Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive o November discussion page for Korean cuisine

Contents

[edit] Chili oil

Does Korean Wikipedia have an article on Chili oil? Is it used enough in Korean cuisine (such as in some of the noodle soups of Chinese origin) to warrant adding its Korean name to the Chili oil article? Badagnani 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Soy sauce with kimbap and now chili oil with korean food? With all your claims of being an expert on rare korean foods and your revert warring in this article, your questions are quite ridiculous.melonbarmonster 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this what is called a WP:TROLL? Maybe you haven't learned yet, that is considered un-Wikipedian. Badagnani 07:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange, I see in Korean Chinese cuisine that jjamppong uses this ingredient. Now I'm sure you're going to tell us everything about it. Badagnani 07:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it 고추씨기름 (gochu jji gireum; chili seed oil) or 고추기름 (gochu gireum; chili oil)? Badagnani 07:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After all your BS, your obvious ignorance on Korean cuisine doesn't magically go away. Koreans don't use hot oil and you shouldn't add a made up korean name to the hot oil article.melonbarmonster 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very helpful. Thus, from your knowledge, chili oil is never used in the dish called jjamppong. This is very valuable information, which will help to enrich our encyclopedia. What does BS stand for? Badagnani 04:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

-_-;; melonbarmonster, your comment is going too far. BS is not an acceptable language here, so please refrain your comment. Btw, chili oil is surely used in Korean cuisine along with Korean-Chinese cuisine like Jjamppong. I think the oil is more frequently used in Gyeongsang-do compared to the other regions. As you know, the Gyeongsang-do cuisine is famous for the most salty and spicy foods in Korea (both South Korea and North Korea). My mother made a pan-fried vegetable Korean dish for me, it was used with chili oil (고추기름). --Appletrees 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well when a guy claims himself as an "expert" on rare korean dishes and then asks if you use soy sauce with kimbap or if chili oil is used in Korean food, my opinion is that "BS" is a pretty apt description. Oh and you know very well that hot oil is used in jjampong bc it's "chinese", although our resident "expert" on Korean food obviously has no clue.melonbarmonster 02:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be an emigrant residing in a English-speaking country, so to not know about chili oil. It is surely used in Korean cuisine. --Appletrees 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with chili oil. It's not used in Korean food at all. Are you still referring to jjamppong? I can't think of any indigenous Korean food that uses chili oil.melonbarmonster 05:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No, didn't I say my mom made a Korean dish with chili oil for me in the prior comment? It was namul dish and jjamppong is too complex to make at home. Nowadays Korean restaurants selling yukgaejang also use the oil because of its convenience. --Appletrees 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any of your previous mentions of korean dishes with chili oil before this section. But I think you and I both know where we're both coming from. At best chili oil is used as a foreign ingredient as a short-cut or novelty's sake. I'm just against people claiming themselves as experts on Korean food and starting BS reverts. This Bagagnani has gone around starting articles and making edits but the fact remains that he knows jack about Korean food and I don't appreciate him trying to force his edits with revert warring while asking if you put soy sauce on kimbap.melonbarmonster 06:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While the first part of your comment is very helpful, the second part sounds like a WP:TROLL to me. It would probably be best if you contributed constructively to Wikipedia rather than doing that, thank you. Badagnani 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems you're new to online lingo as you are on Korean cuisine. Pointing out that your claim of being an "expert" of rare Korean cuisine is downright laughable given your questions about soy sauce kimbap is not trolling but directly related to guaging your credibility on the topics being discussed. You're free to disagree and that's fine but relax with accusing of my comments of sounding "a troll".melonbarmonster 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Where's the comment where I used the term "expert"? I don't recall saying that, though I did point out that I've created a number of articles on Korean food and beverage items, and improved many more, after a certain editor claimed that I hadn't contributed "anything" related to Korean cuisine to Wikipedia. That claim was incorrect, as I pointed out, though I don't recall ever using the term "expert." I do have a certain level of expertise in the subject, however, but in English these two terms do not mean the same thing. We're all here to enrich our encyclopedia, working together to create articles on Korean cuisine items for which we don't already have articles, and improving ones that already exist. Are you up for this challenge? Badagnani 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You know if I was going around asking whether you put mayo on apple pie I would likely refrain from claiming any level of ëxpertise" on American cuisine. And touting your own "expertise" to give credence to sensitive edits where actual expertise really is useful and needed doesn't enriching wiki. If that's genuinely your goal, ask more questions, ease up on touting your own horn and consider the fact some people just might have more "expertise" than even you on at least this topic.melonbarmonster 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Melonbarmonster, please carefully read the others' comments before judging someone with your own prejudice. "My mother made a pan-fried vegetable Korean dish for me, it was used with chili oil (고추기름). --Appletrees 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)". I wrote it to your and clearly stated the dish was a namul dish in my following comment. I don't know where the oil originated, but I have eaten "Korean" dishes made with chili oil a lot in Korea. I don't have any memory that Badagnani clams him/herself an expert on Korean cuisine. I don't appreciate your strong expression toward him/her. I think your behaviors against him/her looks like expelling an editor interested in Korean cuisine. That isn't constructive to this article. --Appletrees 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Appletrees, you need to calm. There's alot of text in this talk page. Just because I happened to miss when you mentioned something about pan-fried vegetable dish" doesn't mean I'm judging you with my prejudice whatever that means. Bagdagnani has bragged about his so called "expertise" even in this subsection. And you can disagree but honest opinion is that Badagnani is an obvious novice to Korean cuisine and he should not be forcing edits to substantive topics of this article that he has little or no knowledge on. Examples of this include his reverts on what teas koreans drink when they meat meals, his reverts and edits on the dos meat subsection, rants about "steamed rice", etc.. Your comment is noted but as long as bagdagnani continues his disruptive editing behavior, I'm going to call it as I see it.melonbarmonster 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And about your mom's use of chili oil, I still am not sure what pan-fried vegetable dish uses chili oil. Can you tell me more about what dish this was? My guess is that she used it out of her own personal preference but I wouldn't go far as to say chili oil is a at all a component in Korean cuisine.melonbarmonster 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're the one to chill out. In my opinion, you're just making a bigger issue from the simple question of Badagnani. My mom's personal preference? Yes, it might be and she is from Gyeongsangbuk-do. But I remember a Korean restaurant owner recommended her to use it when she asked him what secret ingredient made a dish so good which my family ate at his restaurant. The namul dish was duryeo namul. --Appletrees 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Listen you're starting to take this stuff personally. There's no bias in having missed your earlier comment in this sea of comments by happenchance. Namul doesn't sound like a pan-fried vegetable dish and yes chili oil in any type of namul is not a "korean" technique. I'm sure it tastes great but I don't think isolated and novel uses qualify chili oil as being a Korean ingredient. Heck, mayo is more "korean" in that sense of the word than chili oil.melonbarmonster 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DNFT guys!--142.167.83.60 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Korean

Need Korean name/hangul at Allium monanthum. Badagnani 10:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is dalrae (달래). --Appletrees 11:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dessert section

The dessert section seems to go into too-great detail about all the sub-types. This article should summarize things (so as not to grow too large), then the individual articles should go into greater detail. Badagnani 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the description on tteok should be reduced. The dishes I added are referring to big categories unlike Yaksik on the list. --Appletrees 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents templates - the point?

