Talk:Wet market/Archive 1

Untitled
This page is in highly imperfect English. I'm going to come back to it presently and thoroughly revise it. Comments andor objections please. Froggo Zijgeb 11:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to suggest cultural or marketing bias towards supermarkets (e.g., implying without evidence that supermarket animals are better treated than wet market ones). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.63.3 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, why limit the concept of "market" or "wet market" to live animals? All over Europe there are traditional markets which sell a great variety of fruit and vegetables, as well as meat (no live animals) and fish (mostly dead already!)... (They exist here in Catalonia, for example, throughout Spain and Portugal, in special market buildings, as, for instance, La Boqueria or the Mercat de Sant Antoni, as well as in Ukraine, Poland, Bielorussia, etc etc.). It is an excellent alternative to a supermarket (and naturally predates it by centuries...), and many people consider it more "human", i.e. you talk to the vendor directly, butcher shops cut your meat as you wish, the fishmongers prepare your fish for whatever type of cooking you wish (for the grill, the oven, etc., whole, "deboned", with or without the head, roe, fins, etc), vegetable vendors will explain where they got their products, give you ideas on how to prepare them, olive stalls have an endless variety of olives that they prepare themselves, etc, etc. Countless advantages. The article should reflect some of this variety. Also, it seems to concentrate on Asia, whereas I'm sure such markets exist all over the globe, except in the US, Canada, Australia, Germany, France,... i.e. except in a few countries. Maybe the concept of "wet market" is more narrow and I'm missing something? hmmm...--Cata-girl (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I guess everything I was talking about is included under Marketplace. Maybe the introduction to this article should mention that it is related to Asia, and refer people to Marketplace for a more general (?) outlook, or at least for another option. :) --Cata-girl (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

no markets here in the U.S.-- we eat styrofoam! (Cata-girl, what are you talking about?) 208.68.128.53 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article not mention how Chinese wet markets, slaughter cats and Dogs? What? Too much Embarrassment?
What? Too much embarrassment ? If any editor here has any political motives to hold onto this article for dear life, just remember, as i write this, I have the pandemic live video open and people are dying. I hear the bell for every infected. If you are from china, you should be obligated to go back to editing and shame Wet markets for what they really are, open air Slaughter places for diseased animals, Cats and Dogs alike. YES i mentioned PETA, and one of the members here accuse me of "Disruptive Editing". Go Edit the wikipage and go write how Dogs start at other dogs as they apathetically slaughter them one at a time and let the world know what that WET markets are legalized black markets, all for money and fancy "exotic meat". Biomax20 (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted because your additions were entirely unreferenced. The verifiability policy requires that the content be verifiable through WP:reliable sources
 * Your additions were a vast generalization of wet markets in China. Illegal wildlife trade was conducted at various wet markets in China, yes. Most wet markets did not, and a lot of the alluded activity was also illegal within Chinese law. One should not use Wikipedia voice to state that Wet markets sell wild animals that haven't undergone medical screening unattributed and in general.
 * The added content partially overlaps with the existing Hygiene section.
 * Also a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought nor a discussion forum, and not the place to right great wrongs. — MarkH21talk 08:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit is distorting what the referenced sources say. You wrote "most wet markets in China do not sell wild animals" but then referenced this article which can be summarized with this quote: "The [Huanan] market sold much more than seafood, including a range of wild animals. (...) Where markets do contain what many western media portray as “wild animals”, the majority of these are actually bred and farmed in captivity, such as mallard ducks, frogs, or snakes. Only a smaller proportion of animals are actually poached from the wild for sale." This really means way more than your edit implied - specifically, the authors admits there are markets trading wild animals, including poached, but it's just not "most" of them. His further argument is purely economical - the author doesn't deny that the markets pose a biosafety threat, but merely argues that closing them would strip "steady income" from farmers in rural areas of China and deprive Chinese consumers of significant food sector. Cloud200 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like semantics to me. He mentioned there were several types of wet markets including ones that didn't sell wildlife or only sold vegetables. And the other 2 sources say outright that most aren't wildlife markets. But I guess based on your argument, it should be changed to 'most do not sell animals poached from the wild'? I'm sure I can find another source or so that also supports the original statement, (since there was already a recently trending article suggesting something similar, but I digress). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is that anybody ever called for closing wet markets that sell only vegetables (!), so this one is a classic strawman. Farming, poaching and consumption of wild animals were criticised for years inside China, including this 2007 scientific publication which called the wet markets a "time-bomb" specifically due to mixing of various species in crowded, unsanitary conditions which was seen as an ideal environment for recombination of new virus strains. The unsanitary conditions on the markets selling live animals were also criticised by a lot of scientific articles published in China, for example . In response to that you got a couple of non-scientists who essentially go like: "most wet markets don't sell wild animals, and even if they sell they are farmed not poached, and even if they're poached, it's fine because there are government sanitary checks, and even if they aren't effective we can't close it's important part of farmer's income and it would be anti-Chinese sentiment". This line is merely a eristic rather a fair argument, therefore I believe this paragraph in the article deserves a slightly more nuanced description than "most wet markets don't sell animals" as this doesn't really mean anything. Cloud200 (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Statesman article (they're blocking access for anyone in EU by the way so I had to use a proxy), the article primarily debunks one statements from one US politician who attributed all blame for the COVID-19 for China culture. This statement in this form was correctly debunked as false, but the article does confirm the core issue with wildlife wet markets: "The issue is instead the level and extent of the human-animal interface that wet markets permit (...) It’s true that markets that sell live animals that are slaughtered on the premises pose a risk or viruses to be transmitted from animals to humans, but experts said this risk exists across the globe and is not unique to China.". Again, Cornyn was wrong, but scientists criticising conditions on those wet markets that trade animals were right. Cloud200 (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the statement remains supported by accepted sources & more importantly, is relevant b/c (as the Guardian & CBC references preceding this indicate) wet markets are often conflated with wild animal markets, which is not accurate. The criticism you mentioned already has a relevant place in the Hygiene section of this article. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Experts are calling for the international community to force a global shutdown of these markets because of their role in COVID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJacques (talk • contribs) 08:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I live in southern China. I buy most of my fruit, veg and meat in my nearby wet market. I have never seen cats or dogs on sale there. I have never seen any wildlife on sale there either. However the prices are half of what they are in the nearby supermarket. Come to think of it I have seen wildlife sold in the supermarket. They have cans of tuna fish; that is caught, not farmed. Too many westerners have xenophobic fantasies of what a Chinese wet market is supposed to be like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.185.243 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: mention of the pervasiveness of blood (from the slaughtering of live animals) at some wet markets, helping to explain why it is called a "wet" market. Currently, it is not clear to the reader why they are called "wet" markets. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) That is referenced, but I don’t see any sources about reference to blood. — MarkH21talk 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source saying so. Currently, the Etymology section mentions why they are called “wet”: "The "wet" in "wet market" refers to the constantly wet floors as a consequence of the spraying of fresh produce and cleaning of meat and seafood stalls."

Op-ed?
I was hesitant when first adding the LA Times article because its title does say Commentary, but the article is in the LA Times' op-ed column nor does the article have the LA Times' "Opinion" tag; the article is only tagged with "Food" and "World & Nation". So it seems that the article is not classified as an opinion article by the LA Times.Regarding the Conversation article, there's nothing to suggest that it is an opinion piece, so should be a reliable source per WP:RSPSOURCES. — MarkH21talk 07:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It quite clearly says that it's commentary in the headline. Carl Fredrik  talk 07:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Conversation piece is more about WP:DUE. So far I haven't seen any reliable sources calling for shutting down wet markets. It might be appropriate to include in the article, but not as prominently. It overplays the controversy. The issue has been one of shutting down wet markets that have wildlife or with live animals, and that is what China has been taking steps to shut down. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, but "commentary" doesn't always mean opinion piece. It may refer to an opinion, review, or analysis articles, in my understanding.Reliable sources like The Washington Post and The Spectator have called for shutting down wet markets, in addition to the slew of less reliable outlets. But even if the controversy should not be overplayed, the source can surely be used as a citation for more general statements about wet markets. — MarkH21talk 08:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, you're right. The Conversation piece is better than the LA times one. As for the WP and Spectator pieces, goes to show I've not been following the discussion all too well these past few days, with a piece in the Hill as well . I only knew of this National Review piece, which I don't count as reliable.
 * I think as a whole we need to balance this against the scientific literature, which has implicated both wildlife wet markets, but also wet markets with live animals.
 * Some sources also go so far as to draw the definition of a wet market to be "one which sells live animals", as opposed to a traditional marketplace or meat market.
 * It's a real shame about the flood of poor quality American media opinion pieces over the past few weeks, it makes it much harder to find decent source material. But I guess we're here editing the article because of the increased visibility as well... Carl Fredrik  talk 08:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We definitely do need more scientific literature, particularly in the Hygiene section. About the poor quality articles: sensationalist media is bound to emerge in what is a truly sensational period of history...I'll add the Conversation piece back as citations for the general statements then. — MarkH21talk 08:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Tip: You could try limiting your Google searched up to 2019. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Definition
Here is medicinenet.com describing wet market as:

This 2015 academic article defines a wet market as:

My emphasis.

The defining feature of these definitions is that the animals are alive at the market. We probably need to cover this or similar definitions — to make sense of the controversy. Carl Fredrik talk 08:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually very surprising! MedicineNet is the first source not written in 2020 that I've seen to use the live-only definition, and similarly the first one that isn't from journalism. — MarkH21talk 08:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Etymology/Terminology section at the beginning
Isn't the etymology / terminology section usually the first section in an article? I've almost always seen it as the very first section after the lead. Even the articles related to this one do so (e.g. marketplace, wildlife trade, retail). — MarkH21talk 09:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm most accustomed to seeing it last. But, yes it is sometimes first, when the major point of the article is about its definition, such as Alternative medicine. I don't find that that is the most important part here though. We summarize what it is in the lede, which I find is enough unless someone is very interested in the terminology — so I think it should go pretty far down. Carl Fredrik  talk 09:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But here, the term is not commonly found in North American / European usage and there is frequent confusion as seen from recent media publications. The terminology section and the matter of definition seems especially important for this article. Plus, I do think that it's almost standard to place the etymology section first, such as in basically every geography and history article where etymology/terminology is even less important than here. — MarkH21talk 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Western" vs "Chinese"
I'm sorry but the latest wave of edits makes this article extremely biased and well below Wikipedia standards. Please do not use WP:WEASEL, please re-read WP:UNDUE and stick to WP:NPOV. Wet markets were for decades (earliest source I found was 2003) criticized by the very Chinese (and other Asian) media and scientific community IN THE FIRST PLACE. This whole dualism of "Western media" versus "Chinese" makes this article turn into some kind of Occidentalist nightmare. China is not a single entity with a single worldview, all living in rural areas and all feeding on wet markets. Chinese media are just as polarized on the subject of wet markets as Western ones, some arguing for closure based on scientific, epidemiologic and humanitarian arguments, some defending them based on traditions or for profit. As you are trying to "defend" what you perceive as "China", you are only reinforcing the stereotypes of China being something distant and different, while at the same time there is nothing like "Western vs Chinese science" - all Chinese scientists quoted in the article publish in global scientific journals and are recognized globally - and I would probably even argue that there's nothing like "Western vs Chinese media" on this particular matter. The task of Wikipedia is to describe the topic accurately and objectively. If someone has said it, then they said it and we just report it here, but building a false, one-sided context around it (like only "Western media called for ban") is simply making the article inaccurate and biased. Cloud200 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC) is not about media coverage (besides being grammatically incorrect). — MarkH21talk 21:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to "defend" anything. The source literally says In western media, “wet markets” are portrayed as emblems of Chinese otherness. If you find a source criticizing Chinese media coverage, then add that and attribute it as such.Also, the section of media coverage is about media coverage, not what the critics of specific media coverage say should be banned. The section should be focused. Other hygiene-related points can be covered in the relevant section.Please stop WP:SHOUTING. — MarkH21talk 14:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Artificially narrowing scope of the "Media coverage" which you just did with is specifically pushing WP:NPOV. Neither this article or section is dedicated to Western media specifically and it's also not dedicated to your single source exclusively. Cloud200 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The section is not dedicated to Western media coverage; it is dedicated to media coverage. Does the SCMP source say anything to the effect that In Chinese media, wet markets are often portrayed without distinguishing between general wet markets and wildlife markets, using montages images from different markets across China without specific identifying information? No. They’re what you think are examples of articles fitting the description given by the other two references that were specifically about Western media. That’s why it’s inappropriate WP:SYNTH. If two sources claim something about things in a group, you cannot add another group to the original claim unless you find a reference specifically extending the original claim.The additional sentence that you are repeatedly reinserting, "Authors admit the Huanan market sold "sold much more than seafood, including a range of wild animals" and some animals sold on such markets are poached, but called for "science-based regulation" rather than blanket ban, arguing that wild animal farming is important part of national identity and significant income for small farmer in rural regions"
 * You're right that these sources should not be referenced in one sentence because they distort the conclusion from the sources you linked and I will reword that. Still, having a section on media coverage without describing the actual media coverage and jumping directly to a meta-analysis and criticism of that coverage creates a WP:UNDUE imbalance in the article. We simply cannot say "Western media criticized wet markets" if this criticism was published in Chinese and other Asian media months and decades before anyone in the West even cared. Cloud200 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my edit: Cloud200 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The second sentence here is irrelevant and makes the whole flow self-contradictory: "Following the outbreak, proposals were made to ban the operation of wet markets selling wild animals for human consumption. A few others have pointed out that most wet markets in China do not sell wild animals." If they called specifically for closure of "wet markets selling wild animals" then there's no point in additionally defending any other wet markets not mentioned here. I also clarified who specifically "made the proposals" thus removing WP:WEASEL
 * The sentence in defense of wet markets have been moved to the Media coverage section where it belongs. I have also added introductory sentence explaining why the criticism-of-wet-market-criticism is even relevant in the article and to balance the WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV impression that it was only Western media that criticized wet markets.
 * Sure, and I'm fine with the latest edits. My point was just about the Chinese sources being put into the same conclusion. Regarding the ban of wet markets vs. ban for wet markets selling wild animals, that's precisely the confusion that a few of the referenced articles sought to address. Some of the calls for bans are limited to wet markets with wildlife, and some use the wording of banning all wet markets. Several of the articles contest the latter, but I don't think any of the sources argue against the former. — MarkH21talk 21:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead
Also the lead is overgrown and WP:UNDUE. The article is about wet markets in general, not about COVID-19, so only the first paragraph is actually relevant. The other two should be moved down to the main body of the article. Cloud200 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies per WP:LEAD. The role in the COVID-19 pandemic is extremely prominent in RS coverage and is also covered in two sections in the body. Summarizing them in the lead is only appropriate. — MarkH21talk 14:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wet markets existed for thousands of years before COVID-19, just as the controversies around their hygiene and disease, including COVID-19. This should be proportionally summarized by one sentence rather than two full paragraphs discussing everything from sale of animals, epidemics, xenophobia and soon whatever else news pop up in relation to COVID-19. This is specifically covered in Lead dos and don'ts, WP:NONEWS and WP:REDUNDANCY. Cloud200 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m undecided on the whether the second paragraph of the lead is too detailed, but there are certainly key points related to COVID-19 that need to be summarized in the lead. None of the guidelines you just linked have anything to do with whether to summarize these points in the lead outside of the first sentence. This isn’t the first sentence of the lead. — MarkH21talk 21:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

These markets are being blamed by some for causing a worldwide pandemic, this is extremely significant!--SmokeyJacques (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If believed to have played a role in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic is due, then it is very important to add more recent sources (preferably WP:MEDRS) that question the link between wet markets and the outbreak. It should be better summarized in the lead too. --MarioGom (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-opening of wet markets after temporary closure is distinct from the wildlife wet market ban

 * The paragraph in the lead says Wet markets were banned from holding wildlife in China. The re-opening of wet markets that you added into the lead is about the temporary closure of all wet markets, not just the ones holding wildlife. Wet markets are still banned from holding wildlife in China after the re-opening of general wet markets. Not to mention that your cited Newsweek article is just sharing that the Daily Mail (unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL) reported this: A recent story in the Daily Mail details how these wet markets have reopened following the end of China's two-month lockdown. — MarkH21talk 01:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't like Newsweek that's fine to delete. But to have nuked The Washington Post and The Mirror as well is not a good look.  XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The main point isn't the source, it's that the reopening of temporarily closed wet markets is not directly related to the ban on wildlife trade in the preceding sentence. Since it's not directly related, its place in the lead is undue WP:PROPORTION. — MarkH21talk 09:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obliterating WP:RS such as The Washington Post as opposed to relocating them where suitable in the article goes against WP:PRESERVE and it is pretty sad. XavierItzm (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * References for a statement already in the article body with 3 existing citations. The first issue was the lead additions and the need to discuss it here, since you initially did not agree that the temporary closure was different from the wildlife trade ban. Then we can move the references afterwards, as has been done. — MarkH21talk 19:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Renowned medical experts have called for a closure of all wet markets:. Wildlife was banned before too, yet still sale went on in these markets.--SmokeyJacques (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

All markets are not wet markets // markets in Ghana
One primary reference to a non South-east Asian or Chinese wet market in Ghana is not sufficient to establish WP:DUE. Additionally, the definition in our article includes specific mention that wet market is the term used in South-East Asia, and not worldwide. Please give due respect to the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Carl Fredrik talk 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your WP:DUE concerns mentioned and . The references are different published papers about the state of wet markets and their current role in Ghana relative to supermarkets, mirroring the generalities from the "Economic role" section. What's the undue concern? — MarkH21talk 12:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article says that wet markets is a term used in SE Asia, but there's nothing to say that it is exclusively used in SE Asia and any mentions outside SE Asia are somehow not in the scope. China, HK, and Taiwan are not even in SE Asia! The first cited article for that section literally uses wet-market throughout the paper. — MarkH21talk 12:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The definitions state that SE-Asia and China use the term, and broader use must be based off strong WP:SECONDARY sources. Carl Fredrik  talk 12:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's just a few:
 * Aforementioned study on Ghanaian wet markets uses wet-market throughout.
 * Another study on Ghanaian food retail: The main food retail outlets in developing countries are wet markets, that are open air public markets with many retailers specializing in selling a small amount of one item or a few items.
 * A Routledge book on food safety uses the term: In sub-Saharan Africa, the great majority of livestock and fish products are sold in informal or wet markets, that is, markets which escape effective health and safety regulation, are often untaxed and unlicensed, and where traditional processing, products and prices predominate
 * Article from South African government's official marketing agency titled Wet markets key to Africa’s food security uses the term
 * Tanzania Value Chain Analysis from the International Trade Centre: Retail: The retail market exists in the wet market, supermarkets, hotels and lodges as well as the mobile vendors. Commercial farmers currently enjoy this market where they have individual connections and sell their mangoes at higher prices.
 * Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical paper on improving meat safety in a Nigerian wet-market hosted by the FAO.
 * A learning resource from the International Livestock Research Institute: A well-documented initiative working with butchers in wet markets of Ibadan promoted “positively deviant practices” and peer-to-peer training (on Nigeria).
 * USDA Foreign Agricultural Service report on Nigerian wine: More wine and spirits are now sold to the consumers and re-sellers through the wholesalers located in the traditional open wet markets (mostly patronized by the low and middle income consumers).
 * Study on food safety in Sri Lanka: uses the term throughout, e.g. In Sri Lanka, the majority of broiler birds are processed mechanically in semi-automated plants, but a significant number of wet markets, where only poultry is slaughtered, continue to exist.
 * A company news report about the poultry industry in Pakistan: Despite these broiler figures, 95 percent of poultry in Pakistan is sold live, or through a traditional wet market
 * These are all uses of the same term outside of Southeast/East Asia. — MarkH21talk 12:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Then we'll need an RfC about it, because using that definition means "wet market = food market", which is not what this article is about. Carl Fredrik  talk 13:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition in the first line of the article is pretty clear: A wet market is a marketplace selling fresh meat, fish, produce, and other perishable goods. Dozens of sources corroborate this definition. — MarkH21talk 13:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The majority however do not, they specify it to be a specific SE-Asian/Chinese phenomenon. The definition you apply is essentially synonymous with any food market, and doesn't even exclude supermarkets. We're going to need an RfC here. Carl Fredrik  talk 13:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Every single source in the Background section applies this definition, and the only one specifying regionality is the OED which notes that it's a SE Asian term but still defines it as a market for the sale of fresh meat, fish, and produce. The OED does not define it as "a Southeast Asian market for the sale of fresh meat, fish, and produce". There's a difference between a term being of SE/E Asian origin and a term being used exclusively for markets from SE/E Asia. Do we really need an RfC for this? — MarkH21talk 13:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

That's just not true, several of those sources make specific mention to the geographic distribution. Here are also definitions that specifically mention the South East Asian use:


 * wet market — noun — South East Asian — A market for the sale of fresh meat, fish, and produce. Oxford Lexico


 * wet market — noun — in south east Asia, a market for the sale of fresh meat, fish, and produce macmillan dictionary


 * Specific mention of uptake into Oxford English Dictionary from Hong Kong use to describe a Chinese phenomenon South China Morning Post


 * What is a Wet Market? The origin of wet market is rooted in the periodic-marketing system in China, a significant feature of China’s domestic trade studied by G. William Skinner (Eastman 1988). Peasants in traditional agrarian Chinese society were largely self-sufficient in producing food and immediate necessities. To satisfy a variety of other specialized needs, they had to go directly to the location for exchange. [...] Present wet markets in Hong Kong are evolved from the periodic-marketing system. An Ethnographic Comparison of Wet Markets and Supermarkets in Hong Kong
 * (It's quite impossible that a market in Ghana has evolved from China)

We can't take a specific term for a Chinese phenomenon and post-hoc repurpose it to signify something that exists across the world. Then the term "wet market" means nothing, as it is totally synonymous with "food market" — which would be doing everyone a disservice. Then this article should be at food market, and we need to split out Wet market (South East Asia). Carl Fredrik talk 13:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Described wet markets as a distinctly Chinese phenonenon "Traditional Chinese Wet Markets" Food Safety News: Wet Markets in China: A Food Safety Perspective
 * The Lexico definition is the same as the OED one (Lexico is a portal for OED), the pre-definition location refers to the dialectal origin/usage of them term; it still defines it as just a market for the sale of fresh meat, fish, and produce. The MacMillan entry is from their crowdsourced Open Dictionary and was only added on 11 March 2020. The SCMP article does not say that the term is a Chinese phenomenon; it describes the etymology of the word from the Chinese language and how the history of HK's wet markets after Hong Kong’s wet markets arose from China’s agrarian society. The CUHK reference is about Wet markets in Hong Kong, so yes the Hong Kong wet markets arose from the Chinese agrarian society just as SCMP noted. Where does the Food Safety News article say that wet markets are distinctly Chinese? It has a section on Traditional Chinese Wet Markets and describes the history of wet markets in China; that doesn't mean that all wet markets have origins in China.We aren't repurposing the term; we reflect its existing usage in reliable sources. A plethora of reliable sources describe wet markets in places outside of SE/E Asia and all of our defining references simply define the term as it is written in the first sentence of the lead. These sources do not define the term to mean such markets specifically in SE/E Asia and we have to reflect those sources. Otherwise, you're adding "in Southeast/East Asia" to the definition yourself.It may be illuminating to contrast the OED/Lexico definition for "wet market" (which does not specify the market location) with the one for "bazaar" (which does): A market in a Middle Eastern country. — MarkH21talk 13:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your interpretation on any of the above, apart from perhaps about the Macmillan definition. There is very clear precedent that the term is used to signify a Southeast Asian and Chinese phenomenon, and the presence of a small number of sources suggesting that the term is used wider makes no difference whatsoever. The majority of sources agree it is a Southeast Asian and Chinese phenomenon.
 * Further, what do you say about how your position is unworkable, seeing as its use makes the entire article subject moot? Your definition makes wet market fully synonymous with food market — which makes this article pointless, and the choice of the term wet market for the name simply a WP:CONTENTFORK. Carl Fredrik  talk 15:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What don't you agree with? The SCMP source literally does not say that wet markets are a solely Chinese phenomenon. The CUHK source is also talking specifically about HK wet markets. Do you disagree with that? Also, the definition of "wet market" in Lexico/OED factually does not specify that the markets must be in SE/E Asia, unlike its definition for "bazaar" which specifies in a Middle Eastern country. The majority of sources agree that it is a SE/E Asian phenomenon, yes. But they do not say that it is a solely SE/E Asian phenomenon.I don't know if you've realized that food market is a redirect to food marketing, which is about a wholly different subject. — MarkH21talk 15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You're literally asking for proof of a negative. To do is a logical fallacy. If sources say it's a Chinese phenomenon, that is enough. The sources I linked do say that, you're broadening the term in an illogical fashion that isn't corroborated by the majority of sources.
 * You're going to want high quality WP:SECONDARY sources, and apply WP:COMMONNAME.
 * I was aware of the redirect, but the point applies nonetheless. If we use the definition you are touting, this article is pointless, and it has to be moved to Wet market (Asia) (or similar), and the rest of the article moved to whatever name is appropriate, be it food market, food store, butchers shop, greengrocer, or even grocery store.
 * You still haven't responded to how you wish to address your definition including all grocery stores. Carl Fredrik  talk 07:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really not asking for a proof of a negative, I'm asking for a proof of a positive. You're asserting that the term should be applied in this article exclusively to SE/E Asian wet markets. The SCMP article literally does not say anything about that, it says that Hong Kong’s wet markets arose from China’s agrarian society and then briefly mentions the history of the Central Market in Hong Kong. The CUHK source talks about how Present wet markets in Hong Kong are evolved from the periodic-marketing system. You're basing your assertion that we should not include wet markets from outside of SE/E Asia on those two things?The definition of wet market is different from grocery store, butchers shop and green grocer:
 * greengrocer: a retail trader in fruit and vegetables, wet markets are not only those that are exclusively retail, and not exclusively fruits & vegetables
 * butchers shop: wet markets are not exclusively for butchered meat, nor are they shops
 * grocery store (where food store redirects): :a retail shop that primarily sells food, either fresh or preserved, wet markets are markets, not stores
 * These are different definitions for different things. They appropriately have different articles. But it really seems like you're not going to agree, so I'll open an RfC per your earlier suggestion. — MarkH21talk 20:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on whether the scope of wet markets should only include Southeast/East Asia

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article and its supporting references define a wet market to be a marketplace selling fresh meat, fish, produce, and other perishable goods. Should the article's scope: Thank you. 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Exclude such marketplaces that are not in Southeast Asia and East Asia.
 * 2) Include such marketplaces that are not in Southeast Asia and East Asia.

