Talk:Korean cuisine: Difference between revisions

Regarding the history of the cuisine (or "cuisines," we should say, as the royal cuisine was never intended to be enjoyed by all the people), User:Appletrees is doing a lot of good work in this area, creating dozens of new articles and working at the Korean royal court cuisine article. S/he also apparently has excellent print sources about little-known aspects of Korean culinary history (this includes dog meat). Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Food which explains much of the royal cuisine, it is on par with the high cuisine of other western countries, except Korea never had the type of revolution that many western cultures did, so that is why the "high cuisine" of Korea never spread as there has never been a bourgeoisie in Korea, this stems from some of the socialist issues from North Korea. This also brings up a thought about the differences in North and South Korean cuisines as they are separate countries. I'll be honest, I have never thought of their cuisines being separate, I am sure they are though as the northern cuisine must be much more heavily influenced by China.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a logical place to have more than a cursory mention of dog meat in Korean cuisine. Dog meat is a standard, traditional, and famous element of Korean cuisine and this article is about Korean cuisine. The amount of text devoted to a subject reflects what is needed to fairly address the topic, not its "importance" in the culture (that would be an inherently POV-pushing approach). I'm not sure how to respond to these constant comparisons to how editors in other articles have done things, other than by repeating what I've already said. Does anybody have any specific responses to the objections I already raised to that line of thinking? It's also contradictory to use the comparisons to Swiss cuisine etc. as a justification for moving even more Korean-specific material to the dog meat article. There are no culture-specific sections in the chicken meat article. There are no culture-specific sections in the beef section (other than how various governments label sections of the animal). Yet, in the name of being "consistent" with what other articles do, people want to make the culture of Korea a large, dominating section of the dog meat article. Maybe the beef and chicken articles don't have culture-specific sections while dog meat does, because dog meat is different from beef and chicken. Maybe the Korean cuisine article can have a section on dog meat while the French cuisine lacks a section on how veal is slaughtered because dog in Korean society is different from beef in French society. Or maybe they are very analagous, but different editors have reasonably decided to do different things in different articles.

It's the last point that is key here. There are many ways to organize any article or paper on any subject. There are many equally valid styles. Nothing is gained for Wikipedia editors to have arguments over equally valid styles and organizational approaches. It is valid for some of the material here to be in the Korean section of the dog meat article; it is also valid for it to be in the dog meat section of the Korean cuisine article. Arguing about this is pointless. Everybody will organize a topic a little differently: There is no one way which is The Best. The question is whether the current organization is one organization that is logical, and it clearly is. I also wonder if anybody has consulted whoever might be active in editing the dog meat article: What if they think it is inappropriate to move even more Korea-specific material into a non-Korea-specific article?

The last time this was discussed, about a month ago, I suggested changing the lead of the second paragraph. I think it should clearly frame the topic as part of the way the meat is prepared, the alleged qualities of the meat when the animal died fighting, etc. This is part of a widespread cultural belief in Korea, also underlying why octopus is often eaten alive (another dish that is famous, but not a staple). There was not a single response to this suggestion; no evident interest in negotiationg or sharing concerns. Now, suddenly, the main discussion is of deleting the entire paragraph. That is not how consensus building works.

I would also delete the third paragraph, and move the information about non-enforcement of the law into the first paragraph, which deals with the cultural aspects. The third paragraph doesn't have anything to do with cuisine, per se. Bizzarely, melonbarmonster's edit actually lengthened that paragraph, the one least related to cuisine, and then several editors called it "more streamlined."

Bsharvy (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so curious as to why you're not on the list, especially on the request page for meditation. I've witness you've consistently reverting edits from somebody's jobs on the article. I don't think melonbanstar is a troublemaker. (S)He just has another opinion from you or others. But in my memory, you brought up wrong statistics and has the misconception regarding "standard". You mentioned that over 50 percentage of South Koreans consume the meat, which proves fatally wrong from a couple of citations. How can dog meat be a standard food of Koreans in the present? Is it your valid and reasonable theory to have this section?

I don't care Westerners talking much about Korean eating dog meat. I even uploaded the relevant image for the section. Some people think that eating dog meat is very annoying but others don't. That is just a cultural difference from people to people. Still, people might expect to see the contents mentioned on the Korean cuisine article, but why only this page let the controversial section too long compared to other national cuisines?

For example, French cuisine boasts of a delicacy made with frog's leg about which I feel strongly disgusted. When I went to a French restaurant for the first time, I had to figure out the French name referring to the dish in order to prevent from ordering the dish by mistake. However, I somewhat assumed that the cuisine article in wiki definitely mentions it (to avoid seeing gruesome pictures of the dish, I turned off the function capable of viewing images in my browser. it was like a horror adventure). But the page just lists it as an integrated ingredient. There are also plentiful of controversial foods out there, but why especially Korean cuisine article has the "special part" too long here? It is not fair because content style is not similarly applied to. --Appletrees 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of Bsharvy for the arbitration was a mistake.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be an overly long section, in the Korean cuisine article, there are better places for it. I think having some statistics is the best solution, as words such as "some" "few" "little" etc are open to abuse in a controversial topic. I realise that not every obscure ingredient deserves a mention, but without being offensive the consumption of dog meat is internationally reasonably well known, and therefore notable - it deserves a mention not because of the popularity or volume of consumption, but because of the notability. I also think that fact that it is controversial is notable, however the gory details do not belong in the Korean cuisine article, they can be elsewhere. A small section dedicated to dog meat would seem sensible, however care should be taken that it sticks to facts relating to cuisine, not to the ethical concerns people may have regarding dog meat.Sennen goroshi 13:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To have a separate section for dog meat that bemoans the cruelty of eating an animal that people happen to find cute is a biased and unfair treatment of Korean cuisine. For comparison, foie gras would never receive the same treatment in French cuisine, eventhogh it's a a blatant example of institutionalized cruelty to animals. I'm not an outspoken animal rights activist nor a vegeterian, but I consider the hostility people display concerning the eating species they happen to keep as pets to be ignorant hypocrisy. Many slaughterhouses in the world that butcher non-cute animals are anything but humane (for lack of a better word) to animals, and I can't help but noticing that no one seems to give a rat's ass about the bordering-on-barbarous practice of dismembering live octupuses before eating them. If I want to know more about Korean food, I'd certainly like to see mention of dog meat, but under no circumstances is it appropriate to keep it in a separate section that has more to do with animal rights than cuisine. --213.114.217.66 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70 Percent Koreans eat Meat. ( Cow, Chicken, Pork). Korean Food Diet. 40 Percent Koreans eat Dog Meat ( Koreans have tried). Not regular Korean Food Diet. Don't genearalize or finger point that all Koreans eat Dogmeat. That isn't true.