What exactly is the purpose of putting these two templates together, as they are at the end of the lead section:

{{TOCleft}}
{{clr}}

As best as I can tell, the second one overrides the first one, and the article would be exactly the same if both were removed (but obviously less confusing to an inexperienced editor). I'm probably missing something, so if someone knows, please speak up - thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, hearing no explanation, I've removed both templates. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steamed rice

In Chinese, Korean, and Japanese restaurants the non-glutinous white rice (which sticks together in a ball, unlike Western-style rice) is called "steamed rice" on menus.

See the following:

If the plain rice typically served as an accompaniment to Korean meals is "not steamed," as an editor just stated in an edit summary while removing the term "steamed," can this editor please provide a substitute term for the manner of cooking? Definitely the cooking method, the fact it is white rice need to be stated. I am aware that brown rice is gaining popularity in South Korea among health-conscious people, though I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant mention. We probably also need a Kongbap (콩밥) article, as I don't think we have one for this dish yet. Badagnani 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, do you not know how rice is made???? You know comments like really doesn't help your credibility. Have you ever cooked any sort of rice dish in your life? Maybe you should google it and find out. You put rice in water, stock or some sort of liquid in correct proportions and cook in medium heat until the rice soaks up all the liquid and softened and you have your rice. It doesn't matter if there's beans aka 콩, brown rice, black rice, barley or whatever else is mixed with white rice, it's not steamed. That's enough to warrant deletion. All your other comments are useless and unhelpful in making the article better although I'm sure it's helpful in building up your "expertise".melonbarmonster 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone, as (have I had to mention this 20 times now, or has it only been 15?) it appears to be a WP:TROLL. Regarding the term "steamed rice," I don't believe I stated that the rice is actually steamed, though I did point out that the term enjoys massive and widespread use in CJK restaurants in English-speaking regions. In fact, in the last portion of cooking all the rice above the bottom of the pot where the remaining liquid is does steam. On cooking programs, chefs often point out that the steam, not the boiling, is really what cooks the rice properly using this method. Badagnani 08:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My tone is not "troll". That's not even the correct usage of that word. And please don't ask stupid questions if you know that the rice isn't steamed. I don't care if the term exists. It's a crap and inaccurate description. Please don't be a disagreeable troll and argue with me and engage in wikilawyering about something as simple and stupid as this.melonbarmonster 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://mykoreankitchen.com/2007/05/21/how-to-make-perfect-korean-steamed-rice-step1-what-is-good-rice/ Badagnani 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The eminent historian of ancient Chinese technology, Joseph Needham, explains why it is called "steamed rice" in English here. This page explains it by use of a photo here. Badagnani 08:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not convinced by the existence or use of that term and your links don't really help.melonbarmonster 08:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The links I provided at the top show tens of thousands of hits for this term, and in North America the term is a widely used one ("white rice" is also used). Badagnani 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

btw, congee is a chinese rice dish totally different from rice we're talking about. And "rice" is used plenty of times too. Try googling it if you want to make sure.melonbarmonster 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Congee still isn't widely known among the general population in North America, so it doesn't enter into the picture (it generally does not appear on menus of East Asian restaurants in North America). "Rice" is simply the translation of the Korean term but is not specific enough in English. In fact, in Chinese and Vietnamese, and likely in other Asian languages, there are several different monosyllabic terms for "rice," depending on whether or how it is cooked, still on the plant, etc. The English language doesn't have single words for this, thus adjectives are often needed to translate these Asian terms correctly. Badagnani 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Congee doesn't appear on Chinese restaruant menus??? Anyone else reading this??? Rice is still the best word because all that's need ed is 밥: steamed, cold, crispy browned, boiled, in cold or hot water, congeed, whatever.melonbarmonster 09:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you just edit my comment??? And you edited out your ridiculous comment about congee not being on Chinese restaurants to "east asian restaruants". LOL. My previous comment above should read:
"Congee doesn't appear on Chinese restaruant menus??? Anyone else reading this??? Not knowing is one thing, but why would you embarrass yourself and make these kind of ignorant claims?? Rice is still the best word because all that's need ed is 밥: steamed, cold, crispy browned, boiled, in cold or hot water, congeed, whatever.melonbarmonster 09:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If I edited your comment, it was inadvertent, possibly from my accidentally editing a prior version rather than the most recent one. Badagnani 09:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This may be the 21st time I'm having to mention this, but your comment just above appears to be a WP:TROLL. That isn't considered a Wikipedian manner to behave, so I'd strongly suggest moderating your tone when editing and conversing with other editors here, thank you. Badagnani 09:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. Another nonsensical "warning". Oh and now there's no English word for congee... I feel like I'm feeding a teenage troll here.melonbarmonster 09:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly an English term for congee: it is rice congee or congee. Our Congee article describes it quite well. Badagnani 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you think??? According to you they also don't appear on Chinese menus. How's your soy sauce kimbap?melonbarmonster 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of tea

This edit is highly unsuitable because "fragrant tea" is not sufficiently specific or descriptive in English. If you mean Camellia sinensis (oolong, green, or otherwise), state this. If you mean flower teas such as Chrysanthemum tea, state this. If you mean both C. sinensis and herbal teas (but not grain teas), state this. But reverting again and again to the confusing "fragrant tea" is not helpful to our readers. Badagnani 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Koreans drink grain tea because it's lack of frangrant tastes goes well with savory food. Read the sentence.melonbarmonster 09:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Boricha or oksusu cha do not lack an aroma, and the wording as the sentence stands is still ambiguous. Badagnani 09:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The two teas Badagnai mentioned are not actually regarded as "tea category" in at least South Korea. They are almost like a water or sungnyung (숭늉) for them. Darye (다례 Korean tea ceremony) is accompanied with Camellia sinensis and dagwa (다과, a variety of hahngwa, Korean confection). But for daily life in Korea, darye is very formal and doesn't include oksusucha and boricha. I get what melonbarnstar tries to mean. He or she (I guess the editor is a female, am I right?) indicates "hyangcha" (향차, tea with strong fragrance).--Appletrees 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This guy has no clue. He's just making BS edits as far as I can tell.melonbarmonster 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as you use such the offensive languages like "BS" or "crap", I can't think of you as a good contributer for this article. Yeah, he/she is neither a Korean and a cook specializing in Korean cuisine. And the editor sometimes mentions something irrelevant to Korean cuisine. He/she seems rather be interested in East Asia, than concentrate on Korean related article. However, he/she has been hugely contributing to Korean cuisine and culture as I've been watched. You can't ignore that and apply your personal issue against him/her.--Appletrees 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think we can safely say we disagree on who's a "good" or "bad" contributor. I personally don't really care for that. Even the "best" editors can be susceptible to bad edits and I am well within my rights to point out ridiculous edits. When someone with obviously lacking knowledge or expertise is forcing nonsensical edits, I am going to call it as I see it. All the more so when the guy ignores common knowledge and resorts to RW's while asking questions and making ridiculous statements about soy sauce kimbap, chili oil, congee not being sold in Chinese restaurants,etc..
Congee is one of my favorite things to order when I eat Chinese by the way. It's delicious.melonbarmonster
Yes, the language is offensive. Regarding the term "fragrant tea," it does sound like a direct translation of a Korean term (hyangcha), but the problem is that this term doesn't have a clear meaning in the English language. Please take a few minutes and fix the phrasing of the section about tea, clarifying what is meant by "fragrant tea." Thank you. Badagnani 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no need. Read the sentence. It's senseless to start listing what teas are not drunk when the point of the sentence is that grain teas are usually drunk at a korean meal. Something like this is just common sense and you are trolling in violation of WP:troll, WP:AGF when you engage in revert wars and keep on making this an issue when you obviously have no knowledge on this topic.melonbarmonster 22:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "fragrant tea" sounds like a direct translation from Korean, but unfortunately doesn't have a clear meaning in English. Please fix the text to specify exactly which varieties of tea are meant by the term "fragrant tea." Badagnani 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Appletrees has already explained this to you. I've given my own explanations. You can't make unilateral revert just because you don't get it.melonbarmonster 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am familiar with, and own and drink regularly many types of Korean tea: three types of grain tea, as well as tea made from flowers, berries, fruits, seeds, etc. Thus, I already knew the things being explained. I am, however, concerned with our readers, in that the exact meaning of the term "fragrant tea" is very unclear in English. Badagnani 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't tout your horn here about your experience with korean teas. I'm trying to be civil here. This has already been explained. The sentence is crystal clear. What's important is that "grain teas" are drunk. What's not drunk are all other types of teas. The term "fragrant tea" is a perfectly descriptive term. melonbarmonster 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You may think "fragrant tea" is clear, but it is not. The passage needs to state exactly which forms of tea are meant. Depending on how it is prepared, oksusu cha may have a fragrant aroma. Badagnani 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear because corn is a grain which makes perfect sense because the sentence states grain teas are drunk. Let me know if you're confused about anything else.melonbarmonster 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not confused. The phrase "fragrant tea" sounds like a direct translation from Korean, and, while this term may be quite clear in Korean, it is not in English. We need to keep our users in mind when writing all text. Thus, whichever types of "fragrant teas" are meant in this passage need to be specified in the text. Badagnani 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is quite clear and leaves no room for confusion.melonbarmonster 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Korean language, using the term "hyang cha" may be very clear, but in English, in this context, the meaning is unclear. The text needs to be clarified to whatever teas are meant. Badagnani 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"frangrant tea" doesn't have to refer to a specific group of teas. It works fine just as a descriptive term.melonbarmonster 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Keeping our users in mind, leaving in "fragrant tea," the unclear literal (Konglish?) translation of the Korean term "hyang cha" is simply no good without explaining exactly which teas are meant. Badagnani 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly clear. Teas that are fragrant and not grain teas fit into this description. Read the sentence. The sentence isn't about listing which teas are not drunk. The point of the sentence is that only grain teas are drunk. Your compaints are nonsensical.melonbarmonster 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "fragrant tea" may make sense to you since you apparently speak Korean and are familiar with the Korean term "hyang cha," but it is not clear to non-Korean speakers. Exactly which teas are meant need to be specified in the text. Depending on how it is prepared, oksusu cha does have a pleasant aroma. Badagnani 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for anyone who know the English word "fragrant" and "tea". I just told you that it works fine as a descriptive term and not as a translation of hyangcha. Why is this so hard for you to accept?melonbarmonster 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You may believe it is clear, but, in English, it is not. Exactly which teas are meant should be specified in the passage. Depending on how it is prepared, oksusu cha may have a pleasant aroma (by the way, typically in English we use the terms "aroma" or "smell" for foods, and "fragrance" for flowers and perfumes). Badagnani 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter exactly which teas are specified by "fragrant tea". Read the sentence.melonbarmonster 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly which teas are meant by "fragrant teas" needs to be specified in the passage, or else the sentence is quite unclear, as it is apparently using a literal translation of a Korean term. Further, the term "fragrant" is typically used in English when describing flowers or perfumes, while "aroma" or "smell" is used when describing foods. Further, depending on how it is prepared, oksusu cha can have a pleasant aroma. Finally, removing the words "the latter's" (which you have done several times now, most recently in this edit) makes it unclear which of the two is being referred to. Badagnani 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Take steps for dispute resolution. There's consensus on this already and I' m done trying to explain this to you.melonbarmonster 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. As mentioned earlier, exactly which teas are meant by "fragrant teas" needs to be specified in the passage, or else the sentence is quite unclear, as it is apparently using a literal translation of a Korean term. Badagnani 19:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
As the very person who first used the term "fragrant teas" I've already stated that the word wasn't a translation of the korean word but a descriptive term. The sentence read that only grain teas are drunk. Are you still confused as to what teas are not drunk?melonbarmonster 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "fragrant tea" is unclear in English and it needs to be specified which forms of teas are meant in this passage. Badagnani (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I reworded it to give a couple examples of "fragrant" teas and also made the more neutral than POV, although I still think the idea needs to be sourced, but at least as it reads now it is neutral, not attempting to state fact.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of dubu

This edit should be reconsidered, and discussed before removal, since sundubu jjigae is a very important cuisine item in Korean food. It is not a peripheral ingredient in this dish, but an integral part of the dish. Badagnani 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Korean cuisine isn't based on friggin dooboo. Someone with a shred of actual knowledge back me on this.melonbarmonster 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I also object to the edit of melonbarmonster on the description line. Dubu is a very important part of Korean cuisine. In almost every Korean stews like jjigae, tang, jeongol, dubu is added into them. In addition, dubu jorim, dubu jeon, kimchi dubu and so forth is evidences to back up the prior edit. Even when people make mandu, mashed dubu is used for it. --Appletrees 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of important ingredients in korean cooking. It's an over-statement to say that Korean food is based on dooboo.melonbarmonster 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So, do you have any proof to back up your claim? You're not a consensus. --Appletrees 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not resort to wikilawyering here. If you genuinely feel that strongly that dooboo really forms the basis of korean food along with rice, vegetable and meat go ahead and put it back in.melonbarmonster 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive blanking

This massive, undiscussed blanking seems ill-advised. Please consider restoring this text and using "discussion" first. Badagnani 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No I will never relinquish the sheer thrill of power I feel when I engage in massive blanking of half the article and then restoring it with wiki magic! Warn me all you want! melonbarmonster 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
calm down, both of you. That "massive blanking" looks just a simple mistake of Melonbarmonster. He or she restored it in a second. --Appletrees 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You think this troll is able to pick up such subtle differences??melonbarmonster 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More blanking by User:Melonbarmonster

  • Blanking here. The fact that Korean cuisine is "known for its strong and pungent flavors." I presume these flavors are garlic, chilis, ginger, fermented foods such as doenjang, etc. Now this information has been blanked. I propose restoring it, with wording that meets consensus. Consensus should have been formed here before the blanking took place. If the blanking took place due to lack of sources, I don't believe it would be problematic to find sources stating that Korean food is known for its strong flavors. Badagnani 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is subjective opinion and this sentence has a history of POV edits. Not all food containing garlic, chilis, ginger are pungent. That's an subjective opinion that is inappropriate for wiki purposes.melonbarmonster 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then removing is not appropiate. If "pungent" has a biased tone to it, we can fix it so it sounds better, such as "Korean cuisine is known for its strong flavors and spices that is present in many Korean dishes". Good friend100 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Or something like "bold flavors, often featuring garlic, red chilis, ginger, and fermented vegetables and soybean products." Badagnani 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are still subjective terms and this sentence has a history of POV editors messing with it.melonbarmonster 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll simply have to source it. That's better than blanking. There are many good books in English about Korean cuisine at Google Books that doubtless mention these signature flavors. Badagnani 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostility on this discussion page and its edits

There is a little bit too much hostility on this article and as the article is clearly an important one, I would respectfully ask that it be diffused. There are and have been editors on this page that clearly have knowledge on the subject, but others seem to differ and the process to resolution is not edit wars, which is what is going on here on a regular basis. If the disputes can not be diffused please read the policy on dispute resolution. In addition I want to remind the users of the WP:Civil policy.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Even better would be for more editors to actually give input on the actual subject being discussed (it's the use of the term "fragrant tea" without further clarification that you're referring to, correct?), which would probably resolve it very rapidly. Badagnani 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Asking for outside assistance is a proper part of resolution. Quite honestly I think the edit itself needs to be cited, but as most of the additions to this article have not been cited it makes it a difficult topic to argue. Fragrant in the English language is a very well known term, but as one tea, namley barley tea is named as supposedly "unfragrant" then an example of what a fragrant tea should be given. I would assume "fragrant" tea would be an herbal tea, and I agree this is where there could be a problem. I still believe in the end what the major issue is that there is no ciation for that or pretty much any of the other information in the aticle. This often comes up in my rewrites for articles as much of the information must be changed in order for the article to ever have the possibility of getting to a GA or eventual FA status and not be a series of lists which I attempted to address and will again in the future when I finish my work on the Japanese cuisine article.
Also, hopefully people do not mind, but I am going to set-up and archive page for discussions here as this discussion page is getting too big.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's an overstatement, though, to say that there aren't any citations in the article. Badagnani 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How is it an overstatement? The only section with citation is the section on consumption of dog meat.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sections are lists and descriptions of different Korean foods which are pretty straight forward. I think they're fine without the citation but it'd be even better to have them. As for the sentence about the "fragrant teas", the rest of the sentence should clear any doubt about what teas are drunk and what teas are not drunk. The most popular grain teas drunk are barley and corn.melonbarmonster 01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

melonbarmonster, I being informed on cuisine and specifically Korean cuisine and tea culture understand the reasoning behind the statement, and others with the same background would say the same. The issue, however, is not the statement, but its context and reasoning as this concept is not obvious to most people. A proper source citing the reason for this is needed as most people do not know why savory dishes may go better with grain teas than fragrant teas. This can also cause confusion for other readers who may consume tea in other cultures, that do not take issue with "fragrant teas" and savory dishes. I do agree that "fragrant tea" is not an error of direct translation from Korean, as the term "fragrant" in the realm of tea is well known in the English language.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog meat section, again

I think the dog meat section as it had been rewritten, and before this edit reverted to the older version, was basically fine. Badagnani 10:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, it seems basically fine to me too. I wonder what Bsharvy felt was lacking in it that compelled a reversion to an older version. =Axlq 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The one thing I saw came back during the revert was the historical context of eating dog meat, but the comment was superfluous, even if sourced. I would really like to see some information in the section on the historical significance of eating dog meat from a reliable source. Maybe I'll have to check Amazon.com and WorldCat for some books on the subject.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the main thing Bsharvy may have objected to (for whatever reason) was the removal of the recently added gory details about how the dogs are beaten and burned before they are killed. To me, this belongs in the Dog meat article as it's a level of detail that seems excessive for this overview of the cuisine as a whole. Do others agree? Badagnani 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if it is detailed, I'm watching to make sure it doesn't sound so biased against Koreans. I certainly don't eat dog meat and I never will. No Korean I know eats dog meat. The article should point out that very few people eat it today, mostly older men in rural areas. Some Koreans eat dog meat once "just to see what it is" but it isn't a regular dish. Koreans don't eat it every week at a restaurent in Seoul, as some people might think. It should also be noted that most Koreans see it as a negative aspect of their culture. Its quite unfortunate that all of this reeks of original research unless there are any good sources. Good friend100 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that what you say--that "very few people eat it today" (with the exception that, in your experience, no one you know eats, or admits to eating it) just isn't accurate, from the government statistics we've discussed at some length. Further, the English- and Korean-language sources we've consulted, which have been published in the past 10 years, and which include surveys of all age groups, show that most Koreans do not want it to be banned, and that the animal rights movement is small and not supported by a majority of the population. Badagnani 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The data is factual, I know. But its written like "an average of 1.4 kg per person". It sounds as if every person in Korea has eaten 1.4 kg of dog meat. I know, I know, it says average. But whats the main focus that readers get? All Koreans must eat dog to some extent. I feel that has to be changed. Not every Korean eats dog. And I'm not going to attempt anything because our fellow anti-Korean friends will be quick to notify the admins. Good friend100 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, at least to me, it seems that some editors, usually of a Japanese or "Japanophile" background, seem to wish to add or emphasize text that portray Koreans in a bad light, in articles across Wikipedia. I'm not one of those as I think all culinary traditions are equally interesting and worthy of detailed examination at Wikipedia. Badagnani 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a problem with the section getting more attention or being more detailed. I want to change the wording of the section. Good friend100 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as you see fit. However, I think this earlier version was pretty good. Badagnani 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire section needs to be deleled and moved to the dog meat article. No other "cuisine" articles have entire sections on their perspective controversial cuisines. The only reason this is high-lighted in this article is because of cultural ignorance.
As for the animal rights propaganda, there is absolutely no reason to include that stuff in this article. You don't PETA under the beef article or under American cuisine article.melonbarmonster 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic portions of text

1. "It is also made into a medicinal extract called gaeju (개주), also called gaesoju (개소주)." This sentence needs to be taken out. It's unnecessary level of detail and fatually misleading. 개소주 is a novelty product that isn't widely consumed. All the different dishes besides boshintang are far more prevalent.

2. "Historically, dog was also eaten because it was an easy source of meat in a poor agrarian society." This sentence needs to be deleted. I searched the given reference but couldn't find anything to support this statement. If any of you can find it please let me know.

3. "Roughly 2 million dogs are eaten each year in South Korea, or an average of 1.4 kg per person."

THis sentence needs to delted since a "per consumption" data is misleading. Government stats already break down the portions of the population that consume dog meat and clearly show that only half of Korean population have tried dog meat let alone consume it regularly. This is a less specific and more ambiguous statistic that implies per person consumption of dog meat in Kora. Simply false.melonbarmonster 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We need a middle ground between those who, for whatever reason, want to make this section disproportionately long for the article, highlighting things that portray Korean people in a bad light, and those who wish to minimize the issue so much that they want the entire section blanked. There is no "cultural ignorance" because we've had a number of Koreans contribute here, saying that they eat it, and know many people who also eat it. Our readers want to know about this subject and it is a long-standing part of Korean cuisine, so blanking the entire section is not a good idea. Removing the animal rights section is a possibility. I think that information may have been added so that Korean people would not look so bad (i.e. heartless), showing that there is a controversy within the culture. Badagnani 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Squirrel meat, possum meat and bull testicles are historically and culturally significant to American cuisine but you're not going to find sections devoted to them in the American cuisine article. THat's because you don't have Korean editors who's only contact and knowledge on US cuisine is from googled articles creating sections that THEY find interesting without a clue. Editors who have been trying to expand this section have been non-Korean editors who have proven that they have little knowledge on the topic and have no business making sensitive edits on topics being discussed. Any objective article presenting US cuisine will not include sections on US folk cuisine like squirrel meat or roadkill just like an objective article on Korean cuisine should not contain section on dog meat.melonbarmonster 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "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. However, larger game animals such as deer are more commonly consumed. If you believe consumption of these wild game animals is of comparable significance, you should add discussion of this to the American cuisine article if it can be well sourced. Regarding "Rocky Mountain oysters," I don't believe that food enjoys popularity with a significant proportion of Americans, or that such a high percentage have eaten them.
In contrast, 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] I believe this is not truly comparable to the unusual meats you present, as eaten in American cuisine. Badagnani 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your subjective and biased opinion. There are regions much larger than South Korea where squirrels and bull testicles are eaten reglarly and widely. You suffer from massive cultural blindsites and wiki articles are not for indiscriminant collection of facts, WP:IINFO. An objective article on American cuisine should not include sections on squirrel meat because it's not an important enough topic within American cuisine to deserve its own section. You're also not going to find PETA propaganda against milk, beef, chicken, veal, etc.. The only reason why this section is exists with misguided editors trying to expand it is because of the ignorant sensationalism that surrounds dog meat by non-Koreans. This is an ignorant and slightly racist bias that has no place in this article.

There's no dog meat sections under Swiss cuisine, French cuisine, Vietnamese cuisine, Chinese cuisine, etc.. All except the Swiss and French consume a lot more dog than Korea. There's also no dolphin, whale meat section with explanation of the controversy in the Japanese cuisine article.

ALL wiki-precedent support my view on this.melonbarmonster 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of the sources (we've discussed this at length) describe how many more dogs are used for the extract gaeju/gaesoju than are used for their meat. The number is in the tons, per day. Thus, your request that "This sentence needs to be taken out" does not have merit, if it is on the grounds that there are no sources; on the contrary, this is discussed in many of them. Badagnani 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The information objected to about per capita consumption (in kg) is not contained in the text of the article. Badagnani 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Gaesoju is produced on a very large scale, with the sources showing that more dogs, in tonnage, are used to produce the extract than are used for meat. Your opinions are simply not based on the facts and sources, which we've discussed at length here. Badagnani 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Source : "Another 93,600 tons is used annually to produce a medical tonic called kaesoju." ( from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/422338.stm ). Badagnani 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

93,600 tons per year is 256.4 tons per day, or 512,876 pounds (just over half a million pounds) per day. That is not an insignificant amount. Badagnani 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with first hand experience with dog meat knows that those BBS stats are a total farce. If you care about making this article factually accurate you'd know that dog meat is most widely and popularly consumed in restaurants in the summer as boshintang and other dishes. If you have no knowledge on this and are just googling articles about things you know little about you would have no idea. But since this is published and it's from BBC, I'll consent to leaving it in unless other references surface that shed light on where this stat comes from.melonbarmonster 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Many of the Korean editors don't appear to have much first-hand knowledge about this culinary tradition either, because by their own admission they "don't know anyone" who eats this food. The sources state that ca. 2 million dogs are eaten per year, which would be approximately 5,480 dogs, or 80 tons per day, if each dog weighs an average of 30 pounds. The BBC gives the figure of 8,500 tons per year (or 23.2 tons per day), with 93,600 tons per year (or 256 tons per day) used annually to produce gaesoju. This was stated in "discussion" in early October, but apparently it was forgotten since it's been archived. Badagnani 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The BBC statistics appear to come from South Korean government reports about the dog meat trade. Badagnani 01:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article that says that. I've read the korea articles that reported directly on the government stats referenced by this BBS article and there was nothing about 93,600 tons of dog meat being made into elixirs.melonbarmonster 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources, and the BBC is internationally regarded as one of the most reputable of the world's English-language news agencies. The statistics are given in several other online articles as well. Badagnani 02:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That sheds no light on where these fishy stats come from about dog exlixirs. You would know this if you had any first hand experience with Korean cuisine and didn't rely on BBC articles.melonbarmonster 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I checked out the several deleted references. Some of them are irrelevant to the content and a manipulated photo with clumsy photoshop skill was deleted well. Bogus and false references could've misguided people to have a false conception on Korean eating dog meats. --Appletrees 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why I went ahead and deleted them. I don't know if whoever made those edits were being careless or were purposely making claims that weren't actually in the reference. I also added a slate article which was inexplicably deleted. I put it back in.melonbarmonster 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"한해 개고기를 몇번 먹느냐'는 질문에는 '1~3회'라고 밝힌 응답자가 전체의 64.1%로 가장 많았고 이어". Yeah, 64.1% of Koreans have eaten only 1-3 times of dog meat. Good friend100 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The first reference for dogs as a source of meat in a poor, agrarian society is the Salon article:

Historically, both Old World and New World cultures used dogs as a source of food when it became scarce. The Korean practice of eating dog meat is said to have originated in the Stone Age, when (as in Manchuria) dog meat was a staple during the cold winter months. As Korea developed into an agricultural country, dogs continued to be regarded more as barnyard animals than pets -- and since dogs were much less useful in the rice fields than oxen, they were ultimately regarded as a handy source of meat. Wall paintings in a fourth-century Koguryo Kingdom tomb depict dogs being slaughtered along with pigs and sheep. http://www.salon.com/wlust/feature/1998/10/28feature.html

This statement is not ambiguous to any moderately educated person: ""Roughly 2 million dogs are eaten each year in South Korea, or an average of 1.4 kg per person." and it is supported. It does not imply all Koreans eat dogs. Nothing implies or says that anywhere. These refusals to recognize the nature of general statements need to stop. If you say "Americans eat beef," it does not imply there are no American vegetarians. If you say "Koreans play badminton" it does not imply all Koreans play badminton. If you say "Koreans eat dogs" it doesn't imply all Koreans eat dogs. These are points are so obvious they do not need to be made to editors with a sincere interest in discussion.

There is no comparison to squirrel meat, possum meat and bull testicles. The arguments presented here are (again) so specious it impossible to assume good faith. While being told that roughly 50% of Koreans have tried dog meat once, we are told it is comparable to possum meat in American cuisine. Stop wasting our time. Dog meat in Korea is unique. No other country has a special breed raised for consumption. No other country faced significant opposition to getting the Olympic games and World Cup just because of its consumption of dogs. No other country was publicly admonished by the head of the FIFA in advance of the World Cup over its consumption of dogs. To my knowledge, no other culture deliberately tortures dogs to improve the flavor. Finally, there is no requirement that all articles be alike. One very good reason for a Korean cuisine to have a section on dog meat is that its editors are interested and deem it worthy, while no editor of the some other cuisine's article has done so (yet). This article has a long section on table settings. The article on Swiss cuisine does not. Complain about that. This article has a section snacks. The article on Polish cuisine does not. Go start an edit war over snacks. If you know the Chinese raise and torture dogs as a significant part of their cuisine, you are free to make that entry in the appropriate article. Anyone is free to add a section on whale to an article on Japan. That is how Wikipedia works. Bsharvy 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the dog-torturing-for-food thing is also prevalent in northern Vietnam. There are some articles about this. Badagnani 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts and suggestions

