Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Foie Gras
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Ramdrake
Parties involved	User:Olivierd, User:Benio76, User:Trevyn, User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Ramdrake, User:Apankrat, User:Zelig33 and User:Boffob
Mediator(s)	none
Comment	asking to close

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Foie Gras]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Foie Gras]]

Request Information

Request made by: Ramdrake 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

At Foie gras

Who's involved?

User:Olivierd and User:Benio76 on one side, and several other editors on the other side, among which User:Trevyn, User:SchmuckyTheCat and myself User:Ramdrake

I am interested in this issue. I have recently participated a bit on the talk page, not very much. I would like to be able to give my opinions here too sometimes, though I don't think that I will have time to participate much. Can I add myself? -- Zelig33 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Alex Pankratov has participated without being listed in the box at top right. I have taken the liberty to add both Alex Pankratov and Zelig33. David Olivier 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Olivierd and Benio76 want to see the controversy section expanded with no limits. They also insist on trying to remove several sentences from the intro that cast foie gras in a positive light, and insist on additions to the intro that cast foie gras in a negative light.

Other editors would prefer the controversy section remain contained, and would rather see foie gras introduced as the delicacy food that it is (with due mention of the controversy surrounding it) without such references in the intro that cast this food in a definitely negative light (such as mentioning that it corresponds to the pathophysiological state of steatosis).

What would you like to change about that?

A third-party opinion would be welcome, as while the article doesn't suffer too much (this isn't a full-blown revert war) yet, the arguments being presented on the talk page are degenerating into a rather lame argument war, complete with some pretty significant personal attacks. If possible, the best mediator would be one who isn't active on animal rights issues and of course with no ties to the food industry either, although any mediator would be welcome.

Would you preefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No need for discretion. Working in the open would be much preferable.

Note by David Olivier: The above description of the case is the one-sided opinion of Ramdrake. I shall not dispute it here, because it is not the right place to do so. David Olivier 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

The page is protected, which is generally bad. Let's decide what to do here. Since I can't even make sense out of the edit warring, everyone could please state their position below in discussion or on the talk. Please stay civil, and bear with me until everyone is aware of the case being opened. ST47Talk 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. If anyone's a sock puppet, it will save everyone a lot of pain by choosing one account to edit with. I can request checkuser if need be, and if I have to do that it will make your point look so much worse to me. Thanks, ST47Talk 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the conditions for running this checkuser test ? Alex Pankratov 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some would call it a paper dragon, unless you have direct suspicion, if so, why don't you email me. Otherwise, I just wanted to make sure that I had a "I warned you" quote if there was any foul play. ST47Talk 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any suspicion of Benio76, Zelig33 or myself having created a sock puppet, I think that it can only be of having created a Straw man sock puppet. "They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." But unfortunately, I think we are facing real people... David Olivier 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator is unresponsive. Requesting new mediator. --Ideogram 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a request for a New Mediator: This needs summarising and condensing. I have just spent the best part of 40 minutes trying to work out what the hell is going on here, and I'm still at a loss as to what actually needs mediating. if there is still need for a mediator, would someone involved in the dispute please post a short-ish (NPOV) resume of what has happened and what still needs to be medated? Jem 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of the confusion was due to one of the participants using sockpuppets, that user has now left. In essence, the original case has actually already been resolved, but there are new participants now and a follow-on case on the same topic has arisen. I do not think it is necessary to master all the details of the previous case; you can simply jump in to the talk page as it stands now and examine the discussion of the last few days. --Ideogram 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally opened the case. For a short overview of the status of the mediation, if you can assimilate just what is below the section "Stop", that would be as much as is ne cessary, I think. Or yes, you can try the talk page.--Ramdrake 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, the scokpuppet findings have been reversed, and all three users been unblocked, but they've been asked not to come back to the article for awhile...--Ramdrake 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The users have been unblocked. That's not the same as the sockpuppet findings being reversed. Just a slight nitpick.--Boffob 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These editors have been completely cleared of sockpuppet charges. --Ideogram 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected.--Boffob 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position statement:User:SchmuckyTheCat

As of a week ago, the last and only time I'd had foie gras was some bad paté almost twenty years ago - nobody can say I have been in the article defending my favorite dish. My daughters mom is vegan, I donate money to the the local Humane Society but I also eat meat, wear leather, go to the circus and bet on horse races, I don't have a huge agenda.

Nearly two years ago I was asked (I don't remember who or why, I might have just been scanning articles with a cleanup tag) to look at the article. I did some basic research and re-wrote large sections. I can see in that diff many sentences still in the article and many that have since been removed. At that time in Wikipedia history, "references" usually consisted of some external links at the bottom of the article, so as time went on I was not quite beholden to any unsourced text via our current policies and rewrote or re-sourced any statement if the issue came up.

Since then the article has stayed in my watch list and I've occasionally sourced arguments (both pro and con). Several times the article has been under heavy editing by those with an obvious animal rights bias. In most cases I've waited until the editing cools down and assimilated the changes. There was an earlier mediation case this year and very little changed.

Foie gras is a current agenda issue from PETA and other animal rights organizations. Most of the time, our article is the first result from google for "foie gras". The next two are animal rights campaigns against it. Our article attracts a lot of attention from those organizations.

It is imperative that our NPOV policies are followed because of this. Activist organizations cannot use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I've been accused of "ad hominem" attacks on the current crop of AR activists who are editing the article for stating that they are activists. Well, they are - and the changes they want would turn the article into a soapbox damnation. OlivierD states so on his user page, and that he doesn't believe in NPOV. Benio has edited nothing but the foie gras article. I'm more than willing to accept relevant changes to the article provided they are sourced, factual, and NPOV. The changes proposed so far don't meet that criteria. The other changes have been about edit-warring (on the freakin' talk page) over whether the article should be removed from GA status, or complaints that it reads "like an advertisement".

I'm really interested to see what the AR side expects. Questioning sources, inserting bad opinion polls, and demanding that the intro state foie gras is a disease isn't going to cut it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to other comments left over the last few days.

The mediatior doesn't need to read the report or any other sources. The mediator helps us come to conclusions.

Again, again, and again. The history of foie gras is uncontested by any source and are cited to excellent sources. The AR side is attacking the history because it isn't part of the damnation of it. The sources are being attacked, in bad faith, because there isn't anything to counter it.

The AR position is a minority position, that's why our NPOV policy has an undue weight section. The manufacture of meat products is disgusting. The AMVA testimony included statements that lots of meat products include inducing conditions less than healthy to the animal as part of their production. The AR position is anti-meat, not just anti-foie gras, but foie gras is an easy target to create a wedge issue. The article should not have a never ending number of AR positions.

The AR side can't state that they only want to include relevant facts but only source animal rights propaganda as a source, while simultaneously attempting to delete (as in the history section) information that is properly sourced because they see it as "pro foie gras". That's what David is doing, and it's bad faith.

We don't come out and say "foie gras is a diseased liver" because it isn't a conclusive unimpeachable fact. We do state the sources that say it is. The EU report includes information on what happens if gavage continues past the slaughter date. It DOES recognize that the birds are slaughtered BEFORE that. The conclusion and summary are that it is not conclusive. That information is in the article it's not appropriate in the intro.

Sorry you had a cold, David. Unfortunately for meat animals, lots of them are "sick". Never mind veal, but beef cattle and pigs bred for pork are massively overweight with all of the attendant body problems of obesity. Dairy cattle are given hormones that can cause their bellies to drag on the ground and get infected. The most direct comparison for foie gras is the traditional thanksgiving turkey, which Americans will eat 300 million of this year. They don't undergo force feeding and individual cages - on some farms they have their beaks and feet amputated and they wallow in their own filth for weeks while being automatically fed by machines. They break their leg bones because they are so obese they can't stand. They die of heart failure. Turkey farms have a higher pre-slaughter mortality rate than foie gras ducks and geese. Why does that matter? Because farm animals being "sick" is absolutely normal, thats why they have anti-biotics in their common food. If you want to raise issues common to the entire meat industry I'm sure you can find an appropriate place. The foie gras article isn't it. You can find animal rights campaigns against the production of every single animal raised for agriculture it isn't our business to be their soapbox. The public at large just does not care and that is why the NPOV policy has an undue weight provision.

SchmuckyTheCat 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SchmuckyTheCat, for that convincing endictment of the meat industry in general! Feel free to state those facts on the relevant pages. However, let's stick here to foie gras. You seem to accept that the ducks are sick. Are you prepared to have that stated in the foie gras page?

I agree that the EU report recognizes that the birds are slaughtered before their sickness kills them, except for those who die of the sickness before the slaughter kills them. Thank you for pointing that out.

The fact is that the public generally does care about animal welfare. All polls show that. See for instance here: "un sondage C.S.A. effectué pour la S.P.A. et publié en juin 2001, fait apparaître que 45 % des Français pensent qu'il est nécessaire de créer un secrétariat d'état à la protection animale, alors que le débat public est inexistant sur le sujet!" ("A CSA poll made for the SPA and published in June 1001 reveals that 45% of the French believe it necessary to create an animal protection state secretary office, even though the public debate on that subject is currently non-existent.")

It's not just a couple of "AR wackos". Almost all European states have outlawed foie gras production, in the name of animal welfare. The information about the welfare of ducks is relevant to the foie gras article, and should be fully included. If the ducks are sick, and if that is verifiable (it is), then that should be stated.

By the way, the sources Benio76, Zelig33 and I cite are mostly independent sources, and actually even very often INRA sources. Books about the etymology of latin words, for instance, do not count as extremist AR sources.

And also: why do you want to save our mediator the trouble of reading the EU report?

David Olivier 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed the report, and it's obviously rather anti-foie gras. Is it currently being cited in the article? It appears to be a reliable source, and I'll discuss it further in the other section.

AR is a weighted tern, and as Oliverd said, almost all European states have outlawed foie gras, so it isn't restricted to AR vs producers.

ST47Talk 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EU report is heavily cited. And it's rather simplistic to state they have outlawed foie gras, they have outlawed a specific production method. It's still for sale, and non-gavage techniques (as some Spanish producers are attempting) are fine. SchmuckyTheCat 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more simplistic to say that they outlawed production. They outlawed the production in countries that weren't already in production! And even made it clear that the bans would be revisited when we know more relevant facts! —Trevyn 05:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevyn wrote : "And even made it clear that the bans would be revisited when we know more relevant facts!" as if the Council of Europe had doubts about the legitimacy of its own ban of force-feeding. Truth is that most, if not all, regulations from the Council of Europe regarding farm animal welfare include -like the ones for foie gras ducks and geese- a standard provision such as "[This] shall be reviewed within 5 years of coming into force, and, if appropriate, amended in particular according to any new scientific knowledge, which becomes available" (see for instance article 27 of the text for turkeys [1], article 27 for pigs [2], etc.). The texts on foie gras are no exception.

You realize that Trevyn's claim is in fact even more misleading than that when you read the text for foie gras ducks [3] (and the one for geese [4]). You'll see that the article 24 (resp. 25) banning force-feeding, and which allows the practice to be temporarily continued "only where it is current practice", does so awaiting "new scientific evidence on ALTERNATIVE methods" (emphasis added). Contrary to what Trevyn says, you see that it is not the ban that is supposed to be revisited, but the "reprieve" (the delay) granted to the places where force-feeding is still practiced, based on the development of new production methods not requiring force-feeding.

-- Zelig33 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still it remains that force-feeding to produce foie gras wasn't banned in those EU countries that were already producing foie gras, that sale and consumption of foie gras aren't illegal anywhere in Europe, and that at least one country (Spain) is doing research in producing a foie gras that doesn't require force-feeding. I think we should be careful to distinguish between the strawman (foie gras) and its main production method (force-feeding) the latter being controversial in its own right; the former is only controversial because of the latter. And of course the absolutist position: "If it's not force-fed, it can't be foie gras" doesn't really help.--Ramdrake 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake wrote "of course the absolutist position: "If it's not force-fed, it can't be foie gras" doesn't really help". FYI, this position is that of the foie gras industry (see [5]), as well as French regulations.

--Zelig33 14:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a subtle difference. The article says: "(foie gras) is strictly defined as a product from an animal which has been fattened". The French law uses the word "gavage", which doesn't necessarily mean force-feeding (it does certainly mean overfeeding, though). The point is, you can fatten an animal without necessarily force-feeding them (ask farmers who raise beef, pigs and cattle about that).--Ramdrake 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word simply does not have a good english translation as it depends on context. Most literally it means "cramming the throat" and if you feed a bird (or human) through a tube for a medical condition it's force-feeding but not over-feeding. SchmuckyTheCat 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmucky is of course right on this one: "gavage" has the meaning of both force-feeding and/or overfeeding, and can have them independently.--Ramdrake 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake wrote that "gavage", in French, "doesn't necessarily mean force-feeding". What Ramdrake omits to says is that the cases when "gavage" is used to meant overfeeding without force-feeding is only with the slang use of the term (such as in "McDonald's does [le gavage de] hamburgers to our kids"). French laws are not written in slang, and "gavage" means (as stated in the French Academy dictionary [6]) "Faire manger beaucoup et par force certains animaux, pour les engraisser. Gaver des oies." ("to feed, by force, a lot [of food] certain animals, to fatten them. To force-feed geese"). Other dictionaries state the same ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11])

-- Zelig33 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if I sound specious, but the meaning of overfeeding is not a "slang" meaning: it is a secondary meaning, in this case a more archaic meaning (gaver=se remplir le gavier, from a form on ancient French , picard, to fill one's throat).--Ramdrake 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake keeps on claiming that the term "gavage", as employed in the French legislation that defines foie gras ("le foie d’un canard ou d’une oie spécialement engraissé par gavage.", article L654-27-1 of Code Rural [12]) and as employed by the representatives of the French foie gras industry (Cifog), does not mean "force-feeding", but "fattening" in general.

I have already pointed to the definition of "gavage" in the dictionary of the French Academy (as well as in other dictionaries) which clearly states that it means feeding by force (again, French laws are not written in slang or colloquial French, in which "gavage" indeed has other uses, as I said). But Ramdrake restates his claim nonetheless.

Ramdrake's claim is absurd for native French speakers, like if someone claimed that US laws about protecting "dogs" do not only apply to the mamal "Canis familiaris" but also to contemptible humans (called "dogs" in informal English, if I'm not wrong). How can you answer such ridiculous claims? If non-native French speakers here want me to elaborate on why Ramdrake's is absurd, let me know and I will provide references to French government reports and parliamentary debates that lead to the vote of the French legislation mentioned, as well as statements by the Cifog defending the practice of force-feeding, in which replacing "gavage [force-feeding]" by "engraissement [fattening]" simply makes no sense. I'm sorry to fill this page with this, but Ramdrake's false claim makes it necessary.

--Zelig33 14:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelig, thank you for insulting me as a native French speaker (I am). Insults set aside, I maintain that "gavage" can have the meaning of force-feeding and/or overfeeding. Force-feeding is the primary, modern meaning, while overfeeding is a secondary, more archaic meaning, as per these links [13][14][15]. Again, I do not contest the primacy of the current meaning of "force-feeding", but I'd like to point out that the secondary meaning of "overfeeding" is always present. Your constant repetition that it "isn't so" doesn't unfortunately make it so. So may I suggest you stop insulting people and turn to more productive ways of contributing to this mediation? Thanks!--Ramdrake 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, I re-state that your claim that the French law defining foie gras as being produced by "gavage" means "by overeating/fattening" and not "by force-feeding" is absurd. It is equally absurd to claim that the French foie gras industry (through its industry body, the Cifog), when talking about "protection de l'acte de gavage", they are not talking about protecting force-feeding from being banned, but protecting "fattening/overeating" from being banned. This is not an insult, it is a fact. Thank you indeed for providing an additional dictionary reference proving just that: your link [16] states : "gaver=(1) to feed [someone] by force and with excess. [...] English : to force-feed" while the other meaning ("To give, to fill with excess. Example : He has been [gavé] with television while he was young") is clearly labeled as "in the figurative sense" ("Figuré"). French laws are not written in the figurative sense, nor in "archaic meaning". In French (laws, foie gras industry statements, media, daily conversations,...) "gavage" means "force-feeding" without any ambiguity when talking about foie gras.

