Talk:Kimchi/Archive 3

Consensus gathering whether to include the CODEX information in the lead paragraphs
Yes. I believe the information is reliable and verifiable as internationally accepted food standards, and highly relevant for the lead as it clarifies the origin of Kimchi. Hkwon (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not move information on the talk page. As a general rule, talk pages should be maintained as written except in cases where edit conflicts cause unusual problems or when old discussions are being archived.  It is not up to you or any user to organize the information.  While I believe you made the move in good faith, other participants may feel like you are trying to control the information.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Second, a number of us have already stated that we do not believe the Codex info belongs in the lead. It's not about getting a bunch of bolded votes and going with the majority--it's about consensus.   Furthermore, even without voting, it's clear that the current consensus is to not include the information.  Perhaps if you were able to address our concerns, you might be able to shift consensus.   As far as I can tell, you have not answered any of my concerns about the use of the Codex in the lead, or in the rest of the article, or how that information should be formatted if it is included. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, I want to address the issue [User:Melonbarmonster2]'s raised above. If you (User:Hkwon) are trying to include the Codex to prove, without a doubt, that kimchi is fermented, that is not a correct reading of the Codex (as I already explained above).  I haven't read the rest of your sources, so I don't have enough info to take a side one way or the other, but I will do so when I have the time (and can find them in the information overload of this talk page); so it may be verifiable to say that kimchi is fermented, but such a claim will have to be based on much more than the Codex.  Remember, the Codex is really a list of best practices, not a list of what actually occurs in the world. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To Qwyrxian:
 * First, I don't understand why my layout revision can be considered an attempt to information control. The sections "Korean Kimchi over Japanese Kimchi" and "Consensus gathering whether to include the CODEX information in the lead paragraphs" were placed as subsections to the section "Fermented food", which had no apparent relationship with the two sections. Since those sections disusses different topics, I changed them into separate sections.
 * Second, the consensus making section I created is based on consensus making format I have seen in several other talk pages. I can't do much if you refuse to use the format. But it is currently not clear exactly how many and which users agree or disagree with the inclusion, though you claim there is a clear consensus.
 * Third, I believe I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. 1) I have stated the reason why I believe the CODEX info is based on reliable, verifiable source and important and relevant enough to be included in the lead and in the main article several times in this talk page. 2) During my edits, I removed the potentially problematic phrase "...over Japanese Kimchi". And I disagree with your proposed phrasing as the key point of CODEX information is Kimchi's international status as food and not its ingredients.
 * Fourth, even if the CODEX information is completely deleted in this article, there are plenty of other reliable sources defining Kimchi as fermented food, and no counter-source that I or other users could find so far. I've already listed 7 published academic journal articles defining Kimchi as fermented food, and can easily find more if someone demands. The list is easy to find; just look at the quote box in the section 51.2 in this page. The contents of literature is also easy to find; just google the article titles and you can access article abstracts and/or full texts. Hkwon (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered your points re: the Codex above, so hopefully that clarifies some that issue. As for the layout...I just don't like the voting idea.  I do see it get used in other places, but, of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy.  I also felt it didn't make much sense, since you and I already know the "vote"--1 person in favor of including the info, a number of others against.  The exact count isn't particularly relevant.  As for moving things around, I totally understand that you had no ill intentions, and you preserved the discussion in a way that made sense to me.  However, sometimes people don't feel that way, and a user on a more contentious topic than this one recently got blocked for rearranging talk pages.  So I figure it's a bad habit to be in. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To Qwyrxian: I don't like to resort to majority polling, instead of solving matters by discussions, any more than you do - Read my previous comments above. But since some editors have kept pushing me to give up my opinion saying that I am the only one for the CODEX information, I wanted to offer an opportunity to formally settle this matter by simple voting, which nobody had attempted till I did. I won't complain even if I am defeated by 10-1 or so. As for the layout revision, I just wanted to make things look organized in this page and will not insist to do it at all (will even revert my revision) if someone objects. It's not like I get some pleasure or satisfaction by moving texts around. Hkwon (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I sounded overly harsh on the layout move--I had just finished watching another editor get blocked for it. Since I knew you were doing it to make the Talk page better, I didn't want you to get in trouble for trying to help.


 * And if it helps, I officially “vote” Oppose putting the info in the lead, oppose the way the info is currently in the article in the 1996 Dispute section.'Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay to Archive?

 * Speaking of information overload, this talk page still contains discussion that stretches back up to 3 years. As far as I know, it is acceptable to archive Talk comments after 30 days of no discussion (as long as the info isn't directly relevant to another current discussion).  So, if others don't mind, I would like to do that archive.  Note that none of the discussion or debate will be lost--it will simply be moved to a second page so that this page can be reserved for the most current concerns.  But I don't want to look like I came in here just to be disruptive, so I'll wait to hear input before archiving. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To User talk:Qwyrxian: I think it is a good idea. I think it is also a good idea to make this section a separate one, not a subsection to the section "Consensus gathering whether to include the CODEX information in the lead paragraphs" as the two sections are not directly related. I'd revise the layout myself, but you have already urged me not to change the page layout anymore. Hkwon (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (fixed, that was a typo on my part; thanks for the deference to my mistaken layout Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

Removal of the "1996 Kimchi Dispute" section

 * After 5 days without a response and no indication that consensus had changed, I decided to come take a whack at the "1996 Kimchi Dispute" section, in order to make sure the Codex Alimentarius information is accurately portrayed. In doing so, I went to read the original sources for the dispute; in doing so, I have come to the conclusion that this whole section needs to be removed.  The problem is that TED does not qualify as a Reliable Source.  The site is a collection of case studies written primarily by graduate students, most (but not all) of whom are involved in a single, specific course at American University.  In effect, these case studies are only slightly more valid as sources than any work done in any graduate class.  The work is not peer-edited, and, even if it were, would qualify only as a primary source, not the secondary sources Wikipedia generally prefers.  Since this entire section is reliant upon the TED sources, and without them would have no verifiable information, I am removing the section.  I am also going to remove the sentence in the lead that refers to this section.  Apologies to those who originally worked on this section, and I mean no disrespect to your work, but per WP:V we need to include only information which can be verified by reliable sources, and the TED does not meet that criteria. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading the Codex article, and looking into it a little further, I would have to agree with the above statement. It is a highly dubious source and does not meet the standards that Wikipedia requires. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

trying to sneak Codex back into the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimchi&diff=prev&oldid=371521726

this edit references an unreliable source that bases its information on Codex. Don't try to sneak this shit into the article again. Consensus was against it, accept this and move on. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Sennen goroshi:
 * 1) Sneak back? The information I added mentions CODEX, but is completely different information that had been discussed here.
 * 2) Koreana, the source of information I added, is a magazine on Korean art & culture distributed in 160 countries (http://www.koreana.or.kr/koreana/koreana1.asp?lang=en). I believe the source is reliable enough, but it is not an academic journal. So this time I am adding different information cited from peer-reviewed academic journal articles instead.
 * 3) You and User:Qwyrxian questioned the reliability of sources of CODEX info. So I believe you will be satisfied with the reliability this time.
 * 4) Try not to use profanity like s**t in Wikipedia. Civility Hkwon (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

완전 또라이 아냐? ㅋㅋMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2: Swearing at other editors in Korean...Is that all you can do? You just called me names in my talk page and now again in this discussion page? I know a few people who are unable to participate in a reasonable, logical debate and only can resort to personal attacks and profanity. I feel pity for you as your behavior has been degrading yourself as an immature, impolite, and uncivil person.Hkwon (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're not fluent in Korean or you are lying again. My guess is that you are lying since you have been chronically lying about bogus references.  I called you "nuts"|en|%EB%98%90%EB%9D%BC%EC%9D%B4%20.  That is not a curse and your disruptive revert wars are extremely weird and insane.  You are trying to force irrelevant codex factoids into the article in spite of 4, 5 editors who have expressed consensus on the matter and now you are trying to claim unfermented kimchi are not kimchi at all.. for the sake of your revert war regarding the condex.  Stop your disruptive and crazy behavior for the sake of this article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2:
 * 1) Why don't you start by swearing at me in Korean this time like you did before? I guess you don't have the guts. Do you think you can fool other editors who can't read Korean? "또라이" is translated as a deranged, lunatic, and/or demented person, a word cannot be used in official Korean documents by government or mass media. And do you think if "또라이" means "nuts", it is a less vulgar word that does not violate Etiquette? Don't try to make excuses but try to think twice before you swear at other editors. Were you drunk or high when you swore at me in this page and my talk page?
 * 2) I lied and/or not fluent in Korean? When did I lie? I don't want to brag about my educational background, but let's discuss this since you asked. I don't know what kind of education you received in Korea, but I graduated from a university considered either top 2 or 3 in South Korea. And I belive that shows my fluency in Korean. Do you want to exchange copies of your diploma and my diploma in email?
 * 3) My edits are extremely weird, disruptive, insane, and crazy? All my edits have been relevant and based on reliable sources. Most people would think it is extremely weird, disruptive, insane, crazy to leave a profanity to other editor without any content pertaining to the main article, or blanking contents based on multiple reliable sources without any counter-evidence.
 * 4) For the sake of this article, like you keep saying, I will do my best to include relevant information in the article.
 * 5) It's on. Your contribution list has been officially added to my watchlist. Try not to make any mistakes when editing articles. Hkwon (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon's RfC on fermentation debate in article Kimchi REJECTED
This RfC is useless since no one has claimed that kimchi is not fermented. Most varieties are fermented but non-fermented varieties also exist. If you want a genuine RfC please be honest about the dispute in question. The details of which varieties of kimchi are fermented and not is already contained in the body of the text. There is no sane reason to limit kimchi as only a fermented food in exclusion of all the non-fermented varieties.

The ridiculousness of this claim is also related to Hkwon's weird crusade to inject the Codex issue into the article. He is falsely claiming that kimchi is only a fermented food since that's how kimchi is defined in the Codex.

Also note that none of Hkwon "references" state that kimchi is only a fermented food. They are just papers about fermented kimchi. For references that document non-fermented kimchi varieties, please refer to above discussion. Hopefully it hasn't been archived already.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2:
 * 1) RfC rejected? What a laughing stock. You are the one of parties involved in this dispute by my report. So you think you can reject my RfC...Who died and made you the king of Wikipedia?
 * 2) Varieties of unfermented kimchi in the body of the text? Yeah. Based on a non-existing source (broken link). Now that you mentioned it, I will delete that unreliable info too.
 * 3) Hkwon's weird crusade to inject the Codex issue into the article? I don't know why you want to drag a completely off-topic issue in this discussion. The CODEX info I added is not based on CODEX but on academic articles in peer-reviewed journals on Food & Nutrition.
 * 4) None of my "references" state that kimchi is only a fermented food? All of them state "Kimchi is traditional Korean fermented food" or similarly. How simple is that? If you don't agree with the opinion of Food & Nutrion scholars who wrote the articles, why don't you find sources that state "Kimchi is unfermented food"? (You will most likely fail, because Kimchi is fermented food.)
 * 5) Please do keep messing with my RfC. I will help me to go through the dispute resolution process into the formal mediation (Request formal mediation), as your behavior shows all other steps to resolve the dispute failed, and I am sure the Mediation Committee will make a decision favoring me, considering the reliablity of sources.
 * 6) Hkwon's crusade...I kind of like that. Reminds me of my favorite Saxon song... Hkwon (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You need consent from 4 or 5 editors here including me to take this to formal mediation. If you keep on lying about your references and continue your 저질 editing no one will consent and you will just end up getting ignored.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2: Yeah. Swearing at other editors in Korean....That's all you can do. And worrying about me so much if I might get no consent and ignored...I am so moved I am going to burst into tears. But seriously, why don't you spend your time discussing with your Japanese friend again about finding some reliable sources to back up your claim or think about what kind of Korean profanity you will throw at me next time? Hkwon (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2: You have already "ejected" my RfC. Why do you have to keep adding comments to a officially closed section? I guess some people just can't admit their wrongdoings. Instead of wasting your time in a discussion section you officially closed, shouldn't you be busy writing about Takeshima day, or categorizing An Jung-Geun as a Korean murderer with your boss? Hkwon (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully Protected
This article has been fully protected for three days so this dispute can be hashed out on the talk page. TN X Man 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that the protection has been lifted, but I'm not sure if it's useful to do so now. User Hkwon was banned for a week starting today, so s/he's obviously unable to contribute to the discussion, and he's the most likely to start getting unhappy with these changes.  While I do really feel like consensus (of both involved and uninvolved editors) is shifting to support something like I proposed below, I'd hate Hkwon to think we're "taking advantage" of his absence.  Other opinions? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He didn't get banned because of anyone editor here as far as I know and there has been days of discussion on this. I think it's fine to go ahead with agreed upon changed.  If Hkwon wants to raise objections when he's back, he's free to do so.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the goal here is to get a good, quality, accurate, well-sourced article. WP:TIND and all.  I'm not saying that we need wait for another week to make changes, I just want to get the greatest chance of not having to be in the middle of an edit war 7 days from now if possible.  I especially feel that, given your history with Hkwon, it would have been best if you had not been the one to make the change, but I guess it's done now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since (I think) we previously had consensus (or, at least, a few days of no edit warring) on removing the 1996 dispute, I'm going to remove that again; however, I will happily self-revert if someone thinks I'm moving too fast. Just to repeat them, my concerns there were that the section relied primarily upon a TED case study, which is not a reliable source (in that it's a paper produced for a class that is not peer edited). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I got back earlier than you expected. My request for unblock was granted after a day as an administrator found "It was clear you were highly provoked, and matching the tenor of the people with whom you were discussing on the talk page".
 * To:User talk:Melonbarmonster2: "He didn't get banned because of anyone editor here"? YOU reported me for so-called harassment and threats, anduser:Sennen goroshi faithfully support you in the accusation. How can you lie through your teeth so easily?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=372526745#Wiki_harassment_and_threats_by_User:Hkwon
 * Anyway, it's time for me to start working on again. Hkwon (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference update needed
Some of the references in the article are out dated and lead to dead links. I will try to find updated references but any help would be appreciated.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TED
Having checked this reference, these case studies seem to be published independently from the authors and published in an online journal post peer review. The article in question is shown as having been 'published' in "TED Case Studies, Volume 11, Number 2, June, 2001 9th TED Virtual Conference: 2001: Earth Odyssey". While I think better sources exist, in absence of conflicting references, I am inclined to fix the section to accurately reflect the reference rather than deleting entirely. I attempted a draft, feel free to comment and tweak.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "online journal" is a bit misleading; as far as I can tell, only participants in the classes (live or virtual) "publish" in this journal. So, yes, it's a journal in the sense that it's edited and published and organized into issues, but it's not a reliable journal in the sense that it doesn't have any sort of peer review system--people can't submit things to this journal without being in the class. To quote the site: "The core representational projects are the Trade Environment Database (TED), The Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE), and the Global Classroom. TED and ICE are sets of categorical case studies meant to spur research in these areas. The Global Classroom is a vehicle for delivering classes through the web. In class, students create TED and ICE cases. Classes from around the world have participated."  Thus, for Wikipedia purposes, these are not reliable.  Unless the info is published somewhere else, we can't use it here.  And I see I'm going to have to go remove the same info from the "Main Article." Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First while we assess verifiability of TED, the section shouldn't be removed entirely. Even if the TED is deemed self-published, the text then become unsourced, WP:NOCITE and the text should be removed only if it was dubious or harmful which it is not.  It's just poorly referenced.


 * Secondly, the standard by which we judge it's verifiable is if it's published by a third party and not self-published according to WP:SOURCES. In this case, the author of the article is not the publisher per se as would be case in obvious self published sources like blogs.  I would want to know how publishing works.  If it's done by panel of students and professor, professors in charge, would that be third party enough?  The participants of TED being students involved with this project in itself doesn't disqualify TED as a reference.  Let me know why you think this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just googled and found few more sources.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it would only be acceptable if it was judged by people (students/professors, etc.) who were wholly independent from the classes. Even then it would be questionable.  If we really can't resolve this, I'll contact TED by email and get more info; however, according to what's on the pages themselves, TED clearly and definitely fails WP:RS.  These papers are no more reliable than the papers written in any graduate class.


 * As for the 2 additional they don't say anything about forcing Japan to change--the NYT speculates Japan may have to, but to conclude it was necessary or that it actually happened would be OR/SYNTH. I'm going to pair down that second paragraph to only things that the reliable sources you found say.
 * After reviewing it, I'm taking out the LA Times article about SARS from this section. I think it's a great article that should definitely be included elsewhere on this page, but it should go into a section about kimchi's possible health benefits, not here--it doesn't mention the "dispute" in any way, shape, or form.  With the NYT article, I'm again being careful to use only the parts that don't explicitly contradict the Codex itself.  This, however, is certainly a difficult issue, as it is any time reliable sources contradict one another; my inclination is to rely more heavily on the Codex and it's rules, because the NYT is speculatory (written prior to the actual adoption of the standard).  However, I am aware that this is a backhanded way of supporting my own interpretation of the "dispute," so I certainly welcome additional information being added from the NYT article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go through the references more carefully later but after quick read of the text, it seems overly understating the dispute. There are far harsher descriptions in both the LAT and NTY articles and I'm sure there's more sources in that vein.
 * The LA Times article does mention the 'kimchi trade war': "And in the mid-1990s, South Korea and Japan faced off in a kimchi trade war after Japanese food companies sought to rebrand it as a Japanese food under the name 'kimu chi' before an international trade panel ruled in South Korea's favor. 'Japanese kimchi is not genuine kimchi,' sniffed a Web site devoted to the dispute. "It is nothing but copycat kimchi'"
 * Also parts of the NYT article that you may find 'speculative' as long as it's published by a credible third party source is verifiable and fine for inclusion in text. Editor opinions have to be shelved unless there's a reference that expressed the view that the NYT comments or arguments made int he article are speculative.
 * And I didn't get into the Codex debate too much but you do know that Codex publications are a primary source right? If there's any conflict, until it's published by media or secondary source it's not verifiable for wiki purposes.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the LA Times, I'm confused, because the quote you have above isn't in that article. The article you had linked before was titled "In an age of SARS, Koreans tout kimchi cure," and it talks about the theory that Korea had few SARS cases because kimchi protected them.  Maybe you meant to link to a different LA Times article? On the Codex you're definitely right that's it's primary and the NYT is secondary.  But if the NYT says "The Codex says X" and the Codex doesn't actually say that, in this case, the primary source wins.  And I have no problem with using speculative information per WP rules; however, this article from 2000 was speculating about a future that didn't actually come true (or, at least, that we haven't verified yet), so we need to be careful how we phrase it (like, the Year 2000 Problem article talks about how people thought there would be massive Y2K problems, but in the end there wasn't).  I won't have significant researching time until next week, but I will try to look for sources then that balance out the NYT.  Unfortunately, Japanese newspapers don't keep long online archives... Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on the third page and in your hypo the verifiable claim, not your reading of primary source no matter how obvious, would be used. You said you support "WP is about verifiability, not truth", remember? And you don't have to verify 'speculations' of proper references. That's original research. Even if you think it's speculation that hasn't come true, the claim in itself is proper for inclusion. Editor assessments about whether the speculation came true or not that is unreferenced doesn't belong in the article. Were you able to find any info on TED by the way? I'll look into it myself.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm short on time at the moment, but I think you're misunderstanding my point about "speculation." That article was from 2000.  It was speculating about something that finally occurred in 2001.  It is not appropriate for us to reference it as if the speculation is still accurate today.  If the source was speculating about something that hadn't happened yet, it would be fine.  But Wikipedia does not list all of the historical speculations about a particular event--it records the most accurate, current (but not necessarily WP:RECENT) information.  Again, consider my example of the Y2K bug.  The article lists that there was speculation that bad stuff would happen.  The article explains the context, and the history.  It also explains that the speculation turned out to be wrong.  We must do the same thing here, assuming we can find verifiable sources for what actually happened.  But we have to be clear that it was speculation about a past event, not about something that could still happen in the future, or something that did actually occur. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Kimchi in Korea: By Season
Foonote #9 "(Korean) "Kimchi in Korea: By Season." Korea Agro-Fisheries Trade Corp." http://www.kimchi.or.kr/eng/kkimchi/season.jsp This source, supposed to be the reference for entire section "By season", leads to a broken link. I pointed this out several times and deleted the broken link, but someone keeps restoring it every time without any explanation. Let me attempt again. Hkwon (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fermented food
The user Melonbarmonster2 keeps deleting the word "fermented" I added in the lead sentence. If it is not fermented, it is not kimchi. The definition of 'kimchi' by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Dictionary of the Standard Korean (표준국어대사전) , and Doosan Encyclopedia all specifies that it is a 'fermented' food. I thought geotjeori (겉절이) were an example of unfermented kimchi, but Doosan encyclopedia shows it is only a substitute of kimchi. Melonbarmonster2 argues in his edit summary baekkimchi (백김치) is an example of unfermented kimchi, but the encyclopedia shows it is fermented too although without chili pepper powder. (see the word '익힌다')

