Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Does anyone know what food this is?

I uploaded it to commons but don't know what it is and the photographer is not a Korean. Is it tangpyeongchae (탕평채)?

• 

--Appletrees (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

자문자답 (self question and self answer in Konglish or self-resolved) The dish seems tangpyeongchae due to the thinly shredded muk. -Appletrees (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Needed articles

I post needed Korean dish articles because commons has images of the foods which are also representative. --Appletrees (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean food

Gulgukbap (굴국밥, oyster rice soup) Dwaeji gukbap (돼지국밥, pork rice soup) Doenjan jjigae (된장찌개, doenjang broth stew) Maeuntang (매운탕, spicy fish stew) Saengseon jiri (생선지리, fish stew) Manduguk (만두국, dumpling soup) Gejang (게장, marinated raw crab in ganjang) Agu jjim (아구찜, spicy monkfish) Gyeran jjim (계란찜, steamed egg) Andong jjimdalk (안동찜닭) Gejjigae (게찌개, crab stew) Yangnyeom chicken (양념치킨, spicy chicken) Godeungeo jorim (고등어조림) Dubujjim (두부찜) Nakji bekkeum (panfried small octopus) Dorajioi muchim (도라지오이무침) Myeongran jeot (명란젓, salted seasoned pollock roe) Chonggak kimchi (총각김치) Chonggak kimchi (총각김치) Muchae kimchi (무채김치, shredded radish kimchi) Oisobaki (오이소박이, cucumber kimchi) Buchu kimchi (부추김치) Pakimchi (파김치 spring onion kimchi) Dwaeji bossam (돼지보쌈) Gyeoranbbang Mattang (맛탕, fried and syrup-coated sweet potato) Omijacha (오미자차) Daechucha (대추차 jujube tea)

There's an omija article. Don't forget about seogi beoseos, which is also at Commons and needs an article. Badagnani (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But the omija article is not omijacha article. Is there anyone willing to create one article from the table? I can't make all of these articles by myself!!! --Appletrees (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"All breeds are eaten"

All breeds are eaten, including purebreds and pets. but nureongee (누렁이) are commercially raised for consumption.

I changed the statement above to remove "All breeds are eaten". diff The source does not confirm this statement. It tells that a purebred dog was prepared as food in this case, which was a crime. The fact the article's title refers to it as a "Murderous Dog Stew", confirms it is an aberrant act, and not to be generalized as typical of Korean cuisine.

Badagnani reverted my edit diff with the comment "rvv and removal of source, which does indeed confirm the text". RVV is typically used to mean "revert vandalism". Badagnani, are you accusing me of vandalism? I hope this is not what you were intending. This was a good faith edit. Dforest (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax, I also had misunderstood "RVV" for a while. I thought rvv means "reverting the revert". Until someone said about it, I used to leave it at summary fields.(thought mostly the cases in which I used it was vandalism or blanking without rationale). --Appletrees (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The source was removed entirely, as well as text stating that breeds other than nurong are eaten, leaving the reader to believe that only a single breed is eaten. This is not the case. Badagnani (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The source was an instance of a crime in which a dog was stolen and prepared as food. The perpetrator was arrested. And the source did not state that "all breeds are eaten". Thee are a number of instances of crimes involving pets being killed for food, for example: Beloved dog butchered, eaten. In that case, it was in the United States. That should not lead us to believe that all breeds of dogs (or any breed of dog) are eaten as part of American cuisine. According to Template:Verify source:

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:

. . .

2. If it is doubtful and potentially harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.

3. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

Additionally, in Wikipedia:Verifiability, Jimbo Wales is quoted:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

It is very harmful to associate a criminal act as being representative of a national cuisine. Thus I have removed the statement until it can be properly cited to a reliable source.

I do not take it lightly having my edits referred to as vandalism. If that is what you meant by "rvv", I would appreciate an apology. Dforest (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The source, which was valid, was blanked entirely from the article. I did not make a mistake when I pointed that out. The nureong is not the only breed eaten in Korea, as the source showed (and which, with the newly blanked paragraph, our readers are misled into believing). Just one source showing purebreeds being raised (apparently filmed with a hidden camera by a reporter for the South Korean SBS television network) may be found here. Whatever you choose to believe is fine, just don't prescribe your wishful thinking to our readers by blanking sources and text that is distressing or disturbing to you, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions as to what I do or do not believe. The source was removed because it was cited to back up the statement "All breeds are eaten, including purebreds and pets". As I said above, it was a reference to a crime, which should not be representative of a national cuisine. If you can find a reliable, third party source which backs up that statement, you are welcome to include it. Please remember to assume good faith. Dforest (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources have been provided: one showing that pets are eaten and another showing that purebreds are eaten. Please restore the text, thanks; the blanked text as it stands is incorrect and misleading to our readers. Badagnani (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not established that "all breeds are eaten". That statement is not verifiable by the sources given. Dforest (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources show that any breed may be eaten; there is no restriction. If you object to "all" on the grounds that it suggests every single breed on earth is eaten in Korea, then the constructive edit is to fine-tune the wording, not simply delete it.Bsharvy (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not looking in the right place, but I do not see supporting evidence for that statement anywhere in the sources given . If you want to include that statement, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claim using reliable sources. Please be specific and quote where the sources corroborate the statement. Dforest (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC) m

• You are edit-warring. Stop.
• Your comment on your last revert was misleading: the text no longer says "All breeds are eaten." I had previously changed it to say "Any breed may be eaten," to avoid the implication that every single breed that exists on earth is eaten in Korea.
• The sources are right there in the paragraph. Look. Bsharvy (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Same old stuff again. I thought this dispute was retarded two months ago. Please gather a consensus first. --Appletrees (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy: I reverted Badagnani's revert because it was made without further contribution to the discussion. Consensus has not been achieved for the sentence in question. In order to achieve consensus, we must discuss the evidence. Instead of accusing me of edit-warring, why not respond to my request to clarify the evidence? According to WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

I looked at the sources in the paragraph, and I did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that "All breeds are eaten, including purebreds and pets" or "Any breed may be eaten". An isolated incident of a crime where a pet was stolen should not be considered representative of a national cuisine, and should not be used as evidence as such. Please be specific in quoting where the sources corroborate the statement. Dforest (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• You didn't merely revert the undo of your edit, you also reverted my undo of your edit. You reverted to your preferred version twice, while there was clear disagreement with your position in the Talk pages and in the edit history itself. That is edit-warring. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong about this issue: If your bold edit is reverted, you have to discuss and reach consensus. Don't revert reverts of your edits.
• In that paragraph, ref #9 states: "Many pedigree dogs like rough collies, English pointers, German shepherds, English mastiffs and bloodhounds, were also being sold for their meat, the survey found." Ref #10 (Korean) says "there is no way to divide some dogs are pet or some are eatable dog because korean people usually think all the dog are eatable" and the video (from Korean news) shows a variety of breeds caged in the market. The links at Ref #11 aren't working, but other parts of the site show a variety of breeds. It's very easy to confirm, as there are many videos and photographs of dog markets on the Web: you can see the variety of breeds for yourself.
• Please restore the original text Bsharvy (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the source material. That is helpful and I appreciate it. Regarding your edit war comments; I'm not sure if I follow you exactly, but according to policy, an edit war is not "not necessarily characterized by any single action, instead it is characterized by any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes." I feel that you are being very confrontational & accusatory in your comments. Let's work together and not be divisive. Sincerely, Dforest (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Need Korean name

Need Korean name in the box for this food: Dried shrimp. Badagnani (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Still need the Korean name for this food. Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jori

Need information in the article about jori (salad). Badagnani (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Aforementioned additions

Hello everyone, I wanted to let everyone know that I haven't abandoned my work on this article. I started teaching at a new culinary school this semester and I have been competing heavily in American Culinary Federation competitions and in turn qualified as an apprentice culinary judge with the ACF so I have been out apprentice judging various competitions. Not to mention on top of all that I am writing my thesis. That said, I am planning on waiting until May for the two academic books on Korean cuisine to be published. I made a heavy investment of over $150.00 for the two books for myself and this article and I don't want to waste any of our time with adding superfluous info to the article now and then changing it later. I hope you are all well and look forward to working with all of you again soon.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Burger King Korea

Would some one be interested in helping me translate the menu for BK's Korean locations?

the menu is here Also, is the name ever written in Korean or is it always shown in Latin text?

What is the current Korean motto for the company?

Thanks for the help.

--- Jeremy (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

storetranslated Here're links regarding store location information in South Korea. jeom means store, and yeok indicates "stop" or "station"

Also, is the name ever written in Korean or is it always shown in Latin text? You must be kidding. Why would Koreans use Spanish or English in the country for their daily life? Koreans use Korean just like English use English. --Appletrees (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In some countries that do not use Latin text in their alphabets company names or terms that were originally part of the foreign company are not translated in print. The logo used by the East Asian BKs are in Latin Text while in the Arabic speaking countries they are in Arabic and reversed. All of the headers of the Web Pages are in English, and there are English words spread throughout the site, What I was wondering do the print advertisments translate the name into the equivalent characters in Korean or leave them in the Latin text. If they are in Korean, what is the Korean translation?

I basically want the specifics from people who do use this in their daily lives. --- Jeremy (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal

See Talk:Ume#Requested move. Badagnani (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Korean wine

At this site we need to evaluate the following for inclusion in the Korean wine article (I haven't run into any of them before and don't know where to include them):

• 처음처럼
• 설화
• 수복골드
• 군주
• 국향

Badagnani (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

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

This "Legend?"

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

Jeffrey3732 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ddeokbokki photo

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

Dog meat

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

The main thing is, information about breeds (including the Korean name) was removed, and new text and heading substituted that have improper punctuation, poor grammar, and poor word choice. Comments here. Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well instead of criticizing, perhaps you can help by fixing the grammar, sort of the point of Wikipedia isn't it? Multiple people working together instead of pointing fingers at someone's grammatical errors. One sentence with poor grammar surly doesn't mean the whole edit is poor, unless you favor the biased web sources used from animal rights activists and western slanted articles on dog meat consumption. Anyways, I removed the dog breed name in error as I thought I had it on there beforehand, it was 1 am here and I made an egregious error it would seem. I always benefit from others looking at my edits in a calm manner with assistance on grammar and otherwise as I often put up information that unlike my regular research, I allow others to proofread so that I can work on more important issues that I can attend to. As for the name of the soup, I changed the name to the name used in the text I was using appropriately written by a professor of Korean studies at SUNY Binghamton and linked it to the other name used before. If I left the original name in the text it would not be a proper citation of the text I was sourcing from, which is proper academic writing.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the grammar would have meant returning in each case to the original version, which you will see that I did not do. Badagnani (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to put back in the information on purebreeds, but in all honesty that source where the citation was taken from is from information gathered from an animal rights organization which it is hard to state whether they have a bias built in or not. I have another source coming from another Korean scholar that might mention more information on this subject but until then I feel the only accurate statement is the one coming from the research scholar I have used. I could be convinced otherwise, with an unbiased source, even if it is a website I suppose.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I really appreciate your effort to expand the article with academic sources. The article finally its history section! :) As for the dog meat, I second your opinion. Honestly to say, what on earth Korean cuisine only has controversial one on the general and introductory article of Korean cuisine. The sole section is unnecessarily longer than any other subsection. There is dog meat article pertaining to all details such as how Korean people slaughter dogs to get the meat. I think the half of citations has to be removed due to their unreliable sourcing. The Seoul Times is NOT reliable media at all. But I feel very tired of POV pushings...--Appletrees (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are we keeping a separate h2-level section for the dogmeat? At the very least it could be sorted under a general "Meats" section in a section about the ingredients used in Korean cuisine.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my plan, but there are editors that will argue against it based upon all of the earlier discussions. I wanted to at least make the section more academic in nature before I attempted the move once I create a "staples" heading which will have dog as a protein under it, which I still think should like to the page on dog meat, but again a "consensus" seems to never be reachable on this page. Every edit, no matter what it is, turns into an issue on this page and it is very frustrating but I will continue as I'm pretty sure I know a little about proper academic research.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive

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

History

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

Cheaper grains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duuude

Stop now, he is one paper away from a PhD in Gastronomy from one of the top universities in the United States. What are your qualifications?

To help you out:

• In American English a green onion is also called scallions.
• Daikon is white radish.

You need to read up on

• WP:Common names
• WP:Civil
• WP:MoS
• Dude

We'll talk after your block has expired.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude

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

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

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

We cannot be informal on Wikipedia? I don't get it. Ron James 007 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Millet rose

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

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

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

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

Assesment

As part of the recent work on this article by the two editors, I am upgrading the rating to a "B" (really a B- cause it is it is still under construction). If you wish to contribute, please take a look at the new "To Do" list for ways you can help.

Kudos to all contributors who have worked to make this article better.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess a fine consensus has been reached

See also: Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_5

on dog meat section between editors who have participated in editing the article such as me, Chef Chris, Jerem43, Dforest, and Peter Isotalo, also previously engaged editors like Melonbarnstar, Goodfriend 100, Grunty Thraveswain, and Thespian. We've discussed on the subject a lot over and over. Just like other cuisine articles, as controversial dishes are dealt within other relevant articles, brief mention of dog meat, so dog meat a food ingredient of the Korean diet is more than enough. Maybe Bsharvey (he was banned though, so I guess we can't see him forever), Badagnani, Sennen goroshi or other new users would not agree with this status, however, please respect this established consensus and do edit dog meat#Korea or bosintang. The articles might meet your needs and detailed information such as slaughtering dog, and related PETA issues. Thanks --Caspian blue (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of pedigree dogs

Stating that only nureongi dogs are used in the South Korean dog meat industry misrepresents the facts, as shown by the following two sources:

1. Actual video footage of purebred dogs being sold for meat from SBS Seoul Broadcasting System news [1]

2. BBC article from 1999 [2]

On the basis of these two reputable sources (the Seoul Broadcasting System and the BBC, a qualification should be added to this sentence stating that not only nureongi dogs are used in the dog meat industry, but also pedigree/purebred dogs (if to a lesser extent).

I don't like the term "political correctness" and I don't know if the removal of this properly sourced information was done for such a reason, but the facts, as set out in reputable sources, should be given properly, no matter whether or not it reflects poorly on the culture. Badagnani (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for anyone to state that it reflects badly on the culture to eat dog is inappropriate and is a western centric statement. When studying history, sociology, anthropology, etc. one should do it from an unbiased eye. this would be why I rewrote the section with proper sourcing from academic resources, rather than propagandist resources. The video may be from a news source, but it only surveyed a limited area not Korea universally, so based upon that the statement would be that "evidence has been found in Seoul that certain disreputable purveyors sell pedigree dogs." As for the BBC source, their information come from the World Society for the Protection of Animals, clearly a biased source of information, even if the BBC is reporting it, much as PETA is and other organizations. Of course there are going to be feelings for "scruffy", but that is not proper news reporting. Just because it is in the newspaper, on tv or even in a book doesn't mean it is reported properly. When I use a book for research, the first thing I do is check the notes and the references, that article has poor references. Also, if the hanging of dogs for what they are gruesomely describing, is actually fabrication, then you need to visit a factory pig or cattle farm and see what westerners do as well, which is as bad if not worse, but do we put information like this into other cuisines? No, because it isn't notable.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, two reputable sources (presented above) state that nureongi are not the only variety of dog used in the South Korean dog meat industry. Thus, the statement in the article as it stands is incorrect. Closer to the truth would be to say that *most* or *a majority* or *some* of the dogs are nureongi and the rest are pedigree or purebred dogs. The sources are reputable and Wikipedia's standard is that the sources be reputable. The Seoul Broadcasting System and the BBC are not propagandist organizations as you imply, but national news organizations. Badagnani (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I said again, I did not state that BBC was propagandist, I stated their source was. Secondly, I stated the Seoul Brodcast System video was examining one area, not the entire country. Sources should be finite (finite in the sense means undeniably accurate, with no chance of doubt) not vague as these two are. I would be more than happy to support inclusion of this information from a source that is unquestionable.Chef Tanner (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are there in black and white: BBC and Seoul Broadcasting System. They are reputable sources, their reporters published this information, and they meet our standard of verifiability. The BBC, at least, has the highest standards of journalism and when they make an error, they admit it. As such, the sentence misrepresents the facts by stating that only the nureongi dog is used in a culinary manner among the dog meat industry in South Korea. The video does show that quite clearly, as does the text of the BBC article, and specific pedigree breeds are mentioned in each source. Were actual, specific breed names not mentioned in either or both sources, your claim of doubt due to "vagueness" would likely have merit. Badagnani (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not listening, BBC was reporting on a story from an organization, not on first hand primary research going to the markets themselves. The sentence also does not say "only" it states that is the breed which is bred for meat. Find me a BBC article where the journalist went to the market and didn't receive their information from an animal rights organization and I will have faith in it. The World Society for the Protection of Animals has a western bias and has the capability of doctoring their surveys, where did the WSPA go for their info. this line "They observed dogs suffering from disease and crowded conditions in pet shops, cramped in factory-like breeding centres, sold to be eaten at meat markets, abandoned in rubbish tips and destroyed by cruel methods such as drowning and electrocution," Where did they observe these dogs? This could've been in one town, it could've been every town in Korea, but the article does not say. The article also talks about a wide range of countries, but only states of Korea directly that the "dogs are worth more dead than alive", well that's good because I buy my beef, pork, and chicken dead as well but that isn't significant. The article does not say which country those different pedigrees were found either. If I understood the video, which I don't but I do know people who I will sent it to and will let me know what it says, I would be willing to support adding that in "such and such" city, other dogs have been reported to be sold, but not the term "pedigree" as using the term "pedigree" is purposeful in its attempt to promote emotion to the reader.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not use terminology when discussing with another editor such as "You are not listening, " okay? That is simply dismissive, and the other editor could very well say the same to you. I invoked our actual policy and you invoked an opinion that your book is better than all other sources (including the BBC, one of the most trusted news organizations in the world), which is known for vetting its sources quite well. Stating that only the nureongi dog is used in the South Korean dog meat industry, as the article does at present, misrepresents the facts vis-a-vis the available reputable sources on the subject, as the two sources do clearly present the names of several breeds of dogs that are commonly kept as pets. We are not doing a service for our readers by presenting incorrect statements. Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this request for input, we already know User:Peter Isotalo's view on this issue; as stated earlier he was for the complete removal of the dog meat section from the article. Did you choose the editor you wished to have input for this reason? Why did you not mention the two news sources from reputable news organizations (which were earlier removed from the article without consensus), nor request comment from editors with a wider spectrum of opinion than the editor who has already stated that dog meat should not have a section in this article (despite the fact that we owe it to our readers to provide a truly encyclopedic article on the topic of Korean cuisine, even including issues that may be sensitive)? Badagnani (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, you are stalking, which is interesting as you accuse other people of doing the same thing, ironic that you are doing it yourself. Second, I choose Peter, because I know his work and I have worked with him on other cuisine articles, he is a member of WikiProject Food and Drink, and I know he properly sources all of his work. I don't really see you citing information other than this controversial topic which is interesting in and of itself. If you noticed during your stalking of my post to Peter, I stated that I wanted him to look at our discussion, why would I need to type the whole issue of the two articles on his page? You are continuing to show the same lack of civility prior to these last two days and I don't appreciate it.Chef Tanner (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Were the disparaging comments on your own discussion page about myself upstanding and Wikipedian in nature? You appeared to find them very funny. I had not planned to mention them, but in light of the above, it seems proper. Badagnani (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued [[WP:Stalking}stalking]] but if you read my responses, which from the current evidence of stalking you would see that they had nothing to do with you at all and are of the usual candid nature I have with Jeremy as he is a friend.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the text at [3] is quite clear; no further explication is needed. Badagnani (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

However, the actual topic at hand is the properly sourced text from the two aforementioned reputable news organizations showing that not only the nureongi is used for foor in the South Korean dog meat industry, while you had altered the text of that sentence to state that only the nureongi is used. We really do need to present the most accurate information on this subject for our readers. Are you implying that I only provide sources on this subject? Have you looked at my contributions? On the contrary, when properly sourced text is blanked without consensus, on whatever subject, I do feel that is an issue that needs to be rectified. Badagnani (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here Badagnani goes again. I listened to the SBS source which did not mention that the case is widely held throughout the South Korea. If you claim should be right, please present which part says about such info? As for wikistalking of Badagnani, I think I have a lot to say. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the question; the question is, are only nureongi used in South Korea in the dog meat industry? The WP article says "yes." The two sources say "no." They should be restored to the article and the removed text restored. Badagnani (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not answer to Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s insistence. The above comment of mine is a quick overview on this thread.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Badagnani, my comments were of a nature of how I normally talk to Jeremy, (read who is writign comments before you accuse me of anything) I can not account for his words, but quite honestly in light of how you treat both of us, I would venture a little venting of personal frustration between friends on our PERSONAL discussion pages is our prerogative between us and not you. I will not agree to either of these sources and you are misunderstanding my point as to why I believe these sources are inappropriate. The current information is well sourced, it is your burden to develop a consensus now for the addition of your information, not mine as a consensus was built some time ago for me to add the information I have brought to this article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you *like* the BBC or SBS sources or their content, only whether they are verifiable and from reliable sources. They are. The statement that only nureongi dogs are used in the South Korean dog meat industry, in light of these sources, is incorrect and should not be included with such a wording in our article if we are to be properly encyclopedic and to reflect the reliable sources that are available to us. Keep in mind that you did blank this sourced text from the article without having first built consensus to do so, leaving only the information that is in the book you recently acquired. However, we don't typically use only a single source for our articles. Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One, up until I used this source, this article had almost NO sources, and was pretty much all original research. Second, if you spend a little time looking, you will actually see that I have used about six new sources here. I also did not state I do not "like" the sources you used, I am inferring your sources are inferior in any academic research, especially an encyclopedia. If I were to attempt to use either of those sources for one of my research topoics or thesis, it would be rejected as they fail all of the issues I keep stating over and over again. I utilized "bold" editing as was agreed to by consensus months ago, so I did not "blank" the article as you continue to accuse everyone of doing to articles you work on when you don't like their edits. Take a minute and go look at the cuisine articles I have written, three at GA level and others I am working on, tons of proper citation because I know what I am doing when it comes to these topics, probably comes from my graduate work in the subject I would surmise.Chef Tanner (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You really do a great job, except when you go out of your way to make needlessly negative comments about other contributors. However, stating that the article had no sources is quite incorrect; the sourcing of the section we're discussing, as you know, was sourced very well, and many of those sources (and consequent text) were removed. You've generally done a great job with the article except for this single point (the insistence of excluding text stating that not only the nureongi dog is used). The sources we do have, and which you chose to remove without consensus, are reliable and should be restored, with text indicating that not only the nureongi variety is used in the dog meat industry in South Korea. Badagnani (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The new edit, presenting the nureongi as the primary variety of dog used, seems satisfactory to me, with the possibility for additional details (with proper sources) to be added to the Dog meat article. The difficulty with proving which percent are nureongi, which percent are purebred dogs, which percent are stolen pets, which percent are "mutts" (mixed breed non-nureongi), etc. is difficult to quantify, due to the industry's highly secretive nature. As with the 60 Minutes program, often the only way to find such information is via "hidden camera" news investigations, though the available sources do make it clear that purebred dogs are indeed used to some extent. Badagnani (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it is "technically" illegal, as such I would imagine there are few "open air" markets that sell the meat. Although the meat is "socially acceptable" which acquitted the one wholesaler of charges, the fact that it is illegal surely has diminished the sales of the protein overall. Although a stretch in comparision, but when cigarettes were made illegal to smoke in various portions of the country in public buildings the sale and mass appeal of cigarettes diminished, as I am sure dog meat has well. That however leads into primary research, which is what i do for most of my professional writing, but is not allowed here which I am fine with as it keeps others who are not professional writers from making grossly exaggerated statements and theories which is not what an encyclopedia is for.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have made progress! :-) I have previously voiced my opinion about wanting to remove a dedicated dog meat section, though I have never stated that I wish information about dog meat removed entirely. All I have requested is that dog eating not be treated differently from the consumtion of other animals. The current limited sub-section on dog meat seems like an excellent compromise to me.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:13, 16 June

2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I love dogs, but who is to critize the customs of a civilization, and for the use of "pure breed" dogs, these where all manufactured through out history. soooo ????.--lrodilg (talk) 14:05, 05 Dec 2008 (UTC)

