Talk:Yakiniku/Archive 1

Horse meat? Really?
I've never seen horse meat on the menu of a Japanese yakiniku restaurant. I've seen horse meat served as "sakura niku" which is a kind of raw horse meat, but is it really served in yakiniku restaurants?--DannyWilde 07:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't say how "usual" (or whatever the text says) it is, but yes, it is not that uncommon in yakiniku restaurants.　Mackan 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yakiniku in the United States?
What kind of beef meat would you tell your butcher to cut for you when wanting to use it for Yakiniku? Burningphoenix 11:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

0.5 nom
This article was nominated for Version 0.5, I failed it because it's a little more than a stub, and no refs. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

the origin of yakiniku
"Yakiniku" does indeed mean "grilled meat", and of course people in Japan discovered how to grill meat before Koean immigrants brought bulgogi. But most people in Japan who hear the word "yakiniku" would think of a Korean-style dish where thinly sliced meat, such as karubi (named after galbi) is served in restaurants which also serve kimuchi (kimchi), namuru (namul), bibimba (bibimbap), yukke (yukhoe) and kuppa (gukbap). The fact that modern Japanese yakiniku has minor differences from authentic bulgogi is expected, and it does not change the simple fact that what we know as "yakiniku" is Korean in origin. I personally don't care where it originates from (I just like to eat it) and it's depressing to see some people who have such petty, petty nationalist hang-ups about the origin of some barbecue dish. Phonemonkey 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want not to be a such petty, petty nationalist, you'd better to delete about Korean origin. I only corrected it because it is a lie. To revert it is not a solution.The style of Yakiniku came from the style  of yakitori which is grilled  over an open fire. It's very old style of cooking in Japan. Bulgogi is not grilled over an open fire.Tropicaljet 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide sources for your statement. You have no evidence that yakiniku isn't Korean. Mackan 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The general concensus in Japan and the world is that yakiniku is a Japanese dish of Korean origin, like ramen is a Japanese dish of Chinese origin and tonkatsu is a Japanese dish of European origin. That's why yakiniku is served alongside kimchi in a faux-Korean environment, ramen served alongside gyoza in a faux-Chinese environment, and tonkatsu often considered "yoshoku". Gyu-Kaku's website at is only one example of myriads of yakiniku's references to its Korean origin. One or two minor differences between yakiniku and bulgogi is what's expected of any dish which is adopted in other countries (see kebab, pizza). If you actually have any evidence that this widely-held belief is only a myth, then please present it for discussion. Phonemonkey 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Yakiniku dispute
Hi. Mackan left me a note a few days ago about at edit war that seems to involve a number of articles, including this one. I notice from the article history that it's still going on. I'd like to request that all involved editors stop editing the article, even to revert to the "right version". The solution to an edit war isn't reverting, it turns out. We need to freeze the article and talk about it here. If everyone can't agree to a freeze, then I'll have to protect the page, which isn't the best, but the back and forth edits have to stop. You can be sure that if I apply protection, it will be to the Wrong Version; I'm required to do that.

Now, what exactly is the content of this dispute? I'm seeing the repeated insertion and removal of the following paragraph:
 * ===Origin of Yakiniku===
 * The origin of Yakiniku is the Western world introduced at the Meiji Period. The Meiji emperor ate beef to encourage eating meat on January 24, 1873. Afterwards, barbecue has spread to the Japan. Japanese Famous critic Kanagaki-Robun translated the barbecue into Yakiniku in 1879. Roasting was translated into the Rhosu (ロース). Therefore, the sirloin is called a Rhosu in Japan. 　To eat delicious Yakiniku, Kobe beef was developed. Yakiniku of mutton (Zingisukan-Nabe) was created in Hokkaido in 1936.

I see a couple of problems with this paragraph. First of all, that link to "Western world" makes no sense - what is being claimed here? Second, that external link is in Japanese, and I can't read it. What information am I supposed to be using that link to verify, anyway? The URL looks commercial - is that a website selling something, or what? Linking to the Japanese wikipedia is also problematic, but my first question about it is, what article is that? Can someone provide some hints for the linguistically limited like myself? I'd like to figure out what all there reversions are about. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yakiniku is a meaning of roasting(Yaki) meat(Niku) though it is a fundamental matter. And, Yakiniku is a custom of starting at the Meiji Period. The Japanese did not have the custom of eating meat for the influence of the Confucianism. Japan encouraged eating meat to obtain the Western civilization at the Meiji Period. Can you agree to this part?(Are more explanations necessary?)--ShinjukuXYZ 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're saying, although I would suggest some rewording to make the English read more naturally. I'm also interested in why some   Can you tell me what http://mankiti.umai.co.jp/ is, and why you're including that link?  I can't read anything at that website, because I don't know any Japanese.  Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, could you help sort out the mess caused by Shinjuku and his obvious sockpuppet User:Necmate? Just look at their edit histories (especially Necmate's very first round of edits) and what they are reverting. Really needs some intervention. Thanks. OpieNn 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to help out, OpieNn, but I'm having some trouble understanding just what the dispute is here. Can you state clearly what you're disagreeing with in the edit Shinjuku keeps making?  Any information you can give me about the content of this dispute would be very useful.  Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of a larger problem in several articles, a Japanese nationalist with poor grasp of English and a worse grasp of Attribution. Shinjuku has already been shown to revert-war with ip addresses and sockpuppets Requests for checkuser/Case/NekoNekoTeacher. Look at his deletion of BBC reference and replacement of CNN with original research. Then look at Necmate's first round of reverts, exactly the same reverts as Shinjuku, immediately upon registering the new account.

In this article, he's just trying to deny any Korean influence in Japanese cuisine. The comfort women article and other WW2 revisionism are more serious problems, in my opinion. It's been going on for a really long time, and seriously needs an administrator intervention. Thanks. OpieNn 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I second every thing OpieNn said. Additionally, ShibuyaXYZ was never interested in discussing the matter, he has not once presented any rationale for his, and believe my asked for one. I even started out assuming good faith, asking him to post what he meant on the talk page, where I felt he would be able to be explain exactly what it was that he meant.
 * Look just now, even though you asked us not to revert again, he just blatantly ignored you and reverted it back to his version anyway. I'd like to see this page protected (the version without the uncomprehensible broken English) until the problem with ShibuyaXYZ and all his sockpuppets gets sorted out. Mackan 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

About the Japanese site ShinjukuXYZ gives as a source, it's a commercial one, promoting a special sort of beef called "Yonezawagyuu". Except for being miles away from a WP:RS, the page he's referring to does not even mention the word yakiniku ONCE.Mackan 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've got this one, Comfort women and Anti-Japanese sentiment on my watchlist, and I'm confident we'll get them all sorted out. Please let me know which other articles I should be watching in this connection. (I've just watchlisted Yi Sunsin and Mike Honda, as they seem to be the subject of some related reversions, as well as the ones you listed at your talk page, Macken.)  This article seemed like perhaps the least complicated, so I chose this as a point of entry.
 * I realize there's the matter or sockpuppets, but I'd like to try the usual content dispute resolution steps before we have to worry about that. I'm not just going to start blocking accounts or protecting articles or something until I'm convinced that diplomacy won't work.  I'm happy to assume that Shinjuku hadn't seen my post before he reverted this last time.
 * Back to the current article, I'm puzzled by what you said, OpieNn, that Shinjuku is trying to deny any Korean influence in Japanese cuisine. In this edit, he seems to be adding an "Influence of Korea" header, and also adding a paragraph that I can't quite understand, due to the English.  I still am puzzled as to precisely what fact is in dispute here.  Mackan, thank you for the information about the external link.  I agree that it's inappropriate, being commercial and inaccessible to many readers.  Can anybody enlighten me as to just what Shinjuku is claiming in this article and why other people disagree with it?  I apologize if I'm being dense about this, but I know nothing about Yakiniku, except that it looks delicious.  I wonder if the Japanese restaurant around the corner serves it... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What Shinjuku is trying to do is to suggest that the REAL origin is the western world, and not Korea as is generally thought. By instead writing "Korean influence", he is trying to make it sound as if the origin is not Korea, Korea merely "influenced" yakiniku. You're not daft, it can be hard to understand how Japanese English works. Mackan 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, part of the conflict stems from the fact that the part ShinjukuXYZ is putting in again and again is almost entirely uncomprehensible. I first asked him to post in more detail here, so if his edits contained anything of value, I could help him make it comprehensible, but he simply refused and reverted it back. Mackan 10:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've edited Shinjuku's addition for English, tried to incorporate more relevant wikilinks, removed inappropriate links, and thrown in some citationneeded tags. If that material can't be attributed to a reliable source, then it should be removed.
 * Meanwhile, we've got the next paragraph claiming that yakiniku got its start after World War II, and that the term "yakiniku" is a translation of the Korean bulgogi. That claim has a couple of citations, which I can't read because they're in Japanese.  What are  and ?
 * It's perfectly ok if there's a conflict over the origin of this dish. If there are reliable sources claiming that Yakiniku originated with the Meiji Emperor, and other reliable sources claiming that Yakiniku is a Korean import, then we can cite both, and report that sources differ on that point.  If we can't find reliable sources backing up either claim, then we should remain silent on the question of origin. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but ShinjukuXYZ has not presented any sources suggesting yakiniku came from the western world. I'll have a closer look at the other sources later. Mackan 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

