From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Korean edible dog"[edit]

This is not a formal name not supported by cited references. Can someone provide some support this? Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten, but we've had this conversation before. I have gone and found it in the archives and will paste it here below to refresh your memory [Talk:Nureongi/Archive 2#Aka_.22Korean_Edible_Dog.22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talkcontribs) 06:45, 25 June 2016‎ ( -- dsprc [talk]: I've snipped the long copy and paste of previous discussion and replaced with a link to archived section -- dsprc [talk] 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC) )

It was also found the Korean Dogs advocacy organization referred to the animal as Korean Edible Dog as well, although the source is exceptionally POV and quite controversial in nature so it can not be used, it may demonstrate usage of the term in general discourse outside of Morris. For the claim of a "formal breed name" this is not being asserted; only that the animal is also known by this nomenclature, not that such nomenclature is an "officially" recognized breed (Nureongi is technically not an "official" designation either). -- dsprc [talk] 10:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone other than Morris (and the blurb from Korean Dogs) refer to the animal as such? If it commonly known by this title, providing other examples should not be problematic. -- dsprc [talk] 12:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is a link to a reliable search engine. Be sure to enclose the term in quotation marks so you don't get results for each word. Chrisrus (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Please be civil.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Melonbarmonster2: - where is the incivility here? DrChrissy (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Chrisrus posted a link to google. That's sarcasm bordering on insult that is not helpful. I don't understand why you would deny this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am denying it because I am AGF. My reading of it is that Chrisrus was simply being helpful by proving the diff and the information about the search. DrChrissy (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not AGF. That's pretending good faith to serve POV. Do we need to have a discussion here about whether Chrisrus' providing a link to google, as a "reliable search engine" was sarcasm bordering on insult? We can then open up a discussion below about whether you claiming use of the term "full of shit" is uncivil below and we can go at it. I suggest we don't waste our time doing that and actually exercise AGF and NPOV.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I doubt you would have many editors supporting your contention that "full of shit" is not incivil. DrChrissy (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not my contention. It's yours. Claiming linking google as a "reliable search engine" isn't sarcasm is the about the same as using the term "full of shit" and I was suggesting that both cases of incivility stop. Please stop being argumentative and WP:WL. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for implying that I am an idiot who can't use a search engine. That is how I found the advocacy org usage, which is linked related to a title of video they used, but no other reliable source crawled by Alphabet seem to use the term. So failing the Google Test, I guess we can remove it. -- dsprc [talk] 14:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Morris he says that it's sometimes called that, so the origin of your source of doubt is not clear, so no such test should be necessary.
However, searching the term in quotes and finding people calling it that constitutes passing, not "failing" that test, so please stop removing it. Chrisrus (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No other reliable source has indicated such terminology is common and you have so far failed to reproduce any instance of usage outside an assertion by Morris. It is not a commonly used term and thus the one use by Morris has been indicated in the terminology section and removed from the lede. -- dsprc [talk] 15:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Some here seem to be forgetting that WP:Verifiability is a WP policy. The term has apparently been used in a reliable, secondary source and is verifiable. It therefore should not have been removed. Having said that, it was not linked to an in-line reference which it perhaps should have. Given that I also have not been able to find another use of this term (after a limited search), the term perhaps does not deserve to be in the lead, but is now in an appropriate place. DrChrissy (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:Verifiability is the very reason why "Korean edible dog" should not be falsely presented as being a formal dog breed. The given referenced does not support such a claim. It is used as a descriptive term and not as a formal dog breed or even a landrace name.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Who are the "some", pray tell? It was used once, by a single individual, and does not at all indicate the terminology has ever been broadly used by anyone else other than Morris. That solitary usage has been indicated in suitable section, with proper attribution. It has been requested that verifiable proof be provided to indicate it is a common term used by anyone other than Morris; were their claims to be true such evidence would be easy coming. -- dsprc [talk] 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The "some" was you - I was trying to use a polite way of saying that IMHO, you were wrong to have deleted it if you knew it was verifiable. DrChrissy (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

