Talk:Dog meat consumption in South Korea

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lazowsjt7759, Mekompsie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Change of Wikimedia:Wikiproject Korea article quality

I have changed the Wikimedia:Wikiproject Korea article quality from C to B, as this article has as many as 14 verifiable sources in the 'note' section and 2 academic articles articles in the 'further reading' section, without any major cleanup issues. The article obviously at least meets the qualifications for B quality.Hkwon (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to C-Class. The article is not "obviously" B-Class; lead is very short, there are no supporting materials, "History" is under referenced and "Types of dishes" is a very brief, unreferenced list. PC78 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PC78. Thank you for your comments. Since I agreed that the history section was under-referenced, I added verifiable and reliable sources by Korean academic experts in the section. Based on six B-Class criteria, I believe no more improvement is needed to qualify the article to become B class. Other shortcomings of the article you pointed out, the length of lead section and brief and unreferenced "Type of dishes section" which is not much more than Korean-English translations of food variations, are not covered by the criteria. I will try to gather a consensus before reverting other people's edits from now on, and I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Hkwon (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PC78. Per your comments, I rewrote the leading section and added reliable sources for each entry in the section "Types of dishes". If there's any other problem in the article, please let me know. Hkwon (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of Wikimedia: WikiProject Korea/Assessment scale from ?? to mid

The article at least meets the qualifications for a B-classed article in terms of references, structure, and verifiability.Hkwon (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

More balanced view requested

While the article clearly acknowledges that there is a controversy, it does not adequately address both sides of the argument. There is little information about:

• what breeds of dogs are consumed
• details of farming practices
• preferred cuts of meat (prime, soup-grade etc)
• notes on marbling, fat content, texture, comparison with commonly eaten meats
• are there specific grades of dog meat?
• nutritional information (how this varies between breeds, which organ meats are safe?)
• health concerns (risk of rabies? special precautions required while butchering?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.109.172 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The information you requested would be valuable for this article indeed. But dog meat is still de jure illegal in Korea, and no reliable source containing such information - such as information on beef, pork, chicken and such - has been published as far as I know. So no luck. Hkwon (talk)

Undoing revision as of 13:31, 17 March 2010 by Loyola04

I undid this revision because of the following reasons: (1) Misuse of block quotation: Violation of Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE. The blocked part is not even quotation. (2) Misuse of capitalization: Violation of MOS:CAPS. "All capitals should not be used for emphasis." (3) False citation: The cited page in Hopkins, Bourdain, & Freeman clearly states that in Korea it was "technically illegal to sell cooked dog meats" (p.23, 3rd paragraph, 28th line). No content in this source supports claims on legality of dog meat in this revision. Hkwon (talk)

This article is a wreck

The reference to the Helsinki Times is dead. Who better to discuss Korean foods than the Finns? Just kidding. Also, is about.com an acceptable reference?

Last, this article's content is also present in Dog Meat.

Koreans in my experience (I'm an American expat in Korea) are pretty sensitive about this topic, this is a negative stereotype that lots of people hold; I think a honest assessment of this topic is in order. Vedek Wren (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brigitte Bardot Foundation's response to dog meat consumption in China

User: Sennen goroshi deleted this information without any discussions on the talk page. This is the edit summary the user left: This article is about South Korea, not about China. Also, source does not seem neutral or reliable.

I am reverting the deletion for the following reasons:

1) The deleted information is not about dog meat consumption in China, but about the controversy stemming from Bardot Foundation's different responses to dog meat consumption in South Korea and in China.

2) The source, OhmyNews, is a nationwide daily news site in South Korea with 19 million page views a day as of 2002. It was considered one of top 5 news sites in the world by The Guardian in 2004 and the 6th most influential news medium (online or offline) in South Korea in a 2004 survey. How can the source "does not seem neutral or reliable"? I wonder if the commentor even knows anything about Ohmynews. Hkwon (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were right - I didn't know anything about OhmyNews, thanks for the link. It seems like a blog - let me quote "It is the first of its kind in the world to accept, edit and publish articles from its readers, in an open source style of news reporting." That is most certainly not a reliable source - anyone can contribute a news story? ie. Not professional journalists? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: If you don't know much about a source, keep your dignity and refrain from disparaging the source based on your imagination. Do you think anyone can change OhmyNews articles like in Wikipedia articles? OhmyNews articles consist of contributions from 50% professional journalists and 50% non-professional contributors according to the company's editing policy (http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/company/01_introduction.aspx). No one can change any contents of already-published article.

You left this edit summary when you deleted the info: "Source is a pseudo blog, pretending to be a news source." What a laughing stock. Don't be so desparate. The source of information you deleted, an OhmyNews article, is written by Kwon Young Seock, a Chinese correspondent of OhmyNews company, a professional journalist who works for a world-renowned news medium. Do you have more authority to judge the reliability of a source than a major British news medium and a nation-wide survey in South Korea, both of which consider OhmyNews as a reliable and established news medium?

