Talk:Kimchi/Archive 5

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

Clarification on fermentation

Do we have even a SINGLE reference that states that kimchi is only fermented or that unfermented kimchi varieties do not exist?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we have even a SINGLE reference that states that kimchi is not fermented food or that there exists unfermented kimchi, at least in an encyclopediac sense? Hkwon (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It depends on interpretation, of course. Hkwon believes that, when reliable sources say "Kimchi is a fermented food," that implies all (or at least the vast majority) is fermented. I am actually almost inclined to agree with him, in that the authors, speaking from their contexts, intended it to primarily mean that kimchi is, by definition, fermented. However, I also believe that we have reliable sources that speak against that, including some of the same sources that state that kimchi is fermented food. That is, I believe that 1) reliable sources disagree, and 2) some of the reliable sources are less than precise in their wording. As for your second statement, you're asking for an impossibility--no one who believes kimchi is always fermented is going to explicitly state "There is no such thing as unfermented kimchi." For example, no source states "Chocolate made from kimchi does not exist." You can't say that something does exist simply because no one asserts that it does not exist. I think it will help if we focus on what the dispute really is--a dispute on 1) how to interpret reliable sources, 2) a dispute on which sources are reliable, and 3) a more fundamental dispute on what to do when most sources seem to state one thing but a measurable number state something else. Personally, I still believe that the answer to that is a compromise wording, as discussed above, but perhaps the Mediation Cabal can assist us. The only reason I haven't brought this to them since Hkwon mentioned it is that s/he said s/he was going to, and because if he doesn't see the need to do so, I think we already have consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
To User:Qwyrxian: I agree with almost most of your comment here; I could not have put it any better. The only thing I don't agree is that kimchi should not be defined as "fermented food/dish", but should be defined with some conditional provisions. Sure. There might exist "unfermented kimchi", as, for example, user:Melonbarmonster2 calls some vegetables prepared for kimchi but not fermented "kimchi". But should a definition in a encyclopedia/dictionary account for that? Certainly not. Hkwon (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, we already have consensus. This consensus is supported by reliable sources. I really wonder why Hkwon is putting everyone through so much trouble over a minor issue. Is this something to do with a desire to state that Japanese kimchi is not actually kimchi? or is he just trying to be disruptive by pushing such a minor point. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved - Hkwon is just being disruptive and perhaps deserves a topic ban for causing this disruption and showing such a lack of respect for wikipedia, wikipedia editors and rules regarding consensus. [[User:Sennen goroshi|カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi:
1) "We already have consensus". - When was this "consensus" established? Which editors were in favor of it and which editors were not?
2) "This consensus is supported by reliable sources". - How many sources? Please list those reliable sources, except for the saveur.com article which I consider at least semi-reliable.
3) "Is this something to do with a desire to state that Japanese kimchi is not actually kimchi"? Where did this argument come from? Just find a source or evidence that Japanese kimchi is not fermented, then. I've been to some good restaurants in Japan and tasted kimchi there much better than kimchi served in mediocre Korean restaurants. (All fermented, of course.)
4) "Is he just trying to be disruptive by pushing such a minor point"? (You forgot the question mark.) - Why do you keep participating in discussions on such a minor point, without any useful contributions?
5) "Hkwon is just being disruptive and perhaps deserves a topic ban" - Another authoritative-looking warning from a non-authorized editor. If you have an authority to give me a topic ban, why don't you just do it? If not, why are you threatening people, acting like you have some kind of power that you actually don't have?
6) So many words devoted to personal attacks, but not a reliable source or an evidence backing up your claim, related to the main discussion...Come on. Would a Mediation Cabal member be persuaded by that? Hkwon (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


To User:Sennen goroshi: Blah blah blah...You poor thing. You forgot to how to talk? Papa is here...よしよし.Hkwon (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I humbly submit that such comments (especially calls for a ban) are not helpful to the present discussion. While I do think that the horse is on its last legs, if not already dead, I do think that Hkwon is sincerely acting out of a belief that his position is correct. Whatever ulterior motives any of us may have aren't particularly relevant. By assuming good faith, though, I think we get better articles and less of a tendency towards endless edit wars. I am glad that so far no one has pounced on the unprotecting of the article as a chance to change it; I really think that, one way or another, we're getting close to a finishing point on this. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hkwon, could you try a little harder not to completely screw up my edits. I'm happy you noticed your mistake and changed it, but try not to let it happen in the first place.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: Sure, if you say so. Digging up for other's errors in edit history regardless of the current version...I didn't think you fell so far. By the way, is that all you have to say or do you have some other meaningful comments for this discussion?Hkwon (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't dig up your error. I went to the talk page and saw first hand what a mess you made of my edit. Did you think the the edit was invisible in period between you messing up my edit and fixing it? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
To User:Sennen goroshi: So? What's your point? Did anyone prevent you from restoring your valuable comments? You probably think "Let's bait this guy into 3RR violation" or "Let's bait this guy into making personal attacks". Good luck.Hkwon (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that not all beer is alcoholic. Perhaps we should alter the lead of the beer page to reflect this? Which is to say: there are alterations of every possible dish, confection, and drink imaginable. There are also meatless sausages, sugarless candy, and decaffeinated coffee. But that's hardly an indication that we need to cover all such varieties in the lead of the article, especially when they're significantly less common. And, that said, I hardly think there is any danger at all that WP editors are taking liberties or inventing a majority/concensus to merely explain the unfermented varieties *later* in the article. Just this random non-contributing user's two cents. (I'm frankly not sure why I even care...) 65.29.128.183 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Case at Mediation Cabal

I have formally requested again the help of the Mediation Cabal. The case can be found at the same place, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-18/Kimchi. I am going to go now and reframe the discussion because I'm pretty sure we're at a slightly different point than we were when Hkwon opened the case. I strongly urge all participants here to join the discussion over there; hopefully the Cabal and Cabalist User:Wgfinley can help us work through this. Wgfinley has stated that the case is still open, merely waiting the input of other people.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped for another RFC to get more neutral editors involved, but I don't mind going to a mediation. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was actually think to ask that at mediation. I'll see what Wgfinley thinks, whether, in his/her experience mediating, another RfC will help. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since no one is participating in Mediation, I'm going to go ahead and open up another RfC. Give me a few minutes to learn how to do that....Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should kimchi be defined in the lead as a "traditional fermented Korean dish" or a "traditional Korean dish"?

Is the quality of "being fermented" fundamental to kimchi, such that the lead should read something like, "Kimchi is a traditional fermented Korean dish...Kimchi can also refer to unfermented dishes....." or is fermentation a common but not fundamental aspect of kimchi, and thus the lead should read something like, "Kimchi is a traditional Korean dish....Both fermented and unfermented varieties exist, although fermented varieties are more common."? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Choice 1 - Defining characteristic is fermented. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of cabbage. I looked it up in the dictionary, and searched around a bit. I've eaten it. Ask a Korean on the street. Buy a jar. It's fermented, fundementally. Other varieties? Sure. Not good enough to boot the word "fermented" from the definition. Also "...traditional fermented vegetable dish..." is best. My two cents. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fermented but immediately followed by a statement to the effect that the term has been expanded to include some unfermented dishes. Note I am an editor who is 'involved' only in the sense that I came to this page in response to the last RfC. I have no connection or special interest in the subject.

Korean blue link

This may fall under "Fools rush in where fools have been before", but why isn't "Korean" bluelinked in the first occurence of the lede? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question; I've seen arguments running around on ANI that some people think that countries/languages shouldn't be bluelinked; I, however, don't agree. Most likely, it just got lost in or very exciting, um...debates...about how to handle the lead. I'll add it.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It might even be better to isolate Korean as a link to the country. (In context, it surely refers to country, not language.) Korean cuisine gets a blue link in the next paragraph anyhow. As a visitor, if not knowing the country, getting a solid link to the country seems important without having to go through cuisine.
Aside, the kimchi fermentation debate is the biggest waste of wikitime ever. What could wiki gain, and what has it lost in hours?
Aside, Kimchi gook, as mentioned in the lede, actually refers to that stuff on your shirt afterwards.
Aside, is Kimchi really a dish? It's kind of a "side", no? A condiment, an extra, an ingredient, a "great honking mess o' vile stank". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Compilation of possible lead sentences

I have attempted to collect all of the sentences listed so far, along with a few additional ones I added now. If I missed any, or if you have any new suggestions, please post them below and I’ll add them to the list. I did copy-edit a few of them.

We have one set of sentences (Group A), all of which start with “Kimchi is a ‘’’traditional Korean dish made’’’ from vegetables and various seasonings,” (emphasis added to show distinction from B) followed by:

  1. The most popular varieties of kimchi are aged through a fermentation process, although unfermented varieties also exist.
  2. Most popular varieties of kimchi are aged to impart flavor through a fermentation process, although unfermented varieties also exist.
  3. Kimchi usually goes through some form of fermentation process, but there are some varieties that are unfermented.
  4. While kimchi is primarily a fermented dish, it also appears in unfermented forms.
  5. While the most common and traditional varieties are fermented, some varieties are unfermented.
  6. Both fermented and unfermented varieties exist, with fermented varieties being much more common and traditional.
  7. Both fermented and unfermented varieties exist, with fermented varieties being much more common.

We have a second set of sentences (Group B), all of which start with “Kimchi is a ‘’’traditional Korean fermented dish’’’ of vegetables and various seasonings,” (emphasis added to show distinction from A) followed by:

  1. Kimchi later diversified to include unfermented varieties and various imported seasonings and vegetables previously not available in Korea.
  2. While Kimchi is primarily defined as a fermented dish, its meaning has diversified over time to include some non-fermented varieties as well.
  3. Kimchi may also refer to unfermented vegetable dishes.
  4. In addition, unfermented varieties of kimchi also exist.

Additional Sentences

(add more sentences here that I missed or you have now created); I’ll sort them into one of the above groups or add additional groups as needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments/Votes on above sentences

Please comment on the above sentences. Most importantly, please provide a complete list of all sentences that you are comfortable with. If you strongly identify overall with one group versus another, please try to include at least 1 sentence from the opposite group that you feel comfortable with, if at all possible. At this point, I really think we have to find the “best fit,” instead of just arguing forever about the two (general) solutions being absolutely incompatible. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I can accept A1 (okay to remove leading "the") , A4, A5, A6, A7 (okay to remove "much" from 6 & 7), B3 and B4. I don't like A2 (can't say the main/only reason is/was flavor), A3 ("goes through" is poor English), B1 or B2 (asserts too strongly that original = fermented). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My favourite is B3 (maybe with some slight rewording to the second part just to improve the flow) but I could also go with A3 or A1, (without 'later'). Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah yes...silence descends....Seriously, no other comments? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A1 and A3 are acceptable. Anything that contains claims of traditional or derivation is unreferenced and factually wrong. B category is problematic since it assumes fermentation, an element, as the base definition of kimchi. It is not and outside of the Codex fiasco no Korean, let alone ref's, even makes the claim.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Nothing from B. Most of A, while not being perfect seem ok(ish) My favourite is A1. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing from A. Ferementation is an elemental concept to the definition of Kimchi, and this definition can be cited by plenty of reliable sources. While I prefer B2, I'm fine with B3. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If this were a vote, these would be the results: A1 = 4, A3 = 2/3 (depending on if SG's "most of A" includes A3), B3 = 3, a number of others with 1. Well, sorry I put everything through that; that just reconfirmed that we have a split court. In about 2 days, I expect we'll be at A1 = 4 and B3 = 4 (or maybe B2 = 3), given that Hkwon is coming back. I was hoping that maybe one of the three of you (SG, MB2, C38) would be willing to show some compromise, but apparently not. The way I feel right now, I feel like we should just say "Kimchi is made with some vegetables and stuff, and maybe they do something to it, or not. Whatever." Or maybe, "Kimchi is fermented (No it's not!) ((Yes it is, usually!)) (((No, nobody can prove that!)))" I guess we should go back to the mediation that Hkwon opened, since we're not getting anywhere on our own. I'll go post there now with a quick summary of this...hoopla. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that we can't come to an agreement. How about taking this to the RFC again, hoping that more neutral editors will be involved? Cydevil38 (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's a possibility. As a side note, I need to change the tag you added. No one disputes that "kimchi is a traditional Korean dish." Similarly, there are no listed facts whose accuracy is disputed; our disagreement is just how important "fermented" is to the definition. So I'm going to remove the disputed tag (unless you want to say that it may not be correct that kimchi is a traditional Korean dish), and change the "factual accuracy" tag to NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok for the time being. But I'm discomforted by the fact that we're letting melonbarmaster enjoy the fruit of his inappropriate attitude,(Please see [1],[2],Talk:Dog_meat) so I hope we can deal with this problem expediently. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A shift in my (qwyrxian's) opinion

Not that it actually changes the numbers, but I have to say that, surprisingly, my own mind is being changed. I went back and took a look at all of the sources that are in English, and, reading them, it appears to me to be correct that fermentation is, while not universal, fundamental to the definition of kimchi. That is, I'm increasingly convinced that while unfermented kimchi definitely exists, and thus should be mentioned in the lead and the article, it is appropriate to define kimchi as fermented (i.e., sentences in the B category). The thing that really persuaded me was re-reading the Saveur.com article, which has, for a long time, been the primary article we've been using to defend the existence of unfermented kimchi. Two key parts: "It can also be eaten before it is allowed to ferment, as with geotjeoli, or "salad," kimchi, which consists of raw leaves of cabbage dressed with kimchi fixings, a kind of coleslaw that heats the belly as it cools the throat." This implies that the cabbage, at that moment, has been prepared in a way that will allow it to ferment, but is simply eaten before the process is completed. Similarly, later on the author recounts going to a Korean household to watch the making of kimchi (kimjang), and mentions eating "unfermented kimchi." But all the author is doing is eating the paechu kimchi while it's being prepared. In other words, this second tale is nothing more than when, say, a western cook eats some cookie dough before it's baked.
Again, I'm not trying to say that unfermented kimchi doesn't exist, and isn't intentionally made and served at both home and in restaurants. Similarly, we have a reference indicating that Japanese kimchi is not fermented. Here, again, though, we can see how central fermenting is to the process, because the Japanese kimchi makers intentionally add souring agents to mimic the fermentation process without having to take the actual time to ferment. Thus, I (and let me tell you, I'm quite surprised at this) have come to the belief that it is best to say that "Kimchi is a fermented Korean dish made from...." followed by a sentence that says "In addition, kimchi also refers to unfermented vegetables dishes made with similar ingredients," or something to that effect. I definitely still oppose the idea of it changing over time, only because we don't have references that state that, and I'd rather have a simpler version that I can be confident is right and supported than one that's possible but uncertain.
Finally, I just have to add one more thing. The thing that caused me to take another look was Melonbarmonster's statement "It [fermentation] is not [an element/the base definition] and outside of the Codex fiasco no Korean, let alone ref's, even makes the claim." This, I knew, was fundamentally wrong, because numerous sources state, as a fact, that "kimchi is a fermented dish." I knew mb2 was flat out wrong or lying, because if another sources say "kimchi is a fermented food," that means that they consider it a fundamental aspect of the dish. Mb2, please don't make absolutely false claims, claims which serve to hide the real issue being discussed. To be honest, it practically removes all credibility you might have with me, because what you said is so obviously and fundamentally wrong, that it makes it hard to trust what you're saying.
Now, technically, my change of heart doesn't alter the "vote" significantly. We now have 3 editors (1 of whom is still independent, another of whom (me) came as independent but I suppose is involved now) preferring indicating fermentation as a defining characteristic of kimchi; and 2 editors opposed to that. I've never initiated an RFC, and I want it to be written as succinctly as possible, so I'll have to take care of that later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving this back here out of the archives as it's about to become relevant again.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Time to move forward

It's been two weeks since the last time anyone opposed to "fermented" in the main definition spoke up. It's been 10 days since the new RfC opened, and, so far, only one other editor has responded, and that editor responded in support of defining kimchi as an fundamental part of the definition. Those editors opposed to including the word "fermented" in the definition have declined to participate in mediation. In terms of "votes," we have 2 involved editors in favor of "fermented", 2 uninvolved editors in favor of "fermented," and 2 involved editors oppose "fermented." While WP:CONSENSUS is not explicitly defined, and rejects the idea that it's based strictly on a majority, at the point, since those opposed have taken no further steps towards working through the problem via mediation, I think we have to go with the majority opinion. Looking above, sentence B3 had the most overall support from those who voted. As such, I propose that we change the first two sentences of the lead to say:

Kimchi (김치; pronounced /ˈkɪmtʃi/, Korean pronunciation: [kimtɕʰi]), also spelled gimchi, kimchee, or kim chee, is a traditional fermented Korean dish, made of vegetables with varied seasonings. Kimchi may also refer to unfermented vegetable dishes.

If anyone opposes this change, please speak up now. If you do oppose the change, please recommend what we should do now in order to move past dispute and towards consensus. If I hear nothing in the next (approximately) 2 days, I'm moving on this.

One final question--should "fermented" be wikilinked to fermentation (food)? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright...it's going in. I am going to wikilink fermented, but anyone else is welcome to change that, or, of course, make other revisions. If anyone objects to the sentences overall, please bring it here, because at this point consensus seems to be in favor of a version like this...Qwyrxian (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for explanation from Melonbarmonster2

Hi, I'd humbly like to request an explanation as to why you're reverting against the consensus developed above. As you may recall, we questioned for a while whether or not fermentation is an "elemental" part of the definition of kimchi. Two involved editors (myself and Cydevil38), two uninvolved editors (Martin Hogbin and Anna Frodesiak), and one past editor (Hkwon) agreed that the inclusion of fermented in the primary definition was necessary. Two involved editors (Sennen Goroshi and Melonbarmonster2) argued that it is not. After opening an RfC and waiting for 2 weeks with no response from SG or Mb2, I moved forward with the closest thing to a consensus that we had. Note that this decision was a compromise (for example, Cy38 wanted to have some indication that the definition has changed over time, while Hkwon wanted no mention of unfermented kimchi at all). At this point, it seems to me that the burden lies on Mb2, SG, or another editor if you want to change the wording to some other version. I request that you attempt to make such an explanation here, or that you stop edit warring to make the page reflect a non-consensus wording. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You're not really claiming there was any sort of consensus on this are you? I believe the last voting on edit versions resulted in a clear nonconsensus. And all the arguments have been discussed and references tracked to exhaustion but to give a succint brief: kimchi is fermented and unfermented depending on the variety. Most/many/usually/majority kimchi varieties are fermented while fewer varieties of kimchi are not fermented. These facts need to be stated plainly instead of nonsensically claiming that kimchi is fermented except for the unfermented kinds to appease POV warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I do claim that there is consensus, although that consensus was not 100% (which, of course, it doesn't have to be, per WP:CONSENSUS. Please explain my results above. In simple "voting" terms, there were 5 editors in favor to the wording I had, while only 2 against--i.e., a more than 2 to 1 "vote" in favor of the other wording (or 2 to 1 if we discount Hkwon). Furthermore, the 2 against stopped talking for almost 3 weeks. Even more to the point, I took up Hkwon's request to go to mediation, and neither of the 2 against joined that conversation. How do you propose we move forward given that we have 1) a majority, 2) based on a compromise position, and 3) those opposed to the majority have ceased all discussion on the matter? Now, I'm not going to revert you again (at the moment), because even if my count is correct that would send me to 3 reverts, and you could just as easily change one more time to be at 3 yourself, so we'd still be back here, with the version you're supporting on the apge. However, if you're unwilling to take the next step in dispute resolution (informal mediation), then it seems to me like you're the one edit warring to support your preferred, minority position. As much as I hate sports and sports metaphors, the ball's in your court. So that you have something to work from, here is my summary (perhaps not entirely accurate, but how it seems to me) of the position of at least 4 of the 5 editors (it's getting harder to represent Hkwon's position, since he's been away for so long):
The compromise position that was in the article for 2 weeks prior to your revert today, and which had not been challenged on talk for two weeks before that, is based upon an idea that an uninvolved editor (I believe it was User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) brought up: something need not be universal in order to be considered critical enough to a definition to be included. The point being that the natural, standard, normal variety of kimchi is fermented, even though unfermented varieties exist. Furthermore, unfermented kimchi really only exists in 3 ways: 1) kimchi eaten before it ferments, but with the intention of having most of the kimchi ferment (i.e., that described in the Saveur article), 2) some Japanese kimchi, which, while not fermented, is made to taste like it is through the addition of souring agents, and 3) spring kimchi, which is only served at one time of the year, and for which we have no reliable sources (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that we can't verify it). Every single source we have (if I recall correctly) treats fermented kimchi as the "normal" dish, while unfermented is a variant on normality (even the scientific studies). Thus, while unfermented kimchi exists, the normal, regular (linguists might say "unmarked") version of kimchi is fermented. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm very happy with the lead the way it is now. I think the onus is now on Mbm to gather support for his version. I must say though, as the lead is a summary of the body of the article, the last paragraph: "...Kimchi is so ubiquitous to Korean cuisine that the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) developed space kimchi to accompany the first Korean astronaut to the Russian-manned space ship Soyuz..." really doesn't fit, and sounds like it is there to promote kimchi more than anything else. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...you may be right on that sentence...reminds me of one from another article, although the nationality is different....I think that said sentence should be kept somewhere in the article, and it doesn't have a great place to go now besides the lead. I personally hate Trivia sections...maybe there's some other "pop culture" reference we could combine it with. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, with Qwyrxian and Anna Frodesiak, the lead as it is now represents a reasonable consensus from the very long discussions of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fresh perspective

Hello!
I saw your case in the MedCabal and thought about helping out but then I thought maybe you just need some fresh eyes on this. I've read all the comments made on the talk page about this and did some research of my own, I hope I can help you guys resolve this issue.

First of all, I would kindly ask everyone to remain civil and to be cool. I realize that a lot of people have very strong opinions about the whole Kimchi/Kimuchi thing. I ask you to set aside your feelings and look at this from a NPOV. Korea and Japan have a lot of rivalry and this issue has been the subject of much controversy.


Here's what we can all agree on:

  • Kimchi is food.
  • Kimchi is very important and symbolic in Korea.
  • Japan made a Kimchi variant, which is not fermented (among other differences).
  • Some Koreans were offended and an international dispute started.


Now, as an encyclopedia, it is our job to leave our feelings aside and simply state all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
What things are and are not and how we define them is a job for people who like to argue.

Consider the following: Kimchi is a traditional Korean dish. In Korea, it is fermented. The inexpensive Japanese variant (which Koreans consider "fake") is not fermented.
Therefore, I propose the following lead: Kimchi (...) is a traditional Korean dish, made of vegetables with varied seasonings. There are hundreds of varieties of Kimchi (...)

Then make a new section which talks about both Japanese and Korean Kimchi, the difference and the controversy that followed. I believe you can find many references for this. Whether it is, by definition, fermented, is not actually that important.

Please tell me if you have any problems with this lead, I am only here to help.– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a separate section on Japanese kimchi is a decent idea, assuming we could find references. The problem is there really aren't so many, that I've found. Please note that we actually do have a section about the 1996 dispute, as well as a link to the main article on the topic (a sub-topic of Japan–Korea disputes, although I see it's mislinked, which I'll fix after i write this). But if we have reliable sources, we can certainly give more info about non-Korean made kimchi. Perhaps even a section covering all non-Korean kimchi w/Japan as a subtopic. I've done a bit of web searching for relevant sources for both this and the disputes article, and all of the RS I found are in one or the other article. If you know where to find more, I think it would be great to add them either here or there (or both).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead, however, is a different matter. The problem is that Melonbarmonster2 (and SG) insist(ed) that even in Korea kimchi is commonly unfermented. So commonly that it is improper to state in the lead that it's normally fermented. Others of us (see list above) hold that, according to reliable sources kimchi is fermentation is such a critical aspect of such an overwhelming portion of prepared kimchi that it is essentially proper to say "by definition, kimchi is fermented, although the word also sometimes refers to similar unfermented dishes." This is the dispute that's had the article fully protected more than once as we work through the issue. I know part of the problem has to do with what may be a conflict between reliable sources and people's personal experiences, but we're stuck with the sources we have (barring new research). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually Itake back what I said about fixing the link; after looking again at Japan-Korea disputes#Kimchi export, I see that that section, as currently written, doesn't give any more info than this article does. I remember that it used to, but that info was poorly sourced and questionable, so it was removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Excelent! I just saw that you were thinking about another RfC, so I jumped in uninvited :-)
I just wanted to talk it out with Melonbarmonster2 and SG, who had a problem with the current lead. It seems like they haven't commented on the case at the MedCabal (but it hasn't even opened yet) so I would wait for them to comment. I'm happy that you feel you've reached a consensus. If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask. – sampi (talk•contrib•email) 02:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. This is why wikipedia is a joke sometimes. Users with no knowledge whatsoever on the topic making outlandish claims based on dubious "references" to force and justify their own edits not out of any concern about the quality of the article but out of ego. Funny thing is that only Koreans commonly eat fermented kimchi. Most of the kimchi served in restaurants is the unfermented gutjuri variety that's made on spot on weekly, daily basis.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

The information that User:Melonbarmonster2 was, in fact, cited to a primary source. Note that, since this is a medical claim, the governing guideline is WP:MEDRS. Note that, per that page, "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." In general, we should only site medical claims if they appear in reliable secondary sources, like literature reviews and systematic reviews. Without such evidence, this claim probably doesn't belong in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah the use of primary sources! A primary source should not be used to reference 'kimchi contributes to lower ...'. A primary source should be acceptable in 'some research shows that kimchi contributes to lower ...'. jmcw (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Our principle of not doing harm (embedded in WP:MEDRS) says that we medical information is different than regular information because of the potential to cause harm in living people, so we don't quote primary sources for medical issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Folks, when you use primary sources to reference disputable claims you are engaging in synthesis and original research. That's why us lowly editors are supposed to NOT use primary sources. PRetty simple. Let's move onMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to Melonbarmonster2 to explain reference reverts

MB, could you explain why you are reverting the references to http://www1.american.edu/ted/kimchi.htm and http://theconsciouslife.com/top-probiotic-foods.htm? They look to be good quality references. Thank you! jmcw (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to lack of response, I am returning these references. jmcw (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Just for reference Mb2 was blocked on 14 June for one week, so we definitely still won't get a response. However, xe did log on between 7 June and 14 June, so xe had an opportunity to reply. However, it's highly likely that at some point xe will revert again in the future, so we'll just have to hope there's discussion at that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I did notice the block and the lack of interest in communication. jmcw (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. Those references were removed per archived discussion regarding the use the American U Ted sources and COdex. Simply they're self-published references.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-published references should be removed.--Ephert (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

'Fermentation' vs Yeasts vs Lacto Bacillus

Fermentation_(biochemistry) and Pickling illustrate the problem involved in the definition of Fermentation (food).

It would appear that 'fermentation' is used in-accurately but commonly to describe two quite different processes. How do we sort this out in the kimchi article and the other food articles? jmcw (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that, in this case, we don't really worry about it, except in so far as we have to get the right link, because the sources all tell us (with only one exception, if I remember correctly; I'd have to look at the archives to be sure) that kimchi is a fermented food. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
However, this does sound like something that needs to be sorted out at Fermentation (food), and whatever gets decided there could have an impact on this and other food articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have discussed this with a friend of mine, an expert in Food and Nutrition. She told me as an academic professional, the words 'fermentation' and 'Lactobacillus' can be used interchangeably in this particular context. If anyone doesn't trust my argument, I can ask my friend and present 10 examples of such use of wording from relilable Food and Nutrition academic Journals and more if necessary. Hkwon (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have written a section about specific method to make Kimchi (one variety), but it was deleted as it was a cooking recipe which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I don't know what else I can do.Hkwon (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Preparation

So does kimchi grow/ferment on trees, or could someone with the perspicacity to write an outline first come up with a little paragraph on preparation techniques? Oh yeah, preparation! Big picture! Travel brochure listing not sufficient! Duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.28.246 (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See the new section "Recipe". Hkwon (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have written a section about specific method to make Kimchi (one variety), but it was deleted as it was a cooking recipe which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I don't know what else I can do.Hkwon (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So what is kimchi?

The article is completely vague about what kind of fermentation method is used, is it lacto-fermentation or something different? How long does it ferment, at what temperature, do the kimchi pots have a water seal, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimel31 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the section "Kimchi and Lactobacillus". Let me see if I can write a section about fermentation processes of kimchi, but understand that they differ according to specific ingriedients, temparature, and humidity - something not scientifically proven. Hkwon (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have written a section about specific method to make Kimchi (one variety), but it was deleted as it was a cooking recipe which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I don't know what else I can do.Hkwon (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kimchi and Lactobacillus

I am not an expert in Food and Nutirition, but I know, by a common sense as a Korean, that Kimchi is primarily fermented by Lactobacillus, meaning the fermentation of Kimchi is lactic acid fermentation. One of the main health benefit of kimchi is its lactic acid bacteria which helps digestion and decomposition of sugar. I will present several dozens of reliable food and nutrition articles and book chapters which prove beneficial lactic acid bacteria in Kimchi if necessary. If you don't believe me, just Google search "lactic acid bacteria" and "kimchi". There have been internationally hundreds of academic articles on lactic acid characteristics of kimchi in Food and Nutrition perspectives. Hkwon (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hkwon! It's been a long time! What specific change are you proposing to the article? If you've got references that meet WP:RS, adding more information is good (as long as it doesn't get WP:UNDUE). Are you thinking of information that needs to be in "Nutrition and health" or that should be in the "Main ingredients" section (or both?)? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian. Thank you for your message. I can quote statements on fermentation of kimchi from journal articles, but right now I don't understand how it works even after I read it. Probably not a good idea for me to write and discuss about it then. I did add a section on kimchi recipe and will see what else I can contribute to the article. Hkwon (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hkwon - it is a pleasure to meet you! I saw that your new section was removed: perhaps it would be better in the wiki cookbook [3]. jmcw (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have written a section about specific method to make Kimchi (one variety), but it was deleted as it was a cooking recipe which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I don't know what else I can do.Hkwon (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Salt!

What point is a section on "nutritional value" if it doesn't mention SALT?! I think we can all stipulate that veggies, garlic, onions and ginger are good for you - the question is whether it's worth all that SODIUM present!

Last I heard, Koreans have the highest rate of STOMACH CANCER in the world -- which i assume is directly related to their heavy intake of PICKLES. I'd be curious to know whether they have an elevated rate of heart attacks, strokes, hardening of the arteries, etc. etc., sodium-related problems.

This should be the MAIN FOCUS of any "nutritional value" section. There is no "issue" with kimchi other than the SALT content. 209.172.25.121 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is 막김치 (Mak Kimchi)?

What is 막김치 (mak kimchi)? 204.210.240.163 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"mak" is the basic, cabbage + red chili version (as in photo), cut up BEFORE fermentation, as opposed to "poggi" kimchi, a rather foul version made with whole cabbage. basically if it looks like 3" squares in the jar, it's "mak"; if there's but 3 or 4 intact heads you cut up yourself upon serving, it's "poggi".
"mak" means basic/simple/easy/everyday, etc; i think poggi means "traditional" but i wouldn't swear by it. in any case, mak is the default nowadays -- if a korean just says "kimchi" you can rest assured they usually mean "mak". if further distinction in needed (waitress asks "what type?" for example) then you can add "mak" or "poggi" or one of the other variants.
i repeat, however, the poggi one tastes gross! 209.172.25.121 (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Kimchi

The usage of Kimchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:KIMCHI -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Kimchi v. Sauerkraut

How does it compare to sauerkraut? That could be a point of reference.CountMacula (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nutritional claims

The article (and sources 19 and 20) claim that Kimchi is rich in vitamin B1 and B2, among nutrients. However, these sources do not seem unbiased, and a quick cross-reference between the table with nutritional facts and their RDA seems to contradict that claim. For example, if 100g of kimchi has 0.03mg vit. B1, and the RDA for an adult male and average intake is 1.1mg and2 mg respectively, that means you'd need to eat around 3kg of kimchi to get the minimum amount of B1, and 6kg to get a 'regular' amount. The other nutrients listed seem equally dubious.2A02:1811:D1D:A500:4D80:4615:1F2F:82C4 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

For balance, I've added information about kimchi's links with stomach cancer.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kimchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kimchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of varieties? Is that necessary?

A quick question, should we even discuss the number of varieties as in the current ref stating that there 200+ varieties? There are limitless varieties, any region, weather time place etc etc can influence how its made. Examples include the raw oyster variety, beef broth fish broth etc etc. Why not just state that the type of kimchi is dependent on external factors as opposed to posting an arbitrary article about pickles tell us its 200+?Coal town guy (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I also went further and looked for the reference. The reference for "200 varieties" and increasing is a 4-page article in a non-specialist monthly business magazine Business Traveler International. Airplane reading. It is not likely to be an authoritative enumeration of the hundreds of kimchi varieties. That same reference is cited four times in the Wikipedia page, and the date has simply the year 2013. My library supposedly subscribes to Business Traveller International through Ebscohost, and other articles from author Logarta come up, but not this one. So maybe it would make sense to find other references, in addition to deleting the claim about 200 varieties. M.boli (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is the article in question. It is not impressive, and I think some of the citations to this article are not supported by the article itself. Definitely it says 200 varieties, but it doesn't say increasing, and there is no source. [4] M.boli (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me look, my Korean is only spoken, so I will not be able to find literature in Korean, BUT I can find something betterCoal town guy (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I found a decent ref from a fermented food symposium. As I recall kimchi was a process, you made it with what you had to eat. Ergo, infinite varieties..Book name is ured, Smoked, and Fermented: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 2010. Please do let me know what you thinkCoal town guy (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Seems like you found a really cool article! I reworded the sentence a little bit, but the idea is the same. Also fixed up the Business Traveler citation and added chapter title to the book you found. Super! M.boli (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over the History of Kimchi

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352618115000451

This is a counter to the idea that Kimchi was always white radish Kimchi. It's interesting and may be useful to the article.--KimYunmi (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello Fellow Wikipedia editors, On behalf of my fellow student team enrolled in an introductory food science course at UBC, we would like to use our newly learned food science knowledge to enhance this article on Kimchi. In particular, we are interested in exploring and contributing to information on the chemical process of fermentation of kimchi, the variations of kimchi around the world, and the food regulations surrounding kimchi in Canada. We will continue to post our outlines and drafts on this sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jcookie98/sandbox. We welcome all comments and feedback. We look forward to contributing to Wikipedia via this course assignment. Marina Trinca Colonel, Jaedon Cooke, Anita Suen, Vijay Aditya.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinacolonel (talk • contribs) 05:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Alleged missing information: vitamins B12 and K

Recent edits inserted a {{missing information}} template into the Nutrition and health section. However the allegedly missing information, regarding vitamins B12 and K, seems irrelevant. Both are covered in the several charts and tables: B12 seemed not majorly important relative to recommended daily amounts, and K was not detected. Suggest the template be removed, if somebody has reliable sourcing for this topic it could be added. -- M.boli (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kimchi subsection under Etymology

This subsection is entirely editorial without proper references. Use of primary sources to make claims about etymology is disruptive, questionable and violates WP:OR and WP:SYN: incorrect information regarding pronunciation of etymological terms, square blocks in place of Korean letters, etc. Unless, proper references can be provided, unreferenced claims should be removed. E.g. "The aspirated first consonant of timchai became unaspirated in dimchɑi, then underwent palatalization in jimchɑi. The word then became jimchui with the loss of the vowel ɑ (ㆍ) in Korean language, then Kimchi, with the depalatalized word-initial consonant. In Modern Korean, the hanja characters 沈菜 are pronounced chimchai (침채), and are not used to refer to kimchi, or anything else." Where is the reference for this statement? Also where did 'chai' come from. That's a word, sound that doesn't exist in Korean language "채" is pronounced che or chae. What is "chui" What Korean letter is that supposed to be??? This entire section is like this. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting! There are references sprinkled throughout the section, but I cannot read some and the others are broken. The Korean language Wikipedia makes some similar claims, as near as I can figure out. And it is entirely unreferenced. -- M.boli (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I checked out the Korean article and basically it's someone's technical analysis of the etymology of 'kimchi' in variations of Old Korean which may or may not have existed which may or may not exist in contemporary dialects of modern Korean. It's pretty esoteric stuff that's unreferenced and doesn't belong in this section.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Dispute between China and South Korea over the origin of kimchi

90.205.253.243 made a series of edits today, in particular adding a section "Dispute between China and South Korea over the origin of kimchi" with a series of edits. It wasn't clear to me that a dispute actually exists.

  • For starters, I can't find the original Global Times article that supposedly laid China's "claim" to kimchi. None of the sources (BBC, New York Times, etc.) seem to link to it.
  • The differences in wording between the BBC and the Times suggest that the fracas might simply be due to mistranslation (the Times also stated that paocai is "a term that essentially includes kimchi").

For these reasons, I'm removing the section.SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your assessment matches my understanding. The only way it would be relevant would be if The Great Pao Cai Misunderstanding reached a point of notability. Otherwise it's on the level of "What are you having for dinner?" "Dolphin." "Are you kidding?! That's a protected species!" "Not the mammal, it's a fish that's also called 'dolphin'." "Oh. Never mind. Bon appetit." Largoplazo (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Responses to the deletion of the whole section "Dispute between China and South Korea over the origin of kimchi"

Your concern seems to be over the wording used by the journalists of the BBC and the Guardian, not the credibility of the sources. I doubt this warrants the deletion of the whole section. After all, there is indeed an ongoing dispute between Chinese and South Korean over the origin of Kimchi, and this was even reported in the Chinese state-owned media South China Morning Post. All the sources I have included came from credible news organisations (the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times etc.). South Korean indeed expressed their dismay strongly on social media and other media outlets. The removal of this whole section is inadequate as it shows an attempt to delete and/or ignore history . Therefore I have undone the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:71C:E00:4050:8B66:DE32:CA67 (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, as I pointed out, my concern is whether there is even a dispute at all. Does China actually claim "kimchi" as theirs? Again,
  • None of the sources you provided (based on your use of first person, I am guessing you are the same user as 90.205.253.243) linked to the original Global Times article that supposedly laid out China's "claim" over kimchi.
  • The fact that there are wording differences between the BBC and the New York Times suggests that the uproar might simply be due to mistranslation:
The New York Times in particular explained how the mistranslation could have arisen:

A spat is raging this week over a Chinese state tabloid’s claim that China had “led” the development of an international standard for paocai, or pickled vegetables. In South Korea, the claim was seen as misleading because in the Chinese language, paocai also refers to kimchi — the fermented cabbage dish that plays an integral role in Korean cuisine.

So what it looks like is that the Global Times talked about "paocai," and then other people (including journalists) mistranslated "paocai" as "kimchi" specifically.
If you think this is notable, fine. I'll make the changes, and we'll let a consensus form. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Whether this dispute is due to 'mistranslation' or not is a one-sided personal interpretation. The facts are: 1) The dispute exists (given several credible news sources) 2) Many South Koreans have felt strongly that their kimchi culture has been appropriated by China, hence various protests by YouTubers or the advertising campaign in the New York Times. The Wikipedia "documents" based on evidence, rather than 'interprets' and 'guesses' why certain events happened. (comments from an anonymous contributor)
Like I said, I made the changes, we'll let a consensus form. Also, please sign your comments with four ~'s, thank you. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You cannot claim that it is a 'mistranslation' unless credible sources or evidence is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:71C:E00:3CDA:1636:DA08:DEA4 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Your last edit was reverted by a bot. Based on the changes you made and your reply, I understand that you take issue with this sentence:

Because in the Chinese language, paocai can also refer to kimchi[99], numerous outlets reported the Global Times as claiming "an international standard for the kimchi industry led by China"; an online backlash then emerged over whether China had claimed kimchi as its own.

I have rewritten that. Also, once again, please sign your comments. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As said, you need to have evidence to prove the event was due to 'mistranslation'. You have not included evidence to show that the whole dispute started with 'mistranslation'; there is no source showing it is the 'mistranslation' that leads to the dispute. The fact is, South Koreans are angry about kimchi being claimed as a Chinese dish, and they have been reclaiming kimchi on various media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:71C:E00:3CDA:1636:DA08:DEA4 (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In my rewrite, I did not mention anything about 'mistranslation.' Instead, I included the translation from the New York Times, as well as the different translation from the BBC (and repeated by The Guardian, SCMP, etc.) I've also noticed that you keep deleting the New York Times' translation and instead, erroneously cite the NYT as also using the BBC's translation. Not only is this an inaccurate and misleading citation, but your removal of the different translation violates WP:NPOV. Both should be included, and the reader can decide for themselves.
Also, you seem to be focused on the wrong thing. Yes, it is a "fact" that South Koreans are angry about kimchi being claimed as a Chinese dish. But the question is, did Chinese state media actually claim kimchi as a Chinese dish? Based on the differences between the NYT and the BBC translations, it is not clear to me that the answer is yes. Therefore once again, both translations should be included, and the reader can decide for themselves. That is WP:NPOV. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
None of the news sources have mentioned 'translation', so I don't know why you keep talking about 'translation'. Translation of what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.253.243 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I keep talking about "translation" because the BBC and the New York Times quote the Global Times but with different wording. As I wrote,

Do you see that both the BBC and the New York Times referred to those as quotes ("")? That means to them, they believed they were copying exactly what the Global Times said, verbatim, without change. But the BBC and the New York Times used different wording:

  • "an international standard for the kimchi industry led by China"
  • an “industry benchmark” for “the international paocai market”

So either these are different sentences within the same Global Times article, or they are different translations of the same sentence within the Global Times article.

If you believe that translation has nothing to do with this dispute, then please provide the original Global Times article so we can verify that the original article referred to "an international standard for the kimchi industry led by China" in English. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

90.205.253.243 2003:D3:71C:E00:3CDA:1636:DA08:DEA4 Regarding your most recent revision, I clarified that the quote comes from the BBC. Otherwise, I am fine with your changes. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The way you put it makes it look like it's BBC who started the row, while it was merely describing what had gone on in South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:71C:E00:A82E:89E8:1E92:2177 (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not say the BBC "started the row." I said "The BBC reported the Chinese state-run Global Times as calling the new regulations "an international standard for the kimchi industry led by China."" Which is accurate because the citation given is for the BBC, not the Global Times.
If you want to directly attribute "an international standard for the kimchi industry led by China" to the Global Times, then why are you citing the BBC? SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
No you did not write that the BBC started the row, but your wording suggested that the BBC is the only broadcaster who reported this news. In actuality, the BBC was covering what was happening in South Korea, so it is ever more important to include the original media coverage in South Korea. You have removed the articles published in the Korea Times on 30th November 2020. These articles should be more important than the BBC one as they showed how the dispute is seen in South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.253.243 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not say or suggest that "the BBC is the only broadcaster who reported this news." The reason I emphasize the BBC is because you are attributing a claim to the Global Times, but your source for the claim is the BBC.
I will rephrase my last question to be more general: if you are attributing a claim to Newspaper 1, then why are you citing Newspaper 2 as the source of Newspaper 1's claim? SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The BBC is not the only source that I found the exactly the same wording. In fact, the source in the Korea Times probably appeared earlier than the BBC one. In any case, I think it's better to include as many sources as possible to support it. Hence I've added the articles in the Korea Times back.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Pimang (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Debates around paocai and kimchi

2017-2018 Korean kimchi deficit and reached 99% imports from China

Korean public was shocked by the numbers of imported and exported kimchi in the previous year 2017, the total amount of import is 275,631 tons, in which 99 percent of it from China, while only exported 24,311 tons to overseas. This information was published by the Korean Customs Service.[1]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 54nd60x (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://business.inquirer.net/244266/news-south-korea-china-kimchi-kimchi-deficit-trade#ixzz6lVYPe6TA. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimchi/Archive_5&oldid=1070924749"