Talk:Korean cuisine

Great article, but one mistake:

Hey there, great article folks! I came to this page expecting to see a complete abortion like the many other Korean articles I've read. But this article is completely objective, without all the "healthiest food in the world" claims I would expect to see in a Korean article.

However, there is one mistake in the beer section. It says Korea makes lagers "similar to those in Europe". However, Korean lagers are nothing like European lagers. For one thing, they are mostly brewed from rice. Secondly, they tend to be sweet. Thirdly (and this is admittedly POV), Korean beers taste bloody awful, whereas European lagers taste good. I would suggest removing the part of the sentence that compares Korean lagers to European lagers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Break

I want to address some of Santaria's, and others, questions and concerns to the best of my knowledge. The questions are shortened/summarized for brevity:

1. Why not include statistics on tonnage/percentage? - The inclusion of numerical data can be deceptive as the numbers can be manipulated to show a POV that is disruptive. How? One side may say "look, compared to the others the consumption is minuscule, lets remove the data all together." while the other side says "hey look at that number, let's use it to show how cruel the Koreans are to dogs!" This has happened, repeatedly. All I can say is Mark Twain made a comment that describes the problem with statistics, and to sum him up: while the data is neutral, the conclusions drawn from them usually aren't.
2. Why not present this in its own section? - That draws undo attention to the data and makes it a lighting rod. Again the same problem.
3. Why cant we just delete the section all together? - Because it will be added back in no matter what we do, and usually in a way that restarts the whole roller coaster ride of disagreements. This also addresses my point about censorship, WP is not censored and editing the data to minimize or delete it violates this policy.
4. This source meets the standards of reliability, we should use it. - Unfortunately some sources, while being reliable, are not neutral. For example, there is one source from the BBC that keeps popping up, unfortunately while the article in question is from a premiere source the article itself is biased against Koreans in its presentation and conclusions. Multiple editors have stated this and yet certain contributors keep trying to insert it.
5. You should allow us Koreans to do this properly, as foreigners you do not know or understand Korean society - I understand your point, but you have to understand that sometimes outsiders can help because they are not emotionally vested in the issue. Not all outsiders have the best of intentions, as some rather nationalistic and biased editors have shown in the past, but others truly want to help improve the article.
6. We have data from the Korean government that can be used to verify/discount this point - In almost all instances the data is not Korean, it is South Korean. When it is said that dog is the n^th most commonly eaten meat in Korea, eaten by x% of the population, the sources are almost universally referring to South Korea. Unless you can provide data that encompasses and is drawn from both North and South Korea, it cannot and should not be used.
7. By ranking the foods, you are deceiving people about the consumption of dog - There is no ranking, no terminology that states the level of consumption or any other information in the article that would put forward that position. The article only states the animal and some of the traditional dishes it appears in. I, however, did reorganize the section on protein so it is alphabetical to address your concerns.

Chef Tanner spent several hundred dollars of his own money acquiring texts on Korean cuisine written by prominent researchers in order to present the data in the best possible and neutral way. Knowing the contentious history of the article he sought to remove all but the most neutral and scholarly of sources because, while they may have been reliable, they might not have presented the data in the best way or in such a way that the conclusions were not clear. Knowing the quality of work he did on other national cuisine articles, many contributors finally allowed him to rewrite the article based on these texts and I think it came out rather well. Other editors that were warring eventually came to see that the way he wrote the article was a good compromise. There were some disputes that did result in changes, for example the titling of the "Staples" section was changed to "Foodstuffs" so not to make people think dog was a staple, which of course it isn't. We are all wary of changes because of the problems in the past, and seek that proposed changes have all of their "i"s dotted, "t"s crossed, are accurate, do not draw conclusions and are not going to lead back to the problems encountered in the past. I think that is what Badagnani has been trying to say, all be it not in a clear way. I have clashed with him in the past, I have worked with him in the past as well and he can do good work at times. The same can be said of others who have commented here, but please remember we all share the same goal of making this article great and keeping it that way.

On a more personal note, If I leave a message and you are unsure of my point or think I am making an allegation towards you, please ask me to clarify my intentions about a comment before replying: Sometimes I am not clear or am terse in my responses and come off as rude or condescending, which I am not trying to do. If I wish to address a point of contention with you, I will present my argument with my points and positions laid out in my message. --Jeremy (blah blah 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to preach the minor points in mine and others argument. The central argument for me is this. Meat is food (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meat?qsrc=2888). I and majority of Koreans don't think of dogs as food, but pets. So, whether you guys decided to put dogs as "staple food" or "foodstuff", aren't you taking the position of the older and the minority, who regularly consume dogs, to other huge, bigger population of Koreans? So, by taking a side and saying it's food while many don't agree its food in the first place... and by not listing any of the controversies, how is the article currently presented neutral? How is taking view of one side without pointing out the view of another unbiased and neutral? That's my question and I'd appreciate an answer from you since the chef and Badagnani is avoiding it. Don't tell me anything about anything else except the answer to my question directly. Thanks. Santaria360 (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The chef has a life to which he is attending: teaching, writing (he is a published author), and television work are taking up most of his time and he hasn't been able to work on WP for a while. This is all stated on his user page. Badagnani is staying away from this for reason's I can only guess at, probably to avoid engaging in edit wars that we have dealt with in the past already.

Why should it be included? Because it is part of you cultural heritage, and enough people engage in the practice that it actually shows up as a consumed product. Because enough is consumed that several agencies (governmental and/or private) track its consumption. That there are actual, published dishes that use it as an ingredient. You may not like it, but it is a fact. There are lots of dirty little facts in all countries' cultures that the mainstream does not agree with and would not like mentioned, but we still include them here on WP. Thai people eat rat, Africans bushmeat, Americans and critter cuisine, the French with horse meat and snails. The list goes on and on.

But the over all best reason? We include it because Wikipedia isn't censored. --Jeremy (blah blah 08:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. Part of a "cultural heritage"??? Are you kidding me? That's an insult. To me, that's as bad as telling the Germans that Nazism is part of their cultural heritage... It's not their cultural heritage but their past. There's a difference. I never called for censorship of anything. You guys are the ones censoring my side, the larger population, point of view. In the conversations above, when did I once ask to remove the dog eating section? How is asking to mention that there's other side to this; there's a controversial side to this a censorship?? Only thing you are doing is avoiding the direct question. "Why should it be included?"-- Why are you asking yourself your own question and answering it? When did I ask that question? You accused me of censorship previously, I responded that I never asked for censorship, rather just presenting other POV, yet you say I'm calling for censorship again...???????? Really??? If you're going to respond, please stay on topic. Don't dodge the question. I'll copy and past the question again and if you don't have a direct answer, don't even bother.

I and majority of Koreans don't think of dogs as food, but pets. So, whether you guys decided to put dogs as "staple food" or "foodstuff", aren't you taking the position of the older and the minority, who regularly consume dogs, to other huge, bigger population of Koreans? So, by taking a side and saying it's food while many don't agree its food in the first place... and by not listing any of the controversies, how is the article currently presented neutral? How is taking view of one side without pointing out the view of another unbiased and neutral? Santaria360 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Germans do acknowledge their history of Nazism and note in their histories, they're not proud of it, but they do record it. As for your question, I did answer it with several reasons; just because you don't like the answers doesn't make them any less valid. That minority of people who consume dog eat enough of it that it is the fourth most consumed mammalian meat in South Korea. As for censorship, what I am referring to is changing the tone of the article or adding information that takes away the neutrality of the subject. You wish to put forth a point about Koreans disliking the practice, yet your point of view is entirely Southern. Can you provide data about North Korean habits? We don't get a lot of information from the North Korean government, and what we do hear is either disinformation or hearsay. How is the practice treated there? Can you get some reliable and neutral sources that backs your point that ALL Koreans, North and South, look down on the practice?

As for why we do not include the controversies: This is a cuisine article not an animal rights or controversial foods article. I added a link in the section to the article that covers that, as well make some minor edits to indicate that only some individuals consume it. That is more than enough. --Jeremy (blah blah 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Seriously! I'm just in awe at your response. I hate to be rude, but you don't even really deserve a well thought out response Santaria360 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll yet again add my two cents to this and address, and readdress some concerns of yours Santaria360 (talk). One, one does not need to be from a culture to be an expert on its culture or cuisine. My cousins are both from Korea and they are woefully ignorant on the subject. I am (and this is going out on a limb) pretty close to being an expert on cuisine and culture, I write on the subject extensively and I have also designed multiple classes that address the subject from a culinary stance and I am also designing a class entitled Cultural Food Studies. On the same note, people once got excited that a chef was from France because they must be able to cook great French cuisine, that has been over and over again been proven wrong in history. So, although I appreciate the fact that you say you are from Korea, that alone does not make you an expert on the subject, nor would the fact that I am from the USA mean that I am a subject on food and drink from my own; the fact that I have researched both extensively, written on both subjects, and have been invited to and participated in numerous lectures on the subjects would be more akin to experience on an understanding of cuisines.

All that aside, what you are promoting is a POV, "you and a majority" is not an exact number, but an opinion on the subject of dog meat consumption. What you have stated is correct though, as I have stated in the section that dog meat is eaten in lesser amounts than other mammal proteins. The fact remains that there are as per BBC articles aprox. 6,000 restaurants that serve the protein, there are still markets that sell the meat, the president of South Korea has been known to eat the meat as well. Perhaps we can say it is akin to foie gras in America, although not all Americans consume foie gras (which there is much controversy over, some states have, or are in the process of outlawing the protein) it is still consumed by a percentage of Americans and would be valid enough to include in the American Cuisine article as we grow our own high quality foie gras in the Hudson Valley region of New York. However, just because people don't like foie gras and the majority of people don't eat it, doesn't mean it isn't part of our cuisine. We have many articles written about the controversy of it, just as they do about dog in Korea, but they are still both valid parts of both cuisines. I don't know how to explain with any more simplicity.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chef, you said you with your own words "I am by no means an expert on Korean cuisine" yet now when it's convenient for you, you claim that you are "pretty close to being an expert on cuisine and culture". Did you just become "close to being an expert" in couple weeks? But let's just drop the "expert" claims. That itself is too subjective to be taken seriously. And please, please read rest carefully. What I'm promoting is a POV? What I'm promoting is that you are only presenting one POV as the only POV, so in essence YOU are being bias. I don't know how much more in simple terms I can put this. There are people in Korea that think dogs are food and there are larger population of people that think dogs are pets. That is a difference in opinion, POV, whatever you want to call it... But that is the main focal difference that I wanted presented as a controversy. This is very different than whether someone eats foie gras or not. First, foie gras is made of duck or goose, so it's dish correct? I'm not aruging who/how many people eat certain kind of dog dish or not, I'm aruging dog itself as whether it's food or not. I didn't lose you did I? Second, only thing I'm trying to present is a controversy. Nothing else. No censorship, no sugarcoating... I've asked for none of that. It's actually quiet ironic that you bring up foie gras to give as your example (wrong type of example I might add) because foie gras itself has a controversy section in Wikipedia and that's all I'm asking for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras). Santaria360 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't write articles from any POV; that is not permitted at WP. Hoping or wishing that dog meat were not a notable part of Korea's culinary culture does not make that so, as the sources show. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why I see only extremely contradictory comment above. Disruptive PETA-driven POV Pushings should be removed in any cuisine related articles.--Caspian blue 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But you are doing exactly that. Presenting an article from POV of people that look at dogs as meat/food. Again, you keep saying I'm doing something when I'm not. Hoping and wishing? The disconnect is that there's difference between what I'm actually asking and what you think I'm asking. Since when is asking for both side of POV being biased and censoring? Santaria360 (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have explained and explained to you why this is included and you still refuse to accept it. The subject has been covered for years now: By placing a note about the controversies in the article invites arguments such as this one. The arguments eventually lead to full blown edit wars that do nothing to improve the article. By presenting the information so that it only covers the history of the subject and the dishes that are made from it without mentioning anything that can be twisted around by members of any group seeking to push their point of view, regardless of what point they hold, we have kept this article stable for months now. This article more than at any point in its history is completely neutral on the subject, and is backed up by verifiable and reliable sources that do not draw any conclusions.

As for your comment on the foie gras article having a section on the controversy surrounding it, if you look at the dog meat article you will also find that it also has a similar controversies section. What you will not find is a mention of the foie gras controversy in the French cuisine article; so just like the French cuisine article, this article is on Korean cuisine and not on controversial foods or practices. So to emphasize what we are saying - Controversial practices such as the consumption of dog meat are covered in the articles on those subjects and not in the articles that refer to said practices.

In response to your comment to me above, I don't think you hate to be rude - I think you relish in it. The tone of your posts is abusive and you are derogatory in your remarks to those who do not share your views; to add salt to the wounds you are unwilling to compromise on your position or accept that consensus is against what you are proposing. Despite the fact I have made changes to the article to address your concerns as well as provided a significant set of reasons why things are the way they are, that is still not enough for you. Since you began posting here you have made threats to violate the rules and integrity of Wikipedia, you have been uncivil to fellow contributors and have done nothing productive. You are just being a troll at this point and I will be ignoring any other posts by you. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can go on and argue the difference between foie gras and dog meat to show that you are not comparing apples to apples or I can just blindly agree with your argument and accept the fact that like you said there's no controversy section regarding foie gras French cuisine. Latter is probably easier. So maybe you are right. Since French cuisine doesn't have foie gras controversy listed, maybe Korean food shouldn't have dog meat controversy either. But of course since French cuisine doesn't have a full section devoted to foie gras and Korean cuisine has one devoted only to dog meat, maybe the fairest thing is a quick mention like in French cuisine rather than a whole section.

You can accuse me of whatever you think I'm doing all you want, but I'll do the same. All you are doing is just presenting a biased POV of one side, dodging questions that questions your logic and holding hostage an article to make sure that your POV is the one that's presented. I don't have a handbook on Wikipedia rules, but I'm pretty sure that violates somethingSantaria360 (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated my stance on dog meat,it does not need to be stated again.

Santaria360 (talk), you have become an overly rude and aggressive user on this article. Although I have disagreed with others in the past with this article, I have not had people purposely question me to discredit me. Some people may not agree with my educated opinion, and their education allows them to feel that way, but for you to throw the inaccurate statement of me stating I am not a food and culture expert is wrong, what i stated was that I am "in humility' not a Korean cuisine expert, which was only out of politeness. You took what was an obvious polite statement and made it part of you controversy. Here we go, Ill go with my usual statement, properly source your inclusions with unbiased text sources, and follow the lines of the majority which includes keeping "dog meat" as a meat. If you are not in confirmation with the majority, then your "opinion" is wrong.Chef Tanner (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Dog Meat

The article says history of dog meat in Korea dates back to antiquity, but as far as I know, eating dogs was a serious social taboo in Korea until spread of Confucianism in the Joseon era. Before Confucianism, Koreans believed people who ate dog meat or saw dogs get slaughtered became cursed, and such people were not allowed to participate in important ceremonies such as marriages. Contrary to Korean traditions, Confucianism considers dog meat to be sacred. Eating dog meat began in Confucian congregations in the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 18th century when eating beef was banned because of cow shortages. Any commnets on this historical account? VeryGoodBoy (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That fact is covered under the statements of the social taboos of the consumption of any meat during those prior periods which is already in the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Other kinds of meat were tolerated, but dog was espeically taboo because it was believed that human souls who cannot reach Buddhist heaven are reincarnated into dogs, making dog meat consumption a kind of cannibalism. Eating dog meat is also social taboo in Korean shamanism because dogs are seen as the guides to the underworld. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting material; if sourced (I'm sure there are books about these phenomena), it would be good to add to the Dog meat article. The consensus for this article is that social issues surrounding the actual cuisine item be discussed only minimally. Badagnani (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has put the reasoning out there rather succinctly, please feel free to add this to the Korea section of the dog meat article. You can find the link in the dog meat section of this article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand all this controversy about whether dogs are food or pets. In New Zealand, we have pet sheep and chickens. We also eat them. Delicious! It's the same with Koreans. I live in Seoul, and quite a few people here have dogs as pets. There are also a lot of dog restaurants. Most of them are tucked down back alleyways, and you won't see any signs in English because Koreans are kind of embarrassed about it. But the restaurants are definitely there. As my Korean boss says: "Very good for man health!" By the way, I suggest eating dog soup rather than fried dog when you are in Korea, as the fried dog smells pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} please consider refining the section on Dog. As you may know, Koreans rarely eat dog. I lived in Korea for six years and had it once. Since this is such a sensitive topic for many in the West, no reason to emphasize this point. A simple survey will show that majority of Koreans do not eat dog, and those who do are a small, small minority. Thank you,

Overall, I believe that this page is well done.Jkim1805 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, would you take a time looking through past discussions on the subject? Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks for wanting to improve this article. Unfortunately, your request needs to be more specific to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. This template is intended to allow non-autoconfirmed users to edit semiprotected pages. Please rephrase the request in a 'please change X to Y' format and someone would be glad to help. Celestra (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dog meat is not staple meat food in Korea, Koreans rarely consumed dog meat.--Korsentry 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Dog Meat

I would like to propose that the dog meat section be moved down its own section instead of being categorized with common ingredients such as grains, legumes, chicken, beef. This would improve the accuracy of the article since dog meat which is a highly specialized Korean cuisine and deserves its own category apart from other "food stuff". Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree with you yet again, that would give it undo weight and prejudice the article as it has been stated over and over and over ad nauseum. The consensus has been for some time that the dog meat section be included in the appropriate subject section which is meat. I would please ask that you not start this discussion up again because it will only disrupt the article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a new attempt at resolving this matter as it seems that other editors have been constantly complaining about this issue. Can you please explain what undo weight and prejudice would result from moving the dog meat section to its own category apart from other common food stuff? My position is that grouping dog meat along with grains and chicken meat is a factual inaccuracy.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the records of the previous two years of discussions, some of which you participated in. The positions discussed in those archives cover the whole subject from just about every angle.

In response to your current position - dog meat is listed under the meats section of the foodstuffs articles; the last time I looked, it being a meat was not a factual inaccuracy. Could you please explain you position a little more clearly, because it seems a bit of a stretch to claim it isn't meat or that it deserves its own sub-section of the foodstuffs section. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly read through the past discussions and this is an attempt to civilly to discuss this matter in hopes that an acceptable agreement can be reached.

As for request for your request for clarification, my position is not that dog meat isn't a meat. The factual inaccuracy lies with categorizing dog meat in the same category as common Korean food ingredients such as grains, vegetables and common meats like chicken and beef. Dog meat is a specialty food item with a very unique food culture surrounding it. Anyone with first hand experience with Korean cuisine can attest to this. Moving the dog meat subsection to its own section would correct this factually inaccuracy without removing or changing any of the existing text.

I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have further exceptions. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We've gone over this, over and over again, and through all of the discussions the majority of those involved in the discussion went with leaving it the way it is. Wouldn't it be better to help add educational content, rather than argue over where you want "Dog meat" to be placed in the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I left it in previous discussion in hopes of coming back to it with fresh eyes without the venom of previous discussions. I hope we can come to a civil agreement as this seems to have been a complaint that has continued even in my absence and IMO this will continue to be a reoccurring issue because there is an underlying issue here should be addressed.

Just to clarify my position once more, the reason for my request is not to delete, change or censor the text but for a correction in the categorization of the subsection which will improve the factual accuracy of this article. It's not just an arbitrary move.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source that can confirm your assertions that it is not a foodstuff or is not meat? --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not my position.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Both academic texts that are based upon history and sociological research place dog meat under the heading of consumable meats, one book actually labels it under "staples" but we made the concession that not all items under that heading could be considered staples to all of Korea (although the staples merely referred to the headings of the main topics of grains, meats, vegetables, etc but that point was discusses and we came to consensus). So we have come to consensus on the subject, based upon sound academic readings, I do not analyze the data, because Wikipedia does not allow that. In moving dog meat to its own section, it means that we are considering ourselves researchers (which Wikipedia does not allow) and are analyzing the author's research and putting our own thoughts into their work. Now, I do this in my own academic research and writing outside of Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does not allow that to be done here as it would open a "can of worms" as there are many people who do not have the proper skills of analysis needed, as such we use all secondary and tertiary sources for our writing here on Wikipedia. As such, based upon multiple sources that place dog meat under the topic of consumable meats, it should stay as per Wikipedia guidelines, under meats.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me see what I can find in terms of references that address the issue of categorization of dog meat in Korean cuisine. Let's all try to make this section factually accurate as possible and not focus on arguing our own POV.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

it is not a POV, it is a published fact by academics, not just some guy who decided to write a cookbook or something. Wikipedia supports academic sources not people's personal opinions.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris has put forth both a policy based reason and an academic rational why the dog meat is located where it is; I have also provided further reasons why we hold these positions in the list of points found at the beginning of the talk page. Please provide a similarly researched and qualify statement in support of your position that can properly rebut these points of contention. We understand that this is a point of emotional contention and that you wish start an evenhanded, dispassionate debate after all of the rancor and heated discussion in the past. All we are asking that any point you wish to open to debate is backed up by Wikipedia policy and meets the standards of inclusion.

Well I disagree about the research supporting listing dog meat in the same category as vegetables, chicken and grains. But I will come back with references.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You go get your PhD in in Korean Studies, then I think you can argue against the authors of these texts I have used.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We're all trying to improve the accuracy of the article. I'm going to look into the references as you and others suggested. Let's not devolve the discussion with sarcasm and taunts. We've been pretty good so far.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if you wish to verify the works that Chris is quoting, please see the notes and bibliography section of the article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I will. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Melon, you're rehashing the same subject without any alternative suggestion? If you have a better idea, please show us first. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how much more of an alternative I can suggest than moving the subsection for sake of factual accuracy without removing, changing any of the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose dedicated section for dog meat, as per many earlier discussions, and consensus. We don't have a separate section for sujeonggwa or gujeol pan, which are only prepared for special occasions, consumed maybe a few times a year or less, in the case of the latter. Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are dishes made with common ingredient already listed in the foodstuff section.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Cited academic works that have been vetted by peer review are not POV, and are probably some of the hardest forms of sourcing to contradict. When I say peer review, I mean by those in academia - not our own peer review process. Your claims that they are an author's POV are spurious at best. The books Chris used are highly researched publications by noted members of their fields who spent years researching this subject.

You will need some serious sources to counter those presented by Chris. Also, before you go challenging his research, I wish to remind you of Chris' bona fides: he is a published author who is finishing his PhD in Gastronomy from Boston University, a major American University. You really need to step up if you wish to contradict his work. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well considering the fact that original research and synthesis from personal research isn't allowed, I'm fine with that. Do you know what his doctoral thesis was? That sounds pretty interesting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)