someone comes up with a reputable citation. That sentence without a citation is just like saying "industry groups affirm that geese hatched out of purple eggs are delicious" {citation needed}. If we could just write whatever we want and then put "citation needed", it would make the whole thing a complete joke. I'm going to delete it! GingerGin 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison photo

There is a comparison photo from PETA. It has no copyright status listed on it's page. It's a good image but I can't find any photo re-use criteria from PETA. Someone else (probably a bot) marked the image for deletion. SchmuckyTheCat 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What should the caption be

File:Livers.jpg

The liver on the left is duck foie gras; the liver on the right is plain duck liver.

File:Livers.jpg

Force feeding produces a liver (left) that is six to ten times its ordinary size (right).

I don't think the image should contain wishy-washy statements in the caption (six to ten times, which is it in the picture?) nor a caption with a slant. SchmuckyTheCat 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am working on getting PETA's copyright policy. Whatever the caption says, it should be clear that the enlargement is due to force feeding, especially since another part of the article claims foie gras can be made without force feeding (but presumably with a much smaller liver).MichaelBrock 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the article already says that the foie gras liver is six to ten times larger than regular liver. I don't see a need to repeat this in the caption.--Ramdrake 20:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No need to be redundant.--Boffob 00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I say the caption should be "Force feeding produces a liver (left) that is six to ten times its ordinary size (right)." The one that just says the left liver is a foie gras duck and the right one is a regular duck is misleading. If someone were to look at the picture without reading the article, they would think that foie gras ducks are just big ducks with big livers. The other description is much better. GingerGin 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So how does this compare with the liver of a duck when on a natural migration? —Trevyn 07:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued below... MichaelBrock 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Still active?

Is this dispute still active? --Ideogram 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. With the unblocking of the editors from the other position, I was expecting them to restart the dispute. Seems they haven't done that, so I'll go with whatever the other editors think about whether the dispute is still active or not.--Ramdrake 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What dispute are you referring to? If it's the one about the caption under the picture of the livers, I vote to keep it saying "The liver on the left has been fattened by force feeding to make foie gras, compared to an ordinary duck liver on the right." Please do not change that! GingerGin 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That was some days before you came along. There's a mediation open with the mediation cabal and we're trying to figure if it should be closed. As for the caption, and the picture, they are deceptive, as they don't show the size of a duck liver just prior to migration (which size would definitely be somewhere in between the two - i.e. the liver being shown as "normal" doesn't stay that size all year round).--Ramdrake 13:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These ducks don't migrate. They are a cross between a Muscovy (wild tropical duck that does not migrate) and a Peking (domestic duck that also does not migrate). Also see the [| E.U. Scientific Report, p26]: "Hence whilst the domestic goose might well be adapted to store food before migration, it is less likely that a cross between the domestic duck and the Muscovy duck, the Mulard, has such a potential for food."MichaelBrock 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But it has a natural ability to gorge and store fat like any other duck or goose that is not demonstrated by the picture. SchmuckyTheCat 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These ducks do not migrate and hence do not have premigratory gorging behavior. The small liver in the picture is as big as their liver would get without force feeding. In ducks that do migrate, their livers may get 1 1/2 to 2 times larger, which is only slightly larger compared to the 10 times caused by force feeding. Are you saying the picture should also include a liver from a different species of duck that is slightly larger? What purpose would that serve?MichaelBrock 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, whether they migrate is irrelevant. They have the capacity to store fat in the liver as other, migratory ducks do, the same way humans still have wisdom teeth even though they don't really need them anymore. And I believe the article is very explicit that foie gras doesn't come from "just big" ducks. But that's beside the point. My point is, the picture would be much more informative if it showed the range of liver sizes in nature (e.g. before and after the migration of a migratory duck close to the Mulard duck), compared to the size of a foie gras liver. Then, we'd be able to tell how far outside the normal range gavage takes ducks' livers. Michael, if you have a reliable reference (preferably a scholarly one) that says that livers of migratory ducks only enlarge to 1.5-2 times their normal size before migration, please add it. This kind of information would be quite helpful in framing the debate.--Ramdrake 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The physiology section has already for some time said that a wild duck may as much as double its liver size through gorging, and gives a reference to the EU report. It might be interesting to show a picture of such a liver next to the others if you can find one, but you're still comparing apples and oranges because it's two completely different species of duck that probably have different sized livers to begin with anyway. The ducks used for foie gras are of a tropical, nonmigratory variety that do not exhibit this gorging behavior, so you will not find a natural liver in one of these ducks that is any larger than in the picture. Your comments above about wisdom teeth assume that these ducks evolved from ducks that migrate so still retain that ability, as opposed to the other way around. Do you have a reference showing such an evolutionary relationship?MichaelBrock 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the mediation about? As for the caption, I have to say that it is not deceptive and need to stay. I compromised and did not revert the part about how the ducks appreciate being force fed, so this needs to stay. I say that's an even exchange. GingerGin 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't acknowledge what it is about, it's time for it to close. If the article needs another then another can be started anew. Also, it's not about "even exchanges". SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Schmuck - who died and made you boss of the whole thing? Just because you state your opinion as fact doesn't mean it is fact. You are clearly biased and want to gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. Discussion is here to compromise when controversial pieces can't be agreed upon. My input has just as much weight as anyone else here so don't speak to me in that dismissive tone. GingerGin 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's a bit incongruous to tell someone not to use a dismissive tone when you've just used it yourself (please re-read your first sentence). Second, please assume good faith WP:AGF and refrain from personal attacks WP:NPA ("Schmuck" - look it up if you don't know). And third, as you were not part of the mediation when it was active, it would be a bit beyond your purview to request that it be kept open at this point. However, if there are any further major disagreements, please feel free to open another one. This mediation (which I requested) was the second one in about four months, maybe a bit less.--Ramdrake 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Schmucky is right there. That mediation should be closed as it degenerated into lengthy arguments that had nothing to do with the original contentious points. The original mediator was saved by the bell when the sockpuppets verdict came in and effectively killed the mediation process. That mediator is not coming back, and a new mediator will be hard to come by given that any and all discussion on foie gras just ends up in phonebook-size spiraling arguments.--Boffob 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument there. Amen.--Ramdrake 01:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 05:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mondo Cane

A 1962 shock-semi-documentary (with both real and staged sequences according to IMDB) is little evidence for a customary practice of nailing the feet. Is there any better evidence for this assertion?--Boffob 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I saw that edit and debated taking it out altogether, but opted to reword it rather than delete content. Aelffin 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was quick...--Boffob 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just put in "to the floor" to clarify. GingerGin 18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about this. The film Mondo Cane is known for having some scenes that are documentary, and some that are staged. We have no way of knowing if this was staged or real somewhere. Thus, while it is verifiable that the movie depicted this, the factual nature of this tidbit is utterly unreliable (this could well be one of the staged sequences, we have no way to know). How are we to convey that we don't know for sure that thia actually ever happened anywhere else than in the movie?--Ramdrake 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mondo Cane is not a reliable source. The only other source I see for the statement is AR websites claiming it used to happen. A reference in a Forbes article we used for some other statement has a quoted disclaimer from a foie gras producer that it was a lie that it happened in 1993. IMHO, it's probable that it used to happen and if a source can be found for that, it should be in the history section. SchmuckyTheCat 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:FarmSanctuary's edit

Is also a copyvio of this site: [2].--Ramdrake 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For starters, just having a username that is the same as a wesite is not sufficient release to post this information here. If it is copyrighted and you are releasing it then that permission needs to be send via email to the wikimedia foundation. Right now I see nothing on that website that shows this text is GFDL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Beyond that, removing mention of PETA and adding mention of your own website is a WP:COI.--Isotope23 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

This is also about the line that feeding a duck a pound of feed a day is like feeding a 175-pound human 44 pounds of pasta. As mentioned eralier, this is an exact copy of a paragraph taken from the nofoiegras site, and second, if I do the math, 1 pound in 10 (average duck weight is 10 pounds) does NOT equal 44/175 which is just a hair above one pound in four, so even the math doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Unless counterverified by another source, this looks like disinformation to me.--Ramdrake 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that this factoid is mentioned nowhere else than on the nofoiegras.org site. I searched with Yahoo, Altavista and Google and the only links I found (not sponsored links) were to this article (which cites nofoiegras.org) and the nofoiegras.org site. Nobody else makes that claim, which even in the purely mathematical sense seems highly unlikely.--Ramdrake 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored "dubious" marker. First of all, the comparison of this kind does not belong to an encyclopedic article as it is of a discussion nature. Secondly, this is a typical example of pseudo-math. The comparison needs to operate with a normal/force-fed weight of the food both in duck and the human. The weight value here is completely irrelevant (for example, consider two cases when a bird consumes 0.1% and 50% of its weight under normal conditions; not duck or geese, but some other species). Alex Pankratov 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a further description of industry figures here[3], though no primary sources are indicated.MichaelBrock 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Any comparison of ratios of eating between different animals, including people and ducks, is entirely misleading. The article already sources the EU report saying some birds will willfully gorge themselves on 2.5kg of carrots a day if allowed. We don't need something dubious. SchmuckyTheCat 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"gut capacity is sufficient for the largest amounts fed during the force feeding period of foie gras production." quote of the EU report. The amount of food should not be an issue. SchmuckyTheCat 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The size of the gut is irrelevant to the amount of food an animal would voluntarily consume. When you eat, do you always stuff yourself with starch and oil until your stomach is at maximum capacity? If you did, you'd eventually end up on the Maury Povich show as "the 800 pound man". SOME birds would willfully gorge on 2.5kg of carrots, but that doesn't mean they all or even most would. If this were true of all of the birds in question, then force-feeding would not be necessary. It seems that some people here are pressing a pro Foie Gras POV. Furthermore, the statement isn't quoted to the nofoiegras website, but to independent sources which are CLEARLY specified and perfectly acceptable. TheQuandry 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly quoted from the 2001 "Gazetta Ufficiale", whatever that is. I would love to see the original text, because we have no independent confirmation of this. And to dispute the numbers is not pressing pro-foie gras POV, it's simple skepticism and critical thinking.--Boffob 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger Moore video, letter to Spitzer

Is there any indication that anyone pays attention to these?

re

the Moore film

Creating a media spectacle that few people pay attention to isn't something we care much about and WP shouldn't be a vehicle for spreading this kind of propaganda.

re

the letter

There are anti-foie gras media events in New York every year because that is where two producers are. A 2001 letter from an AR group the attorney general of the state seems rather miniscule, particularly in comparison to last years blow-out of a lawsuit attempt. SchmuckyTheCat 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Roger Moore video was a significant event that was heavily covered by media in Europe. It was also shown to legislative bodies in the U.S. that have taken action against foie gras. It is listed under the AR groups section because it was produced by a coalition of AR groups.

