Talk:Foie gras controversy

Untitled

Since the Foie gras article was sprawlingly long and bloated, well past Wikipedia article length recommendations, and since the vast majority of the article was controversy-related, I've split that material off to an article of its own here, where it can continue to grow. wikipediatrix 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting information

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.[35]

and

(In Europe) the production remains currently legal only in five countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, France and Hungary

A fair few countries missing here - e.g. the Balkans, Greece, Slovakia, Romania.. so I'm not sure if the second sentence is correct. Perhaps a french speaker could check the source to find out if they mean, for example, it remains legal only in those five countries amongst countries which have signed a particular treaty. Phonemonkey 13:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the list would exclude those countries not currently producing foie gras. Hope it helps.--Ramdrake 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. As I understand in that case, the list of five countries excludes countries where production, while legal, does not occur? I've changed the wording slightly to clarify this. Thanks. Phonemonkey 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is worth noting that many false claims have been made, and well publicised, about the effects of foie gras production on the health of the fowl. I am thinking specifically about claims that it causes "fatty liver" (a disease specific to mammals) and diabetes (in the fowl). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.26.116 (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it is worth having a section to explore the nature of the controversy. As far as I understand it hinges on whether the ducks or geese are adversely affected by their treatment, but the scope is wider than this. The foie gras industry generates wealth and employment, and allows people to enjoy a traditional and respectable culinary experience. Were public opinion to shift to the view that animals were suffering, sales of foie gras could drop leading to a reduction in tax revenues, loss of jobs and the erosion of cultural traditions. In other words there are two issues at stake, not one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulsComments (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read this article? What are you suggesting should be added and do you have reliable references/sources for the new material? Things like "erosion of cultural traditions" are relatively hard to reliably document, although claims to that effect might be documented. Your comment makes a lot of assumptions which, if not referenced, should not be taken for granted, such as the appearance of suffering resulting in lower tax revenues which is quite a jump. Bob98133 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will look into some reliable references, and post the new section on this discussion page to see what both sides think. PaulsComments (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Council bans in UK

Is it worth mentioning that the City of York recently became the first city in Britain to ban Foie Gras on all council property, and that a few days ago it was followed by a similar decision by Bolton council? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.45.26 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just make sure to cite the appropriate source on it.--Boffob 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Chefs section

There is dispute going on regarding the "Chefs" section. Suggest removing section altogether as it is a bit out-of-place and so small it looks a little funny. Not worth the edit warring.Sko1221 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to keep it and reorder it to reflect reality that those chefs who do endorse the ban are in fact a minority. That one could dig up 3 "ban" chefs versus 2 "non-ban" does not make it a real-world majority.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to keep it. If it's small expand it, obviously a chefs opinion is relevant here. I have reverted the reorder per Randrake's argument. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for references and quotations from chefs I am finding a lot of accusations of animal rights activists targeting chefs personally for harassment. Perhaps we could expand the section by including that? Theresa Knott | token threats 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Trotter is mentioned, there should be a note that he does not want to be associated with AR groups. when Farm Sanctuary asked Trotter to sign a pledge stating he would never serve foie gras, he replied saying "These people are idiots. Understand my position: I have nothing to do with a group like that. I think they're pathetic." SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Of course thinking that Farm Sanctuary are idiots is not the same as saying that he doesn't want to associate with any AR group. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the source for statements made on this pages' history that chefs in favor of serving foie gras are in the majority? That might be good to place in this section. Since we have made the claim and positioned sentences based on it, but i cannot find that info anywhere... Sko1221 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No i can't find a source for it either. However since we don't actually state that in the article but have simply put both views in that section I can't be bothered to spend forever looking. Why do you want it? Theresa Knott | token threats 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The very article Sarah quoted yesterday says this: "With the announcement, Mr. Puck has joined a small group of top chefs around the country who refuse to serve foie gras, the fattened liver of ducks and geese." (emphasis mine) This should amply indicate that this is indeed a minority position.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My reasons are that i am interested to know, and since we have positioned the sentences here based on this fact, that is kind of like saying that this is the majority position so should be verifiable? Also seems like something that would be a good intro sentence to the Chef section. The article i found on Puck and his small group of anti-f.g. chefs is hardly data. Make sense?Sko1221 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the reference you put in the article yesterday it says that those chefs who refuse to serve foie gras are a small group, i.e., a minority.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that an article said small/minority when referring to chefs against foie gras. I am interested in actual data, i.e., numbers or percentages that we could source as a reference. I really don't think that article would suffice as data. Please, i would love to see where it is that you found data supporting your claim that chefs in support of foie gras are in the majority. I am at a loss, do share!Sko1221 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you questioning that the chefs refusing to serve foie gras are indeed a minority, or are you questioning the exact size of the majority (and/or of the minority)? The first question is already answered by the quote above; the second is only peripherally relevant (a datum which would be nice to have at most). But questioning the first for lack of having a precise answer to the second (which you seem to be implying) would be a logical fallacy.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, i am interested in the data. Meaning, the place that you found the material which supports the assertion that chefs in favor of foie gras are in the majority. Yes, i did come across the article which said "a small number". It didn't say "in comparison to the much greater number...". I am not trying to waste anyone's time, but this is an encyclopedia so i am confused as to why this information that you have isn't being inserted into this article or at least shared with us here in addition to the article history page. I believe that information has a place here. I bet i am not the only one who wonders about the bigger picture when reading the Chefs' section. So we've quoted a few chefs. That leaves me thirsty for a unifying statement, which you have asserted and i am wondering why we don't add it, with (references). I tried to add it myself, but i would have needed a good reference and i cannot find one myself. I am not arguing that there are a larger number of chefs in favor of serving foie gras, but i truthfully have no idea and this would be a good place for people like me to come and find out. Just my thinking... i thank you for your patience. <font style="Papyrus">Sarah Katherine</font style="Papyrus"> (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviosly the reason he didn't add it in is because he has no references for the statement. Your move. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only poll that I'm aware of looked like this:

""Foie gras is an expensive food item served in upscale restaurants. It is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese large quantities of food causing the animals' livers to swell up to ten times their normal size. A long metal pipe is inserted into the animals' esophagus several times a day. The process can cause the animals' internal organs to rupture. Several European countries and the state of California have outlawed the practice as cruel. Do you agree or disagree that force-feeding geese and ducks to produce foie gras should be banned in Pennsylvania?"

Now, considering the question, the fact that 94% of respondents had either never eaten the stuff, or worse, had never even heard of it (54%), can you see that this is the very definition of a push poll? If this is any indication, the fact that a large number of chefs in the Chicago area decided to put or keep foie gras on their menu (some of them had never served foie gras before), and that this eventually led to the repeal of the Chicago ban on foie gras, then the assertion that most chefs do not support the ban of foie gras sounds like a reasonable conclusion.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There was something called "soft science" during my high school years. We weren't allowed to use it. I do not feel satisfied that we have found evidence that supports our assertion that chefs in favor of foie gras outweigh chefs against its useage. We should hold off making any changes to the article until we can find such evidence. I could argue that given the whole state of California has banned f.g. (to take effect in 2012), and that the number of chefs in California absolutely would outweigh the number of chefs in the city of Chicago, we could, using Ramdrake's way of thinking, conclude that the number of chefs banning or planning to ban f.g would be in the majority.

