Talk:Korean cuisine

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.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_12#Seasonal_cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This "Legend?"

The soups and stew section says about Haejangguk: "Legend has it that soon after World War II, the restaurant that invented this stew was the only place open in the Jongno district when the curfew at the time lifted at 4 a.m." Does this mean that Haejangguk was invented around early 1900's? I've heard in many places/sources that this soup was served even in Joseon times in Jumaks (ancient Korean restaurants/bar).

Jeffrey3732 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

[edit] Ddeokbokki photo

I don't know where to post this request. But, can we get a more traditional picture of 'Ddeokbokki?' 99% of all Korean restaurants serve ddeokbokki with the tubular style of ddeok so this picture is a bit misleading, although it looks nice. In addition, Ddeokbokki usually will not contain any spaghetti like noodles, so this picture has two strikes against it. Is this something that Appletree can fix? Other than this tiny gripe, I think this page is well moderated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.160.36 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dog meat

I updated this section appropriately with valid text sources while leaving the torture part in, against my better judgment as the context has a western animal rights sentiment, especially since the sources are from animal rights groups, but I wanted to avoid stressful discussion over it until another source I have coming arrives. I will eventually incorporate much of this into the structure I proposed earlier, but felt this section really needed to be addressed before I got to the rest of my discussed proposal.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The main thing is, information about breeds (including the Korean name) was removed, and new text and heading substituted that have improper punctuation, poor grammar, and poor word choice. Comments here. Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well instead of criticizing, perhaps you can help by fixing the grammar, sort of the point of Wikipedia isn't it? Multiple people working together instead of pointing fingers at someone's grammatical errors. One sentence with poor grammar surly doesn't mean the whole edit is poor, unless you favor the biased web sources used from animal rights activists and western slanted articles on dog meat consumption. Anyways, I removed the dog breed name in error as I thought I had it on there beforehand, it was 1 am here and I made an egregious error it would seem. I always benefit from others looking at my edits in a calm manner with assistance on grammar and otherwise as I often put up information that unlike my regular research, I allow others to proofread so that I can work on more important issues that I can attend to. As for the name of the soup, I changed the name to the name used in the text I was using appropriately written by a professor of Korean studies at SUNY Binghamton and linked it to the other name used before. If I left the original name in the text it would not be a proper citation of the text I was sourcing from, which is proper academic writing.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixing the grammar would have meant returning in each case to the original version, which you will see that I did not do. Badagnani (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to put back in the information on purebreeds, but in all honesty that source where the citation was taken from is from information gathered from an animal rights organization which it is hard to state whether they have a bias built in or not. I have another source coming from another Korean scholar that might mention more information on this subject but until then I feel the only accurate statement is the one coming from the research scholar I have used. I could be convinced otherwise, with an unbiased source, even if it is a website I suppose.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Chris, I really appreciate your effort to expand the article with academic sources. The article finally its history section! :) As for the dog meat, I second your opinion. Honestly to say, what on earth Korean cuisine only has controversial one on the general and introductory article of Korean cuisine. The sole section is unnecessarily longer than any other subsection. There is dog meat article pertaining to all details such as how Korean people slaughter dogs to get the meat. I think the half of citations has to be removed due to their unreliable sourcing. The Seoul Times is NOT reliable media at all. But I feel very tired of POV pushings...--Appletrees (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are we keeping a separate h2-level section for the dogmeat? At the very least it could be sorted under a general "Meats" section in a section about the ingredients used in Korean cuisine.
Peter Isotalo 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That was my plan, but there are editors that will argue against it based upon all of the earlier discussions. I wanted to at least make the section more academic in nature before I attempted the move once I create a "staples" heading which will have dog as a protein under it, which I still think should like to the page on dog meat, but again a "consensus" seems to never be reachable on this page. Every edit, no matter what it is, turns into an issue on this page and it is very frustrating but I will continue as I'm pretty sure I know a little about proper academic research.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Do you guys mind if I archive some of the older discussions on here?--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

I've started a history section, as earlier discussed. However, it is a bit limited at the moment, once I receive my other texts I will continue to grow this section. The texts I have right now though will give me the ability to work on properly writing the staple sections of the article with citations and proper encyclopedic voice.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheaper grains

Do not repeatedly remove editing comment requesting details of the "cheaper grains" substituted for rice during hard times in Korea, until that information is actually located and added to the article. I did provide five examples of such grains, to assist you in your research. Good faith would have involved moving the comment or actually addressing it rather than blanking it entirely. Badagnani (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, following the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia would probably be a better choice than making your own rules as you go. It was me that made the removals, not Chris. The source does not state which grains, read the history please as it clearly states this. My edits were in good faith as I took the time to read up on how and where to make editorial notes and correct the errors in the article. As I have properly notified you of the proper procedures on your talk page, please take the time to remove your comments from the article and note your concerns on the talk page. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking me the question directly gets a better response rather than adding comments into the article which is against Wikipedia policy as it adds excessive information in the article which in turns makes the article difficult to append with unnecessary junk hidden in there. It is great that you gave examples of "cheaper grains" but if you are familiar with proper research at all, you cant just toss in any grain title you feel like because it was not mentioned directly in the cited source so it is appropriate to leave it as cheaper grains until a proper source is found. But honestly I tire of arguing with you on this article each time I go to edit it, and you are going to do what you want anyways, so have at it. Oddly I find writing my book and my published academic articles easier sometimes than getting the stuff I do for free done on here, ironic.--Chef Tanner (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I find particular frustration because I went out of my way and spent a couple hundred dollars on books to work on this article, just a little side note.--Chef Tanner (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're asserting that it's better to blank any and all questions about the text you add rather than actually address those questions, I'm afraid I don't agree. Wikipedia is very much a collaborative effort and such editing comments are more than a little important. Badagnani (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into another one of these arguments with you, Wikipedia articles aren't worth this sort of frustration and you clearly don't listen to anyone else that doesn't agree with you. Just follow the Wikipedia rules would ya? --Chef Tanner (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant to be frustrating, just a check when grammar or facts seem wrong, or need a bit of clarification. That's our process at Wikipedia, one of continual improvement via collaborative work. Badagnani (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I know what the process is for wikipedia, I have brought numerous articles up to GA status and two Portals up to Featured status and if you haven't noticed I put in a lot of time to keep the Food and Drink Project running that you happen to be a member of. Your comment on my facts being wrong is clearly YOUR opinion, negated by a scholar of Korean culture whom I am more apt to have faith in than poor web sources. Your comments removed from the article which should be on the talk page are numerous and quite honestly nit picky. Is white radish daikon? Daikon is a Japanese radish, one who knows of Korean cuisine should know this . Korean radish has a green and purplish hue to the top of it while daikon is completely white, stating radish though clearly illustrates that it is a radish though. Do we need to start writing articles for each type of radish? Do you even know how many types of radishes there are? I personally grow ten types in my garden and those are common ones. As for the green onion, scallion question, it is such a pointless question as they are two different regional naming conventions and as per wikipedia guidelines it is stated that you use one or the other, not both. Putting these statements in the article is not conducive to editing either, how the heck is someone supposed to answer your question in the article for you? That is why this page is here, to clear up your misunderstandings.

You don't have permission to address me as "dude." If you would have actually read the Daikon article before commenting here, you would have found that the term is an English word, borrowed from Japanese, used to refer to all white cultivars of the long radish. Similarly, had you done a Google Image search, you would have found that, although Japanese cultivars of daikon are generally somewhat narrower than Korean ones, they are indeed green at the leaf end, sometimes for several inches, as are Korean ones. The term "green onion" may refer to any type of onion that is in the green form, whereas scallion is a very specific term and should be used if scallions are being referred to. In this light, please restore the editing comments you blanked a few moments ago, until they are properly addressed. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Duuude
Stop now, he is one paper away from a PhD in Gastronomy from one of the top universities in the United States. What are your qualifications?
To help you out:
  • In American English a green onion is also called scallions.
  • Daikon is white radish.
You need to read up on
We'll talk after your block has expired.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dude

Taken from dude, just to help you understand my usage of the term in my paragraph above.

"Dude may also be used alone in a sentence denoting a feeling of surprise, happiness, disappointment, amazement or other emotions. The word might also be used practically anywhere in a sentence in order to convey such sentiments in conversation. The cadence, volume and length of the word is also used to denote the feeling, such as a clipped "dude" for irritation, or a long "duuude" for amusement, surprise, or wonder."

I don't know you at all and would never address you in an informal fashion, but will use the term in surprise, disappointment or in an emotion of displeasure when I feel it is so appropriate. As for daikon, if i were to take the article on faith, it does in fact state that the word daikon originates from Japanese language, not English. That said, I am more apt to trust my extensive culinary expertise and culinary based trip to Korea, along with my two Korean family members, my shopping in the Korean markets in Koreatown in NYC and the market near my home, along with the radish kimchee I made a few weeks ago with my co-worker who happens to be from Korea, along with my general education on the subject and my personal library containing numerous books that address cooking Korean cuisine. As I ran a Japanese restaurant for two years in Vermont, I think I might know a thing or two about that cuisine as well and the differences between the two. The only books I did not have on Korean cuisine were the cultural based ones which are helping me with the edits I am working on now.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Millet rose

What is "millet rose"? Might it be a French translation of "red millet" (i.e. red proso millet?) Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Google Books search for "millet rose". Where is a source describing a variety called "millet rose"? Badagnani (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I do not know, but at least I know it is millet, so unless I find anything else I'll leave it like that. As I am an instructor at a State University of New York school and the author is as well, I will probably be able to get a hold of him to ask.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is good. My guess is that it's the red variety of proso millet, although Indian millet (i.e., sorghum), which has a reddish-brown tinge, is also found in Korean cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)