Talk:Guinea pig/Archive 6

Skinny pigs
how do i add "skinny pigs" in the "see also" section? they are hairless guinea pigs so they are closely related. thanks! Tetrabert 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use the format above when introducing a new topic. Skinny pigs do not need to be put in the see also section, as there is a link to the Domestic varieties of guinea pigs article of which Skinny pigs are a related topic. They have a link already. VanTucky 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you!

homosexuality/mounting
If someone has a good book cite for this, it would be preferable to Cavy Spirit. But I thought it was important to mention mounting as normal behavior, as same-sex mounting related to dominance often causes consternation among new owners. However, I will try to find a cite for a fact that I haven't been able to so far: that aggressive mounting among females may be a sign of ovarian cysts. VanTucky 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wagner will probably have something about this, but I had to return that, too... Chubbles 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wagner doesn't mention anything about homosexuality; this might be very new research, and I know that homosexual behavior has been observed in guinea pigs, but I don't know how common it is. Mounting behavior among male cagemates, as far as I can tell, isn't an indication of homosexuality but rather part of a nonsexual pattern of aggression. Chubbles 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I can't think of any resource that mentions it as anything other than dominance-related among males. That's why I prefaced it by saying that. But among females I believe the general consensus is that in addition to social hierarchy, it is related to sexual behavior. Female guinea pigs experience hormonal surges related to ovulation just like many other mammals, and in same-sex groups this hormonal surge (and apparentely also hormonal problems due to ovarian cysts) can trigger sexual mounting of other females. VanTucky 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Until I find a better source, could we include a sentence following the new one that says, "Some rescue organizations have also claimed to observe homosexual mounting as displays of dominance unrelated to mating behaviors." with the cite from Cavy Spirit? VanTucky 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you cue me to the spot where it says that? I couldn't find it... Chubbles 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The bolded list farther down on the page giving advice on safe/unsafe behaviors when introducing new cavies. VanTucky 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm getting confused about the use of the word "homosexuality" here. The rescue site observes same-sex mounting as a nonsexual form of dominance, but that is not homosexual mounting, which would imply mounting between members of the same sex for the purpose of sexual gratification, right? Chubbles 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess same-sex would be a more correct term, but homosexuality refers to any same-sex sexual behavior regardless of reason. It really depends on if you consider mounting (a sexual behavior) not based on sexual reasonings still a sexual act. VanTucky 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But if mounting is done for nonsexual reasons, it would no longer be a sexual behavior... I mean, I don't have a degree in gender studies or anything, but the definitions seem awful confused to me here. Chubbles 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Homosexuality means alot of different things. But to my understanding, mounting is a sexual behavior whether it's done for social dominance reasons or not. If I started pawing your wife's chest, and said it was just a greeting you'd still consider it sexual. And since it's same-sex, it's homosexual. Same-sex is really just a nice layman's term for homosexual that doesn't sound so offensive to homophobes anyway. I guess you could think of dominance-related mounting as a simulated sexual behavior. But sexual nonetheless. VanTucky 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just thinking in examples here, if I visit a male proctologist, he may stick his finger up my rear. Sticking fingers in other people's rears is sometimes a sexual behavior, and if I visited this proctologist at a bar on Saturday night and we did this, it would be a sexual behavior, and thus homosexual activity. But if we did it in his office as part of a prostate exam, that would not be a sexual behavior, and would not be homosexual activity, even though it would be same-sex contact. Chubbles 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same with kisses as greetings. But this is different because it is directly simulating a sexual behavior to establish social hierarcy. So the doctor example doesn't really mesh, because he'd have to simluate a sexual behavior directly as part of his medical exam. I hate to get into details here, but I think it's pretty obvious that a colonoscopy and anal sex are conducted in very mechanically dissimilar manners. The mounting of guinea pigs is exactly the same, minus actual penetration. If we're trying to think plainly here without semantics, if you ask any pet owner what it looks like when their two female guinea pigs chase eachother about and hump eachother, they say it looks like they're trying to mate. There's even an example in this vey talk page's archives. VanTucky 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the distinction I was making was one of intention; in one example, the proctologist is checking for enlarged prostates, and in the other he's getting his rocks off. Of course, talking about "intention" with an animal as stupid as the guinea pig is a little fuzzy. (The OED has a great quote: "There ain't a mouse in all Epsom can be muter, nor a guinea-pig dumber.") The issue of penetration, I think, is actually central; if there is penetration, that would be a much more significant indication of homosexual tendency, whereas if there isn't, I can't see that as anything more than rear-side jumping attack. Chubbles 20:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be something intelligent published about this... Chubbles 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, whether we call it homosexuality or same-sex mounting makes no nevermind to me really (what the hell is the real difference between them anyway, other than one sounding more sexual), but we can't just not mention it and you can't just ignore that it happens irregardless of gender. It's extremely common behavior in my experience. VanTucky 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can add something about it, but I just want to make sure it's worded properly. I just added a short sentence, can be changed. We can add something specifically about homosexuality too, if you want, but I'd really like to have a good source (like a peer-reviewed paper) for it first. Chubbles 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't just want to say "rear-mounted attacks" that makes it sound like they try and bite eachother from the rear or something. It is actual simulated mounting. VanTucky 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's make a list...
 * there is this on sexual behavior that came up on Google, but I couldn't find anything specific.
 * This is just an advice column, but the Dr. is a small mammal specialist.

