This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Badagnani and melonbarmonster: Despite the language being used to frame your rationales this does appear to be moving forward. However, you're both aware that any edits to this article are going to be eyeballed, and that enough blood has been spilled on this topic in recent weeks. Here's hoping that future edits can be discussed, and unambiguously backed up with reliable sources and / or reference to WP policies and guidelines. The potential for this to become WP:LAME or stray into WP:3RR territory should not be underestimated. A request for comment may be appropriate if that's where we end up. Page protection and blocks for disruption and incivility will hopefully remain unnecessary, but are also an option. If you have comments directed to each other and not directly relevant to the content of the article - the 3rd and 4th lines of the section above appear to qualify - please take them to your talk pages. Deiz talk 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good faith edits are fine as long as editors are committed to progressive edits and engaging in discussion. That goes for you or anyone else here.
The real culprit that sparked this latest slew of stupidity was wikilawyering, BS claims on non-consensus, etc.. What needs to stop is badagnani or anyone else engaging in disruptive behavior like nitpicking stupid things and creating entire friggin sections on the talk page because I deleted "male" from a sentence for redundancy. melonbarmonster 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry but I find the reverts of my edits to be unnacceptable. Tried is not the correct term, tried is only correct for those people who have eaten something once or twice, in order to work out if they like it or not, it is not correct for those who eat it on a regular basis. Eaten is correct for those who have eaten it once, and for those who eat it on a more regular basis. The use of the word tried is POV because it implies that the % of people stated have only eaten it once or twice, when infact the % stated consists of those who tried it once and those who eat it on a regular basis.
sometimes. to use the word sometimes is redundant and POV, of course its sometimes - apart from living and breathing I cant think of anything that I do which could not be phrased "i sometimes do X" but it also implies that it is done infrequently. If someone wishes to state that it is done infrequently, then instead of 'sometimes' 'rarely' 'occasionaly' they should state how often, and back this up with verifiable evidence.
I realise that the dog meat issue is embarassing for some Koreans and people with links to Korea, but my edits did not comment on animal welfare, they were NPOV they were factual, and it seems that some editors would prefer to either remove the dog meat section, or replace the text with 'a long time ago, someone who might have been korean, possibly ate something, that might have been a dog, but he only did this once'
Im sorry but its a fact, in Korea people eat dogs, it is not particually rare, and it is not something that everyone tries just the once, or something that happens once a year. the article should make those facts clear - if someone has an issue with animal welfare, pro-korea, anti-korea, pro-dog meat, dog meat consumption denial or whatever, they should make a blog and put their POV there. Dont try to give a POV in wikipedia, by using words that imply something that is not true, or is not proven. Sennen goroshi 06:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Its clear that your edit here [1] shows that you are extremely biased against Korea. Your edits are geared toward making it seem like all Koreans eat dogs and that they frequently consume it. This is not true and your edits are biased.
Your hypocrisy is also evident. While you rant about NPOV, you are the one making the article biased because of your stereotyped view that all Koreans eat dogs. Saying that "Im sorry but its a fact, in Korea people eat dogs" is biased ans sterotypical. Not all Koreans eat dogs and it is not a common dish. Good friend100 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Koreans eat dogs. Saying so doesn't imply that all Koreans eat dogs. Americans eat beef. That is true, and it is true even though some Americans are vegetarian. Likewise, it is correct to say Korean eat dogs. It is part of the Korean culinary tradition. Bsharvy 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the current version considered superior to the one that existed months ago:
Some Koreans consume dog meat. Dog meat is a traditional part of Korean cuisine, although it has historically been eaten primarily by peasants who could not afford other forms of meat. This practice has become controversial in and out of Korea.
Consumption of dog meat is widespread. Sale of dog meat is illegal in South Korea, but the law is not enforced. A recent survey of the consumption of dog meat done by The Office For Government Policy Coordination (국무조정실) states that 55.3% of Koreans have tried dog meat "at least once." The survey also concluded that between 1.6 million and 2.1 million dogs were consumed this year. [2] Restaurants serving dogs are most common in rural areas.