--Zelig33 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelig, you certainly have every right to your own opinion, and right now that's just what it is: divergent opinions. What I'm saying is that the French law's usage of the word "gavage" can be interpreted to mean the more archaic sense of "fattening (by overeating)", and that comments from a CIFOG representative about their objection to the Spanish product from Pateria de Souza being called "foie gras" has to do with the fattening (maybe the degree of fattening, but that part is just my opinion) of the birds, not with the method in which they are fattened (force-feeding or not). This reference [17] which you qoted earlier says:

"Marie-Pierre Pée, secretary-general of the French Professional Committee of Foie Gras Producers, condemned the Sousa version of the luxury paste: “This cannot be called foie gras because it is strictly defined as a product from an animal which has been fattened"

Please note the word used: "fattened", not "force-fed". Now you can argue "it isn't so" until you're blue in the face, that won't change the fact that what the CIFOG representative said doesn't support your view of the issue.--Ramdrake 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ramdrake, now I understand that you are not denying that the "If it's not force-fed, it can't be foie gras" position is indeed that of the established foie gras industry as well as that of the French law [18]. You are only saying that "one" (such as yourself) could use archaic or colloquial uses of the word "gavage" to give it another meaning than what it means in these contexts. Indeed you have proved beyond any doubt that "one" can, as this is exactly what you are doing here. But don't you think that they are more useful use of time and space here than playing on words ?

The raison-d'être of the French law voted in 2005 was to protect force-feeding. Indeed in the 1990s, the French foie gras industry had already secured regulations requiring that a product sold as "foie gras" be from a fattened duck or geese ([19] [20]). But faced with increasing opposition to force-feeding and potential future competitors developing methods not requiring force-feeding, the French industry nonetheless sought and got an additional protection that a product sold as foie gras also had to be produced by gavage (force-feeding). Similarly, if the foie gras industry reacted to bans in Israel, California, Chicago and similar one introduced elsewhere, it is not because they ban fattening (which they do not), but because they ban force-feeding (and/or the sale of foie gras produced by force-feeding).

--Zelig33 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you've got it backwards: you are the one saying "if it's not force-fed, it can't be foie gras", while the CIFOG talks about a requirement that the birds be "fattened", and the reference you give defines foie gras thusly:

the livers of geese, or of ducks of the species cairina muschata or c.m. × Anas platyrachos which have been fed in such a way as to produce hepatic fatty cellular hypertrophy.

While admittedly it doesn't do anything about the fat liver condition, it doesn't say a peep about force-feeding. The absolute requirement is that the bird be fat, not force-fed.--Ramdrake 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that it exactly what I was saying! That prior to the 2005 law tying "foie gras" to "gavage" (force-feeding) [21], regulations only defined foie gras in terms of fattened cells/livers, but not (explicitly) to force-feeding. That's one reason why the French foie gras industry (through its body, the CIFOG) lobbied French politicians to have the 2005 law voted:

"Alain Labarthe, who is completing his tenure as president of CIFOG, took the opportunity of (a trade meeting on December 13, 2005) to briefly take stock of the actions developed with success these last years by the (CIFOG). (...) Other success obtained: the recognition by the deputies of the National Assembly – unanimously – of foie gras, and therefore of force-feeding, as an element in need of protection in the cultural and gastronomical heritage of France. (...) For Alain Labarthe, « it is a beautiful victory to have been able to link foie gras to the act of force-feeding »."

« Alain Labarthe : deux combats gagnés par l’interprofession Cifog » (Alain Labarthe, two battles won by the CIFOG), Filières Avicoles (trade journal of the French poultry industry), January 2006, page 12

--Zelig33 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevyn wrote : "force-feeding to produce foie gras wasn't banned in those EU countries that were already producing foie gras". Wrong. Italy and Poland HAD a foie gras production when they banned force-feeding. In 1998, just before the ban, Poland was the 6th world produc er with 150 tons/year (CIFOG 2003 economic report, p11).(Italy's production was small).

-- Zelig33 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Trevyn was mainly speaking about the ban that was caused by the EU council report. Since the report authorized foie gras production wherever it was already being produced, Poland's and Italy's bans wouldn't have been directly caused by the EU Council's report.--Ramdrake 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italy's ban (Decreto Legislativo, 26 March 2001, n.146, article 2, sub-section 1, point b) was the translation into Italian law of the European Union directive 98/58 [22] which states "No animal shall be provided with food or liquid in a manner, nor shall such food or liquid contain any substance, which may cause unnecessary suffering or injury."

-- Zelig33 15:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reference you give doesn't say anything about foie gras, force-feeding, gavage or anything else. While I believe you that it's related, that's probably due to a further intepretation of the courts in Italy. The law as such (based on the text in reference) does nothing to ban force-feeding production methods (or foie gras production) specifically.--Ramdrake 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake: That's precisely the point. The EU directive 98/58 states "No animal shall be provided with food or liquid in a manner, nor shall such food or liquid contain any substance, which may cause unnecessary suffering or injury.". The Italian law that bans foie gras production is explicitly intended as the transposition into Italian law of that European directive ("DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 26 marzo 2001, n. 146 - Attuazione della direttiva 98/58/CE relativa alla protezione degli animali negli allevamenti." - it's the first lines at the top). In other words, force-feeding, in the opinions of the Italian law-makers, is contrary to that European directive, because it causes unnecessary suffering or injury. Very generally, the prohibitions of force-feeding are included in animal protection laws, which means that those countries state that force-feeding is contrary to the standards of animal protection. It is not just a few animal rights "wackoes", as you like to term them; it is a large number of countries. That is another issue where you have systematically refused to recognize the obvious. David Olivier 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, my contention was to say that the EU directive doesn't ban the production of foie gras where it exists already. That two coutries reinterpreted the directive to decide to ban force-feeding is outside the purview of the recommendation of the EU Council. I would be interested to see a reference that actually explains how the EU Council directive got reinterpreted either in Italy or in Poland. And I never used the term "wacko" to describe the AR community. Mind you, I think they're a very vocal minority, but I wouldn't call them "wackos" by a long shot.--Ramdrake 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, the Italian ban was a transcription of an European Union directive, not of the Council of Europe recommendation. The European Union directive does not mention explicitly foie gras - it just stipulates that "No animal shall be provided with food or liquid in a manner, nor shall such food or liquid contain any substance, which may cause unnecessary suffering or injury." - and states no exception for countries that currently produce foie gras. It appears that at least one country - Italy - interprets that stipulation as implying the prohibition of foie gras. It seems that others, such as France, do not - apparently, France has illegally "forgotten" to transpose into its national law that stipulation!

The bottom line is that foie gras production may actually be illegal in all European countries including France. That the European directive, which is binding, was incompletely transcribed in French law as it legally should have been is a telling symptom. To object that the existing implemented bans are worthless is like saying that the "all men are created equal" statement in the US Declaration of independance was worthless because it was only implemented in those states that didn't have slaves.

David Olivier 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is, some countries have interpreted the EU directive as applying to force-feeding, while others have not. Especially in the light on the EU council report, which does allow the practice to continue wherever it already exists and is codified, I would say that France isn't doing anything illegal, as you directly imply. Let me remind you the EU directive doesn't say anything specific regarding force-feeding or foie gras. It lets each country decide what should and shouldn't be considered affected by this directive.--Ramdrake 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total tangent, but please don't use American analogies that you don't know. The Declaration of Independence isn't part of American law at all. All men are created equal didn't become a written part of American jurisprudence until the 14th amendment due process/equal protection provisions. In fact, the Constitution gave a big FU to the Declaration of Independence by declaring slaves were only worth 3/5ths of a man. SchmuckyTheCat 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the history lesson. But doesn't that confirm what I was saying? The Declaration of Independence set a standard, slavery was banned in all states that didn't have strong reasons to resist the ban, and was finally banned everywhere, by the 14th Amendment, immediately after that resistance was overcome, through the civil war. The EU and Council of Europe animal protection texts, and the animal protection laws even of France itself, set a standard that not all countries currently implement. David Olivier 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat: "non-gavage techniques (as some Spanish producers are attempting) are [not banned]". Ramdrake: "at least one country (Spain) is doing research in producing a foie gras that doesn't require force-feeding" Please stop trying to bloat the data. The news was about exactly one such producer, not "some Spanish producers"; and it is even less one whole country. And the product of that one producer is not recognized as foie gras by the French authorities, while France accounts for some 80% of worldwide consumption; and are not recognized by many other consumers. The repeated appeal to one marginal fact to justify changing the wording of the entire article is a clear case of undue weight.

Trevyn: A ban is a ban, whether or not what it bans was being practiced beforehand. The ban has an effect. Today, no one can go to Germany and produce foie gras. If the ban wasn't in effect, people could. Also, considering the recent rise in foie gras production - the French production has more than doubled between 1993 and 2003^[1] - the production might very well expand into other countries if there were not those bans. Also, to say that a ban in a country where that practice wasn't part of the culture is like saying that the French bans on female genital mutilation are not real bans. Or that the bans against slavery are not real bans in those countries where there was no slavery before the bans.

All bans, before becoming universal, have started in specific countries. That is the trend. If it wasn't, the INRA researchers wouldn't be as uneasy as they appear in their 2003 "Synthesis document": "À plus longue échéance, cette évolution sera t'elle suffisante pour assouvir les exigences de la demande sociale? Rien n'est moins certain si le contexte sociétal n'évolue pas, car bien qu'ils ne soient pas concernés par ce type de production in situ, plusieurs pays membres de l'Union Européenne voudraient voir interdite la production de foie gras à l'intérieur de l'espace européen." ("On a longer time scale, will that evolution be enough to satisfy the demands of the social sensitivity [for animal welfare]? Nothing is less certain if the societal context does not evolve, since several member states of the European Union, despite their having no production of their own, would like to have the production of foie gras banned inside the whole European territory").

Ramdrake and SchmuckyTheCat: to try downplay the meaning of the word gavage is absurd. You cannot escape that fact by simply ignoring what Zelig33 says. David Olivier 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't change the fact that transformation from liver to foie gras is done by fattening the bird. The word gavage doesn't automatically imply force-feeding and that's a fact too. Even the CIFOG representative used the wording (when objecting to the Spanish foie gras): "This cannot be called foie gras because it is strictly defined as a product from an animal which has been fattened". Yes, it says "fattened"; where does it say "force-fed"? She probably felt the Spanish birds weren't fat enough. Force-feeding here is what is under controversy. If someone is trying to find a way to produce foie gras (or something close enough to it) without force-feeding the birds, doesn't it loudly say that the objection really is about the force-feeding production method, and not foie gras itself and that mixing the objections may not be the best idea?--Ramdrake 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position statement:User:Benio76

Before going on in the mediation, I would like the editors to stop making suppositions about the identity of others: it is an open attempt to divert the attention from the others' arguments and to hide their own lack of arguments. I'm not an "activist", nor an "organisation". The only reason why I edited only foie gras by now is that I had no time to edit other articles I'm interested in (which you can find in my Watchlist). Actually, I work on the history of ideas: this is why I care about the poorness and superficiality of the "historical section" of foie gras - especially seeing that this historical pastiche is evidently meant to build a positive POV. So, please stop to talk about "AR side" just because it is said in my personal page that I'm vegetarian: indeed, I said it because I had no reason to hide it - but it is not enough to claim that I am an Animal rights activist. Otherwise, look at User:Trevyn: I could easily suggest that he/she doesn't exist, or that he/she is a foie gras producer... but I don't need such a childish strategy, I have arguments enough. Benio76 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position statement: David Olivier

Sorry for arriving late, I caught a cold (more on that below). Now after reading the first comments, I have had to take a deep breath before diving back in. Welcome, ST47, and thanks for taking up this mediation. The situation is bad, but I do think your mediation may succeed in bringing us to some kind of an agreement; and if it doesn't, it may help us at least make some progress. However, the way things are going for the moment in this discussion is certainly not the right direction.

I think that if this mediation is to succeed, you must be prepared to spend quite some time on this, to look into things, to carefully check the factual statements and the arguments make by each side, and also to look into some documents, among which the 1998 European Union Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare report (in short, the "EU report"). I'm sorry, but this is not going to be easy.

I quite understand that someone coming here with no particular involvement in the controversy may think: What the heck, foie gras is another kind of food, OK there's also a controversy about it, but that's just a side-issue. Also, for instance, what's this fuss about the history section; it may be badly sourced, but why should that matter so much? I think we will see that it matters. That story about the Egyptians is an important part of the defensive strategy of the foie gras industry. Now if there are reliable sources showing that foie gras was produced in 2500 BC, so much the better for the industry. For the moment, it appears that no such sources have been produced, and the rules of Wikipedia are that the page should not state what is not verifiable. That is just one example to ask you, ST47, to bear in mind that what may easily appear as petty warring does matter.

Please realize that foie gras is not just another kind of food. It's a foodstuff the production of which is prohibited almost all European countries, and in some others too, as a special case of animal mistreatment. It's the only foodstuff that implies forced overfeeding of an animal, inducing a condition, steatosis, at a level that the EU report (p.41) calls pathological; a condition in which the birds are plainly sick. Yes, foie gras is high on the agenda of animal protection societies, and it is also also high on the agenda of those who, for any reason, are intent on blocking progress towards better treatment of animals. Probably more people have heard of foie gras as a controversial food than have any idea what it tastes like. This, I argue, means that the article should not be seen as an article just about a foodstuff. The issue of whether or not it is ethical to produce foie gras is a major aspect. I think it would be perfectly normal for the article to devote more space to the controversy than to the food aspect. But I do not ask for that. I just ask for the pro-foie gras side to stop trying to minimize the controversy aspect.

Concerning the accusations by SchmuckyTheCat and others that I am POV, while they are not: I have never hidden my opinions. True, I am in favour of the abolition of foie gras. Ramdrake has stated that he is opposed to such an abolition. If my opinions make me POV, then his does too. But actually, all those attacks by Ramdrake, SchmuckyTheCat et al. are simply ad hominem, and don't amount to anything. They have constantly resorted to that in the past; instead of discussing the issues, they repeatedly argue against edits by stating that they would make AR activists happy!

Also, the criticism on my user page about the concept of NPOV doesn't imply that my editing is less NPOV than that of others; as I state there, when on Wikipedia I plan to respect the rules of the land. Whether I actually do or not is something that is demonstrated by my edits and my arguments. It's easy to say "I am NPOV"; even SchmuckyTheCat can say it. But I think that what the edits of Ramdrake, Trevyn, SchmuckyTheCat and Alex Pankratov demonstrate is massive pro-foie gras, anti-AR POV. OK, SchmuckyTheCat, I'm prepared to believe that your daughter's mom is vegan, big deal, but you hardly disguise your hatred of AR people, going as far as declaring your "spite" for us on your talk page.

My intention is not to make the foie gras page into a "soapbox damnation", whatever that means. My intention is for it to state the relevant facts. It is perfectly OK for it to include those facts that are in favour of foie gras; such as the American Veterinary Medical Association statements. And if the balance of the relevant facts, stated NPOVedly, turns out to be very damning for foie gras, then so be it. No one can come and say that the page about Saddam Hussein is POV simply because the balance of facts makes him look bad. No one is to come and say "stating that foie gras is a diseased liver makes it look bad, so it shouldn't be said". NPOV means that we are not to justify our edits by such an agenda.

One good example of the massive pro-foie gras POV is that issue of whether or not the force-feeding makes the animals sick. The fact is that the EU report clearly states that their condition is pathological (see p.41). Instead, when I first came to the page in November, the article actually stated that that same report "recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state", which is simply ridiculous. I deleted that, and that was the start of the edit war - with SchmuckyTheCat repeatedly reinstating that totally false statement, with hardly an argument in the talk page (it's in talk archive 2). After weeks of controversy, Trevyn finally backed up, and the sentence has remained deleted; however, the wording of the relevant paragraph in the current article is hardly less misleading.

What about the cold I mentioned that I caught? Well, I was sick. Anyone seeing me could easily recognize that; just like anyone seeing a duck towards the end of the force-feeding period will plainly recognize that animal as being sick. Constant diarrhea, constant panting due both to breathing difficulties and thermal stress, incapacity to walk, very brittle bones, impaired liver metabolism... Those ducks are much sicker than I am. Why is it controversial to recognize that? "Sick" does not mean "half dead", it just means "sick"! The pro-foie gras editors say that the ducks are not sick because their condition is "reversible" (if they are not slaughtered, and the force-feeding is discontinued, most of them survive and return to normal after a few weeks). But does my cold have to be irreversible for me to qualify as sick? Of course not! So why should it be so for the birds? Just because saying that they are sick makes the product look bad? But that is not a valid argument.

David Olivier 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note concerning my position statement: My position now is essentially the same as the one I put forth a month ago on the talk page, see here. That proposal was "strongly rejected" by Trevyn. I think that we will spend some time on this page quarreling over specific issues, such as the Egyptians, steatosis, pictures and so on. But obviously we need to define a solution in more general terms. I think it should be made clear that 1. the article is not just about foie gras as a food; 2. NPOV and verifiability should apply to all issues; 3. arguments about whether or not a specific piece of information will make foie gras look bad are not valid arguments; 4. all editors are to make an honest effort towards being NPOV. Perhaps if those lessons are brought home, the future prospects will appear a bit brighter. David Olivier 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ramdrake': While most of David Olivier's post sounds like a bouquet of ad hominems to me, I will answer specifically on a couple of issues.

First and foremost, his contention that the "EU report" states that the steatosis induced by gavage is pathological, he uses this excerpt (which isn't part of the conclusion, p.41):

...this level of steatosis should be considered pathological.

While the conclusion, p 61, actually states something somewhat different:

...some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not.

This goes in support of the statement in the article that says: Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited[2] and inconclusive[3].

Second, given that a picture of a bas-relief showing an activity looking very much like the force-feeding of birds is actually shown in the article, I'd like to know what sources Mr. Olivier relies on to state that it is untrue (a fiction) that force-feeding in all likelihood dates back that far.

Lastly, while nobody contests that there is a controversy surrounding the production of foie gras, I'm not sure this mediation page is the correct place for such an elaborate and passionate plea in favor of the abolition of foie gras. Sure, that is one of the opinions one can have about it, but the tone that suggests that it is the only "ethical" position about it is unwarranted, IMHO.--Ramdrake 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, it is not enough to state things to have proven them.

Concerning what the EU report says on the steatosis being pathlogical: ST47, may I specifically ask you to read the following parts of that report? (The page numbers are those of the report's own numbering that appears at the bottom of the pages.)

• Page 41, the long paragraph "These various data ... considered pathological".

• Page 61, the paragraph 6.

Please do not just accept what Ramdrake says. Read for yourself. Consider that the sentence quoted by Ramdrake ("some pathologists consider...") is not a statement of the report's own conclusions. Nowhere in the report is there anything that contradicts the closing sentence of the paragraph page 41. Read the whole report if you wish. I perfectly accept that the opinions of others, such as those of some INRA experts, who say the condition is not pathological be quoted in the foie gras article. What is not acceptable is to try to make the EU report say what it does not say. The paragraph about the EU report in the article is, as it stands, a string of lies.

Please also note that Ramdrake quotes that sentence - "Some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not." - in support of his saying that scientific evidence regarding the welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited an inconclusive. That sentence does not even mention welfare, it mentions the issue of the steatosis being pathological. The whole EU report does conclude regarding the welfare of the ducks; it does so page 65, in one clear sentence:

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

Please go to that page 65 and read that sentence, and say if you believe that it supports the idea that the evidence regarding welfare is inconclusive.

Regarding the purported force-feeding by the Egyptians: there is no tube, and the operators are just placing the food in the beak. The animals may be encouraged to eat, but they are not forced to eat. As I have argued in my previous contribution (below), the product would not qualify as foie gras.

David Olivier 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence regarding welfare is inconclusive, because other sources contradict the EU report, which itself is only one opinion. Further, the EU report conclusion is so restrictive that it doesn't really tell us anything useful, like how detrimental it is, or which aspects of the current practice are causing the detriment — both of we can discuss using the rest of the report and other sources. The report's extended conclusion, which is reflected by the wording of the EC treaty, is that more research needs to be done — which reflects the position that the existing research is insufficient to draw useful conclusions.

Regarding the Egyptians, you are doing OR on the Egyptian art, and I'm sure the Egyptians could have figured out how to force-feed without a tube. You still have provided no contradictory source. —Trevyn 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "inconclusive evidence" debate: OK, it now seems that you accept that the EU report does conclude concerning the welfare; and that it concludes that the welfare is poor. Why did it take so long for you to accept that obvious fact? Why did you repeatedly support that that sentence ("Scientific evidence regarding the animal welfare aspects of foie gras production is limited[2] and inconclusive[3].") was "sourced" on the EU report itself, while now you recognize that to source it you would have to cite both that report and other, contradicting, sources? I believe it is possible to make progress in this debate, but see how hard it is when one party battles for weeks even on the most trivial of issues so as not not recognize the obvious!

Now on the one hand you have the EU report that concludes that the practice is detrimental, and let's suppose that you have, as you say, other, contradicting sources. Then you cannot conclude that the evidence is inconclusive. That would be OR. All you can say is: some say it this way, and others say it that way. That is a verifiable assertion. That the evidence is inconclusive is not a verifiable assertion; to state it as such, and furthermore to "source" it on the EU report, which precisely says the contrary, is a falsification.

But by the way, what exactly are those contradicting sources? As far as I know, the only other sources are the French INRA and the American Veterinary Medical Association; and neither concludes that foie gras production is not detrimental to the welfare of the birds; their conclusion is... that the evidence is inconclusive. The AVMA refrained to make any statement on the issue, and the INRA says it has found no conclusive evidence that the birds suffer. So the bottom line is that by saying the evidence is inconclusive, you are stating, not some middle line position, but the very position of one side, of the side that is most favourable to foie gras production. And on top of that, you claim to source it on the other side's declarations!

Concerning the Egyptians: If you believe that the Egyptians produced real foie gras, it is up to you to show some source. Otherwise, let's leave them out.

David Olivier 11:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this one, I agree with Trevyn, and would like to state that nothing on p.41 of the EU report states that this is more of a conclusion than the statement on p.61. Thus, either the report contradicts itself on this point, or one of the two statements is not a conclusion. Judging from the placement of each statement, I am led to believe the statement on p.61 (that not all pathologists agree that the level of steatosis is pathological) is correctly part of the conclusion.

On the bit about the Egyptians, as I already said the point is misleading: you are holding them to a standard (the French standard, and a particular interpretation of it to boot) that wouldn't exist for thousands of years after they were gone. I think that's a bit much.--Ramdrake 13:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words from the EU report supporting that the evidence about the welfare of the birds is small are as such:

Whilst studies of the anatomy of ducks and geese kept for foie gras production have been carried out, the amount of evidence in the scientific literature concerning the effects of force feeding and liver hypertrophy on injury level, on the functioning of the various biological systems is small.

Please take a moment to realize the EU report says more than what you seem to think it does.--Ramdrake 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on page 61 does not state the position of the report; it states the position of other experts. I have noted that about twenty times, and you continue to ignore it. That is not helpful.

To say that the Egyptians produced foie gras because they could not be held to a standard that didn't exist at that time is like saying that they also made cell phones, because to say otherwise is to hold them to a standard that didn't exist at the time. No, they didn't make cell phones, and as far as we can tell they didn't make foie gras.

The sentence you quote is about one aspect of the welfare. Just like the sentence you invariably quote concerning stress factors ("the adrenal reactivity data...") is relative to one particular experiment conducted by an INRA researcher (not by the EU report authors). That the INRA, which is a long-standing partner with foie gras producers, finds no evidence that the ducks suffer is not great news. The EU report experts do seem to have come to a conclusion. You may dispute that conclusion; please stop disputing that it is theirs.

David Olivier 14:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable and neutral source for your statement that the INRA is "a long-standing partner with foie gras producers".

As far as the rest is concerned, I maintain my position. And your analogy with cell phones is just ludicrous and uncalled for. It's very much like when you were comparing Pliny the Elder with Douglas Adams as a reliable historical source.--Ramdrake 14:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the INRA is a long-standing partner with the foie gras producers is not in dispute. See for instance the long interview (in French) of Daniel Rousselot-Pailley, who was the director for over twenty years of the INRA experimental center for foie gras production. That interview was made by the INRA and is on the INRA site. Page 42, for example: "Aujourd'hui, la plupart de nos contrats sont passés avec l’interprofession (le CIFOG, Comité Interprofessionnel du Foie Gras (...))." "Nowadays, most of our contracts are with the industry (the CIFOG, Interprofessional foie gras committee (...)." The partnership between the INRA and the industry is actually perfectly normal. What is not normal is that the same INRA researchers try to pass themselves off as independent experts, which they are not.

My example about cell phones is perfectly to the point; I'm sorry if you don't get it. What is ludicrous is your trying to argue the equivalent of saying the Egyptians made cell phones. The Egyptians made no cell phones, and they, as far as we can see, made no foie gras.

David Olivier 14:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the report: I see that it is considered to be a fatal disease by the writers, and I believe that that should be noted and sourced in the article. Is there any reason not to?

Regarding the egyptians, let's just not use the word Foie Gras. Say they ate fattened birds' livers, cite it, say it may not have been force fed, and be done with it. ST47Talk 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report says it is a fatal disease if continued past the point of slaughter. They also spend significant amount of writing going back to the point that the birds are slaughtered, and intended to be slaughtered, and such that this "fatal disease conclusion" misses the point to begin with.

And, for the Egyptians, that is pretty much how the article reads now. "the ancient Egyptians sought the fattened livers of migratory birds as a delicacy" without using any term, until the Roman period, who did use a specific term. SchmuckyTheCat 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many references (including the EU report) do state that in most cases, if force feeding is stopped, the steatosis is reversible in a matter of weeks. It's like alcohol consumption: if you keep drinking (in a session) and don't stop, you'll kill yourself (that is a certainty); if you stop before a certain point, you're likely to recover, give a or take a hangover.--Ramdrake 20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should say what we can ascertain of the Egyptians, and nothing more. It should also not try to imply that what the Egyptians did is part of the history of foie gras, if that is not something verifiable.

SchmuckyTheCat: The article currently states, in the lead: "Foie gras may date from approximately 2500 BC, when the ancient Egyptians saw a special culinary appeal in the naturally fattened livers of migratory birds, and began to deliberately fatten the birds through overfeeding; it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force-fed." That wording is the result of an edit of mine; before, it read "Foie gras dates from approximately 2500 BC, when the ancient Egyptians saw a special culinary appeal in the naturally fattened livers of migratory birds, and began to deliberately fatten the birds through overfeeding.". That wording dates back to a 27 December edit by Trevyn; it is that paragraph that made me add the "totally disputed" tag. That wording has been constantly upheld by the pro-foie gras side. My introduction of the more moderate wording has been called (below) "unsourced" by Trevyn. It is his edits that are unsourced - except perhaps on Michael "Passion" Ginor. My edit only escaped reversion because the page was blocked shortly after.

Please do not attempt to deny that the pro-foie gras party has constantly tried to make foie gras appear to date back to the Egyptians.

David Olivier 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake: if you drink a lot, before dying, you are sick; and if someone slaughters you before you are drunk to the point of dying, you will still have been sick. The issue is not whether the birds die before being slaughtered; most don't. The issue is whether they are sick. They are, quite positively. A condition being reversible doesn't keep it from being a pathological condition. EU report: p. 4, "Many functional diseases are reversible."; p. 41: "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." p. 61: "reversibility exists for many pathological states". The EU report concludes page 41 that the condition is pathological despite its being reversible. David Olivier 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent is driving me crazy, reset) David oliver is correct, many diseases are reversible with treatment, the point here is that it is an abnormality. A link to Steatosis should be somewhere in the article. Intro or elsewhere, your choice. Is there a "medical" section? If so, perhaps there, if not, the intro is probably the next best thing. ST47Talk 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only point was that the only treatment necessary was to stop the force-feeding. The condition is rarely fatal on its own (2% according to the EU report) unless force-feeding is prolonged, beyond slaughter time (which sort of defeats the purpose of why they're raised); this is why I used the analogy to drinking alcohol. The link to steatosis is already in the article, but as I suggested, the sentence slightly revised that I provided I think should go as the lead of the physiology section. I believe I already went over the reasons why it is inappropriate in the introduction per se.--Ramdrake 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake states that "the only treatment necessary was to stop the force-feeding". This is not true :

1) not only some birds die during the force-feeding period (by the way, Ramdrake writes "2% according to the EU report" ; Ramdrake please stop misquoting. The EU report states "The mortality rate in force fed birds varies from 2% to 4% in the two week force feeding period" p49)

2) but also, if you do not kill the birds at the end of the force-feeding period, more birds die of the consequences of having been force-fed. See for instance this (pro-foie gras) scientific French article, where they did exactly that experiment (force-feed, then release ducks and see what happens):

"9 out of the 144 ducks that were released died. Mortality increases with the length of the force-feeding period (1 death among the animals force-fed for 10 days, 2 for those force-fed for 13 days, 6 for those force-fed for 16 days). (...) The conditions in this experiment reflect current production situations."

R. Babilé, A. Auvergne, V. Andrade, F. Héraut, G. Bénard, M. Bouillier-Oudot, H. Manse, “Réversibilité de la stéatose hépatique chez le canard mulard” (Reversibility of hepatic steatosis in mulard ducks), Actes des 2e Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 1996, pages 107-110

--Zelig33 16:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelig, please stop being specious and wasting people's time. Whether 2% or 4%, that is still a very low mortality rate in the world of animal husbandry. And please, 9 out of 144 is exactly 6.25%, which is still close to the quoted rate of 2 to 4%. There is a mortality rate associated with most medical conditions which are deemed reversible, or tend to heal themselves without medical intervention. How many people a year die of influenza, for example? Hundreds of thousands, at the very least. Nevertheless, the flu is considered something from which people recover most of the time without direct medical intervention.--Ramdrake 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake stated that "Whether 2% or 4%, that is still a very low mortality rate in the world of animal husbandry". To make this favorable comparison, Ramdrake omits to take into account the duration on which the number of dead animals are counted. A mortality rate of 2-4% in less than two weeks is a much high mortality rate than 2-4% over several months. EU report page 49 : "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 comparable ducks [over the same length of time]."

No, adding 2%-4% and 6.25% is not close to your original quoted rate of 2%. It is about 10 times higher.

--Zelig33 19:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but saying it isn't a low mortality rate "because it happens over a few weeks" just doesn't cut it. We don't say the mortality rate due to influenza isn't low "because people who die of it usually die within 2 weeks of catching it" even if it is what happens. Death is very often event-related (a stress, a disease, whatever). And even if you added the maximum of the 2-4% figure to the 6.25% figure (which you really can't), you're still not "10 times higher" than the 2% figure I was quoting. That's a tempest in a teapot. And in any event, the quotable secondary sources we have have some experts saying this level of steatosis is pathological, and some saying it isn't. So, I'm not sure where you want to lead this argument, but I'd like to avoid arguing for the sake of arguing.--Ramdrake 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you are sorry about it does not change the fact that a mortality rate is calculated over a certain length of time. A (ill-)treatment (or an influenza if you prefer), that kills 8-10% of the subjects when they are submitted to it during less than 2 weeks is not equivalent to a treatment that kills 8-10% of the subjects when they are submitted to it during several months. That is common sense.

Regarding my calculation: you are right, I apologize, the real mortality figure (counting animals killed during the force feeding period and those who die of its consequences) is indeed about 5 times (not 10 times) higher than the one you introduced before I corrected you.

You wrote: "I'm not sure where you want to lead this argument, but I'd like to avoid arguing for the sake of arguing" => I am not leading anywhere, I was just correcting the false claim that you made that force-feeding is "rarely fatal on its own (2%...)". If you think that discussing the level of harmfulness of force-feeding is "arguing for the sake of arguing", just stop raising the issue yourself to begin with.

--Zelig33 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must observe your grasp of English might leave something to be desired. I wasn't apologizing about anything. Mortality rates are NOT calculated over a certain length of time (except for the human mortality rate per country, which is usually given per annum). Mortality rates are more often calculated on a per-event basis (morbidity and mortality rates following this or that disease), and this is what is done here. And this doesn't change the fact that the fattening process kills only typically 2-4% of the birds before they reach the point where they should be slaughtered anyway.--Ramdrake 14:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, please realize what is at stake. It's not just some stupid game, it's some fifty million sentient beings who are treated this way every year. Stop playing around. This is no place for that.