Melongbarmonster makes a good point as to the non-inclusion of other controversial food items in other cuisine articles. A prime example of this would be the consumption of horse meat in French cuisine. Although it is listed in the ingredients section, it is noted that consumption is not wide spread. Also the numbers seem very skewed on consumption levels depending on the source used. Using Googled article on dog meat are very bad research, especially on something this controversial. As such, I am in vote of completely removing the section, working out the controversy on the Dog meat article and just include the instance of dog meat in the ingredients list in the same vein as Horse meat in European cuisines. Perhaps a separate article can be made called Dog meat consumption in Korea and what ends up being a minor part of Korean cuisine (on a whole) can be hashed out there with equal measure given to both sides of the argument with hopes of some WP:NPOV for good conjecture.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed over a period of months, and, whatever the reason, such avoidance/blanking of the entire issue is inadvisable. See the profusion of sources in the discussion archives, going back to September 2007 showing that this is still a prevalent food (in the hundreds of tons per day, in a relatively small nation), and one of which that we owe a description for our readers. Badagnani 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I gave a legthy explanation complete with links and references. You, Bvshary and a few others stonewalled me with revert wars rather than engaging and responding to my arguments. If you don't know why then I don't see why you would object to this. We've broken down the stats a dozen times. Please don't claim it's "prevalent" and ignore all the precedent in other WIKI articles.melonbarmonster 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not blanking, and this is an issue that you and I have taken up before and I conceded on. Giving a summary of an item and giving it larger conjecture in its own article gives the ability to discuss the topic more in-depth instead of two paragraphs, this came up when I made summaries of the huge lists of dishes on this article and moved them to another article called List of Korean dishes/ That is not called blanking, that is what is done on many of the cuisine articles so that they do not become behemoths on one single topics and containing giant lists which Wikipedia policy is against. There is obviously much history to the the consumption of Dog meat and I am sure there is a HUGE cultural relevance and information that should be shared on it, just not in depth on this article and would benefit from having an article that discusses history, taboos, cultural significance, usage as folk medicine, annual consumption, laws, etc.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Prevelence does not mean that all Koreans eat it. You keep trying to include information that negatively shows Korea. Prevalence does not mean that the article requires a lengthy discussion about how dog meat is popular in Korea. There is no counter arguments whatsoever. Good friend100 02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No editor has ever argued here that all Koreans eat dog meat, only that it is a historically significant part of Korean cuisine, and remains consumed and produced in very significant amounts at present. The statistics have been cited again and again. Badagnani 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this picture shows that many people are against dog meat? [6] Your only trying to emphasize the negative aspects. I don't mind if there is a section on dog meat. In fact, there should be a section on dog meat in this article since dog meat consumption is a fairly large issue in Korea. But when you start trying to point out that all Koreans eat dog meat, for example saying that "An average of such and such amount of dog meat is consumed in Korea" is totally wrong. Should say something like "among the dog consumers in Korea, an average of such and such amount of dog meat is consumed in Korea". Good friend100 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, who are you addressing when you say "Your only trying to emphasize the negative aspects"? I can assure you that I do not want to do that, and have stated as much. The facts about Korean cuisine are the facts, and deserve to be described for our readers. I believe I added text and sources over the past months about the controversy and animal rights movement within South Korea. The question is one of the scale of the description in context for the article. You'll see that, just above, I stated my belief that the recent reverted version was too long and covered too many unnecessary details about the manner of killing, etc. Why are you now directing unfounded insinuations about my supposedly bad motives? That's just not a good manner of discussion. Badagnani 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that an editor has argued that all Koreans eat dog meat. There is a problem in the article about it. As for statistics, that is relevent to dog eaters. I don't care if many people eat it. The article should stay balanced. Good friend100 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing wrong with your cited article from Joins is that it surveyed 1025 people. 1025 does not represent the entire Korean community, nor does it represent fully what people think about dog meat. Even if statistics show that many Koreans eat dog meat or have tried it before, you can't just make an absolute conclusion that "Koreans eat a lot of dog meat". You can't just assert that sentence with a small survey. Good friend100 02:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. That is why we have other sources, including South Korean government statistics and articles from the BBC. The sources state that ca. 2 million dogs are eaten per year, which would be approximately 5,480 dogs, or 80 tons per day, if each dog weighs an average of 30 pounds. The BBC gives the figure of 8,500 tons per year (or 23.2 tons per day), with 93,600 tons per year (or 256 tons per day) used annually to produce gaesoju. These are not insignificant figures and, contrary to what you say, tens or hundreds of tons a day is a significant amount, showing that Koreans do indeed eat "a lot" of dog meat," if not as much as beef, chicken, or pork. This was stated in "discussion" in early October, but apparently it was forgotten since it's been archived. Badagnani 02:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, you keep on claiming dog meat is important to Korean cuisine but ignore or deny the importance of horse meat, foie gras to French cuisine, whale and dolphin meat to Japanese cuisine, other countries that consume dog but don't have dog meat sections in their perspective cuisine articles such as Swiss cuisine, Vietnamese cuisine, Chinese cuisine, Indonesian cuisine, etc..
To include a subsection on this, let alone animal rights propaganda is unreasonable. The only reason for this is due to cultural ignorance and stereotyping from non-Koreans to somthing they see as being senstional. There is no PETA propaganda under beef, chicken, milk articles. A little perspective is in order.
I personally have no problems with dog meat and am in support of legallizing and regulation the dog meat industry in Korea. But this article is on Korean cuisine and any object presentation of Korean cuisine should not have an entire section on this. This belong in the dog meat article, or perhaps a Korean dog meat article should be created.melonbarmonster 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If there is consensus to include those other meats in those other national cuisine articles, and editors believe those cuisine items are particularly notable for those cuisines, their inclusion in those articles seems fine. We're discussing Korean cuisine in this page, however. Badagnani 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've already made it pretty clear that I do not think this section belongs in this article just as I do not think other "cuisine" articles should include it in their articles. But since you do, I'll look forward to you adding "dog meat" sections to Chinese cuisine, Vietnamese cuisine, Varmint section under American cuisine and whale/dolophin meat under Japanese cuisine.melonbarmonster 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, no melonbar. Dog meat is important enough to be included. Its not important enough to be written as if all Koreans eat dog meat. Good friend100 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be included? This is a section on Korean cuisine. Highlighting a "controversial" cuisine doesn't fit with the rest of the article and doesn't follow any of the patterns set by literally ALL cuisine articles. If we can logically and reasonable include this topic within the flow of the article, I'd be alright with it. But to set this apart and make an entire subsection out of it is unreasonable in my opinion.melonbarmonster 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you propose a mention of Bosintang in the Korean_cuisine#Soups_and_stews section, which would include a "see also" link to Dog meat#Korea where all the rest of the information would be moved? That is a possibility. Badagnani 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the dish absolutely should be mentioned under the Korean_cuisine#Soups_and_stews section. I don't think we should completely delete the dog meat heading, I just think it should be a completly neutral summary with a link to the Dog meat#Korea until someone has enough time to create a proper full article that can stand on its own for this cuisine, as it is obviously still a noticeable part of the cuisine.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Including boshintang in stews and soups is fine with me. I still object to an entire subsection on Dog meat in this article. A mention with link to the dog meat article would be fine but to devote an entire subsection is based more on non-korean perspective of sensationalizing korean consumption of dog meat. I would similarly object to a whale meat section being added onto the Japanese cuisine articl just because of the hightening controversy surrounding Japanese whale harvests.melonbarmonster 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a good analogy, better than the squirrel meat/American cuisine one. Badagnani 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
With second thought I concur on the lack of need for even a summary heading on Dog meat in Korea as a link to the other article should suffice. Dog meat is not a staple of the cuisine. One would no sooner add a section on dog meat to the other cuisines it would be consumed in. In my humble opinion, staples are the items that should be listed with detailed headings, otherwise you need to make a heading for each ingredient in Korean cuisine which is ab absurd notion. It is likely that once a history of the cuisine is written on here, probably by myself that is will mention laws and regulation on the foodstuff, just as I have done w/o bias on the Japanese cuisine article. I have no bias on cuisines as I cook and research from an anthropological, historical and sociological perspective that should be used by all in those fields when they study gastronomy.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This section was already discussed last month in what is now the October archive. There was no objection, except from melonbarmonster, who gave no support or reasons for any of what he said. When asked to be specific he replied: "I'll definitely break it down for you later. No time now." He then left for a month, until his recent abrupt and undiscussed deletion of virtually all of what was previously written and accepted. He has never shown any interest in sincere discussion or compromise. Instead, he edit wars, then leaves, and begins again a month later when many of the previous editors have left the article and the discussion has been archived. That is the strategy he is following here. Bsharvy 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Let's address the comments in Melon's last edit:

"there are unreferenced statements unsupported by references given." No there aren't.
"bogus links and animal rights propaganda should stay out." There is no animal rights propaganda. You provide no explanation of "bogus links."
"if you disagree take it to talk page but don't revert until consensus." Wrong. You made an edit without consensus, undoing what had stood for a month after discussion. You are the one who needs to stop reverting to your version. You are the one who needs to stop undoing other editor's work until some agreement is reached. Bsharvy 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This statement is a lie:

"I gave a legthy explanation complete with links and references. You, Bvshary and a few others stonewalled me with revert wars rather than engaging and responding to my arguments. If melonbarmonster 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)"

Here is the link to the discussion. You made one significant dissenting comment, and when asked for specifics replied that you didn't have time. That was your last contribution until you deleted the entire thing and started sligning mud here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_3#Dissenting_Comment

Bsharvy 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad references

[7]

did anyone take the time to look through this article? Its about the opinion of oneperson who thinks that dog meat is great. And its quite ridiculous that this article can be used in this article, while an article (yes, written by one person as well) [8] cannot be used to support Korean arguments for Goguryeo in the Goguryeo article. I am increasingly finding that this off balance scale between pro-Korea and anti-Korea arguments is angering me very much.

In a broader sense, what anti-Korean editors like Komdori/LactoseTI do to this article, such as trying to emphasize dog meat. Or trying to stir up some crap about Chinese cabbage used in kimchi (which I could care less about) or labeling Ahn Jeung-gun, a Korean patriot, as a "terrorist". Or making ridiculous arguments at Liancourt Rocks (which, by the way, has rotted under the weight of the pro-Japanese, I'm not going even bat an eyelid towards that article). Or lobbying for emphasis on China in Goguryeo is not fair. I'm not going to just sit here and let them mess around with the article. Even if the problem is solved through dispute resolution or whatnot, the article is shattered with this NPOV policy that causes every article to have a "neutral" point of view. If Ahn is a Korean patriot, or perhaps a independence activist, how is this POV? "Patriot" is biased? Lactose suggested "terrorist" and then we had to compromise on "nationalist". How is Ahn a nationalist? Did he go around boasting that Koreans were the rulers of the world. Meh, we were picking our nose under the Japanese occupation. I would hardly call Ahn a "nationalist", much less "terrorist". I'm definitely sure Ahn went to Japan and blew up 1000 Japanese civilians with a bomb. No, he didn't. Yet, this NPOV policy and this requirement to "compromise" when there is nothing to compromise at all is just not fair. It leaves Korea-related articles at a much wierder state than before. When somebody reads that dog meat is consumed 1.4 kg on average per person, I'm sure that he/she will be sure that ALL Koreans eat dog meat. When soebody reads that Ahn was a "nationalist", I'm sure they will think that Ahn was simply someone who was racist.

The more I think of it, the angrier I get. I don't care if there is a dog meat section here. We need a dog meat section, there is nothing wrong with it. But when its cited with lame sources or with poorly written text thats ridiculous. Good friend100 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

With the excess of non-consensus discussion that occurs here, perhaps there is a need for RfC, which is what I was trying to do but isn't working. Arbitration would be the next step as too many issues are reverting in a "warring" type manner in this article. As I would like to work on other issues on this article that are actually important, such as national cuisine history and regional cuisines, I feel these controversial issues need to be fixed before I spend what ends up being a large amount of my personal time on editing an article such as this one.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in your opinion. The endless edit warring and bickering just make to kick potential editors interested in Korean cuisine out of this article. I'm so fed up with this circumstance. Before coming here, I'm primarily a Korean wiki editor so just going back to there to make new articles for it. I've just seen so many ugly things here. sigh. --Appletrees 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why anyone would want to imply that 1.4kg of dog meat is eaten per person. Anyone with any knowledge on korean culture or food knows this is false. There are statistics that clarify who's eaten dog meat and how much. Unfortunately, there are editors here with agenda's of their own with limited knowledge making these questionable edits. This is just a frustrating aspect of Wikipedia.melonbarmonster 03:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think some of the Korean editors are getting a little upset, due to the fact that the rest of the world does not view Koreans, Korean culture and the historical enemies of Korea, in the same way that patriotic Koreans view them. Wikipedia is international, and is not a pro-Korea propaganda page. While these editors are more than happy to make sweeping statements regarding for example anyone Japanese, using terms such as facist and racist in their descriptions, they become highly offended when any word that is anything other than flattering is used in relation to anything Korean.Sennen goroshi 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What a surprise! You don't need to introduce yourself here again. We all know who you are and which category you really belong to. A couple of people defined well about the "real" contributors of wikipedia above. Just read that. --Appletrees 03:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not feed the troll.melonbarmonster 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite honestly as an academic food researcher I find that the ideas in the article are not just from a cultural warring, it is just poor research and some people wanting to push what they may have read in one obscure article. This is why it is better to use well-sourced information from texts that are written by experts on topics instead of newspaper articles, which are written not by academics, but my journalists trying to get people to read a story to attract reader subscriptions. I am not quite sure where your comment is coming from Sennen goroshi though. We are talking about proper sourcing that requires a keen eye to locate improperly researched statistics.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As this is the "English" Wikipedia, I am also unsure how I feel about this line and its ciation, "According to a 2006 survey conducted by The Office For Government Policy Coordination (국무조정실), 55.3% of South Koreans have eaten dog meat (a traditional part of Korean cuisine and traditional Korean medicine) at least once", as the link is to a Korean language website I am guessing and the majority of Wikipedia readers will find that source useless. I mean call me dumb, I only speak three languages but Korean doesn't happen to be one of them. Is there a way to get these pages in English translation or an English site, even if the information is moved to the dog meat article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope some of the above editors, don't resort to personal insults, and don't assume that everyone who does not share their exact opinion does not deserve to contribute to wikipedia.Sennen goroshi 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors who have a biased view towards the dog meat section in this article shouldn't be here anyways, Sennen. Good friend100 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen apparent bias at this discussion page from both "pro-Korean" and "anti-Korean" editors. It would be best if we didn't try to ban anyone, but if all editors would try to free themselves from these biases and edit with our users in mind, documenting all aspects of Korean culinary culture thoroughly and properly. Badagnani 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The babelfish.altavista.com website can be used to produce a rudimentary translation from Korean to English (and vice versa). Badagnani 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors who have a biased view towards the dog meat section in this article shouldn't be here anyways, Sennen. Good friend100 21:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors who have a pro-Korean bias should not be editing this article - Judging by the offence you take to any edit that criticises Korea/Koreans, I am starting to consider your suitability re. editing this article.Sennen goroshi 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be no bias whatsoever, as per WP:Bias and WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not journal of topics. I seem to be reapeating myself, but a good reading by everyone of WP:Civility is in order here.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 06:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen, what have you been doing all this time? If somebody criticizes your native country, wouldn't you be offended? I already stated that I don't mind whether or not the dog meat section stays. But when pro-Japanese editors try to tilt the article so that it looks biased, that is a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you are aware of LactoseTI intentions at Ahn Jung-geun's article. Good friend100 20:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuisine article naming conventions

