Talk:Dog meat/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Legality

Winstonlighter (talk · contribs) added "Today the consumption of dog meat is legal." to Japan section recently.[1]. I didn't noticed the edit. So, I changed this to "There is no laws specifically regulating the dog meat in Japan as with most countries in the world"[2]. But Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) reverted it. If I noticed the Winstonlighter's edit, I would have simply reverted it first. There is no country describing "dog meat is legal" in this article except Japan because "legality" is nothing significant as I edited above. While There are several countries describing the illegality because "illegality" is particularly notable. I think there is no need to write "legality" issue only for Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the edit is totally correct. At some point, once the article gets reorganized (I really do work on it now and again, I promise), we can have a legality section that covers this more succinctly, rather than worrying about each and every country individually. Of course, we don't have reliable information about most countries, but we'll see what we can do. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of problems in this article over the years it has been on my watchlist. The edit linked above illustrates some of them. First, there's WP:NONENG -- in light of that, take this talk page comment as a request from another editor that a translation of the relevant portion of the cited supporting source be provided. Second, I'm guessing that the cited supporting source does not directly support the assertion, "Today the consumption of dog meat [in Japan] is legal." This amounts to an assertion that as of the unspecified date that the assertion was inserted into the article (see WP:DATED), no law or regulation exists anywhere in Japan which would legally penalize a person for consuming dog meat (or perhaps it might be intended to be read as asserting that though such local regulations might exist, no such prohibition exists which is applicable nationwide -- the intended meaning is unclear). My guess would be that one or both of such assertions is likely to be true, but that the cited source probably doesn't directly support either assertion. Similar assertions would probably be true most countries -- but would be similarly difficult to support and, if made, would probably be made without support. On the other side of that coin, I've seen what looks like misinterpretation of laws which do exist and are cited as supporting sources -- e.g. (by my recollection - I'm not going to dig through the article history to try to locate specific past-version examples) I've seen this described as prohibiting the selling of dog meat and as prohibiting its consumption; in fact, it prohibits neither (related point -- see this). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Polish Section Challenged

"This is based off of one Polish article where a local animal shelter person claims that dog fat was used for medicinal purposes in Poland. There is no other source to back this up and I have not seen or heard any other sources to back up the claims that dog fat is used as lard. This is in nowhere apart of Polish culture." User: 70.108.248.241 8/24/10

The article speaks of "...old beliefs, apparently still present in the countryside, that canine fat has special medicinal properties" and of "...places in Poland where dogs are killed as part of a tradition going back generations," said Renata Mizera, head of the charity Foundation For Animals, which had been investigating the farm. "Dog fat is thought to be good for lung diseases and other illnesses. It's also good business. A half-litre bottle can go for about £30." This seems to support the statement "dog lard is still a part of some rural Polish culture"Chrisrus (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"(←Created page with 'I had to remove the article about Poland, because while there is one newspaper story barely supporting the evidence that dog lard was used in Polish folk medicine, ...')"

Well, you are right that we have only the one article about Poland. There is only this one story that dog lard is still a part of some rural Polish folk medicine. Is there no cooberrating evidence?Chrisrus (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's this page which claims that it is used by Gypsies. It references a National Geographic article. Does anyone have the article mentioned? LewisWasGenius (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a BBC article as well [3]. Bob98133 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A BBC article sourcing from the above article on one incident? This does not prove anything. We need scholarly articles, not articles from sensationalist British newspapers.

Also. It might make more sense if this is some old medicinal thing from Roma folk medicine. Poland still has many Roma and the farmers in question may have had Roma origins. Still, we need more proof if this is even true of Roma culture. But if it is true, a distinction needs to be made between Polish folk medicinal beliefs and Roma folk medicinal beliefs. Because they are very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.248.241 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (Namelady) (70.108.248.241 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)).

Fine. Then find some references that dispute this. Bob98133 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to get rude. I have looked everywhere and I cannot find any other references to dog lard usage in Poland other than these two articles. And I still contend that the entry is rather superfluous because you base your claims off a quote from one person. It is interesting that the Polish version of wiki has several folk remedies listed but has not mentioned anything about dog lard.

This is a quote translated from the Polish from the book History of Dogs and Cynology, by Rudolf Kryspin. This particular quote delves into the history and role the dog has played in Poland:

Rudolf Kryspin in " History of Dogs and Cynology , " says[11 ]That the oldest remains of domestic dog found on Polish soil is that of a skull discovered in the vicinity of Sandomierz, dated at about 4000 years BC. In the same are a tomb is also found which dates back to 17000 BC, in which a man was buried with five dogs , probably an ancestral member of the Elders. The excavation of dog remains from the neighborhood of Opole provide information on two types of dogs bred in those areas:

The first type is a larger dog, which looks similar to the wolf

The second type was smaller and similar to the picket.

From the Middles Ages onward, in what is now Poland, dogs were used for hunting big game Polish. The most frequent breeds used for this purpose were greyhounds, hounds, Pointers and mastiffs. The privilege of hunting and the keeping of dogs was mainly found among kings and aristocrats , but also among abbots and bishops. Later, the nobility and gentry bred dogs specifically made for hunting small game.

With rapid deforestation wild forest and the grubbing-up of even larger tracts of forest, the breeding of mastiffs started to fade out the number of greyhounds and other such dogs. The new conditions fared well elegantly, including the " Polish Pointer ", which is related to the German Pointing.

A Polish source of information about dog breeds and their culture from the period of the first half of the seventeenth century, is a book titled " Hunting with Hounds" by John Ostroroga. This document is a manual for the most popular dog breeds from that period , which is devoted mainly to hounds and Afghans .

Among the lowlands, from the sixteenth century and on, dogs were kept for guarding flocks of sheep and became more distributed along with this type of home farming progres. English literature states [12 ]That the Scottish imported a Polish sheepdog from the Polish lowlands which contributed to the modern day breed of the Bearded Collie. This thesis , however, appears doubtful for Hans Rabera claims that " according to reliable sources, even before 1514 , there were already dogs on the island (Scotland) with bearded hair . " The author assumes that these dogs were the ancestors of the Bearded Collie and the Bobtail[13 ]. 12.↑ Rudolf M. Kryspin "Dog Breeds in Poland and the History of Dog Breeding, " p. 12-13

I think its rather interesting that the above authors fails to mention that dogs were also used for medicinal purposes. 13.↑ Hans Räber , " Encyclopedia of Dogs , " Volume I, Multico Publishing House , Warsaw 1999, s.356 .

Pig lard, a popular condiment in Poland known as Smalec, which is usually used as a spread on bread, was also known to be used in older Polish folk remedies for the relief of coughs and chest pain reference (Polish Pharmacopeia III - 1954) (Polish Pharmacopoeia VI - 2002) Bronislaw Koskowski , recipe , wyd.III , 1946 It does not mention anything about dog fat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NameLady (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusing statement

(This is the first time I've contributed to a discussion page, so apologies in advance for any blunders.)

In the "Vietnam" section is the statement: "On Nhat Tan Street, Tây Hồ District, Hanoi, many restaurants serve dog meat, often imitating each other."

I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but I just don't understand the meaning of the phrase "imitating each other" in this context. It's already been said that the restaurants offer dog meat, so presumably they are "imitating" in some other way than just all having it on the menu. Do they vie for customers in a price war? Do they offer special services or extras?

The article is exceptionally lucid otherwise, so this sentence just pulled me up short.

Hery-Tep Medu (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat in Chile

About the dog meat, this information is missing and I would like to add this to the article:

"According to the January 16, 2003, edition of the magazine PrimeraLinea, of the newspaper La Nacion, Chile, in the article "Cattle barking", interview several residents of the commune of Peralillo, Colchagua province where appears that the consumption of dog meat is still widespread and is prepared grilled, pickling or juice and soups including stomach ailments and other medical purposes.

According to what one resident says, is also preparing similar to jerky pork with seasonings like cumin, garlic, oregano, vinegar.

The report mentions that in small villages in Chile people eat dogs. Although the villagers are reluctant to comment on the custom of eating dogs for fear of the humane society, report that they consume dog meat and is often confused with lamb or pork. ."

http://www.primeralinea.cl/p4_plinea/site/20030115/pags/20030115130456.html

More information about this:

http://www.atinachile.cl/content/view/443732/La-Subasta-de-Perros.html Frank0fx (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't read Spanish, but let me try to copyedit what you wrote without reading the sources:

"According to the magazine PrimeraLina, the consumption of dog meat was (as of 2003) still widespread in the Colchagua province of Chile. The meat is prepared grilled, pickled, or jerked. It is also used in drinks and soups for medical purposes. Those interviewed seemed reluctant to comment on the practice."

I'm not sure what to make of the very last part, about "humane society"--is that a government division or official organization that they're afraid of? Or a more general worry about broader Chilean society being upset? In any event, feel free to add the above to the article (and, if relevant, add the other citation, too). We can always do more grammar editing later. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for working to make this contribution to the article, which seems to me to be shaping up nicely. Chrisrus (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

Recently a section about Taiwan was added, but the references weren't matching up with what was written. Reverted back to previous edits when a change was made from "groups" to "tribes" without any explanation. The source on Taiwan wasn't bad http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-10-2004-49298.asp but it certainly didn't back up the edit stating that eating dog was a sin or that Taiwanese didn't eat dog. Anyone think there should be a section on Taiwan? Bob98133 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I took out the buzzle reference--it's not really reliable, I think--I see no evidence that the site uses editorial judgment, that the url itself includes the word "editorial", and and all of the articles published by "Animal News" are about protecting animals. However, I found another source in China Post which does add useful info and verifies the first part of the paragraph. With that and the BBC reference, I think there's enough info to keep the section. It's certainly dated, but, then again, so is almost all of this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs Controversy Section

I think a glaring omission in this article is an absence of a whole section on the controversy. Eating dog is very controversial. - 76.115.44.78 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Note the meat article has a developed section on issues with meat consumption. 76.115.44.78 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has all sorts of parts saying that people find dog meat unacceptable or controversial. I can't see why would need any more. I do still think that the whole article needs a massive revamp--it doesn't make sense for us to have so many sections about different countries; ideally, I'd like to see this article look much more like Chicken (meat) or Beef. But adding a controversy section, when so much of this article already talks about the controversy, would be overkill. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree, I mean the meat section itself has such a section and this article is tagged as controversial. But I'll leave it at that. I don't have time, unfortunately (I wish I did) to do the work and advocate for my ideas so you win. But I think the idea that wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is a farce because I can't add to the article without being edited away by those with more time. OK, I'm not supposed to question your motives, I get that, but the fact is everywhere you have come down on this article demonstrates your bias, but I won't speculate further. If it quacks like a duck and all that...just sayin' 76.115.44.78 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, before you start calling everyone biased why don't you look at your posts and have a think about just how biased [I]you[/I] are. Sure, I'm no supporter of dog meat, and yet wikipedia is not censored, and you can't just claim that dog meat is bad if you don't have references, besides not only is not descriptive Wikipedia also makes it very not to put in personal opinions. And, PERSONALLY, I believe that this maybe already has a bit too much of controversial passages already. Androids101 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A compromise might be, if a revamp is done, to vacuum up all the controversy-related content, and dump it in a controversy section. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion, "barbaric" was going too far and "highly" is a peacock word. And, please be polite to Qwyrxian. He is a very thoughtful and reasonable editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also find the catch phrase "the encyclopedia everyone can edit" is a little misleading. I mean, literally, anyone can click the edit button and make changes, so the phrase is "true", but I can see how this makes new editors confused, because the phrase ignores the many volumes of policies, guidelines, and procedures we have for working with articles. I guess the confusion comes from people focusing on the last two words, "can edit", while failing to understand what an "encyclopedia" is. Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, so long as they are trying to make it a better and more accurate encyclopedia, where exactly what an encyclopedia is based on a combination of policies and guidelines developed over the course of the encyclopedia's history." Which, of course, does not make a good slogan.

In any event, Anna's suggestion is a good one, and goes in line with my earlier point--the problem is more that adding a separate "controversy section" would be acceptable only if we regrouped all of the rest of the info, so that it's not repetitive. Anna and I both started working on that many months ago, but, at least for me, got sidetracked with other things. I suppose I should add this back on my list of "long term projects." In the meanwhile, if you know of any good, reliable sources that support the idea of dog meat being controversial, please make a note of them here--even if you aren't sure how to integrate them with the rest of the article, I'd be happy to help find a way to do that. I know one of the problems I had when working with the article is that, while we have a fairly large number of sources, except for one old source, they didn't really treat the issue in a broad, comprehensive way, so it was tough to get a handle on a better way to work the whole article. But I promise you that if you provide reliable sources (see WP:RS for an explanation of what that means), and we don't overwhelm the article with an extreme viewpoint, I will help find a way to integrate them. Qwyrxian (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand

  Thou taboo, there are no laws in New Zealand to prevent the slaughter and eatting of dog meat as long as the animal is "slaughtered swiftly and painlessly".  

reference http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-18/world/new.zealand.dog.bbq_1_dog-meat-animal-welfare-act-cruelty?_s=PM:WORLD ..........

Could someone add the above info in, there isnt currently a New Zealand heading under the By Region.  

Australia is missing too, Ive no idea about Australia laws in this area but it would be a taboo in Australia to eat dog too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniaaust1 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead image

Melonbarmonster2: Nobody has touched this image in months. You resume editing this article after several months absent, and within an hour an IP changes the image that was the main focus of the dispute before. I am naturally suspicious.

Now, what new argument do you have for supporting the mysterious IP's image swap? This was resolved before. This isn't the same old argument that this is about the dish and not about the meat is it? Please state your new argument. Until then, please leave the old image in place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why you're supposed to assume good faith. Request an IP check if you want :/ Please assume good faith, relax with the accusations and allow even anon IP users to contribute to the article particularly if they are addressing an issue that has been repeatedly brought up by different posters even during my absence. Also may I suggest that perhaps you take a break from sitting on this article as I have done?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Talk:Dog_meat/Archive_3, consensus is stable on this issue, so I'm going to revert back to the consensus version unless there is a good reason to change it first. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We have two dissenters, the anon IP and myself. FUrthermore, consensus isn't permanent. A new editor has made the edit and deserves consideration. But if people want to engage in ownership and revert warring I can't help that.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't dissent. In order to challenge the consensus, you have to directly address the arguments made in archive 3 (and elsewhere) before unilaterally changing the version agreed to by multiple editors. Please make your case for the change here. Please remember to address both positions. You are far more likely to gain support if you weigh the pros and cons of both positions rather than simply arguing for one side. This will demonstrate your understanding of the arguments and how well you are able to persuade others to agree with your reasoning. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point seeing as how you've never expressed any substantive opinion on the topic at hand, let alone reasoning, persuading with "pros and cons" and all that other good stuff you need for establishing consensus. Did I miss your reasoning for the "consensus" state of the article somewhere in the archives??? Oh well, I can't beat WP:TAGTEAM especially when lowly anon IP and my dissent doesn't even count as dissent. Hopefully the anon will join us here in the talk page. All I can do at this point is to record my dissent.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I learned from our past discussion: This time, short and sweet and address the central point. What's you and your anon IPs new argument for a dish image instead of a meat image? Go ahead. We're listening. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it's the anon IP's edit that you've edit-warred away, I'm waiting to see if that person will join in all the fun we're having. I'm just hoping that you and your friend's tag teaming didn't scare him/her away. I'm also hoping you'll calm down and relax with your hostilities so we can begin to try to have a productive discussion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, that is not how it works. You need to directly address, on the talk page, the consensus you are claiming to challenge. If you cannot do that, no amount of edit warring will change the consensus. Furthermore, a simple 3RR report will show that you refuse after repeated queries, to address the topic on the talk page. That will most certainly result in a block if you continue along this path. Address the previous (and current) consensus or remain silent and remove this article from your watchlist. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas you are engaging in disruptive behavior and you are sabotaging any consensus from happening. If you are genuinely interested in the article, please read the archives and previous discussions and participate in the editing process.

