![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I removed this section in these two diffs, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and see also WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I'll also add, WP:NOTNEWS. This content is not encyclopedic; there are probably hundreds of places that don't serve foie gras. Maybe someone wants to start List of establishments that do not sell foie gras, although i have a hard time seeing how that would survive... Jytdog ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the question could be reframed as "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" Surely some of the bans make sense to include at the Controversy article, but we shouldn't just reproduce them here. What about inserting a single paragraph, or a sentence or two, in an existing subsection, which lists some of the most notable bans (lists, but in prose, with individual citations)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites that we should be summarizing here. I found this "Bans" section duplicated word-for-word in the Foie gras controversy article, which is not good: we should be using the principal of WP:SYNC to refer to it there. I also agree with much of what Jytdog has to say about the unduly miscellaneous nature of the "Bans" section, though some of this content can surely be preserved. To sort this out I have:
I think this tidies and reconciles and improves the content a lot, and solved the duplication problem.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
04:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(Add). Well,
DrChrissy has now twice reverted these changes in just one of these articles, which is causing nasty duplication and mess. Probably a better idea to engage rather than edit war as it's messing-up the encyclopedia. Or if reverting, to do it properly at least.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
10:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Rhododendrites suggested above that a question we might ask is "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" I agree that's a question we could usefully ask. The problem in part is that there is some disconncect between the two articles. Ideally, we should be putting all the controversy-related material (decided by using RS as a guide) into the Controversy article, and then briefly summarizing it in this article. My edits are a first step in getting there. I don't detect any consensus for including your long "shopping list" version of a bans section; let's see if my reduced alternative sticks. To your other points:
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
collapse section in question for tidiness
|
---|
Several major retail and catering companies have refused to sell foie gras, and other notable establishments have refused to serve the foodstuff. In 2007, the UK based Harvey Nichols retail chain, which has stores in London, Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Dublin, stopped the sale of foie gras. This followed a long campaign highlighting the methods used to produce foie gras. Vegetarians' International Voice for Animals (Viva) welcomed the decision. "Obviously we are very pleased that Harvey Nichols has stopped selling foie gras," said spokesman Justin Kerswell. [1] Waitrose, Sainsbury's, Lidl and House of Fraser also stopped stocking foie gras in 2007, and Selfridges decided to stop selling foie gras in November 2009. [2] In 2011, foie gras was banned from the biennial Anuga Food Fair in Cologne causing "A high-level diplomatic spat...between France and Germany". [3] Also in 2011, the online grocer Ocado became the latest UK retailer to ban the sale of foie gras. Their decision arose after animal welfare group PETA wrote to the retailer asking it to remove the product from its virtual shelves. [4] In 2012, the British House of Lords bannned foie gras from its in-house menu. The Barry Room removed the controversial foodstuff from their menu following campaigns by PETA. [5] Also in 2012, the Compass Group UK and Ireland removed foie gras from its menus. The contract caterer stated it was removing the foodstuff although it was only used on a few sites. The managing director said he was proud the company had made the decision and that it was being supported throughout the business. The UK associate director, Mimi Bechchi, was quoted as saying "We're delighted that Compass Group has found its 'moral compass' and agrees that serving up the grotesquely enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese is indefensible. [6] In 2013, after being presented with a petition containing 13,000 signatures, the internet retailer, Amazon.co.uk, prohibited the sale of products containing foie gras. [7] [8] [9] The British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the Brit Awards, Wimbledon, Lord's Cricket Ground and the Royal Shakespeare Company have all pledged not to serve or sell foie gras, and Prince Charles does not allow it on Royal menus. [10] References
|
This idea may well go over like a lead balloon, but I'll just throw it out there. The disputes about this page seem to largely concern the controversy section. Not a big surprise, of course. Meanwhile, however, the article foie gras controversy sees very little editing/attention. Might it be easier to work on that article first and then, once coverage of the controversy has been worked out, then determine how best to summarize it here? The alternative, as we've seen, is messy as there are parallel disputes going on: (a) whether sources are reliable, whether statements are verified in sources, whether wording is neutral, and other standard "do we include this text" matters, and (b) is it due weight to include here vs. the controversy article. Working on that article first might be more editing work but might save time/effort in the long run. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
On those sources:
A simple question reiterated to @Jytdog. You appeared to dismiss articles listed above as being unsuitable sources because of their age. How old does an article have to be before it is discredited simply because it is old?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding a new "Related foodstuffs" section and a swathe of text about the Ortolan bunting is completely undue. I've added a see also link instead, and even that's quite a tangent ... (Also: the text was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
here you go:
copyvio seems pretty clear, yes? could be fixed by quoting the whole thing of course Jytdog ( talk) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm afraid that the content does follow very closely. For comparison:
Source A | Article Text |
---|---|
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God. | For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'" |
I have bolded where following is precise to make the issue more plain. The sentence as placed in the article has been expanded but still includes runs of language and structure from the original, especially near the beginning. While blending content together does help avoid copyright issues, I'm afraid that the material needs to also be put into original language. Constructing content like this runs the risk of creating a derivative work, as the original copyright holder retains the right to modify his or her content, including by expanding it.