English language sources addressing the history of Yakiniku
There don't seem to be very many of these; I'm just starting a list with what I'm finding on Google. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an article from the Organic Consumers Association about mad cow disease; it says, "The history of yakiniku in Japan is relatively new. Right after World War II, when the nation was in the midst of a serious food shortage, Korean residents of Osaka opened small canteens at which Japanese became familiar with their cuisine, including yakiniku. During the period of high economic growth, Korean-style yakiniku restaurants proliferated throughout the country. The bubble economy era saw the emergence of several upscale yakiniku restaurants that catered to those entertaining on expense accounts. In less than 60 years, yakiniku has established itself as one of the nation's most popular foods."
 * This one has detailed discussion of the history and cultural context of meat eating in Japan. It argues that, while there was some consumption of meat in Japan following the Emperor's proclamation that "those who do not eat meat are not civilized", it wasn't really integrated into the Japanese diet until Korean-style yakiniku restaurants became popular.

That's the two sources I've found so far, and I have to go now. Others are welcome to list more. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus, I will try to provide whatever sources and translations necessary....
 * The most common usage for the Japanese word "Yakiniku" today is for "Korean-style barbeque". However, that's only in the last 40 years or so.  It is perhaps fair to say that "Yakiniku" had a totally different connotation before then.
 * Here is a citation from a prominent Japanese-English dictionary: Yakiniku (やきにく).  This dictionary lists 2 definitions:
 * grilled [fried] slices of meat
 * Korean-style barbecued beef
 * So according to this dictionary, "Yakiniku" (in Japanese) can refer to something other than Korean-style barbeque. Many other Japanese dictionaries don't even list "Korean-style barbecue" in their definition, clearly contradicting modern usage of the word "Yakiniku".
 * Also, consider the following item from this link you provided above, titled "History of Yakiniku" (in Japanese):
 * 昭和40年代 朝鮮半島問題がきっかけとなって、韓国を支持する派閥が自らの店を「韓国料理屋」と名乗りました. これに伴い、それまで全てが「朝鮮料理」「ホルモン屋」であったモノが、北朝鮮を支持する経営者が「焼肉店」を名乗るようになりました. これは苦肉の策で、プルゴギを日本語に直訳しました.
 * (TRANSLATED) Between 1965 and 1974, because of Korea's North-South dispute, those who sided with South Korea renamed their restaurants Kankoku Ryōriya (韓国料理屋), where Kankoku is the South Korean word for "Korea".  Before then they were always refered to as "Chōsen Ryōri" (朝鮮料理), where Chōsen is the North Korean (and the old Korean) word for "Korea", or "Horumonya" (ホルモン屋).  Then, those who sided with North Korea renamed their restaurants "yakiniku-ten" (焼肉店).  This was a desparate measure, and Yakiniku was a direct translation of Bulgogi from Korean into Japanese.--Endroit 00:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now having said that, I cannot find any sources that specifically say "Yakiniku originated during the Meiji Period", although we know that the Emperor Meiji promoted beef. (It says "beef" in this source, not "Yakiniku").--Endroit 00:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your research and translations, Endroit. I think I'm starting to get a better picture of the situation. The word "yakiniku" literally means "roast meat", right? So, meat was being eaten in Japan from 1873, and if it was roasted, then it could fairly be labelled "yakiniku". With the introduction and popularity of Korean "Yakiniku-ten" (焼肉店), the word is now generally understood as referring to that particular style of cuisine. So, yakiniku as it is thought of today is a Korean import, but the word "yakiniku" has an earlier history that predates Korean yakiniku restaurants in Japan. Am I understanding the sources correctly? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that meat was first eaten in 1873, but the Meiji government did loads to promote more meat eating, and yeah, the emperor himself was brought in to be observed eating beef. Saying that all roasted meat would have been called yakiniku seems going a bit far, without a source suggesting so, though. Steak was called suteeki, for example. And beef biifu. Saying that yakiniku originated in 1873 by process of deduction (Meat-eating was promoted during the Meiji period - Yakiniku means roasted meat - Therefore yakiniku originated in the Meiji period) seems wrong to me. Mackan 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much it. However, it must be stressed that "Korean-style barbecue" IS the most commonly used meaning of the word Yakiniku today, by far.  Also, none of our sources explicitly describe how the word "Yakiniku" was used prior to the 1960s.


 * However, there are sources for "other uses" of the word "Yakiniku" today. The most prominent example of a non-Korean-style Yakiniku is the Genghis Khan barbecue, described by ShinjukuXYZ as "Yakiniku of mutton".  The Japanese Wikipedia article on "Genghis Khan barbecue" (ja:ジンギスカン (料理)) defines this dish as a type of Yakiniku.  Here's one of their sources (in Japanese) which define "Genghis Khan barbecue" as a type of Yakiniku.  Here's a very rare source in English, which defines Yakiniku as "Genghis Khan barbecue" (This backwards definition is quite misleading, though, in my opinion).  Here's a description of what "Genghis Khan barbecue" is, in contrast to the (Korean-style) Yakiniku (Note how the word Yakiniku is not used for "Genghis Khan barbecue" here).--Endroit 02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ShinjukuXYZ's edits are interesting. He calls it "Origin of Yakiniku" in the "History" section.  To me, it looks more like "History of the usage of the word Yakiniku".  However, due to lack of sources, some of it may be difficult to salvage, but we'll see.
 * ShinjukuXYZ (or anybody else), can you look for sources of Kanagaki Robun's usage of the word Yakiniku in 1879?
 * (TRANSLATED partially) ShijukuXYZさん. １８７９年に、かながき・ろぶん氏が、「Barbecue」（バーベキュー）と言う単語を「焼き肉」に訳したと言う情報源を、見つけてください. 宜しくお願いします. --Endroit 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, I cannot believe ShinjukuXYZ is still at it! See Talk:Japanese_cuisine. It is interesting to note that somewhere towards the start of this debate, dear old ShinjukuXYZ let it slip that Korean BBQ is now called yakiniku following disagreements in the 1960's between pro-North and pro-South businesses. I wonder if he stands by this. Phonemonkey 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts
ShinjukuXYZ, we have taken what was good from your edits and included them in the article. However, your latest edits add nothing of value to the article. Suggesting that yakiniku isn't usually served with kimuchi and other Korean food items is pure lie, and any Japanese person knows it. Also, eating the meat wrapped in a lettuce is something I've seen in many yakiniku-yas in Japan (I was actually about to change it from "uncommon", but refrained because of the current situation). While I don't have any sources to prove this, anybody in Japan can have a look at their closest yakiniku-ya and see if they sell or don't sell kimuchi, and you know this is true. Also, your second edit, suggesting that during the Seoul Olympics, interest in authentic Japanese cuisine increased, what is that supposed to mean? There's no logic to it. Why would it?? Stop being so damn counterproductive. You have seen your edits become incorporated into the article. Do you think this is a signal to you that you can put whatever you want into the article and still get away with it? Unfortunately, the admin's have been unexplicably lenient on you, even though it has been proved that you are using sockpuppets. Do not expect this to last forever. Mackan 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you put out the source, the problem will be solved. In the article on Yakiniku, whose am I sockpuppets?　I like discussion. Please give the discussion to Mackan willingly. I am not interested in the Mackan's personal attack. ("Idiot" that you wrote in my talkpage is left. ) thank you and byebye.--ShinjukuXYZ 07:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even where there is a source, you choose to change things, such as "interest in genuine Japanese cuisine", that's not in the source. Also, we don't need sources for something we all know is true. Normally people wouldn't go about deleting stuff like that, but you do obviously not have honest intentions. Mackan 09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not write your conviction without the source. --ShinjukuXYZ 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not. You aren't reading what I write. Nor are you reading the actual source. Mackan 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of Mackan
I'm not. You aren't reading what I write. Nor are you reading the actual source. Mackan 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC) I am very disappointed. （もう少し真面目にやろうや. いくらなんでも、これはヒドすぎ. ）--Necmate 15:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * - This is an explanation of Yakiniku-ya (Korean restaurant). It is not an explanation of Yakiniku
 * -　This source doesn't have information on Yakiniku
 * -　This source is a guide book of the restaurant in Bangkok
 * Advertising page of Yakiniku restaurant Shokudoen in Japan.
 * Please be reminded that this is the English Wikipedia. While comments on users talk pages might very well be in Japanese, please make sure that comments on article's talk pages are kept in English so that people without any knowledge of Japanese also can follow the discussion.
 * Mackan says "I abuse the user in Japanese. However, you must not criticize me. " I do not feel that his belief is beautiful. (言ってて恥ずかしくないんかな？)
 * Please sign your edits using four tilde. As I said, I see no problem in using Japanese on a user's talkpage, but please keep comments on article talk pages in English. Mackan 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to your claims about the Bangkok link, the Shokudouen link and the itp.net source. If you look at my previous edit, you will see the only source I chose to include was the Japan Guide one (see ). Also, if your one gripe with the article is the sources, why did you revert all changes Phonemonkey made instead of adding a fact-tag? Also, the Japan-guide link has this to say about yakiniku-ya
 * "Yakiniku-ya
 * Yakiniku-ya specialize in Korean style barbecue, where small pieces of meat are broiled on a grill at the table. Other popular Korean dishes such as bibimba are usually also available at a yakiniku-ya."
 * Japan Guide is one of the largest English language sites on things Japanese and should be considered a reliable source. Yakiniku-ya means "Yakiniku restaurant" (as you very well know), so saying "do not confuse Yakiniku-Ya with Yakiniku" is just pure bullshit. This is the only source that needs to be included. Mackan 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an explanation of Yakiniku-ya (Korean restaurant). It is not an explanation of Yakiniku. (Please look at the source that you quoted about the reason that is called the Korean restaurant Yakiniku-ya. )
 * This Japanese source has little information at the Meiji Period.Mackan, Please write after understanding the content of the source when you quote the source. --Necmate 12:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Necmate, you obviously don't understand English so there's no point in arguing with you. The source states that yakiniku comes from Korea, and that's the end of it.
 * Necmate, you obviously don't understand English so there's no point in arguing with you. The source states that yakiniku comes from Korea, and that's the end of it.　--Necmate 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, about.com is not a reliable source. The Japanese source you provided isn't a reliable source either, it's a private homepage. Mackan 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About.com is a private homepage ? OK. Then, please rewrite the article on About.com.(可哀想なくらい墓穴ほりまくりやな～. )--Necmate 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding what I wrote. Also, as I've said before, please keep to English on article talk pages. That comment you made should not have been made in any language though. Look at what I wrote once more. Can you really not see that I'm talking about TWO sources? Let me quote myself, "The Japanese source you provided isn't a reliable source either, it's a private homepage". Since when is about.com a Japanese page? Mackan 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About.com is a English page. And, it is not a personal page. However, you do not offer information on Yakiniku at all. --Necmate 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