() The broad usage was not verifiable (no evidence yet provided); it is not also-known-as "Korean Edible Dog" by anyone else. Terms as "edible dog" are commonly used to refer dog meat in general within Asia, to distinguish between animals kept as pets and those used for consumption [1][2][3], but not this dog. It is a conflation, amalgamation and misunderstanding lost in translation. Source was vetted (no pun) and failed. -- dsprc [talk] 16:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If this misuse is verifiable, we can enter it into the article. Who did the vetting? DrChrissy (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to venture into logical fallacy territory you can do it alone. One need only examine all evidence of edible dog being a common term, but korean edible dog being an obvious conflation, and it does not describe this one dog, but all dogs used for consumption. -- dsprc [talk] 17:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to put it back how it was. Let me explain:

First, this edit was justified by saying that's not what Morris says. But then it was pointed out that this is not so. Morris does indeed say that it's sometimes called what it says. So that justification was withdrawn.

The next justification for this edit was that Morris is the only one who calls this dog by that term. Butt Morris does not call it that himself. He simply reports that it is sometimes also called that in his sources. Passive voice "is called", i.e. by others. So this idea that only Morris calls it that is not correct, so this justification is based on a falsehood.

The claim was made that searches were done and the term was not found to be in common use. So searches were done and more than a thousand hits were found for the term, so it's not true that the search justifies us second guessing the facts as found in the citation. There is no reason here to think Morris's claim is not true. Google search results do not create any doubt that the claim is true. They do not give us any reason to think Morris might be wrong about that.

The claim was made that only one other source was found for the term being so used. This was checked and found to be false. Many sources were found that use the term. So the belief that there are only Morris and this other source are using the term turned out to be false, so no reasonable reason to doubt that what Morris claims is true.

Then the claim was made that there is another source that uses the term which is an advocacy group, and so that should be some reason that we should doubt Morris's claim that the term is in common usage to refer to this referent. But that doesn't matter. That fact that among the many sources that use the term to refer to this dog is this or that advocacy group has nothing to do with whether Morris is right that the term is in use. In fact, it's the opposite: confirmation that the term is in use to refer to the referent.

Then the claim was made that the citation was placed at the end of the lead section instead of directly after that particular claim. But the entire lead is cited to Morris at the end so the thing to do is move the citation, not the claim. But that's not necessary because it's already cited to Morris at the end of the lead, and because of the way it was moved it's makes it sound like there is some doubt whether Morris was right about that but there isn't any.

Then it was claimed that it should be so edited because "The broad usage was not verifiable (no evidence yet provided); it is not also-known-as "Korean Edible Dog" by anyone else." But the opposite is true.

Then it was pointed out that the term "edible dog" is used for othher dogs that are not this dog. But Morris's claim is that the term "Korean edible dog", not just "edible dog". So this point is not well taken. Morris never said that there were no others any more than him saying that the term "Welsh terrier" implies there are no other terriers.

I could go on, but I'm undoing the edit because it was justifed by demonstrably false facts and bad reasoning. Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Then provide evidence to another reliable source that calls it the "Korean Edible Dog" which you found on Google; most of those are spam-bots which are regurgitating Wikipedia, and a video uploaded to a hosting service; you know you're full shit and is why evidence is still not provided.
  • Korean Dogs can't be used for anything. The claim was they were found to use a video titled with that (the same one parroted by all the spam-bots) but the usage is little more than that, noting the title of a random video.
  • The point is, you are mistaken on the terminology, and that is why it belongs in the terminology section, so it can be explained and elaborated for readers that it is an "edible dog" in Korea, which is a common term for canines used as a food stuff[4][5][6]([7]), and not The "Korean Edible Dog". -- dsprc [talk] 09:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not how this works. Citation says it's called that, so so do we. No evidence has been provided that Morris is wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What isn't how what works? They're called sources, not citations, BTW. We're beyond Morris. Evidence was provided that interpretation and presentation of term is incorrect; needs to be re-written, expanded, elaborated on, but you want to fight yesterdays (edit-) war. The info is presented half-assed and stunted at best. Review sources provided previously; IA book[8] is good model and we should steal it.
@Dsprc your comment above "you know you're full shit" is uncivil. Please comment on edits, not the editor. DrChrissy (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Arguments presented were bullshit (only our intelligence was insulted); either lack of understanding how The Web functions (is OK) or intellectual dishonesty (pound sand). Also: if need a manifesto to explain position: you don't understand it. -- dsprc [talk] 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the points raised by Dsprc above. I would further add that it is misleading to suggest that such creature -- an "edible dog" -- exists. Moreover, we know that various breeds and mixed breeds are routinely slaughtered for meat in the South Korean dog meat trade, thus "edible dog" has no real meaning in this context. Lastly, I question why the need to use such a description at all here when we don't include similar descriptors for other dogs based on their common uses, viz, "the American police dog" for German Shepherd, "the fighting dog" for Pit Pulls, etc. Rucamlaw (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of "edible dog" term being used for at least a century — my position is there exists a misreading of source text and that "Korean" portion of term is possessive — as illustrated by provided sources above. I think if such ambiguous terminology is to be used, then we must explain and elaborate for readers in the appropriate section. -- dsprc [talk] 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm still catching up and I have to say I don't remember all the archived arguments from years ago in detail so I actually appreciate the older editors here reminding me of things that may have been discussed. Having read Chrisrus's long post above I just have one question: the issue of no other sources using the term "Korean edible dog" used in context to identify nureongi's as a formal breed seems to come up again and again. Chrisrus claims thousands of sources in response to the argument that only Morris' book seems to use this term. Where, what are these sources? I've searched previous discussions on this and I can't find any. Only the Morris book uses the term "Korean Edible Dog" as a formal name for breed, landrace or any such designation.
Besides this tit for tat, I think it's important to remember that citations have to actually state the claimed text in the article. Editors are not allowed to interpret references to synthesize their own conclusions. Morri's use of the term as a description not meant to be taken as a formal breed or landrace name. Obviously there are editors here who are coming at this topic from an pro Animal Rights perspective. As Rucamlaw stated above dogs used for the meat trade are not just the brown landrace in question. All sorts of dogs of all breeds including indigenous Korean breeds are regularly used for the dog trade. It doesn't improve the truthfulness of this article nor anyone's particular POV to synthesize this claim.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Why have you linked editing to a "pro Animal Rights perspective"? What is your evidence of this? DrChrissy (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I've familiarized myself with this and related articles. It's rather obvious. Should we open up argument about this too now? How about you stop WP:WL? Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be deliberately trying to provoke an argument. Please desist. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:Casting aspersions. DrChrissy (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, please stop WP:WL. That's not casting aspersions. It means I'm asking you to stop WP:WL. I am noting that you have accused me of WP:Casting aspersions and have continually engaged in WP:WL rather than engaging in substantive edits at hand. Please stop. Thank you. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The casting aspersions relates to your accusation that I am editing from an animal rights perspective. I also asked you directly to provide evidence of this, which you have not yet replied to. DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No one claimed you were editing from an animal rights perspective. You assume this because you are violating WP:OWN.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
You stated above, "Obviously there are editors here who are coming at this topic from an pro Animal Rights perspective". DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Where do you see your name there in that comment? If you want to identify yourself as such, that's your prerogative not my contention.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
There are only 2 editors opposing your argument, Chrisrus and myself. Your statement was about editors - note plural. There is only one interpretation of this - you are accusing us both of taking an animal rights perspective. DrChrissy (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

() I'm going to put it back the way it was. Let me explain:

Here I have this book.

It is the paperback edition, published in 2008.

The section on edible dog breeds starts on p.583 and runs to p.596.

It includes sixteen known edible dog breeds from ten countries.

The article on this dog starts just at the bottom of page 585.

There it says the following:

"The breed is also known as the Korean Edible Dog."

Therefore, I'm going to add the fact this article.

I have listed to those who object to this edit and have found no evidence or reason to believe that Morris is wrong about that.

If you undo, please present below some evidence that Morris was wrong about that.

I.e.: evidence that the term is not in use to refer to the referent of this article.

Or if not, please explain a rational reason to think that he's wrong about that.

Or if not, please explain why even though he's not wrong about that, we shouldn't tell the readers.

For example, what bad could happen if we tell the readers this fact?

Purposes of this edit include the fact that, when another term is in use, users might know it by that name and look it up or they might hear the term, and wonder if and that are the same or they might learn that there is another term and later on hear the other term and already know what the learned here is being referred to there. There are other reasons, too.

However, I will respect the consensus not to capitalize dog breeds as Morris does, but instead only capitalize "Korean". Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Chrisrus, can you provide a scan or photograph of page 585 (or whatever page supports the entry) for verification? This is what WP:Library do for source requests, and should fall under fair use (Czajkowski noted below is different matter, as it is basically entire document and unlikely to be fair use). -- dsprc [talk] 05:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Why? That's not how this works. Imagine if everyone did that.
Why would I or anyone else lie about that? Do you hate the fact that the term is in use or something? What have you got against this term being used for this referent?
You are free to go to the library and check or whatever if you want. I'm still putting it back the way it was until someone can give me some good reason not to. Chrisrus (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
We assume good faith WP:AGF on here. Requesting a scan is IMHO contrary to this. I agree with replacement of the sentence. Desmond Morris is a very highly regarded academic in this area and therefore his comment is noteworthy and verifiable. DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Why?" The burden of proof is upon the individual which includes content. You've also expressed some questionable understanding of what a reliable source is by asserting spam-bots count as them. Because the content needs to be verified. "That's not how this works." Yes, it is. WP:V. "Imagine if everyone did that." We do, every single day and have special teams of contributors tasked with providing portions of print material for verification. "Why would I or anyone else lie about that?" People do all kinds of crazy things. "Do you hate the fact that the term is in use or something?" No. Not at all. In fact there has been suggestion from I to expand coverage of the term in article. "You are free to go to the library and check or whatever if you want." This is very elitist; not everyone has access to well stocked libraries. "I'm still putting it back the way it was until someone can give me some good reason not to." There is no consensus. -- dsprc [talk] 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify the editor to which this is directed. DrChrissy (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I think he was talking to me. Here is my reply:
I have given proof Page 585 of the Morris.
The only reason I suggested that you Google the term was to satisfy yourself that Morris's claim is true: the term is in use. I'm basing nothing on any Google search, and I don't even know what you mean by me having even referred to any "spam bots".
We don't insist people who contribute facts from WP:RS books must upload photocopies. As WP:AGF explains, if we did, that'd grind things down here to a crawl.
I'm saying that what the Morris book says. I don't understand why you doubt it. It's not an extraordinary claim. It's a very ordinary claim that's not difficult to believe and doesn't contradict any other known facts.
I'm sorry you don't and can't get access to the same book. That just means you're going to have find some other way to check or just assume good faith. You can't just dig in your heals and say "no" without giving some reasonable reason to say that a WP:RS is wrong.
The mere existence of opposition does not constitute a lack of consensus. It has to be substantive opposition. We can't have people or groups of people removing things from the encyclopedia on no grounds or demonstrably false grounds or just because "We don't like/believe it and we don't need any other reason other than "just because we say so" because we are many and you are few. Think about the consequences if we did. This is not a popularity contest; we don't bend over to the group that shouts the loudest; local opinion at one or a few articles does not trump the project-wide consensus that our principles, rules, and guidelines represent, especially the spirit of those rules and the reasons behind the rules.
I'll wait a bit more but I'm putting it back the way it was soon. Chrisrus (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

