Jump to content

Talk:Kimchi/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Mrs Offut?

Who is Mrs Offut and why is the way she spells the word kimchi relevant? Is she a well known authority on kimchi or spelling? 70.83.20.197 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

no idea. should be deleted.Melonbarmonster 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Health effects

"Kimchi has been cited by health magazines as one of the world’s five “healthiest foods,” with the claim that it is rich in vitamins, aids digestion, and may help in preventing cancer. [3] Moreover, many researchers confirm that due to kimchi’s high concentration of vitamin C and the rapid production of lactic bacteria, the Korean people did not suffer from the SARS or bird flu incidents that afflicted millions of people in Asia."

The author should be more careful in proclaiming health effects when his or her assertion are mostly unsubstantiated. No comprehensive scientific research has been done to prove kimchi as an effective remedy against the spread of SARS. Also, "health magazines" (What specific literature is the author referring to, and are they independent from food manufacturers?) should not be used as an authoritative voice on what food is healthy.

Your quote is referenced. That second sentence is pretty ridiculous thoughMelonbarmonster 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I renamed this Talk section to reflect the change in section name in the main article. --Ben James Ben 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I inverted the order of the paragraphs of this section. It seems better to mention the actual food first before going into health benefits/risks. Regarding what should be in this section, I think that the overall tone should be that kimchi is regarded to be healthy (as reflected in popular opinion), but it should also be tempered by research that shows that it is not. --Ben James Ben 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Source of LAB

does anyone know how kimchi can be a good source of lactic acid bacteria? do people use lactobacilli starter (culture) to make kimchi, and if milk is not added, how do these "friendly" bacteria grow? --60.242.164.227 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The various lactic acid bacteria (LAB - including Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Lactobacillus) are resident on the fresh vegetables used to make kimchi, along with a (much larger) number of other bacteria, yeast, and mould spores. The salt added to kimchi helps to retard the growth of these other microorganisms whilst the LAB get going in the salty, liquid environment created by preparing kimchi. You can read about the process here (an article about sauerkraut fermentation, but equally applicable to kimchi). Also, this article has a kimchi-specific description. Webaware talk 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Leewy0121's edits

These edits, a major change of the entire article, not only left it with broken "footnote references", but also reduced valuable information about possible detriments to its consumers' health to a single line in the very bottom of the article (external link). Perhaps somebody with a lot of time at hand can

  1. revert to the article as it was before,
  2. have a lok at Leewy0121's changes and additions and decide which are worth keeping, and
  3. integrate those bits into the article in a more careful fashion?

Thanks a lot in advance! Wikipeditor 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor image

I don't like the initial photo (of Baechu Kimchi). The image is much too close up, so that it is hard to identify. To tell the truth, at first I thought I was viewing an image of a fetus. Opinions?

--Philopedia 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but how do you make it?

Will someone please add a section on making kimche for heaven's sake? And let's start with a recipe for baechu kimchi, so that the rest of us can learn to make it properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Here's one way: Wikibooks:Cookbook:Kimchi. Just one of many! Webaware talk 10:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

English Terms for Baechu Cabbage

Putting my personal feelings aside, I am starting this subsection to open up the discussion regarding what English name for baechu cabbage is most appropriate.

For reasons already stated above my suggestion is that we use Napa cabbage as it is used widely in US, Canada and Frace as well as other places in Europe. Wikicookbook follows this convention. I've even found an Australian food site that uses "napa cabbage" in many of its recipes:http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=napa+cabbage

Further suggestions and discussion welcome.melonbarmonster 03:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to #Straw Poll on Baechu (above), where this discussion is already in progress. Also note that the "Australian" website referenced by Melonbarmonster is an international recipe collection; try also http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=chinese+cabbage and http://fooddownunder.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=kimchi Webaware talk 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That australian website has recipes with "chinese cabbage" and "napa cabbage" because they are not the same thing. And the fact that an australian cooking website contains recipes of international foods doesn't undermine the fact that the term "napa cabbage" is used solely on an australian website for use by australians to make international foods. Napa cabbage is a non-australian, asian vegetable afterall.
And please don't try to side-step the issue by pretending that you already gave a suggestion for what english word you want to use for "baechu" cabbage because you haven't given it. If i missed it, please let me know. That's why I started this section to ask for suggestions on what English term you would like to use if you find "napa cabbage" so lacking. Please provide a suggestion and supporting reason, evidence. I don't see why you have any reason to avoid this request.melonbarmonster 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Prolonged absence of response will be taken as acquiescence.melonbarmonster 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Kimchi#Straw Poll on Baechu. One proposal has "napa" in it as well as another commonly used English term. I supported this proposal. It's the only one that anyone has suggested that is linked correctly per the MOS and also happens to include these English variations. --Cheers, Komdori 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Que? I directed you to the discussion above, which you tried to ignore by initiating this thread. I will not discuss this issue in multiple places. Do not assume "acquiescence" because I refuse to enter into an argument with you. Be civil, and don't assume ownership of this article. Also, please don't assume that I will respond to you within a 24-hour period, because I'm likely to take a week (or more) before responding. Webaware talk 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring by Lactose

Lactose you've stopped participating in this talk page and now you've resorted to double blind reverts. We were engaged in discussions above if you haven't noticed. You've never edited a single edit besides this revert warring! You've never participated in discussing the topic of this article. Your reverts are nonsensical in lieu of the discussions above. Please stop.melonbarmonster 18:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Kimchi. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

.. due to long-term edit warring. Please note that no particular revision is being endorsed here & that you guys need to state your issues with the article here so you can come to consensus on this and stop the pointless reversions. If needs be, mediation can be called for - Alison ☺ 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now look what y'all gone done. Rather annoying that it has come to this, when simple, civil discussion was all that was needed. Webaware talk 04:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well thank the editors who like to start up disputes. Good friend100 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I know this isn't helpful, but I find a dispute/edit war based fullprotect on a page tied to anything cabbage-related hilarious :P CredoFromStart talk 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Nach0king 15:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's not already on WP:LAME, if it continues much longer, maybe it deserves a place. --Cheers, Komdori 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add the following at the top of the page in small print (If there is a standard template for such thing, all the better):

This page deals with the food Kimchi. For David Kimchi the person, please see David Kimhi.

I ask this because Rabbi David Kimhi is widely known among certain scholars as simply "Kimchi," even if the food is what most ordinary people refer to by this word. -- Nahum 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin edit request

{{editprotected}}

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Essential kimch

These kimchi are commonly eaten for daily meal in every regions of Korea and I think each should have own article, but unless I myself begins an article or somebody speaks for the update, none make it. So it is just like a to-do-list. Sigh......--Appletrees 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have the list in the article under a heading like "variations of kimchi" etc. Good friend100 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I created two articles regarding dongchimi, and nabak kimchi. But still it is a long way to go. Why don't you join with me to create new articles on kimchi? Some of these kimchi on the list are briefly introduced or mentioned on the main page, so we just need new and detailed articles about these variations. --Appletrees 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, I think we should make a template on the different kinds of kimchi. Unless somebody already made one (which I doubt), we need to find somebody who is skilled at makign templates. Good friend100 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. you mean the names of all kinds of kimchi to be integrated into a template like soy bean template? That is a good idea, but I think thresholds of the related articles should be made (at least 10 articles). After that, I can make the template according to regional kimchi such as Seoul kimchi, Gyeonggi-do kimchi, Gangwon-do kimchi, etc. --Appletrees 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There ya go, ggakdugi is on the list. I made it quickly. Also, cite your information in dongchimi. I touched up a bit on it. Good friend100 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
you're very quick to make the article! okay, I'll do that. --Appletrees 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts and referring editors to the Talk page

This is just a reminder that you should avoid performing blind reverts to the article. This is also a reminder that editors are not required to discuss edits on the Talk page or gain consensus before adding non-disputed text to the article. If there is disputed content, please feel free to initiate or refer discussion on the Talk page, but please don't blindly revert. --Ben James Ben 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Probiotic

The word probiotic should be removed, as there are no scientific articles showing that soime of the cultures in kimchi are probiotic. There are pleanty of lactic acid bacteria in there, but that means nothing. A product can never be a probiotic, only special strains of bacteria can (not species, see probiotic. And there have been no probiotic strains ever been isolated from kimchi. That does not mean it can't have health benefits, but that is another matter. Knorrepoes 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The false accusation

We're respectively here to contribute to these Korean cuisine articles with good faith but recent edit warring makes you guys just ugly. The edit warring, bickering, false accusation are just disruptive behaviros.

I happened to know the ip address with which Badagnani has used due to the images placed in Hyewon pungsokdo from the common wiki, and Melonbanmoster, your accusation is definitely wrong. The anon, User:76.103.78.42 seems to be the recent editor engaging in the health effect section. I think you need to calm down and don't respect your behaviors which can cause just troubles. You don't rule this article, and please don't act like that. I think you two need a meditation by administrators. --Appletrees 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

stomach cancer

Kimchi causes stomach cancer! [1] "But Koreans have the highest rate of stomach cancer in the world." [2]

"The researchers, all South Korean, report that kimchi and other spicy and fermented foods could be linked to gastric cancer, the most common cancer among Koreans. Rates of gastric cancer among Koreans and Japanese are 10 times higher than in the United States." [3]

There should be a balanced take on Kimchi and there should be a warning about possible stomach cancer. --Jjk82 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... You might also be interest in Japanese cuisine because your reference clearly mention that Japan has highest rate of gastric cancer along with Korea. Why don't you try to dive in the Japanese article? --Appletrees (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kimchi does not cause stomach cancer and is exremely rich in vitamins. It has even more vitamins than an apple.Euge246 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fermented = Alcohol content? If so how much?

If Kimchi is a fermented food dish, I then assume that it contains some degree of alcohol? Since there are a variety of preparation methods, the alcohol content (if there was one) would likely vary to a degree depending on the dish. I think that whether or not there is alcohol content in this dish should be more explicitly detailed in this article. --John Bahrain (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John B
Brewer's yeasts give both the alcohol and the fizz to beer. Baker's yeasts rises bread, but produce negligible amounts of alcohol. The fermenting microorganisms in the many varieties of kimchi are like baker's yeasts, though they produce natural food preservatives rather than bubbles - see Fermentation (food).
I'm very much most certainly no expert at all about this, though. If you come back to view the article and this talk page and want more information, perhaps consider asking at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. Oo-roo!
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well... no. Brewer's yeasts and baker's yeasts are the same species, and produce similar amounts of alcohol and CO2, but baker's yeasts are more suited to fermenting in flour slurries and produce more "bread-like" flavours. Try dropping some baker's yeast in a sugary liquid and check that alcohol after a few days. Webaware talk 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Kimchi is largely (but not solely) a bacterial ferment, producing primarily organic acids like lactic acid and a small amount of acetic acid. There is sometimes a very minor yeast contribution, but it is very small, so there will be minimal alcohol production (like, bugger all!). If left to age, even that piddling amount will likely convert to acetic acid or something else. In addition to the link given above, check out Fermentation (biochemistry) for some more information about fermentation. Webaware talk 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Kimchi can only be spelt "Kimchi". It CANNOT be spelt "gimchi", "kimchee" or "gimchee". Euge246 (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick google confirms that kimchi is indeed spelled kimchee and gimchi. Recognise that native Korean writing doesn't use Roman letters, and Romanising of Korean words varies widely based on who is doing it. The official Romanisation of Korean words isn't the only way those words may be transliterated. Webaware talk 06:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi's deep shit

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) has been insisting on inserting a vulgar slang deep shit in the article without providing reliable sources. Even if it has a plenty of verifiable notable sources, such trivia slang info should be included to this Encyclopedia? Of course, I don't think so. His edit summary as reverting the previous compact version says that he senses "sockpuppetry" by an anon which is not justifiable for his insistence of inclusion of the deep shit usage. Besides, he seems not to realize that the food article may draw many attention to people outside of Korea because it is the most representative dish among Korean food. We know that sushi smell is sometimes compared with some organ of human being but the article does not such vulgar content. So why should this article have that? Per the user's persistent edit to Korean cuisine, his edit is no wonder. If he keeps insisting, I will raise RFC or fetch administrators to meditate this (lol). --14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Although I have a lot of respect for the above editor, I am afraid that I don't follow exactly what he/she is trying to say. The edit I made was due to content, not due to the editor who made it. Although I have my opinions regarding the amount of trust that I should put in someone who joined wikipedia 2 days ago , but is very familiar with wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Neutrino555 , that did not effect my own edit, infact I first made edits based on "deep shit" before the aforementioned editor even registered an ID.

If this article is popular or not, does not seem relevant when it comes to the removal of correctly cited and verifiable statements, I have always been of the opinion that instead of deleting verifiable statements, you should try to balance them with equally valid statements. Deletion is not the best solution.

Regarding the smell, I really dont understand what appletrees is trying to say, my edits were based on a CNN article, I was most certainly not trying to imply that kimchi smells like shit, neither do I care about appletrees' opinion regarding the smell of sushi - and of course if and when I find a citation that mentions "in deep sushi" I will add it to the sushi article.