What "blow-out of a lawsuit attempt" are you talking about? The ASPCA letter is significant in this section because ASPCA is the most mainstream animal welfare group in the U.S. and has police power in New York State to enforce animal cruelty laws, making it a government agency of sorts.

Your repeated deletion of relevant material--including wholesale reversion of other sections when you are only disputing specific items--displays a level of bias, arrogance and lack of respect for the editorial process that should not be tolerated on WP. You should also check your facts before changing the article (learn the difference between geese and ducks--hint, geese are a lot bigger). MichaelBrock 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know what lawsuit I'm talking about then go do your homework. Since you claim I'm such a partisan, I'm not going to help you out any. The point of the matter is that anti-foie gras organizations do lots and lots of things to spread their information. Some of it is writing press releases and propaganda films. None of that is particularly enlightening about what foie gras is, and individually these things are not notable. It's not our job to state that activists groups create propaganda and help them promote it. There are plenty of links in the article to find their websites. SchmuckyTheCat 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

HSUS has filed several lawsuits against the NY foie gras producers in the past few months, but this group was already referenced in that section. Just because you may know some limited details about a specific lawsuit does not disqualify the above info involving different groups, nor the several other changes by other editors that you have singlehandedly and thoughtlessly reverted. You also just did a sweeping revert TWICE on the grounds that a paragraph about ducks contradicts a different paragraph about GEESE. I'll wait for other editors to shut you down now.MichaelBrock 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about the other half of my "sweeping revert" is in the section above. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy Schmucky the cat (note I didn't shorten it this time because I am such a classy lady) is rediculous. If you're going to argue that we shouldn't write about anything except "what foie gras is" then practically the whole article would be deleted. The video is relevant and should be included. How does one shut this guy down MichaelBrock? GingerGin 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, it's not about shutting someone down. And from two editors that have something close to ten reverts between them in one day, maybe something about throwing stones and glass houses? If you want to use dispute resolution it's over here.

Why is a propaganda film notable in a general purpose article? Is it a source of facts not available elsewhere? Has it received considerable media attention? This is not an indiscriminate list of activist media campaigns. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It has received considerable media attention and even sparked a public debate between Roger Moore and Gordon Ramsay. You should be blocked for violating the 3RR. Everybody else has been making meaningful changes to the article, explaining those changes, and arriving at consensus. You are just reverting to far earlier versions with little explanation. I note again that geese are much larger than ducks, and carrots are a very low calorie food, so whatever geese will consume voluntarily in carrots has nothing to do with the amount of dense calorie gruel being force fed to a duck. I also note you have provided no further explanation for removing ASPCA, which is significant due to its mainstream position and quasi-governmental status.MichaelBrock 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think I have broken 3RR, then please go report it. You've got five or more yourself.

What considerable media attention? There was no "debate" with Gordon Ramsey. Ramsey made a two-line quip about Moore being a hypcrite. Find a reliable source that defines what makes this video important. SchmuckyTheCat 03:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't count as a revert if changes are being made back and forth to work toward a consensus. You are just deleting entire paragraphs. The Ramsay thing resulted in Ramsay later apologizing to Moore. It is also certainly significant--under the heading of Animal Rights Groups--because this video was produced by three major groups and shown at hearings in front of various legislative bodies. Portions of this video also recently aired on TF1 in France, the largest network there, seen by millions of people. MichaelBrock 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is stale, but FYI, "changes are being made back and forth to work toward a consensus" is what discussion pages are for, and edit warring back and forth in the article is exactly what the 3RR rule is to prevent. SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But there is a difference between making wording alterations, adding or changing citations, etc. to eventually arrive at the most neutral presentation, vs. just deleting entire sections just because you don't like a certain word, or worse yet, doing a reversion back to an earlier version because of a recent change you don't agree with, while ignoring other useful changes that you are also deleting in the revert.MichaelBrock 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a diff before reverting of the entire days edits. I didn't ignore anything and left take page discussion for every change reverted. SchmuckyTheCat 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

are generally/may be

[4]. This is a subtle but important difference. The reference for this (in the EU report) says this is the usual management practice in section 4. In section 3, it is noted that having the ducks forage on grasses before gavage is done for a purpose: to toughen the esophagus. Thus the assertive phrase "are generally" is more correct in the subtext that this is the norm. "May be" is assertive in the opposite way, that it may be abnormal - that is not true to the source. SchmuckyTheCat 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an important difference, and you should stop changing it to "generally." Maybe in Europe it is possible for this to be general practice, but in the U.S. where most foie gras is produced in NYS, and in Canada, wintertime makes it impossible to have free range farms. Since it depends on location and climate, the term should be "may be." MichaelBrock 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First, this is what the source says. It's not something made up and I'm not changing the wording, Ginger Gin is. I am defending reverting to the original wording because that is what the source says. Second, 80% of foie gras comes from France; therefore, what is normal in France is what is normal for foie gras. If you have a source that describes how American/Chinese/Czech production is significantly different in pre-gavage management then it can be expanded or changed. Somehow I bet the existence of winter in New York and Quebec doesn't change it much. SchmuckyTheCat 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Goose vs. Duck Foie