() Please do not use male pronouns when referring to me. Assertions are not proof. The claim on Google searches is not true when you specifically state otherwise above; all usage of "Korean Edible Dog" is done by spam-bots or other copies of Wikipedia which contained the phrase. A quote= of the source material was requested so there is context; but you specifically reject them. Doesn't belong in lede anyway; is in body where it should be. Would you like to participate in WP:DR/N for resolution? -- dsprc [talk] 22:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Before we go down that track, I would like to be sure what the dispute is really about. Dsprc, what would you like the article to contain? DrChrissy (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've to further review Czajkowski--and citations therein--so expansion there is possible. For "Korean Edible Dog" (KED) blurb to not be in lede as it is currently lacking context. Having KED without being Proper Noun is OK with appropriate prose. KED could be in §"Population estimate" where "edible dog" is already discussed or terminology section; this area needs copy-editing and general cleanup as well. ((also citing specific pages, not large swathes, maybe with ref anchors)) A lot of back and forth over nothing, really. -- dsprc [talk] 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we need something more clear to build on. At the moment, all you seem to be saying is "I don't like it" but without suggesting changes. DrChrissy (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Can go to WP:DR/N then. -- dsprc [talk] 00:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Replying to Dsprc:
Support above for keeping it as it was is based on the claim in Morris's book that the term has been in use for this referent.
Support above is not based on Google search results.
Opposition points above included pointing to Google search results.
The Google search results, it was claimed, disproved Morris's claim.
But that was checked.
The Google search did not contradict the claim.
Actually, the term was found in use in the Google search!
Not just by Wikipedia, either, nor merely mirrors or copies of Wikipedia, but others as well were found so using the term for whatever reason they might have; it doesn't matter.
So that opposition point turned out to be wrong.
Google search results don't show that Morris was wrong.
Instead, some people were found to have called it that. Chrisrus (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't going anywhere and you keep repeating things while misrepresenting them; would you participate in WP:DR/N for resolution? -- dsprc [talk] 09:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Why put "Verification needed" here? I will wait an appropriate amount of time and remove the tag unless someone explains why this fact should have verification needed tags. Chrisrus (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Verification no longer needed[edit]

It said in two places that verification is needed. So, I picked up the book and verified the claims and removed the verification needed tags. Again.

I have verified it, so it's been verified so there's not verification needed.

Please read WP:AGF and/or verify it yourself if you think I'm lying or something or just present some evidence or reason that it might be wrong.

Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Chrisrus, please see my last post in the section above - it was made before I saw your post here. I agree totally with you about AGF here - if we all started slapping this verification tag on content, this project would immediately cease to function. However, given that the tag results in the source automatically being listed for attention, I suggest you don't "waste" an edit reverting the tag. We all (myself included) are getting close to 3RR and I would hate to go to another noticeboard. DrChrissy (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • About to say in a third. Smile.gif ... Verification is conducted by third-parties and not the individual including the content. No one has said you are lying or anything of the sort; don't make/take things so personally. WP:Verification tag is frequently used for offline sources; WP:V is what allows project to function. -- dsprc [talk] 20:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@dsprc - As I indicated above, it would help immensely if you made it clear why you want verification of this source in particular. What is it that you so mis-trust about this source that your repeated adding of the tag is bordering on disruptive? Yes, verification is a pillar of the project, but that does not mean we can insist on photocopies or images of sources to be sent here. DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • All content in project should be verified. Stop speaking for me and assuming malice or mistrust; AGF is good for Goose but not Gander, eh? If disruptive please report me already, and watch out for that boomerang. It was a request; one which is extremely common for print materials. -- dsprc [talk] 21:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Asking you what the objection is isn't any kind of attack on you.
If someone finds something in a book and adds it, we have to assume good faith or just think about what that would mean if we didn't.
If someone then comes along and says "verification needed", they have to give some kind of reason.
So please explain.
For example, if someone added to the article bluebird the claim that it's also called the "the Antarctic red snake", and cited this fact to say for example J.J. Audubon or some other famous expert, but I couldn't check the fact because I didn't have the book, I would leave a "verification needed" tag, but explain: it an extraordinary, unreasonable claim that's very hard to believe, makes no sense. I'd explain that bluebirds don't live in Antarctica; are blue, not red; aren't snakes; and so on, so my "verification tag has" some kind of reasonable reason, because there's some reason to doubt the claim.
Verification needed tags need good reasons, and can be done but only under extraordinary circumstances, such as the article contradicting itself, a fact being demonstrably wrong, contradicted elsewhere, or some such thing.
Otherwise, think about what would happen. A person could just put "verification needed" tags on any fact cited to any book and just wait a certain amount of time and if no one else has the book or steps forward to verify, the fact would be auto-removed for no good reason.
Here, you could explain by giving some evidence or reason that the fact might be wrong.
I'll wait an appropriate amount of time for some rational reason that a verification needed tag here.
Why should there be a verification needed tag for this fact?
Such tags need reasons. They should not be used without a good reason.
So why do you want to add the tags? Do you not believe it? Is there some doubt? Where does the doubt come from? Why are you adding the tag?
I'll wait a bit and then remove the tags again with the edit summary "see talk". Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Chrisrus: Don't cite AGF when you're not. The tag is not to challenge a claim. Now you're either making shit up or have no clue; there is no "extraordinary" or "contradictory" requirement. So far as verification is concerned, claims don't get removed unless they fail verification. Remove and it'll be reverted and you'll be blocked. -- dsprc [talk] 10:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you doubt the book says that?
If you don't doubt the book says that, what is the purpose of the verification needed tags?
If you doubt the book says that, why? Why do you doubt the book says that?
Verification needed tags cast doubt on claims that the source says that.
You are right: there is no requirement that verification needed tags only be used for "extraordinary" or "contradictory" claims.
However, if a claim is extraordinary or contradictory, that might justify adding a verification needed tag.
Extraordinary or contradictory claims are examples of reasons claim might need verification needed tags.
Do you believe the claim is extraordinary or contradictory?
If so, why?
If not, why, then, do you believe verification needed tags appropriate for this claim?
What is the reason for the verification needed tags?
What is there about the claim that the referent of this article is also sometimes called the Korean edible dog that makes verification needed tags appropriate in this case? Chrisrus (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