I am reverting the deletion of this information, hoping that I don't have to do this again. The next time this kind of deletion happenes again, I am reporting to a administrator for undue content blanking and (probably) violation of 3RR rule. Hkwon (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Sennen goroshi blanked said contents again, saying "reason for edit - lack of relevance and undue weight." in his/her edit summary. Does anyone think this is a good reason, considering discussions going on in this section? I showed, in length, why the OhmyNews article is reliable and verifiable. Why is it "lack of relevance and undue weight"? I believe Wikipedia users deserve some explanation on this content blanking, and that it should be discussed in this talk page before deletion of information in the main article. I reverted the blanking, and hope this would not happen again. Hkwon (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you require someone to explain the meaning of "undue weight" and "lack of relevance"? - that basic and very clear edit summary seems to explain it all. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: Yes. I requre the meaning of "undue weight" and "lack of relevance" because you failed to explain "why the weight was undue" and "why the info lacks relevance". Basic and very clear. It is a word out of your mouth (more than likely an original research) verses an argument/fact based on a reliable, verifiable source. Especially when you did not do anything to prove OhmyNews' irrelevance like you say while I proved the reliability of the source in lengths. Hkwon (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: Now you can't question the reliability of the source and start to argue the info has nothing to do with Korea? What a laughing stock. The information is the description of KOREAN people's reaction to the behavior of Bardot Foundation. How is it not related to Korea? And just how is the info disruptive and not relevant? I am restoring the information and will ask for administrator intervention if content blanking happens again. Hkwon (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Bridget Bardot's opinion of this situation is notable. She's a has-been "actress" from long ago. How does that qualify her to comment on this topic? If we want to describe the pro-dog meat position, why not just do so directly instead of using her opinion to introduce it? Chrisrus (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To Chrisrus: We are not talking about opinion of Bardot as a person, but that of Brigitte Bardot Foundation for the Welfare and Protection of Animals she created. It is an influential organization that has been most critical of dog meat consumption in South Korea and achived a de facto dog meat ban in South Korea during 1988 Seoul Olympic games. Most Koreans recognize her not as an actress but as the head of an animal right group that has fiercely criticized Korea for dog meat consumption. The information in question is important not just as an anti-dog meat position, but as an example of alledged unfair response to dog meat consumptions in Korea and China by animal right groups in the world. Hkwon (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Could we write it so that this is a bit clearer? We could put it into "notable incidents" or some sort of section where these dust-ups could be collected. There could be a section summarizing the different arguments. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To Chrisrus: Anyway you want. I am not confident to create another section that will look good enough. Hkwon (talk)

User:Sennen goroshi deleted the info again without any further justification in the talk page. As I warned, I am starting a dispute resolution process by requesting a third opionion. Hkwon (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I apolgize but there are more than 2 editors involved here thus i am unable to give a third opinion.—Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Then I will go with RfC process. Pretty much the same thing to get rid of content blankers. Hkwon (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"...to have medicinal properties, particularly as relates to virility...."

This is absolutely correct and well-cited, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's a bit vague because it's the typical tip-toeing around the more specific truth about this cultural belief in Korea. To be blunt, it's thought to be a male aphrodisiac. In fact, restaurants in Korea that specialize in dog meat can be pretty shocking and confusing places for foreigners to pass by because they tend to look like sex-shops for women, decorated with, ahem, how shall I put it, phallic symbols. A google search of "aphrodisiac" +"dog meat" +Korean" results in thousands of hits, indicating that this might not be a hard fact to cite. If, that is, we really want to "go there". Do you all prefer the current wording, or should be come out and say this somehow? (By the way, I didn't go in to these restaurants, don't get me wrong; I personally could never eat a dog.) Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To Chrisrus: I don't know exactly what you want to edit. But as a grown-up South Korean male, I can say what you said is pretty much true. I haven't seen or heard of a dog-meat restaurant decorated like a sex shop, but I can say assuredly that the primary reason for dog meat consumption in Korea has been male (sexual) stamina enhancement in summer. It is an old cultural belief based on Yin and Yang theory in Chinese medicine. Food & Nutrition literature has shown that dog meat contains some more protein and unsaturated fat than other kinds of meat, but nothing else. (Why can't people take some Viagra if you need some help in bed?)Hkwon (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, the words might be "...is thought of as an aphrodisiac..." instead of or in addition to the vaguer wording in the section title. Second, as to "I haven't seen...sex shop", look at this, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSGBdFyg6dk. Chrisrus (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus I don't mean to start a debate or something, but have you been in Korea and tried the dog meat? I did. (I am not proud of it but I am not ashamed of it either.) If the section wording looks not good enough for you, you can change it to a more appopriate one.

Dildo exhibition...Some store might do it to draw sensation-prone customers, but I haven't even heard about something like that. The dog-meat restaurants I've been to, well-known restaurants in South Korea, never have done such things. I don't know where these Youtube girls have been, but I am sure that it is not an authentic dog-mear restaurant and that they are not serious enough to judge any customs. Hkwon (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Frustration Plus

I just tried to access references and this article is very frustrating. In section "Notes" Numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13,14, and 17 are no good. In the section "References" what are they for? In the section "Further Reading" there's some interesting stuff that should be incorporated into the article and referenced. I'm placing this here as a note to myself as much as anything. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm an old man who is unschooled in computer technology. Could someone pleas tell me why so much of the article and references have little boxes where letters should be??? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's because your computer doesn't have Korean fonts. See Help:Multilingual support (East Asian) for more info. -220.255.7.157 (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it should be fixed instead. Chrisrus (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to be fixed. There are really no edits large enough to be copy pasted. I see an article built bit by bit. I think the alleged copyvio are in fact reverse copyvios. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted. I've posted here to see if it can be undeleted: User talk:RHaworth#Deletion of Dog meat consumption in South Korea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

G12 speedy deletion criteria does not apply to the article. WP:G12 says

"Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." (emphasis added)

―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Pro-Dog Meat Trade Bias

Regrettably, this article can be read as legitimizing unspeakably cruel and barbaric practices that no civilized society should tolerate. The dog meat trade in South Korea is unregulated, unsanitary, and an abject horror for the millions of dogs ensnared in its grip. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting industry propaganda or for whitewashing unethical and inhumane practices in the name of cultural sensitivity. Nor is any argument in favor of the South Korean dog meat trade remotely equivalent to the opposing viewpoint, shared by civilized societies worldwide, that torturing and brutally slaughtering dogs for their meat is an abomination. The unvarnished, indisputable (and easily verifiable -- from any number of respectable news outlets and international animal welfare society organizations) truth about this industry must be discussed here if there is to be a page devoted to this subject at all. At the very least, equal discussion of what actually occurs on dog meat "farms" and markets in South Korea is warranted. --Rucamlaw (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Rucamlaw, I reached out on your talk page in this edit (others welcome to review) to inform you of the exception I took with your contributions; this was prior to discovering your comments above. The wording is particularly of concern as it is very POV pushing and subjective, coming from wholly unreliable sources. As a class, such sources are unacceptable regardless of subject matter. The attempt to resolve this was to trim the material of unsubstantiated POV wording of advocacy organizations. I've done this in a previous edit in lieu of wholesale removal as well, which presents the advocacy organizations' objection in a more neutral way and speaks to sanitation and cruelty. We will need reliable third-parties to substantiate the claims, which your sources are not. If it is "easily verifiable -- from any number of respectable news outlets" then provide those sources and remain objective (no cherry-picking, no POV). Indeed, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for "pro-industry," nor is opposition advocacy welcome either. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dog meat consumption in South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717140124/http://news.yahoo.com:80/dog-menu-korea-beat-heat-094612304.html to http://news.yahoo.com/dog-menu-korea-beat-heat-094612304.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719054520/http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/265_podberscek.pdf to http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/265_podberscek.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208094600/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/03/117_21247.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/03/117_21247.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog meat consumption in South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123043818/http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/dogs-cats/dogs-and-cats-of-south-korea/ to http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/dogs-cats/dogs-and-cats-of-south-korea/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Header and "Current Situation" Section

I opened this talk page discussion to discuss possible controversies pertaining to recent edits in both sections listed. Please discuss here so that we can come to consensus. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop this Horror

Yulin Festival을 중지하십시오. 개와 고양이를 고문하지 말고 개와 고양이를 먹지 마라. 개와 고양이는 우리의 자녀, 형제, 자매, 아버지와 어머니입니다. 그들이 고통을 당하면 우리는 고통을 겪을 것입니다. 우리와이 동물들을 도와주세요. 모든 생물은 존중받을 가치가 있습니다. 그럴 수 있니? 이것은 사랑을위한 것입니다. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.98.111 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Stop al Festival di Yulin. Non torturare cani e gatti e non mangiare cani e gatti. Cani e gatti sono i nostri figli, fratelli, sorelle, padri e madri. Se soffriranno, soffriremo. Aiuta questi animali. Ogni creatura merita rispetto. Puoi farlo? Questo è per amore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.98.111 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What became illegal

Several users have tried to amend the first paragraph to say that the consumption of dog meat is currently illegal. This is incorrect; it's more complicated than that. The consumption of dog meat will continue to be legal, even through 2027. However, the butchering and farming of dogs for consumption will be illegal beginning in 2027. I'll edit the lead to reflect this nuance; I only just learned of it. [1][2][3] seefooddiet (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)