Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Missing

I can't find that stir-fried tteok (tteok bokki?) is mentioned in the article. Isn't this a common food? Badagnani 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Korean soy sauce

Is it true, as I have been told, that Korean soy sauce is never used as a condiment (i.e. added to food at the table), but is only used in cooking dishes? This would be different than the Chinese and Japanese use of soy sauce and merits mention in the Soy sauce article. Badagnani 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's generally true but there's no customary prohibition against it.melonbarmonster 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this; one more question: what condiments are used for gimbap? Would this food be the exception (i.e., if soy sauce and wasabi are used, as with Japanese sushi)? Badagnani 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no condiments used for gimbap. The rice, vegetables and meat are seasoned before everything is rolled.melonbarmonster 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very helpful. I see that the Gimbap article mentions this. Badagnani 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Kimbap is no frills food on the go sort of like sushi before it got all fancified in modern times.melonbarmonster 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dog Meat Discussion Continued

This section needs to be deleted. Having an entire section on this inappropriate. It's like having a section of rocky mountain oysters, Squirrel meat or roadkill stew in an article on US Cuisine. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's appropriate content.melonbarmonster 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldnt disagree more. It's relevant, culturally significant and of wide interest. Deiz talk 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Obvious we disagree and the positions of disagreement have already been stated. Let's try to discuss the substantive issues here.melonbarmonster 08:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not like having an entire section on Rocky Mountain oysters or roadkill because those food items are not tradtional American food that have been tried by over half the population, nor are they internationally and domestically controversial.
The article was not reverted at all. The section was deleted without discussion, repeatedly, by an anonymous IP. I merely restored it until a consensus was reached. See Wikipedia policy: Do not undo another editor's work more than once without discussion. Bsharvy 04:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you're just not informed or if you're being biased. Bull testicles, roadkill, squirrel meat, pig's feet, intestines all have deep cultural and historical significance and make up a very colorful portion in traditional American cuisine as well as showing up in literature, TV shows. And it takes two sides to have a revert war. There's no consensus one way or another and I made my edits in good faith only to have it reverted which is why I restarted this discussion.melonbarmonster 08:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not instersted in reverting or revising thie matter, but one thing to correct, the food is Not comsumed by over half the population. I'm curious of Who have said the wrong information to you? The food is considered for the middle aged men especially during summer tiem to get energy. Less 10 percentage of Koreans have had it in their life time. I've never had it and everyone whom I've known also haven't had. I do not deny the fact that eating dog meats is one of the Korean traditions, but that is not widely spreaded food in Korea. --Appletrees 05:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
50%, 10%... any of these numbers reliably sourced? Deiz talk 06:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
About two[1][2] to three[3] million dogs are consumed in South Korea every year that corresponds to more than one trillion South Korean won ($1 billion at a rate of 1 USD per 1000 KRW).
According to a 2006 survey, among 1025 South Koreans, 81% of those in their fifties, 67% of those in their forties, 64% of those in their sixties, 59% of those in their thirties, 60% of teens, 46% of those in their twenties, and 55% on average have ever eaten dog meat. 64% eat dog meat 1 to 3 times per year, 17% 4 to 6 times, and 11% 7 to 10 times. This amounts to an average of 4.6 times per year, at 300 grams per incident. 75% think dog meat should not be banned, and many demand the improvement of the sanitary conditions rather than animal welfare.[4] Joins' report is based on the same source as Hankyoreh.[5]
Younger Koreans also eat dog meat. Jjok 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of statistics, even those who eat dog meat often only eat it a few times during the summer months. Of those Koreans who claimed to have eaten dog meat, it was most likely a rare daredevil experience. Dog is not eaten as common or popular cuisine but to address the meat of this discussion...

With all due respect, I definitely sense some cultural self-righteousness and even ignorance here. See http://www.slate.com/id/2060840/. This is an article on Korean cuisine. It's not an article on exotic Korean cuisine that non-Koreans find interesting or controversial.

Here's some objective illustrations of my point from other wiki articles that show precedent for my position:

1. Swiss cuisine doesn't contain a section of dog meat even though it's consumed: http://www.deliciousdogs.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=25&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0, http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=460

2. The French have traditionally eaten dog but there's no dog meat section under French cuisine, see: http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/%7Eannyg/english/e6.htm, http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/%7Eannyg/english/image/pic_5.gif. There is also no mention of the brutality or controversy surrounding foie gras.

3. No mention of dog, cat, reptilian meat under Chinese cuisine in spite of all three being eaten widely in China.

4, 5, 6, I could go on and on. No other "cuisine" article contains an entire section on "controversial" aspects of its cuisine let alone even a mention of its existence.

But here's the real kicker, my point is best illustrated by the fact that American cuisine doesn't contain even a mention and certainly not an entire section on bull testicles, squirrels, pickled pork's feet, chitlins, roadkill, etc., all of which are eaten far more widely and far more often than dog meat is consumed in Korea. And the depth of culture and historical significance of these "controversial" US foods far outnumber and outweigh Korean dog eating in frequency of consumption and sheer volume in variety. Heck in US there is a multi-million dollar hunting industry that caters to squirrel hunters and there are "squirrel clubs" at Universities across the US, including University of Michigan, where squirrels are hunted on college campuses, stored in student dorm freezers and eaten.

Bottomline, the issue here is what's appropriate content for an article on Korean cuisine. This is not about controversial Korean cuisine that non-Koreans find interesting or controversial. It is inappropriate to include a dog meat section in article. This section needs to be added to the dog meat article but it should not take up an entire section under this article.melonbarmonster 07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So you keep saying. As you may be aware, you don't seem to have much support. This thread is full of individuals claiming "I think (moves hands apart an arbitrary distance) this many people do such-and-such"... Dog meat is a culturally significant food in Korea, is available at restaurants, and is of interest to a wide audience - the consumption of dog meat in Korea is, to put it another way, "encyclopedic". The content of other WP articles is not relevant (see WP:ATA), so save yourself the trouble of making noise about squirrels and testicles. If you have reliably sourced information about other unusual, interesting or controversial foods, please add them to the relevant articles and build the encyclopedia. I'm not sure what it is about the reporting of these facts that upsets you so much, but I've been involved in many debates about whether particular points or issues are "significant" enough to report on Wikipedia - trust me, this passes the bar by a mile. Deiz talk 08:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I've carefully explained and illustrated the reason and logic behind why squirrel and rocky mountain oysters aren't given entire sections under American cuisine and how that's relevant to our current discussion. If you want to give me an honest response that addresses substantive issues, I'm all ears. So far you haven't done that. I'd also like to ask you refrain from uncivil comments such as characterizing editor who disagree with you as "making noise".
I'll leave this for further discussion and comment. If there aren't any substantive comments and discussion on this matter from you or any other editor here, we should proceed with dispute resolution.melonbarmonster 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think these are very good points about "varmints" such as squirrels being hunted and eaten in traditional American rural culture. Squirrels, groundhogs, etc. were formerly eaten due to hard times if deer or more conventional game could not be found, but apparently some small sectors of the population do still hunt and eat these small animals. This probably should be added to the American cuisine article if it can be well sourced. Regarding "Rocky Mountain oysters," I don't believe that food enjoys popularity with many Americans, or that such a high percentage have eaten them. Badagnani 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dog meat is eaten rarely and those who eat it the most will have consumed it a few times a year at most. It's expensive and it's eaten for virility by men who hit a certain age when such things become an issue. Those who have tried it have had it once or twice in their lifetime as a daredevil dining experience. In the US, bull testicles, squirrels, chitlins, pig's feet, etc., are eaten by a small percentage of Americans. However, the consumption of these foods in US is far more frequent and regular than Koreans' consumption of dog meat because they're consumed as regular food, e.g. I had a friend who was a bullfighter in Texas who introduced me to an entire world where men wearing oversized belt buckles ate bull testicles as part of their normal food culture. I'm all for including a mention or a brief reference to dog meat consumption in this article even though ALL other ethnic "cuinsine" articles don't even go this far. But to include an entire section on this is overkill and unencyclopedic.melonbarmonster 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - The Korean statistics given above tell a different story than the one you're telling. Also, chitterlings and pig's feet come from "standard" animals and are part of African American "soul food" as well as some other regional cuisines such as Mexican American and Native American; I believe pig's feet are also eaten to some degree in German American cuisine. They are not comparable to either dog meat or to "Rocky mountain oysters." Most Americans have never eaten the latter, and do not eat it even several times per year. I don't oppose adding mention of these foods to the American cuisine article, which seems in great need of expansion. Badagnani 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey would you mind using the standard colon system so all of our comments stack up nicely without bolded headings or anything? Thanks.
I read the article that gives the government statistics in Korean and it doesn't tell a different story. But more importantly, whether an animal is "standard" or "comparable" to dog meat in whatever way you may be thinking is your own subjective opinion which I find to be a bit culturally miopic ala saletan's slate article. Check out http://www.slate.com/id/2060840. All I'm saying here is that a section's size and level of detail should be proportionate to it's actual relevance and importance to the topic of the article. Right now, instead of the size of the text being proportionate to the topic of Korean cuisine, the size and level of detail of the Dog meat section is proportionate to what non-Koreans find controversial or sensational. That's just grossly inappropriate. This section needs to be deleted and moved to the "dog meat" article and referenced here.melonbarmonster 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • When you hold a different opinion to every other interested editor, and reliably sourced information also contradicts your niche opinion, dispute resolution is unnecessary. DR should not be a court of appeal for one editor who has trouble accepting clear consensus. You need to move on. Deiz talk 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey it's just distracting when you use bolded "comment" and bullet points to headline your comments when everyone else is just using the colon system for their comments.
And I'm really trying to have a genuine discussion about the meat of the issue here. I don't know why you're reacting defensively to this. WP:DEMOCRACY. If I'm wrong the DR will reject my request but I'm just trying to follow the rules as I understand it.melonbarmonster 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
With regard to unusual formatting, you must be confusing me with another editor. I would say it is perfectly normal to use a bullet point and to embolden the word "comment", although this is more normally seen in AfD discussions. A request to DR is unnecessary, per there being a long, well attended discussion on the relevant talk page (here) which established a clear consensus that the consumption of dog meat should be included in this article. Your editing record would also be eyeballed in such a discussion, which may not be an edifying spectacle. Deiz talk 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I did confuse you with Bagagnani since you started using bulletpoints when I expressed asked that we all use a standard system. I think it's a reasonable and fair request.

It's funny that you claim consensus and yet this disagreement goes on. It's also notable that your comments are mostly wikilawyering about technicalities and snide, patronizing comments that have nothing to do with any substantive discussion regarding the topic at hand. If you're not informed or not committed enough to participate in a substantive discussion regarding Korean cuisine then please let those of us who are informed and committed to delving into this topic deal with this. It does neither of us any good to argue about a non-existing consensus, whether DR will accept a request, etc..melonbarmonster 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a fair few chuckles in my time on WP but this is right up there. Deiz talk 03:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to demean anyone, but what I just don't understand is why, when we provide sources and citations showing the prevalence of consumption (and thus notability for our readers), s/he seems to ignore them? Badagnani 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you and others are committed to really delving into this topic. No one's taken issue with provided statistics and I've tracked down every single reference regarding statistics in Korean and English. What's your confusion with this?melonbarmonster 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If you check out the editing history and user talk this is not an isolated incident of making strange arguments, undiscussed reversions, overlooking sourced content etc etc. Deiz talk 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, check out ad hominem Deiz. In my opinion your only contributions to this discussion has been rude comments, personal attacks and wikilawyering. That's just a fact. I could go on but obviously we disagree and feelings are mutual so at the very least let's just respect each others' differences and refrain from leveling inflammatory accusations and snide comments, etc.. Let's both be reasonable here.melonbarmonster 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm being perfectly reasonable. You have a history of 3RR and edit warring on various articles, you've been warned by various editors and administrators about your behaviour and you are claiming a "dispute" when it's only you who disagrees with everybody. All of these are perfectly true and empirically obvious to anyone who looks at this page and your talk page. I'm very well versed in wikilawyering, ad hominem, etc. and haven't engaged in any of them. To be accused of such by one editor who feels the world is out to get him is water off a duck's back. Deiz talk 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Philippine cuisine article also talks about dog meat. Dlabtot 09:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dlabot, as I've already stated above, my position is that the size and level of detail of a substopic within this article should be proportionate to it's actual relevance and importance to the topic of the article and not to what non-Koreans find "controversial" or exotic. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with this. The error of creating disproportionate subsections based on culturally ignorant(albeit unintended and benign) perspectives should not be spread to other cuisine articles. By the way philippine cuisine only has one or two word mentions of dog meat not an entire section.melonbarmonster 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a few more days before going ahead with the edits. If someone can give a responsive comment to what's above, I will postpone the edits more.melonbarmonster 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There would appear to be no opposition to the section as it currently stands. Revisions thereof would likely be reverted as not supported by consensus. Take some advice - if you continue to unilaterally ignore the provided sources and consensus among other editors you can be blocked for disruption, and the article may have to be protected. Deiz talk 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You also have no consensus but your continued wikilawyering is disruptive and unproductive. You haven't contributed ONE SINGLE substantive fact, info, reasoned argument on the subject topic. If you continue your wikilawyering, I will report you for disruptive editing. I would love to be surprised and hear you actually address the subject matter at hand rather than continued wikilawyering.melonbarmonster 00:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The only rules about the "size and level of detail of a substopic" have to do with whether it should be broken off to into its own article. One could easily create an article just Consumption of Dog Meat in South Korea, if the will to do the research was there.

I teach in a Korean school. Two female teachers in their 20's have told me they have tried dog meat, and one said she liked it and has had it often. The other told me she tried it because her mother likes it. These are the only two teachers I've discussed this with. If young women and mothers eat dogs, and the reputation is that older men are the primary consumers, it is starting to look like a fair amount of the population has at least tried it. I was in Jogno today (area of Seoul)... dog meat restaraunts right in the downtown area. Bsharvy 13:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We've already covered this above and I think we'd all be better off to not rely on anecdotal evidence.melonbarmonster 00:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gastric cancer

Regarding gastric cancer incidence in Korea (and Japan), don't overlook gosari (bracken fern), which is eaten as a vegetable in both places. It's been implicated in this disease as well--perhaps more than kimchi. Badagnani 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lactose is at it again. This guy is not interested in improving this article but just lambasting Korea and serving Japanese interests.
Several problems with Lactose's reversion and reinsertion of this text:
"...but has been shown in academic circles to be a significant risk factor for gastric cancer, and the ingredients in kimchi "play important roles in the carcinogenesis of stomach cancer," helping explain the unusually high incidence of stomach cancer in Korea. [5] [6] [7]"
First, Lactose is engaging in dishonest and manipulative editing here. The quote from the article is taken out of context. The "important role in carcinogenesis" is not referring to ingredients in kimchi but certain chemical that's produced during the fermentation process. This research paper is reporting on this particular chemical phenomenon. It's not claiming that general consumption of kimchi is a health factor! In fact the in addition to fermented food such as dwenjang and kimchi being risk factors, the paper states that chemicals in fruit, shellfish are protective factors.
Second, there is no "academic circles" involved, and these research papers don't even claim to be conclusive. In fact, one case study even came out the other way, finding that kimchi prevents stomach cancer: "Dietary Factors and Gastric Cancer in Korea, a Case Control Study" International Journal of Cancer 2oo2.
Lastly, the reason why kimchi is being is being mentioned at all here is because it's stating health benefits of Korean food. The opening paragraph isn't listing ALL the health benefits and ALL the health risks. It's referencing overall claim that Korean food is healthy and there's references to support such a claim. Whether there may be a chemical in fermented kimchi that pose risks that may be offset by fruit and shellfish, etc., is just not opening paragraph material.melonbarmonster 22:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't dwell on the issue in the opening, although if we are speaking general terms, it may be interesting to note the gastric cancer anomaly in Koreans, which almost certainly is due to diet, and on which there are countless papers. It's an interesting phenomenon, and with some cohort studies we may eventually know exactly what is going on there. In the meantime, focusing solely on the "positives" is not a good idea, and we have to balance it out (if Wikipedia existed 50 years ago, I would hope we wouldn't be saying we can include "cigarettes are believed by many to aid digestion" and exclude the "evidence of cancer" simply because it is a "negative fact." Any suggestions on how to trim it to get all that in there without being as wordy as it is now? —LactoseTIT 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me??? We're not focusing just on the positives and there is no balance to be made here. The referenced claim being made here is that Korean food and kimchi are overall healthy and nutritional foods. These research papers don't challenge this because they don't claim kimchi is not a healthy food or anything like that. There are no conflicting references here. In fact, the research paper itself doesn't claim to be conclusive. In fact, there's even a study that found kimchi prevents stomach cancer. This is getting ridiculous, please stop your anti-Korean POV editing.melonbarmonster 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The points made in the older study you mention were discussed thoroughly in later papers. This is an issue going back several decades, the subject of much funding and considerable research as understanding the anomaly of Korean gastric cancer is a key to saving many lives. Tone it down a bit, surely we can get it all in without undo weight. Something along the lines of, "While kimchi may offer significant health benefits, some case studies have associated it with stomach cancer." If something along those lines still is unacceptable, why not pick another dish that is more uniformly assumed to be healthy (there are tons of unique Korean dishes that would serve such a purpose). Please stick to WP:GF as well. Perhaps someone can bail us out by suggesting a nice alternative! —LactoseTIT 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. You're not in a position to tell me to heed WP:GF when I just caught you using references fraudulently red-handed. There are risk factors in eating fried chicken but you're not going to find research papers referenced on heart attack and carcinogenic risks of fried chicken in the opening paragraph. This is ridiculous.melonbarmonster 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of (for touting health benefits), "For example, popular magazines sometimes cite the potential benefits of eating kimchi, though some recent research has found a potential link to certain forms of cancer prevalent in Korea." It makes it tighter, and you might perhaps find it a fairer treatment? —LactoseTIT 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Same as in other Korea-related articles. Its clear to me that your only editing on this article to negatively present Korea. Can't you ever do something that doesn't have to do with negativity? Thats why your getting so much opposition. If you hate Korea that much, add an anti-Korean sentence with a source and your done. No need to try to develop it and get others angry. Good friend100 04:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lactose, proposing changes and then reverting to past versions of text that's in dispute isn't good faith behavior. And while I appreciate your suggesting a compromised text, I'm afraid it doesn't address the specific concerns which I've explained above. Science is mixed with conflicting research and research data isn't clear enough to make conclusive claim as the papers make it clear. The referenced claim that's being made here is that kimchi is an overall healthy food. These research papers don't contradict this.melonbarmonster 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested removing that it has been recommended as healthy. I simply oppose removing the references to research suggesting a possible links to disease. I think we've hit a pretty good compromise version now. If you can suggest a better way of wording it, be my guest. —LactoseTIT 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your anti-Korean Japanese POV elsewhere. Trying to undermine every positive claim with unrelated negative claims is blatant POV pushing. I have no problems with adding this in the article but put it where it's appropriate. It doesn't belong in the introduction just to undermine a referenced statement that says korean food and kimchi is healthy.melonbarmonster 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes

What was changed in this edit? It's not made clear in "Discussion." With all the controversy, why does the editor not explain what exactly s/he is changing, particularly in the dog meat section? Badagnani 00:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously are not very informed about Korean cuisine. Edits were discussed extensively by several editors here in the talk page and in the history. Please refer them and ask me any questions you have. Nothing was deleted in the above edit, just moved.melonbarmonster 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stomach Cancer

There is now a (completely unsourced) misinterpretation of the study findings saying that kimchi somehow prevents cancer. I assume they are thinking of the study that found less of an increased risk in people who ate it without eating other things, but an increase nonetheless. That older study was mentioned and discussed in later studies. No one claimed that it prevented cancer, but that it didn't do as much damage as other things. If such a claim wants to be made, someone needs to find a source for it. Personally, as this whole cancer thing is a minor point, I don't see the need for a huge discussion on it in the article itself. It's undo weight to hype up on ladies magazine's recommendation to eat it and downplay dozens of scientific papers.

Since it seems there is much interest here, what are the thoughts on making an article discussing research into the increased gastric cancer rate of Koreans? We could then give a short blurb and link to it as the full article. —LactoseTIT 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Koreans, it's Japanese as well. Both eat gosari (Bracken fern). I pointed that out, but it doesn't seem to have been of interest to any editors, who prefer to focus only on a single food, for whatever reason. The medical consensus seems to be that salty, pickled vegetables (of any sort, from any culture, anywhere in the world) are not the healthiest foods, although, like many foods, they may also contain healthful components. Badagnani 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got a great point about Bracken, that's why I suggested making an article for it (not one for "just kimchi," but other causes as well--there has been significant research money put into trying to explain why this happens). You are right, I'm aware of the Japanese increased rate as well, although it doesn't quite approach the Korean one. Since it wouldn't make too much sense to have two articles on it, if we did make one, perhaps we could combine them together. I think your last sentence is a fair summary as well... care to take a stab at making a nice succinct one-liner for the article? —LactoseTIT 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you always trying to emphasize the negativity of something in a Korea-related article? Thats why you are almost never welcome in Korea-related articles because thats the only thing you like to do. This article has had almost no fighting over anything until you came here and started to talk about how kimchi causes cancer. Add a sentence about the cancer and source it, then leave it alone. This article isn't political like Liancourt Rocks nor does it have any significant thing to do with Japan. So stop trying to emphasize the negative stuff and I don't get why we are talking about POV. Theres no POV issues to fight over (unless you think that the article is biased because it only says good stuff about kimchi and should have bad stuff about it too, lol).
Its clear that this your only purpose, for example looking down on a cite from a "ladies magazine". So what if its a "ladies magazine"? You saying that it isn't verifiable or accurate? The site certainly doesn't look like its only for "ladies". I'm sure foods apply to both men and women. Good friend100 02:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I only stopped by (months ago) because melonbarmonster was attempting to remove the gastric cancer paper, also under the "focus on the positive" idea. I didn't come here to insert it. I think it's not unreasonable to say that it has potential benefits and disadvantages as a food rather than just say it has potential benefits. —LactoseTIT 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we only include positive benefits to it. Adding information on how it is bad is fine, but what you're doing, is inflating the whole issue and trying to emphasize on only the negative parts of kimchi. Thats why people are upset on what your doing. Its not like we're saying it shouldn't say anything bad 0_o. Good friend100 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lactose's Japan POV Pushing and Lying

I've caught Lactose using references fraudulently and lying red-handed in multiple articles and he's up to his old tricks yet again. In spite of his claims, I've included in the text a while back with edit explanations:

Kim et al, Dietary factors and stomach cancer: a case-control study in Korea. International Journal of Epidemiology 1995; 24: 33-41

This research found lower stomach cancer rates in those to consumed higher amounts of kimchi. Even research papers that found increased cancer risk in kimchi consumption cites this article as having found a decreased cancer factor. Even http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/11/3175.pdf article which found nitrate and salt in kimchi and dwenjang as being cancer risks cites this research as having found kimchi to be a "protective factor against cancer" and does not contradict or challenge it. melonbarmonster 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Melonbarmonster

WP:ATTACK please be a little more careful with your comments regarding other editors. thanks.Sennen goroshi 06:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pointing fraudulent referencing when it happens is not a "personal attack". Please read WP:REF and WP:NPOVif you're not familiar on how references are properly used without prejudice.melonbarmonster 23:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hanjeongsik

Why would someone add a caption saying "Hanjeongsik" at the photo at the very top, yet fail to explain this term in the caption (or text of the article)? Badagnani 03:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That was done by myself. I thought someone would fill up the information and if I have described it, the caption would've been much longer compared to other's in the article. Hanjeongsik literally means "formal meal of Korea". I paste some quotation regarding hanjeongsik here
Hanjeongsik is a full-course Korean meal with an array of savory side dishes. The most lavish of hanjeongsik traditional originated with the banquets served in the royal palaces or the homes of aristocrats. [6] --Appletrees 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs an article of its own, similar to Manchu Han Imperial Feast. Badagnani 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster's deletion

Why was this deleted without consensus? I just can't understand it. Badagnani 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at it, I think I understand it. You don't need to establish consensus to delete un-cited statements that contain phrases like "...is widely believed...". Such statements constitute mere conjecture which have no place in encyclopedia articles. =Axlq 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your constructive comment. I've just added a source which sets out the reason for this food's consumption during the summer months. Glad we are working together to improve the article by getting everything sourced properly and well. Badagnani 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani and other uninformed editors

Please check the history. I gave edit explanation. What are you confused about? If you're uninformed on the matter being edited or discussed I don't understand why you would make these comments. You've done this continually. A million people have made edits. Unlike many, I gave a clear edit explanation and have availed myself to discussion over and over again. Please check the facts before you cry foul over non-consensus when no one, including yourself have even disagreed. If you take a position and dissent at least you'll provide some grounds for claiming non-consensus. You haven't even done that.melonbarmonster 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Bagdani? If this is in reference to the comment I made above, there was no consensus for the deletion of the fact that this dish is consumed in summer months. That is important information that was simply blanked. The edit summary didn't make sense, because it called for fixing the text (to reflect that it is not a cooling food, but in fact is believed to strengthen one's body, allowing one to better endure the summer heat), not deleting it entirely. Badagnani 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You like rhetorical questions? LOL. Try to figure out who Bagdani is but if you're still confused, let me know and I'll tell you!
In any case, there was no consensus for inclusion of the text if you want to resort to that sort of wikilawyering. The edit summary made perfect sense and I did not call for "fixing the text" and you're not in a position to tell me what my explanation "called for". Relax with your defensiveness let's try to engage in productive editing rather than degrading this into wikilawyering and gamesmanship.melonbarmonster 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. I answered your question and rather than addressing the issues you made many kinds of accusations that did not address the issues at all. This doesn't show good faith. If you do not justify your blanking (your edit summary did, in fact, call for fixing the text rather than blanking), I will restore the text. Badagnani 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It was false information. I explained why it was false and deleted it. I didn't call for "fixing the text". That a claim that you made up to justify for illogical complaint. If you want to initiate a revert war you do so at your own risk in violation of the WP:3rr policy. There is however no policy against deleting false information from wiki articles.melonbarmonster 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I know what you did; you removed that dog meat is traditionally eaten during the summer. Then you insulted other editors (see the heading just above), and to cover yourself you sneakily re-added that it is eaten during the summer but neglected to re-add for our readers (as you stated should be done in your edit summary) exactly why that is, and neglected to note this re-adding here at "Discussion." With each new posting here, you do not explain your blanking (implying that you don't really know yourself), but instead simply choose to repeatedly derogate other editors. Again, this does show bad faith. Badagnani 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't insult "other editors", I addressed this section directly to you because you don't know too much about korean food. That's not an insult but a factual observation. And you should be happy that I addressed your concerns! LOL. That's not bad faith but called improving the article through discussion and editing. If you have any other issues or concerns, please let me know and we'll discuss it like normal people. But please do refrain from wikilawyering and BS complaints of non-consensus, etc..melonbarmonster 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is primarily intended for improving the article at hand. That said, what you've said just above is what we call a troll. Since you don't know me, you don't know my level of knowledge about Korean food or Korean culture in general. Conversely, you are the individual who stated "not many" Koreans eat dog meat. You did say that, and it doesn't appear that the statistics agree with you. What this shows is that none of us knows Korean food 100%. That is perfectly all right, because, as with every other article at Wikipedia, the sum of our cumulative knowledge makes our articles all the better. Badagnani 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious you know little about the topics being discussed. You don't have to be an expert but you have to have some knowledge if you're going to disagree or complain about others' good faith edits. E.g. you flaunt your ignorance with your comment about how widely dog meat is consumed. Not many Koreans eat dog meat, half of Koreans in Korea have tried it at least once and regular consumers of dog meat are a vast minority. Stop trying to make claims on things you know nothing about.melonbarmonster 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued blanking by Melonbarmonster

