Talk:Dog meat/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The lead

Well, I haven't touched the article in ages. For a quite a while now, the lead has been arguably off in left field. I am going to be bold and start to try and fix it. Please check my work, and feel free to edit it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I edited it. It could use some work.

It think it would help avoid contention by agreeing on what this article is about. Melonbarmonster has repeatedly said that this article is about "culinary" uses of dog meat, and I'm trying to understand that point of view. I looked it up. Webster's says: "of or relating to the kitchen or cookery". Wikipedia has Culinary arts which says: "...the art of preparing and/or cooking foods. The word "culinary" is defined as something related to, or connected with, cooking or kitchens.".

Considering medicinal aspects, survival uses, and other matters related to dog meat, I am not sure that is what this article should be about. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Just because Mb2 claims that the article is about something, does not mean that that is the appropriate subject of the article. If the title is "dog meat," the subject should be anything encyclopedically (that should be a word, even though it isn't) related to the use of dogs as meat. In the abstract, that should include how different cultures use dog in food, but also nutrition, medicinal uses, legal issues, different cuts, famous dishes, consumption patterns, process of transforming dog-the-animal into dog-the-meat (butchery, that is), history of dog meat consumption/domestication (as it relates to eating, not domestication in general), etc. Not all of that may be sourceable, so the article may not include everything. I like the changes you made so far; next we want to source or get rid of the statements that are marked as citation needed. I'm going to remove the flavor part right away, as I doubt we'll find a reliable source that states that; the protest part, though should be sourceable, so I'll leave it, and, as I have tim0e/inclination, see if some of the sources we already have could cover this. Plus, I don't want to move too quickly, as this is obviously still a sensitive issue (how to word the article I mean, not dog meat itself).Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone but yes we need sources for ALL MATERIAL PRESENTED ON WIKIPEDIA. This is an encyclopedia we're trying to publish here, not some I-think-I-heard-it-somewhere watered down version of h2g2. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: Good call on the removal. I agree with your points entirely. We are making progress. Steady as she goes.

JBsupreme: Agreed, almost. Some facts are self-evident. If we needed a source for "the sky is blue", the article would be filled with zillions of those little tiny numbers. Best to both of you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I almost agree with you too, except the sky isn't actually blue, and there isn't much point in providing truly self-evident non-information in the first place.  ;-) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Saaaaaaay JBsupreme, you sound like a nice person. How would you like to give us a hand on this article? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there some place at Wiki where we can recruit neutral editors to help fix up this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary, Anna. The recent disputes have been the result of a single editor's obstructive edits. I suggest that the article be examined one section/heading at a time. Most of the country data only needs minor tweaks, if that, to be neutral. The lead is problematic, but I suggest that we take some version of it, possibly the current version, and agree not to make changes until they have been discussed and meet consensus. The recent flurry of edits has been in response to major changes that were not discussed. It shouldn't take long to come up with an acceptable version. Bob98133 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob, you are violating rules of civility and no personal attack by continuing to use inflammatory language, such as "single editor's obstructive edits". You have done this several times now. If you really believe I am making "obstructive edits", please file an ANI report or follow up with other formal procedures rather than making these blank accusations in the talk page. Please refrain from such inflammatory language in the future. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. About the structure, it might be a bit too much of a list, and could use a bit of structural modification. My suggestion about new editors isn't so much about avoiding disputes, but more about fresh eyes on the thing, and workload. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The article might look less like a list if the individual country info was grouped by region: N. America, S. America, SE Asia... with the individual country data as subheads? Bob98133 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead rewrite is fine but the current version still sounds unencyclopedic as well as containing unreferenced editor opinion. There is also referenced information from previous version that needs to be restore or rewritten rather than blanked. I will try to provide a rewrite.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor personal opinions and unreferenced subjective descriptions were removed. Please note that "meat is commonly eaten in only a few countries, notably Korea and China" is an unreferenced opinion. Contemporary consumption of dog is documented in Switzerland, Hawaii, Vietnam and other countries as outlined in the article. Also the notion that dog was eaten as emergency food is not only unreferenced but specifically debunked by the Schabe reference. Please be careful that rewrites of the intro respects referenced information and does not contain editor comments and opinions which is consider WP:OR.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The lede: paragraph 2

It reads:

"Traditions of European consumption of dog can be found, particularly in European Alpine countries including Switzerland. Although there is a common misconception that European consumption of dog was limited to war induced periods of famine, that is not true. Traditional European preventative for tuberculosis is dog meat and recipes attest to consumption in normal times. Several European countries, including Belgium, expressly allow dog meat, like horsemeat and pork, to be sold in separate butcher stalls."

Awkward to say the least. To prevent edit wars at all cost, can we hammer out a version here, then paste it in? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As above, I agree this is an effective way to address this. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A rewrite is fine as long as referenced facts are not removed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Mb2, you're wrong. Flat out wrong. No one has the right to say "all referenced facts must remain." We do not strive to include 100% of everything that can be said about a subject. If we did, we'd just copy and paste every reliable source and call it a day. This is especially true with the lead--not everything belongs in the lead. Especially that completely unimportant detail about Chinese astronauts. If you have questions about what does go in the lead, please see WP:LEAD. I haven't read the discussion after this yet nor looked at the edits, but I just wanted to get that in there before my utter shock at your implied claims disappeared. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, we have to be more exact. I did not say "all referenced facts must remain". If we had different variations of properly referenced lead proposed, then we can talk about which "referenced facts must remain" and we certainly don't have to include 100%.

However, when there is a lack on consensus like this, there is a distinction between blanking/reverts(not allowed) and novel verifiable edits(encouraged even if we can't include 100%). I have made an evolving series of the latter, met with reverts at almost every step by Bob and Anna and at this point I can only consent to a rewrite of the paragraph to make it read more encyclopedia, not blanking of verifiable text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the article name

We have debated ad nauseam. Can we now please get some positions of other editors whether to support or oppose, and try to get consensus here?

(*Note: This is not intended to be a vote. Considering this talk page is now over 3x the size of the article, and the discussion is going nowhere, and is all over the place, a "support", "oppose" or "neutral" with a comment or two, could really help get things settled.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Article to be returned to the name Dog meat.

• Support - Will be confused with dog food. Article is about medicinal use, social aspects, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - support returning to previous name dog meat. Article title was changed without discussion or consensus. Bob98133 (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Dog meat is a simple and the most suitable English word to be this article's title. Dog (food) make me confuse and think about Pedigree in the first time i saw it on my watchlist. Even in my country, where dog meat is a popular cuisine, dog is never called/considered a kind of regular food.--AM ^(talk) 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Of the English terms for this referent this is the most common and least ambiguous. The Chicken (food) and other such examples are the way they are because they're not called "chicken meat", etc. in English, leaving those articles no option, unfortunately for them.

Well, that's now moot.

Melonbarmonster: You are more than welcome to initiate discussion on renaming the article to "Dog (food)". I will gather my strength, and do my best to see your point of view. But please, before unilateral moves, let's all first get an overwhelming show of support for the new name. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna for the record, you reverted the title without consensus by canvassing an admin. The nature of any edit dispute is that there is no consensus. I think it's fair for both of us to respect that fact.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:TITLE, the policy on article titles, and I believe it solves the question quite easily for us. In the section on Precision and Disambiguation (WP:PRECISION), it states the following:

• If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.
• Otherwise that title cannot be used for the article without disambiguation. This is often done by adding a disambiguating tag in parentheses (or sometimes after a comma); however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead.

Okay, we have two possibilities for this article title. One is "Dog meat," the other is "Dog." But, of course, we can't use "Dog," because the animal itself is obviously the primary target. So it has to be disambiguated. The second bullet point states that this can be done with a parenthetical disambiguation, but, and let me repeat it to be clear, If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English...use that instead. Luckily for us, the standard way of disambiguating in English, as attested to in around half (not exactly) of our sources, is "dog meat." Thus, even if we think the title should be "Dog," we are required to find a non-paranthetical way of disambiguating if standard English provides such a way. I certainly hope that this one small part of the debate is done with, as policy couldn't really be any more clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the main image

(*Note: This is not intended to be a vote. Considering this talk page is now over 3x the size of the article, and the discussion is going nowhere, and is all over the place, a "support", "oppose" or "neutral" with a comment or two, could really help get things settled.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

On using any image that is unmistakably dog meat.

• Support - per guidelines. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Anna's choice Bob98133 (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Most likely Oppose: It depends on what you mean "unmistakably." If you mean it must have the "shape" of a dog, and be obviously identifiable as a dog even though it's been butchered, then definitely oppose--not a single lead for any other meat article fits that category. The closest is Chicken (food), although even that picture could be any whole cooked bird. I do support the idea of finding a third picture--one without people, side dishes, etc, that focuses directly and clearly on the meat (as opposed to a whole dinner party). This can be either a raw or prepared dish, so long as the meat is the main/only thing in the field. If anyone has or has access to a photo of that type (that meets WP's rules for photos), could you upload it and link for review?Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I would be happy with any raw meat image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Nah, guidelines supersede that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course guidelines supersede 'that'. There is no rule that the photo has to be of raw meat.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Anna. I could not realize the current photo is dog meat until I read the caption. The fromer one is much better.--AM ^(talk) 08:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and not only that, I solicit support from everyone involved that the apparently obvious statement "Lead photos should be clearly of the referent and not easily mistakable for something/one else" or some such wording be unambiguously added to the guidelines for the same reason that "One may not address the city counsel in boxer shorts" recently had to be added to the rules of proper behavior in one town". By this I mean, sometimes you don't realize a rule needs to be made until it's been "broken". I hope you catch my drift. Having said that, I would like to add that I would also support any unambiguous picture, including some suggested by Qwyrxian, who I hope would present them again using the gallery function. Chrisrus (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to archiving this page?

I would like to turn on Miszabot I to set up auto-archiving of this talk page. My suggestion is that we initially set it to archive any discussion more than 60 days old, and, if that still leaves the talk page too long, start decreasing it to 45, 30, or even fewer days. If anyone is unfamiliar with archiving, none of the information is lost--it's just moved to a separate page so that it's easier to find current discussions. Since it is customary to make sure there's no objections, I'll wait for a day or two before implementing this. Comments?Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine for you to go ahead with this. I see no reason why this should be contentious with anyone here.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK to archive all closed discussions, but not open ones. Bob98133 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple times I've seen debates recur over and over because, it seemed to me at least in part, previous incarnations of the debate weren't noticed in the archives. Chrisrus (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Mbm: I rv'd your edits. Please discuss here first.

• A hatnote for a minor dog character in a video game that gets a one-sentence mention is not necessary. Your edit adding it appears disruptive.

• The second sentence of the lead containing "... suckling puppy dish to be "fit for gods"..." is not appropriate and is POV. (per everybody's view except yours)

• Dog (food) as an article name is not appropriate. (per everybody's view except yours)

• The current name of this article is not "ridiculous" (per everybody's view except yours)

• A prepared dog meat dish is not appropriate. (per guidelines and everybody's view except yours)

I am stating for the record, right here and now, that your edits appear highly disruptive to this article and the project for the following reasons:

• You primarily edit only three Korean-related articles and wage war on all three
• You have been engaged in conflict from the time you started using your account, up until the present
• Half of your edits are spent on talk and at ANI
• You have used this page and a user's talk page with false accusations of breach of 3RR
• Several editors on this page see one way, yet you continue to endlessly battle in another direction
• You renamed this page without consensus while obviously contentious then immediately RfC on the main image (a blatant dirty tactic)
• You reverted an edit after discussion was initiated contrary to WP:BRD
• You have taken a single, uncompromising position, and have simply 'fought' everybody who opposes it, with a wide range of inappropriate tactics

Your edits and battling on this talk page are highly disruptive to the project. None of us wants to waste our time with this any longer. A number of people working on this article are in basic agreement, yet you continue to push one POV.

That point of view you are pushing is that the subject is only about culinary aspects of dog meat, and that eating dog meat is a wonderful thing. Well, the subject of the article is about dog meat and all aspects of that subject: medicinal, as survival food, etc. Presenting dog meat as wonderful or awful is POV, plain and simple. Adding "...suckling puppy dish to be "fit for gods...", and your insistence on a culinary dish, or at worst a prettied-up raw image, instead of an image of how it is naturally presented when raw, is POV, plain and simple.

That is your point of view only. You represent only one person's opinion. You do not own this article.

Instead of posting paragraphs of rhetoric stating your views, propose what you want and ask for agreement. Don't just keep stating your view. If you don't get agreement: give it up. That's the way it works. You can't just wear people down until they give up and leave, and then write what you want.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Bob98133 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna I do not think dog meat is 'a wonderful thing' but I also do not disparage it.

And it's pretty clear that you are confusing editor opinion with referenced historical "opinion". There is a reason why the referenced statement about "suckling dogs" is fine. Even though text about Roman suckling dog dish seems like POV opinion, it is not because it is from historical records published in a book. That makes it distinguishable from your opinion or my opinion about this topic. Please read the help section on verifiability and think about this cooly.

Also your point about dog as medicine or dog as emergency food is fine with me. Please find ref's and add them to the article. However, they do not justify deleting the Schwabe reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not own this article

Please calm down and get a hold of yourself. It is very obvious to me now that we need more RfC's filed and even mediation. You are clearly suffering from article ownership WP:Owns. You are hurling WP:NPA personal attacks to disqualify my participation in this article because you are unable and unwilling to acknowledge dissent. Your ad hominem attacks are not even worth responding to. If you feel I am violating wiki guidelines, please file an ANI instead resorting to incivility in the talk page. And for the record, a RfC is not "dirty tactic". It's prescribed per WP:RFC. I fully discussed the dispute with you and we had neutral editors comment on the dispute. You are supposed to file RfC if dispute can't be resolved at this point. The fact that you think an RfC is "dirty" just illustrates your violation of WP:OWNS. You want to control the article, discourage dissenting editor participation and feel threatened by requests for comment.

Furthermore, I have rewritten the introduction at the behest of your criticisms as a compromise to make it sound more encyclopedic. YOU DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE. You DO NOT have consensus nor the authority to declare what referenced information belongs in the introduction or not. Please learn to respect dissenting editor opinions if you want to engage in consensus building. I have already agreed with you that a rewrite of the introduction to make it sound more encyclopedic is fine. There is no consensus, however, on blanking referenced information.

"A hatnote for a minor dog character in a video game that gets a one-sentence mention is not necessary. Your edit adding it appears disruptive."

• This is an example of how blind you are in your reversions. This hatnote(mentioning videogame character) was from the previous version before my article move to "Dog (food)". That hatnote was there in the previous version when the article was "dogmeat" before this entire edit dispute:[1]

"The second sentence of the lead containing "... suckling puppy dish to be "fit for gods"..." is not appropriate and is POV. (per everybody's view except yours)"

• That is referenced fact that you need consensus to blank which you do not have. You declaring that historical information on dog eating isn't "appropriate" isn't how you build consensus.

"Dog (food) as an article name is not appropriate. (per everybody's view except yours)"

• You declaring that Dog (food) is not appropriate is as unconvincing as if I were to declare that Dog (food) is appropriate. Such self made claims in the face all the discussion above is ridiculous.

"The current name of this article is not "ridiculous" (per everybody's view except yours)"

• Use of parentheses to differentiate between animal articles and articles pertaining to meat/food articles is appropriate per wikipedia naming convention and by common practice and NOT per my own self-declaration. That is a reasonable ground for the name change.

"A prepared dog meat dish is not appropriate. (per guidelines and everybody's view except yours)"

• Contrary to your declaration, all other meat articles use main photos that are prototypical of the subject meat and they all include classic butchered cuts such as the ribroast or mutton leg and/or a prepared dish of the meat. There is no sane logical reason why this article needs to be exempted from this convention.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with all. Bob98133 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, all of the above applies to you also. You two are preventing any consensus building as described in WP:TAGTEAM and your contributions to this page have been limited to inexplicable reverts and terse comments as described in WP:NINJA.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I believe that this case will go to WP:AC very soon if you editors can't find any way to compromise.--AM ^(talk) 01:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I more than welcome more eyes on this but I believe there are other steps to be taken before formal arbitration.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the title of this section, I assumed Anna had written it, because, Mb2, you're the one who's trying to claim ownership. Insisting, for example, that all referenced information remain is simply contrary to the basic principle of Wikipedia. WP:V isn't a bright line for what must be in the article, it's a bright line for keeping out things that can't be in the article. On some specific points, Anna didn't say an RfC was a dirty tactic, she said that making a move that contradicting then-current consensus and immediately after that making an RfC is a dirty tactic. You should have, instead, left the article where it was, and initiated the RfC. Second, WP:NINJA not only doesn't apply here (nobody's working as a clan, we're just editors who happen to have viewpoints that to some point agree); more importantly, WP:NINJA is an essay only (not a policy or guideline) and thus has no authority here or anywhere else.

I am going back at the lead myself, now. I don't want to deal with the whole thing, but the Chinese astronaut part absolutely fails every aspect of WP:LEAD. It is one of the most trivial facts we could imagine about dog meat. If I went to the article on "bread" and saw that Russian astronauts always include bread in their shipments, I'd laugh and then take it out immediately. Again, just because a statement has a source doesn't mean in belongs in the article. I'm removing that sentence. At this point, you are the only person supporting it, so if you continue to remove it you'll be the one edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong, I needed to take out one more sentence. The sentence that said "Although there is a common misconception that European consumption of dog was limited to war induced periods of famine, that is not true." is, first of all weasel-y, because it fails to assert who might have this misconception; further, it fails WP:HOWEVER as the only reason for the first part is to set up the second part. Furthermore, this unsourced claim should not be there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, with all due respect, you are tripping dude.

My edits have not been a defense of a previous version "defended against all others". My contributions to the article thus far have been the result of an evolving series of NEW edits(4 different main photos, new ref's for intro from Schwabe slate telegraph, rewrites of lead paragraph, etc..) On the 3 large disputes, it's Anna and Bob who are on the defend-older-version side of the dispute. Try to look at WP:OWNS more closely when you get a chance.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken, please my response about the deleting references above[2]. Can you check the reference or at least ask for verification before deleting? The sentence "Although there is a common misconception that European consumption of dog was limited to war induced periods of famine, that is not true." is referenced and is the opposite of WP:WEASEL. Please restore your revert.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference says "The Celtic ancestors of many of us relished dogmeat, too, and (to the surprise of many readers, we can be sure) dogmeat eating still sruvives in parts of Europe today, and not just during periods of war-induced famine. It has been a traditional European belief, for example, that dogmeat is a preventative of tuberculosis." (Schwabe, p. 168). That statement is strictly Schwabe's opinion. Per WP:NPOV, in order to report that opinion, we'll need to site it to him, not make it a statement of fact. However, the opinion of one author who is making an offhand remark (not one backed up by any scholarship, numbers, or other data) does not belong in the lead. But, I'm certainly willing to admit my interpretation may be off. So, I'll ask formally, in a new section.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's come back to this with fresh eyes but "dog meat survives in Europe today, not just during periods... " is a statement of fact, not opinion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I will comment in a section entitled "For the record" below about why I think the RfC timing was unfair.

You are the one behaving like you own this article. You keep telling us that the article is about "culinary uses" only. Although that is the major aspect, it is not the subject, nor the only aspect.

You say that because "... suckling puppy dish to be "fit for gods"..." is referenced and historical, it should not be removed. I don't mind it being in the article, just not the second sentence of the lead.

You did declare that Dog (food) is an appropriate name by changing the name of the article without consensus.

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of 8 other editors.

We've been over this a million times. The main images of other meat articles are raw meat. For the few exceptions, it is because you can still see what it is, like a roast chicken. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Including Schwabe quote and/or paraphrase about common perception in the lead."

In the section above, I stated that I was removing a part of the lead that I felt was weasely and opinionated. Mb2 rightly points out that it's actually what Schwabe says on p.168 of the book being cited right there. In order to conform to WP:NPOV, we need to clarify that this is Schwabe's opinion. Does anyone support re-adding something like the following to the lead?

Schwabe believes that many Americans believe the eating of dogs is either non-existent in contemporary Europe or that it exists only in times of famine or war.

Or some other way of saying the same thing...Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's repair not revert/blank please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it important what Americans think happens in Europe? Is it a "contrary to popular belief" type preface for the statement "...but actually, European dog meat eating actually exists outside of times of famine and war"? In order to repair, we have to know the point. It seems to me that we should just say that it's a desparation food generally, but if there are important exceptions to this, if there are European cultures where it's part of the culture to eat dog meat, then we should say that if we can cite it. Then there's the distinction of whether it's true now that a European culture features dog meat eating, vs. ones in which it once was, but is no longer. Then we should be clear how long ago that was, a few hundred years ago, thousands of years ago, or in some ancient forgotten paleolythic culture, because we wouldn't want to imply that something one could say about some lost stone age european culture's characteristics is evidence of dog meat in consumption in that moderrn country. Chrisrus (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record

For the record I have objected to the timing of the RfC a few times. Here is why:

On July 28, 19:27 Melonbarmonster2 changed the name from "Dog meat" to "Dog (food) without consensus.

On July 28, 23:10 (about 3 1/2 hours later) Melonbarmonster2 added a RfC template for the section entitled "Photos".

While adding the template, mbm also added some text to the top of the existing section: "The 2 photos in question are [3] and [4]." (note: the two images are the same)

The paragraph then read:

"The 2 photos in question are [5] and [6]. Anna, regardless of whether it's "dog meat" or "dog (food)" this article is about the culinary human consumption of the animal we call dog. The correct application of the main photo guidelines you posted above would be to illustrate an example of human consumption of dog." ........

• Changing the article name, and then right after, lobbying for a main image to be a prepared dish instead of dog meat, is, in my view unfair tactics. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A final plea for Melonbarmonster2 to build consensus

Hi Melonbarmonster2:

Your approach of posting edits that simply "sell, sell, sell" are not very helpful. What I suggest is something different. Something I have suggested before:

Propose something. One idea at a time. Request feedback from the community. If it is met with approval, it can go into the article. If not, don't continue to post edits that "sell" your viewpoint. When a number of editors show clear disagreement, it is time to drop it.

What do you think about that plan?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna that reaks of WP:OWN. Editors are allowed to make bold edits as part of the consensus building process especially if they are novel and supported by references without your prior consent. I really think you are not fully understanding nuances of basic edit policies like verifiability, NPOV, Consensus.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus means that when there is disagreement, we seek to achieve, through talk page discussion, a mutually acceptable article. Consensus is explicitly not defined; ideally it's 100% agreement, practically it's a give or take process, at worst it comes down to a vote or extended dispute resolution processes. Right now, for instance, all editors except for you (if I remember correctly) consider "Dog meat" to be the correct title for the article, for a variety of reasons. You're certainly welcome to continue to argue that, although I think we have more important things to hash out first.

Verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia. It limits what may be in articles on Wikipedia. However, Verifiability does not tell us what to put in an article. That is, just because something is verifiable, that doesn't mean it automatically goes into the article. Other policies (specifically, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) govern what should go in. Of course, all of this is moderated by the judgment of the involved editors.

NPOV requires that articles be neutral. That, for example, is why I don't like the old main image picture--the background and pot are dirty and unpleasant, the meat is floating and jutting out at strange angles, and it clearly gives a negative sense to me. NPOV implies we need a new picture. Similarly, I think the over-reliance of Schwabe (in particular, references to Hippocrates and other ancient sources) is POV, as it paints an unbelievably positive image of the topic that is not supported by the overall set of RS we're working with. This article is one of many articles on WP that is difficult to treat neutrally, because the sources themselves are far from neutral. We have to work extra hard to be sure that we represent dog meat as something that some sources and cultures find acceptable and desirable, while others find it vile enough to make illegal. That's tough, but doable.

Does that demonstrate enough knowledge of policy? Having said all that, here's my question to you to see if you understand policy. You were very bold, doing a significant rewrite of the article (the lead in particular), changing the main image, and moving to a new title. You've since been reverted. Now, do you believe we're allowed to be bold and start significant changes that we believe fix the problems of the article (specifically, POV)? Or are you somehow arguing that once one person is bold, no one else gets that opportunity? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Common Denominator

Please don't keep talking about references. I can add referenced material about The Golden Gate Bridge here, but it wouldn't belong. Just because it's sourced, doesn't make it right for the lead, or even for the article.

To get to the root of the problem, please look at your edits to articles, and edits in defense of them at talk. This is across three articles. They are all the same. I've read them. They are far, far out of whack with the rest of the community. Look at the long list of people furious and frustrated, the amount of times these edits have ended in ANI, the amount of wars fought over them. A storm of conflict involving many editors swirls around your edits, regardless of which article. Your edits are the common denominator here. The eye of the storm.

Your edits to dog meat being challenged is not a coincidence. It is not about a bunch of other editors owning this article or tagteaming or being uncivil, etc. Please do not try to present yourself as helpful contributor who keeps getting his good work blanked by POV-pushers. Please, please tell us all how you can defend, not just these edits, on this occasion, but the whole history of your contribs? This is a pattern.

The result of this, is that many editors end up sucked into this vortex that spins around wherever your edits land. It is a huge drain on the community. It is not only dog meat and the editors working on it that is being affected. It is doing serious harm to Wikipedia. How many editors leave because of this kind of thing? Editors waste countless hours battling to prevent articles from ending up looking the way one person sees fit. Admins waste endless hours at ANI and AC when they could be doing more productive things.

Please don't tell me that this is just my opinion. I am talking about huge, broad-based objections to your edits over three articles, and a long period of time, by many, many editors.

With that inarguable fact in mind, how can you continue to defend your edits here, without stopping to think that you might be wrong?

The sad thing is, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop this from continuing. I am starting to feel what so many ex-Wikipedians feel, and I don't like it. I've got 6,000+ edits to the mainspace under my belt, and I would have another 50,000+ in me still. But, my love for this project is diminishing fast. Your 600+ edits to the mainspace is, in my opinion, doing far more harm that good to the project. I am very protective of Wikipedia as a whole, but I feel I am fighting this battle almost alone. (Note: I know there is no diff in status between amount of edits. I pointed that out to indicate a vague measure of contribution to the project.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bold removal of unverified claims

I am about to make a very "bold," yet hopefully non-controversial edit to the article. Specifically, I am going to go through and remove every claim that is not cited or that is marked as not properly cited. I'm going to move all of that information to a Sandbox article linked to my talk page, so all of it will be easily accessible. I'm going to put a an Inusefor tag at the top of the page, so that hopefully there won't be intervening edit conflicts. After I make that massive move, I'll post here with the name of the page I've moved it to. My rationale for doing this is that one thing that (at least for me) is making editing the page difficult is that it's just too long and disorganized. I figure that the first, easy way to get it organized is to move out all of the stuff we know shouldn't be there without further research. As always, any of this info can be re-added with citations later on; but we need some way to move forward, and, since this is directly following a pillar (WP:V), I believe it should be relatively non-controversial.Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the edits are done. You can review, and, if sources can be found, rescue anything I pulled out at User:Qwyrxian/Dog Meat Uncited Statements. If anyone feels the whole process was wrong, please discuss here. I will self-revert if you can convince me that it is wrong to remove unverified info. I still feel that since the article is such a mess right now, we might as well make it a little simpler on ourselves by cutting down what we have to look at.Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Bob98133 suggested that we group the countries into regions instead of alphasort. Now that many of the sections are small, that would make it less list-like.

A good next step would be to get a "Medicinal uses" section in. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On the region idea, that's alright, although I actually think that a lot of that needs to come out, be reorganized, or be cut. We don't need to try to give an exhaustive list of every country that does or does not eat dog; plus, the information would be far easier to read if it were grouped by category. For example I think a category on "Dog as survival food" would be great, because we could strip out the Arctic/Antarctic (which actually covers a lot of regions) part of the U.S., and Germany, and move that into a logically contiguous category. I think we should reserve the country categorization only for those countries which currently have significant consumption of dog or current reliable sources devoted to it; my guess is that's China, South Korea, and Vietnam, although I'm just guessing. In any event, I'm holding myself to one dramatic edit per day. That way, if someone wants to backtrack (whole or in part), it causes less confusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work, QWYR.. Excellent way to pare down existing unreferenced material which makes it easier to sort and reorganize. Agree that medicinal section would also help organization. Thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Project "Dog Meat Sections"

I started a project page here to experiment with a new section arrangement that could allow something other than an alpha-sorted list of countries. Please edit the list there, and comment about the list there, or comment here about how terrible the whole idea of rearranging the sections is. Mbm, you are very welcome to comment and modify the sections in the sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbm:

• Please let us know your thoughts on the sections in the article as they are now.
• Please let us know your thoughts on modifying the sections in the article.

Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote

Can we lost the video game character? Please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone. My pleasure. Bob98133 (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted Antropologist's Theory on Dog Meat Taboos

I think I can find material in my library from Marvin Harris, a famous anthropologist who wrote a notable theory about diatary taboos in different cultures. The theory is that the ecological/economic realities of life in India, for example favored those cultures who used cows in many ways, other than food. Semetic cultures that favored pig taboos had an evolutionary advantage over other cultures because the climate of the area changed and made pig raising ruinously expensive, while in the south pacific eating pigs was economically advantagous for reasons he explains. He did the math. Carnivores are nearly always taboo to eat because they need to eat meat to build meat on their bodies, leaving you with less meat in the process. Anyway, the point is, he does discuss dogs in there, too, why in some places and times dog eating can be favorable, but cultures with taboos on it did well because they found other uses. I won't go and find and cite all this if I don't see some place to put it and some sign of support for it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly have any objections to this as long as it doesn't violate WP:OR. A section on cultures that shun eating dog might be a good place to move the religious prohibitions paragraph in the lead.

Not sure why you're suggesting this here though. It makes sense to apply some sort of uniform application of wiki naming conventions for these "meat" articles regardless.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I moved the topic from ways in which I disagreed with you to the nature and scope of this article and what I might be able to contribute to it to move it forward. This was a thought I had, about a notable scholar I know of that had a theory about the food taboos in general and why this group of people sees this as food and this other group doesn't, part of which had to do with explaining in a very general way why dog meat is taboo some times and places and not in others, but asking everyone if they thought it would be good to work in somewhere. After I save this I'll go back up and add a section break to avoid further confusion, sorry.Chrisrus (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

This is no longer in the article, but might be useful to visitors:

This page is about dog flesh as food. For flesh eaten by dogs themselves, see Dog food.

The current hatnote is:

For the living animal, see Dog. For other uses, see Dog (disambiguation).

This seems odd. Can't we just add a blue link to dog in the lede like other articles? If visitors come to the article by mistake, it is probably because they are looking for dog food. Checking here first to be polite. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. No one is going to type "Dog meat" into the search box expecting to find dog. Hatnotes should really be used mainly for disambiguation purposes. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote was contingent on the title of the article. I think there should be some sort of guidelines that apply in this case. I'll ask for input from editors or admin with experience with naming conventions.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote revised to disambiguate from "dogmeat" from the video game Fallout. This is becoming ridiculous. We need to follow wikipedia convention of other culinary 'meats' and use the Dog (food) disambiguated title.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised you agree with us. The convention on other culinary meats is to use "X meat." That makes this a lot easier. Oh, that's not what you meant? Well, since "pork" means "the meat from a pig" and "beef" means "the meat from a cow" and venison means...and for the English articles for which the qualifier is explicitly needed, there is a 2-2 split, as far as I know (whale & horse meat vs. duck & chicken food). And, as we've shown, the sources are split, so they don't help us.Mb2, I have to recommend that you not bother with this fight. Simply because of the ease with with "Dog (food)" will be confused with "dog food," the wider community (those who couldn't care less about this article) will obviously prefer dog meat. Why not focus on the rest of the article which is actually a place where reasonable people might listen to your ideas? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Anna created the whale meat article pursuant to her edit dispute here and 'horse meat' is a more commonly used term although 'cat meat' is more ambiguous. 'Dog meat' is not a more commonly used term and asking the editors or admin with experience with naming conventions for input on the matter might be helpful. Using a different parentheses for disambiguation may also be an alternative option.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbm: No. I said why I made it right after I made it. You are accusing me of lying. Not wild about that.

Mbm: No. "Dog meat" is more commonly used than "Dog" in reference to dog flesh for consumption. Check random references please. You will see. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you (both) search for my edit to this page on 08:30 31 July, I think you'll see that WP:TITLE clears up the whole thing very simply. I should have checked sooner--it turns out this isn't even debatable per policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wham! That ends that. Now we have, common sense, 99% common nomenclature usage of "dog meat", agreement amongst absolutely everyone except mbm, and now rock-solid guidelines. Isn't it time to stop flogging the dead dog? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead: Components

The sentences are now about:

• definition
• history
• romans ate it
• chinese ate it
• aztecs ate it
• europeans ate it
• europeans ate it in famine, not true
• europeans ate it sold like horse meat
• cultures eat it while others are offended
• argument why same as other livestock
• religious prohibition

I think it's a bit heavy on the different countries. Better might be:

• definition
• history
• country examples (2) in one sentence
• country examples (2) in one sentence
• how cooked/prepared/parts used
• offended groups
• religious prohibition
• argument why same as other livestock

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided to just stab right at the lead myself before hashing it out here. I did this because User:Oldsingerman20 made some changes that s/he said were "towards a neutral point of view," but which seemed to me to go too far in parts. Plus s/he made a few other changes that had to go, like replacing the hatnote with a prose sentence, which doesn't follow MoS rules. The new lead seems to me to be closer to an actual summary of what's here. One thing that I definitely think still needs adding is at least one European country in which dog is eaten (not necessarily often, but at least occassionally). The prior version references Scwhabe, but all he attests to is that it is legal in Belgium per an 1889 law--that doesn't really speak to whether or not it is eaten. As a side note, that's something we need to think about as we go through this article--we need to distinguish between "legal and eaten", "illegal and still eaten", "Legal and not usually practiced (taboo)," and "illegal and not eaten." That is, legality and actually eating something have no correlation. I hadn't intended to make such a big change; just wanted to correct the hatnote and add a line, but I figured that since I was there anyway, I might as well give it a stab. If/when this whole article actually becomes fully reorganized (so that it's not just a list of regional practices), we should definitely reorganize the lead to match. I, of course, wholeheartedly invite others to discuss my changes; if someone does feel the need to revert me, please at least fix the hatnote after you do, as I think that's both a policy issue and non-controversial. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking much better now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

meat from dogs or canids?

"Canines" is ambiguous. And the link did not help resolve it. Does it mean meat from only dogs, or wolves and foxes and such as well? Because "Canine" is a common synonym not only for dog, but also for Canid. So maybe the first sentence could still use some work, but I don't think "dog meat refers to meat from canines" is the answer. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice catch. I find there are too many articles starting with "...refers to...". I would be quite happy with something else, but have no idea what. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To Do List

I tried to work with the to do list, but don't know how. We should use it, maybe? I hope we have no slanderous anti-Korean lies here, so let's get rid of that, first of all. Chrisrus (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat is "commonly" eaten in Korea?

I think this particular statement is a little controversial. What is the definition of "commonly" here? Is it that you can go about anywhere in town and easily find a dog meat restaurant? Is it that dog meat is commonly available in supermarkets? I think neither is the case in Korea, and this statement needs to be reworded. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At least one reliable sourse says

A survey of 1,502 South Korean adults showed that 83% (92% of men, 68% of women) had eaten dog meat at some stage in their lives (Ann, 2000a). Most commonly, people ate dog meat only two to three times per year and believed that it was good for their health (40%) and that it gave them energy (24%; Ann, 2000b). A recent survey conducted for the WSPA of 1,000 people in South Korea showed that 40% ate dog meat at least occasionally. Reasons given for eating dog meat included the following: to be sociable (25%), for the taste of it (30%), and for health reasons (32%; Scott, 2004). Overall, it can be seen that dog meat is not a major component of the South Korean diet.

There's also a section that discusses how many dogs were raised for this purpose in a sample year. I can get that for you too if you'd like, but this section I thought was the most directly on target. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Most eating 2-3x per year, and 40% occasionally doesn't add up to commonly. "...is eaten in Korea..." is broad, but accurate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Thought about it again and decided to add this part

Number of dogs used and amount of dogmeat produced/eaten. It was reported by the MAF in 1997 that approximately 2,250,000 dogs were bred on farms and that 958,000 (43%) were used for human consumption (Anon, 1998); 702,000 were used at 6,484 boshintang restaurants and 256,000 were turned into gaesoju which was sold at 10,689 Youngyangso or Boshinwon (nutritional or body health) stores. This approximated to 11,500 tons of dog meat being consumed (either directly as meat or in the form of gaesoju) which, with a then population of 45 million, equated to 256 grams per person. This is most likely an underestimate, as not all dog meat is sold through restaurants; some is sold directly to consumers at markets and, undoubtedly, some breeders/farmers would eat their own produce. Whatever the true figure, it is unlikely that dog meat consumption was more than the amounts of pork (700,000 tons), beef (370,000 tons), chicken (280,000 tons), and duck (40,000 tons) eaten that year (Anon, 1998).

That's a lot of dog in pure numbers, so there's that, but not many ounces per person in that year, and from what I understand it's not a custom that's on the rise. As I understand it, it also gives an idea how much was on balance, thought of a meal at restaurants (boshintang), and how much, on balance, was more thought of as "medicinal food" (sold at health food stores).

So it's definately a minority meat, we should be careful not to overplay how common it is in Korea. On the other hand, 91% of Korean men in the survey is a pretty big majority. It means that if you meet a Korean man, you're probably meeting a person that has eaten dog meat at least once in his life, which is pretty significant compared with the same statistic of cultures in western, Moslem, or other cultures where the number would be close to 0%. I wonder how high it is compared to other eastern Asian cultures. We think and talk about Korean dog meat eating far too much on this page, I think, it should be relegated to the sub-article wholly or to a much greater extent. Southest Asia, China, the Philipeans, and Polynesia, we don't have nearly enough information in my view as to how common the practice is there relative to Korea, but I get the impression that it's at least as common elsewhere as it is in Korea. Korea, is unique, so far as I've been able to learn, (and I've been at this for some time, it's how I came to this page, looking for signs of such "undiscovered breeds") in that they have far more highly developed the practice of breeding livestock dogs. The only other livestock dog other than the Nureongi that I know of is the poi dog, which was bred (so the limited sources say, the breed is extinct) in Hawaii by the natives there to be able to survive without eating almost any meat at all, just poi. Makes me wonder if the Nureongi will suffere the same fate if Koreans ever do like the Hawaiians did and abandon the practice. By the way, I'd love to find out that I'm wrong and some other livestock dog still exists anywhere in the world.Chrisrus (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

2,250,000 bred is only about 20,000 tons. Compared to the 700,000 tons of pork, that's relatively little, but still quite a pile of pooch.

I would stick with "notable" in China and Korea, or better still "Asia". "Commonly" is hard to define and might be subject to disputes --- the last thing we need. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with most of the above. "Commonly" is too strong, but "notable" seems fine. I just checked the article--did you already take it out? The only thing I don't agree with is the idea of relegating it wholly or even mostly to the sub-article. South Korea has a bigger role to play in this article primarily because of the legal status (illegal, but still readily available--20,000 restaurants, assuming we believe Slate) and the fact that South Korea is/was commonly a focal point for international protest, especially related to the Olympics. In other words, in an article on, oh, say Korean Cuisine (hmmm, I tongue-in-cheek wonder how that article's doing?), we would want dog meat to play a small role, but in this article about dog meat, we want South Korea to play a larger (although smaller than now). Does that logic make sense? I get it in my brain, but I don't think I'm explaining it well enough. I think, though, that once we split up the article into topical parts, a lot of that will be dispersed, and so it won't seem like an undue part of the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add some more recent statistics. According to several news reports, a survey in 2006 showed that about 55.5% of Korean adults ever ate dog meat. I don't have my hands on the survey itself, so I can give you only its results in brief. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clyde, I've read the same 55% someplace.

Other editors, So you all know. I am just as my name says, an old man whose primary work in life revolves around New Guinea Singing Dogs. The original meaning behind the name was as a tribute to one of our old male Singers who lived for 20 years and a month. As time has gone by and I have aged, the name is now appropriate for me as well since we have conserved Singers for over 20 years. My interest on this article to to simple aid as I can so don't feel any obligation to preserve any of my edits. This meat dog thing kind of catches my interest however because of numerous reasons I won't discuss here. Anyone is welcome to edit any of my contributions if it's an appropriate(not vandalism) edit. I am still new to wiki and don't know all the million and one rules. I would have left the hatnote as a hatnote but once changed, I wasn't able to take it back to a hatnote. I found it difficult to do the hatnote as well as the lead paragraph without repeating words and phrases and ideas. In other words, the hatnote seems to me to be redundant but hey, if folks like it, then who am I to argue? My original edit occurred because it appeared that everyone was sitting on their hands which was preventing them from striking a key and making changes to the article. It looks great now and is moving along, don't you think?? A couple of little things: Chrisrus, In the Nureongi articles the use of "yellow dog" may conflict with the slang name for the Carolina Dog and I would stay clear of referring to dogs raised to butcher as "livestock dogs" because you're getting into livestock herding dogs commonly referred to as "livestock dogs".. It might be best to refer to dogs raised for slaughter as "meat dogs'. My thoughts. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, point well taken. I'll call them "meat dogs" from now on. All Meat dogs should be mentioned in this article in their proper place: the Nureongi for Korea, the poi dog for Hawaii, the Mexican Hairless for the Aztec Empire (not really the same as Mexico?), and the Chow Chow for China, which the article says was orignally bred to be a meat dog, but I don't think it has been used that way very much for a very long time, so should we mention that here or not? Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Modern European cultures featuring dog meat consumption.

First, we have a source in the Switzerland section that refers to one. This article seems to suggest it's Swiss culture as a whole, but as the article Switzerland shows, that's not really one culture, but several, and we don't have any proof or reason to believe that what is true of one Swiss culture would also be true of another. The source, if you read it ([7]) and after doing so agree, seems to say that it is specific to a place called Appenzell, which, please check out that article seem to be a specific culture, not just a place. So maybe the article would be more accurate if it spoke of it being the Appenzell culture, not Swiss culture, that features this practice. Chrisrus (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Second, the source seems to say that it is still a general characteristic of rural Polish culture to consume dog lard, but not the meat. Chrisrus (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there more? (France and German cultures don't seem to have featured this practice for some time.) It's my belief that the Appenzell culture at the very least (as we have no evidence that the practice will die out any time soon) and maybe the Polish peasant culture (Athough they don't eat the lean of the animal, the practice seems more likely to be dying out, and the practice seems to be more purely a folk medicine rather than a characteristic of it's cusine) should be listed together with the East Asian cultures with this characteristic. Also, any more such cultures that still feature this practice. This as opposed to the Romans and such, where it would be a different catagory of dog meat eating, that which is ancient history. Chrisrus (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading a source talking about how Germany had recently legalized the consumption of dog meat, along with a number of other "non-standard" and game meats. Unfortunately, I don't know where that was; I think it was actually in an article about South Korea (maybe the Slate article)--I'll look for it later. As a side note, I think it's way way easier for us to not try to pin things down to "cultures" instead of countries. That term is extremely nebulous and controversial. Some of our articles won't talk about details beyond the country level. When we have documented info that the practice is specific to certain countries (like how one of the China articles focuses on Southern China), we can note that, but we don't need to go and try and figure out which Swiss culture eats/has eaten dog. Also, we don't need to talk only about those countries where it is "commonly" eaten; in the lead, we can simply say "is currently eaten in..." and that way we don't have to have fights about what "common" means (like the debate over at Korean Cuisine). One could easily argue that dog isn't "commonly" eaten anywhere (except perhaps in parts of China and Vietnam, and even then I'm not sure); but the fact that it is eaten, as a "special" meat, is still relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. But I still think that it's good to clarify in the Switzerland section that it's specific to the cultures of those two places, and not imply in an unwarrented way that all Swiss cultures feature the practice. People can be touchy about this subject, as you know, and we wouldn't want to go painting with too broad a brush. Not that the section doesn't make that clear now, but if we're going to go re-organizing it, we should keep that in mind. The Philipines is another country that contains many cultures, some of which probably never eat dog, I'm guessing. After all, they have Moslem cultures there. As to whether Germany has just outlawed it recently, I'm interested if you can find that citation, but it seems to me that there not having been a specific law against it up to that point in Germany can be explained by more than one possible cause. One could be that previous to that, Germans had been eating dog, and people wanted to put a stop to it. Another could be that no one had noticed up to that point that it wasn't against the law because no one would ever think to do it in that culture. I like your idea about saying "currently", and making it clear to the reader that it doesn't seem to be a "common" food (at the level of beef or chicken) anywhere in the world. That's a very important point to make and should probably be stated in as clear and upfront a way as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Name and lead not correct

It seems to me that both the name and lead of this article are incorrect. There is more to this article than dog flesh or is there?? There are many parts of dogs used or have been used for medicinal purposes etc and the title and lead only address consumption of the flesh. There is only one reference to "parts" and no followup in the lead nor any mention of "parts" in the title. If the title and lead refer only to dog meat then the article should be limited to information regarding dog flesh. Yes?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that "flesh" is the wrong word, given that we'll be talking about fat, etc. I'll go change that to "meat," which essentially includes any edible part of the animal (see, for example, Beef, which includes discussions of various innards and organs). The title must stay as it is though. I explained in detail far above, but WP:TITLE basically says that where there is a common English way to disambiguate a topic, we should use that way. Since "dog meat" is a commonly used phrase in our references, it is the best word we can use (since we can't just use "dog" as that refers correctly to the animal itself). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that's not what the article says. It says "edible parts and flesh." That's perfectly fine and accurately represents the article's contents. We're not going to be, for example, talking about clothes made from dogs--only the aspects of dogs that are eaten, whether for food, medicinal, or spiritual purposes.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's important to realize just about every referent has some kind of fuzzy edges around it. Is a hot dog a sandwhich? Where does a tree become a bush, or a bottle a jar? Articles about individuals probably don't have this problem, but just about all represented by a common nouns do. Such debates occur all the time on Wikipedia talk pages and although most people can find them tedious hair-splitting, it's necessary at times and can be interesting; one such debate I enjoyed was about where to draw the line around the referent of the word human. Actually, if I think about it, such gray areas are my stock in trade on Wikipedia. However, in this case, it doesn't seem to be a very hard call. Although rational people could debate as to whether soup bones, fat, eyeballs, or other such parts really fit the definition of the word English word "meat" in the stricter sences, the convention is that if the butcher cuts it off an animal and sells it to you, it's all "meat" for cooking articles. We could maybe explain this in a very brief and upfront way to stave off such very reasonable objections. Chrisrus (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Aztecs ate a breed, now extinct, which they called "dog", and was not the Mexican Hairless, which the Aztecs ate? WTF?!?!?!

It doesn't make sense. To say that the Aztecs ate a special dog called the itzcuintle, is like saying the Spanish have a special dog called the "perro". Or that the English-speaking people have a special perro called "dog". The word "Itzcuintle" is simply the Aztec word for "dog". Here: [8]. Ok, so they didn't have many kinds of dogs, but the one we call the Mexican Hairless Dog is also called the Xoloitzcuintle, which means "Xolo-dog", where the word prefix refers to "Xolotl" the god of several things including the afterlife, so it's like the "Afterlife-dog" oh, I donno how to explain it but what it comes down to is it means the dog that you put into the grave with you because he helps you in the afterlife somehow. Point being, the Xoloitzcuintle is not extinct and it was bred among other things to be eaten and it really looks like it is the dog that this article is talking about, but it's not extinct. I can't see the article that this info is cited with, but it makes no sense. I don't know what to do about the Mexican section right now; it's very confusing and something's gotta give. Chrisrus (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Have you read this article? http://www.xolorescueusa.org/about.html osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll use that now to cite the fact that it's the same dog, and I hereby use it to cite the fact that I'm going to remove the false statement that this dog is extinct. Chrisrus (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. I thought it might help clarify. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No Animals Were Harmed...

...in the production of this article" Chrisrus (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Great sense of humor!!!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad you thought so and was trying to be funny, but I think it's true and hope it can stay that way. Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Section on mythology/medicinal/superstitions

I was doing a bit of digging on medicinal uses, and came across this. It gave me the notion that it might make an interesting Mythology/superstition section.