Check out WP:DRNC, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire."

Anna and I have a substantive disagreement and though we may disagree I know her opinions are genuine. As far as I can tell you are only here to tag team Anna's edits and your contributions have been singularly WP:WL. You're not here to adjudicate and approve every edit proposal. If you want to participate, stop wikilawyering and discuss the substantive topic at hand. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for your new argument. The floor is yours. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There was previously consensus on the image; that's indisputable. However, Melonbarmonster2 is correct--consensus can change. I, for one, have not changed my opinion; apparently neither have Viriditas or Anna Frodesiak. Note that though consensus can change, it never does so spontaneously--people who think it should be changed have to persuade those of the prior opinion. So, here's your chance: what is your argument (that we haven't already covered before, because none of them are going to sway us) that the image should change? I say "your argument" meaning either "melonbarmonster2" or "212.161.12.1", assuming you're different people (which is possible). Edit warring is never the right way to go, for anyone. Note that we are not reverting because we want you to "discuss first" or because there's "no consensus"--we're reverting because the current image is better (in our opinion). That's no problem: editors make changes all the time, which others disagree with. The next step after that is to discuss on the talk page. I don't really feel the need to lay out any arguments for the current image, because they're all in the archives. I'll need to see something new, for me, at least, to justify changing the image. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: Please re-read WP:TAGTEAM. It states, "Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team." I sincerely doubt that Anna and Vriditas coordinated their edits to circumvent consensus. Instead they, like I believe 1) the current image is better and 2) consensus said that before and still says it now. Show us why we're wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well put. Melonbarmonster2: you have the floor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat meat and horse meat should be presented as comparative views regarding ethics of dog meat consumption

In response to the non-Japanese user who lives in Japan by the user-name of Qwyrxian (talk), who maintain vigilance in eliminating the free and ready-access to the Cat meat and Horse meat articles from this Dog meat article: Yes, the readers who explore the questions regarding the "taboo" nature of dog meat consumption should quickly explore and compare the similar "taboo" of cat meat and horse meat consumption, and you may indeed include Beef cattle or Pork to the short list, as vegans around the world will support you on this. But please don't be offended and hide the links to cat meat of horse meat, as this is Wikipedia English, and here in the Anglosphere, cat meat and horse meat are indeed viewed as on much the same level as dog meat. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First, why do you feel the need to call attention to where I live? I don't see it as relevant. Second, we aren't in the anglosphere--en.wiki is an international website, and is not supposed to be presented from a US bias (that it usually is is a well known problem known as systemic bias). I say US because horse meat is not a taboo in all native English countries, while other meats that are considered acceptable in the US are a taboo in some near-native English countries. Third, your inclusion of these links fundamentally doesn't make sense--since all forms of meat are taboo somewhere, we would need to list every single different meat there. That's not how See Also is supposed to work--it's only supposed to include very closely related topics. Unless you are looking at this from a US perspective (maybe UK also, I'm not sure), I don't see any more connection between Dog and Horse than I do between Dog and Beef. Instead, this article is correctly a part of the category "Meat"; users interested in exploring information about other meats are welcome to look there. I believe those links should be removed, but I look for the input of other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My two cents. Some facts that help me judge the matter:

• Over here in China dog and cat meat are sort of related.
• In China they're not taboo, but somewhat exotic.
• They are found in the same markets.
• Cat meat restaurants are a rarer and more underground.
• Plenty of countries see cat and dog meat as taboo.
• Cats and dogs are related as they are both domesticated house pets. And so the consumption of the meat is psychologically related too.

• Horse meat on the other hand, is a respected, fairly ordinary meat in many, many countries.
• I've had horse in Canada and Europe. It's not even considered exotic.

These statements are based on easily sourced facts. I'm in favour of cat meat but not horse meat in the see also section. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As for bush meat, I don't think it fits. Dog meat comes from raised, caged dogs. Nobody ordinarily shoots them in the wild. If Chicken meat and sheep meat aren't in, why should dog meat? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think randomly selected Taboo meats need not be listed because there is an entry Taboo food and drink. My personal inclination is to add only Cat meat because dog and cat are quite popular pet animals. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So where are we at on the cat meat, horse meat, bush meat thing? Qwyrxian, I respect your judgment and opinions a great deal. How do you feel about cat meat in, horse meat out, bush meat out? Maybe we can arrive at a compromise. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we wait until 99.130.8.150 respond above at least a week? I don't think this is not so much contested issue. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Forgive me for not noticing. No hurry at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can logically see all of them out, but I can also see the logic behind keeping cat food and taking out horse meat and bush meat. My guess (I'd have to do some research to confirm), is that the cat/dog taboo is probably closely linked (i.e., either both are pets and thus taboo, or both are acceptable as food, except in cultures that don't naturally have one or the other). Plus, Anna makes a good point that bush meat is substantially different, especially since sometimes it involves no taboo for anyone, and sometimes it does--that is, it's too wide a category, since it basically just means "meat obtained from wild sources in parts of Africa". So, IP (if you're still around), would you accept the compromise of keeping cat meat and removing the other two? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It took almost a week and 99.130.8.150 didn't respond this discussion. So, I removed Bush meat and Horse meat per this discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had actually forgotten about this. I think I need a Wikipedia calendar to track these kinds of delayed discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The meats I have listed are viewed in similar/logical consequence here in American culture, and in readership of English Wikipedia, namely American people typically find consumption of the following meats: cat, dog, horse among various others as unusual or even immoral. I understand your need to maintain a certain level of white pride and Asian cultural-secessionism, and make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas cat and horse meat the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians and that of non-Asians is far less. But this is nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits, or the eating habits of American's closest ally nations should be seen. The inclusion of horse meat in the See Also section constitutes a consistent American reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine, and not feel humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for some of you to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

en.wiki is not written specifically for Americans, and any argument saying something should be included because it supports an Americentric viewpoint is likely to fall flat. Kevin (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that 75% of all English speakers worldwide are not even native speakers, much less US residents, means that your assumption that en.wiki is for Americans is just non-sense. I think that all of our Indian, US, Chinese, etc., etc. readers, editors, and admins might take offense. Currently consensus is that, from a world-wide perspective, cat meat is closely linked regularly to dog meat (due to the reasons stated above), but horse meat is not. Please do not edit war to try to get your (the IP's) perspective. If you wish to continue discussing here, you may do so, or you may follow our dispute resolution procedures to get more opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(indent) I'd concur - if you would like to further discuss the issue, you can engage in dispute resolution, ask for third opinions, et cetera. Edit warring usually ends up nowhere. In regards to the topic, I wouldn't mind leaving in cat meat, due to taboos associated with eating a common domesticated pet animal. Even though horses are also widely domesticated and used in human society, the consumption of horse meat in various cultures does not seem to be as taboo in comparison. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Cats and dogs live in the house, and are considered companions by many. Horses, like cows, live in the barn. Consumption of dog, and especially cat is widely taboo, while eating horses is not widely considered so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The two messages I've made make on user Qwyrxian talk page had been removed by Qwyrxian, a non-Japanese living in Japan with strong and unequal opinions how different Asian cultures/nations and western cultures/nations should be presented and viewed. Wikipedia have considerable contingents of those heavily POV'ed westerners making their POV'ed edits especially in regards to Asian culture and history. In the case of the Dog meat article, I pointed out that Americans, and those claiming "democracy" and animal rights, should not be offended by my inclusion of the reference of similarly social and moral consequences consuming of Horse meat and now Whale meat, to the See Also reference of the Dog meat article. The double standards exhibited by these "free willed" westerners out to control the Asian image and maintaining a western image is most astonishing: they should be the last to hide the Horse meat(and whale meat) references in the See Also section of the Dog meat article: it is AFTER ALL, just a "SEE ALSO" reference section to related comparative studies, and nothing to do whether the said animal can be someones pet or not: but what righteous or self-righteous people claim to be inappropriate for human consumption, regardless of cultural or ethnic background of the general consumers of such indicated meat animals, and not be stuck in "Dog meat is wrong" mode(while Horse meat/Whale meat should not be given similar attention and footing for Dog meat article readers). 99.130.8.150 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is getting to be ridiculous. What is the problem with listing other peripheral, controversial meats in the see also section? This page has serious problem with POV pushing. AND ANON IP USER GO GET AN ACCOUNT PLEASE AND JOIN THE DISCUSSION. There have been several anon ip users leaving objections and comments only to be summarily dismissed by editors sitting on this article to force their own POV. I express my dissent if for nothing else but for record's sake to show lack of consensus on edit disputes in this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not been following the discussion in this section as it developed, but it does seem to me that unadorned wikilinks to articles on e.g., horse, whale and cat meat don't sit well in the See also section of this article. The guidance in WP:SEEALSO says, in part, "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one." Also, WP:LEAD says, in part, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It strikes me that it might be appropriate to take the current second paragraph of the lead section and develop/expand it into an article section on cultural views re dog meat as a traditional vs. a nontraditional meat source (broadening its present focus a bit beyond distinctions between livestock and pets), with summary style subsections briefly mentioning meat sources other than dogs which are considered traditional in some contexts and nontraditional in others, and containing {{Main}} pointers to relevant per-topic articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why having unadorned links to articles in see others sections to nontraditional meats doesn't 'site well' with you especially when you seemingly see relevance of other nontraditional meats in relation to dog meat in your suggestion to create a section for dog meat as traditional v. nontraditional meat source. Would you feel better about this if we simply appropriately adorned the wikilinks?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment re adorned vs. unadorned links grew out of the examples in WP:SEEALSO. Wikilinks integrated into the body of the article are generally preferable to See also section wikilinks, with or without clarifying adornments. The article is currently about 50kb, mostly devoted to a series of country-by-country sections; it could probably accommodate a short, more general, introductory section along the lines of my suggestion. If length is enough of an issue that adding such a section makes the article unacceptably long (and WP:SEEALSO speaks to article size constraints), perhaps subheads in the See also section could divide it into topical segments -- one being something like "Other controversial meat sources". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who explore the concept and questions of Dog meat as a food option should not be prevented to have quick and easy access to the like concept and questions regarding cat-horse-whale meats in the SEE ALSO section for comparative examination. I can understand why user Wtmitchell and like minded users and sock puppets' opinion of cat-horse-whale meats "don't sit well" as related reference in the SEE ALSO section of the Dog meat article: these controversial meats have lesser propaganda and racist impact than Dog meat does against those segments of Asian people who are accused of using Dog meat as a food source option, but that which also have increased impact against non-Asians who consume these meats as an integral part of their cultural and environmental upbringing. In other words, white people/westerners should NOT be ashamed of revealing to Dog meat readers-observers that segments of their own population's culture and heritage of consuming such controversial meats, just as the segments of the Asian populations are not ashamed of consuming meats that many westerners, and easterners as well, often deem barbaric, immoral or simply unpleasant. The thought-control efforts by way of wiki/media manipulation by these hypocritical westerners and their sock puppets who establish what is and isn't proper culinary practices want to instill a "no fly zone" and prevent easy and direct reference and knowledge expanding to the highly related subjects of cat-horse-whale meat in the SEE ALSO section. I'm not against the people or the reasonable practice of harvesting and eating these controversial meats, but I'm definitely against these flagrant offenders of free media, free speech and simple logic who are so intent on blocking readers direct contact to similarly controversial articles and subjects on cat-horse-whale meat. I agree with user Melonbarmonster2 that I should create a user-name account, which I'll figure out how to do by tomorrow. Thank you all for your increased attention and reduced tyranny to this matter. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please present evidence that Horse meat and/or whale meat is controversial in the same way that dog and cat meat are. I'm speaking from a worldwide perspective (which we are required to use), not from an Ameri-centric perspective. While your at it, please provide evidence or at least a cogent argument that we shouldn't also include every other single animal meat. And, actually, should we also include a link to Genetically modified food, since that's also taboo to some groups? What about alcohol? The point is that See Also cannot be either a vessel for pushing a particular point of view (i.e., what some in America/UK consider taboo is necessarily related), nor can it become a massive list of every slightly related topic. No one is trying to prevent readers from quickly accessing Horse meat--if they think the two topics are related, then they can type it into the search box; putting the link here, though, necessarily says that Wikipedia considers them related--that is what we are arguing against.

Oh, and you (IP) should know that free speech has absolutely nothing to do with what we do here. Wikipedia is a privately hosted non-profit project, which doesn't have to let you publish anything. No one has any "right" to include anything on Wikipedia, just like no one can go to a publisher and demand that the publisher print a book they wrote. All decisions about what to include are done by consensus; currently, we're trying to figure out what that consensus is. We may, as someone mentioned above, need to purse dispute resolution. The first step, though, is for you (IP & Melonbarmonster2, who want to include the links) to provide some sort of evidence as to why Horse/Whale are specially related while other meats are not. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear readers, I'm Wikipedia reader and facts contributor previously connected as user @ IP 99.130.8.150, and this is my user name which I'll be using for further contributions from now on. Back to the subject of Dog meat and how the topic of Horse and Whale meat is related to the topic of Dog meat. I'm suggesting to user Qwyrxian that he not be delusional about the facts regarding the controversial nature of Horse and Whale meat used for culinary practices as they very similarly relate to Dog meat as used for culinary practices: Horse meat consumption is most certainly controversial and viewed as repulsive behavior because they are often seen as pets and not worldwide popular meat animals such as cows, goats and pigs, and whales, like our pet dogs and dolphins, arguably possesses extraordinary intelligence(which i believe pigs do as well, equally smart or dumb, but far less controversy compared with Cat-Dog-Horse-Whale), which animal rights activists argue make them unsuitable for slaughter as food for human consumption, and actively participate in intercepting hunting of this controversial meat. Qwyrxian, you should understand that meats such as beef, pork and mutton have worldwide appeal and practically universal use, whereas cat, dog, horse and whale do not, in fact far from such popularity. Their use as food for humans or otherwise continue repulse many people and spark raging debates to what they see as immoral and inhumane culinary standards. So please don't tell me or anyone else the limits of our rights or free speech in Wikipedia when all I'm doing is providing to the readers who examine the topic of the controversial and un-universal Dog meat consumption to that of very relative controversial topics of the controversial and un-universal Horse and Whale meat consumption. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I only brought up free speech because you tried to claim above that your free speech rights allowed you to have the links, which is not true. The source you've provided don't help. CSMonitor and Examiner are both about US controversy. In fact, I think those articles actually support my claims: the first clearly indicates that Horse meat is an accepted meat in Japan and (parts of) Europe. The second points out that horse meat is legal in Canada, and is a part of classic French cuisine. The whale examples are both from partisan sources, with neither qualifying as a reliable source. What you are providing, in my opinion, is your particular opinion on what meats are related; it is an opinion born primarily out of US (and, by historical extension UK) sensibilities. That's fine--you can have whatever opinions you want, and are free to be repulsed should you so feel. What you cannot do is to promote those opinions on Wikipedia, either directly or subtly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. And KulqihanAtqa, be advised that "...I'm suggesting to user Qwyrxian that he not be delusional about..." is a personal attack. Please comment on the edits not the editors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

KulqihanAtqa, please read the following anecdote I created.

One day, an editor from Monterey Park, CA added Horse meat and Whale meat to "See also" section saying they are equally repulsive for American. Next day, an editor from India added Beef saying it is equally repulsive for Hindu. Later, an editor from the Middle East added Pork saying it is equally repulsive for Muslim and additions continued. Finally the section became a "list of Taboo food".