fix
when I was trying to revert My computer messed something up :/ someone will have to fix up my mess, sorry Jegal 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Side dishes
"Soup, kimchi, nameul, bibimbap and other Korean-influenced dishes are often served alongside." - This sentence refers to side dishes served in yakiniku restaurants. What's wrong with it? Phonemonkey 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war
Two points:
 * "South Korea BBQ parches meat without a big taste, and cuts it with scissors. However, Yakiniku parches the meat that is cut, and seasoned by the source." What? The english is so poor that the sentence cannot be understood. Please stop replacing it.


 * "Soup, kimchi, nameul, bibimbap and other Korean-influenced dishes are often served alongside." I repeat: What is your reasoning behind deleting this? What's wrong with it? Please justify if you are going to try to delete it again.Phonemonkey 12:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits
I changed some stuff around in the introduction, I think the current wording is more neutral, and more correct. I hope everybody agrees with me? Mackan 15:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

日式焼肉
I have removed the sentence "It is generally called "日式焼肉(Japanese-style BBQ) in Asia." for the following, three-stepped reasons. Phonemonkey 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Asia stretches from Israel to Indonesia, it's a bit of a sweeping statement.
 * Yes, in the Chinese speaking world they almost call it 日式焼肉 - but not quite. They call it 日式烧肉 not 日式焼肉. Petty difference maybe but inaccuracy is inaccuracy.
 * I don't think there is a necessity for a Chinese translation in the article, more than we need an Arabic / Hebrew / Swahili translation.

OK. I corrected it. Thank you. --210.148.132.14 01:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a pain, but your correction "It is generally called "日式烧肉(Japanese-style BBQ)" in East Asia" still doesn't stand. "East Asia" includes Japan and Korea - what you actually mean is "China and Taiwan". If you want to say "In China and Taiwan it is called 日式烧肉(Japanese-style BBQ)" then that would be more accurate, but please explain why this is a fact which needs mentioning. Phonemonkey 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, other articles explain a lot of aliases. Why is not this article permitted? Does such a rule exist in Wikipedia? If there is a rule, show it.--219.111.79.234 09:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:WINAD and WP:NOT. Thanks. If you can frame it in a context more suitable for an encyclopedia article then that would be better; however at the moment it is a pointless, stand-alone mention. Phonemonkey 10:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more concretely.--210.148.132.75 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just as meaningless as saying "Risotto is called Italian rice (意大利调味饭) in China and Taiwan" in the risotto article. It's pointless sticking Chinese translations onto every article; it needs to be within context of something encyclopedic. Phonemonkey 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with what Phonemonkey says here. I also believe 日式烧肉 (in Chinese) does not deserve any mention in this article, in the English Wikipedia.  However, I would like to see a Chinese Wikipedia article zh:日式烧肉.--Endroit 17:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

KoreanBBQ is removed for similar reasons. KoreanBBQ is a term only of a Korean immigrant. --61.209.165.168 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a term often used in the English speaking world, whether you like it or not. Just look up "yakiniku korean BBQ" on Google. There is no parallel between "Korean BBQ" (an English term in common usage, and warrents a mention on English Wikipedia) and 日式烧肉 (a Chinese translation which has no place here).
 * I have reverted your change, but rephrased it a little. Namely, I have added that it's called Korean BBQ "in English" and that it is "not strictly accurate". Is that fair? Phonemonkey 23:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS Chilli peppers are called "Chinese mustard" (唐辛子) in Japan and "Korean pepper" (高麗胡椒) in Okinawa. Both are inaccurate, but both terms are in use. Get my drift? Phonemonkey 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NONSENSE. "English" is not an object of the deletion. Because it turned out that rule, it contributes again. However, I corrected esteeming it by your valuable opinion. Thank you.--220.210.175.1 03:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have no idea what you just said. Phonemonkey 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason that you showed is not included in the rule of Wikipedia. The sentences are not included in the meaningless sentence that has to delete.--210.148.132.137 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete it by the judgment of the individual. Please delete it after it reaches agreement with this note. --219.111.79.14 17:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

814,000 sites are at the google. It is a good ground. --210.148.132.15 19:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there, anonymous IP-jumper who also made contentious edits to the Virginia Tech Massacre and has an editing pattern eerily resembling --- hm. Please do read WP:RS - if you have problems with the English, I bet there's a similar version over at the Japanese Wikipedia of the same document. A google search is certainly not a reliable source. Trust me, I don't mind adding that yakiniku is popular in the U.S., or elsewhere - if you can provide a reliable source to prove it. Reverting my edits isn't gonna get you anywhere, spend that energy on finding a reliable source instead (Japanese or English, whichever is fine). -- Mackan talk 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the another source? Please read it. And refer to. There are many sources that prove it. And please do NOT remove it by the judgment of the individual. Please remove it after it reaches agreement with this page. --210.148.132.99 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Did you read the another source?" ¨Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this. I read the source you provided in the article, which unfortunately is only on yakiniku's popularity in Taiwan - not China or Singapore. The other part you keep on including, that it's known as "Japanese BBQ" in US/Europe is already included further down: "It is also known as Japanese BBQ in English." So your extra paragraph is sort of unnecessary, don't you think? And if you didn't notice, I did include your source further down, where it says yakiniku is popular in Taiwan. どうしても英語が通じないようなので、日本語で書かせていただきます(私の日本語力では逆に混乱させてしまわないように願いながら）. 「焼肉はアメリカとアジアで人気」などは、信頼できる情報源からえた情報なら入れてもかまわないのです. 私が「反日」だとか全く関係ないのです（もちろん「反日」じゃないが、2ch上ではそういううわさが広がっているようですね）. ただ、名無しさんは、信頼できる情報源の参照をなかなか入れてくれないままなので、REVERTを何回もすることになってしまいました.
 * Aboutの参照には問題がないからちょうどTable of Contentsの上にはまだ入っているが、台湾のことしか述べられてないのでその参照記事だけで「中国、シンガポールで焼肉が人気だ」とはいえないですね. あと、アメリカとヨーロッパで焼肉を「Japanese Barbecue」というのも、参照がない上、次の文節には既に「It's also known as "Japanese BBQ" in English」のような文があえるので必要がないように思います. 「There are many sources that prove it」と言いましたが、そのSourceを記事に入れないとならないので、その変で協力をお願いしたいと思います. -- Mackan talk 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 日本語でのご回答、ありがとうございます. 大変失礼ですが、あなたは本当に私が示した参照をすべてお読みになられましたか？まず、先ほどの参照は中国のものであり、台湾ではありません. （記事にも加えておきました. ）またAboutの参照では世界的に広がっていると書かれています. あと「Japanese BBQ」の参照も加えておきました. googleでも十分なヒット数があり、これらの記事を十分に裏付けているものと思います（googleの参照が気に入らないのであれば、本文の記事の参照に加えませんが、いかかでしょうか？）. あと、「次の文節には既に「It's also known as "Japanese BBQ" in English」のような文があえるので必要がないように思います. 」とのご意見でしたが、その文を削除すればよい話だと思います. 次節の趣旨に直接関わりがないので問題ないと思われます. あと、何度も申し上げているように、合意のない削除はおやめください（私の英語が通じないのでしょうか？）. 間違いがあれば、修正や削除に応じるつもりですので、ご指摘をお願いいたします. （2ch云々は御冗談ですよね？これらの議論に関係ありませんし、私はあなたのことは全く知りません. ）--219.111.79.33 13:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * そうですね、GoogleのResultsは「信頼できる情報源」、つまりRSじゃないですね. そのResultsのなかにはRSがあれば、そのRSだけを記事に入れていただけるとうれしいです. 「先ほどの」といいましたが、どれの参照のことでしょうか？このうえに載せたものはクリックできないですが･･･「It's also known as "Japanese BBQ" in English」の文を削除すればいいと言いましたが、あなたが入れようとする文より、こちらのほうが明確でいいと思うが、さほど大切なことじゃありません. 「合意のない削除はおやめください」というが、この辺ではもうすこし謙虚であるべきじゃないか、と思いました. あなたは合意のない「投入」をしているのではないか. あなたは英語で書かれていたメッセージをあまり理解できなかったことは、誰が悪いというのですか. -- Mackan talk 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 先ほどの参照とは03:01, 15 October 2007 の参照のことです. googleの参照が問題あるようでしたら、それだけを削除すればよい話です. なぜ、文章全体をすべて消してしまうのでしょうか？