Talk:2008 US beef protest in South Korea

Untitled

Please see GOCE section below.

"Alter"?

The structure led to even more people participating in the protests and jokes such as: This is made to alter Namdaemun which was burnt down.

"Alter" doesn't seem to make sense. What Korean verb is being translated here, 달라지다? Should it be "replace" or "become" or "turn into"? 216.171.198.110 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

Don't eat this cow.

The Korean wiki titles it "2008년 대한민국 미국산 쇠고기 수입 협상 논란". Maybe we should re-title this article something like "2008 Korean criticism of US beef import negociations". But this issue has been around since the initial mad cow scare in 1993, so a "2008" article would need some kind of "Background" section. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike Johanns

How is Mike Johanns a related link? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the entry at see also section is actually not advisable, but he should be mentioned on the article, because he is one of American politicians who spoke very inflammatory comments on the issue.--Appletrees (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I think it's worth noting that several Korean newspapers and news channels (implicitly or explicitly) reported connections between eating U.S. beef and dying from CJD. One typical example was the April 29th MBC broadcast which included a video segment featuring "a Virginian woman who will die from vCJD." Later, the Chosun Ilbo and other newspapers reported that the conversation was "mistranslated" and that the woman neither had CJD (or vCJD) nor had claimed to have gotten a disease from consuming U.S. beef products. (Although they have yet to make a formal retraction.) Further supporting claims of sensationalist journalism were recent revelations that the video footage shown on both SBS and KBS came not from American cattle, but rather British cows, despite captions to the contrary.

On the one hand, starting a new section like this risks a POV tag, with only one side of the story. On the other hand, it's worth mentioning that there was misreporting happening, and that these often inflammatory or exaggerated claims likely fanned the flames of many of the protests. I'd love to hear from other people on what to do with this information. RlndGunslinger (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not POV-pushing to add relevant information from a reliable source.

Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects.

However, we need something more reliable than "I saw on TV someone say that..." A Chosun Ilbo citation, even in Korean, would be effective.

See also: Wikipedia:Describing points of view

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll read up on how to cite, but in the meantime I'm going to find that quote. I've got at least one newspaper around here, (and I have an English language newspaper, too...)

RlndGunslinger (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I found two articles in today's Korea Herald, so I'm gonna throw those in too. (Especially since one has more information about the supposed mistranslation.) I'm going to try making a section later, but I'll need some help, I'm sure. There's also this link to a Korea Times story. Korea Times RlndGunslinger

Protests - June 7 2008

Ohmynews.com (Korean) reported 550,000 participants

Anyone have an English-language source? Korea Times is currently reporting 40,000, which is absurdly low. Trachys (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Korea Herald would also have that information, but despite my subscription I can't log in to their archives without filling out pages of membership information (and it still insists on asking me to pay for access, despite entering my subscription number...) RlndGunslinger (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Credibility of newspapers Chosun, JoongAng, and Donga

As the neutrality of this section is disputed, I thought I'd start a section for comments. To get things started, I think that this section could use expanding and citations. RlndGunslinger (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what tag is appropriate for the section, but it is written like a political propaganda although I agree with that the media deserve criticism by people.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think we should remove this part altogether:"This is only the latest of the controversies surrounding the distorted reporting from these newspapers going beyond conservative views." The rest has sources (except the last paragraph), so they can stay.--Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 10:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion, starting at "This is only the latest..." Anyone else? RlndGunslinger (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources

Main page: Wikipedia:Citing sources

Editors can copy and paste this text into the article immediately after a full stop or comma. Then copy and paste or directly type each datum.

<ref> {{cite news  
| last=  
| first=  
| url=  
| title=  
| publisher=  
| date=  
}} </ref>

For example:
<ref> {{cite news  
| last=Park  
| first=Si-soo  
| url=http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/06/117_26501.html  
| title=MBC 'PD Notebook' Regrets Incorrect Report on US Beef  
| publisher=The Korea Times  
| date=06-25-2008  
}} </ref>
Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you for that. Actually, I was mostly able to fix the problems this morning. The problem was a simple typo (< ref /> instead of < /ref >), but I still can't make "ibid" references. Thanks again for the help! RlndGunslinger (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

name attribute

I usually Cite news or Cite web. Editors can use the name attribute to cite one source several times in an article.

<ref name="redcross">{{cite web
|url=http://www.redcross.int/EN/mag/magazine2006_2/10-11.html
|title= Hoping for change in Haiti’s Cité-Soleil
|publisher=International Red Cross
|accessdate=2007-08-16
}}
</ref>

Then to cite again later in the article:

<ref name="redcross"/>

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Myungbak Sanseong

I removed this section for irrelevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzames (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The lede is ridiculously long

...but I'm afraid to fix it because I don't want to leave out important details. The WP:lede should summarize the article, but right now this is about 1/3 of the article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Lead section, I have reduced it; however, the article needs a lot more work.--Soulparadox 13:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, unreliable sources

This article gives undue credence to the rumors and fears in South Korea concerning US beef. Most of the scientific "facts" that appear to justify those fears are sourced only by smaller South Korean newspapers known for anti-American rhetoric (e.g. The Hankyoreh). According to Wikipedia:reliable sources, news organizations tend to give misleading presentations of scientific evidence, and should be avoided in favor of more scholarly sources. Furthermore, many of the statements that accurately present the scientific consensus on a given point are followed by irrelevant qualifiers, such as "however, there is no evidence to disprove the claim."

Specific criticisms:

• In 2005, the U.S. government announced its intention to revise its rules on animal feed. The proposal was that beef from cattle of any age that was unfit for human consumption could not be used in animal feed unless the brains and spinal cords, which are far more likely to be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, were removed first. However, an article in a U.S. government federal newsletter dated April 25, 2008, reported that entire carcasses from cows less than 30 months of age, including brains and spinal cords, would be cleared for use in animal feed, even if they were determined to be unfit for human consumption.

That entire paragraph is sourced by The Hankyoreh, but the claims are about US government policy, allegedly outlined in a federal newsletter. This is a good example of the inappropriate sourcing that can be found throughout the article. The federal newsletter should have been cited directly[1], and the specific claims referenced directly. By examining the actual language used in the newsletter, the inaccuracy of the claims as presented becomes apparent.

The final sentence in particular is extremely misleading. First, the use of most mammalian tissue for ruminant (e.g. cow) consumption has been prohibited since 1997. This new law was referring to feed for other animals. Secondly, BSE takes 4-5 years to incubate, so even without the existing restrictions on what can be fed to cattle, there would be little to no risk for those slaughtered before 30 months. Since the cow feed is controlled, and the carcasses in question aren't being fed to other cows or humans, that risk is non-existent. Thirdly, saying that carcasses deemed "unfit for human consumption" would be used in animal feed gives the impression that carcasses that failed safety tests would be used. Instead, one of the new rules referred to cattle not tested for human consumption, not those which were tested and "deemed unfit".

• It is still true that the probability of being BSE-infected for "downer cows" is significantly higher than the probability of being BSE-infected for other cows.

True but irrelevant. The cows were presented as suffering from mad cow disease when they were not. The fact that they are at a higher risk (because they are older) is a non-sequitur.

• Other interviews and articles from United States media show that Vinson's mother indeed had a belief that Aretha Vinson suffered from mad cow disease.

Also irrelevant. The issue is whether MBC produced false and misleading material, and saying that Vinson likely died from vCJD, when the autopsy ruled out death due to consumption of BSE-infected beef[2], is false. Saying that her mother believed that she died of vCJD is misleading, because even if her mother believes that, the best evidence says otherwise.

• However, it is still true that every person so far infected with mad cow disease has MM genes and 94% (2-3 times higher thatn other ethnic groups) of Koreans have MM genes. Though there might be other factors for mad cow disease, it is very likely that Koreans are more genetically vulnerable to mad cow disease, other things being equal.

The first sentence is irrelevant, the second is speculation.

• The program alleged that mad cow disease could be induced with a 100% fatality rate by consuming 0.01 gram of specified risk material.[49] MBC has never provided a source for this claim. In fact, eating 0.01 g of SRM is unlikely to induce disease even when it is infected.citation needed However, there is no evidence that rules out this possibility. Moreover, MBC mentioned an article by a scientist as a source for this claim.[50]

Laughably irrelevant. There are an infinite number of claims for which that statement applies. The MBC made a claim that has no scientific merit, period.

• PD Notebook suggested that mad cow disease could be spread through consuming powdered soup base in instant noodles, from using cosmetic products, and from consuming gelatin capsules in medication.[51][52] There is no evidence that this has ever occurred or is even possible. However, there is no evidence that rules out this possibility, either.

Same criticism as above. MBC made claims that aren't based in science, displaying gross negligence and incompetence as a news outlet. The fact that their ridiculous claims haven't been specifically addressed does not make them credible.

There are more subtle examples of bias and selective presentation of facts throughout the article, but these are some of the most flagrant. If no one objects, I will change the offending sections in a week or so.dhawk (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aretha Vinson was diagnosed with vCJD

source: PD수첩’ 공판에서 드러난 검찰의 ‘거짓말’ мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that again, and pay attention to the sentence that immediately follows the one that says she was diagnosed with vCJD. It says that the diagnosis was not correct, a brain autopsy revealed that she actually died of Wernicke encephalopathy. dhawk (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge in 2008 South Korean candlelight vigil

Should 2008 South Korean candlelight vigil merge here? Please comment below. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree (disclaimer:I'm not the person who propose a merge in February 2011.) --- PBJT (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree They are one and the same.₪RicknAsia₪ 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. No reason for them to be separate. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

• This contribution by User:Onlyfortruth(talk) on 5 July 2009 violated the copyright by copying whole two paragraph from cited the Hankyoreh news. I removed the contents accordingly. --- PBJT (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another contribution by User:Onlyfortruth(talk) on 5 July 2009 violated the copyright. Original contents from Hankyoreh news article on 3 May 2008 --- PBJT (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE review

Hi everyone. I have done a major copy edit. I've tried to address the concerns raised on this talk page. I have also tried, in good faith, to improve the references to well known reputable sources (even though the majority are still news enterprises). I noticed that many references were from "Hani", perhaps a Korean news blogger and perhaps one of the original authors of the article? Hani brought some good information to the article but it needed to be re-written in encyclopaedic style with a more neutral tone. New sections are created, to give the article some internal logic, ready for other contributors to expand. I have removed paragraphs that were poorly referenced or somewhat "off-topic". The references have been tidied. I haven't been able to fix the numbering on the "external links" though. With thanks in anticipation for any constructive comments, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations still a problem

The references on this article are still not properly cited. Please read WP:CITE to fix this. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 11:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This article has been dishonestly worked over by supporters of the protest movement. For example, you have the line "Media reports, public networks, and PDNotebook uncovered the new president's policies to be putting South Koreans' health at risk of contracting mad cow disease[6]" but when you check the actual citation #6 it's an article that actually says health concerns were exaggerated and fed by shoddy reporting and the whole beef issue was really an expression of anti-Americanism and domestic political divides. Or: "Although there were many confirmed cases of BSE in brain scans and medical tests performed on the public, the true death toll of these policies has yet to be calculated.[19]" 19 being an article that makes no mention of human cases or tests on humans at all. Hence the tag. 74.12.134.40 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)