Talk:Foie gras/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Bloated Controversy section
2 Recent removal
3 NPOV
4 Protected
5 Clearly POV reverts
6 Tokaji
7 Still no answer
8 Unprotection requested
9 Ad hominem arguments are no arguments
10 Discussion of specific editing issues
11 Proposal
12 = RFC
13 Unlock time?
14 Criticism
15 "Is" a delicacy?
16 Overfed / force-fed

[edit] Bloated Controversy section

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

Vandalism:

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Benio76 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi Trevyn,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here again!

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

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

Hi Ramdrake!

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Trevyn!

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

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

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

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

Hi David Olivierd!

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

You raise a good point, and I am interested to see how other editors respond. I think the core of the NPOV policy is to characterize things as they exist in the world. Foie gras is largely a commercial product, so it is not surprising that it is discussed in that context. Similarly, the iPod article could also be considered at first glance to have commercial bias, but that is solely because it is an article describing a commercial product. NPOV still requires that we use wording that is as neutral as possible, so emotive phrases like "a luxurious product that is at once velvety and meaty"[1] would likely be rephrased. —Trevyn 02:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Recent removal

Defensers of foie gras often point out studies showing that if the force-feeding is discontinued, the liver returns to normal weight, and the animal generally returns to a normal condition. However, such studies actually show that a significant number of animals die after the force-feeding is ended; ^[1] It can also be noted that the fact that a condition can heal does not contradict its being pathological.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Protected

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

[edit] Clearly POV reverts

(Answer to Alex Pankratov et al.)

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

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

Specifically, starting with my first Nov. 26 edit:

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

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

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

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

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

The mortality rate in force fed birds varies from 2% to 4% in the two week force feeding period compared with around 0.2% in non force fed ducks. (p. 62)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I kept the "reportedly" illegal in Isreal edit.

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

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

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

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

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

SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tokaji

A Tokaji website ([2]) lists foie gras as a "classic" food to pair with Tokaji wine. Perhaps this could be mentioned under "presentation" such as »It is often served with a dessert wine such as Sauternes or Tokaji Aszú« because I also remember someone mentioning it when I was in Hungary. -Ich (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Still no answer

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

So I repeat my above question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Unprotection requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Ad hominem arguments are no arguments

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

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

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

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

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

My source for France "not banning anytime soon" was articles similar to this one: [3]. I am having trouble finding something reliable that says definitively whether or not that law was actually passed. If it was not, then I apologize for the error. I was not suggesting that the "political posturing" line be inserted into the article, I was just explaining my reasoning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, for the n²th time, that stuff about disconfirmation bias is irrelevant from the start, since it is an ad hominem pseudo-argument. Perhaps you and I could agree that from now on we will concentrate on arguments, and refrain from all personal attacks?

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry but it does not appear so. Unless you have a little poll with "hundreds of millions" of people, or a representative sample for the population from which "hundreds of millions" are against foie gras, your prima facie is nothing but your own perception (in fact, if China does as suggested in the first link given in the article, then there's hundreds of millions of people who see no problem with foie gras). Your comparison with the number of people who eat foie gras (which is inevitably small because it is a rare and pricy item) is not valid, because you do not have any data to differenciate those who refuse to eat foie gras out of ethical reasons from those who don't eat it because it's unavailable, too expensive, or simply not part of their diet (I don't drink, say, soy milk myself, that doesn't mean I'm against it in any way). As such, you are extending the opinion of a vocal and not necessarily large group to an apathetic population. Now, until you and the other participants in the article edit war reach an agreement on what to include and what not to include in the controversy section, this discussion will remain deadlocked (because any unlocking of the thread will result in more revert wars). Don't mistake apathy for tacit agreement.--Boffob 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Discussion of specific editing issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SchmuckyTheCat 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other changes

We should note that the national assembly of France, via legislation, raised foie gras to the status of a national heritage on par with the Eiffel Tower and sought recognition of that at no less than UNESCO. That's important in the intro. In regards to the controversy the legislation specifically rejects claims of cruelty as incontestable because a stressed or suffering bird will not produce a foie gras. [5] [6]
In discussing American bans it should cite that the American Veterinary Medical Assocation unanimously rejected a resolution opposing foie gras production [7]. Before voting, they heard testimony from their own experts who said [8] being tube fed was less distressing to a duck than a rectal thermometer to a cat, another insisted it was not pathological, another said it was physiological not pathological, and others compared it to diseases in cattle brought on by their enriched diets.

SchmuckyTheCat 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If David wishes to discuss the AMVA position, he should read their journal article [9] and not just the outside press release, if he wishes to say I'm twisting it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] = RFC

Replies to comments from the RFC go in this section

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

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

I concur with Sugaar and Ramdrake. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The opening lines currently read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Is" a delicacy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, Jooler, it may well depend on the context. The current context is: "Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine—it is very rich[1] and buttery, with a delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver." If that does not read like an advertisement, I don't know what might! First the stuff is compared to truffles, then it is said to be a great delicacy, and then that it is rich, buttery, has a delicate flavour. And of course, since some people don't like the taste of liver generally, it says that the taste is completely different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Overfed / force-fed

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made the replacement. I haven't read the article yet. David Olivier 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)