Talk:Foie gras/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Bans" section

I removed this section in these two diffs, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and see also WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I'll also add, WP:NOTNEWS. This content is not encyclopedic; there are probably hundreds of places that don't serve foie gras. Maybe someone wants to start List of establishments that do not sell foie gras, although i have a hard time seeing how that would survive... Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

These arguments are so incredibly flimsy.

re WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The Bans section is about major retailers that have decided to ban the sale of foie gras and notable organisations (i.e. they have their own WP article) that are refusing to serve it. It is not indiscriminate because I have deliberately not included many sources which indicate celebrity chefs (and others) will not cook or eat it (e.g. Gordon Ramsay, Roger Moore, etc). I included Prince Charles as an individual because he is British Royalty and that makes it of interest to some readers. Furthermore, the items discussed are in chronological order to present the reader with a structured presentation of the information. Clearly, the section is not indiscriminate.

re WP:LAUNDRYLIST this essay (note it is not a policy) states "WP:Avoid data-hoarding, describes issues about collecting extensive piles of information about a subject..." I would hardly call 5 lines of text "extensive". The section is not a laundry-list.

re WP:NOTNEWS. This relates mainly to writing about current topics. The latest dae is 2013 - I would hardly call this "current" or a recent event.

• It is of great importance that the previous editor wrote "...there are probably hundreds of places that don't serve foie gras". This is precisely why the Bans section is important. Moreover, the section includes information on bans by retailers and caterers. The section is not being written as a newspaper - it is tracking the history of bans.

__DrChrissy (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The last line is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is all about. We are not writing a chronicle here. Encyclopedic content would be a general paragraph about retail sales that gave some idea of how retail sales have gone, what percentages of places sell it what don't. A paragraph that provides context. This is just some kind of laundry list, without context. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the question could be reframed as "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" Surely some of the bans make sense to include at the Controversy article, but we shouldn't just reproduce them here. What about inserting a single paragraph, or a sentence or two, in an existing subsection, which lists some of the most notable bans (lists, but in prose, with individual citations)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog. Of course you are entitled to include a section on retail sales if you wish, but why should this page not include documentation of retail organisations that are refusing to sell or serve the foodstuff? Is this not of interest to the reader? It is also good reference material as the sources are all robust and verifiable.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

you miss my point almost entirely. this does not make the content encyclopedic, it just changes the format. Encyclopedic content provides context and a high level view, not a collection of events. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites that we should be summarizing here. I found this "Bans" section duplicated word-for-word in the Foie gras controversy article, which is not good: we should be using the principal of WP:SYNC to refer to it there. I also agree with much of what Jytdog has to say about the unduly miscellaneous nature of the "Bans" section, though some of this content can surely be preserved. To sort this out I have:

• Boiled the "Bans" section down to something more compact/due
• Merged it (and the other overlapping legislative content) to the Foie gras controversy article
• Provided a brief summary here and linked with a {{main}} {{further}} template, as we should

I think this tidies and reconciles and improves the content a lot, and solved the duplication problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(Add). Well, DrChrissy has now twice reverted these changes in just one of these articles, which is causing nasty duplication and mess. Probably a better idea to engage rather than edit war as it's messing-up the encyclopedia. Or if reverting, to do it properly at least. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn. You have been making swinging deletions of information that belongs on this page, not the controversy page. Legislation and bans are not part of the controversy, they are about the current status of the foodstuff. You have made attacks on me at my Talk page trying to publically discredit my editing. Your editing history and edit warring make it very apparent that you are against inclusion of any material on this page that might be viewed as negative. This is censorship. I believe RFC is needed here.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You say "Legislation and bans are not part of the controversy page" but they formed a large part of that page; in fact you copy-pasted the "Bans" section there[2] giving us de-normalized content (not good): we can't have swathes of duplicate content in articles and so I moved and reconciled all the legislation content, and summarized and moved the "Bans" content, in one place: the controversy article. It is available from here via the link of a "further" template. Your comments on me as an editor are disruptive and a violation of the WP:TPGs and our WP:NPA policy (and also wrong). Whether or not the material in question should be here or in the controversy article is debatable. It should not however be in both places, as you have repeatedly made it. The Bans section as it was, was laundry-list content and undue as others have said; I have tried to salvage something from it rather than delete it.

A RfC may be a good idea, if it can be decided what question to pose. I'd like to hear from other editors so we don't launch a lame RfC and waste editors' time (as so often happens). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The question to pose is easy "Are your edits disruptive, harassing and amounting to censorship?" As for when a RfC might be launched, I will make my own mind up on that and will not be bullied into dealying tactics on your part. Finally you have agreed that it is debatable whether the placement of the Bans material should be here or on the Controversy article. If this is the case, why did you not discuss this on the Talk page? Where has there been any recent discussion about moving the Legislation section? There is/was duplication, but this is/was only minor and to be expected in two articles that are so closely related. It is censorhip to move material from this article to the Controversy article simply because it may describe negative aspects about foie gras.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That would not be a valid RfC question; the only two community venues for addressing editor behaviour are arbcom and AN/I. So long as we have a "Controversy" article it makes sense to put material relating to the "Foie gras wars" there. Our aim is to apportion content sensibly and not make this article some kind of instrument for advocacy in any direction. At first blush, it seems to me the bans and laws arising from the controversy live naturally in the Controversy article, but in deciding how to apportion content between articles we would best be guided by RS - a book like this for example might give us a steer on whether a topic was part of the "controversy" or not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Before we go to an RfC we need to deal with issues here first. DrCrissy, you have not responded to what Alexbrn said about WP:SYNC. While not policy, that is guideline, and not something we can just toss away without discussion. Please do address the issues with WP:SYNC here - in light of that guideline, an RfC would likely be a SNOW close in favor of the current version. Also, please limit discussion here to content, not contributors, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what question was asked. Initially, the Bans and Legislation sections were both on here. At one point, I copied the Bans section to the Controversy article and then further expanded the Bans section on the Foie gras article, but left the Controversy article alone as a summary. This morning, I found that both sections had been reduced so much in detail that they were effectively useless, and that they had been moved to the Controversey article. So, I reverted the edits to Foie gras to reinstate both the Bans and Legislation sections. I forgot to delete/edit the Controversy article. I accept this leaves duplication and I accept this is not good for WP. However, I have had accusations of 3R directed at me and I am concerned that if I clear up the duplication at the Controversy article, I will be further accused of edit warring. To my mind, we need to address the question of which article contains the detailed material on Bans and Legislation, and which contains only the summaries. Certainly, there has been no discussion whatsoever about moving the Legislation to the Controversy article - it was done unilaterally. There was no discussion about moving the Bans section until after I had moved a summary there. There was previous discussion about content, but not in which article the content belonged.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites suggested above that a question we might ask is "how do we effectively summarize Foie gras controversy for the Controversy section of this page?" I agree that's a question we could usefully ask. The problem in part is that there is some disconncect between the two articles. Ideally, we should be putting all the controversy-related material (decided by using RS as a guide) into the Controversy article, and then briefly summarizing it in this article. My edits are a first step in getting there. I don't detect any consensus for including your long "shopping list" version of a bans section; let's see if my reduced alternative sticks. To your other points:

• The Controversy article already had extensive content on legislation[3] even before I edited it. I merged the rump of legislation content here into it.
• I did not "accuse" you of 3RR, rather I pointed out the plain fact you were at 3RR here, as a courtesy. Since you were unaware of this, I prevented your likely getting blocked for edit-warring!

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't detect any consensus for my contribution (which I have already indicated is not a "shopping list" and editors did not dispute) because it has been moved from the page! How can editors reach any consensus when they can't see what they are supposed to be discussing! So that other editors can read and comment, I have posted this below. __DrChrissy (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you see the problems with WP:SYNC, Drcrissy. Seems like we are done dealing with content here. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording for bans section

collapse section in question for tidiness

Several major retail and catering companies have refused to sell foie gras, and other notable establishments have refused to serve the foodstuff. In 2007, the UK based Harvey Nichols retail chain, which has stores in London, Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Dublin, stopped the sale of foie gras. This followed a long campaign highlighting the methods used to produce foie gras. Vegetarians' International Voice for Animals (Viva) welcomed the decision. "Obviously we are very pleased that Harvey Nichols has stopped selling foie gras," said spokesman Justin Kerswell. Waitrose, Sainsbury's, Lidl and House of Fraser also stopped stocking foie gras in 2007, and Selfridges decided to stop selling foie gras in November 2009. In 2011, foie gras was banned from the biennial Anuga Food Fair in Cologne causing "A high-level diplomatic spat...between France and Germany". Also in 2011, the online grocer Ocado became the latest UK retailer to ban the sale of foie gras. Their decision arose after animal welfare group PETA wrote to the retailer asking it to remove the product from its virtual shelves. In 2012, the British House of Lords bannned foie gras from its in-house menu. The Barry Room removed the controversial foodstuff from their menu following campaigns by PETA. Also in 2012, the Compass Group UK and Ireland removed foie gras from its menus. The contract caterer stated it was removing the foodstuff although it was only used on a few sites. The managing director said he was proud the company had made the decision and that it was being supported throughout the business. The UK associate director, Mimi Bechchi, was quoted as saying "We're delighted that Compass Group has found its 'moral compass' and agrees that serving up the grotesquely enlarged livers of force-fed ducks and geese is indefensible. In 2013, after being presented with a petition containing 13,000 signatures, the internet retailer, Amazon.co.uk, prohibited the sale of products containing foie gras. The British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the Brit Awards, Wimbledon, Lord's Cricket Ground and the Royal Shakespeare Company have all pledged not to serve or sell foie gras, and Prince Charles does not allow it on Royal menus. References

__DrChrissy (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. This covers the voluntary bans, but where are the laws? Clearly I missed something in the back and forth. "California" is not once mentioned in the current article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. The long-standing Legislation section has been removed unilaterally from this article by an editor. This contentious removal was not discussed on the talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

the use of "unilaterally" is not helpful. Everything happens here because someone is WP:BOLD and acts. It's only when someone does something (or proposes something) concrete that editors can try to seek WP:CONSENSUS for it. as discussed above, putting things in one place instead of two accords with WP:SYNC - I support that. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It might not be helpful but it is true. There is "bold" and there is "ignoring taking to the Talk page"! This should have been done and the editor concerned should engage with this discussion and explain their disruptive actions.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy at the controversy article first?

This idea may well go over like a lead balloon, but I'll just throw it out there. The disputes about this page seem to largely concern the controversy section. Not a big surprise, of course. Meanwhile, however, the article foie gras controversy sees very little editing/attention. Might it be easier to work on that article first and then, once coverage of the controversy has been worked out, then determine how best to summarize it here? The alternative, as we've seen, is messy as there are parallel disputes going on: (a) whether sources are reliable, whether statements are verified in sources, whether wording is neutral, and other standard "do we include this text" matters, and (b) is it due weight to include here vs. the controversy article. Working on that article first might be more editing work but might save time/effort in the long run. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about a lead balloon but I actually think these should not be separate articles. Please don't get worried - I am not about to start some massive campaign to merge the two articles - there seems to be enough drama associated with whether India was the "first" or "only" country to ban the import of foie gras! Your suggestion may have great merit in looking to the future of merging the articles - after all, the controversy must surely be an integral part of the food production. I have seen no other articles where this division occurs - but, of course, I am willing to be corrected on that. To be honest, I do few edits on the Controversy page because I believe my efforts are better spent on the Foie Gras article - I consider this to be the parent article, the Controversy is more of a spin off.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There are scholarly sources dealing with welfare which neither of the Wikipedia articles cite. I've listed some possibly useful ones below, including only sources for which the (sometime unofficial) full English text is available.

articles

• Faure J M, Guémené D and Guy G (2001) "Is there avoidance of the force feeding procedure in ducks and geese?". Animal Research, 50 (2): 157–164. doi:10.1051/animres:2001111 Full text
• Guémené D and Guy G (2004) "The past, present and future of force-feeding and 'foie gras' production". World's Poultry Science Journal, 60 (2): 210–222. doi:10.1079/WPS200314 Full text
• Guémené D, Gérard G U Y, Noirault J, Destombes N and Faure J M (2006) "Rearing conditions during the force-feeding period in male mule ducks and their impact upon stress and welfare". Animal Research, 55 (5): 443–458. doi:10.1051/animres:2006028 Full text
• Kaufman C K (2008) "The Foie Gras Fracas: Sumptuary Law as Animal Welfare?" In: S R Friedland (Ed) Food and Morality: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, pp. 124–136 Oxford Symposium. ISBN 9781903018590.
• Rodenburg T B, Bracke M B M, Berk J, Cooper J, Faure J M, Guémené D et al. (2005) "Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems", World's Poultry Science Journal, 61 (4): 633–646. doi:10.1079/WPS200575 Full text

legislative comment

I'm not sure what counts as reliable with articles on Foie Gras legislation, but the following may contain other useful sources:

• Grant J I (2009) "Hell to the Sound of Trumpets: Why Chicago's Ban on Foie Gras Was Constitutional and What It Means for the Future of Animal Welfare Laws". Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy, 2 (52). Full text
• Ma, Vanessa (2013) "Ban on Foie Gras: A Legislative Fowl", Student Scholarship. Full text
• Shapiro M (2012). Wild Goose Chase: California's Attempt to Regulate Morality by Banning the Sale of One Food Product", Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 35 (27). Full text
• Sullivan M and Wolfson D J (2007) "What's Good for the Goose... The Israeli Supreme Court, Foie Gras, and the Future of Farmed Animals in the United States". Law and Contemporary Problems, 70: 139–173. Full text

books

• Caro, Mark (2009) The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World's Fiercest Food Fight Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781439158388.

--Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Some great sources! Many thanks!__DrChrissy (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

On those sources:

• Faure J M, Guémené D and Guy G (2001) this is a WP:PRIMARY source and should not be used in WP. it is also old.
• Guémené D and Guy G (2004) this is WP:SECONDARY and OK, but it is old
• Guémené D, Gérard G U Y, Noirault J, Destombes N and Faure J M (2006) - this is a WP:PRIMARY source and should not be used in WP; is also old
• Kaufman C K (2008) - this is SECONDARY and OK but I tend to steer away from conference proceedings as they are not peer reviewed. also pretty old
• Rodenburg T B, Bracke M B M, Berk J, Cooper J, Faure J M, Guémené D et al. (2005) - this is a SECONDARY source so OK there but is old.
• on the legislative comment articles, i avoid these like the plague and didn't even look at them. articles in law journals are notoriously argumentative/opinion-driven, and if you want to try to use something from them, you have to do a lot of additional reading to figure out where the POV of the author fits in the field, so that you can use it in an NPOV way, providing appropriate context. way, WAY easy for POV-pushers to cherry-pick law review articles that fit their POV. really, to be avoided.
• Caro book looks like a good popular treatment of the issues. he's an entertainment writer, so would use it gingerly with any science-driven content. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How old is too old? Is the Bible too old to be a reliable source?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

unclear to me if your question is authentic or rhetorical. the reference to the bible leads me to believe it is rhetorical. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand from your personal essay on reliable sources that you advocate "all of Wikipedia should be based on reliable secondary sources... we should stay away from primary sources...". You appear to be promoting a position that all of Wikipedia should be bound by the same rigorous requirements that are appropriate for articles about human health and biographies of living persons. Well those standards, and in particular the rejection of primary sources, are simply not appropriate if used indiscriminately in all other areas in Wikipedia. They are not appropriate for very good reasons, reasons which it seems you have not yet thought through. This is not the place to argue the issue. But neither is this the place for you to push what is simply your own POV about what sources are acceptable. If you want your check list above to be taken seriously, and not as a careless set of knee-jerk responses, then you need first to get the necessary consensus and rewrite Identifying reliable sources. You have done a great job bringing some order and rigour to articles on genetically modified food. But perhaps there is a danger of your firm adherence to stringent guidelines for WP:MED articles turning into something like the unthinking certitudes of a believer in the old testament. There are other more appropriate and more gentle guidelines for other parts of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

how lovely that you read my little attempt at an essay.. thank you. the first bullet in it, makes it clear that the preference for SECONDARY sources is deep in the guts of Wikipedia. It is discussed in WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV as well as plain old WP:RS. We aim to give the mainstream view the most WEIGHT and secondary sources tell us that; it is way too easy to do OR by giving UNDUE weight to some cherry picked primary source -- just by picking only that source and not discussing others. Really - throughout WP we should use primary sources rarely if ever, and only with good reason and great care when we do! Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to get into a general discussion about this, but here is an example of a simple primary source which has been cited 33,000 times. It is the seminal paper in it's field, and to write an article without citing it would be unthinkable. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

and because of that, I am sure that there are many secondary sources that discuss the ideas in it; there is no reason at all, to use that source itself to support any content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well good luck with finding any hard scientists who will have sympathy with your campaign to suppress seminal papers on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

yep, i don't edit much in the hard sciences. but even for that kind of statement - "seminal paper" - you would need a secondary source saying that, about the paper. Without that, the claim is OR. I don't mind citing primary sources that are of historical interest, but they should always be supplementary to a secondary source that says so, and that says why it was important -- again the secondary source tells you how much WEIGHT to give it - that is not your call or mine, nor any other editor's (we are editors, not authors, here) Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the logic behind a primary source (scientific article) being unacceptable is fundamentally flawed. A scientific paper published in any reasonable scientific journal will have been through peer-review. It is therefore a secondary source because the editor will have taken peer-reviewers' comments into account before publication. This makes scientific articles way, way more robust than a reporters's article in the Daily Star or any other newspaper which may have been seen by only one editor with no scientific experience whatsoever - a point I made earlier.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

so SO many original reports of research turn out to be not replicable and just go no where. we have no business dealing with WP:PRIMARY scientific sources here, especially not in the life sciences. And doing so goes against the heart of every content policy and guideline we have. we need a really good reason to use one, and they have to be used with care. I will not debate this general principle of WP here. if you want to use any primary sources here, we may well end up tangling over it depending on how... so do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple question reiterated to @Jytdog. You appeared to dismiss articles listed above as being unsuitable sources because of their age. How old does an article have to be before it is discredited simply because it is old?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, it was a real question. as i noted above, it appeared to be rhetorical the first time, so thanks for clarifying. There is no hard guidance in policy on this that I know of, nor in the RS guideline (although RS notes that "some scholarly material may be outdated"). The MEDRS guideline (see WP:MEDDATE) recommends around five years, for content related to health (and one could argue that vet med falls within that). But in any case, we should always try to use the most recent reliable, independent, secondary sources we can as part of the mission to provide the public with reliable, well sourced NPOV content. That's the underlying principle here. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Searching on this topic, there seems to have been a peak of academic interest between 2004-2009ish, and a sharp drop-off of material afterwards. So I suspect we're going to need to reconcile ourselves to using conent from around that period. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that context. So... we should use the most recent secondaries that are available. Looks like the mid to late 2000s ones listed above are good, date-wise. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ortolan bunting

Adding a new "Related foodstuffs" section and a swathe of text about the Ortolan bunting is completely undue. I've added a see also link instead, and even that's quite a tangent ... (Also: the text was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Since when were 3 sentences (I think) a swathe? The text was not copy and pasted from the source...there were in fact two sources. Therefore, you should prove this public accusation accusation or apologise.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

here you go:

• 1999 Wine Spectator article: "For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God."

• content added by drchrissy: "For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'"

copyvio seems pretty clear, yes? could be fixed by quoting the whole thing of course Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish! What I have written is a paraphrasing of the two pieces. Furthermore, I have clearly attributed the ideas to both sources and make no claim whatsoever that they are my own. I am going to make a formal complaint against Alexbrn for this accusation. Do you, Jytdog wish to be included as an offending editor?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

wow DrCrissy, if you think that kind of very close paraphrasing is OK, ... just wow. The far easier solution would just be to say "oops yeah that was a bit too close, I see your point". If you want to go to that mat on this, I think your chances are darn slim. Shall I ping WP's resident copyright expert to get a quick opinion here? Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping away!...make sure you include the second source I used which for some reason you did not copy here.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl would you please have a look at the potential copyvio issue we are discussing here? thx Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid that the content does follow very closely. For comparison:

Source A	Article Text
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God.	For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'"

I have bolded where following is precise to make the issue more plain. The sentence as placed in the article has been expanded but still includes runs of language and structure from the original, especially near the beginning. While blending content together does help avoid copyright issues, I'm afraid that the material needs to also be put into original language. Constructing content like this runs the risk of creating a derivative work, as the original copyright holder retains the right to modify his or her content, including by expanding it.

The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing talks a little bit about these issues and how to avoid them. We ask that aside from brief, clearly marked quotation information taken from copyrighted sources be placed into original language and structure so we can avoid this concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl! Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

anyway that takes care of the copyvio thing. But the real issue was WP:UNDUE/WP:OFFTOPIC - your thoughts on that would be appreciated drcrissy. i am thinking about it and am on the fence. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This absolutely does not take care of the "copyvio thing" which you appear to dismiss gliby but which I take as an extremely serious accusation aginst me by you. This is the view of just one person (Moonriddengirl!, please accept that I am being totally respectful of your input and efforts in this matter). I actually used the other source as the main information (original) yet this source has not even been discussed! I intertwined information from both sources making it original language (e.g. one source mentioned a box, the other mentioned blinding - I put these together) but at the same time, I cited the sources of the information I used. @Jytdog I found the manner in which you knew who to contact so very, very quickly on this matter rather concerning....is there some sort of collaboration going on here?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

oh for fuck's sake. use the interaction tool and see how many times i have interacted with her. if you got around more you would know her reputation. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the exact text you added is a no-go and IF you put it back as-is, you will be a) edit warring and b) breaking WP:COPYVIO. If you want that shitstorm, you are of course welcome to walk into it. The more fundamental issues are whether the content is UNDUE and OFFTOPIC. If you would speak to that, we can decide if it is worth rewriting to avoid COPYVIO to include content on this, in the article. Would you please speak to that? You haven't yet. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To me the Ortolan bunting seems related as a foodstuff. Both originated in France and both involve stuffing a helpless bird which is kept in the dark or semidark. @Alexbrn: Can you produce an argument to support your claim above that it is "completely undue"? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah! Epipelagic i was just about to ping you. I see on your user page that you are part of the copyright cleanup crew. since you and i tangled a bit above, perhaps drcrissy will take your independent opinion on the copyvio here more seriously than mine, as being independent (and if you can comment on moonriddengirl's expertise that would be useful too). responding to your question, as I mentioned i am on the fence on this. it kind of relates - I definitely see how it could get an EL (that is what Alexbrn did with it). But there is so much to say about foie gras per se (I have been intending to add content on retail sales and availability, which the article currently lacks as the emphasis has been on adding content about bans), and above you can see above that we were debating pulling the foie gras controversy content back into this article. The article is a good length now.... so I am not sure (really not sure) that adding something somewhat tangentially related makes sense. We already have an article on force-feeding that pulls the relevant things together (although i note that Ortolan bunting is not there). Should we duplicate that article here and discuss force-feeding in prison, leblouh, and Shen Dzu here too? I don't think so. So why include Ortolan bunting? For those reasons I tend to say leave it out, but I am interested in arguments as to why to include it. drcrissy added it, alex reverted and opened discussion, and drcrissy still has not provided any reasoning as to why to include it. (look above - nada - all she's done is talk about it not being copyvio) Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmph... that's not the Wikipedia way, saying what you think. The proper way is to wrap everything in defensive hypocrisies, oops... I meant civility. Anyway, what the hell; I'll say what I think just for a wee bit.

@Jytdog: DrChrissy is male. He's an excellent contributor to Wikipedia who should be supported. He gets upset with rude and crass editors, and sometimes I want to tell him to calm down and that those editors are just part of the territory and not to be taken personally.

@Alexbrn: You have a clear POV on foie gras and are behaving badly towards DrChrissy. Don't use loaded terms like plagiarism when you mean inadequate paraphrasing. Perhaps it would help if you expressed the anger you seem to have against animal welfare concerns. Then the broader issues could be discussed more calmly.

@DrChrissy: You didn't paraphrase that text anywhere near enough. You should spend time on this, reading and contemplating wp:close paraphrasing. You could perhaps look at what Moonriddengirl does; she is one of the few admin saints on Wikipedia. You could start using tools like Copyscape and Duplication Detector, and maybe examine legacy articles that interest you for copyright violations. I promise you you'll be surprised at how many violations you find. Rewriting copy violations can be surprising hard work. It is also an area on Wikipedia where editors can be unbelievably pompous and obnoxious. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, and my apologies for the gender errors. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic I think you're completely off-base in saying I have a "clear POV on foie gras" (whatever that even means) or that I have anger towards "animal welfare concerns" (which would be just weird) or that I have behaved badly towards DrC (saying the problem edit "takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" was intentionally oblique). Better to avoid guesswork about other editors and stick to content. On content, for my sins I do edit a lot of controversial articles and I do care a lot about how WP:ADVOCACY in one form or another can skew articles into non-neutrality. I find the best way to approach this is to just be strict and firm in application of PAGs and not get distracted into peripheral discussion (as, errm, I am doing right now). I appreciate this can come across as bluntness sometimes. This article has its problems and it shouldn't get worse. I would be very happy to see good content being added based on better sources, and am reading around the topic in the background to that end. But the discussion of content should not be allowed to devolve into a discussion about editors' supposed POVs - as has happened here surprising quickly - as it just wastes time.

(Add) Since I've started going off-topic, I might as well go on: it miffs me that what should be content-focussed discussions about really very basic principles of textual organisation (how main/sub articles exist and summarize each other), or how irrelevant content shouldn't be included (adding "related xxxxxx" is a road to disaster for any article) or how sourcing policy applies (yes, of course we should prefer secondaries) are instead seen as some kind of POV-play. I don't care about foie gras or Deepak Chopra or circumcision or kombucha or cannabis (drug) or any of the myriad controversial topics on which I edit, yet for all of these I have been accused of having vested interests or a "strong POV" and have even been taken to COIN because of it (of course with no result: I make my real life identity completely discoverable from my user page so that you can find out pretty much everything about me you could possibly want, if you wished). I lose track of the number of cabals I am supposed belong to! Thankfully, there are a few experienced/good editors around who don't play the personalization game and make this place tolerable.

(Add more) But in sympathy with DrC I agree that plagiarism can be very hard to avoid, and is something I certainly struggle with, not least since WP:CGTW No 5 applies with special strength to controversial articles! ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have copied below the table from Moonriddengirl so that readers do not have to scroll up. I accept the first 9 words were cut and pasted. Quotes may have been preferred, but in my 30 years of professional writing, if another author "borrowed" 9 words of mine and left a citation to my work, I would be very happy with that. The next collection of words is then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole This is not copy and pasted as the source says they were roasted whole, I wrote they are eaten whole - a completely different meaning. As for then drowned in Armagnac"...can anyone suggest a more succinct, accurate way of describing this? I was attempting to be as succinct as possible because this is only a "related" food stuff and not the main subject matter. I have run my wording through a widely used on-line plagiarism checker and this returned "100% unique"

Source A	Article Text
For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets has been the eating of the ortolan. These tiny birds -- captured alive, force-fed, then drowned in Armagnac -- were roasted whole and eaten that way, bones and all, while the diner draped his head with a linen napkin to preserve the precious aromas and, some believe, to hide from God.	For centuries, a rite of passage for French gourmets was eating [...] the Ortolan. These tiny sparrow-like birds are captured alive and placed in a dark box or blinded, which makes them eat continually (usually they are fed millet seed, oats or figs. They are then drowned in Armagnac, roasted and eaten whole. The taste has been described as '....a mixture of game and foie gras...'"

I will take Epipelagic's advice and thank you for sending the sources for further information__DrChrissy (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am starting this message by reminding Jytdog to be civil in this discussion; some previous comments have not been, including the one where there was an attempt to hide the comment by revising the page with comment omitted. The reason I have not yet spoken more expansively about the dueness of the Ortolan section is that accusations of plagiarism have been levelled at me. To my mind, that takes a much, much greater priority than a couple of sentences of text. I included the Ortolan sentences because I found several overwhelming similarities with fois gras production. The eating of ortolan and foie gras are both considered to be French. Both involve force/over feeding. Both involve a bird species (which is why I did not include force feeding of pigs or humans). Both involve restrictive housing of the bird. The two foodstuffs apparently taste similar or related. Both may be considered as forms of cruelty to animals. There are so many similarities I condider them as related subjects.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply by reminding you to stop discussing contributors and discuss content. I made a motherfucking mistake by editing a comment when I thought no one had replied yet - when you pointed out that you had replied I went back and struck it properly and acknowledged my mistake. That is not "uncivil", it is called being a fucking human being who can make mistakes and is capable of fucking admitting them and even fucking fixing them. (Please read WP:REDACT btw if you are not familiar with it - it is fine to change your own comments before someone else replies, and OK to redact them by using redaction marks after someone replies.) Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking to the issues. You are dealing with relatedness which is great and speaks to OFFTOPIC. That's not an unreasonable line of thinking. It doesn't speak to UNDUE, especially in light of the discussion we are having about demerging the controversy stuff - we have to keep WP:LENGTH in mind. Can you please speak to that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The section contains only 4 sentences which are not overly detailed and succinctly describe a similar food stuff. The section doe not promote any particular point of view (other than the taste). It helps the reader in directing them to other related sections of the Encyclopaedia. Given the length of 4 sentences, I do not think WP:length is an issue. Given the succinctness and NPOV, I do not think WP:UNDUE is an issue.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is: to what extent do reliable sources discuss the ortolan specifically in relation to FG? If it's a common theme then we can have a section, and include sourced discussion of the nature of that relatedness. If not it's OR-ish to make the connection and undue to include it. If it an interesting tangent maybe mentioned here or there, then an external link is sufficient. Wikipedia is a hypertext, people can explore relationships between topics using the navigation features. If we include everything that's somehow related to something else inline, we're heading for a mess. (I note FG is not mentioned in the ortolan article, presumably you'd want a "Foie gras" section there too?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

i am interested in the claim that ortolan is prepared by force feeding. gavage is very different from how ortolan is fattened. the process was apparently banned in France b/c the bird is endangered, not b/c of animal welfare issues... i wonder what what the weight of sources is, in the description of its feeding as "force feeding". hm Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

restoration of duplicate content

Drcrrissy there was no consensus for this restoration. As we discussed above, we don't have duplicate content in two different articles, per WP:SYNC. Instead, we use WP:SUMMARY style. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

drcrissy chose to open a new section below. ok then. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

detailed Legislation section

On March 14, 2015, the detailed Legislation section was moved to the Foie gras controversy article. This was done without any previous discussion on the Talk page, although it was an established part of the article. It is clearly disputed whether this detailed section should have been removed or not. It is stated at [4] that "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." With this in mind, I am returning the detailed Legislation section to this article (i.e. I am getting us back to the status quo), and requesting discussion here about whether it should be removed. I suggest that editors allow a suitable time (1-week) for editors to comment and achieve consensus.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I had already opened a discussion above; drcrissy prefers to open a new section. OK then, I will copy what I wrote there, here: "Drcrrissy there was no consensus for this restoration. As we discussed above, we don't have duplicate content in two different articles, per WP:SYNC. Instead, we use WP:SUMMARY style. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)" Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the original removal of this material. I have restored it to as it was prior to the dispute as per WP:Status quo. I don't see any duplicated information - please can you indicate where this is.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

there is precisely one editor disagreeing with following WP:SYNC here. And two saying that we should. This is a classic content dispute so we should use the methods described in WP:DR to resolve it. I have to do RW stuff now so will respond later. I will not edit war with you - I will leave that behavior to you. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have already stated, the Legislation section was originally removed without consensus being reached. I have therefore taken the article back to where it was before the non-consensual removal, which should reign until the dispute is settled. The dispute is about whether the Legislation section should be removed, not about whether it duplicates material or WP:SYNC because that duplication does not exist.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

this is interesting. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "interesting"?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

we'll probably need an RfC over this.. will propose a draft one here tonight or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I started this new discussion thread as a way of trying to put a line under all the silliness (including myself) that had ocurred previously, and trying to make a fresh start on discussion of what should and should not be included in the article. I have not yet seen any argument for why the Legislation section should not be in the article as it was until March 14, 2015. Are you going to go to RfC without offering a reason why the section should not be included as of March 14?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been said, and your objections have been said too. it is really a waste of time to repeat things. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to make things easier for the RfC you are about to initiate. Arguments in the previous thread got lost in the myriad of edit-warring and personal attacks to which I contributed. This will be difficult for an RfC to make sense of. I am simply trying to make things easier for the RfC so that we can improve the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A well-framed RfC lays out the question clearly and doesn't depend at all on prior discussion. The whole point is to bring in new perspectives. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02:

• Foie gras controversy ought to have its own article, as it currently does. First, it's close to 7,000 words, well within the range set out in WP:SIZESPLIT, justifying the split on an organizational basis alone. Second, if that material were to be included here in Foie gras, it would amount to nearly half of the article, which run afoul of WP:UNDUE. Many readers interested in foie gras may have little or no interest in the controversies around it, and the controversies should not dominate the article.
• Given my conclusion that foie gras controversy belongs in a different article, the question is, where should the detailed information about legislative actions associated with the controversy be placed? To me, the answer is very clear: it should be placed in the article about the controversy, not about the foodstuff itself; it's far more associated with the controversy.
• There is no value, and a host of synchronization issues (see WP:SYNC), with duplicating the material in both articles, beyond the minimum amount needed to give context to the {{main}} template, so the detailed legislative material should not be included here.

Based on the foregoing, I support the split to Foie gras controversy, the placement of the detailed legislation information in that article, and the removal (other than the briefest summary) from this article, substantially as advocated by Jytdog above. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in! Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as there is a foie gras controversy article the details clearly belong in that article, with a summary and a link in this article. And per Jytdog's arguments I think that the foie gras controversy article should stay. Sjö (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, since this discussion affects Foie gras controversy as well as this article, I have left a neutrally-worded note in Talk:Foie gras controversy, inviting editors there to take part in this discussion. TJRC (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ TJRC. Hi, and welcome to the discussion. Unfortunately, your previous edit placing the detailed Legislation information on the Foie gras controversy page may have inadvertently caused a problem. This detailed Legislation information was removed from Foie gras by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)]. This was despite my request it should not be moved because of a RfC to be initiated by Jytdog in the next 24-48 hours. It is worth noting that the IP address who removed the content has made only 2 WP edits - the one on this article where there was no explanation for the deletion, and another on a different article where again there was no explanation. I therefore have some doubts about the sincerity of edits made by this IP address. As a consequence of this removal, you saw the detailed information had been removed from source and understandably re-introduced it into Foie gras controversy. I believe editors contributing to the RfC should see the detailed information back in its original place, i.e. on Foie gras. I am therefore requesting you revert your edit which will take the summary information back to Foie gras controversy and I will then revert the edit by [2600:1010:b025:ec65:dabc:dad1:6a11:95c6 (talk)] bringing the detailed information back to Foie gras and avoiding duplicity on either page. The RfC being brought about by Jytdog can then proceed, and depending on the outcome, the detailed information can remain here, or be moved to Foie gras controversy. Hope this makes sense.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I had said i was going to propose a draft RfC for discussion. so you just went and launched one. blech. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the question I have asked?__DrChrissy (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

yes it is not neutral. please withdraw it so we can discuss a neutral question. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not neutral?__DrChrissy (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You pushed your RfC in without discussion and instead of being decent and withdrawing it when i object you are dancing around. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the issue being discussed in sections restoration of duplicate content, detailed Legislation section and RfC, above. Thank you.

I noted at the ANI that I am walking away from this article. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (since I am pinged here against my wishes anyway, might as well stick around. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

If you are suggesting that I have deliberately tried to contact you, I have not. I actually don't know how to "ping". If WP automatically alerts you to a message, that is not my fault, however, if I need to do something to stop "pinging" you, I will be more than happy to oblige.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

i am not suggesting anything. you pinged me. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not made any edits or key-strokes which I know meant I would have contacted you. Is it possibly that I used your user name?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

New ANI Notice

There's a current ANI discussion related to talk:Foie gras at WP:ANI. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. If there is any consensus it is that the RfC was confusing. (I recognize that the proposer, DrChrissy, does not think it was confusing, but as counterpoint I will cite the example of ... one DrChrissy, who as their opinion wrote "Support - Keeping the legislative section in the article", when the proposal was "Should the detailed information ... be moved", so one would think that their actual opinion be to Oppose the proposal. When the RfC proposer is not clear about what Supporting or Opposing their own proposal would mean, that is not a good sign.) Just counting hands, there are more opinions based on precedent and guidelines in favor of summarizing the information here and detailing it elsewhere; however, there are a number of voices for keeping the information, and most of all there is such an overwhelming amount of discussion about whether the RfC is confusing, that I can't honestly say any actionable consensus was reached. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the detailed information on legislation relevant to foie gras (which has been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009) be moved to the Foie gras controversy page?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Invalid RfC and waste of the community's time. Not neutral in that argues for status quo. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Summoned by bot. I agree and there seems to be consensus. Can someone close this rfc? PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here.

Reasons why the detailed Legislation information should be included in the Foie gras Article.

1) The section is totally germane and essential for a full understanding of the subject of the Foie gras article.

2) The average reader would expect to find the detailed information about the legislation on Foie gras, and not elsewhere.

3) The suitability of legislation information being placed on the Foie gras article is long established. Legislation information has been on Foie gras since at least December 2008.[here].

4) There has been no cogent argument on the Talk page as to why the section should not be on Foie gras.

5) The removal [here] appeared to be initiated by expansion and integrating greater detail, and an unspecified desire not to have the information on Foie gras.

__DrChrissy (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

no that is NOT how you do an RFC. The question should be framed in a clear and neutral manner, and you make your arguments in your own !vote. Again, please withdraw this so we can agree on the RfC question and statement. This is a waste of the community's time. You already wasted slim virgin's. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)' (strike bolding, sorry about yelling. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)) no that is NOT how you do an RFC. The question should be framed in a clear and neutral manner, and you make your arguments in your own !vote. Again, please withdraw this so we can agree on the RfC question and statement. This is a waste of the community's time. You already wasted slim virgin's.Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (restate without bolding Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)) Rather than shouting at me by using unnecessary and undesirable uppercase and bold, and again issuing personal attacks and goading with "wasting time", why not suggest your RfC as you indicated you would? I have not initiated an RfC before because I have not encountered editors who have behaved in such a way that meant I needed to; please remain civil and help a fellow editor who is inexperienced in such matters.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC) I have asked you to withdraw this, and you have not done it nor asked me how to do it, nor asked anyone else as far as I can see. To withdraw it, all you have to do is remove the ... [RfC] tag and hat it. If you don't know how to do either, let me know, and I will do it. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Note: The repetition of the tag in the post above was causing the RfC to malform on the RfC page, so I've removed it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, the section on bans should not be removed entirely, but should remain in summary-style on this page. It can be dealt with in more detail on the controversy page. Looking at this version, I would remove the quotes, who has welcomed the bans, etc, and just stick to the basics. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• To clarify for the closing editor, I support retaining the sections on legislation and bans in this article, though I would shorten them. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Hi Sarah (SV). Thanks very much for your input. The RfC question was intended to address the detailed Legislation information regarding countries and other jurisdictions, rather than the retail bans. Perhaps I have not made this clear. I consider the retail bans to be a slightly different issue which I will address after we have consensus regarding the Legislation information. Thanks again for your input. __DrChrissy (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, DrChrissy. I would say the same for the legislation as for the bans section – both should be here summary-style. I would summarize the legislation without separate headings for each country and keep the writing tight so that the per-country issues aren't laboured. Looking ahead, the best thing might be to merge the articles and tighten them to reduce length. This one is 4130 words and the other 3544 words. Then if someone wants to create an article that looks in detail at the legislation, there could be an article devoted to foie gras around the world (e.g. "Foie gras by country"). But for now, the key material in the other article should be here summary-style too. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin what you wrote is exactly what Alexbrn and I have been advocating and that drchrissy has been fighting - that we should do this per WP:SUMMARY. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC) striking, just inviting further bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC))

@SlimVirgin Once again, thank you for your input. I understand which way you are voting, but I'm afraid I do not understand your reasons. Please could you expand on the reasons why you believe the material should be removed from this page. All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

damn instead of withdrawing this, you have even further publicized it. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I wouldn't remove it, but I would shorten it. The current version is one sentence for both bans and legislation, which is too short. Summary-style means the material is fully summarized. This version of the legislation is better, but has too many headings and quotes. I would remove both and keep the writing tight. Likewise with this version of the bans section: I would remove who had welcomed them, etc. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• No The article is not long enough to justify large sections to be moved to an offshoot page, and it is unclear why Legislation would be considered Controversy rather than a basic part of the story (history) of the subject, which clearly belongs in the main article. (Correct me if I am mistaken, but from what I recall, if a section is moved, the guidelines state that a summary must be left at the main article. However consensus is needed to make such a change.) petrarchan47tc 04:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Information An editor has removed [here] the content being discussed here well before consensus has been reached. In the edit summary, the editor left a comment that I was edit warring. To avoid being accused of this again, but to keep other editors clear about the material being discussed, I have included the material below in collapsed form.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Yes you did edit war: you restored content after it was moved to Controversies restored it again restored it again when the editor was under a block (which was swiftly lifted), of all the slimey varmint behavior possible. was under discussion above, in the Talk:Foie_gras#.22Bans.22_section with a parallel discussion about merging this article with Controversies in Talk:Foie_gras#Controversy_at_the_controversy_article_first.3F. and you just walked away from those discussions, and never addressed issues with WP:SYNC and WP:SUMMARY. but yes, came back when Alexbrn was temporarily blocked and edit warred the content back in. That in combination with this RfC... whew. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Note: I've removed the repetition of the legislation material, which is now below. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) This is also inappropriate in the body of an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Surely what is inappropriate is the removal of material before consensus has been reached.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Please withdraw the RfC so we can frame it properly. The longer it stays, the more people will come, and it will be impossible for anyone to close because the responses are not going to be on point. That is why it is a waste of time - it will be impossible to close this. A good RfC lays out the issues clearly and in a neutral manner, and in such a way that people respond to the PAG-based issues at play, so that the closer can review the PAG-based arguments that are made and can form a clear close that guides what we do going forward. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Note Material moved back to avoid splitting of "see below" and the material discussed. Also to more accurately indicate temporal progression of RfC. No content changed.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Comment @Jytdog. This last edit is completely inappropriate for an RfC. Please strike through this and in the future, kindly adhere to the subject stated in the RfC.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Was the RFC statement edited since first proposed? This is a confusing threaded conversation and it's hard to see exactly what the proposed before/after is intended to be. Generally I don't think it would be appropriate to have individual mentions down to the local food-fair regulations included in this top-level article, that's an inappropriate level of detail that has WP:WEIGHT problems... are we also going to mention every food fair that did NOT prohibit foie gras? Like Sarah says the best-supported information should be mentioned in a high-level summary here and that level of detail needs to be moved to a subarticle. Zad68 02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply Hi Zad. Welcome to the discussion. No, the RfC ststement has not been edited since first proposed. The confusion has in part been caused by an editor removing the material that is being discussed by this RfC well before consensus was reached (after only 48 hrs I think). I copied the disputed material into a collapsed box above rather than revert because of a threat of edit warring. You may be a little mistaken in what material is being discussed. It is only the legislation of countries and states in the US that is being discussed in this RfC - the food fair bans, retail bans are not being discussed. I hope this clarifies.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure where this RfC is coming from, conceptually, since it doesn't reflect the question that's been at hand in this article. Still, FWIW, I'd agree with others who who say the best thing to so is to consolidate the legislation/bans stuff in the Controversy article, then summarize it here according to the principle of WP:SYNC (Add: Also, it'd be fine to merge the two articles entirely: they're not so long). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply Thanks for your input Alexbrn - I agree with you totally that a merge between the 2 articles would be a good thing and benefit the Project....but can I please suggest that other editors do not comment on this in this thread...the RfC is not about a merger and it is already confused.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

one way the RfC is malformed (besides being non-neutral) is that it doesn't deal with that larger question of merging the controversies article back here; we are going to end up with half an answer to the questions we have been working over. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Standard operating procedure is to have legislation information about any given substance in the primary topic article, unless size prohibits; in which case the legislation should be a stand-alone article. I do not necessarily think it should be in a "Controversy" article. Whichever article does not contain the information should summarize the legislation so the reader doesn't have to go to an entirely separate article just to find out which countries have some type of ban. Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender i don't know what you mean by "standard operating procedure" - there is no such thing as far as I know - it is not part of the MOS. and in this case, the legislation is very much related to the controversy over foie gras. an no one is saying that this article shouldn't mention legislation - the question is where the bulk of the content belongs - here or with the other details on the controversies. there is also the larger question of merging the controversies content back here... and if we did, this discussion becomes moot and a complete waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keeping the legislative section in the article. There are controversies concerning Foie gras but that is not the same as legislation, which I expect to find in such an article unless it is so extensive that it requires it's own article. Also, I agree that the legislation section was removed prior to consensus. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support – keeping the legislative section in the article and getting on with improving the article using decent sources where they are available. This is not a big deal. If the section becomes too large it can be forked later. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Keeping the legislative section in the article. I am the initiator of the RfC but I have not actually voted! Please see my reasons [[5]]__DrChrissy (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support move and WP:SUMMARIZE. The question is: "Should the detailed information on legislation relevant to foie gras (which has been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009) be moved to the Foie gras controversy page?" The detailed information is WP:UNDUE detail for this article; it should be with the controversies content (which is what it is about, and from what it arises) and that article should be summarized here, per WP:SUMMARY. This is in agreement with other responders in this RfC and these arguments were already raised above in the section: Talk:Foie_gras#.22Bans.22_ Talk:Foie_gras#.22Bans.22_section. This argument appears to be the stronger, PAG-based set of arguments. Arguments in favor of keeping the content here are hand-wavy WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are not PAG-based. I note that this article is about foie gras per se - what it is, how it is produced, how much, where it is available, etc. There is content still lacking here on the market and availability, and the OP wants to add content on related foods per Talk:Foie_gras#Ortolan_bunting above. So yes, detailed content on legislation and other bans is UNDUE here and should be in the Controversies, and that article should be summarized here. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (fixed broken link with REDACT, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

• Comment It is misleading to try to guide editors to a discussion about the legislation material when this was combined with retail bans. Please read the stated RfC closely and stick to the matter to be discussed. Oh, and your link to a diff does not work. It is also innappropriate to raise the matter that I wanted to introduce the Ortlan bunting into the article. This has absolutely nothing to do with this RfC. Please read the stated RfC closely and stick to the matter to be discussed. Which leaves us with UNDUE, but you have linked that to the bans "So yes, detailed content on legislation and other bans is UNDUE here and should be in the Controversies...". Please read the stated RfC closely and stick to the matter to be discussed.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I did follow the RfC closely; I quoted it. My comments are all on point. and i fixed the broken link, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is useful to look at how we treat articles, more generally, on controversial foods such as Veal, Dog meat, Horse meat, and Shark fin soup. As one can see, legislative issues are included in some detail in these articles. I think the Foie gras article with the legislative section was inline with standard practice. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and at least some of them appear to also have been worked on by drchrissy. Most importantly, none of those articles has a separate Controversies article, as we have with Foie gras controversy. ~Some~ content on legislation/bans would be fine here - no one has said to take it out altogether (except for the RfC statement, which is part of its flaws) Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has now identified the diff which they believe supports the removal of the detailed legislation information. Editors should note this diff relates almost entirely to retail bans and organisations refusing to serve foie gras. This is not the subject matter of this RfC. I have placed below in a collapsed box, the legislation material we are discussing. My apologies for doing this again, but when I posted it before, an editor split my posting because my signature was not below the collapsible box.

• Oppose the move. The legislation concerns the production, import and sale of foie gras, it is not about the controversy. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC is confusing. The fact that several editors are commenting on other issues shows that the question is vague and incomplete. It isn't clear what a support or oppose !vote means. The !votes and discussion should be separated for clarity and to make discussing the issues easier. This RFC should not be closed, which involves an assessment of consensus; it should be withdrawn entirely and a new, clearer RFC put forward. Ca2james (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• reply I am sorry you found this confusing - many editors have read the RfC and voted, without indicating they are confused.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Here only for RfC.) The article is POV in many sections, not just the legislation we are discussing. Even in the legislation section, it includes information that is unnecessary and obvious; for example it states that some retailers do not sell foie gras "even where it is legal." The article also has a section about the food item (Preparations) lost between two anti-foie gras sections (Production and Controversy).

Now, we are only talking about legislation here, and I think that properly belongs primarily in Foie gras controversy. This article should have a short discussion of the controversy and should not do any more than provide a list or map of countries where production is banned.

Readers, broadly, will either want to know about why foie gras is evil or they will want to know about the dish. I think Wikipedia serves them best, if we are to provide NPOV and objective information, if the information is in two separate articles with only brief statements about the other view. That is, Foie gras is about the dish and Foie gras controversy is about the controversy. Any reader who is inclined to read both articles will have no trouble doing so, and it would be easier for a person to make a decision about the product if they have seen both sides of the argument clearly stated.

I hope that's not off topic, but the RfC question is not terribly clear and I am interpreting it as "Does information on legislation belong in this article?"; my answer to that is No. Roches (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• I too going to try to wade through this RFC, and give my opinion on the actual text issue being discussed.

My take, which I mention in a different discussion above before this RFC was unleashed, is pretty consistent with Roches's. The legislation is in response to the controversy, and should be in the article about the controversy. Most people who are reading an encyclopedia article on a foodstuff are interested in the foodstuff, not in the twice-removed topic of legislation that is in response to a controversy about the feeding of the animals from which the foodstuff is made.

With the level of detail here, if this material is present in this parent article, you have a big WP:UNDUE problem. There is enough material about the controversy of goose-feeding for foie gras to justify a separate article, and of course the legislation in response to that controversy is more closely related to the controversy and belongs there.

It should go without saying, but given the discussion here, perhaps it needs to be said: the information whoulc not be put in both articles. For one thing, as I mention, it's undue weight in this article. For another, you have the issues of trying to synchronize the two articles going forward as they are updated, a waste of everyone's time. The legislative approached should be mentioned here, but described in detail in the controversies article. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Material under discussion

Material under discussion

Is my addition of the collapsible box containing the text under discussion helping? If not, I am happy to remove it.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Legislation Asia In July 2014, India banned the import of foie gras making it the first and only country in the world to do so, causing dismay among some of the nation's chefs. The managing director of the Humane Society International of India said "This is a triumph for animal welfare in India as well as across the globe, and sets a precedent for other countries to follow". Australasia In Australia, the production of foie gras is prohibited. Argentina Foie gras production is illegal in Argentina as a mistreatment or act of cruelty to animals. Europe   Countries and regions where the production of Foie Gras is banned   Main countries and regions producing Foie Gras Foie-gras production is banned in several countries, including most of the Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Turkey and the UK. General animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom mean that production is essentially banned there also. In 2012, 8 MEPs called for foie gras to be banned across Europe. "Until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available", the production of foie gras is prohibited by treaty except for "where it is current practice" among 35 countries bound by the Council of Europe's European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. The force feeding of animals for non-medical purposes, essential to current foie gras production practices, is explicitly prohibited by specific laws in six of nine Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, or following interpretation of general animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. However, foie gras can still be imported into and purchased in these countries. Most of these countries don't currently produce foie gras, nor have they in the past. Thus, these bans have stopped actual foie gras production in very few countries. Since 1997, the number of European countries producing foie gras has halved. Only five countries still produce foie gras: Belgium, Romania, Spain, France and Hungary. In France, the fattening is achieved through gavage (force-feeding) corn, according to French law. French law states that "Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France." Israel In August 2003, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture to ban the force feeding of geese, effective 31 March 2005. The last appeal was withdrawn in October 2005, but the law was left unenforced until February 2006. Most protest activities were conducted by the Anonymous for Animal Rights organization, which also tracks the enforcement of the ban, and files complaints against farms that conduct illegal force feeding. In May 2013, a bill proposed by Knesset Member Dov Lipman plans to prohibit all sales of the delicacy due to the controversial methods. United States State of California Main article: California foie gras law Sections 25980-25984 of the California Health and Safety Code, enacted in 2004 and effective from July 1, 2012, prohibits "force feed[ing] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size" and the sale of products that are a result of this process. On January 7, 2015, Judge Stephen V. Wilson held that the California law was preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, and enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing it. As of February 2015, the case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. City of San Diego: On January 8, 2008, the San Diego City Council unanimously passed a resolution that "commends the Animal Protection and Rescue League (APRL) for raising awareness of the cruel practice of force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras, commends the many San Diego restaurants that have stopped selling foie gras before the California statewide ban goes into effect, and encourages San Diegans to avoid supporting this extreme form of animal cruelty." The resolution also cites an independent Zogby poll finding that 85% of San Diegans favor an immediate ban on foie gras. Illinois City of Chicago: On 26 April 2006, the Chicago City Council voted to ban the sale of foie gras, effective 22 August 2006 Breaches of the ban were to be punished with fines of $250–$500. Alderman Joe Moore, who proposed the ban, described the method by which foie gras is produced as "clearly animal cruelty." In response, several Chicago chefs filed suit and deliberately violated the law by continuing to sell foie gras. Furthermore, a handful of chefs served foie gras without charge, which they considered not to be against the law. Even for establishments that were violating the law, the City issued warning letters but, until February 17, 2007, no citations were given. On that date, Doug Sohn, owner of a gourmet hot dog shop was charged with a violation. Although the fine could have been as high as $500, Sohn agreed to pay a $250 fine on March 29. Several unusual dishes, including foie gras pizza, have been created in Chicago, in defiance of the City Council's banning of foie gras. 46,000 pounds of foie gras were sold in Chicago in 2006. In December 2006, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley referred to the ban as "the silliest law" the City Council has ever passed. As a result of the ban, Chicago restaurants Spiaggia and Tru developed dishes designed to simulate the foie gras experience. Chicago Tribune restaurant critic Phil Vettel found Tru's "Faux Gras" "close to the real thing", and Spiaggia's "terrina de fagato grasso vegetariano" "undeniably rich and indulgent", but "[lacking] the characteristic foie-gras intensity". In response to Mayor Daley's objections on the foie gras ban, the City Council overwhelmingly repealed Chicago's ban on May 14, 2008. References

__DrChrissy (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

discussion about moving subsection Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: Jytdog's first post in this section was in response to DrChrissy's posting of the "material under discussion" section above. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC) note: SV moved the threaded discussion subsection to above her comment, but it clearly breaks the thread - you can see that comments below continue discussion above, directly. moving subsection to below. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread was closed by User:Jytdog using the hat template. This page Template:Hidden archive top states, with bolding emphasis, that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors." Jtydog was clearly involved in this discussion and therefore, this discussion thread was closed against WP policy.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

so your edit just broke the sectioning of this RfC and made it logistically even more difficult, for people to respond to this conceptually broken RfC. I fixed it for you last time. I won't fix it again. You have mischaracterized my remarks and are not responding to what I said. I will not go back and forth with you here, but you are not responding to what i said. That's all I will say, for the benefit of the closer (this will be near impossible to close, I think... and will most likely end up with "no consensus" which is where we started) Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS support the use of precedents... --I am One of Many (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many yes OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basically says that you have to take other precedents lightly - it is not a useful argument. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In contexts not related to this discussion, you are correct, but regarding matters of usage—the concern of this discussion, the essay says precedent arguments are important. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

at a high level.. the heart of it, is that one takes precedent lightly. 'if you want to wikilawyer it, what it says is that for "minor details" precedent is useful (like "the late" actor X). This discussion is not about a "minor detail" - this is a serious chunk of text (which I have to scroll past twice now in order to write anything here) I do agree that precedents are ~useful~ ... but they are not determinative. And as i wrote above, in this case we have a very clear distinction - we actually have a separate Foie gras controversy article which none of the others have, so the precedent doesn't even read on the situation. You can see that, right? Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to wikilawyer the point, I don't agree with your interpretation. So, I'll leave it at that and let others sort out the weak from the strong arguments. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

finished per discussants Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Jytdog. How do I redact information that is no longer there - you have already deleted it?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC) so you have been trying to change your comment above from "As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here." to something else. The way to change that, is in WP:REDACT. I will show you anyway. you use wikimarkup to make strikethru and underline.: strikethrough, you put <s> in front of what you want to strike, and </s> after it. for underline, you put <u> in front of what you want to strike, and </u> after it. and add an extra comment at the end. I will show you, in my next comment.Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) sample comment: As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) redacted comment As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here. No the content should stay here. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (note - redacted comment and turned it into a !vote, per markup. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) You have completely missed the point of my question. Where am I supposed to make these edits....you have removed the text you are asking me to redact.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) redacted comment As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here. No the content should stay here. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (note - redacted comment and turned it into a !vote, per markup. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) that way, it is very clear to everyone what I was reacting to, when I said that what you did was not appropriate. If all that they see is your edited (not redacted) comment, it makes me look like even more of an ass than i was, with the yelling. if you redact it, is clear you later realize you fucked up and are fixing it. but you cannot straight out edit something that someone already responded to, as you did here and here and here. :thanks for asking! (i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC) drchrissy please look at this dif - there is no difference between the page before you started editing your already-commented on comments, and after my last revert. What you tried to do was change your own comment.Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Rather than repeating what I have apparently done wrong, please tell me at what page do I dedact the vote. At the moment, if I look at the Talk page, the text you want me to redact does not exist. If you tell me where I should redact, I will redact the vote at that place and then place my vote in the most recent aspect of the thread.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I just showed you above, exactly how to do redact your comment. exactly how. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, you have shown me how to redact, but my question is where do I redact? On which page do I put those symbols around the text you are asking me to dedact?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC) right on the text you want to change. if you want I will do it for you. shall I? Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC) No, do not edit my comments. I am aware that I put the instructions around the text, but I do not know where to find the text anymore because an editor has removed it. Please do not reply without addressing my direct question with a direct answer - otherwise I will take this to be stonewalling, disruptive and goading.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC) i really don't know how to help you. the content is above , the same place it has always been. nothing has moved. this is starting to make me sad. and i mean that. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) What is all this earnest stuff achieving, along with the time-wasting hand-waving on DrChrissy's talk page? Please detox and find something constructive to do. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC) i am trying to preserve the integrity of the Talk page. drchrissy's edit made my subsequent comment nonsensical because he didn't redact, and he cannot understand this very basic thing about editing Wikipedia.'. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Ahhhhhh! I think I see now! I think Jytdog was requesting I redact "As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here". I was thinking Jytdog wanted me to redact "No" which I inserted here[6] as a vote but was immediately deleted without my permission by Jytdog here[7] and therefore I could not redact it. No, I do not wish to redact "As the initiator of this RfC, I suspect the onus is on me to make arguments why the material should remain here". I think this closes this sub-thread__DrChrissy (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC) your edit violated the TPG in that you did not WP:REDACT, which is why i reverted it. You did that three times. If you had more humility and acknowledged that you don't know what you are doing I could work with you, but not like this. You can close the thread if you like. I am out of here. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC) and again, you show you do know how to use diffs, yet you somehow could not produce one when I asked for it (here and here). You are either not competent or you just act that way when it is convenient for you. I cannot work with you and i think you are a destructive presence here, either because you cannot behave appropriately or will not. but you are not a problem that i want to deal with. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you__DrChrissy (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC) and with that, I am out of here. please stay away from me. don't ping me, don't interact with me. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you - I will oblige.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, from what I can see this RfC stemmed from a content dispute between you and DrChrissy regarding whether the legislation info should remain in the article. DrChrissy has made arguments regarding why he believes it should remain, but I do not see where you have made an argument regarding why it should be omitted. Perhaps, instead of engaging in battleground regarding what appears to be a functionally appropriate RfC, I think it might help those undecided on this content issue, if you presented reasons why you think this detailed legislation info should be omitted. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC) bobo I saw your response when I was responding above, and so again i am making a last post. (this time for real) you don't see reasoned arguments here because the RfC is badly done. We had extensive discussions about the issues here, up above in Talk:Foie_gras#.22Bans.22_section, where Alexbrn, and another editor, and I presented PAG-based arguments that drchrissy refused to address, and there were also discussions above, about merging the Controversies article back in, here: Talk:Foie_gras#Controversy_at_the_controversy_article_first.3F. Again, this RfC is a flawed fucked up waste of time - it was not framed in a way that was neutral and dealt with the actual issues at play here. Your response is exactly the kind of confused response it creates. Complete. Waste. Of. Time. i am frustrated and cannot deal with this anymore. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC) OK - I think Jytdog has exhausted the opportunity to make any argument whatsoever on this sub-thread about why the detailed material should be moved away from this page. I would like to put this sub-thread in a collapsible box to tidy up the RfC. Are there any objections, comments about this?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC) I agree that collapsing this discussion would be helpful in facilitating rational argument. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread was closed by User:Jytdog using the hat template. This page Template:Hidden archive top states, with bolding emphasis, that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors." Jtydog was clearly involved in this discussion and therefore, this discussion thread was closed against WP policy.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy frankly your comment here (plus the one above) is a rather vexatious piece of wikilawyering. First, template instructions don't rise to the level of "policy." Second, the point of the template's instructions are to discourage the use of the template to stop a productive, unresolved discussion; in this case, everyone agreed the conversation wasn't productive, and you yourself said "I would like to put this sub-thread in a collapsible box to tidy up the RfC. Are there any objections, comments about this?"--why would you imagine it would have been OK for you to do the exact same thing you're trying to take Jytdog to task for? Third, if you really didn't want the conversation hatted why didn't you raise that 6 days ago? This isn't about the article content anyway so if you'd like to pursue this further let's take it to a User Talk page, or feel free to remove both your own comments plus mine here, I'd be fine with either action. Zad68 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing

• Update It is now 8 days since I posted the RfC. I thought I would summarise the votes so far.

1 supports retaining the material but it should be shortened 6 support retaining the material 2 oppose retaining the material Hope this helps. __DrChrissy (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The trouble is, as others have pointed out, this RfC is a waste of time since its premise does not represent reality. The "status quo" is not that the legislation content was here, and so we are not discussing the validity of its "move" to the controversy article. Before any pertintent editing happened (see here[8]) it was the controversy article that contained most of the legislation information, there was just a rump of it here that didn't properly summarize it. So votes for retaining things how they were might in fact be votes for having this legislation content (mostly) in the controversy article. I fear editors' time has been wasted on a wild goose chase. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• • DrChrissy how did you count my !vote? I would like to see whether your accounting matches the intent of the !voters. Zad68 14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zad. I did not actually count you as a vote as you posed a question. I thought that your comment "...are we also going to mention every food fair that did NOT prohibit foie gras" indicated you were confused about the material that is actually being discussed - this is hardly surprising given attempts be some editors to derail this RfC.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • How was my vote counted? I wanted to keep the material short here and in WP:SYNC with the longer material in the Controversy article, and I'm sure at least one other editor agreed, so I'm puzzled by this vote count summary (not that it's just about votes). Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alexbrn I counted your vote as supporting the move from this page. The RfC is about the detailed information I have now posted twice in collapsible boxes. It has nothing to do with summary material or WP:sync. Please stick to the subject of the RfC. Sideline issues can get sorted once consensus has been reached on this page. It should be easy for you to work out what material is under discussion, if not, I can post it in a collapsible box for a third time. If you are puzzled by my vote count summary, please feel free to post your own vote count summary, but I really do not want to start another thread of derailment.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh! The material in the collapsible box(es) is not the meterial from this article which has been here "since 2009", it's content from the Controversy article, which you've said is supposedly of of scope. The premise of this RfC is not even wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn Let's remain focussed on the RfC here at this page. If you want to discuss content on another page, i.e. Foie gras controversy, take it to that page. The discussion belongs there, not here. This discussion is brought about by your edit here[9] where you removed material without any discussion whatsoever.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not right. Before this recent spate of editing started the detailed "Legislation" section was at Foie gras controversy and this page had no legislation section; it had a "Controversy" section which just partially summarized (and partially did not) that "main" article to which it linked.[10]. Thus when the RfC refers to the detailed legislation information being "on the Foie gras page since at least 2009" that is far from the whole truth: it was you who started adding that kind of information here against the grain of the principle of WP:SYNC (and I suppose you are arguing for your recently-added information to stand, not just the stuff from 2009?) All this is unclear. So: I did not simply "move" the legislation content to the Controversy article, I consolidated it there (where it mostly was before) and summarized it here. Okay - there's a discussion to be had about the extent of the summary, or whether indeed the two articles should be one -- but the RfC as it stands is not grounded in reality and it will be difficult to action any result without heavy interpretation (which may entail another RfC). I only wish the warnings given about this RfC has been heeded: this is no way to proceed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

To all editors Should we request closure of this RfC?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:36UTC)

• Tally
  • 4 editors (me, alex, zad, ca2james) have said the RfC is confusing.
  • When I look to summarize, I find that there have been 10 editors who have made a recommendation:
  • 3 say the material on legislation/bans should be summarized here and have detail in Controversies (me, alex, zad)
  • 1 says summarize legislation/bans here, and remove from Controversies; and suggests having detail on bans and legislation in a third article to be created (slim virgin)
  • 1 says summarize legislation in one article and have detail in other - no preference for which. doesn't mention bans (softlavender)
  • 3 seem to support keeping legislation in here in full and to not include in controversies article at all - don't discuss bans (I am One of Many, petrachran, Maproom)
  • 2 support keeping legislation here in full and don't mention what to do in the Controversies article. don't discuss bans. (Epipelagic, drchrissy)
    • Thinking through how a closer would analyze. What are issues, and what policies and guidelines are brought to bear? Editors who brought up summarizing in one and having detail in other dealt with WEIGHT and SUMMARY. One !vote to retain legislative content here, said WEIGHT is not an issue and content can be forked later. Other !votes to retain legislation content here are based on assertions about what kind of content belongs where. Some editors discussed bans as well as legislation; others discussed only legislation. Not all !votes dealt with how to deal with what goes into Controversies. By raw number !votes are fairly evenly divided between summarizing in one and having detail in another, and keeping all detail on legislation here.
    • No consensus.
  • more generally, RfCs run for 30 days unless terminated earlier. The proposer can always withdraw it, but otherwise it takes consensus to end it, and we don't have that either. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's better to leave this open, look for someone uninvolved to close, and let them decide when to close. The default is 30 days. It will be easier to close if discussion is kept out of the survey section. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are we !voting on? Premise of RFC appears invalid

DrChrissy, for this RFC to be valid, you have to:

1. Identify the status quo ante state--What is the "before" version of the article that you're interested in changing?
2. Provide a proposed change to it

This RFC doesn't do either. Instead it's vaguely hand-waving that in general some sort of content related "information on legislation relevant to foie gras" has "been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009". It provides an enormous list of "Legislation" stuff under "Material under discussion", but an actual review of the article history doesn't show that material has been in the article since 2009 as (apparently) claimed, in fact you started adding most of it to the article with edits like this one shorty before starting this RFC. Your comment "I am sorry you found this confusing - many editors have read the RfC and voted, without indicating they are confused" is particularly fatuous, because when something is confusing it can by definition easily mislead someone into doing something they didn't mean to do. What exactly does a !vote of "Support" mean here?

DrChrissy the right thing for you to do would be to retract this RFC and work with the other editors to formulate a valid RFC, will you please do that? Zad68 13:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad. This diff[11] shows that Alexbrn moved a large amount of germane content from this site to another. This was done without prior discussion on the Talk page. This is contrary to WP:CAUTIOUS. (Please anybody, do not quote WP:BRD at me - WP:CAUTIOUS is a policy whereas BRD is only an essay.) This FrC is about reverting to the status quo prior to this move of content. Furthermore, the reasons for the move and repeated reversions were not made clear making Alexbrn WP:UNRESPONSIVE (again this is a policy, not just an essay). Editors should read the Talk page messages subsequent to the move and make up their own minds about this, but I for one, remain confused as to why Alexbrn moved the content and especially why they did not discuss this before the move.

My statement about legislation content being in the article since 2009 is legitimate, for example, see the "Controversy" section in this version here[12]. My statement was never intended to suggest the entire detailed legislation content in question had been in the article since 2009; that would be foolish given we are talking about a 16 6 year window and a highly contentious subject. My intention was to indicate that legislation material had been considered acceptable on this page for at least the previous 16 years and thereby raise the question of why this was suddenly not considered to be acceptable.

Regarding the vote: Most (if not all) editors have actually stated very clearly what they want to happen, so it has been clear in which direction they are voting.

Regarding withdrawl: Very early into this RfC, I suggested to Jtydog here[13] that they suggest their own RfC. I offered to behave in a collegiate way, but the opportunity was declined by Jytdog.

Regarding "Hand-waving": You have suggested I am hand-waving. Wikipedia states "Handwaving is a pejorative label applied to the action of displaying the appearance of doing something, when actually doing little, or nothing. For example, it is applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies." Is this the way you intended to use the term?

__DrChrissy (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The link you give about legislation being in the article "since 2009"[14] has no legislation section. There are not 16 years between 2009 and now. Are you arguing in fact for your recent edits? None of this makes any sense at even a basic level. Is this some kind of trolling or weird social experiment, or maybe just incompetence? (Add: I will add my voice to those others requesting it: please please be so good as to withdraw this RfC, it is not helping to improve anything.) Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's enough of this "incompetence" bullshit from you and Jtydog. DrChrissy might get upset at times, but there is nothing incompetent about him. He seems to have made a slip and meant 6 years instead of 16 years, that's all. What the RfC was about seemed quite clear to me. The waters have been muddied again and again by others. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn. Thank-you for correcting my maths. You are correct that the 2009 section does not contain a section called "Legislation", however, if you have read the section, you will have seen that it contains legislation material. Please restrict your comments to the content and not the editors. I find your accusations of trolling and incompetence extremely inflammatory and contrary to WP:CIVIL. Please do not use these or similar negative comments about me again.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay: 6 not 16. And the link you gave from 6 years ago bears no relation to the collapsed-box text you've given here and said is the "section in question". This just makes no sense. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The 6-yr old article states "Foie gras production has been banned in nations such as some members of the European Union, Turkey, and Israel because of the force-feeding process. ... The city of Chicago banned the production and selling of foie gras from 2006 until 2008." The point is that legislation-related material has clearly been in the article for a substantial amount of time, however, you removed subsequent expansions of this content without discussing this on Talk first, contrary to WP:CAUTIOUS.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I added the text here (in the body and the lede): "A number of countries and regions have laws against force-feeding or the sale or importation of foie gras, and even where it it legal some retailers have ceased to sell it" - which is a similar summary of the detailed information we now have at the Controversy article. This mythical consensus version of the article with detailed legislation material that you are claiming has been destroyed never existed (except perhaps fleetingly as a result of your edits). If your beef is, in actuality, with the removal of "subsequent expansions of this content" (expansion which you made, and was which in my view badly done) then the RfC is not honest, since it does not say that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy, it's helpful to set up an RfC that says: "Should the article contain a legislation section that would look something like this?" then link to the thing you're recommending. Or you can phrase it: "There is a proposal to remove the legislation section (this one); do you agree?" You then link to a version of the legislation section that you like, either an old version or one that you wrote to illustrate what you want. Then people can see what text you're referring to. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi SV. Thank-you so this helpful, constructive advice. I appreciate that the RfC question itself does not contain diffs to the material in question, however, soon after I raised the RfC, I posted exactly the material I was wishing to be be returned to this article here on March 23rd 2015[15] and then again here[16] a few days later. I have really tried my best to make this as clear as possible. If only I had been approached in a more collegiate way at the beginning of this...__DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So it seems what really going on is that while the RfC wording gives the impression this is about the restoration of 6-year-old long-standing content that some evil editor (i.e. me) has removed, it's really more about 6-day-old content that you added (e.g. here) without realising that Wikipedia already carried that content, better sourced (i.e. here - see the "India" section) in the Controversy article. When I consolidated it all one place you insisted on having parallel versions at first and now - well, not many people seem quite sure what it being proposed. What a mess. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes DrChrissy the "hand waving" I think you're doing is that you appear to be explaining or providing detail of what the specifics are of this RFC without actually doing so. In particular:

• In the original RFC you state that the information under discussion "has been on the Foie gras page since at least 2009"
• Later you provide a large "Material under discussion" section
• You describe this section as that which you'd like to see "returned to this article here"
• But actually that material was never in this article at level of detail before

So the reason why this RFC is confusing is because you appear to be asking whether a large section of detail that's been there since 2009 should be "returned" to the article, but really you're asking whether a large section of detail you tried to add recently, which was contested, and which is already duplicated here at Foie gras controversy, should be moved from there to here. (Also interesting is the series of editing and edit summaries there.)

You've stated "I have really tried my best to make this as clear as possible"; unfortunately I don't think you've achieved that goal. In the future, when formulating the RFC, you should state clearly from the outset exactly what change you're looking for by showing what the article will look like before and after the proposed change. Also, to increase clarity, avoid the appearance of misrepresenting the status of the content in the article history, and don't start the RFC with a vague description regarding a general subject area ("information on legislation") and then only add the specifics of what you're talking about ("Material under discussion") until 5 days after !voting has already started.

For the record, even though it wasn't picked up in your tally, my view hasn't changed since my first comment 8 days ago: "the best-supported information should be mentioned in a high-level summary here and that level of detail needs to be moved to a subarticle." Zad68 21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Consistency within WP

The production of many foodstuffs is "controversial" - indeed vegans and other advocacy groups might argue that all animal-based production is controversial. Foodstuffs which may be controversial contain information on legislation and/or prohibitions on their main pages. These include Pork, Whale meat, Ikizukuri, Dog meat, Kangaroo meat, Alligator meat, Game (hunting), Eating live animals. Other articles on controversial paractices e.g. Fox hunting contain the legislation within the main article. Editors voting to have the detailed legislation information moved from the main article Foie gras should be aware they are supporting a move that is inconsistent with other articles on WP.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, by many RFC participants, it's still not very clear exactly what you had intended the RFC to be about in the first place. What exactly are you thinking of when you talk about "detailed legislation information"? If by it what you mean is what you listed in "Content under discussion", what's interesting is that the articles you listed do not appear to support your premise: Perhaps Pork is the article most analogous to this one in subject matter. That article is mostly about the food itself; religious laws are summarized briefly, and the low-level detail is in Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. That's exactly what Wikipedia content policy calls for, and, not coincidentally, that's what there's strongest support for in this RFC. Zad68 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already twice posted a collapsible box with the content that is the focus of this RfC, here[17] and here[18]. The fact that you have already correctly identified what material is under discussion makes your edit and those of others claiming they are "confused" of zero substance - a fact which I assume the closer will become aware of.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map

The map used appears to denote the Falkland Islands as owned by Argentina. Looking back at where it came from that map has the same error. Foie Gras is illegal in the Falklands but not because of any Argentine laws. The map needs a little bit of tweaking but I am unsure how to do this. Elephant53 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The birds... Like it?!

I've seen gavage performed in France. I know this is going to be unbelievable to most people, but the birds fight to be first. They love it. It's bizarre. France is so wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnArticleDeCode?commun=&code=CRURALNL.rcv&art=L654-27-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213035835/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/////ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063;query=id%3D%236915;layout=;loc=vocatio-cn to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060121/http://www.itavi.asso.fr/economie/eco_filiere/NoteConjonctureFoieGras.pdf to http://www.itavi.asso.fr/economie/eco_filiere/NoteConjonctureFoieGras.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526093354/http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras?currentPage=1 to http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras?currentPage=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602122944/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/11/content_4409586.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/11/content_4409586.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228004632/http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A8B635A2-01C6-40B1-8CE3-B628A2C17F2F/5950/Bioclips13n18.pdf to http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A8B635A2-01C6-40B1-8CE3-B628A2C17F2F/5950/Bioclips13n18.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425174224/http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/foie_gras_bgnd.asp to http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/foie_gras_bgnd.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622145557/http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/ffa/foie_gras.html to http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/ffa/foie_gras.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foie gras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924073730/http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin2343.pdf to http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin2343.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928041904/http://www.lexpressmada.com/elevage-madagascar/43302-la-filiere-foie-gras-se-porte-bien.html to http://www.lexpressmada.com/elevage-madagascar/43302-la-filiere-foie-gras-se-porte-bien.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214203009/http://www.viva.org.uk/sites/default/files/2014_mini_foiegras_factsheet_1.pdf to http://www.viva.org.uk/sites/default/files/2014_mini_foiegras_factsheet_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119003317/http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/foiegras/index.html to http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/foiegras/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)