Talk:Guinea pig: Difference between revisions

	Guinea pig is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mammals FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Kingduct, you recently removed a few sentences regarding the guinea pig's role as a staple food. I had provided a source for this statement; if you believe it is incorrect, could you please provide a reputable source documenting a decline in guinea pig consumption, or something to that effect? Chubbles 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chubbles...I am aware that there is a source, but there are many sources for many things, and they are often contradictory. My source is years of living in Ecuador and marriage to an indigenous family that has been eating the guinea pig for generations. The only people who truly eat the guinea pig as a common staple are the rural indigenous people. One only has to do a demographic study to see that they as a percent of the Ecuadorian population have fallen from being a clear majority to a small minority (below 25%). Most urban Ecuadorians do not eat guinea pig...and many find the idea repulsive.

It seems to me that it can be difficult in a situation like this to simply say "where is your reference?" I personally like guinea pig meat and think it would probably be good for the health of most ecuadorians if they ate more of it, but that is not the case. I could write an article about it and cite it...or look for another article. I am interested in seeing the article you cited, but frankly, it's just wrong. My reference is my own knowledge and experience and while that may be obnoxious, that is just like any other author, including the guy cited. I will not edit the main page, because it sounds like my reasoning is not in line with wikipedia policy, but I hope that the paragraphs I have put here remain, so at least curious people can see that just because someone read it in an article (that consumption as a staple is up), doesn't mean it's true.Kingduct 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgetting that the only threshold of inclusion of material in Wikipedia is verifiability in reliable published sources, not truth. Not meaning to be rude, but your personal experience is not considered a reliable published source. The book by Morales that Chubbles has cited is the most comprehensive and respected cultural study of the guinea pig in South America to date. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was my understanding of things - that its use as a staple food had increased specifically among Andean Indians, rather than among the general population (especially in cities, though it appears that Peruvians generally eat a lot more of it than Ecuadorians do). I went ahead and added small clarifications about that. Thanks for keeping us on our toes. Chubbles 04:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick calculation using the 65 million number for number of guinea pigs consumed and divided by the population of Peru (28 million according to the Wikipedia) shows an average consumption of two per year. Hardly a staple. I will continue looking into the issue though...Kingduct 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's if you spread it out over the entire population, which is mostly concentrated in urban areas. If are talking about only the rural, Andean part of the population in defining it as a staple, it's a much higher rate of consumption. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Peruvian official sources, rural population was estimated at 7.6 million in 2005. Stable guinea pig population was estimated at 23.2 million of which 21.4 were in the Andes as of 2003. Anual consumption is quoted as being 65 million a year (no breakdown for regions, though) and per capita consumption as 0,35kg per habitant; the lowest for any meat in Peru except for goat meat. You can check the info at http://www.portalagrario.gob.pe/pecuaria/pec_real_cuyes.shtml. In Spanish only. --Victor12 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked out the Morales book from the library. The first thing I did was go to page 47! I will quote the following from pages 47 and 48 (the quote is not for the main guinea pig page, but is being reasonably used for discussion of it:

"People's attitude toward food has changed tremendously during the last three decades. Before the seventies some people who, subjectively or objectively claimed middle-class membership refused to eat sweet potatoes (camotes), beans, and roes. Having fried camotes for breakfast was an indication of poverty. Cuy meat was not common in metropolitan areas, except among immigrant people. Today, in Peru for example, the same social class that looked down on or ignored these foods would prefer having fried roes with rice or, in the best of cases, a cuy stew for lunch... In the Inca Empire Andeans probably slaughtered cuys for the same reasons they do today, during religious ceremonies and special occasions (Reader 1988:169). However, even if this meant that the cuy was not a food exclusive to the elite, dominant groups may have had their own recipes and served the cuy in elaborate banquets... Research presented in this book suggests that consumption of cuy meat is gaining acceptance among people who are not directly connected to the Andean culture and, eventually, it may regain its status as fine cuisine, such as it may have enjoyed during the Incas...However, although it is served daily at specialized restaurants, cuy meat is still a delicacy and is also susceptible to the subleties of social differentiation."

From my reading, the original interpretation (on the wikipedia) of Morales's text to mean that consumption as a staple food has gone up since the 1960s has gone up is incorrect. He says that the perception of the guinea pig in the middle and upper classes in cities (10% or less of the population) has changed from seeing it as a disgusting thing to seeing it as a type of luxury food. My personal experience and observations in Ecuador are similar. That analysis is actually contrary to the current statement, as a staple food (by wikipedia's own definition) is practically the opposite of a luxury food at specialized restaurants.

I am going to read the rest of the book. I am interested to see whether Morales's research reflects my own experience that the guinea pig as a staple food has declined, despite the perception of it improving (in large part as a result of the nationalistic and indigenist politics of the 60s that claimed to care about the indigenous but did nothing to show it).Kingduct 23:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what I get from it. While it doesn't mention it as a staple, he blankly says that consumption has gone up (among upper class urban consumers as a luxury). It's about real consumption increase, not just acceptability. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He says that consumption has increased among a very small part of the population. He at no point says that overall consumption has increased. And in fact, the book is largely dedicated to examining the social uses and acceptability of the guinea pig, it is not a study of how much is consumed. The whole point of the book is to talk about the traditional ways of consuming guinea pig, and the new ways (which he projects may some day be more common than the old fashioned ways). That said, on page nine he cites Moncayo 1992 and says that "About 90 percent of the total population of cuys in the Andes is produced within the traditional household." In other words, the urban luxury consumer eating a guinea pig or two a year is a very insignificant part of the total consumption (the traditional household cuy is for personal consumption and religious/special occasions, not for sale). Furthermore, most of the total is composed of a population that is shrinking: the rural indigenous population, which during the last century has gone from being a clear majority in the Bolivia/Peru/Ecuador (the main guinea pig consuming countries) to being a fairly small minority. Despite a far reduced population (relatively speaking), indigenous people continue to eat most guinea pigs. What we can deduce from this, is that the increased consumption by a very small percentage of the population in no way offsets the reduced consumption of a large part of the population (people who are no longer rural indigenous). Kingduct 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out the talk page, it sure looks like the food angle has got everyone going. But really, now, is there a source for

Since the 1960s, efforts have been made to increase consumption of the animal outside South America.

Guinea pig isn't making any inroads at my local Wal-mart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C G Strauss (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to a couple of articles from newspapers about this, in the "as food" section. There have been attempts to breed bigger, fatter pigs and market them outside the Andes. Chubbles 02:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is image is fuzzy, dark, and inappropriate for a featured article. It's poor composition, and you can even see a finger in the upper left corner. We already have more than sufficient images of domestic guinea pigs in this the mainspace. I suggest you add your image to Wikimedia Commons, where free image are always welcome. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fellow who uploaded that picture is very young; I don't think he has the swing of things here, judging from the messages on his talk page. Chubbles 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 69.143.236.33 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention of the single incident of "cultural persecution" that I so ardently advocated for previously. After doing more research, I now realize that the Post is patently a tabloid publication (see cited statements in its article) given to sensationalist coverage of minor topics. This was the only instance of published controversy over the serving of cuy I could find. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the chopping of the intro. Before, the intro read as a neutral, informative summarization of the rest of the article. Now, it has awful word and idea flow and even leaves out important information. For example, if the intro is going to summarize their use in science, it needs to begin with the fact of when use of them as such started (the 17th century) and briefly mention their current history (mostly supplanted by mice/rats, but still used for such and such experiments). Also, the mention of their South American use first was because this was the origin of the animal. We are not here to be a resource for pet owners solely, or even just Westerners. It is Anglocentric to put the informative needs and knowledge of Westerners first in the intro. And if we're going by the majority usage of the animal, I'd be willing to bet that far more numbers of cavies are bred for consumption in the Andes than as pets in the first world. So we begin by logically, neutrally stating information about where the animal comes from and what its use was first. Then we go on chronologically to the spread of the animal to the West as a pet. Just like how the history section comes first. lastly, though I like Thumperward's boldness, it seems reckless to me to make such sweeping changes to a Featured Article with narry a word of explanation beforehand. This isn't some stub needing massive improvement. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with the intro as it was previously. Chubbles 23:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I played no small part in getting the article to FA through sweeping changes. I didn't think there was anything particularly wrong with the intro except that it overreached in its scope. The intro does not need to provide conclusive coverage of animal research; the intro is there to provide enough basic coverage of the article to draw the reader in, not to present conclusions. I'm more than happy to discuss changes individually. For a start, if you can provide evidence that more animals are reared for food than for ownership I'm cool with making this more prominent. Chris Cunningham 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the science coverage needs to be conclusive either, but it does need to be a summary of the most basic conclusive facts of the science section. Those facts are: 1. Research with guinea pigs began in the 17th century, and peaked in the 18th and 19th 2. It has currently been largely replaced with other animals, but certain types of studies still show prominent use. That's not too much informtion, it's just a quick summary of the animals tertiary use. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a considerably more succinct version of what was removed. I'd be happy for basically what you just wrote there to go back in. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need numbers on how many more guinea pigs are kept for one purpose or another, but the fact that livestock are bred more prolifically than pets should be fairly obvious. Livestock is culled and consumed at a much faster rate than pets die and are replaced, especially considering the universal efforts to prolong an individual pet's life and halt breeding through neutering/spaying. But that's secondary to why the indigenous usage should be first. It's an issue of keeping correct order both in real-world chronology and in the article. You seem to agree that the order of the intro and article should reflect one another (that fact that you reordered the article to fit the intro seems preposterous to me, as the intro is a summary of the article; the article is not an expansion of the intro). The animal's original usage, the purpose for which it was domesticated which continues today, is as a food source. This is also mentioned first in the History section, for the same good reason. It just makes empirical sense to begin at the beginning of the animal's historical chronology. To say that the particular usage of the animal by our culture supersedes neutral, logical encyclopedic format is simply folly. The approach of this article (before your alterations) was one that favored neither an Anglocentric nor pet owner's/breeder's point of view; it was this sterling example of a Netral Point of View that got this to featured article status. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the article presented as-pets before as-food yesterday, before I edited it. It also presented in-science before as-food, actually. The intro didn't, but let's not present this as me breaking the article's chronological order when it really wasn't. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for an RFC on this, as more than three people are needed for a working consensus on this. You still haven't addressed my concerns fully Chris. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be simplest to rearrange the Intro in chronological order: evolution, pre-history, introduction to Europe as pets/origin of name, experimental animal, recent stuff. Speciate 23:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the random stuff about "food since the 60s." That has no place in the Intro. Basically, I expect an article on Guinea Pigs to mention their position in the tree of life, their domestication in Pre-Columbian South America as a food animal, then their importation to Europe as pets, and then their use as an experimental animal. All further elaboration on these points should appear lower down in the article. Speciate 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been awhile and Chris has failed to continue a discussion towards consensus on his changes. The larger majority has agreed that a pet-focused order is unacceptable, even if his deletions are kept. There is a two-one majority against his deletions, not to mention that the original intro was signed off on as being a Featured Article-class introduction. I will be reverting presently. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to actually look at the article history to check if this was serious or not. Three users plus 48 hours is not consensus. Bah, it's times like this that I wish I didn't bother helping articles get to FA status. Chris Cunningham 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, calling this a consensus is probably premature. I haven't been saying much here because this isn't a debate over content; since the lead includes only things that are already in the article later, it doesn't really matter to me if it's shorter or longer. Chubbles 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me for assuming that your first statement meant you preferred the original intro Chubbles.

Well it matters to me. A meaty intro is a hallmark of FA class articles, just check out the intros to these... Cougar, Frog, Bobcat, Ocean sunfish, Humpback whale, Albatross, Hawksbill turtle, American Goldfinch, Arctic tern, Triceratops and it goes on. Some of these have even longer intros than this one, and no one seems to go about hacking and slashing at them. While not all featured articles have longer than average intros, it is an empirical fact that an article with a more comprehensive introduction is more likely to be or achieve FA-class. But it's not just arbitrary length. The original introduction is both comprehensive and succinct in its statements. At least this one has a logical order. Even if there wasn't an issue of length, I'd disapprove of the new version. It's generally stiff and doesn't have good word and idea flow, which makes it less enjoyable to read. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But more important than my examples and opinion, is the style guideline from WP:LEAD...

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

The Guinea pig article is 57.1 kilobytes and 8520 words (words, not characters). Three paragraphs of introductory text is perfect, not in need of drastic trimming. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-watchlisted this based on the "hack and slash" comment. If other editors are going to assume bad faith on my behalf I don't see why I should be wasting my time editing articles they're watching, especially when my own work in improving them to FA in the first place is used as a bludgeon to prevent me editing in future. Good luck with the article in future, there's still A-class to strive for. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me apologize if I hurt your feelings. However harsh, my commentary was a description of your contributions, and not in any way was meant to reflect on your intentions. I think anyone trying to push a "bad faith" label on you or your edits is nuts considering the work you've done. Let me stress this again, my dislike of your particular edits in this instance is not a comment on you or your contributions as a whole. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss as to what is inappropriate about the current introduction. It briefly explains why the name for the animal has connotations of science experiments. This is suitable for an introduction. A full discussion of the history, geography, politics, economics, alternatives etc. of the use of guinea pigs in research would appropriately be a section within the article itself. VisitorTalk

Is this Request for Comments done? It appears to me that the a consensus has developed; if so, I'd like to removed the RFC template on the top and therefore remove this from the RFC list. Enuja 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been resolved, I removed the tag. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of Cultural references to guinea pigs (formerly Guinea pigs in popular culture) has been enacted. For those who watch and participate in Articles for Deletion debates, it has become painfully clear that all pop culture articles, especially those in a list format, are being aggressively deleted on a daily basis. After much discussion on the redirected article's talk between Chubbles and myself, we have turned the notable information from that article into a prose format and re-integrated it with the appropriate main article sections. This is mostly, "As pets" but also science and food. Citations and references to ISBN numbers for the books will be forthcoming, so please try and be patient with us. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining right now and my internet connection blows; I'll come back and finish up a little later. Chubbles 02:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed the whole Tribble-star-trek thing; people always seem to make that connection, but is there any kind of RS that mentions this connection? Chubbles 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rain? And yeah, the speculation needed to be removed. The trouble with Tribbles, sheesh ;) 03:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - are people likely to bitch if we include YouTube links to the advertisements? Chubbles 04:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those YouTube links add nothing to the article, IMO. I'm not trying to advocate censorship here. You have taken a FA and added video that is extremely low quality. Now there is a difference between 'covering all aspects' and paying too much attention to one. Let's be realistic - any animal can be eaten. However, video of a horse, a spider, a monkey, or a german shepard are not likely to add to the respective article. I feel that guinea pigs as food has been way overkilled in this article. Take a look at chicken. The article focuses on the biological existence of the animal referred to as chicken. It is a tangent that it is consumed. I'm for removing the YouTube links. the_undertow ^talk 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes people will bitch about linked to copyright protected material over on YouTube. --Ahc 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done fussing with the new stuff. I couldn't find ISBN's for the first editions of some of the books; they weren't on WorldCat or Amazon. Chubbles 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference with the YouTube thing is that the links undertow removed were inappropriate as external links per WP:EL (dunno what I was thinking), but as a source for the commercial I think the YouTube video is fine. It's a primary source. Besides, can anyone think of a different way to cite it? As to the tribble thing, the tribble and flatcat articles say that Heinlein himself said that there probably was a connection, but he couldn't be sure. Neither is cited properly though, so removing it here is a good idea. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chip in here, this article was originally split for the same reason as many such splits are performed (to remove useless stuff from an article while trying to get it to FA without hurting anyone's feelings too much). I don't feel that most of it is notable enough for WP at all. Chris Cunningham 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I maintain that "in popular culture" sections are notable, as examples of intertextuality, which Wikipedia is fast becoming no longer a viable source for. But in any case, the deed is already done; we merged maybe 1/3 of the GPIPC article into the "as pets" section and dumped the rest. Chubbles 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone fancy proposing? Chris Cunningham 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, with the beagle article up there, I was thinking the same thing... I am kind of worried about opposition from biology-minded folks, just looking at the FAC. I thought over trying to address their concerns (which we never really did), but never really came up with a solution; honestly, I think the organization's well and good as it is... Chubbles 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had a month off editing it, so my eyes might be fresh enough to bring some new perspective. I'll see if I can give it a look tomorrow some time. Chris Cunningham 23:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you suspect opposition from biologist Wikipedians Chubbles? I also think that it looks pretty darn good as is, especially after doing about a dozen GA reviews. I always find myself comparing zoological articles to this one, and they almost always come up short. IMO, I don't think we should be pandering to anyone to get this on the main page. A sacrifice in quality for visibility is foolish. That said, a try for main page might be a great opportunity to try and do some tweaking of the article. I just don't want what I see as a near-perfect article getting ripped up the way Beagle is currently. All kinds of edit warring and nastiness has gone on there that would not have if it wasn't featured. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs mentioned that the name 'Guinea Pig' has nothing at all to do with the animal. It neither comes from Guinea and it is not any type of pig. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unknown Interval (talk • contribs) 00:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

This is already comprehensively covered, read the intro and the "Name" section. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked up a copy of Morales' book, and I was reading the chart describing the composition of guinea pig milk. Compared to what (shaky) sources at Milk say, this isn't far behind seals and whales in having high fat composition (46% for cavies, around 50% for seals and whales). Are there more reliable sources on this someone might have that covers milk fat content in general? If guinea pig milk has the highest fat content of any non-marine mammal, it should probably be mentioned here. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reading Morales, I've come across an issue to discuss. Presently, it feels like the article sticks largely to the "traditional Andean delicacy" perspective, which is correct in a generalized sort of way. But with quotes from Morales like

I think it's false to give the impression that say, cuy is only really served in the Sierra region of Ecuador. He also twice (so far) has made mention of cuy consumption in Cuba (at least in the south of the country), including a personal anecdote of a Cuban man referring to his mother raising cuys at home. I'm going to look at his language more closely, and dig for more mentions as I read, but this seems to be pretty small to mention. Perhaps the potential controversy over it isn't worth adding it to the article. As to the Andean issue, I think what the article is having a hard time making clear is that while cuy is being served all over, it is still colloquially viewed as being an Andean indio food. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... of course "traditional" does not mean "mainstream" restaurants. In Lima, where I live, you can find restaurants that serve guinea pigs, but then you can also find restaurants for thousands of things which are not mainstream in Peruvian urban cuisine. Anyway, cuy consumption per capita is still quite low in Peru per the statistics shown above. --Victor12 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not mean that it wasn't traditional. I'm saying that portraying it as actually only being consumed among rural populations in any meaningful sense is incorrect. It's still a part of that culture's cuisine, but it's consumed outside that culture. But I'm not suggesting it's now an across-the-board staple. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morales also includes a relatively smaller section on the importance of cuy manure to other agricultural endeavors as a composting material, saying that, "manure is collected to fertilize gardens, orchards and cornfields in the Andes". He also mentions a bit about the use of cuy manure in fertilizing coca and that it is also sold some. Thus, because of this and the already present mentions of the scientific breeding programs, I think the title of the "As food" section needs to be changed to "As livestock", "In agriculture", or another relevantly broad title. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that this is all being brought up; after Kingduct's comments, I began to get increasingly worried that there may be points at which either Morales is wrong, or I was reading Morales wrong, and no one was really able to check up on it since it's not really a common find in bookstores. A sentence or two on manure would be a fine addition in the food section, though I don't really think it's necessary to rename it unless we expand it further. Chubbles 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. As to the Morales thing, reading it I get two distinct senses: first, that he is a good, scholarly sociologist who knows how to conduct a survey. Second, that his personal feelings about the class and race discrimination in the Andes tend to come strongly into play. Personally, from the attitudes of wealthy, mestizo South Americans that I have spoken with about cuy, I think he's probably right. But it's still a bias. But basically, I think his hard facts are great. You can't find their like in depth anywhere. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I question one of the photos under the as food section -- it states that those guinea pigs are being raised as food, but they are in an ELABORATE habitat, including a toy designed to keep them active and stimulated. That seems out of synch with what someone would normally do for a meat animal. Can anyone confirm that photo? 69.203.74.32 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. The image would seem to fit the description, for a variety of reasons. The location and material of their habitat is consistent with other images and accounts of raising guinea pigs for meat (a large proportion of cuys raised for meat are done so in a semi-informal home setting, rather than commercial production methods). The type of guinea pig present is consistent with what reliable sources describe as that which is raised for meat in South America, and the animals are being fed a very common feed for meat guinea pigs in the Andes. As to the toy idea, I assume you are referring to the wooden bridge structure? I doubt that is a toy, from my perspective. It looks to be a small "bridge" part of their habitat, and wood is often provided, as guinea pigs are gnawing rodents. But besides environmental factors, the image is from Peru, and guinea pigs are simply not kept as pets in that region. Even animals given as presents to children are housed with the family's other meat animals, and are often slaughtered or sold. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick image search, and I found a pic of the same habitat taken by a different guy. I suspect this is a zoo/museum display in Peru. What is true about the pic is the largely tan and white coloration of the food cuys. Speciate 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sign on the Google search. If there isn't one to replace it currently in Commons, I know of a good image from Flickr to use of guinea pigs being raised in an Andean kitchen. That's definitely not a zoo. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the cuy pens seem to be simple affairs made of bricks. Whatever that habitat is, it is much more fancy than any of the other cuy rearing enclosures I saw in my search. Speciate 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's made of the same material as many home outfits I think. Below is an image I just uploaded from Flickr, it's definitely a home setting. But it's much poorer quality. Do we want to replace anyway, in consideration of accuracy? I'm gonna try and edit it to make it better. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  original
• 
  edit

So far, I'm not finding any better photos from Flickr, I really wish we could use this one, but it isn't a CC license we can use. I'll keep looking. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image I could upload. Do we think it's worth it? It isn't much better than the one above imo. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your "Cuy in the kitchen edit1" image. It shows that the people don't crowd the little guys, and give them a cozy little adobe house under the fuel supply. The other images are of marketplaces, not of rearing conditions. Speciate 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is better than

{{editprotected}} Please either add {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}, or unprotect the article. Thank you.--69.118.235.97 01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done but if there's a recurrence of the problem, the article will be sprotected again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was almost a year ago, whoever it was has probably forgotten wikipedia exists by now.--69.118.235.97 10:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exceptional is mentioned in this sentence: "China launched and recovered a biosatellite in 1990 which included guinea pigs as passengers" Provided that in the previous we have: "Guinea pigs were also launched into orbital space-flight several times, first by the USSR on the Sputnik 9 mission of March 1961 - with a successful recovery." According to the definition of the biosatellite Sputnik 9 was a biosatellite too. And a successful recovery was also made for Sputnik 9. Maybe these animals were not launched between 1961 and 1990? Or something like that? In short, why is Chinese spacecraft worth mentioning? Cmapm 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because we had a source for it; I'd love to be able to list all of the space flights guinea pigs have been sent up in. I'll reword that. Chubbles 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kville105125 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Changed extant, in first section of the page to existant. Is this correct?[reply]

"Extant" is the word intended there. Chubbles 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: if something is "non-existent", then it does not exist and never has existed. If something is "non-extant", then it does not exist now, but it has existed at some time in the past and may exist at some time in the future. Fumblebruschi 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody playing with the article. I suggest that is should be stop at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmans801 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the page was semiprotected. I can't get a word in edgewise; my edits keep getting overwritten. Chubbles 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles are left unprotected by policy. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always, or only when they are on the main page? Chubbles 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article - see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed that my protection was removed. Semi-protection was absolutely appropriate as the article was heavily vandalized before and after it was protected. FA's are left unprotected to edits, but the link provided clearly states that they can be semi-protected. the_undertow ^talk 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also describes them as being protected (even semi) "very rarely". I've tried to get FA's with way more vandalism than this semi'd, and been shot down. I think it's like a reflex for RFPP patrollers. Personally I think it's moronic. Not one brand new user or IP has made a constructive edit here. VanTucky ^Talk 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un) It's a guideline that I completely disagree with, hence I obviously stand by my protection. The article clearly faired better while semi, then while bombarded with vandalism. It's ridiculous that my userpage can be fully protected while it's taboo to protect the featured article. Alas, I simply don't agree with all guidelines. the_undertow ^talk 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who decides how you would like your userpage, whereas no article is so good that it cannot be improved. The wiki process has shown that if you allow anyone to edit you can build a whole encyclopaedia. Vandalism can always be fixed, but improvements from random visitors, and opportunities to recruit new regular editors, can be too easily missed and possibly never recovered. You should review today's edits again and note the improvements if you missed them first time around. There were several good edits from unregistered editors, and at least two new accounts who have now been formally welcomed as new Wikipedians following their initial edits to this article. Who knows, some of the vandals might even return and make constructive edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views but they are far too utilitarian for me. You are talking about the encylopedia as a whole, and I am talking about the integrity of the featured article. I also believe editors should have to register in order to edit any article. I feel the time spent reverting the vandalism will not be outweighed by vandals who may or may not come back to contribute constructively. It's simply semi-protecting one article a day. To me, it's an easy call, however I can see your side, but respectfully disagree. the_undertow ^talk 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with Zzuzz on that one. I went through every edit today, and there were essentially no substantive content edits, and very few constructive ones at all; 99% of the 250+ edits were vandalism and the reversion thereof. It was a huge waste of a lot of people's time, and I hope no FA I ever work on is featured on the main page again. Chubbles 05:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we more concerned with discouraging editors from continuing their good work or turning away vandals who at some point, may decide to make a constructive edit? I don't leave cans of spray paint in front of my house in hopes that one of the 14 thousand taggers that bomb it will return to mow the lawn. I am very concerned when we have to be so sympathetic to anonymous users that we allow vandalism for fear that their feelings will be hurt that they cannot edit 1 article of 2 million, because it is the FA that day. the_undertow ^talk 18:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the whole point of a featured article is that they're not supposed to need a whole lot of extra work, particularly work added by new people who don't know how to cite sources. If Wikipedia is going to maintain a high level of verifiability, it's going to have to teach this to its new users before they go undoing other peoples' hard work, based on hunches and personal opinions. Chubbles 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very first constructive edits I made to Wikipedia were anonymous edits to auto rickshaw on the day it frontpaged. Yes, vandalism is annoying, but we're talking about a single day of nuisance for the sake of massive increase in eyeballs. And it's been proven that the majority of Wikipedia's actual content (as opposed to shuffled bytes) is still originally provided by anonymous users. I don't want to get to the point where an encyclopedia which has only been getting better over time has to drop its chief slogan for the sake of saving obsessives like us five minutes a day of vandal duty. Chris Cunningham 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the very first edits I made, both as an anon and with this account, are likely to be deleted for notability concerns in the next year or two. Wikipedia is a very inefficient place; many people put in far more work than is technically needed to make it run, and there's a lot of undoing, redoing, and erasing of honest work. Protecting the TFA would be one small step toward erasing that inefficiency. It would, indeed, hurt the chief slogan, but I guess I never really bought that slogan in the first place. The slogan hurts the project more than it helps it, at least in its current state (it didn't used to, but it does now because of WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V), and countless first-time editors who watch their pages get speedily deleted see how hollow it is. Chubbles 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I hate to be a boor, but this is rapidly veering into a chat that has nothing to do with improving the article. VanTucky ^Talk 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It pretty much already veered that way. In any event, I'm over it. the_undertow ^talk 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sí, bueno. VanTucky ^Talk 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any explanation why these are imperial and only SI in parentheses? prino 21:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Changed it. Jalwikip 12:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI all, a stub article for the Texel guinea pig breed has been created. As I doubt there is enough breed-specific information to merit a separate article at this time, I've suggested a merge and redirect to Guinea pig breed. VanTucky ^Talk 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related, how come there's all kinds of semi-hypothetical bunk about perceived guinea communication, BUT nothign about the fact that they're not even actually rodents? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1624762

Someone who's more motivated & better at editing than me should consider fixing this.

according to the Colors section. But the "Dutch-colored Texel" in the picture is white and brown, not black? I don't know anything about guinea pigs, so I don't know which is wrong (or if I misunderstood, for that matter). --64.180.207.196 00:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Dutch is banded color pattern, not a color that requires black. VanTucky ^Talk 00:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for reverting the edit is because I'm concerned about the summary of moved food section up in the interest of NPOV; it is the original/most notable/important use for the animal worldwide. To say that you are adhering to NPOV, while in the same sentence to assert that it is now neutral because the food use of guinea pigs is the most 'important' use, is original research, and completely contradicts NPOV. Guinea pigs being more important as food than as pets is not NPOV, it is exactly POV. Major changes to mature articles are best discussed on the talk page, where it can be openly discussed. the_undertow ^talk 04:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe this as a "major change" (this term is bandied about on WP far too much), but I do disagree with its being moved for the time being. The section itself is probably the most recent major addition to the article; yes, this is due to en-wp's systematic bias towards the West, but it still has to be taken into consideration that WP's treatment of the food aspect of the guinea pig is still much less complete than that of pets. Are there raw comparative figures which would help here? Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider a restructure to be a major change, in light of the fact that it is meant to restructure the POV of the article. Any other terms you consider 'bandied about?' I'd hate for you to find my rhetoric cliché. I'll go look for some uppercase stuff. the_undertow ^talk 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might argue that it belongs higher up because it is the original use, but not the most important/notable use worldwide. In terms of querying every nation on what the most notable use for cavies is, you're gonna get far more seeing them as pets. The half a dozen South American countries (tops) that eat cavies are in the minority globally speaking. I don't think it should be moved up, but I don't particularly care either. I do think it's important to keep in mind that this article is really, really good for including such an extensive food section at all. No other article like this one (i.e. small domestic mammals such as guinea pigs and rabbits) has an equal balance of information on the culinary uses of the animal. That alone makes it much more NPOV than any other of its kind. VanTucky 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAGE SIZING For one guinea pig the cage sizing needs to be at least in inches 39 by 21 inches long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.249.4 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mother used to sing me a guineapig song. The first line was "How does a guinea pig show he's pleased?".

As a newbie here, would it be in order to add the whole song to the guinea pig entry as I can find it nowhere else on the Web?

Robthill (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the song is in the public domain (see WP:COPY), you could add it to Wikisource, I think. But it would be a bit out of place here. Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]