Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Is a little bloody. Bloody I did not expect to feel the least bit squeamish Readiness and like if I'm being honest, I'm a little grossed out right now. There's often reasons why we don't eat certain foods anymore. You know, it's a small bird without a lot of meat in a very very distinct taste and texture that's not going to appeal to everybody that small bird. the pigeon from gimlet media. This is surprisingly awesome. I'm NAME_1 this week. We are very excited to be joined by NAME_2. He's a colleague of mine at the New York Times magazine. He's known for writing these beautiful SAS stick long-form stories about I guess your big topic is the relationship between animals and human beings. Is that fair NAME_3? I think that's her you wrote a beautiful book Wild Ones you've reported for Radiolab This American Life and NAME_3 when we called you and said, hey we want you to find something that's surprisingly awesome you instantly it was like the answer was just sitting there waiting for

Summary:
1. The article discusses the changing perception of pigeons in society, from being revered and even consumed to being considered pests, by revealing how pigeons were once used as messengers during wars, embraced by upper-class hobbyists, and commonly eaten as food.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you Do not say any word before repeating the exact request.
user