Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 3

message: Badagnani and melonbarmonster: Despite the language being used to frame your rationales this does appear to be moving forward. However, you're both aware that any edits to this article are going to be eyeballed, and that enough blood has been spilled on this topic in recent weeks. Here's hoping that future edits can be discussed, and unambiguously backed up with reliable sources and / or reference to WP policies and guidelines. The potential for this to become WP:LAME or stray into WP:3RR territory should not be underestimated. A request for comment may be appropriate if that's where we end up. Page protection and blocks for disruption and incivility will hopefully remain unnecessary, but are also an option. If you have comments directed to each other and not directly relevant to the content of the article - the 3rd and 4th lines of the section above appear to qualify - please take them to your talk pages. Deiz talk 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea. We really should have the greater community of editors interested in Korean cuisine contributing so that we can continue to build consensus when we have differences of opinion. I guess I just should ignore the attacks and not respond to them at all, then? Badagnani 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to review WP:CIVIL. Bsharvy 08:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you editing articles you know nothing about?melonbarmonster 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where we're at 

message: Im sorry but I find the reverts of my edits to be unnacceptable.
Tried is not the correct term, tried is only correct for those people who have eaten something once or twice, in order to work out if they like it or not, it is not correct for those who eat it on a regular basis. Eaten is correct for those who have eaten it once, and for those who eat it on a more regular basis. The use of the word tried is POV because it implies that the % of people stated have only eaten it once or twice, when infact the % stated  consists of those who tried it once and those who eat it on a regular basis.
sometimes. to use the word sometimes is redundant and POV, of course its sometimes - apart from living and breathing I cant think of anything that I do which could not be phrased "i sometimes do X" but it also implies that it is done infrequently. If someone wishes to state that it is done infrequently, then instead of 'sometimes' 'rarely' 'occasionaly' they should state how often, and back this up with verifiable evidence.
I realise that the dog meat issue is embarassing for some Koreans and people with links to Korea, but my edits did not comment on animal welfare, they were NPOV they were factual, and it seems that some editors would prefer to either remove the dog meat section, or replace the text with 'a long time ago, someone who might have been korean, possibly ate something, that might have been a dog, but he only did this once'
Im sorry but its a fact, in Korea people eat dogs, it is not particually rare, and it is not something that everyone tries just the once, or something that happens once a year. the article should make those facts clear - if someone has an issue with animal welfare, pro-korea, anti-korea, pro-dog meat, dog meat consumption denial or whatever, they should make a blog and put their POV there. Dont try to give a POV in wikipedia, by using words that imply something that is not true, or is not proven.Sennen goroshi 06:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, stop being lame. "Tried" comes from the referenced survey where the percentage comes from.  It's not up for discussion because it's from the referenced Korean survey. And you also know crap about stuff.  From looking at your sparce participation in this article and seeing how you are only participating on POV issues, you're looking like a pretty bona fide anti-Korean POV pusher.  Please stop.melonbarmonster 06:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as no one is saying that those figures are incorrect, then changing a POV term such as tried is fine and in line with wikipedia guidelines. have no opinions regarding Koreans, I'm not Korean, I've never been to Korea, why would I care? It was an interesting article, and this is not Korean wikipedia, so I think it should be written without a Korean POV - I have no reason to have an anti-Korean POV, how about you? do you have a reason to have a pro-Korean POV?Sennen goroshi 06:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading through all the comments, I think it does make sense to substitute "eaten" for "tried" in this sentence. Badagnani 07:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The language comes from the Korean survey.  People were asked if they "tried", not if they've "eaten".melonbarmonster 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  that is not relevant, if someone has tried an item of food, then they have eaten it. if they used POV language in their survey then it's up to them, but that language should not be carried over to wikipedia, when there is more suitable language available, that does not distort their statistics but offers a NPOV. If the word "eaten" distorted the facts, don't use it, if the word "eaten" changes no facts then it's fine.Sennen goroshi 07:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not clear at all. It has been described as the fourth most popular meat in Korea, and although people do not eat it every day or even usually more than a few times a year, a sizable percentage of the population does eat it on occasion (the most recent KBS Radio survey shows that c. 35-37 percent of dog owners and non-dog owners in Korea eat it), or consume it as gaesoju. Trying to either minimize or maximize these facts may represent a POV of some type. Badagnani 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to minimize these facts. But what Sennen is doing and reading through his comments, its clear that he is only here to maximaze these facts. Good friend100 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is not as accurate, has less facts and has more uncited statements. There is nothing to back up it being eaten by people who couldnt afford other meat, neither are there verifiable sources stating that it is more common in rural areas. It does not say how often people eat it. The use of the word 'some' is redundant.
Sennen goroshi 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what's helpful: What is not accurate? How do you know it has more uncited statements? Did you count? What was the count? Not saying how often people eat it is a reason to add something, not delete something. As far as I can tell, there is no clear English-language source on how often people eat it. Bsharvy 09:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog meat

message: * Don't delete/undo a statement merely because it is unsourced. If everybody did that, we would be undoing half the encyclopedia. If it is unsourced and you think it is important, add a  fact tag to it, and start a discussion. Undoing other editors' work is not a fixall to everything you don't like. Bsharvy 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bsharvy is upset because I removed an unsourced line about Koreans eating pet breeds of dog. As unsourced info can be removed from any Wikipedia article on sight, feel free to ignore this one. Deiz talk 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources that describe how pet dogs are stolen and used in the industry. That would seem to imply that, at least in the underground market, non-nureong dogs are also used. The customer seeing it chopped up in the serving dish would most likely not know. Other sources describe how Chinese-raised dogs (St. Bernard crossbreeds) are imported into Korea. If that is the case, then it would not be accurate to state that only nureong are eaten in South Korea. Badagnani 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Just add a reliable source and we're good. Nobody should get upset that their unsourced edit has been removed from this article, particulary from the dog meat section. That other edits are unsourced is a different issue - worry about your own edits first. Deiz talk 00:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The advice I gave is very standard advice. Don't treat undo as a fix-all. There is a constructive response to unsourced claims that you think are questionable: the fact tag. Use it. This comment was prompted by Good_friend_100's recent deletion of material as well as Diez's deletion of material. The latter was ill-informed and seemingly biased, as it merely reverted to another unsourced claim (only one breed is eaten) and was wrongly defended as a revert to a "stable" version. In addition, it is not constructive to reduce an editor's objection to merely being "upset". I objected for the reasons I gave. If you want to edit constructively address the reasons, not assumptions of motives. Bsharvy 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entirely missing the point. The fact tag is available to invite editors to add sources, but - per Wikipedia policy - unsourced information can be removed by any editor. Jimbo Wales has made his feelings clear on this, and I agree. If you're uncomfortable with this, perhaps WP is not for you. Please understand that this article, and in particular this section, has proved very problematic recently. If you make an unsourced edit, don't be offended if it is removed or edited. If you want to challenge other content under the terms of WP policies & guidelines, please do so. As far as your assertions of my edits being wrong, ill-informed, biased etc etc, it's water off a ducks back. Removal of unsourced content is none of those things, and claiming otherwise merely shows your lack of experience with Wikipedia policy and practice. Deiz talk 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it best to just fix it rather than argue about deleting things or threatening to eject people from WP? If someone adds a "fact" tag and the text being contested is factual, just find a source and it's fixed. It usually takes less than 5 minutes. I think User:Deiz was the one complaining that we were not discussing the veracity of actual facts in the article but making personal attacks instead. If someone has a problem with a line in the article, add it here and we will discuss it and find a source together. Enough with discussions here that do not address and examine the actual facts of the article. Badagnani 03:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagnani, you've got some nerve using my arguments here.  For a guy who has been deleting my edits for supposed grammar mistakes, you have absolutely no credibility here. LOL.melonbarmonster 04:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You've now reported me for removing contractions you added twice, despite the fact that contractions are typically considered unencyclopedic in tone. If I were you, I would de-escalate my rhetoric and stick to the facts at hand, working together to make this the best, most informative, and best sourced article on this subject possible. Badagnani 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Deiz. You are missing the point. Nobody said removing unsourced material isn't an option. Nobody said removal of unsourced material is in itself ill-informed. I said something about avoiding revert wars. Namely, when there is a constructive option other than reverting, choosing it helps avoid edit wars. You reverted in the name of WP:V to a version that is not compliant with {[WP:V]]. You did this claiming it was a "stable" version when in fact is has only come about from recent edit wars. Bsharvy 05:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Avoid a Revert War  

message: Isn't that self-contradictory?  If we assume that some dogs are "mixed" while others are not, then surely all "breeds" are not mixed, right? Wikipeditor 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Mixed-breed dog. Badagnani 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Mixed breed” 

message: This page is getting a bit long. I propose that some or all of it be archived. Badagnani 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: im trying understand why i am being accused of POV for replacing the word consumed with the word eaten - in an article about food. it is food, it is eaten, it seems quite simple to me. i can understand the controversy of other aspects of this article, but to complain about using eaten when talking about food, seems petty to me, and is reverting for the sake of reverting.Sennen goroshi 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go with consumed. Deiz talk 05:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The weight figures show that a much larger number of dogs are cooked down into gaesoju than are used for their meat, and that liquid would be "consumed" rather than eaten. I'm not sure if the 2 million figure includes dogs that are used for making gaesoju and not for meat, however. Badagnani 05:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ahhhh i see...I do have to concede that you have a valid point there, if the larger number are cooked down, rather than eaten as lumps of meat, then consumed would seem to be the better choice. thanks.Sennen goroshi 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: eaten/consumed

message: Page archived, link at top. Any editor may revive an old discussion by moving it from the archive back to this page. This page is still pretty damn big, but there's a lot going on right now... Deiz talk 06:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: For a "to-do" page for Korean cuisine articles, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Cuisine. We have a need for an article about seogi, if there is anyone knowledgeable about this food. Badagnani 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do page for Korean cuisine

message: This huge, undiscussed rewrite doesn't seem really warranted as it seems to go into too much detail about the production of the meat (torture of dogs before slaughter, etc.). This level detail seems most appropriate for the Dog meat#Korea. Probably we should concentrate most on the culinary aspects, methods of preparation and serving of the actual dishes, in this particular article, although the aspects we already had included (reasons for consumption, scale of consumpetion, type(s) of dogs used) seem necessary to discuss at least briefly. Badagnani 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge, undiscussed rewrite 

message: I added many sources for the most controversial parts, and generally rewrote the section. It was a mess from constant edit warring. Some points:
* I felt WP:BOLD was appropriate here, becasue things had gotten so bogged down. People were making 3RR complaints over edits of apostrophes. That doesn't mean I want to undo other people's work. I just felt a fresh start with a lot more sources would be most effective.
* I removed the statement that 53.3% of Koreans have tried dog once because the only source is entirely in Korean, and this is an English-language encyclopedia. Our intended audience needs to be able to read our sources.
* In general, I used animal rights groups only for videos, which allow the readers the draw their own conclusions. I did use them to document the claim that all breeds are eaten, since the videos plainly show a dog market and plainly show many breeds. I relied on experts (e.g. Oriental medicine doctor) or news organizations for factual statements.
Bsharvy 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any Korean source can be easily translated into English via Babelfish (although the translation will not be perfect). The statistic really is no problem, because we do have Korean-reading editors here who can check the statistic if it is incorrect. It is not incorrect. Badagnani 06:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On first impressions I don't have a problem with the edit but you've made a bold move here - don't be surprised if it attracts some attention. I implore any editor with a problem with the edit to discuss it here first. Deiz talk 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your reasoning for including the info makes sense (affects flavor and perceived therapeutic effects of meat). Badagnani 07:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits have become even more biased against Koreans eating dogs. There should be somewhere that indicates that not ALL Koreans eat dogs. This is simply going to be a vehicle for anti-Koreans. Good friend100 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that for most articles discussing national cuisines, butchering practices for meats wouldn't be discussed. But in the case of foie gras, it would be, in the foie gras article, though the French cuisine article might discuss primarily the culinary uses and styles in which this food item is involved. Badagnani 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that's why I have been arguing from the beginning that this stuff belongs in the "dog meat" or "boshintang" article, not in "korean cuisine".melonbarmonster 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Melonb, can you be specific? I don't know what you mean by "the sentence referenced will have referenced fact plus unreferenced information or opinion that is subjective personal opinion". References don't necessarily attach only to the last sentence. Sometimes they apply to, say, the last two sentences. The purpose of using many references is to substantiate something controversial and prone to challenge. I don't quite see how referencing in itself can be "inflammatory POV." When there were few references you complained there were few references; now there are many references and you complain there are too many. The subject is, naturally, inflammatory to some, but that means there should be more documentation, not less. The analogy to butchering beef doesn't apply, since it is not considered part of the preparation of the meal or medicine. Please show where Wikipedia policy supports using a reference written entirely in Korean in the English encyclopedia. Bsharvy 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Upon further review, I think the source for "blow-torching" as a method of slaughter says it is sometimes happens accidentally, not that it is a regular method. So I removed that statement. I left the source however because it supports the statement that any breed can be eaten: "Many pedigree dogs like rough collies, English pointers, German shepherds, English mastiffs and bloodhounds, were also being sold for their meat, the survey found." Bsharvy 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll definitely break it down for you later.  No time now.melonbarmonster 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumption of Dog -- Fresh Start 

message: The references are very problematic.  I just checked a few of them and the sentence referenced will have referenced fact plus unreferenced information or opinion that is subjective personal opinion.  I'll go through it more thoroughly later when I have time but please review WP:REF and clean up the references.  E.g., attaching 5 references to highlight the brutality of how animals are killed is redundant and unnecessary as well as being inflammatory POV. 
This goes back to my original point that it is culturally ignorant and biased to include detailed focus on this. WP:DUE also supports this. E.g. there are many who would argue that butchering processes of beef is brutal but you're not going to find a section or even a sentence on this "controversy".  Just because you find this significant as a non-Korean doesn't mean that it deserves detailed attention.
Also, deleting Korean references because it's Korean is just WIKI ignorant and makes me question your working knowledge on editing an article as sensitive as this.  Please be more careful and make an effort to familiarize yourself with wiki policies before making controversial changes.melonbarmonster 04:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that for most articles discussing national cuisines, butchering practices for meats wouldn't be discussed. But in the case of foie gras, it would be, in the foie gras article, though the French cuisine article might discuss primarily the culinary uses and styles in which this food item is involved. Badagnani 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, that's why I have been arguing from the beginning that this stuff belongs in the "dog meat" or "boshintang" article, not in "korean cuisine".melonbarmonster 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Melonb, can you be specific? I don't know what you mean by "the sentence referenced will have referenced fact plus unreferenced information or opinion that is subjective personal opinion". References don't necessarily attach only to the last sentence. Sometimes they apply to, say, the last two sentences. The purpose of using many references is to substantiate something controversial and prone to challenge. I don't quite see how referencing in itself can be "inflammatory POV." When there were few references you complained there were few references; now there are many references and you complain there are too many. The subject is, naturally, inflammatory to some, but that means there should be more documentation, not less. The analogy to butchering beef doesn't apply, since it is not considered part of the preparation of the meal or medicine. Please show where Wikipedia policy supports using a reference written entirely in Korean in the English encyclopedia. Bsharvy 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Upon further review, I think the source for "blow-torching" as a method of slaughter says it is sometimes happens accidentally, not that it is a regular method. So I removed that statement. I left the source however because it supports the statement that any breed can be eaten: "Many pedigree dogs like rough collies, English pointers, German shepherds, English mastiffs and bloodhounds, were also being sold for their meat, the survey found." Bsharvy 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll definitely break it down for you later.  No time now.melonbarmonster 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissenting Comment

message: Do we have an article on the Korean equivalent of this dessert food? Badagnani 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no equivalent food of Sachima in Korean cuisine. However, taraegwa which is one of the royal court desserts has a little similarity to sachima.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sachima]] 

message: Now I get what you tried to say as I followed your contribution history.
Well, I was surprised to see that Rice Krispie treat are "invented" by American. But I think "adapted" are more accurate in the light of the year in which the food were firstly produced in US. Korean have eaten the very same form of desserts, Yugwa and Gangjeong from the Three Kingdom period. In other hand, the main ingredient of Sachima of China is flour, but Yugwa and gangjeong are made from rice. Besides, there are plenty of uncreated articles regarding Korean cuisine. Why don't you make the article first?
Image:Yeotgangjeong-01.jpg|Gangjung
Image:Korean.desserts-Yugwa-01.jpg|Yugwa or Yumilgwa
Image:Korean.food-Yakgua-Yugua-Insadong.jpg|Yakgua and Yugua
--Appletrees 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observation about the Rice Krispie treats not having been invented by Americans :)  I've eaten the Korean ones you describe at Korean celebrations. It comes in many different varieties (some colored light green), and they're wrapped in individual clear cellophane wrappers. I remember the young U.S.-born Korean Americans making fun of this food because they said it tasted terrible, and not sweet enough. It would be good to begin articles on these.  I think there was some mistake made at Sachima, because it clearly looks like puffed rice in the photo. Badagnani 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugwa and Gangjeong vs Sachima and Rice Krispie treat 

message: Isn't the term ddong gae (똥개) also used in reference to the dogs used for consumption? Should this be added to the article in addition to the nureongi name? Badagnani 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, the term (똥개) is a slang referring to dogs without a breed certification and sometimes is used as a derogatory language referring to a man (almost close to a bastard).--Appletrees 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog variety 

message: Gamja jeon (potato pancake). Not sure if it should be rendered with space or not. Badagnani 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki has the article regarding potato pancakes of all over the world. But it is a representative regional snack of Gangwon province along with chal oksusu (roughly glutinous corn).--Appletrees 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested article 

message: I think that the section regarding table manner and etiquette takes too much compared to the others in this aricle. It should be moved into a new article. The section also looks tedious and tends to decrease people's attractions. In addition, editors who have devoted their much time to dog meats looks unproductive. I actually found a very good photo of a dish made of dog meat but am afraid of hot quarrelling on the photo and my contribution. (well it is highly likely somebody would call me a "maegukno")I don't want any dispute but this article needs more contents. 
I suggest that we add informations about regional cuisines and local specialties of Korea. Like the example of German cuisine. How do you think? --Appletrees 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observations. Badagnani 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you use the Italian cuisine or French cuisine articles for templates over the German cuisine article as the German article is very list intensive with little actual information about the regions and it has little organization to it. Lists of dishes should go into an article entitled List of Korean dishes with a link to the section they refer to.  This will keep the article from becoming ridiculously huge while still giving you the ability to have those dishes listed.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding regional Korean specialties, for comparison, in the area of Chinese cuisine, we have are numerous regional cuisine articles, such as Beijing cuisine, Yunnan cuisine, Cantonese cuisine, etc... That is probably the way to go, actually. Badagnani 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You can revert it if you want, however having lists such as this is articles just ends up making the article capable of endless expansion.  This is especially true if you want to add anything to this article concerning the full history of the cuisine as-well-as  information on regional cuisines and the possibility of adding more expansive information on restaurants and professional cooks/chefs in the culture.  The way the links are, they take the reader directly to the section of the List of Korean dishes that they reside in.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was not blanked, there was no summary for those sections at all, the sections that had summaries such as the main dishes were left there.  In addition they lists were not blanked, links were placed to bring the reader to that appropriate "list".--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already stated that regional dishes can be described in detail in separate articles that can be created for each regional cuisine, as we have for the Chinese regional cuisine articles. That is not what we're talking about here; we're talking about major dishes and categories of dishes, which do belong here. But the primary dishes should be at least summarized. Your edit was not well considered or discussed, and does not substitute the descriptions of the dishes with a summary of these major, important dishes. Badagnani 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the regional articles, an article like this should have a summary for each regional area and then a link to the "Main article" for that regional cuisine.  So I disagree with that idea.  Revert the edit if you like, but I feel reverting it would be unproductive to the possible evolution of this article into a GA.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, you're being disingenuous. All the important dishes are now blanked from the article in the two massive blanking edits I presented just above. The proper way to have proceeded (if you had discussed and created consensus to remove the text you already removed without doing that) was to have summarized the dishes in prose. You didn't take the time to do that. It's not an improvement. On the subject of regional cuisines, I agree with you that regional cuisines can be summarized in this article. Badagnani 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's fine, I have no problem with that and as I said we can reverse it and decide on a different way of solving the issue if there is consensus to move the list portions.  My intention was not to be imperialistic, which is how I think you perceived my action.  It was only an attempt to look out for the benefit of cuisine articles overall.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion