Jump to content

Talk:Korean cuisine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Santaria360 (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 24 February 2009 (→Question from newbie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

WikiProject iconFood and drink B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

ALL DISCUSSIONS ON DOG MEAT

Since when did dog become a staple food

Kuebie (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a staple food. Badagnani (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meat is a staple, and dog is a meat, so dog is part of the staple "meat".--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogmeat is not a staple food. Kuebie (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that - it is not part of a staple Korean diet. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuebie (talk • contribs)

That's true (according to the definition of staple food), but it is the fourth most popular meat in Korea and merits discussion in an article about the cuisine of Korea. Are you suggesting it should not be mentioned at all in this article? Badagnani (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. Kuebie (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is consumed as part of the Korean diet by a segment of the population that is significant enough to be measured and regardless or not it is attractive to westerners, it should be included as long as it is kept in context as it has been. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be included in the staple foods section. The Dog meat article provides adequate information for this supposed medical dish. Kuebie (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog meat is not a staple diet like pork, beef but is categorized in a health food niche along with frogs, tadpoles, snakes and other such 'extreme' foods. No Korean will come home with a cut of dog and make it for dinner. Proper presentation of facts about dog met is fine but to create a subsection as a "staple" along with pork and other meats is simply ridiculous.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be solved by simply entitling the section "Meats" instead of "Staple meats." Let's work together to come up with a proper section title and all will be solved. In most cultures (including Korea), grains (and grain products like bread) or tuberous vegetables like yams, manioc, or potatoes are the primary staples, and meats are consumed in smaller amounts, and can't really be considered staple foods in the same light. Badagnani (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO "Staple meats section".--Caspian blue 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Meats" is under "Staple foods." Thus, "Staple foods" could be changed to something else like "Foods" or "Traditional foods." Badagnani (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definition and distinction play always important roles in speaking.--Caspian blue 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dog meat was never have been part of Staple foods of Korea, dog meat is considered alternative for special meat for these need urgent recovery or increase stamina which historically proved by the the regular consumer but never was main cuisine delicacy of Korea. China, Vietnam and Philippine consumed more dog meat than Koreans anyway then why you can't find Dog meat under their Staple meat sections? KoreanSentry

Everyone is missing the point of the whole section, MEAT is a staple and all meats, no matter how little or small the amount is eaten makes it part of the staple of meat. The fact that "dog meat" is not eaten enmass is mentioned in the section, but it is still start of the larger category of meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner, that's just false. Just because a certain food ingredient that falls into the category of "meat" doesn't make it a staple part of a culture's cuisine. What's staple is meat. Not everything that falls under that description. That's some hairy reasoning.
When something is described as a 'staple' food is that it is a basic part of an culture's cuisine. The term 'staple' doesn't imply any sort of all encompassing comprehensiveness.Melonbarmonster2 (talk)

21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

MEAT IS THE STAPLE... I am not saying dog is a staple of everyone's diet, I am saying that MEAT is the staple and that dog just happens to fall under that category. The way it is written should in no way be constituted as the individual meat being a staple, no more than it is assumed that every person in Korea eats chicken or beef. Your tag is also in error as it is not POV and is not out of context as it is properly sourced from an acknowledged academic on Korean cuisine, just because your POV does not agree, does not make your "opinion" correct. I am removing your tags and ask that you do not add them back.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are being ridiculous. Saying that meat is the staple is meaningless if you are not going to differentiate between meats that are eaten as staples and meats that are not eaten as staples. YES there is a different between them. Merely stating that "meat" is a staple of Korean cuisine and then not differentiating between dog meat and pork/chicken/beef is FACTUALLY inaccurate. And I consider your edits to be a distinct POV as I would my own POV. The tags indicate that a dispute exists. Don't remove the tags unless you're ready to agree with everything I'm saying and resolve this dispute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking by User:Melonbarmonster2 reverted

Blanking by User:Melonbarmonster2 reverted. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again: Bear in mind that WP:AN3 policy has been changed just like the title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. So better very be careful about 3RR violation and tendentious edit warring.--Caspian blue 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian, despite the animosity we have had with Badagnani in the past, this reversion was proper. It appears that Melonbarmonster (?) has returned under a new pseudonym. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with any of them. However, I just don't like the same old tedious rivalry between them and the title, "blanking"; Badagnani's way of unnecessarily antogonazing his opponent. He knows the wording offends people, but has been never willing to change his attitude on that. Besides, the "one time" removal should be even noted here? They have essentially made an edit war on the subject, so there is no need to make his opponent look bad.--Caspian blue 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be deleted. I explained my edit and would love to hear a substantive response. The place of dog meat in Korean cuisine does not belong under anything "staple". It's downright inflammatory and culturally insulting to insist on placing this subsection back into the article. Also considering that the editors who are leading this charge is Badagnani, who claimed kimbap was eaten with soy sauce and just claimed above that meat isn't a staple of Korean diet, and Sennen goroshi does not help the cause.

This is the last time I'm doing to address the editors rather than the issues at hand.

For the record I will state again, dog meat is not a "Staple food" as the section title suggests like pork and chicken in Korean cuisine. This is simply false. No Korean ever bring home a cut of dog meat to eat for dinner. Dog meat is considered to be extreme cuisine along with frog, tadpole, turtle, snake, etc.. It is a false presentation of facts the way the article stands now.

Who inserted Dog meat as a subsection under "staple foods" anyways?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from attacks on other editors and please read the section above, entitled Talk:Korean_cuisine#Since_when_did_dog_become_a_staple_food. It will answer all your questions regarding the section heading. Regarding the text itself, it was worked out over a period of months of consensus building, with much text merged out to other articles. Badagnani (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the subsection where you claim meat isn't part of the staple Korean diet. I disagree.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why every little thing in Korea gets overemphasized dispite its size. It's certainly not as popular as whale meat is to Japan. Kuebie (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, why just Korea?, aren't Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinos consumed more dog meats than Korea? KoreanSentry
If and when I rewrite those articles and find a substantial academic source which states those cultures consume those proteins they would be valid in mention. The mention that is in this article about dog meat consumption is in the context of the culture, I have fought to keep all of the negative controversial issues with the protein consumption.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't make this into a POV dispute about consumption of "negative controversial" proteins. I am a whole-hearted proponent of "controversial" meat including dog and whale. The issue at hand is a matter of factual accuracy.

The factual issue that needs to resolved is regarding the place that dog meat occupies in Korean cuisine and culture. And on this issue, NONE of the references address this matter. This is because dog meat is a fringe food eaten not as food but as medicine along with tadpoles, frogs, snakes, grubs, etc., primarily for the purpose of increasing sexual virility in the summer months.

Any references to dog meat should be mentioned factually and accurately. Portraying dog meat as a part of staple Korean diet along with beef, pork, vegetables and kimchi is just false.

For those of you not familiar with Korean cuisine and culture, this is akin to including a bull testicle section or squirrel section under US cuisine. While there are references confirming consumption of these foods in the US, it would be factually inaccurate to portray them as being "staple" protein source in US cuisine or to portray them as part of the American diet along with pork and chicken. That's is not to say that mention of these exotic ingredients should not be included int he article. They just need to be portrayed accurately and factually.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But according to Jeremy since there are a "-segment of the population that is significant enough to be measured and regardless or not it is attractive to westerners-" it should be included (basically saying since Reuters wrote an article about it, it's okay). I wonder why such bias has been put on Korean cuisine. Might as well mention turtle soup, tiger balm, and other obscure recipies if your hunting for secret Korean indulgences. Kuebie (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because people without a working knowledge and familiarity with Korean cuisine and culture think we're trying to take this out of the article because it's unattractive to westerners. Unfortunately there are editors here who have little to no knowledge of Korean cuisine making these edits such as those who claimed kimbap is eaten with soy sauce, meat isn't a staple part of Korean diet, etc.. Mind you, for goodness sakes, that the current article makes no mention of vegetables as a staple of Korean cuisine while there's a section devoted to dog meat!
We just need sane minds to stop thinking of this in petty POV terms and start thinking in terms of what's factually accurate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I have a masters degree in Gastronomy (food studies) and spent a significant time studying the subject along with other Asian cuisines. I have also been to the country and I have two cousins from the country. The source utilized comes from a Ph.D in Korean studies from SUNY Binghamton. Your opinion is in error.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man someone axe kick me in the back of the head if I ever flash my real life credentials to win arguments on wikipedia... dude, there's no need to be so defensive and it doesn't matter if you have PhD in Boshintang studies(never heard of Binghamton offering PhD programs in Korea studies and Binghamton grad schools are crap). What's factually wrong is factually wrong. Also, the reference doesn't state anything about the issue at hand. The issue is not whether dog meat is eaten in Korea, it is. The issue is whether Dog meat is in the same category as pork, chicken, beef and kimchi as a "staple" of Korean cuisine.

What is your position in any case? Are you saying that dog meat belongs in the same category as beef, pork and chicken in Korean cuisine? I tried to explain that dog meat occupies a very different place in Korean cuisine and culture above. Are you disagreeing with me on this? If you do disagree with me on this then do you think squirrel meat should be a subsection in the US cuisine article as well?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is no mention of vegetables, because I, the person who rewrote this article to the point it is at, have not had time to finish the article. If you have properly sourced information to add to the article on the subject of vegetables that would be wonderful. There is a section on grains and legumes though, so there are items not related to meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if the article is incomplete. Did you write up the dog meat section also? If you did it still makes no sense that there's still a section on dog meat and no section on vegetables.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that there is no section on vegetables as it is incomplete, it makes sense that there is a title on dog meat as I wrote a section on meat; it is truly that simple.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly moderate your tone. Let's work together with seriousness to add an encyclopedic and well-referenced section on vegetables. Badagnani (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly go eat your soy sauce kimbap.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary to be rude, please refrain from such comments.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to! We would all do well to refrain from baiting each other, flashing credentials and turning things personal, etc.. I would love to keep the discussion limited to substantive edit issues!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above personal attacks have become highly disruptive and appear to constitute a WP:TROLL. Please do not continue to engage in them. Badagnani (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Badagnani, I believe the correct use of the term would be to say "you are a troll" or "you are trolling". The attacks themselves cannot be a "troll". And these little backbiting comments and baiting that you are engaging in is what would constitute trolling which would make you the troll.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Discussion page should be used for the purpose of proposing improvements to the "Korean cuisine" article, and not for attacking other editors. Let's work together to make this the best, most encyclopedic, comprehensive, and best sourced article possible. Badagnani (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree so please stop trolling.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this "Discussion" page is to propose the improvement of the article "Korean cuisine." Do not continue to edit in a disruptive manner. Let's work together to improve this article. I've begun a section on vegetables as you had recommended earlier today (thank you for this recommendation). Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Tags

You guys really don't think there is no dispute????

I suggest we bring in third parties to comment on this rather than reverting warring.

In my count, there are 4 editors here who have recently expressed their disagreement with this sections' accuracy and NPOV status which warrants these tags.

Let me know if you guys(Badagnani, Tanner) want to ask for third party comments on this and I'll set it up.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have had over a year of extensive discussions about this subject. A few editors (usually the same disruptive and hyperaggressive one, under different usernames) return every few months to propose the removal of the entire section, and all mention of dog meat, yet without convincing arguments. The consensus was that dog meat, as a notable, historical, and widespread part of Korea's cuisine, be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia, however, is not censored, and we don't omit mention of controversial issues even if they are sensitive subjects to members of the cultures in question. Badagnani (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there are at least 4 editors who disagree with you. Like it or not, that's a dispute. Tanner do you want to move onto asking third party comments about whether there is even a "dispute" about this dog section or do you want to agree that we disagree and move onto resolving substantive edit issues?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]


I agree, I at one point actually was a person who stated that the protein was not one worthy of the article as it was consumed in small percentages in the culture. I however have changed my mind based upon my extensive research and my visit to the country, so decided that it should be a part. Even myself and Badagnani have argued about whether or not there should be controversial information in the article, although we disagree on that issue, we both assuradly agree that dog meat is a part of the cuisine as do many other users. As written, the article does not identify dog meat as a primary protein. It assuradly belongs in the artilce, the only other way to include it is to put it into a seperate heading that would annotate it as a controversial meat, which would make it look worse than it is.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you agree that there is a dispute?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contents change, wikipedia articles arn't set in stone. The dog meat article provides adequate information for dog dishes in Korea. I believe it's more appropriate. Kuebie (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual tag

The facts of the section can not be disputed, the article is sourced from a known academic researcher, so the tag is wrong. You may not "like" the fact that people in Korea eat canine protein, (not quite sure why as it is not a bad thing), but I have been there, eaten it myself and have written on the subject myself and have used a source from another who has written on the subject. Your POV is a POV, my writing is based on well sourced facts, do you have a source that states that dog meat is not a meat (which is a staple), is not consumed in Korea? (open question to anyone who wants to answer). I'll feel free to get the 3rd party comment, don't need to warning, i've done it in the past.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag isn't a challenge to the references or to "facts". It's a notification of the existence of a dispute. There are 4 editors who disagree with you. Whether you think there are legitimate grounds for disagreement is not the point. The point is that a dispute exists. I'll leva this open for more comments and then proceed with formal dispute resolution.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be highly fixated on some sort of "collective shame" Koreans supposedly feel about the subject (so much for a NPOV huh). It's not. You can find dog soup resturants in Seoul, but it certainly isn't apart of Korean street food or culture. My suggestion is that dog be removed from the staple foods section (clearly we have differences in interpretation - meat is a staple yeah but dog isn't), then we can work from there. As I've suggested before, the dog meat article can satisfy anyone's curiousity about the subject. Kuebie (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, as mentioned earlier, this can be solved by simply entitling the section "Meats" instead of "Staple meats." Let's work together to come up with a proper section title and all will be solved. Regarding "street food," there are several thousand restaurants throughout South Korea that serve dog meat, and those restaurants are mostly located on streets, if the dishes are not served outdoors *on* the street itself. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section has been renamed and as such the tags should be removed.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

See [1]. Badagnani (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Shall we remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article?

  • Comment - I don't agree with this title at all. It's clearly not a staple food. We can simply retitle the section to "Meats" and there will be no problem or controversy. I've proposed this at least twice already. The actual title should be "Shall we remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article?" Badagnani (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, as it seems as this is what other editors are aiming towards. I would re title, but retitling outside of the staple section would draw more attention to an ingredient in the cuisine which I don't believe requires the attention.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Substituting some other term for "Staple foods," as I've proposed three or four times above, would also solve the problem. Badagnani (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how no one has asked to remove all mention of dog meat this is a pointless RFC.

Dog Meat does not belong in the same category as pork, chicken, rice and kimchi. A specialty section of food that explains food as medicine may be an appropriate subsection under which consumption of dog meat can be mentioned. Playing around with the title doesn't resolve anything. I'm going to wait for further comments before moving to make changes to the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is proposing to "play" with the section title, just to change it from "Staple foods" to something else. That would address your concerns. Another sentence could also be added stating that although it is the fourth most popular meat in South Korea, it is consumed less often than the other three. However, keep in mind that 8,500 tons are consumed as meat in South Korea per year; that's 23 tons per day, or 46 thousand pounds (1,840 dogs per day at an average weight of 25 pounds per dog)--no small amount, though smaller than beef, pork, and chicken. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolving dispute is going require reading and comprehending what the other side is trying to convey to you.
Playing around with the title doesn't address the fact that dog meat is not a staple korean food nor does it belong in the same category with kimchi, pork, chicken, etc.. The stats also don't address the issue of the place dog meat has within Korean cuisine and culture although the fact that you've created a straw man position for yourself in addressing this RFC for "removal of all mention of dog meat" makes this a moot point.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From earlier discussion: "This section needs to be deleted." --User:Melonbarmonster2. Badagnani (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True or False: If X->Y then ~X->~Y. Dude, didn't you ever learn this in high school math?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly moderate your tone. Badagnani (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to kindly moderate my tone but aside from the sarcasm my point still stands.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment, but I'm reluctant. I'll make one stab at it, but I can't really sink my teeth into it.

It's a touchy subject. It has to do with the pet/livestock distinction, which is different in America than in Korea. I first heard about kaegogi in 1982, while stationed as a soldier in rural South Korea. I believe it was associated with extreme wartime privation - sort of a last resort. But there were also jokes and putdowns, so it may have been mentioned only in terms of the culture clash.

  • ... according to Kyenan Kum, "Statistical research shows that today only two to three percent of Koreans eat dog meat more often than 12 times a year." [2]

This might be like the issue of, "Do geishas engage in prostitution?" One side relishes the idea of exposing a (repugnant? exotic?) practice; the other side wants to keep it quiet. It has been reported (but also denied) that the apprentice geisha's virginity is sold (see mizuage). If true, this would technically be an instance of prostitution. But we also know that regular whores would dress up as geisha to attract customers (especially occupation troops, 1945 and after).

Perhaps we can agree that it's an unusual food, or at least acknowledge that there is some controversy about it in South Korea. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I agree wholeheartedly. The text as it stands portrays dog meat in the same category as pork, chicken and kimchi. That's simply false information.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does state that dog eaten less often than the other three meats, but it is the fourth most popular meat in South Korea, with 8,500 tons consumed as meat per year (and, I believe, another 93,000 tons used to produce gaesoju). Those simply aren't negligible amounts, whether or not U.S. troops know all the places where it can be found. We formerly had statistics and survey data regarding how many Koreans have eaten and currently eat dog, how many times per year, etc., and earlier editors (presumably of Korean ancestry) wishing to avoid stigmatizing Korea and its culture insisted on those sources' removal. We do endeavor to be as encyclopedic as possible in every article at our project. Badagnani (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I came late for the dispute, but the current article already comes to a reasonable resolution. Kuebie, KoreanSetry, and Melonbarmonster raised a legitimate concern over the categorization: dog meat is certainly not found in any super markets of South Korea just like beef/pork/chicken and if you want to have a dish made with dog meat, you or even locals should try hard finding special restaurants or several big pen markets. So the header of "staple food" was somewhat misleading and the article.--Caspian blue 00:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog meat discussion continued

No one's claiming dog meat is not eaten, or that it's not the 4th most popular dish, gaesoju isn't used, 8,500 tons of dog is not eaten, etc.. I was being sarcastic about the logic problem above but you really are committing this logic fallacy over and over again.

You also just admitted that you think there are editors here trying to avoid negative portrayal of Korean culture. That is the EXACT kind of POV that is inappropriate per WP:NPOV! For the record, I am a proponent of legalization of dog meat and I have no problems with conveying the controversial or negative aspects of dog meat.

However, the real issue is trying actually convey what place dog meat occupies in Korean cuisine and culture. This is not a matter of opinion or bias but a matter of fact about Korean cuisine and culture.

Dog meat occupies a very distinct niche in Korean culture and cuisine which needs to be accurately and honestly portrayed in the text. The Korean cuisine article however currently portrays dog meat as a staple food along with beef and kimchi. That is factually false and misleading. Merely changing around the title of the sections does not fix this problem. Dog meat is not comparable and is not in the same category as other Korean cuisine such as chicken, pork, rice, kimchi, etc..

If you were not aware of this, please feel free to ask questions so that we can try to come to a mutual understanding and consensus on this issue. I am not just trying to prove you wrong because I am grouping you in a biased camp nor am I trying to hide negative portrayal of dog meat. Let's move onto discussing substantive issue of whether dog meat belongs in the same category and staple Koreans foods such as chicken, beef, kimchi, etc..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest we do to come to an agreement. Dog meat certainly belong in the article. All of the books of an academic nature place dog meat in the same way I have it in this article which is why I placed it there, how do you suggest to improve upon this?--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will make my suggestions shortly.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest mergering the dog section with the dog meat article. I believe it is more appropriate and relevent to the section. However since Chef Tanner and Badagnani are absolutely wed to the idea of incorporating dog in Korean cuisine (even though it has been mentioned many times that is not part of a basic Korean diet), I don't know if they'll agree with my proposition. Kuebie (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article article however currently portrays dog meat as a staple food along with beef and kimchi, there's a simple solution (two, actually): one is to add a sentence stating clearly that it is not a staple food, and the other is to not have it under a heading that says "staple foods" (modifying the heading would solve this). I've mentioned this about four or five times already, always with no response. Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Melonbarmonster2 already expressed how dog shouldn't be in the same category as the other meats. Kuebie (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Koreans eat dogmeat. They are known for eating it. They have meat breeds. Korean attitudes towards eating dogs are changing. These facts are not in dispute. They are well supported by citations. This pathetic attempt to whitewash what some Korean people do goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, and I for one will resist your attempt. Seedless Maple (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seedless. Please try to catch up with the talk page if you're going to participate. No one's claiming Koreans don't eat dog meat. That fact and supporting references are not in dispute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From earlier discussion: "This section needs to be deleted." --User:Melonbarmonster2. Badagnani (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trolling. There are more important things to work on here than petty games.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please moderate your tone. It is necessary to copy previous discussion page comments when they are contradicted. If an editor asks for text to be removed from an article, then later states that s/he had never asked for such a thing, it's important to point out the earlier comments. It can't be both ways (that the editor wishes both to eliminate the entire section, as well as to keep it). It seems that the crux of the dispute is the section heading. Let's work together, then, to come up with a more accurate and proper section heading, as I've proposed five or six times above. Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for it being removed from the article, if people do not like it being called a staple food, then their are easy solutions - none of which require removing it. It is notable, it is cited, it is NPOV, it is relevant. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it will help to keep in mind the definition of "staple food". Is meat a staple food? I didn't see it mentioned in our Staple food article. (But I might have overlooked it; please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Also, is there a difference between "4th most popular dish" and "4th most popular meat"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meat is a staple of any cuisine that consumes it as a protein. The staple foods article doesn't mention it merely for the fact that it isn't properly written.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Staple foods are generally grains, breads, or root vegetables--the bulk of the diet (except for cultures such as Inuit or Maasai, who eat primarily meats and other animal products). In many Asian cuisines, meats are added in small amounts and are thus not the cultures' staple foods. Regarding dog being the fourth most popular meat in South Korea, it is not the fourth most popular dish. Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a Staple Food
"A staple food is one that is eaten regularly and in such quantities as to constitute the dominant part of the diet and supply a major proportion of energy and nutrient needs."
http://www.fao.org/docrep/u8480e/u8480e07.htm
Your statement is what would be Staple Crops, not Staple Foods. Unless you are referring simply to Asian cuisines, then meat is not the primary caloric source. If we take it as that definition, then we can agree that meat is not a staple, and as you proposed, we can rename the title of the heading. However, in most academic writing, meat would still be mentioned as a staple as it is a major source of caloric intake, even in small amounts. So my statement is not incorrect, it is just different in each culture.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meat is a staple of Korean cuisine. Dog is not.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct (as mentioned above, again, and again, and again). Badagnani (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please moderate your tone. A simple "yes I agree" would do. Sarcasm is troll behavior.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blatant canvassing

Melonbarmonster has been canvassing regarding the request for comment in a highly blatant manner. Asking for a wide range of opinions seems like a great idea, however his requests seem to be made only to those who are likely to share his opinion.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith only goes so far. When an admin indef blocks someone they are not assuming good faith, because the blocked editor is blatant in his actions, just as I do not assume good faith when I make a 3RR report - same logic applies to my comments regarding Melonbarmonster. As for personal remarks, I do not see how they are relevant, I could not care less about any personal aspects of anyone who edits wikipedia, I care about their edits.
But anyway Ed, nice to meet you - sure we are gonna get along just fine. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hai, dozo yoroshiku. You, too! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide diffs as evidence of such canvassing? Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:harassment and WP:Personal attack which are highly disruptive to the talk page, Sennen goroshi. The "open" request for input on the dispute is encouraged according to WP:CANVASS. Do not feel sorry that you're not requested by Melonbarmonster2 because you know the reason pretty well. Recall what you have done to the article.--Caspian blue

Dog Meat section continued

Caspian, please return the POV tags to this section. This dispute has been sidelined but it's not resolved.

I stated above that changing the merely changing the title does not resolve the issue since dog meat is still categorized along with common food items such as chicken and vegetables. This is still a misrepresentation of the place that dog meat occupies in Korean cuisine and culture.

This is something that needs to be worked out substantially along with other miscategorization issues in the article i.e. "snacks", "dessert", etc..Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you already reverted 2 or 3 times in 24 hours. Whether you and I like or not, quite a lot of meat is consumed in Korea. The section is properly sourced and none argues about it. Therefore, your putting the POV tags which are generally used for content disputes, because of its placement on the article does not sound convincing to me. --Caspian blue 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguing against points I am not claiming. Dog meat is consumed in Korea however, it is not consumed in the same vein as common food items such as chicken, vegetables, kimchi, etc.. It is a specialty item consumed in a unique cultural context that sets it apart from chicken and vegetables. The subsection does not convey this at all and portrays dog meat as a regular food item. That's misinformation and needs to be revised. That is my opinion.
Obviously others disagree... which makes this is a content dispute. I've left it alone while other portions of the text were being worked out. However, I will make proposals for change shortly. But for now, please return the tags.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, the section is properly cited from a book written by a known academic of Korean culture, the tags are not appropriate and should be removed, if they are not removed I will have to report it to the admin. board for comment as this is getting ridiculous.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To refresh your memory, we've already agreed that mediation and dispute resolution is in order. You're certainly free to report this dispute to admin board. Announcing it here just reaks of unhelpful posturing.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain items in Korean cuisine like sujeonggwa that are only consumed on special occasions, maybe just a few times per year, yet still worthy of mention, in part because our readers will come here looking for such information and expect to find it here, as a notable and interesting part of the cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI from above, "Your arguing against points I am not claiming. Dog meat is consumed in Korea however, it is not consumed in the same vein as common food items such as chicken, vegetables, kimchi, etc.. It is a specialty item consumed in a unique cultural context that sets it apart from chicken and vegetables. The subsection does not convey this at all and portrays dog meat as a regular food item. That's misinformation and needs to be revised. That is my opinion."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just find this whole thing interesting as I was one of the people who fought to keep the article from glorifying the supposed numbers and other dramatic information that was once in this article in favor of moving that information to dog meat, which was done so that this article was left with facts and not sensationalism. Now, even with facts it is being argued. The phrase "but is not as widely consumed as other meats" should be more than clear that the dish is not eaten as much as other meats, and just prior to that it states that it is eaten in the summer, not year round.--Chef Tanner (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags again

Melonbarmonster2, I don't mean to call you out on this, but you are the only person here arguing to remove the content from the page. This is bordering on POV vandalism now as you have given no remedy to the situation except to remove content or to add the false tags.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content should not be removed from the article for reasons of notability and proper sourcing, and because users will come here looking for it. We aim to be as encyclopedic as possible in every article at WP, even subjects that are controversial. Badagnani (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what article you guys are talking about but this disagreement has been going on for some time as is obviously evident by the edit history and the contents of this talk page. Having me or any other editor for that matter disagreeing with you is what a dispute is, which is the purpose of these tags. Let's stop with the ridiculous claims of consensus please so we can try to move onto progress.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just put it to a vote on the dog

Those in favor of leaving the dog meat section in tact in its current location and context please vote Support, those in favor of changing its current context into something different vote oppose. When voting please give a constructive reason for supporting or opposing, as in if you oppose, give a suggestion as to how it should be changed.--Chef Tanner (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the way this vote is worded. Wording your position in the positive confuses the issue being disagreed upon. What we need is to try to come to a common understanding and resolution. Trying to wikilawyer opposing views into silence will only exacerbate this duspute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it absolutely comical that consensus is being claimed in spite of the reverts and the extensive talk page disagreements about this before our very eyes. Good grief, what happened to assumption of good faith?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The section is classified along with chicken, beef and vegetables which is misleading and inaccurate. The proper cultural context and place that dogmeat occupies in Korean cuisine needs to be portrayed in the text. This is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Creating a section along with common foods is violation of WP:POV and WP:Undue. I suggest a subsection regarding specialty folk/medicinal/food culture be written up that encompasses dog meat along with snakes, frog extract, etc.. The problem with this section is indicative of miscategorizations in other section which I've explained above resulting from overly zealous editors with little knowledge about Korean cuisine making representations in the text of the article not supported by the citation. These other sections also need to be repaired in the future.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samgyetang is a medicinal food and it, and several others, are already mentioned in the text. It's clear that this editor wishes the removal solely because s/he sees it as portraying Koreans in a negative light to other cultures (though s/he apparently favors the legalization of dog meat in South Korea). We are not a battleground of national POVs; we simply strive to be 100% encyclopedic. Any effort to force us to be 90% or 95% encyclopedic would not be to our users' benefit, and they must be foremost in our minds at all times. Badagnani (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samgyetang has medicinal ingredients but it is a common dish made and eaten regularly at home, regular restaruants, etc.. Anyone with first hand knowledge about Korean cuisine and culture knows this. Samgyetang, unlike dog, is not considered to be part of the kooky folk medicine/food category as dog, frog, etc.. The fact that you just openly claimed that your motive is to combat 'national POV' only proves your own biased POV agenda expressly discouraged by WP:NPOV. The issue at hand is about FACTUAL accuracy not about imagined POV wars. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dog is eaten on an enormous scale in Korea (the tonnages have been provided), although not as much as the more popular three meats. The article already states this. Those who aren't interested in eating it often don't know where it may be found, and avoid such places. However, it doesn't mean they don't exist, and that we should ignore it (and force our readers to think it's consumed on such a negligible scale it's not worthy of mention in this article). The nationalistic POV in the call for excision of the text remains quite evident. Regarding samgyetang, it is certainly not available in every restaurant in South Korea. If you have sources regarding the consumption of frogs in Korean cuisine, please add that information to the "meats" section. Badagnani (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute has nothing to do with ranking meat consumption nor did anyone claim we should "ignore it". Please review the dispute above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From earlier discussion: "This section needs to be deleted." --User:Melonbarmonster2. Badagnani (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the section doesn't imply "ignoring it". X->Y, ~X -/-> ~Y... good grief. There's no way you're going to be able to run through that logical wall Badagnani no matter how many times you repeat yourself. You should really look this up.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few months the general consensus has been that this article has been accurate and presented in a way that is neutral and disregards nationalistic/racial/societal opinions on the subject of the consumption of dog meat. The article is presented in an academic manner that is free of the biases that has plagued the article before. The sources provided by Chris are from a respected researcher who wrote one of the better tomes on Korean cuisine and this work places the subject of dog meat in its historical context and shows its current place in contemporary Korean society. Previous editors have waged edit wars that disrupted the neutrality that now exists, and this is what is happening once again. The current consensus is to keep it the way it is; it is only recently that this subject has come to the fore again and it has been at the hands of the contributors that brought the issue up originally. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lively disagreement in your absence as I'm sure you can see by this talk page and edit history. None of the references support presenting dog meat in the same category as chicken and vegetables. Let's move onto discussing substantive edit issues. These wikilawyering games will get us no where.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it should be discussed in the same category as chicken, gosari, danggwi, or any other notable ingredient used in Korean cuisine, whether eaten every day, or whether eaten only at special occasions or certain seasons. It all adds to the richness of the cuisine, and we aim to document it in as encyclopedic a manner as possible, without regard to the possible hurt feelings of a culture that doesn't wish to be seen in a negative light by other cultures who hold different standards for animal use. Badagnani (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go find me a squirrel meat section in American cuisine. Give me a break. This is clear WK:Undue which is a violation of WK:NPOV. Whatever your opinion is, respect the fact that others may disagree. Stop removing the dispute tag, claiming consensus and wikilawyering, etc.. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean critter cuisine? Wait, Road kill cuisine! Even better!! Possum, armadillo and others? nummy-nummy!!! Should be fairly easy to find sources and would make a good balance article... 8-D

Here is the first source: [3]. Do a Google search on Fergus Drennan and see what you get. As Bill Cosby said: Americans will eat anything as long as you give them two pieces of bread to put it between. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People do indeed shoot and consume squirrel the meat of other wild mammals in rural areas of the United States (such as Appalachia or Cajun country), though I've never heard of a restaurant specializing in it, nor on controversies regarding the Olympics, campaigns by the government to ban it, etc., as has been the case in South Korea for dog meat. But this discussion is about the "Korean cuisine" article, so WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't carry weight in this discussion. Badagnani (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So where's the section on critter cuisine in the American cuisine article? I'll wait with anticipation for you to star a list of common American ingredients where you list possum along beef and tomatoes.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I haven't checked. Why don't you add one, with good sources? Let's get back to discussing this page, though. Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that such sections are inappropriate. You're the one arguing that it is so go start adding those sections in other cuisine articles if you want to keep it in this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Melonbarmonster2. I really don't see what's so special about dog meat in Korean cuisine that actually warrants its own section. I mean it might be a fun for little trivia and facts section. Like in one of those "Did you know?" information boxes in english textbooks. Kuebie (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object, I think you should keep it on.

Stop using one culture to judge another. We (not including vegetarians) eat beef, if someone were to say that is horrible, you would simply say ridiculous. That's how Koreans are. They eat their food just like they speak their language and we do the same. Don't critisize them on food, culture, language or anything else. There is NOTHING wrong with eating dog meat- unless it's illegal where you live. --68.151.12.96 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • support however I don't think we should be voting on this. I will say this with good faith, but I have a feeling every single Korean editor will vote oppose, everyone else will vote support and whatever the outcome it is going to leave a bitter taste. I will abide by any vote, but agreement would be better.똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "Vote" Holds No Weight

Sennen goroshi is correct. Per WP:VOTE, we do not decide matters like this on Wikipedia by voting. Polling is a minor tool to be used in working towards consensus in certain cases, but we absolutely do not (and will not) decide matters like the present one by means of a vote. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of RfC

RfC is a tool used in building an guaging consensus. That means that if there are editors who have good faith disagreements that opposing parties cannot ignore the lack of consensus. When the consensus becomes impossible, dispute resolution protocols are there to help resolve the matter. The results of this RfC is a split. If discussion doesn't result in consensus then dispute resolution protocols follow. See WP:CON for more information on this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some reliable sources for your position? That would help me understand better that there is a good basis for your argument. It appears to me that there is good consensus generally for the inclusion of the section, based on reliable sources, but I would like to consider the best evidence for revising the consensus towards an outcome more suitable to you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of the section is not the issue of this dispute. This has been covered extensively in this page... please carefully review the talk page. When there are multiple editors who have expressed dissent with your view, you need to assume good faith and try to work out a consensus. Consensus is not permanent and you don't get to pick and choose who you want to build consensus with. We need to understand the issue at disagreement before you try to disprove and dismiss the merits of arguments and positions which is covered in other section of this page.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Thanks for the mediation requestWikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean cuisine. However, I feel issues to be mediated is appropriate and imprecise. The content issues to be resolved have to be pinned down exactly and not make this about me or any other disagreeing editor. I'll come up with a list of specific issues we need to resolve that we can all look over and revise. We should also think about asking for editor participation or informal mediation before taking this to formal mediation which is a step before arbitration. For now, let's follow WP:Truce and take it slow at least until after the holiday season.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is about you. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the mediation purposes and procedures. The entire purpose of focusing mediation around particular issues is to avoid exactly this kind of personal grudge, ego wars. If you're unable to follow the logical reasoning behind the issues that need to be mediated I suggest you take some time off as I have done in the past.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melonbarmonster2, please give what ever suggestions you feel that we have avoided as I have not seen any constructive comments yet other than you don't agree with the section and you want tags on the article. You did not agree to mediation, you have not properly argued your POV with any suggestions in either the request for comment or the requested vote. This is not a way to build concensus by one person attemping to hold the section hostage, so please offer a reasonable compromise or I will have to take further steps as this is ridiculous, we can not have the article sitting here with a tag on it indefinatly.--Chef Tanner (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to make edits in the past on this section only to be met with violent reverting. I don't want to make haste edits. While I disagreed with Issues to be mediated on your particular Mediation request, I do agree that mediation steps are the next appropriate step. The tags and entirely appropriate while we work this out. That's why the tags exist in the first place. That having been said, I will come up with a list of issues to be mediation for you and others to look at promptly now that the holidays are over.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tags, this is a clear case of disruptive editing if there ever was one. It is my suggestion that any further disruption of the article be handle through an ANI report about the editors behaviors. Furthermore a warning should be placed on the editors take page warning about this kind of behavior.
The part of the policy I am basing this post on is as follows:

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
  • Engages in "hostile cite-tagging"; uses a "scattershot" method of adding {{fact}} tags to an article and announces an intention to delete large portions of the article if other editors do not immediately find citations to support the material thus tagged. In egregious examples, proper citations already appear at the end of a paragraph and the cite-tagger inserts the tag at the end of each sentence within the paragraph.
  • Does not engage in consensus building:
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
  • Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

  • Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
Enough is enough.-Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of ill-faith gamesmanship is what stops us from moving forward in resolving this issue. I've participated in this talk page far more extensively than you and have made numerous improvements to this article apart from the dog meat issue and we've gone through a third party comment request which that has been active even in the last few days. And the results of the RfC is SPLIT and without consensus. To claim in spite of this fact, that there is no POV, factual accuracy dispute is simply false. Blanking tags, attacking me while ignoring(maybe ignorant of) the substantive issues in dispute is the exact kind of disruptive behavior you're describing.
My opinion is that we need to agree of issues to be resolved and take this through mediation steps as Tanner has done.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been dealing with this issue for near on two years, I personally had the page locked down the last time this kind of issue arose. Just because I am not participating in this discussion in depth does not mean I am not watching the whole fiasco repeat itself. This is not gamesmanship but exasperation with your refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion with others to reach a solution. You behavior is consistent with the policy out lined and I believe the only way to deal with you is as a vandal. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are based on talk page dispute and RfC results. Since when did RfC become vandalism? On-going discussion at mediation request, edit changes in article apart from this dog meat issue is vandalism? Please stop this nonsense and respect the RfC results and leave the tags alone. If you've been away, calm down before you jump in reverting and ranting like a WP:MASTODONS. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On going discussion at mediation request? You refused to take part in the mediation request, so just like the RFC above, the discussion is stalled because you just state your POV and disagree with a FACT that has been taken from an academic source. You in fact are instigating an edit war.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agreed with Tanner on need for mediation. I disagreed with issues of that particular mediation for reasons explained above and on mediation request page. I didn't stall the RfC. I gave my opinion as did others resulting in a split vote. Stop being unreasonable and help us improve the factual accuracy of the article instead of devolving the discussion as you have done in the last few days.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person being unreasonable because this article had a consensus that the mention of dogmeat in its current form was accurate and no controversial as it uses a set of factual citations which you are ignorning. If you go read any academic (not some website source) on Korean cuisine, there is a section on dog meat included in the animal protein section as it is in this article. Please provide a source stating otherwise that has been written by a proper academic like the source I have used or the continued addition of the tag will be considered edit warring, you actually broke the 3RR in the last 24 hours with replacing the tag but I am not going to enforce that issue but your continued disruption will no longer be tolerated unless you give a proper edit as your tags themselves are inaacurate according to the majority on this article and the third party who came in as well as per request to visit the issue that removed them.
Please read these boooks, based on sound academic research, not emotions.
  • Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History by Michael J. Pettid
  • The History and Culture of Korean Cuisine - Kegan Paul Library of Culinary History and Cookery by Jeroen Gunning
Note I don't use texts written from a person outside of the culture as there may be a built-in bias, but these three texts mention dogmeat in the culture but with more brovado, so I don't use them.
  • Extreme Cuisine: The Weird & Wonderful Foods that People Eat by Jerry Hopkins, Anthony Bourdain, and Michael Freeman
  • Unmentionable Cuisine by Calvin, W Schwabe
  • Curiosities of Food: Or the Dainties and Delicacies of Different Nations Obtained from the Animal Kingdom by Peter Lund Simmonds
Some people like websources though, so here are some valid non controversial websites
Note that none of these sites are animal rights organizations, nor do they sensationalize the consumption of dog meat, it is very matter of fact like it has been written into this article. I would even go as far to say that I have not included certain items such as number of restaurants, amount of tonnage consumed and other items as they are only found on websites and I find them to make the article controversial, in its current form the article just states simple facts, not even that the meat is technically illegal as other editors had wanted in the article. It does not mention the legality as the law is not enforced, just like many blue laws in the USA, so if a law is not enforced it truly is not a law, especially as it has been noted that the current president of South Korea consumes dog meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you arguing against? No one is denying the facts of dog meat consumption. I have explained my position over and over against which you are all ignoring for the sake of creating a strawman for your POV. Let me make my position clear once more and state that my position is that categorizing dog meat along with beef and vegetables is a false presentation of information. It is akin to listing a squirrel meat subsection along with chicken and lettuce in the American cuisine article. It is misleading and factually inaccurate.

All I'm asking is that we follow dispute resolution protocol instead of trying to flame each other into submission in the talk page which includes leaving the POV/Factual accuracy dispute tags. I appreciate your mediation request but disagreed with your listing of mediation issues. I will post up a list of issues to be mediated for your review.

Let's all calm down and try to focus on the issues instead of levying personal accusations and whatnot.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, there are no restaurants in the USA that serve Squirrel meat. Take a look at the French cuisine article, there is horse meat and snails in the food stuffs section as they are served in restaurants and there are specialty butchers for horse meat so it is included in the article. Over 6,000 restaurants serve dog meat in Korea, and a significant tonnage of the protein is consumed in the nation. There is no significant portion of the American population that consumes squirrl meat, so your arguement doesn't make any sense, when a academic researcher, Micahel Pettid (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=371671)writes a book and includes dog meat in the protein category, I'm going to go with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is what I have done and the other involved editors have agreed with the source, while you are the only disenter. But please, present your "evidence" for mediation, that is when the tags may be added back to the article, untill then you have broken the policy of Three Reversions byt reverting the removed tags six times in the last 24 hours as multiple editors do not agree with you and view your edit as vandalism, including two administrators. Continued violation will be dealt with accordingly. You bear the burden of proof, so please present it.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree with your assessment of squirrel meat. There is a multi-million dollar squirrel hunting industry that sells hunting equipment that caters to hunting and consumption of squirrel meat and whether there are, or aren't restaurants that serve squirrel meat is something that neither of us can speak on without research and proof. It is a commonly consumed meat in the midwest and south. I know for a fact from first hand experience that Michigan University has a variant version of the "Squirrel Club" where campus squirrels are caught, skinned and stored in freezers and consumed by club members. That may sound far-fetched to you but that's how it goes with such extreme cuisine that exists in all cultures.

As for mediation, we both need to not turn this into a personal ego battle. We have to try to understand what specific edit issues are at the heart of this disagreement. Let's stop with removing tags, claiming there's no dispute, ignoring RfC results, etc..

As for the 3RR report, I don't know what I'm not seeing in the edit history. You're ignoring time of edits. The 6 reverts are spread over a 48 hour period which is 2 days. Let's keep things honest please.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I please point this section of the WP:3R policy:


Just because the three reverts you performed were not in a 24 hour period does not mean you have not violated the policy, you have still violated the spirit of the policy. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to refresh everyone's memory. I asked for WP:Truce to stave off reverting on the 23 of December in order for us all to cool our heads and take time off from the article to refresh ourselves for mediation and other productive steps. You broke this 7 day period of peace by instigating the current revert war on the 29th[[4]]. Let's stop this bogus gamesmanship and try to focus on improving the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In return could I remind you of some facts: You have been asked to please stop posting the tags in the article, to engage in a civil and productive discourse in an RfC and to join in mediation; all of which you disregarded or ignored. When asked why they should consider your opinion you offered no true reply, no reason why they should have considered removing the section in question. You could not engage with others in an meaningful way even when the others were trying to engage you. Why should the others who have gone out of their way to try to accommodate your wants and needs have to start responding to your requests?
Could you give me one reason why I should remove the ANI request? One reason as to why your behavior is appropriate? Can you give us some factual reason that is backed up by reliable sources that are verifiable that support your assertion that the data is POV? Because, as of this point all you have done was state repeatedly your beliefs and ignore everyone else's.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetables section

Vegetables section added (please expand as necessary). Should pumpkin/winter squash be added to the list? (we already have zucchini, a summer squash). Also, a fruits/berries section should be added, as there's a great richness of these in Korean cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle and moved items

I retitled the main heading of Staple foods, to "Foodstuffs" which is much more general and does not insinuate that any of the ingredients mentioned are mainstays of the diet of all Koreans. In renaming the section I also moved the soups and kimchi sections down to a section now titled "prepared foods" which includes the lists of other dishes that were under another heading as they seem to match better there.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem like positive changes, though to me "prepared foods" sounds more like "processed foods"; a soup is more of a "dish" than a "prepared food" IMO. Badagnani (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prepared foods mean the foods have been processed, as in cooked. Not all prepared foods are dishes, such as kimchee, it is not a dish, it is a prepared food item.--Chef Tanner (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an awkward construction when applied to dishes, and not optimal. When applied to kimchi it seems appropriate. Badagnani (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There is not enough difference in Korean vegetarian cuisine and this article to make Korean vegetarian cuisine worthy of being on its own, it should be merged into the larger article of Korean cuisine where it would have proper context within the cuisine. Let the debate commence.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • MergedThe overall consensus appears to be in favor of merging. Article has been merged into Korean cuisine, if we want to fix the issues lets work on it together here in this article. I find the information to be interesting, but it needs proper context and citation which it is currently lacking.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious corrections

I just made a bunch of small edits that should be no-brainers that should not be controversial. Basic outdated or false info/claims like beef being eaten on "special occasions", shellfish being used in soup stock, fish generally made into jeotgal, paht bingsoo being categorized as a 'snack' along with jokbal, red bean in songpyeon, etc.. These are all things that are obviously false.


If you have questions about specific corrections I made, please ask. I'll gladly answer them.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as the context is not changed, the source is very reliable, however, I have another text that I want to use to rework some of the items as it would be good to have more than one main reference. If you do change the context, the new text needs to be added to a different line which is not associated with the source and then source your own additions. The Pettid source is one of only two reliable inclusive sources on Korean cuisine. I haven't gone through your edits in detail, but one I would mention needs to be changed is the mention of using a silver spoon, just change it to spoon as it is overly specific, just "spoon" should be fine.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you reverted several edits that are independent of one another and I don't know which of your reverts you're defending. For one, I checked the reference given for the sentence that states that shellfish is used to soup stock and the reference states nothing to that effect which makes sense since Koreans rarely use shellfish for soup stock but use dried anchovies and kelp to makes soup broths.
Also the spoon is should be metal actually. That's important since Korea is the only East Asan nation that uses metal spoons instead of the wooden soup spoon used in China and Japan and the standard tableware includes a set of metal chopsticks and a spoon known collectively as 수저.
By the way, citations are used to for facts that need verification. Obvious facts that are not controversial don't always need a citation. If you want citation, you can place a fact tag in the text. But please don't remove or revert edits.
I will leave the article alone for now and work on defending my edits separately instead of reverting as you and Badagnani have done.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Obvious" can be POV, please don't think I am trying to be rude or possessive of the article, not everyone knows that dried fish is used for stock unless they are from Korea, so it does indeed need a citation, and it is Wikipedia policy to eventually remove edits that are not sourced. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think YOU didn't know dried anchovies are used for stock and not shellfish. This like someone asking for a ref for a claim that chicken is used for making broth, stock. If there's anything you feel needs a citation, just add a fact tag and leave the text as is.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find citations for all these, it will be great. We can address each point along with good sources to improve the article. Badagnani (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:CIT and stop your disruptive behavior. I've given edit explanations. It's your responsibility to explain your position rather than revert warring!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are referring to me, I'm certainly not revert warring, I just want proper citations, because if we want to ever get this article to GA status, event eh "obvious" items will be stated to need citations, in all academic writing that is necessary, except in truly obvious examples like human are mammals.--Chef Tanner (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tanner these edits have nothing to do with dog and I don't know why you're fighting me on these edits. Let's improve the article. If you want a reference then just insert a fact tag. That's what fact tags are for. There's no reason for you to revert.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, I am not attacking you, so please don't twist it that way. I wrote the majority of the article, so I know where the sources point to as I sourced it, unless it is from a website, I do not source my edits from websites as I do not find them academically valid. I went into one of my books and found a reference for you.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's much better than when you reverted back in text that sea shells are generally used for soup stock and so forth. Let's move forward.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani's Reverts

Good grief. my edits have been reverted again by Badagnani. I was hoping that this could be worked out civilly in the talk page but I guess we're back to unexplained reverts. At least I tried.

Badagnani, can you explain to me why you reverted my edits here in the talk page so we can avoid a revert war?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits explained

  1. Dried anchovies along with kelp form the basis of common soup stocks. - if you want a citation for this, help in finding one or add a fact tag but don't revert.
  2. "Shellfish are often used in stock and soup preparations." given citation doesn't support this claim which makes sense this is simply false.
  3. "and decorated with pine needles. Honey or another soft sweet material such as sweetened sesame or black beans, or azuki beans are used as fillings." - changed. Pine needles are almost never used. azuki beans are never used as filling for songpyeon.
  4. "Sometimes cooked with thinly-sliced beef, onions, oyster mushrooms, etc., and served as a light meal." - removed, just false. they can serve this with banchan as anjoo but so can anything.
  5. Songpyeon section - pine needles left out. manner of service, decoration is totally subjective. pine needles are almost never used. auzki beans are never uesd for songpyeon.
  6. "...of the meal as an accompaniment to rice along with other banchan" - added to text.
  7. "prepared with meats offered at ancestral rites" removed. Food is served during ancestral rites but there is no formal rule for serving soup. This is just false. There are required food items to be served in a ancestral rite such as alcoholic drink, fruits, jujubes, chestnuts, etc., arranged in a specific manner. Foods favored by the deceased can be put out but ttang's are far low on the list as a possible ancestral rite item.
  8. "...mixed with with a spicy, tangy sauce made gochujang." - added. Why would anyone revert this it boggles the mind.
  9. jjajangmyun section - revised for accuracy
  10. Ramyun section: this is never cooked with meat and rarely with vegetables beyond scallions. Ramen is also Japanese imitation of Chinese noodles and korean ramyun is totally different from real japanese ramen in flavor, looks, etc.. Claiming this is a variation of japanese ramen is simply false. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Korean ramyeon (particularly the instant kind) is influenced by Japanese ramen. The modern Japanese instant ramen has little to do with the old Chinese noodle lamian. If going back further, both Japanese and Korean noodles derive from China. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't whether it's influenced. Chinese, Korean, Japanese are all influenced by each other in complicated ways and ramen/ramyun is a prime example of this. That is why labeling something like this as being a variation of something 'korean', 'japanese', 'chinese' is an exercise in futility. The only thing japanese about ramyun is the packaging process which was developed by a japanese company which is level of detail unnecessary for this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numbered each sentence for clarification and better responses--Caspian blue 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the changed edits, I leave my opinion on items that I know.
  1. Stock for Korean soup or stew dishes is largely based on dried anchovies along with sometimes kelp(kombu)/dried pyogo(shiitake), dried shrimp aside beef stock.
  2. Melon, you're wrong. Shellfish are used as stock - yes. For making Miyeok guk, many people use mussel as stock ingredient instead of beef. In Sundubu jjigae, shellfish are used as stock.
  3. Songpyeon is never filled with red bean paste or honey but with unsmashed beans and sesame.
  4. I don't know what you're even referring to
  5. pine leaves are only subjective, yest.
  6. What is a problem???
  7. No. There are specific rules on soup for jesa (ancestral worship ceremony) according to region.

Many of Melon's corrections are accurate, but some are not. You should've edited the article to change with reliable sources first? That would've been reducing unnecessary drama here.--Caspian blue 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading some of these.

  1. No disagreement
  2. The text originally read that shellfish is "generally" used for soup stock which is false. Shellfish is eaten in a wide variety of way. In no way is it used "generally" for soup stock. As you agreed with me above, the main ingredients for stocks are anchovies and kelp. I never claimed shellfish are never used as soup stock. That's badagnani's imagined strawman.
  3. No disagreement
  4. It's added text. Look at history.
  5. No disagreement
  6. No disagreement
  7. You're agreeing with me. Tang's are not special jesa food and that fact should be reflected in the text. No reason to appendage every food that ever used in jesa.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snacks section

This is a highly problematic section since everything falls under 'snacks' and there is no real 'snack' category in Korean cuisine. This is more of an American concept: chips, soda, cookies and other such junk foods. The section deals mostly with street food anyways so the section should be retitled and devoted to street foods which is more interesting and noteworthy in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of snacks

Please use "Discussion" before engaging in large removals such as this one, thanks. As shown above in several instances (removal without prior discussion of shellfish and pine needles), removal before discussion is not the way to go. As this shows, none of us knows everything, and careful discussion and consideration of sources really can lead to the best possible article. Badagnani (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now gimbap has been removed entirely from the article without prior discussion nor consensus. And "Snacks" has been changed to "Street food," also without consensus. It's clear that gimbap is not only prepared and consumed on streets. Please undo these changes and use "Discussion" to propose them, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbap shouldn't have been removed. Let me check and fix any inadvertent deletions. Snack section also was not removed. It was retitled and reworked reasons explained above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to kimbap as a "snack" in the street food section has been removed because it's not a snack. Feel free to include kimbap in an appropriate portion of the article as you see fit.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of us knows everything. In fact, these sources indicate that gimbap is indeed eaten as a snack. Please use "Discussion" before such removals in the future, thanks.

  • Source 1 indicating that gimbap is a snack:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3r-3YH3t45cC&pg=PA155&dq=gimbap+snack

  • Source 2 indicating that gimbap is a snack:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pD26AAAAIAAJ&q=kimbap+snack&dq=kimbap+snack&pgis=1

Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbap CAN BE described as a snack as authors of these books have done the authors referring to kimbap as 'snacks' is certainly not meant as a conclusive categorization and it would be a miscitation to claim it as such. Furthermore your references do little to justify the problematic categorization of a "snack" subsection which is rather pointless for reasons cited above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, pine needles were removed; then the use of shellfish for broth was removed; then gimbap is removed--in all cases with you essentially saying that such text was idiotic because no such thing existed in Korean cuisine. When Google Books sources were included for each, you then indicated that you had known that all along. All of this is done without prior discussion here, or consensus building. Let's start doing that, to work together to create the best article possible, as it's clear that none of us knows everything about Korean cuisine--the sources do. Badagnani (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you need to find out why if X->Y, ~X -/-> ~Y.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo removal (second request)

Please undo the removal in this edit, as requested earlier. I'm seeing new edits but no attention to this. The change of heading should be addressed and consensus built at "Discussion." Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani's bogus removal request

You've ignored my discussion request above and have created 2 separate sections. Please explain why, what you find objectionable instead of complaining about things that have nothing to do with any substantive edit issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbap shouldn't have been removed. Let me check and fix any inadvertent deletions. --User:Melonbarmonster2 (just above). Snacks are not only prepared and eaten on streets. Badagnani (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this above. Please respond to my response. I see no reason why responses need to be repeated redundantlyMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dessert Section

This is another problematic categorization. A Korean meal doesn't include "dessert" and there isn't a category of "dessert" foods. The foods listed as "desserts" are totally arbitrary. This section needs to be reworked and I'm open to suggestions.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current categorization is indeed arbitrary, but your assertion that a Korean meals does not include "dessert" is inaccurate. What is your suggestion for change?--Caspian blue 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certain foods are consumed post meal(mostly small amount of fruit or a sweet drink) but it is very different from western style "dessert" in the manner it's portrayed in the subsection of the article, hence the quotations around the word. Working on a proposal but open for feedback for now.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A change to "sweets" would obviate giving the impression (which I don't believe is a concern) that sweet foods are always served after Korean meals, all year round. (They're not in most other cultures either, as many times diners are too full after a meal to eat any dessert.) Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

"Much of Korean history is covered myth and legend, especially during the foundation of the country. As a result, much of the history of Korean cuisine is based on the same sort of myths and legends. However, this cultural basis has been extremely important to the evolution of the cuisine found in the country today."

Where is this text from and is it referenced? The history subsections that follow are not 'myths' and standard Korean history. The myth portions of Korean history are about Dangun and creation origin myths that aren't mentioned in the article. If this text isn't explainable, it should be removed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, however, it was a lead used as a summary which normally does not require a citation, but I don't want to argue so it is gone.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leads don't get an exemption from having to be factual and true. When the subsequent text doesn't deal with Korean myths, the lead was misleading.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its gone, drop it.--Chef Tanner (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Melonbarmonster2 & 3r/Edit warring/Disruptive editing

I have reported him for such here.

This is the text of the report:

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Jeremy agrees that there is a dispute at hand I don't see how he can justify his repeated removal of the dispute tags in light of RfC results. I am also not sure if Jeremy understands what the specific edits disputes are involved in this dispute. There are editors with good faith disagreements here. Good faith disagreements happen. I am hopeful we can work out these disagreements by following proper protocol. Hyperbolic, negative and misleading descriptions and false accusations have nothing to do with substantive disputes at hand and doesn't help move the dispute forward. There is no 3rr violation. I have asked for a WP:Truce which lasted for 7 days before Jerem43 instigated the current edit war on the 29th of December. If the RfC has resulted in nonconsensus then the tags are appropriate and DR steps need to be taken. Claiming editors who disagree with you have no good reason for their position and removing dispute tags and lambasting them with accusations, etc., doesn't help our current situation.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section has had some issues in the past, but we have since come to a consensus on how to finally present the data that, while doesn't give everyone everything they want, it does present the data in a consensual middle ground that states the facts in such a way as to put it in perspective to the culture and not put it under a biased cultural lens. It has been this way for a good while now and was, until your return to the article, stable and predominantly accepted by the contributors. You have since revisited the article and attempted to change the consensus to one that is closer to your POV. When consensus still did not come over to your POV, you began to try to pound it in to the people who have tried to make this article the best it can truly be. Even after the consensus has gone against you, you still refuse to accept the decision. It is your refusal to work with others to accommodate your concerns that is the problem we are now dealing with. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been an RfC for goodness sakes with split results. There's no consensus. Deal with it.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One person holding out, does not override a good consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the discussion. I'm not the only dissenter but even if I were consensus means consensus. Per WP:CON if consensus is impossible because of disagreeing parties mediation is the appropriate next step.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you won't participate. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is voluntary and the issues to be mediated has to be agreed upon by all parties involved for obvious reasons.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliable sources

As I understand the policy, excessive sourcing is unwarranted. But good sourcing of material, including a sentence with no sourcing whatsoever is being reverted. The section in question is not overly cited. What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pettid source already stated the information that the additional sources were stating, these sources were also tertiary sources, where Wikipedia guidelines state a preference toward secondary sources, either way the additional sources were redundant, but also contained controversial information which has been contested by the majority of editors working on this article. The sentence removed that was added was just restating the sentence just prior to it, and again was using an article that was about the controversy of dog meat.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does removing those sources make the encyclopedia better? It doesn't. I realize this subject is contentious, but the good article quality from very reliable sources is clear and it's what the encyclopedia is all about. This almost smacks of censorship. Depriving readers of access to these articles in favor of an off-line book isn't reasonable. One of the sentences is now unsourced. And as little or no content was added, I don't see an issue with undue weight. Good sources that are accessible online on the subject should be restored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChildofMidnight, the entire section is sourced, see sources 35-36, both from different sections of the Pettid book. When writing, each individual sentence does not require a citation. When you place citations into any academic writing, ALL of the sentences prior to that citation are meant to be cited from that source unless there is another citation placed within the writing. So in placing those citations in the middle of the written paragraph, you are telling readers to look at the web articles that were placed in there, when those articles had nothing to do with the other sections perhaps. Additionally, it is not the fault of the researcher that someone does not own a book that is used. Texts published by a well known scholar are always preferred over a news article found on a website. If people care to find controversial information on dog meat, they can go to the dog meat article which already contains this information, perhaps even with the articles you are using. I'd even prefer those weren't used there, but I prefer to work on cuisine articles as the study of "cuisine and culture" is my personal academic background which I prefer to study in my professional life with researching and publishing, so dog meat doesn't get my attention. It is not an encyclopedia's responsibility to offer as many places for people to look for news articles, that is what Google.com is for. We have already hashed these issues out over the last two years and are even debating more on it now above.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is interesting, but it isn't supported by policy. 1) Third party sources are preferred. 2) Reliable newspapers are an excellent source indicating notability and providing NPOV mainstream views. 3) Wikipedia policies encourage building a great encyclopedia, clearly accesibility is one factor. 4) Using one source for a section gives that source undue weight. 5) These article aren't about dog meat, they are about dog meat in Korea, and as such they are highly appropriate. 6) The section in question needs better sourcing, and while the controversy isn't gone into in detail in this article, providing readers with access to sources that discuss it is important. 7) Your argument that Wikipedia should be a culinary encyclopedia is contrary to its policies and purpose. The encyclopedia covers subjects from a variety of perspectives, so limiting sources to those that pertain only to your area of interest is contrary to policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more sources the better. There's a kind of "dog meat denialism" going on, and the more reliable sources showing frequency of consumption, tonnages, number of restaurants, and other such information, the less controversy there will be--as with any WP article. Badagnani (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no denial going on here Badagnani, I'm from New York in the USA and I could care less what any culture consumes, this is not what ChildofMidnight and i are discussing anyways, it is about proper sourcing.

You completely misunderstood my statements. Starting at number 1. Third party sources are secondary sources. Tertiary sources are those that use secondary sources for their research which is what newspapers do unless they are "on-site" doing investigations, I think that is just a misunderstanding of the definition of a primary-secondary-tertiary resource. 2) Not all newspapers are NPOV. 3) Books are highly accessible, people don't need to buy them, they can goto a library. 4)As I stated, if you add a source, make sure that it doesn't conflict with the other source there, which means if the source added changes a prior sources cited information, then that text needs to be moved so that the citations match, I'll be hoenst I haven't gone back to check on this one as I am actually away on vacation and can't believe im sitting on here. 5)As long as the article itself is properly sourced or written well, then it probably isn't an issue. Remember, it is always important to verify your sources credibility as well, just because it is in a newspaper doesn't make it correct. 6)The readers do have access to the issues on dog meat as the link directs them to the section of that article on dog meat] at least it used to. So many edits get done to this silly little section, things get screwed up on it a lot. 7)What i was stating is that I prefer to work on cuisine articles, which is my area of expertise, and if anything I try to keep away from cookbooks as they are not NPOV, I know the Wikiepdia policies very well, I just choose to work in the "cuisine section of Wikipedia".

Lastly, I am certainly not a censorship supporter, I write on a number of controversial issues outside of my work on Wikiepedia and I am one of the people who support having the section on dog meat in the Korean cuisine article, and plan to go over to the Italian cuisine and French cuisine articles to put in small sections on the reemergence of specialty butchers that sell horsemeat, and I will likely use online newspaper articles as well. However when choosing article, the articles will not mention anything of controversy as it is not the job on an article on cuisine to talk about controversy, as we have separate articles associated specifically to those food items and people issues with their consumption.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just a point of grammar: if you "could care less," it means that in fact you care quite a bit. The actual phrase is "couldn't care less" (which would mean that you care so little, it's impossible to care less). Badagnani (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for you to attempt to not be rude for a day?--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was a sincere helping comment regarding a common misapplied turn of phrase, no rudeness whatsoever intended. In fact, it's the opposite, to assist the editor stating the phrase to not continue to do so (lest to confuse hearers). Badagnani (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image

See [5]. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced text

Text added that dog is eaten only by older Koreans (without source). See [6]. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then add a fact tag. That's what fact tags are for.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Dog meat from Korean cuisine main article

Please Dog meat is eaten by many other countries in the world, Chinese, Filipinos and Vietnamese consumed more dog meats than Koreans yet I don't see it from their national cuisine. Dog meat in Korea traditionally not every day food. It considered to be medical cuisine therefore it should not be in the main article. We already have Dog meat article on this. If many of insist dog meat to be stay under Korean cuisine then we have add dog meat to every other country's national cuisine article to be fair. --Korsentry 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_cuisine&oldid=272901224"