Talk:Mexican Hairless Dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Hm, why was the sentence "it is believed to have functioned as pets in the Mayan and Aztec civilizations" removed?

You might want to ask on Infrogmation's talk page. I don't know if he has this page on his watch list -- sannse 11:34 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The earlier version said "they are believed to have functioned as pets in the Mayan and Aztec civilizations approximately 3500 years ago." Possibly the breed is that old (I don't know), but Maya and Aztec civilization were not. The Aztecs may not even have existed as a distinct people until about the 13th century. If you want the earlier version of that sentence to go back in, I think you need to provide some evidence for a very major rewrite of Mesoamerican archeology :-) Anyway, I think the breed was most common in central Mexico in Pre-Columbian times. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:44 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough explanation. I guess I messed up really bad by putting the "3500 years ago" into the same sentence, which I obviously didn't mean to. I guess I'll put that sentence back in, then, but without the dubious time :-) Timwi 22:09 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Move Request

User:vanzetti requested this article be moved to Mexican hairless dog, since Mexican Hairless is itself not the official name of the breed. Are there any objections? Respond with Support or Oppose.. ACG 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. It is "Mexican Hairless" for KC [1]; it's "Mexican Hairless Dog" for FCI; for AKC, UKC, and CKC, it's "Xoloitzcuintli"--I think that almost no one except aficianados of the breed will think of the latter name first; I think that most folks will think simply "Mexican Hairless" first and I don't know that there's an overwhelming reason to go with FCI rather than KC/common terminology. (Yeah, FCI represents lots of countries, but I'll bet most of them don't refer to the MH as "Mexican Hairless" but have their own terms for it...) Elf | Talk 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree Support : There is a difference between oficial terms and terms that are used in common language. In al structures all over the world concerning dogs, also in Wikipedia, FCI rules are the rules to look at. In an official, worldwide encyclopedia, my bet is, to use the mostly used oficial name, worldwide. Which is Mexican Hairless Dog. Other names can be used to refer to, but not as title?

On the other hand, the name Mexican Hairless can lead to confusion. Mexican Hairless does relate to many other things as only dogs. Imho an encyclopedia should use terms that not lead to confusion.

If we look at the origins of the word, that derives from Mexico the names used for this breed are "Xoloitzquintle" or Perro Sin Pelo de Mexico". The latter means just Mexican Hairless Dog. It isn't "Sin Pelo de Mexico".

Should we look to changing the name in : or Xoloitzquintle or Mexican Hairless Dog? (this previously unsigned vote was by Vanzetti)

Re: Xoloitzcuintli: I vehemently oppose renaming it to this primarily because generated links to that article with current wiki technology prevent us from being able to change its appearance to "Mexican Hairless". So, e.g., it would show up in Category pages as "X...." and I still argue that 99.99% of the people in the english-speaking world wouldn't have a clue what it was and would look under "mexican hairless" in the list and, not finding it, be confused (at best). It's like "oophorectomy" showing up in category pages for medical-related issues. I've been around dogs and had four of them spayed over the years and I'd never heard the term until I finally found the article under this obscure name. The goal isn't to hide info from people, no matter what the "proper scientific name." Elf | Talk 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm cross-posting a notice that you're asking for a vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dog breeds and Talk:List of dog breeds. Elf | Talk 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Elf. Don't you think that 99.99% of the people don't even think at looking for an Mexican Hairless Dog? The search function in this wiki is great, and can handle a lot. So I think it wouldn't be a problem. Xoloitzquintle is a very well known name in the Hairless Dog scene, there is nothing scientific about it. Altough I could understand some rather would like to see Mexican Hairless Dog. And I dont oppose against that. I only oppose against the name "Mexican Hairless", because name should be clear and easy to understand. And Mexican Hairless could lead to confusion. Besides the fact that it's not an official name in the showing scene.

Jp (this previously unsigned comment was by Vanzetti)

Weak Support : honestly, i'm 50/50 on the issue. Google says that a search for ("mexican hairless" and dog) has about 45,000 (54,000 - 9000) hits and ("mexican hairless dog") has about 9000 hits. Sounds like mexican hairless is somewhat more popular online. FCI calls it MHD and the KCUK calls it MH. It's a toss up. There are two reasons I'm weak support as opposed to neutral is that I think "mexican hairless dog" sounds a little better, and that if there turns out to be some other mexican hairless thing like Mexican Hairless Guy :), we'd end up with a disambg statment on the dog page or someone would start arguing that this article should be renamed to Mexican Hairless (dog) (and I really of hate that). So, why not claim a nicer title and get the move done now. The only other negative aspect I see is the work in moving it - If we get consensus either way, I'm willing to do the move, put a redirect from Mexican Hairless, and all the double-redirect fixing work myself. If some other mexican hairless thing comes along, then the redirect page can be a disambg page. - Trysha (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. In that case we can rename it Xoloitzcuintle, its official name. The Germans do. --Vizcarra 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Re:To me Xoloitzquintle is fine. But Elf was thinking another way.

For what I know about the Mexican Hairless Dog in the UK, it isn't regognized oficialy by any KC. So even if the KCUK has a name for it, it wouldn't make much sence. Or are I wrongly informed about that? ~~jp~~ --Vanzetti


[edit] Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Thanks for the help with the initial 'X', but I still have no idea how to spit out the balance of the name. Anyone have a full pronunciation to share with the class? Krychek 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Show-low-itz-kwintlee vanzetti 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo change

I reside with two xolos, one hairless and one coated, and I thought it would be nice for the following reasons to also have a photo that showed both types.

The visual comparison of the two varieties enhances the appreciation of the breed. My Michael and Misty are siblings, yet even those familiar with "Mexican Hairless" dogs often mistake her for a different breed because of her coat.

Coated xolos often receive short shrift since they lack the distinctiveness of their hairless fellows, yet they account for roughly 25% of the breed.

Finally, those who've heard of the breed through shows may be more familiar with the coated variety, at least in America. In my admittedly limited experience, coated xolos win more shows than hairless ones.

Here's the photo:

Hairless and Coated Xolos side by side.
Hairless and Coated Xolos side by side.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shmigget (talk • contribs) .

There is room for more than one photo here, it's a good one. I just added this to the article. - Trysha (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suprisingly I knew about Xolo's since I was ten,I found out about them while searching for a Sphynx cat breeder page to look at pictures.

[edit] Xoloitzcuintli as food, etc.

Vanzeti, The reason I keep reverting the sentence about Xoloitzcuintli being kept as pets is that it is not sufficient to say that they "are believed" to be kept as pets by the Aztecs, you need a source. In other words, who believes this? At least provide a source for this. Otherwise it reads as your opinion. Also I have reverted the sentence about a lot of people currently believing they have healing powers. I am from Mexico, and have travelled extensively in rural parts of the country. While the article states that Xoloitzcuintli are still consumed as food, I have never ever come across Xoloitzcuintli meat in any market. The Aztecs primarily raised two types of animals for meat, turkeys and Xoloitzcuintli. After the conquest turkey replaced Xoloitzcuintli for the most part. Therefoe, it is quite incorrect to say "many" people still believe them to have healing powers, again, if you want to leave this in please provide a reliable source that states this. Finally, the part about them having "alien (gray)" powers is complete nonsense and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Pretzelogic 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Though I disagree mexican hairless dog has any alien powers In what way you are a specialist in Xoloitzquintle?

I talked to a lot of people in Mexico, and the first thing they come up with, talking about xolo's is the healing powers of the breed. Therefore it is correct to say, many people believe in this. It is just not some people.

Fair enough I don't know about the alien aspect. I do believe 40-50 percent mexicans believe in UFO's,there are a decent amount of sightings in Mexico City . About the Xolo eating, I don't know. And as I'm well I didn't change this. It seems to me a bizzare thing, and cannot believe it either.

As for the pets thing. It's a well known fact that dogs like the xolo (hairless) didn't have problems like flees and parasites. Therefore it doesn't seem unlogic to me that these dogs might have been used as pets. It is enough to say this, like this. Btw, I'm not the one who placed this article, And didn't wrote this, so it never can be my opinion.

Please be aware that a lot of other things in this article are said, that can be assumptions as well. But it are logic assumptions.

If you really are an expert on Xoloitzquintle, please let me know. I know a lot of them, but don't claim myself an expert. vanzetti 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not an expert on Xoloitzquintli, but I grew up and lived in Mexico for most of my life, and know quite a bit about pre-columbian cultures. However, you need not even be an expert in pre-columbian cultures to know Xoloitzquintli were raised as food, all you need is one visit to the National Museum of Anthropology and History in Mexcio city and there you will learn that Xoloitzquintli were raised and traded as food. This is also mentioned in the early Spanish descriptions during the conquest. From what I can tell, there is no anthropological evidence that they were kept as pets, I think the concept of a "pet" is fairly modern, no matter how friendly and flea-free these dogs may be. I may be wrong on this last fact, but no mater how logical something sounds, it really needs a source, since this is still someone's random conjecture. And yes there are a lot of other random conjectures in the article. As far as how widespread the belief that they have healing powers, your sampling of a few Xoloitzquintli lovers does not necessarily constitute a majority. I bet you if you take a random poll of Mexicans, most people won't agree. It all sounds like some "new-age" nonsense incorrectly ascribed to the Aztecs, like the people who climb up the pyramids with their little quartz crystals during Summer solstice. However, "some" and "many" are all relative terms, so I guess it is OK to leave it as such until we can find a more authoritative source either way. Pretzelogic 14:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess you are correct about the pet thing, I just read that Moctezuma II apparently kept over 100 Xoloitzquintli as pets, however it was more for religious reasons rather than companionship as we currently think of. Pretzelogic 15:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC Did you that in Vietnam,grossly enough,lower class Vietnamese people will actually eat dog!! The Japanese,Korean,Chinese also considered dog food,is that weird or what.
I've been reading America's First Cuisines and I can find no humming and hawing about whether Aztecs ate dogs or not. According to Spanish accounts cited in that book, there was no question that they did serve dogs. The Spanish even tried them and found them to be quite tasty. I've stated this more clearly in the article, as the previous version tried to muddle the issue based on modern conceptions on the appropriateness of eating dog. What's really odd about it, though, is that it was immediately followed by a link that actually confirms that dogs were raised for food.
Peter Isotalo 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Concerning the "healing powers" of this dogs... (I found to my surprise, being Mexican, that it is Written Xoloitzcuintli. I had always known the name as Xolotzcuintle, that is, no i after the second o). I heard (still hear) from my father recounting that their high body temperature was used as "therapy" for rheumatitis. Anyway, I have no authoritative literature to support this. Although the term "healing powers" does sound esoteric. Ha! All the best, Aldozamudio
The myth that hairless dogs have a higher body temperature than dogs with fur is incorrect. Probably this misconception stems from the fact that a dogs fur insulates both ways. Ie if you shaved off all the fur of a dog with fur, it would feel just as warm to the touch as a hairless dogs. So, while the body temperature may not be any higher than any other dog, they feel warmer to the touch, since you're touching the skin, and not the hair.
As for having healing powers, miscellaneous ways of applying heat(water bottles, heat pads) to alleviate arthritis etc. is well recognized. It therefore makes sense logically, that the heat from the dog can help alleviate some of the pains from such conditions. So, while the dog does not possess some sort of mystical healing powers, they can be therapeutic for persons suffering from rheumatism-like illnesses. Jerazol 15:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xolo mistaken for Chupacabra

Here in Albuquerque, there's a wild canine running loose on the northwest side of town. Local CBS affiliate KRQE made a big deal about it, running ads all week "is there a chupacabra loose in Albuquerque?"

http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=7334863

They came to the conclusion that it was probably a Xolo mix or a coyote with mange. --68.84.150.36 03:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)