Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 4

message: Does Korean Wikipedia have an article on Chili oil? Is it used enough in Korean cuisine (such as in some of the noodle soups of Chinese origin) to warrant adding its Korean name to the Chili oil article? Badagnani 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soy sauce with kimbap and now chili oil with korean food?  With all your claims of being an expert on rare korean foods and your revert warring in this article, your questions are quite ridiculous.melonbarmonster 07:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all your BS, your obvious ignorance on Korean cuisine doesn't magically go away.  Koreans don't use hot oil and you shouldn't add a made up korean name to the hot oil article.melonbarmonster 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: While the first part of your comment is very helpful, the second part sounds like a WP:TROLL to me. It would probably be best if you contributed constructively to Wikipedia rather than doing that, thank you. Badagnani 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems you're new to online lingo as you are on Korean cuisine.  Pointing out that your claim of being an "expert" of rare Korean cuisine is downright laughable given your questions about soy sauce kimbap is not trolling but directly related to guaging your credibility on the topics being discussed.  You're free to disagree and that's fine but relax with accusing of my comments of sounding "a troll".melonbarmonster 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Where's the comment where I used the term "expert"? I don't recall saying that, though I did point out that I've created a number of articles on Korean food and beverage items, and improved many more, after a certain editor claimed that I hadn't contributed "anything" related to Korean cuisine to Wikipedia. That claim was incorrect, as I pointed out, though I don't recall ever using the term "expert." I do have a certain level of expertise in the subject, however, but in English these two terms do not mean the same thing. We're all here to enrich our encyclopedia, working together to create articles on Korean cuisine items for which we don't already have articles, and improving ones that already exist. Are you up for this challenge? Badagnani 07:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know if I was going around asking whether you put mayo on apple pie I would likely refrain from claiming any level of ëxpertise" on American cuisine.  And touting your own "expertise" to give credence to sensitive edits where actual expertise really is useful and needed doesn't enriching wiki.  If that's genuinely your goal, ask more questions, ease up on touting your own horn and consider the fact some people just might have more "expertise" than even you on at least this topic.melonbarmonster 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And about your mom's use of chili oil, I still am not sure what pan-fried vegetable dish uses chili oil. Can you tell me more about what dish this was? My guess is that she used it out of her own personal preference but I wouldn't go far as to say chili oil is a at all a component in Korean cuisine.melonbarmonster 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're the one to chill out. In my opinion, you're just making a bigger issue from the simple question of Badagnani. My mom's personal preference? Yes, it might be and she is from Gyeongsangbuk-do. But I remember a Korean restaurant owner recommended her to use it when she asked him what secret ingredient made a dish so good which my family ate at his restaurant. The namul dish was duryeo namul. --Appletrees 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen you're starting to take this stuff personally. There's no bias in having missed your earlier comment in this sea of comments by happenchance. Namul doesn't sound like a pan-fried vegetable dish and yes chili oil in any type of namul is not a "korean" technique.  I'm sure it tastes great but I don't think isolated and novel uses qualify chili oil as being a Korean ingredient. Heck, mayo is more "korean" in that sense of the word than chili oil.melonbarmonster 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chili oil]] 

message: Need Korean name/hangul at Allium monanthum. Badagnani 10:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is dalrae (달래). --Appletrees 11:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Korean

message: The dessert section seems to go into too-great detail about all the sub-types. This article should summarize things (so as not to grow too large), then the individual articles should go into greater detail. Badagnani 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the description on tteok should be reduced. The dishes I added are referring to big categories unlike Yaksik on the list. --Appletrees 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dessert section 

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

</br>

As best as I can tell, the second one overrides the first one, and the article would be exactly the same if both were removed (but obviously less confusing to an inexperienced editor). I'm probably missing something, so if someone knows, please speak up - thanks. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, hearing no explanation, I've removed both templates. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents templates - the point? 

message: This edit should be reconsidered, and discussed before removal, since sundubu jjigae is a very important cuisine item in Korean food. It is not a peripheral ingredient in this dish, but an integral part of the dish. Badagnani 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Korean cuisine isn't based on friggin dooboo.  Someone with a shred of actual knowledge back me on this.melonbarmonster 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to the edit of melonbarmonster on the description line. Dubu is a very important part of Korean cuisine. In almost every Korean stews like jjigae, tang, jeongol, dubu is added into them. In addition, dubu jorim, dubu jeon, kimchi dubu and so forth is evidences to back up the prior edit. Even when people make mandu, mashed dubu is used for it. --Appletrees 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of important ingredients in korean cooking.  It's an over-statement to say that Korean food is based on dooboo.melonbarmonster 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, do you have any proof to back up your claim? You're not a consensus. --Appletrees 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not resort to wikilawyering here.  If you genuinely feel that strongly that dooboo really forms the basis of korean food along with rice, vegetable and meat go ahead and put it back in.melonbarmonster 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of dubu

message: This massive, undiscussed blanking seems ill-advised. Please consider restoring this text and using "discussion" first. Badagnani 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I will never relinquish the sheer thrill of power I feel when I engage in massive blanking of half the article and then restoring it with wiki magic! Warn me all you want! melonbarmonster 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: calm down, both of you. That "massive blanking" looks just a simple mistake of Melonbarmonster. He or she restored it in a second. --Appletrees 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You think this troll is able to pick up such subtle differences??melonbarmonster 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive blanking

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

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

message: did anyone take the time to look through this article? Its about the opinion of oneperson who thinks that dog meat is great. And its quite ridiculous that this article can be used in this article, while an article (yes, written by one person as well)  cannot be used to support Korean arguments for Goguryeo in the Goguryeo article. I am increasingly finding that this off balance scale between pro-Korea and anti-Korea arguments is angering me very much. 
In a broader sense, what anti-Korean editors like Komdori/LactoseTI do to this article, such as trying to emphasize dog meat. Or trying to stir up some crap about Chinese cabbage used in kimchi (which I could care less about) or labeling Ahn Jeung-gun, a Korean patriot, as a "terrorist". Or making ridiculous arguments at Liancourt Rocks (which, by the way, has rotted under the weight of the pro-Japanese, I'm not going even bat an eyelid towards that article). Or lobbying for emphasis on China in Goguryeo is not fair. I'm not going to just sit here and let them mess around with the article. Even if the problem is solved through dispute resolution or whatnot, the article is shattered with this NPOV policy that causes every article to have a "neutral" point of view. If Ahn is a Korean patriot, or perhaps a independence activist, how is this POV? "Patriot" is biased? Lactose suggested "terrorist" and then we had to compromise on "nationalist". How is Ahn a nationalist? Did he go around boasting that Koreans were the rulers of the world. Meh, we were picking our nose under the Japanese occupation. I would hardly call Ahn a "nationalist", much less "terrorist". I'm definitely sure Ahn went to Japan and blew up 1000 Japanese civilians with a bomb. No, he didn't. Yet, this NPOV policy and this requirement to "compromise" when there is nothing to compromise at all is just not fair. It leaves Korea-related articles at a much wierder state than before. When somebody reads that dog meat is consumed 1.4 kg on average per person, I'm sure that he/she will be sure that ALL Koreans eat dog meat. When soebody reads that Ahn was a "nationalist", I'm sure they will think that Ahn was simply someone who was racist. 
The more I think of it, the angrier I get. I don't care if there is a dog meat section here. We need a dog meat section, there is nothing wrong with it. But when its cited with lame sources or with poorly written text thats ridiculous. Good friend100 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the excess of non-consensus discussion that occurs here, perhaps there is a need for RfC, which is what I was trying to do but isn't working.  Arbitration would be the next step as too many issues are reverting in a "warring" type manner in this article.  As I would like to work on other issues on this article that are actually important, such as national cuisine history and regional cuisines, I feel these controversial issues need to be fixed before I spend what ends up being a large amount of my personal time on editing an article such as this one.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in your opinion. The endless edit warring and bickering just make to kick potential editors interested in Korean cuisine out of this article. I'm so fed up with this circumstance. Before coming here, I'm primarily a Korean wiki editor so just going back to there to make new articles for it. I've just seen so many ugly things here. sigh. --Appletrees 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why anyone would want to imply that 1.4kg of dog meat is eaten per person.  Anyone with any knowledge on korean culture or food knows this is false.  There are statistics that clarify who's eaten dog meat and how much.  Unfortunately, there are editors here with agenda's of their own with limited knowledge making these questionable edits.  This is just a frustrating aspect of Wikipedia.melonbarmonster 03:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think some of the Korean editors are getting a little upset, due to the fact that the rest of the world does not view Koreans, Korean culture and the historical enemies of Korea, in the same way that patriotic Koreans view them. Wikipedia is international, and is not a pro-Korea propaganda page. While these editors are more than happy to make sweeping statements regarding for example anyone Japanese, using terms such as facist and racist in their descriptions, they become highly offended when any word that is anything other than flattering is used in relation to anything Korean.Sennen goroshi 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a surprise! You don't need to introduce yourself here again. We all know who you are and which category you really belong to. A couple of people defined well about the "real" contributors of wikipedia above. Just read that. --Appletrees 03:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not feed the troll.melonbarmonster 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite honestly as an academic food researcher I find that the ideas in the article are not just from a cultural warring, it is just poor research and some people wanting to push what they may have read in one obscure article.  This is why it is better to use well-sourced information from texts that are written by experts on topics instead of newspaper articles, which are written not by academics, but my journalists trying to get people to read a story to attract reader subscriptions.  I am not quite sure where your comment is coming from Sennen goroshi though.  We are talking about proper sourcing that requires a keen eye to locate improperly researched statistics.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is the "English" Wikipedia, I am also unsure how I feel about this line and its ciation, "According to a 2006 survey conducted by The Office For Government Policy Coordination (국무조정실), 55.3% of South Koreans have eaten dog meat (a traditional part of Korean cuisine and traditional Korean medicine) at least once", as the link is to a Korean language website I am guessing and the majority of Wikipedia readers will find that source useless.  I mean call me dumb, I only speak three languages but Korean doesn't happen to be one of them.  Is there a way to get these pages in English translation or an English site, even if the information is moved to the dog meat article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope some of the above editors, don't resort to personal insults, and don't assume that everyone who does not share their exact opinion does not deserve to contribute to wikipedia.Sennen goroshi 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have seen apparent bias at this discussion page from both "pro-Korean" and "anti-Korean" editors. It would be best if we didn't try to ban anyone, but if all editors would try to free themselves from these biases and edit with our users in mind, documenting all aspects of Korean culinary culture thoroughly and properly. Badagnani 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The babelfish.altavista.com website can be used to produce a rudimentary translation from Korean to English (and vice versa). Badagnani 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editors who have a pro-Korean bias should not be editing this article - Judging by the offence you take to any edit that criticises Korea/Koreans, I am  starting to consider your suitability re. editing this article.Sennen goroshi 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no bias whatsoever, as per WP:Bias and WP:NPOV.  This is an encyclopedia, not journal of topics.  I seem to be reapeating myself, but a good reading by everyone of WP:Civility is in order here.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 06:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad references 

message: As per the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions of country-specific topics, all articles about specific countries should be labeled in the manner of xxx of (insert country), so in the instance of a cuisine, the article would be titled "Cuisine of Italy" or "Cuisine of France", etc as it identifies the cuisine within that country and not the cuisine outside of the country, such as the article American Chinese cuisine which identifies Chinese cuisine in America.  Although the policy is clear and I have felt this for some time, I would openly offer people to come to one central area (as I will be posting this on many cuisine articles) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink#Naming conventions of cuisine articles.  I think this is a large issue and would like to get as much input as possible and as all the cuisine articles fall into this one project, but are shared by other projects I would like to see their input here as well, thanks for your time and comments.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 08:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good, maybe instruction creep. Chinese cuisine, for example, is found not just in China, but in numerous other countries. Thus, each article does deserve to have its title thought out in its own right. Badagnani 08:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Korean cuisine is also found in America in a very Americanized format as are most cuisines.  It is also why I presented the information in the format I did to get others opinions.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 09:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good point. Badagnani 09:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am making any decisions here, just offering an idea, and if the conclusion is different then we go with it.  Should there be an American Koren cuisine article, Japanese Korean cuisine article just as there is the American Chinese cuisine or Italian American cuisine article?  Again I am sure there is more than just the modern take on these cuisines, and a history can be discussed.  Actually I know there is a fact from compilations put together by author Carol Counihan who edited the anthology Food in the USA, which has many articles on this topic.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying that total standardization is often a bad idea, because "Cuisine of China" is inaccurate when representing the Chinese cuisines of the PRC, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.; in this case "Chinese cuisine" is better. Regarding American Chinese cuisine, it's a distinct cuisine that has developed over a period of about 100 years. The others you mention aren't as clearcut and have not adapted to American tastes as much--Korean the least so. There is a style of American-style Japanese food that is based in the "Japanese steak house" type of restaurant (where the chef chops and cooks at the diners' table) but I have never heard that called "Japanese American cuisine"; it's just a Japanese steak house. There are verifiable styles called Korean Chinese cuisine and Japanese Chinese cuisine. Badagnani 20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Interesting. Don't forget to watch the "Next Iron Chef" Sunday; the new guy will compete. Badagnani 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuisine article naming conventions

message: 1. Can people stop taking the bait from this blatant troll please?
2. Can Melonbarmonster please stop trolling wikipedia, it is making it hard for us decent editors to do our work.
thanks Sennen goroshi 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure he's a troll. But, he certainly doesn't work constructively with people, or even try. Bsharvy 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypocrite much? Sennen, your always talking about how your trying to be nonbiased and fair, but you make it clear that you're not a constructive editor because of your anti-Korean sentiment. Making a new thread simply to direct attacks at another editor (regardless of how problematic he is) just shows your inability to work well with other people. That is why you are always running into clashes with other people. Good friend100 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I do not make anti-kor statements. I think the problem is that people like you, consider any statement that is in conflict with your opinion re. kor, to be anti-kor. Perhaps you should look at yourself, before saying that I am unable to work with people, I have been blocked once for 24hrs, you however have been blocked nine times, which says a lot about who is clashing with other editors. thanks and have a fantastic day Sennen goroshi 14:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't lie in an attempt to make me look bad, at no time did I say "visiting Japan Wikipedia for the real story" what was actually said was 
"In order to see a viewpoint of Japanese, please translate Japanese Wikipedia into English."  and far more importantly, that wasn't said by me - I merely reverted an edit that had removed that text.  So if you don't like the text, please don't blame me, as I didn't write it, also please don't change the wording of your text, in a failed attempt to make me seem to be a biased editor. Saying someone is a terrorist is not extreme bias, it is a word that is quite suitable for someone who murdered a someone for political/nationalistic reasons. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oh and...... I don't think this can be said enough....when I have a single 24hr block, and you have NINE blocks, and only just managed to beg your way out of a perm. block, I don't think you are the right person to be commenting on battles I have with other editors, it seems you are the one who is having problems dealing with people on wikipedia, as your huge block list shows quite clearly.Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Melonbarmonster