Survey

 * Support Option 2:
 * The definitions given in almost every tertiary source (the few exceptions are some recent COVID-19 related articles and the crowdsourced Open Dictionary entry added last month) does not explicitly specify that wet markets are such marketplaces in a certain geographic area, with the Oxford English Dictionary defining it as a market for the sale of fresh meat, fish, and produce. This contrasts with a restricted geographic definition like those for bazaar (e.g. OED/Lexico: A market in a Middle Eastern country.) The OED and a few other references mention that the term is of Southeast Asian origin, but the origin of a term is independent of its usage outside of its place of origin.
 * There is a wide variety of reliable sources that use the term for such marketplaces outside of Southeast Asia and East Asia, not even including those from recent articles relating to the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic:

From the following, there are 53 sources making explicit mention of wet markets in:
 * Africa: 27
 * Americas: 12
 * Europe: 5
 * Middle East/West Asia: 4
 * South Asia: 12
 * Oceania: 4

(Bolding is mine)


 * 1. The definition from several references that is applied in this article (and can be sub-categorized according to whether they are wholesale/retail and sell vegetables/slaughtered meat/live animals), is distinct from those of existing WP articles like grocery store, greengrocer, food store, or butcher shop; those apply to: exclusively-indoor exlcusively-retail stores, some of which exclusively sell fruits and vegetable, meat, etc. There is a plethora of RSes that describe how wet markets are typically open-air or outdoors (with modern ones moving indoors).So far, both the claim that most wet markets are indoors and the claim that wet markets are a solely Southeast/East Asian phenomenon are unsubstantiated by reliable sources: 0 of the references in the article use an Asian-specific definition and only 2 non-blog sources have been given with exclusive reference to Asia in their definitions (in contrast to the claimed "thousands" and "hundreds"). On the other hand, literally dozens of reliable sources directly support that wet markets (and the term's usage) are prevalent outside of Southeast/East Asia. It's a bit silly for editors to assert the non-existence of wet markets outside of SE/E Asia on the basis of an extraordinarily small minority that say that it's an Asia-specific term, while there are so many varied RSes that have been asserting their existence for over 30 years. — MarkH21talk 20:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC); last paragraph added 01:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC); updated list 08:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC) through 10:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC); updated 12:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 The vast majority of hundreds of sources state that wet markets are a phenomenon of South East and Eastern Asia; whereas a minority (linked above) say otherwise. That is not an appropriate subject for this article.


 * In light of this it may be appropriate to look at a few defintitions which specifically exclaim wet markets to be an Asian phenomenon:
 * Fresh food markets — where people can buy fruits and vegetables and sometimes seafood and meat — are popular in many places around the world. But "wet markets" are unique to Asian countries. MNN
 * Live-animal markets (wet markets) provide a source of vertebrate and invertebrate animals for customers in tropical and subtropical regions of the world. […] Wet markets are widespread in Asian countries and in countries where Asian people have migrated. The Lancet
 * The complex of stalls selling live fish, meat and wild animals is known in the region as a "wet market." [Talking about Wuhan] NPR
 * Fresh food markets are common in many cities, but wet markets are an Asian phenomenon.NY Times Travel
 * Wet market is a Singapore and Hong Kong English term that is now being applied to a wide variety of food markets around the developing world, even though many of the markets look like the fresh produce and meat markets in Italy and France. The Atlantic
 * A common sight across Asia, wet markets traditionally sell fresh produce and live animals, such as fish, in the open air. Reuters
 * Wet markets — open marketplaces with stalls selling fresh meat and fish — are considered a traditional form of food retail in large Asian cities. Global News
 * Wet markets are an Asian phenomenon scattered throughout the island of Singapore. Singapoor Vacation Attractions
 * Hong Kong has numerous wet markets, and they exist throughout Asia, including in Singapore and Thailand.News Decoder
 * Most dictionary definitions make light of this geographic connection and a number of sources included in the article, and in the list above discuss it in detail. Most Wikipedia definitions are not based on the proving of negatives, and the overwhelming majority, (the entire article reference list apart from what is listed above by MarkH21) uses an Asia-specific definition. We can not post-hoc broaden the definition to include everything.


 *  Option 2 is an unworkable definition and means this article is open for merging with grocery store, food hall, market hall, or food court.  (The latter three which fall through the WP:OR specification by the RfC-creator of distinguishing between stores and marketplaces — market stalls are certainly stores and examples of grocers.) For us to have an article it must be sufficiently distinct from other articles, which option 2 does not allow for.
 * Rational will be updated.  Carl Fredrik  talk 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC); updated 19:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you update your !vote with new timestamps per WP:TALK? It's constantly being updated after my response below, which changes the context — MarkH21talk 00:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2, as sources also cover non-Asia wet markets, for example: mentions Africa. Or : "What exactly is a wet market? ... Nicola Beynon from animal rights group Society International said the markets have not only existed in Asia, but also in Africa and South America.". Asian markets may be the most numerous, but non-Asian wet markets exist too.--Hippeus (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 If there are reliable sources on the others, than yeah. ~ HAL  333  18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 per the points raised by MarkH21 and Hippeus. There are reliable sources covering "Wet markets" in places outside of East/Southeast Asia and should be included in an article titled "Wet markets". Some1 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 as while Wet Markets are mostly Chinese or south-east Asian, literature does refer to wet markets elsewhere as well.--SmokeyJacques (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Option 1 Option 2. The Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 2014, p. 244, defines a wet market thus: "The traditional system of of retail food marketing in Asian countries is the wet market. A wet market is a combination of poultry farmers' markets, fishmongers, and open-air butcher shops that are about the size of a large supermarket. A wet market gets it name from floors that are soaked from continually being washed down; washed because fish intestines and blood from butchering chickens and ducks in the poultry stalls become putrid if left around for very long, and also because a wet floor is considered better than a bloody and smelly one" (paragraph break removed). SarahSV (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed to Option 2. There are scholarly sources discussing wet markets elsewhere, e.g. Mexico . SarahSV (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Wet markets are traditional markets selling live animals (farmed and wild) as well as fresh fruit, vegetables and fish, often in unhygienic conditions. They are found all over Africa and Asia, providing sustenance for hundreds of millions of people" (The Guardian). SarahSV (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2. I was leaning towards this while reading the RfC but it was actually CFCF's argument against that convinced me. If the only thing that differentiated wet markets from many other common things was that wet markets occur in Asia, this article should not exist. "Grocery stores in Asia" is not a notable subject for an article. As such, I don't feel like Option 1 is even an option: the choices are Option 2 if I think the sources are sufficient to distinguish these from those other things (which I do) or proposing deletion of this article if I didn't. Loki (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2. We can mention that the term is more often used in Asian context or such, but it is common sense this is a global phenonema. A century or two ago such markets probably were common in "the West" too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Re CFCF: That wet markets are a phenomenon in Southeast Asia and East Asia does not mean that they are not phenomena elsewhere (an example of the affirming a disjunct fallacy). Also, the entire reference list does not use an Asia-specific defintion, contrary to CFCF's claim. Almost none of them specify that wet markets are a solely Southeast/East Asian phenomenon. Also, a grocery store is a store, while a wet market isn't a store. — MarkH21talk 23:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How are you distinguishing between a store and a marketplace? The definition you employ makes no distinction between marketplaces, food halls, market halls, or food court — all of which are wet markets even under your WP:OR more precise definition distinguishing between brick and mortar stores and marketplaces. Eataly is a wetmarket under your definition . Carl Fredrik  talk 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A store is in a single building. OED/Lexico for store points to shop -> OED/Lexico for shop: A building or part of a building where goods or services are sold.; Merriam Webster: a business establishment where usually diversified goods are kept for retail sale.Marketplaces (and wet markets) include outdoor markets with multiple different vendor stalls. Do you need references for that statement too? It's in several of the references at wet market and marketplace, it's not OR. Food hall, market hall, and food court are further examples of specialized marketplaces that must be indoors (with even more specific restrictions for food hall & food court). — MarkH21talk 00:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The definition you cite in the first line of the RfC makes no distinction between stores and marketplaces. That they must be indoors is also completely irrelevant, as somewhere between many and most of what are traditionally referred to as wet markets are indoors. Your Ghana references specifically states that closed-air wet markets are not wet markets. Carl Fredrik  talk 00:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The distinction is stores being in a single building. A grocery store is a store, so a grocery store must be in a building. Wet markets are marketplaces, per the definition in the first line of the RfC, so they can be outdoors. Therefore, it's not quite the case that this article is open for merging with grocery store, food hall, market hall, or food court that you claimed in your !vote above.It's absolutely false that most of what are traditionally referred to as wet markets are indoors. Is that WP:OR? The aforementioned study on Ghanaian wet markets plus a litany of other references mention open-air wet markets both recent and old, academic and journalistic:
 * Published research paper: Traditionally, wet markets were housed in temporary sheds or in the open air
 * Published research paper: The majority of outdoor wet markets have been moved to indoor operations in cities
 * Academic literature review: "Wet markets" refer to traditional open air markets.
 * CGIAR article: ways to improve food safety in traditional open-air markets or 'wet' markets
 * Malay Mail: people continued to go to wet markets ostensibly to buy food supplies [...] most marketgoers, particularly in open-air markets like the one in Air Itam
 * BusinessInsider: At such markets, outdoor stalls are squeezed together to form narrow lanes
 * National Review: Wet markets are found the world over, typically open-air sites selling fresh meat, seafood, and produce
 * Spectator: Deep in the bowels of Singapore’s Chinatown complex was a large open-air market that stood in stark contrast to the surrounding glitzy skyscrapers and immaculate streets
 * What reference supports the claim that most of them are traditionally indoor?If the food trucks sell fresh meat, fish, and/or produce then sure. But I've never heard of food trucks that sell fresh meat, fish, or produce. — MarkH21talk 01:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I worded myself in such a way so that that argument is moot. Between many to most are indoors, but it is also a question of what "indoors means" vs. open air, and has to do with development and climate. The absolute majority of wet markets I have been to have been urban wet markets under roofs, and the majority in large cities have been inside full buildings. These are places that have called themselves wet markets, both officially and by locals. Having personally seen these wet markets, I would understand the confusion to potentially stem from the fact that they often splay out of the buildings as well. Your listing of sources means nothing, apart from showing that outdoor markets exist; but that isn't relevant as we have lots of sources and examples in the article showing indoor wet markets. The definition you listed in the RfC does not exclude or include any mention of open air or closed structures — so it doesn't even make sense to discuss this. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that I made an erroneous claim that could potentially need sourcing in an earlier image caption, but not in my full RfC rationale. I have corrected this. It is however still not relevant to the options. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority of wet markets that you have been to are indoor urban wet markets - this means nothing to our discussion and any inferral from it is WP:OR. I've been to dozens of wet markets both indoors and outdoors in dozens of countries, urban and rural, and that means nothing to this discussion. If you've ever been to Hong Kong, you'd find the Graham Street market which has been an open-air wet market for over 140 years (Conde Nast, SCMP). Many wet markets have moved indoors as countries have modernized wet markets; for instance the first paper in the list immediately above, again, describes how Traditionally, wet markets were housed in temporary sheds or in the open air and that Nanjing moved all of theirs indoors since 2014. As early as 2008, most Chinese wet markets in cities were moved indoors (a paper listed above)I haven't seen a single one say that they're typically or traditionally indoors. On the other hand, several of the articles currently referenced in the WP article describe open air wet markets (e.g. Politico, LA Times) or even say that they are traditionally [...] in the open air (Reuters) or typically open-air (National Review). Even the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market at the focus of the whole coronavirus pandemic coverage was an outdoor wet market (Straits Times, USA Today).The point is that wet markets are not exclusively (or even traditionally) indoors, while you claimed that there is little distinction between wet markets and the exclusively indoors grocery stores, food halls, market halls, and food courts. There's a clear distinction with wet markets not being exclusively indoors and not carrying the other defining restrictions that those types of places have. — MarkH21talk 09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It does mean something, because the point is that wet markets can be both indoors and outdoors. Which clearly means the definition has nothing to do with whether they are indoor or outdoor. That's all I wanted to say about that, and it seems like we are in agreement, so I don't understand why you are attacking that point. Carl Fredrik  talk 10:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought that you were still standing behind your point that most are indoors and that Option 2 is an unworkable definition and means this article is open for merging with grocery store, food hall, market hall, or food court. I’m glad we agree on this. — MarkH21talk 11:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I fully stand by my argument that many to most are indoors, but that is entirely moot (and not something we should include in the article without a source — we only have sources that they can both be open air or indoors). The article under option 2 is open for merging with all of those above.  Carl Fredrik  talk 12:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to the CFCF's claim that the overwhelming majority, (the entire article reference list apart from what is listed above by MarkH21) uses an Asia-specific definition, I've gone through each of the in the article's reference list (except for: #13, #14, #48, #58, #59, #60, #61, #67, #70). Not a single one uses an Asia-specific definition. The closest are the Bloomberg opinion article (#47, duplicated in #27 and #57) which describes The region encompassing the wet market zone from China and South Korea down through most of Southeast Asia has the best record for [...], and the LA Times commentary article, which describes “Wet” markets are what China calls its fresh food markets.While perusing the 89 references, I also found more that explicitly describe wet markets outside of Asia, which I'll add to the large list above. — MarkH21talk 08:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet, they discuss wet markets in Asia, hence they use the definition. I don't understand what you are suggesting by saying they don't? The articles aren't going to include a passage "We defined wet market as" — however they're still discussing wet markets in China and Asia. If the overwhelming majority discuss wet markets in Asia, it is correct to assume that they follow that definition. Carl Fredrik  talk 08:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You claimed that they use an Asia-specific definition. The fact that they discuss wet markets in Asia does not mean that they use an Asia-specific definition - that's a massive inferral well within WP:SYNTH. If I created the article on university and only included 100 references that talk exclusively about universities in the US, it would be SYNTH to then assert that those references are all using a US-specific definition of "university".You're advocating for restricting the scope of this article to solely those in Southeast/East Asia, yet we don't have a single reference that uses a definition suggesting that we should not describe wet markets outside of Southeast/East Asia. The fact that a lot of articles discuss wet markets in Asia does not mean that our article should be solely focused on wet markets in Asia. We can't use the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or assert SYNTH definitions over the RS definitions to artificially restrict the scope of an article. — MarkH21talk 08:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * But it's in the dictionary definitions... Articles that discuss wetmarkets aren't going to be that clear about it — and that fallacy is called proving a negative. If we don't restrict the article scope, it can cover anything. Your definition does not prove WP:NOTABILITY for this article and means this article should be merged with grocer or market hall, etc. etc. For this article to at all exist, it must be sufficiently different, and there is not enough to distinguish a wet market from a grocer. Carl Fredrik  talk 11:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What? There are three different points here.
 * My argument is directly based on the dictionary and RS definitions which (except for the crowdsourced one) do not specify geographic location of the defined term, only the term’s geographic origin of usage; therefore the article should follow exactly that definition. It’s not based on the non-existence of contradictory definitions.
 * If there are no RSes to directly support your proposed geographically-restricted definition, then we shouldn’t use it per the requirements that we base articles on RSes from WP:V/WP:OR, which are not proving-the-negative fallacies (I mean technically WP:CHALLENGE is one, but we’ve accepted that one as policy). What is a proving-the-negative fallacy to assume “if a source does not state that its definition is not geographically-restricted, then we can assume that that its definition is”.
 * The whole point on why these RS definitions do not duplicate existing topics is that the definition used in the article and the dictionaries are for markets that are not exclusively-indoors and not exclusively-retail, which are distinct from grocery stores, market halls, etc. which are exclusively-indoors, exclusively-retail, and exclusively-meat/exclusively-vegetables+fruit, etc. Whether in Asia or not, wet markets include wholesale-only outdoor markets, wholesale-only indoor markets, retail-only outdoor markets, wholesale-only outdoor markets, mixed retail/wholesale indoor markets, mixed retail/wholesale outdoor seafood-only markets, etc. None of those articles can include any of these; meanwhile there is a large body of literature dedicated to wet markets as a whole.
 * If your argument is still based on inferring that articles are supporting an Asian-specific definition because they discuss wet markets in SE/E Asia (not to mention the dozens of RSes discussing wet markets outside SE/E Asia) and the assertion that wet market encompasses the same set of things covered by grocery store (or whatever else), then I’m afraid there’s not much else to discuss. — MarkH21talk 11:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your definition critically misses how the term is specifically stated to be an Asian one. There are plenty of sources which specify it precisely:
 * The complex of stalls selling live fish, meat and wild animals is known in the region as a "wet market." [Talking about Wuhan]
 * NPR "Why They're Called 'Wet Markets' — And What Health Risks They Might Pose"


 * Fresh food markets are common in many cities, but wet markets are an Asian phenomenon.
 * NYTimes Travel "Wet Markets"


 * Wet market is a Singapore and Hong Kong English term that is now being applied to a wide variety of food markets around the developing world, even though many of the markets look like the fresh produce and meat markets in Italy and France.
 * The Atlantic "The Case Against Wet Markets"

What that goes to show is that the term is being widened as of this year, because there is a difference between those sources that are a few years old, and those from this year — one  which may rely on WP:CIRCULAR .


 * We need to make a decision to specify which definition this article uses, be it a broad one that includes Harrods, one that only includes developing countries (unclear), or one which is regional (my preference, and the best per WP:COMMONNAME).


 * This is why I said I would update my rationale, there is loads of information that could be added, and lots of reasons why option 2 is untenable (and incomplete). Carl Fredrik  talk 12:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Only the NYT Travel article says that it is an Asian phenomenon. The NPR source only states that they are known in the region as “wet markets”; again it requires SYNTH inferral to suggest that they implicitly claim that they are not known anywhere outside of the region as “wet markets”. The Atlantic article says that it is of HK/SG origin, which we’ve already recognized, as well as noting some temporal shift; it would require even more than SYNTH to suggest that the article is implying SE/E Asian usage only since the article itself mentions an example in Morocco.The broad scope is not a recent phenomenon – you can see the widespread usage of the term for non-SE/E Asian markets in the dozens of pre-2020 RSes in the article references and the large collapsed list above, none of which can really have a WP:CIRCULAR issue. I also don’t know why you keep bringing up Harrods. Harrods has vendors selling non-perishable goods and so cannot be a wet market by any definition. — MarkH21talk 12:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am bringing up Harrods, because under your definition the food halls on the first floor of Harrods are wet markets. Carl Fredrik  talk 13:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me!? What does […] known in the region as a "wet market". say? Carl Fredrik talk 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That such markets in the region (and I can’t even tell which one: Wuhan? Hubei? China? East Asia?) are known as “wet markets”. That doesn’t mean that such markets in some other region are not known as “wet markets”. If you make such an assumption, that is literally affirming a disjunct. If someone says “In Spain, markets are known as ‘mercados’”, does that mean that no other place refers to markets by ‘mercados’? All of Latin America (minus French Guiana & French Caribbean) would be up in arms!To my knowledge, those food halls don’t sell only fresh meat, fresh fish, and fresh produce? — MarkH21talk 13:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On the topic of WP:COMMONNAME, you have one article that directly supports a region-specific definition while there are two or three dozen RSes listed above that directly contradict that region-specific definition, with another two dozen RSes or so that state the general non-region-specific definition given in the first line of the article & RfC. — MarkH21talk
 * You are contrasting "dozens of sources" against "thousands of sources". Yes, I invoke WP:COMMONNAME. Your assertion that it is a logical fallacy is also false, as you imply we are engaged in formal logic, and not language and communication, which is what the sources use to convey their messages. This isn't a mathematical problem: If someone says "a wet market is type of market in Asia", that doesn't formally exclude that it could be a type of market elsewhere, but for all intents and purposes of everyday communication — it implies that wet markets are a uniquely Asian things, or at the very least: and Asian term for the thing.
 * You're successively shifting the goalposts, and even so you're being proven wrong:
 * Fresh food markets — where people can buy fruits and vegetables and sometimes seafood and meat — are popular in many places around the world. But "wet markets" are unique to Asian countries.
 * Mother Nature Network "Understanding the tradition of wet markets"
 * I could just continue to pile them on, but even so the problem is larger: option 2 has severe WP:NOTABILITY issues. Carl Fredrik  talk 13:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m moving the goalposts? Let’s recap:
 * You reverted the addition of a Ghana subsection on the basis of One primary reference to a non South-east Asian or Chinese wet market in Ghana is not sufficient to establish WP:DUE. I added 2 secondary sources.
 * Then you said 2 isn’t enough broader use must be based off strong WP:SECONDARY sources, so I gave 10.
 * You stopped claiming DUE, saying broader use must be based off strong WP:SECONDARY sources and we need an RfC, so I gave 23.
 * You claimed that the dictionary definitions are geography-restricted, to which I pointed out that only the crowdsourced MacMillan entry was, meanwhile OED/Lexico does not geographically restrict their definition as they do for terms like bazaar.
 * Then you made the claim that the dictionary definitions say that there is no distinction between grocery stores and wet markets and made the very bold claim that nearly all wet markets are indoors. So I gave 8 RSes that say they can be outdoors, some of which say they are typically outdoors.
 * Then you invoked COMMONNAME, giving 1 direct use of an Asian-specific definition (not even only SE/E Asia), to which I pointed out that there are 23 RSes directly using the term for non-SE/E Asian wet markets with another dozen or so out of the 89 references using the general definition.
 * Now you make the bold (un-disprovable) claim that there exist thousands of articles that use an Asian-specific definition, based on them talking about Asian wet markets, while only giving 2 direct examples of articles with Asian-specific definitions.
 * Not to mention the non-examples of food truck rallies and Harrods. Who is moving the goalposts?And no, affirming a disjunct is not just some abstract notion of formal logic that is removed from real life. Here is that same exact thing happening here and here with In Spain, Castilian Spanish is called castellano, meanwhile half of Ibero-America also calls it “castellano”. Similarly, Localized cutaneous leishmaniasis (LCL), known as "chiclero's ulcer" in southeast Mexico, was [...] here has no bearing on how it’s also called that in Guatemala and Belize. Similarly, a source just discussing a wet market in Asia has no bearing on the existence and prevalence of wet markets elsewhere. You’re literally making an indirect inferral, and we need more than 2 direct references + indirect OR inferral + vague hand-waving to thousands of sources. If a source doesn’t say it, we don’t assume. That’s just WP:STICKTOSOURCE. — MarkH21talk 20:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s honestly a big stretch to go from “there are thousands of articles that talk about wet markets in Asia” to “we cannot include anything about wet markets in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, West Asia, or South Asia in our article on wet markets”, especially when there is an existing large body of pre-2020 scientific, economic, and journalistic literature on non-SE/E Asian wet markets. If other editors are okay with that, then we can do that. We would probably also need to then remove Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources from WP:OR. — MarkH21talk 23:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC); fixed "nearly all" 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Each and every point you're bringing up is wrong and incorrect.


 * I removed the Ghana mention initially because it was based on a single primary source. You added one more, you never gave 10.


 * Your sources still pale in contrast with Asian sources.


 * All the definitions make reference to the geographic connection to Asia


 * I never claimed that all wet markets are indoors — that is an outright lie!
 * I continue to invoke WP:COMMONNAME, and your false summary of it does nothing to weaken my argument.


 * There do exist thousands of articles, just use Google to check.
 * Carl Fredrik talk 19:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you said nearly all and not all, which is still false according to the plethora of sources that said that they're typically open-air, and the 10 was in reference to the broader use statement (both now amended in the post above).The overwhelming majority do not use an Asia-specific definition. Go through the entire reference list, not one does. None of the first 30 references even make any reference to Asia in their definitions, except maybe the opinion article #27. There are thousands of hits on Google about wet markets and Asia; that's different from thousands of articles use a definition of "wet market" that specifically makes reference to Asia. I'm not even sure that there are thousands of reliable sources that talk about wet markets. — MarkH21talk 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC); updated


 * Re CFCF: You finally point out more than one article (a purported nine now!) that make any reference to Asia in their definitions. One is from a travel blog. One describes a Moroccan wet market in the same article, and the inferral that you are trying to make would mean that wet markets would only exist in HK and SG. One just mentions that wet markets are a common sight across Asia. One only makes the statement that Wet markets are widespread in Asian countries and in countries where Asian people have migrated (so countries outside Asia...).So we're left with 2 articles (from MNN and Fodors Travel posted by NYT Travel) make exclusive mention of Asia, 1 (from NPR) says that they are known in the region as a "wet market", 1 (from the youth news service News Decoder) that says that they exist throughout Asia, and 1 (from Global News) that they are considered a traditional form of food retail in large Asian cities. Meanwhile, we have 23 50 listed sources describing wet markets outside SE/E Asia, the SBS Australia article (the markets have not only existed in Asia, but also in Africa and South America) from, including at least 3 in the article itself give explicit mentions and descriptions of wet markets outside of SE/E Asia (CBC, Mongabay, the aforementioned The Atlantic article, another Lancet article), many non-opinion articles (another The Guardian article, Fox News, Fox News again, The Times of India, Newshub), and not including many opinion articles (Al Jazeera, IFPRI blog, NY Daily, Financial Review).I'm clearly unconvinced by your arguments for restricting the scope of the article, something that I think requires strong direct RS support, but further discussion (at least between us) seems unproductive since it's now at the point of just your false summary of it does nothing to weaken my argument. I look forward to seeing what other editors think. — MarkH21talk 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC); updated 12:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this whole discussion is a "mostly is not all" fallacy. Sure, most wet markets are in East Asia and are associated there culturally. But some wet markets are elsewhere.--SmokeyJacques (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence here. I did not hear about this term before, yet I'm familiar with these places outside Asia (by any definition, including living stock). I was pretty sure I could find the term "wet markets" for these places in Europe... but I could not find any. At least for Spain, where I know first-hand places that match any definition that does not include a geographic specifier. --MarioGom (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s a few sources mentioning European presence in the collapsed list above, but most only discuss their presence in developing countries and historical presence in developed countries. — MarkH21talk 23:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I thought the Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences description might be sufficient. Where do these markets exist outside Asia? SarahSV (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That definition also made me more confident Option 2 is right. It says that wet markets are "the traditional system of retail food marketing in Asian countries", and then goes on to give a definition of what they actually are that is completely independent of Asia. Or in other words, exactly Option 2: they are common in Asia but are not defined by being in Asia. (I don't think actual proof of their existence outside Asia is even necessary given this. By analogy: a kimono is a common garment in Japan, but they're not defined by being made in Japan. A kimono made outside of Japan is still a kimono.) Loki (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The collapsed list at the top of the RfC gives several throughout sub-Saharan Africa, for instance. — MarkH21talk 01:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the pointers. I see a 2008 paper in Review of Agricultural Economics using the term regarding Mexico. Don't know whether it's on the list above; see . SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.