All dogs are eaten, but only nureongee (누렁이), are specifically raised for consumption. Those who consume dog meat are typically men with the belief that dog meat serves several medicinal purposes including physical stamina during the hot summer months and also for enhancement of sexual stamina citation needed. A common preparation of dog meat, bosintang (spicy dog stew), is sought out by diners as a special summer dish available at certain restaurants. A medicinal extract called gaeju (개주) or gaesoju (개소주), photo, made from dog meat as well as various herbs and other ingredients (but, despite its name, contains no alcohol), is also produced in Korea.
Sennen goroshi 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This edit removed that ca. 2 million dogs are eaten per year. That would be approximately 5,480 dogs, or 80 tons per day, if each dog weighs an average of 30 pounds. The BBC gives the figure of 8,500 tons per year (or 23.2 tons per day), with 93,600 tons per year (or 256 tons per day) used annually to produce gaesoju.
The reason for the addition and sourcing of this text is that User:Melonbarmonster had earlier stated that "not many" dogs are eaten by Koreans. 80 tons per day is significant, thus the addition of the text to show this. Badagnani 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never tried it with soy sauce. Wait...was that a WP:TROLL? Getting back to the actual text of the article, to restate, you did in fact try to remove the entire section about dog meat, saying that "not many" dogs were eaten each year. Now that we know it's in the tens of tons per day (actually, the reader *wouldn't* know that, if the text you deleted, which you still haven't explained here, remains deleted), we can see that it is not "not many"--in other words, "many." Badagnani 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If I felt like putting soy sauce on gimbap, as I do with makizushi, I would do so. Thanks, though, for your encouragement and offers of help. However, it still sounds like a WP:TROLL. Getting back to the issues at hand, are you disputing that there is a controversy in South Korea about the eating of dog meat? Could you be unaware of this? If you are aware of this, do you wish our readers not to know about it, and just to assume that everyone in South Korea is in agreement that it is fine? There are numerous sources to verify this controversy, so I do not see, as mentioned above, how it is very difficult to take 5 minutes, locate a source or two, and add that. We're all working together here to make this the most informative and best sourced article possible, so let's do that.
Regarding the scale of production/consumption, as mentioned above, I added the statistic because you attempted earlier to remove the entire section, stating that "not many" dogs are eaten per year. Now that the statistic is there, the reader can see the scale and thus the reason it is discussed in the article. Badagnani 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, I don't see that you formed a consensus before deleting the lead sentence of the paragraph in the first place (with an edit summary saying "cleaned up text"), or for deleting the entire dog meat section no fewer than three times earlier that week. Badagnani 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Seoul Times article discusses what sounds to me like a controversy:
Koreans' love of dog meat became a target of criticism from the international community, particularly Western countries. During 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup a lot of Westerners complained about the "dietary habit" of Korean people, triggering a national debate on the pros and cons of eating dog meat.
During the World Cup Brigitte Bardot, French actress-turned animal rights advocate, had a tug of war with Korean nationalists who argued for their right to enjoy dog meat. Her web site was virtually shut down after it was showered with protest email from angry Koreans. She led an economic boycott against Korean products after calling Koreans eating dog meat a "barbaric custom."
Proponents of eating dog meat defend themselves by saying that French people are equally cruel for the way they treat goose to make foie gras(fat liver), one of their delicacies. They argued that the French also ate horses, dogs, cats, and even rats in the past. Other Asian people including Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese are also enjoying dog meat recipes.
Opponents counter-argue that the medicinal or nutritional effects of dog meat have not been scientifically proven and the national image of Korea is being stigmatized by the dog eating habit. Animal lovers argue that dog meat eating ranks alongside labour unrest as the main reasons for Korea's tarnished international image.
Yeah that's why the section is still here and I haven't been deleting it. So if you want to propose an edit and people disagree, leave it at it's last point of consensus instead of revert warring.
And the article is describing an incident from 6 years ago. It says nothing about dog meat being a controvery. It's nothing close to a controversy in Korea right now. What about the second reference? melonbarmonster 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that self-contradictory? If we assume that some dogs are "mixed" while others are not, then surely all "breeds" are not mixed, right? Wikipeditor 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is getting a bit long. I propose that some or all of it be archived. Badagnani 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
im trying understand why i am being accused of POV for replacing the word consumed with the word eaten - in an article about food. it is food, it is eaten, it seems quite simple to me. i can understand the controversy of other aspects of this article, but to complain about using eaten when talking about food, seems petty to me, and is reverting for the sake of reverting. Sennen goroshi 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Page archived, link at top. Any editor may revive an old discussion by moving it from the archive back to this page. This page is still pretty damn big, but there's a lot going on right now... Deiz talk 06:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
For a "to-do" page for Korean cuisine articles, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Cuisine. We have a need for an article about seogi, if there is anyone knowledgeable about this food. Badagnani 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This huge, undiscussed rewrite doesn't seem really warranted as it seems to go into too much detail about the production of the meat (torture of dogs before slaughter, etc.). This level detail seems most appropriate for the Dog meat#Korea. Probably we should concentrate most on the culinary aspects, methods of preparation and serving of the actual dishes, in this particular article, although the aspects we already had included (reasons for consumption, scale of consumpetion, type(s) of dogs used) seem necessary to discuss at least briefly. Badagnani 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
On second reading, I think the quality of writing of the new text is quite good, but still think the level of detail might be a little much for the cuisine article and that some of th text could be split off into Dog meat#Korea. Badagnani 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I added many sources for the most controversial parts, and generally rewrote the section. It was a mess from constant edit warring. Some points:
Bsharvy 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I included info about inflicting pain because that is actually part of the preparation of the food. It is done to improve the flavor and to increase its stamina-enhancing properties. Also, it is part of why the topic is controversial. Feel free to add info about other methods of preparation, recipes etc. I am not saying what I wrote is comprehensive or finished. Nothing is ever finished on Wikipedia. I wanted a fresh start (with lots of sources for the controversial stuff). Bsharvy 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the lead of the second paragraph should be something like: "The best quality meat allegedly comes from dogs that die painfully." That would frame the paragraph more clearly in terms of preparation of the meal. Bsharvy 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The references are very problematic. I just checked a few of them and the sentence referenced will have referenced fact plus unreferenced information or opinion that is subjective personal opinion. I'll go through it more thoroughly later when I have time but please review WP:REF and clean up the references. E.g., attaching 5 references to highlight the brutality of how animals are killed is redundant and unnecessary as well as being inflammatory POV.
This goes back to my original point that it is culturally ignorant and biased to include detailed focus on this. WP:DUE also supports this. E.g. there are many who would argue that butchering processes of beef is brutal but you're not going to find a section or even a sentence on this "controversy". Just because you find this significant as a non-Korean doesn't mean that it deserves detailed attention.
Also, deleting Korean references because it's Korean is just WIKI ignorant and makes me question your working knowledge on editing an article as sensitive as this. Please be more careful and make an effort to familiarize yourself with wiki policies before making controversial changes. melonbarmonster 04:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have an article on the Korean equivalent of this dessert food? Badagnani 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I get what you tried to say as I followed your contribution history. Well, I was surprised to see that Rice Krispie treat are "invented" by American. But I think "adapted" are more accurate in the light of the year in which the food were firstly produced in US. Korean have eaten the very same form of desserts, Yugwa and Gangjeong from the Three Kingdom period. In other hand, the main ingredient of Sachima of China is flour, but Yugwa and gangjeong are made from rice. Besides, there are plenty of uncreated articles regarding Korean cuisine. Why don't you make the article first?
-- Appletrees 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the term ddong gae (똥개) also used in reference to the dogs used for consumption? Should this be added to the article in addition to the nureongi name? Badagnani 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Gamja jeon (potato pancake). Not sure if it should be rendered with space or not. Badagnani 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the section regarding table manner and etiquette takes too much compared to the others in this aricle. It should be moved into a new article. The section also looks tedious and tends to decrease people's attractions. In addition, editors who have devoted their much time to dog meats looks unproductive. I actually found a very good photo of a dish made of dog meat but am afraid of hot quarrelling on the photo and my contribution. (well it is highly likely somebody would call me a "maegukno")I don't want any dispute but this article needs more contents.
I suggest that we add informations about regional cuisines and local specialties of Korea. Like the example of German cuisine. How do you think? -- Appletrees 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't support this edit, which is too severe and not discussed. We didn't discuss moving all dishes out of this article, which doesn't make sense. Badagnani 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't support this edit either, as the editor has not taken the time to summarize the dishes, but instead simply blanks them and moves them out of the article without discussion here. Please, don't act as if you rule the articles to blank entire sections as you please, with replacing them with a summary. Badagnani 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Badagnani and melonbarmonster: Despite the language being used to frame your rationales this does appear to be moving forward. However, you're both aware that any edits to this article are going to be eyeballed, and that enough blood has been spilled on this topic in recent weeks. Here's hoping that future edits can be discussed, and unambiguously backed up with reliable sources and / or reference to WP policies and guidelines. The potential for this to become WP:LAME or stray into WP:3RR territory should not be underestimated. A request for comment may be appropriate if that's where we end up. Page protection and blocks for disruption and incivility will hopefully remain unnecessary, but are also an option. If you have comments directed to each other and not directly relevant to the content of the article - the 3rd and 4th lines of the section above appear to qualify - please take them to your talk pages. Deiz talk 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good faith edits are fine as long as editors are committed to progressive edits and engaging in discussion. That goes for you or anyone else here.
The real culprit that sparked this latest slew of stupidity was wikilawyering, BS claims on non-consensus, etc.. What needs to stop is badagnani or anyone else engaging in disruptive behavior like nitpicking stupid things and creating entire friggin sections on the talk page because I deleted "male" from a sentence for redundancy. melonbarmonster 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry but I find the reverts of my edits to be unnacceptable. Tried is not the correct term, tried is only correct for those people who have eaten something once or twice, in order to work out if they like it or not, it is not correct for those who eat it on a regular basis. Eaten is correct for those who have eaten it once, and for those who eat it on a more regular basis. The use of the word tried is POV because it implies that the % of people stated have only eaten it once or twice, when infact the % stated consists of those who tried it once and those who eat it on a regular basis.
sometimes. to use the word sometimes is redundant and POV, of course its sometimes - apart from living and breathing I cant think of anything that I do which could not be phrased "i sometimes do X" but it also implies that it is done infrequently. If someone wishes to state that it is done infrequently, then instead of 'sometimes' 'rarely' 'occasionaly' they should state how often, and back this up with verifiable evidence.
I realise that the dog meat issue is embarassing for some Koreans and people with links to Korea, but my edits did not comment on animal welfare, they were NPOV they were factual, and it seems that some editors would prefer to either remove the dog meat section, or replace the text with 'a long time ago, someone who might have been korean, possibly ate something, that might have been a dog, but he only did this once'
Im sorry but its a fact, in Korea people eat dogs, it is not particually rare, and it is not something that everyone tries just the once, or something that happens once a year. the article should make those facts clear - if someone has an issue with animal welfare, pro-korea, anti-korea, pro-dog meat, dog meat consumption denial or whatever, they should make a blog and put their POV there. Dont try to give a POV in wikipedia, by using words that imply something that is not true, or is not proven. Sennen goroshi 06:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Its clear that your edit here [1] shows that you are extremely biased against Korea. Your edits are geared toward making it seem like all Koreans eat dogs and that they frequently consume it. This is not true and your edits are biased.
Your hypocrisy is also evident. While you rant about NPOV, you are the one making the article biased because of your stereotyped view that all Koreans eat dogs. Saying that "Im sorry but its a fact, in Korea people eat dogs" is biased ans sterotypical. Not all Koreans eat dogs and it is not a common dish. Good friend100 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Koreans eat dogs. Saying so doesn't imply that all Koreans eat dogs. Americans eat beef. That is true, and it is true even though some Americans are vegetarian. Likewise, it is correct to say Korean eat dogs. It is part of the Korean culinary tradition. Bsharvy 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the current version considered superior to the one that existed months ago:
Some Koreans consume dog meat. Dog meat is a traditional part of Korean cuisine, although it has historically been eaten primarily by peasants who could not afford other forms of meat. This practice has become controversial in and out of Korea.
Consumption of dog meat is widespread. Sale of dog meat is illegal in South Korea, but the law is not enforced. A recent survey of the consumption of dog meat done by The Office For Government Policy Coordination (국무조정실) states that 55.3% of Koreans have tried dog meat "at least once." The survey also concluded that between 1.6 million and 2.1 million dogs were consumed this year. [2] Restaurants serving dogs are most common in rural areas.
All dogs are eaten, but only nureongee (누렁이), are specifically raised for consumption. Those who consume dog meat are typically men with the belief that dog meat serves several medicinal purposes including physical stamina during the hot summer months and also for enhancement of sexual stamina citation needed. A common preparation of dog meat, bosintang (spicy dog stew), is sought out by diners as a special summer dish available at certain restaurants. A medicinal extract called gaeju (개주) or gaesoju (개소주), photo, made from dog meat as well as various herbs and other ingredients (but, despite its name, contains no alcohol), is also produced in Korea.
Sennen goroshi 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This edit removed that ca. 2 million dogs are eaten per year. That would be approximately 5,480 dogs, or 80 tons per day, if each dog weighs an average of 30 pounds. The BBC gives the figure of 8,500 tons per year (or 23.2 tons per day), with 93,600 tons per year (or 256 tons per day) used annually to produce gaesoju.
The reason for the addition and sourcing of this text is that User:Melonbarmonster had earlier stated that "not many" dogs are eaten by Koreans. 80 tons per day is significant, thus the addition of the text to show this. Badagnani 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never tried it with soy sauce. Wait...was that a WP:TROLL? Getting back to the actual text of the article, to restate, you did in fact try to remove the entire section about dog meat, saying that "not many" dogs were eaten each year. Now that we know it's in the tens of tons per day (actually, the reader *wouldn't* know that, if the text you deleted, which you still haven't explained here, remains deleted), we can see that it is not "not many"--in other words, "many." Badagnani 04:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If I felt like putting soy sauce on gimbap, as I do with makizushi, I would do so. Thanks, though, for your encouragement and offers of help. However, it still sounds like a WP:TROLL. Getting back to the issues at hand, are you disputing that there is a controversy in South Korea about the eating of dog meat? Could you be unaware of this? If you are aware of this, do you wish our readers not to know about it, and just to assume that everyone in South Korea is in agreement that it is fine? There are numerous sources to verify this controversy, so I do not see, as mentioned above, how it is very difficult to take 5 minutes, locate a source or two, and add that. We're all working together here to make this the most informative and best sourced article possible, so let's do that.
Regarding the scale of production/consumption, as mentioned above, I added the statistic because you attempted earlier to remove the entire section, stating that "not many" dogs are eaten per year. Now that the statistic is there, the reader can see the scale and thus the reason it is discussed in the article. Badagnani 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, I don't see that you formed a consensus before deleting the lead sentence of the paragraph in the first place (with an edit summary saying "cleaned up text"), or for deleting the entire dog meat section no fewer than three times earlier that week. Badagnani 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The Seoul Times article discusses what sounds to me like a controversy:
Koreans' love of dog meat became a target of criticism from the international community, particularly Western countries. During 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup a lot of Westerners complained about the "dietary habit" of Korean people, triggering a national debate on the pros and cons of eating dog meat.
During the World Cup Brigitte Bardot, French actress-turned animal rights advocate, had a tug of war with Korean nationalists who argued for their right to enjoy dog meat. Her web site was virtually shut down after it was showered with protest email from angry Koreans. She led an economic boycott against Korean products after calling Koreans eating dog meat a "barbaric custom."
Proponents of eating dog meat defend themselves by saying that French people are equally cruel for the way they treat goose to make foie gras(fat liver), one of their delicacies. They argued that the French also ate horses, dogs, cats, and even rats in the past. Other Asian people including Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese are also enjoying dog meat recipes.
Opponents counter-argue that the medicinal or nutritional effects of dog meat have not been scientifically proven and the national image of Korea is being stigmatized by the dog eating habit. Animal lovers argue that dog meat eating ranks alongside labour unrest as the main reasons for Korea's tarnished international image.
Yeah that's why the section is still here and I haven't been deleting it. So if you want to propose an edit and people disagree, leave it at it's last point of consensus instead of revert warring.
And the article is describing an incident from 6 years ago. It says nothing about dog meat being a controvery. It's nothing close to a controversy in Korea right now. What about the second reference? melonbarmonster 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that self-contradictory? If we assume that some dogs are "mixed" while others are not, then surely all "breeds" are not mixed, right? Wikipeditor 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This page is getting a bit long. I propose that some or all of it be archived. Badagnani 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
im trying understand why i am being accused of POV for replacing the word consumed with the word eaten - in an article about food. it is food, it is eaten, it seems quite simple to me. i can understand the controversy of other aspects of this article, but to complain about using eaten when talking about food, seems petty to me, and is reverting for the sake of reverting. Sennen goroshi 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Page archived, link at top. Any editor may revive an old discussion by moving it from the archive back to this page. This page is still pretty damn big, but there's a lot going on right now... Deiz talk 06:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
For a "to-do" page for Korean cuisine articles, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Cuisine. We have a need for an article about seogi, if there is anyone knowledgeable about this food. Badagnani 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This huge, undiscussed rewrite doesn't seem really warranted as it seems to go into too much detail about the production of the meat (torture of dogs before slaughter, etc.). This level detail seems most appropriate for the Dog meat#Korea. Probably we should concentrate most on the culinary aspects, methods of preparation and serving of the actual dishes, in this particular article, although the aspects we already had included (reasons for consumption, scale of consumpetion, type(s) of dogs used) seem necessary to discuss at least briefly. Badagnani 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
On second reading, I think the quality of writing of the new text is quite good, but still think the level of detail might be a little much for the cuisine article and that some of th text could be split off into Dog meat#Korea. Badagnani 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I added many sources for the most controversial parts, and generally rewrote the section. It was a mess from constant edit warring. Some points:
Bsharvy 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I included info about inflicting pain because that is actually part of the preparation of the food. It is done to improve the flavor and to increase its stamina-enhancing properties. Also, it is part of why the topic is controversial. Feel free to add info about other methods of preparation, recipes etc. I am not saying what I wrote is comprehensive or finished. Nothing is ever finished on Wikipedia. I wanted a fresh start (with lots of sources for the controversial stuff). Bsharvy 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the lead of the second paragraph should be something like: "The best quality meat allegedly comes from dogs that die painfully." That would frame the paragraph more clearly in terms of preparation of the meal. Bsharvy 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The references are very problematic. I just checked a few of them and the sentence referenced will have referenced fact plus unreferenced information or opinion that is subjective personal opinion. I'll go through it more thoroughly later when I have time but please review WP:REF and clean up the references. E.g., attaching 5 references to highlight the brutality of how animals are killed is redundant and unnecessary as well as being inflammatory POV.
This goes back to my original point that it is culturally ignorant and biased to include detailed focus on this. WP:DUE also supports this. E.g. there are many who would argue that butchering processes of beef is brutal but you're not going to find a section or even a sentence on this "controversy". Just because you find this significant as a non-Korean doesn't mean that it deserves detailed attention.
Also, deleting Korean references because it's Korean is just WIKI ignorant and makes me question your working knowledge on editing an article as sensitive as this. Please be more careful and make an effort to familiarize yourself with wiki policies before making controversial changes. melonbarmonster 04:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have an article on the Korean equivalent of this dessert food? Badagnani 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Now I get what you tried to say as I followed your contribution history. Well, I was surprised to see that Rice Krispie treat are "invented" by American. But I think "adapted" are more accurate in the light of the year in which the food were firstly produced in US. Korean have eaten the very same form of desserts, Yugwa and Gangjeong from the Three Kingdom period. In other hand, the main ingredient of Sachima of China is flour, but Yugwa and gangjeong are made from rice. Besides, there are plenty of uncreated articles regarding Korean cuisine. Why don't you make the article first?
-- Appletrees 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the term ddong gae (똥개) also used in reference to the dogs used for consumption? Should this be added to the article in addition to the nureongi name? Badagnani 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Gamja jeon (potato pancake). Not sure if it should be rendered with space or not. Badagnani 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the section regarding table manner and etiquette takes too much compared to the others in this aricle. It should be moved into a new article. The section also looks tedious and tends to decrease people's attractions. In addition, editors who have devoted their much time to dog meats looks unproductive. I actually found a very good photo of a dish made of dog meat but am afraid of hot quarrelling on the photo and my contribution. (well it is highly likely somebody would call me a "maegukno")I don't want any dispute but this article needs more contents.
I suggest that we add informations about regional cuisines and local specialties of Korea. Like the example of German cuisine. How do you think? -- Appletrees 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't support this edit, which is too severe and not discussed. We didn't discuss moving all dishes out of this article, which doesn't make sense. Badagnani 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't support this edit either, as the editor has not taken the time to summarize the dishes, but instead simply blanks them and moves them out of the article without discussion here. Please, don't act as if you rule the articles to blank entire sections as you please, with replacing them with a summary. Badagnani 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)