Revision as of 18:47, 7 July 2010

Korean cuisine was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 30, 2010). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

To-do list for Korean cuisine: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-07-30 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Copyedit : Newly added materials

Instant Noodles

Wow, it's changed a lot since a handful of us started this article. I was going through and noticed that the adoption of instant noodles was placed within the Japanese occupation. The occupation ended in 1945, but instant noodles weren't marketed until 1958. Zenpickle (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The information was inserted by Tanner-Christopher based on an academic book authored by Pettid. I think the author refers to ready-made noodles like somen. But instant noodle only confines instant ramen/ramyeon, I will remove the "instant noodle".--Caspian blue 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Instant noodles article has a reference showing the Republic of Korea as the sixth largest consumer of instant noodles. Perhaps this does belong in the article? jmcw (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

<G>And what about a mention of "Orion Choco Pie"? jmcw (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New Link?

What follows is a link to a video concerning South Korean street food and deserts. Would it be possible to add this to the page? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IunpUV14xLk Blongbotham (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)blongbotham, Korean International School, Journalism

Comment

Read it, then fix it. Why is this crap semi-protected? That's two blatant errors and I'm only skimming!

Those in the lower economic levels were likely to only enjoy a single bowl of white rice each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsjd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read up on WP:Civil before making any more comments, the way you phrased the comment is inappropriate. The article is protected due to several edit wars over the past few years. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Racist article....

Like the angry editor above, why is this article protected? You don't own this article, neither from the content is it worth protecting. It seems there is too much of a need for stereotypical racism to placed into articles about non-white people on this American encyclopedia. In the case of this article, I am referring to the need to mention dog meat!!

Dog meat??? WTF? Is this article about the historical dietary habits of the Korean people or the modern population of South Korea? Now I cannot speak for the North, but the likely dishes being discussed here are not for common consumption on the streets of Pyongyang. So I presume the images used have all been taken in the South. Therefore to include dog meat is just pandering to the racist preconceptions of non-domiciles. I have lived in Korea for many years (my wife is Korean) and I have never, ever, seen anyone eat dog, refer to dog meat or want to eat dog meat. In fact, once when we were deciding what we should all eat in Seoul, I made (what I thought was) a joke that we should go and get gaegogi. In one instance I deeply offended my wife and all her Korean friends/colleagues.

As the article on dog meat states, "Selling dog meat has been illegal in South Korea since 1984". So the picture on this page, if it is actually real is endorsing an illegal act. Misplaced Pages would be therefore doing a disservice if it didn't show more illegal acts then? How about a murder, or open drug use? Furthermore, the Koreans-eating-dog-meat belief came back to the USA and Europe with the thousands of white troops that served in Korean War and were horrified when they saw starving Koreans eating whatever was available, such as dog. (The South Korean Military Museum shows starving kids going through a GI rubbish dump, and eating out of spent K-ration cans)

As this article includes dog meat, which is apparently required part of modern Korean cuisine, I also checked the Chinese Cuisine page. Guess what? No mention to eating dog meat there. Yet the Chinese remain the largest consumers of "man's best friend" in the world. See Dog_meat#China_Mainland. It is quite clear that including dog meat in such a prominent place in this article is pandering to a racist out-dated view held by non Koreans!

I also looked at the Japanese cuisine page. Shock horror! No mention that the Japanese have a penchant for consuming "Free Willy". Why is this? Every year their boats leave Nihon for their annual hunt to kill a few hundred whales. It's a key part of their culture but it's missing from the article on Japanese cuisine. Ironic, as eating whale in Japan is legal!! Whereas eating dog in the Republic of Korea is not! Hmmm, final check South African cuisine. Wow not a single mention of bush meat which is often openly sold in markets. This makes the inclusion of dog meat in this article as particularly distorted and racist.

Thought experiment: if this article is going to contain dog meat, as if it's normal food for an average Korean. Then maybe other articles should include historical, outdated facts that are given undue links to the present. For instance Germany should always be linked to the Nazis. As there are still neo nazis in the country, by association Germany is a nation with right wing extremists. Or why not reference the fact that as the Mafia originated in Italy, and there are still Mafia there, Italians have links with organised crime.

The same therefore goes for the assumption that dog meat is still "normal" and on the menu in Seoul or Pusan! And the average Korean will happily tuck into a plate of Fido! The fact that the article states dog meat is still popular "with a segment of the population" has absolutely no meaning. As I note above, seven decades ago Germany was full of Nazis, as a "segment of the population" still like Hitler does that mean is should be given its own section. (I would like to see how long that assumption would be allowed to stay!) Same goes for the Greeks, ancient Athenians slept with boys, assuming a "segment of the population" are still pedophiles in modern Greece, does that necessitate the link that it's still normally practiced in the Aegean states.

In that manner, the inclusion of dog meat on this page fails under WP:UNDUE and is a gross misrepresentation's of the reality and a distorted view of the country.

It is no doubt also a testimony to why this page is blocked and the edit wars. This stinks of WP:OWN and is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.23.89 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the primary reasons the article is protected can be found in your posting, which is biased and one-sided towards the anti-inclusion camp. This has been discussed ad infinitum and we will not reopen the issue. The edit wars and petty squabbling that went on over the dog meat issue kept this article in a constant state of instability for years and we have no desire to revert back to that point. While the issue is contentious, we have found a medium point that works by presenting the issue in a NPOV manner without drawing conclusions. In order to show their is a controversy in regards to the consumption of dog meat, we have placed a link directing readers to an article that covers the conflicting points of view and controversies on the subject. Your claim that the article infers that every Korean salivates at the chance to consume the dishes is spurious at best because the section on the subject of dog meat solely discusses the dishes, the history of them and does not debate its pros or cons while simply stating that some people still enjoy its consumption. There is no undue weight on the subject and quite a few other editors agree with that as it has gone through multiple reviews and rewrites.

In regards to modern North Korean cuisine, there is very little information on the subject and what information there is is tainted by the North Korean regime's propaganda. Up until the partition of the peninsula in the 20th century, it was a single country with a shared history and culture. This shared beginning is covered in the historical information throughout the historical sections of the article.

Finally, please take the time to read up on our policy regarding civility and assumption of good faith. The way you presented your point insults the contributors and editors, myself included, that have taken a great deal of time and effort to fix all of the problems that were in the article and mediate the point to bring us to the place we have reached today. The article recently had a long and involved good article discussion, while not successful, brought the article to very well deserved point as a article on the verge of greatness. The openly hostile and berating tone you have chosen is rude and has no place in a civil discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There was never consensus on this. You have been rever warring everyone to force this in the article.

I finally have some free time to work on this. Please stop your abusive editing. Dog meat does not belong in the same category as pork and chicken and your insistence is based on ignorance and nothing else. Including dog in the section as you have done is akin to including squirrel meat along with beef and chicken in the American Cuisine article.

Also provide us with relevant quotations that support your position if you want it considered for the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarblaster, you were one of the main participants in the previous edit wars, please do not come charging back in here with the same cavalier attitude. I will not allow this to reignite. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to heed your own advice and cease name-calling and labeling editors who have genuine disagreements with you as vandals. Go ahead and actually read civility and assumption of good faith. You are in violation of WP:OWN with your declarations of what YOU are going to allow and not allow in this article. At this point, multiple neutral editors have given detailed explanations for why dog meat doesn't belong along with beef and pork. That alone warrants opening up a discussion. Participate in a reasoned discussion rather than revert warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This deletion seems to be governed by WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. It should be included (maybe not as heavily as it is now) but to some degree, if only because of the stigma. If more edit warring takes place I'll be forced to protect the WP:WRONGVERSION NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The deletion is governed by the simple fact that it is FALSE and misleading to present dog meat along with beef, pork and vegetables as ingredients of Korean cuisine and that the provided offline reference likely does not support such a categorization. The WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument actually supports the truth in this case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Melon, please just stop trying to force you opinion on this article. There was consensus about the subject, and that is how the article came to be as it is now. Other editors have now undid your blanking of the section, and you are rapidly approaching verge of edit warring. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There was never a consensus on the article and you are the one who needs to stop forcing your unreferenced and false opinion on this article. Just provide relevant quote from the offline reference.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was, it was reached while you were blocked for edit warring on the article. Since that time the article has remained stable, and improved. The main contributor to the article, Chef Tanner, took a great deal of time dragging this article out of the edit wars and making it worthy as a subject. Caspian Blue then went on to bring it to the point of a Good Article, but was unable to do so due to time constraints. In that interim we have heard nothing from you until today when you barged in and began the warring all over again. You are just using the IP comment above to justify coming in here and rewriting the article to suit your beliefs. Two poeple is not a consensus.

Removing cited content, claiming non-existent bias and racism and all of your behaviors are a repeat of your behaviors from 2007. They are just as inappropriate now as they were then, please stop and consider what you are doing is improper and how it violates numerous policies of Misplaced Pages. Throwing around accusations of ownership based on my comment, which was directed at your actions and not about the content of the article, is just the tip of the iceberg of the potential damage you methods are doing

Several editors have all stated that the way you are going about this is wrong; that the section blanking is wrong, the wholesale removal or changing of cited fact is wrong and imposing a pro-Korean bias into the article is wrong. My only wish is to keep this article moving forward to featured article status, and that means keeping another edit war from breaking out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of all mention of Dog Meat

This is well-sourced material. You may edit it as you wish, but you may not delete well-sourced material because of the reason given. No article on Korean Cusine can be exahastive without mention of this aspect of it. Why not simply send the reader to the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea, or some such? Wholesale distruction of the entire section is no answer, you must come to an agreement. Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The link to the Dog meat consumption in South Korea article is already there. The section is solely about the dishes. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point multiple neutral editors have expressed dissent with this dubious claim only to have been bullied into silence by editors who have turned this article into WP:OWN.

And the section is not well sourced at all. I doubt the offline reference actually state that dog meat is comparable to beef and pork in Korean cuisine. If there is I'd like to see the portion of the offline reference that makes supports such a statement per WP:Verify.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Melonbarmonster2: Not well sourced? Don't worry. I have enough sources on dog meat consumption in Korea both in English and Korean and might be able to help here once the protection expires, so that no one can make that kind of claim again. You probably know I am pretty good at finding reliable sources, don't you? Oh, and I will probably need to make sure kimchi is defined as fermented food in this article too.Hkwon (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please do not use this article as a proxy for your disputes. Please find a way to mediate your hostilities other than wikistalking and wikihounding each other. This behavior is inappropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Dog Meat

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should the dog meat issue be presented in the overall presentation of Korean cuisine? Please be mindful of factual accuracy and proportionality of the topic within the topic of Korean cuisine.

My view is that the current subsection for dog meat listed under ingredients along with beef, pork, seafood and vegetables is factually inaccurate and needs to be changed. While the topic is understandably a curio to non-Koreans and those who are new to Korean cuisine, over-emphasizing dog meat's importance and presenting its place in Korean cuisine along side common Korean cuisine ingredients along with grain, legumes and vegetables is simply false. This has been a persistent and chronic complaint for years now(flip through the archives) with countless neutral editors pointing out this false presentation of facts, latest e.g. and it warrants a fair treatment.

My suggestion is that the section be shortened and moved outside of the "foodstuffs" section with hyperlink to the dog meat article where a full treatment of the topic is available. I have no problems with a proportionate and factually accurate treatment of the topic within the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also can someone with access to Pettid's book please provide relevant quotes or even a paraphrase? Or perhaps the table of contents? I believe it was Chef Tanner who used Pettid's book as a citation for the claim that dog meat had its own section along with pork and beef in that book. Somehow I doubt the book categorizes dog meat as being a common ingredient along with pork and beef.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It your responsibility to get the evidence to mount a challenge, so you will need to do the leg work - not have others do it for you. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with whoever provided the reference not with editors who challenge them. Please see WP:burden.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the second half of the statement is:All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. You are twisting the policy, the policy refers to uncited information, not properly cited data. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That quote means you have to provide the inline quotation for the claim that dog meat is the same as beef, vegetables, and grains in Korean cuisine from Petid. That's exactly my request.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Jerem43: Don't worry. The main article is fully protected till July 12. Before then, it is no use talking about sources in this talk page. A friend of mine is a Food & Nutrition Professor in South Korea, and I will restore the info basing on not only Pettid's book (which I will get from a library in a few days) but also at least a dozen of reliable academic articles or book chapters once the protection expires. Hkwon (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pettid, M. J. (2008). Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History. London: Reaktion Books.

1) The section "Meats and Fish" (pp.59-66) discusses beef in pp.59-61, pork in pp.61-62, chicken in p.62, and dog meat in p.62. (in the SAME section)

2) P.85, 2nd paragraph: "Of course, dogs raised for meat are very distinct from the popular pets that one can see throughout Korea at present." This confirms footnote #44 that User talk:Melonbarmonster2 had deleted.

3) P.25, 2nd paragraph: "The livestock that was raised include cattle, pigs, and chickens...Other meats were used in moderation, including dog and wild animals such as deer, boar, and pheasant" This confirms footnote #45 that User talk:Melonbarmonster2 had deleted.

If anybody has any other questions regarding this source, please contact me at my talk page. I will have access to the book for a few more months.

To User talk:Melonbarmonster2: A word of advice...Instead of blanking contents falsely accusing reliable sources, why don't you make some meaningful contribution to the article? And if you doubt a source, check it out yourself rather than passing the buck. Hkwon (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on "Food stuffs"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the title of this section be change to "Ingredients" or "Common Ingredients"?

The term "foodstuffs" is meaningless and ambiguous. This section clearly and obviously is a presentation of the ingredients that are available and used in Korean cuisine. The title of this section should be determined on consideration of that obvious fact.

The section title was changed to justify inclusion of the "dog meat" sub-section along with pork, beef, legumes, etc.. The title of the section shouldn't be changed to a meaningless term for the sake of the dog meat issue. The title should be "ingredients", "common ingredients" and the dog meat issue should be dealt with on its own merits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Foodstuff" is a legitimate term, you can verify this in wikt:Foodstuff --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If the meaning is comparable, then it makes more sense to use the more widely used term "ingredients".Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael J. Pettid

There has been a challenge to the veracity of the sources from Michael J. Pettid, so I did some quick research on the man to get a feel for his area of expertise.

Brief biography: Michael J. Pettid is an associate professor of Korean and Korean Literature at Binghamton University (SUNY) in the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies and a former postdoctoral scholar at Berkeley. He is a member of the Center for Korean Studies at the University of Hawai'i.

Works:

• Unyŏng-jŏn: A Love Affair at the Royal Palace of Chosŏn Korea (translator)
• Korean Cuisine: An illustrated History
• Sitings: Critical Approaches to Korean Geography (Article, contributor)
• Edifying the Confucian Woman: Didactic Literature for Upper-Class Women in Chosŏn Korea (article, contributor)
• Kim, Chongho. Korean Shamanism: The Cultural Paradox. (article)

Links:

• Google Books

Reviews on "Korean Cuisine"

• "Pettid's book is an extensive collection of information lovingly presented. . . . The author introduces comments on food that appear in some of the great literary masterpieces of pre-modern Korea and thereby opens the reader a historical depth absent from many other introductions to Korean culture.... Many passages produce a mouthwatering response in the reader and strong desire to go out and explore the Korean treasures of the palate."-James B. Lewis, University Lecturer in Korean History, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford (James B. Lewis 20080424)

• I can think of no aspect of the subject that is not covered, and well illustrated, in Pettid's book. . . . Many Western readers may not have had the chance to eat Korean food, or may imagine that kimch'i is its sole constituent, so it is important for a book like this to persuade them that they should find a Korean restaurant and give it a try. Pettid will be their enthusiastic guide."-Keith Pratt, professor emeritus, Department of East Asian Studies, University of Durham (Keith Pratt )

• "Michael Pettid's book presents an insightful and interesting account of Korean food in all its many guises as well as the various customs related to eating and drinking in past and present Korea. . . . With its unfussy language and detailed discussions, Pettid's volume will be of use and interest to the general as well as specialized reader."-Charlotte Horlyck, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (Charlotte Horlyck )

• "If your opinions about Korean food and its international 'image' take stances on whether or not it is too spicy, too salty, too pungent, too odor-causing, or just 'perfect,' then this is the right book to learn the reasons why and how these traits have meaningfully evolved over time."-Acta Koreana (Acta Koreana )

Based on this basic research, it would appear that Dr. Pettid is well versed with Korean culture and its history. I would ask that anyone challenging his work as cited please take the time to do the due diligence before doing so. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All of this is useless. What we need is a quote or paraphrase of what Pettid actually states in the book that justifies including a dog meat section along with pork, beef and vegetables.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? please state the policy that requires direct quotes in citations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy please moderate your tone. You do not own this article and your sarcasm quips are very unhelpful. The request for context be it quote paraphrase or a summary is reasonable. Here's what the wiki help articles states on the subject. "The more data available on the source, the more likely that it will be accepted as a reliable source by the community. Second, use the quote= parameter within those citation templates to provide some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged." The citation has been challenged.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are quoting is an essay, not a policy. In quoting the essay you ignored the most important part that is highlighted at the very top of the essay:

Your challenge is baseless and ignores one of the most fundamental pillars of WP - Assume good faith. Simply put, you are directly accusing one contributor of making things up to push forward an agenda of racism. This is despite the provided sources which were cited when the contributions were added by Chef Tanner; this is after numerous contributors having worked on the article since his additions in late 2007-early 2008. There was even a good article review which found none of the bias issues you claim to be present in the article. When you challenge a cited piece of information, the burden of proof is on you to show why the information is compromised. Just saying it is suspect because you haven't seen the source is not enough as is stated in the essay you pointed out. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good faith assumption does not mean offline sources cannot be challenged. You're reaching grasping straws here. Let's try to resolve this in a reasonable and intelligent manner.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Jerem43: Be patient and wait for just 2 or 3 days. It is a waste of time arguing with User:Melonbarmonster2 until we get a real evidence. I have already asked my friend to get the book for me from the library of university she works for, and I will be able to received the book soon, along with other books and journal article copies on this subject. If the quotation from the book is true, User:Melonbarmonster2 will be in utter humiliation. If not, I will provide multiple reliable sources saying pretty much the same thing as Pettid quotation in the article. I am going to wait till the full protection of the article expires, but will reveal the book content as soon as I receive and check the book. Hkwon (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reference that supports dog meat being on the same level as pork, vegetables and grains in Korean cuisine. Please provide it so it can be looked at discussed for inclusion in the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There already is one (Pettit), and you have made no true policy based grounds to challenge it. Your whole argument is based on WP:I don't like it (please take the time to read the whole policy); every basis you have made for its deletion has been based on incorrect interpretation of accepted policies accompanied by nationalistic bias. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Korea-related articles
• Top-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• WikiProject Korea cuisine working group
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment