This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nureongi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
This is not a formal name not supported by cited references. Can someone provide some support this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nureongi&oldid=prev&diff=726369043 Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 17:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you have forgotten, but we've had this conversation before. I have gone and found it in the archives and will paste it here below to refresh your memory [ Talk:Nureongi/Archive 2#Aka_.22Korean_Edible_Dog.22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 June 2016 ( -- dsprc [talk]: I've snipped the long copy and paste of previous discussion and replaced with a link to archived section -- dsprc [talk] 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC) )
( ←) The broad usage was not verifiable (no evidence yet provided); it is not also-known-as "Korean Edible Dog" by anyone else. Terms as "edible dog" are commonly used to refer dog meat in general within Asia, to distinguish between animals kept as pets and those used for consumption [1] [2] [3], but not this dog. It is a conflation, amalgamation and misunderstanding lost in translation. Source was vetted (no pun) and failed. -- dsprc [talk] 16:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put it back how it was. Let me explain:
First, this edit was justified by saying that's not what Morris says. But then it was pointed out that this is not so. Morris does indeed say that it's sometimes called what it says. So that justification was withdrawn.
The next justification for this edit was that Morris is the only one who calls this dog by that term. Butt Morris does not call it that himself. He simply reports that it is sometimes also called that in his sources. Passive voice "is called", i.e. by others. So this idea that only Morris calls it that is not correct, so this justification is based on a falsehood.
The claim was made that searches were done and the term was not found to be in common use. So searches were done and more than a thousand hits were found for the term, so it's not true that the search justifies us second guessing the facts as found in the citation. There is no reason here to think Morris's claim is not true. Google search results do not create any doubt that the claim is true. They do not give us any reason to think Morris might be wrong about that.
The claim was made that only one other source was found for the term being so used. This was checked and found to be false. Many sources were found that use the term. So the belief that there are only Morris and this other source are using the term turned out to be false, so no reasonable reason to doubt that what Morris claims is true.
Then the claim was made that there is another source that uses the term which is an advocacy group, and so that should be some reason that we should doubt Morris's claim that the term is in common usage to refer to this referent. But that doesn't matter. That fact that among the many sources that use the term to refer to this dog is this or that advocacy group has nothing to do with whether Morris is right that the term is in use. In fact, it's the opposite: confirmation that the term is in use to refer to the referent.
Then the claim was made that the citation was placed at the end of the lead section instead of directly after that particular claim. But the entire lead is cited to Morris at the end so the thing to do is move the citation, not the claim. But that's not necessary because it's already cited to Morris at the end of the lead, and because of the way it was moved it's makes it sound like there is some doubt whether Morris was right about that but there isn't any.
Then it was claimed that it should be so edited because "The broad usage was not verifiable (no evidence yet provided); it is not also-known-as "Korean Edible Dog" by anyone else." But the opposite is true.
Then it was pointed out that the term "edible dog" is used for othher dogs that are not this dog. But Morris's claim is that the term "Korean edible dog", not just "edible dog". So this point is not well taken. Morris never said that there were no others any more than him saying that the term "Welsh terrier" implies there are no other terriers.
I could go on, but I'm undoing the edit because it was justifed by demonstrably false facts and bad reasoning. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the points raised by Dsprc above. I would further add that it is misleading to suggest that such creature -- an "edible dog" -- exists. Moreover, we know that various breeds and mixed breeds are routinely slaughtered for meat in the South Korean dog meat trade, thus "edible dog" has no real meaning in this context. Lastly, I question why the need to use such a description at all here when we don't include similar descriptors for other dogs based on their common uses, viz, "the American police dog" for German Shepherd, "the fighting dog" for Pit Pulls, etc. Rucamlaw ( talk) 15:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
( ←) I'm going to put it back the way it was. Let me explain:
Here I have this book. https://books.google.com/books/about/Dogs.html?id=IjG-LAAACAAJ
It is the paperback edition, published in 2008.
The section on edible dog breeds starts on p.583 and runs to p.596.
It includes sixteen known edible dog breeds from ten countries.
The article on this dog starts just at the bottom of page 585.
There it says the following:
"The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog."
Therefore, I'm going to add the fact this article.
I have listed to those who object to this edit and have found no evidence or reason to believe that Morris is wrong about that.
If you undo, please present below some evidence that Morris was wrong about that.
I.e.: evidence that the term is not in use to refer to the referent of this article.
Or if not, please explain a rational reason to think that he's wrong about that.
Or if not, please explain why even though he's not wrong about that, we shouldn't tell the readers.
For example, what bad could happen if we tell the readers this fact?
Purposes of this edit include the fact that, when another term is in use, users might know it by that name and look it up or they might hear the term, and wonder if and that are the same or they might learn that there is another term and later on hear the other term and already know what the learned here is being referred to there. There are other reasons, too.
However, I will respect the consensus not to capitalize dog breeds as Morris does, but instead only capitalize "Korean". Chrisrus ( talk) 04:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
"Why?"The burden of proof is upon the individual which includes content. You've also expressed some questionable understanding of what a reliable source is by asserting spam-bots count as them. Because the content needs to be verified.
"That's not how this works."Yes, it is. WP:V.
"Imagine if everyone did that."We do, every single day and have special teams of contributors tasked with providing portions of print material for verification.
"Why would I or anyone else lie about that?"People do all kinds of crazy things.
"Do you hate the fact that the term is in use or something?"No. Not at all. In fact there has been suggestion from I to expand coverage of the term in article.
"You are free to go to the library and check or whatever if you want."This is very elitist; not everyone has access to well stocked libraries.
"I'm still putting it back the way it was until someone can give me some good reason not to."There is no consensus. -- dsprc [talk] 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(
←) Please do not use male pronouns when referring to me. Assertions are not proof. The claim on Google searches is not true when you specifically state otherwise above; all usage of "Korean Edible Dog" is done by spam-bots or other copies of Wikipedia which contained the phrase. A quote=
of the source material was requested so there is context; but you specifically reject them. Doesn't belong in lede anyway; is in body where it should be. Would you like to participate in
WP:DR/N for resolution? --
dsprc
[talk]
22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It said in two places that verification is needed. So, I picked up the book and verified the claims and removed the verification needed tags. Again.
I have verified it, so it's been verified so there's not verification needed.
Please read WP:AGF and/or verify it yourself if you think I'm lying or something or just present some evidence or reason that it might be wrong.
Chrisrus ( talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
( ←) Sigh. WP:IDHT. Please stop. -- dsprc [talk] 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
( ←) The wikilawyering grows old. WP:DR/N is not escalation, it is cooperation and mediation allowing involved parties to resolve disputes instead of speaking cross at one another. If one wishes to jump through hoops, when no hooping was requested that is their problem. No one said anything about tags; but verification is to be conducted by third-parties. Spinning yarns again... tisk tisk. -- dsprc [talk] 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is the language link for the Korean version of the article a redirect to 붉은사슴 (Red deer)? Is the term used for both? Or, is this a mistake somehow? I would have thought the article would have a Korean version, since it's related to Korea..? Zeniff ( talk) 08:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the English language article in the current state is not completely wrong. It kinda describes the word a bit. However, the article actually should not exist. It's just a phantom discussion in English media based on misinterpretations that were caused by three articles released 2008 and 2009. Nureongi just means like yellowy. It is also the Korean term for the animal Cervus canadensis xanthopygus, also called 백두산사슴, a wapiti. Otherwise, it is a very general term. E.g., in English, in the past for humans, terms like white, black and yellow were used. If that is translated to Korean, then that yellow is translated as nureongi. The dictionary entry is already in this wikipedia article. Nureongi can be any yellow object or animal, is often used for yellow dogs and cows, and is a common term for golden. However, even when used for dogs, it is not refering to anything in particular other than the fur color. So, in Korea, there are many street dogs and they make it like dogs. So, many mongrels exist that mix unknown. So, you do not call them "golden retriever" or anything by there type name as there is no. That's why people just say "the yellow dog", "the white dog", "the black dog", because there is no other way to refer to them. Of course, more words exist. Dogs are the by far most popular pets in Korea and, also for them, you can use the term. E.g. a woman goes walking with her two dogs, one has yellow fur, the other has white fur, and a parent with her kid is walking by. The kid could say '어 엄머, 강아지 저기 있어요. 누렁이 귀여워용...' (Ah, mommy, there are puppies over there. The yellow one is so cute.). Just because the kid does not know the race, it can differentiate it by the color from the other dog. Of course, if they are different in size, the kid might have would refered to that. It's just really not a specific term for any kind of dog. But definitely, when refering to dogs, mostly used for mongrels, those with yellow fur. Even though other words can be used to. But it is nothing that justifies a wikipedia article. If you look in those sources, Lee (2008), Morris (2008), and Podberscek (2009), they also do not use it so specifically. They just say like "because there is not a fixed term for these dogs, some people call them nureongi, others hwanggu". And all other uses of this term in English language articles are based on these three artcles, on misinterpretations and exaggerations of those three, mainly the latter two. I looked it up with google and you can clearly see it when setting filters like "only show results until 2007/2008/2009". When filtering for 2008, other articles appear with older date, but that is a mistake by google or the site host. When you open these articles, you see it is actually a newer, but google somehow shows an older date. -- Christian140 ( talk) 05:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nureongi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not a formal name not supported by cited references. Can someone provide some support this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nureongi&oldid=prev&diff=726369043 Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 17:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you have forgotten, but we've had this conversation before. I have gone and found it in the archives and will paste it here below to refresh your memory [ Talk:Nureongi/Archive 2#Aka_.22Korean_Edible_Dog.22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 June 2016 ( -- dsprc [talk]: I've snipped the long copy and paste of previous discussion and replaced with a link to archived section -- dsprc [talk] 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC) )
( ←) The broad usage was not verifiable (no evidence yet provided); it is not also-known-as "Korean Edible Dog" by anyone else. Terms as "edible dog" are commonly used to refer dog meat in general within Asia, to distinguish between animals kept as pets and those used for consumption [1] [2] [3], but not this dog. It is a conflation, amalgamation and misunderstanding lost in translation. Source was vetted (no pun) and failed. -- dsprc [talk] 16:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put it back how it was. Let me explain:
First, this edit was justified by saying that's not what Morris says. But then it was pointed out that this is not so. Morris does indeed say that it's sometimes called what it says. So that justification was withdrawn.
The next justification for this edit was that Morris is the only one who calls this dog by that term. Butt Morris does not call it that himself. He simply reports that it is sometimes also called that in his sources. Passive voice "is called", i.e. by others. So this idea that only Morris calls it that is not correct, so this justification is based on a falsehood.
The claim was made that searches were done and the term was not found to be in common use. So searches were done and more than a thousand hits were found for the term, so it's not true that the search justifies us second guessing the facts as found in the citation. There is no reason here to think Morris's claim is not true. Google search results do not create any doubt that the claim is true. They do not give us any reason to think Morris might be wrong about that.
The claim was made that only one other source was found for the term being so used. This was checked and found to be false. Many sources were found that use the term. So the belief that there are only Morris and this other source are using the term turned out to be false, so no reasonable reason to doubt that what Morris claims is true.
Then the claim was made that there is another source that uses the term which is an advocacy group, and so that should be some reason that we should doubt Morris's claim that the term is in common usage to refer to this referent. But that doesn't matter. That fact that among the many sources that use the term to refer to this dog is this or that advocacy group has nothing to do with whether Morris is right that the term is in use. In fact, it's the opposite: confirmation that the term is in use to refer to the referent.
Then the claim was made that the citation was placed at the end of the lead section instead of directly after that particular claim. But the entire lead is cited to Morris at the end so the thing to do is move the citation, not the claim. But that's not necessary because it's already cited to Morris at the end of the lead, and because of the way it was moved it's makes it sound like there is some doubt whether Morris was right about that but there isn't any.
Then it was claimed that it should be so edited because "The broad usage was not verifiable (no evidence yet provided); it is not also-known-as "Korean Edible Dog" by anyone else." But the opposite is true.
Then it was pointed out that the term "edible dog" is used for othher dogs that are not this dog. But Morris's claim is that the term "Korean edible dog", not just "edible dog". So this point is not well taken. Morris never said that there were no others any more than him saying that the term "Welsh terrier" implies there are no other terriers.
I could go on, but I'm undoing the edit because it was justifed by demonstrably false facts and bad reasoning. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the points raised by Dsprc above. I would further add that it is misleading to suggest that such creature -- an "edible dog" -- exists. Moreover, we know that various breeds and mixed breeds are routinely slaughtered for meat in the South Korean dog meat trade, thus "edible dog" has no real meaning in this context. Lastly, I question why the need to use such a description at all here when we don't include similar descriptors for other dogs based on their common uses, viz, "the American police dog" for German Shepherd, "the fighting dog" for Pit Pulls, etc. Rucamlaw ( talk) 15:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
( ←) I'm going to put it back the way it was. Let me explain:
Here I have this book. https://books.google.com/books/about/Dogs.html?id=IjG-LAAACAAJ
It is the paperback edition, published in 2008.
The section on edible dog breeds starts on p.583 and runs to p.596.
It includes sixteen known edible dog breeds from ten countries.
The article on this dog starts just at the bottom of page 585.
There it says the following:
"The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog."
Therefore, I'm going to add the fact this article.
I have listed to those who object to this edit and have found no evidence or reason to believe that Morris is wrong about that.
If you undo, please present below some evidence that Morris was wrong about that.
I.e.: evidence that the term is not in use to refer to the referent of this article.
Or if not, please explain a rational reason to think that he's wrong about that.
Or if not, please explain why even though he's not wrong about that, we shouldn't tell the readers.
For example, what bad could happen if we tell the readers this fact?
Purposes of this edit include the fact that, when another term is in use, users might know it by that name and look it up or they might hear the term, and wonder if and that are the same or they might learn that there is another term and later on hear the other term and already know what the learned here is being referred to there. There are other reasons, too.
However, I will respect the consensus not to capitalize dog breeds as Morris does, but instead only capitalize "Korean". Chrisrus ( talk) 04:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
"Why?"The burden of proof is upon the individual which includes content. You've also expressed some questionable understanding of what a reliable source is by asserting spam-bots count as them. Because the content needs to be verified.
"That's not how this works."Yes, it is. WP:V.
"Imagine if everyone did that."We do, every single day and have special teams of contributors tasked with providing portions of print material for verification.
"Why would I or anyone else lie about that?"People do all kinds of crazy things.
"Do you hate the fact that the term is in use or something?"No. Not at all. In fact there has been suggestion from I to expand coverage of the term in article.
"You are free to go to the library and check or whatever if you want."This is very elitist; not everyone has access to well stocked libraries.
"I'm still putting it back the way it was until someone can give me some good reason not to."There is no consensus. -- dsprc [talk] 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(
←) Please do not use male pronouns when referring to me. Assertions are not proof. The claim on Google searches is not true when you specifically state otherwise above; all usage of "Korean Edible Dog" is done by spam-bots or other copies of Wikipedia which contained the phrase. A quote=
of the source material was requested so there is context; but you specifically reject them. Doesn't belong in lede anyway; is in body where it should be. Would you like to participate in
WP:DR/N for resolution? --
dsprc
[talk]
22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It said in two places that verification is needed. So, I picked up the book and verified the claims and removed the verification needed tags. Again.
I have verified it, so it's been verified so there's not verification needed.
Please read WP:AGF and/or verify it yourself if you think I'm lying or something or just present some evidence or reason that it might be wrong.
Chrisrus ( talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
( ←) Sigh. WP:IDHT. Please stop. -- dsprc [talk] 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
( ←) The wikilawyering grows old. WP:DR/N is not escalation, it is cooperation and mediation allowing involved parties to resolve disputes instead of speaking cross at one another. If one wishes to jump through hoops, when no hooping was requested that is their problem. No one said anything about tags; but verification is to be conducted by third-parties. Spinning yarns again... tisk tisk. -- dsprc [talk] 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is the language link for the Korean version of the article a redirect to 붉은사슴 (Red deer)? Is the term used for both? Or, is this a mistake somehow? I would have thought the article would have a Korean version, since it's related to Korea..? Zeniff ( talk) 08:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the English language article in the current state is not completely wrong. It kinda describes the word a bit. However, the article actually should not exist. It's just a phantom discussion in English media based on misinterpretations that were caused by three articles released 2008 and 2009. Nureongi just means like yellowy. It is also the Korean term for the animal Cervus canadensis xanthopygus, also called 백두산사슴, a wapiti. Otherwise, it is a very general term. E.g., in English, in the past for humans, terms like white, black and yellow were used. If that is translated to Korean, then that yellow is translated as nureongi. The dictionary entry is already in this wikipedia article. Nureongi can be any yellow object or animal, is often used for yellow dogs and cows, and is a common term for golden. However, even when used for dogs, it is not refering to anything in particular other than the fur color. So, in Korea, there are many street dogs and they make it like dogs. So, many mongrels exist that mix unknown. So, you do not call them "golden retriever" or anything by there type name as there is no. That's why people just say "the yellow dog", "the white dog", "the black dog", because there is no other way to refer to them. Of course, more words exist. Dogs are the by far most popular pets in Korea and, also for them, you can use the term. E.g. a woman goes walking with her two dogs, one has yellow fur, the other has white fur, and a parent with her kid is walking by. The kid could say '어 엄머, 강아지 저기 있어요. 누렁이 귀여워용...' (Ah, mommy, there are puppies over there. The yellow one is so cute.). Just because the kid does not know the race, it can differentiate it by the color from the other dog. Of course, if they are different in size, the kid might have would refered to that. It's just really not a specific term for any kind of dog. But definitely, when refering to dogs, mostly used for mongrels, those with yellow fur. Even though other words can be used to. But it is nothing that justifies a wikipedia article. If you look in those sources, Lee (2008), Morris (2008), and Podberscek (2009), they also do not use it so specifically. They just say like "because there is not a fixed term for these dogs, some people call them nureongi, others hwanggu". And all other uses of this term in English language articles are based on these three artcles, on misinterpretations and exaggerations of those three, mainly the latter two. I looked it up with google and you can clearly see it when setting filters like "only show results until 2007/2008/2009". When filtering for 2008, other articles appear with older date, but that is a mistake by google or the site host. When you open these articles, you see it is actually a newer, but google somehow shows an older date. -- Christian140 ( talk) 05:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)