Talk:Nureongi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is this a breed?

People want to know what this animal is. This is a mystery animal. Some say it is a specific breed, other sources say that they use just any old mongrel dog. Feel free to help! Together, we will get to the bottom of this...Chrisrus (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just "any old mongrel dog", it's a sort of breed which is not normally kept as a pet - see Dog meat#Korea#Current situation and this external source [1] - you might want to integrate some of the information there into the article. Claritas (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your help and interest in this article. Yes, I believe that that external link is the same as reference number one in the "article" if we can call it an "article" at this early stage. It is the first quotation, I think. Can you help write or edit this mini article? I can't seem to find more reliable sources via Google, just these two. I have also seen several videos at youtube showing the animal. These are mostly hidden-camera things by those interested in exposing the practice as immoral. I feel the same way, because my culture and I'm guessing yours have taboos on eating dogs and great sympathy for their suffering. But that is not my purpose in creating this article nor should it be the purpose of the article. The article should just be about the facts about this "breed". I only bring this up at this point to say that most of the mentions I've seen on the internet that use the word do so in the context of defending the practice, saying that the dogs people eat in Korea aren't the same as the beloved familiar pet dogs. Check it if you want, but it seems to be a rhetorical device to say that they are just mongrels or special Nureongi dogs, so one shouldn't worry. The contradiction is, if it's a mongrel, it's a mixed breed, but if it's a special dog bred for the purpose, it is a breed and not a mongrel. The videos with their agenda seem to want to prove that non-Nureongi dogs are in fact farmed and eaten, so they spend a lot of time showing any non-Nureongi dogs in the situation and are not out to simply get the facts abot the Nureongi dogs, which look alot like dingos or jindos to my eye. No one who uses the term "Nureongi" in such places as blogs and forums (fora?) seems to want to describe them seriously, but rather to use the term to dismiss them as not real dogs, and seem to use the words "mongrel" or "mixed breed" to describe what they are at the same time calling a breed. Sorry to ramble, but this is a very difficult article to write and I'm asking for advice and help and explaining the difficulty. Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comment. I can understand why this article is difficult to write, but it's probably due to the fact that there aren't many sources in English. I know nothing about dogs, and next to nothing about Korea, so I'll try and find someone knowledgeable at WP:KOREA. Thanks for creating the article though - it's certainly long enough to be a stub. I'm sure there are plenty of Korean language sources to be found on the topic. Claritas (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Ways Forward

I contacted Hkwon, who's part of the Korean cuisine workgroup, and although he was unable to find sources which confirmed it to be a breed or otherwise, he did find this link, which you may find useful : [2]. It seems most likely that they are mongrels, but only due to the fact that they haven't been recognised by breed and pedigree organisations. Claritas (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been said by Wikipedia Korean cusine expert Hkwon, that

"What I know for sure is

1) Koreans have raised a certain type of dog (Nureongi) for food;

2) Nureongi has not been officially recognized as a breed by any international breed clubs; :

3) Some cases of illegal use of pet dogs as food have been reported in South Korea.

4)According to some informal Korean sources on the Web, Nureongis are dogs mixture of different breeds (mongrels), with certain characteristics such as short and yellow hair, black masks and large body"

Below I address each of these points and their relevence to the article.

About #1 ("Koreans have...for food"):

a) At least how long they been doing this this been going on? Do we know of any ancient writing about farming dogs as one would farm a pig, or any ancient art depicting this breed or the dog farming practice?

b) While I was in Seoul, I don't remember seeing or hearing of any free-ranging dogs as in Europe. Is it your impression that Korea is one of these countries where there are semi-wild dog packs wandering around? How long has this been the case? I figure, in a culture that features dog meat, such dogs would have a hard time not being hunted or trapped and slaughtered for meat.

About #2, this fact can easily be linked to the List of Dog Breeds, which unlike List of cattle breeds, does not any breeds primarily used for meat. How could we cite it externally without simply linking to the breed list of the AKC, UKC, and every other such organization and implicity inviting the reader to scour each list and discover that these dogs are not listed there under any possible name?

About#3 The Cambridge paper confirms this fact. There is no mention of dogs ever being stolen, or to what extent these dogs are allowed to breed with Nureongi. It says that people sometimes dispose of unwanted pet dogs not by taking them to the vet to be euthanized or dropping them off at the pound, or, as used to be done in my country, taking them out to the barn and shooting them and burying the body, or even just dumping them on the street, but rather the Korean practice has been to sell them for slaughter to dog meat farmers. He says that they are sold for meat if they are suitable, but otherwise are fed to the other dogs. I didn't think it was clearly focused enough on this referent to be included in the article, but it could be useful for another imaginable article on Korean Dog Meat Farming Practices. It could be useful for the article if something could be found about the extent to which this practice would result in genetic material from outside sources getting into the "Nureongi" bloodline. It's potentially significant as well for the nureongi that this practice would seem to lessen the numbers of free-ranging dogs.

About #4 If you see the article mixed breed, it says that it's actually a misnomer. Mongrels are not usually the result of repeated mixing from stocks of purebred dogs, but actually it's the other way around most of the time, in most places. Monrels are the stock from which breeds were developed, not the result of established breeds mixing. That is true to the extent that people's purebred dogs don't get loose in the neighborhood and successfully mate with free-ranging dogs in such numbers and in such with such long-term success that influence isn't washed out successive generations of mating with basal free-ranging mongrels. Images of meat dogs in Korea show many seemingly relatively pure nureongi, pure-bred breeds, and some dogs that seem to be a mix of both. This may need to be mentioned in the article to some extent, but not in such a way that it moves us outside the scope of the article and into the topic of both the Cambridge article or that of the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea. Chrisrus (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About #1 a): As explained in the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea, the oldest record of dog meat consumption in Korea is a wall painting in the Goguryeo tombs complex in South Hwanghae Province, a UNESCO World Heritage site which dates from 4th century AD, depicting a slaughtered dog in a storehouse. The breed of slaughtered dog depicted is not certain accoding to today's standards.

About #1 b): There exist Free-ranging urban dogs in South Korea. I know Animal control officers of municipalities capture them and euthanize them when they cannot find dogs' owners within a certain period of time. But I have never heard of or found any information about the stray dogs being used as foodstock.

About #2: I don't know much about dog breeding, but it would be probably difficult to define Nureongi at this point as a separate breed due to the lack of reliable records in Korea or elsewhere.

About #3: I haven't heard of or found any information about dogs being fed to dogs farmed for foodstock. I don't think it is economically feasible as it costs money and labor efforts to process dogs into foods and inexpensive dog foods are easily available in South Korea. The behavior of selling dogs to dog farmers is rarely reported these days, as far as I know, as the trade is illegal at least de jure.

About #4: I cannot provide any useful information as I don't know much about dog breeding. Hkwon (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion

Neurungi is not a dog breed. It's a term that refers to "yellow" dogs. It's vernacularly used to refer to mutts that are mostly yellow since it's the most common color of native Korean dogs. This article is as nonsensical as having an article for "brownie" for brown colored dogs.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please identify this animal: [3]. May we say "Korean Meat dog" for the purposes of this conversation? (Note: please ignore the source of this photograph. It has an animal rights agenda, which neither I nor this article have. I am interested in types of Canis lupus, that is all.) Chrisrus (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dogs don't exist in clean breed categories. Not even "pure" breeds exist in clean categories IMO. Korean dogs are not bred for a look or temperament like western breeds. They are breeds because they all lived in a geographical location for thousands of years and developed somewhat uniform look and temperament.

I agree with you about this last sentence, but would add that the geographical location is only one of the factors that has given them a somewhat uniform look and temprament. I agree that the Korean Meat Dogs don't seem to be bred for a look or termperaament in just the same way as other Asian dogs which are clearly breeds, such as the Jindo, Japanese Chin, or Pekinese or many eastern and western breeds. It seems to me to be a case more like that of Korean native pig. Notice that all of these articles exist, although you could apply the above arguement, at least in specific places, to each of these. I agree that the word "breed" might be problematic, however. Please look at the article landrace.Chrisrus (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that the dogs in the picture are Korean mutt dogs. Dogs bred for consumption in Korea are mutts but not all mutts are raised for food. The terms 'neurungi', 'baekgu', 'heukgu', etc., are terms that have literal meanings with various colloquial uses and do not mean nor refer to "meat dogs" in definition.This article needs to be deleted. It's a nonsensical article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mutt" is a problematic word. The article the word links to is called "mixed breed dog". It says that a "mixed breed dog" may mean:

1. A dog whose ancestry is generally unknown
2. has characteristics of two or more types of breeds
3. a descendant of feral populations
4. or pariah dog populations.
5. "Random-bred" = is a genetic term meaning an animal bred or developed without human intervention; and whose ancestry and genetic makeup is generally not known.
6. "mixed-breed" a description, technically a misnomer, along with the term "purebred dog", such dogs are not a mix of defined breeds. Stems from an inverted understanding of the origins of dog breeds. Pure breeds have been, for the most part, artificially created from random-bred populations by human selective breeding with the purpose of enhancing desired physical or temperamental characteristics. Dogs that are not purebred are not necessarily a mix of such defined breeds.
7. A "crossbred" dog. Such dogs as cockapoos and puggles or the result of a mating between a dingo and a German Shepherd outside of human intervention, or some such. Please specify if you mean they are mixed in this way.
8. The term "mutt" is not a term with a clear referent. Unlike the other terms used above, it has historically had an much more emotional, non-scientific negative connotations; a dog of less worth, an unloved dog, a lesser dog, a dog the speaker has less respect for than other dogs, usually mixed breeds, random breeds, feral dogs, nucence dogs, problem dogs, mangy dogs. This is a useful term here if and when we are discussing how Korean people feel about these dogs in a sort of antropological or sociological analysis of the place of these dogs in Korean culture, and not an epithet a serious Wikipedian would use to describe a dog to another. For example, if we could cite it, we might say something like "in Korean culture, these dogs are concidered "mutts", but the lead of the article should not say "In English, the word "Nureongi" refers to Korean mutt dogs".
9. Consider the word Landrace

As a result, I ask that, at least once here, you, taking into account the above information, idenify the dog in this picture: [4]

In addition, It is not surpising that the Korean language has no fixed or formal term for these animials, no term that does not have other meanings; that there is no single term for these dogs. This is usually the case with pariah dogs. I suggest you have a look at the article pariah dog. "Nureongi" in English has no other meaning. I do not particularly care what word is used for this referent, but I am very interested in the referent itself as a notable type of Canis lupus hitherto undescribed by Wikipedia. "Korean meat dog" is fine on the discussion page.Chrisrus (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not Korean meat dogs. That is a ridiculous term. Dogs breeds and types don't exist in clean categories as you are insisting. The dogs in your picture are mixed breed mutts that are used by dog meat vendors. Those same dogs are also kept as household pets. Also you're advocating your own ideas about "mutts" and dog breeds which is not WP:NPOV. The top priority is present factually accurate information about what "neurungi" actually means and not to advocate editors' personal views.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to deletion would be to change the article to address the meaning of the term "neurungi" in the article which would be difficult decent citations of regarding this colloquial term is almost nonexistent.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. Have you checked the citations? I am intersted in your reaction to them with regard to how the term is used in English as well as in Korean. Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I used the term because the sources do, including Wikipedia articles. I, personally, would prefer another name, Korean Meat Dog or Korean Livestock Dog, but the most commonly used word to refer to this referent in the English language seems to be, rightly or wrongly, Neurungi.Chrisrus (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The references are problematic. The hyperlinks to the articles cited need to be included. Can you please include them in the article or at least give them here for review? The Podberscek article looks like a primary source which is not appropriate for wikipedia, please check out WP:CIT for details on this. Also Podberscek is flat out wrong about neurungi not being kept as pets. My guess is that he doesn't know what neurungi means. I'll take a closer look at this later but just my 2 cents so far. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having trouble setting up a proper reference section. I have two that would pass reliablity standards so far. They say very little and neither is about the Korean meat dog per se, but nevertheless prove that the word "Nureongi" is used in English to refer to the Korean Meat dog. Also, they state that such a distinct "breed" or "type" of dog exists, and say a little about their basic distinguishing features. Neither seem to have any bias toward or against the practice of dog eating in Korea. One is a paper in a respected peer reviewed journal written by a scholor from a respected university and the other is from a Korean newspaper that seems to check out as a legitimate journalist doing a professional job. You may know more about this newspaper and whether they can be trusted not to lie to us about there being such a thing as a Korean meat dog sometimes called nureongi. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, peer reviewed journal articles are not appropriate for wikipedia because it is considered a primary reference. I'll comment more later.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Reliable Sources says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available", reasoning that "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." WP:SOURCES says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science..."

Now, If I could just jump back a bit and ask you again, given the problems outlined above with your previous answer, "mutts", please identify this animal: [[5]]. Native Korean Meat/Medicine Dog? Chrisrus (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already identified the dogs in your picture above. Your semantic niggling about this issue only makes you look like you're trying to prove a POV point. Peer reviewed journal articles that are reviews of academic progress in a given field is good reference. If they are reports of research or academic work conducted by the author, it is considered a primary reference and not appropriate for wikipedia.WP:PRIMARY In our instance the reference in question is problematic because it is based on primary research and because it contains misleading and false information. Also, please give the hyperlinks for the articles cited if you are the editor that added them. If not, I am going to delete them per WP:BURDENMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is primarily semantic. "Nureongi" is a Korean word without a specific meaning, but when used in English (often by Koreans), it is only used with one specific meaning. As a Korean-speaking person, it seems crazy to have an article called, in essence, "yellow dogs". Even if you drop your opposition, this article will continue to attract such criticism from Korean-speaking people who will be confused by the co-opting of a generic Korean word into a specific English word. Thanks to you, I can see that the wording of this article must address this issue in as upfront a way as appropriate. In order to do so, the text of an entry from the most appropriate Korean/English dictionary for the word "Nureongi" would be very helpful. Would that be easily done? Chrisrus (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Podberscek (2009) is a secondary analysis of existing literture and 2004 South Korean MORI survey results. How can this be a primary reference? It is clear to anyone who has read the article even once. It just amazes me that that someone can think he or she can delete an article stating completely wrong assumptions on sources as a reason. Hkwon (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring.

Please do not remove adequately cited content from this page. WP:BURDEN does not imply discrimination against paper or other non-electronic sources. If any user wants to delete the article, take it to WP:AFD. Claritas (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the cited sources and even tracked down the URL for the online articles that were not included and added new text to the article as well as removing factually false information. That is hardly a revert but a novel edit.

The word Neurungi has a literal meaning and is used to describe dogs of all breeds including mutts of a yellowish color. Our top priority should be to reflect factual truth in the article not arguments that we can conjure up with questionable references particular when the article doesn't define the term neurungi nor supports the claims of the text.

The word Nureongi has this literal meaning in Korean. The souces confirm that this is so and discuss this fact, but also use it to refer to the animal in the picture. Chrisrus (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also not discriminating references not for being non-electronic sources. I am discriminating the PDF reference however because it's a primary source.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've fixed the references now so that they are electronic, thereby leaving this discussion "moot".

You have removed a large amount of content from the article which is clearly verifiable. WP:V says that Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability, so I'm going to revert your edits again. This Korea Daily article seems to be using the word "Neurongi" to refer to dogs bred specifically for meat, and you haven't provided any source contradicting this. Claritas (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I explained the reasons for the removed content. Please read them. The Korea daily article does not state that neurungi is a dog bred specifically for meat. This is the problem we have here. The references are being used support text that is not supported. The article clearly actually uses the term "shikgyun" to note that the dog was a farmed dog meat dog. I am the one upholding WP:V. Please stop your reverting and help in improving the article rather than POV warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The article states twice that the dog in the news is "a Nureongi raised to be used for Boshintang (Korean dog soup)", in the first and the third paragraph. How can deleting contents based on a reliable and verifiable source be a violation to WP:V and WP:NPOV? Hkwon (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been a shocking news that a monster that ate 18 dogs in a village was a Nureongi that was raised to be used for Boshintang. (2nd sentence)

Experts say that this Nureongi, raised to be used for Boshintang, might have escaped, suffered for hunger, and approached the village. (8th sentence)

- Translated in English

Formatting of references section

I will consult the help desk with regard to the proper way to do the references, but if anyone who knows how it's properly done would like to pitch in, I'd be obliged.Chrisrus (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the URL for the online article and added an inline citation. If you have any other citations you want me to track down and review, please let me know.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem with this one: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/eat-and-drink/5966-delicious-yet-sometimes-peculiar-korean-cuisine.html. It wants money before it will let you see the article.

Please see how and where I found this reference. http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/eat-and-drink/5966-delicious-yet-sometimes-peculiar-korean-cuisine.html. If you go to the article dog meat and click on the table of contents where it says "Korea", you get re-directed to the sub-article Dog meat consumption in South Korea. Under the "current situation" section of that article, please look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. At the very end of the sentence, there is a reference, number six.

Now try this. Google the word "Nureongi" you will find that a significant number of the hits contain this exact wording, apparently lifted directly from Wikipedia. So this is a very significant thing for this article. I think this may be contributing the English language's settling on this of many possible options when specifying this referent. It could be exact wording lifted from teh Helsinki Times article, or maybe the article doesn't say what the Wikipedia article says it does, or it might be a well-done citation; I can't actually read it myself. May I assume good faith that the Wikipedian who cited it was able to read it and did a good job when he/she wrote and cited that sentence? I really don't want to buy a subscription to the Helsinki Times just to solve this problem.Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is getting to be ridiculous

Can we take a break from the posturing and combativeness and realize what is going on here. This article is like a Korean editor with little knowledge about Korean culture and language writing an article about "bunnies" being a breed of farmed edible rabbits in the US. While that term may be used to describe farmed rabbits, it would be pretty ridiculous if editors were revert warring to claim that "bunnies" is exclusively a term used for farmed eating rabbits.

The real problem with this article is that the term "nurungi" is being used by an editor to write an article about the dogs raised for consumption in Korea and NOT about the objective topic of the term "nurungi". Whether that is a appropriate article for wikipedia is a different matter but we shouldn't hijack words for personal POV agendas.

The term nureungi is a colloquial term like "fluffy", "bunny", "doggie", etc.. The most comparable term may be "yeller", although that term isn't used in the US as the term nureungi is in Korea. Nureungi is a slang/colloquial term that is used to for yellowish dogs. If you google nurgungi on Google Images, you will find images for golden retrievers, spaniels, AND mixed Korean dogs for eating that are yellow.

Interesting that ou should happen to mention the American yellow dog or yaller dog. This was a word for a quite wild "mutt" of the southeast US. In the early 1970s, if you will check the article, one researcher noticed the similarities between it and the dingo. You read the article, but this yellow "mutt" turned out to be an ancient Canis lupus dingo also known as the American Dingo and now recogized as the breed Carolina Dog. It was right under the noses of the people for centuries and no one noticed what it was, probably because of the negative attitude everyone had about the lowly American Yeller Dog that didn't even have a real name. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the existing references carefully. None of them make a direct claim about the definition or meaning of "nurungi". They merely use the term to describe the yellow farmed eating dogs. References using the term to describe yellow dogs farmed for eating does not support the claim that the term exclusively applies to farmed eating dogs.

Please consider starting a section under the "dog meat" article for Korean meat dogs FIRST and then starting an article on this when you have enough references and text rather than usurping the word "nurungi". Or at the very least let's try to be accurate and make sure that references accurately reflect the claims of the references.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source that defines Nureongi as meaning "Yellow Mutt", it would be appropriate to move the article to "Korean meat dogs" or something similar. I'm not claiming that the term is exclusively used for farmed dogs, I'm just saying that certain sources have identified "Nuereongi" as being a type of dog which is bred almost exclusively for human consumption. If you can produce a source in either English or Korean (I'll stumble through), I'll believe you as to the meaning, but for the while, keep the article as it is. I don't have any particular POV on this issue. Claritas (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is already stated in the references and are used as reference as such. Did you even read them?

The text of this wiki article claimed the term as meaning dogs for human consumption. That is false and elaborations on that point is unsupported by the references. You sound like you're fairly unfamiliar with the reference as you've never discussed any of them beyond a false statement about the Korea Daily article. Please stop your knee-jerk reaction reverts and participate in discussion about the substance of issues.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

From the UoC source - "The type of dog most commonly farmed for food is known as nureongi (yellow dog), which is mid-sized, short haired, and yellow furred". That's adequate sourcing. Claritas (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is enough sourcing claiming nureongi means "yellow dog" and that the term is used to refer to dogs that are being raised and traded for food within instance and context of the author's personal research and data collection which fits my explanation of this term to you.

It does not support the false understanding that nureongi should be defined only within the context of dog meat trade in Korea as you are insisting through your reverts.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits because you removed sourced material without a proper explanation. I've made a minor edit to the lead, which changes the perspective slightly. Is that satisfactory ? Claritas (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are degrading the credibility of your claims when you continue to make false accusations. I had already been engaged in a lengthy discussion with another editor explaining the problems with references and problematic text of the article before you joined the ensuing discussion by instigating a revert war. Please stop ruining your karma and try to be honest.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To Melonbarmonster2: This discussion page is not for you to complain about engaging in a discussion unrelated to this article or to advising on other people's karma. In this whole section, you failed to present even one evidence that backs up your claim. Claritas' quotation from the Podberscek's article is quoted from another article, making it a secondary source. How can it be "within instance and context of the author's personal research and data collection"? Hkwon (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a nureongi 101

Nureongi is a slang word play off of nureong which is a old way of saying yellow. It's akin to "brownie" except with the color yellow.

Here's some examples of Nureongi's for those who seem to be entirely unaware of its meaning and usage in Korea

Here is a nureongi carolling. Breedwise it's probably a fat shiba inu:

http://tvpot.daum.net/clip/ClipView.do?cateid=1&clipid=12119475

Here's a nureongi orchard or as they call themselves "yellow dog orchard":

http://yellowdog.farmmoa.com/

This is a popular comedy sketch about the family's dog "nureongi":

http://video.nate.com/clip/view?video_seq=166553086

This is a retriever described as nureongi

http://ojsfile.ohmynews.com/STD_IMG_FILE/2009/0319/IE001029662_STD.JPG

Another nureongi

http://article.joins.com/article/article.asp?ctg=15&Total_ID=3751273

Here are some cows who are also called nureongi which works since they're also yellow

http://photo.naver.com/post.nhn?m=print&postId=2009042008485600124

http://www.dusong.co.kr/duso/bbs/board.php?bo_table=photoalbum&wr_id=7&sca=%B5%BF%2F%BD%C4%B9%B0&page=

Please stop worrying about what the word means in Korean so much. We are talking about what it means in English. There are lots and lots of English words which are borrowings from other languages that would cause a native speaker of that language to perceive them in English as "misused". Take the French word "toilette", the German word "angst", or English words borrowed into foreign languages such as the Korean word service meaning free, no charge, included in the price or the Spanish word smoking which means tuxedo. This is the English language part of Wikipedia. It's like a French person objecting to the article toilet being about that referent and including a long list proving how it's properly used in French.

I say to stop worrying about terminology, but actually we should have the appropriate amount of discussion of the words used for the referent in the article as well as discussion of the referent. It should be sumarized in the lead and expanded on in a terminology section.

Again, no one is disputing what you are saying about the meaning of these words in Korean. We're just saying it doesn't matter because we're not speaking Korean or to anyone but English-speaking people. Chrisrus (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To anonymous user who presented 7 references above: 6 out of 7 references are based on unreliable, unverifiable sources and all 7 are irrelevant to this discussion.

The first reference, a youtube-type video clip (hardly a reliable source for Wikipedia), does not provide any information whether the dog depicted is a Nureongi discussed in this article, or a Shiba inu as the anonymous user claims.

The second reference, a commercial Website, only shows the orchard is named "Nureongi Orchard" and provides no information on the origin of name, e.g., whether the orchard raises a Nureogi or whether the orchard is named after a Nureongi or not.

The third reference, another youtube-type video clip, titled "Nureongi on heat", only shows a dog that seems to be in heat and again provides no specific information on its breed. How can this clip, with only 1,261 click counts in 3 years, be a popular comedy sketch? Do you mean in South Korea, the U.S. or some other country that I don't know?

The fourth reference only shows a picture of dog and nothing else. Can you at least provide a caption or something?

The fifth reference is a news about a abused dog name "Nureongi", without any information on the breed of the dog.

The sixth and seventh references, which are personal blogs, show pictures of cows named "Nureongi". How are they relevant to the discussion in this article? Maybe you should create a new article titled "Nureongi (Cows)" using these pictures as main references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant internal links

I've removed your expansion of the see also section, because it included irrelevant entries. Adding "relevant internal links" means that you need to add links in the main body of the article. See WP:LINKING. Thanks. Claritas (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What word did I mean when I said "internal links"? When it's one article to another, is that what "wikilink" means? I might need that word in the future. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Internal links" does refer to links from one article to another, but they should be integrated into the main body of the text. Claritas (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How awesome Lilhelpa is

I have already done so on his userpage, but would like to also thank Lilhelpa again hewre for solving so many problems I had Wikifying this article. Who could possibly be more totally awesome than Lilhelpa?!!? :-)Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know how to make a cool barnstar or some such for him? Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What we shouldn't call this referent

Don't call it "mixed breed"

First, we shouldn't say "mixed breed". The reason for this is clear if you would read the article mixed breed. According to not just that article, as I've said before just above, "mixed breed dog" may mean:

1. A dog whose ancestry is generally unknown. This is probably true of many of these dogs.
2. A dog which characteristics of two or more types of breeds. This is not true of the dogs in the photo.
3. a descendant of feral populations. This is probably true so many thousands of years ago that it's not true anymore. These dogs may have been living in captivity for countless generations.
4. or pariah dog populations. A term with several meanings. Read the article pariah dog. It's very interesting. This dog fits some of the definitions. If we want to call it a pariah dog, we maybe can, but we have to be specific in which sence of this term, which originally refered to the feral dogs of India, which are Canis lupus familiaris, and this dog, like Shiba Inus and Jindos and New Guinea Singing Dogs and Australian Dingoes, is clearly Canis lupus dingo.
5. "Random-bred" an animal bred or developed without human intervention. Humans seem to have been in total control of this dog for a very long time.
6. "Mixed-breed" is technically a misnomer and as such is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Ancient primitive dogs are not the result of mixing breeds. This term stems from an inverted understanding of the origins of dog breeds. Pure breeds have been, for the most part, artificially created from random-bred populations by human selective breeding. Dogs that are not purebred are not necessarily a mix of such defined breeds, and there is no reason to assume that these dogs are.
7. A "crossbred" dog. One breed or landrace mixing with another, this is a better term for a truely mixed breed. There is no proof that these dogs are crossbred, and we shouldn't say they are until and unless there is.Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

   According to Chrisrus' comments, I deleted the word "mixed-breed" I put in the lead . Hkwon (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've found an information I think relevant from a reliable source. "Nurengi and Geomdoongi (black dog), which are mainly used for Bosintang, are known as 잡종(雜種)." - Ahn, Y. (p.32, 2000). 한국인과 개고기 [Koreans and dog meat]. Seoul: Hyoil. (ISBN:8985768964). I think the word "잡종" probably fits Chrisrus' definition of (5) and (7) as to my knowledge, as the word means it is not a purebreed (at least not an officially recognized one), but a dog breed originally resulting from mating between two different breeds, with or without human intervention. (it is unknown as far as I know.) Hkwon (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't call it a breed

If you read the article breed, they are a breed, because, it's just a noun form of the verb "to breed", and reason dictates that these dogs must have been bred by dog farmers in Korea for suitibilty as a meat dog for possibly a very, very long time. So they are a "breed" if that's what you understand "breed" to mean, but we'll run into trouble if we use it. In the case of dogs, as you may know there's a set of organizations who say nothing is a breed unless they say so. For many, it's a word in the catagory with "wife", "captain", and "illegal": it's only true when some authority says that it is. Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We might not want to call it a landrace

Landrace is probably a very accurate term for what these dogs are, but few readers will be familiar with that term. If you read the article landrace, you will see that it's a roughly uniform type of an animal that results from living in a situation differnt from those of other landraces or breeds. The problem is, most readers might be put off by having to go read another article just so they can know that this animal is.Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We should call them "mutts" only appropriately

The word "mutt" has no article on Wikipedia or in any other encyclopedia, because is not a term with a clear referent. It has negative, emotional, non-scientific negative connotations; a dog of less worth, an unloved dog, a lesser dog, a dog the speaker has less respect for than other dogs This is a useful term here if and when we are discussing how Korean people feel about these dogs in a sort of antropological or sociological analysis of the place of these dogs in Korean society and culture, but that doesn't say what kind of dog it is. say "In English, the word "Nureongi" refers to Korean mutt dogs". Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't call it a "mongrel"

This word has the problems of "mutt" and "mixed breed" rolled into one.Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We maybe shouldn't call it a "type" of dog

There is already a meaning for the technical term dog type, but most readers don't know that or assume it means anything more than "kind".Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What we should call it

What's wrong with a "kind" of dog? How about a "sort" of dog? Chrisrus (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nature and Scope of this Article

This is not about any dog farmed or eaten in Korea

If you Google the words "Korean meat dog" (it's important to google all three words in quotation marks) you will find an American woman who has two dogs that she got from Korean meat dog farmers, so they are Korean meat dogs in that sense. Podberscek, our best source, is very clear that there are lots of other dogs eaten alongside the the traditional, native Korean meat dog, including probably crossbreeds. So if you find that woman's site, the woman who has two Korean meat dogs, we are talking about the one called "Puppy", not "Kiddo". Kiddo is probably about half "Nureongi" (as Podberscek uses the term). Look at the lop ears, for example.. "Puppy", however, is exactly as shown and described by Podberscek, the animal he was taught by Korean experts to call "Nureongi". This article is not about all dogs farmed and eaten in Korea, only the Native Korean one which was bred for this purpose, and who, still to this day, Podberscek says, are the majority of Korean meat dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about words

I understand that we have to talk more about terminology in this article than most other articles, but please, let's not turn this article into one whose primary focus is about words to expense of the referent of the words. If more is known about the words than is about the referent itself, this is going to be a problem, so let's please organize it so that discussion of the referent comes first. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about dog farming or eating in Korean culture

There is already an article about that. We should only mention it as it comes up naturally in the process of describing the dog.Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific kind of dog

First of all, let's stop and remember most referents that aren't a proper noun have lots of vague edges around them, gray areas where a spoon or a mole or a computer merges into something that is arguably not the referent of the word. Pointing to something that is both a tree and a shrub doesn't mean that there's no such thing as trees and shrubs. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A mention on a Jindo dog expert's page.

http://www.kang.org/Jrp52.html He spells it "noo-rung-yee", which helps non-Korean speaking people to pronounce it. He compares it to the Jindo, saying they are "larger and meatier" and says that, despite the introduction of non-Korean dogs into the country, they have kept the same look, perhaps because Koreans prefer the taste of this dog's meat to that of other dogs. He sounds like he's guessing about the reason, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of them cross-breeding extensively. He says that although they are primarily meat dogs, some people also do keep them as guard dogs or pets, and indicates that they are not dangerous with kids. I wonder how to make best use of this page's information. Chrisrus (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia Article

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8C%E3%83%AD%E3%83%B3%E3%82%A4. It seems to say something about a certain number of these dogs being brought to Japan, but Google translate didn't do a very good job. Maybe it's saying about policies taken in Korea by the Japanese occupation government during the war. I'm not sure, but it's definately something historical. We need a Japanese speaker. Chrisrus (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me provide a summary of the Japanese article, as I can understand Japanese. I used "/" for when word choice is ambiguous and italic fonts when my comments are added.

1) The lead: Noorongi (en: Noo-rung-yee) is a mixed-breed/randon-bred/cross-bred dog (雜種; 잡종; See 4.3.1 on this discussion page) originiated in Korean peninsular. It is also called "Korean edible dog". Currently the majority/more than half of them are farmed as food, making it a focus of the controversy concerning dog meat consumption.

2) History: A very old dog type/breed, Noorongis became native in Korea from ancient times and has been thought to be related with Han dog (Japanse WP article), an ancient dog breed in China (now extinct). They were used as foodstock and also as guard dogs and hunting dogs. Under the policy of Japanization of Korea of Japanese colonial government, dog breeds native to Korea have been eradicated/exterminated or underwent a significant decrease in their numbers (including Jindo dog). However, Noorongis were not affected as they were thought be a source of food.

3) Noorongi as pet: Today some Noorongis are raised as pets by people who prefer rare dog breeds as pets. As of 2006, about 30 Noorongis are raised as pets in Japan.

4) Characteristics: Like their type/breed names, Nooringis (yellow dogs) are yellowish in color, and some of them have black back, ear, and/or muzzle. They look similar to Spitz, but are larger and more muscular. (and shorter hair) Their ears can be upstanding or floppy, and their tails can be upstanding or curly.

I only translated parts of the article which I think are relevant to this article/discussion. Word-to-word translation would be too much trouble for me now, but I am willing to do it if it is necessary to improve this article, considering efforts by other contributors. Hkwon (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Morris

This site: says that Desmond Morris spells it "Noo-rung-yee": http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Man's+Best+Friend%3B+BOOKS.(Features)-a080501886 ..and that his "Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of Over 1,000 Dog Breeds by Desmond Morris (Ebury Press) has an entry about them.Chrisrus (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Link in this article to Yellow Dog leads to Carolina Dog

Just to let you editors know that when I clicked on the link for yellow dog, wiki brought up Carolina Dog. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the old name for it. Yaller dog also links there. Both "Carolina Dog" and "American Dingo" are very new terms for that referent. Before that, sources say, it was called either "Yellow Dog" or "Yaller Dog" (if that long-ignored or dismissed ancient landrace was called anything at all beyond "Git, you nasty mutt!")

My idea in creating that search redirect was the concern that that maybe some older folks in those areas still call it that and if they searched for it by that name, or if they found references to it using that term in some old book, then they'd find what they were looking for and learn about it. Do you think it would help such a person if we re-wrote the lead of Carolina Dog to list the traditional name in a more upfront way? Please answer, if you choose to, on the talk page of the article Yellow Dog.Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I added the Yellow Dog link to the "See also" section of this article is this: First, this dog is also called "Yellow Dog", albeit in Korean, so some sort of disambiguation may be needed for bilingual people. Second, while eating "Yaller Dogs" was never a feature of American culture, there are many interesting parallels between the two stories. Both were the lowest of the their kind in the corresponding cultures; both explain why the term "yellow dog" became an insult in their corresponding languages; both may be ancient landraces displaying different possible aspects or phases in the evolution of the domestic dog; and both seem highly likely to be on the Canis lupus dingo side of the C.l.familiaris/C.l.dingo clade or whatever it is that draws the line between those two taxa. So I reasoned that if someone wanted a fuller understanding of this dog, it might help them to read that article about the "Amercian yellow dog", which I suppose in Korean would be something like the "mi gook nureongi." How do you feel about it's inclusion on that part of this page? Do you think it is a good feature of this article or is it a bit confusing? Chrisrus (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On 2008 Korean govenment decision in the article lead

Unfortunately, it is not true to the best of my knowledge, that "the Korean govenment used the term "Nureongi" to refer to these dogs when discussing a proposal to legalize the meat dog trade by formally recognizing only these dogs as "livestock"". Handling or selling dog meat is still de jure illegal in South Korea. And there hasn't been any law or ordinance classifying dog breeds for human consumption till now. (There might be many proposals from interest groups that has never become a law, though.) The Joongang Daily article quoted does not confirm otherwise either if I have read it correctly. The government has looked the other way concerning the dog meat consumption. Hkwon (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we don't read it the same way. If it's not %100 agreed that this is what it says, and all are giving it an honest reading, we should not say this. Chrisrus (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Are there any pictures of Nureongi Dogs? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some on Korean Webpages, but I could not find any photo that I can upload without copyright problems. Hkwon (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this issue, one so important to improving this article.

There are many, most of which are on anti-dogmeat activist cites, and can be quite sensationalistic. Also they are not properly identified, as they take pictures of any dog in that situation, with special emphasis on the non-nureongi dogs, familiar pet dogs that are being used in this way. Also, there is the problem of expert identification. For example, if you Google "Korean meat dog" (important: the words must be in that order and in quote marks) you will find a woman who has two dogs she rescued from that situation and got out of Korea and back to the US, where she lives. The problem is, one of her dogs, the one called "Kiddo" is clearly about 1/2 some kind of non-native Korean dog. The other "Puppy", seems to be if not %100 Native Korean Yellow Dog.

The best picture in terms of authority that we have is the one from Podberscek's study, here: [6] It is not, however, the best picture in terms of composition. That would be this one, here: [7], at the bottom of the page, with the caption "Large Yellow Dogs Typical of Korean Meat Markets". I have found this picture in several other places on the internet, showing that it is quality enough for many people to want to use it. I have it downloaded on my computer and will upload it here, where it will last for a few hours or so, where the resolution is even better than the one on this site. I've been asking for the right to use it, but no luck so far. I wonder if a native Korean Wikipedian sympathetic to this article would be willing to help me get permission to use it. I will like to mention a few of it's virtues. One, the dog in the foreground is positioned in near dog-show perfect profile, the position recommended for all dog article lead photos. Second, it has several other dogs in the background showing different variations and angles. Fourth, it shows the dog in the environment that has shaped the "breed"; a picture taken anywhere else would not be as good. Finally, it looks like it was taken in the very same place as our most authoritative photo, Podberscek's, as if he had taken a few steps closer and set up the perfect photo (I understand why he didn't, the merchant/dog butchers can get very hostile to such behavior, especially by foreigners) tying it to the authority of the photo he did take.

The best thing to do, if we cannot get permission for that photo, may be for someone out there reading this lives somewhere near Moran market, where the photo seems to have been taken, and can re-create the picture and give it to us, that'd be great. The person would have to convince the butcher to trust him or her, as all we want is the facts about this dog as a dog and nothing controversial.Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo "Large Yellow Dogs Typical of Korean Meat Markets" Looks like a clear photo to me. I wonder if the clarity would still hold if it were enlarged? The dogs certainly are "dingo looking" aren't they. From a distance they could be Au Dingoes. Then is the Jindo a smaller animal with more refined features? What is the difference between the two vocally? The meat dogs have been bred for that purpose then? Meaning exactly what? How does one bred a dog for a better producer of meat? Faster growth? Faster gain? Needs less food to put on more weight? The whole idea is so repugnant, but I'm trying to be objective. After having conserved Singing Dogs for over twenty years and also raising domestic breeds, this is a grim subject. Thank you for the photos. I hope you can get a good one or two for the article. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have very high resolution version of the picture I wish I could share with you, but I just downloaded it off a website and that's I guess legal for personal purpose but I don't have permission to show it.

Yes, they do look like dingos and in fact are classified by no less than Laurie Corbett, worlds most respected "dingoologist" (my coinage) as Canis lupus dingo." Well, not in the text he doesn't but he has the whole of the Korean peninsula on his map within the black blob of "extant dingoes" so I figure he's talking about this dog, but yes, they are clearly a bit different from the Aus dingo as I don't think an Aus dingo would put on weight very efficiently cooped up like that, they'd probably stress out because they've been feral so long that they're basically wild animals, as you know.

Yes, the Jindo as another one is a refined official breed but it must have come from the origial Korean native dog stock so very long ago, so they're closely related in that way but don't tell that to a Korean as the Jindo is loved as a National Treasure and protected like the crown jewels, but the Nureongi are considered lowly mutts of a wholely different class of animal so Koreans would be appalled probably at the suggestion that they have anything at all in common. To outsiders, especially those with backgrounds like yours, they are pretty clearly two types of the same thing, the Korean Native dog. There are a few more of these as well, the Pungsan Dog, which is very rare, basically North Korean, and thought to be part Wolf, and the Sapsali, which doesn't look Korean Native because it's long haired like an Old English Sheepdog but the resemblance would probably disappear if you shaved it and it would look more like a native Korean dog. None of these dogs are known for their domestication; all are not particularly famous for being friendly to anyone but maybe their owners, don't seem very praise-motivated and need more discipline than your average dog. This possibly explains why Korean culture never really developed the whole concept of the dog as a companion or house dog or man's best friend, explaining maybe at least in part why they dog meat eating doesn't seem so strange to them.

Vocally, I can't answer the question, I just don't know, that's a very good question that the article should address - readers want to know if they sound more like a dingo or a familiaris.

Yes, it's a grim business and not one I want to have any part of, as a dog lover myself. But I'm getting pretty used to it as a field of inquiry that explains possibly in part how dogs became part of human life originally, I'm thinking, so I'm able to be objective and not judge too much.

So thank you for your interest in this article and letting me know what questions readers have so I can see ways forward for the article. Chrisrus (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Nureongi a breed?

Chrisrus, Is Nureongi the name of a breed of dog or just a name commonly given to any dog in Korea that is headed for the stewpot? In a previous post on the Jindo Dog discussion page, Hkwon said it was the name given to mixed dogs. If dogs are mixed, they cannot be a breed. All members of a breed must be "alike". osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your interest in this topic. The dogs are not the result of cross-breeding different breeds, so they're not a mixed breed in that sense. They were bred from some orignal Korean native dog stock, the same stock that Jindos must have originally been bred from, as that's all they had to work with. See the discussion of this above and the article mixed breed. The term "nureongi" does not refer to any dog used in this way; you might eat a Saint Bernard or eat a Nurongi, but that doesn't make a Saint Bernard a Nureongi. Whether they are a breed or not depends what you mean by "breed". They have in fact been bred, but they are not recognized as a breed by anyone, nor are they likely to ever be, I suppose, as they are not bred like a cocker spaniel is bred but rather like a Hamshire pig is bred; for suitibilty to this purpose. For many people, a dog breed is not a dog breed unless some authority says so, such as the UKC. So if that's what you mean, then no, it's not a breed and will not likely become one unless people start to think of them differently. But the fact is they have been bred, like the Hamshire pig has been bred, for a very long time. Part of the problem is that there is not particular Korean word for this referent, nureongi just means "yellow dog", and just like "yellow dog" it can be an adjective and a noun and just mean a dog that's yellow, or it can be a fixed polynomial noun like the Yellow Dog, which is a particular kind of dog. This causes lots of confusion. It's been suggested that the Korean government legalize using only these dogs in this way, while leaving the eatiing of other dogs illegal. If that ever happens, which I doubt, but never is a very long time, so if that ever happens, then maybe the recognizing authority would be the Korean government. They'd be recongizing them as a livestock animal, different from a normal dog breed. All Nreongi are very alike, although not as uniform as some breeds, they are more alike than other breeds. They are quite recognizable, though, and research will show that they are genetically distinct. Finally, it's an unrelated topic, but many breeds, such as the clumber spaniel, doberman, or German shorthaired pointer, were bred from mixing other breeds. That has nothing to do with the Nureongi, though, like I say, they come from the orignal stock of native dogs and are likely probably quite similar to the original stock of Korean native dogs which came from elsewhere, that's where they come from. They were not created by mixing different breeds, there probably weren't breeds to mix, even, at that time. We're talking a very long time ago. See the article mixed breed, or the discussion above, the term "mixed breed" is a misnomer and betrays a backwards misunderstanding of how it works.

I hope that you will help edit the article so that these things are clearer to the reader. Chrisrus (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC

Chrisrus, OK then I think the way you explained it, the Nureongi Dog is actually a breed of domesticated dog since all its members have characteristics similar to one another. They could also be considered a landrace. It sounds like they are definitely an identifiable breed. Yhe test would be for a person to view a group of dogs and be able to pick out the Nureongi Dogs from the group. There needs to be photos in the article to really clarify things because no matter how well a person paints a word picture, there are still some readers who won't understand. Another way to handle it would be to use a drawing of a Nureongi Dog pointing out various characteristics that set it apart from other breeds. I personally don't care for drawings, but one would suffice in leau of photos. Basically the Koreans could have taken any breed of dog and said that they were going to make meat producers out of that breed. It just so happened that a yellow dog evolved into the profile.

There shouldn't be any problem separating true Nureongi Dogs from other dogs by name. I'm not sure I understand why the word Nueongi needs to mean anything. Does the word Boxer of Cocker Spaniel mean anything. Why don't people simple call the yellow breed of dogs bred in Korea as food Nureongi Dogs and be done with it. Any other dogs slaughtered for food would simple be meat dogs but not a true Nureongi Dog. Am I correct in my assumptions? osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are a breed but some people don’t accept anything as a breed unless the UKC or some such recognize it as such and I don’t think they’ll ever go there. A landrace, however, is what we decided to call it in the article probably for that reason. I suggested it, but I think Hkwon or someone else who decided to run with it. The doubts I had about that were because not many people know that word and so you’d have to click the link and read another article before understanding what the dog is. That argument was rejected because it’s probably the best word for what it is. You were the one who taught me that word, actually, by sending me to that article, which I like a lot but you don’t. We shouldn’t talk about improving that article here, though, we should go there to discuss what your objections were to that article. But it definitely describes what this dog is, whereas “breed” would be arguable. Please see this discussion we had above, and if you want the history of this article to see how it ended up saying “landrace” instead of “breed”, but as I said up there, we know that humans have been in control of every aspect of these dogs lives for a very long time so reason dictates that those that did not do well or produce what they were supposed to as well must not have been bred. For example, if a dog so stressed out from being under such conditions, as many breeds might, they wouldn’t have produced efficiently and the dog farmers wouldn’t have chosen them. Anyway, there they are, millions of them kept like that, generation after generation, and they are pretty uniform as a result.

You are right about the photo, that’s what this article needs. I found many, and the way I did it was this: I started with the picture in the peer-reviewed source, the best source we have, and looked for other photos of the same dog. The picture we discussed above, captioned, is clearly the same place, maybe even the same day or the same dogs. From there I looked all around the internet and found more and more of them. Most of the pictures have a totally different agenda than mine, which is just to non-judgmentally learn about this breed of dog, one of the few breeds, if not the only, with millions of individuals that had no article on Wikipedia, for somewhat complicated but perfectly understandable reasons; to make sure this dog had a dispassionate article. (Adding the part about “controversy”. I’d rather just link or “See Also” that stuff, but I decided the collaboration was more important than going to bat about that.) The point is, those web sites are careful to show pictures of non-nueongi dogs in that situation, but if you keep the image of the dogs in the background of the Cambridge U study and those other pictures of that same place in that market that look the same spitz-type look, the same features. I have tried to get permission for some pictures but so far no luck. I appreciate any help you or anyone reading these words could give with regard to this pressing need to improve this article and suggest you get started the way I did, with the picture in the Cambridge study.

About the name and the spelling we use, it’s because Cambridge uses it and they are our best source so far. It’s far from problematic, however, because while it only has this referent in English, it has many meanings in Korean. I’d be more than happy to have another name, but what can you do, you know? I just hope the article stays focused on the referent. On the Norwegian Wikipedia, the only other Wikipedia that seems to have an article about this referent, just calls it the “Koreansk hund” which just means “Korean dog, but then adds “noo-rung-yee” in parentheses. This spelling is not used in our best sources, but because it yields enough hits on Google that I created this redirect: Noo-Rung-Yee to help a user find his or her way here. So this article has no choice but to be about a referent with no really good word, so it is burdened with a terminology section and disambiguation troubles, all of which I find a distraction. Oh well, whaddaya gonna do, ya know? Anyway, with this in mind I hope you have some ideas or suggestions for article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Helsinki Reference

Chrisrus, Are you able to access this page: http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/eat-and-drink/5966-delicious-yet-sometimes-peculiar-korean-cuisine.html osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't. I can't get past the pay wall. I complained about this above. It is used elsewhere to cite, among other things, something like "a native Korean dog called "Nureongi" is the dog most commonly used in this way". I don't know what else it says. I was thinking about citing it as a reliable source that this word does refer to this referent, but because I couldn't see it myself, I couldn't be sure that it does in fact say what it's claimed to say. I was tempted to pay to see it. How much are they asking just to look at that one article? I don't want to buy a subscription to the Helsinki Times just to see this one article. I wonder if I went to the Finish Wikipedia, would there be anyone there who might be able to access it? Hmm... Another item for the "To Do" list for this article! Chrisrus (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just read their subscribe page. I don't think you want to go that route. All the people you know, don't you know someone in Finland who subscribes to the Times and could retrieve this article from their archives?? I don't think that I know anyone from Finland. I just sent them a request for an archival search so we'll see if they're able to help. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know anyone. I could try to find someone by going tracking down a Finish Wikipedian and asking nicely, trying to network that way. But that's great that you've contacted them, thank you so much for your help. I'd like to know how much they'd charge just to look at the article one time. Newspapers have to figure out how to make money from people who just want to look at one thing and get out of the subscription/ad sales "box" of thinking that they've always had. Chrisrus (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)