![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The last sentence of the intro: "While foie gras producers maintain that force feeding ducks and geese is not uncomfortable for the animals nor is it hazardous to their health." That isn't a sentence. The fact that it makes an excuse of sorts for foie gras producers, combined with the poor grammar, make me wonder if this was tacked on surreptitiously by someone. Togamoos ( talk) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a mention (with citation of an encyclopedia) that pâté de foie gras used to be called "Strassburg pie". Most old cookbooks (before 1945) will also refer to it as such. Miguel ( talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated the headers on the talkpage, condensing the WikiProject banners, and swapping out the GA banner for the {{ ArticleHistory}} template. I added a link to the GA-delisting discussion, but couldn't find any corresponding discussion for when the article achieved GA status. As near as I can tell, BorgQueen ( talk · contribs), who had already been working on the article, simply placed the {{ GA}} template [2] on November 12, 2005, and added the article to Wikipedia:Good articles. [3] At the time, there was no clear "nomination" process, very different from what we have now! Anyway, if anyone does know of an actual GA discussion, please provide a link and I'll get the history template updated accordingly. -- El on ka 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I can find plenty of pictures of geese and ducks, pictures of their internal anatomy aren't that easy to come by :-( Can anyone help out? Theresa Knott | token threats 11:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The article could benefit from a paragraph on the dietary and nutritional breakdown of foie gras: Fats, protein, carbs, and vitamin content per serving of FG. If I knew of that I would add it, but it will have to be added by someone who knows and can reference it. Radzewicz ( talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see some nutritional information. That is the reason I came to this page in the first place. I'm sure there are many others like me out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.11.58 ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems fair to add dietary information, and confusing that we can assume only "dieters" would be interested in that info, and that we know the amount they will consume. Sko1221 ( talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If this is a typical serving size, i do think we could argue that this would make a difference to a dieter, if it is mostly fat in content. Sko1221 ( talk) 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion ~ Consider a separate page for the Prepared Foie Gras? The same way that Meat, Steak, Slaughter have 3 separate pages, it seems that Foie Gras, Controversy, and (whatever we would call the equivalent of Steak/ "Prepared Foie Gras"?) deserve separate pages. Sarah. Sko1221 ( talk) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This 2 paragraph section seems a bit lacking in references, making it read like a high school essay more than an Encyclopedia, just my opinion. Sko1221 ( talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Need information regarding pricing/cost of this food. Badagnani ( talk) 05:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As with any other article or subject we cover at Wikipedia, we generally try to do our best. Badagnani ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Prices added under "consumption" section. Does pricing need it's own separate section? Sko1221 ( talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Prices cited are 6 years old... need more research here. Sko1221 ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The article states that force-feeding the birds causes them to consume "more" than they would in the wild and "much more" than if they were domestice birds. So a wild bird eats more than a domestic bird? Because it has more flying and foraging to do? There's a bit of my head that queries if a domestic bird with unfettered access to food wouldn't eat more than a wild bird, is there someone who can point me to a source to salve my query?! Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Refs for this statement needed. Data rather than "more" and "much more" suggested. Sko1221 ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
As any perusal of the archives will show, this article (and the accompanying controversy article) are periodic battlegrounds. It is almost always stirred up by animal rights propagandists who have no interest in Wikipedia's policies, particularly NPOV - except to extoll relentlessly that our articles aren't NPOV because we haven't included their favorite shock image and their choice of language. The propagandists almost always either 1) get blocked for edit warring, or 2) get bored and leave. In the meantime well-meaning editors get kicked by "non-involved" admins who show up, don't see the conflict for what it is (a shitstorm because of warring propagandists) and start handing out blocks or warnings for trying to keep things neutral.
We get drive-by POV edits here quite often, but most often they are simply removed and the person had no interest in Wikipedia to begin with. Ramdrake and Borgqueen have been essential in spotting that kind of thing. Sometimes someone sticks around and edit wars, which is what we have now. These shitstorms need to be stopped. Anybody who doesn't think that animal rights organizations aren't tacitly encouraging this crap, turning Wikipedia in to a battleground to soapbox their own interests is deluded. They are willing to stand out in the cold, night after night, protesting outside restaurants - stirring up trouble on Wikipedia from the comfort of a laptop and a couch is just a relaxing way to further the cause.
These people do not care about Wikipedia. They know what they are doing when they come here. Sure, we assume good faith, but they should be shown the door the minute the minute they make it obvious that isn't true. Now we have a whole bunch of people here arguing. The AR propagandist has something like 6RR over several IPs and one username and yet they are still here focusing the discussing towards their goal. Good for them, they win, because we're too nice and no admin stopped them in their tracks.
The reason this article, neutrally, does not include a picture of gavage is because it is impossible to present it in a picture. It is human nature to anthromorphize our experience into an animal and no picture of gavage can counter that anthromorphization. It takes paragraphs of text to explain that these fowl have hardened throats, so a tube stuck in it is not uncomfortable; that they naturally gorge themselves in one meal stretching their gullets and throat to contain large amounts of food, so a food pump isn't uncomfortable; and that they instinctively fatten themselves up given the right food sources and the fatty liver is a natural part of their migratory cycle.
The picture does exist on the controversy page, because that is where the POVs come out. The propandists, dutiful soldiers backed and prodded by well-funded organizations with congratulatory praise from their forums, won't be happy until this main page, which is not about the controversy, has their stamp of approval. They have a zeal that cannot be matched by our volunteers.
So good call everybody. An edit warring zealot came to play. Instead of being blocked for edit warring y'all gave them a soapbox. The edit warring trigged protection of the article with their image up. Their timing was perfect to destabilize the article before it could be re-nominated to GA status. They win. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
(outdent) You guys want my 9 year old to whip something up with her crayons, I am sure she'll love the subject matter when I explain it to her :) -- Tom 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wondering why this sentence is under "controversy" ... Celebrity Chef Anthony Bourdain and Chef/Writer Michael Ruhlman have both come down in favor of Foie Gras and pointed out that properly raised ducks for the production of foie gras are treated very humanely, and that the footage seen in the videos of critics is cruel but that no reputable chef would buy such product[61]. Suggest replacing this with something more fitting. See [4] Sko1221 ( talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it not POV as it stands, using pro-foie gras chefs under "controversy"? Is there a problem with adding Puck to even out the POV here? Why not include both? Sko1221 ( talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Added Puck, made new paragraph for chefs. Sko1221 ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
These 2 statements need refs. Second statement reads an opinion:
I don't think so. Exotic has a larger meaning than unusual. Besides, what's unusual about steak or pasta? Sorry, exotic has a specific meaning and it doesn't fit here. Bob98133 ( talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Other food articles do not have a section of what is eaten with the product. If this information was somehow integral to the subject, I would have no problem with it, but the info is unreferenced and pointless. Foie gras can be eaten with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. It's ridiculous to have an entirely unrefenced section that has little to do with the subject. I suggest that this section be deleted; or increased to include everything that could possibly be eaten, drunk, smoked or injecteed while eating foie gras, since those would certainly be as pointless as the existing text. Bob98133 ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
With the exceptions of cornichons and truffles, none of the other Wiki article about the alleged foie gras accompaniments make any mention of how they are used with foie gras. If this info was vital, you would think it would appear in each of thge food articles mentioned in the section. Bob98133 ( talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. You can mention that bread goes well with butter in the Butter article say, but nothing forces you to say it also in the Bread article. That one food item goes well with another doesn't necessarily imply that the first item is what is usually found with the second.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
While I will agree that we need citations, the I still don't understand why you object so strongly to including information about how the food item is commonly served (nobody is suggesting that we include all possible presentations, as you seem to be implying, just the most common ones). For example, there are many, many sources that indicate that serving foie gras on toast (or some sort of toast analogue) is a common/traditional presentation. Here's one. [5]. - Chunky Rice ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it a dish? Meaning, foie gras should be thought of and presented as one or more of its prepared forms [ [6]]? Or, is it "fattened liver", the raw material for a variety of dishes?
From what i know, when we say foie gras, we should not be referring to a prepared dish that is made from foie gras on this page. We should be clear about the distinction, if we can agree on what that might be. One way this page might help to clear things up for the public, would be to put the picture of foie gras at the top instead of having prepared foie gras at the top. There is a great misunderstanding that i have seen when asking folks if they know what foie gras is. They usually reflect what was said in another section on this page: because foie gras is pretty much a dish (more so than "just" an ingredient, I'd say). Kind of like talking about wasabi, soy sauce and sliced ginger on the sushi page.
Can anyone clear help clear this up? Are we continuing to mislead the public, or is "foie gras" generally accepted as a term for a prepared food? Sarah Katherine ( talk) 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with Bob98133 and Ramdrake,(although I am suspicious of Sko1221's motives I don't think that should sway the argument). I don't see how the picture of a whole foie gras presents it in a negative light, and I don't think there is anything controversial about that picture. Compare the article on beef and bacon for example, the lead pictures show what the food is without any particular presentation. OTOH Chicken (food) shows a prepared and cooked chicken presented with rosemary, so it would seem that both acceptable. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm it seems the lead currently has two photos in it. Why not have a prepared one and the whole liver instead of two prepared photos? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If one wants to put two header pictures, one of a whole foie gras (such as the one prepared for terrine) and one of a prepared dish, I wouldn't object. I would, however, strongly object to the picture showing side by side the so-called "normal" and "diseased foie gras" livers. Again, this article is about presenting the food, not furthering the controversy.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Apart from not citing any references, I find this section relatively pointless and think it should be removed. Whether someone eats foie gras and jelly sandwiches or not says nothing about the topic. Unless these dishes were somehow integral to the use or production of foie gras, I think the section should be dumped. Bob98133 ( talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. Sko1221 ( talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I could state a few reasons taken from the argument in the images section... 1)If there are no references cited, according to Schmucky, that is reason enough. 2)I think the argument to remove this section is the same as the argument that a picture of each the 2 methods of feeding is overkill and POV. Removal or moving this section is one way we could make this page appear a little more balanced. Earlier, i suggested that a new page be created specifically for Prepared Foie Gras ~ which would go far to help end this battle of the POVs, and it could be a good place for the Accompaniments section. Sko1221 ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
1) Find references 2) There is nothing POV about having an accompaniments section and removing it would not alter the tone of the article either way.
Having said that Bob98133 makes a reasonable point in that how it is eaten is kind of irrelevant. There are as many ways of serving it as there are chefs in the world and listing them all would be silly. There is a certain snobbishness about the section and although I am neutral about whether it should stay or go I do think it needs to be trimmed down to only include well sourced statements. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the wine section as it was silly.
Theresa Knott |
token threats
08:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need the nutrition percentages? In a global encyclopedia, it seems a bit strange to have a US figure, especially as it's hardly an american food. In addition, the numbers are for "pâté de foie gras", which, according to french legislation, can contain only 60% (I think) foie gras. yandman 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind it, it's not a bad template if it can be globalized and put on a lot more food items. It should not be the first thing in the right intro space. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Yuck! It would certainly seem like propoganda quoting such an unrealistic figure. I thought the nutritional info on food labels was for a "typical" serving size. If the infobox is coded for 100g, then the nutritional info is better in the text with some indication of what a realistic serving size might be. I don't think that stating the content of foods is propoganda, per se. Butter or olive oil are 100% fat and most salad dressings come close to that; tofu and avocados aren't far behind, but just indicating the fat or calorie content or other nutritional info, as long as it is not out of context, is still NPOV, IMHO. Kind of like having the cholesterol content in the egg (food) article. Bob98133 ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be so controversial, that it might be good to have one more person come in and look at the entire history. I know no one would really want to do that, and i'm sorry to even request it. But it seems that there is a game going on here and i maintain that i am not here to play. I am here to help make things more factual on this and the foie gras controversy page. You may have had horrible experiences in the past with animal rights people, or people you assumed to be, but it's a mistake to paint everyone with the same brush... The truth is, my first 2 edits were ridiculous, and yes, they do show that i am not a fan of the production of foie gras. But, i am not an animal rights activist. I am just enough of a right's activist in general that i was moved to join Wikipedia editing when i saw this page on February 17th. I was shocked to see what looked very slanted toward foie gras. Trying to make that different has caused such a storm that i think we need one more person to look at this to help make sure we are playing fair and not playing games. I hope this process doesn't last too long... Sarah Katherine ( talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I am most disturbed by the removal a few days ago of the paragraph in "Controversy" which mentioned Amloid cells. Studying the works of Dr. Soloman, it seems to be something people might want to know. He concludes that under the stress from the feeding process, these birds develope Amloid cells, wrinkled cells which create a condition he equates to bird flu. He says that anyone who may be susceptible to Diabletes type 2, Alzheimer's or rh. arthritus, should stay away from foie gras. I have asked the doctor to help with this section of the article or to at least see what we have and give his opinion. If you like, take a look by searching "foie gras, Alzheimer's or cells" Sarah Katherine ( talk) 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the "Nutrition" section... help? Anyway, can i share the science i was looking at.... [ [8]] "Amyloidosis is a disease process involving the deposit of normal or mutated proteins that have become misfolded. In this unstable state, such proteins form hair-like fibers, or fibrils, that are deposited into vital organs like the heart, kidneys, liver, pancreas and brain. This process leads to organ failure and, eventually, death. There are many types of amyloid-related diseases in addition to rheumatoid arthritis, such as Alzheimer's disease, adult-onset (type-2) diabetes and an illness related to multiple myeloma called primary or AL amyloidosis, an illness that has been a particular focus of study in the Solomon laboratory.
Foie gras is a culinary delicacy derived from massively enlarged fatty livers of ducks and geese. It is produced by gorging the fowl over several weeks. Solomon and his research team analyzed commercially sold foie gras from the U.S. and France and found that it contained a type of amyloid called AA. Amyloid deposits are commonly found in waterfowl, but this condition is noticeably increased in force-fed birds. In their study, mice prone to develop AA amyloidosis were injected or fed amyloid extracted from foie gras. Within eight weeks, a majority of the animals developed extensive amyloid deposits in the liver, spleen, intestine and other organs.
Based on the findings of the study, Solomon and his team concluded that this and perhaps other forms of amyloidosis might be transmissible, like "mad cow" and other related diseases. Until now, no other infectious sources of food products have been found. "It is not known if there is an increase of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes or other amyloid-related disease in people who have eaten foie gras," cautioned Solomon. "Our study looked at the existence of amyloid fibrils in foie gras and showed that it could accelerate the development of AA amyloidosis in susceptible mice. Perhaps people with a family history of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other amyloid-associated diseases should avoid consuming foie gras and other foods that may be contaminated with fibrils."
It's that last sentence that seems imperitive to add to this article, not to make foie gras look bad, but to protect those little old ladies who might think that they can believe everything they see on the "interweb". It's information that if held back or hidden, could be a bit irresponsible on our part, it seems to me. I've requested Doctor Soloman have a look at our assessment and perhaps give his response, so that we are up to date and accurate.
Also, i couldn't find the proof for what we have now, that one must consume excessive and prolonged amounts of foie gras, and that the findings of Soloman and Greger are under dispute. Can anyone point me to those pages? If it is a long PDF, please state the page number. Sarah Katherine 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 ( talk • contribs)
Please compare with the following sentence: A recent study has speculated that excessive consistent foie gras consumption "may be linked to the onset of diseases including Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.".[68][69] The exact experiment isn't important to the article; the speculations that the authors make based on the experiment is what's important (that consumption of rather large amounts of raw foie gras sped up amyloid fiber production in already genetically defective mice). Why would we need to say the same thing twice, or to add details which aren't relevant to the article?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The science part seems like it could use some work. As for my POV, you could be right, it could be a very common thing to be blind to our own motives. Sarah Katherine 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the claim for "excessive and consistant" regarding foie gras consumption and disease in the controversy section as I have not been able to find that sentence in any of the studies cited, nor anywhere else (other than this Wikipedia page) after a good deal of research. It is imperitive that this claim be sourced before it finds it's way back into the article, no? If i've missed it, my apologies. Please share where exactly that line is to be found. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, it looks like someone has re-added 2 unfounded and unsourced statements without discussion: 1)"excessive and consistant" and 2) the research is disputed.
