Jump to content

Talk:Dog meat/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Legislation may outlaw consumption of canine meat

Apparently there is a draft legislation that has been proposed at the start of this year prohibiting people from eating cat and dog meat in China:

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I've restored the image of dog meat in a pot. The image you added shows a prepared dish. I've never seen dog meat served this way, and there are many presentations. As this is an article about dog meat, I suggest the main image of dog meat, before it is made into a dish, and not a prepared dog meat dish. Apple would not have a main image of an apple pie. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you also let me know what different ways you've seen dog served? The photo of boshintang is arguably the most well-known and most widely consumed dog dish in the world and likely the most documented. It is by far the more representative of dog meat consumption as well as being better documented than your photo.
Perhaps you could provide more info about your photo? Country of origin, manner of preparation, etc.. Do you know if your photo is not a prepared dish? The fact that it was boiled or steamed shows that it has already been through a manner of preparation. It is entirely possible that the dog in your photo was boiled or steamed like haianese chicken.
I will restore my edit as it is an original and good faith edit until we can resolve our discussion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk)
Your good faith-edits are appreciated. Per WP:BRD, this matter should be resolved before you restore the image.
I have seen dog meat prepared in hotpot, as a thick stew, broiled, and stir-fried. Your image shows only one presentation. Plus, it could be any meat.
The image you removed clearly shows that it is dog meat, and although not raw, is in the most unprepared state of any dog meat photo on the project.
Further details about the photo would be nice, but cannot be provided beyond stating that the dog meat is partially cooked awaiting use in a variety of dishes. But, I don't think documentation of either photo is the issue here.
I suggest resoring the original image until consensus is reached on this talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You're talking about southeast asian preparations for dog meat and any meat can be put in a hotpot, stewed, broiled, etc.. Most dog consuming culture and countries don't even have "hotpots". That's also not the type of detailed information that provides helpful documented info for photo. There is also no reason why unprepared state of dog should be in presented as the main image. The criteria for the main photo should 1. What is representative or exemplary of the subject matter and frankly the picture of boshintang is far better in that regard. Boshintang is the most famous, or infamous, preparation of dog meat in the world. We don't even know what preparation of dogmeat your photo is. 2. Best documented photo with most information including country of origin, manner of preparation, dish to be made, etc., 3. Aesthetic quality. Frankly your photo is offputting. Please check out the main photos for other meats. The photos are not of butchered animals in midpreparation. There are countries that actually consume these meats and the photos should reflect consumed meats and representative dishes.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Also my edit wasn't a BRD edit for breaking up an edit dispute. If our dispute continues we may have to use BRD but it doesn't apply in our case IMO.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
With great respect, I disagree entirely.
  • 1. One country's dish does not make it emblematic. Emblematic is a picture showing dog meat. Your photo could be anything. The photo I suggest is clearly, and graphically dog meat. Using the word "famous" is peacockish. How do you define famous? Famous to whom? 1.5 billion Chinese people have never heard of Boshintang. But they have all heard of dog hotpot. I doubt that there are 1.5 billion people on earth who have heard of Boshintang.
  • 2. A picture says a thousand words. The picture I suggest speaks volumes. Your image could be duck meat.
  • 4. Aesthetics or being off-putting are not a considerations. Wikipedia is primarily about conveying information. Your image conveys little. A graphic image, as revolting as it may be, conveys plenty. You wrote that these photos should reflect representative dishes? Fine. Add the image to Boshintang. This article is about dog meat. Not dog dishes.
BRD? Perhaps I should reread it. My apologies if I'm getting it wrong. But, from my understanding, if somebody removes your edit (photo) and initiates a discussion about it, you should reach consensus before re-adding it.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) It's the most representative because it's the most well known preparation of dog meat not because it's from a single country. And I understand that you think the dish can be duck meat but when's the last time you had steak that looked like a cow or duck l'orange that looked like a duck? Go look at the other meat articles and see what the photos look like. You are repeating fairly unusual and arbitrary standards. There is no logical reason why the dog meat photo has to look like the animal and has to be a bizarre photo of the meat in midpreparation from an unknown country for an unknown dish.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, you state that your image that now appears in the article is boshintang. But the image in the boshintang article looks nothing like it. This is the one in the boshintang article and this is the one you added to this article. If you say that they are representative, then why don't they appear the same?
I would very much like other editors to give an opinion on this matter. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see how you're confusing the different photos of the same dish as being different but it's the same. E.g. This is spaghetti[1] and this is also spaghetti[2]. It's the same dish and they look the sameMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been assuming good faith, but just did some digging, and now think your replacement of the main image before consensus was inappropriate. Your edits in the past seem heavily weighted on the side of long debates. The edits on your talk page, as well as voluminous ANI battles, indicate that this sort of thing is a pattern. I will restore the image. Please allow it to remain until consensus is reached. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna you've just made your 4th revert and you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. I'm letting you know instead of filing a 3rr report as courtesy. Please return the image and stop revert warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored your revert. I have not filed a 3rr report out of courtesy. Also you are engaged in an edit dispute. You nor I have consensus at this point. We both need to stop reverting and engage in consensus building. If you continue your reverting however, I will have to file a 3rr report.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"I've restored your revert." and "We both need to stop reverting." ....all in one breath. Nice.
Out of courtesy, I would like to let you know that I didn't violate 3RR. I just made my third, which beats my previous record of one.
I am not sure why your edits are so combative. Talk pages and ANI archives are filled with this waste. The actual number of keystrokes of your edits are likely 10:1 to talk pages instead of the mainspace. Vandals, I don't mind too much. But this sort of thing just seems to be such a drain on Wikipedia's human resources -- yours and others' drawn into arguments.
I suggest that we see what other editors have to say about the images. I will be satisfied with whatever they decide. Happier editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna with all due respect, your defense of your photo is puzzling to me. It is a photo from an unknown country in midpreparation of an unknown dish of unknown cuisine. It is a photo that even a regular dog meat consumer could not easily identify. The replacement photo is far better documented and far more representative of dog meat as it is actually consumed. To me your insistence on your photo is akin to someone trying to post up a photo of a nondescript boiled up chicken with feet sticking out of the pot for the "chicken(meat)" article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely detest these long debates, and regret the time I have thus far spent. This might be the way you like to spend energy, but not me. I have nothing further to say on the matter right now. Other editors can take it from here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that the topic matter deserves seriously treatment rather than as a curio for those who find dog meat sensational. I'm still at a loss for why your nondescript photo with boiled dog legs sticking out the pot is in any way representative of dog meat actually consumed around the world. If you would like to discuss this further on the merits of the issue in a reasonable manner feel free to jump in any time.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Korea section

This section is basically a copy of the article text. The info box example as well as the text and subsections are straight from article. The subsection should be a novel summary of the topic with the link to the article providing detailed information. I will try to revise this section to fit subsection format rather than a copy and paste job.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also note that infobox templates are for presenting facts and statistics that are common to related articles in upper right hand corner of articles and not section of articles.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Straight from what article text? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The article linked at the top of the section in question.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the main article Dog meat consumption in South Korea. I see. Good call.
As for the Korean language template, I think it was useful where it was and should be restored. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not the correct usage for infoboxes as I've explained above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know it was an infobox. I thought it was a template. Either way it was very useful, a fact that ought to supersede the guideline. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes are templates and they're used for article headings not section headings and that info can be found in the article link which is why it's there.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of categories

I'm not very wise about categories. Can you please explain why you removed:

  • [ [ Category:Chinese ingredients ] ]
  • [ [ Category:Korean ingredients ] ]
  • [ [ Category:Vietnamese ingredients ] ]

Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to categorize only the Asian cuisines when there are over a dozen countries included in this article. Also dogmeat may or may not qualify for food 'ingredients' for that culture's cuisine depending on the manner in which dogmeat is treated in a particular culture.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. It seems then that other cats should be added instead of these being removed.
Plus, as it is used as an ingredient, shouldn't the cat be present? Carrots sometimes may not qualify as food ingredients (sometimes they are used as weapons), but as they often are used in cooking, they are food ingredients, and hence deserve the category. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Adding more cats does make more sense then just having asian cats but having over dozen cats seems unhelpful although if you or other editors feel passionately about it, you're feel to go ahead. Problem is that even where dog is consumed the most, it's not a common 'food ingredient' but a medicinal food, tribal food, illegal food, etc.. It's much too nuanced to convey with 'ingredient' cats IMO.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like another editor who knows about this to do what is correct. In China, it is clearly a food ingredient. In fact, it is the main ingredient in dog dishes, naturally. Where is dog consumed the most? In restaurants, as food. Not as medicine. Tribal food? Illegal food? Still food. Still an ingredient. In fact, the main ingredient. Not many recipes call for "a dash of dog". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making a food, medicine distinction that doesn't exist in China and most asian cultures. Check out eastern medicine. This is very nuanced and IMO unnecessary level of detail to be express through cat. lists.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to use the word cats. I mean categories. Bad place for abbreviations. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Dog meat is often eaten in China because it is enjoyed as food, period. It is also eaten as medicine, and sometimes a bit of both. You also say "most Asian cultures". That means that in some, it is simply food, thus dog meat is an food ingredient. If you want to also include a category "medicine" go ahead. I suggest that you please restore the categories. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There's an entire philosophy behind eastern medicine and consumption of dog meat. Your summary is inadequate and the cat.'s are not the place to convey this nuanced information. However as a compromise if you want to create cat's for all the different national cuisines in this article and add them to the cat section, you're free to do.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely detest these long debates, and regret the time I have thus far spent. This might be the way you like to spend energy, but not me. I have nothing further to say on the matter right now. Other editors can take it from here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the topic matter deserves seriously treatment rather than as a curio for those who find dog meat sensational. I'm still at a loss for why your nondescript photo with boiled dog legs sticking out the pot is in any way representative of dog meat actually consumed around the world. If you would like to discuss this further on the merits of the issue in a reasonable manner feel free to jump in any time.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To the 73 editors who watch this page: please visit it

73 editors watch this page, while only a few visit it. I gather they can see debates taking place, but don't get involved. The subject of this article is sometimes contentious. I urge other editors to weigh in more often with a short and sweet opinion, either way. Please help prevent endless discussions that could be settled quickly. Thank you very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

131 visits suddenly, up from 3. Pretty darn good. Many thanks. Now, how about a few keystrokes -- maybe on the main image, which is currently a pile of sausages representing Dog meat. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Translations requested, per Wikipedia Verifiability policy

Re Korean language sources cited in this article ([3] and [4]); please provide English translations of relevant portions; please also provide author and publisher info in English (see WP:V#Non-English sources). Specifically, I'd like to get an idea of the reliability of these sources and determine whether or not they support the assertions, "Selling dog meat has been illegal in South Korea since 1984, as manufacturing and processing of dog meat has been outlawed. This is because South Korean Food Sanitary Law ..." for the entire country of South Korea, since that appears to conflict with info in Sarah Knight; Harold Herzog (2009). New Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions: Theory, Policy and Research. John Wiley and Sons. p. 628. ISBN 9781444333060. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you share with us what Herzog's book says on the topic?
This is with google translate: "Dog meat is illegal in the Republic of Korea. The Food Sanitation Regulations 13 to 42 the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Governor approved for food preparation and sales of hate should not have rules. Food and Drug Administration as an abomination in the dog food manufacturing and processing as a raw material is not acceptable norm, Seoul, notice that the soup's classified as a food aversion, Korea Animal Protection Coalition" and from Hankyre, "In all countries, food processing, cooking, 』『 If a sale must be authorized in the country only to the food processing and cooking have set, "Food Sanitation> Article 7, paragraph 1, based nutrition and notified by the" Food Code " (→ see below), look at the dog food you can 』『 processing of raw materials, cooking ingredients, it does not. Government regulation of animals to slaughter the "meat processing treatment> dog food distribution in the different animals as possible '12 'does not include the slaughter of dogs for human consumption, or (Animal Protection Act," Article 6 "violations), or food sales All the action as illegal processing livestock products, treatment Article 45 (penalty) and the Animal Protection Law Article 12 (penalties) based on the dog slaughter may be punishable".
Basically it's illegal. The quotes are citing Korean laws on the subject. There are plenty of other refs out there that say the same thing. The first ref is out of date and needs to be updated. THe second ref is proper. Hankyre is one of the main news sources in Korea.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I recommend the following paper which discusses the laws regarding the dog meat in South Korea.
As for the above book (Journal) edited by Herzog, the following is the reprinted paper as stated below by User:Chrisrus.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the situation is more complex than this article indicates. First of all, the article is right on that dog meat is explicitly illegal in Seoul. However, dogs are legally defined as livestock in the related laws on livestock. On the other hand, dogs are exempted from livestock processing law. This article says that dogs were "outlawed" by the livestock processing law, but what it really means is that the livestock processing law doesn't apply to dog meat. So in effect, dog meat is in the grey zone as far as its legality is concerned except for Seoul where dog meat is outright illegal. There is a large political controversy over this, with advocates of dog meat consumption pushing to include dogs in the livestock processing law, while the opponents of dog meat consumption are pushing for complete legal ban of dog meat. I should also mention that this issue if further complicated as in Korean Buddhism, which is one of the dominant religions in Korea, dog meat consumption is very taboo and is deemed offensive. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 changes

Melonbarmonster2 - you've made drastic changes to a rather controversial article without discussing the changes ahead of time. Your edits are not supported by the references you cite. Your language is awkward and POV. I've been going through changing a lot of what you've added, however, I would feel OK if any editor wants to revert this to the version prior to your editing, so we can start discussing these changes to agree if they have concnesus or not. I can understand Anna's frustration with your edits, I'll just change them back or demand refs. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Refs have been provided and the above discussions document my explanations of my edits. Please explain your disagreement instead of claiming there are no references or that my edits weren't discussed. Neither are true.
You have removed referenced text directly referenced from the provided citations. Please restore them or at least explain why you feel they are not supported by the reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this article to the version prior to your edits. Your edits were plagiarized from Unmentionable cuisine By Calvin W. Schwabe, which is online at google books here [5] That source is copyrighted and was used by google with permission, but is not in common domain. Much of what you have added was taken verbatim from that book. I can't be bothered going through the rest of your edits until the plagiarism thing is straightened out. Bob98133 (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:CIT and WP:VER for what constitutes plagarism. Problematic text should be repaired, not reverted. Restore the good faith edits and explain your disagreements and position in this talk page. You are making senseless reverts and just announcing that you are doing so here without explaining or discussing the substantive issues.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Copying text word for word from a copyrighted source is plagiarism and according to Wiki should be taken down immediately. Your text is not problematic - it is stolen. Reverting plagiarism is not a senseless revert - it protects wiki from knowingly allowing stolen material to appear on its pages. If you want to go through this, I can show you numerous sections that you have taken verbatim from this alleged book (I'm sure you saw it online but didn't reference it that way to make it harder to verify). If you want to make changes, discuss your proposed changes first. Also, pls use edit summaries as they are helpful. Bob98133 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to place quotes around text you feel have been copied. There is no excuse for your wholesale reversions but I'm sure you know that. You need to stop your disruptive editing and agree to engage in building consensus per WP:Cons. This is childish.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, finally. Thanks Bob98133 for weighing in. I didn't know about the copyvio. Please be careful not to get sucked into the vortex.
Melonbarmonster2, I'm not interested in carry on a lengthy debate here. But, I would like your thoughts on a photo from the butcher showing raw dog meat (see Beef). Maybe that is a way to solve this problem.
Statements like: "...need to stop your disruptive editing and agree to engage in building consensus...This is childish." are hypocritical indeed. You seem to feel very passionate about Korean cuisine and this article, which presents the hazard of POV pushing. Maybe you should edit other articles instead. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna that delicious looking rib roast, immaculately prepped by a professional, is nothing like your photo. Come on Anna a little honesty please! A more apt comparison would be a photo of a cauldron of a cow boiled with its feet sticking out. Can you honestly say that a plucked chicken boiled in a pot with its feet sticking out would be appropriate for the chicken article?

Also I have no problem with genuine disagreements. Let's stick to discussing the meat of the issues(pun intended) rather than blind blanking which is what Bob is currently doing right now. I have added referenced text and explained every one of my edits to you here. You can attest to this. Bob is inexplicably claiming that I didn't explain my edits and that my additions haven't been buttressed by citations and is indiscriminating reverting. That's disruptive editing bordering on vandalism.

Taking a step back, it seems I am approaching this topic from a different view than you and Bob are accustomed to. Diversity of views and differences are not a bad thing. I am hopeful that we can find objective resolution to our discrepancies as long as we are respectful of the rules and policies, particularly WP:V and WP:CIT, and try not to take edit disputes so personally.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes to the photo caption made in this edit. These changes are unencyclopedic and, appear to not assume good faith on Anna's part. The Image page says that the photo was taken in Southeast Asia, that Anna was the uploader and that Anna, as the copyright holder, releases the image into the public domain. If Anna took the photo herself (something I infer as a possibility), she could presumably provide additional details about it here and/or on the discussion page for the image. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your point taken. I have requested the additional detail you suggest such as country or origin, dish being prepared and the cuisine identification and haven't received a response. It seems the main photo should be an example of dog meat as it is actually consumed by those who do consume it rather than a photo of a pot with the animal in nondescript mid-preparation. I have also offered alternative photographs with full detailed information only to have them all be reverted. The current photo is the third candidate thus far.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I have also added text and new references to the article with full explanations given at every step as evidenced by above talk page discussions. These have also been wholesale reverted without much explanation by Bob.
Honest disagreements are fine and may even help improve the article. However, there is no excuse for blanking of text and references and ignoring of edit rules and citation policies.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wtmitchell. Please tell me what unencyclopedic changes I made that were in bad faith. Thanks.
(inserted) Hi Anna. The changes at issue were the changes made (not by you) in this edit, which added text which I feel to be unencyclopedic to the caption of a photo which you uploaded. My reference to WP:AGF was meant to say that it seems to me that good faith on your part was not being assumed as that guideline urges. I can see how there could be honest disagreement about the suitability of the image in question for inclusion in this article, or about its positioning in the article. Such disagreements should be resolved by consensus of interested editors.
On my talk page, you asked about {{od}}. Please see the documentation of that template for more info on that. I outdented my comment because it related to but did not fit in with the flow of the discussion which preceded it. I've inserted this response midway through your comment because placing it after your signature and indenting it one step could confusingly create a false impression that comments below that point (which were added prior to this response) are responses to this comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to give further details about the image because I am not sure how the govt would feel about it. In fact, the image was taken a couple of days before it was uploaded. It was taken in Haikou, Hainan, China. The meat was partially cooked and still warm. It was used in a hotpot. I know that because it is the only dish that restaurant serves. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to toot my own horn but I called the Hainanese prep above although I don't know what you mean by hotpot. Do you know what the name of the dish was?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that this article's main image should be of dog meat in its most unprepared state. I welcome comments on a butcher shop image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how having a photo of an unsightly boiled animal in midpreparation with the feet sticking out of a pot for an unknown dish or cuisine is "unprepared state" especially after you referred me to the photo of a finely butchered and prepped ribroast ready for the oven for comparison."(see Beef)"
Also, advocating for an unsightly photo reeks of POV advocacy as it attempts to conveys editor judgments on dog meat through the photo. All the other meat articles present representative dishes and photos of finely cuts of the meat in an aesthetically pleasing manner which is how they are consumed be it pork, duck, etc..
Personal POV judgments about dog meat consumption should be eschewed for referenced information, e.g. main photo, that presents dog meat as it is actually consumed around the world and NOT to reflect an editors' personal feelings about dog meat.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I will address your points in order. Please respond to each in order (under each item if you want). That way we can get this thing resolved and all get back to work.

1 You quoted me as writing above "unprepared state". In context please, I wrote "most unprepared state", as in "a photo of dog meat as close to raw as we have available on Wikipedia".

2 You object to unsightly or aesthetically displeasing images. Why is this relevant?

3 I have no POV at all. I have eaten dog meat several times. Your edits seem to indicate that you want to show dog meat in certain light. You use terms like: "aesthetically pleasing manner", "finely butchered and prepped", "delicious looking rib roast, immaculately prepped by a professional". That sounds like you want the meat shown from a certain POV. I just want the meat shown in its simplest form.

4 Other meat articles' main images present the meat in its raw form. See Venison, Beef, Horse meat.

5 Why is Dog_meat_in_a_pot_01.jpg any different from pieces of meat on a butcher's table.

6 You have yet to reply to my question on your thoughts on a photo from the butcher showing raw dog meat.

7 You wrote: "...called the Hainanese prep above...". I don't understand what that means. And, the dish is just called dog meat hot pot: Dog meat, water, a couple of veggies, served in a little wok over some sterno.

8 Wtmitchell: Again, please tell me what unencyclopedic changes I made that were in bad faith. Thanks.

(inserted) Hi Anna. See this edit for my response. Please note that your prior edit to which I responded there is timestamped 10:21 pm, 22 July 2010 (going by my clock here in the Philippines). Your later comment into which I have inserted this response was made at 1:54 AM my time. I didn't respond sooner because I was asleep, then having breakfast, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
(inserted) Thank you for the reply. So, just to be clear, you originally said: "...I've reverted the changes to the photo caption made in this edit. These changes are unencyclopedic and, appear to not assume good faith on Anna's part....", but now you now acknowledge that the unencyclopedic edit was not made by me.
And, you now say that my breach of WP:AGF is no longer about that edit, but is now about my original choice of image caption months ago? I don't see how that has anything to do with WP:AGF, but then that is not what you first accused me of. You just switched what you first accused me of to something else. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I am being very unclear here. Let me try again.
You say "... but now you now acknowledge that the unencyclopedic edit was not made by me". The changes I reverted were made by another editor, not by you. My explanatory remark that I felt the reverted changes were unencyclopedic were not intended to apply to any of your edits, but to the changes which I had reverted. Those changes had not been made by you. The remark was not intended to apply to changes made by you. I don't see how you can infer that I accused you of making unencyclopedic changes, but I'll say here (hopefully clearly) that I did not intend to make such an accusation. If any of my remarks can reasonably be taken to imply such an accusation, I apologize.
You continue, "And, you now say that my breach of WP:AGF is no longer about that edit, but is now about my original choice of image caption months ago?". My mention of AGF in this edit was intended to be understood as being directed at that other editor whose changes I had reverted. The mention read, "These changes are unencyclopedic and, appear to not assume good faith on Anna's part." I did not intend that to be read as accusing you of having breached AGF. I intended that to be read as ... well ... as it was written -- saying that it appeared to me that that other editor had not assumed good faith on your part.
Re your original choice of image caption months ago, I don't recall saying anything about that. You've confused me with that and with all that follows it. If I've made a comment about that and it has somehow slipped my mind, please jog my memory by pointing the comment out to me.
If this discussion needs continuing, I think it might be better to continue it on my talk page -- posts there will be less likely to go unnoticed amid the general clutter of unrelated edits. I'm OK with continuing on either here or there, but if you post something for me here and don't see a response within a day or so, please put a link to the unresponded-to edit on my talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
To avoid clutter, a (hopefully) final response is on your talk. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You wrote:
"There is also no reason why unprepared state of dog should be in presented as the main image. The criteria for the main photo should 1. What is representative or exemplary of the subject matter and frankly the picture of boshintang is far better in that regard. Boshintang is the most famous, or infamous, preparation of dog meat in the world. We don't even know what preparation of dogmeat your photo is. 2. Best documented photo with most information including country of origin, manner of preparation, dish to be made, etc., 3. Aesthetic quality."
The guidelines say quite the opposite...
Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article. For example:
  • Gloria Steinem looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone, not with other individuals.
(Like dog meat without a ring of individual potatoes around it)
  • A suitable picture of a hammerhead shark would show its distinctive hammer-like head, to distinguish it from other species of shark.
(Like paws, tail, tongue to distinguish it from other meat)
  • Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice.
(Like raw or close to raw dog meat, not represented in an altered state)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 - I disagree with your rationale and your obstructive editing of this article. However, I believe it is pointless to discuss this with you since you do not appear willing to compromise but instead insist on your version. I am not interested in being bullied. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki and good luck. Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Bob98133, I do not see any copyvio of Unmentionable cuisine in Melonbarmonster2's edits. Please provide evidence, as that is quite a serious accusation. But, I do agree completely with everything you wrote in the above paragraph. I feel like Melonbarmonster2 is arguing, not with the intention of seeking consensus, but instead, to "wear down an opponent" with rhetoric. I have invested more than an 1 1/2 hours on this matter, and I am not happy about it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that Melonbarmonster2 merely paraphrased everything he added from that text, not copied word for word. His obvious attempt to conceal his source (the online google book version) and his bullyish style may have convinced me that he stole content, since reading the google text sounded exactly like this article. I am content to allow him to edit this article as he sees fit and when he's done, I'll challenge obvious errors, unreferenced text, inconcise statements, generalizations, etc. As you note, it seems to be a waste of time trying to discuss things or reach consensus while this this editor is actively editing the article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the main picture of any article should be first and foremost be easily identifiable. The first responsiblity of a lead picture of Gloria Steinen, hammerhead sharks, rice, or dogmeat is to clearly be a picture of the referent and not look like it could easily be someone/thing else. All other considerations are secondary. If you can find a prettier picture of Gloria, a hammerhead, rice, or dogmeat that doesn't look like it could easily be someone/thing else, use that. I doubt that'll be possible in this case, as any picture of dogmeat that anyone can recognize as such is sure to repulse most people, but our job is to present the truth and let the reader feel about it as s/he may. Chrisrus (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Poetry to mine ears. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur. The photo [dog-meat-in-a-pot] is more representative and a better choice for the main picture. Bob98133 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's give other editors some time to chime in before requesting a RfC.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC? Is that really necessary? I would be delighted if you could respond to those points above? It took me ten minutes to write. Thank you. Best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid dispute resolution steps outlined in the help section is necessary only because I feel wikipedia edit rules and policies are being ignored by Bob's blanking. I have no problem with honest, reasonable discussions and weighing of evidences as they are presented through proper references even if the views held by disagreeing editors are sharp. However, constructive discussion is pretty much impossible when we have an editor angriliy blanking proper references, text and new sections
In my opinion we need more eyes on this so that wikipedia rules and policies can't be ignored so that sane, constructive discussion will become possible.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. Your beef about content is with Bob, and is quite a separate matter.
The above points are about the main image. We haven't ignored rules or blanked anything there. Paragraphs of rhetoric haven't gotten us too far. A "back-and-forther" over the individual points can help you seek our understanding. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you a response but the blind reverting included the main photo also and I'd rather save my reasoned comments until we have an atmosphere where reasoned discussion is possible rather than a "i'll revert anything from you" atmosphere.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RS on Korean Dogmeat

http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/265_podberscek.pdf Chrisrus (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an RS per WP standards, but I picked up one glaring error unrelated to Korea on a quick glance through it. It says, "... but the eating of dogs was outlawed in the Philippines in 1998", apparently in the belief that "The Animal Welfare Act 1998". outlaws the eating of dogs. In fact, the act does not address the eating of dogs or any other animal. The act does prohibit the killing of many animals (including dogs) except for reasons which it specifies. This is explained further in the Philippines section of this WP article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Section on Japan again

The article is unclear as to the extent of consumption of dog meat in Japan. It says japan imports 5 tons of dog meat per year, and casually alludes to it being consumed in Koreatowns and Chinatowns. Mannoro (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I understand that you would like to make it more explict who is consuming the dogmeat and who is merely allowing it to be eaten by others, is that correct? Because as it reads, it seems like the Japanese aren't eating it, just allowing it to be eaten by other ethicities. Is that your point? Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Just to let you know, I just started Whale meat for kicks, because this dog meat fiasco pointed me that way. I did not do it to create a precedent (which by definition would be impossible). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

The lead is now highly unencyclopedic and non-neutral. No basic definition? Hippocrates praising dog meat in the second sentence? "...suckling puppy...fit for the gods..."?? Chinese astronauts eating it to keep them in top shape?

Melombarmonster:

  • You replaced the main image of actual dog meat with a dog dish
  • I put it back and initiated discussion
  • You reverted before consensus was reached
  • During discussion, which was about the image being representative of the article name, you swapped the image again, this time for dog sausage.
  • Now you have injected your POV into the lead and swapped the image again.
  • When I cited guidelines, instead of responding to them, you instead wrote: "...I'll give you a response but the blind reverting included the main photo also and I'd rather save my reasoned comments until we have an atmosphere where reasoned discussion is possible...".
  • Now, you have moved the article without consensus to help prevent the image of dog meat returning. Neat trick.
  • Then you swapped the image again to one of your liking.

During all of this, I have done what I am supposed to: debate calmly and cite guidelines. Does anybody care about this breach of protocol and blatant article ownership? Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna, the intro material is referenced and is a summary of dog meat consumption in historical and geographical context which is how the rest of the article is outlined. The romans ate suckling puppies. I fail to see why that historical fact is "unencyclopedic" to you. All the new text and references I have added are entirely verifiable and proper. You are certainly free to dissent with a sourced claim or text but please explain your dissent so we may discuss it. Accusing me of bogus 'protocol' breach and article ownership when I'm the one introducing new references and novel edits and you are arguing for reverts is hardly sensible.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the new lead by Melonbarmonster is most certainly not an improvement. What is more, it is also extremely close to that book that was mentioned the other day, if I remember the wording right, and may indeed be close enough to constitute plagiarism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly not plagiarism although if you would like to point out any problematic text, I have no problem changing it to satisfy any criticism. I wish you'd also speak out against blanking of new sections and references that I've added to the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster2: Referenced or "novel" is not the issue. It is POV and unencyclopedic. You appear to be following an agenda, and have employed a wide range of unfair tactics.
Articles are supposed to be constructed based on consensus, yet you've managed to bully and wear down a large group of editors. I am very surprised everyone hasn't gotten together and put their foot down.
Anyone who compares the article as it is today, (largely your design), with how it appeared a month ago, would be shocked. It now looks like an advert from "The Dog (food) Council". I doubt a single editor would see it as an improvement. And you managed all of this over the objections of many, and with the support of none. This is a dark day for Melonpedia, formerly known as Wikipedia Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Please curb your personal attacks for both our sakes. I can't help it if you are seemingly offended with good-faith and honest disagreements. And your conjectures about my "bias" speaks more to your your particular POV let alone anything about the actual subject matter of this article. My only agenda is to have unbiased and accurate information as they are contained in published referenced references. Let's get back to discussing substantive topics please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to engage in a sensible debate, please address my complaints listed at the top of this thread. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have. Perhaps you should take your eyes off this for a bit if you can't refrain from personal attacks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No you have not. I have not personally attacked you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Groundless accusations and derogatory ridicule is considered personal attack per WP:NPA. And regardless of what you want to call it, I'm not doing it so please reciprocate for the sake of civility.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What groundless accusations? Derogatory ridicule? You just wrote: "And you are the one focused on aesthetics by advocating a ridiculous self-taken photo...". That sounds slightly exactly like derogatory ridicule. In the words of Johnny Carson: "Wild, wild stuff". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your new article name

Melonbarmonster: The edit summary of your page move reads: "Article is about human consumption of dog for culinary purposes and not about "dog meat" per se. Name of the article should be as descriptive and neutral as possible. It also makes sense to follow popular convent...". To be accurate, the article is about "dog meat" for human consumption. Dog meat is the correct nomenclature, just like whale meat, etc. Also, please give examples of popular convention. Below are examples to the contrary.

According to what you say, I guess this means you will move Cat meat and Horse meat too. And, don't forget to go through the articles and remove the word "meat", as you are now doing with this article. By the way, you should look at the hundred refs and external links for this article and see what the correct nomenclature is. It is "dog meat", everywhere, in almost all cases. Are you trying to change history and the future? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna are you claiming that we should go and change chicken and duck articles into "chicken meat" and "duck meat" to differentiate them from the animal articles also? Let's be honest here. It seems there is a split in the wording of these "meat" articles with the 'taboo' foods being named as "meat" while duck, chicken are named are given "(food)" moniker. That is an unfair and unreferenced distinction. The controversy of the foods should receive full treatment in the articles but that shouldn't be a reason for setting them apart from other animals consumed for culinary purposes. And yes, this is something that I'd like to see unified. As for the wording used by references, the term used is widely varied from "dog", "eating dog", "dogmeat", etc.. There is no predominant nomenclature.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Anna. I can only add that everyone understands "dogfood" to be stuff like Alpo we use to feed to dogs. I'll try to get some help. Where's Mr. Perfect the Banmeister in all of this? Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Please note that parentheses are used for disambiguation of article titles such as "chicken (food)" and "duck (food)".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Chicken meat and pig meat are not correct nomenclature. Dog meat, horse meat, cat meat, all are. Look at the refs for this article again. You will see what is used 99% of the time. This sounds like re-branding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A dab would only be necessary if the meats of dog, horse, cat did not have a common nomemclature. But they do, so none is necessary. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're ignoring the fact that meats with disambiguous terms such as pork and beef do not present a problem for wiki naming. Meats that do not have culinary terms however do present this problem. Duck and chicken articles disambiguate by using parentheses "(food)". Dog fits in this latter category and I have proposed disambiguating by the same convention. The only reason why you're disagreeing with me on this is to justify using your personal photo for main photo.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, in Asian countries and I suspect in other cultures where dog is consumed as food, the term for dog for culinary uses is "sweet meat" just as pig meat is called pork or as cow meat is called beef.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Here at wiki, we call articles by their common name, if one is used. Dog meat is such an example.
My own personal photo? Okay. A compromise: You take a pic of raw dog meat, gussied-up with parsley if you like. As long as it's unmistakable, we can use that and delete my image. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat is not the common name. Consumption of dog is used by many terms including just "dog". There is source evidence to this claim. There is no wiki rule or convention that says articles regarding culinary meats should be raw. That is entirely arbitrary and nonsensical.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look through some (but not all) of the references. I'm seeing both "dog" and "dog meat"--sometimes within the same article (for instance, note how [[6]] keeps switching. It's not clear to me that there is a "common" English name. It's difficult in that there's no way to even get a numerical result, as any numbers we get will be confounded by the inability to separate out "food dogs eat" from "food humans eat made from dog." So, while I think Anna is definitely wrong above to say that 99% use dog meat, I also don't think it's so obvious that dog (disambiguated) is better. Sorry I wasn't so helpful...I'll keep looking and thinking about it.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed what was a controversial undiscussed change (by, I have to say, a controversial editor) back to the original name. Such changes really should not be made without discussion. I don't think being Bold was a good idea, but in any case, I've reverted, so we discuss. My own take on this is that millions upon millions of people buy dog food regularly and it's their dogs that eat it. I can't see 'dog {food} as anything but confusing, at least to dog owners. Maybe it needs an RfC. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the lead

(*Note: This is not intended to be a vote. Considering this talk page is now over 3x the size of the article, and the discussion is going nowhere, and is all over the place, a "support", "oppose" or "neutral" with a comment or two, could really help get things settled.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus returning the lead to something resembling what it was a few weeks ago.

  • Support - It is now very bizarre, contains no basic definition to dab from dog food, and mentions "Hippocrates praising dog meat in the second sentence, "...suckling puppy...fit for the gods..." thereafter, and Chinese astronauts eating it to keep them in top shape... after that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -agree - recent edits have been disruptive and incoherent Bob98133 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Question/General Support - Can you give a diff as an example of what you think you want to return to? I only ask because the history is so long and complex now I'm not sure where you're looking to. I certainly agree that the lead as written now is very wrong. I, for example, don't understand why the first line of this isn't something like "Dog is the meat derived from dogs." I also don't understand why there's so much effusive puffery in the lead--some of this seems like reasonable info, but it should be in the article, not the lead. The lead should briefly summarize the topic, mentioning, for example, world-wide prevalence, maybe a brief statement about how long ago there is historical evidence of dog consumption, and a sentence or two about the current controversy. Horse meat looks like a good comparison; some things from beef (like different ways the meat is cut) seem reasonable, too. I also think that, in a good article, there shouldn't be even a single instance of a "citation needed" tag in the lead--if you can't cite it, get it out of the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Something more encyclopedic and less defensive-sounding. Let the lead summarize the article below. We shouldn't have to cite anything in a lead; the article below should be the citation for the lead.
Your Horse meat model you suggested seems good. I'll stay out of how to fix it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus at this time

Forcing a vote when there is an RfC and obvious dissent is not how you build consensus. Allow neutral editors to comment and participate in the discussion. Also note that the issue being voted on has to be agreed upon.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Having the vote section is fine, as it provides a quick summary of views. I do, however, agree with I believe your underlying principle that no vote result should be considered consensus until the RfC has had a chance to run for a while. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub: The current article name promotes a cooked dish at worst and slab of meat at best. As this is a contentious article, has previously been renamed, and was moved without consensus, it should be returned to "Dog meat" first, and quickly. Only then RfC can comment in the proper light. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Lack of consensus doesn't preclude novel bold good-faith edits. Furthermore, I have bent over backwards introducing a schmorgesbord of variations of the introduction ref and text to gophering 4 or 5 different candidates for the main photo to new references to engage in consensus building and you and Bob have reverted almost every single one of them to preserve a single version of the article in a vacuum state without offering any real alternatives. This is expressly forbidden per WP:Cons and WP:Own. The definition of contention is that no version is agreed upon. Instead of reverting, could I suggest that you provide alternatives, be it text photo reference, to my edits that you find unacceptable instead of just trying to blank and revert. Lastly, please let the RfC take its course. There's nothing about the article or talk page that prevents 'proper light'.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no comment on the article's copy, except for the lede.
  • I only put back a single photo a couple of times. I did not edit or revert any of your text. Please don't lump me together with Bob. That is not fair.
  • What alternatives have you offered apart from prepared dishes? I have offered a butcher's image.
  • The incorrect article name of the article prevents "proper light" for RfC.
  • I respond to everything you say. I concede. I try to see your point of view. I compromise. There are a number of key issues I have asked you repeatedly to comment on, that you never have addressed.
  • During this whole fiasco, I haven't edited the page. But you have.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warrant

This is a brief summary of my recent edits. Although they are pretty straight forward, please explain any dissent if you have them so that we can have a constructive discussion.

  1. Intro. I added new information from Schwabe and the Telegraph. Summarizing historical and global context for consumption of dog(all referenced properly) as food is encyclopedic and fit for intro since that's how the article itself is outlined.
  2. I also revised the "east v west" language in the intro, "Some cultures or individuals, including some non-Westerners, however, oppose the consumption of dog meat in non-Western countries. They may perceive dogs as inherently emotional and friendly to human...". Self-published animal rights sources were also removed.
  3. Referenced additions in the 'France' section about butchered dog sold at the turn of 19th century was restored.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. Hawaii section created with material from the Schwabe book that documents Hawaiian consumption of dog until the 1970's.
  5. Korea info box removed. Infoboxes are for heading articles and not sections. The material is also redundant. The article is hyperlinked in this section for a reason.
  6. New referenced material in the Switzerland section restored.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC about main photo

What images should be included in this article about human consumption of dogs? 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2 photos in question are [7] and [8].

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

"Gloria Steinem looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone, not with other individuals.(Like dog meat without a ring of individual potatoes around it)"

  • The subject matter is the of human consumption of dog 'meat/(food)' not the literal flesh of the animal itself. Dog is consumed in soups, stews and other prepared dishes by those who consume them.

"A suitable picture of a hammerhead shark would show its distinctive hammer-like head, to distinguish it from other species of shark.(Like paws, tail, tongue to distinguish it from other meat)"

  • Again you're confusing the subject matter but this analogy would work better if the article was shark meat. If there was an article on human consumption of shark the main photo would be that of the shark as it is consumed by humans who consume them. It would not be of a shark in midboil in a pot in an nondescript and unknown manner.

"Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice. (Like raw or close to raw dog meat, not represented in an altered state)"

  • The 'plain' image is that of dog as it is actually consumed by those who eat them. Not the raw image of the meat. If that were the case, then all the 'meat' articles would have main photos of freshly butchered animals in their most "unprepared" state which is not the case. All the 'meat' articles in fact show prototypical dishes made with the meat, which in this case would be "boshintang".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The article's subject is dog meat. Aspects of the subject include, types of dog, parts of the dog, medicinal (your words) uses, legal aspects, public perception, and, yes, human culinary consumption.
  • Nope. The subject is meat.
  • Again. The subject is dog meat. If it were an article about shark meat, an unmistakable slab of shark meat would be best.
Anna, you are not being entirely frank. There is a world of difference between aesthetically pleasing photos of professionally butchered ribroast prepped for the oven and your nondescript photo of dog parts being boiled in a pot. Also the horse meat photos are mostly of finished horse meat products and prepped dishes, not horse parts being boiled in a pot in an unknown country for an unknown dish.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As I've written many, many times here, aesthetics are not relevant. Being unmistakable is relevant. I am being very frank and straightforward. You, it would seem, are trying to sell a POV with carefully crafted sentences. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no particular feelings for or against dog meat but you seem very intent on portraying human consumption of dog in a bad light or at least in a commonly stereotyped form. If aesthetics is not an issue, then your defensiveness over your photo is inexplicable. Your photo is neither an unprepped photo of dog meat nor is it particularly identifiable. It just looks like boiled up parts of a number of different animals. NONE of the other animal meat articles have boiled up animals parts in a pot for sake of "identifiability" of the animals itself. They ALL contain finished, prepared dished made with the meat. I understand you took the picture but please be reasonable.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is highly identifiable. The image you suggest is unidentifiable. You are simply repeating yourself again and again, without ever addressing the concerns of others.
Before you comment on this beautifully-timed request, please be advised that the article name was changed a few hours ago without consensus. The name was Dog meat. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is questionably 'identifiable' at best and it is not unprepared as you claim main photos should be. And the subject being identified is human consumption of dog meat, not the actual flesh of the animal itself. And please stop trying to use the article move for your POV arguments. They are separate issues and your photo is inappropriate regardless of the title of the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Anna states above, "Again, you are mistaken. Other meat articles' main images are raw meat." No, actually, Anna is mistaken--it's not universally either one. Pork (defined as "the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig" has two fully cooked pork dishes for main images; later in the article, a picture of a freshly butchered pig is available. Chicken (food) has a main picture of a whole, fully roasted chicken. On Beef, Anna is correct--the main images are of an uncooked rib roast, and a live cow. On Lamb and mutton (the equivalent food page for the meat of sheep), the main image is of a raw leg and rack of lamb. Venison (deer meat) has a raw steak for main image. I can't think of any others, although if anyone knows some, we can check. My point is that there is no singular precedent. One thing that is clear is that all of the images, whether raw or cooked, are of "well-prepared" items--that is, steaks, carved legs, and finished dishes. Since I'm just coming to this page for the first time, I'm guessing that the other image being considered is [9]. It seems abundantly clear to me that this is not the correct main image. Personally, I don't really like the main image as shown now--to match precedent, I would rather see an image of just (either raw or cooked) dog alone, with minimal trimming. We definitely shouldn't be able to see people in the background, or rice, or whatever. But given the choice between the two, the choice seems somewhere between obvious and self-evident. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Please note that even the main photos of raw meat are nicely butchered cuts of meat that are of aesthetic value. None of them contain hacked pieces of meat thrown into a pot in midboil.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Melonbarmonster2: Once again, what about a butcher shot? Raw meat, unmistakably dog, no feet sticking out of a pot, and no cooked dishes either. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What does "unmistakably dog" mean? I can't tell, looking at Beef or Venison that said meat is "unmistakably" from any given animal. But if you have an example image file, try showing that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Anna, the idea that the photo has to be raw and identifiable to the actual animal is your rather arbitrary claim.
The main photo should depict dog as it is popularly, commonly consumed as food. Mutton, ribroast and are classic images of culinary uses of the meat. Other meats are shown in classic prepared forms. The present photo meets this standard. It is the most well known way dog is consumed, certainly in terms of press coverage. It is also arguably the most documented and studied culinary use of dog.
Anna shows us the photo if have a candidate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No candidate. I, or someone would have to go out and take it. Here in China, we are talking about a wooden table with cut meat on it. Not too pretty. Not too ugly. You know, meat, like at a butcher's. Seems to fit right for an article about dog meat. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be best for the photo to be from a neutral source.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Cut meat on a wooden table could well suffice, if the picture was of a good enough quality and not intentionally unpleasant (again, the other places all use well-cut pieces of meat or food). To mb2, your request for a neutral source is 1) not necessary--the question isn't whether or not Anna Frodesiak is neutral, it's whether or not the pictureis neutral, and 2) likely impossible to meet, as any "neutral" source will likely be under copyright.
You may be right but I think it's possible that inserting self-taken photos in the midst of an edit dispute violates the spirit of no original research. I'll look into this more in the help section when I have more time.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just googling (mostly finding copyrighted images) , and I actually found this on commons: [10]. What does everyone think? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That image could be any meat at all. It is cooked.
Guidelines are clear on this. We need an image that is clearly dog meat. We have such an image. Dog meat is primarily found in Asia, not a pretty British butcher shop. In its normal presentation, dog meat is simply pieces of meat on a table, with paws and head, etc. Wikipedia is about showing what something is, period. Pretty vs. ugly is not a consideration. Representing it as it really appears is paramount. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right that that is not a good image. However, you are very wrong about the guidelines, at least as they apply here. We need something that is clearly Dog meat. We do not need that meat to look like a dog. Again, look at all of the examples on all of the other meat pages. I do, though, want to say that I am not categorically opposed to one that looks like a dog. For instance, I would support a free license picture that looked like either [11] or [12]. But the guidelines (which, don't forget, are not binding and must be applied with common sense) would also support [13] (if it were in higher quality) or [14] (again, in better quality).Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A custom image

I can take the photo, if necessary. If you like, make a suggestion here. I will get things started with a couple of suggestions. (Sorry to take such an initiative here. I've had a belly-full of circular arguments, and am just trying to see this to an agreement.)

Suggestion 1

  • A butcher table image showing cut up dog
Visitors could see clearly, the colour of the meat, the grain, texture, fat content, appearance of the skin, how it is cut, what cuts are displayed for purchase, what organs, bones, or other parts are for sale, how the parts are displayed, whether or not fur is present, what size and shape dog is used (snout shape, muscle mass, etc.). If any of these parts are medicinal, it would be an extra benefit to the article, and might make Melonbarmonster happy too.

Suggestion 2

  • A close-up of a steak or joint of meat.
Visitors could really see how the meat appears relative to other meats. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer suggestion 1. Bob98133 (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we create a picture which satisfy both suggestion 1 and 2?--AM (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Can you be more specific? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer 2, as it more closely matches what is on other meat pages. However, #1 is fine as long as the purpose of the picture is to inform, not opine. One thing I do want to address that you've mentioned before, and that is the condition you're going to find the meat/butchering in. Notice again how all of the other meat pictures are "pleasing," well focused, neat, clean, etc. Note that this is true despite the fact that, at the moment of butchering, the actual process is bloody and unpleasant. Again, have a look at the links I put above of pictures of copyrighted images that I think fit the bill. If your local market doesn't give you the opportunity to take similar quality photos, it may be that they won't work. One thing I recommend is that you take as many pictures as you can, so that later you can pick out the best quality ones (if this is at an actual market, you're not going to have ideal control over lighting, focus, display, etc.). And one final specific--the picture you take needs to show the dog after final preparation--that means no fur, unless the meat is actually sold with fur on; it means no big pool of blood, unless that is part of the meat being sold. The picture needs to be of dog meat, not of the butchering process of transforming a dog into dog meat. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned with exactly matching other meat articles. I don't want to sanitize an image for that sake. Dog meat is an exception, in that, in Asia, where most dog meat is consumed, the environment where it is sold, and the presentation of the raw meat is different. (Not a lot of chicken heads in American butchers. Plenty of dog heats at Chinese (dog) butchers.) I will do my best to take a variety of pics, but it's not so easy these days. And don't worry, no fur, no blood pools, but maybe a bowl of blood, which is commonly sold along side most other meats. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
We could merge File:Gaegogi-01.jpg into File:Dog meat.jpg to form up a new one. Then we can use this one under a proper caption such as "raw dog meat and processed dog meat". I strongly think that this could be satisfy both you and Melonbarmonster2.--AM (talk)

Suggestion 3

  • A photo of...
Making sense of main photo standards

Please stop harping on this arbitrary standard that the main photo has to be of raw meat or that it has to be recognizable with the animal itself. Those standards reflect editor biases about "dog meat" than any referenced information or the way the main photos of other "meat" articles on wikipedia are portrayed. The subject matter to be plainly portrayed is dog used by humans as food. Any assumption that the photo by default will be "unsanitized" is rather ignorant: any meat when hacked and laid out(or stuffed in a pot in midboil) will look more or less the same regardless of what animal it comes from. That's why Anna's photo of dog parts hanging out of pot was unacceptable.

The reason why other "meat" photos are helpful is because they portray prototypical and exemplary images of the article subjects. Those are popular prepared dishes and classic butchered cuts of the meat. The main photo for this article should be the same. It should of a prototypical prepared dish made with dog or a classic image of dog used as food such as a ham hock, ribroast,etc.. The current photo of boshintang meets this standard and any new photos being considered must also meet this standard.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. You've stated that many times.
  • I've made a case, citing guidelines, for a raw image, and requested feedback. It has received input, suggestions, and support.
  • I've made a case, citing guidelines, that a prepared dish is inappropriate, and requested feedback. The case against a prepared dish has received support.
  • You have made a case for a prepared dish, without citing guidelines, and without asking for feedback or support. You got no support. Then you did the exact same thing again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
Please, instead of continually writing the same thing again and again, propose something, and the rationale, citing guidelines if possible, and ask for feedback. If you get support, fine. If not, forget about it and move on. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You can't are sabotaging consensus by refusing to heed wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions and verifiability and then claim "you have no support". I will continue to attempt in building consensus with you but I am ready to move onto setting up requests for comment for each disputed issue to make sure rules are respected and not ignored.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Before you comment on this beautifully-timed request, please be advised that the article name was changed a few hours ago without consensus. The name was Dog meat.

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what convention you use for naming this article, this article is about human consumption of dog not the literal "meat". You are irrationally trying to justify your personal photo based on a misinterpretation of the term "dog meat".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I take names like "dog meat" literally because literally it means "dog meat". An article entitled, say, "Human consumption of dog meat" could also be taken literally.
Here's a great compromise: You start Human consumption of dog meat, and then I can suggest it be merged as a section into Dog meat. How's that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's considered POV forking and it is also nonsensical. This article isn't about just the "meat" of the dog. It is about human beings eating an animal, dog and all the different aspects that relate to it like history, culture, etc.. Trying to make the main photo the most visceral photo of just the "meat" is weird and irrational. Please be reasonable. You know ALL the other 'meat' articles have photos of prototypical dishes and products made from the meat and not hacked up pieces of raw meat or meat boiling in a pot.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the change of name of this article to dog (food) since it is easily confused with dog food. Dog meat is a far better title. In general, I disapprove of most edits by Melonbarmonster2, as well as his bullying, non-consensus oriented changing of text and meaning. Melonbarmonster2 - you began editing this article on July 22, 2010. Since then your edits have been generally nonconstructive and have not met any consensus. In 2005, this article was called Human consumption of dog meat, but it was later changed, by consensus, to dog meat. Your reversion, and insistence that this change be redone is obstructive and does not take into account several years of editing on this article. It appears that you want to antagonize other editors until you have your way. Bob98133 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have repeatedly stated that I think the original image is preferable to the image you posted, yet you ignore this. Bob98133 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to change the Beef article to Human consumption of cows? Bob98133 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus changes WP:CCC. You are also exhibiting classic signs of article ownership, WP:OWNS complete with claims of "years of work". Please read the the two links above carefully. And the Beef article does not have to be disambiguated since the term "beef" is used to describe culinary uses of the animal. Dog on the other hand, as is the case with chicken and duck, does need to be disambiguated.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster2 You've said that many times. Many times I have replied that the main image is raw meat. Please, just one time, respond to that.
You also used to refer to dog meat as primarily medicine. Medicine is not food. The new article name is "Dog (food)". Do you see the problem there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Main image of what is raw? The majority of the main image of meat articles is prepared dishes and culinary uses of the meat. And no I don't since this article is not about just Asian uses of dog as medicine but the culinary use of the animal worldwide.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Venison, Beef, even Beef mince does not show a luscious hamburger as the main image.
Your last statement about medicine shows that this article should not be named Dog (food). Your argument for it is collapsing.
It is also interesting how you used to refer to dog meat as "dog meat", hundreds of times above, but ever since you renamed the article, you now use the term "dog".Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No they contain nicely cut pieces of meat ready aesthetically photographed. None of them are hacked piece of meat sticking out of a pot midboil.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are clear on this. We need an image that is clearly dog meat. We have such an image. Dog meat is primarily found in Asia, not a pretty British butcher shop. In its normal presentation, dog meat is simply pieces of meat on a table, with paws and head, etc. Wikipedia is about showing what something is, period. Pretty vs. ugly is not a consideration. Representing it as it really appears is paramount. Every time you talk about aesthetics being important, I ask you why. Please, do tell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The guidelines are clear that the image has to convey human culinary use of dog and not half boiled meat sticking out of pot. Also you are speaking from your limited colloquial experience of dog meat being 'simple pieces of meat on a table'. That is not referenced nor is it representative of dog as it is consumed in Asia let alone around the world. And you are the one focused on aesthetics by advocating a ridiculous self-taken photo of dog meat that is intentionally unseemly. I have offered 4 or 5 alternatives varying in degree of aesthetics to have them all rejected. Please be reasonable.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Please show me the guidelines that say that. I've shown you the guidelines that say the opposite.
You know nothing of my experience of dog meat.
Are you ridiculing me for my choice of photo?
The image is not intentionally unseemly. That is the way dog meat looks before it is make into a dish. It doesn't get prettier than that.
All of your alternatives are prepared dishes. The guidelines say that is inappropriate. Therefore, they are not useful alternatives.
You seem not to be pushing for prepared dishes because of the new article name. But, this aritcle name will not stand for long. Try to suggest an appropriate image for an article named "Dog meat".

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna, where do the guidelines say it has to be the meat before it's made into a dish? Are you trying to assert that once something is fully cooked, it's no longer the underlying ingredient? That is, that once a chicken is roasted, it's no longer Chicken (meat)? That's simply not believable. I concur with your idea that sausage is not correct, nor is a dish that is hard to identify (like dog meat mixed with vegetables). But you are taking, not the guidelines themselves, but examples from the guidelines as literal policy. By your logic, the main images on Pork and Chicken (meat) are both wrong. Furthermore, you can't require an absolute literal image--notice, for example, the line about how real images can be used for abstract concepts. Again, a freshly butchered dog, or pieces of dog meat would be fine. Elsewhere I gave 4 examples of the types of images we should use (and I would put, if they weren't copyrighted). The image of partially boiled meat is far from the clear, identifiable image you're looking for. To be honest, I would say that unless we can get a good, clean, easily to see picture of dog meat (pre- or post-cooking), we shouldn't have any main image.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian: Good questions and points.
You asked "where do the guidelines say...." The answer is quite clear: They say that:
"Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article. For example:"
  • Gloria Steinem looks best as a portrait photograph of herself alone, not with other individuals.
  • A suitable picture of a hammerhead shark would show its distinctive hammer-like head, to distinguish it from other species of shark.
  • Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice.
Well, that's pretty clear, and pretty sensible. When I am a visitor to Wikipedia, looking for information, I want a down and dirty picture. If I look up hammer, I don't want to see a hammer among other tools with the claw obscured. Get rid of all the other stuff and show me a hammer on a white surface, high res.
The guidelines do call for an image that clearly identifies the subject. When meat is made into a dish, it's often hard to see what kind of meat it is. That is particularly true with dog meat. The current main image is a good example. Would you know what it is without being told? Roast chicken is easily identifiable, so it's not an issue there.
I think we both feel that the best compromise here is a new image. I will propose it in a new thread below, and editors can request/suggest what they will.
If you want to discuss what I have written, I promise to consicely reply to each point. Best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

First, it's called "dog meat". That's the English word for it, simple as that, so please change it back. If you want to have dog (food) as a redirect, fine, but it won't get used much, if at all, I predict. Dog food already has a meaning, it is something else, I've got a closet full of it and so does Casey's stomach at the moment. I get Alpo. It's like changing beef to "cow (food)" or "pig meat" instead of pork. Rightly or wrongly, it's just the way it is, there's nothing we can do. Chicken (food) works because it's not called "Chicken meat" for some reason, not to mention the fact that what we feed them isn't called "chicken food", it's called "chicken feed", who cares why. So please change it back, your logic is impeccable but like the whole Sea of Japan thing, whatever about all that, it's just not the English word for it.
Second, the picture should be immediately identifiable to anyone as clearly the referent and not something else. That's number one for the main picture of any article about anything/one. The beef article picture, show it to anyone and say "what's that" and they'll say "looks like beef", and then below it's full of clear cow meat. Chicken, ask anyone what that is, same deal. No, it can't be just any bird, it looks just like chicken. Etc. So please find all the pictures of dogmeat that are clearly that and nothing else and then choose among them based on whatever criteria strikes your fancy. Few people know what dog meat looks like, so you're stuck with something more corpse-looking. If it makes you salivate or want to heave, react as you may, it is what it is and there's nothing for it.
Next, in my opinion, this article should be divided into two different sections or something, because there are clearly two different phenomena being described here. One is that people will eat dogs anywhere if they're starving, and there are several of these occasions listed here. People will eat anything, grass and twigs even, dogpoo, under those conditions. It doesnt' make it "food" in that country or culture. Dogmeat at times in history is like one step away from resorting to cannibalism, and when it's like that it's a wholly different deal than dog meat as a part of the a particular cuisine or a characteristic of someone's culture. Now it occurs to me that just because some crazy person or a tiny group of eccentrics eats X in a country or culture is perhaps a third phenomenon and I think there's some of that here.
Third, should I talk about what your motivations are to portray X in one way or another? No one should tell anyone else what the other is trying to do or why they are doing it or any such thing. First, you don't read minds, second, it's irrelevant. Either an edit is good or it's not so don't talk about why someone made an edit or reverted one, just talk the action's effect on the article and readers can gleen your point of view from actions and discussion posts if they wish and draw their own conclusions as they may, but keep your theories about why anyone does things to yourself and don't include them in a debate.
Forth, sorry I didn’t distribute all these comments in their proper places or carefully edit this post. I know it’s long an rambling but that’s what my fingers did just now and I’m sorry if it’s to long and rambling and repetitive, if I had more time I’d’ve written a shorter post, but I’m busy now I gotta go l8r. Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The title isn't "dog food." The (food) is there because what mb2 really wants the title to be is "dog", but there's already (obv) an article with that name, and we use info in parenthesis to disambiguate things. If you look at the references in the article, the name is actually a complex issue, because a significant portion of the time they don't say "dog meat," they just say "eating dog." Others, though, do use dog meat. So it's a difficult issue. As for your other comments, they're somewhere between mildly racist and vilely offensive. It is very disparaging to say that people who eat dog are "crazy" or a "tiny group of eccentrics." Personally, I believe you should retract those statements, as they add nothing to this conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention that one of my paragraphs here has been completely mistunderstood. Sorry for the confusion, let me try again:
Next, in my opinion, this article should be divided into two different sections or something, because there are clearly two different phenomena being described here.
  1. One is dogmeat as a regular feature of a particular culture's cusine. Korea is one example of this.
  2. Another is a situation where starving people resort to eating dog. In the article, you have the arctic explorers and desparate war survivors. People will eat dogs anywhere if they're starving, and there are several of these occasions listed here. People will eat anything, grass and twigs even, dogpoo, under those conditions. It doesnt' make it "food" in that country or culture. Dogmeat at some times and places in history is like one step away from resorting to cannibalism, and when it's like that it's a wholly different deal than dog meat as a part of the a particular cuisine or a characteristic of someone's culture.
  3. Now it occurs to me that a third phenomenon exists as well. An aberration. Just because some crazy person in Kalamazoo or a tiny group of eccentrics in Switzerland starts eating dogs doesn't make it the same as dogmeat consumption in, for example, Korea. That's wholly different than "a country in which dog meat is eaten" and perhaps third phenomenon and I think there's some of that here, maybe in the Swiss section.
Sorry I wasn't clear before; I hope it is clear now.

So what is this article about? It's done in list form; a list of countries. A list of countries or cultures that have something in common? This article should be clear what that is. It's not a list of countries/cultures that feature dog meat eating if you read it carefully.Chrisrus (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the culinary consumption of dog. Refer to duck (food) and chicken (food) for relative comparisons.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster: You keep telling us that this is about culinary consumption. But there are more aspects. As with other meat articles, it could be laid-out in a more comprehensive fashion, containing sections like:

  • History
  • Cuts and edibile components
  • Nutrition and health issues
  • Marketing
  • Social and religious issues
  • Cooking methods
  • Public perception
  • By country (with countries being subsections)
  • Medicinal uses
  • Legal issues

etc...

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All of that fits under an overarching subject of humans eating dog. Not sure what you are disagreeing with.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
To Chrisrus--Ah, yes, I did, in fact, misunderstand what you wrote--you were commenting on how the article is laid out now, rather than commenting on the actual practice of eating dog. My apologies. To Anna/Mb2: I think Anna is right, here. I think that you were correct to refer to Chicken (food) as that's a good model, and similar to what Anna is saying. Just listing every country we can find that has, at one point or another, eaten dog is not a good encyclopedia article. Of course, the problem is going to be finding sources for all of the above info, but it is certainly the goal we should be striving for. I certainly don't think we need such an extensive list of countries by subsection. For any country in which dog meat eating is not common, a simple prose list will suffice "Dog is currently consumed in a number of Asian countries, such as ...." and "Dog was consumed in other countries in the past, such as ..." Highlights for particularly interesting countries are fine, particularly when put into the appropriate categories. For example, Hong Kong is a useful example for a "Legal Issues" section, something like "Dig used to be legal, but the UK outlawed it, and people were convicted of breaking that ban...." Canada, on the other hand, is not useful at all--just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it is actually practiced on a level widely enough to deserve Wikipedia discussion.
This re-organization is going to be a massive task, and probably involve re-writing the whole article. Is it worthwhile for us to try and do this piecemeal? Or should we work on this in a Sandbox somewhere before popping it back to mainspace as a whole "finished" piece? What's going to be the best way to start? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where to start, but maybe not too massive if we split up the work. Others might join in.
Maybe we could decide on sections, and then each prepare one. Melonbarmonster stated that it is principally eaten for medicinal purposes, so maybe that would be a good section for him/her. Legal or social bits and pieces could be extracted from the article. That sort of thing. We could add sections and then zap redundancies. Ok. I just read what I wrote. Maybe not the best plan. I don't know. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The organization of this article is similar to the way other "taboo" meat articles are organized such as "horse meat" and "cat meat". This entire format for these articles is problematic. The referenced info under country headings should be reorganized and rewritten as well as the titles changed to fit popular convention of other meat articles.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why problematic? I'm trying to understand your views.
I agree that country headings should be reorganized and rewritten. Please use the project page and edit it as you see fit.
It is debatable whether dog meat should fit with taboo meat articles, other meat articles, or neither. Thoughts and rationale? Thanks.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog_meat/Archive_2&oldid=1064432494"