Talk:Korean temple cuisine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 9jwchoi. Peer reviewers: Hashmita7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues

I have two issues that I think should be resolved in the article:

• What separates Korean Buddhist cuisine from other Buddhist cuisines? I know this is a result of a conflict that originated at Korean vegetarian cuisine, but it might be better to simply describe this in Buddhist cuisine instead.
• Why "temple" in the article title? Judging from the hanja, it seems to be a direct translation from Korean. Wouldn't "Korean Buddhist cuisine" be more appropriate?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Peter's first point. Regarding the second, it's clear that such cuisine is also available at such restaurants (including one whose external link was just removed without discussion or consensus). Badagnani (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Vice versa, what is a uniqueness of Korean vegetarian cuisine from "vegetarian cuisine"? Brief descriptions on Korean cuisine can be added to the article and Korean cuisine Since you're supporting "unsourced claim" with no grould, I don't see what is a valid reason for keeping Korean vegetarian cuisine. If one article should be merged or deleted, it is "unsourced article. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe you'd have to develop consensus for that. The sources show that there are two vigorous traditions of vegetarian cuisine in Korean culture, and thus deleting the article entirely would be unreasonable. Badagnani (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You fail to develop a consensus and to provide reliable sources. You're not a consensus or judge. The sources that I added show only "Korean Buddhist temple cuisine. WP:V and WP:CITE, burden of proof, so you're responsible for your action.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, I was asking this because I wanted to see the article improved, not because I've allied with Badagnani to be your sworn enemy. Try going by the former intention rather than assuming the latter.

I raised the first question because Buddhist cuisine is a much more narrow topic than vegetarian cuisine, which encompasses the whole of humanity. I think we can both agree that describing Korean Buddhist food is a lot more relevant to describe in the narrower article than including info on Korean vegetarian food in the much broader article.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is your POV. You're not asking me to improve the artilce, but agitating and escalating the dispute. Since vegetarianism is a "new concept introduced recently along with "well-being", the attempt to categorize Korean Buddhist cuisine into Korean vegetarian cuisine is "original research".--Caspian blue (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to suggest that it might be better to include this information in Buddhist cuisine. If not to actually merge this article, then at least to mention Korea within that context at all. I have certainly not tried to suggest that Buddhist cuisine has to be merged with vegetarian cuisine. That's Badagnani's idea, and I don't recall supporting it. I do agree on one thing, though; that Buddhist traditions are highly relevant to modern vegetarian ones. Vegetarianism as we know it is indeed a modern concept, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist until modern times. Many people around the world have practiced vegetarianism, even when it has been involuntarily. The solution is not to delete any mention of the concept in the interest of instructing the readers about "True History", but simply to explain it more thoroughly.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - These are good points; I didn't specify that the two articles be merged, but pointed out that there was a single article (which is quite logical) that discussed both Korea's old and new vegetarian traditions--the new infused by the old--before the article's title was changed without consensus being sought or obtained. Badagnani (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's much more logical to keep the article at its previous title, Korean vegetarian cuisine, and discuss the Buddhist heritage of Korea's vegetarian culinary traditions, and how they are expressed in the modern day (i.e., Buddhist-influenced vegetarian restaurants). Badagnani (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Insisting on keeping original research is not a logic. Try hard finding "source" If some editor creates "Shojin ryori", are you insisting that the article should be under umbrella of Japanese vegetarian cuisine? Nope--Caspian blue (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

None of us is relying on original research, although we all have our own personal experience (a day or two ago, you claimed that you are the only editor qualified to edit on this subject, because your sister is a Buddhist nun, you are from Korea, etc.). We are all relying on actual sources, some of which were just blanked from the article without justification nor consensus. Badagnani (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not said my sister is a nun but my cousin is. If you're pointing out something, you should carefully read what others talk to you. Besides, I have not said that I'm the only one who is qualified to edit the subject. Never. However, it is sure that anyone who introduces original research without legitimate sources for their claim, they're unqualified to edit any of articles. You have shown such malpractices just like perilla oil.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Merge to Korean vegetarian cuisine, which should discuss both the ancient and modern traditions of Korean vegetarian cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Was this article cut and pasted? Why does it appear that it was begun on August 8, 2008? Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I only relocate the relevant content with valid sources from your original research version. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Temple"

I got no reply about my question whether the title was a direct translation of the Korean term or not, but I know enough Chinese characters to see that this appears to be the case. If there are no objections, I'll move the article to Korean Buddhist cuisine, since the article doesn't appear to be limited to food eaten that is literally eaten only in Buddhist temples.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The title is a direct translation of the Korean term and also referred to googling. I will object to the move because the cuisine has been practiced by only monks in temples until recently.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, because the food is also available to be consumed by the laiety who visit the monasteries for ceremonies. Also, it's not a direct translation because "Korean" and "Buddhist" don't appear in the hanja. Further, many Korean Buddhist laiety practice vegetarian diets at least some of the time, and there are Buddhist festivals (which take place at least once per year) at which vegetarian food is served. Badagnani (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have absolutely no knowledge of Korean language except rendering its sound. The sachal means Buddhist temple itself. Do not insist your original research again.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask that you kindly moderate your tone. It would be best if you address all points rather than just a single one. Further, the term "Buddhist" does exist in the Korean language, yet is not part of this name. There are other types of temples in Korea, including Daoist ones and others. Badagnani (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you create Korean noodles instead of guksu? The term has no "Korea" in the world. You just want to oppose me.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct translation would as far as I can see be "temple cuisine" (or "temple food"). Googling for that gets you plenty of hits, and most of them seem to be for the term "Korean temple cuisine". I don't know which title would be most appropriate, but it seems that temple cuisine or Korean Buddhist cuisine are the best candidates. Korean Buddhist temple cuisine, however, is just over-specific and is supported by only one relevant Google hit.

And how about we try to avoid hurling over insults at fellow editors?

Peter ^Isotalo 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Temple can be a church, and sachal is a specific word referring to only Buddhist temple in Korea. So, Buddhist temple cuisine is right term.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Buddhist cuisine is not yet broken up by country. Badagnani (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop following me? Why don't you step back from me and this article? I would not also edit Korean vegetarian cuisine for a while that you care.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly moderate your tone. It's more logical to discuss all aspects of Korean vegetarian cuisine at Korean vegetarian cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That is undoubtedly a fact. You have been following me and other editors. Saying facts has nothing to do with "tone". I remember that somebody said to you some time ago, "broken record". The suggestion for you to step back is a logical way to tide down a dispute.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Buddhist temple cuisine" would actually be ambiguous, since there are potentially other types of temple cuisines in other East Asian countries. "Korean temple cuisine" is far more common as a name and is enough to disambiguate the article since there appers to be no other types of temple cuisines in Korea. So unless you feel that more personal attacks (Caspian) and feisty provokations (Badagnani) will help us in this decision I'll go ahead and move the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, you're so wrong. Your continued false accusations are nothing but personal attacks against me. If you can can not stand on a middle ground, you're indeed not interested in a meditation. Badagnani has tendency to say things that I've never said such as the above "my sister being a nun, and me being the only qualified person", that are his distortions on my original comment. His labeling my removal of his unhelpful hidden remark on articles as "blanking his hidden remark" is insulting. He always says his hidden remarks are highly valued information for our readers, so such claim always clash with other editors including Chris, and Jeremy. Two admins pointed out on such labeling disruptive. The wikistalking mention is not the first time that he has heard from editors. I had been very kind to hear his inquisitive demands to create articles or add information that he wants to know (such info can be reached in English though), and have fixed his insertion of wrong and false information to Korean cuisine articles countless times. I have enough. If you keep falsely accusing me on the related articles instead of a meditation, I would not want to talk with you any more.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Korean temple can be churches or Cheondogyo, or Muslim temples in Korea, so I don't agree with your interpretation on the term.--Caspian blue (talk)

I'm not the one ranting about old grudges. You're both very good at keeping this conflict going, so please don't act as if you're being framed here. You're also both doing an excellent job of trying to impose your respective wills on each other instead of trying to cooperate. Now just try to drop this and stick to article issues. I'm neither your enemy nor B's ally, so stop treating me like either.

Churches and masjids can't be referred to as "temples" in English. The issue here, however, is not the Korean term sachal, but the most common term for this particular cuisine. "Temple cuisine" or "Korean temple cuisine" appear to be the most widely used. The current title is pretty much confined only to this article.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

People are always judged by their past, and if such behaviors are continued, that is worthwhile to be mentioned. You're the one making the problem bigger and bigger instead of meditating something, so you're responsible for your reckless behaviors. You're not a teacher for us, so don't act like that. Besides, temple cuisine is not an accurate term. I presented a Korean source, and you simply ignored to impose your POV. Moreover, the cuisine is sometime called "Bulgyo yori" (불교요리, Buddhist cuisine) or "Bulgyo eumsik" (불교음식 Buddhist food). Sachal is nothing but indicating "Buddhist temple". Your moving is a result that you're ignoring a consensus on contrary to your previously preach.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, this title isn't good; "Korean Buddhist cuisine" would be more accurate as there are various types of temples, and because such cuisine is also served in restaurants that are not temples. Badagnani (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but when you search for the term "Korean Buddhist cuisine", it's hardly in use at all. "Temple cuisine" on the other hand is a very established term. That it could refer to other type of temple cuisines is theoretically true, but I've yet to see a concrete example. The word "temple" has a fairly specific meaning in English, and it certainly doesn't include churches or mosques. Titles are supposed to be chosen by familiarity and ease of use. They don't need to be fully explanatory of the entire topic in of themselves. That's up to the article text to do.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, the new title works rather well. While the cuisine has its origin in the Temples, it has moved out into the world as you have stated. This is a small change that works well in English. Keep up the good work in the article and ignore Badagnani's trolling. Peter is only trying to help. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jeremy, thank you for your input. However I think if we take a compromise on the title, that would be Korean Buddhist cuisine. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with that title, it presents a very good name as well. Peter would you agree on that? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That was my first suggestion since I thought it was the most logical, but after doing some googling, that title appears to be about as rare as the previous "Korean Buddhist temple cuisine". The common name for this style of food appears to be "(Korean) temple cuisine". As far as I recall the naming conventions recommend using the most common name, not the ones that a few editors agree on sounds the best.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

True, I agree on that. Common name it is (I got 720,000 hits on that vs 48,000 for the Buddhist name.) This little disagreement has made this article is the number one on wikirage.com. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hangul

I think the hangul can be removed once the terms have their own articles (many of them will eventually, correct?)--that's what we've usually done. For example, we don't usually give the hangul for gochujang because we have a wikilink to the article that has the hangul. The hangul allows users to search the Internet in Korean, finding images and articles on Korean websites about these foods (which can be translated into English via Babelfish), which is very helpful. Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hangul does not add anything, even for things that don't have articles. This is no different than Japanese kana or names in cyrillic. For those who can't read the foreign script, it's merely distracting, and those who can read them don't need them because there's already a romanization.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated just above what value the hangul provides to our users. Would you kindly read it again? I think you must have added your comment before reading it carefully. If I wasn't clear, I can explain in more detail what value the hangul add to our articles. Badagnani (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I find over-use of non-Latin script to be highly distracting with very little benefit. The scenario of the non-Korean speaking reader trying to look up information with the hangul provided here seems pretty far-fetched to me. The droning of obscure dishes makes for a very dense and unenjoyable read and the hangul exacerbates that even more. In my experience, over-zealous use of non-logographic (Chinese characters are to some extent an exception), non-Latin scripts in texts is discouraged.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine for you to think that; when an item has its own article, such as gochujang, we don't include the hangul, because it can be found if the reader clicks to read that article. However, when it doesn't yet have an article it's helpful to have it to facilitate searching for this item in Korean on the Internet (this allows one to find photos as well as articles in Korean, which can then be translated into English via Babelfish or Google Translation). This is something like a "Rosetta Stone" and is very helpful for our users because, in many cases when dealing with obscure Korean cuisine topics, until we created our article there was no English-language source on that particular topic. Badagnani (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy that dictates that non-English terms have to be accompanied by native script. If anything, constant use of non-Latin script is discouraged or kept to a minimum for literary purposes. If you want to stick to this modus operandi, fine, but it makes the article more difficult to read and appreciate for outsiders.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we all feel that way, which is why we leave out hangul for terms that already have WP articles. I just want to make it understood how valuable it is to have the hangul in some cases. As an example, for "chalbap," one can cut and paste the hangul and find this. Or for godeulppagi kimchi (a rare form of kimchi), one can find this. Badagnani (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Suragan

Since there has no article either on sanggung or Suragan in Wikipedia, I only briefly mentioned about Sura sanggung (royal court maids preparing for king's meal). The royal court has several kitchens, but only in "Suragan", Sura sanggung and other lower class maids called nain (나인) prepared king's meal. So please do not delete the Suragan mention. Peter. See also Commons:Category:Dae Jang Geum Theme Park--Caspian blue (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is confusing; do you mean that Suragan "was prepared" or that Suragan "was the place" where the meals were prepared? Badagnani (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this piece of information (along with both hangul and hanja) relevant in the lead of this article? It's not even mentioned in the main article on the royal cuisine.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to realize that the article of Korean royal court cuisine is not even developed as a start status.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)