Talk:Wet market

Interlanguage link

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)

@Prisencolin: 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bias, sources, language

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)

@Dnaoro: 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: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)

@Dnaoro: 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. The building was split into two markets, a "dry" clothes market fronting on to Francis Street and a "wet market" to the rear, selling fish, fruit and vegetables, accessed from the entrance on John Dillon Street for Iveagh Market in Dublin from The Irish Times, or What happened in countries like Australia, over time the wet markets were shut down 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC); updated 07:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Image of duck cage in the infobox

@CFCF: The image File:Ducks in cages at wet market, Shenzhen, China.jpg was removed in the sequence of edits whereby an IP changed the filenames, I saw a missing file in the article and removed it, and then seeing what happened made a dummy edit arguing to leave the image out because it's not a picture of a wet market anyways and we already have a gallery for hygiene concerns.

On the actual question of whether the picture is appropriate:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page (MOS:IMAGELEAD again).

It's not in the "Health concerns" gallery right now, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding it there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is some admin removing my _sourced_ content about wet markets in the USA?

I gave 3 sources and did not make any judgements. i wrote: 'United States of America New York and San Francisco have multiple wet markets with hygiene issues. [108] [109] Despite US calls for China to close down wet markets, the US keeps their own wet markets open. [110]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.104.110 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

TMZ is not a reliable source, and there is an ongoing discussion about the scope of the article including places outside SE/E Asia. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

TMZ is ok for celebrity gossip, not serious stuff.--SmokeyJacques (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not the OP. Just wanted to say that The Guardian published a piece yesterday about wet markets in New York. Relevant text includes:

Since the 1990s the number of [wet markets in New York City] has nearly doubled... But since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, widely thought to have spread from a live animal market in China, a group of New York lawmakers has sought to shut these markets down, fearing that they pose a disease threat. Bills currently before the New York assembly and senate have requested an immediate moratorium on all live animal markets in the city. If passed, they would see the markets closed until a proposed new taskforce investigates concerns about public health and animal welfare in the sector. ... According to the bill before the New York senate, inspectors have issued "a litany of violations" at live animal markets, including sidewalks with blood and feces and "allowing grime to accumulate on butchering equipment".

81.187.246.160 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Mention of Sinophobia in the lead

@51.6.185.192: The cited sources directly discuss the link between the confusion and poor media coverage of wet markets to Sinophobia:

[...] is undermined by media reports urging for a permanent ban or abolition of these “wet markets”. Such reports often lean heavily on a montage of images from different markets across China with little information on the where and when these were taken, and no acknowledgement of the significant variations in cuisine across different regions of the country [...] In western media, “wet markets” are portrayed as emblems of Chinese otherness: chaotic versions of oriental bazaars, lawless areas where animals that should not be eaten are sold as food, and where what should not be mingled comes together (seafood and poultry, serpents and cattle). This fuels Sinophobia and anxieties of what anthropologists have long identified as “matter out of place” [...] This image is highly flawed, not only because [...], but more practically, because it misrepresents the material and economic reality of these markets. [...] In reality, most seafood, live animal and wholesale markets in China contain far less exotic fare. An enormous variety of different kinds of market are confusingly lumped within the term “wet market”.

— The Conversation

Note that there’s nothing about wildlife in this definition. That’s because a wet market doesn’t necessarily include “exotic” wild animals [...] the disproportionate focus on “exotic” food consumption is often tinged with Orientalism and anti-Chinese sentiment

— Vox

Images of Chinese people or other Asians eating insects, snakes, or mice frequently circulate on social media or in clickbait news stories [...] These prejudices can fuel fear and racism. As the virus spreads, the Chinese as a group are more and more likely to be blamed for its incubation and spread [...] it could fuel both government and public prejudices. To be sure, the treatment of wildlife may be at the root of the virus. Wet markets where live animals are sold, mostly for food or medicine, still exist in most Chinese cities, and the Huanan Seafood Market was originally believed to be the source of this outbreak.

— Foreign Policy

— MarkH₂₁^talk 01:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wet market/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this one.

Initial thoughts

• I see that the article has greatly expanded, and naturally taken a look at the COVID and related issues, since October 2019 when the article was much smaller (with 13 refs). An immediate concern therefore is balance and the avoidance of WP:COATRACKery. At first glance the editing has made quite good progress in this direction, despite the obvious pressures. It may be helpful to say that both as a reviewer and as a nominator, I'm used to working through a GAN process that involves negotiation and sometimes substantial changes to the text, even if this takes a bit of time. The comments that follow below are just my first thoughts and I'm happy to hear your thoughts and any constructive suggestions.
  • @Chiswick Chap: Thanks for starting the review! It may take me a few days to get around to many of these since expansion and splitting could be quite involved, but I think that these are some really good suggestions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delay, I'll try to carry out the expansion & splits this week. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Apologies again for the ongoing delay for the last two points, I'm gathering sources and I may not be able to use them right now, but hopefully soon. The patience is very much appreciated! — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
          • MarkH21, can we close this out? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I've been gone for a bit. This last step may take me a while to finish. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

              MarkH21, do you have an update? I appreciate if it will take you a while to finish - just don't want to see this GAN go stale. Urve 10:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

              • Urve - thankyou. The article is almost at GA, almost all items have been completed. Would you like to take over, it seems that MarkH21 is unavailable just now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, sure. Am I right in thinking that the only thing that remains is the coverage of wet markets in Europe? Or am I missing another issue? Urve (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look and let me know what you think. The only references I could find relate to two markets, in France and Italy. Urve (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Good work, just what was needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Urve and Chiswick Chap: Sorry for being MIA, and thank you both for finishing this up! — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Europe is very lightly represented, with just one example (Dublin). This certainly does not do justice to Europe's rich array of traditional markets selling fresh fish, meat, dairy, and vegetables on street stalls every week.
  • Not a lot of sources use the exact terms wet market when discussing traditional markets in Europe that would otherwise fit the definition so there is a minor WP:SYNTH concern. Otherwise though, the section could definitely otherwise be expanded under the alternative name of "traditional markets" as listed in the lead. What do you think about this? — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think we'll be all right, provided you give and cite a decent definition. You may find Wet Markets and Food Safety by Kogan et al 2019 useful, as it makes it clear that wet markets occur in Europe as elsewhere, and provides a simple definition which unquestionably includes Europe and indeed all continents.
      • Thanks, I'll get on this soon; this may also be useful at the beginning of the Wet market#Around the world section. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hong Kong and to some extent Indonesia and Nigeria are over-represented. I'd suggest they be cut down so that we have roughly even coverage per region, and one paragraph per chosen country (I don't think we can cover every country, nor would it be appropriate to make this such a long list). Since Hong Kong is now governed by China there seems little reason to give it such prominence or indeed to give it separate coverage at all; if the China section is to be split out as a separate article, say "China's wet markets" then the Hong Kong section should go with it, leaving just one "main" link and one paragraph of summary text.
  • A split of Wet markets in China could be warranted here and possibly Wet markets in Hong Kong as well. My understanding is that country-specific articles are often separate for Hong Kong and China, e.g. COVID-19 pandemic in China and COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, and they both have a slightly different development from each other given the unique history of Hong Kong. There is definitely enough RS material to expand both into proper articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, well go ahead and split, and then we'll see how the article looks.
      • The Wet market#China and Wet market#Hong Kong sections have been split to Wet markets in China and Wet markets in Hong Kong respectively. I've shortened the content here, particularly the COVID-19 content in the China paragraph since that is redundant with the Wet market#COVID-19 section anyways. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Refs 18, 61, 74, 91, and 121 are now broken - the bot may well fix 'em however.
          •  Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given that (I assume) we're not going to try to cover every country with a list of 200 or so country-paragraphs, I suggest that each continent's section (e.g. "Africa") should be introduced with a brief paragraph describing the general situation in the continent - many countries rely on farming for much of their income, and wet markets for much of the food in the cities. Then the countries can be introduced as examples, one paragraph each, probably without a separate subsection heading for each country as they're just examples. Alternatively we could split off a list article for all the countries (leaving a "Main" link), if you preferred, and perhaps we'd just discuss the situation briefly for each continent here.
  • Both the introductory paragraph and the split seem reasonable (and yes, I wouldn't try to create 200+ subsections here for all of the countries either). In fact, we could even do both. Will return to this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • OK. We have some sort of coverage which I think makes "the main points" as required by the GA criteria, and it's suitably cited.

• The question of whether the 600 words on China's wet markets is overweight needs to be discussed; the country is of a similar population to India but it gets three times the coverage, so a priori the answer is yes, it's too much if the subject is "Wet market"; of course it's easier to justify if the subject is "Wet markets and COVID" or "Wet markets and disease" (or similar title) but that would be a COATRACK for this "Wet market" article. The same goes, of course, for the 860 words on "Health concerns and links to disease" (1000 words if the "Media coverage" section which is also COVID-based is included). I suspect therefore that we should be thinking about balancing out this article. Given the large number of COVID- and China-related sources (of good quality) available, we might be thinking towards having a "Main" link to a subsidiary COVID-related article, leaving a short summary here in the form of a short "Disease transmission" section, and a single paragraph on China in the very promising "Around the world" section. As I say, I'm happy to discuss this and reach a workable solution here.
  • I agree the there is a bit of a WP:RECENTISM bias in terms of how the article is currently balanced, which can be solved by the suggested split. The COVID/disease section is also specifically about live-animal wet markets and wildlife wet markets, which are a subset of wet markets as a whole. So Live animal markets and disease, Live animal markets and COVID-19, or similar might be more appropriate and specific. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Go for it.
      • I was halfway through creating a split to Zoonoses in live animal markets when I found the existing article Wildlife smuggling and zoonoses. Those two articles would be very similar in scope, I'm thinking that a better solution now would be to move some of the content here to Wildlife smuggling and zoonoses (which barely mentions COVID-19) and then trim the section here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • OK, there may be an issue in that the target article covers 2 subjects but that's not our concern in this GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Right, but my point was that rather than move content from here to create Zoonoses in live animal markets, which would be a merge candidate for Wildlife smuggling and zoonoses, I could instead move content from here to a section in Wildlife smuggling and zoonoses directly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's what I understood. Go right ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
              •  Done Moved content from Wet markets#Wildlife markets and zoonoses into Wildlife smuggling and zoonoses#Zoonoses in wildlife markets and Wildlife smuggling and zoonoses#Prevention and management, and subsequently trimmed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• The "Media coverage" section clearly relates specifically to COVID, and should be grouped with that section. Since that section is already arguably overweight, I think that means merging the sections, followed by splitting out "Wet markets and COVID" article as discussed above.
  • Agree, this resolution is dependent on what happens on the above bullet point so I'll just focus on that one. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done Merged into the Wet market#COVID-19 section. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• The article is richly cited to good sources; if there is a concern there at all, it would be that the China section is over-cited.
  • The China section (post-split) now has bunches of six or seven refs together; it might be worth grouping those as single refs (containing multiple citation templates). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• The images are basically all appropriate, but I expect (per the above) that the China and Hong Kong images will be reduced in number to match the (probably) reduced text.
  •  Done Now just one each for the China and Hong Kong sections. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Brazil photo should be the same size as the rest.
  •  Done — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Summary

Many thanks, both, for getting this over the line. I'm pleased by the article's progress through the GAN cycle and am satisfied that the article is now focused, properly cited, and suitably informative on the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Trok Mo Market Vendor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)