Where is the proof for these 2 statements? 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The statements made here need to be proven, they are completely made up according to the sources cited here. Maybe we need to cite different sources that support the 2 claims you are trying to make: [ [9]]
Until then, we should stick with statements that reflect what the sources are saying. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Chicago Tribune reporter Mark Caro has written a highly informative book called "Foie Gras Wars" that was released in March 2009. It is fair and balanced and discusses ALL the issues of concern with interviews and first-hand accounts of gavage done well and gavage done poorly, interviews with producers and animal rights experts, as well as feedback from Temple Grandin on the question of suffering. I have just finished reading it and I shall add comments shortly. Quedude ( talk) 00:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, as you can see by the above discussion, a lot of people spent a lot of time and trouble to decide which images worked and which did not. There were some decisions by the admin team which have been reverted. Please discuss. sko1221 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead states: "served as an accompaniment to another food item, such as toast or..." Surely, the toast is the "accompaniment" to the foie gras, not the other way around. One does not think "God! I would love a slice of toast, I had better pop out and buy a foie gras." Giano ( talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What is going on here? It is clearly an abuse of language to say that foie gras is an "accompaniment to toast", and it's an abuse of foie gras to put it on "toast". What a waste of a tortured goose - they say in France that you can taste the suffering, so to put it on "toast" as an "accompaniment" is to add insult to injury! Simple solution, remove the "such as toast". Verbal chat 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ramdrake - I agree that the section you removed [Mulard ducks do not exhibit pre-migratory gorging instincts because neither the Pekin nor the Muscovy are migratory birds.] was not properly referenced. However the refs did support that these two species are non-migratory. Whether or not they exhibit pre-migratory gorging seems to be OR. If it is true that these species do not normally gorge, then that would be significant for the article. I'd rather see a ref, if one exists, than the copy entirely struck from the article. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
"The demand for foie gras in the Far East is such that China has become a sizeable producer; however, Chinese foie gras is viewed with some suspicion by the French.[35]"
I removed the bold portion. The cited article gives no reason for said suspicion, and actually mentions that the French producers made a similar fuss when Hungary started production. Veracity aside, the statement adds no value to the article and might be nonPOV. Wylie440 ( talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly a propagandists was intentionally making it unclear who's health was in danger. NPOV demands that we not add ambiguity into the passage in order to imply a point of view. Consistency demands that if we warn of 'health hazards' faced here we also label them across all fatty foods. Leaving it for the reader to take as implied that this food causes fatty-liver is very bad form. It is also implied that being a food-animal is bad for the animal's health as, some half-month after being force-fed the animal is going to be slaughtered. What difference does it make from a neutral point of view how the animal dies and what difference does a fatty liver make to the long-term health of an animal bound for the wood-shed in three weeks time? CredenceHarbor ( talk) 05:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) CredenceHarbor 09/20/2009
Hello. I came here to find wich countries actually outlawed the product. But despice the introduction mentionning "numbers of countries and legislation", the article only mention turkey, "countries from EU", and chicago for 2 years. Wich european countries ? ONE american state for merely 2 years ? Is that it ? Edit : After searching a bit more, there ARE a lot more countries that outlawed gavage. Although it was not clear wether the product was outlawed or merely it's production. Anyway, the article lacks a more complete liste of those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.46.106 ( talk • contribs)
Yeah, and it could use some recipes as well! 75.48.22.98 ( talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding Template:Copypaste because there seem to be some paragraphs directly copied from FLOSS (which doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source, so hopefully it's not the other way around). Checking the page history would probably confirm either way, as the FLOSS article is dated. -- Trevj ( talk) 15:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I do believe a short explanation of the nature of the controversy would be helpful. The foie gras controversy differs from a conventional controversy such as capital punishment, because in the latter case both POV's agree on the harm that is done, but differ on the merits; whereas in this controversy they disagree on both the harm and the merits. This leads to controversy over facts rather than controversy over reason. A much more difficult wikipedia page to balance fairly. PaulsComments ( talk) 09:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Controversy section needs to be trimmed down considering there is a dedicated page for the subject. If I remember correctly there was a coordinated attempt by animal activists to hijack the primary article to advance their agenda few years ago (that resulted in accumulating disproportionate amount of information on controversy, of doubtful notability) and it appears that the article now is yet again on its way to re-acquire the same content. Nothing's changed though, the controversy Is either notable and needs to sit on it's own article, or it is not notable and deserves a basic mention. 91.76.124.182 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC).
The citation led to a pro Foie Gras website with an article pretending to be the original research from the INRA, but was in fact a heavily biased interpretation of it from the website itself. If anyone can produce the original research of the INRA that supports the same conclusions, the section could return, but for now it should be deleted. I also deleted a one-liner claiming the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that foie-gras is cruelty free with a citation to a Time article that says nothing of the sorts. It seems pro Foie Gras activists are deliberately trying to deceive people here by vandalising this article. Lapzwans ( talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good section text but it would be better sourced to original material, not a writeup of studies. The writeup doesn't seem to mischaracterize the material it uses. I have not had time to look at this source in any depth. An IP (probably second account of someone) has been removing it daily. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The lead section is getting crowded with images. Do we really need four images in the lead? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. Good thinking. Warrington ( talk) 20:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
hi there, i tried to put an image of the ducks being fed, but all that i try to input is deleted by Smucky. how fair is that? Sko1221 ( talk) 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The images make this page seem much more like an advertisement than a fair assessment of facts regarding foie gras. For this reason, unless it gets deleted again, i am adding a picture of the feeding process. The image is not gross, it is reality. I am not from Peta, btw, Thanks,Sarah. Sko1221 ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The image was situated right next to the paragraph describing what is happening in the picture. That should be all the evidence and context needed. What more could you suggest, please? Sko1221 ( talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I am baffled. The feeding of the ducks is a huge part of the story (context). This picture comes from the "Foie Gras Controversy" Wiki page. It shows the tube and feeding process being described in the paragraph on "Feeding". What more information should accompany the picture? Why should we not have a picture of the feeding process? Thanks,Sarah. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It you have an issue with the legitimacy of the claims regarding this image, take it up with the Wiki from which it comes. I am only citing another Wiki page, which is done all the time in Wiki. Thanks. Sko1221 ( talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Will add the picture again, thanks all for the input. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
SKO is not a sock, i (sarah) just forgot to log in, so it looks like 2 separate people. one human, no socks. and, i am a meat eater too. i just want truth to be told. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I think we'd be hard pushed to describe the image as POV-pushing. It is a visualisation of the described method, and the label of "cruel" is a subjective one that one reader (such as Bugs) might apply, whilst another (say a producer of foie gras) would not see it that way. The image itself, however, does not make the value judgement being ascribed to it - it is an accurate illustration of method, so let it stand. Certainly not worth edit-warring over though. Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with including the force-feeding picture in this article. It makes it more encyclopedic.
-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me add my twopence to the debate. Compare the picture currently in the article with these two: [11] [12]. The two pictures here describe just as well the gavage process without putting the emphasis on the cages and the shiny tube being inserted into the animal's gullet (the dehumanizing factor). another example: the Steak article does not show you a picture of rows of animals aligned inside large stables, or of animals being butchered (this one doesn't do the latter either, granted). Why is it so difficult to avoid having a controversial picture in this article?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What makes this current picture controversial? The issue of foie gras is controversial, as stated at the top of this discussion page. The picture doesn't do anything to change the nature of the controversy, it is about fact-giving. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyone ok with eating foie gras would be ok with seeing this picture. Sko1221 ( talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I would be ok with swapping for another picture too. I did not know that the majority of farms use the method is those 2 pictures suggested above. Does anyone know where that data could be found? Sko1221 ( talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If the food item is produced by the method of feeding, then the feeding method is an important part of the food. Sko1221 ( talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just taken a look at our steak article. You are right it doesn't contain any "nasty pictures" but interestingly going up one level to
beef is worth a look at.
Theresa Knott |
token threats
21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Side question for all involved: rootology wrote at 20:43 (UTC) 19 February 2009: "The technical description in the section is simple, plain, and cleanly written but as described can be hard to visualize". Do other editors feel this way? Basically, does the image add anything to the article that someone cannot visualize without the image? Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a difficult time trying to find a nicer image, but will keep looking. Sko1221 ( talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking too, unfortunately for us whilst animal rights organizations usually make their images free, also tend to display the most shocking ones. The kind of happy family farm type of images aren't free. But I'll keep looking :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant! Put it in! 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Truthfully, that is the nicest picture (least shocking) of this feeding method i have ever come across. The more i search, the more i realize the problem might not be with the image, but with the idea that we could build complete story here without upsetting anyone. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The commons also has File:Gavage.jpg, plus he:קובץ:Pitum20.jpg. I've also kindly requested the flickr user that Ali'i found change the license so that it can be donated to the project. - Andrew c [talk] 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We should try to depict the most commonly used method worldwide, as has been stated. If it's mostly done by hand in the sunshine, great. But we should find the data for this. Sko1221 ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we consider using an image of both types of feeding method, with data as to the prevalence of both? I have not been able to find this data.Thanks. Sko1221 ( talk) 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Gaia has responded regarding copyrighted image presently in use. If someone could help with translation, here is the email: "Beste Sarah,
Je mag de foto van het gaveren gebruiken als je er de bron bij vermeldt, dit is: Stopgavage.