This edit by User:Melonbarmonster removed that dog meat is believed to enhance male virility. Badagnani 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Likely because the term "male virility" is reduntant. The word "virility" automatically means male, and the sentence already includes the word "men". I have to wonder, is English your native language? =Axlq 02:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. That's nice of you to ask; you can see the languages I speak at my userpage. Is it yours too? Badagnani 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed. I meant no disrespect; I was just curious about your implication that the words "virility" and "men" in a sentence are insufficient to establish a context of male. It occurred to me that an ESL person might miss it, so that's why I asked. =Axlq 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realized until you pointed it out that men were already mentioned earlier in the sentence (this wasn't noted in the edit summary when "male" was removed; in fact I don't think there was an edit summary), and now that I examined the "virility" article I see that it's strictly a male trait. Thus, I think the sentence reads well. The reason for my questions about the removals is largely because this editor has a history of trying to remove entire sections of articles, sometimes without explaining exactly why. Badagnani 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though you didn't have consensus for your last edit, I won't create an entire section in the talk page and ask rhetorical questions about your edit even though reasons behind the edit is obvious. I'll let it slide this time.
And btw, your questions, such as asking axlq if English is his native language, is disingenuous. If you have a position or an opinion, own up to it and state it. Phrasing it as a question under a guise of civility is just annoying.melonbarmonster 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In my case, I was simply restoring information that had earlier been blanked, with a source to satisfy everyone explaining why this food is consumed during the summer months. To not include this would leave a lacuna in the section. If I'm not mistaken, you created several section headings impugning me and my knowledge; but that's okay--I forgive you. We are all in this to create the most comprehensive and best referenced article on this subject for our readers.Badagnani 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL. As much as I'd like to take the credit, it's just your poor Enligh skills getting confused over the word "male" missing from a sentence that already makes that point clear.melonbarmonster 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a really good example of a troll. My English is good, though I'm sure not perfect. I sometimes have to look up the spelling or meaning of a word. I think, though, that this page is primarily designated as a place where we can discuss improving the article at hand. Badagnani 03:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the popular terminology is "trolling", e.g. "this is a really good example of trolling". Your english is fine but you exercised poor english skills if you weren't able to realize that "male" was redundant in that sentence. That was just self-evident from that sentence. There's nothing wrong with not being a skilled reader/writer. You'll get better if you learn from those of us who are better at sentence wording and structuremelonbarmonster 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the case, "believed to enhance virility and physical stamina for the summer heat" is quite awkward grammatically. Badagnani 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's better than using same phrase twice in sentence.melonbarmonster 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No you didn't restore anything. You've lied a few times already. I deleted false information and I put in correct information. The only constructive thing you did was to add an unnecessary reference per WP:REF which you were able to google only after I informed you of the real reason why bosingtang is consumed in the summer. Your illogical complaints and whinings have been extremely impractical and disruptive. I hope you learned your lesson.melonbarmonster 03:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Your contribution of "the real reason why bosingtang is consumed in the summer" is highly valued and appreciated. All of us working together really are creating the best possible (and best referenced) article on this subject. Badagnani 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You've contributed little and disrupted plenty. Don't do this again.melonbarmonster 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, because according to my user page it says that I've written many articles on rare and obscure Korean foods and beverages. Maybe that was someone else with my username, who knows more about Korean cuisine than I. Regarding disruption, I don't recall blanking accurate text without properly explaining themselves or generating consensus, as some other editors have been doing here in recent weeks. Badagnani 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that is hilarious because none of the korean food articles on your page is rare or obscure. LOLmelonbarmonster 04:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why none of my friends from Korea (who aren't from Jeolla) has ever heard of hwangpomuk, then. Badagnani 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
BC jeollado people and regional culture including food are traditionally looked down upon. Even now, it's the least visited and developed region in Korea. And no, that doesn't help your cause. There's nothing bad about being a neophyte to Korean cuisine. Just don't front like you know things that you really don't know much about.melonbarmonster 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
melonbarmonster is degrading Badagnani's contributions and is saying that Jeollado cuisine is looked down upon? I don't agree with you on the two matters. First I've seen him continuously contributing on articles regarding Korean cuisine. Ive been mainly uploading or linking related images for articles, but sometimes left some captions in it, thankfully Badagnani almost always mend what I wrote clumsy descriptions. I get you don't respect Badagnani. But that is your personal issue.
Second, Jeolla cuisine has been famous for its good eatery and highly regarded in Korea. The usage of "traditionally" seems irrational and biased. I have nothing to do with Jeolla province, but your comments can lead people to misunderstand Jeolla province in a wrong way. I think customarily over People from Jeolla province have been discriminated on everything after Joseon Dynasty established in the 14th century. But the cuisine was exceptional from the unfair discriminations. Besides, not every Korean knows what hwangpomuk is. I've never heard of it too. --```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 05:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Some perspective is in order Appletrees!
Admittedly I was a bit rough but can you blame me when this guys bragging about his supposed expertise on "rare" Korean foods let alone regular Korean food after asking us all if soysauce is used as condiment for holy friggin kimbap!!! How can you not call that bluff?
Moreover, my "respect" will be all the more degraded when the guy starts an entire section attacking me for changing "male virility" to "virility" for obvious grammar purposes. That's just petty and credibility suicide behavior in my book.
As for Jeollado cuisine, I certainly meant no respect! I love the stuff! But it's been historical, traditionally, customarily, whateveraily, without passing judgment, been looked down upon by non-Jeolladoans. Hwangpo mook, mixed and fermented squid jeotgal with chapsal and other such Jeollado specialties are enjoyed but almost never adopted by non Jeollado people or aware of it besides the foodies. I've never met non-Jeollado people making Jeollado food in my life::::melonbarmonster 05:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've said, I think at least three times now, that no one, including myself, knows everything about Korean cuisine, or any other cuisine. Our joined expertise makes this the best encyclopedia possible. I don't ever hesitate to ask a question about something I don't know, as we're a community here, and help one another; that is what it means to be a Wikipedian. I was simply defending myself against an editor who claimed that I have made "no contribution" to articles about Korean cuisine. Obviously that is false. Now let's get down to the business of improving our existing articles, and creating even more, to document Korean cuisine as well as we possibly can. Badagnani 06:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued illogical bullying by Badagnani

Holy, moly I deleted the word "male" because the sentence already states the sex of popular consumers and there's no need to restate the obvious and this guy is accusing me of deleting "that do meat is believed to enhance male virility"!!! LOL.melonbarmonster 02:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of statistics

This article is the source giving the statistics blanked in this edit. Melonbarmonster, will you go ahead and restore that text, now that we have the source at hand? Badagnani 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a different article than the one that's referenced in the text. Nonetheless, there's no need to include a breakdown of the stats when we the text already states that 55.3% of Koreans have "tried dog meat" which is further verified by this new article.melonbarmonster 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits. You've already violated the 3rr. I'm doing you a favor by not reporting you right now.melonbarmonster 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)