This shows the criteria "equally repulsive" doesn't make sense. The current criteria is the same species (Wolf meat) and the most popular pets (Cat meat). KulqihanAtqa may argue Horses are often seen as pets. However, Horses may not be so popular as you think even in US. [4]

P.S. Asocena should be described in Philippines section and Dog meat consumption in South Korea should be removed as it is already described as Main article in South Korea section. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian/Phoenix7777 I understand how you as a foreigner who particularly cherishes European and Japanese culture, would not agree to have Horse meat and Whale meat listed along the same lines as Dog meat due to the affinity or complicity of Horse and Whale meat consumption amongst Europeans or Japanese, whom you say is accepted by these people. I too accept this. I will(and have) wholeheartedly support the Japanese defiance against those westerners and animal rights activists out to attack and disrupt this Japanese cultural practice(Ady Gil)/The Cove. Let me tell you that as an American, I wholeheartedly accept the fact that Europeans and Japanese partake on Horse and Whale meat as a matter culinary and cultural heritage, or any culture eating their choice of meats, and do not object to the most humane possible methods of slaughtering any meat animal by any culture or ethnic group. While I never had partaken on taboo meats such as Cat-Dog-Horse-Whale, I'm sure they're delicious for any carnivorous person willing to try(as you would, I'd imagine). However, a great majority of the Europeans and Japanese would object to eating Cat meat or Wolf meat(Beppe Bigazzi anyone?), but we include them here on the See Also list because it's a "most popular pet" or it's "related". Whales are wild, but like humans and dogs, they possess extraordinary intelligence, and cared for and kept as extraordinarily intelligent pets/performers at the many oceanariums around the world. But please realize that a PET ANIMAL is a PET ANIMAL, and just because we can't caress our beloved Equine horse friends in our arms like a cat or dog, or have them sit with us on our sofas while watching cable TV in our living rooms, doesn't make them less beloved pet animals as the cat or dog. So please stop trying to RULE this Dog meat article and allow immediate free access to these highly related subjects.

I too have an anecdotal commentary on the Wikipedia-controllers editing virtual private ownership the Dog meat article:

As a matter of maintaining arbitrary standards to how the Dog meat article should be viewed, a Japanophile western man believes that the only reference links for readers of the Dog meat article's SEE ALSO section should be Asocena, Cat meat and Dog meat consumption in Korea, but when the stability of such an established western man's mindset was disrupted by a vegetarian, who included beef, bush meat, pork, lamb, horse, kangaroo, rat, whale, walrus, etc, the fairness to represent all sentient beings proved to overwhelming, and thus the SEE ALSO section has become no more: you may think you have finally killed it, and it dies before your eyes, but has in fact become eternally present and all encompassing. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate. My understanding of the See Also sections in all the Wikipedia articles is that it allows a bit more room and flexibility to touch on tangentially-related subjects that would otherwise seem inappropriate or off-topic if directly presented in the main body of the article. This dog meat article seem to be a food-related article, and reference to other similar foods would seem to make sense. See Also is not a hard rule to follow, suggesting only common sense in extending knowledge on the subject, which in this case is not about dogs per se, but the dog as a viable source of meat and protein; albeit an unusual choice for most people in the world. Horse meat is obviously another viable source of meat and protein and also an unusual food choice for most people in the world, which should be an appropriate reference in the See Also section of this food-related article. Whale meat as a source of meat protein should be treated the same, but obviously given special attention for the reason that some of them are vulnerable or endangered species, especially the blue whale; although I don't believe the Japanese or native Siberians and native north Americans, whom are the typical consumers of whale meat, have anything to do with the blue whale becoming over-hunted and endangered. It's interesting to note that even though people who follow Abrahamic religions may have hard rules on what animal meats they may or may not be eat, adherents of Pure Land Buddhism (typically China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam) and Tibetan Buddhism (also China, fairly commonly among the Han, Manchu, and Mongol ethnic groups) traditionally prohibit human consumption of cat, dog, and horse meats; whereas beef, pork, and poultry are usually permitted. But of course, the most devout adherents of Pure Land Buddhism will abstain from eating any meat animal. Most ethnic Tibetans, at least in the upper-classes, traditionally live in the extremes of the high plateaus where land is not so arable, and had traditionally sustained themselves with an animal meat diet. That's my two-dollars on this issue. Peace :o) Got Milked (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, wolf meat, horse meat, whale meat are okay. If the list gets too long, prune it. The presence of these items doesn't really hurt the article. I don't think it's worth spending thousands of words on this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your opinions as well as logical reasoning. I'm going to include two more related foods of interest. Please don't get me wrong, for my efforts are solely for the purpose of enlightenment and tolerance of different people's food cultures or interests, and absolutely not prejudice. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If consensus if for including wolf, horse, and whale, I will not stand in the way. I see several people above supporting the addition, so feel free to add if you like. I still think adding them is wrong and a violation of WP:NPOV, but I can concur with Anna in that I've about exhausted my willingness to argue the point, so as long as we're not going crazy (by listing every single type of existing meat, as that renders the list meaningless), it's alright. I certainly don't want to go through a full dispute resolution process over a few see also links. User:Qwyrxian

KulqihanAtqa: With the addition of kangaroo and bush meat, and your statement that "...my efforts are solely for the purpose of enlightenment and tolerance of different people's food cultures...", you reveal that you are pushing a POV. The addition of horse meat I can tolerate. But I think that kangaroo and bush meat should not be present. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any POV at all. The presentation of these other meat choices used in culinary practices is neutral. People should be tolerant of these sources for food and not feel that this is going against anything or anyone. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop. Please. We reached a consensus to include a few more. Don't try to claim this is preserving NPOV--if it were, you'd be adding Beef, Chicken (meat), etc. So far your choice of meats shares one and only one thing in common: they are meats specifically rejected by the typical US eater. This is not US.wiki, it is en.wiki. I thought I was being nice by deciding to drop the issue rather than pursue dispute resolution, allowing in the addition of a few more meats that may possibly have some claim to be widely not eaten. Do not take that to mean that you have license to continue adding whatever meats you want, and, similarly, not adding other specific meats. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, your attempts at such inclusion is not neutral. As you are making efforts at "englightening" people, and persuading them to be "tolerant", you are, by definition, pushing a POV.

We add content, not to persuade people to feel a certain way, but instead to report how people do actually feel. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't claim that consensus has been reached. This has nothing to do with American POV. When i say tolerant, I mean by POV pushers as you are doing, which is that only certain meats be included while other excluded. Beef and chicken are all too common all around the world in most cases, but the meats I've included are not too common all around the world in most cases. Your "consensus" is not NPOV. However, I shall allow your POV proceed in the current edit of this Dog meat article. The fact that you're willing enough to include Cat-Horse-Whale meats to supplement this meat-food related topic for readers of this meat article is unusually open-minded and NPOV on your part. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your statement "...enlightenment and tolerance of different people's food cultures or interests..." referred to your edits in the main space, intended for visitors, not for us here at talk. Your claim that your appeal for tolerance is intended for us here at talk ("...I mean by POV pushers as you are doing...") is entirely unconvincing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This article became as my anecdote above predicts. Any discussion insisting addition of any meat is based upon their POV and not acceptable. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mention of "racism and cultural supremacy" by the French in lede

I cannot access references [5] and [6] supporting the claim. I can access this. The reporter is giving his view of a single person's (Brigitte Bardot) view expressed in a radio interview. He calls it "...French attacks...". Hardly a whole nation. If the other refs support the claim of "...racism and cultural supremacy...", dandy. Otherwise, it should go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anna. The wording is a bit provocative and there seems to be no reliable source supporting such a claim. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nureongi, "exceptional" and POV

Back in May of 2009, this edit added some text to the article which, among other things, spoke of "exceptional dogs which are edible", supporting that with this supporting source. Yesterday, this edit removed the sentence containing that phrase, saying, "remove POV sentence". I reverted that here when it came up on my watchlist, saying, "Reverted removal of source-supported material, apparently by an editor with a POV issue regarding the material." The editor I had reverted raised the issue on my talk page here, explaining that the revert was prompted by the use of the word "exceptional" rather than by a POV issue re dog meat; saying, "... we shouldn't be describing something as "exceptional", anywhere on Wikipedia (except ...) ...". I note that the cited supporting source says, (quoting) "... Korea raises exceptional dogs which are edible." Meanwhile, before I saw this on my talk page, another editor reverted my reversion, saying, "I'm not sure how you can justify this sentence's inclusion. It's out of place, biased ('exceptional') and introduces no new information. Also, Nureongi is linked above.)"

