| Revision as of 05:24, 5 October 2006 editMuchness (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,021 edits →Mung involves desecrating a corpse: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:28, 5 October 2006 edit undoPStrait (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers1,611 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ] 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ] 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :The key part of the guideline you quoted is "so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" – the only third party reference provided by David Beaver () is urbandictionary, which is not a credible publication for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, and is insufficient to demonstrate notable current usage. I invite you to seek mediation or provide substantive references to demonstrate notable usage if you wish to include this material. --] 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | :The key part of the guideline you quoted is "so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" – the only third party reference provided by David Beaver () is urbandictionary, which is not a credible publication for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, and is insufficient to demonstrate notable current usage. I invite you to seek mediation or provide substantive references to demonstrate notable usage if you wish to include this material. --] 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Muchness, I think you are mistaken. Urban dictionary is one source. The other is (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003233.html), which is the language lab at the University of Pennsylvania. Also you have violated the three revert rule. I have requested mediation. In the meantime, I am restoring my addition. | |||
| ] 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:28, 5 October 2006
Unsigned/unverified comments
While I don't doubt that the necrophilia stunt is an urban myth, or at least I don't want to, it is certainly older than South Park because my father told us about it (don't ask) when we were in junior high school well before we'd seen the show and most likely before that episode ever aired.
--- Agreed - My college singing group discussed mung at length as early as 1994.
--- Thirded, I can remember that exact action discusses before 1990, personally.
--- This is the total wrong definition of the word "mung"... Mung means to take a roadkill animal, preferrably raccoon, sew up all of the orifices, hang it from a tree during the hottest week in summer and then squeeze all the juices out. The juices are mung. Season all your meals with mung.
- Ok, that is just wrong. I cooked tonight, a new experience. At the moment I am totally broke (oops) so I cooked stew: cheap as hell ($5 total cost since I used what was hiding in fridge for most) and enough to last until I never want to look at it again. Imagine taking a large bite of still overly chewy (didn't quite believe you COULD cook meat that long, let along SHOULD - another oops) meat and, while mid chew, reading about roadkill-squeeze as füd :O{#### (my attempt at illustration of results): Never, in my life, had to clean off screen before replying to anything. Cheap meat out the nose: not good. You are a very evil person. And I haven't even read the necro part yet!
The word "munge" has been around at least since the late 60s and describes anything slimy and dirty and disgusting.
Munge and Mung are different words
Munge and mung are different words - see for example this page - mung means destruction, munge means conflation/merging. Munge possibly has a derivation from Lowland Scots. Scottkeir 11:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Mung involves desecrating a corpse
I have edited the main article to reflect the definition found on the urban dictionary website. While it is certainly disgusting, this reflects the way that many people I know talk about the word "mung."
PStrait 05:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The sources you provided do not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability standards. See in particular the section on self-published sources and Misplaced Pages's guidelines regarding neologisms. --Muchness 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Muchness, the University of Pennsylvania's language lab is a qualified source. The author, David Beaver, is an associate professor of linguistics at Stanford University. While the wikipedia neologism page proscribes using a blogs where a term is used a particular way, the source I cited had INTENT TO DEFINE and is as qualified as they come in terms of the use of language. As such, I have reverted the main page. PStrait 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thing. The page on self-published sources, which you requested I review, states: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously."
It is quite evident that the source I cited certainly meets these qualifications. Do not delete my addition. If you still have a problem with it, then we need mediation. PStrait 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- The key part of the guideline you quoted is "so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" – the only third party reference provided by David Beaver () is urbandictionary, which is not a credible publication for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, and is insufficient to demonstrate notable current usage. I invite you to seek mediation or provide substantive references to demonstrate notable usage if you wish to include this material. --Muchness 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Muchness, I think you are mistaken. Urban dictionary is one source. The other is (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003233.html), which is the language lab at the University of Pennsylvania. Also you have violated the three revert rule. I have requested mediation. In the meantime, I am restoring my addition.