Fermentation is the key process in making kimchi that gives its unique flavor and nutritional characteristics which differentiate kimchi from other pickled food. If you want to delete the word "fermented" again, present reliable sources that shows kimchi is not fermented food and the proper reason why the word should be deleted. Hkwon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're being defensive and argumentative for no reason. I was hoping we can resolve on basis of good faith. Are you seriously Korean and claiming that 겉절이 is not a kimchi??? 한심하네요.


 * First off this article mentions unfermented kimchi. You can't claim kimchi is only fermented and then list unfermented varieties in the text of the article. Secondly, the Korean wiki article states that 겉절이 is a kimchi. And I'm not sure if you can read Korean because the the naver page you gave lists 겉절이 as a "kimchi" in the info box .  This article also talk about unfermented kimchi. And the Codex Alimentarius Commission is just guidelines for commercial food trade industry not a layman definition for Kimchi.  Definitions are negotiable depending and trade terms.


 * And I didn't even mention 백김치 which is obvious fermented. The fact that you thought 백김치 wasn't fermented makes me wonder about your familiarity with Korean cuisine.


 * In any case, there's no need to limit the scope of what Kimchi is in the opening paragraph.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Melonbarmonster2: First, There is no need to mock me in Korean using phrases like "한심하네요." I am a native speaker of Korean and can understand any mockery or insults in Korean. Specifically how am I being "defensive and argumentative", and what does it have do with the discussion concerning whether Kimchi is fermented food or not?


 * Second, this article does not list any unfermented variety of Kimchi like you claim. It is easy to verify if you search the article with the words "fermented" and "unfermented". Which sentence in the article discusses about "unfermented Kimchi"? If there exists "unfermented variety of Kimchi" specifically explain about it and present a reliable evidence that backs up your claim. The Korean wikipedia article you mentioned does not even have one reliable source. "If it is not fermented, it is not Kimchi." This is a quotation from my friend, who is an established Food and Nutrition professor and an expert on Kimchi in Korea. If necessary, I can present quotation that Kimchi is a fermented food from a university textbook she wrote.
 * Third, the three Web sources you mentioned concerning "geotjeori" are all unprofessional blog articles showing geotjeori recipes, which do not even mention anything about fermentation or differentiation betweeen kimchi and "geotjeori". Another Web document you presented (http://www.saveur.com/article/Kitchen/The-Art-of-Kimchi) is obviously an essay by a non-korean without any explanation on food and nutrition terms about so-called "unfermented Kimchi" he or she tasted. It is not even certain what kind of Korean food the author tasted in his or her friend's house. Are blog documents that you presented more reliable than CODEX definition and official Korean encyclopedia and dictionary articles that I had quoted?
 * Fourth, the Doosan Encyclopedia article I quoted (http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=8607) specifically mentions that "geotjeori" is a substitute for Kimchi - "김치 대신 이용하며..." This makes me doubt that whether you can understand written Korean language.
 * Fifth, the CODEX definition is an "internationally recognized standards relating to foods". Which "layman's definition" defines that Kimchi is not a fermented food? And is a "layman's definition" more reliable and verifiable than internationally recognized standards?
 * Sixth, you say I limit the scope of definition of Kimchi. But "If it is not fermented, it is not Kimchi." It is an essence of Kimchi which differentiates it from other pickled foods in the world, and the definition certainly deserves to be in the lead sentence.
 * It is obvious that you failed in presenting any reliable and verifiable counter-evidence that there exists unfermented Kimchi. Therefore I restore my edits. Hkwon (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Doosan article categorizes gutjuri as kimchi in its infobox. You are being ridiculous. Just because the sentence states gutjuri or dongchimi is used in place of kimchi(reference to baechu jang kimchi which is only 1 type of hundreds) doesn't mean that dongchimi or gutjuri are not kimchis. I can see how you can be confused by that sentence but your confusion should be cleared by the fact that your Doosan article lists gutjuri as KIMCHI IN THE INFO BOX. 한심이 아니라 무식인가?

And you can't claim all kimchi is fermented when the text of the article states "Traditionally, after a long period of consuming gimjang kimchi (hangul: 김장김치) during the winter, fresh potherbs and vegetables were popular for making kimchi. These kinds of kimchi were not fermented or even stored for long periods of time but were consumed fresh." 봄김치 like these are NOT FERMENTED. I gave you Korean and non-Korean sources that verify not all kimchi is fermented and your own Doosan article says gutjuri is a kimchi. This isn't even debatable.

Codex is a function of international trade of commerical, mass traded food products. Definitions are negotiated and changed for purpose trade. It's irrelevant for fine cuisine and discussions about food culture and history. Or are you going to claim that kimchi is only made of "chinese cabbage" falvored with carbohydrate sweeteners with monosodium L-glutamate, Sorbitol, xantham gum as well as other chemicals at GMP regulated levels because the CODEX said so???

And what exactly are you claiming? Are you claiming that 생김치 isn't kimchi until it's fermented and that gutjuree and spring kimchis aren't kimchis??? Every Korean family that makes their own kimchi eats at least a portion of it fresh. Some families eat all their kimchi before fermentation. Most Korean restaurants even in Korea serve unfermented kimchi.

Please stop being ridiculous, be reasonable and stop ignoring your own Doosan reference and use common sense.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Melonbarmonster2: First, You had better stop personal attacks on me using words like "ridiculous", "한심", "무식". It is against No personal attacks and only shows you are unable to make logical and reasonable argument.


 * Second, again you could not present any reliable and verifiable source that backs up your claim. The sentences you quoted from the "Kimchi" article have no verifiable source. "Entire section's reference" leads to a broken link.


 * Third, when people quote from an encyclopedia, they quote an article, not an infobox, which is not even an element of traditional encyclopedia. Have you ever seen someone quotes form "encyclopedia infobox"? When the contents of an article and infobox contradict like this time, it is natural that full paragraphs of article are more reliable than one word in infobox which does not have any additional explanation.


 * Fourth, even you exclude Doosan Encyclopedia article, there are plenty of reliable sources that show "gutjuri" is different from Kimchi. For example:


 * Fifth, despite your opinions against CODEX, it is an internationally recognized food standard that has already quoted in Wikipedia multiple times as a verifiable and reliable source. Even you exclude CODEX, there are plenty of reliable sources that defines Kimchi as fermented food, including Korean dictionary and encyclopedia articles I have already presented.


 * Sixth, I do not agree with your argument "Every Korean family that makes their own kimchi eats at least a portion of it fresh. Some families eat all their kimchi before fermentation. Most Korean restaurants even in Korea serve unfermented kimchi." It is different from what I know about Korean family and restaurants and looks like unverifiable original research by you. Can you present any evidence that can back up this argument of yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. You're making farcical arguments and lying about what your own references state. And your hani article isn't even about kimchi or Korean food as it states in the first paragraph. It's about a Korean comedian, 정준하, who's nickname is 쩌리 which is short for Gutjeori. If you can't read Korean, just be honest about it. I'm just asking you to not limit the definition of Kimchi in the opening paragraph and you're revert warring like your life depends on kimchi being only fermented. Let's just take this to mediation. I'll notify you when the request is filed. Please return the text to the last state of consensus instead of trying to force your edit through revert warring. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Melonbarmonster2: First, The article which I directly quoted from Hangyre, which is an established national newspaper, clearly mentions the difference between 'gutjuri' and Kimchi, although the article's main focus is not on Korean food. Read the direct quotation one more time.


 * Second, I don't know what makes you think I cannot read Korean. But I was educated in a college and a graduate school in Korea and can read and write Korean just fine. Even if I could not read Korean, it does not affect the reliability of Korean sources I presented unless there were any mistranslation or errors, which you could find.


 * Third, you say I am revert warring. But it was you who first reverted my edit without any source on May 24, 2010. If you want to take this to mediation, go ahead. I'll start collecting non-Web academic literature stating Kimchi is fermented food, probably 10 journal articles and books, with a help from my friend who is a food and nutrition professor. I wonder how many pieces of academic literature saying Kimchi is unfermented food? Let's try from today. I can expect a mediator will make a decision based on quantity and quality of sources, since I have an experience with similar situation to this obtain a decision favorable to me.Hkwon (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

More references for unfermented kimchi
Some more varieties of non-fermented Kimchi from a simple search: Seokbak Gutjeori: Baechu Gutjeori: Yulmoo Eolgari Gutjeori: Red leaf lettuce Gutjeori: Spinach Gutjeori:

Varieties of unfermented kimchi listed on : 짠지(which include 짠짠지, 파짠지, 오이짠지, 파강회 짠지, 부추 짠지, 사킨 고추 짠지)

This reference states there are 6 general varieties of kimchi: 김치류(kimchi variety), 깍두기류(radish variety), 동치미류(dongchimi, non red pepper variety), 식해류(fermented seafood variety), 절임류(Jeorim variety NOT FERMENTED), 짠지류(salted variety NOT FERMENTED).Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * to Melonbarmonster 2: All 10 references you presented do not say anything about whether the dishes being explained are fermented or unfermented


 * The second section of your second reference and the first sentence of your fourth reference states Kimchi is fermented food.


 * "Yahoo Knowledge Q&A" (second reference) and "Daum Knowledge Q&A" (ninth reference) can be answered by anyone who has account very often without any source and are far from a reliable source for Wikipedia. As such, the second reference's source leads to a broken link, the ninth reference is an original research. The last reference lacks a verifiable source either.


 * You claim 'JJanji" is not fermented, but this research by Chungnam University scholars says otherwise. Hkwon (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Examples of academic journal articles defining Kimchi as fermented food
Hkwon (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Added 3 more articles published in academic journals showing Kimchi is a fermented food; now 10 reliable sources. I can add many more sources if anyone suspects my claim. It's just a matter of copy-and-paste manual labor given time; there are plenty more in Food & Nutrition literature. Do you think it is hard to verify the sources? Many of them clearly say in their titles that "Kimchi is fermented food", and the rest of them say the same thing in abstracts; So no one needs to read the whole article to find the info. Hkwon (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Added direct quotation from the my sources as some people doubt them. Any more questions? Hkwon (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of those sources claim kimchi is only a fermented food. 장난하냐? Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To Melonbarmonster2: The argument here is about whether Kimchi is a fermented food or not. All these source states "Kimchi is a Korean traditional fermented food." in the article abstract alone, unless you cannot read basic written English. If you have checked all sources I presented, why don't you specify which part of which source I presented (page number and/or direct quotation) says Kimchi is not a fermented food? You CAN'T. Because these reliable and verifiable articles published in established academic journals directly contradict your claim that Kimchi is unfermented food.


 * If I were you, I would make more effort to find sources as reliable as mine that shows "Kimchi is unfermented food", (Good luck finding any, because I don't believe there is any.) instead of making childish insulting comments in Korean like "장난하냐?" to me. Your personal attacks and insults to me have been really testing my patience. Is it your habit to make insults in Korean in your Wikipedia comments when you cannot make a logical argument? Then let me talk like you do. (You won't be insulted because you believe I can't read and write Korean.) 안드로메다 캐관광 다녀오슈~ What happened to your mediation request? I am looking forward to it. Let's see whose sources are more reliable. Hkwon (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Melonbarmonster2 started to delete the information on fermentation of Kimchi again. This is the user's edit summary at 04:11, 25 June 2010: "Kimchi is exclusively a fermented food as many nonfermented varieties exist. References also do not support the claim that kimchi is only fermented." If Kimchi is exclusively a fermented food like Melonbarmonster2 claims, why he or she has to delete any information about fermentation?
 * Besides, I provided 7 academic articles published in Food & Nutrition journals which define Kimchi as a fermented food, while there has been no reliable source saying otherwise. Is this content-blanking behavior based on a user's original research or stubbornness?
 * If this kind of deleting happens again, I will request for an administrator intervention. I am pretty sure any reasonable administrator will make a decision favoring reliable and verifiable academic literature written by Food & Nutrition specialists over a claim with no reliable back-up source. And I will ask a friend of mine who is a Food & Nutrition professor in South Korea and add some more sources backing up my argument to my list, to make things sure. Hkwon (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are forms of unfermented kimchi http://www.saveur.com/article/Kitchen/The-Art-of-Kimchi カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To User talk:Sennen goroshi: Saveur? 1 food magazine article vs 10 peer-reviewed academic journal articles...I wonder which is more reliable.Hkwon (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The information has been deleted again. As I warned, I started dispute resolution process by RfC. Hkwon (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus fucking Christ Hkwon, you don't get it do you? Some Kimchi is fermented, so what? That is like me editing the dog article to state "dogs are black" just because some are black. You continued pushing of this matter is annoying, disruptive, petty and immature. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User talk:Sennen goroshi: Hey hey hey, buddy. Watch your language. Children might be looking at this page. And the Third Commandment tells you not to take the name of Lord in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. By the way, did you edit the dog article to state "dogs are black"? That sounds pretty stupid to me. Hkwon (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some questions
Just for my information, I understand that saeng kimchi, geotjeori, bom(spring) kimchi are all unfermented.

Where would I get these and who would eat them?

Are they normally home made or packaged?

Does anyone claim that these are not forms of kimchi? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're talking. If you frequent Korean restaurants, you probably already had unfermented "geotjeori".  Most restaurants don't have properly fermented kimchi because of required time, care and space. They will usually serve slightly fermented mak-kimchi or unfermented geotjeori. The ones that do serve proper fermented kimchi, at least in NYC, are famous for it(e.g. gahmmeeok's Queens and NJ restaurants have  pretty fantastic fermented kimchi. You can taste the tingle of carbonation from fermentation on your tongue ).  You might be able to find unfermented kimchi in large Korean supermarkets if you live near large Korean populations.  But to be honest most of it is homemade.  A portion of every batch of homemade kimchi is eaten fresh. Every spring and summer, Koreans make unfermented kimchi with fresh vegetables from the garden and wild such as "Asian stonecrop"(I actually have this in my garden), minari aka water dropworts, dandelion greens, garlic chives, turnip mustard, sweet potato stems, basically any spring garden or wild plant that is edible. And no I've never even heard of Koreans ever claiming unfermented kimchi varieties not existing.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that background info. I really know nothing whatever about kimchi, I have never never heard of it before and never eaten it.  I am just asking to avoid missing the obvious.  For example, if we were to have a discussion here on whether humans walk on their feet or their hands, it might be easier to provide sources saying that people can people walking on their hands rather than on their feet, just because walking on our feet is so commonplace. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kkwon, do agree with the above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Martin Hogbin: No, I don't agree.
 * 1) As I showed above, Doosan Encyclopedia article and The Hankyore article show geotjoeri is not considered kimchi.
 * 2) How about this CNB Journal article in Korean? http://weekly2.cnbnews.com/category/read.html?bcode=4439
 * It recommends to "Eat geotjori INSTEAD OF KIMCHI at least once a day" to reduce salt intake.
 * 3) How about this Donga-Ilbo article? http://news.donga.com/3/all/20091023/23611415/1
 * "If it is not fermented, it is not kimchi. Geotjori is only seasoned vegetable salad that tastes like kimchi." I don't want to use the first sentence yet, because this source is a non-academic newspaper article.
 * 4) The Chosun.com article User:Melonbarmonster2 provided, which is a collection of spring vegetable recipes, says that "bom kimchi should be picked for about 12-24 hours". According to the articles on fermentation I found, the fermentation of kimchi starts approximately in one day in brine with normal salt level (about 3.5%). Then how can this be unfermented kimchi?
 * 5) The Korean Wikipedia article does not say anything about the vegetable fermented or unfermented.
 * 6) The rest is all word of mouth from User:Melonbarmonster2. I've been to the restaurant Gammiok and the largest Korean supermarket in NY, NJ area, but have never seen any 'unfermented kimchi" in a menu or on a package/jar. Hkwon (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for more of a narrative rather than reference to sources. Are you saying that no one ever refers to any unfermented dish as kimchi? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge and experience as a South Korean, I can say "why would someone call any unfermented vegetable 'kimchi'?" Unfermented but seasoned/pickled vegetables are called geotjeori, jeori (절이), muchim (무침), saengchae (생채), and so on (roughly an equivalent of tossed salad or pickled vegetables). As Koreans had pretty much lived on vegetables till the 20th century, there are hundreds of regional varieties. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if some family in some region called unfermented vegetables they prepared "kimchi". But we are talking about a encyclopediac definition based on reliable sources here. If unfermented vegetables are considered kimchi in Korea more than rarely, why would all these Food & Nutrion experts plus ordinary people who wrote the sources I provided say otherwise? Hkwon (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. It does seem to me that kimch is nearly always fermented but sometimes it is not. It is not up to editors of WP to set standards or create definitions. There is never total agreement on the usage of terms in any subject, thus to ask whether geotjeori is different from kimchi or a kind of kimchi is never going to produce agreement either.


 * The best way forwards is to think in some strictly factual way of describing the situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To Martin's original question: I'm fairly certain I've seen, in the U.S. and in Japan, at Korean restaurants, items (like those mentioned above) that were labeled as both "unfermented" and kimchi. So maybe it is correct that in Korea, the word usually/always refers to a fermented product.  But perhaps I'm mistaken, and I've come to confuse my own ideas with what I've been reading looking for sources here.  A Google search for ""kimchi" "not fermented"" or ""kimchi" "unfermented"" reveals a number of sources which are not reliable in a Wikipedia sense, but do seem to point to a number of everyday people using the word kimchi to refer to some unfermented foods.  Now, it's certainly possible that these people are using the word "wrong."    The more deal with this page, the less convinced I am of how to draw the line between actual differences in how a term is used and widespread misuse of a term.  My feeling is still that 3 reliable sources referring to unfermented kimchi, along with what may be my own experience, that's enough to cast doubt on categorically defining kimchi as (always) fermented.  However, perhaps after reading Hkwon's new section, you'll have more insight. Thanks for your help on this. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean one semi-reliable source, not 3 reliable sources. Could you take a picture or scan image of that "unfermented kimchi" label? I just doubt, from my experience who spent more than 30 years in South Korea and the U.S., that such things exist. I will take a picture of several commercial kimchi packages of which label says "fermented" and send the file to all editors involved in this discussion. Give me a day or so.Hkwon (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I am just trying to educate myself on the subject


 * To User:Martin Hogbin: Sorry I forgot to answer your original questions:
 * 1) Where would I get these and who would eat them?: In pretty much any grocery stores or convenience stores in South Korea; in most specialized Asian food stores in the U.S.; and when you are invited to home of your Korean friend...I don't know the situation for other countries/regions from my experiences at this point.
 * 2) Are they normally home made or packaged?: Kimchi used to be made at home, especially in large quantities before the winter season, so that family members can eat vegetables in winter. These days, however, home-made kimchi is becoming a minority, and mass-produced, packaged kimchi is getting more popular, which is a shame. Hkwon (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since User:Qwyrxian asserts that he/she has seen a label "unfermented kimchi", I thought I would show what a label on normal kimchi package looks like. This is a picture of packaged kimchi I just took.


 * You guys might recognized the Korean word "김치" (kimchi) in red fonts in the first picture. In the middle of second picture, the label says "신선 발효", which means "freshly fermented".
 * It was very easy to take this picture, as most Korean convenient stores sell kimchi, and they are all fermented. This variety is a baechu (napa cabbage) kimchi, which is most common. But I can provide pictures of labels from packaged radish kimchi, green onion kimchi, cucumber kimchi, and so on, if someone needs more evidences.
 * User:Qwyrxian. You are fairly certain that you have seen packaged kimchi labeled "unfermented kimchi" in the U.S., Japan, and Korea.
 * User:Melonbarmonster2. You have found unfermented kimchi in large Korean supermarkets.
 * Could you guys provide an evidence like this, e.g. a scan of lable, picture of kimchi jar, or a copy of restaurant menu, besides words from your mouth, if it is not too much trouble?
 * P.S. I can easily predict some people will try to get rid of this picture to get rid of evidence, maybe by reporting me like they have done before. But don't worry. I bought this package (and ate it) and there are tens of other brands of fermented kimchi packages of which I can take pictures. And probably someone will say "this picture still does not prove kimchi is ONLY fermented", or so. Then why not show us a label picture/menu copy/academic article or a book chapters which say "unfermented kimchi"? (Could it be that because such thing does not exist?) Hkwon (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

edit war
I think until such time as there is clear consensus regarding the word "fermented" in the lead, we should refrain from constantly adding/removing it and revert back to the version that does not use the line "is a traditional Korean fermented dish" カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is the one that first deleted the information based on multiple reliable sources added by another editor? If I were you, I would find some sources/evidences backing up your claim instead of reverting others' edits. Hkwon (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just protected it for one week at The Wrong Version. Work it out here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Open questions (that involve many editors' dignity) from user:hkwon to user:melonbarmonster2

 * To: user:melonbarmonster2:
 * 1) You officially rejected my RfC at 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC), although you were one of the involved party in the discussion, who had no such authority.

Yet you stated "this RfC is useless" at 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC). How can you comment on my RfC that is useless according to you? And how can you explain that my RfC is still in effect, and you even added comments to that useless RfC section starting from 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)? I don't remember receiving any apologizes from you.
 * 2) You have claimed that I lied at 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC), but it was you who lied "User:Hkwon didn't get banned because of anyone editor here as far as I know", against your report to Wikipedia administrators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=372526745#Wiki_harassment_and_threats_by_User:Hkwon I don't remember receiving any apologizes from you for your LIE.Hkwon (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) You have also asserted, again, that my claim is related to "Hkwon's weird crusade to inject the Codex issue into the article". Is this 7th times or 8th times? Even user:Qwyrxian, who is not involved with this debate, stated that "the Codex is not the issue right now...your continuing to raise it over and over again seems to imply bad faith on the part of Hkwon". I have never used any CODEX information in my argument in the fermentation debate. And I will not say "C" of "CODEX" in this argument, as I have done already, because the two issues are not related.
 * 4) As I said at 07:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC), 19:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC), and 19:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC), for example, my argument is that the lead sentence should include "kimchi is fermented food.", not "kimchi is ONLY fermented food". Don't be misdirecting peoples here.
 * 5) You claim that "restaurants that do serve proper fermented kimchi, at least in NYC, are famous for it" and that "you might be able to find unfermented kimchi in large Korean supermarkets if you live near large Korean populations". Well. I provided pictures of fermented kimchi, which you can get pretty much from any convenience stores in South Korea. Could you provide a picture of kimchi package or a scan/picture of restaurant menu like I did, Quid pro quo? It shouldn't be so difficult whether you reside in South Korea or the U.S., considering your comments. Hkwon (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fermentation debate Pt II

 * So...Codex problem solved, so time to go back to the bigger debate. Well, let me see what help I (as an uninvolved editor), can provide.  I will say that, first, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to go read everything above, as that's just too much and filled with bad faith and name calling.  I'm going to try to focus first at looking at sources and seeing what we can build from there.  I can't read Korean, so my apologies in that I can only comment on the English sources.  As a starting point, I looked at the sources User:Melonbarmonster2 provided above at 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC).  From those, the Saveur article and the archived academic article "Inhibitory Effects of Kimchi  Extracts on Carcinogen-induced Cytotoxicity and Transformation in C3H/10T1/2 Cells" both seem reliable.  Saveur appears to be a legitimate journal--not academic, but reliable in the same way that People, Time, or even Entertainment Weekly are reliable.  The academic article is clearly reliable unless someone says otherwise.  The rest all appear to be self-published, and thus aren't reliable. So; without saying "many many times we've said blah blah blah" or "broken record blah blah blah," User:Hkwon, do you have any objections to those sources?  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Qwyrxian:
 * 1) Oh yes, I object to the sources presented by User:Melonbarmonster2, except for the Saveur article. In my comment at 06:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC), I have already taken trouble to show why each of them is unreliable/irrelevant source. "Self-published and thus aren't reliable"...It looks like you have already noticed the unreliabililty of those sources.
 * 2) One non-peer reviewed article (more like an essay) in a food magazine without any scientific evidence vs 10 (now 11) academic articles in Food & Nutrition journals...Which is more reliable?
 * 3) Journal of Food Science and Nutrition article...Did you know that the article starts with a sentence "Kimchi is a traditional, FERMENTED Korean food"? Like I said, it is an experiment report to observe arcinogen-induced cytotoxicity and transformation in C3H/10T1/2 Cells (whatever they are) as kimchi gets fermented. So it is natural that the treatment group start with unfermented, pickled vegetables and go on to fully fermented kimchi. It is surely a reliable source, but again defines kimchi as a fermented food.
 * 4) And I would appreciate it if you read comments and sources more carefully, and do not use mocking tone (e.g. blah blah blah) when talking about my comments. Hkwon (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop whining, Hkwon. You have been less than civil on many occasions, perhaps if you had a more pleasant tone, then people would be more civil in their interactions with you. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am criticized for being uncivil from someone who yelled at me "Jesus F**king Chirist" (13:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)) and disparaged my edits as "S**t" (15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)). Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? The nerve of some people never ceases to amaze me. The holy bible told us to remove the plank from your own eye before remove the speck out of your brothers eye. (MATTHEW 7:5)


 * Apologies on the "blah blah blah." I didn't mean for that to be directed only at you, although I see how my specific choice of words seems like it was.  My point is that it doesn't help me/us for anyone to respond by saying "as we've already discussed many times" since following that discussion is somewhere between painful and impossible, due to all of the digressions, loops, and other complications.  Regarding the JFSN article, I understand what you're saying about scientific method, and how it would be natural to start from unfermented and move to fermented; I wish I had access to the article so I could read, but I'll assume you state in good faith the first sentence of that paragraph. As for the larger issue, I haven't looked at your sources yet (I should get to that later today, once I can find them above).   See, part of what I'm trying to do is find out why it would be that published sources would say kimchi is fermented, but so many unpublished sources, including the grocery store itself, uses the word kimchi to also refer to unfermented substances as well.  I definitely support the idea that WP is about verifiability, not truth, so if the sources all go one way even if common sense dictates another, we usually side with the sources.  It's always better, though, when the sources match everyday perception.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian: You don't need to apologize to me if you didn't specifically target my comments. Would you like to see the whole JFSN article? Here is the link: http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/is/mv/showPDF_ocean.jsp?method=download&pYear=1997&koi=KISTI1.1003%2FJNL.JAKO199711920124952&sp=241&poid=kfn&kojic=E1FSA3&sVnc=v2n3&sFree=
 * Sorry I forgot to include the link. I am going to add another series of sources defining kimchi as fermented food below. Hope that will confirm what you said. Hkwon (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"kimchi is fermented" does not mean "kimchi is only fermented". In a published study, they are going to use and by default refer to the commonest version of kimchi which is the fermented napa cabbage variety and not concern themselves with accurately depicting the hundreds of varieties of kimchi.

Right now as things stand, we have literally hundreds of Korean and English language blogs and self-published references to unfermented varieties of kimchi. We also have several proper references that document unfermented kimchi varieties including Saveur and Doosan.

There is not one citation that claims kimchi is only a fermented food other than the infamous Codex document.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree with what you're saying there, Melonbarmonster2, at least in the way you say it without context.  It is true that a scientific article may well state "kimchi is a fermented food," not dealing with the details and special cases.  However, if we eventually decide to put here, "kimchi is a fermented food," that, because of the encyclopedic context, means that all kimchi is fermented. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2: Literally hundreds of Korean and English sources...Wow, I have never recognized the magnitude of evidences supporting your claim. Since there are hundreds, could you show us maybe 10-20 exmaples?
 * But "blogs and self-published references"? Let's see...I can create accounts tonight in blogger.com, googleblog.blogspot.com, and blog.facebook.com in different usernames, write "kimchi is fermented food", and claim that I have three more source backing up my argument. Doesn't sound reasonable to me...That is the difference between reliable, verifiable sources for Wikipedia (especially peer-reviewed academic journal articles) and unreliable documents on the Web.
 * The lead sentence of the main article says that kimchi is "a traditional Korean fermented dish". Following your logic, it should be rephrased to "kimchi is a dish, always traditional, always fermented, always made in Korea". I don't know about other people, but that doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article to me. Hkwon (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which proves my point that even unreliable self published sources don't mention your outlandish claim that kimchi is only a fermented food. And the sentence should read kimchi is a traditional Korean dish and details of the fermentation process and varieties of fermented and non-fermented dish should be dealt with in the the body of the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To:User:Melonbarmonster2: Why would a need any unreliable self-published sources? I have 15 academic journal articles and published books defining kimchi as "fermented food". How many do you have?Hkwon (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I go looking at more sources, I have a question for Hkwon: since you are saying that we should write that kimchi is fermented, does that mean that you are saying that anything we can find at the store or on a menu labeled as "unfermented kimchi" is, in fact, not actually kimchi? I'm just trying to understand the position you think the encyclopedia should take. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's bit of a nonsequitor. No one has suggested that we put "kimchi is fermented" even if not all kimchi is fermented.  Not sure what you're disagreeing with there. Just let us know what you find from browsing through references.  Let me know if you need any help with Korean language sites or questions about nonfermented varieties of kimchi like saeng kimchi, geotjeori, bom(spring) kimchi, etc.. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To User:Qwyrxian: I took a liberty to correct my username to "Hkwon", as both you and User:Cydevil38 had made mistakes to spell it as "Hwkwon". It's no problem, as the username is the initial of my Korean name - The first letter of given name + family name - which non-Korean speakers can easily mix up (I have experienced that a lot during my studies abroad); Just letting you know.
 * I don't have any reliable sources to back up my claim this time. But I have bought and ate A LOT of packaged kimchi both in South Korea and U.S., and never seen or heard of a packaged food labled "unfermeted kimchi". Maybe it is just because of my choice of grocery store, but I would like to see a label of such packaged/jarred/bottled food in a picture of something if such thing exists. I know some Japanese "kimuchi" is unfermented, but it is a different kind of food. Hkwon (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hkwon's edit that Kimchi is a fermented dish. There are tons of sources in Korean and English, including general studies of Kimchi's cultural characteristics, that support this definition. However, if there is indeed some varieties of Kimchi eaten during Spring time that aren't fermented, I don't see what's wrong with Melonbarmonster's edit of that part so long as reliable sources are provided. Reliable sources are also needed for the claim that these specific varieties are more popular than the typical fermeneted varities during Spring season. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I now realize that I can't look at the references Hkwon provided, because they're in scholarly journals, none of which I have access to (I don't have access to a university or other location that could help me confirm that info).  However, I'm certainly willing to assume good faith and stipulate that those articles do, in fact, use a phrase approximately equal to "Kimchi is a fermented food..."  In lieu of being able to help, I was checking to see if I could find other sources that support the existence of unfermented kimchi.  Unfortunately, I could only find one: .  Here, the author is specifically pointing out that fermented is probably better than unfermented (health-wise), which certainly implies the existence of unfermented styles. Notice that the author does not state "unfermented ingredients" or "vegetables prior to fermentation."
 * But I'm still stuck on the fact that this WP article itself talks about Spring kimchi, which is, by definition, unfermented. Is Hkwon saying we have to remove that, or add in some sort of "While X is often called kimchi, it is not proper to do so because it's not fermented."  I guess I'm still stuck on the goal of trying, when possible, to make verifiability match truth.  It seems to me that with at least 3 sources referring to "unfermented kimchi," that the relevant sentence should state something like "kimchi is usually, but not always, fermented."  And then we can have the sources somewhere talking about how fermented kimchi is healthier.
 * As a side note, I just want to note that once protection ends, I hope we still have consensus to keep out the 1996 Dispute section (since we have no reliable sources to support it), and that we can also leave out the Codex. I will say, however, that I felt there was promise in the way it was used somewhat recently.  That is, I think we can include the Codex info as long as it states "Kimchi is the first Korean product to be included in the Codex Alimentarius, an international food safety standards body." Mind you, that doesn't go in the lead, and we need to use that reference Hkwon found stating its the first (that is, link to the article, not to the Codex itself).  But I'm not dead set on including it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To User:Qwyrxian: After reading Handbook of fermented functional foods, I don't think it is a good source about unfermented kimchi.
 * The book defines kimchi as fermented food several times:
 * 1) p.289 "kimchi and doenjang, the two fermented food items"; "Kimchi...is thought to be a simple fermentation product in a brine prepared in a stone jar"
 * 3) p.300 "Korean fermented foods such as kimchi"
 * 4) The section title is "Korean Fermented Foods: Kimchi and Doenjang"
 * and:
 * 1) on p.290 "Raw" kimchi(0 week) is only used as control group and fermented kimchi (3 weeks at 5C degrees) as treatment group to observe the change in nutritional contents in an experiment.
 * 2) p.291 says "Some of the raw vegetables used for kimchi, such as baechu, parsley, perilla leaf, green pepper leaf, garlic, and red pepper have been tested shown to be antimutagenic with in vitro assay system." These are clearly "vegetables prior to fermentation", again used to compare with fermented kimchi in an experiment to observe changes in antimutagenicity (whatever it is). The "raw (unfermented) kimchi" (p.300) you mentioned refers to these unfermented ingredients, saying certain degree of fermentation leads to higher antimutagenicity. Hkwon (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Qwyrxian: Many of the sources I presented above shows in the article titles that "kimchi is (Korean traditional) fermented food". For the rest of them, please Google search the title of articles. All of them will lead to at least article abstract, if not the full text. And abstracts of all articles I presented defines kimchi as fermented food. It's not like I checked out each journal at a library. (Well I am checking out from a library a few books and journals of which contents I could not confirm online, but it is a different story.) Or do you want me to add external links to abstracts/full texts for each article in my list? It's a little troublesome for me, but I can certainly do it if you want. Hkwon (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Qwyrxian: A kind of off-topic response to your comment: I don't think there was a clear consensus to delete the section "1996 kimchi dispute" section. But I supported your decision and did not do anything after you deleted the section, as I agree that the section was based on a less-than-reliable source and/or a source exclusively written in Korean language. I didn't write the section, and have no intention to restore it at this point. I might add the CODEX information in the article (or not. I don't get paid by CODEX or something.), when I accumulate enough sources and evidences to convince everyone, maybe as a separate section. But it is a different story for the future. Right now I am focused on this kimchi fermentation debate, and now I don't want to say "C" of "CODEX", as a couple of editors keep attacking me for that, although kimchi fermentation and CODEX information are separate issues. Hkwon (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick note here--no you don't need the links/abstracts/full texts. I assume that you're acting in good faith, and that therefore those articles claim what you say they claim (that is, they contain a line similar to "kimchi, a fermented Korean food.").  I am willing to accept that those articles imply that kimchi is fermented.  What I'm hoping is that you'll accept that there are at least 3 RS that state the existence of unfermented kimchi.  Once I finish reading everything (and possibly not until after I'm done teaching today), I'll propose a compromise wording. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of published books defining kimchi as fermented food
Here are some examples of published books defining kimchi as "Korean traditional FERMENTED food" or similarly. All contents are available online either through Amazon.com or Google books. I only chose English sources for my non-Korean speaking Wikipedia fellows. Note that none of them states "kimchi is sometimes/usually fermented food" and includes no similar proviso. I can keep doing this until I exhaust all Food & Nutrition literature on kimchi. But I personally wonder...How many reliable sources would it take to convince 2 stubborn editors? Hkwon (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC):


 * Added direct quotations from the books as some editors doubt the fact. Hkwon (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hkwon, please consider my beer analogy again. It would be quite easy to find reliable sources saying that beer is made from malt, hops, yeast, and water.  Many people think this is the only way true beer should be made.  Nevertheless some people do make beer out of other ingredients.  Now it might be correct to say that 'traditional ale' is made only of these ingredients and it is certainly true that beer made according to the "Bavarian Purity Law" should be made from only these ingredients.


 * Is there no way you can temper your claim and also make it strictly more accurate and informative by saying something like 'traditional Korean kimchi is always fermented'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To:User:Martin Hogbin: Look. I would do it if it were true to my knowledge and/or there existed some reliable sources to confirm that. The saveur.com article, the only source against my claim that I consider at least semi-reliable, says "It can also be eaten before it is allowed to ferment". Do you think this confirms the existence of unfermented kimchi against all sources I gathered? Someone might like to have a bite of Sauerkraut before it is fermented.
 * I don't want to argue with you or something, but I have heard that beer is made from only malt, hops, and water in Germany (as it should be). Unfortunately, at least in Korea, Japan, and the U.S., most beer includes rice, potato, corn starch, and many other ingredients I think unnecessary. At least they have ingredient lists on the bottles, and there are a lot of official documents on those additional ingredients.
 * But kimchi is a different story. Like I said, I have never seen any packaged/jarred kimchi labeled "unfermented", maybe except for Japanses "kimuchi" which is more like pickled vegetables. And both traditional and contemporary kimchi is fermented. (they are not much different anyway.) Nevertheless, I am willing to temper my claim if editors can find even a couple of reliable sources that say some kimchi is unfermented. Hkwon (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, the beer analogy is not a perfect one. I was mainly making the point that just because you can find good reliable sources saying that kimchi is a fermented product you cannot necessarily take this to mean that all kimchi is always fermented. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to go back to a suggestion made above. I think Hkwon should start to write a piece on the fermentation processes leading to kimchi. Whatever the discussion, the fast majority of kimchi seems to be fermented, so a section on fermentation is logical. I have, as far as I know, never eaten kimchi, but I am a food microbiologist and I do have access to all food science journals (even in Korean, but I will stick to English) to check references. So I am happy to edit the fermentation piece if everybody agrees as I am in this case quite neutral.... Hkwon can also write the piece, send it to me and if I agree we add it to the page and it should not be reverted by any of the parties involved in the discussion. OK ?Knorrepoes (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan to me, it might help break the 'yes it is', 'no it is not' argument we seem to have now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To Knorrepoes: Thank you for your offer. I am no expert on this field, but might be able to write a decent piece with a help from my friend and sources I have gathered so far. Would be glad if you could proof-read and revise my writings. I just hope the two editors who have opposed me will agree to you too. Hkwon (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To User:Martin Hogbin and Knorrepoes: I finished the draft on fermentation process and sent it to your talk pages. Can you have a look, revise as you want, and decide whether to upload it? Hkwon (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That all sounds great, however it is unrealistic to expect people to agree to it never being reverted. If something is good, it does not get reverted, if it sucks ass - someone will revert it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To User:Sennen goroshi: S**ks a**...I don't know why you need to use that kind of expression in public. Is it your sexual orientation? Hkwon (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course articles on WP can always be edited but the suggestion is that both sides show restraint and allow Knorrepoes to act as an informal arbitrator. Perhaps I could help too, I know even less about the subject than Knorrepoes, but in this case I see that as an advantage. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean never reverted, of course things will change in time. But not drastically reverted as has happened with this topic. And I will not place it when I would not agree.Knorrepoes (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * New references and claim to be made should be shared and discussed in this talk page rather than relying on Hkwon to make unilateral edits to the article. IMO, he hasn't been very honest about what references actually state or not.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin you are being much too deferential. There is no need to entertain the unreferenced and unsupported hypothesis that kimchi is only fermented. NONE of these reference states kimchi is only fermented. They are mentioning the fermented napa kimchi in their studies. Not even blogs or informal online sources in Korean nor English states kimchi is only a fermented food. This isn't even a controversy. The only source for this statement is Hkwon and his friend. Seriously did I miss an article or reference that actualy says kimchi is kimchi only if it's fermented???

Secondly, for the purpose of determining our talk page discussion about whether kimchi is only fermented, it seems only reasonable to query references and online sources that may otherwise not be suitable for use as citation within the article.

Regardless, please weigh the evidence. We still only have published proper references such as Doosan and Saveur article that properly reference kimchi as both a fermented and non-fermented food as well as literally hundreds of informal sources in both English and Korean. There is not one wiki proper or informal reference that states kimchi is kimchi only when fermented.... oh except Hkwon's friend.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To User:Melonbarmonster2: "he hasn't been very honest about what references actually state or not." This is a serious accusation to me. Specifically state when and how I haven't been honest about references.
 * Don't try to change this debate into one on whether "kimchi is only fermented food". The phrase I added in the lead is "fermented food", not "always/only fermented food". I have never argued that the phrase should be "always/only fermented food". All reliable sources I presented define kimchi "as fermented food", and I put the direct quotation into the lead. Again, shouldn't the definition be "kimchi is always Korean tradional food" as the adjectives "Korean" and "traditional" are in the same definition sentence? Hkwon (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of issue being discussed
Hkwon's claimis that kimchi is ONLY a fermented food and that unfermented kimchi varieties, such as geotjeori, bom kimchi, and namul kimchi are not kimchi's.

The issue is NOT whether 'kimchi is fermented'. Kimchi is fermented or not fermented depending on variety. Please do not be fooled by this misdirection. Hkwon's references need to state that kimchi is only fermented or that widely known unfermented varieties of kimchis are not in fact kimchi.

Also some context might be helpful. The Codex definition was Korean attempt at excluding Japanese from selling 'kimuchi' which was unfermented and a offensive invasion of Korean culture. Hkwon started making this claim about 'kimchi is only fermented' following his edit war over the Codex definition of kimchi in the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2:
 * 1) No, my claim is not "kimchi is ONLY a fermented food." I have never made that kind of edits either. From the reliable sources I gathered, my conclusion has been "kimchi should be defined as fermented food in the lead".
 * 2) I have already presented multiple sources showing geotjeori is not kimchi. All you showed is a word in an info box of online encyclopedia. Bom kimchi and namul kimchi...Can you show some sources showing 1) these are considered kimchi; and 2) these are not fermented, besides word of mouth?
 * 3) You criticize me for CODEX info, an off-topic and completely separate issue again? I lost count of the number of times I told you about that. Well, go on if you have nothing to say that is relevant to this topic of fermentation. Hkwon (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't read everything Hkwon wrote above, but I just want to say here that what you're calling "context" is definitely not helpful. First, the Codex is not the issue right now--consensus has already determined that information.  Second, you continuing to raise it over and over again seems to imply bad faith on the part of Hkwon, that s/he's POV-pushing.  Please let's focus on the items you raise in your first two paragraphs, which is whether or not kimchi is always fermented per sources.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The context of how the claim 'kimchi is only kimchi if it's fermented' was introduced to this talk page is factually relevant to our current discussion. I fail to see how you think this isn't helpful. There has been much discussion and consensus on the credibility of that source and we are discussing a proposition that originated from that rejected source.  We are entitled to our opinions, about POV pushing and whatnot, but not about the factual context of where this claim came from. That is a topical matter of fact.


 * Did you come across any any reference blog, article or anything that actually claims that kimchi is kimchi only when it's fermented??? IMO that is the great pink elephant in our discussions right now.  There has been much talk about inadequacies of references that document unfermented kimchi without consideration to the fact that not ONE source states kimchi is only fermented while Hkwon has been misdirecting everyone here by pasting sources that only state 'kimchi is fermented'.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Melonbarmonster2:
 * It's like talking to a wall. "kimchi is only kimchi if it's fermented." How many times did I say that this is a word from my friend who is a Food & Nutrition scholar, and that I am going to use it in the main article as a source unless it is published as a source? I quoted the statement FYI, not a reliable and verifiable source.
 * You are the one who misdirecting everyone, keep claiming I as if I want to put a phrase "kimchi is only fermented food". What I want to add in the lead is "kimchi is fermented food", as a dozen of reliable sources define. If anyone don't believe me, check my edit history in the main article.Hkwon (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Proposal
Currently, the first two sentences read: "Kimchi (김치; pronounced /ˈkɪmtʃi/, Korean pronunciation: [kimtɕʰi]), also spelled gimchi, kimchee, or kim chee, is a traditional Korean fermented [1] [2]  dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings. It is most commonly made with napa cabbage and other vegetables such as radish, green onion, chive, and cucumber. "  This, to me, clearly states that kimchi is always fermented, because there are no qualifiers. I believe that 1) we have demonstrated RS that show the existence of unfermented kimchi, and 2) non-RS blogs as well as the everyday experience of several editors, as well as the article itself (under Spring kimchi) also strongly support that a small but measurable class of what is commonly called kimchi is unfermented. However, I certainly concur that both the weight of RS and the majority of real-world kich is fermented, so I am wondering if the following might be a reasonable compromise:
 * "Kimchi (김치; pronounced /ˈkɪmtʃi/, Korean pronunciation: [kimtɕʰi]), also spelled gimchi, kimchee, or kim chee, is a traditional Korean [1] [2]  dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings. It is most commonly made by fermenting napa cabbage and other vegetables such as radish, green onion, chive, and cucumber. "

My feeling is that this both weights the article (correctly) towards fermented varieties, as well as admits the existence of unfermented dishes that are also called kimchi. Is there any possibility that this version (or something based on it) could obtain consensus? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I disagree that we have demonstrated reliable sources that show the existence of unfermented kimchi. If I remember correctly, the only source that is even semi-reliable is the saveur.com article which says kimchi "can also be eaten before it is allowed to ferment". If my memory is incorrect, please provide a list of reliable sources backing up the claim.
 * 2) Per WP:SOURCES Self-published media such as personal websites and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources unless produced by experts on the field. And I don't even recall seeing blog contents that properly shows the existence of unfermented kimchi.
 * 3) The information on spring kimchi in the main article does not have any source except for a broken link.
 * 4) 17 academic journal articles and published books defines kimchi as "fermented food". Without sufficient counter-evidence, I believe this main article should follow that too.Hkwon (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are 3 legitimate sources talking about unfermented kimchi; that's sufficient evidence that saying "always fermented" is wrong. The compromise lead has consensus of both involved and uninvolved editors.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh...I didn't realize you'd actually gone and changed the lead. I have reverted it to match the consensus decision.  Please do not make changes that are directly counter to consensus.  We had the page protected for 3 days.  During that time, editors (involved and uninvolved) came to a consensus about how the lead should look.  Please note that it still supports the idea that kimchi is usually fermented.  If you believe the consensus decision that was reached is still inaccurate, please take further steps using the dispute resolution process; do not edit war by reinserting text that does not have consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Qwyrxian: Uh-uh. 1) I already showed two of three sources you claimed legitimate are unreliable. Unless you have some other counter-evidence, there is only one semi-reliable source showing some kimchi is unfermented.
 * 2) As I said many times, my edit has been "kimchi is fermented food", not "kimchi is ALWAYS fermented food".
 * 3) What consensus? There never has been a formal consensus gathering effort. And user:Melonbarmonster2, user:Sennen goroshi, you, and me are all involved editors. You have been opposing me in this talk page since 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC), clearly not an uninvolved editor.
 * 4) The new section on kimchi fermentation, which I wrote, as uninvolved editors user:Martin Hogbin and user:Knorrepoes suggested, is being reviewed by them. Wait at least before you blank contents based on 17 reliable, verifiable source till they make their decisions.


 * 1) You showed no such thing. I see nothing wrong with any of the 3 sources provided, nor with the 17 sources you provided.  I see a number of sources with a lack of perfect agreement.
 * 2) And you're either displaying an imperfect grasp of English, or deliberately misrecognizing that say "kimchi is fermented" is defining fermented as a necessary part of its identity. If I say "Protons are a positively charged subatomic particle," that necessarily means that their positive charge is a necessary part of their identity, unless I add a "usually," "sometimes," "generally," or other qualifier.  All we're asking is that the lead not reflect the exclusionary language you're asking for, and instead accept the "usually."
 * 3) You seem to misunderstand what consensus. Please see WP:CONSENSUS.  Given that 2 involved editors, myself (who used to be uninvolved but is rapidly becoming involved), plus at least 2 uninvolved editors all support the compromise lead I proposed and inserted, and only you are opposed, that's consensus.  It's not overwhelming, universal, or perfect.  I wish we could get 100% agreement on a compromise, but that may be impossible.  There does not need to be a "formal consensus gathering effort."  Although, in fact, you had that--that's what the RfC was, and the result is the page with the compromise, not the way only you want it.
 * 4) Because you say you've submitted said section to the two of them, I'm willing to wait a little bit before I revert. I'll look forward to hearing what they have to say.  Of course, I'm sure they'll be taking into account both what you've written there as well as what's been written here, including evaluating whether the 3 sources we found are reliable (and whether or not to take the implied weight of numerous unreliable sources as perhaps implying something too, even if it can't be cited).  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To User:Qwyrxian:
 * 1) Please correct me if I am wrong. According to your comment at 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC), the 3 sources you provided - according to your numbering 1), 2), and "also" -are: 1) RS. I showed none of them, including a phrase from the Handbook of fermented functional foods is reliable sources except for the saveur.com article, which I consider semi-reliable.
 * 2) non-RS blogs and "everyday experience of several editors": First of all, they cannot be reliable and verifiable sources per WP:SOURCES especially in the presence of reliable counter-evidences. Also, if I am correct, only one editor who is Korean and might have the sufficient experience concerning kimchi showed his or her opinion, not several editors. I have had everyday experience against his/her claim too and can cancel it out.
 * 3) The info on "the article itself (under Spring kimchi)" which "also strongly support that a small but measurable class of what is commonly called kimchi is unfermented" is sourceless as the reference for the whole section was a broken link.
 * 4) You might have a better grasp of English than I do, as I don't understand the words "subatomic" or "proton" very well. But I wonder...Why both the Encylopedia Britannica (English) and Doosan Encyclopedia (Korean) define kimchi as "fermented food"?
 * 5) So you say...I should shut up despite of overwhelming reliable source suppporting my opinion because 2 involved editors heartily support you and 1 uninvolved editor said "that is a good start"? Let me remind you that "Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion".
 * 6) I expect the two uninvolved editors will not take account of 2 of 3 sources you mentioned, since the two are unquestionably baseless. I am not an expert on the field of Food & Nutrition, and that is why I sent my draft to these two editors. I just hope it will be revised well and added to the main article as a good contribution.
 * 7) Would you like a copy of my writing? As I said before, I am not an expert on this field, but felt obliged to write the section as my fellow editors encouraged me. It might s**k a** as user:Sennen goroshi said, but that was the best I could do. I am sending you a copy too. Please take a look, revise anything, and upload it if you feel it deserves a Wikipedia article section.Hkwon (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for posting that on my page. I glanced at it, and there seems to be good information there, although some of it seems far to categorical--that is, I mean, even if I were willing to say kimchi is always/almost always fermented, I sincerely disbelieve that it is accurate to state things like "takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions" because different types of kimchi take different amounts of fermenting time--even a simple taste test indicates that some kimchi is fermented longer than others. Again, I don't know if you really don't understand the implication of your words, or you're deliberately being manipulative. WP:AGF, I'll try to explain one more time. When you say something like what I quoted above, that means, literally, that all kimchi takes about 1 month. It doesn't mean most, or some or even usually. Unless you add appropriate qualifiers, a reader must assume that ALL kimchi ferments for about 1 month.
 * However, at the moment, I have to say that I need a break from going back and forth on this article. I don't know how to proceed.  I understand that you're frustrated, because you think some of us are using our inaccurate personal opinions to thwart what you see as both common sense and well researched.  But I'm frustrated, too, because I don't understand why you're so adamant that you won't even accept a compromise that says 90% what you want it to say.  I'm going to have to wait for the two uninvolved editors to comment before I can understand what to do next. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To User:Qwyrxian:
 * 1) You don't like the phrase "takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions"? What can I say? It is a direct quotation from Encyclopædia Britannica and sounds pretty much accurate to me (plus or minus several days to your liking) considering Korean common sense and some academic articles on kimchi that I have read. Well. I guess some people like their kimchi fermented more than a month.
 * 2) I don't believe you mean to attack me personally, but I don't like your using of words such as "not understanding my own words", "deliberately manipulative", "adamant", and "frustrated" to describe me. I don't remember using such words to you. You could at least say how and when I was manipulative and adamant. "Frustrated"? You might be, but I am certainly not. I am glad to provide reliable evidences and sources which support my claim.
 * 3) If it is not too much trouble, could you scan/take a picture/sketch the label or menu containing the word "unfermented kimchi" or its equivalent that you have seen? I think it's fair to ask you to present a physical evidence against mine, as I took trouble to go to grocery store, buy a kimchi package, and take picture of it. Hkwon (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do sincerely not mean to attack you. My point is just that you don't seem to understand me when I say that "kimchi is fermented food" means the same thing as "kimchi is always fermented food."  Perhaps frustrated was the wrong word to use, and I was guessing based on the tone of some of the things you'd written.  I don't mean frustrated in any negative way, I assure you.
 * As for a kimchi package, I'm pretty sure that even if I found one, you wouldn't consider it very reliable, as I currently live in Japan; since the question of whether or not Japanese キムチ = Korean kimchi is very closely related to this overall issue, I can see why it wouldn't really help resolve anything. I do appreciate your taking the photograph you did, although it doesn't really help solve the issue of whether or not Spring (unfermented) kimchi exists. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly believe you; No harms done. If it helps, the Chinese characters used in Japan meaning "fermentation" are "醱酵".Hkwon (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I want to add that I definitely support the proposal above by User:Knorrepoes, User:Hkwon, and User:Martin Hogbin to add a new section giving details about the fermentation process (including, perhaps, the method of production, possible historical aspects, as well as some information about possible health benefits (although there we want to be careful to avoid relying too heavily on primary sources)). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an improvement from the current text. I would also like to propose that we tweak the second sentence more. As it stands now, "It is most commonly made with napa cabbage and other vegetables such as radish, green onion, chive, and cucumber." sounds like a reference to baechu kimchi which is made out of napa cabbage but does not contain cucumbers or chives.  Perhaps a more direct statement would be better: ""Kimchi (김치; pronounced /ˈkɪmtʃi/, Korean pronunciation: [kimtɕʰi]), also spelled gimchi, kimchee, or kim chee, is a traditional Korean dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings. The most common varieties are made by fermenting vegetable ingredients such as napa cabbage, radish, green onions, cucumbers, etc.."Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a good start. It may be seen as a little weak from Hkwon but in the new format is is open to slight adjustments. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the above version pretty much covers it all. It does not imply that all Kimchi is fermented, yet it makes it clear that the most common varieties are. Looking good. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I object the proposed statement. The phrase "the MOST COMMON varieties are made by fermenting vegetable ingredients" contradicts most reliable sources provided, and baseless, with no source, evidence, etc, except for words of mouths (potentially original study) of some editors. Hkwon (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)