I dont see why appletrees is so upset about this, I reinstated a correctly cited statement, end of story, there is no need for any further discussion, so lets not waste any more time on such things. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You falsely accuse me of doing vandalism as I rather removing your vandalism and restoring the properly organized information by an anon. Your CNN source does not mention of the deep shit, so do not say untruth here. As for sushi, it is not referred to as in deep sushi, but the smell like sushi is commonly used to denote some sexual vulgarism, so go ahead to please yourself. :D How could we convince that the first inclusion was inserted by others as you're speaking of sockpuppetry. You've been suspected of doing sockpuppetry, and none but you keep insisting keeping the slang in the article, so there is some possibility of your side.--Appletrees (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


It is OK, I have reinstated the statement with 4 citations. and WTF are you going on about regarding sushi? Is it relevant? Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind you calling WTF for yourself any more. Sushi is relevant and lies in the same vein. So do contribute as you asserted previously. --Appletrees (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Those sources appeared to me certainly to imply that 'in deep kimchi' is a colloquial expression for 'in deep shit;' they actually do confirm that it means the same thing as that expression, 'in deep trouble.' Maybe, instead of edit warring and insulting each other, you could have a polite conversation about whether this is important and how it could be phrased? This may be a language gap problem; in English, the phrase "in deep shit" is just an informal way of saying "in trouble," and doesn't refer to literal excrement; English speakers hearing this phrase would think "big trouble," but they wouldn't associate kimchi with literal shit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that it implies "in deep shit" however in the spirit of compromise it might be better to reword it as FisherQueen suggests. I have changed it to "in deep trouble" as I think any user over the age of 12 can work out that it is also a euphemism, however it is less likely to offend the easily offended. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


oh well, I tried. I reworded the article to a less vulgar form, but it was just reverted again. Sometimes I find it hard to keep faith in the process here, especially when someone counts my edits, realises that I have made 3 reverts and mentions that in their summary. Not that I would ever consider mentioning the word "gaming" - that would just be in bad faith I guess.Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not tried but just has been sticking for your claim as your usual contributions. That's why you're the subject of RFC on you. Your bad faith and gaming is already proved by editors involved in Korean cuisine.--Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What can I say? I think my edit says more than enough, after it was pointed out to me that it might be phrased in a more suitable manner, I removed the word "shit" and replaced it with "trouble" - I made an effort, and got reverted for it. kthxbye Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
awwwwwww screw it, this is only the internet, and I no longer pay per minute like I did in 1998, so I might as well make one last attempt to solve this in a dignified and reasonable manner. Appletrees, if there was a mention of the fact that the phrase "in deep kimchi" is in use, and it is a euphemism for something, what wording would you like to see there? What wording shows the same information, but does not offend you? Please dont assume that I was suggesting that kimchi = shit, it does not, I have a tub of kimchi in my fridge at the moment, and while it has a strong smell, I wouldnt tolerate it in my fridge if the smell resembled shit. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Your preference on food has nothing to do with this because here is not your blog. --Appletrees (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No shit. Sherlock - but I was actually aware that wikipedia was not my blog, and please excuse me for trying to be nice and making the point that I don't think your beloved kimchi smells like poop. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No shit. Sennen, but I like Poirot with sophisticated tastes. That is a big difference between your fondness of vulgarism and my tendency of liking politeness. I do not wonder you are fond of dog poop girl too. The case is simply violation of BLP and copyright. However, I do not try to think of your beloved vulgarism is like poop. Please excuse me whenever I try to make you speak in a polite way. Your way of speaking is honestly not so great. --Appletrees (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and also assume that the above comment was not a personal attack. I don't really understand what the dog poop girl has to do with this article, but then again, I don't really care much either. Apart from that, I don't really comprehend what point you are trying to make, but yeah, whatever. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't you happy with my paraphrasing your above so-good comment? I assumed that you would praise my quick learning and wit from yours. Your response imply that you did make personal attacks to me above. However, your continuous vulgarism appears to prevent sincere discussion with people or at least with me. You too know well that I'm very annoyed at your way of speaking, so please be civil as possible. As for the dog poop girl, I just recalled your previous violation case due to your fondness of the "poop" and Korean culture. You're pouring your special way of speaking to me which I do decline to. -Appletrees (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

compromise

Despite the fact that I consider the current version to be highly suitable, I am still interested in the opinion of Appletrees regarding this article, if the current version is still offensive and you have a better proposal then please let me know, I realise that neither of us are able to edit this article right now, due to 3RR, but I am always interested in solving disputes in a manner that satisfies everyone involved. Perhaps it would be nice if for once we were able to agree on an article. Just to clarify, I dont think the comment should be removed, I am more than happy with the "in deep trouble" comment as I think it still gives as much information as is required. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're satisfied because one person supports your insistence to which I object. So RFC may be a wise solution to resolve this. Of course, I think that is a highly inappropriate slang to the encyclopedia. The another editor whom you accuses as sockpuppet objected yours as well. Don't forget to contribute to sushi article as your previously claim that you would insert the same vulgar content if sushi has the same meaning, and there is many in real life. --Appletrees (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn, this is really hard work. Let me try to make this as clear as my patience will allow me. As you are unhappy with the current edit, do you have any suggestions regarding this article, that might be considered to be a compromise? I have already made one edit, that I thought would be a good compromise, but you didn't like that edit. Do you have any better suggestions? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Damn, Speaking such the profanity in a habitual way is not good for your soul - eventually for eternal life. I have a perfect suggestion. The slang has gotta go. --Appletrees (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Should a slang be mentioned in the food article?

With a unknown weird reason, I can't make my reasoning in the template to be unhidden, so paste it as below the title.--Appletrees (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deep shit or deep trouble are appropriate content material? If so, every smelly food would've had a relevant content which I can hardly find in Wikipedia because here is encyclopedia --Appletrees (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this problem stems from (I shall try to use tact here) the above user having a less than perfect understanding of the English language. The fact that kimchi is smelly or not, has nothing to do with "in deep shit" or "in deep trouble" it is merely a phrase in which the word "shit" or "trouble" has been substituted by the word "kimchi" that is all. It does not imply that kimchi is like shit, smells like shit, or is negative in any way. It is not designed to insult Koreans or lovers of Kimchi wherever in the world they may be. It is not a personal attack on Korean food, Korea, Koreans or Kimchi itself. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I should also add that I have tried to reach a compromise on this article, I removed the word "shit" and reworded the statement in what I considered to be a non-offensive manner (that got reverted) I have also made many attempts to start discussion relating to this issue, and made is very clear that I was interested in reaching a compromise that might satisfy both of us. These offers were rejected, it seems obvious that this editor is more interested in making a report about this, than he is in actual discussion and compromise. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw a big notice on the top of that section that said "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones." I thought I was trying to improve the article. I guess some people get excited easily. Neutrino555 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sensibilities be damned, It should only be mentioned in the article if it's notable. A few authors using the phrase in blogs or news articles doesn't make it notable. At one point the article stated, "This phrase is particularly common in the U.S. Military community, which has had a presence in South Korea since the Korean War." That wasn't ever verified and ended up being removed, thus currently notability is non-existent. It should be removed from the article. Gh5046 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The book "War Slang: American Fighting Words and Phrases Since the Civil War" By Paul Dickson ISBN:1574887106 seems to back up its military usage on page 240. Page 247 backs up the more offensive use as a direct translation for shit outside the context of the phrase 'deep trouble'. Even adding that to the article would be a case of documentation, not agreement. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That clears up my only concern with the use of the phrase. When this squabble is over with and if that isn't used, I'll add it. Thanks! Gh5046 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you mentioning smell in the context of the word 'trouble'? The two have no connection. The current edit seems fine to me, its the best compromise thats going to be found between explaining the usage and avoiding the word shit. Explaining different contexts in which words are used is encyclopedic (though as noted above this usage may not be common enough to warrant a mention). Stating that a term is used in a given context does not imply any agreement or disagreement with that usage, it simply states the usage exists. Also the original version using the word shit does not imply that Kimchi means shit. Shit is one of many words in the English language with multiple meanings depending on context. In this context it means trouble, not feces. Neither the revised or original versions constitute any sort of comment on Kimchi, they merely document that the word Kimchi is used in another context than the food. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The mention of smell is not introduced by me, but by Sennen goroshi if you carefully read the above discussion. Weird, because food with strong smell are often compared with others in vulgar meaning. --Appletrees (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a food smells was introduced by me? are you sure of that? I thought that the first time it was mentioned was when you said We know that sushi smell is sometimes compared with some organ of human being but the article does not such vulgar content. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This conversation has gone stale, and pretty quickly. As BrucePodger stated, "Stating that a term is used in a given context does not imply any agreement or disagreement with that usage, it simply states the usage exists." There's nothing wrong with leaving this information in the article. Let it go, both of you. Gh5046 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I realize that this conversation is basically over, but I have a comment. It seems to me that the phrase "deep kimchi," though used commonly enough, doesn't actually have any relationship to the food. If this article were called "Kimchi (food)," other uses of the word, like this slang one, would obviously not belong. Rather, there might be a "Kimchi" disambiguation page, and maybe, if "deep Kimchi" was important enough by itself, it would be a separate page. It would be a pretty short separate page, but it would prevent the trivia from being in this one, where, honestly, it doesn't really add any useful information. maxsch (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To add

32 kc / 100g ?

Are ya sure? / 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is a "trivia" section in disguise. Per WP:TRIV, facts about kimchi that cannot be incorporated into the article should be deleted. Please review the WP:HTRIV and work to incorporate kimchi facts that you see as being important to salvage.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T REVERT. WP:HTRIV suggests unimportant trivia facts be boldly deleted. If don't want trivia facts deleted, incorporate it into the text of the article. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Badagnani, read wiki guidelines on how to deal with trivia sections.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the past, and the reference to "deep kimchi" remained for months and consensus was reached. Please obtain new consensus if you wish for this to be removed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus and this entire section is problematic not just the "deep kimchi" comment.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


The fact that the "deep kimchi" section remained intact for so long, means that there was consensus. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Edit war fragment?

Found this fragment: "it may smell bad after about a month" tacked on to the end of the first section of the article. It may be a fragment left after repeated edit warring. I am "moving" it here so that it can be refurbished, cited, agreed on, and put in the proper place Caltrop (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to section on benefits

I made a few minor changes throughout the article, where I saw a few sentences that could be shortened to make them more clear, and also a couple of typos and other minor things. For example, the section on kimchi refrigerators was not very clear, as was the section on seasonal varieties of kimchi.

I also changed the section that mentioned kimchi and its alleged effects on avian flu and SARS. The two are different diseases, one being a virus called H5N1 which causes avian flu, a disease that infects birds and only rarely people, of uncertain etiology. The study mentioned used a very, very small sample size, it was never repeated and so would not stand up to peer review and so was widely dismissed in the medical community, it really does not even deserve mention but I left it in with these qualifiers. The disease called SARS is totally different, actually a condition similar to pneumonia but with symptoms and progression not typical of a pneumonia infection (hence the name severe atypical respiratory syndrome). There was never any science to back up the belief that kimchi offered any protection against this disease, although I do recall in China and Hong Kong many people believed it to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcgrath (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

when did current dominant variety emerge?

The article mentions that its "most common manifestation is the spicy baechu (cabbage) variety", and has a history section that explains some other varieties. It'd be interesting to know when this manifestation became the most common one. --Delirium (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Pepper introduction after disovery of chili peppers in the new world?

In most forms of kimchi one usually finds lots of red pepper paste made from a particular spicy chili pepper grown in Korea. As I understand it the use of red pepper could not have occured before 1492, or the discovery of chili peppers by the old world in the new world. Can anyone confirm?Rockford1963 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See Baek kimchi and dongchimi. Some kimchi even in present do not have "chili pepper" for the ingredient. Before chili pepper was introduced to Korea, ancient kimchi were pickled with jeotgal (fermented fish) and salt. Kimchi literally means in the ancient Korean word "pickled". So well I hope this clear up.--Caspian blue 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I understood already all that you mention - my point however is: shouldn't there be a mention in the article about the introduction of chili pepper as an ingredient and the approx. date this occured? Chili pepper paste is a prime ingredient in most (not all) kimchis today.Rockford1963 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You asked for "confirmation" on the usage of chili pepper, and before the late 15th century, it was not used "of course". The first subsection of the article has an image of "ancient kimchi". You can add needed information since that information is easily available in English. Regards.--Caspian blue 07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Relative vs. Absolute Dating

References to kimchi can be found as early as 2600-3000 years ago.

I wonder who is in charge of increasing this number of years as the time goes on... ;-) Menelos (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The date is now given as 3001. I resisted the temptation to "fix" this interesting Wiki social experiment. (And in consequence, I suppose, became part of the process.) My justification for leaving it is that there is now a "dubious" tag, and the "3001" seems to emphasize the dubious aspect. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Health and Nutrition Cleaned up

1. Editor comments were removed. All such commenting should be moved to this talk page for discussion rather than being left unseen in text of the article. 2. Editor's personal interpretation from primary scientific research papers were removed. Primary sources are not allowed WP:Primary and constitutesWP:OR E.g. The text of the article were inaccurate. The research paper cited would end with researchers concluding "kimchi could be a risk factor" whereas the cited text stated "kimchi is a risk factor". The latter could be an editor's personal interpretation of the research but such personal interpretation are not appropriate for inclusion in text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed, if used with care. Now it's you who are misquoting. This is the second sentence from the "primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" section of WP:Primary, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." I think your assertion that the original editor misinterpreted the article, replacing "could be a risk factor" with "is a risk factor" constitutes OR. The solution, however, is not to erase the text, but to fix the text so that it accurately reflects the text of the study. Your actions are especially unjustified if the study was peer reviewed and published, which according to WP:Primary "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." Of course I don't know whether the research paper in question had been published and reviewed, because you erased any mention of cancer from the article. That's censorship, not cleanup!72.78.162.245 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to strongly disagree with your your misleading cut and paste job from WP:primay. It's pretty disingenuous and misleading. The rest of the subsection beyond your misleading quote clearly states that secondary sources are to be used. The sentence that come after your quote from that page is " A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."

Drawing conclusions about carcinogens isn't something that even medical PhD's will engage in from one or two research papers. This is hardly "descriptive" nor "something verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge". Thanks for the comment but please sign into your account and sign your comments next time.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

op Culture List

The banner asking editors to incorporate this list into the article has been there long enough. If the list can't be incorporated into the text of the article they should be considered to fall outside of Wikipedia's scope and be removed per WP:N and WP:Triv.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Korean kimchee over Japanese kimchee

"Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), an internationally recognized food standard, chose Korean Kimchi as an international standard over Japanese Kimchi on July 5, 2001.[4]"

I'm removing this. For one thing, it is pretty obviously an attempt to cite some meaningless bureaucratic measure as "international recognition" of Korean primacy. For another, nobody who isn't Korean or Japanese cares in the slightest. EvanHarper (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To EvanHarper:
1) Clearly explain why it is "meaningless bureaucratic measure" and why it is for "Korean primacy", using sources as reliable and verifiable as CODEX standards.
2) Clearly explain the reasons for all non-Korean or non-Japanese people do not care in the slightest (although I am sure what exactly they don't care from your vague comments -origin of Kimchi, characteristics of Kimichi, value of CODEX standards, or what?) and why something non-Korean or non-Japanese people do not care about should be deleted from Wikipedia.
3) Take the issue to the talk page and gather a consensus first before you delete relevant contents based on a verifiable, reliable source.
I'm restoring this, consider it as a vandalistic behavior of content blanking, and take an appropriate measure with administrators next time someting like this happens. Hkwon (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake, why did I know this was going to happen. Look, I'm not even going to bother engaging with you, congratulations, you have driven off a disinterested neutral editor and WP:OWNed the article. Bye. EvanHarper (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
To EvanHarper: Mr. or Ms. "Disintersted neutral editor". If you have cannot logically rebut another editors arguments, you probably should not have deleted legitimate contents without enough ammunition to back up your claim. And if I were you, I would keep your dignity and would not make one last comment which many people would consider loser's whining. In. your. face. Hkwon (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What a load of balderdash. How does a mention of "choosing A over B" help the article in any way? --Kjoonlee 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
To Kjoon:
1) You might think the information does not "help" the article (whatever that means), but it is from a verifiable, reliable source and relevant for this article as it is an international standard defining Kimchi and clarifying the origin of the food. (It was not even me who put the information there, by the way.)
2) Even if the information did not help the article, the issue should be taken to the talk page first for discussion and consensus-gathering before it is deleted. The information has no known problems except that you think it is a "load of balderdash" and does not "help" the article.
3) You said in your article summary "And Yes, I'm Korean." Like it gives you some kind of previlege to delete anything you don't like in the article "Kimchi". Well. The nationality of Kjoon has nothing to do with what you can do with this article as an editor.
I am restoring your deletion, consider it as a vandalistic behavior of content blanking, and will take an appropriate measure with administrators. This is the second time the content blanking happened, and a third violation would be enough reason for page protection or similar measures.Hkwon (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. This article should be renamed to "Kimchi according Hkwon the revert war master". Someone has to report this to admins or take this up with dispute resolution so this article can progress. I'm too busy enjoying my life right now. I'll get around it when I have free time one of these days. It's a shame this article has survived Japanese trolls and now a Korean editor is causing havok. Oh the irony. If someone gets around to reporting this to mods, please let me know.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To Melonbarmonster2: Nice to hear from you again. Have you had any luck so far finding reliable sources backing up your claim that Kimchi is unfermented food? If I were you, I would work harder on finding such sources and/or making some other meaningful contributions to the article, instead of mocking me and making 뒷담화 against me, unless that is all you can do.
Why don't YOU report this to admins or take this up with dispute solution? You rambled about filing a mediataion request yourself a while ago, which I have been looking forward to. I seems the reason you haven't done it is not because you are "too busy enjoying your life", but because you were utterly defeated in the debate against me, could not do anything about it, and realize any neutral administrator will make a decision favoring me basing on WP rules and reliability of sources. Well, keep enjoying your life and come to this page again when you have some real contributions to make instead of personal attacks. Hkwon (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok there tough guy. Revert away!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You actually already did! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimchi&action=historysubmit&diff=367556103&oldid=367406703 LOL. Good job!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To Melonbarmonster2: I am flattered that you called me a "tough guy", but I don't need any compliments from your kind. "Revert away!" What an elaborate and intelligent statement when you can't logically rebut my reverts at all. One thing I don't understand is a person, who is too busy enjoying his/her life (if it is true) away from Wikipedia editings, bothered to come back to Wikipedia to leave multiple nonsense messages in less than 3 hours after bragging about enjoying life. Maybe the user is doing 방콕 and browsing Wikipedia instead of enjoying that good life?
I wonder what is the meaning of your uploading a link showing that I reverted a wrongful edit like it is a big discovery, because I've already said I would reverted it. Anyone can easily see it if he or she check the latest article history. If you say it is a "Good job", it is probably a good job. Oh, shucks. Pick up whatever dignity you still have and go back to "enjoying your life." Now I feel sympathetic for you.
A friendly advice from me as a fellow editor: The more you do this, the more you make yourself look like a sore, defeated loser. Responding to your babbling has entertained me so far and I would keep enjoying it if you go on. But I just don't want to see you ruin your reputation as a Wikipedia editor any more than you already have. (Go on if you want to. More fun and useful debate excercises for me.) I wonder if you will leave more nonsense messages to me here very soon after my comments. Aren't you supposed to be busy enjoying you life? Hkwon (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hkwon, I asked for info on how it helps. You resorted to name calling and accusations that I am a vandal. --Kjoonlee 13:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
How relevant is CODEX info to be included in the Kimchi article's lead section? Is it included in other parts of the article, to merit a mention in the lead? Are you sure you're not trying to use the citation to push your own POV? --Kjoonlee 14:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If it is mentioned in the article, is it worth summarizing at all? Assuming it is (even though I don't agree), is it a good summary? --Kjoonlee 14:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To Kjoon: It is good thing you started to discuss your deleting behavior in this talk page. But you still needed to do it and wait for a consensus before you blank verifiable, reliable contents again.
1) I didn't realize you were actually asking someone for an info on how CODEX standards on how it help the article, because i) you did not specify to who you are asking, ii) you deleted the content before you get an answer anyway, and iii) you asserted in your comment that the CODEX information was "a load of balderdash", which certainly were not an expression fit for a civil and reasonable logical discussion.
2) I called you names? Yeah, I called you by your user name but nothing else. If you think I called you a vandal (although I haven't), read this WP policy which defines content blanking as a vandalism: "Types of vandalism: Blanking" (WP:VANDTYPES)
3) According to WP:BURDEN, let me answer your questions. CODEX standards are the only internationally accepted standards for Kimchi neutral from Korea-Japan dispute over the origin of Kimchi at this point: a critical piece of information on this food. And some vandals who believe Kimchi is from Japan have been trying to delete the information for quite a long time.
4) The lead paragraph includes plenty of other information than CODEX standards which "is" mentioned in other parts of the article.
5) If the sentence is not a good summary of CODEX standards on Kimchi like you say (although I don't know why), you could work on making a better summary instead of just deleting it.
6) I am sure I'm not trying to use the citation to push my own POV, as i) the citation is relevant, reliable, and verifiable; ii) I am not even the one who put the information there; iii) My POV is that I don't care if Kimchi originated from Korea, Japan, Mars, or somewhere else.
7) I am restoring the information once again. Feel free to delete it again, but remember the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) of which violation will lead to a blocking. As soon as the violation of 3RR happens, I will report it to an administrator. Hkwon (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Not relevant, certainly not something that should be in the article lead. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not say any comment that was not relevant to discussions on this talk page, and you captured a comment of mine from somewhere else, brought it here, and criticized me for that. (Hmm...taking such a trouble to list URL links which has nothing to do with discussions here.) One of your links goes to my comment made not to you but to another user. Are you playing a double-role for that user and getting offended by comments for him/her too? And does the fact whether or not you mentioned "Hkwon's comment was made on THIS page" justify your behavior, when you brought an irrelevant comment here anyway? By the way, I don't know why you find my comment so offensive. Well, I guess some people get offended by any comments toward themselves. Maybe a persecution complex from childhood trauma or something. Hkwon (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't get angry and resort to personal attacks. If you continue to make comments implying that editors have "a persecution complex from childhood trauma" I will report your actions and suggest that you are blocked from editing. This does not belong on Wikipedia, and it certainly does not belong on this talk page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: Aren't you supposed to "no longer interested in this bullshit"? I don't get angry at all from any logical debate and wonder why you assume that I do. On the contrary, your continued interest in the debate with me keeps me entertained. Please go on with your reporting, which I am looking forward to, and read the policy WP:PERSONAL before you do that and remember potential personal attacks you made toward me if you have some time. (Block me from editing? I love your sense of humor.) I fully know such discussions do not belong in this page, but was merely responding to your comments specifically made toward me citing some psychological knowledge, which I thought the only explanation for your behavior against me. (It may not fit your case, and I didn't say it was your case anyway.) Hkwon (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems everyone (except Hkwon) agrees about at least one of the following:
  1. Codex is irrelevant enough to be deleted from the lead section
  2. The mention of Codex in the lead wasn't a good summary anyway
  3. We could all use some helpful discussions without mockery, accusations, namecalling, weaseling, or wikilawyering
--Kjoonlee 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To Kjoon:
1) Exactly who is "everyone (except Hkwon)", and who agrees about which of three assumptions you have made?
2) Why is the CODEX standards "irrelevant enough to be deleted from the lead section"? I've already explained it in my comments above, and you have done nothing to back up your claim since.
3) Why is the summary of CODEX standards bad one, and why don't you work on making a better summary if you don't like it so much? Geez, how many times do I have to say this? it's like talking to a wall here. Hkwon (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Kjoon I agree - it certainly does not belong in the article lead - if it is deemed to be relevant then perhaps it deserves a mention later in the article, but that is a big "if" - I suggest removing it. I think that as there only seems to be one editor in favour of keeping it in the lead, we are close to being able to claim clear consensus. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly everyone except Hkwon. Exactly everyone else in this section.
You tell me how it's relevant, except for how lofty Codex is and how important they are -- now that would also be irrelevant information too, and that's all you've been adding. The burden is on you, not anybody else.
It simply isn't possible. You come up with a better one if you want to include it. --Kjoonlee 15:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: I am a reasonable Wikipedia editor and always ready to defer to a consensus. But there never was a real consensus-building efforts except ex-post facto comments from editors who deleted correctly cited information. It is not even clear over what your "clear consensus" exactly is. Nobody except me even mentioned the word "consensus" in this section until you did on June 13 (without actually starting any efforts to build a consensus). So far none of them, including you, have successfully rebutted my argument for the relevancy of the information. (Not even answers to my questions, as a matter of fact.)Hkwon (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
To Kjoon: Cool yourself off and try look back how logical and elaborate your comments look.
1) Who exactly is "you" whom you keep refering to? Try to make clear whom you are making demands to. I don't know for sure, but let me show you my thoughts on your comments.
2) CODEX information is quoted from a verifiable, reliable source, and I argued for the relevancy of CODEX information in my comments on June 12, 2010. So far I have answered all your questions to my knowledge. Now it's your turn. What did you do to show its irrelevancy? Exactly why is the importance of CODEX standards irrelevant and why should it be a exception? Try to make some efforts back up your claim instead of just demanding information/answers from others.
3) What simply isn't possible and What "better one" should an editor come up with? Better compared to what? It confuses me as I have been the only one who actually made any efforts to explain relevancy/irrelevancy of CODEX information so far. Hkwon (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we really have to wade through 500 lines of crap, every time Hkwon decides he does not agree with something? "So far none of them, including you, have successfully rebutted my argument for the relevancy of the information" - this is not a court of law, neither is it a debating society - you have tried to show that it is relevant, people don't agree with you, sorry. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: This may not be a court of law or a debating society, but not a majority vote either. (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion) I can't do much if some editors just keep saying they disargee with me without showing any rationale/evidence against my arguments, though. By the way, thank you for taking the trouble to correct typos in my comments. But as WP:TALKO says, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Hkwon (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that I don't need to correct spelling mistakes, but I really don't mind helping out. Perhaps I can help you by correcting them, you can see my corrections and learn from them. Don't worry about it, everyone makes mistakes - I am sure I have made one or two spelling mistakes myself. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Hkwon doesn't know what the word debate means. Nor does he understand consensus. The only thing he knows is how to twist things to his own liking, whether they be facts or other people's words. --Kjoonlee 06:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
To Kjoon: Since you claim I don't understand the meaning of words "debate" and "consensus", can you clarify correct meanings of those words for me and other users and how are they different from my understandings? Resorting to personal attacks instead of making logical arguments only make one look like he or she is not able to/qualified to participate in a reasonable discussion. Hkwon (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
/me rolls eyes. :D --Kjoonlee 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hkwon, you are being highly disruptive. You asked for this article to be protected, while protected everyone apart from you stated that CODEX should not be in the article, and when the protection expired, you went straight back to reverting, despite consensus being against you. This is NOT your article. Get it? No one agrees with you. Get it? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: I am not deaf or illiterate, so you don't have to keep saying "Get it?", "Get it?". I don't think someone who went straight back to reverting my revert can accuse me of my reverting behavior. Your comments seem to be much more irreasonable and aggresive toward me recently. Are you out of your medication or something? Hkwon (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of medication? I'm sorry but this is not the place for personal attacks. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this debate seems to be going nowhere, let me start a consensus-making report first by creating another section in this page. As I said before, I am a reasonable Wikipedia editor and always ready to defer to a consensus. I will look more like a majority survey than a consensus making since no one presented a sufficient justification for excluding the CODEX information from the lead paragraphs. Nevertheless, I will defer to any majority opinion this time to end any further edit war. Hkwon (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That is a very good idea. Avoiding an edit war is always the best choice. One thing puzzles me - you made the above statement at 5.04 - but at 5.10 you made another revert [[1]] and one more revert at 6.04 [[2]] - is this an example of how you avoid an edit war? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: I probably shouldn't have made the 5:10 revert. But my 6:04 revert was the revert of 5:15 revert which was made after I started consensus gathering effort. And the 6:04 revert was reverted again at 6:41. I've tried to preserve the article in the status when a consensus gathring effort started, but have given up. If people keep reverting contents during an ongoing consensus building anyway, what is consensus building good for? Hkwon (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion on inclusion of CODEX information in the lead

I believe that the editor who is attempting to add the information about the Codex Alimentarius is misunderstanding what the Codex is (or, perhaps the referenced source is). The Codex is a set of standards that define what a particular food item is or what it can contain; it also has rules about nutritional information and required/disallowed ingredients. The Codex seeks to set standards for many types of foods. The fact that they have published a standard relating to Kimchi means simply that they have published a list of exactly what ingredients should/can be in a product labeled "Kimchi." It doesn't add any notability to kimchi, as the goal of the Codex is to list standards for all widely available foods. If you want, you can see the exact Codex entry for kimchi at [3]. Note, for example, that the document does not state anything about the importance of kimchi, nor does it even mention the words Korea or Korean. The problem with your inclusion is that it made it sound like somehow having a standard published in the Codex was notable (like it gives the dish/ingredient some level of importance).Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To Qwyrxian: Study a little more on the background of 2001 CODEX decision. The CODEX standard you have quoted clearly states "the name of the product shall be “Kimchi”" (8.1), a Korean food name, but not "Kimuchi", a name for Japanese-style Kimchi. The standard also states the food is required to have gone through a permentation process which Japanese "Kimuchi" lacks. Take a look at this Independent online article (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=qw953198941950B213&singlepage=1) and this Food Network article. (http://www.foodnetwork.ca/guides/global-cuisine/asia/Adventures+Kimchi/3157446/story.html) Hkwon (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on any of those things. I agree that the Codex lends support to the idea that a product which is not fermented is not kimchi, although it doesn't automatically prove that (because the Codex is not the final arbiter of all things food, as much as they might like to be). All I'm saying is that the Codex entry for kimchi is not Notable in the lead, and certainly not the way you included. The sentence you included makes it sound like the mere fact of having a Codex entry is somehow significant, which it is not--as their own website states, the goal of the codex is just to protect health and ensure fair trade practices. Again, I could see information from the codex or from a secondary source about it could possibly be included somewhere else (maybe to define the standard ingredients of kimchi), but not listed in the lead like it's an award. Second, I want to again point out how you are misunderstanding the codex. The document does not state what the official name is. It merely states that things labeled kimchi should contain certain ingredients and be prepared a certain way. It actually states nothing about a product which might be called "kimuchi." Third, you may also want to be careful about using the Codex too heavily. If you don't qualify that the codex is merely one source among many--that is, if you accept the codex as the final arbiter of what is or is not kimchi--the article needs a massive revision, since the codex states that Chinese Cabbage must be the predominant ingredient, so all other pickled vegetables are not kimchi, per the Codex (to clarify, I disagree with this position, as I'm sure most of the editors here would). Finally, from my read of the above discussion, it appears the current consensus is to not include this information in the article. You were correct to attempt to include the information originally, per WP:BOLD. However, since consensus was clearly against inclusion, you should have waited to re-add the info until you could persuade the available editors that it should be included. Thus, I'm going to go ahead and revert your inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 06:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To Qwyrxian:
1) If a fact of having an entry in CODEX, an internationally accepted food standards, is insignificant and is one source among many like you say, can you present one of many fact/standard that is more significant than that?
2) In case you cannot show us a counter-fact that is more significant than CODEX: Why the CODEX information is not notable in the lead, and not the way I included? Do you have a suggestion on a better way to include the information?
3) I have already presented you sources which explain the background of CODEX decision. (And I am sure I can find more reliable sources with the same contents given more time.) According to them, CODEX's official naming of the food as "Kimchi", not "Kimuchi", and requirement of permentation process shows CODEX chose Korea as the origination of Kimchi. I didn't write those sources and cannot do much if you don't agree with them.
4) Chinese Cabbage IS the predominant ingredient for Kimchi, although there exist large varieties.
5) Mere "pickled vegetables" are not kimchi if they haven't gone through permentation process. See discussions above in this page.
3) "Current consensus"? There has not been any consensus-making effort until I started one recently. We are in the middle of consensus-making process, and your repetitious reverting of the page does not help the effort at all.
4) This section was created to gather consensus among editors, by a simple yes/no poll, as most editors involved in this discussion have had enough opportunities to present their opinions. If you have have a lengthy argument to add, put it in an appropriate section. Hkwon (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been revert warring for weeks if not months now and now that you're on the losing end of the revert count you're a "reasonable editor"??? ㅋㅋㅋ 야 지나가는 똥개가 웃겠다.

Your ridiculous behavior has brought me and Sennen Goroshi arguing for the same thing. LOL. You are quite out of control and you have been degrading the quality of this article for some time now.

CODEX are negotiated standards set between trading nations for commercially produced and traded food products that has little to no bearing on culinary and cultural standards and definitions for kimchi.

Codex info can be useful but your hellbent revert warring is flabbergasting everyone here. I've been enjoying your spectacle but for the sake of this article and respect for kimchi loved and eaten around the world, please stop your abusive behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Melonbarmonster2: Any luck finding sources showing Kimchi is unfermented food so far? Another Korean profanity from you to me...let me answer "병신 X까고 자빠졌네". This section is for gathering a consensus whether to include the CODEX information in the lead paragraphs or not. If you disagree with the inclusion, all you needed to was to say "no", instead of making lengthy personal attacks toward me. So you agree or disagree? If I was "hellbent revert warring" like you say, I would not have started this consensus-gathering effort. By the way, I kind of like your calling me "hellbent warrior"; it reminds me of my favorite Judas Priest song... Hkwon (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
First, let me address whether or not this information should be in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Just as you will not find Codex information in the lead of any other food article, it does not belong in the lead here; the Codex is just one source of many to define how certain foods "should" be prepared, according to WHO. Information from the Codex is not needed for an introduction of the article. Furthermore, if the Codex is not mentioned in the article, it does not belong in the lead. Summary: Therefore, this sentence does not belong in the lead.
Next--should the Codex info be included in the article at all To this, I say, maybe yes, as long as you understand exactly what the Codex is, which I am fairly certain you do not (at least, the way you're expressing it, you don't). As User:Melonbarmonster2 pointed out, the Codex is just an attempt at an international food safety/standard. It is not the be all and end all definition of a food--it's just one definition. Wikipedia articles are never supposed to rely on a single source for anything. And there are clearly cases where it does not match common sense. For example, it states, "Kimchi is the product: prepared from varieties of Chinese cabbage...processed with seasoning mixture...[and] fermented...." If you want to somehow state the Codex is the definitive source, then immediately you must accept that a product of fermented daikon root and red pepper is not kimchi, something which contradicts this article as well as common sense (given that every store I've been to that sells Korean kimchi has products labeled kimchi that contain no cabbage). Summary: If you use the Codex info, it must be just one source of many, and does not have automatic precedence over other sources.
Finally, as I said before, you really seem to be treating the Codex like inclusion in it is somehow a big deal. But it's not--the goal of the Codex is to eventually created universal safety and ingredient standards for all foods. It does not mean a food is special or notable, just like being subject to a national law doesn't make a food special. For instance, there are Codex entries for "Standard for Canned Mushrooms," a "Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters," and a "Standard for Whey Powders." This is why I didn't like your phrasing. It isn't notable that kimchi is included in the Codex. If you use the Codex reference, then it should be in a sentence something like "The WHO food safety standard body Codex Alimentarius defines kimchi as a product made a fermented, spiced product made from Chinese Cabbage." Probably followed by some sentences about counter-examples. Summary: If you use the Codex info, it must not be treated like inclusion in the Codex is special.Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To Qwyrxian:
First, Contrary to what you said, CODEX information is included in the section "1996 Kimchi dispute" of the main article. As for the final appropriateness of including the information in the lead, we are gathering a consensus among users as discussions so far showed the appropriateness is not a cut-and-dried matter.
Second, like I already said, unless someone presents another counter-sources with similar significance to CODEX, how can we say CODEX information is "one of MANY" and precedes "OTHER sources"?
Third, I have never treated CODEX information as special or a big deal. It looks to me the space Kimchi information in the lead was treated much more special. I only included the CODEX info because I judged it was notable enough to be included in the lead paragraphs, based on the related information I've encountered. The information is also closely related to the Kimchi dispute information which follows the CODEX info in the lead. Again, there has been a consensus-making effort going on concerning this matter. So you can speak whether you agree or disagree there. Hkwon (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the CODEX Kimchi also must have preservative chemicals and xantham gum. Qwyrxian this guy is hell bent on the Codex because he has also revert warred by edits to claim that kimchi is ONLY fermented based on the Codex definition of Codex regardless of the fact that hundreds of Koreans are eating nonfermented kimchi these summer days. We have 4 or 5 editors on the same page here. This debate is done and over.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To User talk:Melonbarmonster2: Concerning the fermentation debate, you started the edit war by reverting my edit on May 24 and reverted two more times till May 26. I have made 3 reverts in the same period too. Your 3 reverts vs my 3 reverts; How does it make only me a revert warrer and not you? In case if you have already forgotten, Kimchi has been defined as fermented food not only by CODEX but also by at least half a dozen published academic articles in Food and Nutrion field. (And I am sure I can find more sources given time.) Hkwon (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think its good that we've all temporarily stopped reverting. I could probably have left your version stand as well. My logic was that based on my reading of the talk page at that time, everyone but one person (yourself) did not want the info in the lead. Thus, the consensus at that moment was to leave it out; I felt like the tone of the Talk page was more that you were trying to change consensus to include the info. I may, however, have misread consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Referring to User:Hkwon's comments to me frm 1:33, 23 June 1010: I went back and looked at the "1996 Kimchi dispute" section. I see that, in fact, that section also needs changing. It currently states, "After the dispute between Korea and Japan, the Codex Alimentarius Commission ordered Japan to correct the term 'kimuchi' to 'kimchi' on all products including ones for export as well." This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of misunderstanding the Codex. The Codex can't order anybody to do anything. To quote the Codex FAQ itself: "Codex texts are voluntary and non-binding." Second, it is impossible for the Codex to have stated in 1994 that Japan "should" do anything about kimchi, because there was, no standard for kimchi until 2001; thus, the Labelling Standard (the one cited here that says Codex names should be used on packaging) would have had no effect on the name of kimchi in 1993. In any event, no mention of the Codex really belongs here anyway, unless there are sources that connect the writing of the Standard to the Olympics/Clinton dispute. Otherwise, it's a direct and clear violation of WP:SYNTH.
As for finding another place to reference the Codex. If we do, it should say something like: “The Codex Alimentarius, a part of the World Health Organization defined the kimchi as only referring to fermented Chinese cabbage made with red pepper and other spices. (ref. the 2001 Standard)” Again, please note that this means that cucumber kimchi, bae kimchi, daikon kimchi, etc., “should not” be labeled as kimchi, either. This is one of the reasons I don't want to rely on the Codex, because it contradicts so much else from this article, from other websites, and from the common sense of walking into a Korean food store/restaurant and seeing multiple things labeled kimchi that don't meet the Codex Standard. And that leads to my final conclusion--because the Codex Standard itself is so contradictory to a common sense understanding of what kimchi is, I want to either remove or minimize it's reference. If you include it, it should probably go into the Main Ingredients or Kimchi Varieties section, keeping in mind that it directly contradicts what those sections say. Finally, as for putting this info in the lead remember that lead' are supposed to be summaries, not dwell on details, and this particular citation is no more than a detail in the "grand world of kimchi." And all this writing about kimchi is making me hungry, even though I just ate lunch. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.reflux1.com/news/mainstory.cfm/122
  2. ^ http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/korean_beef.html
  3. ^ http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/442043.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimchi/Archive_2&oldid=1136877229"