Wikipedia

Talk:Nureongi/Archive 3

< Talk:Nureongi
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Chrisrus in topic Terminology
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

What to call the habitat section

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

The information about the places that these dogs live should not be under the subsection about the estimates of how many nureongi exist because it's a different topic. It should have a section of it's own. If there is another term other than the word "habitat" that would better summarize the information in this section, we should use it, but in this topic there is no danger that the reader will misunderstand that this dog has been shaped by this unnatural, rather than natural, habitat. Chrisrus (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we refrain from using terminology and categorization that's false with nonexistent and poor references. Caging and trasportation conditions of dog meat trade doesn't constitute habitat and husbandry. That is comically false. I really don't understand why you are so intent on writing your own creation for content. There are portions of this article that literally borders on fiction and I hope we can be cooperative in improving the quality of information presented here rather than creating content and being defensive about it.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Your deleting without adding content with claims of POV etc. is becoming disruptive and inflammatory. Please make your changes and we can discuss these.DrChrissy (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)l
Chrissy, there is no reference to support the view that 'nureongi' has a habitat or there are established husbandry techniques let alone that the text in question counts for "habitat and hubandry". Not only is this not referenced, it is simply not true. I hope we can focus on improving this article and presenting accurate factually true information. I have no desire to engage in POV edit defending.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. What would you call the section?DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That's kind of a false choice. Let's just leave the text as it was instead of trying to force a section let alone a "habitat and husbandry" section. As editors we are not suppose to engage in synthesis and research claims.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The topic of this section is the habitat of this dog, the place and environment where this dog is found. Chrisrus (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The section heading makes sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reference that I don't know about? There are no Habitat and Hubandry sections on other dog or cats articles. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have a better title for that section, please don't delete it because doing so puts it under the title "population estimate", where it clearly doesn't belong. Chrisrus (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Landrace" vs "landrace breed"

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

According to the article Landrace, the terms "landrace" and "landrace breed" are synonymous, so we have a choice. The term "landrace breed" is better in this context because it more clearly implies that this dog owes its present from to artificial selection rather than natural selection, having been purpose-bred in artificial rather than natural environments for many generations. Chrisrus (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The term "landrace breed" doesn't apply here because there is no standard size, look, or any physical feature or consistent traits that qualify "nureongi".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Landrace breeds by definition don't have written breed standards. This dog, however, is of quite standard size, look, physical features, and consistant traits, as the sources attest. Chrisrus (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Morris is certainly not stating any standard for "nureongi" as a breed. That's taking the reference out of context. And again, I don't see what any of us have to gain by making false claims on this article. Why force a round peg into a square hole??Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The fact that purpose-bred dogs may not have formal written "breed standards" doesn't mean that they never have standard sizes, look, or any physical feature or consistent traits. Chrisrus (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The reason the sources say that these dogs all look alike in the way that they do is because they all look alike in the way that they do.
Here are some pictures:
Please look at these pictures. They all look alike in the ways described in the sources. Chrisrus (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There is at least one non-pure nureongi among the nureongi in this picture. Can you find it?http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lngckan9cG1qzwowd.jpg

Chrisrus please understand that you are not allowed to use your personal judgement about whether the dogs in the photos you pasted above "look alike" or not. You are trying to force this notion that there is some uniform, standard to Nureongi dogs in Korea when there is none. All of this is considered original research which editors are not suppose to engage in. Please review this policy. No Original Research.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Podersbeck reference says - "The type of dog most commonly farmed for food is known as nureongi (yellow dog), which is mid-sized, short haired, and yellow furred (Corrall, 2002). However, other types of dog may appear at markets, for example, pointers, mastiffs, and terriers, but these are less common (Wheeler & Butcher, 1998). Nureongi are not normally kept as pets." I don't thnk Chrisus is using OR here.DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is about the term "landrace breed". I see no mention of landrace breed in what you just wrote. It takes couple steps of synthesis to end with editor conclusion which is original research. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
So what term would you like to use? I have just looked at your Talk page and this issue has been raised before. Why are you raising it again? This is looking rather disruptive.DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The terms Landrace and Landrace breed are synonyms. Using the latter is better because it's clearer that this animal is the result of artificial selection. Chrisrus (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

nurungji

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

this is the korean term for burnt (caked onto pot) rice, a popular staple. could a native speaker weigh in on whether it is close enough to the dog name that one or the other may have been named with an eye toward wordplay?

i.e., does anyone perceive the dog dish as "burnt rice meat" or the rice as something like "dog scrapings"? maybe not for real, but as a euphemism or a slang term?

or even as a malaprop? do korean sitcoms ever feature someone ordering nurungji only to wind up with "ok, who had the nureongi"?

there's supposedly a nursery rhyme "하늘 천, 따 지, 가마 솥에 누룽지". anyone ever say "하늘 천, 따 지, 가마 솥에 누렁이" in jest...kind of like US kids often say "one nation under dog" instead of "god" in our pledge?

no hits on google, but i wonder. 209.172.23.224 (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Norwegian Wikipedia has a page, where they call it the "Korean dog"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreansk_hund

No references and entirely false information. That article needs a lot of work.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference Check Requests

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone with access to Morris's book confirm that the following text is referenced info? "Like native Korean dog breeds such as the Jindo, nureongi are medium-sized spitz-type dogs, but are larger, with greater musculature and a distinctive coat pattern. They are generally uniform in appearance, with yellow hair and melanistic masks although some diverge. Nureongi are most often used as a livestock dog, raised for their meat, and not commonly kept as pets."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also wondering about "They are transported by truck to market packed into cages so crowded that they can move very little if at all." The given reference is Czajkowski, C (2014–2015). "Dog Meat Trade in South Korea: A Report on the Current State of the Trade and Efforts to Eliminate It". Animal Law. 21: 29–52.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link). There's no mention of nureongi in the abstract. Can someone with access check to see if this article is about Korean dog meat trade or actual Nureongi?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Sign your posts (and learn proper indentation); also try to be concise, if possible.
  • Now, @Melonbarmonster2: Am still attempting to extract Morris since Google Books does not appear to offer the customary search functionality on this title. Czajkowski may be accessible to me, however, the citation lazily covering over half the entire document(!!) is not particularly helpful as far as verification is concerned... and may also prevent my sending to you for verification purposes as well (I do not wish to be sued for copyright infringement). Will see what can be done for you. -- dsprc [talk] 04:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Have obtained Czajkowski, but also have a flight to catch!   Will run OCR against it and send anything found related to cages tomorrow or so. -- dsprc [talk] 05:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I put that in the wrong place. Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Czajkowski content related to transport is "II. State of The Issue"; § C: "Slaughter Methods"; p. 36:

Transport methods of dogs destined for slaughter are generally odious. Sellers and transporters are motivated to move as many dogs as possible at one time to reduce costs, resulting in extremely cramped and crowded cage conditions. [60] Additionally, sellers and transporters deliberately overfill the small transport cages to prevent the dogs from fighting and wounding each other, therefore increasing the likelihood of more dogs reaching the market in good health. [61] Nevertheless, some dogs sustain injury during transport, including broken spines, heat ex- haustion, and strangulation. [62]

Context is in relation to Korean dogs being used as food stuffs. The string "nureongi" is specifically mentioned 5 times in text, on p. 33; 38-39 -- well within this nexus (possibly more but optical character recognition performed on source document has limits). The nureongi is noted as most common breed to be subjected to these practices (among other abuses). Entire document has pretty robust citation tree as well with copious supra citations; can provide those but should not be necessary (each cite 3x length of above). -- dsprc [talk] 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Can provide PNG files of source document upon request as well should those be desired per WP:V. -- dsprc [talk] 22:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nureongi&type=revision&diff=727541013&oldid=727540389 Just wanted to open up discussion on this. It seems the purpose of the terminology section is to discuss the term "nureongi". The issue of the "Korean Edible Dog" is regarding nature of Morris' use and whether the term actual exists anywhere else. We can have that discussion above but we shouldn't inject it as an awkward appendage in the terminology section. It's degrades flow and logic of section as well as reading like a weasel sentence.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I would simply like to elaborate on "edible dog" term somewhere in article body and present information explaining it as a general term for canines used primarily as food stuffs so readers have some understanding and foundational footing to rest upon. It currently just awkwardly hangs off the end, or is awkwardly being injected into the lede (which is supposed to serve as a summary, not primary holder of content) and could use expansion of some sort should it remain. Am open to suggestions on presentation and content; or feedback if such content is warranted at all. -- dsprc [talk] 04:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Why have you moved that fact to the middle of the population estimate section? What's it got to do with getting an idea about how many of them there are?
What is your problem with the fact that it's also called that? The practice of calling an animal "the edible __________" is long-standing and has a set meaning. For example, calling it "the edible frog" doesn't imply that other frogs aren't also edible or eaten. It just means that it's the frog that some people prefer to eat in some culture or cultures, which communicates the one that's being referred to so the listener knows which one. It's not condoning or condemning, it's just saying "the frog that people tend to eat in some culture at some period of time, and this is one of it's most recognizable aspects" or something like that. See edible dormouse for example. There is no bias toward or against the practice of eating an animal implied in the term "the edible ______".
I'm putting it back the way it was. Chrisrus (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That was section where content discussing the matter was present and inclusion reinforced and was supported by preceding line covering topic.
  • "What is your problem with the fact that it's also called that?" No no no, as stated previously, there is no "problem" with this term; evidence wouldn't support such a position anyway. Issue is one of context, weight and structure, not bias (biased sources are fine, BTW).
  • Again, invitation for participation in WP:DR/N is extended to all involved parties for potential resolution in lieu of constant back-and-forth which serves no one—especially not readers—does not help us progress forward and is ultimately harmful to the project. -- dsprc [talk] 18:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also: were you to provide a more robust and complete quotation offering greater context for said content it would be less of an issue and could be more readily or thoroughly integrated into article with better phraseology. -- dsprc [talk] 18:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be asking for more context. The context is the article "Noo-Rung-Yi" at the bottom of p. 585 in Morris's chapter on edible dogs. It says that the name means "yellow one" in Korean and that it's also called the "Korean Edible Dog". Then, on the next page, 586, the first paragraph begins. What more context do you need.
I didn't say your were biased. I asked what your problem is with the fact that it's sometimes called that. What is your problem with the fact that it's called that? Why do you object to this article including the fact that it's also called that? Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just followed links to the "verification needed" tag and saw that using this tag automatically listed this article here [[1]]. This means verification will presumably be provided at some time in the future. However, in the interim, I am also intrigued as to why this has become a problem. I agree with the logic that we have animals called the "edible frog" and the "edible dormouse", so I do not understand an objection to a reference of the "Korean edible dog". Is it the "Korean" part of the term that is being objected to, or the "edible", or the linking of the two? DrChrissy (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • For context we need material surrounding it. Providing a copy of the page in question or a full and proper |quote= of more than a single line would be helpful, make it a moot-point and shutdown anyone's ability to challenge on those grounds. Weight and structure are other issues which I don't believe can be resolved outside WP:DR/N or an WP:RFC on this page.
  • Please do not reinsert contested content that is under discussion. If there is issue on consensus or the status-quo, WP:DR/N is the proper venue. At least there we can move forward.
  • "What is your problem ... Why do you object?" are implied biases and you aren't listening. -- dsprc [talk] 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The following is intended to fulfill a perceived context request just above for Morris's claim that the term "Korean edible dog" is also in use for the referent of this article. The hope is to provide enough context to satisfy a perceived objection that gave rise to the addition of "Verification Needed" tags to the claim in the article.
The cover says "Desmond Morris" "Dogs:The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1,000 dog breeds".
It's a dog breed reference book.
Readers of these words may be aware that there are many dog breed reference books.
Distinguishing characteristics of this dog breed reference book include it not covering only a few hundred breeds, but rater to be as exhaustive as possible.
To give an idea of just how exhaustive it is, it even includes a subchapter on "obscure breeds" that begins with "Abyssinian Sheep Dog Registered at the London Zoo in 1841" on page 698" and that is all ending with "Zulu Dog" and what little information is known about that obscure breed.
So even those dogs about which too little is known for a full article are also included. This demonstrates the relative exhaustiveness of this dog breed reference book.
There's an intro, four main chapters, a biography in three parts, and an index.
There's a quote from a review by Library Journal on the inside cover flap, calling the book "a treasury" noting the "sheer number" of dogs.
The Library Journal also notes another distinguishing feature of this dog breed reference book.
Another distinguishing feature of this dog breed reference book that Library Journal notes is "painstaking scholarship and research."
This feature is also noted on the back cover. It is more scholarly, researched, and exhaustive in terms of dog breeds than the average dog breed reference book.
The four main chapters are "Sporting Dogs", "Livestock Dogs", "Service Dogs", and "Other Dogs".
The chapter on "Service Dogs" consists of an intro and twelve sub-chapters.
The third sub-chapter is called "Edible Dogs" starts on p.583 with an introduction and a table of contents, and ends on p. 596.
It's arranged by geographic region: China, Korea, the Philippians, Sumatra, New Zealand, Hawaii, North America/Caribbean, Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia.
The chapter has one edible dog breed for each region except for Peru, which has three different edible dogs, and Mexico, which has five different edible dog breeds.
Many of the edible dog breeds are extinct, but some, like the Mexican hairless have been preserved by breeders and are recognized breeds by major Kennel clubs and no longer used as edible dogs.
The "Korea" section starts on p.585. With the title of the only article, "Noo-rong-yi" and subtitle that reads a follows:
"The name of this breed literally means "yellow dog". The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog."
The first paragraph begins on p.585. There are four paragraphs. The first and last paragraphs aren't about the dog per se but rather about dog meat consumption in South Korea. The middle two paragraphs are about the dog per se.
The article ends a little less than half way down page 586.
The "Philippines" section begins immediately after on page 586.
I hope that this is enough context to satisfy the objection, making the "verification needed" tags no longer needed and their removal appropriate at this time. Chrisrus (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "...intended to fulfill a perceived context request..."—it doesn't. Also: try to be concise, and to not use line breaks as punctuation. -- dsprc [talk] 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There is so much context here above that another objection other than inadequate context is needed in order to justify addition of "verification needed" tags, or some explanation of what kind of context is needed and why. Chrisrus (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Was previously explained what is needed. Also: please properly indent. -- dsprc [talk] 00:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no clear reason given above for the "verification needed" tag in question.
The claim has been thoroughly verified several times here above, so the tag will be removed.
Absent some clear reason for the tag below, it will be removed after an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nureongi/Archive_3&oldid=739661209"