Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 6 December 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages, 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)

Dispute

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

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

Template:RFCsoc

• 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."

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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