However, i do not feel like arguing. At this point, I ask for a group input on how to proceed. What about putting a little notice on the page asking for data, and stating that we do not KNOW either way the data on Chefs. We could gather soundbites from Chefs all day long, but that doesn't make for a good encyclopedic section. I realize this is a work in progress so let's all be patient. I see why it has a warning about being a controversial topic. I also suggest that since this section is in the "Controversy" article, the Chefs who feel the topic is indeed controversial should be placed first as I had originally done. But i could be gravely wrong ~ looking forward to input. Thanks Sarah Katherine (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, you're again making two errors of logic here: in your statement that "the number of chefs in California absolutely would outweigh the number of chefs in the city of Chicago" you assume that all chefs in California endorse the ban. The reality could be that the ban decided by the politicians will be decried by the restauranteurs, just like it happened in Chicago. Second, you say "being a controversial topic. I also suggest that since this section is in the "Controversy" article, the Chefs who feel the topic is indeed controversial should be placed first as I had originally done". What you had originally done was to put those chefs who refuse to serve foie gras; I don't see that this group is equivalent to that of the chefs who find the topic controversial; it's just not the same thing. Those being said, however, I'm content with getting wider community input indeed.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From your note to me on my talk page, you said "those speaking out against foie gras are most likely a vocal minority:. That is a fair statement, but can you begin to imagine the storm that would befall me if i were to assert anything with reasoning like that? How we feel or intuit is absolutely irrelevant here.Sarah Katherine (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the article never actually comes out and say those speaking against foie gras are a minority, although it uses this as a default assumption (and to the best of my knowledge, this is borne out by many such remarks I found as the one rom your article). Now, since the article doesn't explicitly make the point one way or another, what is the purpose of hunting for this reference? Yes, it would be nice to have such an explicit reference, but then, what?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! This is ridiculous, lets not forget what this is about, all this is because Sarah wanted to swap the order of the chefs comments around so that those against foie gras go first! This is the absolute daftest debate I have ever seen. We do not state in the article anything about how many chefs are for and against so asking for a refs is simply a waste of time. Having said that, I'm not willing to allow the "againsts" to go first when Sarahs own ref states that they are a minority! Enough of debating this. I'm going back to looking for info about AR activists harassing chefs. Theresa Knott | token threats 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q="foie+gras"+lark+narn+site%3Athestranger.com, read up, it's been going on here for a while. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Now see that's not what I am talking about. Protesters outside a resturant chanting is fine and to be expected. People have right to do this in a free country. What I found when searching for quotes were accusations of actual harassment (phone calls, bricks that kind of thing). However it was all heresay and I allowed myself to become distracted by the "debate" above and stopped looking for decent sources. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to have chefs stating their opinions since they prepare this product, however their opinions are simply opinions and may be no more informed than the man-on-the-street. So I think it's OK to include them, on both sides, making it as NPOV as possible and making it clear that it is opinion, not science - so a balanced collection of chef positions seems warranted. It doesn't matter to me which side comes first, although since the article is about controversy, perhaps the most controversial should be first while status quo positions would follow to defend existing practices from unwarranted criticism. I would expect the opposite order on the foie gras page, but again, I think the material and sources are more important than the order. Bob98133 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the Chef's section debate 22 Feb ~ Sarah puts the anti-foie gras chefs first. Sentences are reversed to reflect the majority opinion (pro foie gras chefs), editor stating that we need proof for our assertions and that to show to anti-foie gras chefs first was stating that they are in the majority, as per Wikipedia standards. Trying to form an into sentence to the Chefs section, verifiable evidence of the majority opinion of Chefs was requested so that it could be referenced in article.

• May i suggest that maybe things would go faster if the answer was immediately, no, at this time we can't provide the data, instead of asking numerous times why it was requested. That seems like a filibuster and a huge waste of time, and perhaps not in good faith. Let's be really honest and up front. Saying "I really really know this to be true based on my experiences and what i've read" is fine on the discussion page, but for our purposes here on Wikipedia, i am hard-pressed to see the relevance of what we "know" but can't verify.Sarah Katherine (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to have sources for what we write in the article. And there was a source: the very article you inserted did mention that those chefs opposed to serving foie gras were "a small group". You then decided to ask for statistical info to justify the default assumption that anti-foie chefs were indeed a minority (i.e. further sourcing for a point which isn't even made in the article), and that in the middle of reversing the order of the chefs' opinions several times. This looks like you are trying to push a very specific POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming to know my intentions. I really was trying to use your information and to put it into the chef's section in an opening statement. I was curious too. I was not trying to again reverse the order, truly i wanted to read what you had to satisfy my curiosity and potentially making for a more informative article. "A small number" is relative and i cannot see how that would have helped with an opening statement, but if you think we can use that, i will help you to write that into this section, if you need help finding the reference or with anything else. Sarah Katherine (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Without a reference it cannot go into the article. Theresa Knott | token threats 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a technical question, if someone can guide me to a page where i can learn the nuances regarding references? My understanding was rather an assumption: that we have to have the same verification here behind the scenes in our debates as we do in the article. That said, i am happy with the chef's section and thank you for allowing Puck and the others have a say too, makes more sense given the topic here. Sarah Katherine 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sko1221 (talk • contribs)

References

Update for Litigation section

Is this something for the Litigation section? This is a new piece from Jan 09 ~ Sarah Katherine 18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] (an excerpt) "NAD reviewed D'Artagnan's "Internet advertising" (essentially, the D'Artagnan website) following a challenge made by HSUS over two "express claims" about its foie gras: (1) "The liver is not diseased, simply enlarged," and (2) "Animals are hand-raised with tender care under the strictest of animal care standards." The Humane Society argued that these claims implied a series of messages it deems false, namely that artisan duck foie gras is "not produced by force feeding, "produced by healthy animals," and"produced humanely." Following a review of evidence submitted by both sides, NAD concluded that D'Artagnan had not adequately substantiated the first claim about the health of the duck liver. It also found that the second claim about how the ducks are cared for "suggests a level of care and oversight that is not supported by the evidence provided by the advertiser and is inconsistent with the evidence in the record."

If no one disagrees with the addition, i can add it in. Sarah Katherine 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Double mention of Chicago Ban

FYI, if anyone can take care of a POV issue ~ twice mentioning the Chicago Ban (it is in the Chef's section and the Ban section) ~ that would be great. Thanks! Sarah Katherine 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a POV issue at all; it's a redundancy issue. Looking at it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, i had misunderstood the rules about redundancy. Sarah Katherine 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the paragraph about Chicago, it has a pretty large section under "Bans". Hope this helps. Sarah Katherine 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I partially reverted you, as the chefs opinions clearly do belong in the chefs section. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i wasn't sure how to deal with the double mention, as you said to me on the foie gras page, we don't mention things twice in a Wikipedia article.Sarah Katherine 18:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Party section

How exactly does Dr. Holly Cheever, who is a member of the Leadership Council of the Humane Society's Veterinary Medical Association, as well as being the Vice President of the Humane Society's New York chapter, and has been a consultant for Farm Sanctuary, particularly in the Chicago ban council hearings, qualify as a "Third Party?"
I think multiple professional associations with at least two of the major groups advocating on an issue means you're not a 'third party'. And yet she takes up 3 of the sections 6 paragraphs.

Mentions of Dr. Cheever should be moved to the Animal Rights and Welfare Groups segment, as she is a member and supporter of animal rights organizations. Having a Doctoral degree does not instantly confer the status of 'neutral authority'.
If anything, I think the American Veterinary Medical Association section belongs under the category of 'Third Party' more so than Dr. Cheever. If there is to be a Third Party sections, mentions in it should be limited actual outside, independent observers, with no professional or financial ties to organizations on either side of the issue.--24.3.14.57 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Cheever is a member of AVMA as well as the veterinarians' animal welfare group that was taken over by the Humane Society. I think she has offered her professional opinions when asked by Humane Society or FARM. Those groups then touted her professional opinion on their web pages. Unless she was speaking as a paid spokesperson for these groups, I think that she qualifies as a 3rd party with a particular expertise, although it could be mentioned, as it is, that she frequently voices similar opinions.

While AVMA is largely represented by committee members who are paid by the industries they represent, they are still considered by many to be a voice for veterinarians. However, they are a third party in the sense that they are not directly involved with foie gras or foie gras production - they simply have an opinion or recommendation about it.

This issue is so controversial that it's going to be hard to find anyone with an opinion which isn't polarized and picked up by one side or the other. I think changing this article around to reflect who is neutral or not is more work than it's worth. Maybe some disclaimer could be put in but otherwise, I'd say leave it. Bob98133 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources

Culled from external links... Steven Walling 21:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Scientists Establish Link Between Foie Gras and Disease
• San Francisco supports eateries that take foie gras off the menu
• New York Times: Praise for Foie Gras Fortifies Its Critics
• Controversy in NY state surrounding Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the largest U.S. producer.
• Fox News story about California's anti-foie gras law
• Article regarding foie gras controversy in Chicago and local government attempts to stop sales of foie gras in city restaurants
• Buzzle.com report on Israeli ruling
• A UK Independent article about the controversy
• NPR: France Questions the Foie Gras Tradition
• Defying Law, a Foie Gras Feast in Chicago New York Times
• Can Ethical Foie Gras Happen in America? Time Magazine, August 12, 2009

detailed Legislation section

A discussion taking place at Talk:Foie gras#detailed Legislation section affects this article. Interested editors should feel free to join in there. TJRC (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foie gras controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061231234004/http://www.stopgavage.com:80/en/manifesto.php to http://stopgavage.com/en/manifesto.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foie gras controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721061829/http://docs.sandiego.gov/councilresults/2008/res20080108amdraft.pdf to http://docs.sandiego.gov/councilresults/2008/res20080108amdraft.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Foie gras controversy. 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/20070622145557/http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/ffa/foie_gras.html to http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/ffa/foie_gras.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507175956/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507175956/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf
• 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/20080627221326/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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080627221326/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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507175956/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507175956/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf

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) 02:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Foie gras controversy. 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/20120114132849/http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5154/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8072 to http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5154/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104160943/http://www.banfoiegras.com/aspca.pdf to http://www.banfoiegras.com/aspca.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207140249/http://www.quid.fr/zoom/index.php/2006/12/11/63-gastronomie-le-foie-gras-un-produit-francais to http://www.quid.fr/zoom/index.php/2006/12/11/63-gastronomie-le-foie-gras-un-produit-francais
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509174202/http://www.stopgavage.com/en/signatures.php to http://stopgavage.com/en/signatures.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429005401/http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=97 to http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=97
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407013221/http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep05/050901q.asp to http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep05/050901q.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020042407/http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/10/05/ruhlman_bourdain_foie/index1.html to http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/10/05/ruhlman_bourdain_foie/index1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081407/http://www.banfoiegras.com/drstone.pdf to http://www.banfoiegras.com/drstone.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081414/http://www.banfoiegras.com/Ward_stone.pdf to http://www.banfoiegras.com/Ward_stone.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105195532/http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/hsus_suit_foie_gras_new_york.html to http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/hsus_suit_foie_gras_new_york.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.senasa.gov.ar/oldweb/marcolegal/Res_rs2/rs_413_03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404000301/http://www.ambiente.it/impresa/legislazione/leggi/2001/dlgs146-2001.htm to http://www.ambiente.it/impresa/legislazione/leggi/2001/dlgs146-2001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407030008/http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/english/law.shtml to http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/english/law.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519002225/http://www.stopforcefeeding.com/page.php?module=article&article_id=26 to http://www.stopforcefeeding.com/page.php?module=article&article_id=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722104426/http://www.retail-deli.be/insidenews/103/default.aspx?_vs=0_F&id=EDC0059f01.mth to http://www.retail-deli.be/insidenews/103/default.aspx?_vs=0_F&id=EDC0059f01.mth
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401220339/http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20Muscovy%20ducks%20E%201999.asp to http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20Muscovy%20ducks%20E%201999.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616230040/http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/israel-proposes-ban-on-foie-gras/14320 to http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/israel-proposes-ban-on-foie-gras/14320
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201308/http://www.kcci.com/foodnews/11456007/detail.html to http://www.kcci.com/foodnews/11456007/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927081420/http://www.banfoiegras.com/fauxfoiegras.htm to http://www.banfoiegras.com/fauxfoiegras.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619194528/http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/features/12071/index.html to http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/features/12071/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) 03:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Falklands on map

Is there any reason that the Falkland Islands are connected to Argentina by a line? This seems to imply ownership. Also can't find any web source to imply that Foie Gras production is banned in the Falkland Islands. --Roroggs (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)