Talk:Dog meat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Joey Skaggs self promotion

Does this REALLY belong right at the top of the article? It seems likely this person added themselves to it, or that someone else did as a form of wiki-publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. 20% of the lead?? I suggest moving it to the body of the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to twist with words

"Dog eating is considered unnormal in China [11]." I checked the link. It's anything but... Most people might not be able to AFFORD it, but it's not unnormal (as in unnormal behavior, or unnormal person). It might not be the NORM, but whomever wrote here at wiki is diliberately trying to distort the truth with wordplay. In fact that link pretty much shows that in china theres actually alot of dog consumption, and ALOT of other spiecies - endangered or not, are being eaten and exported daily.

To sum up, to eat a dog in china is PERFECTLY acceptable behavoir. I'm going to rephrase the piece.

The problem is that eating dog meat is not socially acceptable to everyone in China. Of course, China is a vast country with more than a billion people, and it is not considered "PERFECTLY acceptable" to most people. In fact, dogs are also prized as pets in that country. I realize that I'm just a curious American who has traveled, and that original research doesn't cut it on Wikipedia, but it invites further research. As you said, most Chinese don't eat dog meat... but most wouldn't even eat it if they could afford it. The fact that there are dog meat eaters at all makes this an interesting, oft discussed (and oft scorned) part of the culture, but it would be dishonest to say that Chinese people as a whole accept it. 02:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


-I think we should start by eliminating all the hearsay on this page.

Not the truth: in regarding to China

Contrary to some popular beliefs, the Chinese eat only dogs raised specifically for meat, not those raised as pets. The dogs are slaughtered between 6 and 12 months of age.

It is definitely not true dogs eaten are only raised specifically for meat. In fact most dogs eaten in Jiangxi and Zhejiang are not raised specifically for meat but captured from villages and probably from towns and I believe in other provinces it's the same or very close (Believe, though I did not research this subject in other provinces, but I see with my eyes about what I said about Jiangxi and Zhejiang). I took the following photo graph from the dog butcher, photoed by my self in Zhejiang Hecun:

I visited butcher (in person) and villagers who lost dogs. I am native Chinese. I don't understand from which source the author say Chinese eat only dogs raised specifically for meat. I am new to wikipedia and heard wikipedia require reference instead of personally experience, but then I am sure there are enough references on my side. What can I do to this article (since I am new here)? should I start now with a collection of sources to prove the facts and replace that paragraph?

I do not understand who was there trying to distort the truth, what is the benefit for anyone by distort the truth about dog-eating in China? Zhangweiwu (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I stopped contributing to wikipedia 5 years ago, when i tried to start contributing. it's a strange community. don't worry about truth or what is put in or deleted. it's just weird. but i use wikipedia to look up information once in a while. (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to add about dogs being captured, killed, and sold, that's fine, but it should be properly sourced, as everything we add to Wikipedia articles. Badagnani (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How often are dogs captured and eaten? The same odds as doing that to wild animals. However, one of the main reasons why dogs aren't captured for food is because the meat is extremely tough and honestly, gross once a dog is full grown. Because of this, it is very rare for people to capture a dog for food. Next, the low price of dog meat really prevents low quality meat from domesticated animals being a worthy occupation even if it was legal let alone the illegality of this. Because of this, I would suggest to not include this because people do this for almost all animals to a small instance and this is not a prevalent issue. I suggest you try to eat dog meat that is from an old dog and then try a farm raised pup, extremely different taste and since legal farm raised pups are cheaper than you honestly think you can make a living selling lower grade meat that is extremely cheap? It jsut isn't worth it and because of this, it is rare for people to randomly kill a dog for food. Yialanliu (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is very rare for people to randomly kill a dog for food. This is for all the reasons Yialanliu states except for one: Dog meat is expensive in China. It costs about 40 yuan per jin, which is about $6 USD per pound. This is 4 times the price of pork here.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Widely unfounded, broad generalizations, poor, out of context citations

Nearly all statements on this wikipedia page, especially those that are most general, lack citations and support from widely acceptable sources. The broader the generalization, the MORE unfounded it is in this piece. Given the political and cultural implications of listing someone's country/culture here, there should be a point of indicating that SOME cultures have only HISTORICAL dishes involving dogs, while other countries STILL CONSUME dogs. In other parts of this post, only brief instances of dog-eating have been mentioned, as if that is enough to suggest that the country consumes dogs, and even assumes that political borders are the right way to distinguish regions and cultures of people who consume dog.

Given that accusing another person's culture of consuming dog is tantamount to an insult in many parts of the world, this page ammounts to a list of negative generalizations about people. Thus, it is EXTRA important for all statements to be substantiated.

Burma - Broad statement, with numbers (95% of statistics are always accurate!) no citation. Where did the number come from?

China - "In the past in China, dogs were posted to guard family storehouses." Citation? "During a hard season when the food store was depleted, the dog would be slaughtered as an emergency food supply" Citation? "This is a subplot in the Japanese anime Excel Saga featuring a Chow Chow called Menchi (ground meat) that is referred to as an emergency ration." What do 20th century Japanese cartoons have to do with historical china? China and Japan are not any more similar than England and France.

Denmark - "Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark has admitted that he loves to eat dogs. According to him, "dog meat tastes like rabbit, like dried baby goat, or perhaps [...] like the veal of a baby suckling calf, only drier."[1]" So one person likes to eat dogs, so ALL of Denmark likes to eat dogs?

Korea - Today in Korea, a small segment of the population use dog meat in medicinal summer soups and stews, and to avoid heat. Citation? This section is filled with statements, NONE substantiated.

Indonesia - "In Indonesia, eating dog meat is usually associated with people from the Batak culture, who cook a traditional dish named saksang that is like a dog-meat stew.[citation needed]". So, eating dishes that are LIKE a dog-meat stew are therefore made of dog-meat? Oh right we need a citation.

Mexico - There needs to be emphasis on the fact that this is historical.

Phillipenes - "In the Philippines, dogs are commonly killed for food in direct contravention of The Philippines Animal Welfare Act of 1998[3]. " Citing the law AGAINST killing dogs does not substantiate the statement that dogs are commonly killed for food. This statement is unsupported

I edited the Philippines section some time back and toned it down by removing some unsupported/incorrect allegations and by redirecting links away from advocacy sites to more NPOV sites offering the same information. In that light I would ask whether you think that links to something like,, or other such sites are what is needed to satisfy what you see as a need for cites. The photos on those pages and on other similar pages do appear to strongly support the contention that dog eating is not uncommon in the Philippines, should the pages be cited? Should, perhaps, similar photos which meet Wiki standards re copyright restrictions be obtained and made a part of this Wiki page? -- Boracay Bill 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
another link (recipe for stewed dog and comments comparing taste of dog vs. lamb): -- Boracay Bill 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to show that people in the Philippenes eat dogs OFTEN, you need to show that many restaurants offer dog as a course, and that dog is sold in grocery stores for home consumption, all in violation of the existing law. You cant just say that a recipe exists for eating dog, hence many people in the Philippenes eats dog. In the US, there are hundreds of recipes for eating "Rocky Mountain Oysters" (Cow testicles) - there are grocery stores that sell the testicles, there are bars and restaurants that specialize in the stuff. Its unclear how to show that these simple facts are true of these countries that supposedly eat dog. Does Switzerland really eat dog that much? Should we therefore assume that everyone in the US eats Rocky Mountain Oysters? This page isnt short of a little evidence. This page is short of mountains of evidence necessary to establish a culture of dog-meat consumption, even though establishing those facts is certainly possible.
(response to the unsigned immediately preceeding bit) Firstly, please sign your remarks in talk pages. Just type in four tilde chars (~~~~), preview the page to see it is all OK, and save your changes. Second, the intro to the page reads: "In some countries, apart from being kept as pets, certain breeds of dogs are raised on farms and slaughtered for their meat. This may be as an alternative source of meat or for specific medicinal benefits attributed to various parts of a dog. [...]" That makes no claim that people (located wherever) eat dogs OFTEN (echoing your yelling here). OK, the section on the Philippines does say "dogs are commonly killed for food"; If you believe the word commonly here is inaccurate, can you suggest an alternative? I have no axe to grind one way or the other on this, but I do note that there are no shortage of photos such as those shown in the web pages mentioned above. Having lived in the Phils for the past ten years, my impression is that dog is not likely to be served frequently as a meal component in most households, but one runs into asong pulutan (snacks made from dog) pretty frequently, and one does stumble across restaurants serving dog from time to time. -- Boracay Bill 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan - "According to Lonely Planet's Taiwan guide, it is still possible to find dog meat on restaurant menus, but this is becoming increasingly rare." Citations needed. Link the restaurants that offer it, or provide their addresses, or general locations in Taiwan. Do not assume that Lonely Planet is a well vetted publication, and the specific edition is not stated either. Unsubstantiated.

I lived in Taiwan, and you can find the restaurants if you ask around. They aren't likely to put it on the menu, as the cops will crack down on them. You want addresses? In the spring of 2005, a couple restaurants got busted for serving dog on/around Jung Hua 2nd Rd in Kaohsiung. However, you're not going to find much in print about it, because the Taiwanese government likes to sweep such matters under the rug. They don't want the rest of the world thinking that they are consumers of dog meat. They don't consume it nearly as much as Vietnam or China, but it does happen. It's not entirely "unsubstantiated". VietGrant 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL Why don't you tell me where you find those dog meat? I have been living in Taiwan for 21 years and can't even find one. 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam - Entire paragraphs of supported statements.

First section moved from Human consumption of cow meat talk page.

Heavily biased...

Although I'm not exactly a fan of dog meat (understatement), I ran across this page when I was doing research for a project and I find it to be highly biased. I'm sure you'll agree.

--Falconbrad 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a complete rewrite to remove the heavy bias. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Taboo food and drink until such time as that happens. I personally think the title "Human consumption of dog meat" is inherently POV and biased/racist against cultures that do not have that dietary taboo - would we write an article on "Human consumption of cow meat"? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 11:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaegogi-related talk copied from Talk:Korean cuisine

This section copied from Talk:Gaegogi.

Something has come to my attention when looking for further information on this subject- Either this piece of work is plagarism or there is a biology wesite copying this website word for word.[1]

Just wondering if it is us or the other site who the blame should fall upon. Viprus

Upon Further research into the site i have found out that more that this article have been copied word for word and even have the exact same pictures. For example the article on dogs [2] Viprus

Maybe you have just found one of the practices of mirrors and forks? --Puzzlet Chung 12:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<quote> However, part of the controversy stems from the methods of slaughter, one of which includes beating to death by clubs to ensure that the dog is filled with adrenaline, believed to increase the sexual stamina of the (usually male) eater. </quote>

I don't think every dog meat consumed in Korea is produced in that barbarian way. It takes too much to kill every dog by clubs. This sentence misleads the readers. Xaos

It's not misleading, because it says this is "one method", not that "every" slaughter is performed in this way. Also, the rest of the section is balanced. On the other hand, do we maybe want to make this discussion a separate page from the general Korean cuisine?

The quote probably refers to the old saying "개는 때려 잡아야 맛있다", which literally means "beaten dogs taste better." Not only it has been proven as a "misbelief", there is no belief in Korea about beaten dogs give more stamina AFAIK. I've edited the paragraph. --Puzzlet Chung 02:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a person residing in Korea, I do have to say that dog soup is largely viewed as medicinal (believed to bring strength to withstand the hot summer and sexual stamina to men). Therefore, the method of beating the dogs to death with clubs is rather important, since the adrenaline produced by this type of death is the medicinal factor. The article is accurate as it is. I don't think it needs another section. It is just one facet of Korean cuisine. Sara Parks Ricker 15:33 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

I'm korean. You are quite right that dog meat is viewed as a medicine, but this false belief among Koreans stemed not from the fact that beating produces the adrenaline. But this belief is quite old, I guess, before the time when the term adrenaline wasn't yet invented. What I know (hear from people around me, Korean) as the reason for this cruelty, is that it should soften the meat. And people say it's good for health, because the protein structure (or tissue) of dog is similar to that of human, which also has no scientific evidence. These myths are probably based on chinese medicine, but not on the modern adrenaline thing. And I think most of the dogs consumed in Korea as food are slaughter by electric shock. It's already a business. Man takes cheaper and efficienter methods. --Xaos

Wouldn't killing the dog quickly and painlessly be better then beating the meat or will that squish the meat since its not in a container (skin) anymore? Or wouldn't killing the dog then leaving the skin on then beating would be more effective? I eat meat but I respect animal rights.

I'd like to move the dog meat thing to Gaegogi controversy -- it has no place here. Comments? --Ed Poor 21:12 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

I agree that it's not so appropriate in this page. But at the same time, I don't like to make it bigger. Hm... What should I do... I'll wait for others' opinion. --Xaos
Just make the article title Gaegogi: controversial information will be presented factually, possibly under a sub-heading on that page.
Started a stub. If people don't like it, fix it.

Do not remove the cultural history of dog-eating. Be more anthropological.Trek011 22:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why? I must be missing the history of eating beef in that article. The historical and cultural articles of domestication, befriending, eating, etc belong in the dog article, not here - you'll notice the same is true for the cow article, which includes history of domestication. As there's a seperate article for meat, this should obviously follow the guideline of the beef article and focus on how to prepare and cook dog.
Good point. Taking the Cattle article as an example, it talks about Cattle and mentions, among other things, that Cattle raised as Livestock are used as Beef and Veal. The Livestock article speaks of several types of animals which are raised as livestock, including Cattle and Dogs. The Beef and Veal articles go into greater detail related thereto, including a Veal#Controversy section. If this pattern were to be followed for Dogs, there would be a mention in the Dog article that dogs are sometimes raised as livestock or otherwise used as meat animals, and the Dog article should reference both the Livestock article and this Dog_meat article. I see that the Dog article does mention that "In some cultures, certain types of dogs are used as food", though the word "food"" is (POV) linked to Taboo_food_and_drink. I have edited the Dog article to say "In some parts of the world, dogs are raised as Livestock to produce Dog meat for human consumption." We'll see what reaction there is to that.
I note that neither the Beef nor Veal articles contain recipes, but the Veal article contains an External Link to some recipes and the Beef article contains links to other articles which probably provide similar External Links to recipe collections. Similarly, I see no need for this Dog_meat page to contain recipies, though external links might be provided. -- Boracay Bill 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added as a source where there was none before, but it seems the text was put on that website half a decade ago: “They are now going one step further. In February 2002, a bill is to be put before the Korean National Assembly to legalise this practise. This is in readiness for the World Cup in the summer when they are planning to try to convince Western visitors of the "acceptability" of eating companion animals.” – emphasis mine. Please replace with newer sources if you know any. Wikipeditor 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cultural history of dog-eating

Not to attempt to speak for another user, but I suppose that the objection to this section came from the unsubstantiated, rather sweeping generalizations.

Because the topic is controversial, I think the section could benefit from some specific facts (e.g. what was the name of the general and how do we know he bred dogs for food?) and/or citations (according to [scholar, periodical] in [name of work], thus and so).

If these allegations can't be backed up, I'm afraid some editing is called for.

Other opinions?

Quill 05:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the following to here from the article page. As you can see by the section headings I've added, it is more about dog-eating in China, Japan, and Vietnam than it is about Korea. It does not belong in this article. Perhaps Trek011 should create an article on "Dog eating" or "Dogs as food" in general; but the title of this article—Gaegogi—indicates this article is about the practice in Korea in particular. And the bit about Buddhists and peasants in Japan not eating meat in general applies equally to Korea....

Trek011 also added a link to this article from List of dog topics, so he or she seems to be motivated by a desire to provoke a reaction from dog lovers.... -Sewing - talk 14:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Section regarding China

The culture of dog eating was widespread in ancient East Asia, originating from mainland China. A lot of dog bones were excavated from the Neolithic sites in North and South China, indicating that neolithic Chinese breeded dogs for foods. Even in hisotrical times, there are lots of records showing that dog eating was widespread all over China. A famous general who fought for the first emperor of the Han Dynasty in the third century BC was a dog butcher.

However, the northern nomads who loved hunting accompaied by hunting dogs hated dog-eating. In the 5th century, those nomads invaded into Northen China and controlled the area. Under these nomadic kingdoms dog-eating was despised and gradually deminished. The emperors and nobilities in Sothern China, not affected by nomadic invasions, began to love dogs as pets, especilly Persian dogs.Those loving pet dogs began to hate dog-eating habbits in traditonal China. Todays most Chinese do not eat dog meats, except in Guangdong Province, though some people in Sichuan like to eat cat meats.

Section regarding Vietnam

The Vietnamese, who were immune from any nomadic emperors, still eat dog meats today.

The text says that eating dog meat is a taboo in the south, which isn't how I understood the situation when I was in Nha Trang (city in the south). I were out on one of the many restaurants who sold dog meat. Many others there who also ate dog meat. Rskoly 09:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly taboo. It's less popular, certainly, but with the influx of Northerners to the South, many new dog meat restaurants have cropped up in recent years. They don't openly state that they serve dog meat like in the north though. They'd use some clever wordplay. 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Section regarding Korea

The dog-eating customs in Korea probably originated from the tradition of Neolithic East Asia. The Koreans historically were not so much affected by nomadic rulers as in China. That is why they have retained dog-eating customs until today.

I am editing the main article as it is slightly biased. I'm going to take out parts that say things like "small segment","very few", the main purpose is to bring this part of the article in line with current practices. Using qualifiers with little evidence seems to twist the truth. Things like "small segment" would require some sort of cite. Daesung 05:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing Bosintang to Boshintang. The 신 in 보신탕 makes an SH sound. (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Section regarding Japan

Archaeological excavations and historical records show that even Japanese had dog meats on their dish in the ancient times. However, the Japanese emperors, who adopted Buddhism as state religion in the eighth century, prohibited eating most kinds of meats including dog's. The only exception was bird meats. The Japanese tended to stop eating meats, though the lower echelon of the society still secretly ate some meats as they happened to get them. After all they desparately needed more protein. The Tokugawa shogunate prohibited people killing dogs by law. This fact implied that some people still killed dogs for foods. Today Japanese do not eat dog meat, though some like to eat horse meat.

I heard that Japanese farmers, in their first contact with Europeans, were quite shocked to find them slaughtering and eating cows. (Today, most Japanese eat cows, of course.) Also, is dog-eating historically only an Asian matter?
I have heard that Gifu Prefecture was actually famous for its preparation of dog. Can anyone confirm this? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference books

    • Zhang Jing, Cultural History of Chinese Cuisine, Tokyo 1996
    • Jeong Eun-suk, Horse-eating Japanese and Dog-eating Koreans, Tokyo 2002

External links

My intention to post these sentences in the article of Gaegogi is to show that dog eating is not limited in Korea but widespread in East Asia including Vietnam. The topic must be viewed from the neutral standpoint of cultural history in East Asia. As for dog-lovers, I would like to ponit out that here is not a place for discussion.They should be more multi-culturalTrek011 13:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Au contraire, the Discussion page of an article IS the place for discussion.
Sewing's point is well-taken; you're welcome to create an article on dog eating that discusses the practice in East Asia. Quill 23:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is not the historical significance or cultural significance of eating dogs - it is the fact that it is still done in many Asian countries that had no hisotry of such practices. Many places - have the government FABRICATING the historical significance of dog eating just so that they can keep the dog meat business flourishing.

Most people will get up in arms about this subject because it is still a big issue. It is not history - it is still going on and the "cultural history" is being used as an excuse. The problem is, in most areas that eat dogs - the dogs are crammed into tiny cages, not treated in any sort of humane way. They have their front legs dislocated and tied together behind their backs so they can't run, they are muzzled with cans. Even if you are for the eating of carnivores - any country that does not treat it's food animals humanely shows exactly how human they are.

Besides the fact that in today's world - there is plenty of non-carnivore food sources. If someone is desperate enough to eat a carnivore, that is fine. But every meat animal shoudl be treated humanely before it is killed.

Those for the industry, those refusing to admit that this is going on - say it is all rumor. Isolated events. etc. But there is countless videos and photographs of these practices. A truck full of thousands of dogs crammed in cages so tight their limbs are sticking out the sides - and then tossed to the ground from 18 feet... How is that an isolated incidence?

It will not be possible to talk about torturing and killing dogs for food in a historical and neutral manner until it is not done anymore. 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Jaq


I think it is a good idea to bring the Gaegogi article into this one since it is a subset and neither article is particularly long in its own right. I'll do that over the next couple of days. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and have merged the article and copied the contents of the talk page to a section above to keep the discussion cohesive. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good page

This page is better than I could ever have hoped for, dog as a tastiest meat, it really makes you respect what the Chinese do. Dog is no different to cow or chicken, we eat those. I think I will eat my dog to see what it is like, he is only a little dog but that should be enough to get a taste. JayKeaton 13:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

China largest consumer

This was stated in a news story on 'Foreign Correspondent which is a news show in Australia. I'll try to find the source. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I also reverted the removal of countries which do not currently have info as it is pending and will help prompt people to contribute. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Foreign Correspondent link, also links to an ABC radio program on the topic:

ABC TV: Foreign Correspondent China - Running Dogs Broadcast: 09/05/2006

ABC RADIO: The World Today

(1) Chinese middle class embrace pet dogs The World Today 3 May, 2006

(2) Beijing's dog squad limiting risk of rabies The World Today 4 May, 2006

(3) Dogs popular on Chinese dinner plates The World Today 5 May, 2006

"China is the world's greatest consumer of dog meat, eating as many as 20 million dogs a year."

Cateanna / 20:30, 30 May 2006


Can anyone find a reliable source that says the Aztecs ate Chihuahuas? I've heard that they were even bread to be small, convient food sources, rather like chickens. Truth? Citizen Premier 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See the Chihuahua (dog breed) article, you'll see that it's not likely that breed of dog lived there before the Spanish conquest -- 19:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Should this section really be included, just because one high-profile Dane admitted that he enjoyes it? I can't seem to find any information that indicates that this is a common practice in Denmark. - Eneufeld 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and remove this section, as no one seems to have any concerns. Eneufeld 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why SHOULD it be removed? Even if one out of a million does something, fact is fact. (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dog Tacos

Im adding some information about them. This is not a joke, it's quite popoular in Mexico and an actual concern for sanitation authorities and animal protection communities.

Around 1983 or so I read a news story in the Modesto Bee newspaper (Modesto, California) telling of how the county health department, after receiving information from an anonymous tipster, raided a Mexican-style restaurant owned and operated by a family from Mexico, located on South 9th Street and discovered the remains of butchered dogs in the trash.

I do not remember the outcome but locals were not surprised. We well-knew the customs from below the border since we were and are deluged by the bearers of customs from below our southern border.

Mores and customs are relative. Remember there is a LOT of folks in India that view our eating of cows as horrific. (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cooking Techniques, Preparation, etc

Forget this stupid discussion of dog meat as a political issue. I don't see a word about vegetarianism over at the beef page, but I sure do see a lot about cuts of beef and how to cook it. This article should be retitled political and cultural views of eating dog, but not dog meat. The beef article has a single paragraph on 'beef around the world' (in the intro), and doesn't mention a single word about how cows are sacred in India. If you can explain why the controversy of dog needs to be mentioned here, but not the controversy of eating beef in the beef article, it might justify the viewpoints in this article. All in all, this is a highly biased article written by american supremacists who are concealing their hatred of other cultures with a very thin veil.--Mr Bucket 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the reason why there's such a dichotomy between the articles is that dogs simply aren't eaten that often, as they are poor choices for meat. Cows are an excellent meat producers and are eaten in much more abundance, so it's no wonder that beef gets a larger article. Also, the pork article briefly mentions that it is not kosher or halal. Can you cite any examples of the "hatred of other cultures?" Citizen Premier 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting even further afield from the section title, the previous response caused me to wonder what characterizes dogs vs. cattle as food animals. Cattle as food animals generally need more looking after than dogs. Dogs are generally more useful in more ways than cattle (and pigs, sheep, goats, bison, chickens, ducks, turkeys, etc.), take less looking after, and will hang around with less effort at herding. Working or semi-domestic dogs, being handy, are available as food animals as needed or desired. It strikes me that one other domesticated animal which shares these characteristics with dogs is horses (see Horse_meat). I see that the Horse_meat article ranges wider than this Dog_meat article. Perhaps the suggestion above is a good one -- that a Dog_meat article more along the lines of the Horse_meat article is appropriate, with this present article being moved to something like Cultural views of eating dog, and referenced from one subsection of that hypothetical wider-ranging Dog_meat article.
I note in passing that Carabao[3] and Oxen are probably in similar a position with horses, being work/semi-domestic animals which are sometimes used as food, but there isn't much info readily available online about that. -- Boracay Bill 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Your point is null, null I say, Citizen Premier. There's an article on cuniculture. I should clarify my point about american supremacy for those who subscribe to cultural stereotypes; the article conveys a bias in my view with statements like "This may be as an alternative source of meat or for specific medicinal benefits attributed to various parts of a dog. However, in some parts of the world many people consider the use of dogs for food abhorrent." Look at this. It pads the fact that dogs are in some areas not alternative food but simply food - see the information about ancient and modern-rural China (the entire article is not american supremacist). The article also has a large amount of uncited facts, like there's no legal status for dog as food in South Korea. I'm not surprised that there's less information about dog meat as FOOD than there is in the beef article, but that doesn't mean there should be more information about moral implications than the beef article.--Mr Bucket 22:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added relevent cites and {{cite_needed}}s to the Korea section. I didn't cite it but I see that [4] reports that a measure was introduced the SOKOR Parliment in 2002 which would have the effect of explicitly allowing the sale of dog meat within South Korea. I wonder what happened regarding that. -- Boracay Bill 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of uncited text.

Looks like someone is getting a bit over zealous with cleaning this article up.

The whole Indonesia section was removed whereas if I were looking some interesting dog recipes I might try:

Hmm. My edit got reverted before I clicked save on this.

Garglebutt / (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The section some clown seems to have a problem with is:

In Indonesia, eating dog meat is usually associated with people from the Batak Toba culture, who cook a traditional dish named saksang that is like a dog-meat stew.[citation needed] The Minahasa are also well-known for eating dog, which is considered a festive dish and usually reserved for special occasions like weddings and Christmas. However dogs are not consumed by the Muslim population of Indonesia, as dogs are omnivores and are haraam under Muslim dietary laws.

  1. The wikibooks link confirms that Indonesians eat dog meat and has some tradition since they have specific recipes.
  2. Batak Toba eat dog[5].
  3. I'll need to look a little further for a reliable sauce for saksang which can be made with dog or pork.
  4. Minahasa consume dog per[6].
  5. We know muslims don't eat dog so it is pretty safe to restate this here. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this sort of thing should be removed "Though proponents claim that dogs used for food are a special breed, the soup may be made from any breed of dog including those which may be captured or stolen, such as former house pets." It's not cited or anything, so I find that hard to beleive it's true. Also it sounds increadibly biased "the proponents claim this". I mean sure, the soup CAN be made from any dog, but IS it, generally? There's a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong

After a quick google i found the following -

  • Regulation 22 - Slaughter of dog or cat for food prohibited Onue of proof - 30/06/1997
  1. No person shall slaughter any dog or cat for use as food whether for mankind or otherwise.
  2. No person shall sell or use or permit the sale or use of the flesh of dogs and cats for food.
  3. Any person who is found in possession of the carcass of any dog or cat or any part thereof in such circumstances as would reasonably give rise to a belief that such dog or cat was being or had been slaughtered or sold or used for food in breach of this regulation shall be guilty of an offence against paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, unless he is able to satisfy a magistrate that he has not in fact committed any breach of paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.

Available via

If someone wishes to include this as per WP:CITE, be my guest Foxhill 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored the info, with cite. -- Boracay Bill 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but it does not stop people from selling dog meat in Hong Kong, lol. (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And the article does not assert that it does. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Second Picture

I am not totally in love with the picture on the bottom, showing the dog head. I find it a little violent, and very nasty. Can we think about taking it off, please??? IronMan54 04:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No keep, it. It's unmistakably descriptive and speaks to the subject of the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The scene in that photo can be viewed a thousand times by simply walking the streets of Vietnam. It's nothing out of the ordinary there, and it's commonplace in many other parts of the world. Someone finding it "violent" or "nasty" is a point of view. An opinion. Many vegetarians and vegans view all meat consumption as "nasty". Shall we start removing photos of hamburgers? VietGrant 03:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the BBC article, it's definitely skewed to represent the North Vietnamese view. I have never seen dog meat in Vietnam except the North. However, if you want to find dog meat they may be available at some Vietnamese pub restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaynydelights (talkcontribs) 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The dog head does contain certain element of violence. Just because it is ordinary in commonplaces around the world does not mean it is necessary to depict it here. ian-Kiu 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The image is clearly objectionable to some, as some have raised objections to it in this talk page. It is also clearly relevant to the content of the article. Inclusion of the image violates neither Wikipedia policy nor the laws of the state of Florida ("here" for Wikipedia). In my own subjective opinion, the image is not horrendously over-the-top or so in-your-face graphic as to be inappropriate to the tone of the article. See WP:ENC and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored; also Wikipedia:Resolving disputes -- Boracay Bill 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh i see then. Thank you for pointing it out. ian-Kiu 00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


I'll need to track down the source, but I'm sure I've read arguments that dogs were the first domesticated animal (not sure about the reference in the article that the Chinese were the first) and that they were domesticated in part as a food source. That information should go into the article, even if it is the theory of a subsection of anthropologists. 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

nigeria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


Is there to be NO MENTION of the fact that eating carnivores is just a bad idea according to the food chain? The plant-eaters are the most numerous, while one step above there are a lot fewer to find and kill.. and also, the higher up you go in the foodchain-pyramid the fewer nutrients are left, which is why dogs never eat anything that eats meat... well, it's not like they have any awareness.. it's just instinct. Prey animals eat plants. Dogs are the same as us.. which is why we hunt together, and don't eat each other.

If you can provide some references and articles opposing the consumption of dog meat for this reason, why not? Kuifjeenbobbie 12:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that dogs never eat anything that eats meat would also need a supporting source. -- Boracay Bill 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dog's are technically omnivourous, so if we shouldn't eat them for that reason, then we shouldn't eat pigs either, as they also eat meat. Which might be one reason why pigs are not eaten in Jewish custom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is not for discussion of opinions on the subject. If you're not going to improve this article, go to a chat room. Blueaster 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} in lead section

Why is the very first sentence marked citation needed? Surely that sentence contains the whole point of the article. 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations_in_the_lead_section -- Boracay Bill 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article need so much citation?

Someone wants even basic and highly accepted things to be cited, like the fact that dogs are farmed for meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opcnup (talkcontribs) 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone have any information of the taste of dog meat (subjective as it is)? 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the external links in this article is to — the following is from their [ faq:
  • What does dog taste like?
  • The taste of dog varies with each and every breed. I find that many have a similiar appearance and texture to pork, but the flavor is quite a bit stronger depending on how it is prepared. Again, breed is a key factor here. I find poodle to be greasier - more like lamb. I think this is one reason why the consumption of dog meat is so popular. Pig always tastes like pig, cow like cow and chicken like chicken. Dog meat varies enough that you can constantly enjoy different tastes, all of which are strikingly good.
-- Boracay Bill 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Man, you're sick in the head. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

s/he's not sick in the head..every person has their own opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'd like to know what it tastes of, it should be included in the article, as the taste of any meat is an important quality to include in an article about the meat. just to ask the question is not sick. if you think eating dog is sick in the first place, stay away from the page - it is the act of considering eating it which is what you find sick. now you're here, and have accepted that you're interested in the subject matter, so should the information be here. that is what an encyclopedia is - emotionless information. please include a description of the meat - it is necessary for a balanced article. Betaben (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just had some steamed dog meat and dog soup here in Korea and it tasted just like potroast. It was delicious. (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Do we really need these photos here? Perhaps we should show human corpses for those that are, or were, cannibals; or dead children to show the victims of serialkillers. The second photo is quite unnecessary. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

the photo is no different than the photo of a slaughtered pig on the domestic pig page - niki (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Really though, a great many readers, perhaps most of them, are going to have a visceral emotional reaction to seeing these pictures. There are a lot of people very emotionally-invested in dogs as pets and honestly, it doesn't really look that different from other mammal meats. I don't think the pictures are necessary in terms of enhancing understanding of the article's content. Just seems like it'd be more considerate to lose the pictures. (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone stated earlier, the second photo is a common scene throughout Vietnam, as well as several other Asian countries. While some people may be "emotionally-invested in dogs as pets", I can vouch that countless millions of people are invested in dogs as food. These photos are absolutely necessary here, and as stated before, Wikipedia is not censored. Once photos and articles start getting removed because of the potential for offending readers, Wikipedia will collapse. While you may find these photos offensive, other people may find them mouth-watering. It's all point of view. Wikipedia is neither considerate nor inconsiderate. It is simply a collection of knowledge. Darth Twit (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Similar argument: "Really though, a great many readers, perhaps most of them, are going to have a visceral emotional reaction to seeing this article. There are a lot of people very emotionally-invested in dogs as pets and honestly, it doesn't really sound that different from other mammal meats. I don't think the article is necessary in terms of enhancing understanding of the subject. Just seems like it'd be more considerate to lose the article." Wikipedia is not censored and the pictures are of EXACTLY what the article is about. Djk3 (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see "being more considerate" at Wikipedia:DELETION#Reasons_for_deletion, but the list found there is not comprehensive. Feel free to propose deletion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete on what grounds? It's not as if the photos are showing the gruesome slaughter of the animal. It's cooked dog meat, ready for consumption. Shall we delete the article because the idea of eating dog might offend someone? Please. Does this photo offend you? It's a big pile of dead animals ready to be eaten. Just because someone is picky about what dead animals they consume doesn't give them the right to start deleting photos. Photographs in the entry for the Prince Albert piercing could be considered fairly shocking, but they need to be there, just as the photos of cooked dog meat need to be here. If these photos offend anyone, I would suggest that they not leave the safety of their home, and definitely not venture to any Southeast Asian countries. Oh wait, Wikipedia was created to only portray the Western way of life. My mistake. *cough* Darth Twit (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a photo of dog meat, in an article on dog meat. I don't see how it's appropriate at all. </sarcasm> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to post the WP:LKFJLDSKJFLKS link because I'm not a complete tool, but I will remind you all that wikipedia is not censored, and with the exception of illegal content like CP you can't demand something be removed because it personally offends you. (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Even though, it is true to some extent that some groups of people in Thailand do eat dog meat especially in North-Eastern part of Thailand. However, in the section about Thailand within this topic there are neither citations nor references. Consequently, I decided to remove this section due to this fact until someone can give a good and reliable information on the topic.

urban legend?

I looked around a bit and didn't find many references, or urban legends, to pet dogs being eaten in China - far more to domestic cats allegedly being eaten by Chinese. Changed to: popular belief. Also removed Chihuahua reference and link - they are just a type of pet dog, so it didn't really seem relevent. I also added "allegedly" to the last sentence. If someone ever comes up with a rerference for it, then allegedly can be removed, but it's been almost a year already. Bob98133 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Can an admin please remove the massive "fuck" on the page? Chotchki (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was caused by someone editing the template {{citequote}} maliciously, as this template is transcluded here and on another 400-odd pages there is a current request on WP:AN/I to have them blocked. Nanonic (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Banban1199 (talkcontribs) feels that the Taiwan section should be merged into, and made a part of the China section -- and has therefore merged the two sections. Many countries throughout the world, recognize Taiwan as a separate entity from mainland China. Is there any consensus from other users, in regards to whether or not Taiwan should retain its own section. --Nsaum75 (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that China may claim Taiwan but that it is currently not under Chinese rule, so laws, customs, practices, etc. may be different than in China. Using Banban's logic, North and South Korea, or other countries making claims on each other, should be merged. I would only lump China and Taiwan together if their laws, customs and behavior about this issue were identical.Bob98133 (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to correct one thing here-many people throughout the world, recognise Taiwan as a separate entity even a country from mainland China, not many countries as most governments hold the same view as the government of People's Republic of China.That's a political issue and I don't think we should discuss here. Also please check the item China or other items related to China in wikipedia. Most includs both People's Republic of China and Republic of China(Taiwan). China here refers to cultural China not political China.

Banban1199 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would accept that if you are willing to accept that America is the same as the United States; so anything from the southern tip of South America to the northern extreme of North America would all be American. Bob98133 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
See Names for U.S. citizens#Development of the term and American (word). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You can always sidestep the issue by avoiding any mention of the country names: just call the places "Mainland China" and "Formosa". --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Bod98133 is not aware, that 98% of the population of taiwan is considered han chinese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Although I personally believe that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China (my personal political views), I think for Wikipedia articles' sake we should just use section headings such as "People's Republic of China" for Mainland China, and "Republic of China" for Taiwan. As this is done in most Wikipedia pages that require such distinctions. (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 24.80... I was not aware that "that 98% of the population of taiwan is considered han chinese." However, I am aware that more than half the population of California speaks Spanish - does that make it part of Spain? Bob98133 (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The Han chinese article says that 75 percent of the population of Singapore is considered to be Han chinese. I would not accept that this makes Singapore part of China. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit not supported by reference

Joey Skaggs, for instance, organized a hoax in the United States in which a fictitious Korean restaurant asked animal shelters for unwanted dogs to be made into dog meat in order to expose the alleged intolerance, hypocrisy and racism of those opposed to dog-eating.

The above edit was created by Dodo_bird but it is not supported by the supplied reference. Dodo_bird has repeatedly reinstated this erroneous wording, and redirectd his talk page to avoid discussion of this. This is from the reference:

Skaggs completed his work by sending a news release headlined, "Dog Meat Hoax Exposed." In it, he confessed his role and explained that his purpose has been "to bring to light issues of cultural bias, intolerance and racism," as well as to demonstrate the media's tendency to be "reactionary, gullible and irresponsible."
Skaggs believed the American public, with its own prejudices regarding which animals it's okay to consume, would go bonkers when confronted with the dog-meat proposal — and he was right. Animal rights groups and public officials took the story completely out of his hands — in the process, he believes, exposing their own racism and cultural bigotry. One of the messages of the prank, Skaggs maintains, was "We are culturally intolerant. It was about prejudice, as illustrated in the letters, faxes and calls I received."

There is no mention of hypocrisy, nor is there any claim that this was directed solely at those opposed to dog eating. Those assertions come from Dodo_bird and are without reference. I am reverting this for the 3rd time since Dod_bird has been attempting to steer discussion away from his talk page and refuses to address the material actually covered in the reference.

I took out "for instance" since it is non-encyclopedic and unnecessary. Bob98133 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, why don't you try reading the whole article. From the Snopes ref
After the furor had been hullabalooed in the news for a week, Skaggs completed his work by sending a news release headlined, "Dog Meat Hoax Exposed." In it, he confessed his role and explained that his purpose has been "to bring to light issues of cultural bias, intolerance and racism," as well as to demonstrate the media's tendency to be "reactionary, gullible and irresponsible."
From the NYT ref
The hoax was orchestrated by Joey Skaggs with help from several Korean friends. His point was to illustrate the hypocrisy, intolerance, and prejudice harbored by so-called animal rights humanitarians, as well as gullible and racist media, towards other cultures
And what's the deal on insisting discussion take place at my talk page? This page works just fine.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


The page begins "...certain breeds of dogs are raised on farms and slaughtered for their meat." Does anyone know which breeds are usually used for meat? I'd assume it varies by region, but mention of specific breeds is generally missing from the article (with maybe one or two exceptions I could find). digfarenough (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The nureongi is used in Korea, although purebred dogs are also used. In China, St. Bernards have been used lately. Elsewhere, likely mixed-breed dogs are used. Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A question, isn't the nureongi a purebred? So why do we label other dogs purebred? Is it in hopes to evoke an emotional response to westerners who find eating dog meat appaling? This whole article is written with a bias intent to disgust people and I find it problematic.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely not written with any bias whatsoever. It is written with the intent of being as encyclopedic as possible. It's not any WP editor's business to tailor articles either to increase or lessen a given culture's feelings regarding a problematic issue, simply to be encyclopedic. Badagnani (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It is very difficult for any contributor to write neutrally on controversial topics. The difficulty seems to be even greater for those with strong opinions. Sometimes the article talk page becomes inflamed with advocates insisting that their POV is correct, and that opposing POV should be marginalized. But I'm hoping that won't happen here.
Clearly there is an ongoing conflict in South Korea between those who want to ban consumption of, um, this food and those who support the right to consume it. Are we going to be able to stay above the fray, while describing both sides fairly? I think we can if we try hard enough! --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this topic controversial?

I wonder if East Asians (and other Orientals) are sensitive about being portrayed as barbaric. If they eat dogs, how would they treat people? The idea seems to be that you should draw the line somewhere. Pets are off limits. For food, any way.

In the West, we have Black Beauty and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We seem to measure how humane we are by the way we treat animals. But is not this all a proxy for the way we treat other people? I'm thinking of human rights vs. atrocities such as genocide, etc. (see Rape of Nanking for Japanese on Chinese mass murder). The Communists of the USSR confiscated food from the Ukraine, causing a famine there which killed more people than the Jewish Holocaust under Hitler. Mao did pretty much the same thing.

Why are we worrying about a few dogs? I'll answer my own (rhetorical) question: It's because of self esteem. We don't like to think of ourselves as bad people. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What's with the edit war?

Hi. Looking at the history, I see that User:Badagnani and User:Caspian blue are reverting back and forth, apparently intending to flirt with the 3-revert rule? What's the dispute over? First one to stop reverting and explain it here wins. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani's reinserting of YouTube link

Badagnani (talk · contribs), you have to prove that the YouTube link is a reliable source and is released by the South Korean broadcasting company. The source is illegally released by some with PETA agenda. However, you has tried to insert the link to the article for over months (or a year) as well as to Korean cuisine. Your obsession with the subject is well known to editors for a long time but you've failed to abide by the Wiki rules like "WP:RS" and WP:COPY. You reverted 3 times and falsely accused me and another editor of "damaging the article". Whenever you revert article and reintroduce original research, you resort to this kind of personal attacks. You're proven to be damaging Wikiedia. What is your excuse for the inclusion? --Caspian blue 21:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what is problematic about those sources. It appears that the YouTube video is uploaded by some sort of activist or activist group, and unless we can source it directly to the news station, I'm wary of using it, especially since readers who don't know Korean can't verify what it says. The other link is to a BBC news story, which backs up the phrase, "a number of other breeds are also sold for food, including some commonly considered as pets."

I've removed the YouTube source from the article, and shortened the paragraph to what can be cited from the BBC source, although now it seems a bit out-of-context. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on User:Badagnani's page about this, but looking at his talk page, he does not respond. The You-Tube page, in addition to being in Korean and of questionable value also requires You Tube memborship to view. At this point, his unsourced edits to this article can be removed as vandalism without further explanation.Bob98133 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with that last assertion. Reverting edits as vandalism without further explanation is a great idea - if you're trying to prolong a sterile edit war. Good Wikipedia strategy indicates a different approach. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. GTBacchus, I appreciate your willingness to mediate. Let's see how that works. Bob98133 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I totally understand Bob98133's frustration because he underwent the same thing that I've undergone for over one year.--Caspian blue 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, disputes that get drawn out for so long can be very frustrating. I used to work on the Abortion article - loads of fun there. Anyway, I'm doing some looking around, and I think we'll be able to come to a stable resolution. Can you help me understand what's at stake with this edit? What in particular is biased about it, or is it just a matter of being able to verify the source? I'm asking because the information in the edit seems fairly innocuous to me; it simply says that there's a certain breed that tends to be used for food. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking the source

The TV link has been checked out over previous months (probably over a year) by Korean-speaking editors as being from a reputable Korean TV news organization, so please don't use that as a justification for removal. The video depicts, and discusses, purebred dogs other than nureongi being sold for meat. There is no dispute over that, and, thus, removing it damages our article by implying that the nureongi is the only breed sold for meat in South Korea. Badagnani (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, have you got a link to the discussion where it link was checked out? That would be very helpful. We just need to be able to verify its reliability. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It's all the history of Korean cuisine. In fact, one of the editors insisting on the blanking of the video link (accusing me of being a PETA operative or some such) speaks Korean and was actually part of those discussions, going back well over a year. Badagnani (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict, plus refactoring) I don't really care who's who, but I'm going to look into the history at Korean cuisine. Do you mind if we leave it out while I'm double-checking? We should really get the source documented in a way that future readers can verify facts without having to go through the same process we're going through now. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani still fails to answer any of my question regarding to copyright law because he can't (I'm speaking Korean and I don't approve such illegal clip exploited by the agenda-driven activist on YouTube. Implying does not matter as long as you don't provide any reliable source for your claim. Judging by your activities here, what you're doing is truly damaging the quality of the article. Typical disruption as it is. You had tried to insert the YouTube link that did not get any back up by editors, so was removed--Caspian blue 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What question about copyright law? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose this editor wishes to protect the interests of the Seoul Broadcasting System, the source of the investigative news video (which hasn't called for the takedown of the video in question). Perhaps s/he will now send an email to this TV company telling them about the YouTube video and asking for them to issue such a takedown order. Badagnani (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
lol. I think the user called Badagnani would bother to contact the company because he or she wants to use the illegal clip.--Caspian blue 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, seriously: what question about copyright law? Caspian blue, can you explain please? Eyes on the prize, eh? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think that somebody links a clip of "20/20" on child abuses illegally posted at YouTube to the related article without a permission is okay, you gotta read copyright policies.--Caspian blue 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anything of the sort. I'm just collecting information here. Badagnani, what do you think? Is the clip on YouTube legal, or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
When was it uploaded to YouTube? If a long time ago, and SBS hasn't issued a takedown order, it's fine to use--and we certainly do include all sorts of such videos, especially if they are irreplaceable and enhance our articles. This is a very cloak-and-dagger industry and such investigative reports are thus fairly rare, and, thus, valuable sources. Badagnani (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so you're basically saying that you are still going to break the law because the broadcasting company would unlikely sue Wiki or the activist? What a good answer.--Caspian blue 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the YouTube link is problematic. While YouTube may assume that silence implies consent, we can't do that. Furthermore, we can't guarantee that the clip has not been modified, since it was not uploaded by the news station itself. Is that particular uploader a reliable source, known for their accuracy and fact-checking?

If someone can produce a statement from that station that they're ok with the clip (a) being on YouTube and/or (b) being used as a source in this article, that would be great. Until then, I don't see how we can use it, and remain faithful to our policies. I don't think it makes a huge difference in the article anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a misreading of our policies, and it's very, very dismissive and wrong to state that "I don't think it makes a huge difference in the article anyway." I've already explained how important that source is, since it will eliminate an entire section of the article (as the Korean nationalist editors wish). Badagnani (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani, I don't mean to be dismissive. I understand that the information is important, and that is why I'm trying to figure out what would be required to include it. I don't see an entire section of the article being eliminated: there's still a section on eating dog meat in Korea. One paragraph is in question, and that paragraph stated nothing more than the existence of a breed that's used for food. The link itself must contain a lot more information, but not speaking Korean, I have no access to that. (I haven't searched the history for the translation yet; I'll do that soon.) As for my reading of our policies, I would repeat Bob98133's question below. Show me the policy that I'm misreading, and explain how I should be reading it. Show us the details; this is how you get things done here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Diverting the main issue regarding the law and resorting to the personal/racist attacks are not a good way to make you logical.--Caspian blue 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue, with remarks such as this, you're not doing much better. I look at him, I look at you, and I see similar styles. Be the first to rise above it. How many requests will it take until you do that? What have you got against productive discourse? Eyes on the prize. Talk about edits, not about editors. Get it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Editor Badagnani - can you please focus on the copyright issue first? If permission has not been granted to use that video clip on YouTube or Wiki, then its importance to the article is of no relevance, since it cannot be used. If you are citing a specific Wiki policy, can you please provide a link to that policy, since I don't know what policy you believe is being misread. The section under discussion is but one of many, so no single reference within that section is likely to make a huge difference to the article. Bob98133 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Continued inflammatory edits by Badagnani the self-proclaimed Korean cuisine "expert" who eats kimbap with soy sauce... good grief. You're not allowed to post youtube clips of TV shows as references. Let's try to be NPOV here.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the above an example of a WP:TROLL? Badagnani (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. And do yourself a favor and get the terminology right. Do you still eat soy sauce kimbap?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a WP:TROLL? Badagnani (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani has been making person attacks as repeated quoting WP:TROLL.--Caspian blue 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion page is for a purpose: improving this article. The above comment, thus, is not appropriate. Badagnani (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Remind of your own repeated person attacks to the editors just like "damaging the article" "Is the above an example of a WP:TROLL?"--Caspian blue 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani, accusing people of breaking policies is just as bad as what they're doing. Please stop. If you want to keep the discussion on topic, lead by example. Stop accusing people of things. Making these accusations is a great way to keep the discussion off-topic. The only winner in these interactions is the one who rises above it first. Caspian blue, you can help, too. Everyone, just ignore the crap, and talk about the article instead. It's very easy to say that a source is good, or that a source is bad, without making personal remarks about anyone while doing it. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Kindly use this discussion page for the purpose of improving this article. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Once you kindly refrain from making person attacks like Is the above an example of a WP:TROLL?, people'd kindly respond to you Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The winner is the one who shuts up about it first. Eyes on the prize, guys. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani's continued personal attacks

Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Regardless of the warnings, the user can stop making personal attacks. This repeated disruptive behaviors make the discussion not only derail to focus the source but also intend to insult the attacked users. The user's latest comment is even applied in "racist attack". I've already explained how important that source is, since it will eliminate an entire section of the article (
as the Korean nationalist editors wish
I think the user deserve a block for the repeated disruption and same kind of behaviors can be seen at Talk:Wolfberry#Photo links (inserting original research, synthesis and spam links/making false accusations/ personal attacks etc). The user was also blocked for the same kind of disruption at Korean cuisine.--Caspian blue 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Stop giving warnings. Stop making accusations. If you have a problem with the editor, file a request for comment. This whining is unproductive and irrelevant on this talk page. Saying you think another editor deserves to be blocked makes me consider that you might. Stop, already. Get it? I can't help you, unless you stop. Let me help you. Get it? You're not helping your case right now. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I want you or other admins to give him a hard warning or "block" because he can't stop throwing such craps to me and other editors here. Incivility/racist attacks are nowhere allowed within Wikipedia (in real life too). This is documentation of his repeated disruption. In fact your such comment encourages him to continue so. Since you're not sorting out such behaviors, I don't think you are helping me.--Caspian blue 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You might be surprised. If you change your tone, you'll be astonished at how quickly I change. When you're both throwing accusations around, I'm gonna stay the hell out of it. If one of you starts acting in a focused and professional manner, then we'll start getting a lot done. Why don't you let me interact with him a little bit, and watch? Or, just forget this thread, and start talking about edits - specifically, dryly, and neutrally. Then, watch me work with you. I can't work with someone who can't keep their eyes on the prize.

