Talk:Foie gras/Archive 3

message: WP:CITE: "It is helpful to briefly mention in the citation what claim it is that is being referenced. This allows later editors to tell whether it's a phrase, sentence or paragraph that's being documented, and also to find undocumented claims sneaking into paragraphs that were otherwise referenced."
I think it is wise to use   footnote style, as many claims in this article are likely to be challenged. I've renamed the "Notes" and "References" sections to "References" and "Further Reading" respectively, as these were misnamed as per WP:CITE. Some of the material in what is now "Further Reading" is clearly being used as sources, but the specific passages being documented are not specified. It would be great if someone familiar could reference the specific passages that use these sources, so that they can be moved into "References". After this is done, I'd like to see the "Further Reading" section merged with "External Links". —Trevyn 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved 3 books from "Further reading" to "References" since they were being used as references. More inline references encouraged. —Trevyn 01:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding references 

message: Currently in the article: "Late in 2003, a French coalition of animal rights groups published the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage, claiming that the practice of forced feeding is already illegal based on existing animal protection laws in France and the European Union."
Is there any source for the notability of Stopgavage? Unlike PETA, etc., there is no Wikipedia page, which says to me that their inclusion isn't any more relevant than, say, my blog—unless you can provide some reputable secondary source that we can use for this passage. Thanks. —Trevyn 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apart from Stopgavage being a coalition of over 80 French animal welfare or rights associations, and over 100 more in the rest of the world (among which PETA), as listed on their site; apart from their being listed in position 4 by Google when you type <"force feeding" gavage>; apart from their being the main organization struggling against foie gras in the country that is by far the world's greatest producer... David Olivier 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more specific. Please provide a Wikipedia:Reliable source. —Trevyn 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a source to say that they are notable. That is a judgement made by the editors on the page. David Olivier has provided a list of organisations and a google ranking which shows how notable the organisation is. Don't get confused about the requirements for sources - we have to have sources for statements made, not for the notability of the organisations that make them etc...-Localzuk(talk) 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I got a little muddled there. What I'm asking for is a Wikipedia:Reliable source that mentions Stopgavage and/or "the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage" that we can source this statement to, because Stopgavage itself is not a reliable source. —Trevyn 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That article would be a great source for "Antoine Comiti is an activist for Stop Gavage", but that's all it says about the organization. If they are regularly featured in the media, then it should be easy to find a reliable source that says who Stopgavage is, what they are doing, and why they are notable. Right now, it looks like the statement about them is OR based on a self-published website. —Trevyn 13:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Did anybody pay attention?  Source that. SchmuckyTheCat 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. A reliable source that states what the article would say. Specifically, I am concerned with "[Stopgavage is a] a French coalition of animal rights groups" and that the proclamation "claim[s] that the practice of forced feeding is already illegal based on existing animal protection laws in France and the European Union". —Trevyn 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopgavage / "the Proclamation for the Abolition of the Gavage" 

message: Chicago has been "considering overturning the ban" for over four months now. The only source given for that information is a September 12 article that states: "We've heard rumblings that there may indeed be support to overturn it. We should find out in about a month, when an ordinance to repeal the ban comes up for a vote." I've deleted that "information". I've also changed the wording of the Chicago chefs "performing acts of civil disobedience". That is POV hype. David Olivier 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that, given what the source says, a more current cite would be helpful. I didn't find anything about the City Council response in particular, but I found and inserted some more information to characterize the current political response to the ban, which seems sufficient. I disagree that "civil disobedience" is non-neutral, but I tried a third wording that maybe we can agree on. —Trevyn 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago "considering overturning the ban" 

message: Could we get a more specific legal source for the status of foie gras production in Argentina? If it is illegal, there should be a specific law somewhere. The rest of the jurisdictions mentioned (except for Austria) have very specific legal references. A quick web search came across mention of Argentina's foie gras industry as recently as 2004, and no mention of any Argentinean law. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I think this section benefits from very solid references for the actual legal status. —Trevyn 05:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete it, and I didn't say it wasn't reliable, I just asked if anyone had a reference to the actual law. —Trevyn 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the law and included the source in the article. David Olivier 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks! —Trevyn 01:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina 

message: Apart from that sentence being irrelevant, it is plainly not supported by the purported source. That article lists sixteen countries where foie gras production is illegal, and adds "most of which never produced foie gras in the first place". The sentence as it is in the foie gras article refers to a only nine of those countries. The source attests that a majority of the sixteen countries never produced foie gras, but that does not imply that a majority of those nine never produced it. Is that really so hard to understand? Ramdrake, after I have deleted that sentence, you have repeatedly reverted my edit. Do I really have to spell it out to you? Or are you just trying to waste my time? Talk of POV pushing! David Olivier 16:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about listing all 16 countries of the source then? Chances are that if most of the 16 countries were never producers of foie gras, then most countries of the subset of 9 presented in the current article also never were producers of foie gras, but unless one has specific cites it's hard to verify the exact details.--Boffob 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd like to see is a historical view of foie gras production by country, but I'm having trouble finding good sources. Does anyone have any? —Trevyn 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is fine, but I am happy that you recognize that the statement as it is is not supported by the source that is given. As a consequence, it is to be deleted.David Olivier 00:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no the statement is supported, except through some exercize of twisted logic. I'd strongly suggest you gather consensus on whether this is really unsupported in the eyes of the other editors here. I think you'll find you're part of the minority.--Ramdrake 00:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There, I've completed the list of countries so the citation is complete and irreproachably sourced now.--Ramdrake 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most of those countries never produced foie gras to start with" 

message: Ok, so we all know that the EU report that everyone loves states that ducks and geese have a gag reflex. There are also numerous reliable sources easily found on Google that say that they don't have a gag reflex. The EU report does have an extensive references section, but does not reference this statement or section at all. Does someone want to dig through the references to find the actual source they're using and get closer to the truth, or should we assume that the EU report is in error, since they don't reference this statement, and there are numerous reliable sources declaring the opposite, which reference a veterinarian and the people who actually stick things down the ducks' throats, as well as unreferenced assertions à la the EU report? —Trevyn 15:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the AMVA testimony also said they don't. SchmuckyTheCat 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting sources re: gag reflex 

message: I've added the warning, as compared to the two other sections on contrversy, this section is much longer, but much more importantly, the citations and bits taken from it seem to somewhat contradict each other, making it look like the report is undecisive (rather than being either inconclusive or conclusive on either side).--Ramdrake 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of summary-style section to the EU report section

message: Per WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, I think we need to trim the External Links section. The "news reports" and the German law link seem like obvious places to start, since these are basically repeating the numerous references that have been added to the article. Linking the EU Report again also seems more than a bit redundant. Opinions? —Trevyn 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Trevyn, the German law makes foie gras look bad, so of course you want to get rid of it! The German law reference is the direct source for the illegality of foie gras production in Germany, and must stay there. The news reports section give an image of the controversy, and of course you don't like that! How NPOV you are! But no, those reports are important references and are to stay. David Olivier 12:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References belong in References, not External links. —Trevyn 12:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming external links 

message: The intro states: "Along with truffles, foie gras is one of the greatest delicacies in French cuisine—with an 80%[2] fat content, it is very rich and buttery, with a delicate flavour unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver." That sentence could have been concocted by an advertisement agency.
"Is one of the greatest delicacies": Delicacy is a subjective term. The Fried spider page, speaking of the spider's abdomen, "Some call it a delicacy while others recommend not eating it." The fact that some call it a delicacy and others do not implies that there is a subjective judgment. That phrase is in standard English and anyone reading it understands it; it is standard use of the term "delicacy" to mean something good.
What have truffles to do with foie gras? Nothing, except that mentioning them contributes to giving an atmosphere to the article.
David Olivier 12:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting spider article. I find it amusingly poignant that "while others recommend not eating it" is at the absolute end of the article's text. We've discussed the meaning of the word "delicacy" before, and just because another article uses it incorrectly doesn't mean we should too. —Trevyn 15:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is not for advertisement 

message: I have added that tag, which is appropriate when both the neutrality and the factual accuracy of the article are disputed.
These disputes concern numerous issues. One party wishes references to the existing controversy about foie gras to be reduced to a minimum or taken out from the article, while the other party wishes that controversy to be recognized as a major aspect and have no specific size limitations. The disputes concern also the POV tone of the introduction, that reads like an advertisement; the factual claims about the history of foie gras, which are very poorly sourced and seem to be mostly part of the glamourous legend spinned by foie gras advertisement; about the wording of the references to the controversy and the scientific judgment on the welfare aspect of force-feeding; and on many other points.
It cannot be disputed that the article is disputed. When the dispute is solved, that tag will be deleted.
David Olivier 14:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm always up for formal mediation. Didn't you reject that last time? —Trevyn 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're at the same point as in the Cat article. I think it's either formal mediation or WP:LAME. I'd go for it.--Ramdrake 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed this tag.  This is certainly getting lame.  The adversarial process has resulted in improving the article but I'm not sure how much further it can go. I can still see improvements, but I'm not sure how much further this bickering is going to be useful. SchmuckyTheCat 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only improvements I've seen are the added references when necessary. Aside from that, I think it's just getting too big. Add this argument, add that counterargument. This isn't getting encyclopedic, it's becoming a long dialogue/set of parallel diatribes between two opposing views.--Boffob 20:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page and edit wars are a nightmare, for sure, but I think the article is getting closer to WP:FA by more than just the addition of references. Article growth itself is not a bad thing, and I fully expect this article to adopt full Wikipedia:Summary style in time. —Trevyn 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is going into mediation. On the pro-foie gras side both Trevyn and Ramdrake have asked for it, and cannot deny that the article is disputed. So let's leave at least this issue at that. David Olivier 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that NPOV is disputed, and you appear to have a reasonable and prolific argument. However, your claim of factual inaccuracy does not seem to hold water. The claims of fact you mention are referenced, verified, the sources are considered reliable by a majority of editors, and you have provided no counter-claims. According to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, "The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references", as well as three other cases that are not applicable to your argument. I will change the template to NPOV dispute only. —Trevyn 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trevyn, whatever you think of my claims about the factual inaccuracy of the article, I happen to have them. It is not up to you to decide that I don't have them. And I am not the only one to have them. Also, please avoid useless citing of guidelines. Yes, the article is in dispute, both on the everyday meaning of the word and according to the conditions in the guidelines. Please don't waste my time by asking you to spell it out to you. I have reverted the tag on the article to TotallyDisputed. Please stop trying to dispute that it is disputed. David Olivier 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TotallyDisputed tag added 

message: ...who thinks the entire article is now bloated? Just look at the external links and list of references. It shows how much has been added everywhere. There is a serious need for trimming and/or splitting into seperate articles. Instead of arguing over what to add and where to add it, trying to balance other edits with more material, why don't we try to agree on a trim, and find out what should be kept?--Boffob 15:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating my comment from above, I would support a conversion to Wikipedia:Summary style soon. I don't think it's necessary to trim content just for the sake of reducing size, though I do support trimming those external links which mirror a reference used in the text. —Trevyn 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one... 

message: Apart from the 3RR violation by Ramdrake noted by benio76 yesterday, we now have 4 reverts by SchmuckyTheCat, on exactly the same issue:
(All times in UTC)
#Dec 26, 22:37
#Dec 26, 23:43
#Dec 27, 19:18
#Dec 27, 22:08
As I said, this dispute is not going to be resolved by revert counting. But you, Trevyn, who were so eager to report what you made up as a 4RR violation by myself last Sunday, where are you when Ramdrake (yesterday) or SchmuckyTheCat do real 3RR violations?
David Olivier 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record also: Benio reported me and the admin's verdict was that it wasn't a 3RR violation at all. But this is turning into a very real edit war, at least until someone manages to build a real consensus.--Ramdrake 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramdrake, "users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule". It is Trevyn who wrote this to me. Mind. Benio76 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, Ramdrake: For those 4 reverts you were blocked for 24 hours, starting 29 Dec., 01:50. You could at least acknowledge the obvious. David Olivier 01:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for the record, David: First the orginal verdict by CSTAR found that 3 of these reverts weren't reverts, until you insisted and persuaded CSTAR that these were complex reverts which got me blocked for 24 hours. And second, it's kind of hard to "acknowledge" something like that while I was blocked from editing, thanks to you. So, I guess between that and the report you made on STC, you seem to have changed your tactics. Duly noted.--Ramdrake 13:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So go report it.  I've actually followed the procedure for Good Article review, even though I don't believe it needs it - that's the job you should be doing trying to remove the template.  I don't think restoring an improperly removed template on the talk page is subject to 3RR.  Consensus develops at the review page, not on your whim. SchmuckyTheCat 22:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will tell this to the mediator. Benio76 23:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the dispute is going to be resolved by revert counting, but given the circumstances, I do not intend to let one party do all they please, as they seem to think they can. I have reported SchmuckyTheCat. David Olivier 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: David, first, you could at least get your story straight: STC got off with a warning because two of the reverts held against him were on the talk page (the GA template) and two others were on the article page itself. That's two reverts on two pages, so it doesn't add up to four. Second, I don't think you have any business copying user talk page content to an article talk page, especially since it doesn't concern the content of the foie gras article, but rather the edit war surrounding it, which isn't germane to the content, but just an artifact of our profound disagreement.--Ramdrake 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for the record 

message: In response to Trevyn above: I have read the resolving disputes page. It states that formal mediation is supposed to take place only after other steps have been attempted. I propose informal mediation (aka the Mediation Cabal). I think it will make matters clearer. David Olivier 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was already requested, two days ago to be precise. I believe I've already mentioned it, too.--Ramdrake 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, no you didn't say here you had asked for informal mediation. Nice to know. David Olivier 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is what I said. Quite possibly, I wasn't clear enough. If so, my apologies.
If you'll hold off for just a bit, I've called in a mediator. You can argue your points then.--Ramdrake 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, I'd be happy to participate in informal mediation as well. This article has already gone through a round of that in June, over a related issue, which is why I suggested formal mediation. —Trevyn 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: ...is "force feeding". I reverted the edit by 208.54.14.29. David Olivier 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of gavage 

message: (posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography) —Trevyn 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for factual accuracy dispute 

message: Concerning the insertion of the primary source about Plinius made by BorgQueen, the English translation of book 8, Chapter 77 of Plinius' Natural History has been given but I didn't find the corresponding text in the latin text of Liber VIII of Historia Naturalis. See English translation and Latin text and also Latin text. Please find the exact source. Benio76 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin text is here. --BorgQueen 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then you have to correct the referency in the quotation. Benio76 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no trace of force-feeding in Plinius' Historia Naturalis, VIII, LXXVII. Please correct the quotation in the article. Benio76 21:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wrong placement of the corresponding Latin text seems to be an editing error on the part of Perseus Digital Library. If you look at this source the chapter lxxvii contains the sentence adhibetur et ars iecori feminarum sicut anserum, inventum M. Apici, fico arida saginatis ac satie necatis repente mulsi potu dato, not the chapter lxxxiv. I suppose I will mention this oddity in the reference section but the chapter number will stay as it is in the John Bostock's English translation. Would you agree? --BorgQueen 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is an error. I verified on a printed edition and the good chapter is indeed LXXVII. Benio76 10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources again 

message: Well, as the template that points people to the discussion regarding the review of this articles 'Good Article' status has been removed, I will provide a direct link to the discussion on whether this article should be a GA. So, if you are interested in discussing this issue, please click here. Localzuk(talk) 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status under review 

message: Maybe it would be the time to look at these other articles?  Veal, for example, is short and comprehensive and follows the "interleaved" approach. I suspect that there are many other articles which indicate the commercial approach to food production.  After all, it is economics, I don't believe anyone has shown evidence that the geese are being mistreated as a sport.  Lmcelhiney 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section:  Controversy II  (arbitrary section break) 

message: Fellow editors, please take note that the Medcab has picked up the case here. Any and all wishing to comment on the current situation may do so there, although my guess is that part of the mediation will also take place on this talk page. Just an FYI, really.--Ramdrake 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Cabal has picked up the case

message: SchmuckyTheCat 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? I can surely also document that in defiance to the anti-battering laws, a number of Chicago men beat their wives. David Olivier 13:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But anti-battering laws are enforced (that is, authorities go after reported cases), while the foie gras ban is not.--Boffob 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Chicago, but there are many places where anti-battering laws are very poorly enforced. It has been a long-standing battle to get them enforced. That is the way things are, for battering as well as for force-feeding. David Olivier 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But men that beat their wives aren't praised by the newspapers. Significant difference here.--Ramdrake 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Apples to oranges. Alex Pankratov 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent AP release about Chicago