() Sigh. WP:IDHT. Please stop. -- dsprc [talk] 00:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a substantive reply.
Therefore, it does not constitute the type of "discussion" intended by WP:BRD.
Therefore, the "verification needed" tag will be removed after an appropriate amount of time.
Barring some substantive reply explaining why the tag is there, it will be removed after an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to be blocked for disruptive editing that is entirely your choice. -- dsprc [talk] 04:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Reverting edits made for no clear purpose or reason in terms of article improvement is not disruptive editing.
Making such edits is.
Removing "verification needed" tags after one has verified the information in the source is not disruptive editing.
Restoring them without explaining why the verification is still somehow needed is.
Following WP:BRD is not disruptive editing.
Providing no substantive replies to valid concerns in lieu of discussion of an edit is. Chrisrus (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok so the reason is "content has not been verified by third party", i.e.: someone other than me, USER:Chrisrus. Is that correct?
If so, please explain why.
I mean, I have the book and verified it. I have gone above and beyond the call of duty and striven to convince you with small but relevant details that to convince you that I do have the book. I really do. Do you believe me? I have it.
I have been careful to transfer it accurately. I've given you the direct quotation and way more context than normal to allay any reasonable doubt that that you may have that that is indeed what it says, just to be nice because you don't have the book and can't get it and seem to have doubt about whether it says that or not because you keep adding the tag.
I have bent over backwards to be patient with you and to give you more and more context every time you asked for it and it's still never enough, you don't say why. How can we have "verification needed" tags if we have no reason to doubt? That would be chaos for the project, as WP:AGF explains, or just think about what would happen. It would help if you shared the reason you doubt that this dog is also called that. Why don't you share this? I don't understand you. Just out with it, please, why should this article express doubt about that with a "verification needed" tag? It seems a simple, easy fact to believe or even confirm by Googling it yourself, which we've also done and seen that yes, it is in use.
So barring any substantive reply to these points, if "verification needed" tags are added to that fact or any fact anywhere that I or can properly verify in the future I will remove them properly and properly explain, and this article is no exception.
Unless of course the tags are accompanied by some reasonable reason for doubt the source, that's different. So it would be very helpful for you explain what the problem is not with me but with the claim that this dog is called that. Should we also share that doubt? I can't see the doubt. Show us the reason for the doubt that it's also called that or that Morris says it's called that or whatever exactly the doubt is that is implied in the act of adding "verification needed tags. Chrisrus (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Everything has already been explained and will not be repeated. Choices are to move on, WP:DR/N (or even WP:3 & WP:RFC), AIV or AN/3; up to you. -- dsprc [talk] 19:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there is another choice: stop re-adding the "verification needed" tag when removed.
Neither is the choice is up to me. I would recommend not escalating this because I don't want repercussions for you, I just want you to stop adding the tag.
I remove the "verification needed" tag on the grounds that it does not constitute article improvement, and removing it does. Let me explain:
The effect of the tag on the reader is to impart the impression that there is some reasonable doubt whether Morris says on that page of that book that he found that term in use for the referent of this article. The reason for this doubt is not clear, to be generous.
Please let's look at Template:Verify source together:
As you can see, it says "verification needed" tags tell readers that we have some doubt about a claim. That's not true here, or if it is, it's not clear why we should doubt it.
It says that this tag is for information "that might be doubtful or false", only. That is all.
Adders of this tag should explain what's the reason for reasonable doubt. Otherwise, just think about what could happen. People could be putting them anywhere with no reason.
The tag tells readers there is some doubt, and therefore doesn't constitute article improvement, because no one has given any reasonable reason for reasonable doubt about it.
Furthermore, it says that they tag should be placed only after a "good faith attempt" to verify the information has been made and failed. Such an attempt was made successfully above, and it turned out that, yes, the book does in fact say that, so the tag was removed.
It has been said above that someone who has the book cannot verify a tagged claim and remove the tag if (s)he is "the original contributor".
But there's no sign of that rule in any link provided in support of the existence of such a rule; no sign that any such rule exists.
However, that would seem reasonable in cases in which if there were some clear reason to doubt the contributor accurately understood the claim in context, made a mistake transferring the fact to the article, or something like that, in the first place, to justify the tag in the first place.
But such reasons given, such as perhaps more context would be necessary to understand what Morris was really trying to say, should have been reasonably been satisfied by a large amount of detailed context given above. Hoops were jumped through, bending over backwards, to satisfy the doubt. Each time, the goal posts were moved.
For these reasons I remove the tag again. If re-added without discussion characterized by substantive reply to these points, I will remove them again.Chrisrus (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

