Talk:Korean cuisine

Please take a look at any of the other cuisine articles and you will see that the info box is the first item in the article unless tagged with a maintenance tag. In fact, this is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

If you do not like the the polices and guidelines, take the discussion to the WP:MoS page. Opinions of editor, while important, are not used as guidelines for article structure. This is similar to issues over trivia sections, some editors really want to include them because they are "fun," but they do not belong regardless of what the editor thinks. Until then please make it a point to follow said guidelines. Also, stop reverting the article as your edits do not conform to the stated MoS, regardless of what you think. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Look at the code and you will see something interesting, the image of the BK is not in the template but in the article. I placed the code {{{logo}}} in place of the image in the template and in the article the template code says this: {{Infobox Burger King|logo=[[Image:Burger King Logo.svg]]}}. This put the image into the infobox without violating WP:FUR.

My suggestion would be to modify the cuisine info box so that there is a if/then/else variable that states if there is a specified image in the template code of the article that it is to use that image instead of the stock image specified in the template it self. That would allow you to display an image of the local cuisine and include the info box in line with the MoS.

Do no do this lightly as this type of change would effect dozens and dozens of articles; you will need someone who is very knowledgeable with wiki-coding to do this correctly so as not to mess up the other articles. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm not quite sure why everything has to be controversial on this page, but I will put in my thoughts. I had issues actually with this template when I first came to Wikipedia as it was placed on a number of articles that the navigational template did not cover. However, the template does cover "Asian" cuisine and as such it does in turn link to this cuisine, so it is valid just as it is for all other cuisines that are eventually linked through the nav. template. I agree that it would be better to have a picture that is highly representative of a cuisine, rather than the cuisine template, but I would rather not see this template sitting in the middle of the article and it honestly would go against what all the other article are following in cuisine on Wikipedia. The suggestion I just made at the templates discussion page is one I made a while ago, which was argued against by others awhile ago. I think what would solve all issues would be to make the template a horizontal template that will sit on the bottom of the page for those who want to use it for navigability. This will also give the ability to expand the template if desired to include Asian cuisine staples, instead of mostly the Western World cuisine staples. Then this gives the ability to add a representative picture to the top right of the cuisine article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Consumption of dog meat

Consumption of dog meat: 1) China 2) Phillipine 3) Vietnam 4) Native American Indians. 5) Indonesian 6) Malayasians 7) Eskimos 8) Latin American Tribes 9) Europeans 10) Korea

These are top 10 consumption of dog meat countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonjj (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a full-blooded Korean, and I can tell you that neither I nor anyone in my extended family or even most of my friends have eaten any dog meat EVER. I also can tell you with greater certainty than most of you that DOG MEAT IS NOT A REGULAR PART OF KOREAN DIET. The vast majority of Koreans do not eat dog meat. You will never find dog meat in a regular Korean restaurant. Yes, there is an avid minority of dog meat loving Koreans, mostly men who believe in the scientifically unproven aphrodisiac quality of dog meat, but most people do not eat it. It certainly is not the third most popular meat in Korea. Koreans love beef, pork and chicken more than anything else. So please do not include such section in the Korean Food section. If you want to create a separate Dog Meat section, I am fine with it. But to mention it in the main Korean Food section makes most Koreans, including myself, want to vomit.

My comments - This has turned into a blatant edit war. The other editors seem to be arguing this on a cultural basis, Japanese vs Korean views primarily. I have heard rumors and innuendo about this issue for as long as I remember, going back to the 1970s and an episode of the TV show M*A*S*H.

Facts are one thing, but as Twain said there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. You can twist statistics to show any point, and that is exactly has happened here with the various numbers tossed about. The tonnage number appears to me to be O.R.

When you quote sources like the study on consumption, you must realize that any statistical polling is flawed, that is why the pollsters include statistical variance. The survey was done in South Korea obviously, but where? In Seoul? The boonies? The shore? What about North Korea? What about Koreans living outside the peninsula? The numbers quoted are problematic at best an simply cannot be used to describe the entire Korean population's eating habits.

Chris is as non-partisan editor as you can get, please listen to him as he has stated many ideas to correct this problem. I agree fully with what Chris said: mention it briefly in the main body under the soups and stews section (if that is appropriate) and add the rest to the Dog Meat article. Maybe a new article on taboo foods will need to be created with horse, cat, rat, dog and other critter meats included there.

I have stated here, more than once, that the earlier, more concise version of the section would be fine (the tonnages of dogs used for meat and gaesoju are truly staggering, despite your wishful statement that the consumption of dogs is "not significant"), or just leaving in a description of bosintang, a brief mention of dog meat issues, and a merge of all remaining content into Dog meat#Korea. Badagnani (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the tonnages are cited in reliable sources and have been discussed at least three times in this discussion page. The number is in the tons, per day. Gaesoju is produced on a very large scale, with the sources showing that more dogs, in tonnage, are used to produce the extract than are used for meat. The BBC states that "Another 93,600 tons is used annually to produce a medical tonic called kaesoju." ( from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/422338.stm ). 93,600 tons per year is 256.4 tons per day, or 512,876 pounds (just over half a million pounds) per day. The same source states that "There are said to be more than 6,000 restaurants across the country selling poshintang, or dog meat soup, getting through about 8,500 tons per year." That makes approximately 102,000 tons (204 million pounds) per year, or 558 thousand pounds (just over half a million pounds) per day. For a country whose population is not particularly large in comparison to other East Asian nations, this is certainly very significant. Also significantly, reliable sources state that dog is the fourth most popular meat in Korea. That is not true of most other nations. Blanking all mention of dog meat in this article, as the editor who began much commotion and made many demands yesterday simply does not argue from a position of valuing the actual facts. Badagnani (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This agreement (albeit between only two editors) seems a positive step. This possibility has come about, interestingly, partly through the input of the "pro-Korean" camp, and also from suggestions of Chef Christopher Tanner. Now you will only need to deal with certain anti-Korean, pro-Japanese editors who usually show up and demand that the gory details be included (even at the expense of the article, making the section disproportionately long), making consensus difficult to achieve. Of course, it would be preferable if editors did not show either bias, but instead simply wish to properly document the subject for our readers without concern for either protecting or defaming the culture being described. Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of weights is way too broad of a basis to state that Koreans each an average of a certain amount of dog meat per person. Every academic book I have looked into recently states that dog meat is not common, the tonic the heading speaks of is not meat either it is a medicinal product which is used for men for virility. The academic journals I have read also state that when dog meat is prepared, it is served at "specialty" restaurants, not in the main stream. Korea is also known for preparing a soup from earthworms and eating boiled silkworms does this mean we need a section on eating worms as well? I just don't feel a food item that is not universal warrants its own heading, mention of it under the traditional soup bosintang and in a small mention under a summary of Korea's national cuisine should be sufficient which I will admit we were coming to a slight consensus on I thought at one point Badagnani but others continue to not be convinced and I hate to go through the effort of writing a "History" section for this article, just to have other editors come in and reverse the edits. If this process shows them that they can't do that without possible repercussion, then it is better for all of us that want the article to illustrate the actual nature of dog meat consumption in Korea.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this, as I'm involved in the Food and Drink project, and mildly clueful. So I'm going to throw in a whole bunch of things here based on spending the last hour and a bit reading months of history, discussion and edits.

So. Much of the information that's being added is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia, and indeed, I'd recommend that it be added to the Dog meat article in the Korean section; that article's section needs to be tightened up and a lot of the citations that have been added here could really be used in that article. My recommendation is to change the section title to 'Meat Usage in Korean Cuisine', add something about the meat-heavy nature of the diet compared to the region, information on the amounts of meats used from cattle and poultry. The 'Meat Usage' section can properly have a paragraph on dog meat, and should have a 'For further information please see the main article on Dog Meat.' It should give the usage, and could mention the Olympics and the decreasing usage and the fact some people believe the declining use is due to Western ideals. These items should be kept very short. It is not the place to get into slaughtering methods or any medicinal usage. --Thespian (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There were at least two surveys of Koreans, giving a breakdown by age group of how many people regularly eat dog meat, and how many had tried it at least once. If the total weight is not considered reliable, and you want data saying what percentage of the population eats it, eats it once a year, has ever eaten it, etc. by age group, there are surveys to that effect. The percentages of people who had "ever eaten it" and who eat it at least once per year are proportionally quite large. Badagnani (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The statistics are as follows: according to a 2006 survey, among 1025 South Koreans, 81% of those in their fifties, 67% of those in their forties, 64% of those in their sixties, 59% of those in their thirties, 60% of teens, 46% of those in their twenties, and 55% on average have ever eaten dog meat. 64% eat dog meat 1 to 3 times per year, 17% 4 to 6 times, and 11% 7 to 10 times. This amounts to an average of 4.6 times per year, at 300 grams per incident. 75% think dog meat should not be banned, and many demand the improvement of the sanitary conditions rather than animal welfare.[2] Joins' report is based on the same source as Hankyoreh.[3] Badagnani (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure all those questions are answered in the articles. The Babelfish website does work for Korean, though the translations it produces from Korean to English are usually less than optimal. It will give you the gist, however. Just copy and paste the text into babelfish.altavista.com . Badagnani (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumption of meat in 2006

70 Percent Koreans eat Meat. ( Cow, Chicken, Pork). Korean Food Diet. 40 Percent Koreans eat Dog Meat ( Koreans have tried). Not regular Korean Food Diet. Don't genearalize or finger point that all Koreans eat Dogmeat. That isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonjj (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#Edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sennen goroshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for the dog meat section

Proposal by Bsharvy

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

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

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

^ ^a ^b ^c [1]
^ ^a ^b Photo
^ ^a ^b ^c Salon Man Bites Dog
^ ^a ^b New American Media How Much Is that Doggy on the Menu?
^ ^a ^b Seoul Times Korea Should Stop Eating Man's Best Friends
^ ^a ^b ^c Seoul Times Dogs Adored While Being Eaten in Seoul
^ ^a ^b Yong-Geun Ann, Ph.D. Koreans and Dog Meat
^ Seoul Times 14,075 Dogs, Animals Discarded in Seoul in 2006
^ ^a ^b The Chosun Ilbo Animal Rights Activists Protest Dog Eating
^ CNN/World FIFA barks at Korean 'animal cruelty'
^ BBC News Dogs blow-torched alive
^ Korean Animal Protection Society Video of Dog Markets and Dog slaughter from SBS News Seven
^ International Aid for Korean Animals Video Clips
^ In Defense of Animals, video from Animal Freedom Korea. Undercover Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bsharvy 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basharvy, I quote your previous comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal by Sennen goroshi

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

My suggestion follows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it is confusing to have these discussion of proposals separated into di

Contents

Positioning of info boxes