Talk:Korean cuisine

Dog Eating Continued

I wonder what the backgrounds of some of you editors here are. I know one of you is a chef who tried to argue that a dog is a "staple food" in korea because meat is staple and dog is meat, which is just a flawed argument... But any of you have any malice intent to put dog as one of main category of Korean food? (like a former english teacher in korea...)

There's no denying that some koreans eat dogs. Though some say that dog eating in Korea goes back further, most believe it only goes back to WWII when korea was very poor. Roughly 10%(*) of Koreans have "tried" dogs, but the definition of "tried" doesn't mean that it's part of their normal diet. I tried snails, but that doesn't mean sails are on my dinner table for daily meal either.

As an editor in wikipedia entry, you have to describe something as though you are speaking to someone with no knowledge in the subject. But when you read the description of dog meat in Korean food section, you get the sense as though it's bigger part of Korean diet than it really is and the description uses biased words like "popular" (twice) and compares eating dogs "not as widely consumed" to eating beef, chicken, and pork. This is just pure unfair depiction and misleading entry. And when has 10% of population ever considered "popular"?

Dog eating is controversial subject matter and there's small but growing voice against the practice in Korea as well. Rather than steering persons to your biased point of view, dog eating should be presented as a practice done in korea but with controversy that's surrounding it. Even just this discussion page alone is full of disagreements.

I propose there's should be a section called "controversial Korean food" that talks about the dog eating practice (with link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat) as well as live octopus eating (called San Nak-gi). Dog is not a staple and the description is very misleading.

There should also be extended description of fish and sea food in korea. If anything, squid should take place of where dog is since it's very much consumed, avaiable to purchase at a grocery store as you would with beef, chicken, and pork.

If there's any reasonable reason why dog belongs with beef, chicken, and pork (while more consumed Squid isn't) in Korean food section, please comment or go into arbitration. Santaria360 (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• 10% cited here (http://www.slate.com/id/2060840/) and other sites you can search for

These concerns have been covered in great detail earlier; please see the Discussion page archives. Please also see WP:SPA. Badagnani (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussed or not, it's still not decided to many people's satisfaction as you can see in the comments and you are still holding hostage with very little knowledge to the topic. Santaria360 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the relative merits of each of your points, let's comment on content, not contributors, please. -kotra (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I'll stay focused on topic and not the contributor. Santaria360 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah... Badagnani

Reading back on previous comments, I've already had long discussion with you two years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_cuisine/Archive_1) and I still haven't got the answer to the question why you are so passionate about having dog eating in the Korean food section.

How did it get to the point where two non-Koreans have a control over editing Korean food which is a doorway into Korean culture for foreigners? Isn't there something odd there? Santaria360 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They have been addressed earlier; please see the archives. See also WP:SPA. Badagnani (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, you're unnecessary being rude as quoting WP:SPA several times.--Caspian blue 07:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a New Sub-Section for "Controversial Korean Foods" and Expansion of "Fish and Seafoods"

Currently, the content about Dogs as meats that Koreans consume is inadequate and biased. We need to read the article as though we are all new to Korean food and by listing dog in the same section as beef, chicken, and pork shows that the dog is in same category. This can't be further from truth. Only way that the article currently tries to distinguish the difference is by stating vaguely that "...but is not as widely consumed as beef, chicken, and pork". If the proponents of the "keeping dog as meat" is arguing that we need to educate our readers without bias on the practices of Korean eats, then we need to do so by showing that this topic itself is controversial in Korea, rather then filtering out what the readers should/should not be educated about. I'm confident that 99% of content about Korean dog eating on the web is either biased against it or is a neutral article showing how people are fighting against it. If that's the case, it's almost impossible to filter out to derive contents and statistics from such sites. We are better off creating a new subcategory and presenting the argument as is, so no editors can pick and choose what readers should be educated about.

Also, seafood is huge part of Korean diet and the description of it is incomplete. Article doesn't list a single Korean seafood dish and just says that "Those who lived closer to the oceans were able to complement their diet with more fish while those who lived in the interior had a diet containing more meat". Well, Korea is a small country and it's surrounded on 3 sides by ocean and like many countries, all the major cities are located near the ocean. Nothing in that section is noteworthy and should be expanded. Santaria360 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Once you've read the discussion archives straight through, please come back and we'll discuss further. You may also wish to contribute to other articles at our encyclopedia; we have over a million now and your expertise would be a valuable asset. Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have no interest in contributing to any other millions of articles at this moment. My contribution to Wiki isn't what makes me sleep at night nor is it any accomplishment that I would brag about. I'm only interested in this topic for now. I did read some of the archives, but what's been discussed in the past I believe is irrelevent. I'm not looking to change the past edition to this article, but the current one, which I believe to be inadequate. So, why would I bother with the past when the final one with all the revision still isn't good enough? Unless I get a confirmation from an administrator that the current article is a firm final article with no other revision to be made ever, my time is better served trying to change what's now, then what was before. I don't claim expertise on Korean Food or any other millions of topics on Wikipedia, but I do know a biased and poorly written article when I see one.

Only thing I ask of you, again, as an editor is what you think of my idea and what's your objection to it if any. Thanks! Santaria360 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to address your comments until you have read the discussion archives straight through. Regarding my response to your proposal, it's also difficult to evaluate this because you have now, at least seven or eight times in various fora, including discussion pages of editors you believe sympathetic to your ideas, discussion pages of various articles, administrators' noticeboards, etc., consistently impugned me as an editor, portrayed me as an editor who is not knowledgeable about this subject, made pronouncements about my ethnicity, stated that I should not be allowed to edit articles on Korean cuisine, etc. If you retract these statements in each of those fora, I may be more easily able to evaluate your proposals. Badagnani (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All, lets keep the rhetoric down please. I do agree with Badagnani, which is a rare event :), you should look back on the discussions archived here and see how we came to be here in the first place. The section is a compromise that does not give anyone exactly what they want but is presented in such a way that it only provides a history of the practice, puts it in context with Korean society and is done so meeting the standards for inclusion: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:Not. The only group that is still arguing against the inclusion are those who simply do not like the data at all.

You must understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and these controversial subjects are here to stay. People of all nationalities must tolerate the good, bad and embarrassing aspects of their history, whether it is Germans and Nazism, Japanese and Fascism, Americans and slavery/racial discrimination/ethnic segregation. Yes this is a controversial subject that inflames the passions of many Koreans and people of Korean descent, and has also drawn several Japanese editors whose goals are nationalistic in their intent. Several parties, myself included, have been trying to mediate this dispute to placate the parties involved and keep the peace. Please try to understand that this is not an attempt by non-Korean editors and contributors to humiliate Korean people. --Jeremy (blah blah 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WHEN DID I TRY TO CENSOR??? PLEASE POINT OUT IN RECENT DISCUSSION WHERE I WANTED THE DOG MEAT TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED!?!? Only ones that should be guilty of censorship is current editors. I mean seriously... Without resorting to sounding condescending best that I can, I want you to pick out anywhere in my proposal above to remove dog meat. Please! You yourself included dog meat as "these controversial subjects..." in your comment above and exactly what is your response to my proposal? Just go back and read the conversations??? WIKIPEDIA IS EVER CHANGING IN ITS CONTENT!!! Are we done? Is what's on the article currently written in stone? Please, I ask you... What's your response to my proposal? Where is it flawed and how could it be made better? Can anybody opposing this actually give me an answer? Isn't that how dialogue and negotiations work? Since when is accusing someone of censorship and accusing to pushing their POV only without any justification as to why my proposal is not fesible the way Wikipedia works? If you really want me to understand as to why not, rather than giving me the background history of wikipedia (which i can look up on wikipedia), tell me what's wrong with the idea?!?! Obviously, controversy still hasn't gone away and probably never will, but I'm just trying to improve on the current situation Santaria360 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling for the removal of the section, you and the others are seeking to censor, by elimination, that particular set of data. As to discussions, comments and discussion are never removed, but are archived. In fact removal of historical data is seriously frowned upon, as policy, on WP. You can review the archives through the links found at the top of this page. --Jeremy (blah blah 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you read before you comment? When did I call for removal? I called for edit. I called for revision and creating a new section. Isn't that was WP is about? Also, when did I remove any discussion? Please point out someone's discussion that I removed. Only revision I ever made was changing misspelling on my own post Santaria360 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say you changed anything, I was responding to your comment about WP being fluid and changing, I was just saying that talk pages do not get edited or deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah 07:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you would kindly read the discussion archives straight through before returning to discuss, it would be very helpful. I have already pointed out that in fact dog meat was originally in its own section, right at the end of the article, and a number of Korean editors pointed out that this drew too much attention to this component of Korea's cuisine. Through very extensive discussion and consensus, it was moved to the end of the "meats" section, with most of the gory details about its production removed and most of the important culinary aspects retained, since it's an article about food and not about minutiae of any specific ingredient. You will not need to ask such questions as above once you've read the archives straight through. It will also be very helpful if you would retract the highly offensive statements about other Wikipedia editors in each of the fora in which you made them. This will make it easier to evaluate your proposals. Badagnani (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did and I came to the conclusion that the way it is, with all those edits, is still inadequate. Also, I believe I did apologize previously many times, but if you missed it, I'm sorry! There. Done.

Now, let's get back to issue at hand. What's your objection to my proposal? Santaria360 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is my objection to your proposal. Dog is a meat, it is listed in the section which contains meat. If you give "this" meat its own section, you give it inappropriate attention, because from a sociological lack of POV, we should not put our outside or even internal pov on the topic. It is just a meat, that is why the section does not put in amounts of the meat consumed, nor does it mention any controversy that may be found in certain news articles. It is just a meat consumed by a portion of the Korean population. I will also add that I find your earlier comments about non-Koreans working on this article to be rude. Just because someone is born into a culture, does not make them an expert. I assure you that there are many food studiests that were never born within their desired realm of research whom are experts within their field. I am by no means an expert on Korean cuisine, but I make, as do others, educated decisions on how to add and subtract facts to this article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what i find fault with your argument. First, meat is something you eat. To me and to major portion of Koreans in the article above say dogs are pets, not food. So in essence, you are being biased for the minority 10% that eat it and dumping dog as meat catagory. How does that make sense? There's obvious controversy and inadaqucy of definition from getgo of your point. Second, you say that putting dog in its own catagory "give it inappropriate attention" and that's my exact argument, but opposite. I am saying by listing dog as "meat" without any backup history or controversy to it, you ARE giving it an "INAPPROPRIATE ATTENTION"!!! Third, you say you think my comment about non-Koreans working on this article to be rude. I'll accept that. But you also said with your own words that you "by no means an expert on Korean cuisine" and I believe I'm more of an expert and have more exposuring to different type of Korean food than you. So, what gives you and Badagnani right to disregard the opinion of someone who knows more than you about the subject? Santaria360 (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can just interject a quick outsider's view, I must say I'm a little bit surprised that the section currently doesn't even hint at the controversial nature of the practice. Of course, "we should not put our outside or even internal pov on the topic", but surely, a brief, neutral statement to the effect that the practice is controversial within Korean society would be part of a sociologically adequate treatment? Also, wouldn't a more visible {{main}} section link be useful? – But I don't have the stomach to read through all the old discussions, so if this was treated at some point and reached a stable consensus, I'll leave it to you guys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding seafood, which aspects are currently included in the article, and which ones do you believe should be added? I don't see any problem with expanding the seafood section if necessary and done in a manner appropriate to the article and its structure. Badagnani (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely something about squid and octopus should be added. More than 155,000 tons of squid are fished annually. There's should be dishes like Hal Mul Tang, Kalchi, and also korean versions of sashimi which is eaten a lot. Santaria360 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the article and nearly all of those are already discussed. Badagnani (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question from newbie

Hi Folks, I am here due to an ANI report. I will settle this "dog meat" issue real quick once and for all. Just kidding. Seriously, can somebody factual tell me what "amount" or percentage of dog meat is consumed by Koreans as opposed to beef, pork, and chicken? Is it like 30%, 30%, 30%, 10% dog meat or more like 33%, 33%, 33%, 1% dog meat ect. This will help me, probably not others, alot. Thanks in advance and stay cool :) --Tom 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

All the information you would like to know is contained in the talk page archives. If you will read them straight through you will find it, in great detail. Badagnani (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you are going to make me do that :). Fine, I have nothing better to do :). --Tom 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good question. I don’t know why I didn’t think about that. I have the information. You'll notice that beef and chicken numbers are from past when declined b/c that's the easiest for me to find. Beef consumption in Korea was 305,000 tons in 2006, down due to Mad Cow scare(https://www.beef.org/uDocs/southkoreasbeefprices809.pdf), Chicken consumption was 342,000 tons in 2004, down due to bird flu scare (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23731/newsDate/6-Feb-2004/story.htm), pork consumption was 1,057,000 tons in 2000 (http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/2001/01-03LP/porki.pdf), and seafood consumption was 2,710,000 tons (http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200611/146249420.pdf), and dog was 101,500 tons (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/young-koreans-turn-their-noses-up-at-dog-dinners-460090.html).

While 100k+ ton is definitely not a laughing matter, dog accounts for 5.5% of all popular land animal consumption for the year. When including seafood, the most consumed with the least amount of information on the article, dog is 2.2% of total popular meat consumption.

Again, my argument wasn’t to remove dog completely, but to move it to a section and acknowledge it’s controversy. Santaria360 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for those #s Santaria. Based on that, I probably wouldn't weigh in either way, but if I did, and dog meat is the 4th most consumed meat, I would leave as is and qualify the section if needed, like it sort of is now. Maybe add more of a "disclaimer" if you will, or even the 2.2% number so readers have a ball park number rather than the current wording, but 100K tons is not insignificant (I know you didn't say it was) and the percentage is also not small, imho. If you had said, the percentage was like .05% or something, then I would have felt very differently. Anyways, just me :) Thanks again and good luck to all here. --Tom 18:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you would weigh in the way you did. First, eating dog is disgusting and comsumption of 100k+ ton of it annually is a great amount because of what it is and compare to rest of the world. But if I were to substitute and say that beef constitutes 5.5% of Koreans meat consumption, then would people think that beef was a major part of Korean meat diet? Perhaps, but probably not compare to how much we eat of it US. There's stigma and bias already built into our minds about dog eating that's undeniable, so any measurable number would be significant to people and if the number was small enough to be insignificant, there wouldn't even be this discussion. Second, you assume that dog is the 4th popular meat, but nowhere is that fact stated. If seafood is classified as meat (which i guess it is b/c it's listed same with beef and dog), classifying anything that comes from sea as "seafood" is like claiming beef, dog, chicken, and etc into one category which we didn't. This is relevent because if you read the article on seafood, they break down and listed like 4 or 5 differnent types of fish that's consumed more than dog and not to mention shell fish as well. That already puts dog from 4th to 8th or 9th without even looking into other animals.

Again, my point wasn't that dogs should be left out entirely. The way it's written is inadequate and needs a revision, which the editors are refusing to do. Santaria360 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read the archives straight through before commenting here further. We've asked that you do that several times already. See

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=2166 -- it says that "In general, dog meat is fourth most popular meat after pork, beef, and chicken in South Korean market." This has been discussed extensively. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the whole point. Dog probably is the 4th most eaten land animal in Korea because frankly what else is there in Korea? My point is that people find the number 5.5% more relevelent than what it is because it's a dog. If you include different types of fish as meats (which I assume you do because fish and seafood is in meat section), then dog isn't 4th most eaten, it's more like 8th.

I really don't understand what your objection is. Chef Tanner at least replied back with his objection and I responded to clear it up. You didn't state any opinion except for the fact that what it is, is what you guys decided so far, but Wikipedia article is everchanging so why are you wanting the article fixed from here on? Santaria360 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing any point other than the apparent fact that you have not read the discussion archives straight through. I have explained the reason why consensus supported the moving of dog meat from a dedicated section at the end, which primarily discussed its controversial aspects, to the end of the "Meat and fish" section (not a "Meat" section that includes seafood). The article, further, does not describe dog as "the fourth most popular meat." Read the text again. Also, kindly comment here after you have read straight through the discussion archives. Thank you for this. Badagnani (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. Why are you keep saying that I didn't. I still don't like that way it's written, that it gives wrong impression. For the last time, stop telling people to go back. My argument in a nutshell is that (whether is has been discussed before is irrelevent because I'm bringing it up again) the way it's written is misleading, inadequate, and controversial. It's better served as it's own controversial section. You and Chef Tanner's only argument to the fact that it belongs with other meats is because it's 4th most eaten "meat". So, thoughtlessly you rank meat 1, meat 2, meat 3, and meat 4. It's irrelevent to me if it's forth rank "meat"... There aren't even that many meats to rank. If you rank all of land meat, I would guess human "meat" probably comes in top 10. Sure the amount of consumption is important and I addressed that fact, but what's most important is if dog IS really a meat. I like said on my reply to Chef Tanner that meat is food. Go look up the definition of meat and it says that meat is a flesh of animal used for food. Let me ask you. Do you consider dogs food? Wait, nevermind... Maybe you do maybe you don't but that's irrelevent. What's relevent is that the article above mentions the major % of population doesn't even think of dog as food. This is different than a very small vegan thinking all animals aren't food. It's majority. That majority sees dogs and it's a pet to them, not meat. So, that's the controversial part right there. There are 3 sides to what people think of dead dog is in Korea: meat, medicine, and a dead pet. So, how are you going to say there's no biased built into the way it's written when the article takes side of people that think dogs are meat. If a newcomer to Korean food sees that, then they are going to assume that all Korean people think dog is meat. You and Chef Tanner has presented the view of minority of Korean as major view point. That is misleading and controversial. Geez Santaria360 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page archives are not an "it"; there are many of them and it can't possibly be read and digested in a single day. The archives are located in separate files linked at the top of this page. Go back, look for the small tan box at the top right of this page, and read the discussion page archives, as we have asked you to do nearly ten times now. Then, please come back and discuss. Badagnani (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

who said it was single day? How do you know i wasn't reading through it ten days before I started posting? Just curious... How? I mean... you are basically calling me a lier right? I know where the archive is. I did find our conversation from 2 years ago didn't I? I asked you ten times too for your reply yet none... All you have to do is give me a valid excuse and you can't because you don't have one. There's really nothing else to say here. I think it's pretty clear you are set in your way not because the benefit of this post, integrity of WP, or whatever you want to claim. You want to win the argument against me. You have no valid point to counter argue I'm saying, so the only thing you can do is not give me any answer and hope I go away. What more point can I possibly make without a rebuttal? I don't care about winning or losing. I just don't want this section misrepresented. Can't you just drop the act and just say what you think, how you really feel? Maybe then I understand where you're coming from. You obviously my thoughts, but I don't yours. Santaria360 (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Santaria360, do not try to get an answer from him. You already know about how "profound" his knowledge of Korean cuisine is.--Caspian blue 05:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Break

I want to address some of Santaria's, and others, questions and concerns to the best of my knowledge. The questions are shortened/summarized for brevity:

1. Why not include statistics on tonnage/percentage? - The inclusion of numerical data can be deceptive as the numbers can be manipulated to show a POV that is disruptive. How? One side may say "look, compared to the others the consumption is minuscule, lets remove the data all together." while the other side says "hey look at that number, let's use it to show how cruel the Koreans are to dogs!" This has happened, repeatedly. All I can say is Mark Twain made a comment that describes the problem with statistics, and to sum him up: while the data is neutral, the conclusions drawn from them usually aren't.
2. Why not present this in its own section? - That draws undo attention to the data and makes it a lighting rod. Again the same problem.
3. Why cant we just delete the section all together? - Because it will be added back in no matter what we do, and usually in a way that restarts the whole roller coaster ride of disagreements. This also addresses my point about censorship, WP is not censored and editing the data to minimize or delete it violates this policy.
4. This source meets the standards of reliability, we should use it. - Unfortunately some sources, while being reliable, are not neutral. For example, there is one source from the BBC that keeps popping up, unfortunately while the article in question is from a premiere source the article itself is biased against Koreans in its presentation and conclusions. Multiple editors have stated this and yet certain contributors keep trying to insert it.
5. You should allow us Koreans to do this properly, as foreigners you do not know or understand Korean society - I understand your point, but you have to understand that sometimes outsiders can help because they are not emotionally vested in the issue. Not all outsiders have the best of intentions, as some rather nationalistic and biased editors have shown in the past, but others truly want to help improve the article.
6. We have data from the Korean government that can be used to verify/discount this point - In almost all instances the data is not Korean, it is South Korean. When it is said that dog is the n^th most commonly eaten meat in Korea, eaten by x% of the population, the sources are almost universally referring to South Korea. Unless you can provide data that encompasses and is drawn from both North and South Korea, it cannot and should not be used.
7. By ranking the foods, you are deceiving people about the consumption of dog - There is no ranking, no terminology that states the level of consumption or any other information in the article that would put forward that position. The article only states the animal and some of the traditional dishes it appears in. I, however, did reorganize the section on protein so it is alphabetical to address your concerns.

Chef Tanner spent several hundred dollars of his own money acquiring texts on Korean cuisine written by prominent researchers in order to present the data in the best possible and neutral way. Knowing the contentious history of the article he sought to remove all but the most neutral and scholarly of sources because, while they may have been reliable, they might not have presented the data in the best way or in such a way that the conclusions were not clear. Knowing the quality of work he did on other national cuisine articles, many contributors finally allowed him to rewrite the article based on these texts and I think it came out rather well. Other editors that were warring eventually came to see that the way he wrote the article was a good compromise. There were some disputes that did result in changes, for example the titling of the "Staples" section was changed to "Foodstuffs" so not to make people think dog was a staple, which of course it isn't. We are all wary of changes because of the problems in the past, and seek that proposed changes have all of their "i"s dotted, "t"s crossed, are accurate, do not draw conclusions and are not going to lead back to the problems encountered in the past. I think that is what Badagnani has been trying to say, all be it not in a clear way. I have clashed with him in the past, I have worked with him in the past as well and he can do good work at times. The same can be said of others who have commented here, but please remember we all share the same goal of making this article great and keeping it that way.

On a more personal note, If I leave a message and you are unsure of my point or think I am making an allegation towards you, please ask me to clarify my intentions about a comment before replying: Sometimes I am not clear or am terse in my responses and come off as rude or condescending, which I am not trying to do. If I wish to address a point of contention with you, I will present my argument with my points and positions laid out in my message. --Jeremy (blah blah 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to preach the minor points in mine and others argument. The central argument for me is this. Meat is food (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meat?qsrc=2888). I and majority of Koreans don't think of dogs as food, but pets. So, whether you guys decided to put dogs as "staple food" or "foodstuff", aren't you taking the position of the older and the minority, who regularly consume dogs, to other huge, bigger population of Koreans? So, by taking a side and saying it's food while many don't agree its food in the first place... and by not listing any of the controversies, how is the article currently presented neutral? How is taking view of one side without pointing out the view of another unbiased and neutral? That's my question and I'd appreciate an answer from you since the chef and Badagnani is avoiding it. Don't tell me anything about anything else except the answer to my question directly. Thanks. Santaria360 (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The chef has a life to which he is attending: teaching, writing (he is a published author), and television work are taking up most of his time and he hasn't been able to work on WP for a while. This is all stated on his user page. Badagnani is staying away from this for reason's I can only guess at, probably to avoid engaging in edit wars that we have dealt with in the past already.

Why should it be included? Because it is part of you cultural heritage, and enough people engage in the practice that it actually shows up as a consumed product. Because enough is consumed that several agencies (governmental and/or private) track its consumption. That there are actual, published dishes that use it as an ingredient. You may not like it, but it is a fact. There are lots of dirty little facts in all countries' cultures that the mainstream does not agree with and would not like mentioned, but we still include them here on WP. Thai people eat rat, Africans bushmeat, Americans and critter cuisine, the French with horse meat and snails. The list goes on and on.

But the over all best reason? We include it because Wikipedia isn't censored. --Jeremy (blah blah 08:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Part of a "cultural heritage"??? Are you kidding me? That's an insult. To me, that's as bad as telling the Germans that Nazism is part of their cultural heritage... It's not their cultural heritage but their past. There's a difference. I never called for censorship of anything. You guys are the ones censoring my side, the larger population, point of view. In the conversations above, when did I once ask to remove the dog eating section? How is asking to mention that there's other side to this; there's a controversial side to this a censorship?? Only thing you are doing is avoiding the direct question. "Why should it be included?"-- Why are you asking yourself your own question and answering it? When did I ask that question? You accused me of censorship previously, I responded that I never asked for censorship, rather just presenting other POV, yet you say I'm calling for censorship again...???????? Really??? If you're going to respond, please stay on topic. Don't dodge the question. I'll copy and past the question again and if you don't have a direct answer, don't even bother.

I and majority of Koreans don't think of dogs as food, but pets. So, whether you guys decided to put dogs as "staple food" or "foodstuff", aren't you taking the position of the older and the minority, who regularly consume dogs, to other huge, bigger population of Koreans? So, by taking a side and saying it's food while many don't agree its food in the first place... and by not listing any of the controversies, how is the article currently presented neutral? How is taking view of one side without pointing out the view of another unbiased and neutral? Santaria360 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Germans do acknowledge their history of Nazism and note in their histories, they're not proud of it, but they do record it. As for your question, I did answer it with several reasons; just because you don't like the answers doesn't make them any less valid. That minority of people who consume dog eat enough of it that it is the fourth most consumed mammalian meat in South Korea. As for censorship, what I am referring to is changing the tone of the article or adding information that takes away the neutrality of the subject. You wish to put forth a point about Koreans disliking the practice, yet your point of view is entirely Southern. Can you provide data about North Korean habits? We don't get a lot of information from the North Korean government, and what we do hear is either disinformation or hearsay. How is the practice treated there? Can you get some reliable and neutral sources that backs your point that ALL Koreans, North and South, look down on the practice?

As for why we do not include the controversies: This is a cuisine article not an animal rights or controversial foods article. I added a link in the section to the article that covers that, as well make some minor edits to indicate that only some individuals consume it. That is more than enough. --Jeremy (blah blah 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Seriously! I'm just in awe at your response. I hate to be rude, but you don't even really deserve a well thought out response Santaria360 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll yet again add my two cents to this and address, and readdress some concerns of yours Santaria360 (talk). One, one does not need to be from a culture to be an expert on its culture or cuisine. My cousins are both from Korea and they are woefully ignorant on the subject. I am (and this is going out on a limb) pretty close to being an expert on cuisine and culture, I write on the subject extensively and I have also designed multiple classes that address the subject from a culinary stance and I am also designing a class entitled Cultural Food Studies. On the same note, people once got excited that a chef was from France because they must be able to cook great French cuisine, that has been over and over again been proven wrong in history. So, although I appreciate the fact that you say you are from Korea, that alone does not make you an expert on the subject, nor would the fact that I am from the USA mean that I am a subject on food and drink from my own; the fact that I have researched both extensively, written on both subjects, and have been invited to and participated in numerous lectures on the subjects would be more akin to experience on an understanding of cuisines.

All that aside, what you are promoting is a POV, "you and a majority" is not an exact number, but an opinion on the subject of dog meat consumption. What you have stated is correct though, as I have stated in the section that dog meat is eaten in lesser amounts than other mammal proteins. The fact remains that there are as per BBC articles aprox. 6,000 restaurants that serve the protein, there are still markets that sell the meat, the president of South Korea has been known to eat the meat as well. Perhaps we can say it is akin to foie gras in America, although not all Americans consume foie gras (which there is much controversy over, some states have, or are in the process of outlawing the protein) it is still consumed by a percentage of Americans and would be valid enough to include in the American Cuisine article as we grow our own high quality foie gras in the Hudson Valley region of New York. However, just because people don't like foie gras and the majority of people don't eat it, doesn't mean it isn't part of our cuisine. We have many articles written about the controversy of it, just as they do about dog in Korea, but they are still both valid parts of both cuisines. I don't know how to explain with any more simplicity.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chef, you said you with your own words "I am by no means an expert on Korean cuisine" yet now when it's convenient for you, you claim that you are "pretty close to being an expert on cuisine and culture". Did you just become "close to being an expert" in couple weeks? But let's just drop the "expert" claims. That itself is too subjective to be taken seriously. And please, please read rest carefully. What I'm promoting is a POV? What I'm promoting is that you are only presenting one POV as the only POV, so in essence YOU are being bias. I don't know how much more in simple terms I can put this. There are people in Korea that think dogs are food and there are larger population of people that think dogs are pets. That is a difference in opinion, POV, whatever you want to call it... But that is the main focal difference that I wanted presented as a controversy. This is very different than whether someone eats foie gras or not. First, foie gras is made of duck or goose, so it's dish correct? I'm not aruging who/how many people eat certain kind of dog dish or not, I'm aruging dog itself as whether it's food or not. I didn't lose you did I? Second, only thing I'm trying to present is a controversy. Nothing else. No censorship, no sugarcoating... I've asked for none of that. It's actually quiet ironic that you bring up foie gras to give as your example (wrong type of example I might add) because foie gras itself has a controversy section in Wikipedia and that's all I'm asking for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras). Santaria360 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)