As per the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions of country-specific topics, all articles about specific countries should be labeled in the manner of xxx of (insert country), so in the instance of a cuisine, the article would be titled "Cuisine of Italy" or "Cuisine of France", etc as it identifies the cuisine within that country and not the cuisine outside of the country, such as the article American Chinese cuisine which identifies Chinese cuisine in America. Although the policy is clear and I have felt this for some time, I would openly offer people to come to one central area (as I will be posting this on many cuisine articles) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink#Naming conventions of cuisine articles. I think this is a large issue and would like to get as much input as possible and as all the cuisine articles fall into this one project, but are shared by other projects I would like to see their input here as well, thanks for your time and comments.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 08:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not good, maybe instruction creep. Chinese cuisine, for example, is found not just in China, but in numerous other countries. Thus, each article does deserve to have its title thought out in its own right. Badagnani 08:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Korean cuisine is also found in America in a very Americanized format as are most cuisines. It is also why I presented the information in the format I did to get others opinions.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 09:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. Badagnani 09:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Not that I am making any decisions here, just offering an idea, and if the conclusion is different then we go with it. Should there be an American Koren cuisine article, Japanese Korean cuisine article just as there is the American Chinese cuisine or Italian American cuisine article? Again I am sure there is more than just the modern take on these cuisines, and a history can be discussed. Actually I know there is a fact from compilations put together by author Carol Counihan who edited the anthology Food in the USA, which has many articles on this topic.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying that total standardization is often a bad idea, because "Cuisine of China" is inaccurate when representing the Chinese cuisines of the PRC, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.; in this case "Chinese cuisine" is better. Regarding American Chinese cuisine, it's a distinct cuisine that has developed over a period of about 100 years. The others you mention aren't as clearcut and have not adapted to American tastes as much--Korean the least so. There is a style of American-style Japanese food that is based in the "Japanese steak house" type of restaurant (where the chef chops and cooks at the diners' table) but I have never heard that called "Japanese American cuisine"; it's just a Japanese steak house. There are verifiable styles called Korean Chinese cuisine and Japanese Chinese cuisine. Badagnani 20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, and agree. The Japanese "steak house" you are referring to is called teppanyaki btw, it is part of the research in my thesis.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, you're kidding! Badagnani 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My thesis is identifying a national cuisine of the United States, it is a lot more complex than it seems on the surface. I'm using models from a couple sociologists to build a blue print for the foundation of a cuisine and then working the model around the history and development of the aspects of todays. As I am probably going to publish it as a book I don't want to get into it too much.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Don't forget to watch the "Next Iron Chef" Sunday; the new guy will compete. Badagnani 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion, again

I don't think there was consensus for this reversion. In fact, I am sure there is no consensus for it, as the version prior to reversion seemed fine with most other editors commenting here. Badagnani 10:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your own comments regarding the version I returned to were: "I think the quality of writing of the new text is quite good" and "Your reasoning for including the info makes sense". The evidence that the older version was "consensus" is that the text stood for a month after discussion and was never reverted to the previous version. To complain that there is no consensus is meaningless when there is no consensus for the replacement. To say that the replacement "seemed fine" is also meaningless: the job is to provide an explanation of why it is better. Undoing another editor's work carries the burden of proof.
The point here is to follow a fair process, and that means you don't revert reverts of edits until a consensus is reached. The current process has violated WP:BRD which states (emphasis in original):
  1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
  2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
  3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.
Melonbarmonster deleted virtually all of what I wrote (Bold change); I reverted. At that point DO NOT revert this change was violated--he reverted my change. So I answered the concerns--and returned it to the state reccomended by WP:BRD.
The problem with this discussion is the absolute black and white approach taken by the editors here. It should not be a matter of one version vs. another, and which one will "win" (the edit war, etc.). You have to express concerns with the current version, and then work with the editor at adjusting the text to reflect everyone's concerns. To pit one text against another is never consensus. Of course, it also helps if the discussion isn't deluged with 20 posts scattered through 2 sections and 2 more subsections in a period of 24 hours. You have to be reasonable about how much discussion you can expect people to read in a certain time period.Bsharvy 13:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melonbarmonster

1. Can people stop taking the bait from this blatant troll please? 2. Can Melonbarmonster please stop trolling wikipedia, it is making it hard for us decent editors to do our work.

thanks Sennen goroshi 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's a troll. But, he certainly doesn't work constructively with people, or even try. Bsharvy 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hypocrite much? Sennen, your always talking about how your trying to be nonbiased and fair, but you make it clear that you're not a constructive editor because of your anti-Korean sentiment. Making a new thread simply to direct attacks at another editor (regardless of how problematic he is) just shows your inability to work well with other people. That is why you are always running into clashes with other people. Good friend100 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not make anti-kor statements. I think the problem is that people like you, consider any statement that is in conflict with your opinion re. kor, to be anti-kor. Perhaps you should look at yourself, before saying that I am unable to work with people, I have been blocked once for 24hrs, you however have been blocked nine times, which says a lot about who is clashing with other editors. thanks and have a fantastic day Sennen goroshi 14:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah no problem. Your edits show your face clearly. [9] shows what you think of Korea. I don't care if you hate Mr. Ahn. Saying that he is a terrorist (which is in fact extreme bias)and including some crap about "visiting Japan Wikipedia for the real story" shows your bias. I told you that your anti-Korean sentiment gets you in trouble. Just look in your talk page for all the battles you have done with other editors. Good friend100 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Please don't lie in an attempt to make me look bad, at no time did I say "visiting Japan Wikipedia for the real story" what was actually said was

"In order to see a viewpoint of Japanese, please translate Japanese Wikipedia into English." and far more importantly, that wasn't said by me - I merely reverted an edit that had removed that text. So if you don't like the text, please don't blame me, as I didn't write it, also please don't change the wording of your text, in a failed attempt to make me seem to be a biased editor. Saying someone is a terrorist is not extreme bias, it is a word that is quite suitable for someone who murdered a someone for political/nationalistic reasons. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

oh and...... I don't think this can be said enough....when I have a single 24hr block, and you have NINE blocks, and only just managed to beg your way out of a perm. block, I don't think you are the right person to be commenting on battles I have with other editors, it seems you are the one who is having problems dealing with people on wikipedia, as your huge block list shows quite clearly.Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)