It is of course not the place of Wikipedia to criticize individuals or cultures, but to report the reports of news organizations, animal rights groups, or other citizens' groups may show criticism on the parts of these organizations. Further, if Korean law forbids the use of purebred dogs yet the producers are killing them for meat anyway (and this is reported in the media), that would also be notable. Badagnani (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Grains

Do the sources have more about the non-rice grains in Korean culture: millet (various types), Indian millet (i.e. sorghum), barley, Job's tears, etc.? One thing to keep in mind is that some ingredients aren't actually grown in Korea but are imported from China, from whence they were introduced to Korea (for example, jujube and wolfberry that are primarily imported from China for use in traditional Korean medicine; I'm not sure they are grown widely in Korea). Although Job's tears are used in kongbap and yulmucha I am not certain they are grown in Korea; packages sold in Korean grocery stores typically say "grown/produced in China." Badagnani (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For now this is what this source offers for grains. I have an even more through academic source arriving, well God only knows when, as I pre-ordered it and it was supposed to be released the first of last month. That source may have more specifics. I have also been looking through JSTOR for some other cultural papers on the topic.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that all the other grains I had asked about were already mentioned in the "Grains" section, so that's probably enough--it only leaves Job's tears, which are certainly used in Korean cuisine, but the question is, were they ever grown/produced in Korea as opposed to just being consumed there? It might be interesting to investigate whether the jujube and wolfberry were ever produced in Korea. Certainly the yuzu (yuja) is grown in Korea, so that's one example of an originally-Chinese food grown in Korea. Badagnani (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, understanding anthropology, pretty much everything came from China at one point. Agriculture and social culture moved its way from China, through Korea and down to Japan so that is why one sees repetition between some of the foods eaten and (much more so in past centuries) religious customs and social structures, even if individual citizens wouldn't want to admit it. That is why all three countries have their own version of eating raw fish as well, which is the same reason we see similarities in grain and legume consumption. it is only in the past century that the three have really tried to differentiate themselves. Europe is no different, back to the Middle Ages all of the countries ate the exact same foods, now they obviously have their differences as well.--Chef Tanner (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead used to mention the cuisine's bold, spicy flavors, and I thought this was a good idea as when one thinks of a national cuisine they often have an image in their mind of the primary flavors or images that characterize the cuisine. Is it possible to sharpen this a bit for the lead (not implying, of course, that every Korean dish is spicy or "bold"), giving a bit of an image of some of the key things the cuisine is known for, particularly for readers who may not have tried it (but may have tried other Asian cuisines that are more widely available)? Badagnani (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Do it yourself with reliable sources which you've never done before. Trying a new ting do you good.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much better to develop a consensus among all the interested editors first, in a collaborative fashion. Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding each item to the article does not require consensus, hence the policy of WP:Bold. That said I was planning to rewrite it when I get done editing all of the sections as a lead is meant to be a summary of the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, you have never edited the article and relevant articles with sources or do based on a collaborative spirit, even when you edit dog meat, your sources are commercial links or PETA-like biased sources. If you want to improve or implement the article, don't just sit there and stop complaining, but go ahead and edit. It is one of your biggest problems that many people acknowledge you for a long time, because you always defer to your question or to-do-list to others. The information you need are all available and accessible in English web. You're not a critic or manager to supervise other editors' editing or working progress. What have you done after Chist expanded the article with reliable sources? You're so busy criticizing or making dramas, all of which are disruptive. Since you're so determined regarding the lead, you need to show your effort first. I only see your double standard again just like Korean barbecue article.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we focus on actually improving the article, and not on denigrating other editors or their contributions? The latter conflicts with Wikipedia's principles and working process. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you focus on actually improving the article, not just complaining and criticizing? If you want to get a respect, please show your effort and your collaborative spirit first. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have improved the article quite a bit; please look at the edit history and you will see that. However, this talk page is for the purpose of actually discussing improvements to the article. Kindly use it for that purpose, and that purpose alone. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction. The above dramas titled "grains" and "dude" created by you do not show such the purpose alone.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fruits, vegetables

I would suggest a section summarizing the primary fruits and vegetables grown in Korea and used in Korean cuisine (as the meats and grains have). I don't think they should be too long. Badagnani (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not defer to your needs to others. Do edit yourself.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is for putting the heads of interested contributors together, in order to improve the article. Thus, I am seeking input from such contributors regarding their ideas first. If you aren't interested to collaborate, that is fine. Badagnani (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any actual input from your side. The to-do list was already presented by Chris, not you, so we except you, know the next progress would be.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sure the priest of my parish would be happy with me being called Christ, haha.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

oh I know, I was just trying to be funny.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, to me, you are the savior to purify the article from a mire :D --Caspian blue (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on the to-do list on the top of this discussion page which means I plan to get to it. I have a lot of other things in my life other than doing this article, so I will get to it when I have some time, might not be for a few days though as I am doing research for my thesis away from my home and then judging a culinary competition in Amherst, MA.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "I don't see any actual input from your side" above, please don't edit in a harassing manner. Regarding actual edits, I have made thousands on Korean cuisine-related articles, and created a great many articles in this subject. Can we please focus on improving this article, and not on denigrating the contributions of other editors? That conflicts with our project's aims and working process. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to your denigrating, harassing, and malicious ANI report against me, I lost all good faith on you. You also ignored consensus on Seolleongtang. So far, you've tested my patience so many times. Besides, your articles other than cuisine subject are no relevance here. So you are not in such position to speak of the irony. Do edit and be WP:BOLD.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for the purpose of improving this article, not denigrating other editors. Would you kindly refrain in the future from using it for the latter purpose? I don't believe it's too much to ask. Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You have denigrated other editors here. I do believe the valid criticism would be good for the future development of the article, talk page and you.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is wasteful of bandwidth, and against Wikipedia's principles and working process, to engage in an extended denigration of other editors. It would be much better to use this discussion page to actually discuss improvements to this article, as it is intended. Thank you for your consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ㅋㅋ Then, please show me your example and practice first. Thank you for your "contribution" on this talk page. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight

I am going to end up rewriting the lead and starting the produce section, as well as adding other sections which I think should be obvious. I have researched and written academic papers and I am in the process of writing a text on the concept of identifying cuisines, as such I am intimately familiar on what should be used to identify most cuisines in the world and will continue my process of rewriting cuisine articles on Wikipedia to contribute to the education of those interested in cuisines in the world including this one.

Next, as per Wikipedia guidelines of WP:Bold as with the majority of my cuisine edits, like the ones I have made on this article, I do not bother going through a hand raising vote process for my edits as I know my edits are founded in sound academic research skill and citation. That said, with my current contributions I will continue to boldly edit this article and replace the remaining sections with properly cited secondary research. In adding these items, I look for copy-editing from other editors such as Caspian blue, Peter, or even yourself Badagnani. That to me is the heart of Wikipedia, I am great at research and have wonderful sources, and honestly as a whole I am a pretty gosh darn good writer, but when it comes to Wikipedia, I know there are together people who are willing to copy-edit an article after I write one and as such I leave it to those who are willing to do as such. That said, and I know this is what Caspian blue is trying to say, please fell free to copy-edit my additions, but honestly your (Badagnani) snide comments about adding items with grammar and spelling errors is unnecessarily rude. I appreciate your work in copy-editing, but would like to see those edit comments cease.

I will admit that Badagnani has recently in the last day or so has stopped leaving snide comments in the edits, but I would like to keep it that way. If it starts again, I will begin to consider it harassment and will deal with it appropriately, as I have worked on a number of cuisine articles and have not had to deal with this with any other article and will not continue to take such insults lightly. I am hoping that things are possible of going in a better direction, but they must continue to grow in this manner and not have accusations or rude comments made to people.

As I stated earlier, my next phase of editing will not be until after this weekend most likely as I am away from my home right now doing research for my thesis and then I am judging a culinary competition for the American Culinary Federation, as such please be patient and you will see some more work next week. I think having waited for a number of months after I said I would do this work, waiting a week shouldn't be all that painful, especially as this article as it is now will actually teach a reader about the cuisine. Nuff saidChef Tanner (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm up late in my hotel room and thinking about the "dishes" heading. I really think it needs to go away, but honestly will go with the idea that a consensus needs to be agreed with for this section. I would rather see the dishes that are vegetable based go under the (future) vegetable staple heading and then the meats go under the meat staple heading. As is though they are characterized by cooking style and I think that is important and I am wondering if we can separate them into the different proteins and then maybe again under cooking styles under the List of Korean dishes article. This really is the only part of the article I have a hard time with as I have not had to deal with this in the other articles I have worked on, so I would appreciate the input form everyone.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As came up in earlier discussion, your stated plan to have all national cuisine articles focus on ingredients but not dishes (as you had done with one or more other national cuisine articles) did not have broad support. However, I can find little to criticize with your reorganization thus far. It probably shouldn't have an exhaustive list of dishes (such as very rare ones, as we find at Korean royal court cuisine), but to be reasonable, readers will likely come here and expect to see mention of the most common and typical ones. We don't always think of dishes only by ingredient or "protein," but by type, as the article has already been structured. Badagnani (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You created a section giving regional specialties (by province) at Italian cuisine and that might be good for this article. However, that might leave the article too long, necessitating merging out of text/sections into separate articles. If that becomes necessary, it would have to be decided which sections would need to be merged out (leaving the absolute necessary facts in this article, and excess details merged out). Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here, what's WP:Bold mean? And I'm not understanding what the big deal is if you rewrite it. But I see what Badagnani is saying. When you try other cuisines (I'm speaking of British cuisine and my limited knowlege of American foods), it is usually sorted by dishes. Is there a way for Wikipedia to split pages so we can add in more stuff? You said it might get too long, what do you mean? Ron James 007 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is a wikipedia policy that states that people should boldly, but intelligently update articles. As for the topic of dishes, dishes per see are not cuisine, they are a result of having a cuisine based upon ingredients and cooking methods. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily follow the guidelines of academic cuisine models, but it is something I am working toward. That said, i have thought about the section today and realized cooking methods seems to be another viable heading as the section is set-up right now by cooking methods. As for splitting off articles, we do that here often to keep the articles from getting too large. The example of Italian cuisine is a great one, as I and another editor have discussed the size of that article and the regional cuisines heading. I plan on eventually splitting off those into a separate article, likely called Regional Italian cuisines. However, at this point I would rather bring many of the poorer quality cuisine articles up to GA level before i worry about such details as they do not affect the content but just structure. Even in this article there is a split off to the List of Korean dishes article.

Thanks. I mean the dishes are part of the cuisine, not the cuisine itself, but I guess what you said makes more sense. I'm not sure if Korean food has much in terms of regional differences in comparison to say, French or Italian, but I don't know too much about it to say for sure. Ron James 007 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely at least some regional specialties and dishes and beverages for which particular provinces and cities are known for--some of which are hardly known outside that region. I think Hwangpomuk, for example, is one such food--it's so obscure that we can hardly sort out the food's nomenclature. Badagnani (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ron James 007, nice name (Jame Bond?) Hmm... honestly to say, your above comment shows your lack of knowledge on Korean cuisine and culture, really. It is like when many Korean people are asked to tell what would be representative Italian dishes, and most of them might say, "pizza" and "pasta", but nothing else. In their mind, Italian regional cuisine do not even exist or have never heard of because they don't know the cuisine much or regional cuisines are only a few introduced into South Korea. Many people often joke about Western food like dishes look and taste all the same because of usage of wine, cheese, butter even though they go on business trip or vacation to the US, or Europe a lot. That's why Chinese restaurants there are regarded their life savior. (Chinese dishes are greasy to Koreans' taste, but has similarities with Korean cuisine) I think you should wait for Chirs to implement the article. Common belief on Korean cuisine outside of Korea is that all Korean dishes are pungent and spicy due to chili pepper and garlic, which is really not true. I would explain Korean regional cuisine more to you, but well, it is hard to explain with my Engrish, so just wait some time. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 007 is from the Bond Films, but my name is Ron James. I don't know much about Korean Cuisine, which is why I'm here at this article and looking at how it is set up without adding anything in page. Just trying to be as helpful as I can without screwing up. I know more about British and European foods than I do for oriental/Asian cuisine. I know not all of Korean Dishes are the same and such, but I would have thought that the dishes have less regional divisions than that of Italian food. Ron James 007 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edit on soju, which is really correct info, so I thought your above comment sounds a bit odd. Well, let me compare cuisine of Pyeongan Province in North Korea and Gyeongsang Province, located in the southern part of the Korean peninsula. In the former, chili pepper and garlic, or fermented foods are not much used because of the cold weather. Baek kimchi (white kimchi with no using chili pepper) and naengmyeon originally come from the region. Whereas in latter cuisine, due to the warm weather and good harvest in rice and seafood, the cuisine is very pungent and a lot of fermented food are made, such as agujjim (very hot and spicy fish dish) Well, my mother came from the region always says even Seoul cuisine are too bland for her. Korea may have as many regional dishes as other cuisines have. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, I know about soju because I enjoy it, but I don't know too much other than that. I only edited soju because I knew that it wasn't made from rice as much as it was from the other incredients. With Korean Cuisine in general, I am not fluent, so I refrain from editing unless I know what to put down. I know there are regional differences, didn't know there were so many. Ron James 007 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in Korean cuisine in general, I recommend you to visit this site. The website offers credible info on the cuisine.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks mate. Ron James 007 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On sources

Back in the 1930-50s in the United States there was a man named Walter Winchell. Mr Winchell was a reporter whose column was carried in several major and well respected newspapers of the day and his radio shows, and later television shows, were carried on ABC and NBC, also respected organizations.

There was one major problem with him: if Mr. Winchell disliked you, he would pillar you in his columns and show, He would twist the truth, or even lie, in order for the public to believe him; additionally he would take positions that would best his career, and support those who would do the same.

My point?

Just because something is presented by a respected source, doesn't make it respectable or reliable.

Does everyone understand the moral of the story?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ALL DISCUSSIONS ON DOG MEAT

Since when did dog become a staple food

Kuebie (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a staple food. Badagnani (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meat is a staple, and dog is a meat, so dog is part of the staple "meat".--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dogmeat is not a staple food. Kuebie (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that - it is not part of a staple Korean diet. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuebie (talk • contribs)

That's true (according to the definition of staple food), but it is the fourth most popular meat in Korea and merits discussion in an article about the cuisine of Korea. Are you suggesting it should not be mentioned at all in this article? Badagnani (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Kuebie (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is consumed as part of the Korean diet by a segment of the population that is significant enough to be measured and regardless or not it is attractive to westerners, it should be included as long as it is kept in context as it has been. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included in the staple foods section. The Dog meat article provides adequate information for this supposed medical dish. Kuebie (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog meat is not a staple diet like pork, beef but is categorized in a health food niche along with frogs, tadpoles, snakes and other such 'extreme' foods. No Korean will come home with a cut of dog and make it for dinner. Proper presentation of facts about dog met is fine but to create a subsection as a "staple" along with pork and other meats is simply ridiculous.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This can be solved by simply entitling the section "Meats" instead of "Staple meats." Let's work together to come up with a proper section title and all will be solved. In most cultures (including Korea), grains (and grain products like bread) or tuberous vegetables like yams, manioc, or potatoes are the primary staples, and meats are consumed in smaller amounts, and can't really be considered staple foods in the same light. Badagnani (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is NO "Staple meats section".--Caspian blue 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Meats" is under "Staple foods." Thus, "Staple foods" could be changed to something else like "Foods" or "Traditional foods." Badagnani (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition and distinction play always important roles in speaking.--Caspian blue 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog meat was never have been part of Staple foods of Korea, dog meat is considered alternative for special meat for these need urgent recovery or increase stamina which historically proved by the the regular consumer but never was main cuisine delicacy of Korea. China, Vietnam and Philippine consumed more dog meat than Koreans anyway then why you can't find Dog meat under their Staple meat sections? KoreanSentry

Everyone is missing the point of the whole section, MEAT is a staple and all meats, no matter how little or small the amount is eaten makes it part of the staple of meat. The fact that "dog meat" is not eaten enmass is mentioned in the section, but it is still start of the larger category of meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tanner, that's just false. Just because a certain food ingredient that falls into the category of "meat" doesn't make it a staple part of a culture's cuisine. What's staple is meat. Not everything that falls under that description. That's some hairy reasoning.

When something is described as a 'staple' food is that it is a basic part of an culture's cuisine. The term 'staple' doesn't imply any sort of all encompassing comprehensiveness.Melonbarmonster2 (talk)

21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

MEAT IS THE STAPLE... I am not saying dog is a staple of everyone's diet, I am saying that MEAT is the staple and that dog just happens to fall under that category. The way it is written should in no way be constituted as the individual meat being a staple, no more than it is assumed that every person in Korea eats chicken or beef. Your tag is also in error as it is not POV and is not out of context as it is properly sourced from an acknowledged academic on Korean cuisine, just because your POV does not agree, does not make your "opinion" correct. I am removing your tags and ask that you do not add them back.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. Saying that meat is the staple is meaningless if you are not going to differentiate between meats that are eaten as staples and meats that are not eaten as staples. YES there is a different between them. Merely stating that "meat" is a staple of Korean cuisine and then not differentiating between dog meat and pork/chicken/beef is FACTUALLY inaccurate. And I consider your edits to be a distinct POV as I would my own POV. The tags indicate that a dispute exists. Don't remove the tags unless you're ready to agree with everything I'm saying and resolve this dispute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanking by User:Melonbarmonster2 reverted

Blanking by User:Melonbarmonster2 reverted. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you go again: Bear in mind that WP:AN3 policy has been changed just like the title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. So better very be careful about 3RR violation and tendentious edit warring.--Caspian blue 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, despite the animosity we have had with Badagnani in the past, this reversion was proper. It appears that Melonbarmonster (?) has returned under a new pseudonym. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with any of them. However, I just don't like the same old tedious rivalry between them and the title, "blanking"; Badagnani's way of unnecessarily antogonazing his opponent. He knows the wording offends people, but has been never willing to change his attitude on that. Besides, the "one time" removal should be even noted here? They have essentially made an edit war on the subject, so there is no need to make his opponent look bad.--Caspian blue 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be deleted. I explained my edit and would love to hear a substantive response. The place of dog meat in Korean cuisine does not belong under anything "staple". It's downright inflammatory and culturally insulting to insist on placing this subsection back into the article. Also considering that the editors who are leading this charge is Badagnani, who claimed kimbap was eaten with soy sauce and just claimed above that meat isn't a staple of Korean diet, and Sennen goroshi does not help the cause.

This is the last time I'm doing to address the editors rather than the issues at hand.

For the record I will state again, dog meat is not a "Staple food" as the section title suggests like pork and chicken in Korean cuisine. This is simply false. No Korean ever bring home a cut of dog meat to eat for dinner. Dog meat is considered to be extreme cuisine along with frog, tadpole, turtle, snake, etc.. It is a false presentation of facts the way the article stands now.

Who inserted Dog meat as a subsection under "staple foods" anyways?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from attacks on other editors and please read the section above, entitled Talk:Korean_cuisine#Since_when_did_dog_become_a_staple_food. It will answer all your questions regarding the section heading. Regarding the text itself, it was worked out over a period of months of consensus building, with much text merged out to other articles. Badagnani (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the subsection where you claim meat isn't part of the staple Korean diet. I disagree.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why every little thing in Korea gets overemphasized dispite its size. It's certainly not as popular as whale meat is to Japan. Kuebie (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, why just Korea?, aren't Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinos consumed more dog meats than Korea? KoreanSentry

If and when I rewrite those articles and find a substantial academic source which states those cultures consume those proteins they would be valid in mention. The mention that is in this article about dog meat consumption is in the context of the culture, I have fought to keep all of the negative controversial issues with the protein consumption.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't make this into a POV dispute about consumption of "negative controversial" proteins. I am a whole-hearted proponent of "controversial" meat including dog and whale. The issue at hand is a matter of factual accuracy.

The factual issue that needs to resolved is regarding the place that dog meat occupies in Korean cuisine and culture. And on this issue, NONE of the references address this matter. This is because dog meat is a fringe food eaten not as food but as medicine along with tadpoles, frogs, snakes, grubs, etc., primarily for the purpose of increasing sexual virility in the summer months.

Any references to dog meat should be mentioned factually and accurately. Portraying dog meat as a part of staple Korean diet along with beef, pork, vegetables and kimchi is just false.

For those of you not familiar with Korean cuisine and culture, this is akin to including a bull testicle section or squirrel section under US cuisine. While there are references confirming consumption of these foods in the US, it would be factually inaccurate to portray them as being "staple" protein source in US cuisine or to portray them as part of the American diet along with pork and chicken. That's is not to say that mention of these exotic ingredients should not be included int he article. They just need to be portrayed accurately and factually.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But according to Jeremy since there are a "-segment of the population that is significant enough to be measured and regardless or not it is attractive to westerners-" it should be included (basically saying since Reuters wrote an article about it, it's okay). I wonder why such bias has been put on Korean cuisine. Might as well mention turtle soup, tiger balm, and other obscure recipies if your hunting for secret Korean indulgences. Kuebie (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because people without a working knowledge and familiarity with Korean cuisine and culture think we're trying to take this out of the article because it's unattractive to westerners. Unfortunately there are editors here who have little to no knowledge of Korean cuisine making these edits such as those who claimed kimbap is eaten with soy sauce, meat isn't a staple part of Korean diet, etc.. Mind you, for goodness sakes, that the current article makes no mention of vegetables as a staple of Korean cuisine while there's a section devoted to dog meat!

We just need sane minds to stop thinking of this in petty POV terms and start thinking in terms of what's factually accurate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir I have a masters degree in Gastronomy (food studies) and spent a significant time studying the subject along with other Asian cuisines. I have also been to the country and I have two cousins from the country. The source utilized comes from a Ph.D in Korean studies from SUNY Binghamton. Your opinion is in error.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Man someone axe kick me in the back of the head if I ever flash my real life credentials to win arguments on wikipedia... dude, there's no need to be so defensive and it doesn't matter if you have PhD in Boshintang studies(never heard of Binghamton offering PhD programs in Korea studies and Binghamton grad schools are crap). What's factually wrong is factually wrong. Also, the reference doesn't state anything about the issue at hand. The issue is not whether dog meat is eaten in Korea, it is. The issue is whether Dog meat is in the same category as pork, chicken, beef and kimchi as a "staple" of Korean cuisine.

What is your position in any case? Are you saying that dog meat belongs in the same category as beef, pork and chicken in Korean cuisine? I tried to explain that dog meat occupies a very different place in Korean cuisine and culture above. Are you disagreeing with me on this? If you do disagree with me on this then do you think squirrel meat should be a subsection in the US cuisine article as well?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no mention of vegetables, because I, the person who rewrote this article to the point it is at, have not had time to finish the article. If you have properly sourced information to add to the article on the subject of vegetables that would be wonderful. There is a section on grains and legumes though, so there are items not related to meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine if the article is incomplete. Did you write up the dog meat section also? If you did it still makes no sense that there's still a section on dog meat and no section on vegetables.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense that there is no section on vegetables as it is incomplete, it makes sense that there is a title on dog meat as I wrote a section on meat; it is truly that simple.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone. Let's work together with seriousness to add an encyclopedic and well-referenced section on vegetables. Badagnani (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly go eat your soy sauce kimbap.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary to be rude, please refrain from such comments.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Would love to! We would all do well to refrain from baiting each other, flashing credentials and turning things personal, etc.. I would love to keep the discussion limited to substantive edit issues!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The above personal attacks have become highly disruptive and appear to constitute a WP:TROLL. Please do not continue to engage in them. Badagnani (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I believe the correct use of the term would be to say "you are a troll" or "you are trolling". The attacks themselves cannot be a "troll". And these little backbiting comments and baiting that you are engaging in is what would constitute trolling which would make you the troll.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This Discussion page should be used for the purpose of proposing improvements to the "Korean cuisine" article, and not for attacking other editors. Let's work together to make this the best, most encyclopedic, comprehensive, and best sourced article possible. Badagnani (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree so please stop trolling.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this "Discussion" page is to propose the improvement of the article "Korean cuisine." Do not continue to edit in a disruptive manner. Let's work together to improve this article. I've begun a section on vegetables as you had recommended earlier today (thank you for this recommendation). Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Tags

You guys really don't think there is no dispute????

I suggest we bring in third parties to comment on this rather than reverting warring.

In my count, there are 4 editors here who have recently expressed their disagreement with this sections' accuracy and NPOV status which warrants these tags.

Let me know if you guys(Badagnani, Tanner) want to ask for third party comments on this and I'll set it up.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We have had over a year of extensive discussions about this subject. A few editors (usually the same disruptive and hyperaggressive one, under different usernames) return every few months to propose the removal of the entire section, and all mention of dog meat, yet without convincing arguments. The consensus was that dog meat, as a notable, historical, and widespread part of Korea's cuisine, be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia, however, is not censored, and we don't omit mention of controversial issues even if they are sensitive subjects to members of the cultures in question. Badagnani (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet there are at least 4 editors who disagree with you. Like it or not, that's a dispute. Tanner do you want to move onto asking third party comments about whether there is even a "dispute" about this dog section or do you want to agree that we disagree and move onto resolving substantive edit issues?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

I agree, I at one point actually was a person who stated that the protein was not one worthy of the article as it was consumed in small percentages in the culture. I however have changed my mind based upon my extensive research and my visit to the country, so decided that it should be a part. Even myself and Badagnani have argued about whether or not there should be controversial information in the article, although we disagree on that issue, we both assuradly agree that dog meat is a part of the cuisine as do many other users. As written, the article does not identify dog meat as a primary protein. It assuradly belongs in the artilce, the only other way to include it is to put it into a seperate heading that would annotate it as a controversial meat, which would make it look worse than it is.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree that there is a dispute?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Contents change, wikipedia articles arn't set in stone. The dog meat article provides adequate information for dog dishes in Korea. I believe it's more appropriate. Kuebie (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual tag

The facts of the section can not be disputed, the article is sourced from a known academic researcher, so the tag is wrong. You may not "like" the fact that people in Korea eat canine protein, (not quite sure why as it is not a bad thing), but I have been there, eaten it myself and have written on the subject myself and have used a source from another who has written on the subject. Your POV is a POV, my writing is based on well sourced facts, do you have a source that states that dog meat is not a meat (which is a staple), is not consumed in Korea? (open question to anyone who wants to answer). I'll feel free to get the 3rd party comment, don't need to warning, i've done it in the past.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The tag isn't a challenge to the references or to "facts". It's a notification of the existence of a dispute. There are 4 editors who disagree with you. Whether you think there are legitimate grounds for disagreement is not the point. The point is that a dispute exists. I'll leva this open for more comments and then proceed with formal dispute resolution.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be highly fixated on some sort of "collective shame" Koreans supposedly feel about the subject (so much for a NPOV huh). It's not. You can find dog soup resturants in Seoul, but it certainly isn't apart of Korean street food or culture. My suggestion is that dog be removed from the staple foods section (clearly we have differences in interpretation - meat is a staple yeah but dog isn't), then we can work from there. As I've suggested before, the dog meat article can satisfy anyone's curiousity about the subject. Kuebie (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even better, as mentioned earlier, this can be solved by simply entitling the section "Meats" instead of "Staple meats." Let's work together to come up with a proper section title and all will be solved. Regarding "street food," there are several thousand restaurants throughout South Korea that serve dog meat, and those restaurants are mostly located on streets, if the dishes are not served outdoors *on* the street itself. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Section has been renamed and as such the tags should be removed.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

See [4]. Badagnani (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Shall we remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article?

• Comment - I don't agree with this title at all. It's clearly not a staple food. We can simply retitle the section to "Meats" and there will be no problem or controversy. I've proposed this at least twice already. The actual title should be "Shall we remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article?" Badagnani (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed, as it seems as this is what other editors are aiming towards. I would re title, but retitling outside of the staple section would draw more attention to an ingredient in the cuisine which I don't believe requires the attention.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Substituting some other term for "Staple foods," as I've proposed three or four times above, would also solve the problem. Badagnani (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how no one has asked to remove all mention of dog meat this is a pointless RFC.

Dog Meat does not belong in the same category as pork, chicken, rice and kimchi. A specialty section of food that explains food as medicine may be an appropriate subsection under which consumption of dog meat can be mentioned. Playing around with the title doesn't resolve anything. I'm going to wait for further comments before moving to make changes to the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is proposing to "play" with the section title, just to change it from "Staple foods" to something else. That would address your concerns. Another sentence could also be added stating that although it is the fourth most popular meat in South Korea, it is consumed less often than the other three. However, keep in mind that 8,500 tons are consumed as meat in South Korea per year; that's 23 tons per day, or 46 thousand pounds (1,840 dogs per day at an average weight of 25 pounds per dog)--no small amount, though smaller than beef, pork, and chicken. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolving dispute is going require reading and comprehending what the other side is trying to convey to you.

Playing around with the title doesn't address the fact that dog meat is not a staple korean food nor does it belong in the same category with kimchi, pork, chicken, etc.. The stats also don't address the issue of the place dog meat has within Korean cuisine and culture although the fact that you've created a straw man position for yourself in addressing this RFC for "removal of all mention of dog meat" makes this a moot point.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From earlier discussion: "This section needs to be deleted." --User:Melonbarmonster2. Badagnani (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

True or False: If X->Y then ~X->~Y. Dude, didn't you ever learn this in high school math?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I will try to kindly moderate my tone but aside from the sarcasm my point still stands.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, but I'm reluctant. I'll make one stab at it, but I can't really sink my teeth into it.

It's a touchy subject. It has to do with the pet/livestock distinction, which is different in America than in Korea. I first heard about kaegogi in 1982, while stationed as a soldier in rural South Korea. I believe it was associated with extreme wartime privation - sort of a last resort. But there were also jokes and putdowns, so it may have been mentioned only in terms of the culture clash.

• ... according to Kyenan Kum, "Statistical research shows that today only two to three percent of Koreans eat dog meat more often than 12 times a year." [5]

This might be like the issue of, "Do geishas engage in prostitution?" One side relishes the idea of exposing a (repugnant? exotic?) practice; the other side wants to keep it quiet. It has been reported (but also denied) that the apprentice geisha's virginity is sold (see mizuage). If true, this would technically be an instance of prostitution. But we also know that regular whores would dress up as geisha to attract customers (especially occupation troops, 1945 and after).

Perhaps we can agree that it's an unusual food, or at least acknowledge that there is some controversy about it in South Korea. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I agree wholeheartedly. The text as it stands portrays dog meat in the same category as pork, chicken and kimchi. That's simply false information.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does state that dog eaten less often than the other three meats, but it is the fourth most popular meat in South Korea, with 8,500 tons consumed as meat per year (and, I believe, another 93,000 tons used to produce gaesoju). Those simply aren't negligible amounts, whether or not U.S. troops know all the places where it can be found. We formerly had statistics and survey data regarding how many Koreans have eaten and currently eat dog, how many times per year, etc., and earlier editors (presumably of Korean ancestry) wishing to avoid stigmatizing Korea and its culture insisted on those sources' removal. We do endeavor to be as encyclopedic as possible in every article at our project. Badagnani (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I came late for the dispute, but the current article already comes to a reasonable resolution. Kuebie, KoreanSetry, and Melonbarmonster raised a legitimate concern over the categorization: dog meat is certainly not found in any super markets of South Korea just like beef/pork/chicken and if you want to have a dish made with dog meat, you or even locals should try hard finding special restaurants or several big pen markets. So the header of "staple food" was somewhat misleading and the article.--Caspian blue 00:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Include but as suggested, as a rare item, not everyday food. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog meat discussion continued

No one's claiming dog meat is not eaten, or that it's not the 4th most popular dish, gaesoju isn't used, 8,500 tons of dog is not eaten, etc.. I was being sarcastic about the logic problem above but you really are committing this logic fallacy over and over again.

You also just admitted that you think there are editors here trying to avoid negative portrayal of Korean culture. That is the EXACT kind of POV that is inappropriate per WP:NPOV! For the record, I am a proponent of legalization of dog meat and I have no problems with conveying the controversial or negative aspects of dog meat.

However, the real issue is trying actually convey what place dog meat occupies in Korean cuisine and culture. This is not a matter of opinion or bias but a matter of fact about Korean cuisine and culture.

Dog meat occupies a very distinct niche in Korean culture and cuisine which needs to be accurately and honestly portrayed in the text. The Korean cuisine article however currently portrays dog meat as a staple food along with beef and kimchi. That is factually false and misleading. Merely changing around the title of the sections does not fix this problem. Dog meat is not comparable and is not in the same category as other Korean cuisine such as chicken, pork, rice, kimchi, etc..

If you were not aware of this, please feel free to ask questions so that we can try to come to a mutual understanding and consensus on this issue. I am not just trying to prove you wrong because I am grouping you in a biased camp nor am I trying to hide negative portrayal of dog meat. Let's move onto discussing substantive issue of whether dog meat belongs in the same category and staple Koreans foods such as chicken, beef, kimchi, etc..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we do to come to an agreement. Dog meat certainly belong in the article. All of the books of an academic nature place dog meat in the same way I have it in this article which is why I placed it there, how do you suggest to improve upon this?--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I will make my suggestions shortly.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest mergering the dog section with the dog meat article. I believe it is more appropriate and relevent to the section. However since Chef Tanner and Badagnani are absolutely wed to the idea of incorporating dog in Korean cuisine (even though it has been mentioned many times that is not part of a basic Korean diet), I don't know if they'll agree with my proposition. Kuebie (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the article article however currently portrays dog meat as a staple food along with beef and kimchi, there's a simple solution (two, actually): one is to add a sentence stating clearly that it is not a staple food, and the other is to not have it under a heading that says "staple foods" (modifying the heading would solve this). I've mentioned this about four or five times already, always with no response. Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Melonbarmonster2 already expressed how dog shouldn't be in the same category as the other meats. Kuebie (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Koreans eat dogmeat. They are known for eating it. They have meat breeds. Korean attitudes towards eating dogs are changing. These facts are not in dispute. They are well supported by citations. This pathetic attempt to whitewash what some Korean people do goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, and I for one will resist your attempt. Seedless Maple (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seedless. Please try to catch up with the talk page if you're going to participate. No one's claiming Koreans don't eat dog meat. That fact and supporting references are not in dispute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

From earlier discussion: "This section needs to be deleted." --User:Melonbarmonster2. Badagnani (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. There are more important things to work on here than petty games.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone. It is necessary to copy previous discussion page comments when they are contradicted. If an editor asks for text to be removed from an article, then later states that s/he had never asked for such a thing, it's important to point out the earlier comments. It can't be both ways (that the editor wishes both to eliminate the entire section, as well as to keep it). It seems that the crux of the dispute is the section heading. Let's work together, then, to come up with a more accurate and proper section heading, as I've proposed five or six times above. Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for it being removed from the article, if people do not like it being called a staple food, then their are easy solutions - none of which require removing it. It is notable, it is cited, it is NPOV, it is relevant. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help to keep in mind the definition of "staple food". Is meat a staple food? I didn't see it mentioned in our Staple food article. (But I might have overlooked it; please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Also, is there a difference between "4th most popular dish" and "4th most popular meat"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Meat is a staple of any cuisine that consumes it as a protein. The staple foods article doesn't mention it merely for the fact that it isn't properly written.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Staple foods are generally grains, breads, or root vegetables--the bulk of the diet (except for cultures such as Inuit or Maasai, who eat primarily meats and other animal products). In many Asian cuisines, meats are added in small amounts and are thus not the cultures' staple foods. Regarding dog being the fourth most popular meat in South Korea, it is not the fourth most popular dish. Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

--Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of a Staple Food

"A staple food is one that is eaten regularly and in such quantities as to constitute the dominant part of the diet and supply a major proportion of energy and nutrient needs."

http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e07.htm

Your statement is what would be Staple Crops, not Staple Foods. Unless you are referring simply to Asian cuisines, then meat is not the primary caloric source. If we take it as that definition, then we can agree that meat is not a staple, and as you proposed, we can rename the title of the heading. However, in most academic writing, meat would still be mentioned as a staple as it is a major source of caloric intake, even in small amounts. So my statement is not incorrect, it is just different in each culture.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Meat is a staple of Korean cuisine. Dog is not.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct (as mentioned above, again, and again, and again). Badagnani (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone. A simple "yes I agree" would do. Sarcasm is troll behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

blatant canvassing

Melonbarmonster has been canvassing regarding the request for comment in a highly blatant manner. Asking for a wide range of opinions seems like a great idea, however his requests seem to be made only to those who are likely to share his opinion.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith only goes so far. When an admin indef blocks someone they are not assuming good faith, because the blocked editor is blatant in his actions, just as I do not assume good faith when I make a 3RR report - same logic applies to my comments regarding Melonbarmonster. As for personal remarks, I do not see how they are relevant, I could not care less about any personal aspects of anyone who edits wikipedia, I care about their edits.

But anyway Ed, nice to meet you - sure we are gonna get along just fine. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hai, dozo yoroshiku. You, too! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs as evidence of such canvassing? Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No WP:harassment and WP:Personal attack which are highly disruptive to the talk page, Sennen goroshi. The "open" request for input on the dispute is encouraged according to WP:CANVASS. Do not feel sorry that you're not requested by Melonbarmonster2 because you know the reason pretty well. Recall what you have done to the article.--Caspian blue

Dog Meat section continued

Caspian, please return the POV tags to this section. This dispute has been sidelined but it's not resolved.

I stated above that changing the merely changing the title does not resolve the issue since dog meat is still categorized along with common food items such as chicken and vegetables. This is still a misrepresentation of the place that dog meat occupies in Korean cuisine and culture.

This is something that needs to be worked out substantially along with other miscategorization issues in the article i.e. "snacks", "dessert", etc..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you already reverted 2 or 3 times in 24 hours. Whether you and I like or not, quite a lot of meat is consumed in Korea. The section is properly sourced and none argues about it. Therefore, your putting the POV tags which are generally used for content disputes, because of its placement on the article does not sound convincing to me. --Caspian blue 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your arguing against points I am not claiming. Dog meat is consumed in Korea however, it is not consumed in the same vein as common food items such as chicken, vegetables, kimchi, etc.. It is a specialty item consumed in a unique cultural context that sets it apart from chicken and vegetables. The subsection does not convey this at all and portrays dog meat as a regular food item. That's misinformation and needs to be revised. That is my opinion.

Obviously others disagree... which makes this is a content dispute. I've left it alone while other portions of the text were being worked out. However, I will make proposals for change shortly. But for now, please return the tags.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur, the section is properly cited from a book written by a known academic of Korean culture, the tags are not appropriate and should be removed, if they are not removed I will have to report it to the admin. board for comment as this is getting ridiculous.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, we've already agreed that mediation and dispute resolution is in order. You're certainly free to report this dispute to admin board. Announcing it here just reaks of unhelpful posturing.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There are certain items in Korean cuisine like sujeonggwa that are only consumed on special occasions, maybe just a few times per year, yet still worthy of mention, in part because our readers will come here looking for such information and expect to find it here, as a notable and interesting part of the cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI from above, "Your arguing against points I am not claiming. Dog meat is consumed in Korea however, it is not consumed in the same vein as common food items such as chicken, vegetables, kimchi, etc.. It is a specialty item consumed in a unique cultural context that sets it apart from chicken and vegetables. The subsection does not convey this at all and portrays dog meat as a regular food item. That's misinformation and needs to be revised. That is my opinion."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just find this whole thing interesting as I was one of the people who fought to keep the article from glorifying the supposed numbers and other dramatic information that was once in this article in favor of moving that information to dog meat, which was done so that this article was left with facts and not sensationalism. Now, even with facts it is being argued. The phrase "but is not as widely consumed as other meats" should be more than clear that the dish is not eaten as much as other meats, and just prior to that it states that it is eaten in the summer, not year round.--Chef Tanner (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tags again

Melonbarmonster2, I don't mean to call you out on this, but you are the only person here arguing to remove the content from the page. This is bordering on POV vandalism now as you have given no remedy to the situation except to remove content or to add the false tags.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The content should not be removed from the article for reasons of notability and proper sourcing, and because users will come here looking for it. We aim to be as encyclopedic as possible in every article at WP, even subjects that are controversial. Badagnani (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what article you guys are talking about but this disagreement has been going on for some time as is obviously evident by the edit history and the contents of this talk page. Having me or any other editor for that matter disagreeing with you is what a dispute is, which is the purpose of these tags. Let's stop with the ridiculous claims of consensus please so we can try to move onto progress.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's just put it to a vote on the dog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Those in favor of leaving the dog meat section in tact in its current location and context please vote Support, those in favor of changing its current context into something different vote oppose. When voting please give a constructive reason for supporting or opposing, as in if you oppose, give a suggestion as to how it should be changed.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to the way this vote is worded. Wording your position in the positive confuses the issue being disagreed upon. What we need is to try to come to a common understanding and resolution. Trying to wikilawyer opposing views into silence will only exacerbate this duspute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as it is now is factually accurate. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Such a vote is unnecessary. We've had a broad consensus for the section, as agreed upon, for months. Badagnani (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:Consensus can change: please read this, as there is a dispute over how it should be done. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it absolutely comical that consensus is being claimed in spite of the reverts and the extensive talk page disagreements about this before our very eyes. Good grief, what happened to assumption of good faith?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The section is classified along with chicken, beef and vegetables which is misleading and inaccurate. The proper cultural context and place that dogmeat occupies in Korean cuisine needs to be portrayed in the text. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Creating a section along with common foods is violation of WP:POV and WP:Undue. I suggest a subsection regarding specialty folk/medicinal/food culture be written up that encompasses dog meat along with snakes, frog extract, etc.. The problem with this section is indicative of miscategorizations in other section which I've explained above resulting from overly zealous editors with little knowledge about Korean cuisine making representations in the text of the article not supported by the citation. These other sections also need to be repaired in the future.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Samgyetang is a medicinal food and it, and several others, are already mentioned in the text. It's clear that this editor wishes the removal solely because s/he sees it as portraying Koreans in a negative light to other cultures (though s/he apparently favors the legalization of dog meat in South Korea). We are not a battleground of national POVs; we simply strive to be 100% encyclopedic. Any effort to force us to be 90% or 95% encyclopedic would not be to our users' benefit, and they must be foremost in our minds at all times. Badagnani (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Samgyetang has medicinal ingredients but it is a common dish made and eaten regularly at home, regular restaruants, etc.. Anyone with first hand knowledge about Korean cuisine and culture knows this. Samgyetang, unlike dog, is not considered to be part of the kooky folk medicine/food category as dog, frog, etc.. The fact that you just openly claimed that your motive is to combat 'national POV' only proves your own biased POV agenda expressly discouraged by WP:NPOV. The issue at hand is about FACTUAL accuracy not about imagined POV wars. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dog is eaten on an enormous scale in Korea (the tonnages have been provided), although not as much as the more popular three meats. The article already states this. Those who aren't interested in eating it often don't know where it may be found, and avoid such places. However, it doesn't mean they don't exist, and that we should ignore it (and force our readers to think it's consumed on such a negligible scale it's not worthy of mention in this article). The nationalistic POV in the call for excision of the text remains quite evident. Regarding samgyetang, it is certainly not available in every restaurant in South Korea. If you have sources regarding the consumption of frogs in Korean cuisine, please add that information to the "meats" section. Badagnani (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The dispute has nothing to do with ranking meat consumption nor did anyone claim we should "ignore it". Please review the dispute above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From earlier discussion: "This section needs to be deleted." --User:Melonbarmonster2. Badagnani (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the section doesn't imply "ignoring it". X->Y, ~X -/-> ~Y... good grief. There's no way you're going to be able to run through that logical wall Badagnani no matter how many times you repeat yourself. You should really look this up.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For the past few months the general consensus has been that this article has been accurate and presented in a way that is neutral and disregards nationalistic/racial/societal opinions on the subject of the consumption of dog meat. The article is presented in an academic manner that is free of the biases that has plagued the article before. The sources provided by Chris are from a respected researcher who wrote one of the better tomes on Korean cuisine and this work places the subject of dog meat in its historical context and shows its current place in contemporary Korean society. Previous editors have waged edit wars that disrupted the neutrality that now exists, and this is what is happening once again. The current consensus is to keep it the way it is; it is only recently that this subject has come to the fore again and it has been at the hands of the contributors that brought the issue up originally. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been a lively disagreement in your absence as I'm sure you can see by this talk page and edit history. None of the references support presenting dog meat in the same category as chicken and vegetables. Let's move onto discussing substantive edit issues. These wikilawyering games will get us no where.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it should be discussed in the same category as chicken, gosari, danggwi, or any other notable ingredient used in Korean cuisine, whether eaten every day, or whether eaten only at special occasions or certain seasons. It all adds to the richness of the cuisine, and we aim to document it in as encyclopedic a manner as possible, without regard to the possible hurt feelings of a culture that doesn't wish to be seen in a negative light by other cultures who hold different standards for animal use. Badagnani (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Go find me a squirrel meat section in American cuisine. Give me a break. This is clear WK:Undue which is a violation of WK:NPOV. Whatever your opinion is, respect the fact that others may disagree. Stop removing the dispute tag, claiming consensus and wikilawyering, etc.. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean critter cuisine? Wait, Road kill cuisine! Even better!! Possum, armadillo and others? nummy-nummy!!! Should be fairly easy to find sources and would make a good balance article... 8-D

Here is the first source: [6]. Do a Google search on Fergus Drennan and see what you get. As Bill Cosby said: Americans will eat anything as long as you give them two pieces of bread to put it between. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

People do indeed shoot and consume squirrel the meat of other wild mammals in rural areas of the United States (such as Appalachia or Cajun country), though I've never heard of a restaurant specializing in it, nor on controversies regarding the Olympics, campaigns by the government to ban it, etc., as has been the case in South Korea for dog meat. But this discussion is about the "Korean cuisine" article, so WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't carry weight in this discussion. Badagnani (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So where's the section on critter cuisine in the American cuisine article? I'll wait with anticipation for you to star a list of common American ingredients where you list possum along beef and tomatoes.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I haven't checked. Why don't you add one, with good sources? Let's get back to discussing this page, though. Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm arguing that such sections are inappropriate. You're the one arguing that it is so go start adding those sections in other cuisine articles if you want to keep it in this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Melonbarmonster2. I really don't see what's so special about dog meat in Korean cuisine that actually warrants its own section. I mean it might be a fun for little trivia and facts section. Like in one of those "Did you know?" information boxes in english textbooks. Kuebie (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Dog meat in Korea is not normal cuisine that every Koreans consumed. It's one of these specialty dish or aka medical cuisine for these people who believes it brings highly nutritional value to special diet. If Dog meat is included in main article, why aren't Chinese cuisine page have Dog meat? Aren't Chinese, Vietnamese & Filipinos consumed more dig meats than Koreans?--Korsentry 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

I object, I think you should keep it on.

Stop using one culture to judge another. We (not including vegetarians) eat beef, if someone were to say that is horrible, you would simply say ridiculous. That's how Koreans are. They eat their food just like they speak their language and we do the same. Don't critisize them on food, culture, language or anything else. There is NOTHING wrong with eating dog meat- unless it's illegal where you live. --68.151.12.96 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• support however I don't think we should be voting on this. I will say this with good faith, but I have a feeling every single Korean editor will vote oppose, everyone else will vote support and whatever the outcome it is going to leave a bitter taste. I will abide by any vote, but agreement would be better.똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This "Vote" Holds No Weight

Sennen goroshi is correct. Per WP:VOTE, we do not decide matters like this on Wikipedia by voting. Polling is a minor tool to be used in working towards consensus in certain cases, but we absolutely do not (and will not) decide matters like the present one by means of a vote. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Purpose of RfC

RfC is a tool used in building an guaging consensus. That means that if there are editors who have good faith disagreements that opposing parties cannot ignore the lack of consensus. When the consensus becomes impossible, dispute resolution protocols are there to help resolve the matter. The results of this RfC is a split. If discussion doesn't result in consensus then dispute resolution protocols follow. See WP:CON for more information on this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable sources for your position? That would help me understand better that there is a good basis for your argument. It appears to me that there is good consensus generally for the inclusion of the section, based on reliable sources, but I would like to consider the best evidence for revising the consensus towards an outcome more suitable to you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the section is not the issue of this dispute. This has been covered extensively in this page... please carefully review the talk page. When there are multiple editors who have expressed dissent with your view, you need to assume good faith and try to work out a consensus. Consensus is not permanent and you don't get to pick and choose who you want to build consensus with. We need to understand the issue at disagreement before you try to disprove and dismiss the merits of arguments and positions which is covered in other section of this page.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

Thanks for the mediation requestWikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean cuisine. However, I feel issues to be mediated is appropriate and imprecise. The content issues to be resolved have to be pinned down exactly and not make this about me or any other disagreeing editor. I'll come up with a list of specific issues we need to resolve that we can all look over and revise. We should also think about asking for editor participation or informal mediation before taking this to formal mediation which is a step before arbitration. For now, let's follow WP:Truce and take it slow at least until after the holiday season.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is about you. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the mediation purposes and procedures. The entire purpose of focusing mediation around particular issues is to avoid exactly this kind of personal grudge, ego wars. If you're unable to follow the logical reasoning behind the issues that need to be mediated I suggest you take some time off as I have done in the past.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, please give what ever suggestions you feel that we have avoided as I have not seen any constructive comments yet other than you don't agree with the section and you want tags on the article. You did not agree to mediation, you have not properly argued your POV with any suggestions in either the request for comment or the requested vote. This is not a way to build concensus by one person attemping to hold the section hostage, so please offer a reasonable compromise or I will have to take further steps as this is ridiculous, we can not have the article sitting here with a tag on it indefinatly.--Chef Tanner (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to make edits in the past on this section only to be met with violent reverting. I don't want to make haste edits. While I disagreed with Issues to be mediated on your particular Mediation request, I do agree that mediation steps are the next appropriate step. The tags and entirely appropriate while we work this out. That's why the tags exist in the first place. That having been said, I will come up with a list of issues to be mediation for you and others to look at promptly now that the holidays are over.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tags, this is a clear case of disruptive editing if there ever was one. It is my suggestion that any further disruption of the article be handle through an ANI report about the editors behaviors. Furthermore a warning should be placed on the editors take page warning about this kind of behavior.

The part of the policy I am basing this post on is as follows:

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Engages in "hostile cite-tagging"; uses a "scattershot" method of adding {{fact}} tags to an article and announces an intention to delete large portions of the article if other editors do not immediately find citations to support the material thus tagged. In egregious examples, proper citations already appear at the end of a paragraph and the cite-tagger inserts the tag at the end of each sentence within the paragraph.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Enough is enough.-Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This kind of ill-faith gamesmanship is what stops us from moving forward in resolving this issue. I've participated in this talk page far more extensively than you and have made numerous improvements to this article apart from the dog meat issue and we've gone through a third party comment request which that has been active even in the last few days. And the results of the RfC is SPLIT and without consensus. To claim in spite of this fact, that there is no POV, factual accuracy dispute is simply false. Blanking tags, attacking me while ignoring(maybe ignorant of) the substantive issues in dispute is the exact kind of disruptive behavior you're describing.

My opinion is that we need to agree of issues to be resolved and take this through mediation steps as Tanner has done.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this issue for near on two years, I personally had the page locked down the last time this kind of issue arose. Just because I am not participating in this discussion in depth does not mean I am not watching the whole fiasco repeat itself. This is not gamesmanship but exasperation with your refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion with others to reach a solution. You behavior is consistent with the policy out lined and I believe the only way to deal with you is as a vandal. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The tags are based on talk page dispute and RfC results. Since when did RfC become vandalism? On-going discussion at mediation request, edit changes in article apart from this dog meat issue is vandalism? Please stop this nonsense and respect the RfC results and leave the tags alone. If you've been away, calm down before you jump in reverting and ranting like a WP:MASTODONS. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On going discussion at mediation request? You refused to take part in the mediation request, so just like the RFC above, the discussion is stalled because you just state your POV and disagree with a FACT that has been taken from an academic source. You in fact are instigating an edit war.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agreed with Tanner on need for mediation. I disagreed with issues of that particular mediation for reasons explained above and on mediation request page. I didn't stall the RfC. I gave my opinion as did others resulting in a split vote. Stop being unreasonable and help us improve the factual accuracy of the article instead of devolving the discussion as you have done in the last few days.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person being unreasonable because this article had a consensus that the mention of dogmeat in its current form was accurate and no controversial as it uses a set of factual citations which you are ignorning. If you go read any academic (not some website source) on Korean cuisine, there is a section on dog meat included in the animal protein section as it is in this article. Please provide a source stating otherwise that has been written by a proper academic like the source I have used or the continued addition of the tag will be considered edit warring, you actually broke the 3RR in the last 24 hours with replacing the tag but I am not going to enforce that issue but your continued disruption will no longer be tolerated unless you give a proper edit as your tags themselves are inaacurate according to the majority on this article and the third party who came in as well as per request to visit the issue that removed them.

Please read these boooks, based on sound academic research, not emotions.

• Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History by Michael J. Pettid
• The History and Culture of Korean Cuisine - Kegan Paul Library of Culinary History and Cookery by Jeroen Gunning

Note I don't use texts written from a person outside of the culture as there may be a built-in bias, but these three texts mention dogmeat in the culture but with more brovado, so I don't use them.

• Extreme Cuisine: The Weird & Wonderful Foods that People Eat by Jerry Hopkins, Anthony Bourdain, and Michael Freeman
• Unmentionable Cuisine by Calvin, W Schwabe
• Curiosities of Food: Or the Dainties and Delicacies of Different Nations Obtained from the Animal Kingdom by Peter Lund Simmonds

Some people like websources though, so here are some valid non controversial websites

• http://www.pbs.org/hiddenkorea/food.htm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1755535.stm
• http://www.foodreference.com/html/artdogmeat.html

Note that none of these sites are animal rights organizations, nor do they sensationalize the consumption of dog meat, it is very matter of fact like it has been written into this article. I would even go as far to say that I have not included certain items such as number of restaurants, amount of tonnage consumed and other items as they are only found on websites and I find them to make the article controversial, in its current form the article just states simple facts, not even that the meat is technically illegal as other editors had wanted in the article. It does not mention the legality as the law is not enforced, just like many blue laws in the USA, so if a law is not enforced it truly is not a law, especially as it has been noted that the current president of South Korea consumes dog meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you arguing against? No one is denying the facts of dog meat consumption. I have explained my position over and over against which you are all ignoring for the sake of creating a strawman for your POV. Let me make my position clear once more and state that my position is that categorizing dog meat along with beef and vegetables is a false presentation of information. It is akin to listing a squirrel meat subsection along with chicken and lettuce in the American cuisine article. It is misleading and factually inaccurate.

All I'm asking is that we follow dispute resolution protocol instead of trying to flame each other into submission in the talk page which includes leaving the POV/Factual accuracy dispute tags. I appreciate your mediation request but disagreed with your listing of mediation issues. I will post up a list of issues to be mediated for your review.

Let's all calm down and try to focus on the issues instead of levying personal accusations and whatnot.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, there are no restaurants in the USA that serve Squirrel meat. Take a look at the French cuisine article, there is horse meat and snails in the food stuffs section as they are served in restaurants and there are specialty butchers for horse meat so it is included in the article. Over 6,000 restaurants serve dog meat in Korea, and a significant tonnage of the protein is consumed in the nation. There is no significant portion of the American population that consumes squirrl meat, so your arguement doesn't make any sense, when a academic researcher, Micahel Pettid (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=371671)writes a book and includes dog meat in the protein category, I'm going to go with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is what I have done and the other involved editors have agreed with the source, while you are the only disenter. But please, present your "evidence" for mediation, that is when the tags may be added back to the article, untill then you have broken the policy of Three Reversions byt reverting the removed tags six times in the last 24 hours as multiple editors do not agree with you and view your edit as vandalism, including two administrators. Continued violation will be dealt with accordingly. You bear the burden of proof, so please present it.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with your assessment of squirrel meat. There is a multi-million dollar squirrel hunting industry that sells hunting equipment that caters to hunting and consumption of squirrel meat and whether there are, or aren't restaurants that serve squirrel meat is something that neither of us can speak on without research and proof. It is a commonly consumed meat in the midwest and south. I know for a fact from first hand experience that Michigan University has a variant version of the "Squirrel Club" where campus squirrels are caught, skinned and stored in freezers and consumed by club members. That may sound far-fetched to you but that's how it goes with such extreme cuisine that exists in all cultures.

As for mediation, we both need to not turn this into a personal ego battle. We have to try to understand what specific edit issues are at the heart of this disagreement. Let's stop with removing tags, claiming there's no dispute, ignoring RfC results, etc..

As for the 3RR report, I don't know what I'm not seeing in the edit history. You're ignoring time of edits. The 6 reverts are spread over a 48 hour period which is 2 days. Let's keep things honest please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

May I please point this section of the WP:3R policy:

“ The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors who engage in edit warring may still be blocked from editing even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period. Editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or make three reverts on each of a group of pages, for example, are nevertheless engaging in disruptive behaviour. The spirit of the rule is as important as the letter. ”

Just because the three reverts you performed were not in a 24 hour period does not mean you have not violated the policy, you have still violated the spirit of the policy. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to refresh everyone's memory. I asked for WP:Truce to stave off reverting on the 23 of December in order for us all to cool our heads and take time off from the article to refresh ourselves for mediation and other productive steps. You broke this 7 day period of peace by instigating the current revert war on the 29th[[7]]. Let's stop this bogus gamesmanship and try to focus on improving the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In return could I remind you of some facts: You have been asked to please stop posting the tags in the article, to engage in a civil and productive discourse in an RfC and to join in mediation; all of which you disregarded or ignored. When asked why they should consider your opinion you offered no true reply, no reason why they should have considered removing the section in question. You could not engage with others in an meaningful way even when the others were trying to engage you. Why should the others who have gone out of their way to try to accommodate your wants and needs have to start responding to your requests?

Could you give me one reason why I should remove the ANI request? One reason as to why your behavior is appropriate? Can you give us some factual reason that is backed up by reliable sources that are verifiable that support your assertion that the data is POV? Because, as of this point all you have done was state repeatedly your beliefs and ignore everyone else's.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vegetables section

Vegetables section added (please expand as necessary). Should pumpkin/winter squash be added to the list? (we already have zucchini, a summer squash). Also, a fruits/berries section should be added, as there's a great richness of these in Korean cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Retitle and moved items

I retitled the main heading of Staple foods, to "Foodstuffs" which is much more general and does not insinuate that any of the ingredients mentioned are mainstays of the diet of all Koreans. In renaming the section I also moved the soups and kimchi sections down to a section now titled "prepared foods" which includes the lists of other dishes that were under another heading as they seem to match better there.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

These all seem like positive changes, though to me "prepared foods" sounds more like "processed foods"; a soup is more of a "dish" than a "prepared food" IMO. Badagnani (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prepared foods mean the foods have been processed, as in cooked. Not all prepared foods are dishes, such as kimchee, it is not a dish, it is a prepared food item.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still an awkward construction when applied to dishes, and not optimal. When applied to kimchi it seems appropriate. Badagnani (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is not enough difference in Korean vegetarian cuisine and this article to make Korean vegetarian cuisine worthy of being on its own, it should be merged into the larger article of Korean cuisine where it would have proper context within the cuisine. Let the debate commence.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Badagnani (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. The article in question is totally unreferenced from its beginning except a brief mention on some restaurants and is largely based on WP:OR, so if someone wants to reserve it so badly, should have s/he already done with references? Even if it is perfectly in-line sourced (I doubt), I expect the article would remain as same as the current status; collection of hearsay.--Caspian blue 12:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - unnecessary fork that can be folded back into article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. User:melonbarmonster that article is a personal essay practically.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Tentatively Support merge. Korean vegetarian cuisine does not appear to be notably distinct from Korean cuisine. The quantity of material could easily be merged, and Korean cuisine in fact already contains vegetarian cuisine information. But I know very little about Korean fare. Badagnani, could you please state and explain your reasons for opposing the merger of these articles? --tc2011 (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a distinct and varied cuisine with a long history related to Korean Buddhism, and more information than is proper to include in the already-huge overview of Koran cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Might Korean vegetarian cuisine more appropriately appear in Korean Buddhism? Also, if Korean Buddhist v. Koran (Korean?) cuisine is a notable distinction, are there sources describing this distinction that can be included in the article? --tc2011 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Korean temple cuisine already covers the field.--Caspian blue 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - It didn't "already" cover it, because you created that article in direct reaction to the Korean vegetarian cuisine article, out of spite, in an effort to "one-up" another editor. The problem is, in the modern day there are many Korean vegetarian restaurants that are not at temples, and not religious in orientation. Thus, all Korean vegetarian cuisine can easily be covered at the Korean vegetarian cuisine article. Badagnani (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Another redundancy again. I only specified the Buddhism in Korean cuisine as an reply to the user, not you. Besides, you have failed to source the article in question for your claim.--Caspian blue 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please read the discussion before commenting further. The cuisine, though with roots in Buddhism, is no longer strictly tied to that religion. A read through the article would show you that (have you read it?). Badagnani (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No reference has not been provided for your claim for ages except a sentence mentioning some restaurants somewhere.--Caspian blue 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• MergedThe overall consensus appears to be in favor of merging. Article has been merged into Korean cuisine, if we want to fix the issues lets work on it together here in this article. I find the information to be interesting, but it needs proper context and citation which it is currently lacking.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obvious corrections

I just made a bunch of small edits that should be no-brainers that should not be controversial. Basic outdated or false info/claims like beef being eaten on "special occasions", shellfish being used in soup stock, fish generally made into jeotgal, paht bingsoo being categorized as a 'snack' along with jokbal, red bean in songpyeon, etc.. These are all things that are obviously false.

If you have questions about specific corrections I made, please ask. I'll gladly answer them.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as the context is not changed, the source is very reliable, however, I have another text that I want to use to rework some of the items as it would be good to have more than one main reference. If you do change the context, the new text needs to be added to a different line which is not associated with the source and then source your own additions. The Pettid source is one of only two reliable inclusive sources on Korean cuisine. I haven't gone through your edits in detail, but one I would mention needs to be changed is the mention of using a silver spoon, just change it to spoon as it is overly specific, just "spoon" should be fine.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you reverted several edits that are independent of one another and I don't know which of your reverts you're defending. For one, I checked the reference given for the sentence that states that shellfish is used to soup stock and the reference states nothing to that effect which makes sense since Koreans rarely use shellfish for soup stock but use dried anchovies and kelp to makes soup broths.

Also the spoon is should be metal actually. That's important since Korea is the only East Asan nation that uses metal spoons instead of the wooden soup spoon used in China and Japan and the standard tableware includes a set of metal chopsticks and a spoon known collectively as 수저.

By the way, citations are used to for facts that need verification. Obvious facts that are not controversial don't always need a citation. If you want citation, you can place a fact tag in the text. But please don't remove or revert edits.

I will leave the article alone for now and work on defending my edits separately instead of reverting as you and Badagnani have done.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious" can be POV, please don't think I am trying to be rude or possessive of the article, not everyone knows that dried fish is used for stock unless they are from Korea, so it does indeed need a citation, and it is Wikipedia policy to eventually remove edits that are not sourced. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think YOU didn't know dried anchovies are used for stock and not shellfish. This like someone asking for a ref for a claim that chicken is used for making broth, stock. If there's anything you feel needs a citation, just add a fact tag and leave the text as is.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can find citations for all these, it will be great. We can address each point along with good sources to improve the article. Badagnani (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIT and stop your disruptive behavior. I've given edit explanations. It's your responsibility to explain your position rather than revert warring!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are referring to me, I'm certainly not revert warring, I just want proper citations, because if we want to ever get this article to GA status, event eh "obvious" items will be stated to need citations, in all academic writing that is necessary, except in truly obvious examples like human are mammals.--Chef Tanner (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tanner these edits have nothing to do with dog and I don't know why you're fighting me on these edits. Let's improve the article. If you want a reference then just insert a fact tag. That's what fact tags are for. There's no reason for you to revert.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, I am not attacking you, so please don't twist it that way. I wrote the majority of the article, so I know where the sources point to as I sourced it, unless it is from a website, I do not source my edits from websites as I do not find them academically valid. I went into one of my books and found a reference for you.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better than when you reverted back in text that sea shells are generally used for soup stock and so forth. Let's move forward.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's Reverts

Good grief. my edits have been reverted again by Badagnani. I was hoping that this could be worked out civilly in the talk page but I guess we're back to unexplained reverts. At least I tried.

Badagnani, can you explain to me why you reverted my edits here in the talk page so we can avoid a revert war?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits explained

1. Dried anchovies along with kelp form the basis of common soup stocks. - if you want a citation for this, help in finding one or add a fact tag but don't revert.
2. "Shellfish are often used in stock and soup preparations." given citation doesn't support this claim which makes sense this is simply false.
3. "and decorated with pine needles. Honey or another soft sweet material such as sweetened sesame or black beans, or azuki beans are used as fillings." - changed. Pine needles are almost never used. azuki beans are never used as filling for songpyeon.
4. "Sometimes cooked with thinly-sliced beef, onions, oyster mushrooms, etc., and served as a light meal." - removed, just false. they can serve this with banchan as anjoo but so can anything.
5. Songpyeon section - pine needles left out. manner of service, decoration is totally subjective. pine needles are almost never used. auzki beans are never uesd for songpyeon.
6. "...of the meal as an accompaniment to rice along with other banchan" - added to text.
7. "prepared with meats offered at ancestral rites" removed. Food is served during ancestral rites but there is no formal rule for serving soup. This is just false. There are required food items to be served in a ancestral rite such as alcoholic drink, fruits, jujubes, chestnuts, etc., arranged in a specific manner. Foods favored by the deceased can be put out but ttang's are far low on the list as a possible ancestral rite item.
8. "...mixed with with a spicy, tangy sauce made gochujang." - added. Why would anyone revert this it boggles the mind.
9. jjajangmyun section - revised for accuracy
10. Ramyun section: this is never cooked with meat and rarely with vegetables beyond scallions. Ramen is also Japanese imitation of Chinese noodles and korean ramyun is totally different from real japanese ramen in flavor, looks, etc.. Claiming this is a variation of japanese ramen is simply false. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Korean ramyeon (particularly the instant kind) is influenced by Japanese ramen. The modern Japanese instant ramen has little to do with the old Chinese noodle lamian. If going back further, both Japanese and Korean noodles derive from China. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it's influenced. Chinese, Korean, Japanese are all influenced by each other in complicated ways and ramen/ramyun is a prime example of this. That is why labeling something like this as being a variation of something 'korean', 'japanese', 'chinese' is an exercise in futility. The only thing japanese about ramyun is the packaging process which was developed by a japanese company which is level of detail unnecessary for this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbered each sentence for clarification and better responses--Caspian blue 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• As for the changed edits, I leave my opinion on items that I know.

1. Stock for Korean soup or stew dishes is largely based on dried anchovies along with sometimes kelp(kombu)/dried pyogo(shiitake), dried shrimp aside beef stock.
2. Melon, you're wrong. Shellfish are used as stock - yes. For making Miyeok guk, many people use mussel as stock ingredient instead of beef. In Sundubu jjigae, shellfish are used as stock.
3. Songpyeon is never filled with red bean paste or honey but with unsmashed beans and sesame.
4. I don't know what you're even referring to
5. pine leaves are only subjective, yest.
6. What is a problem???
7. No. There are specific rules on soup for jesa (ancestral worship ceremony) according to region.

Many of Melon's corrections are accurate, but some are not. You should've edited the article to change with reliable sources first? That would've been reducing unnecessary drama here.--Caspian blue 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading some of these.

1. No disagreement
2. The text originally read that shellfish is "generally" used for soup stock which is false. Shellfish is eaten in a wide variety of way. In no way is it used "generally" for soup stock. As you agreed with me above, the main ingredients for stocks are anchovies and kelp. I never claimed shellfish are never used as soup stock. That's badagnani's imagined strawman.
3. No disagreement
4. It's added text. Look at history.
5. No disagreement
6. No disagreement
7. You're agreeing with me. Tang's are not special jesa food and that fact should be reflected in the text. No reason to appendage every food that ever used in jesa.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Snacks section

This is a highly problematic section since everything falls under 'snacks' and there is no real 'snack' category in Korean cuisine. This is more of an American concept: chips, soda, cookies and other such junk foods. The section deals mostly with street food anyways so the section should be retitled and devoted to street foods which is more interesting and noteworthy in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of snacks

Please use "Discussion" before engaging in large removals such as this one, thanks. As shown above in several instances (removal without prior discussion of shellfish and pine needles), removal before discussion is not the way to go. As this shows, none of us knows everything, and careful discussion and consideration of sources really can lead to the best possible article. Badagnani (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Look above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Now gimbap has been removed entirely from the article without prior discussion nor consensus. And "Snacks" has been changed to "Street food," also without consensus. It's clear that gimbap is not only prepared and consumed on streets. Please undo these changes and use "Discussion" to propose them, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kimbap shouldn't have been removed. Let me check and fix any inadvertent deletions. Snack section also was not removed. It was retitled and reworked reasons explained above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Referring to kimbap as a "snack" in the street food section has been removed because it's not a snack. Feel free to include kimbap in an appropriate portion of the article as you see fit.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

None of us knows everything. In fact, these sources indicate that gimbap is indeed eaten as a snack. Please use "Discussion" before such removals in the future, thanks.

• Source 1 indicating that gimbap is a snack:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3r-3YH3t45cC&pg=PA155&dq=gimbap+snack

• Source 2 indicating that gimbap is a snack:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pD26AAAAIAAJ&q=kimbap+snack&dq=kimbap+snack&pgis=1

Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimbap CAN BE described as a snack as authors of these books have done the authors referring to kimbap as 'snacks' is certainly not meant as a conclusive categorization and it would be a miscitation to claim it as such. Furthermore your references do little to justify the problematic categorization of a "snack" subsection which is rather pointless for reasons cited above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First, pine needles were removed; then the use of shellfish for broth was removed; then gimbap is removed--in all cases with you essentially saying that such text was idiotic because no such thing existed in Korean cuisine. When Google Books sources were included for each, you then indicated that you had known that all along. All of this is done without prior discussion here, or consensus building. Let's start doing that, to work together to create the best article possible, as it's clear that none of us knows everything about Korean cuisine--the sources do. Badagnani (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I really think you need to find out why if X->Y, ~X -/-> ~Y.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please undo removal (second request)

Please undo the removal in this edit, as requested earlier. I'm seeing new edits but no attention to this. The change of heading should be addressed and consensus built at "Discussion." Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's bogus removal request

You've ignored my discussion request above and have created 2 separate sections. Please explain why, what you find objectionable instead of complaining about things that have nothing to do with any substantive edit issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Kimbap shouldn't have been removed. Let me check and fix any inadvertent deletions. --User:Melonbarmonster2 (just above). Snacks are not only prepared and eaten on streets. Badagnani (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded to this above. Please respond to my response. I see no reason why responses need to be repeated redundantlyMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dessert Section

This is another problematic categorization. A Korean meal doesn't include "dessert" and there isn't a category of "dessert" foods. The foods listed as "desserts" are totally arbitrary. This section needs to be reworked and I'm open to suggestions.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The current categorization is indeed arbitrary, but your assertion that a Korean meals does not include "dessert" is inaccurate. What is your suggestion for change?--Caspian blue 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Certain foods are consumed post meal(mostly small amount of fruit or a sweet drink) but it is very different from western style "dessert" in the manner it's portrayed in the subsection of the article, hence the quotations around the word. Working on a proposal but open for feedback for now.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A change to "sweets" would obviate giving the impression (which I don't believe is a concern) that sweet foods are always served after Korean meals, all year round. (They're not in most other cultures either, as many times diners are too full after a meal to eat any dessert.) Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

History Section

"Much of Korean history is covered myth and legend, especially during the foundation of the country. As a result, much of the history of Korean cuisine is based on the same sort of myths and legends. However, this cultural basis has been extremely important to the evolution of the cuisine found in the country today."

Where is this text from and is it referenced? The history subsections that follow are not 'myths' and standard Korean history. The myth portions of Korean history are about Dangun and creation origin myths that aren't mentioned in the article. If this text isn't explainable, it should be removed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, however, it was a lead used as a summary which normally does not require a citation, but I don't want to argue so it is gone.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Leads don't get an exemption from having to be factual and true. When the subsequent text doesn't deal with Korean myths, the lead was misleading.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Its gone, drop it.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)