Talk:Chinese Crested Dog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Include photo of "Sam"?

There seems to be some disagreement--maybe just one user, but not sure. A user has replaced the image in the celebrity section because it's a photo of a celebrity. Others have removed it, saying it's not typical of the breed. So please vote delete or keep photo of Sam here:

• Delete photo of Sam. This article is about the breed in general. Even though the section lists celebrity breeds, in fact there is an entire article about Sam to which this list links and in which the photo appears. In fact, Sam is not merely a celebrity, he is a horrific example of the worst that this breed could look, and this article isn't about that.Elf | Talk 00:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete photo of Sam. What Elf said above, besides, I think that it is a bad idea to list photos of celebrity dog, we are actually trying to trim down the number of "famous" dogs from articles anyhow - many of them don't add anything to the articles anyway. - Trysha ^(talk) 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sam isn't supposed to be a representative dog, there are already pictures here for that. The section on famous dogs of this breed has the picture of Sam, and that is an appropriate place for that picture. SchmuckyTheCat 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why a pic of sam and not one of the others? Also, the picture's copyright status is unknown so will likely be deleted soon anyway -Localzuk (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sam was not immediately identifiable as a purebred Chinese Crested and Trysha's right, we're trying to discourage random addition of questionably famous dogs. Sam was not Lassie. RIP you poor old fellow. Quill 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Poor Sam; he was so ugly. I think it's laudable that someone adopted him and gave him a loving home for the last years of his life, despite his appearance, but his picture in this article just serves as a curiosity. He's not an example of the breed-standard appearance and is not even immediately identifiable as a Chinese Crested. Add to that that the photo copyright is questionable and that he already has his own article. Exploding Boy 17:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not using a username, but I uploaded it, so I thought I'd address some points.

Copyright issues - Nonexistent. This image has been widely circulated for years without objection from the owner, who even maintains her own blog on Sam (link in article). Having clearly been aware of how widespread this is an not taking action, I doubt she'd have the right to sue if she wanted to (which seems unlikely).

I am afraid to say that under US copyright law this would not hold - the original copyright owner retains rights to it no matter where it is used. If it is not explicitly detailed that the image is released under some sort of free licence then it will be removed by Wikipedia. -Localzuk (talk)

FYI, User:220.238.5.183, this could be fixed for use in the SAM article by someone going to her site & contacting her about using the photo on WP under GFDL or public domain. Then copyright issue would be moot. Elf | Talk 18:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not representative of the breed I'd argue that it is representative of what can happen to this breed with a combination of poor care and possibly poor breeding. Have a look at the World's Ugliest Dog contest, and you'll find a surprisingly high number of other place-getters are also Chinese Cresteds. In any case, it's in the celebrity section, and likely the most recognisable Chinese Crested in existence. In fact, leaving aside Lassie, I can thing of few dogs with as high a recognition factor.

Why a pic of sam and not the others? Any other celebrity dog there would be redundant. It'd look just like any of the other dogs in the article. This dog is necessary because it is different. I can understand trimming celebrity dogs for other articles, but this is a special case.

I think that covers everything--220.238.5.183 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete photo of Sam. He is not representative of the breed. There are an infinite number of faults a dog could have and there is no point to having pictures of all of them. Similarly there is no point to having a picture of what must be an extremely rare combination of faults. Sam is clearly unique and his picture does not represent the normal range of the breed. Dsurber 15:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Representative of the breed isn't the point of the picture, there already IS a picture of that, maybe two. Sam's picture is in the Celebrity dogs section of the article, where Sam is the most famous celebrity chinese crested. SchmuckyTheCat 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How about ethics? Or just plain good taste?

The folks voting to keep make some good points, but I'd like to wonder what about old-fashioned good taste? How about ethics? Sure, Sam could be added in the celebrity section, but why, exactly? The days of the curiousity and the freak are long gone.

Can't Wikiproject dogs just show some moral fibre?

And by the way and apropos of absolutely nothing, I can't tell you how pleased I am to be talking about morality but NOT in the context of sex.

Quill 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• That's why Wikipedia doesn't account for taste and morals. He was a dog, he was someone's pet, he was loved. Why is that bad taste, unethical, or immoral? How many "representative" pictures of dogs are the result of inbreeding puppy factories pumping out show class dogs that also have severe psychological issues? How about dogs that have to be surgically altered in order to achieve that "representative" look? There's no moral issue here with a picture of Sam. SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting away from reasonable discussion of the issue here. The question first has to be, why do we have images in Wikipedia? The answer is of course to illustrate and provide a better understanding of the topics we're writing about. Breed articles should provide images of representative examples of the breed.

Regarding Shmukey's comments, I don't think any show-quality dogs are pumped out of puppy factories. On the contrary, puppy mills pump out less-than-show-quality dogs, and their disregard of proper breeding practices and the health of their animals results in poor examples of the breed and behavioural problms.

I don't think this is a moral issue, but while Sam may once have been a representative example of a Chinese Crested, neglect, old age, and possibly abuse took their toll. He looks so bad in that photo that it's difficult to even tell he's a dog, let alone a Chinese Crested.

Exploding Boy 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

History question

I owned a pair of Chinese Cresteds not too many years ago, and read everything I could find at the time on the breed's history and genetics. Yes, there are references to bald dogs by European visitors to Chinese ports in the 1700s, as well as to bald dogs in African ports frequented by Chinese traders. But I don't remember an earlier 13th C reference in China, and I'm quite sure I wouldn't have forgetten one. Can anyone back up the 13th Century with solid attribution?

The timeline is important, because there are important and outstanding questions about whether Central America provided the Chinese Hairless mutation. Sandover 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Peru

Reuters article stating that the Chinese crested dog, orginally thought to have come from China, was native to Peru. Reuters claims the international canine society in Belgium recognizes it at Peruvian. Can anybody verify? http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-09-22T123856Z_01_N21413717_RTRUKOC_0_US-PERU-DOGS1.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L3-Oddly+Enough+NewsNews-4

This is an interesting story, but has nothing ro do with hairless dogs. The hairless dog of Peru (Perro sin pelo de Peru) is often called Perro Chino in Peru (which means Chinese Dog.) It's said that people use this because chinese people don't have much body hair either. It doesn't mean Chinese Crested, because this is Chino Crestado in spanish. 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Country of Origin (semi related to Peru)

According to Desmond Morris's Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1000 Dog Breeds, ISBN 1570762198, page 539 states the country of origin as China. Here is a paragraph as well, "Its origins have long been debated. An early opinion was that its ancestors came from Africa and then moved east to Asia and the Orient. After this it was supposedly to have continued its expansion until it arrived in the Americas, to give rise to the Mexican Hairless and various New World Indian breeds of naked dog. This theory sees the gene for nakedness appearing only once and thenspreading outwards from its source. An alternative view would suggest that, instead, the gene for hair reduction appeared independently on a number of occasions, in a variety of locations world-wide." So basically, if we want to say that this dog is not an Asian dog, then we need to decide what country it does originate from. B/c if it says, country of origin: China, then I'm going to call it Asian.

"Book of the breed - The complete Chinese Crested", ISBN 0948955465 The origin of the hairless breeds of dog of the world is steeeded in myths and legend - have no conclusion as to the country of origin. Makes references to Africa, South-America and Asia.

"A kennel club book - Chinese Crested", ISBN 1593783051. If there were a definitive answer to where the CC actually originated, undoubtedly many authors would be very happy.....

"The Atlas of dog breeds of the world", lists Country as China/Africa

I have more books, but they all come back to the same thing, the origins of the breed are uncertain, and, there are a lot of theories about. It's not possible to conclude that it's originated in China or Asia. Jerazol 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jerazol. Why is it neccesary to give the dog an origin like this? vanzetti 20:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this dog not being asian. But then someone needs to remove from the box on the side, the country of origin. Put "unknown" instead of "China". Shirley Ku 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Jerazol 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject China???

That seems a bit of a stretch, imo.Jerazol 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Very untypical example of the breed?

Re: recently submitted pic of a powderpuff ... I know little about the breed, however, it would be helpful for the editor who deleted the photo to be more specific on why the powderpuff is deemed "untypical example of the breed."

Meanwhile, the value of current article's text is diminished by poor quality photos. For example, the photo of the hairless presents a cluttered and distracting background with washed out highlights. Moreover, the current powderpuff photo is from an awkward angle and crops off the full length of the dog. The resulting image doesn't tell the viewer much about the breed. Both photos fall short of meeting the standards we should expect for contributions to Wikipedia. Fishdecoy 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fishdecoy,

The foto you tried to place seems to have exactly the lacks you discribe about the other foto's. Cluttered background, the dog is not in a clear position.

From this site of angle the dogs looks like a white Bouvier. Not a chinese crested. It's hard to tell if the dog is "untypical" simply by it's position.

Normally powder puff chinese crested do not have curly hair, but straight hair. vanzetti 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that none of the images in the article gives a particularly good representation of the breed, but I don't see that as a reason to add even more images which doesn't really add any value. If you wan't to, go ahead and remove the images. At least, I won't care about that. The reason I removed the image, was that the dog was trimmed down, and not pictured in any way to give a particularly good view of what the dog looks like. Jerazol 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Link Spam

Starts with just a few links. Please do not post links to private websites in articles unless there is a particular source that is being cited. --DrL 15:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on removing this link. It is very usefull and not comercial. Even not personal. Please make clear where is the rule that links like this should be banned. Other wise I'm gonna put it back. vanzetti 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it has some nice pictures and maybe some useful info, but look here. It's a breeder database that solicits advertising fees. That's clearly a no-no, linkwise. --DrL 14:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. So it's comercial. If you look it that way, you should ban the link of the CC rescue too. It also has also a comercial part even if it's for fundraising (which is as comercial as the the other site). Besides that what is more important, it add's nothing to the information that is given already in the article. Which the Norwegian site does.vanzetti 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any information that is terribly useful at the commercial site. You may be right about the other. I think it's best to err on the side of caution. I am a member of Wikiproject Dogs and I will ask for some input from some of the other members about these borderline links. --DrL 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I personaly find this site very useful, and think it's a significant resource for Chinese Crested, but, I see that you're determined that it shouldn't be added to the article, so I'll remove it.Jerazol 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And I remove the other link while it's comercial too and it even ads less info on CC'svanzetti 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that this site had been discussed before. I fail to see what is problematic with linking to it though. The site itself is a tremendous resource for anyone interested in the breed. I don't know where you get the idea that it's a "big advert for breederes". Am I to understand that wikipedia should not link to any site containing *any* sort of advertising? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.54.46.157 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hmm. I have no idea how I managed it but it was in a non-english language when I looked at work. It does indeed seem to be in English when I look at home though.

My objections to this site are:

• Commercial site - there only to make money (this is a minor issue)
• Articles are unsourced and we have no reason to trust the source so can't see them as reliable/a good primary source.
• Has large breeders database which is simply not a useful thing to link to
• Nothing on the site could be used, in my opinion, to improve this page. This is the fundamental point that we follow on the site when choosing external links. We should only link to sites that are the official site of the subject, or to sites with information that couldn't be put into the article itself.
• Some of the articles simply do not work, leading me to not trust the site's longevity.
• All the info of importance about the breed is available on the various official kennel clubs sites referenced at the top of the page.

For these reasons, I am going to remove it again. Please provide me with some reasons as to why this is such a useful resource if you wish for it to be re-added.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why it should stay in :

• It keeps an incredible variety of several lines of Chinese Crested. This is really an addition to the article, while Wikipedia is not for this things.
• This is not a 'source' link. The articles there are just common sence and to help people.
• The argument that an article sould have sources is a non argument. If all links where moved, that do not relate to there sources, most linked wouldn't be in Wikipedia.
• The oficial sites that are allowed by Localzuk do have a lot of rubish and unverified things in it too. Why keep them in? In another way they lack a lot of info that is to be found in other sources.
• Links that do not work make Lokalzuk emotional, while it should be taken as for what it is. A little part of the information is missing. No reason to get suspecious.

For me almost all the reason Lokalzuk is posing are not relavant. You can come with a lot of reasons to put the link in too on the same base. :::So his reasons are based on emotion rather than on facts. And that's not the way Wikipedia should work.

I'm not going to place the link again, while there will be others like Lokalzuk and DrL. Waist of time, while people that are really intrested can find there way trough internet outside wikipedia. Wikipedia in this way is not the source of information anymore, but hey that's not what wikipedia is for? vanzetti 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A 100000 visitors per month[1] would seem to disagree with the pow that the site is not useful :-) Wikipedia only provides a very small, modest contribution to the traffic on the site. When I first placed the link here, I was unaware of the policy of not linking to own sites, but the link has also been re-added by other people, but I did place the link here because I think the site can be genuinely useful for someone seeking information about the breed, but since some people here seem to be more hung up on the fact that we allow advertising which provides enough income to cover approx. 5% of the total hosting costs, than the useful parts of the site, it's probably better to just leave it out. People seeking information about the breed will find the site through google etc. anyway. Jerazol 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

World's Ugliest Dog contest

The fact is, most of the competitors of World's Ugliest Dog Contest ARE Chinese Crested (or a mix thereof). Its a item noted, referenced and covered by the news [2] mostly by Associated Press. Elwood, the 2007 winner is a CC/chihuahua mix. And yes, "the breed can exhibit exaggerated traits like a mohawk, bug eyes and a long, wagging tongue."[3]. Hey its not flattering but its referenced by numerous media outlets - not WP:OR. The competition itself is notable enough to be on the same level as the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show as far as wikipedia is concerned - it fulfills all the Wikipedia:Notability and WP:V guidelines. Tagging it as sensationalistic is not a cause for its removal from the article. --Eqdoktor 10:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, that the breed does not feature "a mohawk, bug eyes and a long, wagging tongue". Since your interest with the breed started with this World's Ugliest Dog Contest, I suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with the breed, before insisting that some random journalists description should be included in the article as representative for the breed. Jerazol 03:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually yes, all the Chinese Cresteds in the contest do demonstrate those features, and its obviously a trait of the breed. All Toy breeds do not just randomly have tongues that will not stay in their mouths or mohawks. Just because many of the dogs do not conform to the beautiful, perfection of the breed standard does not mean we delete interesting, notable and factually verifiable mentions of them. Wikipedia is not here to push the point of view that the ideal appearance of CC is the only one, or even the most common. It's not just trivia either, but a notable reference specifically referring to the breed's appearance. hence it belongs in the appearance section. VanTucky 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument is that this competition is obviously showcasing the average of the breed? I find it hard to see how such an argument can be justified. These are obviously extreme examples of the breed, and I am unable to find any justification for giving these a prominent placement in the article. Jerazol 03:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting something on which there is no evidence. But it is just as likely (if not more so, considering the disparity between all but the most elite dogs and their breed standard), that the perfect dogs who have their image described in the article and pictures in as well, are simply the other end of the extreme. The contest is certainly notable, and so are the winners and facts about participants. Not only is there an article on the contest, but one on one of the winners as well. And guess what...he's a Chinese Crested! Big suprise when the vast majority of contestants are as well. Are you going to delete that mention of such an extreme appearance as well? Policy-wise, the contest, its winners, contestants and all the major relevant facts about them (such as breed) are completely notable and verifiable. The uses and activities of a breed are an important part of a breed's encyclopedic information. If this contest almost exclusively has CC's participating in it, it is a noteworthy pasttime that owners and dogs participate in it. VanTucky 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The hanging tongue is a neurological defect affecting some dogs, the same as affects the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Dog breed profile see #143. Hanging tongue. As for mohawk, sure. The hairless gene has a varying expression, from almost completely hairless, to extremely hairy. I fail to see any particular trait of bug eyes in the previous winner Sam [4], Elwood is indeed bug eyed, but is also half Chihuahua, so can not be held up as an example of the breed [5]. If this is your definition of bug eyed, then yes. The breed does have bug eyed as a trait. Jerazol 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see from The World's Ugliest Dogs, 4 out of the 18 entered, are Chinese Crested pure breds. Some citations from the description of these dogs are:

"Poppy is a darling 13 year old hairless crested who was rescued from a puppy mill this past year by an organization called Crest-Care. They are the official Chinese Crested rescue organization. He spent most of his life crated at a puppy mill under very poor conditions. He has lost all his teeth and has a jaw deformity, so he needs to be spoon-fed."

"Lulu is a rescue dog from a puppy mill, and though we don’t know for sure if she is purebred, we do know that she is a Chinese Crested."

If you think that dogs who have been through these kinds of experiences make for representative examples of the breed, I'm sorry to disappoint you. They don't. One of the other cresteds entered into the competition, doesn't as far as I can tell, sport neither a mohawk, hanging tongue nor bug eyes. If anything can be derived from the list of entrants to the competition, it could be that it's possible to make very ugly dogs, by breeding Chinese Cresteds with random other breeds. This does not however warrant a prominent mention in an article about the Chinese Crested Dog. This would mean that both the claims "Well actually yes, all the Chinese Cresteds in the contest do demonstrate those features" and "The fact is, most of the competitors of World's Ugliest Dog Contest ARE Chinese Crested" are false (even though the last one is qualified by a "or a mix thereof", which would mean that it would be irrelevant for this article). Jerazol 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I think you just violated the WP:3RR Jerazol. Just warning you in case you want to revert yourself. VanTucky 03:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I can't see that I did Jerazol 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also read the previous discussion on this competition further up in this talk page. Include photo of "Sam"?

Hi, I've reverted the info and ask for a little calm. This is an online Encyclopedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (from WP:OR). I'm not saying this to wikilawyer good faith editors but its a non-intuitive aspect of Wikipedia that tripped me up when I first started to help editing it. What you KNOW (or think you know) about the breed is original research, what has been written up by notable and reliable sources is verifiable fact. I bring this up to clear up any doubt that the information brought up and cited in the paragraph has a place in the Wikipedia article. Removal of the paragraph is really not warranted (3RR and all that).

Now, Wikipedia works by consensus. Lets work on the info and see what we can do to make the article better. Frankly, I'm not here to libel Chinese Crested breed. The fact is, the predominance of the CC in the Ugliest Dog competition is a notable fact that has been covered by numerous media outlets (AP and others if I can hunt down more references). Much like Terriers dominating the Westminster dog show, CCs' dominate the Ugliest Dog competition. Its a fact that people and the media notice and its notable that CCs have won for the past 5 years (albeit 3 years running with Sam). Does the breed feature 'mohawks, bug eyes and long wagging tongue'? Yes, a badly bred example CAN - Elwood and Sam was nearly euthanized for that (written up in the cited articles - verifiable info).

If you think that the verified facts brought in the cited paragraph do not fairly describe the fine breed, the best recourse is TO IMPROVE the article. Its not useful to gainsay other editors by repeatedly reverting (3RR rules). You seem fairly familiar with the breed, just find verified references that state that the CC dogs in the Ugly dogs contest are not representative of the breed and are the results of bad breeding and mismatched genetics. There is no denying that the CC breed is vulnerable to genetic disorders and health issues (bulldogs have it worst I think).

CCs in the Ugly dog contest just need to be put in a proper context. Not censored out of the article. --Eqdoktor 08:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my replies above? I had not cencored mention of the competition out the article, merely put it it where it belonged, as well as removed the part which is incorrect.

You say that Wikipedia works by concencus, and this is true. The initial intent was that people knowledgeable about a subject could collaborate on articles, and I'm sorry to say, you do not seem to fit the bill when it comes to the Chinese Crested. I do not agree that the cited news article can serve as a source of a verifiable fact, about the breeds appearance, and if you have a look at http://www.sonoma-marinfair.org/uglydogvote07.shtml, you will find that your claim that "CCs' dominate the Ugliest Dog competition" is simply not true. This years winner is not a purebred Chinese Crested, and you cannot therefore use this dog as an example. Sam the 3 year winner of the show was a dog adopted as a rescue dog, with a history of severe neglect.[6] Again something which negates the value of him as a valid example of the breeds appearance.

I encourage you to try to find a source which did not try to write up a entertaining article, which describes the breed in the same way. Jerazol 11:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, I'm sorry to say, you do not seem to fit the bill when it comes to the Chinese Crested is not something to say when debating the merits of the article. I suggest you step back a bit from this. Its an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia, not a sales brochure for the CC breed. Seriously, I may not own a CC dog but this does not preclude me from knowing what makes a good Wikipedia article. --Eqdoktor 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have in no way claimed any ownership of this article, I have however requested that editors be somewhat knowledgeable on the topic of the article they are editing. Jerazol 13:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the article - frankly this is a silly matter to be called up on Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. There are at least one other editor that does not agree with you on the matter and you seem determined not to work on the issue to come to a consensus. verifiability, not truth, all I see is hand waving on the matter that the breed does NOT exhibit the unflattering characteristics as laid out in the news article. Until I see some concrete reference or citation, I just cannot accept your reverts. Step back and take a deep breath, I am not shooting dogs or anything like that, this is just Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor 12:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick mention in a newspaper article is not what I would call a concrete reference or citation, so the same would seem to apply to your pow. I'm sorry to say, that I will not accept the addition of this description to the article. I have indeed worked with you on the issue to try to resolve it, by leaving the mention of the winners in the article and removing the inaccurate quote added from the newspaper article. Jerazol 13:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not coming over to shoot Chinese Crested dogs and neither did one bit me. I have no axe to grind with the breed but I do feel that the inclusion of the media coverage of the CCs in the Ugliest Dog contest does have a place in the article. Again, verifiability, not truth - I cannot accept handwaving on this issue (as with 99% of the article sad to say which seems to be mostly original research) - If the Associated Press news report fails Wikipedia reference and citation policies, I am very happy to accept it. Until then I feel that the quality of the article is affected by your unnecessary defence on the issue. --Eqdoktor 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone who owns, and attempts to remain current on, the breed, I would like to just add a comment here for consideration by those arguing for and against the addition of content regarding the Ugly Dog Contest. What is not taken into consideration is that the Chinese Cresteds who compete in this contest are generally elderly and in poor health. This is a lovely breed that does not age prettily-- like many breeds. This does not indicate bad genetics, as some suggest, nor does it indicate that certain "ugly" traits are characteristic of the breed. These are simply senior dogs who have lost their health, and their hairlessness makes them look more unusual as they age. I believe that under the fur of every senior dog you will find the same. There's no legitimate "statement about the breed" being made by this contest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.127.152 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is our 6 month old Chinese Crested marking on top of our 10 week old male Chihuahua?Honey6267 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Personality Split?

This article gushes about the personality of the 'powderpuff' dogs in a way which is far from NPOV, yet its says nothing about the character of the 'hairless' dogs. If the only difference between the two forms is lack of hair and bad teeth, then surely the personality section should be re-written to apply to all forms of the dog, but PLEASE could it be written in a form less like a fawning magazine article?The Yowser (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)