Talk:Kimchi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (Cuisine), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Growing worldwide popularity of Kimchi?

I changed the introduction which claimed that Kimchi was of growing worldwide popularity. The source cited only related to Japan. There may be a difference between the Korean perception of Kimchi's worldwide popularity and the reality. The reality is that it's not widely eaten, sold or even known about in most parts of the world. The fact that it's sold in Japan doesn't support the claim that it's of "growing worldwide popularity". I also don't think "flavorful" is really a word that should be used in an encyclopedia entry about food. All foods could be described as "flavorful" so it doesn't add anything to the article. Also the claim that Kimchi is "perceived as healthy" by some means nothing unless you state whose perception this is. There was also no source to back up those two claims. Don't forget this is an encyclopedia entry not a free infomercial for the Korean tourist authorities or Kimchi exporters' association. Suitsyou 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parasite Sub-section under Composition Section

This paragraph should be deleted. The fact that this was added to the Composition section shows ill-intent of the writer. The 2005 incident had more to do with trade tensions between Korea and China exacerbated by China's Northeast Project. This was blip in news history and it's inclusion under the "composition" section is quite inappropriate. Melonbarmonster 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Deep Kimchi" comment in Trivia Section

This particular "trivia" doesn't belong in this wiki article. Although some people have no objections to this, others are obviously offended. It's not relevant to debate whether people should be offended or whether it's an existing colloquial or not. The issue here is that in light of the possibility of offending people(most Koreans would find this very offensive) and the peripheral, if not outright irrelevant nature of this issue, there is no pressing reason why this has to be included in the Trivia section and should be taken off. Melonbarmonster 23:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The colloquial use of "deep kimchi", especially in the American military, is very prevalent. However, in the context that I've heard it over a 30-year period, it has always meant that one is in big trouble. I have never heard the word "kimchi" used as synonymous with excrement. Maybe this needs a separate page, because it is prevalent usage.

  • It's not about calling the kimchi "excrement" it's about the fact that at least some recipes and styles are known for an extremely strong smell that is rather disturbing to many westerners. The smell isn't how it tastes, so it is slightly unfair, but not without reason. "in deep kimchi" most likely should be interpretted as "this situation stinks" than with the more literal word replacement. 24.254.141.144 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "deep kimchi" complaint

i'm really offended by that lil paragraph about "deep kimchi" watsup wit that? honestly, i know not everyone like that stuff, i ndon't like it either but that doesnt mean u can just mock other culture/food etc, i mean, cheese stink big time and so does curry etc but i don't see them being put down in their articles...move that shit outta here i'm serious its not being narrow minded...IF DISSIN OTHERS ARE BEING OPEN MINDED, R U GONNA B RACIST OPENLY?

  • I dunno that it was meant to be a 'dis' on other cultures, or a put-down on the food item. A paragraph 'dissing' kimchi would look more like: "Kimchi tastes and smells like shit (like all Korean food). As a result, some people say 'in deep kimchi' instead of 'in deep shit'." If the word is actually used as slang, then its inclusion is valid, and not necissarily supposed to be offensive in and of itself. Of course, if you find it offensive, then you have a simple solution: change the article. Simple as that. If someone else wants, they can change it back. Rinse, repeat. Of course, you're missing the point: this is slang. Slang words aren't always culturally sensitive. But hey, if you're easily offended, go on over to the List of ethnic slurs article and stop pussy-footing around. --Zonath 03:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Most Koreans would reasonably find this to be offensive.Melonbarmonster 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a Korean American born in the U.S. I have Korean as well as American friends and I have never once heard kimchi used as a euphemism for "shit" by anyone.
  • Actually, there's this caricature made by a Korean American webcomic artist. I don't know if the phrase "In deep kimchi" is in use, but I understand why one might think and use that phrase. I don't think the phrase was invented particularly to offend Koreans. Me and my friends refer, for example, to the Russian drink [Kvass] "sewer water", though we still love drinking it. We don't mean to offend Russians, we only mean that that particular drink is smelly.
There's no mention of "deep kimchi" in that reference at all.Melonbarmonster 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The phrase "in deep kimchi", as my father and my grandfather told it to me (Dad being an USAF 'nam vet and Gramps being a Korean war Army vet), originated from the Korean War; people fled their homes, with kimchi still fermenting in underground pots. When these pots got opened by curious GI's or got shelled open or whatever, they had been there waaaay too long and while not smelling like feces in particular, Americans would of course refer to it as smelling "like shit". This was apparently not an uncommon material to come across, so kimchi got a reputation among troops as smelling bad. 68.100.68.23 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

you guys wrote Korea had low number of SARS cases..in fact there was NONE fix that please (there were couple of minor scares, but turned out to be normal flu or pneumonia)

  • Actually a WHO report [1] lists ROK as having 3 cases of SARS (although all were imported cases, and probably sick before coming to Korea). Hardly surprising, due to the proximity of Korea to China. -Zonath 03:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The picutre shows the remainder I had at hand, maybe someone wants to replace this picture with something that looks nicer...? Kokiri 20:19, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The dish was okay (drooling...), but the photo is out of focus!!! I agree, a sharper picture would be nice  :-) Kowloonese 21:03, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Is that better? No, I'm not a photographer :-( Kokiri 10:16, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 15:38, 11 Feb 2005 Pekinensis (rv vandal) (cur) (last) 15:11, 11 Feb 2005 155.84.57.253 (deep Kimchi) This was not vandalism. Just because it didn't fit in your narrow view, doesn't make it malicious. This is how the word is used in daily discourse, especially in the US military.

  • Thank you for your contribution 155.84.57.253. I rewrote and replaced "deep kimchi", because it is used in that way. If people feel it doesn't belong it this page, it should be moved to wiktionary Kappa 17:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to second a point already made, my parents (my dad, who is ex-Army, and my mom, who is Korean), do use the phrase "deep kimchi." I have never thought that they were comparing kimchi to shit (since we eat it all the time). Yes, it smells, but a lot of cultures do use self-deprecating humor (ever hear a Norwegian joke?) and don't get all offended at comments about their food.
This joke probably originated from American GI in WWII and most koreans would find this offensive. Racist jokes and cracks among friends and family can be self-deprecating but inappropriate for wiki imo... or in public for that matter. Melonbarmonster 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never seen Kimchi in any kind of slang dictionary nor heard any English-speaking using 'Kimchi' as shit. Not everyone seems to agree on this, so I think the section of kimchi's slang should be omitted.
I agree. Other than the military influenced minority, this slang use of kimchi in non-existent and otherwise inappropriateMelonbarmonster 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that "deep kimchi" was just a tongue-in-cheek way to say "deep shit" without being vulgar. It's not comparing kimchi to poo. It's to further color a colorful phrase to express an exoticism. James Lilley, former ambassador to China and South Korea, used the phrase "deep kimchi" as recently as 2006 to describe Bush's troubles with influencing Asian countries. Do a simple Google search, and it's used all over the internet, particularly regarding the military and politics. I'd say it's similar to how G.I.s in Vietnam used "nuoc mam" as slang for different things. Zenpickle 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's obviously part of US military vernacular but nonetheless inappropriate and disrespectful.melonbarmonster 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A euphemism for 'doodoo'?

Sure, we might be uncomfortable with the word 'shit' in an article, but if you wanna say that kimchi is a euphemism for something, it's probably a bit silly using a word which is itself a euphemism.

  • In American slang, Kimchi is a euphemism for the word "doodoo" (by 4.159.80.138)

While we could just rewrite this to be a bit more oblique, it would make the sentence a lot more cumbersome and ambiguous:

  • In American slang, Kimchi is a euphemism for a more common 4-letter slang word meaning 'feces'

I say leave it as 'shit', after all, there is a wiki article on the word.

I have never heard of this word being used as a euphemism for "shit" either. I don't think this usage is wide enough to justify including it in this article.


      • Okay, as this has been removed and replaced a couple of times now, it seems that some sort of verification is in order.... on a yahoo search for "in deep kimchi" (in quotes), I got back 359 hits, many of them referring back to either this article, or one of the sites that mirrors it. On the other hand, "in deep shit" returned 149,000 hits. It seems to me like the use of this as slang does exist in limited amounts, but is it really widespread enough to justify putting in the article? Personally, I would lean more towards putting it on some list of slang and removing it from this article. --Zonath July 7, 2005 02:01 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, one might also want to search for "deep kimchee" (with two e's) because that's how a lot of people spell it, even if it doesn't go in with all the normal romanizations. 68.100.68.23 17:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: "Deep Kimchi" is used as another way to say "Deep Trouble". "Deep Shit" is also used the same way, as is "Hot Water". The reference of kimchi is to trouble, not shit, though both are something you would not want to wade in piles of. No one ever says "I had to take a kimchi". I think it is more commonly used in families from a military background, perhaps because of the Korean War? WormRunner | Talk 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • My understanding of the use of the term was that you'd say "in deep kimchi" to mean "in deep shit", but you'd never actually use the word kimchi as a replacement for the word. While "deep trouble" would be a more accurate way to describe the use of the term, I'd think that that's not what they meant when they coined the phrase.... 68.100.68.23 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I spent the 80s in military service and "deep kimchi" was ubiquitous. Deep kimchi is a euphemism for deep trouble, more emphatic than hot water but without compromising one's military bearing with potty-language. Indeed, "deep kimchi" enhances one's GI cred by implying a tour or two on the DMZ. Those former colleagues I associate with the phrase had all enjoyed tours in the ROK. --Fulminouscherub 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if kimchi=$#!+ then I could easily say 'this food tastes like chilli, bleh!' 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC) m0u5y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.52.221 (talk)

[edit] 沈菜

The Wiktionary entry for "沈" says it's a simplified form and that "瀋" is its traditional equivalent. If this is true, why are there few to no search results for "瀋菜"? "沈菜" seems to be the common way to write it even in traditional character texts (see zh:韓國泡菜), so if "沈" serves not only as a simplification of "瀋", but has been around as a traditional character, its wiktionary entry should be corrected. Wikipeditor 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The wiktionary entry strikes me as dubious. 沈 is not the simplified form of 瀋, although both are equivalent to shen3. --Philopedia 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kimchi can be roughly translated as "coleslaw",

is that accurate? --BillSpike 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Neither the preparation techniques nor the taste have anything in common. Also, coleslaw is specifically cabbage-based; kimchi can contain cabbage, or any number of other vegetables (and even non-vegetables). In fact, it would be hard to think of a less adequate way to describe kimchi. -- Visviva 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
They're nothing alike. Partially because if you open a container of coleslaw in a crowded area, no one will notice. Open up some kimchi around people who either don't like (or aren't expecting) it, and you'll usually find yourself by yourself pretty darn fast.
I don't know... I find it difficult to find a proper jar of kimchi these days. None of them seem to stink... ever... I went 13 years without having any kimchi, then suddenly I get a craving, go and buy a jar, it doesn't smell. Then I go and try kimchi from 12 different markets, and none of them have the smell I grew so accustomed to. Infact, one would say utterly odorless unless you put your nose to the jar. Which by the way my dog did, she couldn't smell it till she got 6 inches from the jar, and then she never forgave me. And my dog has a VERY good nose... 24.254.141.144 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
For analogies to Western foods, I think Sauerkraut would be a bit closer. Although it is not a perfect analogy, sauerkraut plus some spices would taste almost like Kimchi (well, the most common type, anyway)

[edit] shrimp?

Shrimp is rarely an ingredient in kimchi. If seafood is added into kimchi, it is usually squid or oyster. This is not to say that shrimp is never added. I guess anyone can add just about anything to kimchi, but in my 24 years of kimchi eating experience, I have never seen nor heard of shrimp being a typical ingredient. Thusly, I shall move to replace shrimp with squid or oyster.--Heesung 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's bc you're parents are from kyoungsangdo or chullado probably. Shrimp, squid, oyster, cod innards, anchovies, etc., all falls under the salted seafood seasoning category called, "juht". They make this seasoning with any type of seafood imaginable and shrimp is actually a very common type of juht used for kimchi.Melonbarmonster 20:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen shrimp cocktail-sized shrimp in kimchi, but baby fermented shrimp 첫 is widely used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skulligan (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
I've never seen shrimp cocktail-sized shrimp in kimchi, but baby fermented shrimp 첫 is widely used. Zenpickle 18:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen shrimp as an ingredient of kimchi. It think it takes the form as shrimp paste.Geosultan4 00:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The kind of shrimp used in gimchi, when shrimp is used in gimchi, is called sae wu jut 새우젓. You can get it at any Korean grocery. It's salted, pickled tiny shrimp. I have never seen or heard of large shrimp being a gimchi ingredient. For an example, see: http://www.geocities.com/ypmljulia/images/Kimchi/cabbage%20Kimchi.htm

[edit] poor scholarship

I believe that the section about the phrase "in deep kimchi" is an example of poor scholarship. The phrase itself has nothing to do with the actual subject of the article, while the veracity of the section is disputed and is unnecessary. The content, which barely merits inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, should be moved to an article dealing with foreign slang words or other types of vernacular.--Heesung 06:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that the references would help to dispel any problems with veracity. As for inclusion, it is certainly trivial, and shouldn't take up as much of the article as it does. However, that's more of an argument for expanding the article than for removing this section (which I rewrote in hope of finally putting an end to the endless revert wars over its inclusion/exclusion/phrasing). -- Visviva 07:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU for the references. (And just to rectify wasting the time of whatever poor soul may happen to be looking over this message: a trivial fact. There is a kind of extremely hot pepper used in Thai cooking, which might Romanize to "prik khii nuu", but I have no idea how good that Romanization actually is. It translates to "mouse dung pepper" due to its size. However, it is more often translated to "mouse SHIT pepper" for reasons I cannot even begin to explain, except that apparently the word can be used as an inoffensive-but-not-quite-dinnertable-conversation-worthy-subject verb) 68.100.68.23 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Heesung that it doesn't deserve a section of its own, so I renamed it 'Trivia', in which interesting but not particularly important details go under. —Mirlen 01:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This shouldn't even be in trivia. The reason for the trivia section is to highlight interesting quirks about the subject matter. Something like this is offensive, disrespectful and slightly racist in my opinion. I suspect that this is true for a good number of wiki users. There are no pressing reasons to include this in light of the obvious rancour this is causing.Melonbarmonster 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't find it "offensive" besides the use of profanity the phrase avoids, I don't find it "disrespectful" (on the contrary, I find it betrays an awareness of the world outside the contexts in which it is used), and I most certainly do NOT find it "slightly racist" in any way (seriously, how?). It's not even being used in such a way as calling a German a Kraut (which IS a slur, and yet I don't see people up in arms about its inclusion as encyclopedic content). It's an "interesting quirk" indeed about the subject matter, that is a small part of American culture (and arguably one that will have more relevance, than, I dunno, say, ) and oversensitivity is something of the attitude I myself find somewhat offensive. Who died and made sensitivity and offensiveness the supreme judge of "races" (a concept which I find laughable, having more blood of Korean royalty in me than anything else, and yet not speaking any languages but English and Japanese)? And where exactly does offensiveness of a fact override a detail's need to be documented? I don't mean to rap on you or anything here, but I find certain (prevalent) attitudes to be very... arrogant. -129.21.96.59 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Kraut" is a racial slur and casual usage of that word is highly ignorant, inappropriate, disrespectful, etc.. Say that to a German casually and see what happens. But you're not even asking to document a racial slur, you're claiming that perjorative use of a highly valued Korean cultural icon isn't disrespectful. Because of the history behind the term, it's tolerated when used in a military, political context but it is disrespectful in all other uses. When you force your own American military sensibilities over sensibilities of Koreans because you "don't find if disrespectful", that qualifies as borderline racist behavior caused by ignorance in my book. You should take heed and try to learn and understand different cultural perspectives and sharpen your own cultural sensibilities rather than being stubborn about not being able to distinguish. By the way, I would advise you to not go around touting your "royal blood" because doing so you look like an ignorant gyopo or half-Korean to other Koreans or non-Koreans who actually know about Korean family lineages. Besides for someone who claims to be at least part Korean, it seems to me that it would be better to err on the side of caution and be more alert than not about stuff like this. melonbarmonster 08:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You take him to task for being "racist", then turn around and call him an "ignorant gyopo"? Uh-huh. 74.134.234.31 00:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or are Trivia sections not even suppose to be in encyclopedic articles? I think this 'deep kimchi' stuff is some sort of perpetuating joke. I'm sure in Japanese there's something to the same effect about Rootbeer but somehow any comment reffering to it tasting like medicine seem to be argued and often removed. :/ 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)m0u5y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.52.221 (talk)

[edit] redirects

I think there should also be a redirect from 'gimchee.'\

Google search on the word "gimchee" reveals 290 searches. I guess it's worth a redirect. I'll create one. Deiaemeth 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pao Cai is drastically different from Kimchi. I don't know why a person would even suggest merging Pao Cai with Kimchi. Just because they are "pickled vegetables", it doesn't mean they are the same thing! By same logic, Daikon, pickled cucumbers, pickled onions, and mixed pickles merged under Kimchi (or vice versa). Deiaemeth 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

How do I pronounce kimchi?

kim-chee! Deiaemeth 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dongchimi

Could dongchimi be added? It's supposed to be one of the favorite kimchis in Korea. 69.81.158.23 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


If you'd like to write the article on dongchimi, feel welcome to. Maybe a list or something of the most common kimchi varieties might also be useful instead of separate articles for each variety. --Zonath 01:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Dongchimi should be a seperate article, if possible. =D Deiaemeth 06:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dongchimi is probably the oldest type of kimchi that's widely eaten. I don't see why it can't be added to this article if someone wants to put in the effort. Even better, if someone wants to write a whole wiki article on dongchimi.Melonbarmonster 20:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

i heard dongchimi is one of the mildest kimchi. i would probably try that one before other kimchis as i can't stand spicy foods. Siung99 --60.242.164.227 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variations of Kimchi

Though this is lightly touched upon in the article, some examples of different sorts might be useful. For example Naebak Kimchi. Watery Kimchi, and if possible regional variation of Kimchi. For example dried shrimp tends to be used more around Soeul and then fish products tend to be used more South. I don't mean an extravaganza, but a loose idea of how it can vary from region to region and kind to kind. Maybe also something on the cultural significance? Like how it's served at meals, and how Koreans ask if the person has been eating their Kimchi when they are sick... I know there are several articles on the internet about the variations in kimchi also by how rich the person is and Kimjang... so there is enough to cover this. --Hitsuji Kinno 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gastric cancer

An IP has changed the gastric cancer rate for [South?] Korea and Japan from "10 times higher" to "2 times higher". The URI given at the end of the sentence leads to an abstract that doesn't seem to support either factor, nor does it say that "heavy consumers of kimchi" suffer from "a 50% higher risk of stomach cancer". How about giving the URI directly after the word "study", so readers aren't mislead into thinking the figures can be found in the abstract? Wikipeditor

  • The "Nan et al." reference [2] names kimchi (as opposed to its ingredients or the chemicals within) as a risk factor for gastric cancer. In the discussion section, salt and nitrates are mentioned as possible reasons for this, but the paper doesn't go further in determining this.
  • Regarding cancer rate information, the "Nan et al." reference doesn't appear to be a good source. The deleted "Ahn et al." reference [3] might have it, though the article is not readily available online to check. This "Lee et al." article, which is available online, appears to be a better reference:[4].
  • The "Kim et al." reference [5] mentions that one type of kimchi decreases the risk of gastric cancer, while two other types of kimchi increase it.

--Ben James Ben 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at the "Nan et al." reference. It specifically says:
  1. Consumption of kimchi and soybean pastes was associated with increased risk of gastric cancer.
  2. Consumption of nonfermented alliums (onions, garlic, etc.) and nonfermented seafood was associated with a decreased risk of gastric cancer.
  3. This research made no claims about fruits or vegetables (other than alliums).
  4. This research made no claims about salt or nitrates. The discussion section does mention salt and nitrates as possible reasons for the results seen, but no conclusions were made.
--Ben James Ben 02:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There is some confusion about the Kim vs. Lee references. I think that the problem is that there are two articles with very similar names. One is the "Kim et al." article "Dietary factors and gastric cancer in Korea: A case-control study" from the 2001 International Journal of Cancer. [6]. Another is the "Lee et al." article "Dietary Factors and Stomach Cancer: A Case-Control Study in Korea" from the 1995 International Journal of Epidemiology. [7] From the abstracts, it is the "Kim et al" article that mentions that one type of kimchi is a protective factor against cancer while two other types are risk factors. The "Lee et al" article does not mention kimchi in the abstract. --Ben James Ben 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I re-iterate that the "Kim et al." reference mentions that one type of kimchi was found to decrease the risk of gastric cancer, while two other types of kimchi were found to increase it. To claim that the study says that "kimchi is a protective factor" while omitting the fact that the study also says that "kimchi is a risk factor" would misrepresent the reference and be extremely dishonest. --Ben James Ben 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that information about the high incidence of gastric cancer in Korea is actually relevant to this article. It's an interesting footnote, but there is no evidence that the cancer rates are due to kimchi. To include the information in this article would improperly imply that they are related. --Ben James Ben 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to mention it, I suppose, is that the research is funded specifically to try to explain why this rate is so high. Otherwise, no one would really be even looking I suppose... —LactoseTIT 15:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimchi Refrigerators

From the article: "Most Koreans have a separate refrigerator to store kimchi. Kimchi is well-known for having a very distinguishable smell which can corrupt the odor and flavor of other foods."

Kimchi refrigerators are not used to separate the smell of kimchi from other foods. They are designed to keep kimchi at an optimal temperature for proper fermentation. Zenpickle 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's used bc to separate the smell also. Kimchi fridge's are also excellent for chilling beer at that right before slush temp.. Melonbarmonster 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Saving up for a kimchi fridge now. Zenpickle 18:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The CNN report cited in the article only talks about the smell, and it only mentions refrigerators with a special kimchi compartment inside. A source needs to be provided to show that "most Koreans" have totally separate kimchi fridges, and that fermentation temperature is also a motivating factor. CapnPrep 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - nowhere does the reference say that "most" Koreans use it, anyway. 18% is the figure given with 60% in "the next five years." Nach0king 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with others here - the article referenced does not claim "most", only 18%. Am changing this article to reflect - "many". As to temperature, I'd have thought that the temp in a kimchi fridge would be higher than that of a regular fridge, to allow for slow continuous development of the kimchi (and my second fridge is set to about 8°C for that reason) - can someone confirm please? Webaware talk 09:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction of Chili Peppers

I saw that a "citation needed" marker has been put next to the comment that chili peppers were introduced by Portuguese traders coming from Japan. I'm not sure if it's from Portuguese traders themselves, but I did come across a reference at the Korea National Museum stating that chili peppers were introduced during the Hideyoshi Invasions (1592-1598). Zenpickle 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Checked the citation and the current reference states that peppers came from China or Japan. I haven't come across anything definitive on whether peppers came into Korea via China or Japan. Melonbarmonster 19:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Cabbage

It might well be interesting for the article to mention that John Bolton (soon to retire from his post as US ambassador to the UN), when frustrated in his efforts to attain even modest sanctions against North Korea following their nuclear bomb test, presented a resolution to the General Assembly which called for renaming Kimchee 'Freedom Cabbage'. --Philopedia 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reference for this, it might be a good addition to the trivia section.Melonbarmonster 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese vs Napa cabbage

Please note that Napa cabbage is a US-centric pseudonym for Chinese cabbage. Whilst the general term Chinese cabbage can encompass a wide range of varieties, it is typically used for varieties also known as Napa, Baechu, Wombok etc.

Please help to keep Wikipedia accessible to all, not just those in the USA.

Incidentally, where I live (Australia) there is no such thing as "Napa cabbage" - it is either Chinese cabbage or Wombok, and is used by Korean immigrants (and myself) to make very good Kimchi. Webaware 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to sound US-centric but "chinese cabbage" is used to describe a whole bunch of chinese vegetables that's different from the kimchi baechu cabbage. On the other hand, napa cabbage refers to the specific type of Chinese cabbage that's used to make kimchi. I remember a while ago, a bunch of koreans where I used to live would pay a local farmer to grow napa cabbage for them because available "chinese cabbages" were pretty bad for kimchi making. Now napa cabbage is readily available in us and used for kimchi making. Nonetheless, I still think it would be more accurate to use "napa cabbage" even it's not grown or maybe not specified in Australia. I think it's a more accurate description than "chinese cabbage". ANd as you pointed out if people click on the napa cabbage link it'll direct them to the chinese cabbage article anyways and they can read more about it on their own if they want.Melonbarmonster 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, that'll have to do. It isn't worth arguing about, given that those of us outside the USA are used to dealing with this sort of thing already. Webaware 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Melon, stylistically, it is not good to link twice to two redirects that are going to that same page that could just as easily be worked in by itself naturally. For this reason, your edit isn't the best. It's much better to simply say something akin to "made from a type of Chinese cabbage called napa or Chinese white." This both avoids confusion and relates both terms to a much more widely used general term. It seems you are very opposed to including the link to "Chinese cabbage" itself. The reference for that line doesn't even seem to mention the term napa, and it's clear that showing the generic term would be beneficial to many editors. --Cheers, Komdori 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Since January, when I acquiesced to Melonbarmonster's US-centric view, quite a few other editors have also "corrected" the page to reflect the broader view. I certainly prefer Komdori's edits, which reflect both the broader usage and the Wikipedia article name. Can we please stop this edit war, before someone calls yet another 3RR violation? Webaware talk 08:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Webaware, Komdori and Lactose are rabidly pro-Japanese editors who have been shadowing my edits and reverting them and instigating these revert wars. Unfortunately they've followed me to this article.
In any case, if I remember correctly, the last time this issue came up the 2 options we were trying to resolve was between "chinese cabbage" vs "napa cabbage" and I ended up inserting "chinese white cabbage" to accomodate US-centrism concerns even though "Napa cabbage" is also used outside of US like France, Canada.
Komdori's reaks of POV toetipping. There's no reason to point out that that baechu cabbage is a type of chinese cabbage and then to list chinese white cabbage and napa cabbage as if they're comparably used terms. I also am not sure if Chinese white cabbage is the same variety as Napa cabbage. Peking cabbage seems to be the more accurate term per http://www.foodsubs.com/Cabbage.html. melonbarmonster 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Linking per manual of style to a word including Chinese is somehow Japanese POV? You know there is a difference between these groups, right? The term Chinese cabbage is used much, much more often. Since this is something opposed by several here, why not work out a consensus here rather than initiating a revert war by yourself? —LactoseTIT 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Lactose, the term chinese cabbage is almost never used. Specific terms are used instead such as bok choy, wong bok, Napa cabbage, etc.. And including the term "chinese" is not Japanese POV. But you and Komdori's disruptive behavior in shadowing my edits and instigating these revert wars is. Please stop following my edits. Thanks.melonbarmonster 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, you seem to be the one intent on a revert war - you've been at it for some time before either Komdori or LactoseTI dropped in. As I mentioned above, several other editors since January have seen fit to rearrange the text to less US-centric prose, which you promptly reverted without discussion. As for pro-Japanese POV, I can't see it here - what's pro-Japanese about calling a vegetable by its common name, as known outside of the USA? Also, as LactoseTI points out, MOS would have us linking to the article name, not a redirect as you seem intent to maintain.
I recommend that we call it "baechu, a variety of Chinese cabbage", and leave it at that. After all, the article is about the Korean food, not what Americans plant in California, nor what American websites like Food Subs have to say about it. Webaware talk 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Napa cabbage is used in US, France and other parts of Europe. "Chinese cabbage" is an inaccurate term. "White chinese cabbage", "peking cabbage", etc are terms that are not popularly used, whereas "napa cabbage" is the most widely used term to refer to baechu cabbage. It's the most precise term. There is no reason to insist on using a generic term when we have more accurate terms for baechu cabbage. Just because "Chinese cabbage" is still used in Australia doesn't warrant its inclusion. Also, Napa cabbage isn't some "american plant in california". Napa cabbage is precisely the variety of baechu cabbage that's used in baechu kimchi.melonbarmonster 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that the term Napa cabbage is so much more commonly used, then come up with a source to support your opinion. The fact is it isn't. Even in the US it's often sold as Chinese cabbage, and MOS guidelines say that's a better link anyway. Webaware pointed out that there have been at least a half dozen or so editors who have tried to fix this link and you stubbornly revert it without cause. There have been multiple compromises proposed, but it seems the only way you'll be happy is if the word Chinese is gone for whatever reason, which is unfortunate because the (by far) most commonly used name for the general term, and the direct link, include it. —LactoseTIT 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You've obviously never purchased baechu cabbage. It's never sold as "chinese cabbage" but as wongbok or napa cabbage. Since you live in NY, you can go out to your local grocery store or local Chinese or Korean market and find out yourself.
The only editors who have fixed this is webaware and myself who have been editing this page for quite a while. You and Komdori started to edit this page only after shadowing my edits in an effort to instigate revert wars.melonbarmonster 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not Melonbarmonsterpedia, this is English Wikipedia. Accordingly, we use the terms and have a manual of style for English terms. While you may observe some local trends, that doesn't mean the rest of the world does. I read about it now in the Wikicookbook since I was curious of the origin. Napa even is a Japanese word, I really find it funny you insist on including that and accuse everyone else of making pro-Japan edits, when in reality we are just following manual of style, common usage, etc. --Cheers, Komdori 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how you, Lactose and webaware make up half a dozen. Also, were you and Lactose both looing at the wikicookbook together for both of you to stumble onto this page after your revert warring on the turtle ship article??? That's quite a coincidence.
As ironic and unfortunate as it may be "napa cabbage" is the most accurate and widely used term used in US and Europe. It is used in far more places in the world than "chinese cabbage", "celery cabbage" or "peking cabbage". Your reverts back to just "chinese cabbage" is factually wrong and you haven't even tried to justify this.melonbarmonster 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you state it like a fact, why not provide us a reference proving that that particular term is used in this case more often. If not, it will be reverted as unsourced. You of course won't find one, since it isn't the way you believe. I looked at the cookbook just today, from the link at the bottom of this page. --Cheers, Komdori 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says chinese cabbage is more often used? What exactly are you arguing for anyways? Do you want references that state that the term "chinese cabbage" encompasses vegetables that are not used for making kimchi? There is no reason why less accurate general terms have to be used when precise terms are available.melonbarmonster 00:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem including your pet-term, but the MOS suggests we also include the general one and make the link off of that. Yet another editor reverted your change and included this term as well, but apparently forgot to change the link, too. --Cheers, Komdori 00:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Napa cabbage is the most used term that is used to refer to baechu cabbage. Are you denying this? If you're not then it's my opinion that we should use the more accurate and specific term. If you are denying this, tell me why. From my own personal knowledge and for reasons stated above, my opinion is that Napa is far more common than other terms for baechu cabbage.melonbarmonster 00:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikicookbook also lists this cabbage as "napa cabbage" and not under "chinese cabbage" or any other name. The Kimchi article in Wikicookbook also refers to baechu as "napa cabbage".melonbarmonster 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't use personal knowledge and anecdotes, we use sources here. Find a source or don't persist in the change. Wikis aren't sources. —LactoseTIT 10:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I've offered wikcookbook articles for "kimchi" and "napa cabbage" to support my position. You've offered nothing. Not evern personal knowledge or anecdotes. If you have any information please offer it. If not please stop reverting.melonbarmonster 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is a legitimate concern here; as pointed out in the Chinese cabbage article, the term "Chinese cabbage" can be used to refer to two rather different vegetables. Since baechu is var. pekinensis (or so I'm given to understand), it would seem that we should use either "Chinese white cabbage" or "napa cabbage." Google suggests that the former is more common, but not by a lot (180k vs. 158k); I am personally at a loss as to why anyone cares either way. -- Visviva 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree--what do you think of this version ("a kind of Chinese cabbage, known as Chinese white cabbage or napa cabbage")? I personally think it's about the best, but it's been reverted so many times by Melon we seem to be foundering for some other suitable substitute. We're slowly making a little progress. I think it's nice to have the actual link to Chinese cabbage per MOS, and then talk about the variety. The concern is a bit that if we have Napa all alone some parts of the world have no clue what we're talking about. --Cheers, Komdori 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Visviva, the real story behind this revert war is that Komdori and Lactose have shadowed my edits to this article and blindly reverted my edits in spite of the fact that they never edited in this article before as retaliation for our disagreement from turtle ship. I'm just glad they're participating in this talk page in stead of blindly reverting. Also I have no idea why Komdori and Lactose have been reverting back to "chinese cabbage" in spite of facts that have been laid out in this discussion.

They've also shadowed my other edits and have instigating revert wars and Komdori has already filed two bogus 3rr violations reports on my edits. While I regret my role in this revert war, I have always participated in this talk page even when Komdori and Lactose were reverting my edits while ignoring my requests for discussion and I refuse to give in the Komdori and Lactose's abusive edit practices.

For those who are genuinely interested in bettering this article, Napa cabbage is the most used term for baechu cabbage than any other term for baechu cabbage in the world. No one has disputed this nor offered anything evidence or arguments against this. And yet this revert war continues for reasons that are beyond me. As I've stated before, there is no reason to resort to less accurate terms when we have accurate terms available. Wikicookbook follows this convention and uses Napa cabbage in its kimchi article. THe article about this specific type of cabbage is also titled, "napa cabbage". There is no sane reason why this convention should not be used in this article.

BTW, Chinese white cabbage is a different variety of cabbage that is different from Napa cabbage. The correct alternative names for Napa cabbage are Peking cabbage and celery cabbage.melonbarmonster 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting sillier and sillier. Melonbarmonster appears to have no interest in either consensus or working with others or making allowance for people living outside North America. Komdori and LactoseTI appear to have no other interest than baiting Melonbarmonster. And so the edit war continues, with no pause to actually have a discussion! Please, everyone stop this crazy edit war and work this out!
For the record, kimchi is made from all manner of vegetables, with a variety of different spices, and various animal products. It is entirely possible to make good kimchi from the bok choy variant of Chinese cabbage; that is not what baechu kimchi is made from, however. Baechu kimchi is made from baechu. Let's just call it that, link it to the Chinese cabbage article, and move on, please! Webaware talk 08:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I apologize if it came across as baiting, I'd just like anything that even comes close to a MOS version. I agree with Visviva that the version I had before wasn't so great, but it was just a correctly wikilinked version of Melonbarmonster's version in hopes that would stick. Unfortunately, no. I've changed it to the one you suggested, Webaware, it seems simple and straightforward. —LactoseTIT 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately substantive discussion have been side tracked by Lactose and Komdori. I am not interested in compromising with trolls who have no interest in this topic and have no knowledge on this topic.

Webaware, with all due respect I've have always been willing to discuss facts and propose compromises with you. But to be honest, you've offered little in this regard. I've given reasons for my position such as letting you know that the term "Napa cabbage" is used in US and in parts of Europe. It is the most widely used term for baechu cabbage in the world(you haven't disagreed with this or offered anything different). I've also explained why "chinese cabbage" is an inaccurate term. Rather than responding to the reasons and facts I offered for my position, you acquiesced and have since been throwing out groundless accusations from the beginning this section.

So far the facts that have been offered are that the WIKI Cookbook uses "napa cabbage". The Wiki Cookbook on this cabbage is titled "napa cabbage" and the google search done by Visiva shows "Napa cabbage" is the most used term by far! Now if you want to include additional terms for those living in Australia or elsewhere please do so. But unless you can provide some evidence or reasons that show a more popularly used term than "napa cabbage", the text should first mention "napa cabbage" and then the lesser used terms that are used in Australia or elsewhere. However, I am genuinely interested in discussing this topic and am open to genuine discussion with you and if you disagree please let me know why.

And it is true that Kimchi can be made with any vegetable product. But that doesn't mean that they are by the kimchi eating world. Generally you can't make kimchi out of bok choy and other "chinese cabbages" for two reasons. One, most chinese vegetables are conducive to being flash cooked under high heat in a oil medium and doesn't stand up under the seasoning. Koreans food uses leafy vegetables as "namul" rather than kimchi. Second, most "chinese cabbages" are foreign to Korean palates. Baechu has a sweet and neutral taste. Other "chinese cababges" have stronger tastes of bitterness, muskiness, etc., that are great for flash cooking under high heat with a little garlic garlic and oyster sauce but not for making into kimchi. I can see gutjuri being made from young greens however like baby bok choy. But that would be a novelty and not a generally made kimchi.melonbarmonster 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Melon do you have a problem with Webaware's compromise version? Visviva actually showed the the terms are used about the same (at least at the resolution Google can offer us) and Webaware's version removes this problem. Alternatively, we can simply say both terms and say they are varieties of Chinese cabbage, correctly linked. I'm fine with either proposal; which do you prefer?. Per MOS, though, linking the way that we have suggested is much better. --Cheers, Komdori 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess you do, since you reverted again without discussing. Do you, then, prefer the term where both napa and Chinese white are mentioned perhaps? Let's set up a straw poll here as to which version is preferred. --Cheers, Komdori 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Komdori are you blind are do you just lie compulsively? Your response is attached to my several paragraphs explanation of my last edit. Good grief.melonbarmonster 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster, you have always agreed with yourself. I have said before that I don't see "napa" in wide use, only in the USA. You have said that it is used in France and "elsewhere in Europe", thus confirming your own opinion that it doesn't matter what others think, you're "right". If you read my original acquiescence you will see that I didn't agree, I simply couldn't face yet another argument with yet another US-centric bully. I'm standing my ground now because you have proved to be a serial reverter with no regard to consensus.
Please do not use the Wikibooks Cookbook as a reference of what is widely supported or correct. It is still horribly US-centric, even after several contributors have spent considerable time tidying it up. For example, nearly all omelettes are spelled "omelet" (even "French omelette" [sic] was listed as "omelet" for a while); most recipes ignore international standards and use lb, oz, °F; butter is often measured in "sticks", apparently not just found on trees; some classic recipes from northern Italy use tomatoes liberally (US variants); lentils and dal used to be treated as the same thing until cleaned up recently; I could go on...
Regarding the naming of the vegetable in question, what would I ask for if I went into a market in one of the Koreas? Would napa get me a baechu? Would wongbok? Chinese cabbage? How about baechu? Remember that this article is about the Korean food, not what markets in California or New York sell. If people want to make kimchi themselves, they'll refer to a recipe, and there are a great many recipes with a US focus that will tell Americans to buy napa cabbage - the rest of us will have to try to work out that this means Chinese cabbage / wongbok, or find a recipe that doesn't speak American. This article, however, should call it by its Korean name, and link to the Chinese cabbage article without a redirect as per MOS.
Now please, stop the personal attacks, stop the revert war, and try to discuss this in a civil manner like an adult. Webaware talk 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Try to assume good faith/watch the personal attacks. Give me a min, I'll set up a straw poll and you can vote there. I think it will help to get a better view of what the consensus actually is. --Cheers, Komdori 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider honesty to be a very integral part of good faith and civil behavior. I am still baffled by your accusation that I reverted without discussing in spite of my lengthy explanation. I'm more interested in substantive discussion about the topic rather than engaging in straw polls with people who have no knowlege in the topic being discussed. You and Lactose have only been participating in this article for the purpose of reverting and POV pushing and your proposal for a straw poll is yet another avoidance of substantive discussion on this topic and an attempt to engage in yet more gamesmanship.melonbarmonster 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that you revert without explanation as you revert in the face of consensus. Not one editor in this discussion has suggested your version is the best one to use, besides you. We've been struggling to find any compromise that you'll live with that even vaguely goes along with the MOS on linking. Ignoring the concerns of several editors you are just reverting without making any attempt to discuss it here first. Stating your position and then going ahead with the revert is not discussing. I don't know about LactoseTI, but I'm here to find the best compromise that will a) read well, b) not be unduly US-centric, and c) link well according to the MOS. --Cheers, Komdori 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No you specifically stated, "I guess you do, since you reverted again without discussing." You can play around with compromises as much as you want. Unless it's reflective of actual knowlege about the topic being discussed, they're all useless. Secondly the only editors who are in agreement with you is Lactose. Thank you but no thans.melonbarmonster 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, you aren't discussing. You are stating your point of view and then reverting. That's not a discussion, it's more like a dictatorship. Hopefully the straw poll will get some good ideas generated, maybe we can get a new compromise version that no one has actually mentioned yet. --Cheers, Komdori 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you only started editing this page for the sole purpose of instigating revert wars I see how you could be misunderstanding the history of this dispute. The version I'm reverting to was there long before you and Lactose started reverting without even participating in this talk page. Your straw poll is useless when you and Lacotse has no knowledge on the topic and discussion at hand.
This type of gamesmanship is highly inappropriate.melonbarmonster 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have NEVER heard anyone call napa cabbage "Chinese cabbage." I spent must of my life with my parents in Chinatown and I've never heard "Chinese cabbage." The term "Chinese cabbage" is confusing, in that it can be confused with bok choy or gai lan. Geosultan4 00:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No one wanted to have "Chinese cabbage" exclusively instead of baechu, napa, or whatever. The MOS just suggests we inline it with an extra clause saying that napa (or whatever it is called outside the US) is a variety thereof. —LactoseTIT 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wanted to mention that, because I hate edit wars. Geosultan4 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Incidentally, I agree with you in that replacing only with "Chinese cabbage" might not be the best. I like the compromises that work in the names while still being compliant with the manual of style for linking. —LactoseTIT 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Geosultan4 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Just a little comment from here in France. I live in the chinatown of Paris (13 arrondissement), my wife is Japanese, we go to the chinese supermarkets every week or so, and I eat asian food pretty frequently. And I have never, ever read or heard the word "napa cabbage" in France. Everybody does say "chinese cabbage" ("chou chinois") here in France. In Japanese, it is called "hakusai", which, as you can see, doesn't contain the word "napa"... A little "google contest" will support my wiew. Google "chou de Napa" (which would be the most direct translation in French for "napa cabbage") : 25 pages (mostly automatic translations from English). "chou chinois" ("chinese cabbage"): roughly 120 000 pages...


Yeah, I agree with the French dude above. I've lived in New Zealand and South Korea, and traveled to another 25 countries on three continents, and I've NEVER heard of Napa Cabbage before today (when I visited this page). As far as I've always been aware, the stuff is "Chinese Cabbage".

I just did a google search on the two terms, and "Chinese Cabbage" got 280,000 hits and "Napa Cabbage" only got 130,000.

It looks like "napa cabbage" is a term used only by Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll on Baechu

This article has been plagued with an edit war on baechu kimchi. Maybe it will be helpful to see where consensus lies with a straw poll. The format is Support only by your preferred version with a short compromise, and a discussion section beneath. Feel free to add additional compromise versions.

  • This particular style of kimchi made with chili peppers and a variety of Chinese cabbage known as Napa or Chinese white...
    • Support per MOS for linking and to avoid using roughly equally used US-centric/non-US term by itself --Cheers, Komdori 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This particular style of kimchi made with chili peppers and Chinese (napa) cabbage... (slightly changed from "napa (Chinese) cabbage" found on the kimshi recipe from www.myrecipes.com (a website from Times Inc.)
    • Support - I'm from Germany, and this stuff is called Chinakohl here which literally translates into "China cabbage". The terms in Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Finnish are similar.
      A Google search turns up around 162k hits for "napa cabbage" compared to 628k hits for "chinese cabbage", so I think "Chinese cabbage" is the term that most english speaking people will understand. Most recipe sites based in the UK also say it's based on "Chinese cabbage" and http://www.kimchi.or.kr/eng/about/info/make/1177871_4517.html says: "Baechu(English name: Chinese cabbages)".
      http://www.hormel.com/templates/knowledge/knowledge.asp?id=819&hlite=true&querytext=cabbage aka. "All About Cabbage" says: "Napa cabbage is also known as Chinese cabbage, celery cabbage, Peking cabbage, tientsin cabbage, hakusai, pe tsai, or wong bok."
      This actually looks like an acceptable compromise to me.
      I think melonbarmonster should accept that this article is not owned by him and that discussion does NOT mean reverting and giving a reason but instead talking with each other and trying to find a common ground.
      I also think a reference to the term "deep kimshi" or "in deep kimshi" should be made. If melonbarmonster does not want this term to be in "his" article because he feels offended or he thinks somebody else could be offended then create a separate article about this term and put up a link from this one.
      This whole tempest in a teapot (I looked this term up from the German Sturm im Wasserglas) about the exact title of a cabbage would be funny if it weren't so sad.
      This is all Kappes (coll. German for "nonsense" but also "cabbage").213.182.109.125 08:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - sounds reasonable to me. Webaware talk 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This particular style of kimchi made with chili peppers and baechu, a variety of Chinese cabbage...
    • Support this is all right if we can't agree on the above version. --Cheers, Komdori 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - this article is about the Korean food, not the American recipe found in Wikibooks Cookbook. Webaware talk 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Support - I've lived in New Zealand and South Korea, and traveled to another 25 countries on three continents, and I've NEVER heard of Napa Cabbage before today (when I visited this page). As far as I've always been aware, the stuff is "Chinese Cabbage".

I just did a google search on the two terms, and "Chinese Cabbage" got 280,000 hits and "Napa Cabbage" only got 130,000.

It looks like "napa cabbage" is a term used only by Americans.

    • Support - Seems reasonable for me; any option not using the MOS-style link when one just as easily offering it doesn't make sense. —LactoseTIT 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like a serious response on this webaware.melonbarmonster 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This particular style of kimchi made with chili pepper and Napa cabbage also known as wong bok or celery cabbage...
    • Support This is an article about Kimchi not categorization of baechu kimchi. Wikicookbook uses "napa cabbage" in the kimchi article. It also uses "napa cabbage" as the title of the article on this particular vegetable. Visiva's google search also show Napa cabbage is most widely used term for this vegetable. "napa cabbage" is also used in US, Europe. No other term for this vegetable comes close.melonbarmonster 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This particular style of kimchi made with different kinds of cabbage including baechu cabbage, Chinese cabbage, napa cabbage, or regular cabbage...
    • Support Everybody can agree on this. Good friend100 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Everybody can agree because it's imprecise and quite possibly contradictory. It'd be like changing any given article to encompass any given point of view, basically, which would render the encyclopedia unwieldy and impossible to correctly maintain. Nach0king 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

As usual, please keep all comments regarding this poll here (other than your short rationale) in order to avoid clutter:

  • Melonbarmonster, please don't categorise my views as not "serious" simply because I disagree with you. Be civil. Webaware talk 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And please take your own advice and not categorize my views as "uncivil" because I disagree with you. You've been the one to resort to such one-liners rather than engaging in substantive discussion. I have been far more civil to you than you have been with me. I would still like a response to why the naming standard that's already established for wikicookbooks is not appropriate for this article. So far your dismissive comment of labeling it as "american" recipe only begs the question.melonbarmonster 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to be civil because you:
  • call other contributors "liars"
  • belittle other contributors' edits as "not serious" (including mine)
  • ignore requests for continued discussion, perpetuating an edit war instead
  • use edit comments to label others' contributions as "vandalism" or otherwise unworthy of retention
  • accuse others of pushing a POV, because their edits don't match your POV
Please try to be civil in future.
Regarding Cookbook, it suffers badly from lack of standards as I pointed out above. I'm not being dismissive when I say that the Wikibooks Cookbook is very US-centric - it quite plainly is, and several contributors there have been working hard to make it less so, but there is still a lot of work to be done. In the meantime, it is not an authoritative reference on much of anything. It does have some good recipes, however.
As to engaging in substantive discussion, I have already done so above. I would ask you to continue the discussion without the edit war if you wish to resolve this issue. I will assume that you have no such wish if you continue the edit war. Webaware talk 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
One further point regarding "standards" and the Wikibooks Cookbook: I've been slowly moving pages in the Cookbook to match the article names in Wikipedia, as the Cookbook often has non-standard or very localised names, even terrible misspellings, both for ingredients and recipes. Again, there is still much work to be done there... Webaware talk 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars can't be engaged by one person although you seem to think so which only degrades your own credibility and good faith. What I have done is to explain my edits in this talk page even whe

n others were simply reverting. It's also quite ridiculous that you're warning me for calling out proven POV pushers who have ONLY participated in this article to engage in a revert war for their behavior when your own list consists only of inflammatory accusations. Komdori and Lactose have not made ONE EDIT besides engaging in this revert war! That is a fact. Please take your own advice and exercise civility. My posts to you have been civil but your continued baiting behavior is only degrading this discussion and your own credibility. E.g., mimicking my response in the straw poll is hardly "civil" behavior.

Stating that wikicookbooks "standards" are not authoritative is not enough. It shows consensus and lack of dispute by editors involved in editing those pages. As inadequate wikicookbooks may be, it provides a neutral point of reference. So far all you've offered is you're own opinion which is even less "authoritative". Moreover, your complaints of existing references beyond personal opinions doesn't bring us any closer to a resolution. I have asked multiple times for suggestions and responses to what other term besides "napa cabbage" is most widely used. You've offered none. Your proposal of using the Korean word for this cabbage doesn't answer the question. Napa cabbage is still the most widely used English term for this cabbage. Again, if you disagree please say so and explain your position. You, Lactose, Komdori have offered no other suggestions or candidates for what the most widely used English term is for this cabbage!
My pick is "napa cabbage" and I've provided supporting evidence. Offer your own suggestions instead of name-calling, finger pointing, etc..melonbarmonster 03:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please take some time to read over not only the rest of the discussion, but the poll options themselves. One of the choices gives the descriptive terms of Chinese white cabbage as well as napa cabbage, two local names. Per MOS guidelines, it's not a good idea to link to a term which can be just as easily included. The fact is a general reader likely won't know what any of the terms mean (Napa, baechu, etc.) and should not have to click on it to find out. Instead, adding a single short clause, "a variety of Chinese cabbage," both satisfies MOS linking concerns as well as provides the reader with a much-needed clarification.
We don't use wiki's as sources; there's a reason for this.
How many times do you need to be reminded of good faith? On Wikipedia we don't have "proven POV pushers." No matter how you try, I suppose everyone brings their own biases to the table at some level, but do your best and assume good faith and lay off the personal attacks. --Cheers, Komdori 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Komdori, have you participated in even ONE edit besides reverting my edits in this ONE sentence? You and Lactose only participated in reverting in this article only after our disagreements on the turtle ship article. Let me know if I'm wrong on this. We all have our own POV but when your only participation in this article has been this revert war, you're going to end up expending some of that good faith assumption. Furthermore, you haven't participated in the substantive discussion. All you've done is to engage in gamesmanship of technicalities.
I already explained that Chinese white cabbage is not the same variety of cabbage as baechu cabbage. I know that the chinese cabbage wiki article says that it is but it is wrong. The absolute correct variety of cabbage that refers to baechu cabbage is napa cabbage. Even alternative names for this species of cabbage such as celery cabbage, peking cabbage, wong bok may or may not be the right variety used for baechu kimchi.
I've even offered Australian references that solely uses the term "napa" cabbage". Napa cabbage cabbage is the most accurate english name for this cabbage and alternative terms such as celery cabbage, peking cabbage or whatever term is used in the English speaking world can be added for clarity's sake. Adding the bit about type of Chinese cabbage only introduces more confusion and is topically unnecessary.melonbarmonster 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. Calling me a name caller and finger pointer does not help your cause, nor does it match the evidence.
I have made several proposals, all of which other editors accept, none of which you recognise. That is not the same as making no proposals. I'm sorry that you don't agree with my suggestions, but that doesn't mean that I haven't made any.
Your tactic of reverting the edits of others then explaining why you are "right" is also not the same as making a valid proposal - it is an edit war. I agree with you that Komdori and LactoseTI are equally participating in your edit war, but that does not excuse you from it. First, discuss; next, reach consensus; last, modify the article accordingly. Please do not assume ownership of the article.
As for the Wikibooks Cookbook, we're hard at work fixing it. There is general consensus amongst the regular contributors that there is a lot still to be done, including much work on the ingredients pages. The major things we have real consensus on are page layout and standard templates, and a desire to open the book up to all comers (i.e. not just Americans). Don't be surprised if someday the Nappa Cabbage page is renamed in line with the Wikipedia article, as has happened with many other ingredient pages in the Cookbook. That I have not done so yet is more a reflection on the fact that I don't like moving the goalposts on people (i.e. you are referring to it now, so I'm not changing it on you). Some might call that "acting in good faith". Perhaps you might like to try it. Webaware talk 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen here's what I mean when I said you haven't offered anything. What other term besides "napa cabbage" are you suggesting??????? As much as you've been complaining about this term, you haven't offered an alternative English name for this variety of cabbage. And let's be honest here, you initially wanted to call it just "chinese cabbage" which didn't inspire a lot of good faith or trust in your knowledge about this topic. And please take your own advice about civility, finger pointing, and name calling. I've only been courteous in my exchanges with you until you started with insulting me with inflammatory accusations and mocking my comments in the straw poll, etc..melonbarmonster 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If I owned this article, I'd call it wombok because that's what I most commonly see it called (i.e. my local supermarkets - but most vege shops here sell it as Chinese cabbage). However, this isn't Webawaropaedia, so I'd prefer it was called Chinese cabbage, given that this is what it is most commonly called in the English-speaking world (Google says 658,000 vs 180,000 for "napa cabbage" OR "nappa cabbage"). As you (and I) pointed out, that is a bit ambiguous, however, so I think we should call it baechu, a variety of Chinese cabbage. This identifies the variety as used in the Koreas, provides obvious information for all readers, and links to the Wikipedia article about the vegetable where alternative names are given (including wongbok, napa and nappa). But I've offered this suggestion before. Please tell us why you object, bearing in mind WP:MOS-L. Webaware talk 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Webaware you're really stretching it.... it's been beaten to death as well as pointed out by Visiva that "chinese cabbage" is a term that is used to describe cabbages that are not baechu cabbage and not used for making kimchi. You're google search makes as much sense as looking up "cabbage". I see no sane reason why you're avoiding using the precise English term for this other than for POV revert war reasons. Baechu is Korean term and it's already mentioned in the text. There are English names for this cabbage. Let's pick one.melonbarmonster 05:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping that we can avoid using a US-centric term that is a redirect to the Chinese cabbage page. At a bare minimum, the article should have the link on Chinese cabbage, but any time a contributor (several, not just me, Komdori, LactoseTI) have made this change, you have reverted it without discussion. We all want one common thing, that the Kimchi article link to the Chinese cabbage article without introducing a redirect, per MOS. In addition, we need to specify which variety of Chinese cabbage - in Korea, it is called baechu, also known elsewhere as wongbok, wombok, napa, nappa, Chinese leaves, Chinese head cabbage, etc. and so on ad infinitum. We need to pick one. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be the US-favoured one, when the article is about a Korean food.
In terms of English names, the only English names I know for this cabbage include the name Chinese - Chinese cabbage, Chinese leaves, Chinese head cabbage, etc. I can buy this vegetable under the first of those names, or under the Chinese name wombok / wongbok. I think even the Korean grocers I visit in Sydney call it one of those names. I think baechu is much preferable to those choices. Webaware talk 05:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
For the reasons melonbarmonster suggests, I would probably also oppose just plain "made from Chinese cabbage," with nothing else qualifying it. It is good to mention it is a variety of it, but there isn't a point to using a term that is region-specific. —LactoseTIT 12:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Webaware it seems to me that at least some Australians do use the term "napa cabbage" from the way things look on that Australian cooking website. But putting that aside, you're still evading from suggesting an English term for this cabbage. All other candidate besides the one I'm suggesting, including any Australia-centric terms, are even more regional and even less popular. Of all available, "napa cabbage" is still seems to be the best candidate(with alternative names used in different places also listed). You, Komdori, Lactose need to suggest different candidates with supporting reason and evidence. "Chinese cabbage" and "baechu" are problematic for reasons stated above.melonbarmonster 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an alternative that even suggested using napa in the name, along with another common international name. You didn't support it and didn't suggest why you didn't like it. I see nothing wrong with Webaware's version. "Baechu cabbage" is actually used in books, pages, etc. without italics, implying that it at least is somewhat used and while perhaps not as often, it encompasses all the "international local" names like your NY name, etc. --Cheers, Komdori 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I might also add that at this point there is a clear consensus, as measured by 75% of the contributors and people involved in this discussion. We don't really "need to suggest different candidates with supporting reason and evidence." If you want to change the consensus, it's your job to convince us, not the other way around. --Cheers, Komdori 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, I've almost never seen "baechu" used to describe this cabbage in English sources. Where are you getting this from? A simple google search between "napa cabbage" and any variant of "baechu" results the former term being found about 10 times more than the latter. I've already provided websites and references that show that "Napa cabbage" being used in Australia, US, Canada and France which you ignored.

Whenever you and Lactose comment on the the actual topic being discussed you show your lack of knowledge and familiarity of kimchi and baechu. For someone who claims to be Korean in NY, your ignorance is revealing.

Your claim of consensus is also invalid. You and Lactose have only engaged in revert warring. On top of that you've shown a total lack of knowledge and interest in the topic being discussed, and only participated in this page to engage in disruptive editing practices. Such participation is invalid in any straw poll or counting up of "consensus".

Lastly, instead of complaining and trying to instigate ill-faith gamesmanship offer a suggestion for which English term is most appropriate for this cabbage so that those who are genuinely interested in improving this article can carry on with this discussion.melonbarmonster 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest any alternative that would be consistent with the manual of style for linking? —LactoseTIT 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have. Continued lack of suggestion from your end however will be taken as acquiescence.melonbarmonster 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please quote it, I don't see such a suggestion anywhere. —LactoseTIT 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you do your own work and quote me a suggestion that doesn't with reason and explanation instead of playing these games.melonbarmonster 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact is you have not made such a suggestion; this is why you are unable to quote it. We've been more than patient with you, illustrated the consensus here, and you still aren't budging to even try to form a compromise. —LactoseTIT 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The fat is I have and I have explained my position extensively.
If you feel otherwise, it is you who need to explain your position and allow other to respond.
Amusingly, you've never participated in discussing the substantive topic at hand and have only engaged in revert wars and this type of gamesmenship. Unfortunately, the only English term for this cabbage that's been suggested is by you, Komdori, Webaware or me is "napa cabbage". If you don't know anything about this cabbage or the topic being discussed, please leave the discussion for the rest of us who actually care about improving this article.melonbarmonster 05:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to get in a shouting match with you. Being the lone editor who dissents, you can't demand everyone else just "agree with you." The consensus is clear; if you disagree, try to create your own. —LactoseTIT 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You've altogether stopped being responsive and are repeating arguments we've already hashed through. You haven't made ONE edit besides revert warring this one sentence for goodness sakes!

And I'm sorry that it makes you so angry but I can't change the fact that you have to be the one to articulate your own position and arguments. Let me know when you've cooled down and want to actually discuss the topic of this article.melonbarmonster 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a suggestion below this. Otherwise, we can stick to the results of the poll. This is getting ridiculous, I'm not going to go back and forth with you. In the absence of a new suggestion, we can only work with the consensus built. —LactoseTIT 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah ignoring my comments and repeating yourself isn't going to help the situation. I suggest you cool down and allow other editors who may not be around right now to comment. Also, feel free to make requests for comment from admins or neutral editors as Komdori has done.melonbarmonster 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the problem now? I don't think there is anything controversial with an article like kimchi. My proposal would be something like "kimchi can be made using baechu, Chinese, napa, or regular cabbage", according to this site. Good friend100 20:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not about how many editors are "on your side" Lactose. Good friend100 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but consensus through discussion is what is preferred. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we cannot have any reasonably accepted consensus until either I accept Melonbarmonster's suggestion, Melonbarmonster accepts my suggestion, or people other than the current four contributors put forward their positions. Webaware talk 04:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the anon suggestion--it also sounds reasonable to me. It's probably the most concise, but drifts a little bit from the MOS if you look at it "to the letter," I suppose. I'm up for almost any reasonable compromise, though, and it does read quite well that way. I'd support unless some other compromise coming up that's nearly as succinct with still getting the main idea across. Since the parenthetical doesn't take away from the intent of the guide to link to article titles when natural, I think it's pretty good. —LactoseTIT 04:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is something like "kimchi can be made using napa, baechu, chinese, regular cabbage". Simply including all the kinds used is the best and something everybody can agree on.
What I don't like is how you are only agreeing and offering proposals that don't even include "baechu". Its all about emphasis on "Chinese". The word "Chinese" has to be in your favorite sentence. What kind of attitude is that? To make kimchi "un-Korean"? You never work towards a compromise, only what you want.
On the outward appearence you appear to follow wikipeda rules by referring to wikipedia policies and using them. However, you and Komdori both edit war and delete everything that you don't like, whether the edits were good faith or not. Absolutely no good faith on you and Komdori's part. Good friend100 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you're dragging me into this. Anyway, please read up on what WP:AGF actually means. Changing something to be in line with policy when it also happens to be the consensus version is not bad faith editing.
As for your suggestion--I'm glad we're getting some new ideas out there, but your suggestion is a bit off the mark. It suggests that all these are different vegetables when some are more generic terms of others in the same list. It's kind of like saying, "Wine is made from white grapes, red grapes, or grapes." Don't turn it into a nationalism contest; the issue of having the "Chinese cabbage" link is simply because of two things. First, while it's perhaps not as specific as we'd like, it's a universal term that is understood worldwide and at least allows the reader to narrow-in to the idea. The second (and related) reason is to get in line with the manual of style linking. As I mentioned, these aren't really even distinct reasons, I suppose, because the reason the guidelines suggest linking this way is for the first reason--ease of understanding, less confusion, etc. --Cheers, Komdori 11:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Confusion? Thats confusion? People will be confused when they read that "kimchi is made with napa, baechu, Chinese cabbage, regular cabbage..."? You still want "chinese cabbage" only. Again, you fail to reach a compromise. I already said that my proposal is fair enough because it includes everything and is something everybody can agree on since it includes the word they want.
Please stop referring me to WP:AGF. Observing you and LactoseTI's relationship with other editors and their feelings towards you just shows that it is becoming increasingly hard to assume good faith. Good friend100 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they would be confused, thinking that those are four separate vegetables. For the record, I never wanted just "Chinese cabbage;" read above for discussion of the suggestions I did/do support. --Cheers, Komdori 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations on cabbage naming

G'day, here's a couple of citations that might (or might not!) help find a resolution. Please don't count these and arrive at a percentage in favour of one thing or another; they are intended solely as reference.

Scholarly
  • Farnworth, Edward R. (2003). Handbook of Fermented Functional Foods. CRC. ISBN 0-8493-1372-4.  – ...kimchi has developed into many different products (more than 50) that use different vegetables such as baechu (napa cabbage; Brassica rapa L. spp. pekinensis ...)
  • Steinkraus, Keith H. (1996). Handbook of Indigenous Fermented Foods. Marcel Dekker, Inc.. ISBN 0-8247-9352-8.  – ... Tongbaechu-kimchi and Bossam-kimchi are based on Korean cabbage; ...
Non-scholarly

[edit] Mrs Offut?

Who is Mrs Offut and why is the way she spells the word kimchi relevant? Is she a well known authority on kimchi or spelling? 70.83.20.197 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

no idea. should be deleted.Melonbarmonster 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health effects

"Kimchi has been cited by health magazines as one of the world’s five “healthiest foods,” with the claim that it is rich in vitamins, aids digestion, and may help in preventing cancer. [3] Moreover, many researchers confirm that due to kimchi’s high concentration of vitamin C and the rapid production of lactic bacteria, the Korean people did not suffer from the SARS or bird flu incidents that afflicted millions of people in Asia."

The author should be more careful in proclaiming health effects when his or her assertion are mostly unsubstantiated. No comprehensive scientific research has been done to prove kimchi as an effective remedy against the spread of SARS. Also, "health magazines" (What specific literature is the author referring to, and are they independent from food manufacturers?) should not be used as an authoritative voice on what food is healthy.

Your quote is referenced. That second sentence is pretty ridiculous thoughMelonbarmonster 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I renamed this Talk section to reflect the change in section name in the main article. --Ben James Ben 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I inverted the order of the paragraphs of this section. It seems better to mention the actual food first before going into health benefits/risks. Regarding what should be in this section, I think that the overall tone should be that kimchi is regarded to be healthy (as reflected in popular opinion), but it should also be tempered by research that shows that it is not. --Ben James Ben 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source of LAB

does anyone know how kimchi can be a good source of lactic acid bacteria? do people use lactobacilli starter (culture) to make kimchi, and if milk is not added, how do these "friendly" bacteria grow? --60.242.164.227 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The various lactic acid bacteria (LAB - including Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Lactobacillus) are resident on the fresh vegetables used to make kimchi, along with a (much larger) number of other bacteria, yeast, and mould spores. The salt added to kimchi helps to retard the growth of these other microorganisms whilst the LAB get going in the salty, liquid environment created by preparing kimchi. You can read about the process here (an article about sauerkraut fermentation, but equally applicable to kimchi). Also, this article has a kimchi-specific description. Webaware talk 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leewy0121's edits

These edits, a major change of the entire article, not only left it with broken "footnote references", but also reduced valuable information about possible detriments to its consumers' health to a single line in the very bottom of the article (external link). Perhaps somebody with a lot of time at hand can

  1. revert to the article as it was before,
  2. have a lok at Leewy0121's changes and additions and decide which are worth keeping, and
  3. integrate those bits into the article in a more careful fashion?

Thanks a lot in advance! Wikipeditor 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor image

I don't like the initial photo (of Baechu Kimchi). The image is much too close up, so that it is hard to identify. To tell the truth, at first I thought I was viewing an image of a fetus. Opinions?

--Philopedia 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, but how do you make it?

Will someone please add a section on making kimche for heaven's sake? And let's start with a recipe for baechu kimchi, so that the rest of us can learn to make it properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Here's one way: Wikibooks:Cookbook:Kimchi. Just one of many! Webaware talk 10:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Terms for Baechu Cabbage

Putting my personal feelings aside, I am starting this subsection to open up the discussion regarding what English name for baechu cabbage is most appropriate.

For reasons already stated above my suggestion is that we use Napa cabbage as it is used widely in US, Canada and Frace as well as other places in Europe. Wikicookbook follows this convention. I've even found an Australian food site that uses "napa cabbage" in many of its recipes:http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=napa+cabbage

Further suggestions and discussion welcome.melonbarmonster 03:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to #Straw Poll on Baechu (above), where this discussion is already in progress. Also note that the "Australian" website referenced by Melonbarmonster is an international recipe collection; try also http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=chinese+cabbage and http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=kimchi Webaware talk 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That australian website has recipes with "chinese cabbage" and "napa cabbage" because they are not the same thing. And the fact that an australian cooking website contains recipes of international foods doesn't undermine the fact that the term "napa cabbage" is used solely on an australian website for use by australians to make international foods. Napa cabbage is a non-australian, asian vegetable afterall.
And please don't try to side-step the issue by pretending that you already gave a suggestion for what english word you want to use for "baechu" cabbage because you haven't given it. If i missed it, please let me know. That's why I started this section to ask for suggestions on what English term you would like to use if you find "napa cabbage" so lacking. Please provide a suggestion and supporting reason, evidence. I don't see why you have any reason to avoid this request.melonbarmonster 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Prolonged absence of response will be taken as acquiescence.melonbarmonster 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Kimchi#Straw Poll on Baechu. One proposal has "napa" in it as well as another commonly used English term. I supported this proposal. It's the only one that anyone has suggested that is linked correctly per the MOS and also happens to include these English variations. --Cheers, Komdori 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Que? I directed you to the discussion above, which you tried to ignore by initiating this thread. I will not discuss this issue in multiple places. Do not assume "acquiescence" because I refuse to enter into an argument with you. Be civil, and don't assume ownership of this article. Also, please don't assume that I will respond to you within a 24-hour period, because I'm likely to take a week (or more) before responding. Webaware talk 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring by Lactose

Lactose you've stopped participating in this talk page and now you've resorted to double blind reverts. We were engaged in discussions above if you haven't noticed. You've never edited a single edit besides this revert warring! You've never participated in discussing the topic of this article. Your reverts are nonsensical in lieu of the discussions above. Please stop.melonbarmonster 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Kimchi. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

.. due to long-term edit warring. Please note that no particular revision is being endorsed here & that you guys need to state your issues with the article here so you can come to consensus on this and stop the pointless reversions. If needs be, mediation can be called for - Alison ☺ 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now look what y'all gone done. Rather annoying that it has come to this, when simple, civil discussion was all that was needed. Webaware talk 04:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well thank the editors who like to start up disputes. Good friend100 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't helpful, but I find a dispute/edit war based fullprotect on a page tied to anything cabbage-related hilarious  :P CredoFromStart talk 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Nach0king 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's not already on WP:LAME, if it continues much longer, maybe it deserves a place. --Cheers, Komdori 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add a Wiki link

Please add the following at the top of the page in small print (If there is a standard template for such thing, all the better):

This page deals with the food Kimchi. For David Kimchi the person, please see David Kimhi.

I ask this because Rabbi David Kimhi is widely known among certain scholars as simply "Kimchi," even if the food is what most ordinary people refer to by this word. -- Nahum 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin edit request

{{editprotected}}

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essential kimch

  • Baechu kimchi (배추김치)
  • Pogi kimchi (포기김치)
  • Ggakdugi (깍두기) - cube radish kimchi
  • Dongchimi (동치미) - watery kimchi made without pepper powders
  • Nabak kimchi (나박김치) -watery kimchi colored with pepper powders, representative seoul kimchi
  • Baek kimchi (백김치) - white kimchi
  • Yeolmu kimchi (열무김치)
  • Chonggak kimchi (총각김치)
  • Oi kimchi or Oi sobaki(오이김치 or 오이소박이) - cucumber kimci
  • Geotjeoli (겉절이)
  • Pa kimci (파김치) - spring onion kimchi
  • Buchu kimchi (부추김치)
  • Gat kimchi (갓김치)
  • Bossam kimchi (보쌈김치) - wrap kimchi

These kimchi are commonly eaten for daily meal in every regions of Korea and I think each should have own article, but unless I myself begins an article or somebody speaks for the update, none make it. So it is just like a to-do-list. Sigh......--Appletrees 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have the list in the article under a heading like "variations of kimchi" etc. Good friend100 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I created two articles regarding dongchimi, and nabak kimchi. But still it is a long way to go. Why don't you join with me to create new articles on kimchi? Some of these kimchi on the list are briefly introduced or mentioned on the main page, so we just need new and detailed articles about these variations. --Appletrees 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, I think we should make a template on the different kinds of kimchi. Unless somebody already made one (which I doubt), we need to find somebody who is skilled at makign templates. Good friend100 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. you mean the names of all kinds of kimchi to be integrated into a template like soy bean template? That is a good idea, but I think thresholds of the related articles should be made (at least 10 articles). After that, I can make the template according to regional kimchi such as Seoul kimchi, Gyeonggi-do kimchi, Gangwon-do kimchi, etc. --Appletrees 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There ya go, ggakdugi is on the list. I made it quickly. Also, cite your information in dongchimi. I touched up a bit on it. Good friend100 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
you're very quick to make the article! okay, I'll do that. --Appletrees 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blind reverts and referring editors to the Talk page

This is just a reminder that you should avoid performing blind reverts to the article. This is also a reminder that editors are not required to discuss edits on the Talk page or gain consensus before adding non-disputed text to the article. If there is disputed content, please feel free to initiate or refer discussion on the Talk page, but please don't blindly revert. --Ben James Ben 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probiotic

The word probiotic should be removed, as there are no scientific articles showing that soime of the cultures in kimchi are probiotic. There are pleanty of lactic acid bacteria in there, but that means nothing. A product can never be a probiotic, only special strains of bacteria can (not species, see probiotic. And there have been no probiotic strains ever been isolated from kimchi. That does not mean it can't have health benefits, but that is another matter. Knorrepoes 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The false accusation

We're respectively here to contribute to these Korean cuisine articles with good faith but recent edit warring makes you guys just ugly. The edit warring, bickering, false accusation are just disruptive behaviros.

I happened to know the ip address with which Badagnani has used due to the images placed in Hyewon pungsokdo from the common wiki, and Melonbanmoster, your accusation is definitely wrong. The anon, User:76.103.78.42 seems to be the recent editor engaging in the health effect section. I think you need to calm down and don't respect your behaviors which can cause just troubles. You don't rule this article, and please don't act like that. I think you two need a meditation by administrators. --Appletrees 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stomach cancer

Kimchi causes stomach cancer! [1] "But Koreans have the highest rate of stomach cancer in the world." [2]

"The researchers, all South Korean, report that kimchi and other spicy and fermented foods could be linked to gastric cancer, the most common cancer among Koreans. Rates of gastric cancer among Koreans and Japanese are 10 times higher than in the United States." [3]

There should be a balanced take on Kimchi and there should be a warning about possible stomach cancer. --Jjk82 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... You might also be interest in Japanese cuisine because your reference clearly mention that Japan has highest rate of gastric cancer along with Korea. Why don't you try to dive in the Japanese article? --Appletrees (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kimchi does not cause stomach cancer and is exremely rich in vitamins. It has even more vitamins than an apple.Euge246 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fermented = Alcohol content? If so how much?

If Kimchi is a fermented food dish, I then assume that it contains some degree of alcohol? Since there are a variety of preparation methods, the alcohol content (if there was one) would likely vary to a degree depending on the dish. I think that whether or not there is alcohol content in this dish should be more explicitly detailed in this article. --John Bahrain (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John B
Brewer's yeasts give both the alcohol and the fizz to beer. Baker's yeasts rises bread, but produce negligible amounts of alcohol. The fermenting microorganisms in the many varieties of kimchi are like baker's yeasts, though they produce natural food preservatives rather than bubbles - see Fermentation (food).
I'm very much most certainly no expert at all about this, though. If you come back to view the article and this talk page and want more information, perhaps consider asking at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. Oo-roo!
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well... no. Brewer's yeasts and baker's yeasts are the same species, and produce similar amounts of alcohol and CO2, but baker's yeasts are more suited to fermenting in flour slurries and produce more "bread-like" flavours. Try dropping some baker's yeast in a sugary liquid and check that alcohol after a few days. Webaware talk 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Kimchi is largely (but not solely) a bacterial ferment, producing primarily organic acids like lactic acid and a small amount of acetic acid. There is sometimes a very minor yeast contribution, but it is very small, so there will be minimal alcohol production (like, bugger all!). If left to age, even that piddling amount will likely convert to acetic acid or something else. In addition to the link given above, check out Fermentation (biochemistry) for some more information about fermentation. Webaware talk 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Kimchi can only be spelt "Kimchi". It CANNOT be spelt "gimchi", "kimchee" or "gimchee". Euge246 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick google confirms that kimchi is indeed spelled kimchee and gimchi. Recognise that native Korean writing doesn't use Roman letters, and Romanising of Korean words varies widely based on who is doing it. The official Romanisation of Korean words isn't the only way those words may be transliterated. Webaware talk 06:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sennen goroshi's deep shit

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has been insisting on inserting a vulgar slang deep shit in the article without providing reliable sources. Even if it has a plenty of verifiable notable sources, such trivia slang info should be included to this Encyclopedia? Of course, I don't think so. His edit summary as reverting the previous compact version says that he senses "sockpuppetry" by an anon which is not justifiable for his insistence of inclusion of the deep shit usage. Besides, he seems not to realize that the food article may draw many attention to people outside of Korea because it is the most representative dish among Korean food. We know that sushi smell is sometimes compared with some organ of human being but the article does not such vulgar content. So why should this article have that? Per the user's persistent edit to Korean cuisine, his edit is no wonder. If he keeps insisting, I will raise RFC or fetch administrators to meditate this (lol). --14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Although I have a lot of respect for the above editor, I am afraid that I don't follow exactly what he/she is trying to say. The edit I made was due to content, not due to the editor who made it. Although I have my opinions regarding the amount of trust that I should put in someone who joined wikipedia 2 days ago , but is very familiar with wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neutrino555 , that did not effect my own edit, infact I first made edits based on "deep shit" before the aforementioned editor even registered an ID.

If this article is popular or not, does not seem relevant when it comes to the removal of correctly cited and verifiable statements, I have always been of the opinion that instead of deleting verifiable statements, you should try to balance them with equally valid statements. Deletion is not the best solution.

Regarding the smell, I really dont understand what appletrees is trying to say, my edits were based on a CNN article, I was most certainly not trying to imply that kimchi smells like shit, neither do I care about appletrees' opinion regarding the smell of sushi - and of course if and when I find a citation that mentions "in deep sushi" I will add it to the sushi article.

I dont see why appletrees is so upset about this, I reinstated a correctly cited statement, end of story, there is no need for any further discussion, so lets not waste any more time on such things. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of doing vandalism as I rather removing your vandalism and restoring the properly organized information by an anon. Your CNN source does not mention of the deep shit, so do not say untruth here. As for sushi, it is not referred to as in deep sushi, but the smell like sushi is commonly used to denote some sexual vulgarism, so go ahead to please yourself. :D How could we convince that the first inclusion was inserted by others as you're speaking of sockpuppetry. You've been suspected of doing sockpuppetry, and none but you keep insisting keeping the slang in the article, so there is some possibility of your side.--Appletrees (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


It is OK, I have reinstated the statement with 4 citations. and WTF are you going on about regarding sushi? Is it relevant? Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind you calling WTF for yourself any more. Sushi is relevant and lies in the same vein. So do contribute as you asserted previously. --Appletrees (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Those sources appeared to me certainly to imply that 'in deep kimchi' is a colloquial expression for 'in deep shit;' they actually do confirm that it means the same thing as that expression, 'in deep trouble.' Maybe, instead of edit warring and insulting each other, you could have a polite conversation about whether this is important and how it could be phrased? This may be a language gap problem; in English, the phrase "in deep shit" is just an informal way of saying "in trouble," and doesn't refer to literal excrement; English speakers hearing this phrase would think "big trouble," but they wouldn't associate kimchi with literal shit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that it implies "in deep shit" however in the spirit of compromise it might be better to reword it as FisherQueen suggests. I have changed it to "in deep trouble" as I think any user over the age of 12 can work out that it is also a euphemism, however it is less likely to offend the easily offended. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


oh well, I tried. I reworded the article to a less vulgar form, but it was just reverted again. Sometimes I find it hard to keep faith in the process here, especially when someone counts my edits, realises that I have made 3 reverts and mentions that in their summary. Not that I would ever consider mentioning the word "gaming" - that would just be in bad faith I guess.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not tried but just has been sticking for your claim as your usual contributions. That's why you're the subject of RFC on you. Your bad faith and gaming is already proved by editors involved in Korean cuisine.--Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What can I say? I think my edit says more than enough, after it was pointed out to me that it might be phrased in a more suitable manner, I removed the word "shit" and replaced it with "trouble" - I made an effort, and got reverted for it. kthxbye Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
awwwwwww screw it, this is only the internet, and I no longer pay per minute like I did in 1998, so I might as well make one last attempt to solve this in a dignified and reasonable manner. Appletrees, if there was a mention of the fact that the phrase "in deep kimchi" is in use, and it is a euphemism for something, what wording would you like to see there? What wording shows the same information, but does not offend you? Please dont assume that I was suggesting that kimchi = shit, it does not, I have a tub of kimchi in my fridge at the moment, and while it has a strong smell, I wouldnt tolerate it in my fridge if the smell resembled shit. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your preference on food has nothing to do with this because here is not your blog. --Appletrees (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No shit. Sherlock - but I was actually aware that wikipedia was not my blog, and please excuse me for trying to be nice and making the point that I don't think your beloved kimchi smells like poop. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No shit. Sennen, but I like Poirot with sophisticated tastes. That is a big difference between your fondness of vulgarism and my tendency of liking politeness. I do not wonder you are fond of dog poop girl too. The case is simply violation of BLP and copyright. However, I do not try to think of your beloved vulgarism is like poop. Please excuse me whenever I try to make you speak in a polite way. Your way of speaking is honestly not so great. --Appletrees (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and also assume that the above comment was not a personal attack. I don't really understand what the dog poop girl has to do with this article, but then again, I don't really care much either. Apart from that, I don't really comprehend what point you are trying to make, but yeah, whatever. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't you happy with my paraphrasing your above so-good comment? I assumed that you would praise my quick learning and wit from yours. Your response imply that you did make personal attacks to me above. However, your continuous vulgarism appears to prevent sincere discussion with people or at least with me. You too know well that I'm very annoyed at your way of speaking, so please be civil as possible. As for the dog poop girl, I just recalled your previous violation case due to your fondness of the "poop" and Korean culture. You're pouring your special way of speaking to me which I do decline to. -Appletrees (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] compromise

Despite the fact that I consider the current version to be highly suitable, I am still interested in the opinion of Appletrees regarding this article, if the current version is still offensive and you have a better proposal then please let me know, I realise that neither of us are able to edit this article right now, due to 3RR, but I am always interested in solving disputes in a manner that satisfies everyone involved. Perhaps it would be nice if for once we were able to agree on an article. Just to clarify, I dont think the comment should be removed, I am more than happy with the "in deep trouble" comment as I think it still gives as much information as is required. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're satisfied because one person supports your insistence to which I object. So RFC may be a wise solution to resolve this. Of course, I think that is a highly inappropriate slang to the encyclopedia. The another editor whom you accuses as sockpuppet objected yours as well. Don't forget to contribute to sushi article as your previously claim that you would insert the same vulgar content if sushi has the same meaning, and there is many in real life. --Appletrees (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn, this is really hard work. Let me try to make this as clear as my patience will allow me. As you are unhappy with the current edit, do you have any suggestions regarding this article, that might be considered to be a compromise? I have already made one edit, that I thought would be a good compromise, but you didn't like that edit. Do you have any better suggestions? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn, Speaking such the profanity in a habitual way is not good for your soul - eventually for eternal life. I have a perfect suggestion. The slang has gotta go. --Appletrees (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Should a slang be mentioned in the food article?

With a unknown weird reason, I can't make my reasoning in the template to be unhidden, so paste it as below the title.--Appletrees (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deep shit or deep trouble are appropriate content material? If so, every smelly food would've had a relevant content which I can hardly find in Wikipedia because here is encyclopedia --Appletrees (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this problem stems from (I shall try to use tact here) the above user having a less than perfect understanding of the English language. The fact that kimchi is smelly or not, has nothing to do with "in deep shit" or "in deep trouble" it is merely a phrase in which the word "shit" or "trouble" has been substituted by the word "kimchi" that is all. It does not imply that kimchi is like shit, smells like shit, or is negative in any way. It is not designed to insult Koreans or lovers of Kimchi wherever in the world they may be. It is not a personal attack on Korean food, Korea, Koreans or Kimchi itself. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that I have tried to reach a compromise on this article, I removed the word "shit" and reworded the statement in what I considered to be a non-offensive manner (that got reverted) I have also made many attempts to start discussion relating to this issue, and made is very clear that I was interested in reaching a compromise that might satisfy both of us. These offers were rejected, it seems obvious that this editor is more interested in making a report about this, than he is in actual discussion and compromise. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw a big notice on the top of that section that said "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones." I thought I was trying to improve the article. I guess some people get excited easily. Neutrino555 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sensibilities be damned, It should only be mentioned in the article if it's notable. A few authors using the phrase in blogs or news articles doesn't make it notable. At one point the article stated, "This phrase is particularly common in the U.S. Military community, which has had a presence in South Korea since the Korean War." That wasn't ever verified and ended up being removed, thus currently notability is non-existent. It should be removed from the article. Gh5046 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The book "War Slang: American Fighting Words and Phrases Since the Civil War" By Paul Dickson ISBN:1574887106 seems to back up its military usage on page 240. Page 247 backs up the more offensive use as a direct translation for shit outside the context of the phrase 'deep trouble'. Even adding that to the article would be a case of documentation, not agreement. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That clears up my only concern with the use of the phrase. When this squabble is over with and if that isn't used, I'll add it. Thanks! Gh5046 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you mentioning smell in the context of the word 'trouble'? The two have no connection. The current edit seems fine to me, its the best compromise thats going to be found between explaining the usage and avoiding the word shit. Explaining different contexts in which words are used is encyclopedic (though as noted above this usage may not be common enough to warrant a mention). Stating that a term is used in a given context does not imply any agreement or disagreement with that usage, it simply states the usage exists. Also the original version using the word shit does not imply that Kimchi means shit. Shit is one of many words in the English language with multiple meanings depending on context. In this context it means trouble, not feces. Neither the revised or original versions constitute any sort of comment on Kimchi, they merely document that the word Kimchi is used in another context than the food. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The mention of smell is not introduced by me, but by Sennen goroshi if you carefully read the above discussion. Weird, because food with strong smell are often compared with others in vulgar meaning. --Appletrees (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a food smells was introduced by me? are you sure of that? I thought that the first time it was mentioned was when you said We know that sushi smell is sometimes compared with some organ of human being but the article does not such vulgar content. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This conversation has gone stale, and pretty quickly. As BrucePodger stated, "Stating that a term is used in a given context does not imply any agreement or disagreement with that usage, it simply states the usage exists." There's nothing wrong with leaving this information in the article. Let it go, both of you. Gh5046 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this conversation is basically over, but I have a comment. It seems to me that the phrase "deep kimchi," though used commonly enough, doesn't actually have any relationship to the food. If this article were called "Kimchi (food)," other uses of the word, like this slang one, would obviously not belong. Rather, there might be a "Kimchi" disambiguation page, and maybe, if "deep Kimchi" was important enough by itself, it would be a separate page. It would be a pretty short separate page, but it would prevent the trivia from being in this one, where, honestly, it doesn't really add any useful information. maxsch (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)