Now, do you want to deal with this editor effectively, or do you want to receive the satisfaction of seeing him punished for being mean to you? You can't have both. Let. Him. Dig. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also - I'm quite serious about the request for comment. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not need any drama because this dispute is initially about whether the souring is appropriate or not, nothing more. However, it is very regretful that he pulls up his personal vendetta and wrongly attribute the problem of his sourcing to "nationalism". No way, I've never agreed to remove contents related to dog meat from Korean cuisine related articles. His attitude just has caused strong oppositions from editors (not necessarily from Korean editors)--Caspian blue 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't think it'll really be necessary, anyway. Most admins around here take a very dim view of people who like to comment on other editors' nationality. Badagnani will learn that, one way or another. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing page numbers, misspelled French

Editor Badagnani wants page number references for lines 201 and 208. He also believes that 1'ABCdaire du Chien is spelled incorrectly. I have removed his in line notes from the article as inappropriate discussion on the article page. Bob98133 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to the book and cannot look up the book pages and I believe l'ABCdaire du Chien is the correct spelling although a French speaker may be able to clear this up.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The text in the article is "1'ABCdaire," not "l'ABCdaire." Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional information

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but using this as the image or illustration accompanying the article seems weird to me. Wouldn't a picture of dog meat be more appropriate? I think the nutritional information would better illustrate the article section that discusses that issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Gulp. I see from the article history that at one point there was an image at one time. Can someone explain why it was removed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Photos from the butcher

I see dog meat dishes. I don't see photos of the actual meat, like from the butcher. I live in this neck of the woods. I can step out and take a few snaps. Would it be appropriate for the article or would people remove it? If you approve, can you suggest whether or not to include paws and heads and those sorts of things?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you in Asia? Badagnani (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of where you live, such photos would IMHO be a useful addition to the article. I would suggest taking several photos, some showing paws, heads, etc., some showing any signage identifying the meat, etc. In your description of the photos, please specify the date and location where they were taken. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot prove the pictures were taken in Asia you will have problems keeping them on the net, and you might also face prosecution from animal rights groups, as pictures from anywhere else will be interpreted as evidence of animal abuse. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictures would be useful. See Upload File link on left navigation of this page to upload pictures. You will have to put the pix in public domain. The pictures should be representative of actual conditions and fit with the article. It would be a great addition. No one will prosecute you or chase you from the web unless the pictures indicate that you somehow intentionally caused the animal suffering or that it is illegal where you are living. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to see images of butchered animals, Google is a good place to start, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for it. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If the article is about an animal butchered for meat, I think the photos are very appropriate. Wiki isn't censored. It isn't a question of wanting to see something or not, it's whether the inclusion is appropriate and benefits the article. Bob98133 (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'm in China. Sorry to take five months to reply. I forgot to watch this page. I will skip out and take some pics of chopped up dogs and upload them. It's gruesome. They burn the fur off. Also, I know a cat skinning place. I'll get some pics of that if they don't freak out. Pretty horrible in my view, but then this is a documentary thing. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done (Sorry it took a year.)) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates removed

Silently without any comment.--AM (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


The lead section of the article mentions the lack of statistics. However, perhaps some of the following, while not volumnious, will prove useful:,,,,,, -- (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but one is a dead link, one is a blog, and one is info from Wiki itself.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Korea Times article was a live link which contained some stats. I've added the info and cite to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Korea/Current situation section is very active. A sourced paragraph just vanished. Can somebody help figure out what should stay or go. Here is the paragraph in question:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat as famine food among Maori.

I have relatives in New Zealand. They state that the Maoris eat dog during famine situations. One of the reasons stated is that dogs will eat the feces of all other animals, but no other animals will eat dog feces. During famine food is more scarce consequentially feces becomes less plentiful, less dog food means that dogs become food. I have seen dogs eat shit on many ocassion (who hasn't?) and most people are aware of the dog-delicacy 'kitty roca', so this reasoning seems quite logical. I have no sources and no direct experience with the Maori, but this seems like a good lead for someone interested in finding out more on this. Perhaps this is a common reasoning for people who eat dog meat during famine. Wmfarrell (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


The paragraph about rabies in the lede seems to violate WP:WEIGHT. Certainly its a criticism of eating dog meat that its possible to contract disease from it, and rabies is a good choice if the goal is to scare people. But scaring people is not NPOV, and "two reported cases in China, one in Vietnam, and two deaths reported in the Philippines" can only be regarded as insubstantial, if not practically anecdotal. More people die a month from slipping in the bathtub, apparently, than have from 'dog-meat contracted rabies.' The word "linked" is at best presumptuous, and is statistically meaningless if it refers to only five cases. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A one-line, referenced sentence at the end of the article about Pathology is not UNDUE. People slipping in the bathtub is irrelevant, particularly to the people who caught a potentially deadly disease by eating dog meat. Bob98133 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This source [7] says that infection is more likely from handling dog meat, not eating it, but it is not definitive. See the cited source in the article, as well. Bob98133 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I checked it too and Bob seems to be right. There is brief mention of third-hand reports from the Phillipines that someone got rabies from eating dogmeat, but that seems like something that really you'd need a high standard of proof in order to believe because it goes against what the articles and sources about rabies say, namely that you get it from saliva into an open wound. It's just the virus's method of transmission, so we'd have to track down the original Phillipines report before stating it here as true, and then even then maybe not unless it's explained there how that can be possible. Chrisrus (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
this news article says, "30 taken ill after eating meat of rabid dog". One paragraph says, "Medical journals define rabies as an acute infection of the brain caused by a virus transmitted usually by bites from infected animals."
this news article reports a separate but similar incident where after the head of a suspected rabid dog was brought to health officials, the villagers butchered the dog’s body and ate its meat.
this news article says, "Sometimes there’d be an outbreak after humans would butcher and eat a rabid dog."
this news article speaks of the high risk of rabies from eating dog meat.
I don't know how credible these are, but they are citeable in support of an assertion that there is some popular belief that rabies can be contracted by eating meat from an infected dog. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
They look credible to me! Wow, I'm surprised. I think the article rabies doesn't mention this manner of transmission, I'll check again, but, anyway, what do you think would happen if we used these citations to add this manner of transmission to the rabies article? Chrisrus (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit the rabies article, but it seems that this should be included. The Rhode Island Dept of Health [8] states that "It is very rare(their bold) to get rabies by any other route other than a bite of a rabid animal." However, they also say that rabies could be spread by infectious material getting into the mouth, which would certainly include eating an infected animal. Bob98133 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be included also. Just not in the lede. To note, I moved the section from the lede to a separate section on "pathology." There are other tidbits on disease, for example, under the Vietnam section, which could be mentioned again in the "pathology" section. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hopkins, Jerry. Extreme Cuisine: The Weird & Wonderful Foods that People Eat, Singapore: Tuttle Publishing, 2004, p. 23.
  2. ^ a b South Korea's dog day, BBC News, 17 August 1999.
  3. ^ Dog Meat Foods in Korea,Ann, Yong-Geun, Korean Medical Database
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference independ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).