Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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).[31]

'

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Outdated article being used, I mentioned somewhere before during the Olympics it being made illegal, but unenforced, it is not a law.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? [1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Melonbarmonster2 & 3r/Edit warring/Disruptive editing

I have reported him for such here.

This is the text of the report:

“ User:Melonbarmonster2 has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article Korean cuisine over the subject of dog meat. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with {{disputed}} and {{POV-section}} tags which have been removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the WP:3R, WP:Edit warring and WP:Disruptive editing policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the Talk:Korean cuisine page.

I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual.

”

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If Jeremy agrees that there is a dispute at hand I don't see how he can justify his repeated removal of the dispute tags in light of RfC results. I am also not sure if Jeremy understands what the specific edits disputes are involved in this dispute. There are editors with good faith disagreements here. Good faith disagreements happen. I am hopeful we can work out these disagreements by following proper protocol. Hyperbolic, negative and misleading descriptions and false accusations have nothing to do with substantive disputes at hand and doesn't help move the dispute forward. There is no 3rr violation. I have asked for a WP:Truce which lasted for 7 days before Jerem43 instigated the current edit war on the 29th of December. If the RfC has resulted in nonconsensus then the tags are appropriate and DR steps need to be taken. Claiming editors who disagree with you have no good reason for their position and removing dispute tags and lambasting them with accusations, etc., doesn't help our current situation.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section has had some issues in the past, but we have since come to a consensus on how to finally present the data that, while doesn't give everyone everything they want, it does present the data in a consensual middle ground that states the facts in such a way as to put it in perspective to the culture and not put it under a biased cultural lens. It has been this way for a good while now and was, until your return to the article, stable and predominantly accepted by the contributors. You have since revisited the article and attempted to change the consensus to one that is closer to your POV. When consensus still did not come over to your POV, you began to try to pound it in to the people who have tried to make this article the best it can truly be. Even after the consensus has gone against you, you still refuse to accept the decision. It is your refusal to work with others to accommodate your concerns that is the problem we are now dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's been an RfC for goodness sakes with split results. There's no consensus. Deal with it.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One person holding out, does not override a good consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. I'm not the only dissenter but even if I were consensus means consensus. Per WP:CON if consensus is impossible because of disagreeing parties mediation is the appropriate next step.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bad you won't participate. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary and the issues to be mediated has to be agreed upon by all parties involved for obvious reasons.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources

As I understand the policy, excessive sourcing is unwarranted. But good sourcing of material, including a sentence with no sourcing whatsoever is being reverted. The section in question is not overly cited. What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pettid source already stated the information that the additional sources were stating, these sources were also tertiary sources, where Wikipedia guidelines state a preference toward secondary sources, either way the additional sources were redundant, but also contained controversial information which has been contested by the majority of editors working on this article. The sentence removed that was added was just restating the sentence just prior to it, and again was using an article that was about the controversy of dog meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How does removing those sources make the encyclopedia better? It doesn't. I realize this subject is contentious, but the good article quality from very reliable sources is clear and it's what the encyclopedia is all about. This almost smacks of censorship. Depriving readers of access to these articles in favor of an off-line book isn't reasonable. One of the sentences is now unsourced. And as little or no content was added, I don't see an issue with undue weight. Good sources that are accessible online on the subject should be restored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, the entire section is sourced, see sources 35-36, both from different sections of the Pettid book. When writing, each individual sentence does not require a citation. When you place citations into any academic writing, ALL of the sentences prior to that citation are meant to be cited from that source unless there is another citation placed within the writing. So in placing those citations in the middle of the written paragraph, you are telling readers to look at the web articles that were placed in there, when those articles had nothing to do with the other sections perhaps. Additionally, it is not the fault of the researcher that someone does not own a book that is used. Texts published by a well known scholar are always preferred over a news article found on a website. If people care to find controversial information on dog meat, they can go to the dog meat article which already contains this information, perhaps even with the articles you are using. I'd even prefer those weren't used there, but I prefer to work on cuisine articles as the study of "cuisine and culture" is my personal academic background which I prefer to study in my professional life with researching and publishing, so dog meat doesn't get my attention. It is not an encyclopedia's responsibility to offer as many places for people to look for news articles, that is what Google.com is for. We have already hashed these issues out over the last two years and are even debating more on it now above.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is interesting, but it isn't supported by policy. 1) Third party sources are preferred. 2) Reliable newspapers are an excellent source indicating notability and providing NPOV mainstream views. 3) Wikipedia policies encourage building a great encyclopedia, clearly accesibility is one factor. 4) Using one source for a section gives that source undue weight. 5) These article aren't about dog meat, they are about dog meat in Korea, and as such they are highly appropriate. 6) The section in question needs better sourcing, and while the controversy isn't gone into in detail in this article, providing readers with access to sources that discuss it is important. 7) Your argument that Wikipedia should be a culinary encyclopedia is contrary to its policies and purpose. The encyclopedia covers subjects from a variety of perspectives, so limiting sources to those that pertain only to your area of interest is contrary to policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The more sources the better. There's a kind of "dog meat denialism" going on, and the more reliable sources showing frequency of consumption, tonnages, number of restaurants, and other such information, the less controversy there will be--as with any WP article. Badagnani (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no denial going on here Badagnani, I'm from New York in the USA and I could care less what any culture consumes, this is not what ChildofMidnight and i are discussing anyways, it is about proper sourcing.

You completely misunderstood my statements. Starting at number 1. Third party sources are secondary sources. Tertiary sources are those that use secondary sources for their research which is what newspapers do unless they are "on-site" doing investigations, I think that is just a misunderstanding of the definition of a primary-secondary-tertiary resource. 2) Not all newspapers are NPOV. 3) Books are highly accessible, people don't need to buy them, they can goto a library. 4)As I stated, if you add a source, make sure that it doesn't conflict with the other source there, which means if the source added changes a prior sources cited information, then that text needs to be moved so that the citations match, I'll be hoenst I haven't gone back to check on this one as I am actually away on vacation and can't believe im sitting on here. 5)As long as the article itself is properly sourced or written well, then it probably isn't an issue. Remember, it is always important to verify your sources credibility as well, just because it is in a newspaper doesn't make it correct. 6)The readers do have access to the issues on dog meat as the link directs them to the section of that article on dog meat] at least it used to. So many edits get done to this silly little section, things get screwed up on it a lot. 7)What i was stating is that I prefer to work on cuisine articles, which is my area of expertise, and if anything I try to keep away from cookbooks as they are not NPOV, I know the Wikiepdia policies very well, I just choose to work in the "cuisine section of Wikipedia".

Lastly, I am certainly not a censorship supporter, I write on a number of controversial issues outside of my work on Wikiepedia and I am one of the people who support having the section on dog meat in the Korean cuisine article, and plan to go over to the Italian cuisine and French cuisine articles to put in small sections on the reemergence of specialty butchers that sell horsemeat, and I will likely use online newspaper articles as well. However when choosing article, the articles will not mention anything of controversy as it is not the job on an article on cuisine to talk about controversy, as we have separate articles associated specifically to those food items and people issues with their consumption.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just a point of grammar: if you "could care less," it means that in fact you care quite a bit. The actual phrase is "couldn't care less" (which would mean that you care so little, it's impossible to care less). Badagnani (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to attempt to not be rude for a day?--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It was a sincere helping comment regarding a common misapplied turn of phrase, no rudeness whatsoever intended. In fact, it's the opposite, to assist the editor stating the phrase to not continue to do so (lest to confuse hearers). Badagnani (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image

See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced text

Text added that dog is eaten only by older Koreans (without source). See [3]. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Then add a fact tag. That's what fact tags are for.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Dog meat from Korean cuisine main article

Please Dog meat is eaten by many other countries in the world, Chinese, Filipinos and Vietnamese consumed more dog meats than Koreans yet I don't see it from their national cuisine. Dog meat in Korea traditionally not every day food. It considered to be medical cuisine therefore it should not be in the main article. We already have Dog meat article on this. If many of insist dog meat to be stay under Korean cuisine then we have add dog meat to every other country's national cuisine article to be fair. --Korsentry 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Dog Eating Continued

I wonder what the backgrounds of some of you editors here are. I know one of you is a chef who tried to argue that a dog is a "staple food" in korea because meat is staple and dog is meat, which is just a flawed argument... But any of you have any malice intent to put dog as one of main category of Korean food? (like a former english teacher in korea...)

There's no denying that some koreans eat dogs. Though some say that dog eating in Korea goes back further, most believe it only goes back to WWII when korea was very poor. Roughly 10%(*) of Koreans have "tried" dogs, but the definition of "tried" doesn't mean that it's part of their normal diet. I tried snails, but that doesn't mean sails are on my dinner table for daily meal either.

As an editor in wikipedia entry, you have to describe something as though you are speaking to someone with no knowledge in the subject. But when you read the description of dog meat in Korean food section, you get the sense as though it's bigger part of Korean diet than it really is and the description uses biased words like "popular" (twice) and compares eating dogs "not as widely consumed" to eating beef, chicken, and pork. This is just pure unfair depiction and misleading entry. And when has 10% of population ever considered "popular"?

Dog eating is controversial subject matter and there's small but growing voice against the practice in Korea as well. Rather than steering persons to your biased point of view, dog eating should be presented as a practice done in korea but with controversy that's surrounding it. Even just this discussion page alone is full of disagreements.

I propose there's should be a section called "controversial Korean food" that talks about the dog eating practice (with link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat) as well as live octopus eating (called San Nak-gi). Dog is not a staple and the description is very misleading.

There should also be extended description of fish and sea food in korea. If anything, squid should take place of where dog is since it's very much consumed, avaiable to purchase at a grocery store as you would with beef, chicken, and pork.

If there's any reasonable reason why dog belongs with beef, chicken, and pork (while more consumed Squid isn't) in Korean food section, please comment or go into arbitration. Santaria360 (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• 10% cited here (http://www.slate.com/id/2060840/) and other sites you can search for

These concerns have been covered in great detail earlier; please see the Discussion page archives. Please also see WP:SPA. Badagnani (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussed or not, it's still not decided to many people's satisfaction as you can see in the comments and you are still holding hostage with very little knowledge to the topic. Santaria360 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the relative merits of each of your points, let's comment on content, not contributors, please. -kotra (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I'll stay focused on topic and not the contributor. Santaria360 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... Badagnani

Reading back on previous comments, I've already had long discussion with you two years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_1) and I still haven't got the answer to the question why you are so passionate about having dog eating in the Korean food section.

How did it get to the point where two non-Koreans have a control over editing Korean food which is a doorway into Korean culture for foreigners? Isn't there something odd there? Santaria360 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They have been addressed earlier; please see the archives. See also WP:SPA. Badagnani (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, you're unnecessary being rude as quoting WP:SPA several times.--Caspian blue 07:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a New Sub-Section for "Controversial Korean Foods" and Expansion of "Fish and Seafoods"

Currently, the content about Dogs as meats that Koreans consume is inadequate and biased. We need to read the article as though we are all new to Korean food and by listing dog in the same section as beef, chicken, and pork shows that the dog is in same category. This can't be further from truth. Only way that the article currently tries to distinguish the difference is by stating vaguely that "...but is not as widely consumed as beef, chicken, and pork". If the proponents of the "keeping dog as meat" is arguing that we need to educate our readers without bias on the practices of Korean eats, then we need to do so by showing that this topic itself is controversial in Korea, rather then filtering out what the readers should/should not be educated about. I'm confident that 99% of content about Korean dog eating on the web is either biased against it or is a neutral article showing how people are fighting against it. If that's the case, it's almost impossible to filter out to derive contents and statistics from such sites. We are better off creating a new subcategory and presenting the argument as is, so no editors can pick and choose what readers should be educated about.

Also, seafood is huge part of Korean diet and the description of it is incomplete. Article doesn't list a single Korean seafood dish and just says that "Those who lived closer to the oceans were able to complement their diet with more fish while those who lived in the interior had a diet containing more meat". Well, Korea is a small country and it's surrounded on 3 sides by ocean and like many countries, all the major cities are located near the ocean. Nothing in that section is noteworthy and should be expanded. Santaria360 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Once you've read the discussion archives straight through, please come back and we'll discuss further. You may also wish to contribute to other articles at our encyclopedia; we have over a million now and your expertise would be a valuable asset. Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have no interest in contributing to any other millions of articles at this moment. My contribution to Wiki isn't what makes me sleep at night nor is it any accomplishment that I would brag about. I'm only interested in this topic for now. I did read some of the archives, but what's been discussed in the past I believe is irrelevent. I'm not looking to change the past edition to this article, but the current one, which I believe to be inadequate. So, why would I bother with the past when the final one with all the revision still isn't good enough? Unless I get a confirmation from an administrator that the current article is a firm final article with no other revision to be made ever, my time is better served trying to change what's now, then what was before. I don't claim expertise on Korean Food or any other millions of topics on Wikipedia, but I do know a biased and poorly written article when I see one.

Only thing I ask of you, again, as an editor is what you think of my idea and what's your objection to it if any. Thanks! Santaria360 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to address your comments until you have read the discussion archives straight through. Regarding my response to your proposal, it's also difficult to evaluate this because you have now, at least seven or eight times in various fora, including discussion pages of editors you believe sympathetic to your ideas, discussion pages of various articles, administrators' noticeboards, etc., consistently impugned me as an editor, portrayed me as an editor who is not knowledgeable about this subject, made pronouncements about my ethnicity, stated that I should not be allowed to edit articles on Korean cuisine, etc. If you retract these statements in each of those fora, I may be more easily able to evaluate your proposals. Badagnani (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All, lets keep the rhetoric down please. I do agree with Badagnani, which is a rare event :), you should look back on the discussions archived here and see how we came to be here in the first place. The section is a compromise that does not give anyone exactly what they want but is presented in such a way that it only provides a history of the practice, puts it in context with Korean society and is done so meeting the standards for inclusion: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:Not. The only group that is still arguing against the inclusion are those who simply do not like the data at all.

You must understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and these controversial subjects are here to stay. People of all nationalities must tolerate the good, bad and embarrassing aspects of their history, whether it is Germans and Nazism, Japanese and Fascism, Americans and slavery/racial discrimination/ethnic segregation. Yes this is a controversial subject that inflames the passions of many Koreans and people of Korean descent, and has also drawn several Japanese editors whose goals are nationalistic in their intent. Several parties, myself included, have been trying to mediate this dispute to placate the parties involved and keep the peace. Please try to understand that this is not an attempt by non-Korean editors and contributors to humiliate Korean people. --Jeremy (blah blah 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WHEN DID I TRY TO CENSOR??? PLEASE POINT OUT IN RECENT DISCUSSION WHERE I WANTED THE DOG MEAT TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED!?!? Only ones that should be guilty of censorship is current editors. I mean seriously... Without resorting to sounding condescending best that I can, I want you to pick out anywhere in my proposal above to remove dog meat. Please! You yourself included dog meat as "these controversial subjects..." in your comment above and exactly what is your response to my proposal? Just go back and read the conversations??? WIKIPEDIA IS EVER CHANGING IN ITS CONTENT!!! Are we done? Is what's on the article currently written in stone? Please, I ask you... What's your response to my proposal? Where is it flawed and how could it be made better? Can anybody opposing this actually give me an answer? Isn't that how dialogue and negotiations work? Since when is accusing someone of censorship and accusing to pushing their POV only without any justification as to why my proposal is not fesible the way Wikipedia works? If you really want me to understand as to why not, rather than giving me the background history of wikipedia (which i can look up on wikipedia), tell me what's wrong with the idea?!?! Obviously, controversy still hasn't gone away and probably never will, but I'm just trying to improve on the current situation Santaria360 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling for the removal of the section, you and the others are seeking to censor, by elimination, that particular set of data. As to discussions, comments and discussion are never removed, but are archived. In fact removal of historical data is seriously frowned upon, as policy, on WP. You can review the archives through the links found at the top of this page. --Jeremy (blah blah 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you read before you comment? When did I call for removal? I called for edit. I called for revision and creating a new section. Isn't that was WP is about? Also, when did I remove any discussion? Please point out someone's discussion that I removed. Only revision I ever made was changing misspelling on my own post Santaria360 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say you changed anything, I was responding to your comment about WP being fluid and changing, I was just saying that talk pages do not get edited or deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah 07:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you would kindly read the discussion archives straight through before returning to discuss, it would be very helpful. I have already pointed out that in fact dog meat was originally in its own section, right at the end of the article, and a number of Korean editors pointed out that this drew too much attention to this component of Korea's cuisine. Through very extensive discussion and consensus, it was moved to the end of the "meats" section, with most of the gory details about its production removed and most of the important culinary aspects retained, since it's an article about food and not about minutiae of any specific ingredient. You will not need to ask such questions as above once you've read the archives straight through. It will also be very helpful if you would retract the highly offensive statements about other Wikipedia editors in each of the fora in which you made them. This will make it easier to evaluate your proposals. Badagnani (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did and I came to the conclusion that the way it is, with all those edits, is still inadequate. Also, I believe I did apologize previously many times, but if you missed it, I'm sorry! There. Done.

Now, let's get back to issue at hand. What's your objection to my proposal? Santaria360 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is my objection to your proposal. Dog is a meat, it is listed in the section which contains meat. If you give "this" meat its own section, you give it inappropriate attention, because from a sociological lack of POV, we should not put our outside or even internal pov on the topic. It is just a meat, that is why the section does not put in amounts of the meat consumed, nor does it mention any controversy that may be found in certain news articles. It is just a meat consumed by a portion of the Korean population. I will also add that I find your earlier comments about non-Koreans working on this article to be rude. Just because someone is born into a culture, does not make them an expert. I assure you that there are many food studiests that were never born within their desired realm of research whom are experts within their field. I am by no means an expert on Korean cuisine, but I make, as do others, educated decisions on how to add and subtract facts to this article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what i find fault with your argument. First, meat is something you eat. To me and to major portion of Koreans in the article above say dogs are pets, not food. So in essence, you are being biased for the minority 10% that eat it and dumping dog as meat catagory. How does that make sense? There's obvious controversy and inadaqucy of definition from getgo of your point. Second, you say that putting dog in its own catagory "give it inappropriate attention" and that's my exact argument, but opposite. I am saying by listing dog as "meat" without any backup history or controversy to it, you ARE giving it an "INAPPROPRIATE ATTENTION"!!! Third, you say you think my comment about non-Koreans working on this article to be rude. I'll accept that. But you also said with your own words that you "by no means an expert on Korean cuisine" and I believe I'm more of an expert and have more exposuring to different type of Korean food than you. So, what gives you and Badagnani right to disregard the opinion of someone who knows more than you about the subject? Santaria360 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can just interject a quick outsider's view, I must say I'm a little bit surprised that the section currently doesn't even hint at the controversial nature of the practice. Of course, "we should not put our outside or even internal pov on the topic", but surely, a brief, neutral statement to the effect that the practice is controversial within Korean society would be part of a sociologically adequate treatment? Also, wouldn't a more visible {{main}} section link be useful? – But I don't have the stomach to read through all the old discussions, so if this was treated at some point and reached a stable consensus, I'll leave it to you guys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding seafood, which aspects are currently included in the article, and which ones do you believe should be added? I don't see any problem with expanding the seafood section if necessary and done in a manner appropriate to the article and its structure. Badagnani (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely something about squid and octopus should be added. More than 155,000 tons of squid are fished annually. There's should be dishes like Hal Mul Tang, Kalchi, and also korean versions of sashimi which is eaten a lot. Santaria360 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the article and nearly all of those are already discussed. Badagnani (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question from newbie

Hi Folks, I am here due to an ANI report. I will settle this "dog meat" issue real quick once and for all. Just kidding. Seriously, can somebody factual tell me what "amount" or percentage of dog meat is consumed by Koreans as opposed to beef, pork, and chicken? Is it like 30%, 30%, 30%, 10% dog meat or more like 33%, 33%, 33%, 1% dog meat ect. This will help me, probably not others, alot. Thanks in advance and stay cool :) --Tom 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All the information you would like to know is contained in the talk page archives. If you will read them straight through you will find it, in great detail. Badagnani (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you are going to make me do that :). Fine, I have nothing better to do :). --Tom 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good question. I don’t know why I didn’t think about that. I have the information. You'll notice that beef and chicken numbers are from past when declined b/c that's the easiest for me to find. Beef consumption in Korea was 305,000 tons in 2006, down due to Mad Cow scare(https://www.beef.org/uDocs/southkoreasbeefprices809.pdf), Chicken consumption was 342,000 tons in 2004, down due to bird flu scare (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23731/newsDate/6-Feb-2004/story.htm), pork consumption was 1,057,000 tons in 2000 (http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/2001/01-03LP/porki.pdf), and seafood consumption was 2,710,000 tons (http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200611/146249420.pdf), and dog was 101,500 tons (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/young-koreans-turn-their-noses-up-at-dog-dinners-460090.html).

While 100k+ ton is definitely not a laughing matter, dog accounts for 5.5% of all popular land animal consumption for the year. When including seafood, the most consumed with the least amount of information on the article, dog is 2.2% of total popular meat consumption.

Again, my argument wasn’t to remove dog completely, but to move it to a section and acknowledge it’s controversy. Santaria360 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for those #s Santaria. Based on that, I probably wouldn't weigh in either way, but if I did, and dog meat is the 4th most consumed meat, I would leave as is and qualify the section if needed, like it sort of is now. Maybe add more of a "disclaimer" if you will, or even the 2.2% number so readers have a ball park number rather than the current wording, but 100K tons is not insignificant (I know you didn't say it was) and the percentage is also not small, imho. If you had said, the percentage was like .05% or something, then I would have felt very differently. Anyways, just me :) Thanks again and good luck to all here. --Tom 18:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you would weigh in the way you did. First, eating dog is disgusting and comsumption of 100k+ ton of it annually is a great amount because of what it is and compare to rest of the world. But if I were to substitute and say that beef constitutes 5.5% of Koreans meat consumption, then would people think that beef was a major part of Korean meat diet? Perhaps, but probably not compare to how much we eat of it US. There's stigma and bias already built into our minds about dog eating that's undeniable, so any measurable number would be significant to people and if the number was small enough to be insignificant, there wouldn't even be this discussion. Second, you assume that dog is the 4th popular meat, but nowhere is that fact stated. If seafood is classified as meat (which i guess it is b/c it's listed same with beef and dog), classifying anything that comes from sea as "seafood" is like claiming beef, dog, chicken, and etc into one category which we didn't. This is relevent because if you read the article on seafood, they break down and listed like 4 or 5 differnent types of fish that's consumed more than dog and not to mention shell fish as well. That already puts dog from 4th to 8th or 9th without even looking into other animals.

Again, my point wasn't that dogs should be left out entirely. The way it's written is inadequate and needs a revision, which the editors are refusing to do. Santaria360 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read the archives straight through before commenting here further. We've asked that you do that several times already. See

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=2166 -- it says that "In general, dog meat is fourth most popular meat after pork, beef, and chicken in South Korean market." This has been discussed extensively. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the whole point. Dog probably is the 4th most eaten land animal in Korea because frankly what else is there in Korea? My point is that people find the number 5.5% more relevelent than what it is because it's a dog. If you include different types of fish as meats (which I assume you do because fish and seafood is in meat section), then dog isn't 4th most eaten, it's more like 8th.

I really don't understand what your objection is. Chef Tanner at least replied back with his objection and I responded to clear it up. You didn't state any opinion except for the fact that what it is, is what you guys decided so far, but Wikipedia article is everchanging so why are you wanting the article fixed from here on? Santaria360 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing any point other than the apparent fact that you have not read the discussion archives straight through. I have explained the reason why consensus supported the moving of dog meat from a dedicated section at the end, which primarily discussed its controversial aspects, to the end of the "Meat and fish" section (not a "Meat" section that includes seafood). The article, further, does not describe dog as "the fourth most popular meat." Read the text again. Also, kindly comment here after you have read straight through the discussion archives. Thank you for this. Badagnani (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. Why are you keep saying that I didn't. I still don't like that way it's written, that it gives wrong impression. For the last time, stop telling people to go back. My argument in a nutshell is that (whether is has been discussed before is irrelevent because I'm bringing it up again) the way it's written is misleading, inadequate, and controversial. It's better served as it's own controversial section. You and Chef Tanner's only argument to the fact that it belongs with other meats is because it's 4th most eaten "meat". So, thoughtlessly you rank meat 1, meat 2, meat 3, and meat 4. It's irrelevent to me if it's forth rank "meat"... There aren't even that many meats to rank. If you rank all of land meat, I would guess human "meat" probably comes in top 10. Sure the amount of consumption is important and I addressed that fact, but what's most important is if dog IS really a meat. I like said on my reply to Chef Tanner that meat is food. Go look up the definition of meat and it says that meat is a flesh of animal used for food. Let me ask you. Do you consider dogs food? Wait, nevermind... Maybe you do maybe you don't but that's irrelevent. What's relevent is that the article above mentions the major % of population doesn't even think of dog as food. This is different than a very small vegan thinking all animals aren't food. It's majority. That majority sees dogs and it's a pet to them, not meat. So, that's the controversial part right there. There are 3 sides to what people think of dead dog is in Korea: meat, medicine, and a dead pet. So, how are you going to say there's no biased built into the way it's written when the article takes side of people that think dogs are meat. If a newcomer to Korean food sees that, then they are going to assume that all Korean people think dog is meat. You and Chef Tanner has presented the view of minority of Korean as major view point. That is misleading and controversial. Geez Santaria360 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page archives are not an "it"; there are many of them and it can't possibly be read and digested in a single day. The archives are located in separate files linked at the top of this page. Go back, look for the small tan box at the top right of this page, and read the discussion page archives, as we have asked you to do nearly ten times now. Then, please come back and discuss. Badagnani (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

who said it was single day? How do you know i wasn't reading through it ten days before I started posting? Just curious... How? I mean... you are basically calling me a lier right? I know where the archive is. I did find our conversation from 2 years ago didn't I? I asked you ten times too for your reply yet none... All you have to do is give me a valid excuse and you can't because you don't have one. There's really nothing else to say here. I think it's pretty clear you are set in your way not because the benefit of this post, integrity of WP, or whatever you want to claim. You want to win the argument against me. You have no valid point to counter argue I'm saying, so the only thing you can do is not give me any answer and hope I go away. What more point can I possibly make without a rebuttal? I don't care about winning or losing. I just don't want this section misrepresented. Can't you just drop the act and just say what you think, how you really feel? Maybe then I understand where you're coming from. You obviously my thoughts, but I don't yours. Santaria360 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Santaria360, do not try to get an answer from him. You already know about how "profound" his knowledge of Korean cuisine is.--Caspian blue 05:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Great article, but one mistake:

Hey there, great article folks! I came to this page expecting to see a complete abortion like the many other Korean articles I've read. But this article is completely objective, without all the "healthiest food in the world" claims I would expect to see in a Korean article.

However, there is one mistake in the beer section. It says Korea makes lagers "similar to those in Europe". However, Korean lagers are nothing like European lagers. For one thing, they are mostly brewed from rice. Secondly, they tend to be sweet. Thirdly (and this is admittedly POV), Korean beers taste bloody awful, whereas European lagers taste good. I would suggest removing the part of the sentence that compares Korean lagers to European lagers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with him,except for the part saying korean lagers are disgusting, I'm korean and a direct descendant of the first Leader of the Josean (Choson) period of Korea.--Euge246 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

who cares if you're a "direct descendant"? i am not, but i don't think korean beers are disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.27.77 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely true that Korean beers are different to Western-style beers, in that they are much lighter and sweeter and don't have a lingering head. All this is because Western beers are usually brewed from hops and barley, whereas Korean beers are brewed from hops and rice. I will edit the article to reflect this fact at a later date, as it appears to be semi-protected at the moment. Whether you think Korean beers are disgusting or not (I personally do think they are disgusting, although I like Korean food in general), the article is currently wrong in asserting that they are "like European beers".

Break concerning dog meat

Discussion

I want to address some of Santaria's, and others, questions and concerns to the best of my knowledge. The questions are shortened/summarized for brevity:

1. Why not include statistics on tonnage/percentage? - The inclusion of numerical data can be deceptive as the numbers can be manipulated to show a POV that is disruptive. How? One side may say "look, compared to the others the consumption is minuscule, lets remove the data all together." while the other side says "hey look at that number, let's use it to show how cruel the Koreans are to dogs!" This has happened, repeatedly. All I can say is Mark Twain made a comment that describes the problem with statistics, and to sum him up: while the data is neutral, the conclusions drawn from them usually aren't.
2. Why not present this in its own section? - That draws undo attention to the data and makes it a lighting rod. Again the same problem.
3. Why cant we just delete the section all together? - Because it will be added back in no matter what we do, and usually in a way that restarts the whole roller coaster ride of disagreements. This also addresses my point about censorship, WP is not censored and editing the data to minimize or delete it violates this policy.
4. This source meets the standards of reliability, we should use it. - Unfortunately some sources, while being reliable, are not neutral. For example, there is one source from the BBC that keeps popping up, unfortunately while the article in question is from a premiere source the article itself is biased against Koreans in its presentation and conclusions. Multiple editors have stated this and yet certain contributors keep trying to insert it.
5. You should allow us Koreans to do this properly, as foreigners you do not know or understand Korean society - I understand your point, but you have to understand that sometimes outsiders can help because they are not emotionally vested in the issue. Not all outsiders have the best of intentions, as some rather nationalistic and biased editors have shown in the past, but others truly want to help improve the article.
6. We have data from the Korean government that can be used to verify/discount this point - In almost all instances the data is not Korean, it is South Korean. When it is said that dog is the n^th most commonly eaten meat in Korea, eaten by x% of the population, the sources are almost universally referring to South Korea. Unless you can provide data that encompasses and is drawn from both North and South Korea, it cannot and should not be used.
7. By ranking the foods, you are deceiving people about the consumption of dog - There is no ranking, no terminology that states the level of consumption or any other information in the article that would put forward that position. The article only states the animal and some of the traditional dishes it appears in. I, however, did reorganize the section on protein so it is alphabetical to address your concerns.

Chef Tanner spent several hundred dollars of his own money acquiring texts on Korean cuisine written by prominent researchers in order to present the data in the best possible and neutral way. Knowing the contentious history of the article he sought to remove all but the most neutral and scholarly of sources because, while they may have been reliable, they might not have presented the data in the best way or in such a way that the conclusions were not clear. Knowing the quality of work he did on other national cuisine articles, many contributors finally allowed him to rewrite the article based on these texts and I think it came out rather well. Other editors that were warring eventually came to see that the way he wrote the article was a good compromise. There were some disputes that did result in changes, for example the titling of the "Staples" section was changed to "Foodstuffs" so not to make people think dog was a staple, which of course it isn't. We are all wary of changes because of the problems in the past, and seek that proposed changes have all of their "i"s dotted, "t"s crossed, are accurate, do not draw conclusions and are not going to lead back to the problems encountered in the past. I think that is what Badagnani has been trying to say, all be it not in a clear way. I have clashed with him in the past, I have worked with him in the past as well and he can do good work at times. The same can be said of others who have commented here, but please remember we all share the same goal of making this article great and keeping it that way.

On a more personal note, If I leave a message and you are unsure of my point or think I am making an allegation towards you, please ask me to clarify my intentions about a comment before replying: Sometimes I am not clear or am terse in my responses and come off as rude or condescending, which I am not trying to do. If I wish to address a point of contention with you, I will present my argument with my points and positions laid out in my message. --Jeremy (blah blah 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to preach the minor points in mine and others argument. The central argument for me is this. Meat is food (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meat?qsrc=2888). I and majority of Koreans don't think of dogs as food, but pets. So, whether you guys decided to put dogs as "staple food" or "foodstuff", aren't you taking the position of the older and the minority, who regularly consume dogs, to other huge, bigger population of Koreans? So, by taking a side and saying it's food while many don't agree its food in the first place... and by not listing any of the controversies, how is the article currently presented neutral? How is taking view of one side without pointing out the view of another unbiased and neutral? That's my question and I'd appreciate an answer from you since the chef and Badagnani is avoiding it. Don't tell me anything about anything else except the answer to my question directly. Thanks. Santaria360 (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The chef has a life to which he is attending: teaching, writing (he is a published author), and television work are taking up most of his time and he hasn't been able to work on WP for a while. This is all stated on his user page. Badagnani is staying away from this for reason's I can only guess at, probably to avoid engaging in edit wars that we have dealt with in the past already.

Why should it be included? Because it is part of you cultural heritage, and enough people engage in the practice that it actually shows up as a consumed product. Because enough is consumed that several agencies (governmental and/or private) track its consumption. That there are actual, published dishes that use it as an ingredient. You may not like it, but it is a fact. There are lots of dirty little facts in all countries' cultures that the mainstream does not agree with and would not like mentioned, but we still include them here on WP. Thai people eat rat, Africans bushmeat, Americans and critter cuisine, the French with horse meat and snails. The list goes on and on.

But the over all best reason? We include it because Wikipedia isn't censored. --Jeremy (blah blah 08:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Part of a "cultural heritage"??? Are you kidding me? That's an insult. To me, that's as bad as telling the Germans that Nazism is part of their cultural heritage... It's not their cultural heritage but their past. There's a difference. I never called for censorship of anything. You guys are the ones censoring my side, the larger population, point of view. In the conversations above, when did I once ask to remove the dog eating section? How is asking to mention that there's other side to this; there's a controversial side to this a censorship?? Only thing you are doing is avoiding the direct question. "Why should it be included?"-- Why are you asking yourself your own question and answering it? When did I ask that question? You accused me of censorship previously, I responded that I never asked for censorship, rather just presenting other POV, yet you say I'm calling for censorship again...???????? Really??? If you're going to respond, please stay on topic. Don't dodge the question. I'll copy and past the question again and if you don't have a direct answer, don't even bother.

I and majority of Koreans don't think of dogs as food, but pets. So, whether you guys decided to put dogs as "staple food" or "foodstuff", aren't you taking the position of the older and the minority, who regularly consume dogs, to other huge, bigger population of Koreans? So, by taking a side and saying it's food while many don't agree its food in the first place... and by not listing any of the controversies, how is the article currently presented neutral? How is taking view of one side without pointing out the view of another unbiased and neutral? Santaria360 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Germans do acknowledge their history of Nazism and note in their histories, they're not proud of it, but they do record it. As for your question, I did answer it with several reasons; just because you don't like the answers doesn't make them any less valid. That minority of people who consume dog eat enough of it that it is the fourth most consumed mammalian meat in South Korea. As for censorship, what I am referring to is changing the tone of the article or adding information that takes away the neutrality of the subject. You wish to put forth a point about Koreans disliking the practice, yet your point of view is entirely Southern. Can you provide data about North Korean habits? We don't get a lot of information from the North Korean government, and what we do hear is either disinformation or hearsay. How is the practice treated there? Can you get some reliable and neutral sources that backs your point that ALL Koreans, North and South, look down on the practice?

As for why we do not include the controversies: This is a cuisine article not an animal rights or controversial foods article. I added a link in the section to the article that covers that, as well make some minor edits to indicate that only some individuals consume it. That is more than enough. --Jeremy (blah blah 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Seriously! I'm just in awe at your response. I hate to be rude, but you don't even really deserve a well thought out response Santaria360 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll yet again add my two cents to this and address, and readdress some concerns of yours Santaria360 (talk). One, one does not need to be from a culture to be an expert on its culture or cuisine. My cousins are both from Korea and they are woefully ignorant on the subject. I am (and this is going out on a limb) pretty close to being an expert on cuisine and culture, I write on the subject extensively and I have also designed multiple classes that address the subject from a culinary stance and I am also designing a class entitled Cultural Food Studies. On the same note, people once got excited that a chef was from France because they must be able to cook great French cuisine, that has been over and over again been proven wrong in history. So, although I appreciate the fact that you say you are from Korea, that alone does not make you an expert on the subject, nor would the fact that I am from the USA mean that I am a subject on food and drink from my own; the fact that I have researched both extensively, written on both subjects, and have been invited to and participated in numerous lectures on the subjects would be more akin to experience on an understanding of cuisines.

All that aside, what you are promoting is a POV, "you and a majority" is not an exact number, but an opinion on the subject of dog meat consumption. What you have stated is correct though, as I have stated in the section that dog meat is eaten in lesser amounts than other mammal proteins. The fact remains that there are as per BBC articles aprox. 6,000 restaurants that serve the protein, there are still markets that sell the meat, the president of South Korea has been known to eat the meat as well. Perhaps we can say it is akin to foie gras in America, although not all Americans consume foie gras (which there is much controversy over, some states have, or are in the process of outlawing the protein) it is still consumed by a percentage of Americans and would be valid enough to include in the American Cuisine article as we grow our own high quality foie gras in the Hudson Valley region of New York. However, just because people don't like foie gras and the majority of people don't eat it, doesn't mean it isn't part of our cuisine. We have many articles written about the controversy of it, just as they do about dog in Korea, but they are still both valid parts of both cuisines. I don't know how to explain with any more simplicity.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chef, you said you with your own words "I am by no means an expert on Korean cuisine" yet now when it's convenient for you, you claim that you are "pretty close to being an expert on cuisine and culture". Did you just become "close to being an expert" in couple weeks? But let's just drop the "expert" claims. That itself is too subjective to be taken seriously. And please, please read rest carefully. What I'm promoting is a POV? What I'm promoting is that you are only presenting one POV as the only POV, so in essence YOU are being bias. I don't know how much more in simple terms I can put this. There are people in Korea that think dogs are food and there are larger population of people that think dogs are pets. That is a difference in opinion, POV, whatever you want to call it... But that is the main focal difference that I wanted presented as a controversy. This is very different than whether someone eats foie gras or not. First, foie gras is made of duck or goose, so it's dish correct? I'm not aruging who/how many people eat certain kind of dog dish or not, I'm aruging dog itself as whether it's food or not. I didn't lose you did I? Second, only thing I'm trying to present is a controversy. Nothing else. No censorship, no sugarcoating... I've asked for none of that. It's actually quiet ironic that you bring up foie gras to give as your example (wrong type of example I might add) because foie gras itself has a controversy section in Wikipedia and that's all I'm asking for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras). Santaria360 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't write articles from any POV; that is not permitted at WP. Hoping or wishing that dog meat were not a notable part of Korea's culinary culture does not make that so, as the sources show. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why I see only extremely contradictory comment above. Disruptive PETA-driven POV Pushings should be removed in any cuisine related articles.--Caspian blue 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But you are doing exactly that. Presenting an article from POV of people that look at dogs as meat/food. Again, you keep saying I'm doing something when I'm not. Hoping and wishing? The disconnect is that there's difference between what I'm actually asking and what you think I'm asking. Since when is asking for both side of POV being biased and censoring? Santaria360 (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have explained and explained to you why this is included and you still refuse to accept it. The subject has been covered for years now: By placing a note about the controversies in the article invites arguments such as this one. The arguments eventually lead to full blown edit wars that do nothing to improve the article. By presenting the information so that it only covers the history of the subject and the dishes that are made from it without mentioning anything that can be twisted around by members of any group seeking to push their point of view, regardless of what point they hold, we have kept this article stable for months now. This article more than at any point in its history is completely neutral on the subject, and is backed up by verifiable and reliable sources that do not draw any conclusions.

As for your comment on the foie gras article having a section on the controversy surrounding it, if you look at the dog meat article you will also find that it also has a similar controversies section. What you will not find is a mention of the foie gras controversy in the French cuisine article; so just like the French cuisine article, this article is on Korean cuisine and not on controversial foods or practices. So to emphasize what we are saying - Controversial practices such as the consumption of dog meat are covered in the articles on those subjects and not in the articles that refer to said practices.

In response to your comment to me above, I don't think you hate to be rude - I think you relish in it. The tone of your posts is abusive and you are derogatory in your remarks to those who do not share your views; to add salt to the wounds you are unwilling to compromise on your position or accept that consensus is against what you are proposing. Despite the fact I have made changes to the article to address your concerns as well as provided a significant set of reasons why things are the way they are, that is still not enough for you. Since you began posting here you have made threats to violate the rules and integrity of Wikipedia, you have been uncivil to fellow contributors and have done nothing productive. You are just being a troll at this point and I will be ignoring any other posts by you. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can go on and argue the difference between foie gras and dog meat to show that you are not comparing apples to apples or I can just blindly agree with your argument and accept the fact that like you said there's no controversy section regarding foie gras French cuisine. Latter is probably easier. So maybe you are right. Since French cuisine doesn't have foie gras controversy listed, maybe Korean food shouldn't have dog meat controversy either. But of course since French cuisine doesn't have a full section devoted to foie gras and Korean cuisine has one devoted only to dog meat, maybe the fairest thing is a quick mention like in French cuisine rather than a whole section.

You can accuse me of whatever you think I'm doing all you want, but I'll do the same. All you are doing is just presenting a biased POV of one side, dodging questions that questions your logic and holding hostage an article to make sure that your POV is the one that's presented. I don't have a handbook on Wikipedia rules, but I'm pretty sure that violates somethingSantaria360 (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated my stance on dog meat,it does not need to be stated again.

Santaria360 (talk), you have become an overly rude and aggressive user on this article. Although I have disagreed with others in the past with this article, I have not had people purposely question me to discredit me. Some people may not agree with my educated opinion, and their education allows them to feel that way, but for you to throw the inaccurate statement of me stating I am not a food and culture expert is wrong, what i stated was that I am "in humility' not a Korean cuisine expert, which was only out of politeness. You took what was an obvious polite statement and made it part of you controversy. Here we go, Ill go with my usual statement, properly source your inclusions with unbiased text sources, and follow the lines of the majority which includes keeping "dog meat" as a meat. If you are not in confirmation with the majority, then your "opinion" is wrong.Chef Tanner (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Dog Meat

Discussion

The article says history of dog meat in Korea dates back to antiquity, but as far as I know, eating dogs was a serious social taboo in Korea until spread of Confucianism in the Joseon era. Before Confucianism, Koreans believed people who ate dog meat or saw dogs get slaughtered became cursed, and such people were not allowed to participate in important ceremonies such as marriages. Contrary to Korean traditions, Confucianism considers dog meat to be sacred. Eating dog meat began in Confucian congregations in the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 18th century when eating beef was banned because of cow shortages. Any commnets on this historical account? VeryGoodBoy (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That fact is covered under the statements of the social taboos of the consumption of any meat during those prior periods which is already in the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Other kinds of meat were tolerated, but dog was espeically taboo because it was believed that human souls who cannot reach Buddhist heaven are reincarnated into dogs, making dog meat consumption a kind of cannibalism. Eating dog meat is also social taboo in Korean shamanism because dogs are seen as the guides to the underworld. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting material; if sourced (I'm sure there are books about these phenomena), it would be good to add to the Dog meat article. The consensus for this article is that social issues surrounding the actual cuisine item be discussed only minimally. Badagnani (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has put the reasoning out there rather succinctly, please feel free to add this to the Korea section of the dog meat article. You can find the link in the dog meat section of this article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand all this controversy about whether dogs are food or pets. In New Zealand, we have pet sheep and chickens. We also eat them. Delicious! It's the same with Koreans. I live in Seoul, and quite a few people here have dogs as pets. There are also a lot of dog restaurants. Most of them are tucked down back alleyways, and you won't see any signs in English because Koreans are kind of embarrassed about it. But the restaurants are definitely there. As my Korean boss says: "Very good for man health!" By the way, I suggest eating dog soup rather than fried dog when you are in Korea, as the fried dog smells pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} please consider refining the section on Dog. As you may know, Koreans rarely eat dog. I lived in Korea for six years and had it once. Since this is such a sensitive topic for many in the West, no reason to emphasize this point. A simple survey will show that majority of Koreans do not eat dog, and those who do are a small, small minority. Thank you,

Overall, I believe that this page is well done.Jkim1805 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, would you take a time looking through past discussions on the subject? Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve this article. Unfortunately, your request needs to be more specific to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. This template is intended to allow non-autoconfirmed users to edit semiprotected pages. Please rephrase the request in a 'please change X to Y' format and someone would be glad to help. Celestra (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dog meat is not staple meat food in Korea, Koreans rarely consumed dog meat.--Korsentry 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Dog Meat

Discussion

I would like to propose that the dog meat section be moved down its own section instead of being categorized with common ingredients such as grains, legumes, chicken, beef. This would improve the accuracy of the article since dog meat which is a highly specialized Korean cuisine and deserves its own category apart from other "food stuff". Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree with you yet again, that would give it undo weight and prejudice the article as it has been stated over and over and over ad nauseum. The consensus has been for some time that the dog meat section be included in the appropriate subject section which is meat. I would please ask that you not start this discussion up again because it will only disrupt the article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a new attempt at resolving this matter as it seems that other editors have been constantly complaining about this issue. Can you please explain what undo weight and prejudice would result from moving the dog meat section to its own category apart from other common food stuff? My position is that grouping dog meat along with grains and chicken meat is a factual inaccuracy.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the records of the previous two years of discussions, some of which you participated in. The positions discussed in those archives cover the whole subject from just about every angle.

In response to your current position - dog meat is listed under the meats section of the foodstuffs articles; the last time I looked, it being a meat was not a factual inaccuracy. Could you please explain you position a little more clearly, because it seems a bit of a stretch to claim it isn't meat or that it deserves its own sub-section of the foodstuffs section. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly read through the past discussions and this is an attempt to civilly to discuss this matter in hopes that an acceptable agreement can be reached.

As for request for your request for clarification, my position is not that dog meat isn't a meat. The factual inaccuracy lies with categorizing dog meat in the same category as common Korean food ingredients such as grains, vegetables and common meats like chicken and beef. Dog meat is a specialty food item with a very unique food culture surrounding it. Anyone with first hand experience with Korean cuisine can attest to this. Moving the dog meat subsection to its own section would correct this factually inaccuracy without removing or changing any of the existing text.

I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have further exceptions. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We've gone over this, over and over again, and through all of the discussions the majority of those involved in the discussion went with leaving it the way it is. Wouldn't it be better to help add educational content, rather than argue over where you want "Dog meat" to be placed in the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I left it in previous discussion in hopes of coming back to it with fresh eyes without the venom of previous discussions. I hope we can come to a civil agreement as this seems to have been a complaint that has continued even in my absence and IMO this will continue to be a reoccurring issue because there is an underlying issue here should be addressed.

Just to clarify my position once more, the reason for my request is not to delete, change or censor the text but for a correction in the categorization of the subsection which will improve the factual accuracy of this article. It's not just an arbitrary move.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source that can confirm your assertions that it is not a foodstuff or is not meat? --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not my position.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Both academic texts that are based upon history and sociological research place dog meat under the heading of consumable meats, one book actually labels it under "staples" but we made the concession that not all items under that heading could be considered staples to all of Korea (although the staples merely referred to the headings of the main topics of grains, meats, vegetables, etc but that point was discusses and we came to consensus). So we have come to consensus on the subject, based upon sound academic readings, I do not analyze the data, because Wikipedia does not allow that. In moving dog meat to its own section, it means that we are considering ourselves researchers (which Wikipedia does not allow) and are analyzing the author's research and putting our own thoughts into their work. Now, I do this in my own academic research and writing outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does not allow that to be done here as it would open a "can of worms" as there are many people who do not have the proper skills of analysis needed, as such we use all secondary and tertiary sources for our writing here on Wikipedia. As such, based upon multiple sources that place dog meat under the topic of consumable meats, it should stay as per Wikipedia guidelines, under meats.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see what I can find in terms of references that address the issue of categorization of dog meat in Korean cuisine. Let's all try to make this section factually accurate as possible and not focus on arguing our own POV.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

it is not a POV, it is a published fact by academics, not just some guy who decided to write a cookbook or something. Wikipedia supports academic sources not people's personal opinions.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris has put forth both a policy based reason and an academic rational why the dog meat is located where it is; I have also provided further reasons why we hold these positions in the list of points found at the beginning of the talk page. Please provide a similarly researched and qualify statement in support of your position that can properly rebut these points of contention. We understand that this is a point of emotional contention and that you wish start an evenhanded, dispassionate debate after all of the rancor and heated discussion in the past. All we are asking that any point you wish to open to debate is backed up by Wikipedia policy and meets the standards of inclusion.

Well I disagree about the research supporting listing dog meat in the same category as vegetables, chicken and grains. But I will come back with references.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You go get your PhD in in Korean Studies, then I think you can argue against the authors of these texts I have used.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We're all trying to improve the accuracy of the article. I'm going to look into the references as you and others suggested. Let's not devolve the discussion with sarcasm and taunts. We've been pretty good so far.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if you wish to verify the works that Chris is quoting, please see the notes and bibliography section of the article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I will. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Melon, you're rehashing the same subject without any alternative suggestion? If you have a better idea, please show us first. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how much more of an alternative I can suggest than moving the subsection for sake of factual accuracy without removing, changing any of the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose dedicated section for dog meat, as per many earlier discussions, and consensus. We don't have a separate section for sujeonggwa or gujeol pan, which are only prepared for special occasions, consumed maybe a few times a year or less, in the case of the latter. Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are dishes made with common ingredient already listed in the foodstuff section.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Discussion

Cited academic works that have been vetted by peer review are not POV, and are probably some of the hardest forms of sourcing to contradict. When I say peer review, I mean by those in academia - not our own peer review process. Your claims that they are an author's POV are spurious at best. The books Chris used are highly researched publications by noted members of their fields who spent years researching this subject.

You will need some serious sources to counter those presented by Chris. Also, before you go challenging his research, I wish to remind you of Chris' bona fides: he is a published author who is finishing his PhD in Gastronomy from Boston University, a major American University. You really need to step up if you wish to contradict his work. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well considering the fact that original research and synthesis from personal research isn't allowed, I'm fine with that. Do you know what his doctoral thesis was? That sounds pretty interesting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Ask him.
2. This is neither, as he did not do the research himself - he just did we all do, use a source and present the data from that source. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How does a regional dish become regional?

"There are many significant regional dishes that have become both national and regional." Please delete "and regional" or the entire sentence. It doesn't make sense! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsjd (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of quick responses and notes:

1. New commentary goes at the end of the talk page, not the beginning
2. Please copy edit your comments, the wikiformatting was all messed up
3. Why not fix the mistake yourself?
4. Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)
5. Be civil when leaving posts.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean cuisine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peter ^Isotalo 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating the Korean cuisine article for Good Article because of the growth of the article from a simple synopsis to a fully fledged and complete article on the subject. I believe it fully meets the standards and will be a good contribution to the WP stable of good articles. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by Caspian blue to do this GA review, and I am in the midst of doing that right now. This is a solid article, but it has some issues that should be dealt with before I can pass it. It will take some time for me to write up the review properly, so I'll be placing it on hold. However, the article first needs to be properly listed at WP:GAN.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter, can you indicate at WP:GAN that you are reviewing this article by placing the review template under the article's listing - full instructions at the nominations page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I was just though it best if Jeremy made the actual listing. I'm somewhat busy with studies, but I should be posting a review here within a week.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) by Peter ^Isotalo 08:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Well-written: Not quite there. Here are my quips:
   • "Korean cuisine is largely based on rice, noodles, tofu, vegetables, and meats." - The first three are fairly specific and therefore informative, but the last seem rather vague. I mean, is there any cuisine that doesn't include veggies and meats? :-)

   Well, that is a general statement, I'm not sure how specifically to state the mention of vegetables and meats. Except grain stuffs, Korean diet mostly consists of veggies, and meats are still not for every meal's item unlike the Westerner's. I could mention "meat such as beef, pork, chicken and others", but those are too specific, and Korean cuisine does not have strict prohibition of certain foodstuffs unlike Jewish, Indian, Arabic cuisine, so saying every meat that Koreans eat seems to specific. I think the passage is okay for introduction.--Caspian blue 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   A satisfying explanation. Peter ^Isotalo 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   • There's both B.C. (sic?) and BCE in the text. Please choose one.

      Done --Caspian blue 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

   • Centuries as given as either "first" and "5th". Again one standard needs to be adhered to. I recommend the second since it stands out better.

      Done --Caspian blue 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   • "Fish and shellfish have always been a major part of Korean cuisine"; this implies a Korean nation dating back to, well, the dawn of man. I think there might be better way to say that it's a long-standing practice.

   That is more about how the geographic feature has influence to Korean cuisine. I think removal of "always" could redue your concern.--Caspian blue 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   • What significance does the barrage of Korean terms have for the cuisine itself? Anything that isn't actually relevant for understanding the article subject should be considered somewhat superfluous. For example, "Korean cuisine" is not a unique term on its own, but built on a set formula which does not require translation any more than French cuisine or German cuisine. I don't speak Korean, but from the Hanja it seems rather obvious that it's just generic terms for "cuisine" or "food" combined with "Korean". The only exception to this that I feel is justified would be the translation of Nongsa jikseol, which is useful for referencing purposes. The rest is just translation service, something which Wikipedia is not.

     Comment I have several cook books on Asian cuisine (not for cooking, but mostly getting to know the culture and anticipating images ;-), but they mention about local terms because those terms and clarifications are not identical to the Western cuisine (mostly French, and Italian or American cuisine). If I also take an example in Scandinavian cuisine, Crisp bread is an English term for the hard type bread translated into the regional languages as knäckebröd, hårt bröd, knækbrød, knekkebrød, näkkileipä, hrökkbrauð. Do you think they should be taken out from the article, just because the translation is already there and at the title of the article? I know non-Korean readers would be irritated by the non-Latin scripts, so I moved the Korean names to an infobox in the intro. I would remove some unnecessary Korean scripts and terms, but removing all of them could reduce a chance for those who want to know the original terms in Korean cuisine.--Caspian blue 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

     "Korean cuisine" is not a term in the same way that bibimbap or knäckebröd are. It's merely a description of food and drink that are associated with Korea. It requires no more Hangul than French cuisine requires a cuisine française, and it definitely doesn't merit a terminology infobox. I'm willing to listen to suggestions for compromises concerning use of Korean script overall, but there needs to be a minimum of pruning, especially when it comes to terms that even have their own article. I'm overall fairly tolerant of linguistic metainfo, and I'm not bothered by Romanizations, but I draw the line at non-Latin scripts, because it caters to such a small portion of the readership but is mostly just a distraction to 99% of the readers. Peter ^Isotalo 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

     Well, knäckebröd is neither English, or referred to as such in English speaking world unlike bibimbap, and in articles dealing with Korean subjects refer to Korean script and its meaning, so I don't see why it has to be a problem. Moreover, [hansik] is used in English sources to simply refer to Korean cuisine or food. I'm not convinced to remove the infobox in lead. Though, I would remove unnecessary Korean terms indicating vegetables and ingredients.--Caspian blue 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

     I'm sure there might be occasional references to hansik, but it still doesn't merit a dedicated infobox since this article is about an encyclopedic subject, not a speicifc piece of terminology. Again, compare with other cuisine articles. If you know that hansik is used as a synonym for "Korean cuisine" in English, include in the lead in bold as an alterantive term. However, the terms for this particular subject in Korean aren't relevant for English Wikipedia. Peter ^Isotalo 08:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

   • I don't know why hoe has a pronunciation guide, but it also seems quite unncessary outside of its own article. Pretty much the same goes for "Romanization of Korean words may vary widely, with g/k (eg galbi/kalbi), j/ch, d/t and b/p often used interchangeably." Since this isn't a linguistic article, it's not really relevant.

     I removed the IPA from the entry since it has its own article. I will sort out the mentioned Romanization. (update; removed the passage)--Caspian blue 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

   • I'm not quite sure what to think about all the linkage in the form of "see also" and "further information". It borders on dinkiness, but it's difficult to say if they're helpful or not. I don't want to actually fail on account of it, but it does seem a bit unnecessary to link to the same list of Korean dishes eight times (thirteen if you count the bulleted links under "Prepared dishes"). The double-decker jobs, like those under beverages, seem like the most obviously excessive. Wouldn't the "main article"-links be enough?
   • Why are grains and legumes placed under the same heading? They have quite differing nutritional qualities and their uses appear to be rather distinct.

     I divided the legume section. I assume the combined section is due to lacks of information on bean consumptions in Korean cuisine, and legumes are often cooked with grains. So far this section has only information on soy bean, but I will add azuki bean and mung bean and others. --Caspian blue 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

     (Update) I added info about mung beans, azuki beans and dishes made with them. I'm a bit concerned with the length of the content, but I feel almost done with the section.--Caspian blue 05:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

     If you feel length is a problem, just remove some of the examples. They're interesting, but not vital. I went through the additions and made some tweaks, but they still require some attention. I inserted some hidden comments concerning some of the grammar. Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

     I copy-edited to correspond to your concerns.--Caspian blue 12:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   • "Gi" would really better to simply write "qi", since the latter is the name that most readers will be familiar with. We're talking about a concept popular all over East Asia rather than a specifically Korean term. It's also preferable to use terms like "karaoke" rather than "noraebang",. I also think that the close similarity of kimbap to sushi should be explicitly noted, no matter the geneaological relation between the two dishes.
   • I assume that most of the 18th century dining etiquette applied only to the upper class, not the population in general. I'm sure the gender hierarchies were applicable to the lower classes as well, but it can hardly be assumed without more evidence. The etiquette also seems to focus on prescription more than description. Do most modern Koreans actually still frown on table conversation, serve women separately and fret about exactly where to put specific dishes on the table?
   • What does "thirst water" actually mean?

   • That is a literal translation of galsu (渴水). I removed it, and added a brief description of the drink.--Caspian blue 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   • Make sure to explain terms like banchan the first time they're mentioned.
   • "Unlike other cultures, in Korean culture, soup is served..." Unlike what other cultures? Not necessarily questioning that it might be a somewhat unique trait, but some examples might be useful.
   • "Prepared dishes" is somewhat of a problem section. There's a lot of odd semi-sentences, somewhat stilted language and the whole section looks suspiciously similar to a list. Considering there already is a dedicated list for Korean dishes, it seems unnecessary to have one in this article as well. Here are some specific examples:
     • "Kong Jang Sweet and sticky soyabeans" - fragment

   • • Removed since it is neither cited nor worthy to be mentioned.--Caspian blue 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

   • • "Patbingsu [...] - a very popular desert [sic] and snack"
     • "this originally winter dish" - grammar isn't ideal
     • Only the article title should be bolded; see "jjim", "jeon", "gui", etc.
     • Why are "main staple foods", "subsiduary dishes" and "dessert" in quotes and why are the Korean terms merely in Hanja? The first and second terms are clearly translations, but "dessert" seems less certain. What does the Korean term actually mean, because the Western idea of dessert is more a lot more specific than just "sweet dish".

1. • • • Tteok (rice cake) and hangwa are eaten as dessert, and modern scholars of gastronomy classified as such, but it is true that they are not explained well, so I will implement that section.--Caspian blue 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

1. • {{TOC limit}} was applied just a few days ago, but I don't really understand why. Isn't the point of a TOC to see the entire article structure? There's a fair number of sub-sections, but it doesn't seem that excessive to me.

   • I removed it.--Caspian blue 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Overall strong referencing, but with some formatting that needs fixing
   • Three sets of notes is very confusing. I understand the basic reasoning behind separating different sources, but in practice it only makes the references more difficult to decipher and also implies that different types of sources are not equal. One set of notes should be used.

   • I removed the grouping set.--Caspian blue 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   • A lot of the books could use ISBNs.

   • All books in the article have their ISBN. The others are websites in the bibliography section.--Caspian blue 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   • Common practice for referencing to newspapers should be according to the formula "Author (date), "Title of article", Publication. The article title should preferably be the link. See for example: Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Newspaper.2Fmagazine_articles_.28or_online_periodicals.29
   • The historical information appears to rely solely on Pettid. If there are plans on going for FA status in the future, I recommend trying to find other sources as well. Not something I want to fail the article on, but still something that should preferably be dealt with in the future.
   • "Prepared dishes" is pretty much devoid of referencing. How come?
3. Broad in its coverage - Good coverage, but I do have some queries.
   • Coverage is generally broad, but the relevance of much of the early history esecapes me. Too much of the content seems to be a general political or social history of the Korean peninsula. How is the low status of butchers relevant, for example? Why do readers need to be informed about the unification under Silla or the Goryeo dynasty? Wherein lies the culinary interest of explaining the introduction of the rain gauge?

   • I don't understand why you feel the early history irrelevant of the main topic. Any cuisine are influenced by political or cultural big changes such as unification of the Korean peninsular and establishment of states. Silla was located in the far southeast of the Korean peninsular, so the cuisine had a lot of seafood. Goryeo was a strong Buddhist state, so the diet was influenced by Buddhism. I don't seen why this should be removed. I examined the length of the history section with those of French cuisine and [Italian cuisine]]. The history section is much shorter than these two articles, so I rather feel the early culinary history can be expanded.

   Italian cuisine#History Prose size (text only): 12801 B (2100 words) "readable prose size"

   French cuisine#History Prose size (text only): 16226 B (2642 words) "readable prose size"

   Korean cuisine#History Prose size (text only): 8475 B (1380 words) "readable prose size"

   • Although I agree that the mention of baekjeong is not coherently presented why they should be mentioned, the low status of butchers is in fact somewhat related to the lower consumption of meat than other foodstuffs. I will supplement the sentence with necessary information.

   • My complaint is not about prose size, but the lack of connection between the info and the actual article subject. The histories of the Italian and French cuisines are indeed larger, and it's even possible that I would be stricter on them if I reviewed them today, but they do stay on topic and explicitly explain the connection between larger historical changes and changes in the culinary field. There is really none of this type of explanation in the pre-modern history. What you're explaining here about the influence of Silla, Buddhism, etc. might very well be true, but it can't be merely assumed. It needs to be explained explicitly. I believe this also revives my concern about making it appear as if the idea of a national Korean cuisine predates the nation itself. Without a nation-state there can be no unified cuisine (if such a thing can be said to exist even today), and transposing the cuisine of the upper classes is on the kingdom/country/region is, of course, also problematic. Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   • The section on the royal court cuisine is interesting in of itself, but in this context it's rather excessive, especially considering it has a dedicated sub-article. How about cutting it down to one or two paragraphs? I also think this info would be more at home in "History".
   • The lead speaks of regional differences, but the only info I can find are on the differences between north and south, and those seem to be mainly economical in nature.
     • I started "Regional cuisine" section[4], and should expand each regional cuisine. This job is way much more than what I thought before participating in the GA process.--Caspian blue 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
       • To be honest, I think I might be a bit rusty when it comes to following the latest procedures of GACs. Regional differences, though, should at least be described briefly, which is exactly what you have done. The sub article Korean regional cuisine complements to such an extent that only a brief summary is required in this article, especially for GA status.
4. Neutral: The treatment of national history and some other things needs work.
   • There doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion about who thinks what about dog meat or arguments for and against, but saying only that it's "not as widely consumed as beef, chicken, and pork" is skirting the issue. It's a potentially flammable problem and should be at least nominally recognized as one in this article.
   • Extending the history of a national cuisine back to the dawn of time is in no way neutral. If there is to be an extensive prehistory, there need to be qualifications and caveats that clearly point out where the idea of a national cuisine begins and where a mere prehistory ends.
   • I'm not entirely comfortable with references to uniqueness and "complex interaction" in the lead, since this is a statement that could be made for virtually any cuisine. These comments really seem more rhetorical than informative.
   • References to consumption statistics in the last part of the history-section appear to apply to South Korea while the term used is just "Korea". Please make sure that the two countries are clearly distinguished.
5. Stable: The dog meat dispute seems to have been settled rather well, and I can't see that there are any other stability issues that plague the article.
6. Illustrated: Excellent pictures. Only minor issues need fixing. One of the captions says "Chopsticks should always be lifted from the table by the eldest family member first." - this pretty much amounts to an etiquette recommendation rather than image information. There are also captions that merely link to the name of the dish. More explicit information on what the dishes actually consist of would be useful.

I'm taking a wikibreak until sometime next week.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm now back. I see that the first tweak has alrady been made and I'm eagerly waiting to see what is next to come.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will also resume improving the article fro now. ;)--Caspian blue 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article's been on hold three months now. If there's only a bit left to do, try to get it done quickly. Should be a pass or fail within the next few days. Wizardman 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied Caspian blue 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I'm not particularly worried about this being finished within the next couple of days. I am engaged in other projects at the moment, but I've not simply left this to rot. I agree that edits are overdue, but I'm definitely not going to rush a decision within the next few days. However, I am willing to set a deadline for the remaining issues to be either amended through editing or discussed properly.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; in that case could you two make a final deadline so this can get finished? 100+ days at GAN is pretty steep for any article, especially one that's been reviewed much of those 100. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, due to the holiday season and other stuffs, the deadline was set up til the end of this month, so I would not increase more delay over this review.--Caspian blue 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, just checking (I'm bothering all the old reviews, not just you guys :P so don't sweat it). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2nd opinion: As this review has stalled, I recommend immediate failure. No-one is going to die, the article can be brought back to WP:GAN when it is ready. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  I've guaranteed until the end of January before passing my verdict. I've reminded Caspian about it, though. Peter ^Isotalo 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  The nomination was failed. Caspian improved a lot of the issues I brought up, but felt too stressed to take care of all of them this time around.[5] I'll be happy to look at it again if it is renominated. Peter ^Isotalo 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

North Korean cuisine

• 
  A meal for visitors at Tongil restaurant, Kaesong.
• 

I found this fascinating images of North Korean cuisine with free license today, but the article has no room to hold the images unless we have a 'regional cuisine' section. However, I want to share the finding with any editor working on the article.--Caspian blue 03:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good find. They should be used somewhere. The dishes should also be noted in the photos' descriptions, as far as can be determined. Badagnani (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree about north Korean information. Additionally the 20th Century section needs some specifics on the North Korean diet. I wish we could get some reliable sources and avoid any of the Kim regime's propaganda. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The current article seems very South-centric. From what I was told by Korean people, the North's diet is more corn-based, not rice-based. Maybe the article should be split into South Korean cuisine and North Korean cuisine. --RisingSunWiki 02:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)