Talk:Jan Blokhuijsen

Dispute over "racist and ignorant" comments

Responding to IP user, 124.106.139.19: To avoid edit warring, I'm bringing this dispute to the talk page. The three sources supporting the passage indicate that some people perceived his comments as "racist and ignorant". All three sources included support this wording verbatim. None of the sources included support your revision, that people perceived his comments as "racist and ignorant of a different culture that includes eating dogs". Please explain why the latter should be included instead, as you keep insisting.

Also, contrary to claims in your most recent edit summary, I mentioned that I was restoring both the "source" (which you deleted without explanation), and the "source material" (the aformentioned passage taken verbatim from all three sources). I've also explained my rationale in detail in previous edit summaries. Thanks. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

First source "The country’s dog-eating culture today is not what it used to be. Many Koreans, especially young people, do not enjoy it. But some still consider it a delicacy,’ the paper writes. It then goes on to say that eating dog is controversial in South Korea as well, with animal rights groups campaigning for the practice to stop while others claim it is no worse than eating pork" it clearly mentions that the culture includes eating dogs.

Second source repeats the same lines word for word.

Third source states " longstanding tradition." in reference to the Korean culture of dog eating.

So yes, the comments about eating dogs being part of Korean culture are supported by the sources. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not the content in dispute. The sentence directly prior in the Wikipedia article discusses what you described and goes as follows, "...Blokhuijsen made a comment during a press conference to the host South Koreans to "treat dogs better in this country", criticizing dog meat consumption in South Korea", which is NOT being disputed.

What is in dispute is why some people perceived his comments as disrespectful. The three sources are consistent on this, citing that popular anger towards the comments stemmed from perceptions that they were "racist and ignorant", which is exactly what I included in the passage. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So rather than a source that says he's just racist and ignorant, maybe we should find a source that talks about him being racist and ignorant of“racist and ignorant of a different culture.” because obviously that culture includes eating dogs 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll address what you said in three points:

1) None of the sources say that dog-eating is part of Korean culture. They say that there is a dog-eating culture among a minority within the population. There is a key difference between the two. Clarifying the difference here is not cherry-picking.

2) See definitions of "culture":

Dictionary.com: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group

Merriam Webster: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization

Oxford Dictionary: The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively

Dog-eating is clearly not a characteristic or shared practice that is regarded collectively among the Korean population, given that there are numerous movements within Korea condemning the practice of eating dogs, and due to fact that the practice itself is now in the minority. The hanbok comparison is not relevant, as it seems that Koreans regard hanboks as part of their traditional culture. Unlike this case, there is no movement disavowing hanboks as a part of traditional Korean culture, suggesting a strong commonality among the population.

3) I agree with you, in that popular response to this issue is overblown, but new outlets around the world have covered this controversy, justifying its inclusion in the article. In keeping the article "neutral and balanced", I think it's imperative to follow the sources and not make any conclusions not directly supported by the source material. It is clear that the current passage fails to abide by this standard.

Consequently, there are plenty of reasons as to why the current section is problematic. I suggest that we either stick to the source wording precisely, as is convention on Wikipedia when there is a dispute of this nature, or come up with a more suitable passage. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Dog-eating is clearly not a characteristic or shared practice that is regarded collectively among the Korean population, given that there are numerous movements within Korea condemning the practice of eating dogs, and due to fact that the practice itself is now in the minority. The hanbok comparison is not relevant, as it seems that Koreans regard hanboks as part of their traditional culture. Unlike this case, there is no movement disavowing hanboks as a part of traditional Korean culture, suggesting a strong commonality among the population." nice words, but all original research. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yet, you didn't address any of the glaring problems with the current wording which I pointed out. It's clear that the wording is inconsistent with the very definition of culture and should be changed. Ironically, the conclusion in the passage in its current form is also original research, which is the topic we're discussing, not hanboks. To keep the source wording as is, you have to prove how the content isn't inconsistent with the definition of culture itself, AND how it's somehow more accurate than the alternative (perceived the comment as "racist and ignorant") which is referenced directly from the source wording.BlackRanger88 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally would not object to removing the controversy section either, but I doubt other editors would agree with such a move.

Again, my objection to the current wording is that there is a difference between Korean culture as a whole, and the minority, rapidly-declining dog-eating culture. Right now, the passage makes it seem as though Korean culture is characterized by eating dogs, which is false. The wording is clearly ambiguous here. If you're insistent on focusing specifically on the "dog-eating culture", I propose that the passage be rewritten as, "...claimed it was racist and ignorant of the rapidly-declining dog-eating culture", to clarify the ambiguity. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think the inclusion of "rapidly-declining" is suitable, then perhaps it should be ""...claimed it was racist and ignorant of the rapidly-declining dog-eating culture, that has existed in Korean for thousands of years, with many older Koreans believing that eating dog meats aid virility" - we can't just cherry pick content in order to push an agenda. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty presumptuous to insinuate that anyone here is trying to "push an agenda". I would caution against that to ensure a civil discussion.

We both seem to be against adding external details, based on your comments above, and your previous professed concerns of "cherry-picking"

Consequently, I hold that my original proposed revision, "...claimed it was "racist and ignorant"" is the best option considering the discussion in its entirety. It encompasses the shared material discussed in all four sources, without adding "cherry-picked" details (as you described), and avoids assumptions as to what the ignorance is being prescribed to, which is not explicitly stated in the article (i.e. is it ignorance of Korean culture as a whole? the declining minority dog-eating culture? There's evidence in all the sources that can go either way). Again, best to stick with the source wording as I've mentioned before (without weaving together different quotes that aren't directly connected) BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I think there are two options. 1. Keep the controversy section, with all the detail on eating dogs and all the images that are required. 2. Remove the controversy section because it is undue weight, it's a minor blip on the radar caused by a few noisy whiners who don't like his (highly justified) criticism of eat puppies. I'd say option 2 is the best, but I want to know what others think. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The only one pushing an agenda here was IP user, 124.106.139.19. This user has now been banned from Wikipedia for constant vandalism of articles and harassment of other users. It's clear that this IP user tried to do the same to this page as well. Hopefully, we'll have no more disruptive, biased editors like this person and spacecowboy420 in the future. Freedomliberator (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018