I think this hinges on different perceptions of the sense of meaning of the word "exceptional" here (Synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, anomalous, atypical, deviant, distinct, extraordinary, inconsistent, infrequent, notable, noteworthy, odd, peculiar, phenomenal, rare, remarkable, scarce, singular, special, strange, uncommon, uncustomary, unheard-of, unimaginable, unique, unordinary, unprecedented, unthinkable, unusual, etc.) I don't think that the word was used to make a POV point when it was added to the article back in 2009, and I don't think the supporting source cited was using that word inn order to push a POV of its own. That said, I think that the meaning intended both when the removed sentence was added back in 2009 and by the supporting source cited was that in Korea a particular breed of dog is raised as a food animal rather than as a companion animal, that it is arguable that in Korean culture there is a perception that the difference between the two roles is significant; the word "exceptional" probably wasn't the best word which could have been used to convey that.

As the edit reverting my edit points out, the point about the Nureongi dog in Korea being considered a livestock animal is made elsewhere in the article. In this edit, I've re-added the cite of the supporting source which was removed along with the sentence at issue as a supporting source at that other point in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wtmitchell; especially seeing the comment below from Chrisrs and Phoenix7777, it looks like this may have been a translation issue from Korean as much as anything. Moving the source to that sentence seems like a great solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for explaining further -- I considered "exceptional-as-unusual" but was running out of characters in the edit summary since there were other issues with the sentence. Good solution all around. Anna ^talk 05:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation from "kmbase.medric.or.kr"

Hello! I noticed that this article, http://kmbase.medric.or.kr/Main.aspx?d=KMBASE&m=VIEW&i=0665219990120040397, seems to have attracted some attention by editors of this article recently. This fact makes me very happy, as I am very interested in it because it is the only peer-reviewed paper from Korea that I have been able to find which not only seems to confirm the existence of the Nureongi, an animal known to Wikipedia thus far only through one paper from Cambridge University and a series of tangental mentions in WP:RS newspaper articles, but also hints that extensive details about the dog may lie within. Frustratingly however, I unfortunately can't access any more than the abstract and don't read Korean anyway, so I have to rely on the English translation of the summary, which is tantalizingly short and which seems imperfect to me, especially the questionable choice of the word "exceptional". So I haven't been able to use it. But from what I can tell, there is a good chance Wikipedia could finally learn some more details about this dog from this, because the English summary seems to describe an article that has a good chance of containing at least a few facts about and description of this dog. I'm most interested in learning more about this dog for the benefit of the article Nureongi, but it seems reasonable that this article and the article dog meat consumption in South Korea could benefit from a frank factual study of this matter from a Korean point of view. Any thoughts, suggestions, or help with regard to this matter are solicited. Chrisrus (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find a full text version of the article at the author's web site. Be sure to set encoding to "Korean". Unfortunately there is no mention of Nureongi in that article. The author is an "exceptional" advocate of dog eating in South Korea. The disputed word "exceptional" seems to be a simple error of translation and it is more appropriate to say "separate breed". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

AFACT, the Korean word 별도 was translated as "exceptional" in the cited source, and a better translation of that word would have been "separate". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why we should not call the Nureongi a "Mixed-breed dog" anymore

This article should reconsider calling the Nureongi "a mixed-breed dog". Please have a look at the article mixed-breed dog. If you read that article, you will see that the term is a very vague one, and many of it's referents do not describe the dog, including the most obvious, "a dog which is a literally a mix of breeds". We had a discussion at the article Nureongi which I am about to show you. The consensus there was, after careful consideration, to go with the term "landrace," but if you read this thread I am about to show you can find other options and some of their pros and cons. Here it is:Talk:Nureongi#What_we_shouldn.27t_call_this_referent.

Please look at this picture, which happens to be from an anti-dog meat site, but please ignore that POV or your own POV and just look at this dog as a dog. [7]. There are many such pictures where that came from, alongside other photos that prove that simply most, not all, dogs farmed for meat in Korea are Nureongi.

With that image in your mind so you can see what we're talking about, please read this paper, which should be used as reference for this article as it's everything a WP:RS should be: [8]. Please see that this is not a mix of breeds, and the term "mixed breed" implies that it is a mix of breeds and therefore for this article to call it "a mixed-breed dog" is misleading the reader. Chrisrus (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I only just skimmed through the first half of that source, and it is excellent--a scholarly source (not very high impact, but okay for the field), very specific with specific analysis. I've gone ahead and changed the phrasing in the article; also, we should mine the heck out that source for more data; I'll add it to my to-do list but others are more than welcome to do so as well. Sorry it took so long to respond...Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the japan section

Apparently the references for my previous edits did not meet the reliable sources guidelines, I have tried to fix it up and have provided a complete translation of a news bit posted on Livedoor, a publicly traded company that runs a number of businesses and I would say should qualify as a reliable source. I have also translated the original post from the official twitter account of the TV program Tokudane! (www.fujitv.co.jp/tokudane/ JP wiki: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/情報プレゼンター_とくダネ!). I realize there is ongoing racial strife between japanese and koreans living in japan and this is just one facet of it, so it is easy to assume that someone editing this article has a bias one way or the other. So I don't ask that you believe my translation, but atleast get a few other people knowledgeable in japanese, preferably someone who has lived/lives in japan to verify things before you dismiss it outright. I am not japanese myself, but I have lived in japan for a few years and I will admit to having a bias against the consumption of dog meat, whaling and dolphin hunting. But that has nothing to do with my edits, which I believe are reliable. I will say that the japanese section is at best uninformative, and at worst seems to attempt to have the reader believe that there is just a small population in japan that eats it and there is nothing more to it than that, which could not be farther from the truth. The truth is the consumption of dog meat in japan is associated with the zainichi korean presence, even if it is politically incorrect to say so, either here or in japan. It is true and maybe should be noted in some way that much of the criticism that comes with it also seems to have a tinge of anti korean sentiment. Anyway, here is what I have translated:

Tokudane! official twitter account post on Twitpic (http://twitpic.com/5kil4w): [今日は在日コリアンの方々に招待されて食事をしてきました。その名も「ポシンタン（犬鍋）の集い」。日本人の方々には馴染みがなくドキっとしますが朝鮮半島ではごちそうです。臭みがなくスタミナがつく食べ物として好まれています。私も愛犬家ですが、ポシンタンには目がありません。３杯もおかわりしてしまいました。これで夏バテをのり越えられそうです。

Today I was invited over by some zainichi koreans to eat. The name of the group is 'bosintang gathering'. Japanese are not familiar with this and will find it shocking, but it is eaten in korea. It is liked for it's lack of a bad smell and the stamina it provides. I love dogs, but I liked bosintang. I had 3 servings. With this I feel I can beat the summer heat.]

News article from Livedoor (http://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/5740602/): [フジテレビ人気番組とくダネ！スタッフが犬肉の美味さをTwitterで熱弁「私は日本人ですが犬肉は大好きです」

Popular Fuji TV program Tokudane! staff member gives fervent speech over the splendid taste of dog meat: "I am a japanese, however I like dog meat."

フジテレビお昼の人気番組『笑っていいとも！』の調査で、日本でも居酒屋などでよく提供されている「キムチ鍋」が全年代で好きな鍋1位を獲得したことは記憶に新しい。

The survey by the Fuji TV's popular program "It's okay to laugh!" that kimchi nabe/soup commonly found in pubs is the number 1 soup is still fresh in the mind.

一部ではその説にテレビ局の韓流ゴリ押しによるヤラセではないかと異論を唱える人もおり、インターネットテレビ番組が調査をするなど、テレビだけでなくネット上でもその話題で持ちきりとなることもあった。

There were some who thought it was the TV station pushing korean culture by doing a fake survey, and it was taken up by internet TV programs and was talked about throughout the internet.

その番組の調査も最終的には笑っていいとも！の調査とほぼ同じとなり、捏造ではないという結果に至ったが、別番組の『とくダネ！』Twitter担当スタッフは韓国にかなり造詣の深い人物のようで、韓国料理「ポシンタン（犬鍋）」を在日コリアンの方たちと食事するなど、見る限りとても親密な関係のようだ。

The program that conducted a seperate survey eventually came to the same conclusion as Fuji TV. A staff member from a different program called Tokudane! charged with running the official twitter account seems to have a deep knowledge of korea, eating the korean food 'bosintang' (dog soup) with zainichi koreans, displaying a very intimate relationship.

実際にポシンタンやタンゴギ（犬肉の蒸し物）を食べた感想や写真を画像投稿サイトTwitpicへ投稿し、「食文化が欧米化してきたのでしょうね。ちなみに私は日本人ですが犬肉は大好きです。「野蛮だ」「野蛮じゃない」という議論をするつもりは全くありません。」（Twitterより引用）と、韓国の食の欧米化や、他国からの犬肉食非難に対することについてもコメントを残している。

Actually posting pictures and impressions of foods like bosintang and tangogi (steamed dog meat) to Twitpic, stating "Food culture seems to have become westernized. By the way, I am japanese however I like dog meat. I'm not interested in engaging in debate over whether it is uncivilized or not.", leaving comments about the westernization of korean food and criticism from other countries over dog meat consumption.

しかしそれでも他の日本人Twitterユーザーのなかには、自称愛犬家である彼が犬肉を食べていることについて快く思わない人もいるようで、以下のようなつぶやきが寄せられていた。

However other japanese twitter uers are unhappy over a self styled dog lover eating dog and left comments such as these:

「愛犬家が犬を食らい、愛犬画像の上に犬料理の画像が･･･」 「愛犬家で犬食べるの？はぁ？」 「とくダネさんよお・・・」

"A dog enthusiast that eats a dog, with a picture of cooked dog placed over a picture of his pet dog..." "A dog enthusiast that eats dog? What?" "Come on, tokudane-san..."

犬を飼っている人や好きな人は、もちろん犬の肉を食べることについては抵抗がある人が多いだろう。とくダネ！スタッフが犬肉が好きで美味さを広めたい気持ちもわかるが、犬肉食に抵抗のある人が多い日本でそれをやるのはあまり好ましいことでは無い。例えばオーストラリアで「鯨やイルカの肉が美味い！」と言ったら、多数の人が良い顔をしないのと一緒ではないだろうか。

Naturally there are many people who like dogs or have a pet dog and will be resistant to eating dog meat. I understand that the Tokudane! staff member likes dog meat and might want to propagate it, but it not something that is desirable for japan which has a lot of resistance to the consumption of dog meat. It is comparible to someone saying that whale or dolphin is delicious in Australia, there are not many people who would be happy after hearing that.

食文化だけでなくそういった他に受け入れられづらいその国独特の文化については、無理に啓蒙をせずに静かに嗜むのが一番良い選択肢なのかもしれない。何もしなくても調査捕鯨船に攻撃を仕掛ける、無粋な輩に対しては断固とした態度を取る必要があるのかもしれないが……。

Concerning not only food culture, but other unique culture characteristics that may be hard to accept, it may be that quietly enjoying it might be more better than unreasonably trying to spread it. However, it may also be that we need to make a resolute stand against those boorish fellows who feel the need to attack the whaling ships....]

So I have presented my case, if you still find fault then I will not argue any further. I trust in the ability of wikipedia editors and I simply do not have the time to devote to stuff like this, which I say with much regret as I greatly appreciate the service that wikipedia provides. I invite you to use the Rikai-kun plugin for chrome or firefox, or Jim Breen's WWWJDIC (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/wwwjdic.html) to go through my translation if you wish, although both will not provide an understanding of japanese grammatical structure. Good bye, and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.170.103 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Several problems. First, I'm not sure if Tokudane is a reliable source per WP:RS; I'll check with some native speakers later. Second, even if it is. the entire summary of this is "One staff member of Tokudane tried dog meat with some Zainichi. He liked it. The show surveyed a bunch of people, some who said they wouldn't. Some people even compared it to the whole whaling issue." In other words, all I see is a bunch of opinions of individual Japanese people. To me, that doesn't meet WP:DUE which is part of our policy on neutrality, which says that we can't include opinions unless those opinions have due weight. So, the opinions of random Japanese aren't particularly relevant. Maybe, just maybe, a well-conducted nationwide survey of Japanese people on the issue might be useful, or the opinion of an "expert" (legal, culinary, historical, cultural, etc.) might be relevant, but not those of random people. The Twitter comments are especially UNDUE. Oh, finally, Livedoor is a big Japanese company; however, its definitely not a reliable source--it's just a web host/internet service provider, not a news company. Even Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source, for much the same reasons. As always, though, other input is requested--maybe there's some nugget of useful info in there somewhere that I missed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. A few things, Livedoor is very much a news company, see http://news.livedoor.com/. You could maybe compare it to AOL in this regard. Second, Tokudane! is a weekday morning news program that has aired since 1999 on a major TV network (Fuji TV). I'm not exactly sure what the criteria for a reliable source is, but I would think this would qualify it as such. Also, the news article posted on livedoor was the thing that compared this to the whaling issue, not the survey (which only concerned kimchi nabe). It was mentioned at the beginning of the livedoor article to put in context this particular issue with the wider one of the perception that many japanese have that Fuji TV likes to promote korean culture, right or wrong as that may be. Maybe my translation did not make these things apparent, I apologize for that. The twitter comments are translated from the livedoor article, which posted them as an example of some of the reactions (while avoiding posting some of the more nasty ones). In my edit I did not attempt to attach them to the article, only mention the controversy this caused as reported in the livedoor article. I will place my edit here (edited slightly to add links to the english wikipedia page for tokudane!) for reference:

There was some controversy when a staff member from Fuji TV news program Tokudane! uploaded a picture of bosintang onto Twitpic and wrote "Today I was invited over by some zainichi koreans to eat. The name of the group is 'bosintang gathering'. Japanese are not familiar with this and will find it shocking, but it is eaten in korea".

I think it is a reasonable edit that adds information that is presently lacking about the perception of the consumption of dog meat in japan although it might be good to add information about the controversy, not just mention that there was controversy. Regardless, thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.161.228 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Posting again here to mention that the twitpic post was posted on the official twitter account for the TV program Tokudane!, which is why it became news. The way I mentioned it above could be misinterpreted as it being posted on some staff members personal account, which is not the case. Many companies and politicians have official twitter accounts, which they use to disseminate information or link to press releases and such (for example: http://twitter.com/#!/prmaine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.161.228 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Two problems: first I checked with some native speakers, and Tokudane isn't a reliable source--it's not a news program; rather, like Asatusba or the other morning shows its a talk show that sometimes covers the news, but not in a way WP would consider reliable, primarily because they mix news and fact. But even if we considered it a reliable source, your sentence as written is simply wrong, and points to the very problem underlying this. You say "There was some controversy"...but, in fact, it was just a news store wholly manufacted by Tokudane. This was not a big issue covered in the newspaper, or on national TV. Its a minor story, the inclusion of which would violate WP:UNDUE. Of course, this is all my opinion; I'm sure that eventually someone else who watches the page will chime in; if others think it's important, I'm more than willing to accept consensus to include it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with this, but it seems like my edits may have only had a negative effect on this article (at least in regards to the japan section). Anyway, I've reverted the japan section back to how it was before I ever edited it in the first place. As it is now, "Japan imported 5 tons of dog meat from China compared to 4,717 tons of beef, 14,340 tons of pork and 115,882 tons of poultry for Korean town and China town." is obviously absurd and the source supports no such conclusion. I realize topics such as these attract heavily opinionated/nationalistic views and I probably should have thought about my edits more if it would only result in a worse article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.167.106 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Section on Austria

You say that dogs were eaten in Saxony, which is not in Austria but in Germany. The source material you cite, it confusingly talks about things happening in both countries, so it was an easy mistake to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chef.hagen (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I rechecked the source, and see that the Saxony section is definitely separate from the Austria section. I decided to just change the section title from "Austria" to "Saxony", since that is more accurately what the article says (and doesn't get into the complexity of how old kingdoms map onto present day ones). However, if others think Germany is better, that's fine by me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's edit

Qwyrxian changed "China mainland" to "People's Republic of China" and "Taiwan China" to "Republic of China". However the description is not about the political states but rather geographical areas. Apparently "People's Republic of China" didn't exist around 500 BC. The title should be "Mainland China", "Hongkong" and "Taiwan". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh...Okay, my mistake, I'll revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT report on a journal paper about the role of dogmeat in the evolution of the dog

I thought you all might be able to use this to improve this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08dogs.html?scp=1&sq=nicholas%20wade%20dog*%20china&st=cse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs)

Thanks. For the time being, I've put it into the China section. Doing so reminded me that, somewhere around a year ago, I wanted to completely reorganize this article so that it wasn't just a by country set-up--that really doesn't seem like the logical way to organize an article about a type of meat. But, alas, I'm not sure of the right way. Maybe I'll get the initiative at some point. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland

Living in Switzerland for more than 5 years and visiting all parts of the country, i don't think that "dog meat is still a staple", as written in the article, represents the reality at all. Dog meat might still be eaten (i read about the first time in this article) by some people in Switzerland, but saying it is a "staple" seems to be utterly wrong to me. most of the articles and books quoted are more than 10 years old, please refer to http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Schweizer-sollen-keine-Hunde-und-Katzen-mehr-essen/story/19945914 for some updated information (from december 2012, article is in german). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.69.81 (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Enne and the USA section

Enne, the topic of that section is "dog meat consumption in the United States". The topic of your contribution is "Dog Meat Consuption by an American when he was nowhere near the United States". This information belongs somewhere else where the topic is maybe what the President did when he was in Indonesia. Chrisrus (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And when he wasn't the President. ie, just a child. 98.92.188.42 (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Modern Mexico section

The following was in an added section headed Modern Mexico. It appears to be supported by an unreliable source, and another source at http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=411286#.T7hIZtwtj0c which looks more reliable asserts that this comes from an email hoax.

Consumption of dog meat is taboo in Mexican culture. However, in May 2008, a man named Rubén Cuellar of Veracruz-Boca del Rio was accused of engaging in the slaughter of dogs and selling the meat to local taco restaurants to unsuspecting customers. He was detained by police pending investigation.<ref>[http://www.notiver.com.mx/index.php?id=118382 Mata perros surtia de carne fresca a taqueros]</ref>

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry about that; my mistake. I didn't actually look at the source in question. Yes, the removal was correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

in Brazil

Here in Brazil, dog meat consuption is forbidden by law. In 2009, in São Paulo, four people were arrested - one of the owners of two restaurants and a couple responsible for the capture and death of dogs - and four others were taken to the police station. Other establishments in the region are being investigated. The restaurants were banned and fined by the Municipal Sanitary Surveillance. The dogs were stray dogs, some of them a pet rotweiller. Source Dianakc (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We'll need reliable sources to consider including that info. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The source Dianakc provided is an article published by a Brazilian newspaper O Globo which seems to be a reliable publisher. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, O Globo is a legit WP:RS news organization, and there's no reason to doubt. The thing is though, although my Portuguese is not so good, it's clear that everyone involved was Korean. This has nothing to do with Brazilian culture as far as I can see. The same thing has happened in Canada and California and other places where large consentrations of Vietnamese or Koreans or another of the cultures that feature dogmeat consumption have formed. As I've said before, there are different phenomena conflated here: 1) dogmeat as an aspect of a culture; 2)dogmeat as a desparation food resorted to in crisis; 3) dogmeat as an abberant outlying activity engaged in by one person in a culture and seen localy as insane or devient; 4) and then there's this, an insular enclave of one culture inside another country. Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the link somehow. In addition to what Chrisrus says, this is just a single isolated incident; we're not a newspaper, so we shouldn't list this like it somehow matters. In fact, in I was going to use the ref at all I think all we'd want to say is that dog meat consumption is illegal in Brazil. And I'm not even sure if that's worth mentioning. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, then, there are other cases already in the article, such as that in central Canada, that are basically the same as this Brazilian case. The current problem with the Japanese section is probably caused by this. The format of this article is a list of countries, but it should have a different format so that instances of a dogmeat eating culture continuing to exhibit this feature even when it's members have moved to another country should be put in proper context. The current format makes it look like dogmeat is a widespread phenomenon, when it is only a feature of a few very small central European and African cultures apart form the east Asian cultures. Historically, it seems that it used to be a feature of some Amerid and Polynesian cultures but is not anymore. Then there are the cases of those who were faced with either eating dog or starving to death, cases of widespread meat shortages; desperation instances that are not a feature of a culture. This Japanese section is having this problem it seems because readers perceive that by saying that so many dogs are eaten in Japan every year that dogeating is a feature of Japanese culture when it is not. Chrisrus (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In Japan

Hello, Qwyrxian-san, Chrisrus-san! I contributed the Japanese section several times. But, you reverted the section. Would do you tell me, what's wrong? And, what should I do? --219.43.187.125 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence at the beginning of the section that I hope will satisfy you to some extent, as I think all you really want to do is clarify that Japanese don't eat dog meat. However, please check the citation about the tons of dogmeat imported into Japan in that year. Is it true, as I suspect (and more to the point is it citable to that source, which I can't read), that pretty much everyone involved in the importation, preparation, sale, and consumption of dogmeat in Japan is pretty much completely non-Japanese: Probably Chinese and Koreans and so on living in Japan? It seems contradictory to state that Japanese don't eat dog but so much dogmeat was imported without explain who imported it and why without explaing why that many tons were imported in that year. Also, does the Japanese government allow foreigners to import and sell and eat this meat legally? Or is the practice just ignored because it's something only non-Japanese do and the Japanese allow them to do it? Thank you for your interest in improving this section of this article. Chrisrus (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very strongly tempted to revert. While I am aware, as a resident of Japan, that dog meat is not a common part of Japanese cuisine...like everything else on Wikipedia, we need verification. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ordinary Japanese don't eat dog meat. It is common senese in Japan. I say again. If you have Japanese friends, ask them on this issue. And, we have much resident Korean and resident Chinese. for example:Number of foreign resident in Japan, Chinese 674,879, Korean(North and South) 545,401. The ’five ton’ of dog meat is not so big number for them. Japanese consumption of beef meat(Not dog meat!) is about 520,000 ton(Producted in Japan) plus 763,000 ton(Imported from USA and Australia). May be import and sell and eat dog meat is legal in Japan, I will check it. I guess USA consumpted tons of dog meat too, by Korean and Chinese in Korea town or China town. How many Korean and Chinese live in Korea town and china town in USA? See www.puppybeef.com. Is it USA company? But ordinary USA citizen don't eat dog meat for lunch in mid summer. Situation is same in Japan.--219.43.187.125 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation is the same in the US and in Japan in that dogmeat is not a part of our cultures but sometimes people from countries such as Korea do eat dog meat in both of our countries. The situation is not the same in the US and Japan in that Japan aparently allows the foreigners to import dog meat and the US does not allow foreigners to import dog meat. Chrisrus (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)