The line comparing duck and goose foie gras seems unbalanced in favor of the traditional French, pro-goose viewpoint without recognition of the more intense flavor characteristics of the duck liver. Nor does the article address WHY duck is more common in America (and in all large comercial farms) than duck (namely, from what I have heard from producers, disease that becomes endemic amongst large goose populations).

editing without signing

Who, from a computer at the company Videotron in Quebec, keeps editing and not signing his name? Please explain why you are not owning up to your edits. GingerGin 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As per WP guidelines, people don't have to have a user ID to edit (it's the encyclopedia "anyone" can edit, remember?). And I don't think it's proper to ask that kind of question, FWIW. People may need to explain their edits, but they don't need to justify being anonymous or not.--Ramdrake 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny that a group of anti foie gras editors from France were all banned recently for supposedly being the same person, and are apparently reticent to return to the debate even though the accusations were disproven and bans lifted. Now everyone is supposed to accept a bunch of pro foie gras changes from Quebec and believe they are being made by independent and separate individuals?MichaelBrock 20:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want funny coincidences, it's also funny that a new male editor, MichaelBrock appeared just as OlivierD (another male editor) was getting banned, and GingerGin, a female editor, appeared just as Benio76 (another female editor) was getting banned, and all share the same interests and viewpoints. But then again, coincidences can be funny that way. I'll say no more.--Ramdrake 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OlivierD, Benio76 and Zelig33 were asked not to return to this topic for a while for things to cool off. If you are that bothered by anonymous changes, you can ask for protection against such edits, but these anonymous editors aren't vandalizing so it's unlikely to happen.--Boffob 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I think you guys don't get where I'm coming from. I wasn't saying that there is some rule that anyone needs to justify an anonymous edit, I was simply asking the person to identify himself. Whether you think that is "proper" or not is irrelevant. I already know who it is anyway and you're only making yourself look stupid.GingerGin 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, either you can accuse people or stay quiet, but I would advise against accusing idly. If the anon decides to stay anon, he/she will remain that way. If the anon decides to edit the article in a significant manner, he/she will probably get a proper userID. In any case, while anon editing is kind of wide open if anyone wants to trace them back to where they came from, (as you amply showed you could trace that anon to their ISP), editing with a userID actually protects one's anonymity better.--Ramdrake 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that Boffob and Ramdrake, both hailing from Montreal according to their userpages, and this anonymous editor from Montreal aren't all the same person? Why were three anti foie gras editors from France, now acknowledged to be different independent users, "asked" to stay off this page?MichaelBrock 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while I, Ramdrake am from the Montreal area, I'm about 35 km away from the city. From both his userpage an his talkpage, I gather that Boffob is from somewhere in the province of Quebec, which is over four times the size of France. For all I know, he/she could be sitting away in Sept-Iles, about 1500 km away. I wouldn't make the assumption that two French people I don't know are both from Paris, as I'd most likely be wrong.--Ramdrake 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My userpage says no such thing. And if you could see the IPs I edit from, you'd know I am not in Montreal, or Quebec for that matter.--Boffob 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but Zelig33 and OlivierD were never explicitly confirmed to be different users. The only factual bit of data is a "Likely" CheckUser verdict against these accounts. Alex Pankratov 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Physiology and Preparation

I made some changes to this section to make it more accurately reflect the EU report and not contradict itself. Previously it said that the mere feeding of high starch food initially leads to half of the enlargement of the liver. There was no cite. In the preceding paragraph, the article said (and referenced) that gorging can only produce a liver that is 2 times normal size, as opposed to 6-10 times, so this was a contradiction. In the EU report, there is a line referring to the "half-fatted state" but does not say what this means. Apparently it is just a term for the stage of production, not anything to do with actual liver size, because there is no evidence anywhere that just feeding a duck voluntarily can produce a liver that is 3-5 times normal size.

The description of how the ducks are initially raised previously said "free range" (and was the subject of an edit war), but the report just says "outdoors," which is probably a more accurate term, and is also preceded by an indoor period on straw. The previous cite to two small farms that may or may not be representative was replaced with a cite to the report that covers standard industry practice.MichaelBrock 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism

The line about the comparison of the amount of food to what it would be for a human is not anthropomorphism because it does not say that the human would experience it the same way. It is simply a comparison, like saying an ant can lift 40 times its own weight, and for an average human that would be like lifting 3 tons, wow. If you are removing this line just because you are reading into it an unstated implication that the duck is just as uncomfortable as a human forced to consume 44 pounds of pasta per day, then you are the one guilty of anthropomorphizing because the line doesn't say that, it just gives a comparison. Foie gras producers might say see, that shows the amazing ability of these ducks to digest food. The figure itself is not in question, however. I believe the line should remain.MichaelBrock 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me see:

• The math is shaky (is it one-quarter, one-fifth or one-tenth of the weight)?
• The correspondance of corn mushed in oil with pasta (nutritional/caloric content) is unknown
• The relative size of the duck's stomach to his overall size vs the same comparison in humans is not established.
• The original ref to the Gazzetta Ufficialle (a daily newspaper on the subject of law) is nearly univerifiable and is cited only by the nofoiegras site.

Nevertheless, all these are taken at face value when one affirms that it "is equivalent". Point is, they're not, and I agree with Schmucky that even attempting this comparison without checking a myriad factors like this is anthropomorphizing. On hindsight, I agree the comparison is unencyclopedic and should be removed. As we are comparing things which are obviously not comparable, this is but speculation with high shock value, and nothing else.--Ramdrake 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparing how two vastly different animals eat is entirely specious and useless, it creates a relationship that doesn't exist. Besides, anthropomorphism is a tactic the anti-foie gras industry can't do without but we can. It provokes an emotional, not rational, response in the reader and that isn't the mission for Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless it can be backed up with a full reference, it isn't really acceptable as it is far too vague.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, whoever completed the reference with the date allowed me to search the Gazzetta and find out that not a word about foie gras was said on April 21, 2001. The reference is pure bogus.--Ramdrake 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat put it pretty well. It is pseudo-scientific. --BorgQueen 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

American Veterinary Medical Asso.

The long article about the visits to the farm is out of place. It's like a whole other article in itself and is really going off on a tangent. If you have to have mention of the observations, make it in a small, concise paragraph and add it to the 3rd party observations section. I'm gonna go change this. GingerGin 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do it. It robs the reader of a useful insight into the impressions of the HOD during their visit, and leaves only a short paragraph criticizing the AVMA on grounds that are poorly understood without the presence of this paragraph.--Ramdrake 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now I'm really sad because some person called Majorly or something just went ahead and put back what I took out and wrote me a personal email that sounded like he was talking to a retarded person. This guy never even was on this page, and he didn't discuss it first, which I did! I'm going to make some compromise edits later but unfortunately, I have a first life to attend to now so I'll catch you on the flip side. Ramdrake: how are your kitty cats? GingerGin 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale deletes are never taken well. —Trevyn 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Beck et al. 1996, p.45

Is not a complete citation. What book/journal/article is this?--Boffob 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also redundant.

At the start of production, a bird might be fed a dry weight of 250 grams of food per day, and up to 1,000 grams (in dry weight) by the end of the process. ....

And

By the end of the fattening process, each ten-pound duck will have been forced to consume between 400 and 500 grams of a corn-and-oil mixture per feeding (which is approximately one pound of food), twice per day.

Say essentially the same thing. We only need one of these sentences. SchmuckyTheCat 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keratin and the Duck Oesophagus

I've heard conflicting reports on whether or not the mulard oesophagus has a layer of keratin on the inside. Could somebody cite a source on this one? 74.114.110.141 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's tough and durable. I don't think any of our sources say exactly what body material it's made of. SchmuckyTheCat 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The ducks' throats are soft and susceptible to injury. They become calloused as a result of force feeding, but this is a painful process. The gizzard, a different organ, is naturally hardened for grinding food, and this is where the false claim that the esophagus is hardened comes from. Foie gras producers often make two conflicting claims about ducks' throats: 1) they are hardened, or "calcified," and 2) they are elastic so they can expand and accomodate large pieces of food. If they were hardened, they wouldn't be able to expand.MichaelBrock 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not according to veterinarians. And if you've ever tried to cut a birds neck in preparation to eat it bring a really sharp knife. From my experience, not being an anatomist but I have made skull mounts of birds, the throat is made of similar material to the beak but moist and pliable. This material is easily both hard and expandable, witness pelicans. And, I doubt it's painful, in nature they swallow spiny animals whole which puff up and wriggle around in there. SchmuckyTheCat 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It would take a really sharp knife to cut a human head off too, but that doesn't mean the inside of the throat isn't soft and susceptible to injury. What spiny animals puff up? Do you think the ducks eat blowfish or something? Any wriggling around occurs in the gizzard, which is a different organ from the esophagus and is hardened to accomodate this.MichaelBrock 08:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

changed to Litigation section

The 1985 case Lovenheim v. Iroqois Brands brought the issue of foie gras production as a social issue to the forefront when determining proposals brought in proxy agreements by shareholders of publically held corporations. A shareholder (Lovenheim) sought to propose a study on whether or not foie gras production was cruel to animals and should therefore be discontinued as a product imported by Iroqois Brands. The defendant company argued that since foie gras made up less than 5% of the corporation's profit, that the issue could be excluded under the Securities and Exchange Commission rules. However, the Court held that the SEC rule for exclusion did not rely solely on the economic relativity of a proposal. The SEC required inclusion when the economic significance was very small, but the proposal raised substantial policy considerations important enough to be considered “significantly related” to the corporation’s business. Thus, the social issue of whether or not animals suffered needlessly during the production of foie gras was considered a valid reason to have the opposition to it be included in a list of items that shareholders could vote on.<ref>Iroquois Brands, Ltd., Lovenheim v., 618 F. Supp. 554 (D.D.C. 1985)</ref><!--this case is over 20 years old. It would be of importance to know if the opposition was finally included in the list the shareholders could vote on, and if so, what the outcome of the vote was. Unless these two questions are answered by the affirmative, the point is moot towards foie gras specifically, but is only relevant that the question whether animals sufffer needlessly as a general question is relevant -->

This section has nothing to do with foie gras and everything to do with shareholder activism. It's an important precedent setting case in that arena because it legalizes the framework for shareholders to force a corporation to deal with political issues. Legally it has nothing to do with foie gras; it could have been about investing in China, dumping toxic waste, out-sourcing jobs, or whatever the latest agenda is. Thus, as written, the section is factually wrong, and irrelevant to foie gras.

If this were to be relevant to foie gras we should see if shareholder activism has ever resulted in a company pulling foie gras products. That has the potential for notability. SchmuckyTheCat 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. Alex Pankratov 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky - where did you learn to do legal citations? Obviously not in law school because you changed it incorrectly. I'm not going to revert it though because I'm not wasting a revert - so go ahead and look like a fool if it makes you feel smart. GingerGin 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just as relevant as any other thing on the page. Please do not revert it, or I will be very mad. We should discuss it first and my opinion is that it stays. GingerGin 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The information you added has very little to do with Foie Gras itself and has lots to do with AR activism and/or corporate governance. Your quote is interesting, but it does not belong to this article, because it way off topic. Alex Pankratov 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I learned how to do legal citations writing legal briefs. It is still slightly wrong, because I cut and pasted from a source that listed it by defendant. I'll fix it later, but as others are agreeing here, it has nothing to do with the subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat 05:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the cite in one edit. Then deleted it in a second. The first edit give you something to revert to if that is what you want to do.

Shimeru's edit slightly changed the wording and it was better but "the court ruled that ethical and social issues may be considered “significantly related” to the corporation’s business even if that portion of the business is economically insignificant" is a mis-statement of what the court said. The court said that some obscure law had traditionally been interpreted to mean anything shareholders care about, not just economically significant ones; and, letting the shareholders vote on the issue (even one that had no chance of winning) had no lasting harm to the corporation but that preemptively limiting shareholder actions had potentially great harm that would not be easily repaired because shareholder votes are so rare. The precedental value of the case has absolutely zero to do with foie gras. It did not make foie gras into a social justice issue to the courts. SchmuckyTheCat 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a misstatement. D. had claimed it could omit the proposition because foie gras accounted for less than 5% of its business by various measures. (Much less, in fact.) The court ruled against D., stating that ethical and social matters could raise policy questions important enough to be considered significant to the corporation's business. Of course, I'm not a lawyer yet. In a sense, it does have little to do with foie gras -- particularly because Lovenheim could not propose the company stop producing pate. (That would be a violation of 14a-8(i)(1) and 14a-8(i)(7).) On the other hand, foie gras was the catalyst for the case... I'm inclined to think it should be mentioned, somewhere. The header was misleading, though; I don't believe the court "recognized" foie gras as a "significant social issue". Shimeru 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic edit by Michael Brock. I like the idea of a litigation section - that clearly has to do with foie gras and it's appropriate to mention Lovenheim here. I say keep it the way it is, it's a good compromise and puts it in the right place.GingerGin 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The part that was just removed by someone who alleged it to be unsourced (the HSUS lawsuit) is absolutely true. It should go back the way it is, but I will also find an additional source so that there can be no argument. GingerGin 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Here are the sources, I just messed up the format and need to correct it. http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/hsus_suit_foie_gras_new_york.html; http://www.hsus.org/in_the_courts/docket/ny_foiegras_adulteration.html

I like the new section. However, I'm not certain of the accuracy of "shareholder suit regarding ethical concerns about a company selling foie gras" -- the suit was regarding whether or not a shareholder motion requesting a study of the treatment of ducks during foie gras production could be put forth. The motion was motivated by ethical concerns, but the suit was not regarding ethical concerns, exactly. The current wording seems to me to give the impression that the company was taken to court over unethical activities, which is not the case. Shimeru 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras bans do give reason

In the legislative history of California's ban on the sale of foie gras, the analysis clearly states the reason was because of concerns about the way it is produced. [5]

Chicago's ban also specifically states the reason is because of how it is produced. [6] MichaelBrock 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence vs Studies

MichaelBrock, I reverted your recent edit -- both references that support the statement talk about the evidence collected in a course of conducted studies, not about the lack of studies. There's also a difference between scientific-grade evidence, which is lacking, and a layman evidence, which is less factual and more emotionally jusitifed. I understand the point you made and it should perhaps be included into the section as an additional item. Alex Pankratov 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reference only notes the paucity of evidence in the scientific literature on "effects of force feeding and liver hypertrophy on injury level, on the functioning of the various biological systems." However, the text of the article uses this to claim that there is a lack of evidence generally on "welfare aspects of foie gras production." There is plenty of "scientific-grade evidence" in the rest of the article on welfare generally (observations by veterinarians, necropsy reports, observations of aversive behavior, higher mortality rates, etc.), making this line inconsistent with the rest of the article. My change was in response to STC reverting another user's deletion of that line entirely due to its lack of support. You and STC's defense of this line in the article is consistent with both of you defending foie gras generally. MichaelBrock 03:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Highly unbalanced

This is supposed to be an article about foie gras.

More than 70% of the text is about the controversies about foie gras (which is amply described in numerous other articles), rather than about foie gras itself.

That's your opinion, but if you want to put in all those sections about hot preparation, cold preparation, etc, you're going to need valid references, you can't just put your own personal narrative in the article. GingerGin 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

goldarths.com linkspam

I am a spam fighter and I am attempting [7] [8] to clean up the mess of the goldarths.com spamming. This link is going to be blacklisted so if you don't want the Foie gras article to be locked out I suggest you delete the link. For more information see User_talk:Requestion#Foie_Gras_-_goldarths.com_linkspam. (Requestion 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Based on the content of the EL, this external article is relevant to the subject of the WP article from which it is linked. Surely, there must be some alternative that will allow us to keep this one link? It is useful to the article. Can we appeal the decision in the case of this article? This doesn't sound like proper Wikipedia process to me.--Ramdrake 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the blacklist doesn't work like that, it isn't selective. How valuable can this one link be? They are spammers after all, I'm sure goldarths.com just scrapped the article from some other source. Google returns almost 2 million fois gras hits. There must be a better article to link to. (Requestion 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Where would this process (that "doesn't work like that") be described ? You appear to be routinely posting "final warning" messages on other editors Talk pages including threats of blacklisting, and refer to intrusive administrative actions like locking the article like you did above. However, judging by the fact that some people accumulate a dozen of your warnings, your statements lack formal procedural backing. Being on a black-and-white quest against Wikipedia spamlinks is not a reason enough to take a valuable content from the articles. You are hurting the quality of the content.

Additionally - you are in violation of the Consensus princeps for this particular page. Alex Pankratov 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm making this spam warning stuff up? I came here with the intention of preventing a future disruption and what do I get? I get a whole lot of rudeness. You know what? I don't think you deserve to be helped. (Requestion 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

That's not nice either. I went through this on a different article. Sometimes removing spam that looks relevant requires telling folks that. SchmuckyTheCat 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asking if you are following some sort of a formal WP procedure for dealing with spamlinking. Nothing more nothing less. It is a simple and valid question, and it's hardly a "whole lot of rudeness". Alex Pankratov 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this goldarths.com is a spam link farm. They scrape some text from somewhere and then link it from Wikipedia. It's all about them making money and there isn't anything particularly great about this text for this article. SchmuckyTheCat 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True, it's not a big loss, but Requestion could have 1-explained himself better and in more detail 2-not be belligerent about it. The blacklisting of spammers is a process that's actually somewhat obscure on Wikipedia, hence the removal of apparently relevant links may puzzle other wikipedians unfamiliar with the issue... It took me some time to figure out how to even request a blacklist once I stumbled upon spamming for yourglobaltv.com.--Boffob 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

STC, are we looking at the same goldarths.com ? It looks to me like an online version of Robb's Report. Sure it is a commercial entity, so they are in it for the money, but are they in fact known for stealing the content from other providers ? In particular - the article in question does not read as a half-a#s "scrape job". Alex Pankratov 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sterilization of article

There is an obvious and concerted effort here to sterilize the article of controversy or images of foie gras production. This started with adding a long, unsourced "preparation of foie gras" section, then complaining that the article is too long and blaming this on the controversy section. Then not only were all the sections about controversy moved to another page, but so were three other sections that were not about controversy but gave sourced facts about how foie gras is produced and comparing the liver sizes. The picture was also removed from what was left of the controversy section.

