Talk:Dog meat/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


If you would please let's look at this together: This is the event the "Canada" section of the article. It's just a short interesting well-written story from the CBC. Then please if you would do please after having read that move on to the next paragraph.

Ok. Now we both know that the "Edmonton Panda Garden mystery meat" situation there turned out to be Coyote meat. The question is, while a coyote is perhaps a "wild dog" in one very broad sense of the word, I'm not sure if Coyote meat is within the scope of this article. It could also be legitimately seen as a "dog meat" false alarm because the experts went over the bodies with calipers and such and reported back that it was Canis latrans, point of fact.

So, this is my first request for comment from dogmeat talk page watchers:

Is Coyote meat within the scope of this article?

Next, and this is a separate question, regardless of the above, notice that we could used this citation to cite the fact that it is illegal in Canada to sell the meat of any wild animal. We mention this fact in the article. Why? Dog meat isn't the meat of any wild species.

So I'm removing these two statements from the article.

Well, what can we learn from this article about Dog meat in Canada? Only the fact that it's not technically illegal there? Please notice that this article can be used to cite that fact. But is there anything else we can learn about it?

If you read the article, I think you will agree that it is knowable from this that Canadians were worried it might be dogmeat and took the possibility very seriously as if that would be a bad thing in their culture. It's clear from this that broadly speaking dogmeat is as taboo in Canadian culture as you might figure it probably would be. Also, the fact that the restaurant was call Panda makes me think it was probably Chinese food and so that is who was being suspected of this violation of Canadian custom if not law.

Why do you think Canadians don't have a specific law against dogmeat? Maybe they don't feel they need such a law, or had never thought to make such a law as it's just that far out of their culture that no one thought to make such a law. And also, if inspectors have to be present, don't you think that de facto rules out butchering a dog there? I mean, what Canadian meat inspector isn't going to be come up with some rule that would disallow it.

The question is: can we confidently state that it's legal to butcher a dog and eat it in Canada based on this Edmonton Panda Garden Story? Chrisrus (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the article asserting that. Presently, it asserts:
  • In 2003, health inspectors discovered four frozen canine carcasses in the freezer of a Chinese restaurant in Edmonton which, in the end, were found to be coyotes. (citing [1])
  • The Edmonton health inspector said that it is not illegal to sell and eat the meat of dogs and other canines, as long as the meat has been inspected.(citing [2])
  • Under Canada's Wildlife Act, it is illegal to sell meat from any wild species, but there is no law against selling and serving canine meat, including dogs, if it is killed and gutted in front of federal inspectors. (citing [3])
  • If a dog is killed out of the view of federal inspectors, the killing might involve cruelty, which would be a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, and those convicted may be sentenced to up to 5 years in prison. (citing [4])
I don't think the currently cited sources support your version. The legality of the slaughter apparently depends on circumstantial details, and the currently cited sources don't seem to have anything to say about legal constraints or requirements re the butchering of dog meat. One of the sources does say that it is not illegal to eat dog meat as long as it's been inspected. Another of the sources says that there is no law against selling and serving canine meat, including dogs, but it must be killed and gutted in front of federal inspectors.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be technically legal to set up a licensed slaughterhouse to kill dogs, although there would be massive protest demonstrations. It is illegal for a pet-owner to kill his own dog (unless he/she is a veterinarian). Anyone reading this srticle should understand that there are sentences of up to 5 years for cruelty to animals, and anyone butchering a dog in the back yard would be at risk of criminal charges, not to mention a community outcry and condemnation.77Mike77 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

When I started this thread last summer, the Canadian section was different than it is now. Not that there isn't room for improvement still, but the section I was describing above and the way it is now are different. If you can further improve it, please be WP:BOLD. Chrisrus (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New info available

I found this article,, and thought that editors of this article might want to make use of it. Happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's well-known that native Americans traditionally ate dogs when they were starving, but that article's title makes it sound like the west coast hippies ate dogs with their granola. It's probably because they inappropriately used the European (French) word "cuisine" (probably for ironic effect). It is important that this article not attempt to misrepresent dog meat as just another menu item in North America, because dog-eating is very rare today among aboriginals and reviled among the vast majority of the population. It is only recent immigrants from some non-European cultures who are trying to impose this disgusting practice and misrepresent it as normal and acceptable. For example, no restaurant in Canada would EVER advertise the word "dog meat" on an English sign, because dog-lovers would put a brick through the window. Dog meat is very much "underground" in Canada, alongside shark fins amd tiger penises. I suspect that there will eventually be legislation in Canada to make dogmeat illegal as it is in Germany.77Mike77 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike, please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. Just because you think the practice is "disgusting", please do not attempt to either put your POV into the article or assume that you accurately represent the opinions of the averag North American/Canadian. And your suspicions are also irrelevant. That article seems to be worthy of inclusion, and in fact seems to speak exactly against your claim that it was done just during times of starvation--the article implies it may have been a regular practice among some groups of Native Americans. It's far from conclusive, but worthy for writing. I'll figure out a reasonable summary and add it. Finally, note that no one is trying to use this article to say that it's a regular menu item in North America--we're trying to accurately represent when and where the practicing of eating dog occurred. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the second page of the discovery article, I'm not inclined to add it. The lead-in talks about dog use as meat...but the actual report on the study merely verifies that the buried animals were dogs, not that they were eaten. In fact, it seems to provide more support the idea of ritual killing, which may or may not be connected to eating. So, I don't see much there for this article (though it would of course be good for whatever article it is that where we talk about the history of dog domestication). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate NPOV in the article. In an article on, say, cannibalism, is it forbidden to mention, in the Talk section, that most Canadians are opposed to cannibalism? I can indeed state this without a citation, and without "speaking for all Canadians", in precisely the same way that I can assert that the vast majority of Canadians do not believe that 2+2=5. You obviously don't live in Canada if you think that eating dogs is acceptable here. I've never met anyone in Canada who wouldn't be horrified at the idea of eating a dead dog. I have never seen dog meat on sale anywhere, ever. I am certain that the number of dog-eaters in Canada is much smaller than the number of people convicted of armed robbery. If there is an article about the topic of eating dog meat, it is because it is shocking - you never see an article, "Some Canadians discovered eating sardines!" My point of view is completely in accordance with the facts in Canada, and anyone who attempts to promote the blatant falsehood that eating things like dogs, roadkill, etc. is somehow "normal" or "acceptable" in Canada is someone with a propaganda agenda that violates NPOV. There is no law in Canada against chopping off your fingers and eating them, just as there is no law against eating dogs or abortions. Why? Because virtually nobody does these things. If they did, there would be a newspaper story about it, but one would twisted to construe that story as a "citation" to justify the viewpoint that Canadians eat dogs, abortions, fingers, etc. I suspect that the number of Canadians who eat dogmeat is roughly the same as the number who eat roadkill. It is time someone did surveys on these things. I'm looking into it. Also First Nations people do not consider themselves "Canadians". They insist on keeping their own remaining lands under treaties with Canada on a nation-to-nation basis. (Please follow the recent newspapers in Canada if you don't understand this.) Never say "Some Canadians eat dog meat" when you mean, "A tiny number of First Nations people eat dog meat on their reservations within Canada." The only other people who are suspected of eating dogs are very recent immigrants from certain backward parts of Asia who have not yet learned that eating dogs is socially unacceptable in Canada, and even in that case, it would be done completely underground and out of sight. It's similar to polygamy: polygamists who married several wives where it is legal are accepted by Canadian law (even though it is abhorent to Canadians) while marrying more than one wife IN Canada is illegal. There is a resistance in Canada to fundamental changes, and introducing dog-eating and polygamy will be met with opposition.77Mike77 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, your personal observations don't help us--Wikipedia requires that information be verified by reliable sources. Second, you need to stop your vitriol here. Stop calling the practice "horrific" or "disgusting" or comparing it to eating abortions. If you are unable to discuss the matter calmly, you should look to editing other things on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are violating NPOV by trying to promote the one-sided view that dog-eating is an acceptable, non-controversial practice in Canada, which it is not. There is very strong opposition to it here. Do not propagate falsehoods about Canada and expect them to go unchallenged. The fact that you find eating abortions offensive shows a value judgment on your part, and the fact that you find it unacceptable to compare dog-eating to abortion-eating implies that you don't have a problem with dog-eating. If you are posting from Korea, fine, that is your business, but you cannot expect the Canadian section of this article to adhere to a Korean point of view. The opening of this article, with a nutrient breakdown, violates NPOV. Would you have a nutrient breakdown of human meat in an article about cannibalism? Is wikipedia a cookbook, do you think? This article has parts that do take into consideration the controversy and the cruelty issues. Please re-read the yellow boxes about the animal rights aspects of the article and reconsider your comments.77Mike77 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to propagate anything, and I'm not adding anything about Canada. I'm not saying dog eating is endemic to Canada, or even common. I'm merely reporting what reliable sources say. I would never mean to imply that it's common in North America--while I live in Japan, I'm from the United States...while I personally know that dog eating is either extremely uncommon or illegal in many US states, I wouldn't add it to the article without proof. And even though most people I personally knew in the US would find dog eating to be wrong, I again would never try to make the article reflect that without RS.
So, rather than start an argument here, maybe let's go back to the article. Is there something specific in the article currently that is wrong (that doesn't match the source, that is WP:UNDUE, etc.)? Or do you have other info that you want to add based upon reliable sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair and reasonable comment. I will be looking for some references before developing something to add. This is a topic that is "under the radar" in Canada, in some ways, and there is very little written about it. There are animal rights sites, but they would probably be considered non-NPOV. Many others have an overtly anti-animal-rights agenda so are also non-NPOV. Newspapers and magazines are not exactly sources of unbiased truth, unless rhey are reporting specific facts, e.g. a survey result. I'm working on it and will be back.77Mike77 (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

My take

  • I am leary about the source. Looks like infotainment spin to dazzle the readers.
  • Page two of the article can be ignored, but doesn't diminish page one. Page one is self-diminishing. It contains this bold statement:
"...Dogs are reared (or were) largely for the flesh which they supply ... like the farmer’s yellow-legged chicken, when other meat is scarce"[5] That's based on the 1877 "Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region”. The source is reliable. The statement doesn't imply desperation or starvation. We eat apples when peaches are scarce. I would place it somewhere around necessity/choice. I'll try to grab a copy of that survey and see if is cherrypicking.
Lynn Snyder seems to be jumping to conclusions with "...dogs often have a high fat content compared to other food sources and, unlike wild animals, their fat content varies little between seasons. Dogs then would have been an attractive food source..."[6]
  • Just that Lynn Snyder bit makes me want to chuck the source entirely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Lychee dog meat festival in China

According to Apple Daily, in Yulin, Guangxi the locals are celebrating the lychee dog meat festival and they will kill more than 100,000 dogs.

People of Guangxi celebrating dog meat festival 100,000 dogs will be killed

Hong Kong Apple Daily 21 June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


The info provided in this article about my country is false; if one reads this page will think that dog meat is common in Switzerland, like in Korea or other Asian countries. It's not, and it's forbidden by law. That news from Appenzell is an old story about some crazy farmer. Just because some TV aired a show about this in 1996 doesn't mean that it's a national thing. Writing "dog meat is consumed in Switzerland, China, etc." is totally untrue. Proof? The German version of this article, with law-links. You can't find dog meat in Switzerland: either in shops, either in restaurants. Get your facts correct before writing "dog meat consuming is common in Switzerland" please. The "Switzerland" part of the article is correct, but you can't cite Switzerland at the beginning of the article as "eating dog counrty" because it's not true and gives false information about my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C61:25F0:C504:E74F:80DC:1654 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just made an edit in response to yours. While I did restore Switzerland to the lead, I hope that I have put it in proper perspective. It is deceptive, if true, to say "dog meat is eaten in Switzerland", because it's not eaten in most of that country. We seem to only have reference to dog meat consumption being a feature of one of the many cultures and sub-cultures of Switzerland; the Appenzell culture. Also, there are other cultures in the body that should be mentioned in the lead, such as some African cultures and many Polynesian cultures. I hope you feel your concerns have been properly addressed. Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


I saw my edit about dog meat in Poland was reversed. The information I posted is true and covered by law, isn't only a cultural taboo (meat, fat etc). This is why people mentioned in the article in English face criminal charges,because they killed dogs, not being for example vets who eustanize sick animals.(article 33 in Polish animal wellfare law states when an animal can be killed-there are 6 points regarding it-and who is qualified to do it, methods of possible humane killing,etc) I was thinking the article was giving enough supporting information. Maybe quoting in addition, plus providing links to documents (in Polish) regulating situation of animals, animal rights, animal abuse will clarify this?

Also not in all rural areas the belief is held, in some, yes. Bialosz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Dog eating is not done by everyone in Korea. Does it exist? Yes, but it isn't something that is done by everyone, as a matter of fact, most people don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And the article doesn't say that it's done by everyone in Korea, so, I think we're all okay. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Koreans don't really eat dogs these days. It was past ago when they ate dog meat. Also, the dog meat they ate was edible dogs, not pet dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we have references that show that they still do (or, at least, that some do). Now, if you can provide reliable sources that say they don't, then we could add that info to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have references that some do, it should be clarified that some do. The Korea part is so written that nothing suggests that it is practiced by some, when you talk about "cuisine" the text suggests that it is common. According to Korean animal right activists most Koreans don't eat dog meat, and don't want to be associated with this practice.See the last paragraph by KARA (Korean Animal Rights Advocates). To me this source is as reliable as for ex. PETA.

Such subjects need to be treated with cultural sensitivity.Even though most Koreans don't eat dog meat, nor tried it, there is a stereotype about Koreans. If ethnic stereotypes exist, care needs to be taken not to perpetuate them by not mentioning that it is not practiced by most people. Here in this video Korean university students confront common held stereotypes mention dog eating too.

The video isn't reliable source, but is reliable to show the stereotypes. Too many people rely on information on wikipedia, so, certain subjects need to be treated carefully, or maybe an anthropologist should read them too? Bialosz (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Manchu taboo on dog meat contrasted with Korean consumption of dog meat

The Manchu people/Jurchen people do not eat dogs, harm or kill dogs, or use resulting from the killing of dogs. which distinguishes them from Koreans.

The Jurchens even regarded what Koreans did to dogs at the "utmost evil". Page 131 on top, Page 18 on botton.

Rajmaan (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dog meat mafia smuggling dogs from Thailand to Vietnam for human consumption

http://www.examiner . com/ article/vietnam-dog-meat-industry-does-torture-make-the-meat-tastier

Rajmaan (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Image

The image used for this article was clearly chosen to evoke an emotional response and should be changed. Look up any other article about a specific animal's meat and they are not anything like this one. (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What emotional response are you talking about? To me, it looks like a hunk of meat. Personally, I even find it appetizing. I don't see anything emotional about it at all. This is what dog meat looks like as it is being prepared. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It could also upset children who stumble on this page. (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't find that image any more upsetting than the images seen early on in the beef, veal, pork, mutton or balut (egg) articles. As for the assertion that this article's lead image was "clearly chosen to evoke an emotional response", I searched for image in the talk page archives, and looked at the most recent discussion turned up -- you might want to take a look at that. At the time of that discussion, the lead image was different; see this April 14, 2011 version. The current lead image seems to have been placed in the article in this 2010 edit (but not as the lead image), and seems to have been in and out of the article since then. It might be appropriate to revisit this discussion, but please see WP:CENSOR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The page meat itself is not a lot different. ~ R.T.G 09:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation in Cantonese and Mandarin

This edit caught my eye, the edit summary of which says "Mainland China: I'm native Cantonese speaker the pronunciation of dog and nine is not same you can ask local Hong Konger to proof". I have not reverted it but, of course, it is WP:OR and asking local Hong Kongers for proof doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. I haven't looked hard for sources satisfying RS requirements to support differing assertions re this (see WP:DUE), but I did see [7], [8], [9], [10], and others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible tables in "mainland China"

I can not see the point of the 2 collapsible tables in "Mainland China". I propose these be deleted.DrChrissy (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Dog smuggling trade from Thailand to Vietnam.

Rajmaan (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rajmaan What is the purpose of posting these here? Are you intending to use these?DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, the dog smuggling trade is a legitimate topic isn't it? There is also information on shipping of dog meat to Hanoi in the other articles.Rajmaan (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please include the information into the article then, rather than simply sending multiple URL of some distasteful images without any explanation of why you posted them or even a warning.DrChrissy (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vietnamese girl finds her dog cooked

Please consider including this information.

Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would that be the least bit significant to this article? (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It isn't relevant - note there is no user page. I suggest ignore it.DrChrissy (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

John Barrowman linking to this page

I don't know whether it's a significant factor at this point, but John Barrowman recently linked to this page, albeit indirectly, on Twitter (the actual message is in the TMI link which, in turn, links to this page via a shortened URL that's apparently blacklisted on Wikipedia). I know there's a template for that, but I don't know whether it's really called for here or not. While there's been an uptick in IP edits recently, some were clearly beneficial, and none have called for the deletion of the page as suggested in the post. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

Per WP:LEADIMAGE, "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred." The current image shows the partially dismembered head and torso of a dog, which (though an accurate depiction of the topic) is unnecessarily graphic and should not be used per this guideline. Other articles about meat types (e.g. Beef, Chicken (food), Whale meat) tend to show the animal's meat in isolation or in a prepared state, rather than showing the process of butchery. Similarly, this article should use a less graphic image, perhaps in conjunction with an image of the livestock animal from which the meat is derived, following the example of the Beef article. (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I have updated the lead with a new image not previously present in the article. Hopefully this is an acceptable balance between accurately illustrating the topic and not unduly shocking readers. (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciated your reasonableness. Like the beef and pork main image, I personally think the it should be of the raw meat. Once cooked, it changes appearance. Lobster goes opaque and red. Beef goes brown. Dog meat when steamed seems reddish. Dog meat when boiled seems brownish. Readers probably would like to know what the actual meat looks like before something is done to it. I think that trumps LEADIMAGE. Besides, LEADIMAGE and NOTCENSORED sort of neutralize each other.
Finally, this has been discussed at great length. See the archives for those discussions. My view is that you ought to self revert and get consensus here for any new lead image(s). That way, the community can say what they think of that long-standing raw meat image and decide if it is appropriate, and if not, what should replace it. Very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, LEADIMAGE trumps NOTCENSORED, not the other way around: "While Wikipedia is not censored, as outlined in the above section on offensive images, the selection of the lead image should be made with some care with respect to this advice." There is no problem with including the image elsewhere in the article, it just doesn't belong in the lead for the reasons outlined at the LEADIMAGE guideline. As you have pointed out, the current has come up in multiple past discussions - clear evidence that a significant number of users find the current image unacceptable.
Fortunately, there is an easy solution. Since you feel the raw meat better represents the topic, it sounds like the ideal compromise would be a less graphic image of the raw meat. I'll look for one on commons and update the article. (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a possible candidate:
I think it has less potential shock value, but the color balance is not very good. Seems to me like an acceptable choice unless a better alternative is proposed. (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure the image I suggested above is really an improvement. Here is a survey of meat articles from Template:Meat.

Image E is the least offensive. It puts the sale of dog meat in it's cultural context which makes it less disturbing. The first image (a) is far too graphic for Wikipedia.

Article Lead image
Beef Raw cut of meat
Cat Live animal
Chicken (food) Prepared
Duck (food) Prepared
Elephant meat Illustration of elephant being shot
Goat meat In preparation
Horse meat Raw, sliced meat
Kangaroo meat Raw cuts of meat
Lamb and mutton Raw cuts of meat
Pork Raw cut of meat
Quails in cookery In preparation
Squab (food) Prepared
Turkey meat Prepared
Veal Dressed carcasses
Venison Raw cut of meat
Whale meat Raw cuts in market
The general practice seems to be to show cuts of meat in isolation, or an example of the prepared food. We should probably do the same here. Like it or not, some readers have a cultural background such that the image of a dog being butchered would be shocking or upsetting. There is no need to confront readers with such an image in the lead.
Some more candidate images:
I'd be glad to hear thoughts from other editors on this. (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


Well, it has been three days, and no self-revert. I'm going to revert to the last stable version and leave the live dog image. Please use WP:BRD here to get consensus for a non-raw meat lead image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See the archives - this has come up in multiple past discussions (1, 2, 3, 4), and it seems that some users find the image objectionable, others don't. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, the obvious choice is to use a less potentially shocking image. I don't understand your rationale for insisting on an image that multiple editors find problematic. (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The big discussion back in 2010 ended with quite broad consensus to have an image of meat, not a dish. Since then, there has not been any great change in opinion. If the community wishes to have an image other than the one currently used, I am fine with it. It is not what I want that matters, it is the what the community wants.
So, community, if you wish to have a different image, please speak up and give your views. The choices have been presented. They include the current image, the ones above, and others at commons. Unless there is broad consensus, the present image ought to remain. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a consensus to go with picture B. There was also some support with picture D (or showing it with picture B in the lead); however, there were concerns over the quality of the image. If a higher-quality image of cooked dog meat can be found, perhaps it could be discussed further.

DrChrissy also expressed concerns on showing graphic images on the basis that it could be a dangerous precedent for horror. Another RfC/discussion could provide more context. Esquivalience t 01:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is some disagreement about what the lead image for the Dog meat article should be. The current image shows a raw, skinned dog head and torso. Concerns have been raised about the graphicness of this image per WP:LEADIMAGE. Possible alternatives include other images of raw dog meat, or images of prepared or cooked dog meat. (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • For past discussions, see the containing section, plus 1, 2, 3, 4.
Possible candidate images include:
Feel free to propose other images as well. (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • B - Shows the meat (not a dish). Lots of cuts. Not too gory. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support image B Slightly gory present image.DrChrissy (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • D - A, B, & C all seem too graphic - heads and legs sticking out, etc. B is probably the best of the three but has an unnatural color balance and seems to be too "in your face" in its presentation. D shows the meat in isolation and is reasonably representative. It does show cooked rather than raw meat, but I think this is acceptable since the article is about dog meat as food. (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

comment One of the problems I see here is that we need to be careful not to sanitize the origins of our meat. The article Lamb contains a lead image including the bone/leg of the animal whereas Ham does not and Pork has a picture of an entire pig being roasted. The line between non-sanitized and gory is a thin one and influenced by many subjective/cultural factors. I have to say that as someone from the UK who eats meat, I respond differently to an image of a slow-roasting dog compared to a slow-roasting pig. However, I have to acknowledge this is a hypocritical attitude on my part. Perhaps we need to develop guidelines on this?DrChrissy (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good points, DrChrissy. Well put. I am seeing two relevant considerations: WP:LEADIMAGE (a guideline) and WP:NOTCENSORED (a policy). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
However, these two constraints are not mutually exclusive. Moving the more graphic image further down in the article would allow us to choose a more suitable lead image per the MOS, while still satisfying WP:NOTCENSORED. (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Crissy's comments; we need a non-graphic image for the lede. I'm unsure the sample provided at the beginning is representative, however. We have to take into account that images can also be political statements, and as such are against WP:NPOV. Also, being culturally sensitive is something we have to take into account. For instance, showing E in the lede is like saying look at what markets are like in Korea, which might not be a good idea. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • B - less shocking than A, the pieces present the raw color of the meat and the shape of a dog, even without the head. Gunkarta  talk  14:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

comment I have just read WP:LEADIMAGE and this states "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred."(my emphasis) I think this means that of the 5 candidates above, D is clearly the only choice. However, as Anna points out, this is a guideline. The WP:NOTCENSORED policy discusses images that might be "objectionable" and says "..."being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal (or inclusion) of content." (my emphasis). I do not wish to go against policy, but I feel this might be one of those "generally" exceptions. I have seen many images on animal-welfare related articles deleted because they are objectionable, and often agreed because they seem to have been selected for their high level of shock-value. If we go down the route that not showing these types of images (in the lead) is censorship and therefore they should be allowed, we could end up with a real horror show on animal/meat related articles.DrChrissy (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that the debate is really about the order/placement of images within the article, not the inclusion/exclusion of particular images. I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant. (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I think the raw meat should still be in the lead, and dishes showing it cooked later on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

comment This has been discussed before and as I recall we thought the important thing was that pictures should be clearly of the thing that they depicting. If one picture doesn't clearly and obviously show something, it's not as good as a more unmistakable image. So while picture D of the steamed meat will be chosen by pretty much aesthetic grounds alone, how clearly is it a picture of the referent of this article and not something else? Picture D is easily mistakable for another kind of meat. The other pictures are unmistakably the referent of this article. That picture D is nice to look at, but being nice to look at isn't the only important criterion. A picture should not look like something else. So that's why we decided to use the least ugly of those pictures that don't look as if they could be anything else. Chrisrus (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • comment We could try what they have done on the Pork page. This has 2 lead images, one of the meat itself and then one of a pig roasting. We could have the steaming meat image (D) immediately followed by (B) and the live dogs moved to early in the main text.DrChrissy (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • B is the least outrageous and most editorially correct of the possible images. LavaBaron (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking through many other meat articles one might use as examples, they actually span a range of "Meat for sale", "Isolated piece of meat", and "Prepared dishes". That said, 'B' is probably the best - the image is clearer than 'C', it presents a wider variety (and in a more food-ish state) than 'A', 'E' doesn't give us a good image of the cuts, and 'D' is low quality and doesn't look very appetising (which a finished dish lead should. If Cow lung can manage that, anything can). So, 'B', although it ain't perfect. A well prepared dish, or a context like 'E' but covering just the display case from a higher angle, would be better. WilyD 10:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support B It is a respectful presentation of the meat. I think it would be too shocking to show the head of the animal which is a good reason to discontinue using A. The photo is nice quality and the subject matter is nicely arranged. I note that in ham, lamb and mutton, and beef the cuts of meat are more processed and look less like the animal source, but then also, I expect that all of the images are the cuts in their most familiar form in the marketplace. B works. I do not like D because it is a low quality photograph. E is not good for the lead because the first picture should feature the subject of the article with the least context. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In 2015, between 10 and 20 million dogs per year are believed to be killed for consumption in China.

This sentence is illogical. Firstly, it can be either "2015" or "per year", but those two together doesn't make any sense. Secondly, it's a huge difference between 10 and 20 million. If you can't narrow down the number, then don't give any number. But this way, it seems like they just want to have any number to scare people. -- (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention a year in conjunction with that figure, but since I can see this as something that might vary depending on social pressures, I've changed the wording to "As of" and tagged it with a template to note that it could be dated. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Apologies for the language.

daily mail not suitable source for such claims

The Daily Fail is a horrible source for almost any item, but particularly in relation to cross cultural "scandals" its tabloid roots, heart and soul completely show through in screaming red top glory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking primarily for data regarding the number of dogs eaten in China and the Daily Mail article indicates 10 million, this agrees with (confirms) the estimate we already have from another source but which has been tagged as requiring a stronger source. While reading the article, I noticed the beating and skinning aspects. I have read these claims before, but on blogs etc so I did not use them. I have tried to draw attention to potential for lack of robustness by stating "There are claims...". But when it comes down to it, The Daily Mail is a secondary source and what I have written is verifiable.DrChrissy (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Daily Mail is certainly NOT a "stronger" source by any means. It traffics in rumors and gossip and tales of UFO's and confessions of Lady Di's secret lesbian lovers. Completely unacceptable on all counts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
The Daily Mail is a notorious tabloid newspaper and is of course unreliable for any serious topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Where is your support for this statement, or is this just your own opinion?DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Community consensus (as well as it being common sense for any educated person surely). Check out the archives of WP:RS/N - or even current discussion there. Alexbrn (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Alexbrn - your last revert deleted a source which is not being discussed here. Please self revert.DrChrissy (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean other iffy sources containing rumours and sensation? I thought this edit was good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you perhaps deliberately mishearing me? I said your revert deleted material that was not under discussion. Please examine the effects of your reversion and reinstate material which has not been discussed here.DrChrissy (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe DrChrissy is referring to this edit [11] where the CNBC is entered (for some reason named NYT) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It does seem to be NYT content here, but if it were presented properly instead of with the POV-Weasel "there are some claims" wording that was used, we should say "According to a tweet by Ricky Gervais ...". I mean ... seriously? Alexbrn (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Alexbrn your repeated refusal to reinstate material that you deleted without discussing or giving a reason is disruptive editing. Please reinstate the material or your behaviour will be reported.DrChrissy (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
What you mean the Ricky Gervais stuff? Alexbrn (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you are now WP:Baiting. It is clear from your ill-advised disruptive revert the material to which I am referring. An editor with your experience must realise you are being disruptive and there may be consequences.DrChrissy (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, so you're not going to tell us what content you mean. If it's not the NYT/Gervais stuff then what? Alexbrn (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not up to me to correct your poor and disruptive editing. I have already advised you with the means by which you can make right the problem. Perhaps there is a WP:COMPETENCY issue here?DrChrissy (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually it IS up to you to establish that the source for your material is reliable - a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial oversight . 1) Daily Mail tabloid clearly doesnt cut it. And 2) even the august NYT doesnt cut it when all they are doing is reporting a twit from a comedian. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

() DrChrissy, can you please establish which specific reference you believe should be reinstated. I've been following along, and even I don't see what it is you're referring to. There were only two non-Daily Mail references that were removed along with the Daily Mail ones: the CNBC one that the others have addressed and the one, which appears to be a WordPress blog that you need an account to view. Blogs, at least in the sense of personal blogs, are by definition not reliable sources (with a rare few exceptions, like sources about themselves). So which of these two do you believe should be reinstated and why? Robin Hood  (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Swiss and dogmeat... (Largly nonsense)

Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that both the BBC and Washington Post articles do say that, the Spiegel article is from 1953 and seems to be more about a specific post-war situation. The second ref actually contains sentences like "Auch ein ehemaliger Hundemetzger aus dem Appenzellerland gibt zu: «Ich habe Hunde erschossen, gehäutet, ausgenommen und Suppe daraus gemacht. Die war speziell gut." (A former butcher admitted: "I have shot skinned and gutted dogs and made sopu from them and it was especially good.")or "Hundreds of people in rural areas eat cats and dogs," or "Previously it would have been more common, with a farmer admitting: "Until 20 years ago, I ate dog meat daily, it was a pleasure smoked." The Basel online site does dispute the claims, but quotes one researcher claiming it was common until the 1950s and 1960s.
I think here we have WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD issues and that it would probably be best to move the Switzerland claims into the main body of the article and note in the lead that dog meat has been eaten in Europe until recent times. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, Kleuske, you state in your edit summary that "a blog is not a reliable source", however this applies to wordpress, blogspot and the like. In this case the relevant policy is WP:NEWSBLOG: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals." In this case, the writer, Adam Taylor, is a professional and a regular writer on foreign affairs for the Washington Post, so that does meet WP:RS. Valenciano (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The claim, as is was made, did not imply it was a local custom in some regions of Switzerland, but implied it is still a widespread custom, as it is in Asia. The 1953 article is informative, since it shows that these allogations are nothing new and aim at sentiment rather than fact. The sale of dogmeat is not legal in Switzerland. Just FYI, IO have no problems with Asians eating anything they like, I do have problems with (obvious) misinformation.
P.S. A Washingtonian reporting on swiss customs is ipso facto not very reliable. These are not "foreign affairs", after all, but "local customs". The blog is simply an echo of a rally by a animal-welfare-group. Kleuske (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree that it is WP:UNDUE to make it sound like this is a widespread custom, but the claims and the petition deserve a mention in the body of the article (not the lead), with due balance. Valenciano (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no petition that merits discussion in the lead of this article. WP:UNDUE / WP:RECENTISM . a general mention of activism against, maybe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The WP-blog actually does not claim the Swiss (still) eat cats and dogs habitually, just that a local action-group claim this is the case. Hence the article (ok) cannot be used as a source for a factual statement about that cuisine. If *any* mention is made, the swiss sources should be leading instead of foreign and (frankly) sensationalist sources. WP:NPOV, not just WP:UNDUE. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

DrCrazy102's edits

I have made some edits the lead and various sections throughout the article due to bad syntax of writing, poorly worded sections and some nonsense about 'tunch' (excuse me if it is a cultural word, I mean no offense, though it should have a link or definition). is a link to the revisions I have made. If anyone has any particular concerns about my edits, feel free to leave a comment under a sub-section title of the edited section, e.g. if you have concerns about my edits to the Lede, use the sub-section title "Lede", and so on.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead image Search

This has been a chronic problem for some years now. None of the other "meat" articles show lead photo's that are there for shock value. The lead photo should be representative of the dog meat as food and not POV of particular editors. The Request for Comment below unfortunately seems to have only considered similar photos that were taken for "shock value". Please assist in finding an appropriate photograph that is representative of dog meat as food. Feel free to share candidates below for comment. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2 you indicated in a previous edit summary to the Article page that you have been involved in previous discussion about the lead image. Please could you explain why I can not find your user name on the Talk page in respect to that discussion.DrChrissy (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Melonbarmonster2, please drop the issue. You fought for this against several who opposed you (including me) and that can be seen in talk archives 1 through 4. It was so disruptive and pure battleground mentality. You even performed the really dirty trick of moving the article to a name that favoured your position right in the middle of a critical discussion. You wasted many, many hours of other editors. The community was totally clear then, and is now, that this article is about the meat, and not the dish. If you have a new angle this time, it is not what the community wants. I strongly suggest that you walk away from this one. The recent discussion to select the current image shows what the community wants. Please, do not even start to waste our time with this again. Many editors will simply restore the meat image while you may end up blocked for 3RR, edit warring, or having a battleground mentality. Just stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Melon, there are other "meat" pages that feature carcasses or cuts of meat, such as:
Inspected carcasses tagged by the USDA
However, other similar articles such as Duck and Goat meat feature only images of dishes with clear captions stating the meat and name of the dish. For myself, I think the precedent and general consensus of the other articles seems to indicate using images of dishes, though this may be related to carnism and the dissonance that people experience between animals and meat. However, a non-controversial lead image should be used when possible, while more controversial images should be placed lowed in the the article as per WP:LEADIMAGE, though WP:IAR may apply somewhat. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Dr Crazy 102. While I appreciate your trying to sort this out, I am not sure what exactly you are trying to see happen. About what is in the archives: There is far, far more that happened than in the picture you paint above. The discussion moved on to raw meat images, and I was fine with that -- anything to see it settled.
This has been discussed to death. Opening a new discussion with nothing much new to say, and hoping for some change in the current image is a very, very long shot. In my opinion, it is just not worth opening this can of worms only to see several dozen more community hours wasted.
The community's position in a nutshell is: "The lead image should be of raw cuts of meat and not a cooked dish. By and large and within reason, the con of the shocking effect of an image gives way to the pro of an image that clearly conveys what the subject of the article is, which is dog meat." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
For myself, I don't want to change the lead image just for the sake of changing it to something less controversial. If there are more editors who feel the same way as Melonbarmonster2, then perhaps a change should be considered but I agree that the current editors have a consensus of "keep the raw cuts" and personally feel that it is a perfectly reasonable and agreeable solution considering Melon's prior involvement led to much wikt:angst. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr Crazy 102, my friend. What you just wrote above is the kind of thing great Wikipedian's write. I am not complimenting you because I agree with it. What you wrote shows that you are collegial and thoughtful. My very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scandals mentioned on this page too?

Should we include scandals where dog meat was sold in countries for consumption where dog meat is officially forbidden by religious rules?

dog meat morocco

Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal after ... - Daily Mail Daily Mail May 4, 2013 - Authorities in Morocco have launched an investigation into the illegal trade of dog meat after 37 carcasses were discovered in the back of a ...

Islam For Today - Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal... Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal after police find carcasses of pets destined for restaurants Police in Casablanca find 37 dog carcasses in back of...


▶ 0:09 Sep 15, 2015 - Uploaded by MAROC MED!A DOG MEAT IN MOROCCO ... I Ate DOG MEAT for Dinner - SUPPORT YULIN 2015!! - Duration: ... Pet dog ...

Dog meat Sausage Scandal Grips Morocco as Owners Fight ... International Business Times May 5, 2013 - Illegal trading of dog meat sparks police probe in Morocco after a man from Casablanca was arrested with the dog carcasses meant for ...

Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal after police find ... May 5, 2013 - Authorities in Morocco have launched an investigation into the illegal trade of dog meat after 37 carcasses were discovered in the back of a ...

Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal after ... - Pinterest Pinterest Horrific images show caged dogs at restaurants in China where they are about to be killed and eaten The shocking photos show dogs being killed and cooked ...

Disgusting dog meat scandal in Morocco • Ethiopian News Forum - Mereja May 6, 2013 - 2 posts - ‎1 author Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal after police find carcasses of pets destined for restaurants. Police in Casablanca find 37 dog carcasses ...

Mohammed Hersi on Twitter: "Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT ... Morocco in grip of DOG MEAT scandal after police find carcasses of pets ... @hersimohammed The only safe place to eat meat is in the village when you can ...

Dog meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia Jump to Morocco - Morocco[edit]. Islamic law bans the eating of dog meat as does the government of Morocco, however the consumption of dog meat still ...

'Dog meat' fear keeps Moroccan diners away - Emirates 24|7 Emirates 24/7 May 5, 2013 - Police in Morocco are investigating the illegal trade of dog meat after 37 carcasses were found in a butcher's vehicle, according to the Daily ...

Shoppers who ate DONKEY passed off as beef in Egypt told ... Mail Jun 19, 2015 - Head of Egyptian Food Safety Authority Hussein Mansour (pictured) said eating donkey meat is perfectly safe and admitted blissfully unaware ...

dog meat pakistan

Pakistani eaten DOG meat it as Goat meat - Shocking ...

▶ 5:38 Mar 5, 2015 - Uploaded by Indo-Pak News In Karachi two butchers are selling dog meat to the public under the guise of goat meat at last Six months.

Dog meat seller in Pakistan - YouTube

▶ 0:13 Oct 22, 2011 - Uploaded by TheAsianSocietyuk Mehrab Pur a msn arrested selling dog meat He says one doesn't Ned to go to Far East to enjoy these ...

Private channel accused of staging sale of dog meat in ... Dunya News Mar 3, 2015 - KARACHI (Dunya News) – As many as two people on Monday have been arrested for selling dog meat in Ibrahim Hyderi area of Korangi.

Men Caught Selling Dog Meat In Karachi - Video Dailymotion

▶ 3:10 Dailymotion 2-Mar-15 Men Caught Selling Dog Meat In Karachi. Repost · sm_raza1 ... 02:00. PIA another incompetence left dead ...

Dog meat cutting in Karachi - Video Dailymotion

▶ 5:38 Dailymotion 5-Mar-15 Watch the video «Dog meat cutting in Karachi» uploaded by azamjee on ... Saudia Arab is friend of Pakistan ...

Selling dog meat: Butchers 'branching out' of their market ... › Pakistan › Punjab The Express Tribune Dec 15, 2010 - Dog and donkey meat being sold to hotels and vendors in Okara. ... In the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” only this happens. And then we talk ...

Two held for selling dog meat in Karachi - Daily Pakistan ... Mar 2, 2015 - KARACHI (Web Desk) – The revelation about sale of dog meat in a neighbourhood of Karachi under the very nose of police and Karachi ...

Pakistani eaten DOG meat it as Goat meat... - Chandu ... Facebook [MUST WATCH] [ MUST SHARE] [VIDEO OF THE DAY] Pakistani eaten DOG meat it as Goat meat - Shocking !! Disgusting!!! [OR YA HARAM KHOR VIKARI ...

VIDEO - PAKISTAN - KARACHI DOG MEAT... - Say No To ... VIDEO - PAKISTAN - KARACHI DOG MEAT EXPOSED In Karachi, Pakistan, two butchers were caught red-handed, slaughtering dogs and selling them for dog ...

Dog Meat Being Sold In Markets | Express News Sep 19, 2015 - In Pakistan, there is lack of education and awareness about healthcare. Butchers of Karachi have been caught in a market selling dog meat to ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmaan (talkcontribs) 20:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Rajmaan, if you don't properly cite and copy the quotes from these sources to this page, I will archive this post since it does not currently make much sense. I can't tell which source you are quoting for which sentence fragments which makes this "compilation of resources" (loosely used) fairly redundant.
Also, Wikipedia use reliable sources which would not include most social media posts (e.g. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, etc.), nor tabloid articles that are highly biased and/or unreliable. This would invalidate various sources that you have provided above.
So if you could please create a proper citation/reference to the sources, then this issue can be discussed but as it stands you aren't making much of a case, nor sense. If you need any help with the referencing, just let me know by typing in {{u|Drcrazy102}} which will notify me about your response. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dog meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)