() The wikilawyering grows old. WP:DR/N is not escalation, it is cooperation and mediation allowing involved parties to resolve disputes instead of speaking cross at one another. If one wishes to jump through hoops, when no hooping was requested that is their problem. No one said anything about tags; but verification is to be conducted by third-parties. Spinning yarns again... tisk tisk. -- dsprc [talk] 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nureongi -> Red deer redirect in Korean Wikipedia?[edit]

Why is the language link for the Korean version of the article a redirect to 붉은사슴 (Red deer)? Is the term used for both? Or, is this a mistake somehow? I would have thought the article would have a Korean version, since it's related to Korea..? Zeniff (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Zeniff: Maybe issues with WikiData entry since they are generated from there. Most interlanguage links are bot-generated by scraping random Wikipedia pages that once had a now deprecated template and converting them into WikiData entries. Possible one had a typo or the like. Also possible POV issues on Korean wiki as is often controversial or sensitive topic. Probably OK to remove from WikiData since it is broken. -- dsprc [talk] 12:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
After you mentioned it might have more than one possible reason, I tried to also ask the Korean talk page to narrow the possibilities down: ko:토론:붉은사슴 (I hope it's understandable.. @_@;;;;). I'm pretty curious about it, but I don't understand enough yet, and maybe a Korean speaker on Ko:WP can provide some more clues? Now just awaiting reply; I'm curious what might turn up! Thank you for your several ideas! :) Zeniff (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The redirect from Korean version to 붉은사슴 (Red deer) is just wrong. I would remove the link as dsprc suggests, but I lack the skills to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)