Perhaps you thought you were being funny when you compared the overfeeding for foie gras to the effects of a drinking binge: "if you keep drinking (in a session) and don't stop, you'll kill yourself (that is a certainty); if you stop before a certain point, you're likely to recover, give a or take a hangover". OK, I accepted the comparison. But the issue is not just of the "hangover" you can get afterwards. The issue is how sick you are during the proceedure. Can you get that, or do we have to repeat it another twenty times?

You want to calculate "per event". OK. The event is force-feeding. How do we see if that event kills ducks? We take the mortality of similar ducks without force-feeding, and measure the difference. EU report page 47: "Therefore for the two weeks before slaughter, the mortality rate would be 0.2% compared with 2 to 4% in the force fed mulard birds of about the same age." That means that the force-feeding kills between 1.8 and 3.8% of the ducks.

If the ducks are not slaughered and the force-feeding is discontinued, an additional 6.25% of them die of the force-feeding in the following days.

If people are forced to drink alcohol up to a point where between 1.8 and 3.8% of them will die just during the drinking, can you really say with a straight face that they are not violently sick? That they are not violently sick, when another 6% of them will die in the following days after the force consumption of alcohol is discontinued?

That is just one comparison. It was yours. The ducks don't drink alcohol, they are force-fed. Can you imagine that you are forced to eat a quantity of food that will make some 8% of the subjects die during or after the proceedure, and not be very sick? Can you imagine any proceedure that will kill a similar number of those who are submitted to it without making them very sick?

The fact is that foie gras is a steatosed liver; that that liver is produced by a proceedure that makes that liver accumulate fat well beyond anything that can happen in nature and that makes the birds very sick; and that is a significant fact. It should be in the intro. It would be in the intro if it concerned any other product. We do not care whether or not that will put off the consumer. Those who wrote the Fried spider article didn't care whether or not describing the abdomen's contents as "a brown paste consisting perhaps of organs, eggs, or excrement" would put off the consumer. It is a salient fact, and they put it in. Period. They didn't have an agenda of protecting the consumption of the product.

David Olivier 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

I've watched this article for a while and mostly have seen this behind-the-scenes squabble. I've offered a couple of NPOV compromise scenarios, but the battle is too thick right now. I mentioned the article Veal which could have been a much more controversial food/animal rights topic, but has been fairly evenly written. I also suggested that a significant portion of the animal rights/animal cruelty issues be moved to more focused articles which already exist, leaving a small bit behind with a pointer to the other article(s). Of course, not to offer up the thought of POV splitting, per se. (Of course, there is a lot of "cruelty" in food production from animals, but a lot of it comes from the economics of food. If demand is there, price goes up and someone will find a way to get more product to meet the demand.) I'd be happy to support any solution that achieves consensus. Lmcelhiney 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Addition of an etymology

The name "foie gras"^[2] refers to the liver of birds grown abnormally by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver.^[3] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts^[4] but as a real pathology by others.^[5]

Comment by Ramdrake: AFAIK, this is stretching the French language a bit. In my experience (I live in French, in Quebec), the term "foie gras" is strictly reserved in French for the dish, while the analogous condition is referred to by medical personnel as "stéatose hépatique" or "stéatose". In my experience, the two are kept separate in everyday language. However, it is true that gavage of the animal to produce foie gras produces a liver condition equivalent to hepatic steatosis. This is interesting from a physiological viewpoint, and is referred to two or three times in the article. However, I feel that linking foie gras to a liver disease right in the introduction would mainly serve as shock/turnoff value for those coming to the article to learn about the dish. There is, after all, a common repulsion to eating diseased organs.--Ramdrake 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alex Pankratov: Referring to "Foie Gras" as a "growth" is confusing, because it is likely to be interpreted as a reference to a process of liver growing instead of a liver itself. Alex Pankratov 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've reworded it. Regarding ramdrake's comment, as an etymology I believe it is appropriate anyway. Perhaps as a subsection of history? When referring to linking to a liver disease, I assume you mean fatty liver. I suppose that can be reworded also, don't be shy! ST47Talk 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest maybe as the lead paragraph of the physiology section? And yes, I meant "fatty liver" (or steatosis) when I was talking about a liver disease. The reasons mentioned earlier (aversion for eating diseased organs, context not entirely drawn) would seem to me to warrant leaving it out of the intro. I think it should have a place in the article nevertheless.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ST47. It is certainly a better version, but now it implies that the liver can be grown "normally" by force feeding (as opposed to being grown "abnormally"), which is again confusing to the point of being misleading. The same argument applies to "real" adjective in "real pathology" bit. One option would be to remove "abnormally" and "real" adjectives, though it's obviously not the only option. Alex Pankratov 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Alex, and I suggest the word "grown" be replaced by "enlarged". What does everyone say?--Ramdrake 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Trevyn: This whole passage strikes me as unnecessary:

• It is OR. It is taking two single-word dictionary definitions and synthesizing them into an etymology for a distinct two-word term.
• It is redundant with regard to discussion of fatty liver: Fatty liver and hepatic steatosis are the same thing, and the article already discusses the relation of foie gras to hepatic steatosis.
• It is redundant with regard to the pathology/non-pathology debate, which is already discussed in the EU report section. Additional sources are helpful, but we don't need to say the same thing twice in the text.

—Trevyn 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by Ramdrake: I agree with Trevyn that the etymology bit (the dictionary reference) has no business being there. Maybe, I would also rephrase to something like:

The name "foie gras" refers to the liver of birds fattened by gavage, this accumulation of fat in the liver called is analogous to the medical condition called fatty liver or steatosis. Just my tuppence' worth.--Ramdrake 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Benio76. As for the relevancy of an etymology and of a scientific information in an introduction, the only reason given by Trevyn, Ramdrake etc. is their opinion. I want to remind what their opinion about the introduction of foie gras actually is: the reference to truffles has been relevant in their opinion until a third party editor removed it; the fantastic tale about Egyptians producing foie gras is relevant in their opinion... but an etymology and a scientific information about foie gras is not relevant in their opinion. Well, in my opinion it is their opinion which is not relevant, here. It is extravagant, really.

As for the redundance, as I already said, an introduction introduces what will be explained in the text: so, from the point of view of redundance, the whole introduction would be redundant, which is nonsense.

Returning to the question of relevance, I would like to remark that in the intro it is said that the flavour of foie gras is

unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver

It is not irrelevant to explain why a fattened liver tastes differently than a "regular" liver. It is not irrelevant to explain why the liver called "foie gras" is a different, specifical food than "regular" liver. Now, I will explain things well known by the editors but probably not familiar to the mediator. Please, ST47, follow me.

The foie gras is a fattened liver of a bird which has been force fed, i.e. induced to eat; force feeding induces an accumulation of lipids in the liver called hepatic steatosis. The process called steatosis is the same in birds as in humans (while it can be induced by different causes, as you can read in the article fatty liver); the controversial topic is: is steatosis in force-fed birds for the foie gras production to be considered a disease? I haven't the slightest intention to answer to this question. Indeed, my editing was perfectly neutral about this. What I want to point is that all that I said is sourced from INRA. INRA is the French National Institute for Agricoltural Research (here you will find the english version of the INRA website): it is a public institution whose studies totally support foie gras production. You can read here INRA researchers saying that

"In response to overfeeding for the production of "foie gras," the Poland goose differs from the Landes goose by a lesser susceptibility to hepatic steatosis, resulting in a lower accumulation of hepatic triacylglycerol etc..."

and here that

"In response to overfeeding, the Landes goose develops a fatty liver that is twice as large as that of the Poland goose, despite similar food intake etc."

And I will quote again the INRA article La stéatose hépatique des palmipèdes gavés : bases métaboliques et sensibilité génétique:

"Chez les Palmipèdes, l'induction contrôlée d'une stéatose hépatique par gavage permet la production de foie gras".("In Palmipedes, the controled induction of hepatic steatosis by force feeding allows the production of foie gras")

Well, I hope that all this is enough to conclude that force fed birds in the doie gras production develop a condition called steatosis. It is not "analogous" or "equivalent": it is steatosis. Matter of fact. No POV.

Now, ST47, I would like to point that the other party editors wrote several times an evident misleading statement in this discussion: it is most important that you give me your attention, because you assume their good faith and you are following their suggestion - but they are not telling the truth.

And, linking to the human disease in the intro, for an article about food, when in these animals it is not a disease isn't helpful. Just linking to hepatic steatosis requires context that the intro doesn't provide. SchmuckyTheCat 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I feel that linking foie gras to a liver disease right in the introduction would mainly serve as shock/turnoff value for those coming to the article to learn about the dish. There is, after all, a common repulsion to eating diseased organs.--Ramdrake 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

When referring to linking to a liver disease, I assume you mean fatty liver. I suppose that can be reworded also, don't be shy! ST47Talk 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I meant "fatty liver" (or steatosis) when I was talking about a liver disease. The reasons mentioned earlier (aversion for eating diseased organs, context not entirely drawn) would seem to me to warrant leaving it out of the intro. I think it should have a place in the article nevertheless.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Because SchmuckyTheCat and Ramdrake repeatedly said it, and because they repeatedly talked of me as an AR activist trying to put a negative bias on foie gras, they made you think that I am an AR activist who wants to "link foie gras to a liver disease". Well, actually, neither steatosis nor fatty liver talk of a "liver disease". Take a look. They talk about a "condition". Therefore, the objection about making people think that they are eating a "diseased organ" is totally unjustified.

And, most of all, the other party abused of your good faith.

In conclusion, for today, I repeat: my editing is plain, neutral, sourced and basic. I will be glad if you will improve the turn of my phrase, but I don't accept any change of the contents.

See you for the critique of the historical pastiche - it will be a lot of fun! Benio76 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it's relevant to the introduction; there is no heated debate of normal vs. abnormal, pathology vs. non-pathology in the literature. Some people think it is, some people think it isn't, they agree to disagree, that's it. We mention it in the body. I'm just trying to keep the introduction representative of the text. It's a fattened liver, and it tastes different because of the higher fat content, not because it's a steatosis or not. —Trevyn 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is it called "the higher fat content", please? People "agree to disagree" on the pathology question, yes, but not on what they are talking about... they say unanimously that the liver of the over fed birds develops a condition called steatosis. If you have contradictory evidence saying that the "higher fat content" of foie gras is not steatosis, please show it. Benio76 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a steatosis IS a higher fat content. Information is good, in moderation, so let us link it, I can't see a good argument not to. ST47Talk 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steatosis should be and is currently mentioned in the physiology section of the article. I've suggested to make that sentence the lead sentence in the section. I just don't see that such a highly technical info is pertinent in the introduction.--Ramdrake 21:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ramdrake. Introduction is meant to be an essential summary of the article. Medical name of the fatten liver condition does not appear to be of this kind. It is relevant, but not essential. Note, for example, how Chili_pepper page incorporates the formula of capsaicin in the article, but it is not present in the introduction. Alex Pankratov 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be consensus to add the sentence just below to the physiology section of the article (as a compromise offer)? We could crop other sentences from the same section as needed to avoid redundancy. --Ramdrake 13:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "foie gras" refers to the liver of birds fattened by gavage, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver or hepatic steatosis.^[6] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts^[7] but as a real pathology by others.^[8]

That quote looks neutral, I'd like english sources if available, of course, though that may be unlikely. Let's see if we have consensus and add it to the sandbox page at /Article? ST47Talk 01:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of the debate from the compromise section

Comment: the reference given [23] actually states cette accumulation est une adaptation physiologique aux besoins énergétiques (this accumulation (of fat) is a physiological adaptation to energy needs), thus I would revert the change of the etymology to state that some experts do consider it a physiological adaptation. Also, I would drop the word "real" from "real pathology": what's a "real pathology", as opposed to an "unreal pathology"? A pathology is a pathology. This phenomenon has been interpreted as a physiological adaptation by some, but as a pathology by others.--Ramdrake 13:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, how can you dare!!? The sentence you quote unmistakenly pertains to the normal, moderate, non-forced fattening of wild waterfowl, and is not about foie gras. How can you dare waste our time with such blatant attempts to mislead!?

The whole sentence in the article you quote reads: "Chez les animaux sauvages, cette accumulation est une adaptation physiologique aux besoins énergétiques dans des situations bien particulières : migration, hibernation." Translation: "Among wild animals, this accumulation [of fat in the liver] is a physiological adaptation to the energy needs for very particular situations: migration, hibernation." You cropped that sentence exactly as you needed to attempt to make it look like it applied to foie gras. Ramdrake, we are not going to get anywhere if you do not stop behaving is this way. Wikipedia is for people who make at least a passing attempt at being honest.

David Olivier 13:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The process of stocking fat in the liver of migratory birds (and some related species) is a normal physiological process. The extent to which it is brought by foie gras producers is considered by some to be pathological, but not by others. I think it is important to say that gavage exploits a natural physiological process of the birds (fat stockage). I don't see that I am trying to mislead anyone here. To prove it, here's my proposition: change the sentence further to something like this: This phenomenon has been interpreted as a normal physiological adaptation taken to its extreme by some, but as a pathology by others.--Ramdrake 14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A normal physiological adaptation taken to its extreme is not a normal physiological adaptation. To say it is is equivalent to saying "a dead bird is a live bird that has died" as a justification for having stated that "a dead bird is a live bird". The same article states that foie gras is not a physiological phenomenon ("l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques"). David Olivier 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the summary section. Has this proven that neither of you is convincing anyone? I created this section to compromise, that is the purpose, that's why Ramdrake requested this mediation. This is not an argument about foie gras, its history, or its production, but about the article. I feel like I've said this before. Does anyone have any good ideas rather than arguments, or shall we walk away right now? ST47Talk 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I feel like I've been trying to suggest several compromise wordings, but it seems all of them run into an objection of some sort. Evidently, what will totally satisfy the anti-foie gras side is not entirely acceptable to our side, and it seems that we can't compromise far enough to find something totally acceptable to the other side. Not sure what the best course is at this point. Maybe we can salvage the summary section by moving the more argumentative parts up to the preceding sections. I would certainly agree to that, but I won't take the responsibility of doing it myself. That's all I can think of for now.--Ramdrake 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This surprises you why? David and Benio are here with an agenda. Compromise isn't part of that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat, the same can be said of you: from the beginning, you had no intention of building a consensus, all that you did in the article was removing the other party editings without giving reasons - and what about your passionate defense of Michael Ginor's advertising ravings? All yours "his book is excellent", "he's an expert", "he wins awards" and so on? What is there in your agenda? Benio76 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, where do we go next? Is it worthwhile to continue informal mediation, and risk wasting our time and ST47's time, or should we just take this to formal mediation or even to RfA? (Not sure what the proper process is from this point on, so if somebody knows, the information would be very appreciated).--Ramdrake 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We nuke the article and reduce it to "Foie gras is cruelly delicious", thereby satisfying everyone ;). Didn't I complain about how long bloated article got a long time ago? Every little sentence gets expanded into long arguments, counter arguments, rebuttals, then splits in "n" sub arguments that grow exponentially.--Boffob 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for the steps. Formal mediation will be next, if everyone agrees to it. Otherwise, RfA. —Trevyn 04:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, how can you seperate the article from the issues themselves? If one party insists on putting POV information in the article, should we accept that, simply in name of compromise? I don't think so. I think that as a mediator, you cannot escape reading through the arguments and checking what is said. If you do not, it means that compromise in your mind is just finding a middle line. A middle line between one party who wants to impose its POV and another party that accepts the principle of a balanced article does not make what I call a NPOV article. David Olivier 09:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)¸[reply]

(reset indent)Because, David, that's what must be done in order to resolve the situation. ST47 is trying to do precisely the right thing in this situation as a mediator. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" position in this dispute, just divergent opinions, and opinions is all they are. Neither one of us holds the sacred truth and either you know that, or you're seriously deluding yourself. And you're right that your wish to impose your own POV in the face of our trying to make the article balanced makes for a skewed article. Now, we either get back to discussing the specific points ST47 picked out for us and clear all the junk argumentation from this section of the mediation so it becomes readable again, or we take this dispute to the next level, whether formal mediation or RfA and thank ST47 for his time and effort. Please realize that a mediation means you need to compromise to a degree on your positions, just like the other party does. It is not a trial where the best argument wins the whole enchilada. Ball's in your court, now.--Ramdrake 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this pseudo philosophic panegyric of relativity supposed to justify the choice to consider reliable a vulgar trader who speculate about the "illustrious origins" of his product to push people buy it, and to minimize what is said by qualified academic experts who work impartially on the field? Benio76 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I agree with you: I thought that we were here to discriminate good information from bad information, and in my opinion it does concern the article to establish which sources are reliable and what do they actually say. To accept to put false information in the article just in the name of compromise is nonsense. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that ST47 does not agree: he/she is not at all interested in having an opinion about the goodness of the article, he/she seems to think that it is just a matter of Animal Rights POV - this is obvious, it makes it easier and faster for him/her to get rid of this. So, I don't want to waste other time here: I agree to demand a formal mediation. Benio76 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ramdrake, it is not just a matter of "opinion". Granted, up to an extent NPOV and the reliability of sources is not an exact science. Within that extent, compromise is meaningful and possible. But the edits by yourself and the others on your side are way beyond the pale. To state that some experts interpret foie gras as a natural phenomenon is plainly false. Any "compromise" must refrain from suggesting any such thing. It is not a matter of opinion whether or not we can verifiably state that the Egyptians invented foie gras; no reliable source says they did.

It is already a compromise to accept to put in the intro on the same footing the opinion of experts who say foie gras is not pathological and that of those who say it is. The first experts are from the INRA and their research is heavily paid by the foie gras industry, or from the American veterinary association, which too is heavily linked to the animal husbandry industry; whereas the latter experts are from an independent EU committee. You reject that compromise, and insist on inserting that nonsense about foie gras being an adaptation (taken to an extreme) like you would say that ice is a liquid (frozen). Foie gras is not an adaptation, and even the INRA researchers did not say it is.

If you and the others on your side refrained from all your absurd arguments and accepted serious discussion, we could have spared ourselves 80 of the arguments on this page and started to move towards compromises. Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to go that way.

David Olivier 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A single example, David: if you'd read carefully, you'd have figured out the sentence wasn't calling foie gras a natural phenomenon, but rather steatosis. According to the INRA paper we've cited and quoted about 12 times already, it says exactly that: steatosis is a natural phenomenon in several animals to prepare them for migration, especially in migratory birds and related species. I could throw in other examples, but I'll stop here.--Ramdrake 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, I've read that sentence carefully. The original proposal by ST47 read: "The name "foie gras"[9] refers to the liver of birds grown abnormally by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver.[10] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts[11] but as a real pathology by others.[12]" The expression "this phenomenon" refers to foie gras, or to any of the other terms the first sentence mentions; it does not refer to the natural limited accumulation of fat that is said to happen in the livers of migratory birds, which is not mentioned at all.

You attempted to support that second sentence as it was, by quoting a fragment of a sentence that was relevant to migratory birds, while cropping that sentence to make it appear as relevant to foie gras. When that failed, you turned to calling it "a normal physiological adaptation taken to its extreme", which is still trying to peddle in the idea that foie gras is a normal physiological adaptation. And then at last you stopped defending your proposal on its merits and resorted to calling it a compromise, which it is not. Now you have come back to justifying that sentence, stating that it wasn't about foie gras at all... If it is about migratory birds, why on earth would any experts call it pathological at all? This is ridiculous.

David Olivier 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, foie gras is a "phenomenon" to you? I thought you said it was foodstuff. Bravo! The INRA report itself states, as the very first sentence in the article: Le gavage des palmipèdes pour la production de foie gras utilise leur capacité naturelle de synthèse et de stockage de lipides dans le foie. (Gavage of palm-footed birds aimed at foie gras production uses their natural capability to synthesize and store lipids in the liver) So, I'm not twisting anyone's words, I'm just rephrasing. Your accusations are unfounded and petty and border on personal attack. Please cease and desist now.--Ramdrake 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon is the accumulation of fat in the liver that produces foie gras. That is what the second sentence is about. That is what some experts call a pathology, and that INRA experts call non-pathological. The INRA experts do not say that that accumulation is a natural phenomenon. They would be ridiculous if they did. But you continue defending a wording that tries to make them appear as saying just that! David Olivier 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Benio 76.

To the other party: Stop taking advantage of the mediator, since he/she can not read French. Stop splitting statements in order to change their meaning.

1/ the quoted article described as physiological the accumulation of fat chez les animaux sauvages, i.e. in wild animals.

2/ as for the steatosis in force-fed birds, the same article says that it is extraphysiological:

Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques. ("this natural capacity of adaptation of lipid metabolism gives an explanation both of the intensity of the hepatic steatosis of force feeding and of its reversibility, in conditions which admittedly are extraphisiological, but not pathological")

Since I already quoted this very paragraph in this page, in my comment on the "Discussion", on 7 January, this information is well known by you.

3/ as for the link to fatty liver ans steatosis, here again, the sources that I quoted in my response of 10 January state that

"In response to overfeeding for the production of "foie gras," the Poland goose differs from the Landes goose by a lesser susceptibility to hepatic steatosis, resulting in a lower accumulation of hepatic triacylglycerol etc..." [24]

and that

"In response to overfeeding, the Landes goose develops a fatty liver that is twice as large as that of the Poland goose, despite similar food intake etc." [25]

As long as nobody shows that human steatosis or fatty liver is different from birds steatosis or fatty liver, both links are perfectly relevant.

My proposition for the intro: The name "foie gras" refers to the liver of birds fattened by gavage, which induces an extraphysiological accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver. This phenomenon has been interpreted as non-pathological by some experts but as a real pathology by others.

To the mediator: I have no intention to waste my time aswering to unsourced opinions, restablishing the exactness of quotations and copying them for the third time just because the other party pretend to have forgotten them: Please, call everybody to order. Otherwise, this mediation is not to be taken seriously and something more serious must be demanded. Benio76 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, change proposal to: This phenomenon uses a normal physiological adaptation mechanism and takes it to a level which some experts consider is a pathology, while others do not.--Ramdrake 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting?

I'm a complete outsider here. I hadn't seen this article until today, when I stumbled on it by chance, and I don't have a strong about foie gras either way. Since one of the concerns is that the controversy may be getting bloated and taking over the entire article, why not split the controversy into its own article, Foie gras controversy, leaving a short summary in the main article? Of course, there could still be fights in the new article, but maybe having a more focused title could help. Ideally, it should list all the arguments and sourced evidence both pro and con (possibly in separate sections), without pushing a point of view as the truth. Let the reader decide. Itub 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a split has been proposed before, with the undisguised intention of ridding the foie gras article itself of the unsighty facts about foie gras production. That has always been opposed by myself and several other editors. I repeat the arguments I gave on the talk page:

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

A split may be justifiable in the future, when the present disputes will have been resolved. The split cannot in itself be a way of resolving the disputes.

David Olivier 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm sorry I didn't notice that in the talk page, I didn't have time to read all of it. :) Itub 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't think anyone can have the courage now to read the talk page, not to mention its archive 2; unfortunately this page too is heading in the same direction! David Olivier 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! ST47Talk 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Who says the split cannot be used to resolve the disagreement? Seems to me it would be a PERFECT way to resolve to diametrically opposed factions. Yo are NEVER going to convince the AR side that Foie Gras is not an abomination, and you are never going to convince the moderates to allow the AR side to say so!

Just split Foie Gras into several independent pages with an overpage to explain the divisions? You could have Foie Gras (cuisine) to explain the history and praise surrounding Foie Gras as a delicacy. Foie Gras (production) could explain how it is made, with some reference to Foie Gras (controversy)... Listen, I am no expert on this, although I know a lot of hooey and have seen it on BOTH sides of this argument. I could spend hours just posting small responses to specific logical and factual errors I have read here today, but I prefer to clean my bathrooms or shave my cats.

Set a page that can segregate the combatants into their own corners, and set a MODERATED over-page that provides a summary of the basic arguments and information, with pointers to the sub-articles. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 16:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment by Ramdrake: I'm not sure how much detail I should go in right now, but I think I'll try to be brief to start with, and then add further explanations as they are needed. There is a major POV war going on in this article. Personnally, I would like the article on foie gras to be mostly about the food item, with of course a section dedicated to the controversy surrounding it (proportional to the controversy that exists in the real world), or weaving the criticism through the article; either is basically ok by me. What I perceive User:Olivierd and User:Benio76 to want to do with the article is to downplay any positive aspects about foie gras (they have stated several times that the article reads like an advertisement for foie gras) and to expand the controversy beyond what I feel and what many other editors (as far as I can tell) feel is due weight for the controversy. Some of the things the other side has been pushing for: inclusion in the introduction of a statement saying foie gras is a diseased organ, contesting the history section on the basis that several references are from a foie gras producer rather than from an academically qualified historian, but without bringing any reference whatsoever that would help show any inaccuracy in the current historical account section in the article, and insisting on the inclusion of a US public opinion poll using a demonstrably biased question to get results significantly in favor of a ban on foie gras. There are other issues, but I believe these to be the most salient ones to start with. If you feel you need any additional information, please feel free to ask any question you like. I thank you in advance for taking on this mediation.--Ramdrake 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by Ramdrake': I would also like to note that User:Olivierd is, according to his talk page, someone by the name of David Olivier, most probably the same David Olivier who seems to be part of the "Stopgavage.com" organization, or at least lectures on their behalf [26] in favor of the interdiction of foie gras. While that does not preclude him from editing the article on foie gras, it does clearly define his personal bias.--Ramdrake 16:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Trevyn: Judging from their user pages and one-sided edits, User:Olivierd and User:Benio76 are animal rights activists/supporters who appear to be attempting to use the Foie gras article as a soapbox for animal rights issues. Many of their edits are specious,[27] unsourced,[28] are not supported by the source provided,[29] remove legitimate sources,[30][31][32][33] and are wholly misplaced.[34] Some discussion of the controversy is appropriate, but I would like to see the Foie gras article remain encyclopedic and free of animal rights propaganda. My issues with the current article are:

• The presence of the factual inaccuracy template. This appears to be due to the inclusion of the Ginor source, a published book by a foie gras producer. This includes the recently inserted unsourced weasel wording[35] which appears to be an attempt to discredit the source.
• The use of an image from an animal rights group without a discussion of how animal rights groups use image cropping and composition to create shock value.
• The discussion of the controversy is getting a bit long. There is a good amount of sourced material, but I'm not sure all of it is encyclopedic. Possible solutions would include use of summary style, or reaching agreement about the essential points of criticism and narrowing it down to those.

Considering that Olivierd has suggested radical changes to the article that would make it conform better to his viewpoint,[36] has expressed disagreement with Wikipedia policy,[37] insists that edits without his support do not have consensus,[38] insists that factual accuracy is disputed because he disputes it,[39] and Benio76 consistently promotes the prominent placement of text related to a similar viewpoint,[40] it is getting tiring following these two editors around, making sure their contributions are encyclopedic and conform to policy. —Trevyn 07:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Olivier: I'll be with you tomorrow. For the moment, all get a good night of sleep. David Olivier 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Benio76 Hi ST47 and thanks for proposing to mediate: mediation is certainly needed. As for me, it is not true what has been said in the "description" of the case: I don't "want to see the controversy section expanded with no limits". If you look at the talk page and at the history of the article, you will see that I never talked about animal rights or birds health, I never introduced PETA or any other AR association statements or sources - but I know that it would be an hard task to read the whole discussion and of course I don't expect you to do it. Basically, what I am interested in is 1/ to have a good introduction and 2/ to have a good historical section. And, of course, all this from a NPOV.

1/ Introduction. When I first came to foie gras, the introduction was thus. My proposal was: to remove the reference to truffles, which is irrilevant in an introduction; to specify that the list of the French delicacies is an opinion by gastronomers and not a fact, as it was suggested; and to mention that the fattened liver is a consequence of steatosis, which is a basic scientific fact about foie gras. I realized very soon that the other editors had no intention to take seriously my arguments, no intention to change a comma. I deleted several times the reference to truffles, they restored it immediately, saying that it was needed "to establish context" (I found then that truffles are associated with foie gras in gastronomy: is this just a coincidence?). I changed the statement about the delicacies and wrote "foie gras is listed as one of the greatest delicacies...", but the other editors reverted my editing without giving reasons, therefore insisting to present this information as a matter of fact, which it is obviously not. Finally, I mentioned the steatosis of the liver and the other editors deleted it repeatedly, under various pretexts. Following their remarks, I improved my editing (f.ex., writing fatty liver instead of steatosis to avoid a technical terminology (as recommanded in WP:LS), not mentioning the fact that the foie gras is a diseased organ to avoid a negative bias, giving and sourcing the two opposite points of view about the steatosis induced by force feeding being or not pathological); each time, my editing was reverted. This was the final version of my editing:

The name "foie gras"[3] refers to the abnormal growth of liver produced in birds by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver.[4] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts[5] but as a real pathology by others.[6] See 27 December version.

This editing has been also been deleted (see here, here and here). Remark that I answered to the last revert, which SchmuckyTheCat justified by saying that there is "nothing abnormal about the animals basic physiology", by citing the INRA article La stéatose hépatique des palmipèdes gavés : bases métaboliques et sensibilité génétique, where it is said that

Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques. ("this natural capacity of adaptation of lipid metabolism gives an explanation both of the intensity of the hepatic steatosis of force feeding and of its reversibility, in conditions which admittedly are extraphisiological, but not pathological")

After this, I stopped making reverts, waiting for the mediation. The first part of my proposal (about truffles and about the delicacies list) has been finally accepted but only after the intervention of a third party editor on the GA review page. But the mention of the steatosis of the liver is still a taboo. The only reason left to the other editors to claim that steatosis must not stay in the intro is that it is already mentioned in the article. But... of course it is! Of course the information given in the intro are, and must be, developed in the article! and, on the other hand, you can not put in the intro an information which is not in the article! But, if fatty liver must not stay in the introduction, why should other information stay? why for example should the anticipation of the historical section stay? WP:LS says that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and "The lead section should concisely reflect the content of the article as a whole": therefore, if other points of the article have their place in the intro, so should be for my editing, which is plain, neutral, sourced and basic.

What I wrote about introduction is already a lot of stuff to read and to think about: I prefer explain my position about point 2/ Historical section later. Thanks. Benio76 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: As discussed on the talk page, your discussion of the etymology of the term foie gras is OR; none of these sources say that the term foie gras refers specifically to hepatic steatosis or the layman variant fatty liver. A more likely explanation is simply that of a "fattened liver". Regardless, the intro should reflect the relative weighting of the article as a whole, and hepatic steatosis and pathology is mentioned only briefly in the article, and never as a central point. —Trevyn 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, linking to the human disease in the intro, for an article about food, when in these animals it is not a disease isn't helpful. Just linking to hepatic steatosis requires context that the intro doesn't provide. SchmuckyTheCat 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, introduction-wise, the section on the etymology is the main point that's still not been settled? Trevyn, Ramdrake, how about the truffle section? (The commented out section in the first paragraph, or the second paragraph, which is the current version) ST47Talk 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Ramdrake: As you can see from the current intro the reference to truffles was dropped. It helps place foie gras in context, but isn't vital, I think. However, I'd like the rest of that paragrpah o the intro to stay (that it is regarded as one of the delicacies of French cuisine, and that it has a delicate taste, much different than normal liver).--Ramdrake 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I believe the issue with that was the truffle reference, and there's no problem with a little tasty POV ST47Talk 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, ST47, there is a problem with "a little tasty POV". David Olivier 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I agree with Ramdrake in that it is important to discuss the culinary significance of foie gras, but the exact wording thereof and whether or not truffles are included is not of great concern to me. —Trevyn 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to truffles is a simple analogy to help the reader associate with something they may be more familiar with. If it's that contentious, leave it, personally I think it's a red herring because the AR activists also dispute the rest of the description and the removal of truffles was their "success". The intro should also avoid being weasely and passive. SchmuckyTheCat 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're best off removing the truffles. It really is only showing that it's a delicacy, and it says that without the truffles. In the compromise section i've placed a bolded copy of the first paragraph, for editing if you have an opinion about it. ST47Talk 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about Egypt

I noticed that the section in the third paragraph it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force fed - was this removed intentionally? Should it be left in? ST47Talk 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider these to be weasel words.

Several arguments:

• Industrial force-feeding as it is done today is relatively new compared to the history of the dish.
• Force-feeding ("gavage") is referred to in the defintion of the French foie gras only.
• Etymologically, "gavage" can refer to regular over-feeding (not forced) just as much as force-feeding, although in recent years, it has come to mean more the latter than the former.
• Finally, a Spanish-produced foie gras very recently won a top international cuisine award (don't remember which, but I can look it up) using birds which were naturally overfed (as opposed to force-fed).

Thus, technically, the existence of foie gras isn't strictly dependant on industrial force-feeding, although it is used in a very large majority of the industry. Thus, this addition, given all the reasons above, is misleading the reader into thinking that foie gras must involve industrial force-feeding. That isn't so.--Ramdrake 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some discussion of the current foie gras/gavage "definition war" may be appropriate. —Trevyn 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake and Trevyn: the issue is not that of industrial production, it is about whether or not the livers produced by the Egyptians qualifies as foie gras. I see no reason to believe they did more than just encourage the birds to eat. That is what you see in the picture provided. The product thus obtained would certainly not qualify as foie gras as the term is in use.

Foie gras is universally defined today as the product of force-feeding. There appears to be exactly one producer in the world who makes a product without force-feeding and calls it foie gras; and that product is hotly denounced as fake foie gras by the French foie gras industry; see [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761144/posts?page=1 here] (in English) and here (in French). The Council of Europe requires (here, article 24) producing countries to do research to find methods for producing foie gras without force-feeding; which means that they do not consider liver produced by methods such as the Egyptians appear to have used as foie gras. It is clear that the product made by that Spanish company would not be called foie gras by the French authorities, by the French farmers, by most French people, by the Council of Europe and by almost anyone.

Given this, it was very moderate to state that "it is (...) unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras"; since actually, it is rather clear that by almost all standards of usage, the product simply does not qualify as foie gras. I would have been perfectly justified in deleting all that stuff about the Egyptians outright. But even that extremely moderate wording is too much for the pro-foie gras side.

I ask for sources to be produced that show that the Egyptians did actual force-feeding, or for the intro and the history section to be reworded so that they no longer state that foie gras dates back to the Egyptians.

David Olivier 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, first of all, it is surprising that the English reference you give even goes as far as saying:

The Egyptians invented the practice, subsequently adopted in France, of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce a better taste for the liver extract.

Which clearly goes to show that the tradition dates back to the Egyptians. Whether you would call it foie gras by today's definition depends on how strict a definition you adopt: the French definition uses the word gavage which can be taken as meaning "overfeeding" just as well as "force-feeding". Your argument as to whether this is foie gras is tantamount to denying that the French "jeu de paume" is a precursor of tennis because it had a different name and used hands instead of racquets. That the tradition of overfeeding birds to fatten their livers dates back to ancient Egypt is hardly disputable; whether this would constitute foie gras by its modern, French definition is totally beside the point.--Ramdrake 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Egyptians did may well be a precursor of foie gras production; that is not the same as saying that it is foie gras production. There is an essential difference between encouraging an animal to eat and forcing food down the animal's throat: in the first case, it is impossible to make the animal eat so much as to become seriously ill. That means that there is a serious difference in terms of welfare. You say that such a difference is beside the point. Perhaps the animal's welfare does not matter to your; you cannot assume that it does not matter to the readers.

That some newspaper article says that foie gras production dates back to the Egyptians is not proof. Newspapers are not historical experts, and they repeat what is said, including what is said by people like Michael "Foie gras passion" Ginor. Countless hoaxes are circulated, and even continue to be circulated despite proof to the contrary.

The bottom line is that there are apparently no primary sources about foie gras and the Egyptians other than those bas-reliefs. If that is so, and if the bas-reliefs do not display real force-feeding, that should be stated in the article, if the article is to mention the Egyptians at all.

David Olivier 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources that state your argument or are you just arguing for exclusion because you don't like it? SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements are to be excluded when there are no reliable sources that support them. David Olivier 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have several reliable sources that support this it's time to drop it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources? The book by Michael "I sell foie gras" Ginor? David Olivier 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following sources: [41] (an anti-foie gras site, to boot!) [42][43][44][45][46], and nearly countless others. Are you saying they're all part of a conspiracy to make foie gras look more glorious than it is?--Ramdrake 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what the problem with the history section is in the first place. Science as we define it now did not exist until at the very least the 17th century, yet any History of science article will go back to ancient times, because the origins of science dates back to those days. The same goes with foie gras, its modern definition and methods of production are not the same as those of ancient times, but its origins lies in ancient Egypt. I don't see how saying something dates back to ancient times is POV (especially given numerous sources which fit the Wikipedia guidelines). Slavery dates back to Antiquity (and probably before), that doesn't make it "noble" in any way, and describing its history is not POV. Why nitpick over the history of foie gras?--Boffob 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment above regarding the egyptian sentences, and recommended that it be kept without saying that it was or was not foie gras, simply that is was a similar phenomenon. ST47Talk 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be better than what we now have. However, as I said above, it is also important to avoid having the wording suggest that what the Egyptians did is part of foie gras history, if it cannot be verified that it is.

Re the sources cited by Ramdrake: The first one says "The idea for this cruel force-feeding practice is thought to have originated in ancient Egypt"; it doesn't state it as a fact. The second source is a foie gras promotion association, and says "Foie gras would have been discovered in Egypt"; again, it doesn't state it as fact. The third site is a blog that fumes against the Chicago foie gras ban; the author says "Foie gras has been produced this way for 5000 years, dating back to ancient Egypt." and that is about the author's sole argument in defense of foie gras (apart from "I love foie gras"). That is an interesting example of how the story about foie gras dating back to the Egyptians serves in defense of foie gras. The fourth source is of a commercial foie gras vendor. The fifth source is an online encyclopedia; if you want to see it as reliable, you will have to add that there exists chicken foie gras too; I have never heard of that, and I think no one else has. The sixth source states "It is believed that the first types of foie gras may have been made in Egypt"; again, not a statement of fact.

To sum up: To support the statement that the Egyptians made foie gras, you cite six sources. Three don't state that as a fact. Of the other three, one is a blog in defense of foie gras; the second is a foie gras vendor; and the last is an unreliable online encyclopedia. If that is all you have in way of sources, I think we may start to believe this Egyptian foie gras stuff is something of an urban legend.

Look how many references you can find on the Web that state that Leonardo da Vinci was a vegetarian and said: "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." Though it may be that Leonardo was a vegetarian, that quote appears to be simply an urban legend, stemming from one original mistake; see here. Vegetarians (yes, just like everyone) tend to be sloppy with their references, especially when they are favourable. Given how passionately some defend foie gras, it is not surprising that thousands of sites may simply repeat one error, or fabrication, perhaps from Ginor, perhaps frome elsewhere. But Wikipedia is not here to repeat urban legends; it should state things when they can be backed by reliable sources.

David Olivier 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take another look at the beginning of the history section, you will see that it doesn't mention any specific name for the fattened livers before the Roman era. You've made a nice job at dissecting the list of references I hastily put together, but let's please not lose the forest for the trees: these are just a handful of litterally hundreds of references that date the origins of the practice of fattening birds for their livers back to the Egyptians. That some say "probably" while others say it's a likely certainty is beside the point: those references that come from all across the belief spectrum all mention Egypt as the historical source of the practice. And you can't compare with sources about Leonardo Da Vinci: far fewer artefacts have survived from 4500 years ago (from 2500 BC) than from 400 years ago (the time of Leonardo Da Vinci). This is something any historical reconstruction has to take into account. And if it is a fabrication, it should be easy enough to find a reference that states convincingly it isn't so. So far, you have failed to produce any such reference.--Ramdrake 14:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Egyptians are mentioned in the lead: "Foie gras dates from approximately 2500 BC, when the ancient Egyptians...". That is, that is how the pro-foie gras side wanted the lead to read before I replaced "dates from" with "may date from". The wording of the history section is a bit different, but the implication is the same.

About your list of references: they may be hastily put together, but we've been arguing over this for weeks, and hastily or not, between the five of you you don't seem to be able to come up with anything better. The fact that they say "probably" is not beside the point; it means that they are just repeating something they heard someone else saying; in other words, what they say is worthless as a source. That some of those "sources" are anti-foie gras doesn't prove anything; I myself, a few weeks ago, believed that foie gras dates back to the Egyptians. I believed it because I had heard someone say it. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to abide by higher standards than that.

I don't understand what you say about Leonardo da Vinci. Either I don't get your point or you didn't get mine.

I have no reliable sources that say that Michael "I'll tell you something" Ginor fabricated, or contributed to fabricate, the story about the Egyptians. But then neither am I asking for the Wikipedia article to state that he did. You are asking for the article to state that foie gras dates back to the Egyptians, so you need a reliable source to show that.

David Olivier 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look below at two references I picked out from Google scholar. And in all honesty, I would be more enclined to say the the origins of foie gras date back to the Egyptians, as the term wasn't invented yet at that time.--Ramdrake 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a wording along the lines of "the origins of foie gras...". That avoids fuss around whether what the Egyptians had could be considered "foie gras" under a modern definition. Using the first civilization to raise fowl (there is no speculation about that) works as an appropriate starting point for the history section.--Boffob 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boffob: I agree that how far slavery dates back in time does not make it noble. However, the fact is that the purported antiquity of foie gras is a very frequent argument used in its defense. That such an argument is a fallacy is irrelevant. Now if that antiquity is a verifiable fact, so much the better for the foie gras defensers. If it is not a verifiable fact, it should not be stated on the Wikipedia page.

Your argument about the history of science does have a point. However, if a "history of science" page gives a restrictive definition of science (based on reproducible experiments, for example), one by which the Egyptians' "science" would not qualify as science, then it is contradicting itself if it states that the history of science dates back to the Egyptians. It might mention the Egyptians as playing some role in the history of science, if that is a verifiable fact; not that the Egyptians did science.

David Olivier 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, you can stop discussing: I'm going to show you something verifiable about Egyptians and it will be clear that the whole paragraph about Egyptians is a speculation and must be removed. Benio76 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here are two more references that dates force-feeding to fatten birds to ancient Egypt. These are from scientific journals. I hope it will put the argument to rest [47].[48]--Ramdrake 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Have you read carefully what is said in the second link? (The first doesn't even work) Benio76 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first [49] reference says this:

Force-feeding is a very old practice, first recorded in ancient Egypt,

while the second one [50] says this:

Force-feeding of both ducks and geese, practised in Ancient Egypt 4500 years ago

. So, yes, I've read it carefully, but I'm not sure what your objections are at this point.--Ramdrake 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ramdrake, you really haven't read carefully. Benio76 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes I did, unless you intend to move every single reference to force-feeding, its effects on birds and its banning in several countries out of the Foie gras article as well and into the Force-feeding article. Actually, that would work for me too.--Ramdrake 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it would be fine to remove every single reference to force-feeding, since nowadays all the foie gras is produced by force feeding! So, let's remove everything concerning force feeding and foie gras itself, let's reduce the whole article to the mention of the Spanish producer who does not force feed his birds and produces a stuff that isn't even called foie gras in France! For once, I agree with you! Benio76 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments about the Egypt references

If it was presented as a similar product, that was made by overfeeding, then mentioned as Benio said in the history that they did force feed other animals, would that be acceptable? ST47Talk 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. There is no evidence that the Egyptians were interested in a fattened liver at all; see the sources quoted by Benio76 and Zelig33 above. That they crammed food into a variety of animals, and not specifically geese, with methods that are trivial, and have no relation to those used for foie gras production, and with no particular attention to the animal's livers, does not make the Egyptians relevant to foie gras production.

To produce ketchup you must mix ingredients. The Egyptians mixed ingredients. Would that justify mentioning the Egyptians in the article about ketchup? The case for mentioning the Egyptians as originators of foie gras is hardly better.

The only relevant relation between the ancient Egyptians and foie gras is the existence of the myth that the Egyptians invented foie gras. That should be mentioned. I do not ask for it to be stated as a myth; I do not ask for the article to state that it is a lie fabricated in order to defend foie gras. I believe that it is, but I don't think it can be sourced and stated in an encyclopedic manner. All I ask is that the article should mention that there is such a belief and that it is not known to be founded; and that the article mention what is known of the Egyptians, as stated by Benio76.

David Olivier 14:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, ST47: we showed that there is no proof of the existance of a "similar product". Benio76 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for asserting that force-feeding was first practiced by the ancient Egyptians? That they did practice it does not demonstrate that they were the first to practice it. Furthermore, that wording still strongly suggests that the Egyptians produced foie gras. Foie gras is not the product of gavage. It is the product of intense gavage through a pipe, on certain species of animals that the Egyptians are not known, as far as has been sourced, to have domesticated. (Gavage does not produce foie gras on just any species of ducks or geese - that is precisely the subject of the INRA article cited by Ramdrake.) David Olivier 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any reference that says another civilization practiced it before them, please share it with us. So far, all our references say they were the first to practice it. You sound like you're objecting for the sake of objecting.--Ramdrake 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already pointed out about fifty times: the burden of evidence is on your side, since you want the article - indeed, the intro - to assert that the Egyptians were the first to practice force-feeding. Do I really have to cite the guidelines? Here goes:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. (From WP:V#Burden_of_evidence)

I see no archaeological source that says that they were the first to do that, and consequently there is no justification for stating that in the article.

David Olivier 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may not have archaeological sources, but we have reliable sources that say so. In the light of having reliable sources, the onus is then on you to come up with sources that say otherwise. What you quoted from WP:V is only part of the point; the other states: Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. We have a plethora of reliable, verifiable sources for this.--Ramdrake 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the articles provided by Ramdrake above does state that the Egyptians were the first to raise ducks and geese. They also force-fed them (as provided by Benio76's sources). Whether the practice of force-feeding animals in general predates the ancient Egyptian civilization is therefore a moot point. The force-feeding of ducks and geese dates back to the ancient Egyptians, unless evidence to the contrary is produced (that is, evidence that some other civilization started raising ducks and geese after the Egyptians but force-fed them before the Egyptians did, somehow...). That Egyptians did not exclusively force-feed fowls, and may not have sought their fattened liver in particular can certainly be mentioned in the history section without weasel wording.--Boffob 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The historical pastiche revealed

Hi ST47! Here is the critique of the historical section and, as I promised, it will be amusing! Follow me!

As I said when I stated my position, I work on the history of ideas. It easy for me to realize when an historical reconstruction is well founded and when it is not. When I first read foie gras, the inconsistency of its so called historical section struck me. It is not a matter about the birds' health, here: it is a matter of telling the truth and being honest. And all that I found shows that the proposed "history" of foie gras is not true, and those who made it up are not honest.

When I got involved in the article, the whole historical section was unsourced (see a 20th December version - actually, the section has been unsourced from its beginning: see the 14 November 2005 version). I asked for sources and the section was filled with quotation from a single source: Ginor, Michael A. (1999), Foie Gras: A Passion. I found that it was a commercially biased source (Mr Ginor is a foie gras producer): I alerted the editors, but they did not remove it and simply added other sources. I found then that the other "sources" were simply "food writers", "chefs", "recipes collectors", etc. I remarked that these sources were not reliable, because none of their authors appeared to have skills in History, Linguistics, Archaeology, etc.: normally, when someone writes about ancient times, he/she is supposed to have skills of this kind, otherwise how can he/she find material, and understand it, and interpret it??? The other party was not of the same opinion; but the only argument they had to support their sources was to repeat again and again that they were reliable. Actually, they are doing the same thing here: they repeat things again and again to make them look true.

Are there reliable sources that state your argument or are you just arguing for exclusion because you don't like it? SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we have several reliable sources that support this it's time to drop it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To repeate things to make them look true is a very simple rethorical strategy; simple and childish. Of course, the other party didn't take trouble to go to a library, didn't take trouble to read real Egyptologists, didn't take trouble to be serious: quoting websites and food writers is much easier, most of all it is useful to mystify things. (I must say that AR activists don't go to the library too, if they spread false historical information in their websites, and here is a proof that I'm not an AR activist!)