Dog meat is the third most consumed meat for South Korean? That is a wrong information. According to a 2006 report by the Agriculture Administration of South Korea, below are the top 3 meat consumed by South Korean.

• 1. Pork: 838,000t
• 2. Chicken: 388,000t
• 3. Beef: 317,000t

The report says that traditionally Koreans prefer beef over any other meat, but the ban from importing American and European beef due to mad cow disease, the consumption of beef is hugely decreased. Instead, consuming chicken surpasses beef in 12 years. --Appletrees (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalism and incivility
• Requested block of these users
• Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia, Who are you?
• This will be my last comment on this matter

Note:The reports at WP:ANI by Jerem43 and relevant reports are stored at the above links or IncidentArchive333

--Appletrees 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerem43 has filed a report at WP:ANI and he thinks full protection for 2~4 weeks is needed for this article and also urges that blocking some editors can be made for the past disputes. I don't think the person behaves well for this article.--Appletrees (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That person did that without posting a notice here? Very strange. Badagnani (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started participated in this article last September, so I don't know he is a newbie to this article or not. Can you recall a memory of whether he's previously engaged in this article except today? If not, he came here like a teacher. --Appletrees (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't recall him editing here before. Although he claims to have read all of the comments going back three months, I think he needs to take a bit more time to let it sink in. Blanking the section entirely (which he proposes in no uncertain terms) is only the prerogative of Melonbarmonster, but discussion has proven this to lie outside of consensus. My reading of the current situation is either leaving the section "as is," or (as I would prefer) going with the earlier, more concise version of the section discussed earlier (before reverted by User:Bsharvy). A third alternative would be to leave in only bosintang, with a dablink to Dog meat#Korea and merging all remaining non-bosintang content there. Thus, the "edit war" here doesn't exist (though there may have been one at one time due to certain pushy editors insisting on their own version); all we have is a significant amount of healthy discussion--something which is usually encouraged. I must say I do not like this person's (Jerem43) immediately pushy attitude, nor his cursing, which I've seen in each post he has made. Badagnani (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person indicates Melon? Well, in my thought, he seems an undergraduate student, so with impending due date to hand over his pagers or midterm, he could not frequently show at this place. --Appletrees (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Badagnani (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the post, My reasons are included. I am not going to say anything more about the issue on the issue on this page. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jerem, responses such as yours might be considered to be arrogant, and may be counter-productive. Is it possible for you to comment in a slightly warmer tone?Sennen goroshi 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That post was made four days ago and the matter was put to rest when I closed my comments on the ANI board, but thanks for commenting. - Jeremy (Jerem43 19:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article has been protected for three weeks, apparently due to "edit warring." However, edit warring has not been occuring here for some time (though we have had considerable discussion). It would be beneficial if the admin making this decision would kindly carefully read and participate here rather than making a summary decision that, in light of present circumstances, is uncalled for and generally unhelpful. Thanks for your consideration. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring "paused" less than a couple weeks ago only because I posted the RFC heading and I posted arbitration comments on multiple users discussion pages. So instead everyone seemed to stop editing with hopes of seeing what would come of the RFC, not because they felt the need to stop. Again, just yesterday another blanking of the Dog meat section has happened probably from the opening of this discussion going on now under incidents and people posting under the RFC. I requested a semi-protect, so in fact I have read everything going on here and the Admin. added the protection per my request and as per Wikipeda policy added full-protect until these issues are hopefully ironed out.. The issues need to be dealt with instead of ignored. The issues are larger than just the dog meat section as well, but overall with biased edits and using superfluous language to push around other users.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of a handful of disruptive editors (who have ceased their efforts on the article), discussion was progressing toward consensus. We all know this. Badagnani (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you, sorry. I don't think a consensus has been reached on this dog meat section and I still don't believe the language and accusatory nature of editors here is conducive to the article. The mere lack of WP:Civility taken toward any dissension by editors on here is not pro-Wikipedia or even pro academia. The ban can easily be lifted before the three week period if the issue is fully resolved, which it has not. It can take one day to clear it or more, but the incident report needs to run its course as does a full agreement on the RFC. As I am part of the "we" I do not agree that the issues have been resoled and if an admin. and multiple other users are coming in and voicing their opinion that seems to be inline with that thinking as well, the issue has in fact not been resolved.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've given up on helping to moderate the article and prefer to bring in "the parents" who do not show any understanding of the issues at hand (and even call for blanking all mention of dog meat in this article), that is your prerogative. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- I think the protection has positive views for this article even thought the way of appealing is very questionable and makes me hardly assume a good faith in such the action. I think for this page, real "divers" are needed. The barging in out of nowhere is mere disturbing. Neither consensus nor notice given for the person. Anyway, Korean royal cuisine article requires much attention and individual articles also have to be made. Then do editing them. --Appletrees (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, are people talking about? There was no significant edit warring. There were two reversions which could be considered the beginning of an edit war. The bold edit followed by the revert as described in WP:BRD are not part of an edit war; they are part of well-accepted guidelines for an approach to editing (I already pointed this out once). The RFC netted no response except for the response to declare this article in an edit war--which was then used as an excuse to demand it be protected, by someone who didn't participate in the editing or discussion. I certainly didn't pay any attention to the note left on my Talk page, since it showed little understanding of how Wikipedia works, and obviously neither did melonbarmonster.

It's sort of interesting that suddenly everybody thinks there is a serious issue with the section, considering it was discussed when it was made, there were no unadressed specific objections, and it stood for a month and was never reverted. melonbarmonster showed up and deleted the whole thing, which I reverted. The melonbarmonster left again, so the section is as it was before. But now, suddenly, everybody feels it is a serious problem, there is an edit war, and there is no consensus. Nonetheless, there have been very few specific repsonses regarding the content, very little effort to discuss the article. Instead we get a whole lotta complaining about other editors, and even about all the complaining. Bsharvy (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was, indeed, an objection to your own revert from the streamlined version to your own "very long, with all the gory details" version; it's just above. Badagnani (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. There is no grounds for objecting to the revert of an undiscussed edit. The point of my revert was to insist on discussion, not to insist on a version. I've responded to the specific objections I've seen. There is such a large volume of text here, jumbling personality wars, general ideological objections, and some specific objections, that I can't say I've seen every concern that deserves a response. I'm also not sure the concerned parties have read my responses to the few specific objections that have been made. Bsharvy (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any mistake. The streamlined version, first implemented by Melonbarmonster without discussion, was found (through discussion) to be fairly good and a few of us made minor modifications and it was found to be suitable to the editors discussing it. Thus there was not "no discussion" about it prior to your revert to the "very long, gory" version. Badagnani (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused and dishonest. First, there was no discussion prior to my initial revert. Second, the point is consensus, not some blob of discussion in a period of time so brief some editors don't even have a chance to see it before you proclaim it a consensus. Third, you need to learn how to communicate and how to be honest. I don't have a version. I don't have "very long gory version." I wrote a very brief paragraph on the belif that the taste and benefits of the meat are determined by the way the animal is killed, which you said made sense when we discussed it at the time. If you suddenly don't like it now, don't resort to name calling ("very long gory"), don't resort to deleting it without consensus, or proclaiming its deletion a consensus. Discuss it. Bsharvy (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "disproportionately long and gory" version is, indeed, believed at this moment by a number of editors actively discussing the text to be just that--disproportionately long and unnecessarily gory for an article that is intended as a general overview of Korean cuisine. More than one editor has said that in so many words, in black and white. Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point (again). No wonder you can't reach a consensus on anything.Bsharvy (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also factually false: "The edit warring "paused" less than a couple weeks ago only because I posted the RFC heading and I posted arbitration comments on multiple users discussion pages." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an RfC on Sennen. Please offer your opinions. I feel that this is long overdue and we need to stop these kind of attacks made upon Korea related articles. This is totally not fair because Wikipedia does not have bands of anti-Japanese editors who tear apart Japan, yet editors like Sennen can get away with his hatred of Koreans. Good friend100 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did Sennen goroshi do here, specifically? I don't think it is just one editor who has acted in a contentious manner. Badagnani 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, melonbarmonster has problems too. I just posted this to notify other users. If you bother to read the RfC, Sennen has caused problems in other areas, this is just one. If melonbarmonster needs an RfC, there should be one. But I'm tired of the same old stuff.

I'm sick and tired of anti-Korean sentiment here and its unfortunate that Korean editors respond at the same level of the anti-Koreans because they cause the administrator to put sanctions on both parties. I'm tired of fighting for pieces of digital junk on who did this and who did that. I'm going to sleep now, and frankly, I won't feel bad if the RfC doesn't go through (did you bother to check what I suggested Sennen's punishment be? a simple warning) because I'm too tired to care anymore. Good friend100 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I just looked at it. Badagnani 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfriend, please check your talk page, regarding my feelings about this report. Feel free to reply here, your talk page, or on my talk page. thanks Sennen goroshi 04:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consumption of dog meat is a traditional part of Korean cuisine and medicine and readily found in restaraunts. ^[1] Dog is most commonly consumed in a dish called bosintang (spicy dog stew) and in the medicinal extract gaeju (개주), also called gaesoju (개소주).^[2] Dog meat is believed to replenish energy lost to summer heat, and to enhance male sexual stamina.^[3][4][5][6] Historically, dog was also eaten because it was an easy source of meat in a poor agrarian society.^[7][3][6][4] Roughly 2 million dogs are eaten each year in South Korea, or an average of 1.4 kg per person.^[8][9] The government banned the sale of dog meat prior to the Olympics, under international pressure. However, the law is not strictly enforced.^{[10][6][3][1]}

The best quality meat is alleged to come from dogs that die fighting, part of a cultural belief that the vigor of animal's fight for life is transferred to the consumer. Methods of making the dog fight include slow hanging and beating.^{[11][12][13][14][5][9]} All breeds are eaten, including purebreds, but only nureongee (누렁이)^[2] are commercially raised for consumption.

Dog is strongly flavored, and typically served with onions, red pepper, perilla, and other strong flavorings. ^{[7] [1]}

• Note: I edited this to add a reflist, so people can check references from the Talk page.

I removed text about online petitions, and the reference to the theft of a purebred that was eaten.

I moved info about non-enforcement of the law to the first paragraph, which provides a cultural overview.

I reworded the second paragraph so it explains a cultural belief about many foods; possibly a section on "stamina food" would be appropriate down the road.

I replaced the political information of the third paragraph with some brief information about cuisine.

Overall, it is slightly shorter than before. Bsharvy 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the inclusion of the detail of "slaughtering dogs" and "breed" in this article. In my opinion, that section is unnecessary for this digest article and should be included into the dog meats article. Besides, the average number misguides as if the meat were eaten by every Korean people. --Appletrees 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a section devoted to the topic should not be included and the that only mention of the meat should be part of the dish's description. The rest should be placed in the Korea section of the Dog meat article with a {{see also|Dog meat}} tag in the body of this article. This is done as a matter of convention as other major cuisine articles do not have a separate section on controversial foods stuffs such as whale meat in relation to Japanese cuisine, horse meat in relation to French cuisine, ad infinitum. To include that would be, in my opinion, a violation of the WP:NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia.

Your suggested is well written, properly researched and cited and would be an excellent contribution to the Dog meat article.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Commentary that addresses reasons and works toward a middle ground is constructive. Disagreement should be expressed with analysis of the other party's reasons. Repeating contradictory conclusions doesn't advance the discussion. Bsharvy 12:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said enough reason as the article is "digest article" and as far as I've known you're not that "constructive" editor. Besides, the all citations from Seoul Times should be removed. The site is like a blog, not officially authorized newspaper. It has no mention of authors, writers, or reporter. --Appletrees 12:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stated three reasons against including the information on dog meat consumption in my comment, I will list them for you in a list format to prevent further misunderstanding:

1. The convention of the articles on cuisine does not include a section on controversial foods, but instead only lists such information in passing. This article should follow that consensus-based convention;
2. Statistics are not a good reason to base conclusion on as they can be manipulated to show either parties POV, as such the reasoning for inclusion of those statistics is faulty;
3. It violates the NPOV guidelines of WP by pointing out a controversial behavior or issue in an article on one culture that is not pointed out in the article covering an another culture. If you wish to include this section in this article, you must reach a consensus that this type of issue is to be included in all articles on similar topics. Basically it is all or nothing.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not all cuisine articles are exactly equivalent in their system of organization and no editor until now has stated a hard-and-fast "all or nothing" rule regarding the discussion of controversial foods. I have nowhere seen a printed rule stipulating absolute exclusion of such sections. There are good arguments for keeping a more streamlined version of the section (with two versions having been submitted and commented on in recent days), and there is also a proposal to only discuss bosintang, along with a one-sentence-or-so mention of dog meat issues and a dablink to Dog meat#Korea. I don't believe any editor at this moment disputes that this is a historically significant element of Korean cuisine, which is of interest to users around the world, and one about which we owe our readers accurate and well-documented discussion. Badagnani 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons I gave 2 or 3 weeks ago against the idea that all related articles must be organized the same way:

Dog meat in Korea is unique. No other country has a special breed raised for consumption. No other country faced significant opposition to getting the Olympic games and World Cup just because of its consumption of dogs. No other country was publicly admonished by the head of the FIFA in advance of the World Cup over its consumption of dogs. To my knowledge, no other culture deliberately tortures dogs to improve the flavor. Finally, there is no requirement that all articles be alike. One very good reason for a Korean cuisine to have a section on dog meat is that its editors are interested and deem it worthy, while no editor of the some other cuisine's article has done so (yet). This article has a long section on table settings. The article on Swiss cuisine does not. Complain about that. This article has a section snacks. The article on Polish cuisine does not. Go start an edit war over snacks. If you know the Chinese raise and torture dogs as a significant part of their cuisine, you are free to make that entry in the appropriate article. Anyone is free to add a section on whale to an article on Japan. That is how Wikipedia works.

I addressed the topic again, giveng more reasons, a few days ago, in the RFC section. When I say reasons aren't being addressed, I mean any and all of the various reasons given above.

Basically, Jeremy's point #1 is wrong. Wikipedia has no guideline suggesting related articles should be organized the same way. There is no such convention. We are free to be different from the editors of other cuisine articles .

Bsharvy 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning would be slightly off, as consensus is a ruling guideline on WP. Since there is a general consensus on how articles are configured, the local group is in the minority and must follow the larger consensus as it stands now. While consensus can change, you will need to abide by it for now. The best I can say is to try to sway the general consensus to your POV and get it changed. This is policy and it is explained here. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What are you talking about? Consensus applies to articles. There is no consensus that no controversial food can have its own section. Your reference to to being in a minority is also wrong; consensus is not the same as majority. Read your own link. (You would be wrong even if the goal were achieving a clear majority rather than consensus; as far as I can tell the number of editors who endorse a separate section is roughly equal to the number who oppose it.) Bsharvy (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus of the WP community as a whole in regards to the inclusion of controversial materials in cuisine articles is not to include such data as a dedicated section within the article. While a controversial ingredient may be listed in the list of dishes, no other article on national cuisine includes such a section specfically detailing the consumption of food stuffs that are considered controversial. In is my stated opinion that this is the best guideline for solving the dispute, and that Chris' suggestions on the matter of proceeding forward are the best way to go. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please document that "the general consensus of the WP community as a whole in regards to the inclusion of controversial materials in cuisine articles is not to include such data as a dedicated section within the article." Bsharvy (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 21 examples of articles on national cuisine. All of them have some sort of food that is controversial, whether American critter cuisine, horsemeat, whale meat, consuption of insects etc. You will find that if such materials are added they are promptly deleted as NPOV. Several of these countries are known to consume dog meat and none of them have it as a separate section.

Furthermore, in African cuisine there is a history of consuming bushmeat and that particlular subject isn't in that article. All controversial food stuffs have their own, separate article with a {{see also}} link. Since the consensus is to remove said types of entries from articles, then ipso facto the general consensus it that it isn't appropriate, whether you agree or not.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

How many times does it have to be explained to you that what you are describing is not consensus? It isn't "following what everybody else has done." There is no convention or guideline stating we have to do what editors in other articles do, or that no article may differ in some way from analagous articles. How many times does it have to be suggested to you that dog meat in Korea is significnatly disanalagous to squirrel testicles in the US or whale meat in Japan? How many times does have to be pointed out that the reason for having a separate section on dog meat is not the controversy in itself? The controversy is being used as a reason to delete it, not to add it. A better question would be how many articles have sections for types of food, and then ask why such a section should be deleted merely because it is controversial.

Look at your own list of articles. French cuisine has a section "Structure of meals." No other article has that a separate section for that. Why don't you go scream about a violation of consensus over on the French cuisine Talk page. Thanks. Bsharvy (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basharvy, I quote your previous comment

Work toward a middle ground or go away. Bsharvy (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2007 \

So, isn't it time for you to go away? So far, no constructive compromise from you at all. Take care.--Appletrees (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get it and I am done trying to explain it. Please work towards a consensus, as Appletrees and the rest have. We all have been moving towards fixing this whole issue and you have been the proverbial stick in the mud and done nothing but hold it up. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That' right I don't get it. Trying to get you to explain it is part of working toward consensus. Trying to get you to propose something other than deletion is trying to work toward consensus. Trying to educate you on the meaning of consensus is trying to work toward consensus. Following what other articles do is not consensus. You didn't answer the question: French cuisine has a section "Structure of meals." No other article has that a separate section for that. Why aren't those editors violating consensus? Bsharvy (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read some of what I put below, the reason why other articles do not have a "structure of meals" section is because there probably hasn't been someone throughly knowledgeable to write on the subject. Many of the editors for articles are nto academics and when more people who research cuisine such as myself come on Wikipedia, we work toward what in the academic world is considered a model for academia, in he case of cuisine Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson is the model used which includes "structure of meals." Actually, if you want to goto one of the most widely accepted academic works on cuisine, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink, the mention of dog meat is tertiary. In the writing of the historical to modern context of cuisine, however, I plan to mention where dog meat fits into the culture of the past and up to today, which is mainly a cultural aspect limited to males with a desire to increase virility. Sensationalism of breeding, and butchery are not important to cuisine, those are "social" issues. They are no more a part of cuisine, than how one slaughters a cow, pig or chicken as it is just part of cuisine and as a protein, dog is no more unique than any other meat in this case as dog is eaten in multiple cultures across the globe.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There may be many reasons why only the French cuisine has done something a certain way. The point is that the French cuisine article is not violating any consensus by doing so. If you survey all the cuisine articles, you will find many articles that have some section not not found in other articles. That's normal, and not a violation of any guideline, convention, or consensus.
• Do you live in Korea? This statement is exaggerated: "dog meat ... is mainly a cultural aspect limited to males with a desire to increase virility" That's the biggest market, but it is not "mainly limited" to that. My coworkers, women in their mid-20's have tried dog; one of them states that she likes the taste and has it often. The other tried it because her mother, not father, likes the taste and has it often.
• The rest of your comment is mostly appeal to authority. Encyclopedias are references of last resort in Wikipedia, and no encyclopedia is editing here. What matters is the editors here reaching consensus, not what a different encyclopedia says. Some of what you say I have already addressed so many times, I am tired of it. Dog meat in Korea is unique. No other culture raises a breed just for consumption. The Japanese do not raise whales at all. No other culture has elevated dog to a de facto (non-official) livestock status; dogs are commercially raised for food here. What matters to a cuisine article is what is believed to affect the taste and quality of the dish, and in Korea, that means the way the aniaml dies is relevant. There are culture-wide beliefs about a connection between the manner of death and the quality of the food. It is wrong that only old men eat it. It is wrong that it is only found in rural areas. You can go eat dog meat in a restaraunt in downtown Seoul. This Talk page is full of misinformation. Bsharvy (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AI see this debate will be endless, I will choose to bow out and continue with my original train of thought below. I was hoping to convince you, but I see that will not happen.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody wants to change the world. Nobody wants to change himself." (Tolstoy). Are you as open-minded as you want me to be? Actually, I'm not sure of what you wanted to convince me. That we don't need a separate section for dog meat? I'm not committed to having a separate section. A problem with the organization of content is not a reason to delete content, yet that's the argument being made. That the content doesn't belong in this article? I've given reasons, but people have only contradicted my conclusions. You can't convince anyone by ignoring their reasoning, and just attacking their conclusions. You have to address reasons. If the debate is endless, there will never be consensus, so you need to find a way to avoid the endlessness. Bsharvy (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But people have come to your proposal to debate, and yet you have not commented on any of the other proposals such as mine below. The proposal below doesn't remove the content at all, but puts it into complete cultural context, even with the amounts in the "Modern" section of what would be a section labeled "National cuisine". The percentages/person just don't belong because they infer that the dog meat is a universally consumed protein. Whether your friends eat it or not, they are not an example of the entire culture, but a small subset of the culture. Something to the affect of "Although the public consumption of dog meat was banned after the 1988 Olympics in Seoul some Koreans still consume dog meat but not universally. xxx amount is still consumed in the country today, in the form of bosintang, a traditional stew or in medicinal extracts." This does not need its own section though, because written in its own section, it is not in context of the national cuisine, it is just something that sticks out.

Take American southern cuisine for example, in the 18th century many of the poor whites and slaves ate squirrel, possum and rabbit pretty universally. Today there are still some poor that eat these animals today in the rural regions of the south, but as it is not significant it does not warrant its own section of the article, and trust me people look at others eating these animals in America as a taboo as well. In Japan whale meat is consumed by some, but it is not universal, so when I get to the section of modern history a mention in the history section will mention the ban on whaling, but how some people still eat whale, but not universally, again in the context of the national cuisine though, not a separate section of the article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously suggested, I consider a smaller, dedicated version of the dog meat section to be the best solution.

My suggestion follows

The consumption of dog meat is a traditional part of Korean cuisine and medicine. Dog is most commonly consumed in a dish called bosintang (spicy dog stew) and in the medicinal extract gaeju (개주), also called gaesoju (개소주). Dog meat is believed to replenish energy lost to summer heat, and to enhance male sexual stamina. Historically, dog was also eaten because it was an easy source of meat in a poor agrarian society.

Roughly 2 million dogs are eaten each year in South Korea, or an average of 1.4 kg per person. All breeds are eaten, including purebreds and pets, but nureongee (누렁이) are commercially raised for consumption.

Consumption of dog meat became more controversial in South Korea as a result of the 1988 Summer Olympics and 2002 FIFA World Cup in Seoul. The government banned the sale of dog meat prior to the Olympics, under international pressure. However, the law is not strictly enforced.

obviously there should be a link to a dog meat article or something similar

I think the references to the supposed medicinal properties are needed, because of the mention that dog meat is used in a medicinal extract. The fact that it was an easy source of meat, is relevant in a cuisine related article. How much eaten needs to be confirmed, but popularity of a dish/ingredient is relevant. Breeds eaten should be kept, the same as which sort of noodle is eaten.

A couple of lines on controversy are good, without going into the gory details, but at least stating that it is controversial. If there is a mention of the law, then the fact that it isnt enforced needs to be there.

I am not an expert on dog meat/korea so if there are any factual errors, please point them out, and if there are any improvements, feel free to make your own proposal. Sennen goroshi 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I find this text to cover all the bases. The only change is that I don't believe pets are eaten by their owners, but perhaps you're referring to pets who run away and are abducted and used in the dog meat trade? Badagnani 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely pasting from the original article, I can't imagine owners eating their own dogs, so I think All breeds are eaten, but nureongee (누렁이) are commercially raised for consumption. might be better.Sennen goroshi 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original article may have based this information on pet dogs who run away and are caught up in the trade, as I believe some of the sources do mention this happening. Badagnani 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text as currently written appears to be neutral and not undue in weight to me. Full disclosure: during my year living in Korea I willingly ate dog meat twice, once in a soup and once in a stir-fry type dish. From what I saw, dog meat appears to be readily available for anyone who wants to eat it. Cla68 07:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, not that I am going to be able to cite you, but out of interest were you in a major city, or in the countryside? and when was this?Sennen goroshi 07:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was in 2003 in Pyeongtaek, a medium-sized city about one hour from Seoul. At both places I ate it, the proprietors appeared surprised and delighted to see me openly trying that dish. In both instances I was with Korean acquaintences. Cla68 10:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before reading anything, I just removed the bold text. It made my eyes sour. --Appletrees 10:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appletrees, I'm sorry if my bold text was not so kind on your eyes, I wanted people to be able to tell the difference between my comments and my proposed section, instead of bold text, I have put it in italics, which I hope are a little nicer than bold text. Anyway what do you think of my proposal? It is just my initial idea, if you have an idea how it can be changed to improve it, please tell me. thanks Sennen goroshi 13:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change. I'm a nearsighted person. Anyway, your revision looks better than Bsharvy's suggestion but "Roughly 2 million dogs are eaten each year in South Korea, or an average of 1.4 kg per person" seems questionable to me. "About 70,000 ~ 10,000 tone of dog meats are consumed" is more accurate to me. Mentioning "average of 1.4 kg per meat" implies that every Koreans eat the meat, that is not true. As I'm getting involved in the section, I can be a vegetarian. --Appletrees 13:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be right, 1.4kg per person might be implying that every person is eating it, there is no need to put the average figure in there, the basic figure is enough, if someone wants to read the figure and work out the average themselves, they can do so. As for how many dogs are consumed, if there is a reliable source then I see no problem with the figure, but the figure must be accurate, if there is no reliable source, then it is better to have no figure.Sennen goroshi 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is confusing to have these discussion of proposals separated into different sections and in very different parts of the Talk page.
• It is simply false as an absolute matter of fact that "average of 1.4 kg per meat" implies all Koreans eat dogs. That is nonsensical, and not an interpretation supported by the conventions of the English language. Nothing in the article implies that all Koreans eat dogs. This topic recurs like the plague in this discussion because Appletrees refuses to respond to reasons. Here are some reasons already given regarding this matter:

  These refusals to recognize the nature of general statements need to stop. If you say "Americans eat beef," it does not imply there are no American vegetarians. If you say "Koreans play badminton" it does not imply all Koreans play badminton. If you say "Koreans eat dogs" it doesn't imply all Koreans eat dogs. These are points are so obvious they do not need to be made to editors with a sincere interest in discussion.

  .

• Sennen's proposal is heavier on politics and lighter on the culture of food than the one I proposed in the "Proposal" section. This is a cuisine article; the streamlining should should retain aspects of cuisine and lighten political aspects.
• The constant references to the existing 2nd paragraph as "gory" are counterproductive and vaguely belittling. They are an attempt to dismiss conent with labelling instead of reasons. Nothing in the text is "gory." Some of the references contain goriness simply because of the nature of the topic. That is not a reason to delete the information or the references. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't avoid unpleasantness. Koreans eat live octopus. That is gory. Is that a reason to keep that information out of the article? Is it a reason to delete any references graphically portraying a Korean eating an octopus alive? The text should stand on its merits. Stamina food, and the rationale behind it, is much more relevant to a Korean cuisine article than the politics of the World Cup.
• Bsharvy 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly believe that Bsharvy's flat assertion can get a consensus from people as long as you're pushing like this. We don't avoid unpleasantness. Koreans eat live octopus. That is gory. It has no logic but just wrongness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and unfortunately some country censors it. Editors here have tried to adjust contents as comparing to other articles. I guess you're a strict vegan per the speech of the goriness on slaughtering animals to get meat. --Appletrees 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while I personally don't have an issue with the statement regarding 1.4kg, this article has been hard work for many editors, and perhaps a little compromise would be nice, after all the bullshit that has been going on, it would be a nice suprise to get a general agreement. If something is considered to be gory, then I don't really care, if it is a fact and notable - then fine, however if certain details are better off in the dog meat section, rather than the cuisine section - then it should not be here. This isn't the dog meat article, and should as a general rule have facts relating to cuisine.Sennen goroshi 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appletrees, your proposals regarding the text on dog meat are always to delete other editors' work. What constructive suggestions, addressing people's concerns, can you make? Most editors want some indication of how common eating dog is in Korea. If we write "It is common" many editors will object. If we say it is rare, many will object. So, it seems giving numbers and letting the reader decide is best. The numbers available from an English-language source are for total amount for the country. The only numbers we've found for how many Koreans eat dog, and how often, are in Hangeul. What constructive suggestion do you have for this situation? Something besides just a veto of the effort of others? Bsharvy 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bsharvy, don't lie about my editing. I haven't deleted any editors' work on this article. That is you, Bsharvy, and you always bring lengthy descriptions to expand the section as possible. If you felt sorry about my preference to Sennen' more compact version over yours, that is one of my right given just like any other editors have in Wiki. Your revision appears to be a very gory and unpleasant with unauthorized resources, but you insists including your version over others. If you keep denying to gather a consensus from people here, that would be not called "a constructive way of discussion" and this discussion could be a mere meaningless dispute again.--Appletrees 11:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you deleted anything. I asked you for a postive contribution regarding some text that is in both versions. You seem to have completely missed the point. I'm starting to wonder if your English skills are up to the task. Bsharvy (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, do you think your another personal attacking is the smartest way to gather an agreement from me? Quite impressive indeed. Perhaps your understanding is not as good as you evaluate yourself. I haven't demanded the section is to be deleted as you always wrongly point out to me. If any information misleads people enough, that is no good to exist here. That is my point and I'm not interested in expanding the section as you wish. Your version is unsuitable and unpopular because you're biased and have no understanding of Korean cuisine just as you're revealing your strong hatred. The references you're using are biased, unauthorized, unreliable, and are from something like PETA except a few. Melon's point at the prior discussion before your "advent" two weeks ago was right. --Appletrees (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the revision under the condition that the "1.4 kg per person" be removed. It implies that all Koreans eat dogs. And there should be citations regarding that pets are eaten. I don't know the extent of Koreans eating their pets and must not be included unless it is cleared up with a reference. Good friend100 (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you are flatly wrong. Nobody has implied all Koreans eat dogs. Look up the word "average" in a dictionary.
• Some editors here have demonstrated utter ignorance about the nature of consensus and compromise. Put aside the ideology, the juvenile insults, the reckless accusations of racism every time someone disagrees with you, and consider the possibility that if you think some wording is misleading, you could propose improved wording. It has apparently never occurred to Good Friend and Applestrees that there are other options than deletion. Propose something other than deletion for once in the entire history of your discussion here, please.
• It is important to compromise with reasonable positions. It is important not to compromise with wrong postions. It is flatly wrong that anything in any proposed text implies all Korean eat dogs. It is flatly wrong that, even if there were a barest hint of such a suggestion, the only possible solution would be to delete. The ideological, disruptive insistence on nothing but deletion is tiresome and a waste of time of other editors. Work toward a middle ground or go away. Bsharvy (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that nationalist editors lack good faith, look at your own face. I hardly take part in these arguments about dog meat blah blah and I'm only suggesting what I think is neutral. You say that deletion is unneccsary. Then tell me, why is including the "1.4 kg average per person" is neccessary. To some people, it seems as if all Koreans eat dog. I doubt that people will note the literal definition of "average" which most of them wouldn't care about.

YOU have a lack of good faith. I was ignoring the article for the last month or 2 and just started to look at this talk page a week ago and you start up telling me to leave. Good friend100 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koreans eat dog all the time. There's nothing to be embarrassed about. Its Korean culture. Why not have a section on it, and any other Korean foods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel63 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating dog meat is nothing to be embarrassed for some people, but is certainly controversial for many people. And per history books of Korean cuisine, Koreans do eat dog meat occasionally during summer, "not" all the time as you assert. Can you tell me why Norwegian cuisine article doesn't include a "special section" like a dish made with lamb's head from their traditional way of hunting? Chinese cuisine article doesn't have a controversial dish section like a dish made with monkey or porridge made with frog's brain, or roasted insects, all of which can be commonly seen in Chinese restaurant or street stalls in China? --Appletrees (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appletrees (nice name). I don't know enough about those cuisines to answer your question. I'm not saying there should a dog section because it is controversial. I'm just saying its part of Korean cuisine, so who cares if its controversial. Lets have lots of information about bibimbab and galbi so they have sections too. Yes, its a summer dish but people eat it other times (just like naengmyun). I don't care if the article on Chinese cuisine has a section for insects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel63 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I read the sentence mentioning nureongi (누렁이), I feel strange and something doesn't add up. I realized that the nureongi does refer to not only the dogs with yellow fur, but also bulls or cows with yellow skin.;;; For bulls or cows with yellow skins, hwangso(황소) is generally called, but some people use nureongi for bulls.

As for dogs, nureongi is not specific term designated to a breed of Korean dogs. Regardless of whether dogs are purebred or mixed, the term is given to dogs or bulls with yellowish fur. Jindo dog is a Korean purebred dog from Jindo, but people use the term, nureongi to call the dog breed with yellow fur more friendly than hwanggu (hangul:황구, hanja:黃狗) if they don't know the dog's name or don't recognize its breed. If a dog has white fur, it is called baekgu(hangul:백구, hanja:白狗), hayangae (하얀개, no hanja), or other. I think the mentioning nureongi should be removed as well to prevent from giving any confusion to people without any knowledge of Korean language.--`Appletrees 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other cultures that eat dog actually. The concept is not limited to Korea. There are a number of cultures in Africa that eat dog as a "coming of age" ritual. This does not mean that it is a major part of the "diet" as with Korean cuisine, it is a minor part. The reasons many items are not mentioned in other cuisine articles (as you mentioned Polish cuisine does not have a section on snacks) as you mentioned, is not because those editors choose to leave them out; it is because many many many of the cuisine articles are poorly written. Hence there are only two cuisine articles out of the hundreds that exist that are rated as Good Articles. I still maintain that much of this information can be placed into a heading of history, much like I have written for French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Jewish cuisine and Japanese cuisine. This would even give more ability to add some specific items as to when dog eating may have begun in the culture coming from China during the pre-modern period as much of Chinese culture passed through Korea and then to Japan, until these countries gained their own identity during and post the Western period of time known as the Middle Ages (as there is information on it in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink) and eventually coming to a section on the "Modern Period" where a mention would be placed on the ban of dog meat when the Olympics came to Seoul in 1988 which came up in discussion in one of my gastronomy classes last week on tourism ironically. In keeping with the discussion of the modern period, the properly sourced tonnage could be mentioned, as it is the amount of dog meat eaten by the entire country, but not a note about how much it is per each individual, unless you put a disclaimer that states "but this is not to suggest that all Koreans eat dog meat, as it a specialty meat eaten by only certain members of the population for its suggested effects on male virility."

Having a whole section dedicated to dog meat though is sensationalist, I am obviously not suggesting we not mention dog meat at all, I just suggest sensationalism be relegated to debates and arguments off of an encyclopedia article. We are not here to judge a culture based upon their food practices.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget mentioning bosintang under "Stews," as mentioned earlier. Badagnani (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that was part of the intention of putting it in history as the dish is not "modern," although it is still consumed obviously for virility which is culture, which is part of cuisine.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if a consensus comes to doing this proposal, you'll have to wait until after the 13th for me to research and write this as I am in the middle of writing some rather large term papers. Once a consensus is reached, I'll request a block lift and I will structure a historical section, only once there is a consensus though as I don't feel like researching all of this and then having someone revert it like was happening before.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time (soon) I am going to work on changing the cuisine template to a horizontal template to go on the bottom of cuisine pages. As this will affect many pages I will need time to move them all to the bottom of the page so I need to wait until all my term papers are finished as I don't have a whole lot of time right now. In addition, I am planning on making a navigational template for Korean cuisine, which I will produce in my sandbox and link to all of you when I finish it, much in the vein of the template used on Chinese cuisine.

As for the over all structure of this article, in order to expand upon the history, structure of meals, regional cuisine and ingredients, I would like to suggest that the large lists of dishes be placed inside of the article List of Korean dishes with links from their specific place in the updated article to the section of the list article. This gives the ability to continue the possible endless expansion of the list of dishes, without making this article just a series of giant lists. So for example, I would write a properly sourced section on "Royal cuisine", and then at the bottom or top of the section a link would be there that would take the reader directly to the list of Royal cuisine dishes in the List of Korean dishes. For examples of how I have done this in other articles, take a look at the French cuisine, Italian cuisine and Japanese cuisine articles. The first two being better examples as I have not finished working on the Japanese cuisine article yet.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I start to believe you're doing this from good faith. My first impression on you is massive blankings without any discussion. Anyway, your suggestion for positioning cuisine template sounds pretty good to me. The additional Korean cuisine template can give more navigational functions and look tidy. But honestly to say, I don't like the current style of the French cuisine and Japanese cuisine articles. The articles make me disappointed: They are not enticing at all due to missing photos and look like a history of cuisine textbook and lists of each national cuisine dishes. I'm still preferring the content style of German cuisine over the examples above. Because still, Korean cuisine article doesn't have much text compared to French cuisine. I can provide some of history information recorded in Korean old cookbooks in order to fill up the history part, but can't guarantee smooth wordings though. --Appletrees (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not quite sure where you got the idea of me blanking articles, as I have never done such a thing. I work diligently to bring articles to a high quality and work pretty gosh darn hard on here to make Wikipedia as encyclopedic as possible, as I am an academic researcher on food and culture. At any rate, I have many academic texts that offer a history, I'd rather use those than cookbooks, as cookbooks in general are not properly research from a non-POV basis. History of cuisines is actually a majority of the academic work I do for my graduate degree. I'm not quite sure why those articles disappointed you, because this is an encyclopedia, not a cookbook listing ingredients and dishes. Listing dishes is important, but it should not in my opinion be the bulk of the article. There are also numerous photos in the articles for context. If you goto the list of dishes, there are pictures of the dishes on those articles, and if there are some missing, then some can be easily added. Have you taken a look at the page List of Korean dishes?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your all effort to resolve every ongoing disputes here, but as you made the article of the list of Korean dishes, the article was almost blanked out. You and Badagnani made a quarrel over you edits. To me, that was a very a striking impression of you. As for the cookbook, of course well-analogized thesis and history books on the cuisines are way better than original cookbooks. I can't even read the 15th or 17th Korean cookbooks without backing references because of the old Korean language and hanja. However, I can provide you more specific information which only Korean can reach. Regarding my disappointment at the cuisine articles, they seem to focus on the history section, and lack of representatives of each national food. Just like ordinary people, I also expected to see sumptuous array of dishes in the French cuisine articles (it has a lot of famous and enticing dishes and desserts!) But seeing just list of ingredients used for the cuisine is not satisfied. It is my mere impression on the articles. --Appletrees (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How in the heck do you think that Tanner-christopher is blanking pages? As of now, its obvious that he is the most important outside and neutral contributor and I'm not sure if your trying to scare him away or something.

And I do agree that the article should have a history of Korean cuisine and not just a list of dishes. Good friend100 (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, buddy, please chill out and see the below. And I have no plan to defame Chef Chris with the past thing. Just I said my "first impression" and that is no big deal.

• 2007-10-17T14:54:50, 2007-10-17T15:04:40 --Appletrees (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, they weren't actual blankings, they were moving of material to a list page with intent for summaries on the page, but I made the transfer premature without talking on the page here as honestly most cuisine articles don't have as many issues as this one has had, which is why I changed it back when I couldn't convince people of my intent. So I learned that sometimes WP:Bold can be a little too bold in some cases, but I don't think it is necessary to discuss it anymore. So at least now we can move forward in a way that will get this article with some academic content which will help the dishes become part of the bigger context of the cuisine. As I stated above, you guys will just have to wait until after next Wed. for me to start doing any major work on this page as I am taking 16 credits worth of graduate classes and my term papers are all due next week. Am I getting the feeling that a consensus is coming together here between this section and my proposal above? BTW, what I don't have and I am quite sure the regular editors of this page will have, is pictures. Although there are pictures here already, when I go through the history, there are going to be some individuals and historical areas I might like some pictures for.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bygone is bygone. At this point, your suggestion is most appealing and actual from all proposals, I think. But one persistent editor can easily agree with this process? I doubt.--Appletrees (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with Chris' proposal^nth - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I believe that if bulleted lists of dishes are moved out, many of them still need to be mentioned, in prose. Not to mention the various traditions of barbecue, jjigae, etc., as well as names of prominent dishes would leave a very incomplete article. Badagnani (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we do agree to move anything out, I will make sure this time that a summary is written for any relavent moves before they goto the subsidiary list article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that the German cuisine article does have lists of dishes (as well as ingredients and categories of dishes). Thus, it gives me the impression that this article has evolved in a logical way as well--i.e., there is a good reason why we describe the main dishes--that is, because they are believed to be of integral significance to an understanding of this cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I order to get the article to GA status, a big part of the transition is getting rid of lists from the main portion of the article. That is why many articles have smaller redirected articles. Actually, the regional cuisine section of the Italian cuisine article has been suggested to become a summary itself before getting an FA rating because of its list like characteristic. Although this article, as well as the German article have other information on them besides the dishes, it is very limited which is what we are looking to expand and "cite properly." Cuisine as defined by Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson ( a well accepted author on the establishment of cuisine in cultures) has four dimension to it, Chef/Cook, Diner/Reader (includes etiquette, dining practices, structure of meals), Cookbooks (which include codified recipes, such as those on this page), and a fourth variable that I will sum up in saying history and critique. As I think I mentioned before, cuisine is my major topic of research for my Master's degree in Gastronomy.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it hasn't seen much attention, there is a template connected to the Food and Drink project that explains in general terms how a cuisine article should be structured. It's only a recommendation, but when I worked on articles like medieval cuisine and Aztec cuisine, this basic set of general topic sections served me very well.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter, I think that template works really well for a cuisine in one period of time, I'd like to expand upon it to include more dimensions in the near future but haven't because it was your creation.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add anything you like.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My term papers are done for the semester, and I can get back to working on some thing on Wikipedia again. I am currently workin on the Cuisine of the United States article as well right now, so I'm hoping to spend time between the two articles. Academcially the sources I have found so far are historic and encyclopedic along with some authentic culinary books. There is a brief mention of dog meat, but mostly to do with the ban during the '88 Olympic games and about the cultural stew. However, there are two books coming out from authors I know are well respected. The first being Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History by Michael J. Pettid, which comes out in March, which I have pre-ordered as-well-as The History and Culture of Korean Cuisine by Jeroen Gunning which will be even more informitive (it better be for the $110.00 I just spent on it) but again it won't be out until May. I can get quite a bit written before those boooks come out, but I am also wondering if it is better to wait for these books to come out which will be much more usefull and informative for my writitng, opinions are welcome.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. For a while everybody seem busy with their other interests inside and outside of Wikipedia. :) You could have two good sources for this article and your study. That is really good. Time flies fast but waiting until March seems little too much. With the first book, this article has some history section, I think. Anyways, good to see you. --Appletrees (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book Unmentionable Cuisine by Calvin, W Schwabe has a section on dogmeat in it that I looked at on Amazon.com. Funny enough it mentions a large amount of cultures that eat dog, or at one time ate dog. I'll pick it up tomorrow at Barnes and Nobles and see what it has to say in more detail. I agree waiting until then is awhile. I can add more when I get those books.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it to commons but don't know what it is and the photographer is not a Korean. Is it tangpyeongchae (탕평채)?

--Appletrees (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

자문자답 (self question and self answer in Konglish or self-resolved) The dish seems tangpyeongchae due to the thinly shredded muk. -Appletrees (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I post needed Korean dish articles because commons has images of the foods which are also representative. --Appletrees (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an omija article. Don't forget about seogi beoseos, which is also at Commons and needs an article. Badagnani (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the omija article is not omijacha article. Is there anyone willing to create one article from the table? I can't make all of these articles by myself!!! --Appletrees (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All breeds are eaten, including purebreds and pets.^[1] but nureongee (누렁이)^[2] are commercially raised for consumption.

I changed the statement above to remove "All breeds are eaten". diff The source does not confirm this statement. It tells that a purebred dog was prepared as food in this case, which was a crime. The fact the article's title refers to it as a "Murderous Dog Stew", confirms it is an aberrant act, and not to be generalized as typical of Korean cuisine.

Badagnani reverted my edit diff with the comment "rvv and removal of source, which does indeed confirm the text". RVV is typically used to mean "revert vandalism". Badagnani, are you accusing me of vandalism? I hope this is not what you were intending. This was a good faith edit. Dforest (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I also had misunderstood "RVV" for a while. I thought rvv means "reverting the revert". Until someone said about it, I used to leave it at summary fields.(thought mostly the cases in which I used it was vandalism or blanking without rationale). --Appletrees (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source was removed entirely, as well as text stating that breeds other than nurong are eaten, leaving the reader to believe that only a single breed is eaten. This is not the case. Badagnani (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source was an instance of a crime in which a dog was stolen and prepared as food. The perpetrator was arrested. And the source did not state that "all breeds are eaten". There are a number of instances of crimes involving pets being killed for food, for example: Beloved dog butchered, eaten. In that case, it was in the United States. That should not lead us to believe that all breeds of dogs (or any breed of dog) are eaten as part of American cuisine. According to Template:Verify source:

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:

. . .

2. If it is doubtful and potentially harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.

3. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

Additionally, in Wikipedia:Verifiability, Jimbo Wales is quoted:

Template:Jimboquote

It is very harmful to associate a criminal act as being representative of a national cuisine. Thus I have removed the statement until it can be properly cited to a reliable source.

I do not take it lightly having my edits referred to as vandalism. If that is what you meant by "rvv", I would appreciate an apology. Dforest (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source, which was valid, was blanked entirely from the article. I did not make a mistake when I pointed that out. The nureong is not the only breed eaten in Korea, as the source showed (and which, with the newly blanked paragraph, our readers are misled into believing). Just one source showing purebreeds being raised (apparently filmed with a hidden camera by a reporter for the South Korean SBS television network) may be found here. Whatever you choose to believe is fine, just don't prescribe your wishful thinking to our readers by blanking sources and text that is distressing or disturbing to you, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make assumptions as to what I do or do not believe. The source was removed because it was cited to back up the statement "All breeds are eaten, including purebreds and pets". As I said above, it was a reference to a crime, which should not be representative of a national cuisine. If you can find a reliable, third party source which backs up that statement, you are welcome to include it. Please remember to assume good faith. Dforest (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been provided: one showing that pets are eaten and another showing that purebreds are eaten. Please restore the text, thanks; the blanked text as it stands is incorrect and misleading to our readers. Badagnani (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not established that "all breeds are eaten". That statement is not verifiable by the sources given. Dforest (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]