Talk:Foie gras/Archive 1

message: Woah, the French version seems to have way more information. Anyone up for translating? --NeuronExMachina 21:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: French version

message: I have a French book on healthy eating that says the foie gras has major health benefits; the region in France where the stuff is principally produced (and consumed), Gers, has a life expectancy far above the average. Someone should research this. I can't provide more information without blatantly copying from the book. -- levsen 22 Jan 2006
:Can you at least tell us the title of the book? --BorgQueen 22:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Je cuisine Montignac, tome 1" and other books by Mr. Montignac. This guy is a sort of French Dr. Atkins. Supposedly a certain Dr. Renaud of the INSERM institute has researched the health benefits of foie gras and the surprising longevity of those South-Western French. -- levsen 23 Jan 2006
Montignac is a fraud. Thye life expectancy in Gers (and the whole South/South West part of France has more to do with the benefits of garlic and wine, or the Mediterranean diet than with foie gras... delicious but pure fat. --Svartalf 17:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Health benefits

message: Eek, someone reverted my addition about foie gras tasting nice with jam and wine. Why. It's not wrong. Try yourself. -- levsen 22 Jan 2006
You are indeed correct.  Even in the town of Sarlat in the Dordogne region of France, one of the gastonomic capitals of France, stores sell onion jam and wine alongside their foie gras.  Last time I was there we had a terrine of foie gras and figs, delicious.  It may be true though that as with cheese, Americans enjoy foie gras with more exotic and possibly sweeter ingredients, eating more fruit or jam than cheese or foie gras.  Purists eat it with toast, salt and freshly ground black pepper.  I say as long as people are trying new things, let them eat it however they want.
--Gastrog 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consumption

message: It says "some people regard force-feeding as cruel". Is there another point of view? AndrewR
:Yes. For instance, I remember people working in the foie gras industry saying that it wasn't and that the ducks and geese didn't seem to be hostile to the feeding. Furthermore, I cannot vouch for the opinion in the general population, but I suspect that the consumption of foie gras would be less widespread if people considered its production to be unduly cruel compared to other methods for raising animals for butchering. David.Monniaux 20:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know aobut that. People continue to eat veal and that remains an extremely cruel practice. Jdufresne 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruelty 

message: This article reads like it was written, or heavily modified, by an animal rights enthusiast. I'm going to do some editing on it. I am attempting to neutralize statements outside of the controversy section - where POV shouldn't be.  And in the controversy section, I'll add material defending foie gras. Others can feel free to followup discussion with me here - but please don't blind revert.
:From the intro I did remove a little bit:
:* removed "swollen by forced feeding resulting in hepatic steatosis" and replaced with "that has been overfed."
:* jsutification: that is very POV in the intro - the controversy section spells this out fine, so it isn't removing the issue.  It also isn't clinical hepatitis (it would be if it continued, but not at the point of slaughter) so it's a factual correction.
:* removed "Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Norway and Poland have specifically banned force feeding animals." as this list is duplicated (more completely) later in the article.  It serves no purpose in the intro, the term "force feeding" is also POV.
::How is "force feeding" POV? The birds are forcibly fed more than they would naturally eat.  It's a simple description 4hodmt 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I reverted this series of edits.  It's obviously an animal rights supporter deleting things contrary to that POV and adding text that inflames the "this is cruel" POV.  I'd welcome changes sympathetic to the animal rights POV, but not wholesale deletion or non-factual information. Since this ws an anon IP, who knows if they will see this and try and add their info in a NPOV way.       SchmuckyTheCat 16:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that? Depending on the farm, it is true, per numerous eyewitness accounts. The only way they get fed is gavage, and they're hungry. Wnissen 15:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: May 8, 2005 edits by 24.127.99.9

message: There is rampant POV and non-factual information throughout this article.  It largely looks like it was written by employees of a foie gras farm.  For example, "As far back as 2500BC, the Egyptians sought the fattened livers of migratory birds as a delicacy."  I previously made edits removing POV, and stating the more factual version of what is actually known, as documented on the EU Commission report, which is referenced in the article.  That is, a statue of a fattened goose was found in ancient Egypt 4500 years ago.  The current statement distorts the facts, since most foie gras today does not come from "migratory birds", rather non-migratory ducks.
The production section seems to spend no time discussion actual production, i.e., farm conditions.  It is devoted mainly to making an argument that ducks wouldn't mind being force fed because of certain physical traits.  Again, this is a very selective and industry-oriented view of the facts found in the EU Commision report, and belongs in the controversy section.
While I am certainly concerned with animal cruelty, I did not insert POV, simply undid the rampant industry POV.  The EU Commission report also states many facts about its production, which contradict the opinions currently expressed.  For example, contrary to what foie gras producers often state, ducks and geese do have gag reflexes.  It is also a fact that most birds are kept in cages that do not leave room for them to turn around or spread their wings.  Ducks are waterfowl, and given no access to water in most foie gras operations.  Foie gras farms also keep ducks in complete darkness most of their lives.  All of these facts are substantiated in the thorough review of foie gras production completed by the EU.  However, the industry-friendly opinions throughout the article are only substantiated by statements made by producers themselves, not independent sources.
Rather than revert away from all of my changes, which were well researched statements of fact, please point out specific cases where I have inserted POV.  I might note that the controversy section should be a perfectly legitimate place for POV, yet my edits to that section were also undone.
*Regarding your assertion that foie gras mainly comes from non-migratory birds, this is not at all true.  The most common bird used in the production of foie gras is the Mullard duck which is a sterile offspring of a non-migratory Muscovy duck and a migratory Mallard duck.  These birds do not appear frequently (at all?) in nature. Regarding farm conditions, what exactly do they have to do with production methods?  Discussion on farm conditions would seem to me to be more about animal welfare than actual production methods and belongs in controversy section. Taft 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: On this article, we obviously have people with definite and opposite opinions regarding the cruelty of force-feeding. I think that the solution to avoid conflicts and "revert wars" is to properly attribute all contested claims: for instance, if some statements are in an industry publication, say so; if some statements are in a EU scientific report, say so.
I also think that there is a substantial impact of culture dependency in the debate. As with many things, people are ready to prohibit things on "ethical" grounds as long as they're not used to it, or the thing sounds "foreign" (I note that the argument that foie gras is a French specialty seems to have played a role in the Californian campaign). We should then probably also mention the geographical origin of the parties involved. David.Monniaux 06:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper attribution

message: "Ducks used are a sterile hybrid" I'm confused what do they do grow them from cuttings? Jackliddle 13:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sterile Ducks? 

message: Edited this passage: 
*Michael Ginor, owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras and author of Foie Gras... A Passion, claims his birds come to him and says this is important because "a stressed or hurt bird won't eat and digest well or produce a foie gras." Critics point out that the birds aren't voluntarily eating at all, they are force fed through a pipe several times every day.
I removed the critical response from the paragraph. The reason I removed it was not because I doubt that critics think that the birds aren't voluntarily eating.  Rather, I removed it because no one in the foie gras industry, including Michael Ginor who is quoted here, is claiming that the bird's are voluntarily eating.  The producers, like many critics, also use the term "forced feeding".  What Michael Ginor is claiming is that the birds come to him, not that they voluntarily eat.  It seems odd and biased to include criticism of statements that the industry isn't even making.
BTW, the edits by 199.245.230.134 were me.  I wasn't logged in. Whoops.
Taft 14:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response to Michael Ginor 

message: When editing the page, the following passage is commented in the text:
*Industry groups including CIFOG, and researchers at INRA affirm that forced feeding is not a cruel procedure and even that animals appreciate this treatment. The EU committee carried out several tests designed to detect pain or distress by looking at blood hormones and all of them were inconclusive or without any measurable difference to similarly raised animals. The committee did not observe any signs that animals appreciated being force fed, and observed that ducks attempted to move away when their feeder entered the room. However, veterinarians who serve at foie gras farms have observed this behavior.< !-- Can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean?  "However" implies that the latter sentence contradicts the former.  It currently supports it.  Either "However" is the wrong word, or some other part of the sentence is incorrect. -- >
I take this last sentance to mean "However, veternarians who serve at foie gras farms have observed behavior which indicates the birds appreciate force feeding." This is consistant with the claims of the foie gras producers and contradicts the preceding sentence.  I will make the edit as written above, but am documenting this as the passage was a bit confusing.
Taft 22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear passage in Criticism section 

message: the controversy section seems to sensibly deliver NPOV analysis of the varying viewpoints on gag reflexes. i do not see a need for gag reflex to be mentioned in the production section, and as it is currently unattributed and asserting surety it comes across as POV. i am simply going to remove that sentence, i think the section does fine without it. i do not know a great deal about the subject, but trawling google tells me that there is far from a consensus on either side and very little non-agenda-based discussion.
FWIW, the article as a whole does not seem terribly POV--perhaps a little disjointed at worst, and although it can use some work, i think we can find a way to show all facets of this complex and debatable issue.
Burgher 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gag reflex 

message: Can someone double-check the pronunciation, please?
currently: [fwä grä]
The pronunciation is currently spelled with a's with umlauts on top.
This a-umlaut is pronounced as 'ae'.  So, according to that pronunciation,
foie gras would be pronounced something like: fwae grae.
I double-checked the Langenscheidt's French dictionary and confirmed
both a's are pronounced with open a (as in 'ah').  
So the pronunciation most Americans are used to was correct:  fwah grah
Since I didn't start this entry, could the owners/originators investigate and update :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Il consiglieri (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 February 2006  (UTC)
:Looks like a copy-paste from dictionary.com, which has it's own "special" set of pronunciation guides.  To them (and elementary schools in the US, I believe), ä is just a long 'a' sound, like in father.  I'll IPA it, good catch! --Mgreenbe 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation check 

message: Please, Can someone correct in the article this fault? Indeed, saying "paté" for "Foie Gras" is ABSOLUTLY uncorrect, an horror ;)
:I only see two occurrences of pâté, one in the image caption, and the other say pâté is another presentation.  They both seem correct. SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Foie gras" and not "Paté de foie gras" 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because of ongoing edit war —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:except it wasn't. SchmuckyTheCat 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: In the talk page, it looks like some writers are assuming only extremists find the gavage process disagreeable or cruel.  It seems reasonable that people who are not otherwise active in animal rights movements might react strongly to gavage.  Is describing them as animal rights activists consistent with NPOV practice or a subtle  attempt to frame all objectors as extremists/whackos?
Sailboatd2 12:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the implication that "Animal Rights Activists" are the only objectors meet NPOV?

message: I've reverted an edit that had the summary "Removed statement on duck migration that was not found in the listed source".  The removed statement was concerning duck migration and weight.  As the listed source states, on pg 26, "For example the mean weight of the blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata increases from 10-12g to 20-23g before migration to the breeding grounds." SchmuckyTheCat 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The blackpoll warbler is not a duck, but I'm certain the EU scientific committee used it for an example with good reason. SchmuckyTheCat 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed statement on duck migration that was not found in the listed source

message: The GA criteria has recently been changed so that internal citation is necessary, and although I might not personally agree with it, for this article, i'm tempted to make an exception. What I see here is basically a farm of links as references, while they are ordered out nicely, to verify the article, a reader may have to click on three or four external links before they actually find the one that references the sentence they want to verify, and then of course they have to actually read the reference. Please try to use internal citations, I know it might take some time, but it would really improve the article, and someone might delist this otherwise. Homestarmy 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations needed