Well, to the other party, to be an historian is just a detail! it is unnecessary to make an historical reconstruction! Here is what is relevant in SchmuckyTheCat's opinion (from foie gras talk page):

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

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

This is funny, really: Ginor wins awards and this makes a reliable historical source of him!!!

You will ask: why should someone make up a false history about the ancient origins of foie gras? isn't it just a biased accusation from anti foie gras people, as suggested by SchmuckyTheCat? I will answer quoting the very words of Michael Ginor, the author of Foie gras: a passion, award winner and foie gras producer:

... the interesting thing about foie gras is its illustrious history. There is no other food product that has such a history. Unlike things like truffles, caviar, or lobster, foie gras has been popular as far back as 5000 years ago and has always been a gourmet product interview with M. Ginor.

Finally, consider the “arguments” presented by Michael Ginor and Jacques Pepin. Michael Ginor, an owner of the largest American foie gras farm, responds to the moral attacks on foie gras by pointing out that “it’s been around for 5,000 years.” Jacques Pepin, presented by Newsweek as “author, teacher,” stated that “Foie gras has been around for thousands of years. If we’ve been doing something for so long, it can’t be so bad.” Provocations: Foie Gras & Philosophy.

"The world doesn't know another way to produce it [than force feeding]" Ginor said. "After 5,000 years of producing it this way, I don't suddenly see another way to do it." Farewell, foie gras?

"To me, the issues are, one, are the ducks sick?" Mr. Ginor said. "And the U.S.D.A. looks at every duck pre- and post-mortem, so it's not a diseased product. And, two, can it make people sick? Foie gras has been eaten by people for 5,000 years, and if it caused any disease we'd probably know it by now." Animal Rights Groups Ask New York to Ban Foie Gras.

It’s all a huge misunderstanding, in the view of Michael Ginor, an owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the upstate New York farm that produces most of the estimated 420 tons (or 1.8 billion caloies) of foie gras consumed in the United States annually. Force-feeding ducks with a tube “does sound atrocious,” he admits, but he maintains that waterfowl, lacking the mammalian gag reflex, do not suffer from the process. “Foie gras is easy to attack: it’s for the rich, it’s unnecessary, it’s vain. It can be seen as all those things. But it’s been around for 5,000 years.” “A Flap Over Foie Gras,” May 2, 2005, Newsweek, quoted here.

It is Michael Ginor himself - and it is not "just plain bad faith" from "Benio and David" - who shows us that the "illustrious history" of foie gras is just a strategy for its promotion and a moral justification to take out against those who question foie gras production: "But it’s been around for 5,000 years"! So, let it be!

Well, not only Mr Ginor is weak in History; he is really bad in Logic too. Pretending to infer values from facts, i.e. stating that producing foie gras is good just because the stuff went on for centuries, he seems to ignore the is-ought problem. And even everyday mathematics is not his cup of tea: while he pretends that foie gras dates from 2500 BC, he claims that it is 5000 years old! Well, I understand that a century more or less does not make a big difference to him - who cares about historical truth! what matters is winning awards and let people buy his foie gras!

Well, let us abandon Mr "Fraud" Ginor to his fate. Let us come back to facts. The only proof given in the article about Egyptian foie gras is a bas relief showing Egyptians feeding geese. The other party may insist saying that Olivierd is biased being an AR activist, but actually he is the only one who looked at that picture in an objective manner:

I see no reason to believe they did more than just encourage the birds to eat. That is what you see in the picture provided. David Olivier 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, David, you were right: the picture does not tell us anything about the birds' liver!!!

I found two reliable sources about Egyptians, written by Egyptologists, which prove that Egyptians did not produce foie gras.

1/ Aude Gros de Beler: Les anciens égyptiens II volume: Guerriers et travailleurs, éd. Errance, Paris 2006. Aude Gros de Beler is an Egyptologist, who especially studied Ancient Egypt everyday life; she is archaeologist and published several books about Ancient Egypt.

2/ Pierre Tallet, La Cuisine des pharaons, Actes sud 2003. Pierre Tallet is a professional academic historian and studied Egyptology at the Sorbonne University. He joined several archaeological missions and worked at the French Institute for Oriental Archaeology; he is currently Master of Conference at Paris IV University.

(For the record, to Boffob: "most historians study other things than the history of food" but history of food is definitely a matter for historians and it is not at all uncommon to find information about food, agriculture and animal farming in books of history)

1/ Aude Gros de Beler (pp. 157-167)

L'élévage

Dans les mastabas de l'Ancien Empire, la diversité des animaux constituant le cheptel des propriétaires terriens laisse perplexes: marchent, côte à côte, bœufs, gazelles, bubales, bouquetins, oryx, cerfs, grues, voire même hyènes. Une scène très instructive du mastaba de Kagemni (Saqqara - Nord), haut fonctionnaire sous le règne de Teti (2345-2333 av. J.-C.), montre an éléveur en train de gaver avec des boulettes de farine une bête qui n'est autre... qu'une hyène. (...) la naissance du jeune veau réclame ces services: la vache égyptienne vêle debout et l'éléveur y participe toujours, aidant la mère au moment de la délivrance. Au quotidien, il faut veiller sur l'alimentation, qui doit être abondante tant que l'animal n'a pas atteint sa corpulence définitive: pour ce faire, on le gave de pâte à pain. Accroupi devant la bête, l'homme se saisit d'un bâton: "Mange donc" dit-il, et ce, jusqu'à ce que l'animal soit définitivement repu. (...) le mastaba de Kagemni montre une scène étonnante où l'on voit un fermier nourrir à la bouche un porcelet. (...) les oies (...) constituent une réelle gourmandise pour les Égyptiens. Or, à table, chacun sait faire la différence entre une oie grasse, correctement nourrie, et une oie maigre, récemment capturée. (...) Pour les repas, l'éléveur s'approche de la cage et distribue généreusement du grain qu'il apporte dans un gros sac. Or, cette nourriture, pourtant assez copieuse, semble n'être qu'un simple en-cas car les oiseaux sont soumis au gavage, tout comme les bœufs. On confectionne des boulettes, composées de farine sans doute, que l'on plonge dans de l'eau tiède et que l'on va glisser jusque dans le fond du gosier de l'animal.

L'apiculture (...)

Translation

Animal farming

In the mastabas of the Ancient Empire, the diversity of the animals composing the livestock of the landlords is surprising: we see walking side by side oxen, gazelles, hartebeests, ibexes, oryxes, deer, cranes, and even hyenas. A very instructive scene from the mastaba of Kagemni (Saqqara - North), higher official during the reign of Teti (2345-2333 BC), shows a farmer force-feeding with balls of flour an animal that is no other than... a hyena. (...) the birth of the young calf demands the following attentions: the Egyptian cow gives birth standing and the farmer always does his part, helping the mother to deliver. In everyday life, it is necessary to be attentive to the food, which must remain abundant as long as the animal has not reached its final corpulence: for this, the animal is force-fed with breadmeal. Squatting in front of the animal, the man siezes a stick: "Go on, eat" he says, and this, until the animal is finally satiated. (...) the mastaba of Kagemni shows an astonishing scene where we see a farmer mouth-feed a piglet. (...) the geese (...) represent a real treat for the Egyptians. At the table, everyone can tell the difference between a fat goose, well nourished, and a thin one, recently captured. (...) For the feeding, the farmer comes to the cage and generously distributes grain that he brings in a large bag. But this food, though quite abundant, is apparently just a snack since the birds are submitted to force-feeding, just like the oxen. Balls are prepared probably out of flour dipped in warm water and they are slipped into the bottom of the throat of the animal.

Bee-keeping (...)

2/ Pierre Tallet (pp. 54-55)

Les viandes et leur préparation

(...) Différents types d'oiseaux étaient également cuisinés avec une grande régularité. Deux volailles apparaissent le plus souvent dans les sources: les oies et les canards (...) Les oies - dont on connaissait une dizaine d'espèces en Égypte pharaonique - étaient élevées en troupeau par un personnel spécialisé, et semblent avoir été populaires autant pour la consommation de leur chair que pour leur faculté à assimiler de la graisse. Ce produit était en effet couremment utilisé aussi bien dans la cuisine que pour la confection des potions médicinales. Peut-être est-ce la raison pour laquelle on connaît tant de scènes de gavage de ces volatiles (il n'est pas sûr, en effet, que les Égyptiens aient connu la recette du foie gras...). Dans la tombe de Kagemni (Ve dynastie), on peut ainsi voir deux hommes affairés autour de l'un de ces volatiles; l'un d'entre eux modèle de petites boules de pâte (sans doute du pain, peut-être mêlé d'un corps gras ou de fruits séchés) qu'il dépose sur une sorte de petit guéridon. Son compagnon a quant à lui attrapé l'oie par le cou, et la force à ingérer ces boulettes.

Translation

Meats and their preparation

(...) Different kinds of birds were also cooked very regularly. Two kinds of fowl appear most frequently in the sources: geese and ducks (...) The geese - about ten species were known in the Pharaonic times - were raised in flocks by specialized staff, an appear to have been popular both for their meat and for their ability to put on fat. This product was in effect routinely used both in cooking and in the preperation of medicinal potions. Perhaps that is the reason for which so many force-feeding scenes of these birds are known (in effect, it is not certain that the Egyptians have known the recipe for making foie gras...). In the Kagemni tomb (Fifth dynasty), it is thus possible to see two men surrounding one of these birds; one of them forms small balls of paste (probably bread, perhaps mixed with some fat or dried fruit) and lays them on a kind of low table. His partner for his part has seized the neck of the goose and forces it to ingest these balls.

Both sources show that Egyptians used to force-feed all their livestock (oxen, pigs, birds and... hyenas!) but just to fatten them: there is no evidence of any specific interest for the livers. (And this is confirmed by the last source quoted by Ramdrake in his last desperate contribution: the Egyptians used to force-feed the animals... and that's all.)

Therefore, the whole paragraph is irrelevant to foie gras and must be removed. (it is up to the other party to choose between deleting it or putting it in the force-feeding article).

Quoting these reliable sources, I not only showed that the "illustrious history" of foie gras is false, but also that its inventor, Michael Ginor, has intentionally selected historical information here and there and distorted it to build an advertisement strategy. This destroys his credibility.

Therefore, I ask for his book to be deleted from the bibliography and for all the statements founded on it to be deleted from the article.

To ST47: I think that what I showed here is enough to prove the weakness of the historical section, the unreliability of its sources and the incompetence of the editors who wrote it. There were also in the historical section other errors that I already showed in the "Good article review" concerning etymology and identification of sources; I don't want to give you too much to read here, but you can find it if you want. And finally, I'm sure that with a little more investigation I would find other absurdities. If all this is not enough to discredit the historical section of the foie gras article, I will pursue the investigation: I will not drop the issue.

Thanks for your attention.

Benio76 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not make the paragraph irrelevent, and they do not invalidate an appropriate wording of the historical section. The Egyptians were the first to raise fowl and they did forcefeed or overfeed them. They may not have been seeking to make modern foie gras (though neither sources categorically reject that possibility) but since we they are at the origin of both raising of geese and gavage, it does constitute part of the origins of foie gras. Just like the ancient Greeks did not do science as we know it today, but they developped a number of the building blocks for what would later become science, which makes them part of the history of science.--Boffob 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to forget a "little" detail: the ancient Greeks invented the very concept of science, while the Egyptians did not invent the concept of foie gras, since there is no evidence that they were interested in fatty livers. Therefore, it is most correct to talk about ancient Greeks in an article about the history of science, while it is not relevant at all to talk about Egyptians in an article about foie gras. It is just Logics. Benio76 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks had natural philosophy, not science, and were quite averse to an empirical approach in general, hence no scientific method. But their natural philosophy was one of the big building blocks of modern science. Just like the Egyptians being the first to raise fowl and to force-feed them provide the two essential points in the origins of foie gras.--Boffob 16:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks had not science? The Greeks were averse to an empirical approach? This is odd, indeed! Have you ever read Aristotle? Benio76 17:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks had natural philosophy but never had scientific method (the cornerstone of modern science), as they loved theory and thought experiment and over application (and a quantitative approach to concrete concepts). If Aristotle had performed a few simple experiments, Galileo might not have had so much trouble with the Church...--Boffob 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it proves the Egyptians were practising the force-feeding of geese. Force-feeding is relevant to foie gras: it is its main production method. Tell you what, I wouldn't mind removing the reference to the Egyptians in the historical section (to move it to the force-feeding article) if we also move EVERY SINGLE reference to force-feeding, it effect on birds and its banning from the foie gras article to the force-feeding article as well. After all, what's good for the goose (pun intended) must be good for the gander as well. What say you?--Ramdrake 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptologists say that Egyptians force fed all their animals just to make them get fat and to have fat to make medical potions. While this could be interesting in an article about force feeding, it is irrilevant in an article about foie gras.

But, since foie gras is currently produced by force feeding all over the world (except for one single producer in Spain), current force feeding is relevant in an article about foie gras. Let's say it in another way: today, force feeding is practised only to produce foie gras, therefore, it is relevant to talk about current force feeding in in an article about foie gras. Benio76 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Either force-feeding is relevant to foie gras, or it isn't. You can't say historically it wasn't but now it is. Simple logics: without force-feeding, there wouldn't be any foie gras today, so mentioning the Egyptians, who invented force-feeding, is relevant to the history of foie gras, whether or not they had a special interest in fattened livers as opposed to fattened whole birds.--Ramdrake 16:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the invention of electricity, we would have no electric chair: should we explain the invention of electricity in an article about electric chair? Without the invention of knife, we would have no anatomy: should we explain the invention of knife in an article about anatomy? Obviously not. What we are supposed to explain in an article about electric chair is how the electric circuit is exploited to kill the condemned, and what we are supposed to explain in an article about anatomy is how anatomists improved the common knife to have specific and differentiated instruments to make the dissection. Consequently, what we have to do in an article about foie gras is to talk about force feeding connected to foie gras (i.e. which birds are force fed to produce foie gras, how they are force fed, the effects produced on their liver, the legal aspects, etc.) Benio76 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight.

You found very good sources that say that Egyptians definitely force-fed ducks and geese.

The current section states that Egyptians force-fed ducks and geese.

You conclude that the editors that wrote the current section are incompetent? —Trevyn 11:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And let me answer frankly: your article foie gras, following what your beloved Mr "Fraud" Ginor says all over the world, says that

As early as 2500 BC, the ancient Egyptians sought the fattened livers of migratory birds as a delicacy.

This is false. There is no iconography about Egyptians eating fattened livers. Mr Ginor is a fraud, and any editor who continue to support him is not only incompetent, he/she is a fraud like him. Benio76 16:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benio's research is confirmed by statements from pro-foie gras sources :

1) INRA researchers G. Guy and D. Guemene : they state in their article "The past, present and future of force-feeding and “foie gras” production" [51] in World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 60, June 2004, p210-222 that "Egyptians were thus probably the first to perform force-feeding, a practice that lasted in this part of the world for more than 2000 years. A number of bas-reliefs show such scenes, clearly demonstrating that fatty meat of waterfowl and other species of birds was appreciated, whereas we have no direct evidence of any specific interest in foie gras consumption."

2) Silvano Serventi, page 66 of his book "Le livre du foie gras" (Flammarion, 2002), states: "Ce serait en Egypte, à l'aube du IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., que le foie gras aurait été découvert chez des oies sauvages ayant migré [...]. L'histoire est jolie mais la réalité est loin d'être aussi limpide. [...] Mais la dégustation du foie gras n'est nullement prouvée dans les sociétés antérieures à la civilisation latine." Quick translation by me =>

"It is said that it was in Egypt, at the beginning of the 3rd millenary B.C., that foie gras has been discovered on wild migrating geese (...). The story sounds nice, but the reality is far from being as clear. (...) But consomption of foie gras is in no way proved to have existed in societies before the latin civilisation". And calls the story of Egyptians discovering foie gras a "legend". So that you understand that this is not a AR book, suffice to say that its first chapter is called "A Praise to Foie Gras" and the book starts with this very sentence : "Foie gras is a summit of culinary art and its presence on a table is a sure sign of pleasure and emotion". --Zelig33 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevyn, I don't care whether "the editors that wrote the current section are incompetent" or not. I just see that current version of the introduction is wrong. It states :

a) "Foie gras may date from approximately 2500 BC, when the ancient Egyptians saw a special culinary appeal in the naturally fattened livers of migratory birds, and began to deliberately fatten the birds through overfeeding;"

b) "it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force-fed."

