Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 23 November 2008

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

Food and drink B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

To-do list for Korean cuisine: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-07-30 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Copyedit : Newly added materials

Archives

Archive 1 Sept. 2007 Oct. 2007 Nov. 2007 Dec. 2007 Jan. 2008 Feb. 2008 March 2008 April -May 2008 June 2008

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages? 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

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

2. BBC article from 1999

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 Misplaced Pages'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 ] 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 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 16:13, 16 June 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages to contribute to the education of those interested in cuisines in the world including this one.

Next, as per Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Pork

I'm new to this, so forgive any errors in posting.

My question: is this snetence true, taken from the Pork section: ' Pigs were pen raised early in Korean culture, with pigs in special pens being raised on the Cheju Island. The pigs on Cheju Island were raised in pens built around raised privies which held human excrement which these pigs consumed. These pigs were considered a delicacy and were known as tong dwaeji (통돼지).

'

That is disgusting, lol, and I wanted to know the source and accuracy. Pigs ate human poop? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.128.214 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Pigs will eat anything, that is why people make the comment "he eats like a pig". it is not disgusting, it "just is". Human waste is no different than animal waste, the issue is that when we use cattle waste for fertilizer and other uses, we pasteurize it. In other cultures the waste such as human waste, is not pasteurized and can still hold disease.--Chef Tanner (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

illegal dog meat

I think that the fact that dog meat is illegal but still eaten should be mentioned on the article. Seems highly relevant to me. What do others think? Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that fact was always mentioned. Did someone remove it? Badagnani (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdated article being used, I mentioned somewhere before during the Olympics it being made illegal, but unenforced, it is not a law. Issues like this belong under Dog meat so you can bring up controversies with the animal rights issues. Animal rights issues and sociological differences from outside cultures do not belong in this article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this article? Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, the mention of legality and taboo belongs in the Dog Meat article, not here.This article is about the cuisine, not the social acceptability of controversial ingredients. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, it is notable, it is cited. I agree that this article is not the place to go into major detail on the morals or legality - however to mention that it is illegal seems sensible and to remove the fact that it is illegal would seem to imply that it is legal. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you can place and cite it there, not here. Consensus seems to be leaning towards not including it. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not seem to be leaning towards not including it at all. It is cited, it is notable, it is fine for the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one who insists to include the legality of consumption of dog meat. Please try to improve the article, and regard the compromised "consensus" over long debates. Other cuisine articles do not have "controversial subjects" just like Japanese cuisine and Chinese cuisine respectively do not even have "whale meat" or "monkey brain" section. You can improve Dog meat with the info.--Caspian blue 14:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact, I choose to include it and will put it back in the article unless I see a damn good fucking reason not to. Don't try to hide the fact that as part of one nations cuisine people choose to break the law on a regular basis. It is notable it is cited - end of story. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Japanese and Chinese eating the controversial meats is notable facts, but the pertinent articles do not even mention it because Misplaced Pages has separate articles to deal with, based on "consensus". I remind you that WP:AN3 policy is changed, so "tendentious edit warring" or edit wars over "blatant disregard" are all subject to be filed there even though there is no 3RR violation.--Caspian blue 14:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope my current wording makes it clear that it is highly relevant. The article mentions the current popularity of dog meat, and the legality is quite obviously relevant in that situation. But whatever, I do welcome sane responses/comments. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your last edit is only your repetition blatantly disregarding the current discussion and one step from WP:3RR violation. So you're warned twice.--Caspian blue 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

nonsense

Note: I edited the title of this section, removing the "I" from the original name and substituting the asterisk (*). I did this because I feel that the title was a clear violation of the WP:Civil policy of Misplaced Pages, but the user's sentiment about the edits he was disagreeing with was legitimate. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of being nice, I have changed the title for another less offensive word that has the same meaning. Just as people object to the original word, I object to having my edits edited, but I assume it was a good faith edit and see no need to waste any more time on such issues Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

is probably the best word for the current state of the article.

in spite of the glaringly obvious staring them in the face - ie. it being notable and relevant that a popular dish is illegal - these editors insist that the inclusion of one word is going to result in wikipedia collapsing around us.

One word which is factual, NPOV and cited.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoid harassing comments such as the title of this post. How do you find the "current state of the article" to be negative to what the cuisine actually is? The article is sourced mostly from a well known, highly regarded Korean historian, do you have other sources in "print" not web POV that support that this article is "bulls**t"? It seems your issues are cultural differences with the Korean tradition of animal protein from dogs, a Western influenced bias. Sensational issues belong on articles based on the particular topic, IE, consumption of dog meat, not an article based upon the entire food culture of Korea. The legality is in question as it is not enforced, as noted in the the article you last attempted to note which mentioned that multiple presidents consumed the protein along with others which caused the government to not enforce the law. They also did not enforce the law based upon its sales on the web as there are no regulations concerning the net sale of an animal not currently regulated as a domesticated consumable protein. Please read your full artilce, not just the talking points you are looking to prove.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists