Talk:Wet market

message: Currently the Chinese Wikipedia page, and presumably that of other projects, which is linked to this page is ":zh:香港街市", i.e. "Hong Kong Street Market". Not necessarily suggesting a change, just noting that here.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice that earlier and found it a bit off. :zh:传统市场 is probably the closer article, not solely restricted to HK. The other language links seem fine. I've changed the wikidata entries around to fix this. — MarkH21talk 21:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage link 

message: This is the single most biased article I have ever found on Wikipedia. The Talk Page is a big mess, I'm not sure where I can leave my comment, so I decided to create a separate section. First of all, the article first gives the definition of a wet market as a virtually identical to any definition of any food market, and then proceeds to put a heavy emphasis on Asia and recent virus-related controversies. Why to simultaneously give a wide definition of a term and then use it entirely in a geographically narrowed manner? Game (hunting) article may be controversial to vegetarians, animal rights activists or myslef, but I still would not include those controversy aspects in the definition or anywhere near the beginning of the article. Be it regular "no name" ones or be it top-end gentrified touristy ones like London's Borough Market, Barcelona's La Boqueria or Helsinki's Hakaniemi Market Hall - can anyone in one's right mind truly differentiate between the food markets in Asia and in Europe? I lived in both China and Korea and travelled to other Asian countries. The markets look the same. Yet, both Korea and Japan are not represented here. By the measure of wetness they are even more wet and dependent on wet floors as Korean and Japanese diets tend to be heavy on seafood (mostly sold alive). I know that this may be easily edited any minute, but at the point the lack of these countries on the list seems sadly politicized.According to the current Wikipedia article, the term wet market was coined in Singapore, where English is the official language. Yet some of the Wikipedia users writing on this Talk Page before me still analyze whether they have met or not such a term in Spain (!), Portugal (!), et cetera. This is an English term. It's not mercado, which is a foreign word. It's not bazaar, which is a loanword, used in English but with a narrowed meaning. Wet market may sound weird to many, but it's not exotic by any means. There are numerous differences between various varieties of English. Singlish is one of them, next to Hiberno-English, South African English and others. Wikipedia's policies prefers no national variety of English over any other, so anyone presenting an argument of "I haven't heard about that term" should keep in mind that his cousin may confuse pavement with side walk. The fact that some journalists use wet market as the term according to their own understanding doesn't mean that it is already coined as such. Even if the word definition is used, on Wikipedia this should be still a matter of a debate and not ultimate truth. Trunk stays the "main woody stem of a tree" in Britain even if the influence of Hollywood movies have made most people understand its American meaning. A Wikipedia article should reflect all the shades of truth and not emphasize one, even if the current Western media narrative exploits on the term for a well-understanded reason. If we want to describe ONLY Asian style food markets (if such a "style" exists), I strongly suggest changing the name of the article to "Food markets in Asia" or approximate. If we want to discuss the controversies with livestock vending at food markets, we should move to a separate article. "Virus", "hygiene", "Asia" - such words can be used in the name of such an article. If we still want to leave this information here (and I personally think we should), let's do so, but in a separate section - not on the top. Simlarily any copyright controversy that surrounds some film productions do not appear at the top of Wikiedia entries such as Hollywood or Cinema of Nigeria. "Number of victims" does not commence the article on Communism and the word "slavery" does not appear in the first sentences of the entry on Capitalism. Selling fresh produce is not controversial by any means. People read Wikipedia to learn what the wet markets are by definition, history, all the complexity of the term. If they would like to learn about the controversies, let's create a separate section and/or a separate article for them. Dnaoro (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an ongoing RfC above about whether or not the article should include wet markets from outside Southeast and East Asia. Some editors, including myself, think that the article should include those from outside SE/E Asia due to the numerous reliable sources describing wet markets in other parts of the world while using the actual term "wet markets".On the point of food markets though, a wet market is defined to be a marketplace selling fresh meat, fresh fish, and fresh produce. Food markets, like the major European ones you mentioned, is moreso for those that also sell cooked foods in my personal understanding of the term; it's not quite relevant though since food market is a redirect to a wholly different subject and is not its own article.I would like to add to the article's coverage of wet markets both on generalities and specifics in other parts of the world (largely from the collapsed list of sources that are in the RfC above), but the consensus must first be assessed on the article's scope once the RfC has run its course. — MarkH21talk 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I support you in your stance. There are many overlapping terms for a market that sells edibles in English and the arousing ambiguities should be solved with care of different aspects, viewpoints, facts. The consensus on the scope is vital. Let me know if I can be of any help. As for what we discussed in detail... The London, Barcelona and Helsinki markets I mentioned were historically more heavy on produce but now include more snacking shops/stands due to gentrification. Nevertheless, Europe still has numerous markets which continue to be more (or entirely) focused on produce (not snacking). Many of them are not known by well-recognized name. To give some examples, the suburban areas encircling Paris have several such marketplaces (some are more touristified than others, vide Marché de Saint-Denis). Many markets in Europe and post-Soviet states combine food and other items such as clothes and souvenirs. The Far Eastern markets also sometimes do that, but due to more intense urbanization, specialization among Far Eastern markets is understandable. Geography plays a role too. Coastal regions will have many seafood-only markets, whereas towns located deeper into the continent will tend to combine fish with other food items. Some mountainous areas have herbs-only markets. This applies to any culture or country. You mentioned that European markets often "also sell cooked foods". In my personal experience, some Asian wet markets also do that. One example that comes in mind is Haiphong Road Market 海防道街市, but Hong Kong has many other such places as well. Another effect of being more populous results in Asian cities having many more resturants than European cities. Hong Kong's Aberdeen Market 香港仔街市 is a market located downstairs of a building that contains resturants on the uppper floors (which is NOT the part of the market, they just share the same building). Let's add to that the fact that the nearby streets are also packed with restaurants, and we see why Asian markets don't need to include (or "can't compete with") ready foods within their premises. Hongkongers (or Seoulites or Bangkokians) are spoiled with restaurants and snack joints. Examples of markets that have "classic" fresh produce selling vendors on the ground level and restaurant(s) on the upper floors abound both in Europe and in Asia: my immediate associations: Zelyoniy Bazaar (chaikhanas on the mezzanine), Jagalchi Market (the idea is to buy fresh fish, octopus, or whatever, and then take a lift to the top floor where restaurants cook it for you). All those strategies differ without changing the character of being a market and without any change of terms/names in the respecitve local language(s). They are just what they are - different business strategies. Dnaoro (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can give your thoughts in the RfC survey in the section above. The consensus will be assessed only from the input given there.Yes, that these kinds of markets also exist elsewhere (typically under different names) is mentioned in several of the RSes in the article and the collapsed source box in the RfC (e.g.  for Iveagh Market in Dublin from The Irish Times, or  from an SBS article). I agree with you on your observations. Some wet markets (and analogous markets) offer cooked food yes, but the defining characteristic of wet markets is that they sell fresh meat/fish/produce. If the market also offers other goods, then the fresh meat/fish/produce section is the wet market (e.g. the dry market / wet market separation). If it's integrated, then it would still count as a wet market as a whole. If it no longer sells fresh meat/fish/produce, it's not a wet market anymore. The article should probably only cover such markets in developed countries where they are specifically described as "wet markets" though. — MarkH21talk 03:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Live-animal market is an unambiguous descriptive title, and these markets are reasonably physically/geographically distinct from markets filled with greengrocers etc., and the topics needed for good encyclopedic coverage are also distinct. Why not split off a more-specific article, leaving this as a broad-concept article? This would also fix the topic imbalance mentioned. HLHJ (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias, sources, language 

