Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Foie Gras |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Ramdrake |
Parties involved | User:Olivierd, User:Benio76, User:Trevyn, User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Ramdrake, User:Apankrat, User:Zelig33 and User:Boffob |
Mediator(s) | none |
Comment | asking to close |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Foie Gras]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Foie Gras]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Note by David Olivier: The above description of the case is the one-sided opinion of Ramdrake. I shall not dispute it here, because it is not the right place to do so. David Olivier 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The page is protected, which is generally bad. Let's decide what to do here. Since I can't even make sense out of the edit warring, everyone could please state their position below in discussion or on the talk. Please stay civil, and bear with me until everyone is aware of the case being opened. ST47 Talk 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this case still active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The mediator is unresponsive. Requesting new mediator. -- Ideogram 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding a request for a New Mediator: This needs summarising and condensing. I have just spent the best part of 40 minutes trying to work out what the hell is going on here, and I'm still at a loss as to what actually needs mediating. if there is still need for a mediator, would someone involved in the dispute please post a short-ish (NPOV) resume of what has happened and what still needs to be medated? Jem 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Closing. -- Ideogram 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As of a week ago, the last and only time I'd had foie gras was some bad paté almost twenty years ago - nobody can say I have been in the article defending my favorite dish. My daughters mom is vegan, I donate money to the the local Humane Society but I also eat meat, wear leather, go to the circus and bet on horse races, I don't have a huge agenda.
Nearly two years ago I was asked (I don't remember who or why, I might have just been scanning articles with a cleanup tag) to look at the article. I did some basic research and re-wrote large sections. I can see in that diff many sentences still in the article and many that have since been removed. At that time in Wikipedia history, "references" usually consisted of some external links at the bottom of the article, so as time went on I was not quite beholden to any unsourced text via our current policies and rewrote or re-sourced any statement if the issue came up.
Since then the article has stayed in my watch list and I've occasionally sourced arguments (both pro and con). Several times the article has been under heavy editing by those with an obvious animal rights bias. In most cases I've waited until the editing cools down and assimilated the changes. There was an earlier mediation case this year and very little changed.
Foie gras is a current agenda issue from PETA and other animal rights organizations. Most of the time, our article is the first result from google for "foie gras". The next two are animal rights campaigns against it. Our article attracts a lot of attention from those organizations.
It is imperative that our NPOV policies are followed because of this. Activist organizations cannot use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I've been accused of "ad hominem" attacks on the current crop of AR activists who are editing the article for stating that they are activists. Well, they are - and the changes they want would turn the article into a soapbox damnation. OlivierD states so on his user page, and that he doesn't believe in NPOV. Benio has edited nothing but the foie gras article. I'm more than willing to accept relevant changes to the article provided they are sourced, factual, and NPOV. The changes proposed so far don't meet that criteria. The other changes have been about edit-warring (on the freakin' talk page) over whether the article should be removed from GA status, or complaints that it reads "like an advertisement".
I'm really interested to see what the AR side expects. Questioning sources, inserting bad opinion polls, and demanding that the intro state foie gras is a disease isn't going to cut it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Marie-Pierre Pée, secretary-general of the French Professional Committee of Foie Gras Producers, condemned the Sousa version of the luxury paste: “This cannot be called foie gras because it is strictly defined as a product from an animal which has been fattened"
the livers of geese, or of ducks of the species cairina muschata or c.m. × Anas platyrachos which have been fed in such a way as to produce hepatic fatty cellular hypertrophy.
SchmuckyTheCat: "non-gavage techniques (as some Spanish producers are attempting) are [not banned]". Ramdrake: "at least one country (Spain) is doing research in producing a foie gras that doesn't require force-feeding" Please stop trying to bloat the data. The news was about exactly one such producer, not "some Spanish producers"; and it is even less one whole country. And the product of that one producer is not recognized as foie gras by the French authorities, while France accounts for some 80% of worldwide consumption; and are not recognized by many other consumers. The repeated appeal to one marginal fact to justify changing the wording of the entire article is a clear case of undue weight.
Trevyn: A ban is a ban, whether or not what it bans was being practiced beforehand. The ban has an effect. Today, no one can go to Germany and produce foie gras. If the ban wasn't in effect, people could. Also, considering the recent rise in foie gras production - the French production has more than doubled between 1993 and 2003 [1] - the production might very well expand into other countries if there were not those bans. Also, to say that a ban in a country where that practice wasn't part of the culture is like saying that the French bans on female genital mutilation are not real bans. Or that the bans against slavery are not real bans in those countries where there was no slavery before the bans.
All bans, before becoming universal, have started in specific countries. That is the trend. If it wasn't, the INRA researchers wouldn't be as uneasy as they appear in their 2003 "Synthesis document": "À plus longue échéance, cette évolution sera t'elle suffisante pour assouvir les exigences de la demande sociale? Rien n'est moins certain si le contexte sociétal n'évolue pas, car bien qu'ils ne soient pas concernés par ce type de production in situ, plusieurs pays membres de l'Union Européenne voudraient voir interdite la production de foie gras à l'intérieur de l'espace européen." ("On a longer time scale, will that evolution be enough to satisfy the demands of the social sensitivity [for animal welfare]? Nothing is less certain if the societal context does not evolve, since several member states of the European Union, despite their having no production of their own, would like to have the production of foie gras banned inside the whole European territory").
Ramdrake and SchmuckyTheCat: to try downplay the meaning of the word gavage is absurd. You cannot escape that fact by simply ignoring what Zelig33 says. David Olivier 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Before going on in the mediation, I would like the editors to stop making suppositions about the identity of others: it is an open attempt to divert the attention from the others' arguments and to hide their own lack of arguments. I'm not an "activist", nor an "organisation". The only reason why I edited only foie gras by now is that I had no time to edit other articles I'm interested in (which you can find in my Watchlist). Actually, I work on the history of ideas: this is why I care about the poorness and superficiality of the "historical section" of foie gras - especially seeing that this historical pastiche is evidently meant to build a positive POV. So, please stop to talk about "AR side" just because it is said in my personal page that I'm vegetarian: indeed, I said it because I had no reason to hide it - but it is not enough to claim that I am an Animal rights activist. Otherwise, look at User:Trevyn: I could easily suggest that he/she doesn't exist, or that he/she is a foie gras producer... but I don't need such a childish strategy, I have arguments enough. Benio76 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for arriving late, I caught a cold (more on that below). Now after reading the first comments, I have had to take a deep breath before diving back in. Welcome, ST47, and thanks for taking up this mediation. The situation is bad, but I do think your mediation may succeed in bringing us to some kind of an agreement; and if it doesn't, it may help us at least make some progress. However, the way things are going for the moment in this discussion is certainly not the right direction.
I think that if this mediation is to succeed, you must be prepared to spend quite some time on this, to look into things, to carefully check the factual statements and the arguments make by each side, and also to look into some documents, among which the 1998 European Union Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare report (in short, the "EU report"). I'm sorry, but this is not going to be easy.
I quite understand that someone coming here with no particular involvement in the controversy may think: What the heck, foie gras is another kind of food, OK there's also a controversy about it, but that's just a side-issue. Also, for instance, what's this fuss about the history section; it may be badly sourced, but why should that matter so much? I think we will see that it matters. That story about the Egyptians is an important part of the defensive strategy of the foie gras industry. Now if there are reliable sources showing that foie gras was produced in 2500 BC, so much the better for the industry. For the moment, it appears that no such sources have been produced, and the rules of Wikipedia are that the page should not state what is not verifiable. That is just one example to ask you, ST47, to bear in mind that what may easily appear as petty warring does matter.
Please realize that foie gras is not just another kind of food. It's a foodstuff the production of which is prohibited almost all European countries, and in some others too, as a special case of animal mistreatment. It's the only foodstuff that implies forced overfeeding of an animal, inducing a condition, steatosis, at a level that the EU report (p.41) calls pathological; a condition in which the birds are plainly sick. Yes, foie gras is high on the agenda of animal protection societies, and it is also also high on the agenda of those who, for any reason, are intent on blocking progress towards better treatment of animals. Probably more people have heard of foie gras as a controversial food than have any idea what it tastes like. This, I argue, means that the article should not be seen as an article just about a foodstuff. The issue of whether or not it is ethical to produce foie gras is a major aspect. I think it would be perfectly normal for the article to devote more space to the controversy than to the food aspect. But I do not ask for that. I just ask for the pro-foie gras side to stop trying to minimize the controversy aspect.
Concerning the accusations by SchmuckyTheCat and others that I am POV, while they are not: I have never hidden my opinions. True, I am in favour of the abolition of foie gras. Ramdrake has stated that he is opposed to such an abolition. If my opinions make me POV, then his does too. But actually, all those attacks by Ramdrake, SchmuckyTheCat et al. are simply ad hominem, and don't amount to anything. They have constantly resorted to that in the past; instead of discussing the issues, they repeatedly argue against edits by stating that they would make AR activists happy!
Also, the criticism on my user page about the concept of NPOV doesn't imply that my editing is less NPOV than that of others; as I state there, when on Wikipedia I plan to respect the rules of the land. Whether I actually do or not is something that is demonstrated by my edits and my arguments. It's easy to say "I am NPOV"; even SchmuckyTheCat can say it. But I think that what the edits of Ramdrake, Trevyn, SchmuckyTheCat and Alex Pankratov demonstrate is massive pro-foie gras, anti-AR POV. OK, SchmuckyTheCat, I'm prepared to believe that your daughter's mom is vegan, big deal, but you hardly disguise your hatred of AR people, going as far as declaring your "spite" for us on your talk page.
My intention is not to make the foie gras page into a "soapbox damnation", whatever that means. My intention is for it to state the relevant facts. It is perfectly OK for it to include those facts that are in favour of foie gras; such as the American Veterinary Medical Association statements. And if the balance of the relevant facts, stated NPOVedly, turns out to be very damning for foie gras, then so be it. No one can come and say that the page about Saddam Hussein is POV simply because the balance of facts makes him look bad. No one is to come and say "stating that foie gras is a diseased liver makes it look bad, so it shouldn't be said". NPOV means that we are not to justify our edits by such an agenda.
One good example of the massive pro-foie gras POV is that issue of whether or not the force-feeding makes the animals sick. The fact is that the EU report clearly states that their condition is pathological (see p.41). Instead, when I first came to the page in November, the article actually stated that that same report "recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state", which is simply ridiculous. I deleted that, and that was the start of the edit war - with SchmuckyTheCat repeatedly reinstating that totally false statement, with hardly an argument in the talk page (it's in talk archive 2). After weeks of controversy, Trevyn finally backed up, and the sentence has remained deleted; however, the wording of the relevant paragraph in the current article is hardly less misleading.
What about the cold I mentioned that I caught? Well, I was sick. Anyone seeing me could easily recognize that; just like anyone seeing a duck towards the end of the force-feeding period will plainly recognize that animal as being sick. Constant diarrhea, constant panting due both to breathing difficulties and thermal stress, incapacity to walk, very brittle bones, impaired liver metabolism... Those ducks are much sicker than I am. Why is it controversial to recognize that? "Sick" does not mean "half dead", it just means "sick"! The pro-foie gras editors say that the ducks are not sick because their condition is "reversible" (if they are not slaughtered, and the force-feeding is discontinued, most of them survive and return to normal after a few weeks). But does my cold have to be irreversible for me to qualify as sick? Of course not! So why should it be so for the birds? Just because saying that they are sick makes the product look bad? But that is not a valid argument.
David Olivier 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
An additional note concerning my position statement: My position now is essentially the same as the one I put forth a month ago on the talk page, see here. That proposal was "strongly rejected" by Trevyn. I think that we will spend some time on this page quarreling over specific issues, such as the Egyptians, steatosis, pictures and so on. But obviously we need to define a solution in more general terms. I think it should be made clear that 1. the article is not just about foie gras as a food; 2. NPOV and verifiability should apply to all issues; 3. arguments about whether or not a specific piece of information will make foie gras look bad are not valid arguments; 4. all editors are to make an honest effort towards being NPOV. Perhaps if those lessons are brought home, the future prospects will appear a bit brighter. David Olivier 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
...this level of steatosis should be considered pathological.
...some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not.
The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concludes that force feeding, as currently practised, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds.
Whilst studies of the anatomy of ducks and geese kept for foie gras production have been carried out, the amount of evidence in the scientific literature concerning the effects of force feeding and liver hypertrophy on injury level, on the functioning of the various biological systems is small.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Response by Benio76. As for the relevancy of an etymology and of a scientific information in an introduction, the only reason given by Trevyn, Ramdrake etc. is their opinion. I want to remind what their opinion about the introduction of foie gras actually is: the reference to truffles has been relevant in their opinion until a third party editor removed it; the fantastic tale about Egyptians producing foie gras is relevant in their opinion... but an etymology and a scientific information about foie gras is not relevant in their opinion. Well, in my opinion it is their opinion which is not relevant, here. It is extravagant, really.
As for the redundance, as I already said, an introduction introduces what will be explained in the text: so, from the point of view of redundance, the whole introduction would be redundant, which is nonsense.
Returning to the question of relevance, I would like to remark that in the intro it is said that the flavour of foie gras is
unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver
It is not irrelevant to explain why a fattened liver tastes differently than a "regular" liver. It is not irrelevant to explain why the liver called "foie gras" is a different, specifical food than "regular" liver. Now, I will explain things well known by the editors but probably not familiar to the mediator. Please, ST47, follow me.
The foie gras is a fattened liver of a bird which has been force fed, i.e. induced to eat; force feeding induces an accumulation of lipids in the liver called hepatic steatosis. The process called steatosis is the same in birds as in humans (while it can be induced by different causes, as you can read in the article fatty liver); the controversial topic is: is steatosis in force-fed birds for the foie gras production to be considered a disease? I haven't the slightest intention to answer to this question. Indeed, my editing was perfectly neutral about this. What I want to point is that all that I said is sourced from INRA. INRA is the French National Institute for Agricoltural Research ( here you will find the english version of the INRA website): it is a public institution whose studies totally support foie gras production. You can read here INRA researchers saying that
"In response to overfeeding for the production of "foie gras," the Poland goose differs from the Landes goose by a lesser susceptibility to hepatic steatosis, resulting in a lower accumulation of hepatic triacylglycerol etc..."
and here that
"In response to overfeeding, the Landes goose develops a fatty liver that is twice as large as that of the Poland goose, despite similar food intake etc."
And I will quote again the INRA article La stéatose hépatique des palmipèdes gavés : bases métaboliques et sensibilité génétique:
"Chez les Palmipèdes, l'induction contrôlée d'une stéatose hépatique par gavage permet la production de foie gras".("In Palmipedes, the controled induction of hepatic steatosis by force feeding allows the production of foie gras")
Well, I hope that all this is enough to conclude that force fed birds in the doie gras production develop a condition called steatosis. It is not "analogous" or "equivalent": it is steatosis. Matter of fact. No POV.
Now, ST47, I would like to point that the other party editors wrote several times an evident misleading statement in this discussion: it is most important that you give me your attention, because you assume their good faith and you are following their suggestion - but they are not telling the truth.
And, linking to the human disease in the intro, for an article about food, when in these animals it is not a disease isn't helpful. Just linking to hepatic steatosis requires context that the intro doesn't provide. SchmuckyTheCat 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
However, I feel that linking foie gras to a liver disease right in the introduction would mainly serve as shock/turnoff value for those coming to the article to learn about the dish. There is, after all, a common repulsion to eating diseased organs.--Ramdrake 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When referring to linking to a liver disease, I assume you mean fatty liver. I suppose that can be reworded also, don't be shy! ST47Talk 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I meant "fatty liver" (or steatosis) when I was talking about a liver disease. The reasons mentioned earlier (aversion for eating diseased organs, context not entirely drawn) would seem to me to warrant leaving it out of the intro. I think it should have a place in the article nevertheless.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Because SchmuckyTheCat and Ramdrake repeatedly said it, and because they repeatedly talked of me as an AR activist trying to put a negative bias on foie gras, they made you think that I am an AR activist who wants to "link foie gras to a liver disease". Well, actually, neither steatosis nor fatty liver talk of a "liver disease". Take a look. They talk about a "condition". Therefore, the objection about making people think that they are eating a "diseased organ" is totally unjustified.
And, most of all, the other party abused of your good faith.
In conclusion, for today, I repeat: my editing is plain, neutral, sourced and basic. I will be glad if you will improve the turn of my phrase, but I don't accept any change of the contents.
See you for the critique of the historical pastiche - it will be a lot of fun! Benio76 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)Because, David, that's what must be done in order to resolve the situation. ST47 is trying to do precisely the right thing in this situation as a mediator. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" position in this dispute, just divergent opinions, and opinions is all they are. Neither one of us holds the sacred truth and either you know that, or you're seriously deluding yourself. And you're right that your wish to impose your own POV in the face of our trying to make the article balanced makes for a skewed article. Now, we either get back to discussing the specific points ST47 picked out for us and clear all the junk argumentation from this section of the mediation so it becomes readable again, or we take this dispute to the next level, whether formal mediation or RfA and thank ST47 for his time and effort. Please realize that a mediation means you need to compromise to a degree on your positions, just like the other party does. It is not a trial where the best argument wins the whole enchilada. Ball's in your court, now.-- Ramdrake 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Benio 76.
To the other party: Stop taking advantage of the mediator, since he/she can not read French. Stop splitting statements in order to change their meaning.
1/ the quoted article described as physiological the accumulation of fat chez les animaux sauvages, i.e. in wild animals.
2/ as for the steatosis in force-fed birds, the same article says that it is extraphysiological:
Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques. ("this natural capacity of adaptation of lipid metabolism gives an explanation both of the intensity of the hepatic steatosis of force feeding and of its reversibility, in conditions which admittedly are extraphisiological, but not pathological")
Since I already quoted this very paragraph in this page, in my comment on the "Discussion", on 7 January, this information is well known by you.
3/ as for the link to fatty liver ans steatosis, here again, the sources that I quoted in my response of 10 January state that
"In response to overfeeding for the production of "foie gras," the Poland goose differs from the Landes goose by a lesser susceptibility to hepatic steatosis, resulting in a lower accumulation of hepatic triacylglycerol etc..." [24]
and that
"In response to overfeeding, the Landes goose develops a fatty liver that is twice as large as that of the Poland goose, despite similar food intake etc." [25]
As long as nobody shows that human steatosis or fatty liver is different from birds steatosis or fatty liver, both links are perfectly relevant.
My proposition for the intro: The name "foie gras" refers to the liver of birds fattened by gavage, which induces an extraphysiological accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver. This phenomenon has been interpreted as non-pathological by some experts but as a real pathology by others.
To the mediator: I have no intention to waste my time aswering to unsourced opinions, restablishing the exactness of quotations and copying them for the third time just because the other party pretend to have forgotten them: Please, call everybody to order. Otherwise, this mediation is not to be taken seriously and something more serious must be demanded. Benio76 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a complete outsider here. I hadn't seen this article until today, when I stumbled on it by chance, and I don't have a strong about foie gras either way. Since one of the concerns is that the controversy may be getting bloated and taking over the entire article, why not split the controversy into its own article, Foie gras controversy, leaving a short summary in the main article? Of course, there could still be fights in the new article, but maybe having a more focused title could help. Ideally, it should list all the arguments and sourced evidence both pro and con (possibly in separate sections), without pushing a point of view as the truth. Let the reader decide. Itub 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, it seems clear to me that splitting the article along food / controversy lines would be a POV fork. The editors who are foie gras enthusiasts would flock to the "food" article, and those who care about the welfare of the birds would flock to the "controversy" article. It would be even harder than it is now to correct all the POVity of the "food" article (see my criticism above); and perhaps even more damaging would be that the foie gras opponents may essentially have a free hand on the "criticism" article, depriving it of its credibilty. I want all aspects of the issue to be stated with equal standards of neutrality and verifiability.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
The name "foie gras"[3] refers to the abnormal growth of liver produced in birds by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver.[4] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts[5] but as a real pathology by others.[6] See 27 December version.
Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques. ("this natural capacity of adaptation of lipid metabolism gives an explanation both of the intensity of the hepatic steatosis of force feeding and of its reversibility, in conditions which admittedly are extraphisiological, but not pathological")
I noticed that the section in the third paragraph it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force fed - was this removed intentionally? Should it be left in? ST47 Talk 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Egyptians invented the practice, subsequently adopted in France, of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce a better taste for the liver extract.
Hi everybody, you can stop discussing: I'm going to show you something verifiable about Egyptians and it will be clear that the whole paragraph about Egyptians is a speculation and must be removed. Benio76 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
the first [49] reference says this:
Force-feeding is a very old practice, first recorded in ancient Egypt,
while the second one [50] says this:
Force-feeding of both ducks and geese, practised in Ancient Egypt 4500 years ago
. So, yes, I've read it carefully, but I'm not sure what your objections are at this point.-- Ramdrake 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. (From WP:V#Burden_of_evidence)
Hi ST47! Here is the critique of the historical section and, as I promised, it will be amusing! Follow me!
As I said when I stated my position, I work on the history of ideas. It easy for me to realize when an historical reconstruction is well founded and when it is not. When I first read foie gras, the inconsistency of its so called historical section struck me. It is not a matter about the birds' health, here: it is a matter of telling the truth and being honest. And all that I found shows that the proposed "history" of foie gras is not true, and those who made it up are not honest.
When I got involved in the article, the whole historical section was unsourced (see a 20th December version - actually, the section has been unsourced from its beginning: see the 14 November 2005 version). I asked for sources and the section was filled with quotation from a single source: Ginor, Michael A. (1999), Foie Gras: A Passion. I found that it was a commercially biased source (Mr Ginor is a foie gras producer): I alerted the editors, but they did not remove it and simply added other sources. I found then that the other "sources" were simply "food writers", "chefs", "recipes collectors", etc. I remarked that these sources were not reliable, because none of their authors appeared to have skills in History, Linguistics, Archaeology, etc.: normally, when someone writes about ancient times, he/she is supposed to have skills of this kind, otherwise how can he/she find material, and understand it, and interpret it??? The other party was not of the same opinion; but the only argument they had to support their sources was to repeat again and again that they were reliable. Actually, they are doing the same thing here: they repeat things again and again to make them look true.
Are there reliable sources that state your argument or are you just arguing for exclusion because you don't like it? SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Since we have several reliable sources that support this it's time to drop it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
To repeate things to make them look true is a very simple rethorical strategy; simple and childish. Of course, the other party didn't take trouble to go to a library, didn't take trouble to read real Egyptologists, didn't take trouble to be serious: quoting websites and food writers is much easier, most of all it is useful to mystify things. (I must say that AR activists don't go to the library too, if they spread false historical information in their websites, and here is a proof that I'm not an AR activist!)
Well, to the other party, to be an historian is just a detail! it is unnecessary to make an historical reconstruction! Here is what is relevant in SchmuckyTheCat's opinion (from foie gras talk page):
It doesn't matter whether or not Ginor has training as a historian. That's a complete red herring bag of bogosity. His training, his profession, and the research in his book is impeccable. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Not just good enough, but Ginor is an excellent source. He speaks world-wide on the subject. His book wins awards, is called a reference, has four author credits, makes citations of its own, and is cited by others. That Benio and David are discounting him as a reliable source is just plain bad faith. SchmuckyTheCat 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is funny, really: Ginor wins awards and this makes a reliable historical source of him!!!
You will ask: why should someone make up a false history about the ancient origins of foie gras? isn't it just a biased accusation from anti foie gras people, as suggested by SchmuckyTheCat? I will answer quoting the very words of Michael Ginor, the author of Foie gras: a passion, award winner and foie gras producer:
... the interesting thing about foie gras is its illustrious history. There is no other food product that has such a history. Unlike things like truffles, caviar, or lobster, foie gras has been popular as far back as 5000 years ago and has always been a gourmet product interview with M. Ginor.
Finally, consider the “arguments” presented by Michael Ginor and Jacques Pepin. Michael Ginor, an owner of the largest American foie gras farm, responds to the moral attacks on foie gras by pointing out that “it’s been around for 5,000 years.” Jacques Pepin, presented by Newsweek as “author, teacher,” stated that “Foie gras has been around for thousands of years. If we’ve been doing something for so long, it can’t be so bad.” Provocations: Foie Gras & Philosophy.
"The world doesn't know another way to produce it [than force feeding]" Ginor said. "After 5,000 years of producing it this way, I don't suddenly see another way to do it." Farewell, foie gras?
"To me, the issues are, one, are the ducks sick?" Mr. Ginor said. "And the U.S.D.A. looks at every duck pre- and post-mortem, so it's not a diseased product. And, two, can it make people sick? Foie gras has been eaten by people for 5,000 years, and if it caused any disease we'd probably know it by now." Animal Rights Groups Ask New York to Ban Foie Gras.
It’s all a huge misunderstanding, in the view of Michael Ginor, an owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the upstate New York farm that produces most of the estimated 420 tons (or 1.8 billion caloies) of foie gras consumed in the United States annually. Force-feeding ducks with a tube “does sound atrocious,” he admits, but he maintains that waterfowl, lacking the mammalian gag reflex, do not suffer from the process. “Foie gras is easy to attack: it’s for the rich, it’s unnecessary, it’s vain. It can be seen as all those things. But it’s been around for 5,000 years.” “A Flap Over Foie Gras,” May 2, 2005, Newsweek, quoted here.
It is Michael Ginor himself - and it is not "just plain bad faith" from "Benio and David" - who shows us that the "illustrious history" of foie gras is just a strategy for its promotion and a moral justification to take out against those who question foie gras production: "But it’s been around for 5,000 years"! So, let it be!
Well, not only Mr Ginor is weak in History; he is really bad in Logic too. Pretending to infer values from facts, i.e. stating that producing foie gras is good just because the stuff went on for centuries, he seems to ignore the is-ought problem. And even everyday mathematics is not his cup of tea: while he pretends that foie gras dates from 2500 BC, he claims that it is 5000 years old! Well, I understand that a century more or less does not make a big difference to him - who cares about historical truth! what matters is winning awards and let people buy his foie gras!
Well, let us abandon Mr "Fraud" Ginor to his fate. Let us come back to facts. The only proof given in the article about Egyptian foie gras is a bas relief showing Egyptians feeding geese. The other party may insist saying that Olivierd is biased being an AR activist, but actually he is the only one who looked at that picture in an objective manner:
I see no reason to believe they did more than just encourage the birds to eat. That is what you see in the picture provided. David Olivier 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, David, you were right: the picture does not tell us anything about the birds' liver!!!
I found two reliable sources about Egyptians, written by Egyptologists, which prove that Egyptians did not produce foie gras.
1/ Aude Gros de Beler: Les anciens égyptiens II volume: Guerriers et travailleurs, éd. Errance, Paris 2006. Aude Gros de Beler is an Egyptologist, who especially studied Ancient Egypt everyday life; she is archaeologist and published several books about Ancient Egypt.
2/ Pierre Tallet, La Cuisine des pharaons, Actes sud 2003. Pierre Tallet is a professional academic historian and studied Egyptology at the Sorbonne University. He joined several archaeological missions and worked at the French Institute for Oriental Archaeology; he is currently Master of Conference at Paris IV University.
(For the record, to Boffob: "most historians study other things than the history of food" but history of food is definitely a matter for historians and it is not at all uncommon to find information about food, agriculture and animal farming in books of history)
1/ Aude Gros de Beler (pp. 157-167)
L'élévage
Dans les mastabas de l'Ancien Empire, la diversité des animaux constituant le cheptel des propriétaires terriens laisse perplexes: marchent, côte à côte, bœufs, gazelles, bubales, bouquetins, oryx, cerfs, grues, voire même hyènes. Une scène très instructive du mastaba de Kagemni (Saqqara - Nord), haut fonctionnaire sous le règne de Teti (2345-2333 av. J.-C.), montre an éléveur en train de gaver avec des boulettes de farine une bête qui n'est autre... qu'une hyène. (...) la naissance du jeune veau réclame ces services: la vache égyptienne vêle debout et l'éléveur y participe toujours, aidant la mère au moment de la délivrance. Au quotidien, il faut veiller sur l'alimentation, qui doit être abondante tant que l'animal n'a pas atteint sa corpulence définitive: pour ce faire, on le gave de pâte à pain. Accroupi devant la bête, l'homme se saisit d'un bâton: "Mange donc" dit-il, et ce, jusqu'à ce que l'animal soit définitivement repu. (...) le mastaba de Kagemni montre une scène étonnante où l'on voit un fermier nourrir à la bouche un porcelet. (...) les oies (...) constituent une réelle gourmandise pour les Égyptiens. Or, à table, chacun sait faire la différence entre une oie grasse, correctement nourrie, et une oie maigre, récemment capturée. (...) Pour les repas, l'éléveur s'approche de la cage et distribue généreusement du grain qu'il apporte dans un gros sac. Or, cette nourriture, pourtant assez copieuse, semble n'être qu'un simple en-cas car les oiseaux sont soumis au gavage, tout comme les bœufs. On confectionne des boulettes, composées de farine sans doute, que l'on plonge dans de l'eau tiède et que l'on va glisser jusque dans le fond du gosier de l'animal.
L'apiculture (...)
Translation
Animal farming
In the mastabas of the Ancient Empire, the diversity of the animals composing the livestock of the landlords is surprising: we see walking side by side oxen, gazelles, hartebeests, ibexes, oryxes, deer, cranes, and even hyenas. A very instructive scene from the mastaba of Kagemni (Saqqara - North), higher official during the reign of Teti (2345-2333 BC), shows a farmer force-feeding with balls of flour an animal that is no other than... a hyena. (...) the birth of the young calf demands the following attentions: the Egyptian cow gives birth standing and the farmer always does his part, helping the mother to deliver. In everyday life, it is necessary to be attentive to the food, which must remain abundant as long as the animal has not reached its final corpulence: for this, the animal is force-fed with breadmeal. Squatting in front of the animal, the man siezes a stick: "Go on, eat" he says, and this, until the animal is finally satiated. (...) the mastaba of Kagemni shows an astonishing scene where we see a farmer mouth-feed a piglet. (...) the geese (...) represent a real treat for the Egyptians. At the table, everyone can tell the difference between a fat goose, well nourished, and a thin one, recently captured. (...) For the feeding, the farmer comes to the cage and generously distributes grain that he brings in a large bag. But this food, though quite abundant, is apparently just a snack since the birds are submitted to force-feeding, just like the oxen. Balls are prepared probably out of flour dipped in warm water and they are slipped into the bottom of the throat of the animal.
Bee-keeping (...)
2/ Pierre Tallet (pp. 54-55)
Les viandes et leur préparation
(...) Différents types d'oiseaux étaient également cuisinés avec une grande régularité. Deux volailles apparaissent le plus souvent dans les sources: les oies et les canards (...) Les oies - dont on connaissait une dizaine d'espèces en Égypte pharaonique - étaient élevées en troupeau par un personnel spécialisé, et semblent avoir été populaires autant pour la consommation de leur chair que pour leur faculté à assimiler de la graisse. Ce produit était en effet couremment utilisé aussi bien dans la cuisine que pour la confection des potions médicinales. Peut-être est-ce la raison pour laquelle on connaît tant de scènes de gavage de ces volatiles (il n'est pas sûr, en effet, que les Égyptiens aient connu la recette du foie gras...). Dans la tombe de Kagemni (Ve dynastie), on peut ainsi voir deux hommes affairés autour de l'un de ces volatiles; l'un d'entre eux modèle de petites boules de pâte (sans doute du pain, peut-être mêlé d'un corps gras ou de fruits séchés) qu'il dépose sur une sorte de petit guéridon. Son compagnon a quant à lui attrapé l'oie par le cou, et la force à ingérer ces boulettes.
Translation
Meats and their preparation
(...) Different kinds of birds were also cooked very regularly. Two kinds of fowl appear most frequently in the sources: geese and ducks (...) The geese - about ten species were known in the Pharaonic times - were raised in flocks by specialized staff, an appear to have been popular both for their meat and for their ability to put on fat. This product was in effect routinely used both in cooking and in the preperation of medicinal potions. Perhaps that is the reason for which so many force-feeding scenes of these birds are known (in effect, it is not certain that the Egyptians have known the recipe for making foie gras...). In the Kagemni tomb (Fifth dynasty), it is thus possible to see two men surrounding one of these birds; one of them forms small balls of paste (probably bread, perhaps mixed with some fat or dried fruit) and lays them on a kind of low table. His partner for his part has seized the neck of the goose and forces it to ingest these balls.
Both sources show that Egyptians used to force-feed all their livestock (oxen, pigs, birds and... hyenas!) but just to fatten them: there is no evidence of any specific interest for the livers. (And this is confirmed by the last source quoted by Ramdrake in his last desperate contribution: the Egyptians used to force-feed the animals... and that's all.)
Therefore, the whole paragraph is irrelevant to foie gras and must be removed. (it is up to the other party to choose between deleting it or putting it in the force-feeding article).
Quoting these reliable sources, I not only showed that the "illustrious history" of foie gras is false, but also that its inventor, Michael Ginor, has intentionally selected historical information here and there and distorted it to build an advertisement strategy. This destroys his credibility.
Therefore, I ask for his book to be deleted from the bibliography and for all the statements founded on it to be deleted from the article.
To ST47: I think that what I showed here is enough to prove the weakness of the historical section, the unreliability of its sources and the incompetence of the editors who wrote it. There were also in the historical section other errors that I already showed in the "Good article review" concerning etymology and identification of sources; I don't want to give you too much to read here, but you can find it if you want. And finally, I'm sure that with a little more investigation I would find other absurdities. If all this is not enough to discredit the historical section of the foie gras article, I will pursue the investigation: I will not drop the issue.
Thanks for your attention.
Benio76 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As early as 2500 BC, the ancient Egyptians sought the fattened livers of migratory birds as a delicacy.
Benio's research is confirmed by statements from pro-foie gras sources :
1) INRA researchers G. Guy and D. Guemene : they state in their article "The past, present and future of force-feeding and “foie gras” production" [51] in World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 60, June 2004, p210-222 that "Egyptians were thus probably the first to perform force-feeding, a practice that lasted in this part of the world for more than 2000 years. A number of bas-reliefs show such scenes, clearly demonstrating that fatty meat of waterfowl and other species of birds was appreciated, whereas we have no direct evidence of any specific interest in foie gras consumption."
2) Silvano Serventi, page 66 of his book "Le livre du foie gras" (Flammarion, 2002), states: "Ce serait en Egypte, à l'aube du IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., que le foie gras aurait été découvert chez des oies sauvages ayant migré [...]. L'histoire est jolie mais la réalité est loin d'être aussi limpide. [...] Mais la dégustation du foie gras n'est nullement prouvée dans les sociétés antérieures à la civilisation latine." Quick translation by me =>
"It is said that it was in Egypt, at the beginning of the 3rd millenary B.C., that foie gras has been discovered on wild migrating geese (...). The story sounds nice, but the reality is far from being as clear. (...) But consomption of foie gras is in no way proved to have existed in societies before the latin civilisation". And calls the story of Egyptians discovering foie gras a "legend". So that you understand that this is not a AR book, suffice to say that its first chapter is called "A Praise to Foie Gras" and the book starts with this very sentence : "Foie gras is a summit of culinary art and its presence on a table is a sure sign of pleasure and emotion". -- Zelig33 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
you have yet to turn up one source which contradicts anything said in the history section. One of the main differences between your science-fiction scenario and history is that history is mostly verifiable. (...) --Ramdrake 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) from foie gras talkpage- -introduction
The practice of geese-fattening spread from Egypt to the Mediterranean.[9] The earliest reference to fattened geese is from the 5th century BC Greek poet Cratinus, who wrote of geese-fatteners, yet Egypt maintained its reputation as the source for fattened geese. When the Spartan king Agesilaus visited Egypt in 361 BC, he was greeted with fattened geese and calves, the riches of Egyptian farmers.[10][11]
Guys, this page is now over 150 KB long, and I still don't know what you're arguing about. It sounds like you're arguing over foie gras production, rather than an article about it. Compromise, you aren't going to convince everyone. I am going to throw up a few sections below here in a moment regarding the areas in question, since my other ones have been overrun, and I'd just like arguments on either side to be listed. Feel free to add citations and introduce references, but don't go further than that. From here, we can the points and possibly get some uninvolved users to take a look at the less scary section. ST47 Talk 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
ST47, as you are making false accusations about a participant in this mediation (me), accusations for which you provide no evidence at all (see [52] and its discussion page), I don't think you can be a legitimate mediator in this case. I'll dig further in wikipedia rules to see what can be done in such a case. If you want to be a mediator, you will have to look into the issue, not just ask editors to compromise, when that means accepting claims not supported by credible sources into wikipedia articles. Zelig33 10:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding an etymology and analysis on "foie gras". For each option, choose whether you support or oppose it, and explain why, from a wiki-standpoint, adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
The section referring to Egypt.
Folks, how about this:
We can discuss each topic in their appropriate sections (the Egyptians in history and the etymology and steatosis in the physiology section). Any takers?-- Ramdrake 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Foie Gras |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Ramdrake |
Parties involved | User:Olivierd, User:Benio76, User:Trevyn, User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Ramdrake, User:Apankrat, User:Zelig33 and User:Boffob |
Mediator(s) | none |
Comment | asking to close |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Foie Gras]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Foie Gras]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Note by David Olivier: The above description of the case is the one-sided opinion of Ramdrake. I shall not dispute it here, because it is not the right place to do so. David Olivier 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The page is protected, which is generally bad. Let's decide what to do here. Since I can't even make sense out of the edit warring, everyone could please state their position below in discussion or on the talk. Please stay civil, and bear with me until everyone is aware of the case being opened. ST47 Talk 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this case still active or can I close it? -- Ideogram 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The mediator is unresponsive. Requesting new mediator. -- Ideogram 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding a request for a New Mediator: This needs summarising and condensing. I have just spent the best part of 40 minutes trying to work out what the hell is going on here, and I'm still at a loss as to what actually needs mediating. if there is still need for a mediator, would someone involved in the dispute please post a short-ish (NPOV) resume of what has happened and what still needs to be medated? Jem 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Closing. -- Ideogram 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As of a week ago, the last and only time I'd had foie gras was some bad paté almost twenty years ago - nobody can say I have been in the article defending my favorite dish. My daughters mom is vegan, I donate money to the the local Humane Society but I also eat meat, wear leather, go to the circus and bet on horse races, I don't have a huge agenda.
Nearly two years ago I was asked (I don't remember who or why, I might have just been scanning articles with a cleanup tag) to look at the article. I did some basic research and re-wrote large sections. I can see in that diff many sentences still in the article and many that have since been removed. At that time in Wikipedia history, "references" usually consisted of some external links at the bottom of the article, so as time went on I was not quite beholden to any unsourced text via our current policies and rewrote or re-sourced any statement if the issue came up.
Since then the article has stayed in my watch list and I've occasionally sourced arguments (both pro and con). Several times the article has been under heavy editing by those with an obvious animal rights bias. In most cases I've waited until the editing cools down and assimilated the changes. There was an earlier mediation case this year and very little changed.
Foie gras is a current agenda issue from PETA and other animal rights organizations. Most of the time, our article is the first result from google for "foie gras". The next two are animal rights campaigns against it. Our article attracts a lot of attention from those organizations.
It is imperative that our NPOV policies are followed because of this. Activist organizations cannot use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I've been accused of "ad hominem" attacks on the current crop of AR activists who are editing the article for stating that they are activists. Well, they are - and the changes they want would turn the article into a soapbox damnation. OlivierD states so on his user page, and that he doesn't believe in NPOV. Benio has edited nothing but the foie gras article. I'm more than willing to accept relevant changes to the article provided they are sourced, factual, and NPOV. The changes proposed so far don't meet that criteria. The other changes have been about edit-warring (on the freakin' talk page) over whether the article should be removed from GA status, or complaints that it reads "like an advertisement".
I'm really interested to see what the AR side expects. Questioning sources, inserting bad opinion polls, and demanding that the intro state foie gras is a disease isn't going to cut it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Marie-Pierre Pée, secretary-general of the French Professional Committee of Foie Gras Producers, condemned the Sousa version of the luxury paste: “This cannot be called foie gras because it is strictly defined as a product from an animal which has been fattened"
the livers of geese, or of ducks of the species cairina muschata or c.m. × Anas platyrachos which have been fed in such a way as to produce hepatic fatty cellular hypertrophy.
SchmuckyTheCat: "non-gavage techniques (as some Spanish producers are attempting) are [not banned]". Ramdrake: "at least one country (Spain) is doing research in producing a foie gras that doesn't require force-feeding" Please stop trying to bloat the data. The news was about exactly one such producer, not "some Spanish producers"; and it is even less one whole country. And the product of that one producer is not recognized as foie gras by the French authorities, while France accounts for some 80% of worldwide consumption; and are not recognized by many other consumers. The repeated appeal to one marginal fact to justify changing the wording of the entire article is a clear case of undue weight.
Trevyn: A ban is a ban, whether or not what it bans was being practiced beforehand. The ban has an effect. Today, no one can go to Germany and produce foie gras. If the ban wasn't in effect, people could. Also, considering the recent rise in foie gras production - the French production has more than doubled between 1993 and 2003 [1] - the production might very well expand into other countries if there were not those bans. Also, to say that a ban in a country where that practice wasn't part of the culture is like saying that the French bans on female genital mutilation are not real bans. Or that the bans against slavery are not real bans in those countries where there was no slavery before the bans.
All bans, before becoming universal, have started in specific countries. That is the trend. If it wasn't, the INRA researchers wouldn't be as uneasy as they appear in their 2003 "Synthesis document": "À plus longue échéance, cette évolution sera t'elle suffisante pour assouvir les exigences de la demande sociale? Rien n'est moins certain si le contexte sociétal n'évolue pas, car bien qu'ils ne soient pas concernés par ce type de production in situ, plusieurs pays membres de l'Union Européenne voudraient voir interdite la production de foie gras à l'intérieur de l'espace européen." ("On a longer time scale, will that evolution be enough to satisfy the demands of the social sensitivity [for animal welfare]? Nothing is less certain if the societal context does not evolve, since several member states of the European Union, despite their having no production of their own, would like to have the production of foie gras banned inside the whole European territory").
Ramdrake and SchmuckyTheCat: to try downplay the meaning of the word gavage is absurd. You cannot escape that fact by simply ignoring what Zelig33 says. David Olivier 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Before going on in the mediation, I would like the editors to stop making suppositions about the identity of others: it is an open attempt to divert the attention from the others' arguments and to hide their own lack of arguments. I'm not an "activist", nor an "organisation". The only reason why I edited only foie gras by now is that I had no time to edit other articles I'm interested in (which you can find in my Watchlist). Actually, I work on the history of ideas: this is why I care about the poorness and superficiality of the "historical section" of foie gras - especially seeing that this historical pastiche is evidently meant to build a positive POV. So, please stop to talk about "AR side" just because it is said in my personal page that I'm vegetarian: indeed, I said it because I had no reason to hide it - but it is not enough to claim that I am an Animal rights activist. Otherwise, look at User:Trevyn: I could easily suggest that he/she doesn't exist, or that he/she is a foie gras producer... but I don't need such a childish strategy, I have arguments enough. Benio76 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for arriving late, I caught a cold (more on that below). Now after reading the first comments, I have had to take a deep breath before diving back in. Welcome, ST47, and thanks for taking up this mediation. The situation is bad, but I do think your mediation may succeed in bringing us to some kind of an agreement; and if it doesn't, it may help us at least make some progress. However, the way things are going for the moment in this discussion is certainly not the right direction.
I think that if this mediation is to succeed, you must be prepared to spend quite some time on this, to look into things, to carefully check the factual statements and the arguments make by each side, and also to look into some documents, among which the 1998 European Union Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare report (in short, the "EU report"). I'm sorry, but this is not going to be easy.
I quite understand that someone coming here with no particular involvement in the controversy may think: What the heck, foie gras is another kind of food, OK there's also a controversy about it, but that's just a side-issue. Also, for instance, what's this fuss about the history section; it may be badly sourced, but why should that matter so much? I think we will see that it matters. That story about the Egyptians is an important part of the defensive strategy of the foie gras industry. Now if there are reliable sources showing that foie gras was produced in 2500 BC, so much the better for the industry. For the moment, it appears that no such sources have been produced, and the rules of Wikipedia are that the page should not state what is not verifiable. That is just one example to ask you, ST47, to bear in mind that what may easily appear as petty warring does matter.
Please realize that foie gras is not just another kind of food. It's a foodstuff the production of which is prohibited almost all European countries, and in some others too, as a special case of animal mistreatment. It's the only foodstuff that implies forced overfeeding of an animal, inducing a condition, steatosis, at a level that the EU report (p.41) calls pathological; a condition in which the birds are plainly sick. Yes, foie gras is high on the agenda of animal protection societies, and it is also also high on the agenda of those who, for any reason, are intent on blocking progress towards better treatment of animals. Probably more people have heard of foie gras as a controversial food than have any idea what it tastes like. This, I argue, means that the article should not be seen as an article just about a foodstuff. The issue of whether or not it is ethical to produce foie gras is a major aspect. I think it would be perfectly normal for the article to devote more space to the controversy than to the food aspect. But I do not ask for that. I just ask for the pro-foie gras side to stop trying to minimize the controversy aspect.
Concerning the accusations by SchmuckyTheCat and others that I am POV, while they are not: I have never hidden my opinions. True, I am in favour of the abolition of foie gras. Ramdrake has stated that he is opposed to such an abolition. If my opinions make me POV, then his does too. But actually, all those attacks by Ramdrake, SchmuckyTheCat et al. are simply ad hominem, and don't amount to anything. They have constantly resorted to that in the past; instead of discussing the issues, they repeatedly argue against edits by stating that they would make AR activists happy!
Also, the criticism on my user page about the concept of NPOV doesn't imply that my editing is less NPOV than that of others; as I state there, when on Wikipedia I plan to respect the rules of the land. Whether I actually do or not is something that is demonstrated by my edits and my arguments. It's easy to say "I am NPOV"; even SchmuckyTheCat can say it. But I think that what the edits of Ramdrake, Trevyn, SchmuckyTheCat and Alex Pankratov demonstrate is massive pro-foie gras, anti-AR POV. OK, SchmuckyTheCat, I'm prepared to believe that your daughter's mom is vegan, big deal, but you hardly disguise your hatred of AR people, going as far as declaring your "spite" for us on your talk page.
My intention is not to make the foie gras page into a "soapbox damnation", whatever that means. My intention is for it to state the relevant facts. It is perfectly OK for it to include those facts that are in favour of foie gras; such as the American Veterinary Medical Association statements. And if the balance of the relevant facts, stated NPOVedly, turns out to be very damning for foie gras, then so be it. No one can come and say that the page about Saddam Hussein is POV simply because the balance of facts makes him look bad. No one is to come and say "stating that foie gras is a diseased liver makes it look bad, so it shouldn't be said". NPOV means that we are not to justify our edits by such an agenda.
One good example of the massive pro-foie gras POV is that issue of whether or not the force-feeding makes the animals sick. The fact is that the EU report clearly states that their condition is pathological (see p.41). Instead, when I first came to the page in November, the article actually stated that that same report "recognizes that producers do not put their birds livers into a pathological state", which is simply ridiculous. I deleted that, and that was the start of the edit war - with SchmuckyTheCat repeatedly reinstating that totally false statement, with hardly an argument in the talk page (it's in talk archive 2). After weeks of controversy, Trevyn finally backed up, and the sentence has remained deleted; however, the wording of the relevant paragraph in the current article is hardly less misleading.
What about the cold I mentioned that I caught? Well, I was sick. Anyone seeing me could easily recognize that; just like anyone seeing a duck towards the end of the force-feeding period will plainly recognize that animal as being sick. Constant diarrhea, constant panting due both to breathing difficulties and thermal stress, incapacity to walk, very brittle bones, impaired liver metabolism... Those ducks are much sicker than I am. Why is it controversial to recognize that? "Sick" does not mean "half dead", it just means "sick"! The pro-foie gras editors say that the ducks are not sick because their condition is "reversible" (if they are not slaughtered, and the force-feeding is discontinued, most of them survive and return to normal after a few weeks). But does my cold have to be irreversible for me to qualify as sick? Of course not! So why should it be so for the birds? Just because saying that they are sick makes the product look bad? But that is not a valid argument.
David Olivier 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
An additional note concerning my position statement: My position now is essentially the same as the one I put forth a month ago on the talk page, see here. That proposal was "strongly rejected" by Trevyn. I think that we will spend some time on this page quarreling over specific issues, such as the Egyptians, steatosis, pictures and so on. But obviously we need to define a solution in more general terms. I think it should be made clear that 1. the article is not just about foie gras as a food; 2. NPOV and verifiability should apply to all issues; 3. arguments about whether or not a specific piece of information will make foie gras look bad are not valid arguments; 4. all editors are to make an honest effort towards being NPOV. Perhaps if those lessons are brought home, the future prospects will appear a bit brighter. David Olivier 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
...this level of steatosis should be considered pathological.
...some pathologists consider this level of steatosis to be pathological but others do not.
The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare concludes that force feeding, as currently practised, is detrimental to the welfare of the birds.
Whilst studies of the anatomy of ducks and geese kept for foie gras production have been carried out, the amount of evidence in the scientific literature concerning the effects of force feeding and liver hypertrophy on injury level, on the functioning of the various biological systems is small.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Response by Benio76. As for the relevancy of an etymology and of a scientific information in an introduction, the only reason given by Trevyn, Ramdrake etc. is their opinion. I want to remind what their opinion about the introduction of foie gras actually is: the reference to truffles has been relevant in their opinion until a third party editor removed it; the fantastic tale about Egyptians producing foie gras is relevant in their opinion... but an etymology and a scientific information about foie gras is not relevant in their opinion. Well, in my opinion it is their opinion which is not relevant, here. It is extravagant, really.
As for the redundance, as I already said, an introduction introduces what will be explained in the text: so, from the point of view of redundance, the whole introduction would be redundant, which is nonsense.
Returning to the question of relevance, I would like to remark that in the intro it is said that the flavour of foie gras is
unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver
It is not irrelevant to explain why a fattened liver tastes differently than a "regular" liver. It is not irrelevant to explain why the liver called "foie gras" is a different, specifical food than "regular" liver. Now, I will explain things well known by the editors but probably not familiar to the mediator. Please, ST47, follow me.
The foie gras is a fattened liver of a bird which has been force fed, i.e. induced to eat; force feeding induces an accumulation of lipids in the liver called hepatic steatosis. The process called steatosis is the same in birds as in humans (while it can be induced by different causes, as you can read in the article fatty liver); the controversial topic is: is steatosis in force-fed birds for the foie gras production to be considered a disease? I haven't the slightest intention to answer to this question. Indeed, my editing was perfectly neutral about this. What I want to point is that all that I said is sourced from INRA. INRA is the French National Institute for Agricoltural Research ( here you will find the english version of the INRA website): it is a public institution whose studies totally support foie gras production. You can read here INRA researchers saying that
"In response to overfeeding for the production of "foie gras," the Poland goose differs from the Landes goose by a lesser susceptibility to hepatic steatosis, resulting in a lower accumulation of hepatic triacylglycerol etc..."
and here that
"In response to overfeeding, the Landes goose develops a fatty liver that is twice as large as that of the Poland goose, despite similar food intake etc."
And I will quote again the INRA article La stéatose hépatique des palmipèdes gavés : bases métaboliques et sensibilité génétique:
"Chez les Palmipèdes, l'induction contrôlée d'une stéatose hépatique par gavage permet la production de foie gras".("In Palmipedes, the controled induction of hepatic steatosis by force feeding allows the production of foie gras")
Well, I hope that all this is enough to conclude that force fed birds in the doie gras production develop a condition called steatosis. It is not "analogous" or "equivalent": it is steatosis. Matter of fact. No POV.
Now, ST47, I would like to point that the other party editors wrote several times an evident misleading statement in this discussion: it is most important that you give me your attention, because you assume their good faith and you are following their suggestion - but they are not telling the truth.
And, linking to the human disease in the intro, for an article about food, when in these animals it is not a disease isn't helpful. Just linking to hepatic steatosis requires context that the intro doesn't provide. SchmuckyTheCat 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
However, I feel that linking foie gras to a liver disease right in the introduction would mainly serve as shock/turnoff value for those coming to the article to learn about the dish. There is, after all, a common repulsion to eating diseased organs.--Ramdrake 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When referring to linking to a liver disease, I assume you mean fatty liver. I suppose that can be reworded also, don't be shy! ST47Talk 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I meant "fatty liver" (or steatosis) when I was talking about a liver disease. The reasons mentioned earlier (aversion for eating diseased organs, context not entirely drawn) would seem to me to warrant leaving it out of the intro. I think it should have a place in the article nevertheless.--Ramdrake 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Because SchmuckyTheCat and Ramdrake repeatedly said it, and because they repeatedly talked of me as an AR activist trying to put a negative bias on foie gras, they made you think that I am an AR activist who wants to "link foie gras to a liver disease". Well, actually, neither steatosis nor fatty liver talk of a "liver disease". Take a look. They talk about a "condition". Therefore, the objection about making people think that they are eating a "diseased organ" is totally unjustified.
And, most of all, the other party abused of your good faith.
In conclusion, for today, I repeat: my editing is plain, neutral, sourced and basic. I will be glad if you will improve the turn of my phrase, but I don't accept any change of the contents.
See you for the critique of the historical pastiche - it will be a lot of fun! Benio76 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)Because, David, that's what must be done in order to resolve the situation. ST47 is trying to do precisely the right thing in this situation as a mediator. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" position in this dispute, just divergent opinions, and opinions is all they are. Neither one of us holds the sacred truth and either you know that, or you're seriously deluding yourself. And you're right that your wish to impose your own POV in the face of our trying to make the article balanced makes for a skewed article. Now, we either get back to discussing the specific points ST47 picked out for us and clear all the junk argumentation from this section of the mediation so it becomes readable again, or we take this dispute to the next level, whether formal mediation or RfA and thank ST47 for his time and effort. Please realize that a mediation means you need to compromise to a degree on your positions, just like the other party does. It is not a trial where the best argument wins the whole enchilada. Ball's in your court, now.-- Ramdrake 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Benio 76.
To the other party: Stop taking advantage of the mediator, since he/she can not read French. Stop splitting statements in order to change their meaning.
1/ the quoted article described as physiological the accumulation of fat chez les animaux sauvages, i.e. in wild animals.
2/ as for the steatosis in force-fed birds, the same article says that it is extraphysiological:
Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques. ("this natural capacity of adaptation of lipid metabolism gives an explanation both of the intensity of the hepatic steatosis of force feeding and of its reversibility, in conditions which admittedly are extraphisiological, but not pathological")
Since I already quoted this very paragraph in this page, in my comment on the "Discussion", on 7 January, this information is well known by you.
3/ as for the link to fatty liver ans steatosis, here again, the sources that I quoted in my response of 10 January state that
"In response to overfeeding for the production of "foie gras," the Poland goose differs from the Landes goose by a lesser susceptibility to hepatic steatosis, resulting in a lower accumulation of hepatic triacylglycerol etc..." [24]
and that
"In response to overfeeding, the Landes goose develops a fatty liver that is twice as large as that of the Poland goose, despite similar food intake etc." [25]
As long as nobody shows that human steatosis or fatty liver is different from birds steatosis or fatty liver, both links are perfectly relevant.
My proposition for the intro: The name "foie gras" refers to the liver of birds fattened by gavage, which induces an extraphysiological accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver. This phenomenon has been interpreted as non-pathological by some experts but as a real pathology by others.
To the mediator: I have no intention to waste my time aswering to unsourced opinions, restablishing the exactness of quotations and copying them for the third time just because the other party pretend to have forgotten them: Please, call everybody to order. Otherwise, this mediation is not to be taken seriously and something more serious must be demanded. Benio76 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a complete outsider here. I hadn't seen this article until today, when I stumbled on it by chance, and I don't have a strong about foie gras either way. Since one of the concerns is that the controversy may be getting bloated and taking over the entire article, why not split the controversy into its own article, Foie gras controversy, leaving a short summary in the main article? Of course, there could still be fights in the new article, but maybe having a more focused title could help. Ideally, it should list all the arguments and sourced evidence both pro and con (possibly in separate sections), without pushing a point of view as the truth. Let the reader decide. Itub 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, it seems clear to me that splitting the article along food / controversy lines would be a POV fork. The editors who are foie gras enthusiasts would flock to the "food" article, and those who care about the welfare of the birds would flock to the "controversy" article. It would be even harder than it is now to correct all the POVity of the "food" article (see my criticism above); and perhaps even more damaging would be that the foie gras opponents may essentially have a free hand on the "criticism" article, depriving it of its credibilty. I want all aspects of the issue to be stated with equal standards of neutrality and verifiability.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
The name "foie gras"[3] refers to the abnormal growth of liver produced in birds by force feeding, which induces an accumulation of fat in the liver called fatty liver.[4] This phenomenon has been interpreted as just a natural adaptation by some experts[5] but as a real pathology by others.[6] See 27 December version.
Cette capacité d'adaptation naturelle du métabolisme lipidique permet d'expliquer à la fois l'intensité de la stéatose hépatique de gavage et sa réversibilité, dans des conditions certes extraphysiologiques, mais non pathologiques. ("this natural capacity of adaptation of lipid metabolism gives an explanation both of the intensity of the hepatic steatosis of force feeding and of its reversibility, in conditions which admittedly are extraphisiological, but not pathological")
I noticed that the section in the third paragraph it is however unclear that the product qualifies as foie gras, since the birds were probably not force fed - was this removed intentionally? Should it be left in? ST47 Talk 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Egyptians invented the practice, subsequently adopted in France, of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce a better taste for the liver extract.
Hi everybody, you can stop discussing: I'm going to show you something verifiable about Egyptians and it will be clear that the whole paragraph about Egyptians is a speculation and must be removed. Benio76 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
the first [49] reference says this:
Force-feeding is a very old practice, first recorded in ancient Egypt,
while the second one [50] says this:
Force-feeding of both ducks and geese, practised in Ancient Egypt 4500 years ago
. So, yes, I've read it carefully, but I'm not sure what your objections are at this point.-- Ramdrake 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. (From WP:V#Burden_of_evidence)
Hi ST47! Here is the critique of the historical section and, as I promised, it will be amusing! Follow me!
As I said when I stated my position, I work on the history of ideas. It easy for me to realize when an historical reconstruction is well founded and when it is not. When I first read foie gras, the inconsistency of its so called historical section struck me. It is not a matter about the birds' health, here: it is a matter of telling the truth and being honest. And all that I found shows that the proposed "history" of foie gras is not true, and those who made it up are not honest.
When I got involved in the article, the whole historical section was unsourced (see a 20th December version - actually, the section has been unsourced from its beginning: see the 14 November 2005 version). I asked for sources and the section was filled with quotation from a single source: Ginor, Michael A. (1999), Foie Gras: A Passion. I found that it was a commercially biased source (Mr Ginor is a foie gras producer): I alerted the editors, but they did not remove it and simply added other sources. I found then that the other "sources" were simply "food writers", "chefs", "recipes collectors", etc. I remarked that these sources were not reliable, because none of their authors appeared to have skills in History, Linguistics, Archaeology, etc.: normally, when someone writes about ancient times, he/she is supposed to have skills of this kind, otherwise how can he/she find material, and understand it, and interpret it??? The other party was not of the same opinion; but the only argument they had to support their sources was to repeat again and again that they were reliable. Actually, they are doing the same thing here: they repeat things again and again to make them look true.
Are there reliable sources that state your argument or are you just arguing for exclusion because you don't like it? SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Since we have several reliable sources that support this it's time to drop it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
To repeate things to make them look true is a very simple rethorical strategy; simple and childish. Of course, the other party didn't take trouble to go to a library, didn't take trouble to read real Egyptologists, didn't take trouble to be serious: quoting websites and food writers is much easier, most of all it is useful to mystify things. (I must say that AR activists don't go to the library too, if they spread false historical information in their websites, and here is a proof that I'm not an AR activist!)
Well, to the other party, to be an historian is just a detail! it is unnecessary to make an historical reconstruction! Here is what is relevant in SchmuckyTheCat's opinion (from foie gras talk page):
It doesn't matter whether or not Ginor has training as a historian. That's a complete red herring bag of bogosity. His training, his profession, and the research in his book is impeccable. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Not just good enough, but Ginor is an excellent source. He speaks world-wide on the subject. His book wins awards, is called a reference, has four author credits, makes citations of its own, and is cited by others. That Benio and David are discounting him as a reliable source is just plain bad faith. SchmuckyTheCat 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is funny, really: Ginor wins awards and this makes a reliable historical source of him!!!
You will ask: why should someone make up a false history about the ancient origins of foie gras? isn't it just a biased accusation from anti foie gras people, as suggested by SchmuckyTheCat? I will answer quoting the very words of Michael Ginor, the author of Foie gras: a passion, award winner and foie gras producer:
... the interesting thing about foie gras is its illustrious history. There is no other food product that has such a history. Unlike things like truffles, caviar, or lobster, foie gras has been popular as far back as 5000 years ago and has always been a gourmet product interview with M. Ginor.
Finally, consider the “arguments” presented by Michael Ginor and Jacques Pepin. Michael Ginor, an owner of the largest American foie gras farm, responds to the moral attacks on foie gras by pointing out that “it’s been around for 5,000 years.” Jacques Pepin, presented by Newsweek as “author, teacher,” stated that “Foie gras has been around for thousands of years. If we’ve been doing something for so long, it can’t be so bad.” Provocations: Foie Gras & Philosophy.
"The world doesn't know another way to produce it [than force feeding]" Ginor said. "After 5,000 years of producing it this way, I don't suddenly see another way to do it." Farewell, foie gras?
"To me, the issues are, one, are the ducks sick?" Mr. Ginor said. "And the U.S.D.A. looks at every duck pre- and post-mortem, so it's not a diseased product. And, two, can it make people sick? Foie gras has been eaten by people for 5,000 years, and if it caused any disease we'd probably know it by now." Animal Rights Groups Ask New York to Ban Foie Gras.
It’s all a huge misunderstanding, in the view of Michael Ginor, an owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the upstate New York farm that produces most of the estimated 420 tons (or 1.8 billion caloies) of foie gras consumed in the United States annually. Force-feeding ducks with a tube “does sound atrocious,” he admits, but he maintains that waterfowl, lacking the mammalian gag reflex, do not suffer from the process. “Foie gras is easy to attack: it’s for the rich, it’s unnecessary, it’s vain. It can be seen as all those things. But it’s been around for 5,000 years.” “A Flap Over Foie Gras,” May 2, 2005, Newsweek, quoted here.
It is Michael Ginor himself - and it is not "just plain bad faith" from "Benio and David" - who shows us that the "illustrious history" of foie gras is just a strategy for its promotion and a moral justification to take out against those who question foie gras production: "But it’s been around for 5,000 years"! So, let it be!
Well, not only Mr Ginor is weak in History; he is really bad in Logic too. Pretending to infer values from facts, i.e. stating that producing foie gras is good just because the stuff went on for centuries, he seems to ignore the is-ought problem. And even everyday mathematics is not his cup of tea: while he pretends that foie gras dates from 2500 BC, he claims that it is 5000 years old! Well, I understand that a century more or less does not make a big difference to him - who cares about historical truth! what matters is winning awards and let people buy his foie gras!
Well, let us abandon Mr "Fraud" Ginor to his fate. Let us come back to facts. The only proof given in the article about Egyptian foie gras is a bas relief showing Egyptians feeding geese. The other party may insist saying that Olivierd is biased being an AR activist, but actually he is the only one who looked at that picture in an objective manner:
I see no reason to believe they did more than just encourage the birds to eat. That is what you see in the picture provided. David Olivier 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, David, you were right: the picture does not tell us anything about the birds' liver!!!
I found two reliable sources about Egyptians, written by Egyptologists, which prove that Egyptians did not produce foie gras.
1/ Aude Gros de Beler: Les anciens égyptiens II volume: Guerriers et travailleurs, éd. Errance, Paris 2006. Aude Gros de Beler is an Egyptologist, who especially studied Ancient Egypt everyday life; she is archaeologist and published several books about Ancient Egypt.
2/ Pierre Tallet, La Cuisine des pharaons, Actes sud 2003. Pierre Tallet is a professional academic historian and studied Egyptology at the Sorbonne University. He joined several archaeological missions and worked at the French Institute for Oriental Archaeology; he is currently Master of Conference at Paris IV University.
(For the record, to Boffob: "most historians study other things than the history of food" but history of food is definitely a matter for historians and it is not at all uncommon to find information about food, agriculture and animal farming in books of history)
1/ Aude Gros de Beler (pp. 157-167)
L'élévage
Dans les mastabas de l'Ancien Empire, la diversité des animaux constituant le cheptel des propriétaires terriens laisse perplexes: marchent, côte à côte, bœufs, gazelles, bubales, bouquetins, oryx, cerfs, grues, voire même hyènes. Une scène très instructive du mastaba de Kagemni (Saqqara - Nord), haut fonctionnaire sous le règne de Teti (2345-2333 av. J.-C.), montre an éléveur en train de gaver avec des boulettes de farine une bête qui n'est autre... qu'une hyène. (...) la naissance du jeune veau réclame ces services: la vache égyptienne vêle debout et l'éléveur y participe toujours, aidant la mère au moment de la délivrance. Au quotidien, il faut veiller sur l'alimentation, qui doit être abondante tant que l'animal n'a pas atteint sa corpulence définitive: pour ce faire, on le gave de pâte à pain. Accroupi devant la bête, l'homme se saisit d'un bâton: "Mange donc" dit-il, et ce, jusqu'à ce que l'animal soit définitivement repu. (...) le mastaba de Kagemni montre une scène étonnante où l'on voit un fermier nourrir à la bouche un porcelet. (...) les oies (...) constituent une réelle gourmandise pour les Égyptiens. Or, à table, chacun sait faire la différence entre une oie grasse, correctement nourrie, et une oie maigre, récemment capturée. (...) Pour les repas, l'éléveur s'approche de la cage et distribue généreusement du grain qu'il apporte dans un gros sac. Or, cette nourriture, pourtant assez copieuse, semble n'être qu'un simple en-cas car les oiseaux sont soumis au gavage, tout comme les bœufs. On confectionne des boulettes, composées de farine sans doute, que l'on plonge dans de l'eau tiède et que l'on va glisser jusque dans le fond du gosier de l'animal.
L'apiculture (...)
Translation
Animal farming
In the mastabas of the Ancient Empire, the diversity of the animals composing the livestock of the landlords is surprising: we see walking side by side oxen, gazelles, hartebeests, ibexes, oryxes, deer, cranes, and even hyenas. A very instructive scene from the mastaba of Kagemni (Saqqara - North), higher official during the reign of Teti (2345-2333 BC), shows a farmer force-feeding with balls of flour an animal that is no other than... a hyena. (...) the birth of the young calf demands the following attentions: the Egyptian cow gives birth standing and the farmer always does his part, helping the mother to deliver. In everyday life, it is necessary to be attentive to the food, which must remain abundant as long as the animal has not reached its final corpulence: for this, the animal is force-fed with breadmeal. Squatting in front of the animal, the man siezes a stick: "Go on, eat" he says, and this, until the animal is finally satiated. (...) the mastaba of Kagemni shows an astonishing scene where we see a farmer mouth-feed a piglet. (...) the geese (...) represent a real treat for the Egyptians. At the table, everyone can tell the difference between a fat goose, well nourished, and a thin one, recently captured. (...) For the feeding, the farmer comes to the cage and generously distributes grain that he brings in a large bag. But this food, though quite abundant, is apparently just a snack since the birds are submitted to force-feeding, just like the oxen. Balls are prepared probably out of flour dipped in warm water and they are slipped into the bottom of the throat of the animal.
Bee-keeping (...)
2/ Pierre Tallet (pp. 54-55)
Les viandes et leur préparation
(...) Différents types d'oiseaux étaient également cuisinés avec une grande régularité. Deux volailles apparaissent le plus souvent dans les sources: les oies et les canards (...) Les oies - dont on connaissait une dizaine d'espèces en Égypte pharaonique - étaient élevées en troupeau par un personnel spécialisé, et semblent avoir été populaires autant pour la consommation de leur chair que pour leur faculté à assimiler de la graisse. Ce produit était en effet couremment utilisé aussi bien dans la cuisine que pour la confection des potions médicinales. Peut-être est-ce la raison pour laquelle on connaît tant de scènes de gavage de ces volatiles (il n'est pas sûr, en effet, que les Égyptiens aient connu la recette du foie gras...). Dans la tombe de Kagemni (Ve dynastie), on peut ainsi voir deux hommes affairés autour de l'un de ces volatiles; l'un d'entre eux modèle de petites boules de pâte (sans doute du pain, peut-être mêlé d'un corps gras ou de fruits séchés) qu'il dépose sur une sorte de petit guéridon. Son compagnon a quant à lui attrapé l'oie par le cou, et la force à ingérer ces boulettes.
Translation
Meats and their preparation
(...) Different kinds of birds were also cooked very regularly. Two kinds of fowl appear most frequently in the sources: geese and ducks (...) The geese - about ten species were known in the Pharaonic times - were raised in flocks by specialized staff, an appear to have been popular both for their meat and for their ability to put on fat. This product was in effect routinely used both in cooking and in the preperation of medicinal potions. Perhaps that is the reason for which so many force-feeding scenes of these birds are known (in effect, it is not certain that the Egyptians have known the recipe for making foie gras...). In the Kagemni tomb (Fifth dynasty), it is thus possible to see two men surrounding one of these birds; one of them forms small balls of paste (probably bread, perhaps mixed with some fat or dried fruit) and lays them on a kind of low table. His partner for his part has seized the neck of the goose and forces it to ingest these balls.
Both sources show that Egyptians used to force-feed all their livestock (oxen, pigs, birds and... hyenas!) but just to fatten them: there is no evidence of any specific interest for the livers. (And this is confirmed by the last source quoted by Ramdrake in his last desperate contribution: the Egyptians used to force-feed the animals... and that's all.)
Therefore, the whole paragraph is irrelevant to foie gras and must be removed. (it is up to the other party to choose between deleting it or putting it in the force-feeding article).
Quoting these reliable sources, I not only showed that the "illustrious history" of foie gras is false, but also that its inventor, Michael Ginor, has intentionally selected historical information here and there and distorted it to build an advertisement strategy. This destroys his credibility.
Therefore, I ask for his book to be deleted from the bibliography and for all the statements founded on it to be deleted from the article.
To ST47: I think that what I showed here is enough to prove the weakness of the historical section, the unreliability of its sources and the incompetence of the editors who wrote it. There were also in the historical section other errors that I already showed in the "Good article review" concerning etymology and identification of sources; I don't want to give you too much to read here, but you can find it if you want. And finally, I'm sure that with a little more investigation I would find other absurdities. If all this is not enough to discredit the historical section of the foie gras article, I will pursue the investigation: I will not drop the issue.
Thanks for your attention.
Benio76 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As early as 2500 BC, the ancient Egyptians sought the fattened livers of migratory birds as a delicacy.
Benio's research is confirmed by statements from pro-foie gras sources :
1) INRA researchers G. Guy and D. Guemene : they state in their article "The past, present and future of force-feeding and “foie gras” production" [51] in World’s Poultry Science Journal, Vol. 60, June 2004, p210-222 that "Egyptians were thus probably the first to perform force-feeding, a practice that lasted in this part of the world for more than 2000 years. A number of bas-reliefs show such scenes, clearly demonstrating that fatty meat of waterfowl and other species of birds was appreciated, whereas we have no direct evidence of any specific interest in foie gras consumption."
2) Silvano Serventi, page 66 of his book "Le livre du foie gras" (Flammarion, 2002), states: "Ce serait en Egypte, à l'aube du IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., que le foie gras aurait été découvert chez des oies sauvages ayant migré [...]. L'histoire est jolie mais la réalité est loin d'être aussi limpide. [...] Mais la dégustation du foie gras n'est nullement prouvée dans les sociétés antérieures à la civilisation latine." Quick translation by me =>
"It is said that it was in Egypt, at the beginning of the 3rd millenary B.C., that foie gras has been discovered on wild migrating geese (...). The story sounds nice, but the reality is far from being as clear. (...) But consomption of foie gras is in no way proved to have existed in societies before the latin civilisation". And calls the story of Egyptians discovering foie gras a "legend". So that you understand that this is not a AR book, suffice to say that its first chapter is called "A Praise to Foie Gras" and the book starts with this very sentence : "Foie gras is a summit of culinary art and its presence on a table is a sure sign of pleasure and emotion". -- Zelig33 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
you have yet to turn up one source which contradicts anything said in the history section. One of the main differences between your science-fiction scenario and history is that history is mostly verifiable. (...) --Ramdrake 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) from foie gras talkpage- -introduction
The practice of geese-fattening spread from Egypt to the Mediterranean.[9] The earliest reference to fattened geese is from the 5th century BC Greek poet Cratinus, who wrote of geese-fatteners, yet Egypt maintained its reputation as the source for fattened geese. When the Spartan king Agesilaus visited Egypt in 361 BC, he was greeted with fattened geese and calves, the riches of Egyptian farmers.[10][11]
Guys, this page is now over 150 KB long, and I still don't know what you're arguing about. It sounds like you're arguing over foie gras production, rather than an article about it. Compromise, you aren't going to convince everyone. I am going to throw up a few sections below here in a moment regarding the areas in question, since my other ones have been overrun, and I'd just like arguments on either side to be listed. Feel free to add citations and introduce references, but don't go further than that. From here, we can the points and possibly get some uninvolved users to take a look at the less scary section. ST47 Talk 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
ST47, as you are making false accusations about a participant in this mediation (me), accusations for which you provide no evidence at all (see [52] and its discussion page), I don't think you can be a legitimate mediator in this case. I'll dig further in wikipedia rules to see what can be done in such a case. If you want to be a mediator, you will have to look into the issue, not just ask editors to compromise, when that means accepting claims not supported by credible sources into wikipedia articles. Zelig33 10:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding an etymology and analysis on "foie gras". For each option, choose whether you support or oppose it, and explain why, from a wiki-standpoint, adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
The section referring to Egypt.
Folks, how about this:
We can discuss each topic in their appropriate sections (the Egyptians in history and the etymology and steatosis in the physiology section). Any takers?-- Ramdrake 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)