Met vriendelijke groeten, Sofie Volckaert GAIA " Sko1221 ( talk) 11:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Translation: "Dear Sarah, You can use the photograph of talent gaveren if you mention the source, this are: Stopgavage. With pleasant groeten, Sofie Volckaert GAIA " Sko1221 ( talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to using this picture. Still it seems we should add info about the predominance of this method over the other. Where is the data? One last look could be taken at the possible POV that exists in the page with images. It still looks like an advertisement for Foie Gras. Why do we need so many shiny gourmet photos? It doesn't appear balanced to me, any thoughts on this? 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Also, the issue of the wine bottle image in still unanswered, why is this included in the article? Sko1221 ( talk) 17:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we have input on evening up the images, possibly removing any that might be superfluous? 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 18:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Foie gras - gavage in Rocamadour, France.jpg - any objections? rootology ( C)( T) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So my question about possible POV in terms of image usage on this page is going to be ignored? Just wondering. If you all agree that there is no POV going on here, ok. I still would rather see the images more evened out ~ like 1 per section. Looking at the page on Buddhism, for example, the images are very evenly distributed throughout the page. Not so here. Please address this before unlocking. Sko1221 ( talk) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Also missing is the data for the types of feeding processes. For instance, the picture claims that this is the traditional feeding method. Should both methods be mentioned, with a statement such as "Traditional feeding methods are used 4 times as often as (non-traditional methods)" ~ and citing source for that info, obviously. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the responsibility for citing reference rest with whomever is making the statement in question? I cannot find the data, but realize that if i did, and if it came from an animal rights source, i would be laughed out of this discussion. So i leave it to you all. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 20:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i was referring to the statement already made underneath current image. Does that statement need source info? I was schooled in this by as earlier entry. My words underneath the picture were "Feeding Process" and even that caused controversy. I was told that every statement we include has to have data to back it up. It seems that my editing is being attacked a lot more energetically than others, which is why i ask that we consider a slight POV going on here. Whatever you all are comfortable with is going to be what stands for now because i am exhausted. Thanks to you all, it has been great working with you. Sarah Sko1221 ( talk) 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have finally found data on prevalence of traditional farming and factory farming of foie gras, the source from our article [13] says "In France, over 87% of ducks and geese used to produce foie gras are trapped in cages on huge factory farms, and force fed twice a day." ~ any thoughts on whether this info has a place here, and how to include it? Sarah Katherine 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Great picture-- I can't see the duck, just an amiable French farmer. 208.68.128.53 ( talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Have one visit to a genuine fermier foie gras south of Cognac. Only goose products. Full tour including gavage and purchase from family. Products as purchased were: entier, demi. and rilletes. Is that a variant on the french standard? Particularly the rilletes. Idealist707 ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In the opening ¶ is the statement:
By French law, foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck fattened by force feeding corn with a gavage...
Although the first sentence of that ¶ reads:
Foie gras (French for "fat liver") is a food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened.
As a part-time resident of France, I'm aware that geese are also force fed to produce foie gras.
Then, in Production Methods is:
Toulouse geese and Mulard ducks are the most commonly used breeds for foie gras.
Dick Kimball ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing the creation of a new section called Nutrition and health and moving the {{
nutritionalvalue}} template into it, along with any other health information, such as any content on amyloidosis the article ends up carrying. Reason: Foie gras is a food and so it makes sense to have a section covering its nutrition and health aspects. This is based on how FA- and GA-quality articles like
Lettuce,
Maple syrup,
Durian and
Apple do it. Sound OK?
Zad
68
18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
June 20, 2007 -- If the thought of force-fed fowl doesn’t turn you off to foie gras, this news just might.
New research suggests that a compound found in fatty goose and duck liver may be linked to a rare disease called amyloidosis, opening the door to a potential link between the delicacy and a host of other amyloid-related diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s disease to type 2 diabetes. Researchers say it’s the first known evidence that a food product can speed the production of amyloid protein in animals. An abnormal buildup of amyloid deposits is linked to a variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and others. Amyloid is commonly found in waterfowl, but researchers say their concentration is especially high in force-fed birds, such as those used in the production of foie gras. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that feeding disease-prone mice a steady diet of foie gras accelerated the development of amyloidosis with amyloid deposits found in many organ tissues. “Eating foie gras probably won’t cause a disease in someone who isn’t genetically predisposed to it,” says researcher Alan Solomon, MD, of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, in a news release. “Perhaps people with a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or other amyloid-associated diseases should avoid consuming foie gras and other foods that may be contaminated.” Aside from suggesting a link between foie gras and disease, researchers say the results also raise the possibility that other prion or abnormal protein-related diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease may be passed from affected animal food products to humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.94.37 ( talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Just coming in now, but there is only Quebec that does Fois Gras within Canada. If we're doing regions on the map, then it's important that places like Yukon etc. are not being represented. I don't have the skills required to change the map accordingly, but I'm willing to do so if there's a way to do this easily or with rudimentary skills. Here' a source if we need one: http://maisonneuve.org/article/2010/03/12/foie-gras-wars/ Cpt ricard ( talk) 01:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
After some recent editing by DrChrissy this article is now heavy with citations from viva.org
- including assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice. I wonder how reliable this source is, and/or how due its advocacy is for inclusion here ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the source is reliable for its own opinion, but where stated as fact then there is a (separate but related) question of reliability. In general we should build articles on RS, but viva.org is now the most cited source in this article and in part its tone and viewpoint are adopted. To take one example the source has
Despite moves in Europe to ban it, gavage is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage". Foie gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding
Is that true? Wikipedia certainly relays it as fact, complete even with the scare quotes for "heritage":
Despite proposals in Europe to ban gavage, this is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage". Foie gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding.
The problem here is that Wikipedia is taking the stance of a campaigning org by framing this as it does (It would be as bad if it went the other way and said that this "proud artisinal tradition" was now recognized in law). There is also a plagiarism/copyvio problem. I am also not sure why we now have two External links sections, one linking to a blog, another to a news story in the Daily Mirror about Gordon Ramsay's supplier offered as a video of "foie gras production" - is that a good link per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 04:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Update As a consequence of this Talk thread, I have moved the External Links I added (I had not realised the article already had this section!) and deleted the controversial statement identified above. I have also been replacing or adding supporting citations for information in the Viva! source.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 13:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy has been adding claims that India's import ban of Foie Gras is a world first based on advocacy cites: peta.org and ciwf.org.uk, neither of which are necessarily reliable. We should build content on secondary sources so that it is reliable and we avoid undue detail. In this edit the source is cherry-picked: the Indian Express article cited is largely about chef's reaction to legislation, and we should reflect it faithfully (as we do in other subsections for legislation). Whether the chefs have a "vested interest" in neither here nor there. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The neutrality problem lay more in removing content from the "Chefs" sources about ... chefs. Anyway, problem solved: I've found a WSJ WP:NEWSBLOG source that covers this, using the more neutral "only country" formulation rather than the advocacy "first country" wording. I've used this and de-crufted. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy has added this:
Animal welfare expert, Professor Ian Duncan wrote "During the force-feeding phase, mortality rates are four to 20 times higher than on normal duck farms. These high rates are due to injuries to the throat, liver failure or rupture and to heat stress — all of which are directly linked to the force-feeding practice" [1]
References
I don't think this source meets the standards of WP:SCIRS, or even WP:RS in general for such information, or that Prof. Duncan's views are due. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That the article may have pre-existing poor sources is another matter, and doesn't excuse the addition of more. The issue for this section is the addition of new content. At the least we shouldn't make a bad article worse, now should we. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Caroline Ramsay, B.Sc. (Ag) Farm Animal Welfare Coordinator* Geoff Urton, B.Sc. (Ag) M.Sc., Animal Welfare Coordinator* and notes that the "corresponding authors" (which are the main authors of a paper) are SPCA employees. Additionally this was not published in a journal, but rather by the SPCA itself, which is an advocacy group. It is SPS and also fails WP:INDY. It is as unacceptable of a similar paper would be, that was written for and by, and posted on the site of, a foie gras producer. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
we have no way of knowing what you have published and what you have not; it doesn't matter here. if that is true, you know the difference and i understand even less what you are arguing about. I am glad you agree to get rid of this reference, thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (strike
Jytdog (
talk)
19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC))
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The last sentence of the intro: "While foie gras producers maintain that force feeding ducks and geese is not uncomfortable for the animals nor is it hazardous to their health." That isn't a sentence. The fact that it makes an excuse of sorts for foie gras producers, combined with the poor grammar, make me wonder if this was tacked on surreptitiously by someone. Togamoos ( talk) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a mention (with citation of an encyclopedia) that pâté de foie gras used to be called "Strassburg pie". Most old cookbooks (before 1945) will also refer to it as such. Miguel ( talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated the headers on the talkpage, condensing the WikiProject banners, and swapping out the GA banner for the {{ ArticleHistory}} template. I added a link to the GA-delisting discussion, but couldn't find any corresponding discussion for when the article achieved GA status. As near as I can tell, BorgQueen ( talk · contribs), who had already been working on the article, simply placed the {{ GA}} template [2] on November 12, 2005, and added the article to Wikipedia:Good articles. [3] At the time, there was no clear "nomination" process, very different from what we have now! Anyway, if anyone does know of an actual GA discussion, please provide a link and I'll get the history template updated accordingly. -- El on ka 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I can find plenty of pictures of geese and ducks, pictures of their internal anatomy aren't that easy to come by :-( Can anyone help out? Theresa Knott | token threats 11:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The article could benefit from a paragraph on the dietary and nutritional breakdown of foie gras: Fats, protein, carbs, and vitamin content per serving of FG. If I knew of that I would add it, but it will have to be added by someone who knows and can reference it. Radzewicz ( talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see some nutritional information. That is the reason I came to this page in the first place. I'm sure there are many others like me out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.11.58 ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems fair to add dietary information, and confusing that we can assume only "dieters" would be interested in that info, and that we know the amount they will consume. Sko1221 ( talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If this is a typical serving size, i do think we could argue that this would make a difference to a dieter, if it is mostly fat in content. Sko1221 ( talk) 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion ~ Consider a separate page for the Prepared Foie Gras? The same way that Meat, Steak, Slaughter have 3 separate pages, it seems that Foie Gras, Controversy, and (whatever we would call the equivalent of Steak/ "Prepared Foie Gras"?) deserve separate pages. Sarah. Sko1221 ( talk) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This 2 paragraph section seems a bit lacking in references, making it read like a high school essay more than an Encyclopedia, just my opinion. Sko1221 ( talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Need information regarding pricing/cost of this food. Badagnani ( talk) 05:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As with any other article or subject we cover at Wikipedia, we generally try to do our best. Badagnani ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Prices added under "consumption" section. Does pricing need it's own separate section? Sko1221 ( talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Prices cited are 6 years old... need more research here. Sko1221 ( talk) 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The article states that force-feeding the birds causes them to consume "more" than they would in the wild and "much more" than if they were domestice birds. So a wild bird eats more than a domestic bird? Because it has more flying and foraging to do? There's a bit of my head that queries if a domestic bird with unfettered access to food wouldn't eat more than a wild bird, is there someone who can point me to a source to salve my query?! Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Refs for this statement needed. Data rather than "more" and "much more" suggested. Sko1221 ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
As any perusal of the archives will show, this article (and the accompanying controversy article) are periodic battlegrounds. It is almost always stirred up by animal rights propagandists who have no interest in Wikipedia's policies, particularly NPOV - except to extoll relentlessly that our articles aren't NPOV because we haven't included their favorite shock image and their choice of language. The propagandists almost always either 1) get blocked for edit warring, or 2) get bored and leave. In the meantime well-meaning editors get kicked by "non-involved" admins who show up, don't see the conflict for what it is (a shitstorm because of warring propagandists) and start handing out blocks or warnings for trying to keep things neutral.
We get drive-by POV edits here quite often, but most often they are simply removed and the person had no interest in Wikipedia to begin with. Ramdrake and Borgqueen have been essential in spotting that kind of thing. Sometimes someone sticks around and edit wars, which is what we have now. These shitstorms need to be stopped. Anybody who doesn't think that animal rights organizations aren't tacitly encouraging this crap, turning Wikipedia in to a battleground to soapbox their own interests is deluded. They are willing to stand out in the cold, night after night, protesting outside restaurants - stirring up trouble on Wikipedia from the comfort of a laptop and a couch is just a relaxing way to further the cause.
These people do not care about Wikipedia. They know what they are doing when they come here. Sure, we assume good faith, but they should be shown the door the minute the minute they make it obvious that isn't true. Now we have a whole bunch of people here arguing. The AR propagandist has something like 6RR over several IPs and one username and yet they are still here focusing the discussing towards their goal. Good for them, they win, because we're too nice and no admin stopped them in their tracks.
The reason this article, neutrally, does not include a picture of gavage is because it is impossible to present it in a picture. It is human nature to anthromorphize our experience into an animal and no picture of gavage can counter that anthromorphization. It takes paragraphs of text to explain that these fowl have hardened throats, so a tube stuck in it is not uncomfortable; that they naturally gorge themselves in one meal stretching their gullets and throat to contain large amounts of food, so a food pump isn't uncomfortable; and that they instinctively fatten themselves up given the right food sources and the fatty liver is a natural part of their migratory cycle.
The picture does exist on the controversy page, because that is where the POVs come out. The propandists, dutiful soldiers backed and prodded by well-funded organizations with congratulatory praise from their forums, won't be happy until this main page, which is not about the controversy, has their stamp of approval. They have a zeal that cannot be matched by our volunteers.
So good call everybody. An edit warring zealot came to play. Instead of being blocked for edit warring y'all gave them a soapbox. The edit warring trigged protection of the article with their image up. Their timing was perfect to destabilize the article before it could be re-nominated to GA status. They win. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
(outdent) You guys want my 9 year old to whip something up with her crayons, I am sure she'll love the subject matter when I explain it to her :) -- Tom 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wondering why this sentence is under "controversy" ... Celebrity Chef Anthony Bourdain and Chef/Writer Michael Ruhlman have both come down in favor of Foie Gras and pointed out that properly raised ducks for the production of foie gras are treated very humanely, and that the footage seen in the videos of critics is cruel but that no reputable chef would buy such product[61]. Suggest replacing this with something more fitting. See [4] Sko1221 ( talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it not POV as it stands, using pro-foie gras chefs under "controversy"? Is there a problem with adding Puck to even out the POV here? Why not include both? Sko1221 ( talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Added Puck, made new paragraph for chefs. Sko1221 ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
These 2 statements need refs. Second statement reads an opinion:
I don't think so. Exotic has a larger meaning than unusual. Besides, what's unusual about steak or pasta? Sorry, exotic has a specific meaning and it doesn't fit here. Bob98133 ( talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Other food articles do not have a section of what is eaten with the product. If this information was somehow integral to the subject, I would have no problem with it, but the info is unreferenced and pointless. Foie gras can be eaten with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. It's ridiculous to have an entirely unrefenced section that has little to do with the subject. I suggest that this section be deleted; or increased to include everything that could possibly be eaten, drunk, smoked or injecteed while eating foie gras, since those would certainly be as pointless as the existing text. Bob98133 ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
With the exceptions of cornichons and truffles, none of the other Wiki article about the alleged foie gras accompaniments make any mention of how they are used with foie gras. If this info was vital, you would think it would appear in each of thge food articles mentioned in the section. Bob98133 ( talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. You can mention that bread goes well with butter in the Butter article say, but nothing forces you to say it also in the Bread article. That one food item goes well with another doesn't necessarily imply that the first item is what is usually found with the second.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
While I will agree that we need citations, the I still don't understand why you object so strongly to including information about how the food item is commonly served (nobody is suggesting that we include all possible presentations, as you seem to be implying, just the most common ones). For example, there are many, many sources that indicate that serving foie gras on toast (or some sort of toast analogue) is a common/traditional presentation. Here's one. [5]. - Chunky Rice ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it a dish? Meaning, foie gras should be thought of and presented as one or more of its prepared forms [ [6]]? Or, is it "fattened liver", the raw material for a variety of dishes?
From what i know, when we say foie gras, we should not be referring to a prepared dish that is made from foie gras on this page. We should be clear about the distinction, if we can agree on what that might be. One way this page might help to clear things up for the public, would be to put the picture of foie gras at the top instead of having prepared foie gras at the top. There is a great misunderstanding that i have seen when asking folks if they know what foie gras is. They usually reflect what was said in another section on this page: because foie gras is pretty much a dish (more so than "just" an ingredient, I'd say). Kind of like talking about wasabi, soy sauce and sliced ginger on the sushi page.
Can anyone clear help clear this up? Are we continuing to mislead the public, or is "foie gras" generally accepted as a term for a prepared food? Sarah Katherine ( talk) 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with Bob98133 and Ramdrake,(although I am suspicious of Sko1221's motives I don't think that should sway the argument). I don't see how the picture of a whole foie gras presents it in a negative light, and I don't think there is anything controversial about that picture. Compare the article on beef and bacon for example, the lead pictures show what the food is without any particular presentation. OTOH Chicken (food) shows a prepared and cooked chicken presented with rosemary, so it would seem that both acceptable. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm it seems the lead currently has two photos in it. Why not have a prepared one and the whole liver instead of two prepared photos? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If one wants to put two header pictures, one of a whole foie gras (such as the one prepared for terrine) and one of a prepared dish, I wouldn't object. I would, however, strongly object to the picture showing side by side the so-called "normal" and "diseased foie gras" livers. Again, this article is about presenting the food, not furthering the controversy.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Apart from not citing any references, I find this section relatively pointless and think it should be removed. Whether someone eats foie gras and jelly sandwiches or not says nothing about the topic. Unless these dishes were somehow integral to the use or production of foie gras, I think the section should be dumped. Bob98133 ( talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. Sko1221 ( talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I could state a few reasons taken from the argument in the images section... 1)If there are no references cited, according to Schmucky, that is reason enough. 2)I think the argument to remove this section is the same as the argument that a picture of each the 2 methods of feeding is overkill and POV. Removal or moving this section is one way we could make this page appear a little more balanced. Earlier, i suggested that a new page be created specifically for Prepared Foie Gras ~ which would go far to help end this battle of the POVs, and it could be a good place for the Accompaniments section. Sko1221 ( talk) 03:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
1) Find references 2) There is nothing POV about having an accompaniments section and removing it would not alter the tone of the article either way.
Having said that Bob98133 makes a reasonable point in that how it is eaten is kind of irrelevant. There are as many ways of serving it as there are chefs in the world and listing them all would be silly. There is a certain snobbishness about the section and although I am neutral about whether it should stay or go I do think it needs to be trimmed down to only include well sourced statements. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the wine section as it was silly.
Theresa Knott |
token threats
08:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need the nutrition percentages? In a global encyclopedia, it seems a bit strange to have a US figure, especially as it's hardly an american food. In addition, the numbers are for "pâté de foie gras", which, according to french legislation, can contain only 60% (I think) foie gras. yandman 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind it, it's not a bad template if it can be globalized and put on a lot more food items. It should not be the first thing in the right intro space. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Yuck! It would certainly seem like propoganda quoting such an unrealistic figure. I thought the nutritional info on food labels was for a "typical" serving size. If the infobox is coded for 100g, then the nutritional info is better in the text with some indication of what a realistic serving size might be. I don't think that stating the content of foods is propoganda, per se. Butter or olive oil are 100% fat and most salad dressings come close to that; tofu and avocados aren't far behind, but just indicating the fat or calorie content or other nutritional info, as long as it is not out of context, is still NPOV, IMHO. Kind of like having the cholesterol content in the egg (food) article. Bob98133 ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be so controversial, that it might be good to have one more person come in and look at the entire history. I know no one would really want to do that, and i'm sorry to even request it. But it seems that there is a game going on here and i maintain that i am not here to play. I am here to help make things more factual on this and the foie gras controversy page. You may have had horrible experiences in the past with animal rights people, or people you assumed to be, but it's a mistake to paint everyone with the same brush... The truth is, my first 2 edits were ridiculous, and yes, they do show that i am not a fan of the production of foie gras. But, i am not an animal rights activist. I am just enough of a right's activist in general that i was moved to join Wikipedia editing when i saw this page on February 17th. I was shocked to see what looked very slanted toward foie gras. Trying to make that different has caused such a storm that i think we need one more person to look at this to help make sure we are playing fair and not playing games. I hope this process doesn't last too long... Sarah Katherine ( talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I am most disturbed by the removal a few days ago of the paragraph in "Controversy" which mentioned Amloid cells. Studying the works of Dr. Soloman, it seems to be something people might want to know. He concludes that under the stress from the feeding process, these birds develope Amloid cells, wrinkled cells which create a condition he equates to bird flu. He says that anyone who may be susceptible to Diabletes type 2, Alzheimer's or rh. arthritus, should stay away from foie gras. I have asked the doctor to help with this section of the article or to at least see what we have and give his opinion. If you like, take a look by searching "foie gras, Alzheimer's or cells" Sarah Katherine ( talk) 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the "Nutrition" section... help? Anyway, can i share the science i was looking at.... [ [8]] "Amyloidosis is a disease process involving the deposit of normal or mutated proteins that have become misfolded. In this unstable state, such proteins form hair-like fibers, or fibrils, that are deposited into vital organs like the heart, kidneys, liver, pancreas and brain. This process leads to organ failure and, eventually, death. There are many types of amyloid-related diseases in addition to rheumatoid arthritis, such as Alzheimer's disease, adult-onset (type-2) diabetes and an illness related to multiple myeloma called primary or AL amyloidosis, an illness that has been a particular focus of study in the Solomon laboratory.
Foie gras is a culinary delicacy derived from massively enlarged fatty livers of ducks and geese. It is produced by gorging the fowl over several weeks. Solomon and his research team analyzed commercially sold foie gras from the U.S. and France and found that it contained a type of amyloid called AA. Amyloid deposits are commonly found in waterfowl, but this condition is noticeably increased in force-fed birds. In their study, mice prone to develop AA amyloidosis were injected or fed amyloid extracted from foie gras. Within eight weeks, a majority of the animals developed extensive amyloid deposits in the liver, spleen, intestine and other organs.
Based on the findings of the study, Solomon and his team concluded that this and perhaps other forms of amyloidosis might be transmissible, like "mad cow" and other related diseases. Until now, no other infectious sources of food products have been found. "It is not known if there is an increase of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes or other amyloid-related disease in people who have eaten foie gras," cautioned Solomon. "Our study looked at the existence of amyloid fibrils in foie gras and showed that it could accelerate the development of AA amyloidosis in susceptible mice. Perhaps people with a family history of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other amyloid-associated diseases should avoid consuming foie gras and other foods that may be contaminated with fibrils."
It's that last sentence that seems imperitive to add to this article, not to make foie gras look bad, but to protect those little old ladies who might think that they can believe everything they see on the "interweb". It's information that if held back or hidden, could be a bit irresponsible on our part, it seems to me. I've requested Doctor Soloman have a look at our assessment and perhaps give his response, so that we are up to date and accurate.
Also, i couldn't find the proof for what we have now, that one must consume excessive and prolonged amounts of foie gras, and that the findings of Soloman and Greger are under dispute. Can anyone point me to those pages? If it is a long PDF, please state the page number. Sarah Katherine 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 ( talk • contribs)
Please compare with the following sentence: A recent study has speculated that excessive consistent foie gras consumption "may be linked to the onset of diseases including Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.".[68][69] The exact experiment isn't important to the article; the speculations that the authors make based on the experiment is what's important (that consumption of rather large amounts of raw foie gras sped up amyloid fiber production in already genetically defective mice). Why would we need to say the same thing twice, or to add details which aren't relevant to the article?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The science part seems like it could use some work. As for my POV, you could be right, it could be a very common thing to be blind to our own motives. Sarah Katherine 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the claim for "excessive and consistant" regarding foie gras consumption and disease in the controversy section as I have not been able to find that sentence in any of the studies cited, nor anywhere else (other than this Wikipedia page) after a good deal of research. It is imperitive that this claim be sourced before it finds it's way back into the article, no? If i've missed it, my apologies. Please share where exactly that line is to be found. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, it looks like someone has re-added 2 unfounded and unsourced statements without discussion: 1)"excessive and consistant" and 2) the research is disputed.
Where is the proof for these 2 statements? 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The statements made here need to be proven, they are completely made up according to the sources cited here. Maybe we need to cite different sources that support the 2 claims you are trying to make: [ [9]]
Until then, we should stick with statements that reflect what the sources are saying. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Chicago Tribune reporter Mark Caro has written a highly informative book called "Foie Gras Wars" that was released in March 2009. It is fair and balanced and discusses ALL the issues of concern with interviews and first-hand accounts of gavage done well and gavage done poorly, interviews with producers and animal rights experts, as well as feedback from Temple Grandin on the question of suffering. I have just finished reading it and I shall add comments shortly. Quedude ( talk) 00:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, as you can see by the above discussion, a lot of people spent a lot of time and trouble to decide which images worked and which did not. There were some decisions by the admin team which have been reverted. Please discuss. sko1221 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead states: "served as an accompaniment to another food item, such as toast or..." Surely, the toast is the "accompaniment" to the foie gras, not the other way around. One does not think "God! I would love a slice of toast, I had better pop out and buy a foie gras." Giano ( talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What is going on here? It is clearly an abuse of language to say that foie gras is an "accompaniment to toast", and it's an abuse of foie gras to put it on "toast". What a waste of a tortured goose - they say in France that you can taste the suffering, so to put it on "toast" as an "accompaniment" is to add insult to injury! Simple solution, remove the "such as toast". Verbal chat 13:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Ramdrake - I agree that the section you removed [Mulard ducks do not exhibit pre-migratory gorging instincts because neither the Pekin nor the Muscovy are migratory birds.] was not properly referenced. However the refs did support that these two species are non-migratory. Whether or not they exhibit pre-migratory gorging seems to be OR. If it is true that these species do not normally gorge, then that would be significant for the article. I'd rather see a ref, if one exists, than the copy entirely struck from the article. Bob98133 ( talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
"The demand for foie gras in the Far East is such that China has become a sizeable producer; however, Chinese foie gras is viewed with some suspicion by the French.[35]"
I removed the bold portion. The cited article gives no reason for said suspicion, and actually mentions that the French producers made a similar fuss when Hungary started production. Veracity aside, the statement adds no value to the article and might be nonPOV. Wylie440 ( talk) 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly a propagandists was intentionally making it unclear who's health was in danger. NPOV demands that we not add ambiguity into the passage in order to imply a point of view. Consistency demands that if we warn of 'health hazards' faced here we also label them across all fatty foods. Leaving it for the reader to take as implied that this food causes fatty-liver is very bad form. It is also implied that being a food-animal is bad for the animal's health as, some half-month after being force-fed the animal is going to be slaughtered. What difference does it make from a neutral point of view how the animal dies and what difference does a fatty liver make to the long-term health of an animal bound for the wood-shed in three weeks time? CredenceHarbor ( talk) 05:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) CredenceHarbor 09/20/2009
Hello. I came here to find wich countries actually outlawed the product. But despice the introduction mentionning "numbers of countries and legislation", the article only mention turkey, "countries from EU", and chicago for 2 years. Wich european countries ? ONE american state for merely 2 years ? Is that it ? Edit : After searching a bit more, there ARE a lot more countries that outlawed gavage. Although it was not clear wether the product was outlawed or merely it's production. Anyway, the article lacks a more complete liste of those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.46.106 ( talk • contribs)
Yeah, and it could use some recipes as well! 75.48.22.98 ( talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding Template:Copypaste because there seem to be some paragraphs directly copied from FLOSS (which doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source, so hopefully it's not the other way around). Checking the page history would probably confirm either way, as the FLOSS article is dated. -- Trevj ( talk) 15:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I do believe a short explanation of the nature of the controversy would be helpful. The foie gras controversy differs from a conventional controversy such as capital punishment, because in the latter case both POV's agree on the harm that is done, but differ on the merits; whereas in this controversy they disagree on both the harm and the merits. This leads to controversy over facts rather than controversy over reason. A much more difficult wikipedia page to balance fairly. PaulsComments ( talk) 09:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Controversy section needs to be trimmed down considering there is a dedicated page for the subject. If I remember correctly there was a coordinated attempt by animal activists to hijack the primary article to advance their agenda few years ago (that resulted in accumulating disproportionate amount of information on controversy, of doubtful notability) and it appears that the article now is yet again on its way to re-acquire the same content. Nothing's changed though, the controversy Is either notable and needs to sit on it's own article, or it is not notable and deserves a basic mention. 91.76.124.182 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC).
The citation led to a pro Foie Gras website with an article pretending to be the original research from the INRA, but was in fact a heavily biased interpretation of it from the website itself. If anyone can produce the original research of the INRA that supports the same conclusions, the section could return, but for now it should be deleted. I also deleted a one-liner claiming the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that foie-gras is cruelty free with a citation to a Time article that says nothing of the sorts. It seems pro Foie Gras activists are deliberately trying to deceive people here by vandalising this article. Lapzwans ( talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good section text but it would be better sourced to original material, not a writeup of studies. The writeup doesn't seem to mischaracterize the material it uses. I have not had time to look at this source in any depth. An IP (probably second account of someone) has been removing it daily. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The lead section is getting crowded with images. Do we really need four images in the lead? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. Good thinking. Warrington ( talk) 20:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
hi there, i tried to put an image of the ducks being fed, but all that i try to input is deleted by Smucky. how fair is that? Sko1221 ( talk) 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The images make this page seem much more like an advertisement than a fair assessment of facts regarding foie gras. For this reason, unless it gets deleted again, i am adding a picture of the feeding process. The image is not gross, it is reality. I am not from Peta, btw, Thanks,Sarah. Sko1221 ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The image was situated right next to the paragraph describing what is happening in the picture. That should be all the evidence and context needed. What more could you suggest, please? Sko1221 ( talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I am baffled. The feeding of the ducks is a huge part of the story (context). This picture comes from the "Foie Gras Controversy" Wiki page. It shows the tube and feeding process being described in the paragraph on "Feeding". What more information should accompany the picture? Why should we not have a picture of the feeding process? Thanks,Sarah. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It you have an issue with the legitimacy of the claims regarding this image, take it up with the Wiki from which it comes. I am only citing another Wiki page, which is done all the time in Wiki. Thanks. Sko1221 ( talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Will add the picture again, thanks all for the input. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
SKO is not a sock, i (sarah) just forgot to log in, so it looks like 2 separate people. one human, no socks. and, i am a meat eater too. i just want truth to be told. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I think we'd be hard pushed to describe the image as POV-pushing. It is a visualisation of the described method, and the label of "cruel" is a subjective one that one reader (such as Bugs) might apply, whilst another (say a producer of foie gras) would not see it that way. The image itself, however, does not make the value judgement being ascribed to it - it is an accurate illustration of method, so let it stand. Certainly not worth edit-warring over though. Fritzpoll ( talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with including the force-feeding picture in this article. It makes it more encyclopedic.
-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me add my twopence to the debate. Compare the picture currently in the article with these two: [11] [12]. The two pictures here describe just as well the gavage process without putting the emphasis on the cages and the shiny tube being inserted into the animal's gullet (the dehumanizing factor). another example: the Steak article does not show you a picture of rows of animals aligned inside large stables, or of animals being butchered (this one doesn't do the latter either, granted). Why is it so difficult to avoid having a controversial picture in this article?-- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What makes this current picture controversial? The issue of foie gras is controversial, as stated at the top of this discussion page. The picture doesn't do anything to change the nature of the controversy, it is about fact-giving. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Anyone ok with eating foie gras would be ok with seeing this picture. Sko1221 ( talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC) I would be ok with swapping for another picture too. I did not know that the majority of farms use the method is those 2 pictures suggested above. Does anyone know where that data could be found? Sko1221 ( talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If the food item is produced by the method of feeding, then the feeding method is an important part of the food. Sko1221 ( talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just taken a look at our steak article. You are right it doesn't contain any "nasty pictures" but interestingly going up one level to
beef is worth a look at.
Theresa Knott |
token threats
21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Side question for all involved: rootology wrote at 20:43 (UTC) 19 February 2009: "The technical description in the section is simple, plain, and cleanly written but as described can be hard to visualize". Do other editors feel this way? Basically, does the image add anything to the article that someone cannot visualize without the image? Mahalo. -- Ali'i 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a difficult time trying to find a nicer image, but will keep looking. Sko1221 ( talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking too, unfortunately for us whilst animal rights organizations usually make their images free, also tend to display the most shocking ones. The kind of happy family farm type of images aren't free. But I'll keep looking :-( Theresa Knott | token threats 22:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant! Put it in! 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Truthfully, that is the nicest picture (least shocking) of this feeding method i have ever come across. The more i search, the more i realize the problem might not be with the image, but with the idea that we could build complete story here without upsetting anyone. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The commons also has File:Gavage.jpg, plus he:קובץ:Pitum20.jpg. I've also kindly requested the flickr user that Ali'i found change the license so that it can be donated to the project. - Andrew c [talk] 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We should try to depict the most commonly used method worldwide, as has been stated. If it's mostly done by hand in the sunshine, great. But we should find the data for this. Sko1221 ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we consider using an image of both types of feeding method, with data as to the prevalence of both? I have not been able to find this data.Thanks. Sko1221 ( talk) 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Gaia has responded regarding copyrighted image presently in use. If someone could help with translation, here is the email: "Beste Sarah,
Je mag de foto van het gaveren gebruiken als je er de bron bij vermeldt, dit is: Stopgavage.
Met vriendelijke groeten, Sofie Volckaert GAIA " Sko1221 ( talk) 11:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Translation: "Dear Sarah, You can use the photograph of talent gaveren if you mention the source, this are: Stopgavage. With pleasant groeten, Sofie Volckaert GAIA " Sko1221 ( talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to using this picture. Still it seems we should add info about the predominance of this method over the other. Where is the data? One last look could be taken at the possible POV that exists in the page with images. It still looks like an advertisement for Foie Gras. Why do we need so many shiny gourmet photos? It doesn't appear balanced to me, any thoughts on this? 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 17:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Also, the issue of the wine bottle image in still unanswered, why is this included in the article? Sko1221 ( talk) 17:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we have input on evening up the images, possibly removing any that might be superfluous? 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 18:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Foie gras - gavage in Rocamadour, France.jpg - any objections? rootology ( C)( T) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So my question about possible POV in terms of image usage on this page is going to be ignored? Just wondering. If you all agree that there is no POV going on here, ok. I still would rather see the images more evened out ~ like 1 per section. Looking at the page on Buddhism, for example, the images are very evenly distributed throughout the page. Not so here. Please address this before unlocking. Sko1221 ( talk) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Also missing is the data for the types of feeding processes. For instance, the picture claims that this is the traditional feeding method. Should both methods be mentioned, with a statement such as "Traditional feeding methods are used 4 times as often as (non-traditional methods)" ~ and citing source for that info, obviously. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the responsibility for citing reference rest with whomever is making the statement in question? I cannot find the data, but realize that if i did, and if it came from an animal rights source, i would be laughed out of this discussion. So i leave it to you all. 68.13.134.213 ( talk) 20:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i was referring to the statement already made underneath current image. Does that statement need source info? I was schooled in this by as earlier entry. My words underneath the picture were "Feeding Process" and even that caused controversy. I was told that every statement we include has to have data to back it up. It seems that my editing is being attacked a lot more energetically than others, which is why i ask that we consider a slight POV going on here. Whatever you all are comfortable with is going to be what stands for now because i am exhausted. Thanks to you all, it has been great working with you. Sarah Sko1221 ( talk) 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have finally found data on prevalence of traditional farming and factory farming of foie gras, the source from our article [13] says "In France, over 87% of ducks and geese used to produce foie gras are trapped in cages on huge factory farms, and force fed twice a day." ~ any thoughts on whether this info has a place here, and how to include it? Sarah Katherine 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Great picture-- I can't see the duck, just an amiable French farmer. 208.68.128.53 ( talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Have one visit to a genuine fermier foie gras south of Cognac. Only goose products. Full tour including gavage and purchase from family. Products as purchased were: entier, demi. and rilletes. Is that a variant on the french standard? Particularly the rilletes. Idealist707 ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In the opening ¶ is the statement:
By French law, foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck fattened by force feeding corn with a gavage...
Although the first sentence of that ¶ reads:
Foie gras (French for "fat liver") is a food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened.
As a part-time resident of France, I'm aware that geese are also force fed to produce foie gras.
Then, in Production Methods is:
Toulouse geese and Mulard ducks are the most commonly used breeds for foie gras.
Dick Kimball ( talk) 19:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WT:MED. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm proposing the creation of a new section called Nutrition and health and moving the {{
nutritionalvalue}} template into it, along with any other health information, such as any content on amyloidosis the article ends up carrying. Reason: Foie gras is a food and so it makes sense to have a section covering its nutrition and health aspects. This is based on how FA- and GA-quality articles like
Lettuce,
Maple syrup,
Durian and
Apple do it. Sound OK?
Zad
68
18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
June 20, 2007 -- If the thought of force-fed fowl doesn’t turn you off to foie gras, this news just might.
New research suggests that a compound found in fatty goose and duck liver may be linked to a rare disease called amyloidosis, opening the door to a potential link between the delicacy and a host of other amyloid-related diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s disease to type 2 diabetes. Researchers say it’s the first known evidence that a food product can speed the production of amyloid protein in animals. An abnormal buildup of amyloid deposits is linked to a variety of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and others. Amyloid is commonly found in waterfowl, but researchers say their concentration is especially high in force-fed birds, such as those used in the production of foie gras. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that feeding disease-prone mice a steady diet of foie gras accelerated the development of amyloidosis with amyloid deposits found in many organ tissues. “Eating foie gras probably won’t cause a disease in someone who isn’t genetically predisposed to it,” says researcher Alan Solomon, MD, of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, in a news release. “Perhaps people with a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or other amyloid-associated diseases should avoid consuming foie gras and other foods that may be contaminated.” Aside from suggesting a link between foie gras and disease, researchers say the results also raise the possibility that other prion or abnormal protein-related diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease may be passed from affected animal food products to humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.94.37 ( talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Just coming in now, but there is only Quebec that does Fois Gras within Canada. If we're doing regions on the map, then it's important that places like Yukon etc. are not being represented. I don't have the skills required to change the map accordingly, but I'm willing to do so if there's a way to do this easily or with rudimentary skills. Here' a source if we need one: http://maisonneuve.org/article/2010/03/12/foie-gras-wars/ Cpt ricard ( talk) 01:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
After some recent editing by DrChrissy this article is now heavy with citations from viva.org
- including assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice. I wonder how reliable this source is, and/or how due its advocacy is for inclusion here ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the source is reliable for its own opinion, but where stated as fact then there is a (separate but related) question of reliability. In general we should build articles on RS, but viva.org is now the most cited source in this article and in part its tone and viewpoint are adopted. To take one example the source has
Despite moves in Europe to ban it, gavage is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage". Foie gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding
Is that true? Wikipedia certainly relays it as fact, complete even with the scare quotes for "heritage":
Despite proposals in Europe to ban gavage, this is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage". Foie gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding.
The problem here is that Wikipedia is taking the stance of a campaigning org by framing this as it does (It would be as bad if it went the other way and said that this "proud artisinal tradition" was now recognized in law). There is also a plagiarism/copyvio problem. I am also not sure why we now have two External links sections, one linking to a blog, another to a news story in the Daily Mirror about Gordon Ramsay's supplier offered as a video of "foie gras production" - is that a good link per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 04:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Update As a consequence of this Talk thread, I have moved the External Links I added (I had not realised the article already had this section!) and deleted the controversial statement identified above. I have also been replacing or adding supporting citations for information in the Viva! source.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 13:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy has been adding claims that India's import ban of Foie Gras is a world first based on advocacy cites: peta.org and ciwf.org.uk, neither of which are necessarily reliable. We should build content on secondary sources so that it is reliable and we avoid undue detail. In this edit the source is cherry-picked: the Indian Express article cited is largely about chef's reaction to legislation, and we should reflect it faithfully (as we do in other subsections for legislation). Whether the chefs have a "vested interest" in neither here nor there. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The neutrality problem lay more in removing content from the "Chefs" sources about ... chefs. Anyway, problem solved: I've found a WSJ WP:NEWSBLOG source that covers this, using the more neutral "only country" formulation rather than the advocacy "first country" wording. I've used this and de-crufted. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy has added this:
Animal welfare expert, Professor Ian Duncan wrote "During the force-feeding phase, mortality rates are four to 20 times higher than on normal duck farms. These high rates are due to injuries to the throat, liver failure or rupture and to heat stress — all of which are directly linked to the force-feeding practice" [1]
References
I don't think this source meets the standards of WP:SCIRS, or even WP:RS in general for such information, or that Prof. Duncan's views are due. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That the article may have pre-existing poor sources is another matter, and doesn't excuse the addition of more. The issue for this section is the addition of new content. At the least we shouldn't make a bad article worse, now should we. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Caroline Ramsay, B.Sc. (Ag) Farm Animal Welfare Coordinator* Geoff Urton, B.Sc. (Ag) M.Sc., Animal Welfare Coordinator* and notes that the "corresponding authors" (which are the main authors of a paper) are SPCA employees. Additionally this was not published in a journal, but rather by the SPCA itself, which is an advocacy group. It is SPS and also fails WP:INDY. It is as unacceptable of a similar paper would be, that was written for and by, and posted on the site of, a foie gras producer. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
we have no way of knowing what you have published and what you have not; it doesn't matter here. if that is true, you know the difference and i understand even less what you are arguing about. I am glad you agree to get rid of this reference, thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (strike
Jytdog (
talk)
19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC))