Jump to content

Talk:Korean cuisine/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Instant Noodles

Wow, it's changed a lot since a handful of us started this article. I was going through and noticed that the adoption of instant noodles was placed within the Japanese occupation. The occupation ended in 1945, but instant noodles weren't marketed until 1958. Zenpickle (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The information was inserted by Tanner-Christopher[1] based on an academic book authored by Pettid. I think the author refers to ready-made noodles like somen. But instant noodle only confines instant ramen/ramyeon, I will remove the "instant noodle".--Caspian blue 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The Instant noodles article has a reference [2] showing the Republic of Korea as the sixth largest consumer of instant noodles. Perhaps this does belong in the article? jmcw (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
<G>And what about a mention of "Orion Choco Pie"? jmcw (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

[3]

New Link?

What follows is a link to a video concerning South Korean street food and deserts. Would it be possible to add this to the page? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IunpUV14xLk Blongbotham (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)blongbotham, Korean International School, Journalism

Comment

Read it, then fix it. Why is this crap semi-protected? That's two blatant errors and I'm only skimming!

Those in the lower economic levels were likely to only enjoy a single bowl of white rice each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsjd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read up on WP:Civil before making any more comments, the way you phrased the comment is inappropriate. The article is protected due to several edit wars over the past few years. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Racist article....

Like the angry editor above, why is this article protected? You don't own this article, neither from the content is it worth protecting. It seems there is too much of a need for stereotypical racism to placed into articles about non-white people on this American encyclopedia. In the case of this article, I am referring to the need to mention dog meat!!

Dog meat??? WTF? Is this article about the historical dietary habits of the Korean people or the modern population of South Korea? Now I cannot speak for the North, but the likely dishes being discussed here are not for common consumption on the streets of Pyongyang. So I presume the images used have all been taken in the South. Therefore to include dog meat is just pandering to the racist preconceptions of non-domiciles. I have lived in Korea for many years (my wife is Korean) and I have never, ever, seen anyone eat dog, refer to dog meat or want to eat dog meat. In fact, once when we were deciding what we should all eat in Seoul, I made (what I thought was) a joke that we should go and get gaegogi. In one instance I deeply offended my wife and all her Korean friends/colleagues.

As the article on dog meat states, "Selling dog meat has been illegal in South Korea since 1984". So the picture on this page, if it is actually real is endorsing an illegal act. Wikipedia would be therefore doing a disservice if it didn't show more illegal acts then? How about a murder, or open drug use? Furthermore, the Koreans-eating-dog-meat belief came back to the USA and Europe with the thousands of white troops that served in Korean War and were horrified when they saw starving Koreans eating whatever was available, such as dog. (The South Korean Military Museum shows starving kids going through a GI rubbish dump, and eating out of spent K-ration cans)

As this article includes dog meat, which is apparently required part of modern Korean cuisine, I also checked the Chinese Cuisine page. Guess what? No mention to eating dog meat there. Yet the Chinese remain the largest consumers of "man's best friend" in the world. See Dog_meat#China_Mainland. It is quite clear that including dog meat in such a prominent place in this article is pandering to a racist out-dated view held by non Koreans!

I also looked at the Japanese cuisine page. Shock horror! No mention that the Japanese have a penchant for consuming "Free Willy". Why is this? Every year their boats leave Nihon for their annual hunt to kill a few hundred whales. It's a key part of their culture but it's missing from the article on Japanese cuisine. Ironic, as eating whale in Japan is legal!! Whereas eating dog in the Republic of Korea is not! Hmmm, final check South African cuisine. Wow not a single mention of bush meat which is often openly sold in markets. This makes the inclusion of dog meat in this article as particularly distorted and racist.

Thought experiment: if this article is going to contain dog meat, as if it's normal food for an average Korean. Then maybe other articles should include historical, outdated facts that are given undue links to the present. For instance Germany should always be linked to the Nazis. As there are still neo nazis in the country, by association Germany is a nation with right wing extremists. Or why not reference the fact that as the Mafia originated in Italy, and there are still Mafia there, Italians have links with organised crime.

The same therefore goes for the assumption that dog meat is still "normal" and on the menu in Seoul or Pusan! And the average Korean will happily tuck into a plate of Fido! The fact that the article states dog meat is still popular "with a segment of the population" has absolutely no meaning. As I note above, seven decades ago Germany was full of Nazis, as a "segment of the population" still like Hitler does that mean is should be given its own section. (I would like to see how long that assumption would be allowed to stay!) Same goes for the Greeks, ancient Athenians slept with boys, assuming a "segment of the population" are still pedophiles in modern Greece, does that necessitate the link that it's still normally practiced in the Aegean states.

In that manner, the inclusion of dog meat on this page fails under WP:UNDUE and is a gross misrepresentation's of the reality and a distorted view of the country.

It is no doubt also a testimony to why this page is blocked and the edit wars. This stinks of WP:OWN and is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.23.89 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the primary reasons the article is protected can be found in your posting, which is biased and one-sided towards the anti-inclusion camp. This has been discussed ad infinitum and we will not reopen the issue. The edit wars and petty squabbling that went on over the dog meat issue kept this article in a constant state of instability for years and we have no desire to revert back to that point. While the issue is contentious, we have found a medium point that works by presenting the issue in a NPOV manner without drawing conclusions. In order to show their is a controversy in regards to the consumption of dog meat, we have placed a link directing readers to an article that covers the conflicting points of view and controversies on the subject. Your claim that the article infers that every Korean salivates at the chance to consume the dishes is spurious at best because the section on the subject of dog meat solely discusses the dishes, the history of them and does not debate its pros or cons while simply stating that some people still enjoy its consumption. There is no undue weight on the subject and quite a few other editors agree with that as it has gone through multiple reviews and rewrites.
In regards to modern North Korean cuisine, there is very little information on the subject and what information there is is tainted by the North Korean regime's propaganda. Up until the partition of the peninsula in the 20th century, it was a single country with a shared history and culture. This shared beginning is covered in the historical information throughout the historical sections of the article.
Finally, please take the time to read up on our policy regarding civility and assumption of good faith. The way you presented your point insults the contributors and editors, myself included, that have taken a great deal of time and effort to fix all of the problems that were in the article and mediate the point to bring us to the place we have reached today. The article recently had a long and involved good article discussion, while not successful, brought the article to very well deserved point as a article on the verge of greatness. The openly hostile and berating tone you have chosen is rude and has no place in a civil discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There was never consensus on this. You have been rever warring everyone to force this in the article.
I finally have some free time to work on this. Please stop your abusive editing. Dog meat does not belong in the same category as pork and chicken and your insistence is based on ignorance and nothing else. Including dog in the section as you have done is akin to including squirrel meat along with beef and chicken in the American Cuisine article.
Also provide us with relevant quotations that support your position if you want it considered for the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Melonbarblaster, you were one of the main participants in the previous edit wars, please do not come charging back in here with the same cavalier attitude. I will not allow this to reignite. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You need to heed your own advice and cease name-calling and labeling editors who have genuine disagreements with you as vandals. Go ahead and actually read civility and assumption of good faith. You are in violation of WP:OWN with your declarations of what YOU are going to allow and not allow in this article. At this point, multiple neutral editors have given detailed explanations for why dog meat doesn't belong along with beef and pork. That alone warrants opening up a discussion. Participate in a reasoned discussion rather than revert warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This deletion seems to be governed by WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. It should be included (maybe not as heavily as it is now) but to some degree, if only because of the stigma. If more edit warring takes place I'll be forced to protect the WP:WRONGVERSION NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The deletion is governed by the simple fact that it is FALSE and misleading to present dog meat along with beef, pork and vegetables as ingredients of Korean cuisine and that the provided offline reference likely does not support such a categorization. The WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument actually supports the truth in this case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Melon, please just stop trying to force you opinion on this article. There was consensus about the subject, and that is how the article came to be as it is now. Other editors have now undid your blanking of the section, and you are rapidly approaching verge of edit warring. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on the article and you are the one who needs to stop forcing your unreferenced and false opinion on this article. Just provide relevant quote from the offline reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was, it was reached while you were blocked for edit warring on the article. Since that time the article has remained stable, and improved. The main contributor to the article, Chef Tanner, took a great deal of time dragging this article out of the edit wars and making it worthy as a subject. Caspian Blue then went on to bring it to the point of a Good Article, but was unable to do so due to time constraints. In that interim we have heard nothing from you until today when you barged in and began the warring all over again. You are just using the IP comment above to justify coming in here and rewriting the article to suit your beliefs. Two poeple is not a consensus.

Removing cited content, claiming non-existent bias and racism and all of your behaviors are a repeat of your behaviors from 2007. They are just as inappropriate now as they were then, please stop and consider what you are doing is improper and how it violates numerous policies of Wikipedia. Throwing around accusations of ownership based on my comment, which was directed at your actions and not about the content of the article, is just the tip of the iceberg of the potential damage you methods are doing

Several editors have all stated that the way you are going about this is wrong; that the section blanking is wrong, the wholesale removal or changing of cited fact is wrong and imposing a pro-Korean bias into the article is wrong. My only wish is to keep this article moving forward to featured article status, and that means keeping another edit war from breaking out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of anti-Koreanism with regard to this issue is problematic. On the one hand, knowledge of this aspect of Korean culture is guarenteed to create anti-Korean feelings in many foreigners, and Koreans who are focused on this fact sometimes seem to believe that it should be minimized, hidden, or dismissed, and that doing so is therefore pro-Korean. Other Korean people feel that the opression of the practice has been foisted on Koreans by foreigners, and point to various historical facts that back this up, and that those who condemn the practice are guilty of failing to respect Korean culture. For example, foreigners who condemn the practice are called "anti-Korean" by it's defenders, who also express their belief that native Koreans who oppose the practice cannot be doing so for any native or personal reasons, but because they have been tainted with far too much exposure to western culture, and are therefore anti-Korean. Both points of view, as it seems to me, personally, have some basis in fact, but are also frequently wrong. The fact is, Koreans who support the practice are not usually anti-Korean, and that those who oppose it are not generally anti-Korean at all, but rather often have the defense of Koreans from anti-Korean people who actually do exist and actually do sometimes bring up the practice in order to make people dislike Koreans, and so the supression, minimization, or dismissal of the practice or discussion of it can be an act motivated by pro-Korean feelings, not only disrespect for Korean traditions.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not discussing this because it has any direct relevance to the article. I do so only in the hopes that both sides might use this information not to see their opponents as "racists" or "trators" and therefore increase the chances of civil behavior among editors and therefore improvement to the article. Peace! Chrisrus (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Many non Korean editors including the guy who created this section have complained about this section. This has been a chronic issue for years in this article. That is not because of Korean hypersensitivity of non-Korean editors but because the section is factually misleading and inaccurate. Dog meat is not a meat like chicken and pork which is how the article currently portrays dog meat. The only reason why this subsection exists is because editors with limited information have been overreacting and overemphasizing the curio aspect of dog meat based on a single miscited reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Melon, that is misleading - the history of this article is much more complex than you espouse. There have been hyper-nationalist editors on both sides of the issue who have been using this article, and others, as a proxy to fight old battles. This has been going on as far back as 2006, with the pro-Korean camp that you reside attacking the section as racist, as well as disparaging the contributors and editors who have tried to mediate the issue. Since Chris rewrote the article, it has been stable and improved on, and, contrary to your assertion, no one has raised these issues until the questionable posting by the IP contributor above. The problems that Chris, I, and others have had with the section was not that it existed but the way it was edited by both parties and the lengths they went to to push their point of view. To confirm what I have been saying through out this most recent debacle, the individual who over saw the GA review found none of the racists issues you claim to exist or with the sources provided - including the ones from Dr. Pettit. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to try to serve as an intermediary just a little bit. I think I can see room for a compromise. If both parties agree to working toward this goal, I think this section could be re-situated, and/or re-arranged, and/or re-worded to emphasize more the fact that, while chicken, pork, beef, and seafood are eaten by just about all Koreans, eating dog meat is and long has been an important and notable characteristic of Korean cusine, without implying that that there's anything wrong with that or even implying that some people think there's something wrong with that, other than to send the reader to the other article about the debate, and it should be clear to the reader that it's not the kind of thing that all Koreans eat or eat all the time like they do the aformentioned meats; to make it clear to the reader that it's a minority thing, but a substantial minority, and traditional for certain times of the year and special occations, not like the other meats. Something like that. Or if not this compromise exactly, some sort of other compromise seems to me possible that might not only end the present conflict but stave off future ones. Chrisrus (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of all mention of Dog Meat

This is well-sourced material. You may edit it as you wish, but you may not delete well-sourced material because of the reason given. No article on Korean Cusine can be exahastive without mention of this aspect of it. Why not simply send the reader to the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea, or some such? Wholesale distruction of the entire section is no answer, you must come to an agreement. Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The link to the Dog meat consumption in South Korea article is already there. The section is solely about the dishes. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
At this point multiple neutral editors have expressed dissent with this dubious claim only to have been bullied into silence by editors who have turned this article into WP:OWN.
And the section is not well sourced at all. I doubt the offline reference actually state that dog meat is comparable to beef and pork in Korean cuisine. If there is I'd like to see the portion of the offline reference that makes supports such a statement per WP:Verify.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
To User:Melonbarmonster2: Not well sourced? Don't worry. I have enough sources on dog meat consumption in Korea both in English and Korean and might be able to help here once the protection expires, so that no one can make that kind of claim again. You probably know I am pretty good at finding reliable sources, don't you? Oh, and I will probably need to make sure kimchi is defined as fermented food in this article too.Hkwon (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please do not use this article as a proxy for your disputes. Please find a way to mediate your hostilities other than wikistalking and wikihounding each other. This behavior is inappropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Dog Meat

How should the dog meat issue be presented in the overall presentation of Korean cuisine? Please be mindful of factual accuracy and proportionality of the topic within the topic of Korean cuisine.

My view is that the current subsection for dog meat listed under ingredients along with beef, pork, seafood and vegetables is factually inaccurate and needs to be changed. While the topic is understandably a curio to non-Koreans and those who are new to Korean cuisine, over-emphasizing dog meat's importance and presenting its place in Korean cuisine along side common Korean cuisine ingredients along with grain, legumes and vegetables is simply false. This has been a persistent and chronic complaint for years now(flip through the archives) with countless neutral editors pointing out this false presentation of facts, latest e.g. [4] and it warrants a fair treatment.

My suggestion is that the section be shortened and moved outside of the "foodstuffs" section with hyperlink to the dog meat article where a full treatment of the topic is available. I have no problems with a proportionate and factually accurate treatment of the topic within the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also can someone with access to Pettid's book please provide relevant quotes or even a paraphrase? Or perhaps the table of contents? I believe it was Chef Tanner who used Pettid's book as a citation for the claim that dog meat had its own section along with pork and beef in that book. Somehow I doubt the book categorizes dog meat as being a common ingredient along with pork and beef.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It your responsibility to get the evidence to mount a challenge, so you will need to do the leg work - not have others do it for you. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with whoever provided the reference not with editors who challenge them. Please see WP:burden.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually the second half of the statement is:All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. You are twisting the policy, the policy refers to uncited information, not properly cited data. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That quote means you have to provide the inline quotation for the claim that dog meat is the same as beef, vegetables, and grains in Korean cuisine from Petid. That's exactly my request.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Jerem43: Don't worry. The main article is fully protected till July 12. Before then, it is no use talking about sources in this talk page. A friend of mine is a Food & Nutrition Professor in South Korea, and I will restore the info basing on not only Pettid's book (which I will get from a library in a few days) but also at least a dozen of reliable academic articles or book chapters once the protection expires. Hkwon (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Pettid, M. J. (2008). Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History. London: Reaktion Books.
1) The section "Meats and Fish" (pp.59-66) discusses beef in pp.59-61, pork in pp.61-62, chicken in p.62, and dog meat in p.62. (in the SAME section)
2) P.85, 2nd paragraph: "Of course, dogs raised for meat are very distinct from the popular pets that one can see throughout Korea at present." This confirms footnote #44 that User talk:Melonbarmonster2 had deleted.
3) P.25, 2nd paragraph: "The livestock that was raised include cattle, pigs, and chickens...Other meats were used in moderation, including dog and wild animals such as deer, boar, and pheasant" This confirms footnote #45 that User talk:Melonbarmonster2 had deleted.
If anybody has any other questions regarding this source, please contact me at my talk page. I will have access to the book for a few more months.
To User talk:Melonbarmonster2: A word of advice...Instead of blanking contents falsely accusing reliable sources, why don't you make some meaningful contribution to the article? And if you doubt a source, check it out yourself rather than passing the buck. Hkwon (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hkwon. That is actually helpful. It seems Pettid supports my view that dog meat is not a common foodstuff but a peripheral meat such as boar or deer distinguishable from livestock such as cattle, pigs and chicken.

Unless Jeremy wants to now claim we should add pheasant and deer subsections to the article, the dog meat section should be moved from the "foodstuff" section to a small section elsewhere in the article with a hyperlink to the dog meat article where a full treatment of the topic is available.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it not a foodstuff? How is it not a meat? You are taking the statement out of context, the citation is discussing its historical context in relation top the other meats. The later citation discusses its current place in the culture. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If someone claimed that dog meat is not a meat or that it's not eaten as food in Korea, I join you in disagreeing with that editor. As far as I can tell no one has made that argument.
My position is same as that of Petitt: that dog meat is a food item comparable to deer and boar and not a major food item like vegetables, grains and common meats like beef and pork. This fact needs to be accurately reflected in the text by moving the dog meat subsection out of the current foodstuff section with a hyperlinks to the dog meat page where a full treatment proportionately accurate treatment of the topic can be had.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
To user:Melonbarmonster2: Sure, if your position is same as that of Petitt, why did you empty the contents based on his book? The sentence you deleted says"dog is NOT AS WIDELY consumed as beef, chicken, and pork" Although the fact that dog meat comes 4th after beef, pork, chicken (In the "meat" section, the author claims their popularity has been in this order in Korea.) in the original quotation shows the importance of dog meat. (Wild animals are mentioned after dog meat).
And what about the other two Petitt citations which you deleted, but which were proved as correct sources? Seems to me that you just want to blank all contents on dog meat consumption from this article.
Oh, and another quotation from Petitt that puts dog meat along with beef, pork, and chicken: "When you see a fat cow, dog, pig, or chicken, do not immediately speak of slaughtering, cooking, and eating it." (p.158, explaining traditional dining etiquettes).Hkwon (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem lies with the "Foodstuff" section and the way that it's categorized. You have different sections for each food group when you should be talking about dishes. Who's the genius that put it this way? I'm surprised there isn't a "dairy" section. Of course dog meat is going to stick out among beef and chicken and probably give off unintended implications.

And as others mentioned before, why is dog meat consumption highlighted as opposed to say... monk fish? Is it because it's a four-legged animal? Considered taboo? A stereotype of Koreans? It's so weird. The premises for having a dedicated section is never fully explained (other than 'I have sources that says a --lb. of it is consumed every year'). It's like Jeremy knows that this has contended for years by various users, and yet he's still very adamant about its placement. Why though? This seriously can't be about exposing the truth, which I can safely say is bullshit. Akkies (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To:User:Kuebie: It seems that you don't have the proper understanding of Korean food culture.
1) The article does not have a "dairy" section because Koreans have had pretty much no history of consuming dairy products. The only related record says some kings in Chosun dynasty enjoyed milk porridge as delicacy. Dairy products started to become popular among common people only after 1900s. Compare that to the history and popularity of dog meat.
2) Why is dog meat highlighted/included in the article? It is not because dog is four-legged animal and considered taboo, but dog meat has been an important foodstuff with long history and cultural implication in korea. Why was "monk fish" as food not highlighted like? Because monk fish consumption has not been anywhere as popular and culturally important as dog meat consumption in Korea. Let's go back to Petitt, although it is only one of many reliable sources. The book mentions dog in 15 times and contains a dog meat stew recipe, while there is no mention of monkfish. Hkwon (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hkwon are you claiming that dog meat is comparable to other meats and common ingredients such as pork, beef and rice and vegetables in Korean cuisine? Dog meat does have as unique and interesting culture surrounding it but it is not a common food ingredient and it is factually misleading to present it as a "foodstuff" such as beef and grains. My proposition is that this subsection should be moved to its own section in the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
To User:Melonbarmonster2: "Unique and interesting culture" not "a common food ingredient", uh? The "three dog days" of the summer (초복, 중복, 말복) just started in Korea. Let's find some sources on the consumption amount of dog meat in 2010 South Korea till August 8 (말복), the last of dog days, and then see if you can make the same argument. Hkwon (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(I found this RfC after seeing the discussion at Fut.Perf's page) Before commenting, I have read this talk page, the Korea Times articles[5][6], the Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea article, and Pettid's quotes[7].

I also read the Salon.com article [8] "Ten years after the official prohibition of dog meat in Korea, approximately 20,000 restaurants nationwide still serve dog meat, according to the South China Morning Post. (...) when a man charged with selling $500,000 worth of dog meat to restaurants was acquitted on the grounds that his product was sanitary, edible and popular. (...) Why is eating dog meat so popular in Korea (...) using dog meat stew as an aphrodisiac is generally considered a 20th-century fad. It's especially popular during Sambok, a 30-day period on the lunar calendar when the summer heat is believed to deplete one's sexual energy. During this time of year (usually July or August), back-alley boshin-tang restaurants in Korea are usually packed with loud groups of men. The macho, backslapping, joke-filled mood of such gatherings can be compared to that of American men visiting Hooters on payday. "

Also BBC [9]"South Korea banned dog restaurants during the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but spicy dog soup is still very popular in summertime, especially among older men." and SMH [10] "Dog meat is enjoyed in both North and South Korea. But while dog meat restaurants in the South are assuming a low-profile because of international criticism" From Journal of Social Studies "The consumption of dogs has a long history in South Korea while the consumption of cats is more recent. (...) Unlike cat consumption, dog consumption is strongly linked to national identity in South Korea, and it seems that calls from the West to ban the practice are viewed by South Koreans as an attack on their culture."

According to sources, dog meat is both popular and historically relevant. Yet, all mentions of dog meat have been buried in the last sentence under "Boyangshik (medicinal foods)". Articles are supposed to reflect the weight in sources, not the personal opinions of editors.

This article definitely needs a (short) "dog meat" section under "meat and fish", explaining how it was historically popular, how it was banned in 1998, how the ban is not enforced, how the restaurants are keeping a low profile, and how it's still popular for certain times. Call it "pets" if you want, to cover also the recent trend of cat meat. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively but please note that none the quotes support the notion that dog is a common food ingredient such as pork, beef and vegetables. That is an unreferenced, as well as factually erroneous, claim.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Then what is your recommendation for how to handle it? It certainly seems reasonable to not consider it as important as pork, beef, and vegetables, but it also doesn't seem reasonable to have only a single sentence--20,000 restaurants serving it does not make it a trivial inclusion. I'll ask you for ideas on how to handle this discrepancy before moving forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian I already made my proposal with the removal of the dog meat section along with creation of the new sambok cuisine section throughout this talk page including top of this section, all resolved with RfC and consensus among disputing editors.
To give you a new response though, 20,000 restaurants may seem 'significant' and one sentence with hyperlink to article 'insignificant' but that's more attention than given to wildly popular foods such as grilled hagfish, quail, duck, sea cucumbers, bear gall bladder or even common culturally significant and common foods such as ginseng, green tea, mandu, chicken feet, soondae(I could go on and on) which all deserve more attention before dog in this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on "Food stuffs"

Should the title of this section be change to "Ingredients" or "Common Ingredients"?

The term "foodstuffs" is meaningless and ambiguous. This section clearly and obviously is a presentation of the ingredients that are available and used in Korean cuisine. The title of this section should be determined on consideration of that obvious fact.

The section title was changed to justify inclusion of the "dog meat" sub-section along with pork, beef, legumes, etc.. The title of the section shouldn't be changed to a meaningless term for the sake of the dog meat issue. The title should be "ingredients", "common ingredients" and the dog meat issue should be dealt with on its own merits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Foodstuff" is a legitimate term, you can verify this in wikt:Foodstuff --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If the meaning is comparable, then it makes more sense to use the more widely used term "ingredients".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The section itself is very very unnecessary. It's not like we need the whole food pyramid. I propose we move the "Prepared dishes" to replace "Foodstuff" and mention dog meat dishes in their respective categories. Akkies (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh joy. I finally got my hands on the Petitt book and Petitt does not support dog meat being a common food at all. I doubt the "dog meat is same as chicken meat" crowd are going to be honest about resolving this reasonably so we'll just have to take this along dispute resolution steps. Oodles of fun!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh I share your joy. It would have been a greater joy if you hadn't asked around for "a quote or paraphrase of what Pettid actually states in the book" or pushed the "burden of proof" to other editors before. Wouldn't have things been much easier if you just had gotten your hands on the book a little earlier and checked it by yourself, before I checked out the book? Hkwon (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From my dictionary: "foodstuff" means the raw, preprocessed stuff that ends up becoming food. "Ingredients" is what you put into a food. So hot pepper paste, for example, would be an ingredient and not a foodstuff. It looks like the term "foodstuff" is reasonable in this context.

I'd like to offer a new solution, one that may help with the dogmeat debate as well. Why not rewrite the section to make it a "characteristic ingredients" section, something that talks about the ingredients that make Korean food recognizably Korean (these would not necessarily be the most common ingredients)? Right now, the gist of the section is that Koreans eat grains, meat, fish, and vegetables. That can be said for most cultures! But if you change it to be a "characteristic ingredients" section, then you can say that rice, garlic, hot pepper paste, vinegar are frequently employed in Korean cuisine. And it should be easy to find English-language sources talking about what makes Korean food distinctly Korean--restaurant reviews, recipe books, etc.

So would dogmeat be considered a "characteristic ingredient"? In one sense, it's certainly a distinguishing feature of Korean cuisine, though I would never deign to call it a distinguishing feature of mainstream Korean dinner tables. I feel like if you include dogmeat in the "characteristic ingredients" section, and describe its extremely limited use, it should be okay.

I also like Akkies's point. It makes more sense to incorporate the information currently contained in the "foodstuff" section with that in the "prepared dishes" section. --Rsl12 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Akkies' point. FYI, dogmeat is not a "characteristic ingredient" but probably the most popular of specialty medicinal foods such as reptiles like lizards or turtles, snakes, frogs, etc.. These are foods are eaten for cultural and medicinal reasons.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael J. Pettid

There has been a challenge to the veracity of the sources from Michael J. Pettid, so I did some quick research on the man to get a feel for his area of expertise.

Brief biography: Michael J. Pettid is an associate professor of Korean and Korean Literature at Binghamton University (SUNY) in the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies and a former postdoctoral scholar at Berkeley. He is a member of the Center for Korean Studies at the University of Hawai'i.

Works:

  • Unyŏng-jŏn: A Love Affair at the Royal Palace of Chosŏn Korea (translator)
  • Korean Cuisine: An illustrated History
  • Sitings: Critical Approaches to Korean Geography (Article, contributor)
  • Edifying the Confucian Woman: Didactic Literature for Upper-Class Women in Chosŏn Korea (article, contributor)
  • Kim, Chongho. Korean Shamanism: The Cultural Paradox. (article)

Links:

Reviews on "Korean Cuisine"

  • "Pettid's book is an extensive collection of information lovingly presented. . . . The author introduces comments on food that appear in some of the great literary masterpieces of pre-modern Korea and thereby opens the reader a historical depth absent from many other introductions to Korean culture.... Many passages produce a mouthwatering response in the reader and strong desire to go out and explore the Korean treasures of the palate."-James B. Lewis, University Lecturer in Korean History, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford (James B. Lewis 20080424)
  • I can think of no aspect of the subject that is not covered, and well illustrated, in Pettid's book. . . . Many Western readers may not have had the chance to eat Korean food, or may imagine that kimch'i is its sole constituent, so it is important for a book like this to persuade them that they should find a Korean restaurant and give it a try. Pettid will be their enthusiastic guide."-Keith Pratt, professor emeritus, Department of East Asian Studies, University of Durham (Keith Pratt )
  • "Michael Pettid's book presents an insightful and interesting account of Korean food in all its many guises as well as the various customs related to eating and drinking in past and present Korea. . . . With its unfussy language and detailed discussions, Pettid's volume will be of use and interest to the general as well as specialized reader."-Charlotte Horlyck, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (Charlotte Horlyck )
  • "If your opinions about Korean food and its international 'image' take stances on whether or not it is too spicy, too salty, too pungent, too odor-causing, or just 'perfect,' then this is the right book to learn the reasons why and how these traits have meaningfully evolved over time."-Acta Koreana (Acta Koreana )

Based on this basic research, it would appear that Dr. Pettid is well versed with Korean culture and its history. I would ask that anyone challenging his work as cited please take the time to do the due diligence before doing so. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Pettid

All of this is useless. What we need is a quote or paraphrase of what Pettid actually states in the book that justifies including a dog meat section along with pork, beef and vegetables.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? please state the policy that requires direct quotes in citations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeremy please moderate your tone. You do not own this article and your sarcasm quips are very unhelpful. The request for context be it quote paraphrase or a summary is reasonable. Here's what the wiki help articles states on the subject. "The more data available on the source, the more likely that it will be accepted as a reliable source by the community. Second, use the quote= parameter within those citation templates to provide some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged." The citation has been challenged.[11]Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
What you are quoting is an essay, not a policy. In quoting the essay you ignored the most important part that is highlighted at the very top of the essay:
Your challenge is baseless and ignores one of the most fundamental pillars of WP - Assume good faith. Simply put, you are directly accusing one contributor of making things up to push forward an agenda of racism. This is despite the provided sources which were cited when the contributions were added by Chef Tanner; this is after numerous contributors having worked on the article since his additions in late 2007-early 2008. There was even a good article review which found none of the bias issues you claim to be present in the article. When you challenge a cited piece of information, the burden of proof is on you to show why the information is compromised. Just saying it is suspect because you haven't seen the source is not enough as is stated in the essay you pointed out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Offline sources are fine for use as citation. They just have to actually state the claim that it is referencing. In this case, it does not.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good faith assumption does not mean offline sources cannot be challenged. You're reaching grasping straws here. Let's try to resolve this in a reasonable and intelligent manner.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Jerem43: Be patient and wait for just 2 or 3 days. It is a waste of time arguing with User:Melonbarmonster2 until we get a real evidence. I have already asked my friend to get the book for me from the library of university she works for, and I will be able to received the book soon, along with other books and journal article copies on this subject. If the quotation from the book is true, User:Melonbarmonster2 will be in utter humiliation. If not, I will provide multiple reliable sources saying pretty much the same thing as Pettid quotation in the article. I am going to wait till the full protection of the article expires, but will reveal the book content as soon as I receive and check the book. Hkwon (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reference that supports dog meat being on the same level as pork, vegetables and grains in Korean cuisine. Please provide it so it can be looked at discussed for inclusion in the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference provided. See my comment on the section "RfC on Dog Meat" above. Well, if you don't know jack...Hkwon (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I did. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There already is one (Pettit), and you have made no true policy based grounds to challenge it. Your whole argument is based on WP:I don't like it (please take the time to read the whole policy); every basis you have made for its deletion has been based on incorrect interpretation of accepted policies accompanied by nationalistic bias. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not being honest about what Pettit states. From Hkwon's summaries of Pettit's treatment of dog meat, Petid does not support the claim that dog meat is a common food item along with grains, beef and vegetables but a peripheral food item.

If there is honest disagreement on this, we need to take dispute resolution steps.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To user:Melonbarmonster2: In the "Meat" section of Pettit, like I said above, dog meat comes 4th after beef, pork, chicken (the author claims their popularity has been in this order in Korea.), which shows the importance of dog meat. (Wild animals are mentioned after dog meat).
Petitt mentions dog in 15 times and contains a detailed dog meat stew recipe. I don't know what kind of "peripheral food item" is worthy of this much attention. Now that you finally got a hold of the book, can you shows us an example of a "peripheral food item" comparable to dog meat in terms of emphasis in the book?
Petitt is only one of many reliable sources. I plan to summarized and present sources on dog meat here as soon as I am done with working other article. Hkwon (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Melonbarmonster that it's inappropriate to place dog meat among mainstay foodstuffs like beef and pork. Dog meat is rather an eccentric cuisine, and is even illegal in some parts of Korea, including Seoul. That, however, doesn't mean that information about dog meat should be excluded entirely. I think that since dog meat is generally considered to be a medicinal cuisine, as the name itself implies, I think a separate section on the eccentric cuisines that supposedly have medicinal qualities can be an appropriate place where dog meat can be discussed. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Cydevil38: Agreed. As long as it is mentioned somewhere in the main article, not only as a link as User:Melonbarmonster2 suggested, as dog meat consumption has a long history and important cultural implications in Korea, nothing to be ashamed of to anyone in the global community. Hkwon (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Dog meat? Why not re-name it to Gaesoju & Bosingtang, dog meat is not even Korean cuisine and not even included in traditional Korean cuisine in any historical records. This Dog meat related cuisine is actually very modern dish developed specially for enthusiastic of dog cuisine. I do not wanted to see dog meat deleted but it needs tobe re-named & updated to Gaesoju/Bosingtang so that it doesn't create Anti-Korean sentiment and unbiased views, they're rare cuisine only available for special people in Korea, not for everyone. Besides, it's not even popular. Funny thing is French, American, Japanese and even Chinese use this to degrade image of Korea, so what even these countries have cuisines that no other countries consumed and very controversial--KSentry(talk) 16:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Although this is totally just what I know from various unreliable sources, I think the above sounds about right. (Get back Caspian blue >< NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't even know where to start in order to help enlighten User:KoreanSentry and User talk:NativeForeigner learn something, who I belive do not have any understanding of the history of dog meat consumption in Korea. "Dog meat is not even Korean cuisine and not even included in traditional Korean cuisine in any historical records", "This Dog meat related cuisine is actually very modern dish developed specially for enthusiastic of dog cuisine", Huh?
How about wall paintings of slaughtered dog in the Goguryeo tombs complex, a UNESCO World Heritage site which dates from 4th century AD, Nongawollyeonga (농가월령가) written by Jeong Hak-yu (정학유; 丁學遊) in 1816, which sings about a married woman visiting her birth parents with boiled dog meat, or Dongguk Seshigi (동국세시기), written by Hong Seok Mo (홍석모) in 1849, which contains a recipe of dog meat soup? If anyone needs any more reliable, verifiable historical Korean records and/or modern Food & Nutrition academic literature in dog meat consumption in Korea, I will be glad to provide (a lot) more of them. Hkwon (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Gah, misinterpreted. Interpreted as saying it has a different role in modern cuisine. (which it does). NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
To User:NativeForeigner: Gah, I don't even understand what your saying, especially who misunderstands what. But since you could not even provide one out of "various unreliable sources" that you knew, I take that you meant to say you misinterpreted the point of this discussion. It's OK. Anyone can make mistakes. Hkwon (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
He means Petit, in that particular section of his book, is talking about dog meat in Korea during Chosun era and not regarding modern consumption.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to inject some of my reasons why the section should be left the way it is currently. The reason I try to jeep the existing dog meat section rather static is based upon the past edit wars over the issue. My reasoning for the inclusion of dog meat is due to fact it is well documented in the public mind and the source of much derision in the international community. The way it is presented currently with sources from Pettid book matches the original information which is well researched and clinical in it approach to the subject. Based on the original fights on the subject, I can attest that there are those who will try to re-add the data if it is removed, that is why I have been strongly recommending against the removal of the information because it will encourage those editors with agendas to just re-add it to the article in such a way that will not be neutral.
Further, by including it in its own section under the general foodstuffs with the current manner also helps prevent the more biased addition of the material that is often presented in a distorted way that either implies that it is widely consumed by the general Korean population or is a widely accepted delicacy on the peninsula. If you fold the section into another section in the article, it will only be a matter of time before you see it showing up in its own section, usually in a way that calls attention to it. As the section stands now, it acknowledges that it is consumed, it explains it history, the dishes associated with it and what segment of the population eats it that is very neutral. There are no moral judgments, no emotional arguments and no statistics that can be twisted (see the old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics by Mark Twain). If you make these changes, I can almost guarantee that others will come in and try to revert or delete the information and we will have a full blown edit war on our hands again with very inflammatory rhetoric thrown around by all parties. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite aware that the dog meat issue generated controversy and resulted in an edit war. Nonetheless, I think it's inappropriate to classify it along with general foodstuffs, because of its illegal status in Korea and that it's an eccentric cuisine with supposed medicinal qualities. Also, dog meat is taboo in Korean Buddhism, and many Koreans consider the cuisine offensive. In short, it's controversial. Now, I'm not saying that the section should be removed. I just think that it's inappropriate to classify it as a general foodstuff like beef and pork, which is widely consumed and is not controversial at all. Dog meat, however, is controversial and illegal, and should be moved to another section. There are other such eccentric cuisines like dog meat that is even less controversial, such as grasshoppers and silkworm that could go along in that new section. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason why this section has been controversial is because it is factually false and unsupported by even the Petit reference. Dog meat is boyangsik and not a common food item like beef, vegetables and rice. This section was the work of several coworking editors who knew little to nothing about Korean food making over-zealous edits making claims about soy sauce kimbap to outlandish "korean" table manners. Future edits, good and bad, will be dealt with as they come. That's how wiki is supposed to work.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is cited and confirmed as being factual from a strong source. Your claims have yet to be backed by any fact or source, and your attempts to discredit the source and contributors have no merit. You argument is worthless unless you can prove that it is wrong. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you are claiming is cited exactly? I have gotten my hands on the book and have read it. There's nothing in the book that supports presenting dog meat as a common food item without distinguishing it from common food items such as pork, beef and grains. Furthermore, all the other editors including neutral editors responding to RfC are in agreement on this particular point.
Petit deals mostly with the historical and cultural background surrounding dog meat and not with contemporary consumption. When the book does deal with contemporary consumption, it's within context of dog meat as sambok cuisine which is supported by 6 new references which I have added.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Your most recent contributions appear to be of very good quality and supported; having take the time and properly researching the information is all I ever wanted. You sourced your additions, the sources seem fine (I can't read Korean) and didn't blank out that which you didn't like. It appears that you have taken the time to respect what others added and have done so within the guidelines established. Further, you actually waited until others actually chimed in and discussed the issue. That is all I ever asked, bitched, and complained about in regards to the content.
In regards to discussion, when there are people who take the effort to discuss the subject and listen to opinions of others I have no issue with the work. My main concern about this whole thing is the claims you made about a new consesnus being reached when there was none; a single individual and a questionable IP commentator do not constitute a consensus when the subject is inherently unstable in its nature, so I supported the existing article and its data because of the past consensus. Once a true discussion was engaged with disassociated individuals and a new consensus was really attained, I gladly yielded to it per policy. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I noted your dissent and claimed majority consent only on the issue of moving the dog meat section out of the foodstuffs section, although Hkwon now seems to be retracting his agreement. The expansion of the dog meat section to medicinal foods with added references are original edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The current sentence is referenced by [12] and [13]. Neither citations mention anything about "myths and legends of antiquity" nor any "nomadic traditions". I propose removing these unreferenced words from the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Text repaired to state what the references actually state but the paragraph can be redone to for better readability. Feel free to improve.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog Meat compromise

First, the dog meat section has been moved out of foodstuff as its own section per majority consent(1 dissent from Jeremy) from above discussions.

Second, I have also expanded the subject matter of the section to "boyangshik" to be inclusive of the many summer boyangshik foods consumed during Sambok including dog meat as well as adding references so that the cultural context of the Sambok boyangshik culture can be explained which is also how Petitt deals with the topic of dog meat.

Furthermore I will look for more references on this and start a "boyangshik" article when I have more sources.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To user:Melonbarmonster2: First of all, how can this be a "compromise" when you just deleted contents you don't like? Majority consent? Let me remind you that the policy Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Even if this were a polling, Why do you ignore my dissent, intentionally or unintentionally? And exactly which and how many editors support your opinion? Provide some reliable sources to back up your claim before you blank relevant contents based on reliable sources. Hkwon (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Read my comments.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sections reorganized

I moved around the sections and subsections. The dessert section was renamed to "rice cakes and sweets" since these foods are not eaten as dessert traditionally nor contemporarily. Contents of the sections were not changed except minor revisions for readability, italicization for Korean transliterations, etc..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Melonbarmonster2: Sure, that sounds good. But why did you have to delete the subsection "Dog Meat", which is still under discussion, during your edits on "Rice cakes and sweets"?
Hkwon please sign your edits and make sure to stagger your margins.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are two different edits. The dog meat section was not deleted. I took the information fro Petit's book for that section and expanded it to the new medicinal food section and diversified the subject to include all other sambok foods including dog meat which is how Petit also explains the topic of dog meat in his book.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Melonbarmonster2' content blanking behavior

User:Melonbarmonster2 pretty much rewrote the whole article, deleting relevant contents based on reliable sources and adding new contents without any verifiable sources. He/she did this by making 30 edits between July 20 and July 21, 2010 (UTC). I believe this is clearly a Wikipedia:Disruptive editing under Wikipedia community rules. A normal Wikipedia editor would think such massive edits would call for consensus from other editors. I did my best to restore the contents. If any neutral editor finds any mistakes in my restoration, please feel free to revert them. Hkwon (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No sections were blanked out. The dog meat section was moved to the new section under the expanded subject matter which is how Petit deals with the topic of dog meat. All the other sections were moved wholesale without deletion which I explained above. If you have a dispute with a section of my edit please voice your objections so we can discuss instead of revert warring please.
Also I understand you're not entire familiar with wikipedia policies but throwing around accusations of 'disruptive editing' can be interpreted as incivility. My edits were constructive and supported by additional references and editor agreement. Please read WP:BB.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New section on medicinal foods

I have started the new section with the view of expanding and eventually creating a separate article on this. Any help with improving and adding references to this section is welcome. Points of inquiry regarding this section include:

  • Illegal and controversial medicinal foods including dog meat, snakes and other protected wildlife, shark's fin, tiger penis, etc..
  • More information on the eastern medicine
  • Historical information on medicinal foods
  • Contemporary attitudes and modern consumption trends
  • List, photos and explanations of prepared medicinal "dishes".

I hope to keep this section succinct and in proportion to the other sections in the articles with bulk of the topic being dealt with in its' own wikipedia article. But for now, any material on the topic is welcome.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Cydevil, the only Korean text I'm finding that speaks on this is from the koreafood article "만주 남부에서 한반도에 걸치는 지역에 빗살무늬 토기를 가지는 신석기인..." which translates to neolithic people using Jeulmun pottery residing from southern Manchuria to the Korean peninsula. In any case, this is just generic summary of Korean history without any direct links to Korean cuisine and it's all from a self-published source.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully. 그 후 북방 유목민들이 청동기를 가지고 들어와 이곳의 원주민과 서로 어울려 우리 민족의 원형인 맥족(貊族)을 형성하게 되었고 단군 고조선(B.C.2333년)이 세워졌다. 그 뒤에 철기문화가 들어오고 부족국가 시대로 접어들어 벼,기장,조,보리,콩,팥,수수 등을 생산하게 되었으며, 유목계의 영향을 받아 가축이 크게 발달하였다. The subsequent sentences go on to say that northern nomads came to Korea and mixed with the natives to form the proto-Korean populations, and that along with agriculture, animal domestication was significantly developed due to nomadic influences. Also, with your regards to your claim that this is a generic summary of Korean history without any direct links to Korean cuisine, I think that your reading comprehension of Korean is severely limited or that you're simply being outright dishonest. The whole article is titled "History of (Korean) traditional cuisine", and the cited passage comes from the early part of a section titled "History of Korean culinary culture". Also, the cited passage is directly linked to the origin of Korean culinary tradition, and this self-published source is from a research institute on traditional Korean cuisines. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please moderate your tone as edit disputes will become inflamed when you resort to incivility during these discussions.
You are generally correct about the translation of the said text. However it is self-published and I believe the "research institute" is a non-academic, for profit organization which makes it an inappropriate source per WP:V.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
DoneMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Undone. I think the source to be reliable and accurate. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To go into more detail, Jeulmun pottery makers were mostly hunter-gatherers whom modern anthropologists believe mostly didn't survive by the time of the arrival of proto-Koreans. The proto-Koreans, who came to the Korean peninsula in several waves, consisted of both agricultural and nomadic elements, which would have compound influence on Koren culture, including culinary. Not only is the statement based on reliable source, but it's fairly accurate as well. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriateness

As I am now a full-time professor I end up not being on Wikipedia very much of late. Imagine my lack of surprise that this article is being fought over again. Removing the dog section removes part of the history of the cuisine and although a minor part of the modern cuisine, it is still a part of the diet of a portion of the society which is why the section was so specific. I do not honestly care to be dragged into what yet again has become an accusatory debate so please don't think I am here for a debate; I REALLY don't care. I will say that, however, the argument that Pettid's information should be in quotes in ludicrous, that would mean that all of Wikipedia should be in quotes for everything written, and any logical person who edits here knows that isn't the way the system works. Additionally, if you want proof that the book doesn't say what I stated it said, go buy the book or SHOCK go to a library and request a copy and actually read and stop relying on your non-academic accounts for sources.

In the end, this article is always going to end up being garbage seeing as those who have single minded non-academic opinions will be allowed to do what they want as no one really wants to stand up to them as this ends up being like everything else in our society today, those who know nothing earn what they want eventually if they stomp their feet enough. That's why I am writing my own culinary encyclopedia on my own website, well sourced and not written by frustrated people who know nothing of the topic. Good day, oh feel free to come read what this article actually should look like in a couple months on my site.www.cheftanner.com Chef Tanner (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your complaints are misplaced. No one asked or demanded quotes, just a verification of offline sources for anyone with access. Hkwon provided it and it was discussed. I got my hands on the book and read the entire thing and I'm presuming other here also got their hands on the book. Good luck with your teaching gig but you shouldn't be teaching anything about Korean cuisine if you think listing dog, outside of sambok context, along with common proteins and vegetables is accurate information. I look forward to your listing 'bull testicle' on your website for American cuisine after 'beef' and before "cucumbers".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW Melon, they're referred to as Rocky Mountain oysters not bull testicles. Since the US is about 100 times the size of Korea, you would probably find it in one of the regional cuisine articles, not the National one. Just saying...
Also, I have officially stopped caring about this page as well. I do not wish to deal with the pettiness anymore. Do as you want, I fully agree with Chris. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
That's unfortunate but you made some amazing baseless arguments such as claiming consensus in the face of overwhelming dissent, [14]. And no bull testicles are far more 'national' than Korean dog meat industry which is concentrated in very few locales instead of entire regions like bull testicles or squirrel meat consumption in the US.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't let Melonbarmonster discourage you from contributing to this article. Melonbarmonster unilaterally removed the dog meat material without any consensus. I only agreed on moving the material, not removing it. I have restored the material under medicinal foods, so if you have any objections to this please discuss. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Duck, the other minor meat

Leaving aside seafood, there are the main meats, which are essential to this article; Beef, chicken, and pork. Then there are two minor meats, which would make the meat section complete, duck and dog meat, and...I don't know what else, maybe that's it, but those according to what I have read would round out the "major minor meats", if you please would excuse the term. Of these two, duck is supposed to be bigger. It doesn't seem right not to have the minor meats, as I'm calling them, but it also seems wrong to discuss dog without duck. So why not have a major meat section with those three, which would be absolutely essential, and then if you wanted a better article, have a minor meat section. The minor meat section should not include dog meat if it doesn't include duck. Then you could maybe have a minor minor meat section, with stuff such as, I donno other meats you can find, but that's optional. So this would be a compromise between stuffing dog meat at the bottom as a rarely used medicinal thing or something done on a lark, which is to sweep it under the rug, in my view, and putting right up there with the big three, which would be overstating it's role in Korean cuisine. So, first thing's first, forget about dog meat for a minute, and concentrate on the duck. We need an expert on Korean cuisine, and that's definitely not me. I know just the man for the job; where's Hkwon when you need him? Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a very smart proposal--Major and Minor meats sections. To keep in line with WP:WEIGHT, this section should be smaller than the 3 above; for simplicitly, we might say that dog and duck together should be about the same length as beef. If either has specific medicinal uses, that should still be noted in the medicinal section (without duplicating info, of course). As for Hkwon, he should be unbanned within the day. This is not to say he'll necessarily come charging over to work on this specific issue, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. To give more reliability to this criteria, here is a study on consumption of minor meats in Korea[15](in Korean, published by Korean Rural Economics Institute, government funded[16]). Dog meat is for the most part illegal in Korea and wasn't covered in this study, and because of its legal status, reliable statistics about dog meats are hard to find and I couldn't come up any with tonnage numbers. Nonetheless, according to the Dog meat article in Wikipedia, a BBC source is cited for a figure of about 100,000 tons. According to the KREI study on minor meats, duck meat is comparable to this amount, being around 100,000 tons also. Goats and rabbits are also covered in the study, but their figures are comparably marginal. To this end, I think covering both dog meat and duck meat in a new section about minor meat is not only a good compromise, but also a reliably accurate and NPOV solution. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

The article has been nominated by what seems to be a rather inexperienced user. I was the GA reviewer last time around, but not much seems to have happened since then, and the dog meat issue still seems to cause a lot of instability. Unless someone supports Oscar in his nomination, explains how my previous concerns have been addressed or steps up to actually fix some of the most pressing issues, I'm tempted to fail the nomination right away.

Peter Isotalo 11:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why dog meat will never be off the menu?

As is fitting, for what I am about to write, there is a saying in China, that says "only a dog returns to its own vomit". In my case, I regret I was the original poster that kicked off another row over the aforementioned foodstuff. It is therefore without irony that I discovered that it has been discussed ad infinitum. Generally speaking as long as ignorant people edit Wikipedia then this kind of misrepresentation will continue to happen. This article panders to an outdated stereotype which relies on the prejudice that Koreans enjoy eating canine flesh (so much so they call it cuisine!!). Yet again after a quick check, the Chinese and Japanese cuisine pages make absolutely no mention of their unpalatables i.e. dog and whale. So why is dog meat allowed to be included here!! it makes no sense except the supporters of such harbor racist views towards modern Koreans.

This is why this article has a problem? It's because it can be used to remind the general reader of something that addresses the lowest and basest denominator. Forget the fact that dog meat is an anathema to modern Koreans (and of course there is absolutely no mention of that fact in this article). It's just sitting there listed among the chicken, beef and pork, like it's always on the menu! The inclusion of dog meat in this article under the title Korean cuisine continues to pander to an outdated western view that canine flesh is an acceptable and normal food stuff for Koreans, which is categorically not the case. I was accused of being biased before, well excuse me, but including dog meat in acceptable Korean foodstuffs isn't? What needs to be addressed is why racist stereotyping is allowed to continue on this article about non western people?

After doing a search, I cannot find any link on Wikipedia that suggests African Americans are synonymously linked to the racist/ethic stereotype that they like fried chicken and watermelon. But try and object over the misguided view that Koreans have a penchant for dog meat and all European-minded editors are suddenly up in arms condemning such a move as NPOV. I would therefore go as far and say, the problem with this page is that it's agenda is protected by western people who have never travelled, never lived abroad, or had any form of international experience. But that does not hinder them from having the temerity to think they know best. Again using an unpleasant act like lynching or racial prejudice, why is that not included in the culture of the USA alongside baseball or basketball? I mean, there was once a time not too long ago, when white folks would regularly murder a black person in an extra-judicial killing. Nowadays it seems the U.S. police have a taste for violence. Could you imagine the fuss if that nasty little fact was given a mention in an article on American Culture? Apparently it would be POV to describe white Americans as generally violent, intolerant racists regardless of the fact that there is evidence to the contrary. However in dealing with non whites, it seems quite acceptable to drag up the lowest common denominator and call it free expression. Personally I think it's hypocrisy combined with latent prejudice.

I would like to clarify comments by saying that I am myself white, have a master degree and have lived in both Japan and Korea, for several years. I respect both cultures, have an interest in their histories, cultures and traditions. However it sickens me, that on balance the ROK always comes off worst in international perceptions - in this case the need to state historically "they eat dog meat" in contemporary terms. But other poor press on Wikipedia included the Sea of Japan debate, the Dokdo rocks saga, and having the idiots in the North as cousins. I came back to this page to check how things were going only to find ignorance and prejudice have won out again. I wish I hadn't as it makes me angry that a non-Korean minority can make distinctions about an Asian majority. The Confucist pondering "can the tolerant ever tolerate the intolerant?" My answer: not as long as dog meat is present at the behest of racist stereotyping, they can't!! Sadly I will return at a later date becuase I have too.217.39.49.18 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason it's included is because there are relatively contemporary accounts (see the Dog meat article for some references) that indicate that it is still consumed in Korea quite regularly. For example, in a 1999 BBC article estimated 6000 restaurants, 8500 tons of meat, and 93600 tons used for kaesoju, while 2009 opinion article in the Korea Times estimated 9000 tons in 6500 restaurants. Even if those numbers are now out of date, it's not some far past that we're speaking of--it's a phenomenon that, at the most extreme, ended no more than 10 years ago, and then only because it was made illegal (although it's highly unlikely that it's gone entirely, given that other countries in which its been illegal for far longer still continue underground trade in dog meat). As a side note, at least about Japan, you are wrong--Japanese cuisine lists Sea mammals as an ingredient, and List of Japanese ingredients explicitly lists baleen whale and dolphin, despite the fact that almost everyone I've talked to in Japan is unaware that people eat iruka (dolphin).
Also, I humbly request that you reconsider your own attitudes--why do you assume that "eating dog" implies racist attitudes? If you look at Dog meat, you'll see that quite a large number of cultures previously ate dog, that it's still legal to do so in many countries (including some European countries), and that it's merely a cultural taboo that marks dog eating as somehow negative or bad. That you think it's a racist stereotype speaks more about your own stereotyping than about the activity itself. I do believe that it should be marked as a "minor meat" for Korea, akin to duck; I believe we ran into a problem earlier with finding the sources needed to properly re-work the problem. But to eliminate it entirely is to deny what reliable sources, relatively recently, have said. Finally, speaking as another "white" person, currently living in Japan, I find the idea of eating dog meat quite attractive, assuming I could be assured that it was safe. That you do not is fine--I have no problem with you finding certain foods taboo. But you shouldn't impute your own distaste into some sort of universal disrespect or prejudice. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, just note the dissent and move on and relax with the preaching. You don't have to adjudicate everyone's comments here. IMO you are far more POV than the anon commenter.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean cuisine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Although I marked this pass, there are still some niggles that need to be resolved below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Lots of issues, see below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    See below.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold: final judgment depends on resolution of the issues pointed out.
    No work was even started within 7 days. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Item 1 issues:

  • "Unlike other cultures, in Korean culture, soup is served as part of the main course rather than at the beginning or the end of the meal as an accompaniment to rice along with other banchan."
    This sentence seems to be somewhat clunky (squeezing in several ideas); can it be rephrased?
  • "A light hand is usually used in the seasoning of these soups usually utilizing ganjang and sesame oil."
    Might I suggest: "A light hand is usually applied to the seasoning of these soups, which usually uses ganjang and sesame oil."?
  • "During the Goryeo Dynasty, sangchu ssam (wraps made with lettuce), yaksik, and yakgwa were developed, so spread to China and other countries."
    It seems some words are missing here...
  • "In the past, when the royal court maids called sanggung, who were assigned to Suragan (hangul: 수라간; hanja: 水剌間; the name of the royal kitchen), where they prepared the king's meals, became old, they had to leave the royal palace."
    I think this can be broken into two or more shorter, simpler sentences.

Item 2 issues:

Several unsourced statements:

  • Last three sentences of Prehistoric
  • 20th century to the present: "... and the stew called budae jjigae, which makes use of inexpensive meats such as sausage and Spam, originated during this period."
  • Vegetables: "Medicinal herbs such as ginseng, reishi, wolfberry, Codonopsis pilosula, and Angelica sinensis are often used as ingredients in cooking, as in samgyetang. Koryo-saram is famous in FSU for spiucey carrot sallad, known as "korean sallad", which is not known in Korea."
    • By the way, what is FSU?
  • Opening two paragraphs of Prepared dishes
  • Kimchi: "There are endless varieties, and it is served as a side dish or cooked into soups and rice dishes. Koreans traditionally make enough kimchi to last for the entire winter season, although with refrigerators and commercially produced kimchi this practice has become less common."
  • Noodles: the two bulleted items
  • Entire section of Banchan
    • By the way, why is Namul in bold?
  • Anju (side dishes accompanying alcoholic beverages): entire section
    • Why is the heading's "Anju" in italics?
    • Why is there a space between Jokbal and the colon?
  • Alcoholic beverages: second and last paragraphs
  • Rice cake and sweets: "Yaksik is a sweet rice cake made with glutinous rice, chestnuts, pine nuts, jujubes, and other ingredients while chapssaltteok is a tteok filled with sweet bean paste.", second paragraph, and "Yeot is a Korean traditional candy in liquid or solid form made from steamed rice, glutinous rice, glutinous kaoliang, corn, sweet potatoes or mixed grains. The steamed ingredients are lightly fermented and boiled in a large pot called sot (솥) for a long time."
  • Regional cuisine: "... are characterized by local specialties and distinctive styles within Korean cuisine. The divisions reflected historical boundaries of the provinces where these food and culinary traditions were preserved until modern times."
  • Vegetarian cuisine: entire first paragraph
  • Street food: entire paragraph
  • Dining etiquette: last clause of opening paragraph, entire fourth paragraph

Furthermore, certain sources have issues as follow:

The formatting for the items in the Bibliography seem to be inconsistent; why the "taken from", instead of listing publishers and such?

Item 6 issues:

As such, I withhold judgment for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the last GA for this article, and I had fairly serious remarks about 2 (focus) and 4 (neutrality). Some of these have not been addressed properly since the last nomination. Anyone who wants to read the details should check out Talk:Korean cuisine/GA1. In this review they are passed by without any comments. Does this mean that the previous review is irrelevant as long as the (rather technical) quibbles of this review are fixed?
Peter Isotalo 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the instructions given, yes. GAN is a single reviewer process—one person makes the decisions (pass, fail, hold, or to ask for another opinion). The restriction is that no one can interfere with someone else's decision to hold. If anyone disagrees with the decision of a reviewer, he or she is free to bring the article concerned to WP:GAR, where it then becomes a community decision. As far as I can tell, that is how the GA process is run: a one person rule, different from FAC's reliance on a pool of supports and a delegate's decision.
My assessment of this article follows the guidelines for GA (WP:WIAGA). On regards to the first review's issues with focus and neutrality, I do not see it with the criteria in mind. Most of what is raised there relates to the history presented in this article and I agree with the editor's view that history of a nation plays a part in its cuisine. The GA criteria calls for a broad coverage, which I take to mean without going into too much detail as well (just enough to satisfy most readers). I view the first review's concern as wanting that level of detail, which I think is more appropriate for FA-level and GAs are "articles considered to be of good standard but which are not featured article quality."
Regardless, it seems that no one is picking up the baton to improve this article and the 7-day limit (without a single edit in that time) is about to be up in about 5 hours time. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo of medicinal food

I have thought that the presentation of dog meat as a medicinal food was a step forward in the conflict over dog meat's role in the Korean culture. An IP is now removing the photo - does this improve the article? jmcw (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_8&oldid=427715185"