The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing talks a little bit about these issues and how to avoid them. We ask that aside from brief, clearly marked quotation information taken from copyrighted sources be placed into original language and structure so we can avoid this concern. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
anyway that takes care of the copyvio thing. But the real issue was WP:UNDUE/ WP:OFFTOPIC - your thoughts on that would be appreciated drcrissy. i am thinking about it and am on the fence. Jytdog ( talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This absolutely does not take care of the "copyvio thing" which you appear to dismiss gliby but which I take as an extremely serious accusation aginst me by you. This is the view of just one person (Moonriddengirl!, please accept that I am being totally respectful of your input and efforts in this matter). I actually used the other source as the main information (original) yet this source has not even been discussed! I intertwined information from both sources making it original language (e.g. one source mentioned a box, the other mentioned blinding - I put these together) but at the same time, I cited the sources of the information I used. @Jytdog I found the manner in which you knew who to contact so very, very quickly on this matter rather concerning....is there some sort of collaboration going on here?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Epipelagic I think you're completely off-base in saying I have a "clear POV on foie gras" (whatever that even means) or that I have anger towards "animal welfare concerns" (which would be just weird) or that I have behaved badly towards DrC (saying the problem edit "takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" was intentionally oblique). Better to avoid guesswork about other editors and stick to content. On content, for my sins I do edit a lot of controversial articles and I do care a lot about how WP:ADVOCACY in one form or another can skew articles into non-neutrality. I find the best way to approach this is to just be strict and firm in application of PAGs and not get distracted into peripheral discussion (as, errm, I am doing right now). I appreciate this can come across as bluntness sometimes. This article has its problems and it shouldn't get worse. I would be very happy to see good content being added based on better sources, and am reading around the topic in the background to that end. But the discussion of content should not be allowed to devolve into a discussion about editors' supposed POVs - as has happened here surprising quickly - as it just wastes time.
(Add) Since I've started going off-topic, I might as well go on: it miffs me that what should be content-focussed discussions about really very basic principles of textual organisation (how main/sub articles exist and summarize each other), or how irrelevant content shouldn't be included (adding "related xxxxxx" is a road to disaster for any article) or how sourcing policy applies (yes, of course we should prefer secondaries) are instead seen as some kind of POV-play. I don't care about foie gras or Deepak Chopra or circumcision or kombucha or cannabis (drug) or any of the myriad controversial topics on which I edit, yet for all of these I have been accused of having vested interests or a "strong POV" and have even been taken to COIN because of it (of course with no result: I make my real life identity completely discoverable from my user page so that you can find out pretty much everything about me you could possibly want, if you wished). I lose track of the number of cabals I am supposed belong to! Thankfully, there are a few experienced/good editors around who don't play the personalization game and make this place tolerable.
(Add more) But in sympathy with DrC I agree that plagiarism can be very hard to avoid, and is something I certainly struggle with, not least since WP:CGTW No 5 applies with special strength to controversial articles! ;-) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have copied below the table from Moonriddengirl so that readers do not have to scroll up. I accept the first 9 words were cut and pasted. Quotes may have been preferred, but in my 30 years of professional writing, if another author "borrowed" 9 words of mine and left a citation to my work, I would be very happy with that. The next collection of words is then drowned in
Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole This is not copy and pasted as the source says they were roasted whole, I wrote they are eaten whole - a completely different meaning. As for then drowned in
Armagnac"...can anyone suggest a more succinct, accurate way of describing this? I was attempting to be as succinct as possible because this is only a "related" food stuff and not the main subject matter. I have run my wording through a widely used on-line plagiarism checker and this returned "100% unique"
Source A | Article Text |
---|---|
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God. | For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'" |
I will take Epipelagic's advice and thank you for sending the sources for further information__ DrChrissy ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
i am interested in the claim that ortolan is prepared by force feeding. gavage is very different from how ortolan is fattened. the process was apparently banned in France b/c the bird is endangered, not b/c of animal welfare issues... i wonder what what the weight of sources is, in the description of its feeding as "force feeding". hm Jytdog ( talk) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Drcrrissy there was no consensus for this restoration. As we discussed above, we don't have duplicate content in two different articles, per WP:SYNC. Instead, we use WP:SUMMARY style. Jytdog ( talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
On March 14, 2015, the detailed Legislation section was moved to the Foie gras controversy article. This was done without any previous discussion on the Talk page, although it was an established part of the article. It is clearly disputed whether this detailed section should have been removed or not. It is stated at [4] that "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." With this in mind, I am returning the detailed Legislation section to this article (i.e. I am getting us back to the status quo), and requesting discussion here about whether it should be removed. I suggest that editors allow a suitable time (1-week) for editors to comment and achieve consensus.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
we'll probably need an RfC over this.. will propose a draft one here tonight or tomorrow. Jytdog ( talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My $0.02:
Based on the foregoing, I support the split to Foie gras controversy, the placement of the detailed legislation information in that article, and the removal (other than the briefest summary) from this article, substantially as advocated by Jytdog above. TJRC ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Note, since this discussion affects Foie gras controversy as well as this article, I have left a neutrally-worded note in Talk:Foie gras controversy, inviting editors there to take part in this discussion. TJRC ( talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@ TJRC. Hi, and welcome to the discussion. Unfortunately, your previous edit placing the detailed Legislation information on the Foie gras controversy page may have inadvertently caused a problem. This detailed Legislation information was removed from Foie gras by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)]. This was despite my request it should not be moved because of a RfC to be initiated by Jytdog in the next 24-48 hours. It is worth noting that the IP address who removed the content has made only 2 WP edits - the one on this article where there was no explanation for the deletion, and another on a different article where again there was no explanation. I therefore have some doubts about the sincerity of edits made by this IP address. As a consequence of this removal, you saw the detailed information had been removed from source and understandably re-introduced it into Foie gras controversy. I believe editors contributing to the RfC should see the detailed information back in its original place, i.e. on Foie gras. I am therefore requesting you revert your edit which will take the summary information back to Foie gras controversy and I will then revert the edit by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)] bringing the detailed information back to Foie gras and avoiding duplicity on either page. The RfC being brought about by Jytdog can then proceed, and depending on the outcome, the detailed information can remain here, or be moved to Foie gras controversy. Hope this makes sense.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the issue being discussed in sections restoration of duplicate content, detailed Legislation section and RfC, above. Thank you.
There's a current ANI discussion related to talk:Foie gras at WP:ANI. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Should the detailed information on legislation relevant to foie gras (which has been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009) be moved to the Foie gras controversy page?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Zad
68
02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Material under discussion
|
---|
In July 2014, India banned the import of foie gras [1] [2] making it the first [3] [4] and only [5] country in the world to do so, causing dismay among some of the nation's chefs. [1] The managing director of the Humane Society International of India said "This is a triumph for animal welfare in India as well as across the globe, and sets a precedent for other countries to follow". [6] non-primary source needed
In Australia, the production of foie gras is prohibited. [7]
Foie gras production is illegal in Argentina as a mistreatment or act of cruelty to animals. [8]
Countries and regions where the production of Foie Gras is banned Main countries and regions producing Foie Gras
[9]
[10]
[11]Foie-gras production is banned in several countries, including most of the Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Turkey and the UK. [6] General animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom mean that production is essentially banned there also. citation needed In 2012, 8 MEPs called for foie gras to be banned across Europe. [12] [13] "Until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available", [14] the production of foie gras is prohibited by treaty except for "where it is current practice" among 35 countries [12] bound by the Council of Europe's European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. [15] The force feeding of animals for non-medical purposes, essential to current foie gras production practices, is explicitly prohibited by specific laws in six of nine Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, [16] Italy, [17] Luxembourg, Norway, [18] Poland, [19] or following interpretation of general animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. [20] However, foie gras can still be imported into and purchased in these countries. Most of these countries don't currently produce foie gras, nor have they in the past. Thus, these bans have stopped actual foie gras production in very few countries. [21] Since 1997, the number of European countries producing foie gras has halved. Only five countries still produce foie gras: Belgium, Romania, Spain, France and Hungary. [22] In France, the fattening is achieved through gavage (force-feeding) corn, according to French law. [23] French law states that "Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France." [24]
In August 2003, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture to ban the force feeding of geese, effective 31 March 2005. [25] The last appeal was withdrawn in October 2005, but the law was left unenforced until February 2006. [26] Most protest activities were conducted by the Anonymous for Animal Rights organization, which also tracks the enforcement of the ban, and files complaints against farms that conduct illegal force feeding. In May 2013, a bill proposed by Knesset Member Dov Lipman plans to prohibit all sales of the delicacy due to the controversial methods. [27]
Sections 25980-25984 of the California Health and Safety Code, enacted in 2004 and effective from July 1, 2012, prohibits "force feed[ing] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size" and the sale of products that are a result of this process. [28] On January 7, 2015, Judge Stephen V. Wilson held that the California law was preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, and enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing it. [29] [30] As of February 2015 [update], the case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. [31] City of San Diego: On January 8, 2008, the San Diego City Council unanimously [32] passed a resolution that "commends the Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) for raising awareness of the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras, commends the many San Diego restaurants that have stopped selling foie gras before the California statewide ban goes into effect, and encourages San Diegans to avoid supporting this extreme form of animal cruelty." The resolution also cites an independent Zogby poll finding that 85% of San Diegans favor an immediate ban on foie gras. [33] [34] [35]
City of Chicago: On 26 April 2006, the Chicago City Council voted to ban the sale of foie gras, effective 22 August 2006 [36] Breaches of the ban were to be punished with fines of $250–$500. [37] Alderman Joe Moore, who proposed the ban, described the method by which foie gras is produced as "clearly animal cruelty." [37] In response, several Chicago chefs filed suit and deliberately violated the law by continuing to sell foie gras. [38] Furthermore, a handful of chefs served foie gras without charge, which they considered not to be against the law. [39] [40] Even for establishments that were violating the law, the City issued warning letters but, until February 17, 2007, no citations were given. On that date, Doug Sohn, owner of a gourmet hot dog shop was charged with a violation. Although the fine could have been as high as $500, Sohn agreed to pay a $250 fine on March 29. [41] [42] Several unusual dishes, including foie gras pizza, have been created in Chicago, in defiance of the City Council's banning of foie gras. 46,000 pounds of foie gras were sold in Chicago in 2006. [37] In December 2006, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley referred to the ban as "the silliest law" the City Council has ever passed. [42] As a result of the ban, Chicago restaurants Spiaggia and Tru developed dishes designed to simulate the foie gras experience. Chicago Tribune restaurant critic Phil Vettel found Tru's "Faux Gras" "close to the real thing", and Spiaggia's " terrina de fagato grasso vegetariano" "undeniably rich and indulgent", but "[lacking] the characteristic foie-gras intensity". [43] In response to Mayor Daley's objections on the foie gras ban, the City Council overwhelmingly repealed Chicago's ban on May 14, 2008. [44] References
|
__ DrChrissy ( talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
discussion about moving subsection Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This thread was closed by User:Jytdog using the hat template. This page Template:Hidden archive top states, with bolding emphasis, that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors." Jtydog was clearly involved in this discussion and therefore, this discussion thread was closed against WP policy.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 20:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
finished per discussants Jytdog ( talk) 18:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Jytdog. How do I redact information that is no longer there - you have already deleted it?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
and again, you show you do know how to use diffs, yet you somehow could not produce one when I asked for it (
here and
here). You are either not competent or you just act that way when it is convenient for you. I cannot work with you and i think you are a destructive presence here, either because you cannot behave appropriately or will not. but you are not a problem that i want to deal with.
Jytdog (
talk)
14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, from what I can see this RfC stemmed from a content dispute between you and DrChrissy regarding whether the legislation info should remain in the article. DrChrissy has made arguments regarding why he believes it should remain, but I do not see where you have made an argument regarding why it should be omitted. Perhaps, instead of engaging in battleground regarding what appears to be a functionally appropriate RfC, I think it might help those undecided on this content issue, if you presented reasons why you think this detailed legislation info should be omitted. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 14:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
|
This thread was closed by User:Jytdog using the hat template. This page Template:Hidden archive top states, with bolding emphasis, that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors." Jtydog was clearly involved in this discussion and therefore, this discussion thread was closed against WP policy.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)1 supports retaining the material but it should be shortened 6 support retaining the material 2 oppose retaining the material Hope this helps. __ DrChrissy ( talk) 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)@Alexbrn Let's remain focussed on the RfC here at this page. If you want to discuss content on another page, i.e. Foie gras controversy, take it to that page. The discussion belongs there, not here. This discussion is brought about by your edit here [9] where you removed material without any discussion whatsoever.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
To all editors Should we request closure of this RfC?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 15:36UTC)
DrChrissy, for this RFC to be valid, you have to:
DrChrissy the right thing for you to do would be to retract this RFC and work with the other editors to formulate a valid RFC, will you please do that?
Zad
68
13:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes DrChrissy the "hand waving" I think you're doing is that you appear to be explaining or providing detail of what the specifics are of this RFC without actually doing so. In particular:
So the reason why this RFC is confusing is because you appear to be asking whether a large section of detail that's been there since 2009 should be "returned" to the article, but really you're asking whether a large section of detail you tried to add recently, which was contested, and which is already duplicated here at Foie gras controversy, should be moved from there to here. (Also interesting is the series of editing and edit summaries there.)
You've stated "I have really tried my best to make this as clear as possible"; unfortunately I don't think you've achieved that goal. In the future, when formulating the RFC, you should state clearly from the outset exactly what change you're looking for by showing what the article will look like before and after the proposed change. Also, to increase clarity, avoid the appearance of misrepresenting the status of the content in the article history, and don't start the RFC with a vague description regarding a general subject area ("information on legislation") and then only add the specifics of what you're talking about ("Material under discussion") until 5 days after !voting has already started.
For the record, even though it wasn't picked up in your tally, my view hasn't changed since my first comment 8 days ago: "the best-supported information should be mentioned in a high-level summary here and that level of detail needs to be moved to a subarticle."
Zad
68
21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The production of many foodstuffs is "controversial" - indeed vegans and other advocacy groups might argue that all animal-based production is controversial. Foodstuffs which may be controversial contain information on legislation and/or prohibitions on their main pages. These include Pork, Whale meat, Ikizukuri, Dog meat, Kangaroo meat, Alligator meat, Game (hunting), Eating live animals. Other articles on controversial paractices e.g. Fox hunting contain the legislation within the main article. Editors voting to have the detailed legislation information moved from the main article Foie gras should be aware they are supporting a move that is inconsistent with other articles on WP.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The map used appears to denote the Falkland Islands as owned by Argentina. Looking back at where it came from that map has the same error. Foie Gras is illegal in the Falklands but not because of any Argentine laws. The map needs a little bit of tweaking but I am unsure how to do this. Elephant53 ( talk) 17:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I've seen gavage performed in France. I know this is going to be unbelievable to most people, but the birds fight to be first. They love it. It's bizarre. France is so wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 ( talk) 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnArticleDeCode?commun=&code=CRURALNL.rcv&art=L654-27-1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I removed this section in these two diffs, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and see also WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I'll also add, WP:NOTNEWS. This content is not encyclopedic; there are probably hundreds of places that don't serve foie gras. Maybe someone wants to start List of establishments that do not sell foie gras, although i have a hard time seeing how that would survive... Jytdog ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the question could be reframed as "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" Surely some of the bans make sense to include at the Controversy article, but we shouldn't just reproduce them here. What about inserting a single paragraph, or a sentence or two, in an existing subsection, which lists some of the most notable bans (lists, but in prose, with individual citations)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites that we should be summarizing here. I found this "Bans" section duplicated word-for-word in the Foie gras controversy article, which is not good: we should be using the principal of WP:SYNC to refer to it there. I also agree with much of what Jytdog has to say about the unduly miscellaneous nature of the "Bans" section, though some of this content can surely be preserved. To sort this out I have:
I think this tidies and reconciles and improves the content a lot, and solved the duplication problem.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
04:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(Add). Well,
DrChrissy has now twice reverted these changes in just one of these articles, which is causing nasty duplication and mess. Probably a better idea to engage rather than edit war as it's messing-up the encyclopedia. Or if reverting, to do it properly at least.
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
10:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Rhododendrites suggested above that a question we might ask is "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" I agree that's a question we could usefully ask. The problem in part is that there is some disconncect between the two articles. Ideally, we should be putting all the controversy-related material (decided by using RS as a guide) into the Controversy article, and then briefly summarizing it in this article. My edits are a first step in getting there. I don't detect any consensus for including your long "shopping list" version of a bans section; let's see if my reduced alternative sticks. To your other points:
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
collapse section in question for tidiness
|
---|
Several major retail and catering companies have refused to sell foie gras, and other notable establishments have refused to serve the foodstuff. In 2007, the UK based Harvey Nichols retail chain, which has stores in London, Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Dublin, stopped the sale of foie gras. This followed a long campaign highlighting the methods used to produce foie gras. Vegetarians' International Voice for Animals (Viva) welcomed the decision. "Obviously we are very pleased that Harvey Nichols has stopped selling foie gras," said spokesman Justin Kerswell. [1] Waitrose, Sainsbury's, Lidl and House of Fraser also stopped stocking foie gras in 2007, and Selfridges decided to stop selling foie gras in November 2009. [2] In 2011, foie gras was banned from the biennial Anuga Food Fair in Cologne causing "A high-level diplomatic spat...between France and Germany". [3] Also in 2011, the online grocer Ocado became the latest UK retailer to ban the sale of foie gras. Their decision arose after animal welfare group PETA wrote to the retailer asking it to remove the product from its virtual shelves. [4] In 2012, the British House of Lords bannned foie gras from its in-house menu. The Barry Room removed the controversial foodstuff from their menu following campaigns by PETA. [5] Also in 2012, the Compass Group UK and Ireland removed foie gras from its menus. The contract caterer stated it was removing the foodstuff although it was only used on a few sites. The managing director said he was proud the company had made the decision and that it was being supported throughout the business. The UK associate director, Mimi Bechchi, was quoted as saying "We're delighted that Compass Group has found its 'moral compass' and agrees that serving up the grotesquely enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese is indefensible. [6] In 2013, after being presented with a petition containing 13,000 signatures, the internet retailer, Amazon.co.uk, prohibited the sale of products containing foie gras. [7] [8] [9] The British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the Brit Awards, Wimbledon, Lord's Cricket Ground and the Royal Shakespeare Company have all pledged not to serve or sell foie gras, and Prince Charles does not allow it on Royal menus. [10] References
|
This idea may well go over like a lead balloon, but I'll just throw it out there. The disputes about this page seem to largely concern the controversy section. Not a big surprise, of course. Meanwhile, however, the article foie gras controversy sees very little editing/attention. Might it be easier to work on that article first and then, once coverage of the controversy has been worked out, then determine how best to summarize it here? The alternative, as we've seen, is messy as there are parallel disputes going on: (a) whether sources are reliable, whether statements are verified in sources, whether wording is neutral, and other standard "do we include this text" matters, and (b) is it due weight to include here vs. the controversy article. Working on that article first might be more editing work but might save time/effort in the long run. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
On those sources:
A simple question reiterated to @Jytdog. You appeared to dismiss articles listed above as being unsuitable sources because of their age. How old does an article have to be before it is discredited simply because it is old?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding a new "Related foodstuffs" section and a swathe of text about the Ortolan bunting is completely undue. I've added a see also link instead, and even that's quite a tangent ... (Also: the text was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
here you go:
copyvio seems pretty clear, yes? could be fixed by quoting the whole thing of course Jytdog ( talk) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm afraid that the content does follow very closely. For comparison:
Source A | Article Text |
---|---|
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God. | For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'" |
I have bolded where following is precise to make the issue more plain. The sentence as placed in the article has been expanded but still includes runs of language and structure from the original, especially near the beginning. While blending content together does help avoid copyright issues, I'm afraid that the material needs to also be put into original language. Constructing content like this runs the risk of creating a derivative work, as the original copyright holder retains the right to modify his or her content, including by expanding it.