message: The image :File:Ducks in cages at wet market, Shenzhen, China.jpg was removed in the sequence of edits whereby , I saw a missing file in the article and , and then seeing what happened  arguing to leave the image out because .
On the actual question of whether the picture is appropriate:
#The image isn't of a wet market (distinct from a single item in a wet market, e.g. a cage of ducks, a box of apples, a fish for sale). Ideally, the infobox image that represents a wet market in whole per MOS:IMAGELEAD. Since we currently don't have a high quality such image (maybe there is one in Commons somewhere but I haven't found one yet), a wet market stall is the next best option.
#The duck cage image is an example of MOS:SHOCK since it is an image with some shock value of poor hygiene. It should appear later in the article than the lead by MOS:SHOCK.
#We also already have a gallery of such images for hygiene concerns, so the image would serve its informative purpose in the relevant context by being placed within that gallery instead.
#It's also probably not representative of wet markets as a whole subject (independent of the RfC scope issue above) both because not all wet markets hold live animals and because the image of a cage of ducks could really be from anywhere. From both angles, the photo doesn't really  (MOS:IMAGELEAD again).
It's not in the "Health concerns" gallery right now, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding it there. — MarkH21talk 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of duck cage in the infobox 

message: The cited sources directly discuss the link between the confusion and poor media coverage of wet markets to Sinophobia:
— MarkH21talk 01:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Sinophobia in the lead 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion