This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Citation used elsewhere to support statement "Koreans Eat Exceptional Dogs Which are Edible

I found the following at the article Dog Meat in the subsection on Korea. http://kmbase.medric.or.kr/Main.aspx?d=KMBASE&m=VIEW&i=0665219990120040397 Dog Meat Foods in Korea], Ann, Yong-Geun, Korean Medical DatabaseIt is used there, among other things, to cite the statement "Koreans east exceptional dogs which are edible." This implies, at least to my mind, the Nureongi. There is an abstract there which is not behind a paywall, but the rest of the article I can't see. A machine translation of the text there yields this nearly incomprehensible mess:

In the year of 1998, the heads of dog raised in Korea were 1,846,411, and the number of the households raising dogs is 819,112 which means that the heads of pet dog and edible dos were 819,112 and 1,027,299, respectively, because each house raised about one pet dog and one edible dog breeder raised hundreds of dog. In 1998, the number of exported dogs came to 28 heads, and that of imported dogs was 296 heads. But edible dog that was slaughtered or processed has not been reported to be exported or imported. It is known that at the Shenyang Xingshan Food Ltd in Shenyang, Chinese, 300,000 heads of dogs were raised, slaughtered and processed of dog meat per year, and 20% of them were exported. In Korea, the cook of dog meat is a special food culture with a long history. During the Chosun dynasty, dog meat had been eaten to be cooked diversely such as Gaejangkuk(a soup), Suyuk(a boiled meat), Sundae(a sausage), Kui(a roasted meat), Gaezim(a steamed meat), Nurumi(a meat roasted or fried, to which lot of spice paste are added), Gaesoju(an extract), Musulju(a wine), Musuldang(a sweet cane), Now, it is cooked as Bosintang(a soup), Suyuk(a boiled meat), Jeongol(boiled meat mixed with spices, vegetables and water on the pot), Duruchigi(boiled meat added spice vegatable and slightly roasted), Muchim(boiled meat added by spice and mixed), Gaesoju(an extract), with the number of recipes lessened, compared with those of the old times. The reason is due to the intervention and criticism from foreign countries. But foreigner´s blame for the dog meat is absurd and excessive action, because Korea raises exceptional dogs which are edible.

I will try to edit this below, but I will need help from a Korean speaker to check it for accuracy.

In the 1998, 1,846,411 dogs were raised in Korea , and the number of the households raising dogs was 819,112, which means that the numbers of pet dog and edible dogs were 819,112 and 1,027,299, respectively, because each house raised about one pet dog and one edible dog breeder raised hundreds of dogs. In 1998, the number of exported dogs came to 28, and that of imported dogs was 296. But edible dogs that were slaughtered or processed has not been reported as being exported or imported. It is known that at the Shenyang Xingshan Food Ltd in Shenyang, China, 300,000 dogs were raised, slaughtered, and processed for dog meat per year, and 20% of them were exported. In Korea, the cooking of dog meat is a special food culture with a long history. During the Chosun dynasty, dog meat was eaten in diverse dishes such as Gaejangkuk (a soup), Suyuk (a boiled meat), Sundae (a sausage), Kui (a roasted meat), Gaezim (a steamed meat), Nurumi (a roasted or fried meat to which lot of spice paste is added), Gaesoju(an extract), Musulju (a wine), Musuldang (a sweet cane). Nowadays, it is cooked as Bosintang (a soup), Suyuk (a boiled meat), Jeongol (boiled meat mixed with spices, vegetables and water in a pot), Duruchigi (boiled meat added spice vegatable and slightly roasted), Muchim (boiled meat added by spice and mixed), Gaesoju (an extract), with the number of recipes reduced compared with those of the old times. The reason is due to the intervention and criticism from foreign countries. But foreigner´s criticism of the practice of eating dog meat is absurd and uncalled for, because Korea raises exceptional dogs which are edible.

So all we have here that applies to this article:

At least one Korean researcher referes to something we have here called "edible dogs." It is not clear at first if these dogs are all being claimed to be the referent of this article, because it could be that s/he means any dog of any breed used in this way.
The "edible dogs" outnumber the pet dogs in Korea by a substantial margin.
This researcher argues that the foreigner's criticism of the practice is absurd because the dogs used in this way are a special type of dog which is edible (I don't think "exceptional" is the best translation) which she distinguishes from other types of dogs, which s/he does not consider "edible". This could be just a cultural distinction with no basis in reality, but I don't think so in a journal like this. S/he must mean that these dogs are specially suited to being used in this way. This conficts with another arguement to the same purpose which states that the dogs are ok to eat because they are not "exceptional"/special, they are just "mutts" that are not special breed. I've seen both of these arguements and it's hard to see a way that they can both be true at the same time; either they are specially bred for this purpose or they are no special kind of dog, just common "mutts", which isn't a scientific term, so maybe "random bred". This source supports the uniqueness of this type of dog, a special type of dog unique to Korea. I just can't figure out what term s/he uses in the Korean language, whether it's "Nureongi" or just however you say "edible dog" in Korean, more of a description than a special word or term for this "exceptional" type of dog. I need help figuiring this out.
This abstract implies that there are more details within about this dog. I'll need help getting at them. Chrisrus (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

So let's get this straight. Nureongi translated means "dung dogs" due to the fact that they survive by eating human waste. Then these dogs that live on human waste are slaughtered and people believe this meat is good for them and enhances their sexual abilities? Wow, OK. I'd rather eat rice and be a little less sexy! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the contribution from whoever it was who added that. I thought at first that it was vandalism, but it's well cited, and I have no valid cause for deletion. I don't know if he was really trying to improve the article or make fun of it, but it is what it is, so there's nothing for it.

To help you "get it straight", if that's what you're asking, one popular term for Nureongi, which means something like "Brownie" or "Blackie", like you might call a dog "Blackie" if he's black, but this word means yellow, so what would that be "Yellowie"? Something like that. We normally translate it as "yellow dog" when it refers to the Korean Livestock Dog, but they'd use it for any yellow animal, like maybe a yellow cat. What might we name a yellow cat, what form of the word "yellow"? So, no, Nureongi doesn't translate that way.

The word he was referring to was " "Ddongae" (똥개)", where 똥 means "poo" to put it mildly, a better translation might be "crap" and "개" means dog. It's one of the words for it, and it's apparently a pretty common way to refer to them. Nasty huh? It gets worse. The reason they are called that way is because of their habit of eating the stuff. This is something that we've run into before, remember the old reports of the lowland, coastal PPNG dingo. It's not a pleasant subject, but it's role in evolution of the dog can be theorized. What attracted the wild Canis lupus ancestors of the dog into becoming the camp follower, that first step toward domestication? I've no citation for this, it's just occurred to me, they were after our trash, sure, but how much trash would a hunter-gatherer leave far enough away from camp regularly enough to allow a small Asian wolf to make a living consuming? So I can't say that this addition to this article isn't important, that's my point. And any legit addition to this article is appreciated. Lemmie check who added it and leave him a thank you. So yeah, it's disgusting that you'd eat an animal that eats poo, but think about it from our ancient ancestor's point of view, for whom survival was a day-to-day challenge, just to get enough to eat. Here was an animal that could turn something that'd kill you or me (poo) and turns it into something we can eat (meat). It's a natural for them to want to keep such an animal around. Think about goats or sheep turn inedible shrubbery and brush and woody stuff into meat for us, or cows that turn inedible grass into milk and meat for us. Hey, here's one that occurred to me: what about my tomato plants? Don't they turn manure into food? Just a thought. Chrisrus (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I agree with you that the editor's contribution was legit, appropriate, and welcome, but that's all I can comment on at this time. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference check

I am not sure who added this reference but distinction between 견 and 구 as well as proceeding sentence seems dubious especially since the cited reference is a Korean book about Korean liquors. If you added this reference or have access to it could you please provide a quotation or some context?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nature of This Article

I don't like the way the lead is written. This is an article about a referent, not about two words and all the things that they can mean in that language. This article is about a dog, a particular kind of dog, not about Korean words. The article should be edited so that its subject refers to the dog, not to a word or words.

We have a "terminology" section where we could talk about the word "Nureongi" and what it means in Korean, the language from which the word was borrowed into English. In English, however, this word does not have any other meaning except a type of dog. Yes, one important thing that the readers should know about this dog is the fact that, in Korean, "Nureongi" doesn't necessarily refer to dogs but is a sort of a slangish word for an individual animal of any sort along the lines of "Blackie" and the fact that these dogs don't have a particular name. This is not the most important thing to say about the dog though. We should first know what kind of dog it is first, in the lead, and leave the rest to the "terminology" section.

Article leads say things such as "jub-jubs are a type of tree" from Elbonia. Articles don't say such things as "jub-jub" is a Elbonian word for a type of tree". Please edit the article so that it's focused on the subject, a dog, because if a person is reading the article it can be safely assumed that they are interested in the dog. Chrisrus (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Jubjub may or not be a type of tree. If it is then that's a fact. Nureongi is not a type of dog. It's a Korean slang word for yellowish animals. It's used in italics in English as a reference to what Koreans call mixed mutts that are used to dog meat. This article needs to be deleted.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. What you should do is go to WP:AFDHOW. It teaches you how to nominate an article for deletion. The other possiblity I can think of that you might like might to suggest moving the article about this dog here, "[1]" to another title. Unless you are saying the "mutts" that Koreans use for dog meat shouldn't have an article by any name. Have fun! Chrisrus (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition about Kyenan Kum photos

After looking at that addition, it appears to fall under WP:OR, and am going go remove it as such. Judging whether or not two pictures are similar is a form of interpretation, and thus what wikipedia calls "research". Generally speaking, pictures don't make good, reliable sources, except in cases where literally no interpretation is required, the photos were taken and published by a reliable source, and there is no good print source that will substitute. Instead, I recommend incorporating the info from the Podberscek as evidence of the existence of this dog as a specific breed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. Let's look at these photos. Look at the Podberscek photo here, on Page 263: http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/265_podberscek.pdf It does leave quite a bit to be desired, but it is the only picture that we have that satisfies the criteria you put forward. Now, let's please look at this photo: http://www.koreananimals.org/images/commodity2.jpg. I understand you to be saying that for this article to say that it's the same dog is too much of a reach; that it would be a case of undue WP:SYNTHESIS on our part. But please hear me out, because I don't agree. Please consider the article Beagle, widely agreed to be not only one of the best dog breed articles, but one of the finest articles on all of Wikipedia. Many of the pictures there are of individual beagles that lack proof of expert confirmation that they are, in fact, beagles, but no one would insist that they be removed on those grounds, because they are obviously beagles and everyone should be reasonable. The way I see it, if this is synthesis, it is not the kind of synthesis that WP:SYNTHESIS is concerned with. Rather, it's much closer to the kind of reasonable synthesis that we all allow when, to take an example on the extreme positive side of the reasonable/unreasonable sythesis continuum, we allow the article pencil to show a pictures of pencils which have not been taken from a WP:RS expert who has examined and tested the objects in the pictures and pronounced them "pencils". I hope you can understand my point of view, and not hold this article to a standard higher than any other, or if you do want to hold it to such a higher standard, to explain why. However, in order to do so, please spend an appropriate amount of time looking at those two photos carefully before replying, or, if you are someone just watching this discusion, weighing in, while considering what I have said. Chrisrus (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If all you wanted to do was to include the photos as examples, I would have no problem with it. My problem is that you are trying to use those pictures to make a different point, and that's where the OR comes in. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I am trying to make any different point. What did you mean when you said that I was trying to make a different point? Perhaps it wasn't clearly written. If I'm "trying to make a point", it's just learn the simple facts about the Nureongi. How many of the dogs used in this way are Nureongi? May we see a picure, in what context are the pictures presented, what are they called in the captions, which is a big question for this refernt, what to call it. Both pro- and anti-dogmeat Koreans recognize this animal? Is that the point you percieved? Not only the pro-dog meat Koreans recognize a Korean Meat Dog when they see it? So its existence and distinctness is not necessarily part of their debate; that both pro- and anti- dogmeat Koreans know what that dog is and distinguish it from other dogs. So it's all part of simply estabishing that there is such an animal and its characteristics such as color and whatnot, regardless of how one feels aobut the issue. The part about "the yellowish dog that Koreans say they prefer" was just to quote the closest as she came to identifying it and giving it if not a name then some identifying words, not a point I was trying to make. I'm sorry, I am not sure I understand your objection.Chrisrus (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, I felt like you were using those photos as part of a broader argument to say that there is visual confirmation of the existence of neuronogi as a distinct breed; in other words, that the animal-rights activist's picture bolster your argument against Melonbarmonster2. Note that I support the position you make (that Neuronogi is a separate, specific breed of dog), but I don't support the use of synthesis: This article says they're a separate breed + This website shows pictures that look like those described in the first article = there really is strong evidence that they are a separate breed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All I want to do is use the photos as examples. Please help. Chrisrus (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you uploaded the photos? Or are they copyrighted? If so, could you get the source to release them PD or CC-BY-SA? I think adding the pictures themselves would be fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions as simply as possible, in the order that you asked the questions: no; I think so; I tried but they didn't respond (could you try?); and I'm happy you feel that way. To explain, I tried and failed to get Wikipedia permission to use it, but that doesn't mean you or someone couldn't because I'm not good at that kind of thing. Also, the fact that I can't get those pictures is the main reason I made the addition you undid in the first place. I figured, even if we can't get the pictures, we can still tell the reader about them. Chrisrus (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I actually went and looked at the site, and I think I remember it, from back when I was looking for a new picture for Dog meat (Ah, those were the days...). If it's the same site, the actually answered me, and told me that all of the pictures were ones they had gotten from other sources, and thus they didn't own the copyright, either, and thus couldn't donate them to us. Hmmm...let me think...the site doesn't meet the requirements of WP:EL, so it can't just be put into the links. I'll try to see if there's any way we can phrase it that doesn't run us afoul of the various rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) I just want to have a photo as an example please.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Korea may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Thanks.

Bwrs (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you! I appreciate the effort. Yes, I agree, we need a photo. The best photo I know of is this one: [2] (scroll down to the bottom), and not only for all the confirmatory context, the "provenance" as it were, that confirms that this is indeed the dog that this article is trying to talk about, even though no name is used apart from "Large yellow dogs typical of meat markets", but the article by now should make it clear that Koreans don't have a true name for the dog. There are other good reasons, too. One, the dog in the foreground just happens to be standing in full profile, please notice that it's almost exactly the same posture that they use in dog shows, one that really let's you get a clear look at the dog. The posture is the same you'll see on the posters of dog breeds we see at places like vet's offices and such. Next, the picture shows the dog in the context that formed the breed, not with just a plain background or surrounded by random objects. This is perfect, and if possible all lead pictures of dog breeds should be like this. For example, a picture of an Alaskan Huskey would show it standing in it's harness in the show with a sled in the background. A ideal picture of a pekingese would show it surrounded by a Chinese palace, and a Newfoundland should be standing on a dock with fishing boats in the background, and so on. Also, there are other dogs in the background and they are at slightly different angles. Finally, the dog doesn't look particularly cramped or stressed, so it's not as sensationalistic, as emotional or propagandistic as many others you can find, and we are supposed to be as neutral as possible on this contravertial issue.

Please don't misunderstand me. At this point, however, any old picture would be better than none, as it is now. But I wonder if we can't get this particular picture, could we get someone who lives in the area to go by Moran Market and recreate this picture? Chrisrus (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External link (image)

My concern on the external link is, how can we trust that particular blogger? How do we know that those really are Nureongi, and not some other breed? Without some sort of evidence that the blogger is an expert in dog breeds, I'm concerned that we may not be providing accurate information. Varlaam, since I'm assuming you can use read Korean, so could you please tell us who the blogger is and what evidence we have of their expertise? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that the animals in the picture recently added to the "see also" section, [3], are purebred Nureongi. They rather seem to be part Nureongi and part something else, probably new hybrid encorporating some of the muscle-building genes from the Molosser bloodlines, perhaps. The face between the third and forth bars might be pure Nureongi, but the rest clearly have genes from non-native Korean bloodlines.

You see, the pictures in the Cambridge paper show an animal clearly allied with the other native dogs of Korea and Japan, all of which are clearly Spitzen and are described in the literature as "Spitz-type" which is even what this article calls them. Below I will post some links to pictures of pure-bred Nureongi, which clearly as you can see are very much in the category with Akita Inus, Jindos, etc.

This one here seems to be one of the new cross-breeds also:

http://www.esdaw.eu/dogmeatfurandskin.htm

Scroll way at the bottom with the person pushing a wheelbarrow with their face blurred out by the photographer, do you see what I mean? The second, third and fourth dogs are the most visible, but the whole line of left ears shows remarkable conformity. They do not look like the other dogs in the "Korea" section of this page, scroll up from this picture on the page on which it appears for contrsting pictures of true "Spitz" type native Korean dogs. These in the bottom picture look like this the picture from the "External link" dogs, maybe not exactly the same mix but a similar mix. See the un-spitzsh-ish drop-ears on adult dogs, something unknown pretty much among Spitzen and wolves past puppyhood, Hachiko's left ear notwithstanding. Note also the more brachycephalic skull, shorter smother coats, and eyebrow ridges and facial wrinkles, not present or as pronounced in the traditional Spitz-type Nureongi. These three on the left may be probably part Nureongi and part retriever or something.

Very interesting, thank you for bringing this to my attention, but obviously we shouldn't include this picture in the article even as an external link. We should, however, include other external links to photos of clearly purebred Nureongi, I do support that idea in principle, but there's no reason we have to external link to pictures that are as iffy, to say the least, as this one.

Chrisrus (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear explanation, Chrisrus, and this is exactly what I was concerned about, and exactly why our policy on external links is very strict--just because some random blogger claims something, doesn't make it true, and thus we shouldn't link to it. I do agree with Chrisrus that we should have a picture or a link to a picture...the problem is finding one. The Journal of Social Issues picture is fine, but, of course, that link is a copyright violation (unless that's an open source journal, which I don't think it is). The rest appear to be blogs or other SPS, and so aren't any more reliable than the one Varlaam linked to. Hopefully someday someone can find one we can trust. For now, I've re-removed the link Varlaam added. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Message to Melonbarmonster

I understand you don't want this article to exist, but if you want this article to disappear, start a deletion discussion. Don't take your frustration out on the article. Chrisrus (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting good faith edits. I explained each edit and am willing to discuss. Please take the time to explain your objections to the different edits I made. If you look at the dit history you'll see a list of my edit explanations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this article about, a dog or a word? Chrisrus (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Both. Again, please feel free to give your input for my edits which I explained rather than wholesale reverting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't generally have articles about "words". I mean, we do, but only when that word is itself linguistically interesting; even then, we usually push that type of info into an etymology section. Unless there is significant debate in reliable sources about what the word means, the vast bulk of the article should be about the dog. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is advocating turning this articles about "words" whatever that means.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Designated as "livestock"

Although only mentioned in passing while discussing the phenomenon of dog meat consumption in South Korea, the information that the Seoul government talked about legalizing use of it as a livestock dog is an improvement to the article. The problem with this dog is that information about it is often in discussions about that or something else, not about the dog per se. However, that's the best we can do and we should always do the best we can. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the article in question specifically discuss Neurongi? If it doesn't, then I think it's probably WP:OR to include. I'm going to self-revert, as I should have discussed here first, but I think we need this matter cleared up. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It says this dog was to have been legalized for livestock use, and explains why. Chrisrus (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A type of dog from Korea, not a word that seems to Koreans as being misused.

This is an article about a dog that has existed in Korea for a very long time as a distinct entity apart from all other dogs and in large numbers. The word we use in English for this dog, rightly or wrongly, is Nureongi. This is not an article about a word in the Korean language. It may seem to you that this dog is a valueless mongrel like any mongrel anywhere, but like all other unique dogs in the world it deserves an article. If you continue to believe that this distinct dog does not exist and therefore this article should e deleted, then please go start a deletion discussion. This is a place to discuss ways of improving this article, not how to destroy it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"This is an article about a dog that has existed in Korea for a very long time as a distinct entity apart from all other dogs and in large numbers." This is historically and factually incorrect. But for edit purposes let me just point out that I've read all cited sources that were used except for the offline source in both English and Korean and NONE of them comes even close to such a claim. In fact, I've never even heard of that claim in any written material in English, Korean or in person in Korea or the US. I'm actually curious as to where you got this rather bizarre, extreme notion bc you're the first and only person I've ever heard this from.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should be about the meaning of the word as used by published sources according to their intended, textual meaning. Arguing that the word "neurongi" is an English word beyond how it is used in cited references and the like is synthesis and original research which wiki editors are not allowed to engage in. But even at that, all references use the term with italics and/or in paranthesis to indicate that it is a foreign word. I gave very specific reasons for the several edits made. I think it would be constructive to discuss those edits individually.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right: The article should be about the meaning of the word as used by published sources according to their intended, textual meaning. The word is used in such English speaking sources that we use here as the Cabridge U Paper and the Desmond Morris book to refer to a distinctive land-race of Korean "Meat dog" or "Livestock dog". That is the way we are using it here. Chrisrus (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence clearly states referenced fact that "nureongi" is a term use to describe dogs raised for meat. That isn't disputed. The constructive thing to do at this time is actually go into specific edits and points of edit disagreement rather than talking generally. Please consider the fact that I made each edit individually and with specified explanation in good faith. Wish you'd stop reverting it wholesale so we can discuss specific edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In English, it refers not to any old dog that is used for meat, but to this particular one. Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't begin to explain your reverts. THere are dead links, self published references, references that doesn't support text, etc., all of which I explain individually which you are wholly reverting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you've reverted all of my edits for the third time without even an attempt at trying to respond to my edit explanations. I tried and will try again.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you find dead links and such, please just fix them, don't gut the article. Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, now that you've been reverted, it's up to you do discuss. Let's start with an two easy points: you say that several of the links are dead links. Could you just go into the article and tag those with the {{dead link}} template? It is true that just because a link is dead does not mean we remove the reference; it depends on a variety of factors, and of course the best possible solution is to see if there's an archive copy somewhere. But removal may be appropriate if we're not sure we can trust the source without reading it.

Second, could you point out which sources you think are self-published? I glanced at some of your edits, and didn't see one immediately, but I admit I didn't read all of them in detail. In this case, it is generally correct to remove SPS, though there are some exceptions. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I explained each, individual edit in edit history for the article. We really need to parse each textual issues, references separately at this point to have a constructive discussion. Talking generally about personal opinions on what 'nureongi' is or not and then reverting all edits by single editor without consideration of different reasons for different edits in one fell swoop hasn't been helpful.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you absolutely did not. In the one edit where you mentioned "primary sources"...I checked them, and neither of them is a primary source, and neither is a self-published source. One is a book published by a normal publisher, and the other is an article in an international academic journal (the link was a "convenience link" in that it went to another site hosting a copy of that article). And you need to stop edit warring. You made changes, and another editor reverted. The burden is now on you to start and carry through a discussion. Except in special cases, the status quo is the version we keep the article at while discussions are ongoing. I did agree with a little bit of your removal, but as far as I see it right now, everything currently in the article is 1) well sourced, and 2) specifically about this dog called Nureongi. If you revert again, I'll ask for you to be blocked. Instead, start a discussion here, in a new section, about specific things you think need to be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish we'd stay away from hyperbolic statements such as "you absolutely did not." We can talk about which of my explanations were sufficient or not but I did explain each edit. I tried to be more specific this time around so let us assume good faith and PLEASE let me know if you have any questions about any of my explanations..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You said DOG MEAT IN KOREA: A SOCIO-LEGAL CHALLENGE didn't support the statement, but it says "The commonly found mongrel dog breed was, and still is, called ddong-gae, literally meaning “shit-dog,” because such dogs ate and survived on human feces..." Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You say they are not a distinct landrace or breed. If you believe that, then shouldn't you start a deletion discussion? Because if they aren't a distinct type of dog, then this article shouldn't exist, because it's an article about a distinct type of dog. If your objection is to the word "landrace", feel fee to suggest another. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You say that they are not the type of dog most commonly used for food, but the sources say it is. For example, Podberscek says that although some other types of dogs can be found among the nureongi dogs in the dog meat industry, most of the dogs are of this native Korean livestock dog: "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." You say "Most nureongi dogs in Korea are Jindo's and various western breeds." But the Korean Jindo dog is not a nureongi. It's a distinct breed not used as meat. It is another east-Asian spitz, but you are very confused if you think that the Jindo or other various western breeds are Native Korean Edible dogs or whatever you want to call this "breed". Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC) You removed everything Prof. Ahn's said about this breed because "he is talking about Korean consumption of dogs not "nureongi" specifically". He mentions them specifically in the course of talking about something else. That's ok. There is no paper as far as we know about this breed of dog, but it is discussed and described and information is given about it in papers about something else, namely, dog meat consumption in South Korea. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC) You say "Plenty of dogs nureongi or otherwise are allowed or not allowed in homes". But this article is about this breed, not other dogs, so what the deal may be with other dogs is beside the point. Also, these papers say that Koreans keep lapdogs and such in their houses, but this breed is not generally kept in houses. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert Warring Continues

Ok, so I tried to heed the discussion so far and gave specific explanations for I don't know how many different edits which were all reverted with no explanation other than a vague comments about doing good for people and animal welfare which for the record is POV pushing not allowed on wikipedia. Again, please give your response to the different edits. If you don't respond and just revert, there is no way of even starting a constructive discussion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You said DOG MEAT IN KOREA: A SOCIO-LEGAL CHALLENGE didn't support the statement, but it says "The commonly found mongrel dog breed was, and still is, called ddong-gae, literally meaning “shit-dog,” because such dogs ate and survived on human feces..." Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You say they are not a distinct landrace or breed. If you believe that, then shouldn't you start a deletion discussion? Because if they aren't a distinct type of dog, then this article shouldn't exist, because it's an article about a distinct type of dog. If your objection is to the word "landrace", feel fee to suggest another. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You say that they are not the type of dog most commonly used for food, but the sources say it is. For example, Podberscek says that although some other types of dogs can be found among the nureongi dogs in the dog meat industry, most of the dogs are of this native Korean livestock dog: "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."

You say "Most nureongi dogs in Korea are Jindo's and various western breeds." But the Korean Jindo is not a nureongi. It's a distinct breed not used as meat. It is another east-Asian spitz, but you are very confused if you think that the Jindo or other various western breeds are Native Korean Edible dogs or whatever you want to call this "breed". Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You removed everything Prof. Ahn's said about this breed because "he is talking about Korean consumption of dogs not "nureongi" specifically". He mentions them specifically in the course of talking about something else. That's ok. There is no paper as far as we know about this breed of dog, but it is discussed and described and information is given about it in papers about something else, namely, dog meat consumption in South Korea. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You say "Plenty of dogs nureongi or otherwise are allowed or not allowed in homes". But this article is about this breed, not other dogs, so what the deal may be with other dogs is beside the point. Also, these papers say that Koreans keep lapdogs and such in their houses, but this breed is not generally kept in houses. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You said "Not supported by reference. No use of "gu" as meaning edible dogs". But it didn't say that word meant "edible dogs". It said edible dogs were considered "gu", but so were wolves and mongrels. Chrisrus (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Offline reference request

"Hwangu" (yellow dog) has been considered better for food than "baekgu" (white dog) and "heukgu" (black dog). Can someone provide what the reference actually states? This is highly anecdotal and and as it stands doesn't quite belong in this article let alone as its own subsection. Dogs of all colors and sometimes even breeds are consumed in Korea and this is silly as a subsection on an article on beef that states that brown cows taste better.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

S. Huh. (2004, p.83). 비주, 숨겨진 우리 술을 찾아서 [Rediscovering Korean liquors]. Pajoo, Korea: Woongjin Thinkbig. ISBN 89-01-04720-9 says that in the yellow ones are generally thought to provide better tasting meat. This is good for the article because the fact customers believe that encourages the breeders select for yellow dogs. If people prefer white eggs, breeders select for that color, even if they all taste the same. Chrisrus (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Content in the lede

The lede currently includes the sentence "The Korea Observer reported in 2015 that in fact, many different breeds of dog are eaten in South Korea, and that the dogs slaughtered for their meat may also include former pets." I have reverted this twice but another editor has reverted my edits twice. I do not believe this sentence should be in the lede for several reasons. The primary reason is that it is not actually directly relevant to the subject matter - a type of dog. The second is that it is actually indirectly linked and covered in one sentence in the main body of the article, but it does not deserve a place in the lede. Third, it is poorly written. I propose that the sentence is deleted from the lede.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

--Reply by Rucamlaw (the author of the sentence in the lead that you have now twice deleted inappropriately): The inclusion of this sentence is directly relevant to the topic of Nureongi aka "yellow dog" aka "meat dog". Nureongi is a generic classification (not an independent or recognized breed of dog) for a dog that is "farmed" in South Korea for the dog meat trade. Pure-bred dogs, stray dogs, various mixed breed dogs, and pet dogs are also raised and slaughtered for meat on dog farms in South Korea. The statement in this section that Nureongi does not include pet dogs is entirely false (Nureongi "yellow dog" are taken in as pets by many South Koreans and former pets are also treated as Nureongi for the meat trade). It is therefore necessary to include this information so as not to mislead readers, as this article undoubtedly does, as to what types of dog are actually "farmed" and eaten in South Korea. Nor is my sentence poorly written -- I suggest you learn how to spell "lead" correctly before criticizing anyone else's English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucamlaw (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede = The introductory portion of a news story, especially the first sentence.[4]DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Read below the entry -- "lede" is obsolete. Still, it's rather notable your response is devoid of substantive comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucamlaw (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And immediately after it states "revived in modern journalism to distinguish the word from its homograph "lead", strip of metal separating lines of type". There is no substantive reply from me yet because the idea here is to see what other editors think about the edits so that we can reach consensus. Whilst we are awaiting those comments, you might like to read about correctly threading discussions and signing your posts.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are mistaking Wikipedia for modern journalism? Yikes. Rucamlaw (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ermmm..no.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment:: WP:LEDE. The lede is for brief summarization of key topics covered in article. This content is not suitable for inclusion within lede, but may potentially be included within article body if significantly reworded and cleaned up.

For lede vs. lead: both are common and correct, with lede used to differentiate between lead pipes and pipes in the lead. However, let us concentrate on content of article, not bickering over terminology. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why I will delete the part about other dogs.

The fact that "The Nureongi dog is not the only type eaten. Many different breeds of dog are slaughtered for their meat in South Korea, including dogs that were formerly pets" is off topic.

This article is not about Dog meat consumption in South Korea. Here, we are talking about this dog.

According to sources, nureongi are the dog most commonly used in this way, and we have already said so. Here is not the place to give information about other dogs which are also used in this way, because to do so is to talk about other dogs, not the nureongi.

We are not claiming that nureongi are the only dog used in this way, so there is no reason to say that they aren't. We are saying that they are the kind most commonly used in this way.

By saying that they are most commonly used in this way, we've already acknowledged that other dogs are also so used.

Therefore, there is no need to say again that other dogs are used in this way and to give further information about those other dogs.

The referent of this article is the dog most commonly used in this way, that is all. To have a paragraph about other dogs less commonly used in this way is to change the referent from the nureongi to dog meat farming and consumption in South Korea.

Chrisrus (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to you deleting that - I have only been tweaking it because there did not appear to be consensus on its deletion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that simply because "nureongi" MAY BE the most common type of dog eaten (and this is debatable-- there are no reliable statistics on the numbers of each type of breed and mixed breed dog consumed in South Korea), there is no reason to state that various types of dogs are eaten. To have a page devoted to a generic class of "meat dog" (nureongi does not denote a specific breed) and imply that this generic class of dog is what South Koreans are eating, amounts to perpetuating a falsehood. A statement that many different types of dog are eaten provides the necessary context and is supported by 2015 source material. Please stop perpetrating the myth that there exists a particular breed of dog for dog meat farming in South Korea. It's not true and does a great disservice to South Korea's image.Rucamlaw (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it's not true and that can be introduced into the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOoB4n7jHqA Rucamlaw (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - YouTube is rarely considered an acceptable source.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why, when the video is direct evidence?? Here is another video from a South Korean news investigation, which aired on TV and was posted to youtube. Are you seriously contending that it is somehow unreliable evidence to show that pure bred dogs are slaughtered in South Korea for meat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahbHTaDE__4a Rucamlaw (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please self revert your last edit - YouTube is not a WP:RS.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the edit must be reverted for WP:RS. Per the policy, YouTube videos "may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere," which is what I am using them for here. Rucamlaw (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_Myspace.2C_Facebook.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rucamlaw (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You stated above "Please stop perpetrating the myth that there exists a particular breed of dog for dog meat farming in South Korea. It's not true and does a great disservice to South Korea's image". I am looking for evidence which supports that. Where in the video does does it occur? And please learn to thread your edits correctly.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The videos and the Korea Observer news article I cite clearly show that many different kinds of breeds, mixed breed, stray dogs, pet auction dogs, and former pet dogs comprise what may be considered a "meat dog" in South Korea. These videos and many other investigations prove definitively that the South Korean dog meat trade includes a variety of dogs beyond the so-called "nureongi" (which itself is a loosely defined term, not a dog breed). The video investigations are evidence which pointedly dispel the myth.Rucamlaw (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This information is not about this dog, it's about other dogs also used in the same way. It doesn't belong here because this article is not about other dogs, it's about this dog. Chrisrus (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is broadly about the South Korean "meat dog" and purports that there exists a "unique breed" of dog used for livestock in South Korea which is not true. "Nureongi" is not a individual breed of dog, rather it is a term used to signify a mongrel, mutt, mixed class of dogs that are eaten. Intellectual honesty dictates that on a page that purports to define "meat dog", included is evidence of the types of dogs that are actually eaten.Rucamlaw (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is not broadly about any/all South Korean meat dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate, this page purports that in South Korea, there exists a "unique" livestock breed of dog called "nureongi." It also claims that "nureongi" are distinguished from dogs which are treated as pets. In truth, there is no such thing as a unique breed of dog used for livestock and in fact, pet dogs are commonly eaten in South Korea. It is intellectually dishonest to perpetuate the myth of a livestock breed via Wikipedia when none exists. My contribution to this page helps to contextualize the term "nureongi." Rucamlaw (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Among our references is one by Desmond Morris. Please see p.585-586. Chrisrus (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reference does not trump or in any way refute my own. You have not made the case for deleting my content or my source material, and I maintain that my contributions to this page must stand.Rucamlaw (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your references prove beyond any doubt that other dogs are also used as meat dogs as well. This does not mean that this branch on the tree of life does not exist. There is no contradiction between the existence of this dog and the fact that other dogs are also farmed and eaten. Chrisrus (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "this dog"? Again, nureongi is not a unique dog breed but is a generic term referring to mongrels used for meat. Indeed my references show the varied types of dog that are slaughtered for meat, lest readers are duped into thinking that "nureongi" is a special livestock breed. Or is misleading visitors to this page your modus operandi?Rucamlaw (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will explain what I mean by "this dog". While the word "nureongi" may be a general term in Korean as that section explains, in English, it has only one very specific meaning: a particular branch on the dog family tree, native to Korea. If you followed it backwards in time, you would arrive eventually at it's common ancestor with other native Korean dogs, such as the Jindo, but "larger with more meat on its bones". They may be considered "mongrels" by Korean culture, but they are not true mongrels because they have been bred for countless generations by Korean dog farmers for their specific purposes, and by definition mongrelss are the result of natural, not artificial selection. They may not be a "breed" because according to the strictest definition of that word, to merit that word they must be recognized as such by a recognized kennel club authority, and that's obviously not likely to happen, but they are a breed because they have been created by being bred by meat farmers and such. They are morphologically very uniform, conforming very strictly to spitz type, with uniform yellowish coats except for white around the face and often melanistic masks. According to Morris, they form a quite isolated gene pool, with little or no sign of mixing with dogs from other branches.

Remembering that we are speaking English here, not all nureongi are meat dogs. Some may be guard dogs, family pets, or something else. Some are not even in Korea. And not all dogs so used in Korea are nureongi. Some are mixed nureongi with other dogs, and some belong to another clade entirely, as your sources prove definitively, but those are not the subject of this article.

Here are some pictures:

This dog, whether used this way or not, is the referent of this article. The referent of this article any and all dogs so used in Korea. You are right that other dogs are also so used, but that does not make them the referent of this article. There is no contradiction between the fact well supported by your sources, namely, that other dogs may be found among the nureongi (Meat dog breed), and the fact that nureongi (Meat dog breed) exist. That fact could go on the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea, or even Meat dog, but not here. The problem here is your belief that this meat dog breed exists. Please change that belief.

On these grounds, I will once again remove this confusing change of subject from the article. Chrisrus (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your latest edits continue to focus on Nureongi as "meat dog." My contribution helps to contextualize this aspect of the article and is squarely relevant to the subject matter that dominates the article, namely, characterization of Nureongi as a livestock "breed". Further amplification of the term is warranted so as not to confuse readers into thinking that only the Nureongi type of dog is eaten by South Koreans. Elucidating the concept of "meat dog" with a sentence that makes clear that all breeds of dog are actually slaughtered for their meat in South Korea, is hardly off-topic given the gravamen of this article. Your censorship of this point is highly suspect. Rucamlaw (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Rucamlaw's comments and agree that Rucamlaw's edits should not be deleted. 24.0.107.94 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a "landrace" or unrecognized "breed" of dog, a clade or branch on the dog family tree native to Korea with a certain consistent morphology as a result of artificial selection that has in fact existed in significant numbers for a long time separate from even other native Korean dogs, and as such deserves an article about it just as much as any other.

I have included your fact and citation about other, non-nureongi dogs as a compromise and in a parenthetical way so as not to change the subject, so there's no censorship of the fact that other breeds and former pets also are, yes, you are right, also so used in Korea and have surely been found among the nureongi. I support the inclusion of this fact in the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea, so I'm not censoring anything. Just because a dog is a meat dog breed doesn't mean it has to actually be treated as a meat dog, and just because a dog isn't a meat dog breed doesn't mean it can't be or isn't so treated. Chrisrus (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to warrant your deleting these sentences which are directly on point inasmuch as they contextualize the term "nureongi". I stand by their inclusion for all of the reasons outlined above and have reverted the deletion. Rucamlaw (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are now becoming more than a little disruptive.

First, it is already mentioned in the article that other types of dog are eaten - please drop this argument.

Second, statements in the article that a breed is bred specifically for being eaten are verifiable. If you believe this is not true, please provide a robust source for this - and YouTube is not considered a reliable source. If this is such a well known "fact", it should be easy to find other sources.

By the way - there is consensus...

DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(1) Just because something is mentioned briefly elsewhere in the piece does not mean that my edit -- which is supported with references-- must go. I will gladly delete the other reference if duplication is your concern. (2) None of the references to the article state that there is a unique breed of dog called "nureongi" and the article itself actually says otherwise (see Terminology section). Further, the YouTube videos are permissible "convenience links", which constitute reliable source material. That you'd have the audacity to argue video investigations of dog meat farms are unreliable, speaks volumes about your motivation for deleting this material. (3) Consensus is not achieved by two fans of dog meat consumption who aim to perpetuate myths and censor the truth. Censorship is not tolerated here. Rucamlaw (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest you are careful with your language here. I am not a "fan" of dog meat consumption and I find your accusation of this extremely objectionable. I also find it objectionable to be told that I am censoring material. Your actions are a personal attack and you must back off from this. Current consensus, I believe, is 2 editors wanting to remove the material and 1 wishing to retain it. Other editors are of course welcome to contribute, but current consensus is to remove it.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Aka "Korean Edible Dog"

On page 585 of Desmond Morris's "Dogs:The Ultimate Dictionary of Over 1,000 Dog Breeds", under the entry "Noo-Rung-Yee", it says "The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog". Please don't delete this fact from the article. Chrisrus (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a misuse of that reference. There is no such breed as "Korean Edible Dog" and that terms is not used as a formal name in Morris' book. I really would like to ask that we try to put emphasis on trying to convey what "nureongi" actually is rather than trying to engage in inaccurate synthesis of information. At the end of the day what good is it for editors to write factually false information on this article? That only degrades credibility and usefulness of the article and undermines all of our efforts.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On page 585 of Desmond Morris's "Dogs:The Ultimate Dictionary of Over 1,000 Dog Breeds", under the entry "Noo-Rung-Yee", it says "The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog". That's why we say so as well. This objection makes no sense. Chrisrus (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Morris is documenting a descriptive use of that term and not a formal breed name and the it's telling that this term only exists on this wikipedia article, the dog meat wikipedia article and this one sentence from Morris' book. Out of the hundreds of cultural and academic references to nureongi and Korean dog meat articles and sources, the term "Korean edible dog" doesn't exist. I really am asking you for a measure of good faith. It really doesn't help either of our efforts to represent facts that are false does it?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Morris wouldn't have said "The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog" unless he'd found it used as a term to describe this dog in the sources he'd seen during his research. Chrisrus (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's a secondary or tertiary source that states that, you can't make that assumption.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean. According to the usual Wikipedia talk page usage, Morris would have researched the primary source, his book would be a secondary source, which is the kind we're supposed to use, and we Wikipedia would be tertiary.

On Wikipedia, if a reliable source such as Morris' encyclopedia of dog breeds says that this dog is also so called, that's enough for us to say so as well.

It seems you have some doubt whether this dog is sometimes called that, although you seem to accept that Morris says that it is, so the origin of your doubt is not clear. If you put the term in quotes and Google it, you'll get some results that should convince you that the term is in common use for this referent. Being so convinced should stop you deleting that fact from the article. Chrisrus (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)