new "fact"
As I was reading Taboo food and drink, I saw this: "In 2004, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation took legal action to stop vendors serving skewered cuy at an Ecuadorian festival in Flushing Meadows Park. New York State allows for the consumption of guinea pigs, but New York City prohibits it based on a vague health code. Accusations of cultural persecution have since been leveled.[20]"

It wasn't cited particularly well or checked for compliance with NPOV, so I hesitate to automatically include in an FA status article. Just thought we should review including it. VanTucky 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the citation: Lester Haines, "Big Apple stamps on guinea pigs", The Register, Wednesday 20th October 2004 VanTucky 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be concerned about using The Register as a reliable source as they have been known to have problems with sources in the past. Are there any other sources? Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The source they gave was a link to the New York Post (which isnt exactly a reliabe source either, but at least isn't known for blatantly writing about events the never happened), but the link was dead. I didn't search their site for the article however, so it very well could still be there. VanTucky 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh, I hate the Post, but I did a Lexis-Nexis search of NY papers and they're the only ones who covered this event. Here is the full text of the Post article:

Cooked guinea pigs are causing a stink in Queens. The New York City Parks Department cracked down on vendors serving skewered guinea pigs at an Ecuadorian festival in Flushing Meadows, leaving festival organizers feeling burned. "We believe this dish should be allowed," said Tony Toral, president of the Ecuadorian Civic Committee, which runs the festival. According to an internal Parks Department memo, the agency gave out three summonses and closed down two vendor booths at the Flushing Meadows-Corona Park festival on Aug. 9 because vendors were selling cuy, an Ecuadorian delicacy. Costing $40 per plate, the dish featured salad, potatoes, rice and skewered cuy - a type of guinea pig slightly larger than ones kept as pets. The memo, written by Parks and Recreation Manager Gabriel Echevarria, noted that "Parks Enforcement Police confiscated the guinea pigs." Although the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets allows cuy to be purchased as food, New York City does not, based on a vague clause in the Health Code. Vendor Rosa Calle, who was issued a $1,000 summons and had her booth closed for selling cuy, said she spent $2,020 for a permit and $12,000 for food to attend the festival. She is considering suing the city for the loss. "Guinea Pig Cooks Get Skewered", Angela Montefinise and Lorena Mongelli, New York Post, October 20, 2004, p. 10. Chubbles 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it's okay for inclusion. However, I will significantly edit the Taboo entry for tone and NPOV, and I assume that whomever writes a reference in this article can leave out the Post's horrendous tone and editorializing. Ugh indeed. As a newspaperman myself, that makes me sick. VanTucky 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, added a tiny bit and ref for this here. Chubbles 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a reference to the reaction of the immigrant community, as I feel that is important reason for having this mentioned. VanTucky 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad luck for the vendor. I wonder whether she'd have had the same problems if she'd been offering rabbit instead of GP. My guess is "no". -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I don't think the article supports the allegation of "cultural persecution". Aside from noting that the practice is currently prohibited, and that the vendors are unhappy (which, while true and verifiable, is rather obvious), I think we've really covered it without needing to delve into a postcolonial argument unsupported by the reference. Chubbles 07:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't see how it isn't supported by the article? Both say that charges of cultural persecution have been leveled. The city, in contrast to the perfectly reasonable and literal laws of the state about cuy consumption, prevented the serving of the dish with a health code violation when there is no law in NY City directly referring to cuy. The Equadorian Civic Committee then said, hey this is a part of our heritage, you shouldn't prevent us from serving it bc it offends your American sensibilities about eating certain meats. If you don't mention the fact that the immigrant groups protested the ban on cultural grounds, then it isn't worth mentioning NY state/city laws. VanTucky 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in that Post article does anyone say anything about "cultural persecution". The health department closed the booths b/c they violate the health code. The vendors get upset. The ECC says they should be allowed to serve it; they say nothing more as reported in the article. Nothing about culture or persecution.


 * If anyone protested the ban on cultural grounds, you need a better source than the post to include it. I think it's fine to mention that it's against the health code without mentioning protests, since its being against the health code is germane to the subject, and we don't have a source for cultural protest. Chubbles 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed that sentence pending better sourcing. Considering that this is a very minor event, which appears to be isolated and has apparently only gotten one measly story in the Post and one in a British paper of questionable reliability, I wonder whether it is even worth mentioning at all. Chubbles 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I think it is important. It may very well be the one published incident out of many other similar ones gone unnoticed. However, that's academic. As to the actual wording, you are correct in that the articles don't literally use the phrase cultural persecution, but it's obvious reading it that it is the issue at hand. However, "verifiability not truth" and so on, so I rewrote the mention to say only that this one group protested it (and not why). That is sourced by the article. VanTucky 23:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

unmentioned facts
I read through the article, and though sometimes I miss things, it seems two important yet easily overlooked facts are missing...

1. Guinea pigs are not sexually dimorphic in size or markings.
 * That's mentioned in the paragraph about sexing; I'll link to that article. Chubbles 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about size? I was under the impression that the sexes weren't differing in size. VanTucky 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Terril, Wagner, and Richardson all mentioned a general size difference in weight. Chubbles 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

2. The unique male behavior called "rumblestrutting", in which the hind end is moved in a slow "dance" as a unique dominance display towards other males.
 * Yeah, that should be added in behavior somewhere, I guess. I returned all my sources...back to the library, again? Chubbles 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is more a subject for Guinea pig breed, but does anyone mention where the hell the breed name Abyssinian comes from? I mean jesus, what does having crazy rosetted hair have to do with Ethiopia? Is that some kind of crazy racist epithet? VanTucky 05:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it's racist, but I don't know where the name comes from. Chubbles 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just joking. It's a bit odd is all. VanTucky 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, if you want to know about something like this, you should try searching the new-fangled online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. It generally has the answers to questions of this type. For instance the article Abyssinian (cat) almost certainly gives the origin of the name as a breed name and that name will very likely have been applied to other animals bred to have the same type of coat. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How politely condescending of you. I had in fact, thought it was by no stretch of imagination impossible that other breeds of animal with the name Abyssinian might have had an affect on the guinea pig named Abyssinian. However, you might have noticed if you'd taken a look for yourself and not just shot your mouth off, that the general characteristics of coat or other factors of appearance of the Abyssinian cat are in no way comparable to the Abyssinian guinea pig. zip. zero. Furthermore, there is a fairly obvious (if loose) etymological association between the land where the cat came from (Egypt) and the name Abyssinia. Guinea pigs are not native to Africa and the breed Abyssinian is much much older than any recorded export of guinea pigs to Africa. Thanks for the tip. VanTucky 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why thank you, condescending is what I do best, . Although I must admit I was aiming for gentle irony this time (he said with gentle irony). But I wouldn't write off the cats just yet. The coat type is the common factor -- not Africa. The cats may lack the rosettes but they share the stiff/resilient hair type and the original "ticked" hair colouring pattern. That's not quite so obvious nowadays because of efforts by breeders to breed other colours of both animal. However the cat colouring/pattern is sometimes known as "agouti", showing that the link between the cat and the cavy is recognised on the feline side too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Shit, now I've got proof that I have zero sense of humor. Chubbles doesn't think my joke is funny and I insult someone making ironic suggestions. Ah well. ces la vie. Have you seen an image of a Aby. cavy? An Aby cat doesn't have rosettes anything like that. And Agouti isn't the standard sole color for Abyssinian cavies either. It was just the sole color for all guinea pigs originally. It may very well be that the Aby cavy breed was developed via a mutation well after multi-colored cavies were. Anyway, the similarity still doesn't explain where the name came from in my view. If it was that simple don't you think a published source would've mentioned it by now? VanTucky 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Food
Please could celery be removed from suitable foods for guinea pigs as it should not be fed to them as it can be a chocking hazard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasticfridge (talk • contribs) 13:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

name
another theroy for the orijen of guinea pig is some explorer thought he was in new guinea and thought that they sounded like pigs could someone please reserch and add that if its trueDog jumper100 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Images
I added two new images, both of which I feel illustrate well the article section they are placed within. Both of these images are used in the Guinea pig article on the Dutch Wikipedia, which says something regarding their appropriateness for usage. Both are in my opinion of sufficiently high quality as well. I recognize that a great deal of work has been done on this article, bringing it to FA status. I think that another article with potential, but in need of work, is the Boar article, which I have started working on. I hope that my additions here are not unwelcome. Cheers. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the necessity of the added images, and have reverted them. While they may be properly encyclopedic in other articles, they are not in this one. The image of the single cavy does not properly demonstrate what it's caption purports it to. Any discussion of the variances in domestic cavy bedding is best described in text, not in image. Images do not demonstrate the advantages/disadvatages of different beddings. As for the zoo image...there is no mention of cavies as zoo animals and the image does not relate to diet or the necessity of vitamin C in the diet. Personally, I think both of the images were added bc they were either thought to be cute (the first) or unusual (interesting). This does not make them necessary. VanTucky 04:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to respectfully, but strongly disagree with you regarding both points. It appears we are in disagreement.  While I respect very much the work that you have done on this article, I stand firmly by my statement above.  Both of these images have been used in a Featured Article of a foreign language.  I think they are both useful and appropraite.  I have not chosen either of them based on their "cuteness" as you have described.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 06:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These are both high quality images that I really think do a service to this article. Readers drawn to this article out of an interest in Guinea pigs will appreciate these images.  Unlike VanTucky, I am not a Guinea pig owner.  I am neutral on the cuteness factor as well, I assure you.  I just really think that these images work well where I have placed them.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 06:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep your assertions about my pet ownership and its affect on my judgment to yourself. That is a total breach of WP:Wikiquette("Argue facts, not personalities"). Claiming that my personal status does this or that to my judgment is rude, besides being just as unverifiable and subjective as you accuse me of being. However, my statements were borderline at best on assuming good faith, so for that I apologize. I'm sure you have the best interests of the article in mind. Oh, and it's good to see another Portlander on Wikpedia (regardless of our disagreement).
 * As I stated before, just because an image is used in another FA (or any other article) doesn't mean it is appropriate for this particular usage. It only verifies that the image is useful and encyclopedic in another context. But in an article that already has more than sufficient images, it is gratuitous. One single image demonstrates nothing about the different attributes of the various beddings (in relation to each other or its affect on the animal in the image), or the relative importance in choosing one. Besides, this is not a pet-owner's manual, and advice about the importance of which bedding you choose as a part of keeping pet cavies is improper. That's what Wikibooks is for. The importance of the subject is evident from inclusion of information about it in the article. The zoo image is of dubious relation to the Diet section, and once more there are already several images showing guinea pigs feeding throughout the article and in the section. The uniqueness of the image (that it is a large group of cavies feedin gin a zoo) does not make it fit for inclusion. If the article mentioned the use of cavies in zoo collections, it might be relevant. But in this case it is simply an oddity that is indirectly related to Diet. Simple appreciation of the images (instead of firm encyclopedic necessity) is not an argument for inclusion. Just because the images are of good quality and informativeness in other situations does not automatically provide a clear necessity for their use in this article. VanTucky 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of the images add anything to the article that isn't already represented adequately. We don't need any more images, there are plenty already.-Localzuk(talk) 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets consider it closed then...sorry for the "total breach of wikiquette" as well. I just saw these images, thought that they were of good quality and could help the article.  Its really not that important... &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 00:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As food...


I just wanted to hear some opinion on the possibility of replacing the current image in the food section with an actual image of the dish, as it is nary to be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. The following are two options from Commons. VanTucky (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I'll be honest, I'm against the idea. This is English speaking wikipedia and in my books most english speaking countries regard guinea pigs as pets, not food. For a factually accurate article the section needs to stay, but I don't think pictures are necessary. I think too many people (including me) would be grossed out or offended by the pictures, I don't mean any disrespect to Peruvian culture. Maybe if there were a separate page on Guinea Pigs as food it would be appropriate, but in the main article I think the people who are looking it up are primarily concerned with live guinea pigs.


 * If it were my decision, I would remove those pictures from the talk page, or replace them with links, simply based on the number of guinea pig pet owners who will visit this article. I'll leave it up to discussion, but that's my opinion. JoeyETS 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm abstaining. Personally, I find the pictures grisly, but they serve a legitimate purpose, and I will have no truck with allegations of censorship, so I won't oppose any serious effort to include them. Chubbles 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not censored and should represent a worldwide view of subjects; thus I don't think that arguing that most users (from the US?) view guinea pigs as pets is a valid point. For instance, the turkey article has a nice pic of a roasted turkey; why shouldn't this page have such a pic? --Victor12 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of including at least one, yeah. English Wikipedia should still avoid being Anglocentric. Chris Cunningham 08:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, as to the idea of not offending the sensibilities of pet owners: I am a devout owner of multiple guinea pigs, and have volunteered extensively at a cavy-only shelter. These images, when compared to many others of cuy meat, are very tame. They don't clearly show all of the normal anatomical appearance of the animal, and aren't being simply roasted on a spit (as is common in SA markets). If I can stomach seeing these images for the sake of a worldwide view and encyclopedic comprehensiveness, it is not a reasonable thing to assume that all other cavy owners will gnash their teeth and rend their garments. Second, I concur that Wikipedia is not censored, and if the main Dog article can contain a reference to the animals as food in its very introduction and the Dog meat article can have way more graphic images than these without hearing a single serious protest, then this article can certainly do the same. VanTucky  (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As our miles may vary, trying to be unbiased should be our goal. I must agree with Victor12 and Chris Cunningham that such a picture can/must be included. Just like pictures of battery chickens and a laboratory monkey are included in the articles on Monkey and Chicken even though people may be offended by those pictures as well. Eric Bronder 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't remove pictures which bring genuine information and comprehensiveness to the article simply because it might "offend" people. It is quite ridiculous that we even have to discuss this.--Jersey Devil 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing's been removed; we are discussing addition.

Just curious - where did all these people hear about this conversation? Chubbles 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WPPERU -- Andersmusician  VOTE  23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my oppinion, because WP is not censored (see Female_reproductive_system_%28human%29 pictures), these images of roasted guinea pigs should be added, although some may hurt some feelings since these animals' shape are still visible (the same happens when you go to Chinatown and you see all those beheaded animals hanged upside-down), I would just consider adding better pictures than the above ones. -- Andersmusician  VOTE  23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to call a majority consensus here on this one. The question remains however, which image do people prefer? VanTucky (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Top one, methinks. Chris Cunningham 09:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Think the second one is better.--Jersey Devil 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Think the colours of the first one are a bit off but the composition of the second one with the half eaten meal is worse. So the first one. ErickAgain 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm rooting for the first one; looks more appetizing, or maybe just less vomit-inducing. VanTucky  (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the first one, the guinea pig looks better in that one. --Victor12 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would choose 2nd but I don't wanna make bad impressions, so I'm neutral. However 1st one is likely to be deleted at commons.-- Andersmusician  VOTE  23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh shoot, you're right Anders. I was the one that uploaded it, and the damn tool to automatically transfer the information from Flickr didn't seem to work for me. Why don't we place the second one while I try some damage control? VanTucky  (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the articles on Dog and Cat, I find no images of cooked dogs or cats. I question the motive of including the images here. Since guinea pigs are kept as pets in large portions of the world, and used as food in comparatively small portions of the world, a separate short article on cavy-as-meat would be more appropriate. Jd physicist 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't question the motive here, VanTucky  has a long history of good work on this article, and I greatly respect his choice to have a rather extensive dialog about the image before adding it to the article itself. I personally feel it makes sense to include images of food animals being used that way, it's no worse than seeing rabbits in the local meat markets (actually I find this less disturbing).  I have rabbits, guinea pigs and dogs, and I'd be comfortable with all those articles including images of those animals being used as food.  Failure to make another article complete does not mean this one should also lack information.  I appreciate that the images VanTucky selected are of finished dishes not of simply killed and skinned animals, I think that provides both better context and a less grizzly image.  --Ahc 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ahc. The reason there isn't any images of dog meat in the main article is because there is a separate article on the subject. If you want to make comparisons though, notice the large amount of content the Dog meat article has, it's nearly as much as the main dog article and is about ten times the amount of info in this article's food section. A split is inappropriate, and would decrease the comprehensiveness of the article that makes this featured content. As to the motive, I just recently reworked or replaced all the images in the dog article personally. If I have some secret motive to shock and awe pet owners with grisly images, why wouldn't I have placed a meat image in that article? How about some good faith here? VanTucky  (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my issue after reviewing other pet-animal articles was that I don't actually see the point in including an image of a prepared dish using the animal. Eating them seems to be a practice primarily restricted to specific South American locations, so it simply seems...odd, to include such images here.  In Europe and North America they are primarily pets, and consumption of the meat is taboo.  I could see it fitting better in the Spanish language wiki article on Cavies.  I do apologize if I implied bad faith on your part, VanTucky, I have dealt with several people who want to push Cavy meat consumption in the U.S. for business reasons, and pushing images is a tactic they have commonly employed.  Jd physicist 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The pet-animal comparison is an unfair one. Guinea pigs are meat animals that subsequently gained popularity as a pet.  The appropriate comparison is not to a dog, but to a pot-bellied pig.  There is an article on pork.  The reason the meat images and sections are here instead of elsewhere is that the consumption of guinea pig meat is not widespread enough to warrant a separate article such as seen for beef, pork, or mutton.  --Aranae 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to weigh in on this discussion. The section on guinea pigs as food, including the image, is tastefully done, encyclopedic, and appropriate.  It should definitely stay.  --Aranae 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understand about good faith and intentions JD. I think the basic misunderstanding here is also about the relation of language to Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia versions in different languages not to work from the cultural perspectives of that language (there are, for most languages, multiple and sometimes wildly different cultures that share the same tongue). So just because this is the English Wikipedia, we don't write from an Anglocentric point of view on guinea pigs. Neither does the Spanish wiki write about guinea pigs from a South American perspective. VanTucky  (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)