Talk:Mung (computer term)

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)[reply]

Jargon File entry has very similar definitions for both, suggesting confusion and/or convergence: http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/mung.html . Maybe it's worth adding a section describing the etymology and discrepancy? I've updated Munge to redirect to this page, instead of [Munged_password] which I think should be deleted. Ambiguator (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The sources you provided do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. See in particular the section on self-published sources and Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neologisms. --Muchness 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The key part of the guideline you quoted is "so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" – there is no evidence in the provided reference ([1]) that David Beaver has published material relevant to this usage of "mung" in credible third-party publications. Furthermore, the reference's only cite for usage is urbandictionary, which is not a credible publication for the purposes of Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

wikipedia is only slightly more credible than urban dictonary, pretty much anyone can put on any definition they want, user edited remember, get off your high horse...AND NO, I'M NOT SIGNING MY COMMENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.180.79 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muchness, I think you are mistaken. Urban dictionary is one source. Beaver references this (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003233.html), but he also references a discussion with a colleague. He also provides a definition of munging which deviates from the urbandictionary definition. Moreover, while it is certainly the case that urbandictionary is insufficient to prove notable current usage, the discussion of an urbandictionary reference by an expert in linguistics brings it to a different level. If it were not "notable," an expert in the field would not have noted it. Also you have violated the three revert rule. I have requested mediation. In the meantime, I am restoring my addition.

One final note, in the passage I quoted and you requoted, the antecedent to the word "their" is the author, not the author's reference. Hence, so long as BEAVER's work has been previously published, he is credible. That one of his sources is urbandictionary does not disqualify his scholarly work.

PStrait 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Beaver has described is a protologism at best – that is, a neologism that is not yet in common usage. The issue here is not whether Beaver is credible, the issue is whether the referenced blog post establishes that the term is in current usage. The referenced blog entry does not address the issue of whether the usage is common, it provides an anecdotal exchange with a firend and a link to a site that you agree is insufficient. To include this material you need to establish that the term is in common usage, which the provided references do not do. --Muchness 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an additional source to support my claim that this definition of "mung" is in current usage.

PStrait 05:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A song lyric by a band that fails WP:MUSIC does not substantiate that this term is in common usage. --Muchness 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shifted disputed section from the article:

Mung as a product of corpse desecration

According to the urban dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com), "munging" includes the following: 1. a recently deceased corpse is disinterred, 2. one person places their mouth over the vagina or anus of the deceased, and 3. another person jumps on the corpse so that a combination of bodily liquids and embalming fluid flies into the mouth of the first person. That combination is referred to as "mung." (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mung) This definition is supported also by the University of Pennsylvania Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003233.html), which states: "to mung is to consume the bodily fluids of a corpse, preferably that of an old woman, and typically by direct mouth-on-orifice contact while a buddy jumps on the corpse's stomach. "

Additional support for this usage can be found in the lyrics to Goratory's song "Heading Mung Festivo," which include:

"A classic mung scenario With me the catcher and Griffin the jumper Positioned for mung driven madness My mouth in front of her rotted pu*** Waiting for dead excretions to vomit from the depths of her cu**"

(http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/goratory/riceonsuede.html#4)

Muchness, you are not answering my arguments

What you are doing constitutes vandalism and violates the 3RR. At least have the respect to answer my arguments. PStrait 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Dictionary and Pennsylvania Langauge Log sources reflect common usage of the term 'mung' so far as i have ever heard it used. If that is the only additional criteria muchness is demanding then it seems pstrait's definition should stay up. BrettAWallace 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in definition just before TOC

This definition seems to contain an error of some sort: "when you jump on a pregnant dead ladys stomach and then eat the ejaculated fetus" This must be out of place.

Urban dictionary is not a reliable source

Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Anyone can write anything there. I could easily say Mung was the king of Sweden in 1412 and then I could link it here, but that would not make it true. So please stop adding it. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic then Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source as anyone can add anything to anywhere on Wikipedia 50.65.113.96 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman, urban dictionary was not the only source cited. What justification do you have for eliminating the entire passage just because one source is bad? Herbertmarcuse 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't even see the other sources. I thought the whole thing was a copy from the urban dictionary definition. I'll work on rewording that, then. Cowman109^Talk 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To speak to these concerns, there is still no reliable source (as per WP:RS) that has been cited saying that the "corpse" definition is valid. Per WP:RS, blogs are not a reliable source, and the Penn Language Log is exactly that; a blog. I have reverted the addition of that definition until a reliable source can be found. --64.132.163.178 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the sources, and I believe listing the lyrics of the song is copyright infringement, and the University of Pennsyvania Language log also directly refers to the urban dictionary link. There is no reason to keep this unless there is some sort of reliable dictionary definition or some sort of reliable source that goes on to explain the roots of the word. If any mention should be made at all, it should not be displayed as such as it is clearly not the official definition. I will see if I can fix this as I've stated above. Cowman109^Talk 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the paragraph. Is that alright now? Cowman109^Talk 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowman109, thanks for your work on this article, but I still object to the section's inclusion. I agree with your initial assessment that "there is no reason to keep this unless there is some sort of reliable dictionary definition or some sort of reliable source that goes on to explain the roots of the word." However, I dispute that the provided source meets those requirements; as you say, it only cites urbandictionary as evidence of usage; no other sources for usage are provided. I don't feel that the section belongs in this article unless sources that meet WP:RS can substantiate pre-existing common usage. Urbandictionary doesn't meet this requirement, nor does a blog post citing urbandictionary as its only reference. --Muchness 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me

Herbertmarcuse 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Language Log is reliable, but all it's asserting is that UrbanDictionary is asserting that there is a meaning of mung involving corpse-huffing. If we're describing that as a meaning of mung, we're relying on UrbanDictionary, not on the Language Log, and that's unreliable. So we lose. This reference should probably be removed; perhaps we could just link to the UD page and say something vague like "some believe that the word has other meanings, as catalogued here ...".

-- Tom Anderson 2006-12-12 18:38 +0000

As per my above comment, not only is a weblog without clear editorial oversight not a reliable source according to the official Wikipedia policy on the subject, one which accepts an assertion just because there's an urbandictionary entry on it is all the more suspect. Like I said above, until a reliable source can be found, I have reverted the addition of this definition. --64.132.163.178 14:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word/jargon definitions don't belong in Wikipedia

This article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Please see WP:NOT.

Seffer 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you could put it up for deletion. --Aquillion 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping it, as data munging is a common practice in IT nowadays. The article can encompass much more than just the definition. In other words, the article should be about the concept the jargon term refers to, and not the jargon term itself. I believe the term was invented because no suitable word already existed to describe this practice. Proxyma (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mungwall

Early versions of AmigaOS contained a program called "Mungwall", but I can't remember what it did. 91.49.116.110 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zork/Implies Destruction

I am considering removing this paragraph (marked with Dubious-Discuss on the article page). Based on other definitions and current usage, I don't believe that munging implies destruction. Also, this article should focus on the IT practice of data munging (widespread), not other uses of the word as in computer games. Those aren't likely notable enough in themselves. Proxyma (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The [Jargon File](http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_28.html#SEC35) defines it as "to make changes to a file, esp. large-scale and irrevocable changes." Some of the most common munging operations involve removing punctutation or tags, which are certainly destructive. The second defenition from the same source reads "To destroy, usually accidentally, occasionally maliciously." I think destruciton is definately implied. I would like to rewrite the opening paragraph with that in mind.Soyiuz (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinsoldier (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "often using the Perl programming language" I've been munging for a decade with php, html, and javascript. I'm sure others have been doing the same with a dozen other languages for even longer. Why the specific mention of Perl? Thinsoldier (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the word derives ultimately from the French manger, to eat. Grassynoel (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mung (computer term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/mung.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pdp8.net/os/os8/os8_cmd.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mung (computer term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]