Talk:2020 Danish mink cull
(Redirected from Talk:The Mink Case)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Gobonobo in topic Article requires heavy cleanup
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Requested move 5 October 2022
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | It was proposed in this section that The Mink Case be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.
result: Move logs: source title · target title
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |  |
result:
Moved to 2020 Danish mink cull, because this title was suggested by more than one editor. WP:OTHEROPTIONS is invoked since there is consensus that the current title needs to be changed. Since no title suggested below enjoys consensus, if an editor thinks there is a better title, then a new move request can be opened at any time. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Moved to 2020 Danish mink cull, because this title was suggested by more than one editor. WP:OTHEROPTIONS is invoked since there is consensus that the current title needs to be changed. Since no title suggested below enjoys consensus, if an editor thinks there is a better title, then a new move request can be opened at any time. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The Mink Case → ? – I think the name of this article should be reconsidered. First, should The be in the title? WP:THE seems to say no, but I think it gets tricky with translations. Mink Commission does not use The, even though the Danish word is definite.
Second, should we consider the title a proper noun? I mostly see it uncapitalised in Danish publications,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], but some do capitalise it,[9][10] including the Danish Wikipedia article. English publications vary widely. Some translate it as "mink case",[11][12] others use the term "minkgate",[13] "Minkgate",[14] "mink gate"[15] or "Mink gate".[16] I can't access it, but this journal article has "Minkgate" and "minksagen" (lit. the mink case) as keywords.[17] Some Danish publications also use the term mink gate, but this appears to be limited.[18][19]
I see these possibilities:
1. Mink case. This is the name I lean the most towards; it is arguably the best translation considering proper nouns and is in line with WP:THE and Mink Commission when it comes to the definite article.
2. Some variation of mink gate. Seems to be a pretty widely used term in non-Danish media.
3. Minksagen. No translation at all is not unprecedented, e.g. Folketing (here the definite article is excluded), but per WP:TRANSLITERATE should only be done with terms that are consistently used non-translated in English sources, which does not seem to be the case here.
4. Mink Case would be following the Danish article with regards to capitalization while continuing the precedent with regards to definite articles set by Mink Commission and WP:THE (arguably also Folketing).
References
- ^ https://denstoredanske.lex.dk/minksagen
- ^ https://www.bt.dk/samfund/advokatundersoegelse-modsiger-mette-frederiksens-forsvar-i-minksagen
- ^ https://www.berlingske.dk/kronikker/juraprofessor-har-vendt-hver-en-sten-kan-statsministeren-straffes-for
- ^ https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2022-06-16-dokumentar-kan-faa-betydning-naar-ansvaret-for-minksagen-skal-placeres
- ^ https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/mette-frederiksen-forsvarer-embedsmaend-i-minksagen-lev-med-det
- ^ https://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/ECE14202336/kommission-statsministeriets-departementschef-kan-drages-til-ansvar-i-minksagen/
- ^ https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/mette-frederiksen-faar-en-naese-sin-rolle-i-minksagen
- ^ https://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2022-09-22-yderligere-tre-embedsmaend-faar-advarsel-i-minksagen
- ^ https://www.information.dk/indland/2022/09/professorer-nye-borgerliges-retlige-vurdering-minksagen-baade-juridisk-forkert-problematisk
- ^ https://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2022-09-20-to-embedsmaend-slipper-med-advarsel-i-minksagen
- ^ https://cphpost.dk/?p=120516
- ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/danish-pm-frederiksen-under-pressure-over-mink-cull/
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/world/europe/denmark-mink.html
- ^ https://cphpost.dk/?p=129957
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danieladelorenzo/2022/04/30/what-is-going-on-with-the-danish-mink-gate/?sh=21134fab158b
- ^ https://www.9news.com.au/world/coronavirus-updates-denmark-pm-defends-mink-cull-during-pandemic/7d023341-3532-44bd-82af-d6a1c55c759f
- ^ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4137749
- ^ https://politiken.dk/debat/debatindlaeg/art8007070/M%C3%A5ske-var-den-ulovlige-ordre-lovlig
- ^ https://ugebrev.dk/finans/finans-markedsovervaagning/mink-gate-medierne-skal-holde-sig-parat-til-kaempe-skandale/
Stowgull (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- I propose 2020–2021 Danish mink scandal, in lieu of the usual title format for events. S k y r (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest 2020 Denmark mink slaughter. The term "case" seems like it refers to a specific legal case, but this article describes much more than that, including the slaughter itself, a change of law in support of the action that had been taken, and a subsequent breeding ban. "Mink gate" or "Minkgate" seems too sensationalistic. The title suggested by S k y r is also not bad, although it focuses only on the controversy (with the word "scandal" being somewhat non-neutral) and the ending date of 2021 may be premature. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- "The Mink Case" sounds like a Nancy Drew mystery about a stolen fur coat. It also does not match Wikipedia article title style; there's no need for "The" and it's not used as a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized. I'm unsure of the correct name. "Danish mink scandal" implies that the killing of the animals is not an issue. "Denmark mink slaughter" uses the pejorative word slaughter where killing is sufficient. Maybe there are other notable issues in Denmark involving minks, but barring that, the years are unnecessary. Maybe "Danish mink killing" or "Danish COVID-19 mink infection", but I'm not sure. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't personally think of slaughter as pejorative. To me it seems like the ordinary term to use to the killing of animals by humans for most purposes, e.g. per the Animal slaughter article. To me it also seems especially appropriate to use for the killing of a large number of animals in a wholesale manner. However, I suppose killing is basically a synonym in this context if others prefer it. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- In my mind, slaughter outside of the context of meat production seems to be indicate something much worse than killing, but I don't feel strongly about it. If that sounds good to others, I'd support that. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- The word by reliable sources is "cull".[1] [2][3] "Slaughter" can definitely be seen as biased. 162 etc. (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I was wondering if someone was going to bring up "cull". I have a pretty strong objection to the word "cull" in this context. It's a clear violation of WP:EUPHEMISM. See the Culling article. Properly, "culling" is "segregating" out a subset of a breeding population based on their particular characteristics. It is not the proper term for killing the entire breeding population of all of them. See also the definitions given by Wikt:cull. Its primary definition says that "cull" refers to separating out some subset of animals "from a larger group". That is not what happened to the mink in Denmark. All of them were killed, not just some selected portion of them. Its
thirdfourth sense is the one that is used to refer to this topic, a meaning that Wiktionary labels as "nonstandard" and "euphemistic". Wikipedia avoids euphemisms. Not all sources do, but Wikipedia prefers using direct terminology to clearly express what it is saying in plain language. On Wikipedia, people die, not "pass over"; they have sex rather than "make love", and wars have "civilian casualties", not "collateral damage". — BarrelProof (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)- I've looked up the definition of "cull" at Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Collins, and none uses "euphemism" in its definition. While it's correct that a cull usually involves killing a part of a herd, as opposed to the entire group, I don't agree that it's inaccurate here. Our current article at Culling states that "culling often refers to the act of killing removed animals (...) as a means of preventing infectious disease transmission." It's a perfectly fine word to use, and also the common name. 162 etc. (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the definitions in all three of your cited sources, they are all about selecting a subset or reducing the size of a population – not killing the entire population. Each of those sources provides only two definitions. The fourth definition provided by Wiktionary is the euphemistic one that applies here – i.e. other kinds of killing. That definition is not even mentioned in your sources. Based on your own sources, the word should not be used, because this action does not fit either of the two definitions provided in those sources. If killing is what we mean, we should just use killing or something else that clearly has that meaning, not culling, which primarily has meanings that don't fit what is being described. As for the Wikipedia Culling article, your own quote is about killing the "removed animals" – i.e. the subset – not the entire population, and Wikipedia shouldn't really be used as a source for itself anyway. It would be fine to use cull if only the animals at certain farms or in a certain region of the country were killed, but here the breeding population was eliminated rather than reduced. Consider cane toads in Australia, brown tree snakes in Guam and Burmese pythons in Florida – people are trying to kill them in those places, not cull the breeding stock. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- While I entirely disagree with your interpretation of three reliable dictionary definitions here, it's not even that important. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy. We're not going to rename Boston Tea Party because it doesn't meet the definition of a wikt:tea party. I'll also note that WP:NPOVNAME; article titles aren't always entirely neutral. 162 etc. (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I also find this confusing, as the German translation of culling, Keulung, only refers to emergency mass killing in case of a disease outbreak. The German wikipedia article thus only focuses on this definition. S k y r (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the definitions in all three of your cited sources, they are all about selecting a subset or reducing the size of a population – not killing the entire population. Each of those sources provides only two definitions. The fourth definition provided by Wiktionary is the euphemistic one that applies here – i.e. other kinds of killing. That definition is not even mentioned in your sources. Based on your own sources, the word should not be used, because this action does not fit either of the two definitions provided in those sources. If killing is what we mean, we should just use killing or something else that clearly has that meaning, not culling, which primarily has meanings that don't fit what is being described. As for the Wikipedia Culling article, your own quote is about killing the "removed animals" – i.e. the subset – not the entire population, and Wikipedia shouldn't really be used as a source for itself anyway. It would be fine to use cull if only the animals at certain farms or in a certain region of the country were killed, but here the breeding population was eliminated rather than reduced. Consider cane toads in Australia, brown tree snakes in Guam and Burmese pythons in Florida – people are trying to kill them in those places, not cull the breeding stock. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've looked up the definition of "cull" at Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Collins, and none uses "euphemism" in its definition. While it's correct that a cull usually involves killing a part of a herd, as opposed to the entire group, I don't agree that it's inaccurate here. Our current article at Culling states that "culling often refers to the act of killing removed animals (...) as a means of preventing infectious disease transmission." It's a perfectly fine word to use, and also the common name. 162 etc. (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I was wondering if someone was going to bring up "cull". I have a pretty strong objection to the word "cull" in this context. It's a clear violation of WP:EUPHEMISM. See the Culling article. Properly, "culling" is "segregating" out a subset of a breeding population based on their particular characteristics. It is not the proper term for killing the entire breeding population of all of them. See also the definitions given by Wikt:cull. Its primary definition says that "cull" refers to separating out some subset of animals "from a larger group". That is not what happened to the mink in Denmark. All of them were killed, not just some selected portion of them. Its
- I don't personally think of slaughter as pejorative. To me it seems like the ordinary term to use to the killing of animals by humans for most purposes, e.g. per the Animal slaughter article. To me it also seems especially appropriate to use for the killing of a large number of animals in a wholesale manner. However, I suppose killing is basically a synonym in this context if others prefer it. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Participants are still trying to hash out which move destination to use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Since I've actually not !voted yet, move to 2020 Danish mink cull. 162 etc. (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Use "2020 Danish mink cull" or any other option that doesn't over-capitalize. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article requires heavy cleanup
editThis article seems to have been carelessly translated and formatted from the Danish equivalent and/or from Danish news sources. I added a copyedit template to the top of the article. NipponGinko (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've made a draft under User:S_k_y_r/Workzone/2020_Danish_mink_slaughter in order to not have what is basically a construction site in the main article space; since I do not have much time to edit each day.
- I'll try and fix up translation mistakes, but ultimately it may be faster to rewrite entire paragraphs or even the entire article. Lots of information is repeated, superfluous or spread out over multiple paragraphs. Please feel free to add suggestions as I'm new to editing and rewriting. S k y r (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have now pasted a restructured version of the article, such that the paragraphs and the table of contents are more concise. S k y r (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the translation from the Danish Wikipedia on 2 October did not include the references (some 167 at the time of the translation). gobonobo + c 21:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)