Whereas:

a) as even pro-foie gras sources recognize, "consumption of foie gras is in no way proved" in ancient Egypt.

b) according to pro-foie gras and Benio's sources, farm animals WERE force-fed in ancient Egypts, including (as other farm animals), birds

The current intro about Egypt can not stand as it is. It states one fact demonstrated as wrong, and another for which nobody has no any evidence whatsoever.

--Zelig33 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelig, we've already been over this: the proposition to amend the wording of the introduction to say that "the origins of foie gras can be traced back to the Egyptians" is already on the table. Now, if you want to remove the part about the Egyptians based on the fact that they invented gavage but not necessarily foie gras as we know it, that can also be arranged, if we also remove every single reference to force-feeding, its effects on birds and the bans that surround it from the article, since they pertain to gavage, and not to foie gras per se. It's your choice, really. What do you say?--Ramdrake 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, be coherent, please:

you have yet to turn up one source which contradicts anything said in the history section. One of the main differences between your science-fiction scenario and history is that history is mostly verifiable. (...) --Ramdrake 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) from foie gras talkpage- -introduction

We have reliable sources which contradict the "history" section and which prove that what is written there is pure invention. History is verifiable, as you said, and since Egyptian foie gras is not more verified than the legend about Pyramids being built by Aliens, it is now up to you to find reliable sources which proof that Egyptians used to eat fatty livers.

As I already wrote, while ancient Egyptians gavage is not relevant to the foie gras history, the current gavage is most relevant because 1/ it is currently the only method to produce foie gras (except for the one single Spanish producer) and 2/ because it is practised only to produce foie gras: obviously, any banning of force feeding has relevant effects on the production of foie gras - and this is not relevant, in your mind? Benio76 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force-fed" should be removed; it is clearly false.

"when the ancient Egyptians saw a special culinary appeal in the naturally fattened livers of migratory birds, and began to deliberately fatten the birds through overfeeding" is not directly contradicted by these new sources. Just because we have no direct evidence doesn't mean that our other sources are worthless. We are allowed to report historical speculation. I think these new sources could be used to add a new sentence such as "Though the ancient Egyptians force-fed many types of animals, including ducks and geese, there is no direct evidence that the birds were force-fed specifically to increase the size of their livers." —Trevyn 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the statement must be removed because there were no "product" to be qualified or not as foie gras, because there is no evidence that Egyptians used to eat fatty livers. Therefore, all the other speculations about Egyptian foie gras must be removed, since they have no factual basis (no iconography, no quotation in ancient writers, etc.): they are not historical hypothesis, but just advertising strategy, and WP is not allowed to report advertising.

Obviously, the following paragraph about Greeks must be removed too:

The practice of geese-fattening spread from Egypt to the Mediterranean.[9] The earliest reference to fattened geese is from the 5th century BC Greek poet Cratinus, who wrote of geese-fatteners, yet Egypt maintained its reputation as the source for fattened geese. When the Spartan king Agesilaus visited Egypt in 361 BC, he was greeted with fattened geese and calves, the riches of Egyptian farmers.[10][11]

since actually it does not talk about foie gras (while it is evident that all this stuff has been written to suggest to the reader that it talked about foie gras). Benio76 16:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that last Friday was a great day, the day when a large-scale myth about foie gras was debunked. And I think that Benio76 deserves some kind of a medal for it - and not just on Wikipedia. Even AR pages were brought to believe that stuff about the Egyptians; now it appears that there is simply nothing to support it at all. Given how far the foie gras industry has disseminated that disinformation, this is a major turning.

Not only should the Wikipedia page no longer assert/suggest that the Egyptians invented foie gras; it should also explicitly state the existence of that myth as a myth, and furnish the references that show that it is a myth.

What the sources show is that:

• The Egyptians raised a great number of animals, often capturing them in the wild. They often strove to fatten them as quickly as possible. For that, they resorted to force-feeding.

• They did that to many different kinds of animals, not just to geese.

• There is no evidence that they force-fed the geese with a tube, as is used for making foie gras.

• There is no evidence that they paid any special attention to the animal's livers.

• There appears to be no evidence that they particularly profited from the tendency geese may have to put on weight before migration.

I had edited the intro, introducing the phrase "it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force-fed." OK, now it appears that the birds were indeed force-fed - along with piglets, hyenas and so on. Mea culpa - or rather no: I was right in that at that time no one had produced any source that showed they were force-fed. Now sources have been produced that show that. But the important part is this: those sources also show that force-feeding was not specific to geese, and had nothing particularly to do with foie gras.

Ramdrake and Boffob respond that the sources show that the Egyptians invented force-feeding. How great! What technical invention is the invention of force-feeding? It is a non-invention. I've reinvented force-feeding myself, spontaneously, the first time I had a sick cat; and so have millions of other people. The Egyptians wanted to have their animals put on weight as fast as possible, and cramming their throats is not an invention. If it was some specific technique for force-feeding, that might count as significant. If they had invented force-feeding with a tube, as is necessary for foie gras production, that might have been significant. If they had discovered some specific aptitude that waterfowl might possess for being fattened, that might be significant. Nothing says they did. Perhaps they did have a large part in the domestication of animals; but that has nothing to do specifically with foie gras. So the fact is that no particular relation has been found between foie gras and the Egyptians. The only relation between the Egyptians and foie gras is the existence of that myth; that myth is significant, and should be mentioned in the article, and stated to be a myth.

Trevyn: "Just because we have no direct evidence doesn't mean that our other sources are worthless." Trevyn, those sources were worthless from the start. A book called Foie gras: a passion by a foie gras producer with no formal competences in archeology and that doesn't cite archeological evidence apart from one carefully selected picture is worthless as a source. Internet sites such as www.fleur-de-lys.fr are worthless.

How do you suppose that your alternative sources got the information? They were visited by the Holy Spirit? Any information about whether or not the Egyptians produced foie gras comes from archaeological evidence, and those who know and study archaeology have found no evidence that they did. To continue to rant about Michael "He said so" Ginor or www.fleur-de-lys.fr is plain obstruction.

David Olivier 09:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this page is now over 150 KB long, and I still don't know what you're arguing about. It sounds like you're arguing over foie gras production, rather than an article about it. Compromise, you aren't going to convince everyone. I am going to throw up a few sections below here in a moment regarding the areas in question, since my other ones have been overrun, and I'd just like arguments on either side to be listed. Feel free to add citations and introduce references, but don't go further than that. From here, we can the points and possibly get some uninvolved users to take a look at the less scary section. ST47Talk 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ST47, can you please clarify whether these are changes for the intro, or for the text in general, as there definitely seems to be some confusion here. Thanks!--Ramdrake 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, as you are making false accusations about a participant in this mediation (me), accusations for which you provide no evidence at all (see [52] and its discussion page), I don't think you can be a legitimate mediator in this case. I'll dig further in wikipedia rules to see what can be done in such a case. If you want to be a mediator, you will have to look into the issue, not just ask editors to compromise, when that means accepting claims not supported by credible sources into wikipedia articles. Zelig33 10:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelig (or maybe I should say "David"), this is a mediation, for goodness' sake, please stop being so vindictive and aggressive! Now that it's confirmed that Olivierd and Benio76 are one and the same person, and that you probably (but not certainly) are too, this puts a whole new perspective on the weight of opinion you guy(s) really represent. Let's cut to the important part: we've got the discussion restarted on how to improve the article in the section down below (after I moved out the extraneous comments). You are welcome to join us to try to improve the article, but let's please stick to the article. Maybe that way we can actually get it stabilized and back to GA status in a reasonable amount of time (well, never hurts to hope).--Ramdrake 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, I think that we will see shortly what is to be said of your remarks, both above and on Zelig33's talk page. And please don't start again about the issue of "majority". It is not majority, but NPOV and verifiability that are meant to count on Wikipedia. No one, majority or not, owns any page, and manoeuvers, tricks and disinformation cannot replace valid arguments. I donn't think you are rid of us, and I don't think it is the right moment for you to start on about rewriting the article. David Olivier 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat of disruption? And I'm sorry you seem to have lost your sense of humour [53]. But writing a blurb as though you were three persons at the same time made you sound rather reminiscent of the Gollum. I just thought my comment was well, befitting.--Ramdrake 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to remind you that, all things being equal, if there can be no unanimous consensus, it's more or less a democracy rule, even though WIkipedia is not a democracy (not strictly speaking of course). Preventing a group of people from coming to a conclusion because you don't like the conclusion isn't constructive -it's downright destructive.--Ramdrake 14:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Regarding an etymology and analysis on "foie gras". For each option, choose whether you support or oppose it, and explain why, from a wiki-standpoint, adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

None whatsoever - don't mention what it means

No additions to the current article, except the inclusion of additional sources. The points made in the suggested passage -- "fat liver", "force feeding", "hepatic steatosis" (redirect to "fatty liver"), and "natural adaptation" vs "pathology" -- are all already discussed in appropriate places in the article. The passage feels very NPOV from the use of loaded phrases such as "grown abnormally" and "real pathology". —Trevyn 09:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "foie gras"^[9] refers to the liver of birds fattened by gavage, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called steatosis.^[10] This phenomenon has been interpreted as non-patalogical by some experts^[11] but as a real pathology by others.^[12]

Support, on the following conditions: not in intro, and for purposes of WP:NPOV and clarity (regarding the use and meaning of the word "grown") I would replace the expression "grown abnormally by force-feeding" with "fattened by gavage"; otherwise, oppose, and would support None whatsoever option. Also, support linking to "steatosis" (the biological condition) but not to "fatty liver" as Fatty liver seems to be about the human disease. Lastly this will require some of the current sentences in the article to be cropped out to avoid redundancy.--Ramdrake 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The article on fatty liver is about a human pathology unrelated to gavage and thus should not be linked.--Boffob 02:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Ramdrake said, and also approve that any linked article should not primarily be about a human disease. SchmuckyTheCat 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support (in the intro) with modification: I understand that this proposition is for the intro; more should be said in the article itself. The link to the fatty liver is to be retained, because that is the recognized description of the condition, and because it is a relevant fact about the product (few products are obtained by inducing a specific condition in the animals). That the growth of the liver is abnormal is not controversial; even the cited INRA source calls it "extraphysiological". The modification I propose is to replace "as just a natural adaptation" by "non-pathological". The referenced INRA source does not state that foie gras is a natural adaptation; that would be patently absurd. It states that the condition is "extraphysiological but not pathological". The sentence should thus read: "This phenomenon has been interpreted as non-pathological by some experts[11] but as a real pathology by others.[12]" David Olivier 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support this option for the introduction, with ST47's original wording, because it states facts for which we have reliable sources. Yes, David Olivier, the INRA studies claiming that the livers of force-fed birds are not pathological are commissioned by the foie gras industry, but this fact can be (and should be) mentioned in the "Controversy" section.

--Zelig33 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not about the INRA stating that foie gras is non-pathological; yes, they do state that. The problem is about the original wording by ST47 which was: "This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts[11] but as a real pathology by others.[12]" That sentence makes it appear that some experts go as far as claiming that foie gras itself is a natural phenomenon. The INRA experts have not gone so far as making such an absurd claim - at least in the source quoted. There is no reason to leave in such an absurd claim, especially in the intro. David Olivier 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above, though not referencing fatty liver or steatosis

Egypt

The section referring to Egypt.

None

None in the intro, because there is no historical evidence of the existence of foie gras in Ancient Egypt. However, it will be mentioned in the History Section that Egyptians actually force fed several species of animals, as is showed in their art, but that there is no proof that they used to fatten birds livers and that the existance of Egyptian foie gras is not founded. Benio76 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None in the intro; my opinion is the same as that of Benio76. David Olivier 09:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None in the intro, because nobody has produce evidence supporting that the Egyptians ate foie gras ; on the contrary we have even pro-foie gras sources stating that "we have no direct evidence of any specific interest in foie gras consumption" and "consumption of foie gras is in no way proved to have existed" in ancient Egypt (see above in the page for precise references).

Zelig33 15:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force fed

Remove it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force fed

Remove, as it has been clearly demonstrated the Egyptians invented force-feeding (thus, as per WP:V). Also support rewriting part of the section as per Boffob's suggestion.--Ramdrake 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: maybe a formulation such as this could go in the intro, as it defines the importance of Egyptians in the elaboration of foie gras, and avoids any weasel wording as to whether or not the Egyptians were particular about fat bird livers: Foie gras is the product of an ancient agricultural technique called gavage, also known as force-feeding, which was first practiced by Egyptians in the third millennium B.C.E. It would need to be slightly reworded, however as it was borrowed from another site.--Ramdrake 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as they were force fed. Support rewrite of this part of the history section to mention Egyptians were raising ducks and geese and force-feeding them, though explicitely stating that it is uncertain whether the fattened liver were specifically sought (over the rest of the animal).--Boffob 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove It's obvious geese were force fed by the Egyptians. Whether they were particular about livers should be sourced. SchmuckyTheCat 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Boffob. It's clear the birds were force-fed, and apparently this is enough to meet the definition of "foie gras" even though the Egyptians did not use the term. I have no problem with a discussion of the lack of evidence for the birds being fattened specifically for their livers, if the other editors feel that is important. —Trevyn 09:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Alex Pankratov 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Egypt against etymology

Folks, how about this:

• We remove mention of the Egyptians from the introduction (as far as I'M concerned we can remove the entire history paragraph from the introduction,
• In exchange, we drop any mention of the etymology or of steatosis (or fatty liver for that matter) in the introduction as well.

We can discuss each topic in their appropriate sections (the Egyptians in history and the etymology and steatosis in the physiology section). Any takers?--Ramdrake 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I was never fond of the redundant history in intro part. But I'm not entirely sure why the etymology should be in the physiology section though.--Boffob 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because naming that blurb "etymology" is really a bit of a misnomer. It mostly explains foie gras is steatosis, and says some people consider this level of steatosis pathological while others don't. That's why I thought the best fit was the physiology section. I'm open to suggestions, though.--Ramdrake 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect what you're trying to do, Ramdrake, but I don't think it's in the article's best interest. I wrote the Egyptians into the intro because I came across WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The history section is large enough that it needs discussion in the intro, and I maintain that the Egyptians are relevant to the intro as the most likely origin of the practice of liver fattening. Further, the level of pathology of steatosis is not central to the documented controversy, and "The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." "Fattened liver" provides an "accessible overview", but a discussion of hepatic steatosis as a pathology is too detailed for a concise article and "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction." I fully agree that this is not even remotely discussing the actual linguistic etymology of foie gras, but rather its physiological characteristics, and as such, belongs in the physiology section of the full article. —Trevyn 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask, then, what's acceptable to you, and which you think has at least some chance of being accepted by all parties? I'm working here under the assumption everybody is doing this mediation in good faith, so there needs to be some genuine compromise. I'm open to suggestions.--Ramdrake 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the intro should then have a line that says that "foie gras refers to the livers of ducks and geese fattened by gavage", and have the rest of the paragraph in the physiology section? That way, it doesn't link to steatosis or fatty liver in the intro (which I agree isn't proper), but it does sum up in one sentence the physiology section. Maybe we could as a compromise cut down on the length of the historical paragraph in the intro, so it's one sentence too (I find it rather longish as it is). All this I think would satisfy WP:LEAD. What do you say?--Ramdrake 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. My primary desire is that the introduction reflects the composition of the article as a whole. As an example of a potential compromise, if the full article could support substantial relevant discussion of the pathology aspects and their importance, perhaps a mention somewhere in the intro would be appropriate. Similarly, if someone wants to make an attempt to cut down the wordiness of the introduction's historical discussion, while still hitting the important points mentioned in the article, that's OK with me too. —Trevyn 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep but cut the size the history paragraph of the intro, I suggest something along the lines of "the origins of foie gras date back to Antiquity". This groups the contributions of ancient Egyptians, Hebrews and Romans without stumbling over who did what and when, which is for the heavily sourced history section of the article.--Boffob 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]