The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing talks a little bit about these issues and how to avoid them. We ask that aside from brief, clearly marked quotation information taken from copyrighted sources be placed into original language and structure so we can avoid this concern. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
anyway that takes care of the copyvio thing. But the real issue was WP:UNDUE/ WP:OFFTOPIC - your thoughts on that would be appreciated drcrissy. i am thinking about it and am on the fence. Jytdog ( talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This absolutely does not take care of the "copyvio thing" which you appear to dismiss gliby but which I take as an extremely serious accusation aginst me by you. This is the view of just one person (Moonriddengirl!, please accept that I am being totally respectful of your input and efforts in this matter). I actually used the other source as the main information (original) yet this source has not even been discussed! I intertwined information from both sources making it original language (e.g. one source mentioned a box, the other mentioned blinding - I put these together) but at the same time, I cited the sources of the information I used. @Jytdog I found the manner in which you knew who to contact so very, very quickly on this matter rather concerning....is there some sort of collaboration going on here?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Epipelagic I think you're completely off-base in saying I have a "clear POV on foie gras" (whatever that even means) or that I have anger towards "animal welfare concerns" (which would be just weird) or that I have behaved badly towards DrC (saying the problem edit "takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" was intentionally oblique). Better to avoid guesswork about other editors and stick to content. On content, for my sins I do edit a lot of controversial articles and I do care a lot about how WP:ADVOCACY in one form or another can skew articles into non-neutrality. I find the best way to approach this is to just be strict and firm in application of PAGs and not get distracted into peripheral discussion (as, errm, I am doing right now). I appreciate this can come across as bluntness sometimes. This article has its problems and it shouldn't get worse. I would be very happy to see good content being added based on better sources, and am reading around the topic in the background to that end. But the discussion of content should not be allowed to devolve into a discussion about editors' supposed POVs - as has happened here surprising quickly - as it just wastes time.
(Add) Since I've started going off-topic, I might as well go on: it miffs me that what should be content-focussed discussions about really very basic principles of textual organisation (how main/sub articles exist and summarize each other), or how irrelevant content shouldn't be included (adding "related xxxxxx" is a road to disaster for any article) or how sourcing policy applies (yes, of course we should prefer secondaries) are instead seen as some kind of POV-play. I don't care about foie gras or Deepak Chopra or circumcision or kombucha or cannabis (drug) or any of the myriad controversial topics on which I edit, yet for all of these I have been accused of having vested interests or a "strong POV" and have even been taken to COIN because of it (of course with no result: I make my real life identity completely discoverable from my user page so that you can find out pretty much everything about me you could possibly want, if you wished). I lose track of the number of cabals I am supposed belong to! Thankfully, there are a few experienced/good editors around who don't play the personalization game and make this place tolerable.
(Add more) But in sympathy with DrC I agree that plagiarism can be very hard to avoid, and is something I certainly struggle with, not least since WP:CGTW No 5 applies with special strength to controversial articles! ;-) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have copied below the table from Moonriddengirl so that readers do not have to scroll up. I accept the first 9 words were cut and pasted. Quotes may have been preferred, but in my 30 years of professional writing, if another author "borrowed" 9 words of mine and left a citation to my work, I would be very happy with that. The next collection of words is then drowned in
Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole This is not copy and pasted as the source says they were roasted whole, I wrote they are eaten whole - a completely different meaning. As for then drowned in
Armagnac"...can anyone suggest a more succinct, accurate way of describing this? I was attempting to be as succinct as possible because this is only a "related" food stuff and not the main subject matter. I have run my wording through a widely used on-line plagiarism checker and this returned "100% unique"
Source A | Article Text |
---|---|
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God. | For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'" |
I will take Epipelagic's advice and thank you for sending the sources for further information__ DrChrissy ( talk) 14:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
i am interested in the claim that ortolan is prepared by force feeding. gavage is very different from how ortolan is fattened. the process was apparently banned in France b/c the bird is endangered, not b/c of animal welfare issues... i wonder what what the weight of sources is, in the description of its feeding as "force feeding". hm Jytdog ( talk) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Drcrrissy there was no consensus for this restoration. As we discussed above, we don't have duplicate content in two different articles, per WP:SYNC. Instead, we use WP:SUMMARY style. Jytdog ( talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
On March 14, 2015, the detailed Legislation section was moved to the Foie gras controversy article. This was done without any previous discussion on the Talk page, although it was an established part of the article. It is clearly disputed whether this detailed section should have been removed or not. It is stated at [4] that "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." With this in mind, I am returning the detailed Legislation section to this article (i.e. I am getting us back to the status quo), and requesting discussion here about whether it should be removed. I suggest that editors allow a suitable time (1-week) for editors to comment and achieve consensus.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
we'll probably need an RfC over this.. will propose a draft one here tonight or tomorrow. Jytdog ( talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My $0.02:
Based on the foregoing, I support the split to Foie gras controversy, the placement of the detailed legislation information in that article, and the removal (other than the briefest summary) from this article, substantially as advocated by Jytdog above. TJRC ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Note, since this discussion affects Foie gras controversy as well as this article, I have left a neutrally-worded note in Talk:Foie gras controversy, inviting editors there to take part in this discussion. TJRC ( talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@ TJRC. Hi, and welcome to the discussion. Unfortunately, your previous edit placing the detailed Legislation information on the Foie gras controversy page may have inadvertently caused a problem. This detailed Legislation information was removed from Foie gras by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)]. This was despite my request it should not be moved because of a RfC to be initiated by Jytdog in the next 24-48 hours. It is worth noting that the IP address who removed the content has made only 2 WP edits - the one on this article where there was no explanation for the deletion, and another on a different article where again there was no explanation. I therefore have some doubts about the sincerity of edits made by this IP address. As a consequence of this removal, you saw the detailed information had been removed from source and understandably re-introduced it into Foie gras controversy. I believe editors contributing to the RfC should see the detailed information back in its original place, i.e. on Foie gras. I am therefore requesting you revert your edit which will take the summary information back to Foie gras controversy and I will then revert the edit by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)] bringing the detailed information back to Foie gras and avoiding duplicity on either page. The RfC being brought about by Jytdog can then proceed, and depending on the outcome, the detailed information can remain here, or be moved to Foie gras controversy. Hope this makes sense.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the issue being discussed in sections restoration of duplicate content, detailed Legislation section and RfC, above. Thank you.
There's a current ANI discussion related to talk:Foie gras at WP:ANI. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Should the detailed information on legislation relevant to foie gras (which has been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009) be moved to the Foie gras controversy page?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 00:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
|
Zad
68
02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Material under discussion
|
---|
In July 2014, India banned the import of foie gras [1] [2] making it the first [3] [4] and only [5] country in the world to do so, causing dismay among some of the nation's chefs. [1] The managing director of the Humane Society International of India said "This is a triumph for animal welfare in India as well as across the globe, and sets a precedent for other countries to follow". [6] non-primary source needed
In Australia, the production of foie gras is prohibited. [7]
Foie gras production is illegal in Argentina as a mistreatment or act of cruelty to animals. [8]
Countries and regions where the production of Foie Gras is banned Main countries and regions producing Foie Gras
[9]
[10]
[11]Foie-gras production is banned in several countries, including most of the Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Turkey and the UK. [6] General animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom mean that production is essentially banned there also. citation needed In 2012, 8 MEPs called for foie gras to be banned across Europe. [12] [13] "Until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available", [14] the production of foie gras is prohibited by treaty except for "where it is current practice" among 35 countries [12] bound by the Council of Europe's European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. [15] The force feeding of animals for non-medical purposes, essential to current foie gras production practices, is explicitly prohibited by specific laws in six of nine Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, [16] Italy, [17] Luxembourg, Norway, [18] Poland, [19] or following interpretation of general animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. [20] However, foie gras can still be imported into and purchased in these countries. Most of these countries don't currently produce foie gras, nor have they in the past. Thus, these bans have stopped actual foie gras production in very few countries. [21] Since 1997, the number of European countries producing foie gras has halved. Only five countries still produce foie gras: Belgium, Romania, Spain, France and Hungary. [22] In France, the fattening is achieved through gavage (force-feeding) corn, according to French law. [23] French law states that "Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France." [24]
In August 2003, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture to ban the force feeding of geese, effective 31 March 2005. [25] The last appeal was withdrawn in October 2005, but the law was left unenforced until February 2006. [26] Most protest activities were conducted by the Anonymous for Animal Rights organization, which also tracks the enforcement of the ban, and files complaints against farms that conduct illegal force feeding. In May 2013, a bill proposed by Knesset Member Dov Lipman plans to prohibit all sales of the delicacy due to the controversial methods. [27]
Sections 25980-25984 of the California Health and Safety Code, enacted in 2004 and effective from July 1, 2012, prohibits "force feed[ing] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size" and the sale of products that are a result of this process. [28] On January 7, 2015, Judge Stephen V. Wilson held that the California law was preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, and enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing it. [29] [30] As of February 2015 [update], the case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. [31] City of San Diego: On January 8, 2008, the San Diego City Council unanimously [32] passed a resolution that "commends the Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) for raising awareness of the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras, commends the many San Diego restaurants that have stopped selling foie gras before the California statewide ban goes into effect, and encourages San Diegans to avoid supporting this extreme form of animal cruelty." The resolution also cites an independent Zogby poll finding that 85% of San Diegans favor an immediate ban on foie gras. [33] [34] [35]
City of Chicago: On 26 April 2006, the Chicago City Council voted to ban the sale of foie gras, effective 22 August 2006 [36] Breaches of the ban were to be punished with fines of $250–$500. [37] Alderman Joe Moore, who proposed the ban, described the method by which foie gras is produced as "clearly animal cruelty." [37] In response, several Chicago chefs filed suit and deliberately violated the law by continuing to sell foie gras. [38] Furthermore, a handful of chefs served foie gras without charge, which they considered not to be against the law. [39] [40] Even for establishments that were violating the law, the City issued warning letters but, until February 17, 2007, no citations were given. On that date, Doug Sohn, owner of a gourmet hot dog shop was charged with a violation. Although the fine could have been as high as $500, Sohn agreed to pay a $250 fine on March 29. [41] [42] Several unusual dishes, including foie gras pizza, have been created in Chicago, in defiance of the City Council's banning of foie gras. 46,000 pounds of foie gras were sold in Chicago in 2006. [37] In December 2006, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley referred to the ban as "the silliest law" the City Council has ever passed. [42] As a result of the ban, Chicago restaurants Spiaggia and Tru developed dishes designed to simulate the foie gras experience. Chicago Tribune restaurant critic Phil Vettel found Tru's "Faux Gras" "close to the real thing", and Spiaggia's " terrina de fagato grasso vegetariano" "undeniably rich and indulgent", but "[lacking] the characteristic foie-gras intensity". [43] In response to Mayor Daley's objections on the foie gras ban, the City Council overwhelmingly repealed Chicago's ban on May 14, 2008. [44] References
|
__ DrChrissy ( talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
discussion about moving subsection Jytdog ( talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This thread was closed by User:Jytdog using the hat template. This page Template:Hidden archive top states, with bolding emphasis, that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors." Jtydog was clearly involved in this discussion and therefore, this discussion thread was closed against WP policy.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 20:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
finished per discussants Jytdog ( talk) 18:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Jytdog. How do I redact information that is no longer there - you have already deleted it?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
and again, you show you do know how to use diffs, yet you somehow could not produce one when I asked for it (
here and
here). You are either not competent or you just act that way when it is convenient for you. I cannot work with you and i think you are a destructive presence here, either because you cannot behave appropriately or will not. but you are not a problem that i want to deal with.
Jytdog (
talk)
14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, from what I can see this RfC stemmed from a content dispute between you and DrChrissy regarding whether the legislation info should remain in the article. DrChrissy has made arguments regarding why he believes it should remain, but I do not see where you have made an argument regarding why it should be omitted. Perhaps, instead of engaging in battleground regarding what appears to be a functionally appropriate RfC, I think it might help those undecided on this content issue, if you presented reasons why you think this detailed legislation info should be omitted. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 14:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
|
This thread was closed by User:Jytdog using the hat template. This page Template:Hidden archive top states, with bolding emphasis, that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors." Jtydog was clearly involved in this discussion and therefore, this discussion thread was closed against WP policy.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)1 supports retaining the material but it should be shortened 6 support retaining the material 2 oppose retaining the material Hope this helps. __ DrChrissy ( talk) 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)@Alexbrn Let's remain focussed on the RfC here at this page. If you want to discuss content on another page, i.e. Foie gras controversy, take it to that page. The discussion belongs there, not here. This discussion is brought about by your edit here [9] where you removed material without any discussion whatsoever.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
To all editors Should we request closure of this RfC?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 15:36UTC)
DrChrissy, for this RFC to be valid, you have to:
DrChrissy the right thing for you to do would be to retract this RFC and work with the other editors to formulate a valid RFC, will you please do that?
Zad
68
13:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes DrChrissy the "hand waving" I think you're doing is that you appear to be explaining or providing detail of what the specifics are of this RFC without actually doing so. In particular:
So the reason why this RFC is confusing is because you appear to be asking whether a large section of detail that's been there since 2009 should be "returned" to the article, but really you're asking whether a large section of detail you tried to add recently, which was contested, and which is already duplicated here at Foie gras controversy, should be moved from there to here. (Also interesting is the series of editing and edit summaries there.)
You've stated "I have really tried my best to make this as clear as possible"; unfortunately I don't think you've achieved that goal. In the future, when formulating the RFC, you should state clearly from the outset exactly what change you're looking for by showing what the article will look like before and after the proposed change. Also, to increase clarity, avoid the appearance of misrepresenting the status of the content in the article history, and don't start the RFC with a vague description regarding a general subject area ("information on legislation") and then only add the specifics of what you're talking about ("Material under discussion") until 5 days after !voting has already started.
For the record, even though it wasn't picked up in your tally, my view hasn't changed since my first comment 8 days ago: "the best-supported information should be mentioned in a high-level summary here and that level of detail needs to be moved to a subarticle."
Zad
68
21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The production of many foodstuffs is "controversial" - indeed vegans and other advocacy groups might argue that all animal-based production is controversial. Foodstuffs which may be controversial contain information on legislation and/or prohibitions on their main pages. These include Pork, Whale meat, Ikizukuri, Dog meat, Kangaroo meat, Alligator meat, Game (hunting), Eating live animals. Other articles on controversial paractices e.g. Fox hunting contain the legislation within the main article. Editors voting to have the detailed legislation information moved from the main article Foie gras should be aware they are supporting a move that is inconsistent with other articles on WP.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The map used appears to denote the Falkland Islands as owned by Argentina. Looking back at where it came from that map has the same error. Foie Gras is illegal in the Falklands but not because of any Argentine laws. The map needs a little bit of tweaking but I am unsure how to do this. Elephant53 ( talk) 17:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I've seen gavage performed in France. I know this is going to be unbelievable to most people, but the birds fight to be first. They love it. It's bizarre. France is so wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 ( talk) 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnArticleDeCode?commun=&code=CRURALNL.rcv&art=L654-27-1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)