Some stippets:

"Nigerian clairvoyants are known to use a preparation of dogs eyes fried or roasted and ground with other ingredients into a powder. The belief is that it will enable clearer vision. It is also consumed by night watchmen to enable them to detect thieves at long distances."

It goes on and on... "potency, helping barren women, etc..."

This is from, I think, another book, and is about medicinal uses.

"Dog meat is eaten in preparation for wintertime, where it is beileved to bring warmth"

"It is believed by some, that the fat of the dog is eaten in a concotion to fight fever and syphilis."

And this has dogs sacrified twice a year.

There's lots of this stuf: "Dog meat as medicinal soap, mixed with tobacco to help increase wealth. Potions for women to get that zing back."

So, none of this is true, obviously, but it's part of the dog meat story, right? Should it have a section? What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's all very good. Should we have a section on health claims, or just be sure to mention these in the section for each country/culture that each corresponds to? Either way, it seems that there are these folk beliefs that there are medicinal effects, and then there are arguments that are a bit more evidence-based, such as that Swiss canton's argument that the meat is hormone-free, organic, and so on. It seems to me that its not having hormones artificially injected is not in the same class of argument as its fighting syphilis or being an aphrodesiac. Just a thought. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice this, either. It's a tough issue; I hate the idea of just saying "these are folk beliefs" and "these are real medicine." But, on another level, I recognize the fact that the two kinds of assertions aren't really the same because they use different paradigms for determining the truth value of statements. I'm conflicted, and without answers. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I will paste this thread into the project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of judging what's myth and what's real medicine: Medicinal value cannot be proved. Maybe all should go under Myths section, with subsects on Medicinal (belief it can heal/restore health), and Other/superstition (belief that it can make you invisible, etc). Is this on the right track? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On the same note, there are a bunch of Chinese medicine articles on wiki. Almost all make claims like "...WILL fix your pancreas..." ...is good for your liver..." etc. I want to throw the word "belief" in all of those. I won't bother digging for refs to back up the claims, because 99% have no supporting studies. It is widely believed that X mushroom will fix your kidneys because a wise man on a mountain top 2,000 years ago ate one and felt better. Bojang! Thoughts on that? Anyone want to help remove BS claims before people start eating mushrooms instead of chemotherapy? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New dog meat images from the butcher

So, should I try to take the photos?

So far mbm has shown no support for photos from a butcher. If 6 editors agree and mbm does not and says that consensus has not been reached because s/he does not agree, what then? I don't want to spend time on this only to have their use denied. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New photos are needed. The current photo, as you pointed out, fails the policy on images. The boiling pot photo is POV (unintentionally, I believe, but practically so). So, if you have the inclination, please try. However, you've seen my discussions above about what the picture should look like. If you don't think you can get that (because your local butcher doesn't display it in a way that is conducive to a good photo), then it isn't worthwhile. Also, please don't do anything that would would be dangerous or even get you yelled at--this article isn't worth that.

I can't find the place where I listed out a bunch of "good" (but copyrighted) pictures. Let me go google up some and post them here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I think are "good" pictures that meet all the necessary criteria: [9], [10], [11] (if it were exposed better), [12], [13] (if there weren't people in the background), [14] (if there weren't people in the background), [15] (if the lighting were better). Take a look at those, if you don't mind, and tell me 1) if these seem like what we are looking for and 2) if you think you can get anything like these at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement about what kind of photo would be appropriate. My concern is mbm. What happens if s/he says "No. I don't agree. Therefore no consensus has been reached. Therefore, if you cannot put it in the article."? What then? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the meat itself, and the information the image provides, [16] is good, but [17] is exactly what I had in mind. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)::::What we do then is that we put the new photo in the article. If mbm2 still disagrees, then we go through dispute resolution. Throughout that resolution process, the new picture stays (or we go back to the last picture that had consensus, which is the boiling pot picture). If over the process consensus changes, we go back to an old picture, no picture at all, or some other, as-yet-unknown picture. But if the situation becomes "6 people concur, one dissents," the 6 concurring have consensus, and that's the way the article stays (assuming no fundamental policy is being violated). The burden will fall squarely on the dissenter to shift consensus. If the dissenter attempts to force their way, then they will inevitably fail 3RR/edit-warring. This is different than a situation where there are just 2 people with differing views, or even a 2 vs 1 situation. While consensus is not about a majority, there comes a point where that lone voice in the wilderness has to be apologized to, but firmly asked to back away from the Revert button. I'm offering no guarantees here, of course (as we can't judge the picture or if consensus can be generated until we see what you are able to get). Additionally, I'm not saying that we won't discuss the change first before implementing it--since we're obviously in a fragile editing situation, to do so would be poor form. But, again, if we can get overwhelming consensus, it's time to move forward, and let those who dissent take formal actions through WP:DR. In the last few days, I think we've been doing a good job of making small, incremental changes at improving the article, we've solved at least one of the big problems (the title), we've made the lead far less POV, etc. I think that, as long as we continue to build consensus as best as we can, we will be fine.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(responding to e/c addition) I'm happy with both of the two you posted there, as long as the display is clear, easy to see, and without distracting background information (which, even in these two pictures, could probably fixed with cropping). Thank you again for this offer, and please don't get yourself in any trouble! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's relieving to know. I will do my best with the photos. It is a bit cloudy today, and I have some things to do. But, I will try to get out there soon with a basket of fruit and a smile.

I agree, this article has been returned to neutral. It was, in my opinion, way, way out there. Now, if we can sort out the image, and then maybe get it away from this list format, we will have a dandy article. Thanks for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, fine and thanks, but...I'm still not %100 convinced that this is %100 necessary because we've already got Dog meat in a pot 01.jpg, what was wrong with that, again? Chrisrus (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know others' problems, but for me the problem is that the picture was to POV. The meat was gray and unattractive (I say this as a person who does it meat, as, a contrast to what's found on the other meat pages). The surrounding wall and cooking surface was dirty and looked poor (which I believe it was). Everything about the picture gave me the feeling (subjective, I know) that dog is a dirty meat used in poor countries because that's all they can afford. And, as the article points out, this is actually not true--dog can be a "cheap" meat, but it is also quite expensive and considered a "delicacy" or "medically important" meat in some places. Thus, I understand why mbm2 changed the picture. Of course, the problem was that what he changed it to was unrecognizable and, arguably, just as POV (in an opposite way) as the pot image. This is why Anna'a offer to take a new photograph is really above and beyond, and, I believe, very helpful to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: The doginapot image is somewhat POV only because it's disgusting, and it puts dog meat in a bad light. But, that's the way dog meat looks. With 1,000 visitors to the article each day, any image that looks like dog meat is better than any dish that looks like "some meat dish". The current image is utterly useless, and gives no information to visitors. We do have a number of images at commons that would be better.

Doginapot is still my first choice, as the reasons for outweigh the reasons against. I will take the liberty of swapping the main image for this (the Hanoi pic lower in the article ) temporarily until I can get a decent pic. If anyone wants to replace it with doginapot, I will fully support it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do want to replace it with doginapot. That one's our Vietnamese preparation and is more specific to thier cuisine. Dog meat in a pot.jpg is more neutral in my view, with no grinning skull. Until we get the new one, let's go back to the way it used to be, whaddaya all say? Qwyrx may be right, but until we get the new one let's go back with the old one. I'll make the edit now and see what happens. Chrisrus (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I support that as a temporary image. I am on the hunt for a butcher. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I have no desire to edit-war about this, but I think the unidentifiable picture is better than the pot one, if only because WP:NPOV should trump WP:IMAGE (policy vs. guideline). Even to me, though, that sounds wiki-lawyery, so I won't push the point. My opinion is that if another editor insists on the Pot image being removed, we should replace it with nothing, since we don't really have consensus for any image now. Images, while desirable, are not mandatory. It's not like the article's going to be filing for GA status any time soon...Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian does have a good point about the trump thing. But, maybe doginapot isn't POV. It is, after all, accurate. The article on feces has to show poop. Is it POV because the image is gross? Well, it's poop. Show a pic of poop, not poop with a ribbon and bow. (some visual, huh?)

Dog meat from a butcher, naturally, shows a dog's head sitting right there. A shot of a dog steak would be POV, because that would be sanitizing it by cutting out what is always present when dog meat is displayed: head and paws, etc. Sorry to flip-flop. I'm somewhat battle weary, so I think I'm trying too hard to agree with everyone.

Back to basics: The article is called dog meat. The image is dog meat. It is gross to Western eyes because WE are POV. It is not gross to Chinese people. They would see the image as delicious. Maybe it's not the photo that's POV, but us. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: It's not the dog meat that's "gross" in that picture; it's the background, the pot, the stove-top...I understand that that is a real pot with real food that a real person is going to eat, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate POV. As you alluded to (here or on your talk page, I'm not sure), I think most Westerner's would find a picture of a U.S. chicken factory/ranch to be quite unpleasant given the way the animals are (not) "cared for." But that's not the picture we have in the chicken article. That's why I think a picture with a head, or even showing the whole dog, aren't POV--they are, as you quite accurately point out, just the way it's served/prepared. I know I'm just one person, but I am a white Westerner (born & lived in the U.S. till my early 30s), and I would eat dog at the drop of a hat if I could get it (assuming I could get reasonable assurances of it's sanitation), and I still find pot.jpg to be POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I should have some time today to try a fundamental reorganization, based mostly on the list that Anna posted above of possible topics. I'm going to do it in a sandbox in my userspace, so that it can be reviewed first. I'll let everyone know once it comes together; it might take a few days, depending on how much actual work I have today. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, Qwry.., but I don't believe that there is anything POV about the current image. If you look at Chicken (food), you'll see a gory picture of the entire animal roasted,and lower in the article images of dead chickens in a market. While the images are unsettling to someone not used to them, I think that they are accurate depictions which have been included because they are representative, not to shock or be POV. The earlier image could have been anything, at least this looks like dog meat. Bob98133 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That picture (in Chicken) isn't even slightly gory--it's a well cooked, neatly prepared roast chicken that doesn't have anything in the picture but the chicken itself and one knife and garnish. To be honest, it makes me hungry. Again, I think you're misunderstanding me--it's not the meat I have a problem with in the pot picture, it's the background. And I wouldn't really have a problem with a picture of brutal/unsanitary slaughtering conditions somewhere further down in the article, as long as it's accompanying text based on reliable sources that talks about those conditions. But the lead image should as much as possible portray a neutral image--the goal of the lead picture should be to show what dog meat is, simply, plainly, and neutrally, with as little else in the picture as possible. At one point I know I said I like mbm2's picture better, but the more I think about it the more I don't think either is appropriate as the lead image. If Anna can't get a new picture (perfectly understandable), I think what I'll try next is contacting one of the copyright owners of the pictures we've all agreed look good and see if they might be willing to donate it to Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Qwex, I don't see what's wrong with pictures #21 and 22. If you really object to dog_meat_in_a_pot, you can easily sell me on either of those two photos, if we can use them. Chrisrus (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you're right, when used as a non-count noun, "dog" does mean dog meat, so dog (meat) is not a totally off-the-wall suggestion on analogy with chicken (meat) and duck (meat). The problem with those articles and this one is that there isn't a word like "pork" or "chicken". I was just trying to say that articles like "Chicken (meat) really don't have a choice because it's not called "chicken meat" or "duck meat" or "turkey meat", even though maybe they should be, but it is called "dog meat". So those articles don't have the option of being titled "Chicken Meat", with no parenthesis, but we do. So I just wanted to clarify that. Chrisrus (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1. 21 & #22 are great. The problem is that all of those images are from copyrighted sites. I don't think we can possibly argue "fair use" in this case (although, I must admit I know very little about the whole policy). Anna, if you can't get the photos, please let us know--I'd be happy to start asking the owners of those photos if they'd be willing to donate the photos to WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still working on the image over here. It would probably be a good idea to try for permission on one of these proposed images, just to attack the problem on two fronts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Anna, I just have to suggest that if there is some way that you could pay to take the picture but not to take the meat away from the butcher, or return it to her after taking the pictures, or otherwise find some way that she's not going to have to replace the meat that use for the purposes of creating this article. Also, how will your pictures be superior to twenty-one or twenty-two? No we don't have the right to use those, but also haven't tried very hard yet. I'd like to be able to tell Casey that we tried our best to not cause the butcher to replace the meat used to improve this article. Sorry, please let no one think of me as an anti-dogmeat type, I'm not here to discourage the practice or push any POV on the issue in any way, don't think of me as not being objective, but don't you think it would be nice to be able to say that no animals were in any way harmed in the making of this article? It's not POV to set that as a laudable goal for the article? Please allow me, us, to at least try to get #21 or #22, wouldn't they be just the same as the one you'd take? And please don't expect me to be able to answer such arguments as "she'll have to replace the meat eventually anyway" or "Chris, didn't you eat TWO hamburgers today?", because this is not a rational arguement, it just makes me feel bad to cause her to replace the meat, that's all. Chrisrus (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just sent an email to Rob Sheridan, who holds the rights to #21. I'll see if there's contact info for anyone else. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just sent another to all-creature.org, who presumably hold the copyright to #22 (it's hosted on their site, although they claim that some of their images are not their own and used under fair use). Unfortunately, #23 is on picassa, and there doesn't seem to me to be any way to directly contact the album owner, except with a checkbox that says "don't share this picture please," etc. I could theoretically leave a comment on the picture, but the picture is from a 2008 album, and I don't know if Picassa automatically notifies people by email if they have new comments (plus, it just seems like the wrong way to contact someone). Let's see if I get a response from either party (although I can certainly imagine reasons why each would decline).

Don't worry about POV. You are neutral when it comes to the article. I won't buy the meat. The last thing I need is a pound of meat going to waste, and a replacement doggy with a nervous look on its face. Flowers or fruit ought to do the trick. All things being equal, I would prefer to get permission for the above-mentioned photos. It would save me the hassle. Best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New photo being donated!

I just got an email back from Rob Sheridan, who owns this picture: [18]. He has amazingly agreed to change the license to CC-BY-SA, which means we'll be able to upload it and use it! As far as I understand the procedure (this is the first time I've done it), I asked him to remove the website watermark and then change the license on the Flickr account hosting this picture; after he does that, I'll upload it. Chrisrus has already expressed explicit support for this picture, I support it, and I believe it fits Anna's criteria as well. Unless I hear objections, that's enough consensus for me to change the picture. This will avoid Anna having to confront angry butchers and Chrisrus worrying that we're unnecessarily causing dogs to come to harm. I guess I just should have done this sooner--I figured most people would be reluctant to release their images....Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That image is fine with me, too. Bob98133 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheridan told me that it will take him a few days, as he needs to get the original photo so that he can remove the water mark and re-upload.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm very happy about it. While I don't like looking at the photo, viserally, I rationally believe it's the best choice. Chrisrus (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent a reminder to Sheridan yesterday night, as I haven't heard back from him since. He did tell me in his previous email that he has a tendency to forget things that aren't immediately important, so we'll see what happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: It's been cloudy and rainy here, so not good photo weather. Also a good excuse to wait until the other image lands. By the way, what's the story with flickr image resolution? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The new image is up. I could almost see it being a little larger, although I'd have to look up how to set that.

Comments? Concerns?Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Many thanks. Considering the image comprises many parts of meat, I will take the liberty of blowing it up a bit. Woof! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That size looks better, thanks.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent rearrangment

I like the separation of historical and contemporary consumption. I can't figure out what copy edits, if any have been done in this edit. It seems just to be rearranging of sections. One thing though, the pathology section should not be first section. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing much point in the edit myself... - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, anything to get away from the country-list format might be an improvement. I guess what is lost here, is that we can no longer see a historical through contemporary path for any single region. That's a loss.

I still do favour busting the list into broad regions with subsections, as in the project page. That would seem to be a good, safe step in the right direction.

In any event, that pathology section has no business up top and should be moved pronto. I didn't want to do it because I don't want to bury this rather bold rearrangement before it's been accepted/rejected. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. Going through it, it seems a difficult split to make, as country sections contain historical and contemporary info. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good choice.. I have been comparing versions and the most recent has better cohesion. With regards to your "proposal" Anna, perhaps you should spend a few minutes in the sandbox and show us what you mean.. The more balance we can bring to this article the better. - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)