To keep this article POV-neutral, it needs to have not just photos of prepared foie gras, but also the photo comparing liver sizes and basic information about the production methods. Further, controversy is an important part of any discussion of foie gras, and that section should not be stripped of its accompanying image either. MichaelBrock 06:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, there is no concerted effort, one editor did nearly all of this. The "preparation of foie gras" section was added after he complained that the article was too long and biased towards mostly presenting the controversy about foie gras. While the porting of the info might be seen as a POV fork, I don't see that it's a bad thing per se, as the controversy still gets briefly mentioned in the article, and editors willing to add material to the controversy are directed to the new article. Under the circumstances, adding back in this article material that was ported to the new article would not be appropriate, as there is now a distinct article for such material, and the sections you've added are already in it.--Ramdrake 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but splitting the controversy and anything remotely negative out of the article into its own article fits the description of POV FORK perfectly. Whilst I agree this article is too long, we cannot allow it to be forked in the way tried. Can we discuss this a bit before it is done again? Thanks Localzuk^(talk) 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure myself. While at it, I reverted all the way back to the last edit before the information was ported to the new article, so we can discuss all the possibilities.--Ramdrake 12:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it concerted either. One set of "major" edits was Vsevolod4's adding of a "preparations" sections (which needs some fixing), in part to "balance" for what that user saw as an overly large controversy section, and because such a section was perceived to be missing in the first place. Then, Wikipediatrix, noticing the sheer size of the article, decided to summarize the controversy section and split it into its own article, while also, somewhat arbitrarily, taking a few sections unrelated to the controversy in particular with it.--Boffob 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the info about how Foie Gras was created was integral to its controversy, so I included it in the controversy article. And I don't think Foie gras controversy is a POV fork at all - it's a real and major controversy that demonstrably exists as a subject of its own and is so well-detailed at Wikipedia it needs its own article to avoid having the Foie Gras article unfairly giving "undue weight" to the negativity. Consider Scientology controversy, Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, Seigenthaler controversy, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Global warming controversy, Creation-evolution controversy, Hacker definition controversy, Video game controversy, Aspartame controversy, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Mims-Pianka controversy, 2007 Timbaland plagiarism controversy, GNU/Linux naming controversy, Stem cell controversy, Hockey stick controversy, Vaccine controversy, Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, Hot Coffee minigame controversy, Investiture Controversy, Native American name controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy, Breast implant controversy, Christmas controversy, Easter controversy, etc., etc. It isn't "sterilizing" Wikipedia's coverage of Foie Gras controversy by devoting an article of its own to the subject - quite the opposite! wikipediatrix 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Eloquently made.--Ramdrake 14:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not implying disagreement with the move of the controversy section itself (given the summary in the article). Merely that it might have been hasty without first discussing of what should be moved or not. I've been thinking the article would have to eventually be split since the edit war issues that led to a dramatic expansion of many sections of the article, though it appeared to settled into status quo for a while.--Boffob 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is an article that is riddled with problems. Sticking all the negative items in one place and calling it 'Foie Gras controversy' is by very definition a POV Fork. You are forking all the negative info into one place. Comparing it to other articles gives it no extra weight, as they are all to be looked at individually. In this case the article in question is undoubtedly a pov fork. Wikipediatrix, rather than unilaterally changing things against the wishes of some editors, can you not simply wait and discuss the issue. Forcing your opinion on others in the way you are doing is not a very good way of improving this article.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. I'm not "forcing my opinion" any more than any other editor who edits the articles they way they see fit. I think my way was clearly better, and I'm using the talk pages to explain why. If consensus agrees, fine, and if they don't, fine. wikipediatrix 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not a case of 'pot calling the kettle blac' because I didn't change the status quo and then revert based on my own opinion regardless of the complaints of 2 editors... -Localzuk^(talk) 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hellooooo.... this is a Wiki. There IS no "status quo". All articles are in a constant state of flux as information changes, as articles grow, as different editors try their hand at improving the articles. The big link at the top of the article says "edit this page!" and that's what we're supposed to do, imagined "status quo" be damned. If the teeming masses deem that Foie gras controversy is not a subject ready for its own article yet, so be it. But that'll happen by consensus and by merit, not because any imagined "status quo" was disrupted. wikipediatrix 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, Localzuk, the complaints about the move happened after the move, not before. I see no evidence whatsoever that Wikipediatri acted against consensus. Worst case, she may have been slightly too bold.--Ramdrake 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The new article Foie gras controversy is at AfD. If you've got an opinion, put it there and let the decision to split pass or fail on its own merits. In the meantime, let's spend some energy cleaning up both articles to reflect the split and not bickering about the split. The controversy article needs it's EL section cleaned up to reflect the topic and needs summary style (one paragraph or less) entries of history and physiology from information at this article. SchmuckyTheCat 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but how can there have been complaints, on an article which suffers from a large amount of discussion, without proposing the change on the talk page first??? We're not psychic! There wasn't consensus to move it but there are now 2 people who disagree with its move (and more if you count the 2 comments on the AFD). So the move was not the problem, the revert is the problem.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And it won't hurt anything to leave the situation for a few days while the AfD occurs. SchmuckyTheCat 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've weighed in on the AfD page and I say delete it and put the controversial things back where they were. What happened guys? Things were going well for awhile here and it looked like we were in acceptance of how the article was looking. I'm really disappointed that wikipediatrix went ahead with this huge change without discussing it on the talk page first. This is obviously a very charged issue and she really should have considered that discussion is needed before completely changing things around. GingerGin 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

preparation section

Everything in this section needs a reference. You can't just put every way you've ever heard of foie gras being prepared and add it to a long list without backing it up. Suppose I met some weird person who put M&Ms and chocolate sauce on his foie gras? Could I add that to the list of preparations? I think not. Please back them up or they will need to go. GingerGin 00:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

photos

It was agreed upon a long time ago to leave in the photos of the livers and of the duck with the tube down the throat on the "physiology and preparation" section. Whoever took it out, please put it back in immediately. GingerGin

18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot a tilde the first time)

After months of fighting, a group of editors decided to create a POV fork and have put nearly all 'controversy' related stuff on a sub article.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it was agreed that the 3 particular photos would be both on the main page and on the controversy page, and now someone has just unilaterally deleted the photos I mentioned from the main page. Those 3 photos need to be reinserted. GingerGin 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to this "agreement" ? Alex Pankratov 00:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Expirimenting with food

I read this really cool article about a chef adding hydrocolloids to some foie gras so that he could tie it in a knot, he called it "knot foie". Now I don't consider myself terribly knowledgable on the subject or a member of the the little community that runs this page so I thought I would just mention that it exists and let you guys decide if it merits a mention in the wikipidea entry. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06food.html Djdoobwah 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)