誠に失礼ですが、英語のメッセージを理解できていないのはあなたの方ではないでしょうか？このノートに議論が移った時には既に私はgoogleの参照は削除していますが. あと、合意のないまま投稿していると言われましたが、今までの議論の内容とは別の理由にも関わらず、いきなり議論せずに消したのはあなたの方です. 記事を削除したり修正したりしたければ、このノートで議論し合意してから削除するのが筋ではないでしょうか. このノートでの主題でもある「日式焼肉」を削除した文章を勝手に入れないでください. いくらなんでもこれはひどすぎますよ. --210.148.132.138 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down, please. あなたは勘違いしています. 私は全章文体を削除はしていません. 記事のsmoothnessとわかりやすさのためにre-ordered and re-phrasedだけじゃないですか. そういうaccusationをする前にちゃんとページの様子を確認ください. あなたがRVする前にも、入れた情報は全部記事にあったのです. Edit Summaryのほうにも、"Moved stuff around, hope Mr. Anonymous will agree with this"と書きましたが？気づかなかったですか？ 改めていうが、ここは英語版のWikipediaで私はあなたよりわかりやすくテキストをアレンジできると思います. 日本語はあまり書けないアメリカ人が日本語版にて、「こうすべきだ！そうすべきだ！反対するな！」のようなこと書いたらびっくりしませんか？もちろん、日本語があまりできなくても、編集も、提案もしてもいいですが･･･ もう一回私が書いたバージョンをご覧になっていただけないでしょうか. -- Mackan talk 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 毎回、毎回修正する前にノートで合意するのは無理だけじゃなくて、非常に非効率的だと思います. しかも、本当にそうすべきだと思うなら, then the same should have gone for your edits. あなたは編集する前にこのノートで私か上の方のPhonemonkeyと合意して上編集したのでしょうか？･･･
 * ひどい、ひどいってなくよりも、私の修正には、どういう問題があったと述べていただけませんか. -- Mackan talk 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw, I removed the kanji "日式烧肉" because it is hardly relevant on the English Wiki (especially since it doesn't tell a westerner anything - pronunciation would have been more appropriate. it is pretty obvious it has been inserted by a Japanese editor, for the benefit of Japanese readers. and that's fine - on the Japanese Wikipedia). Calling it "Japanese style Barbecue" is really only a clumsier way of saying "Japanese barbecue", so I changed the text to say it's called "Japanese barbecue" in Chinese as well as in English. -- Mackan talk 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did for the benefit of Japanese readers?? Why? You are crazy.. 今の議論は「日本人」とかは関係がないはずです. なぜあなたはそのようなことを言うのですか？理解不能です. --210.148.132.202 22:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and do not call other users crazy. 理解不能のようですね. 失礼ですが、名無しさんがまだ勘違いしています. 私がどういうことを言ったと思われているでしょう？-- Mackan talk 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't Chinese Wikipedia, and this isn't a Chinese dish. I don't understand why a chinese translation is necessary. Phonemonkey 09:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Mackan is Phonemonkey. Mackan様はPhonemonkey様だったのですね. なんとなく発言に不自然さを感じていましたので. . でもこれで納得いたしました. いらぬ混乱と誤解を招きますので、同一のIDでお願い致します. --210.148.132.77 12:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn. It seems that in every Japan/Korea related article, no two people are allowed similar opinions without being accused of sockpuppetry. Anyway Mr Anonymous, you completely forgot to address concerns about your edit, which is the purpose of this talk page. Phonemonkey 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... Will you repeat a similar discussion ? Please read a past discussion.--210.148.132.77 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely nowhere on this page do you or any other user give a justification for the need for a Chinese translation. This is an article about a Japanese dish on English Wikipedia. Phonemonkey 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion. I have to ask a similar question. ->Why is not this article permitted? Does such a rule exist in Wikipedia? If there is a rule, show it. 7 August 2007 (UTC) --210.148.132.77 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for your respnse. There is no rule which states that it is not "permitted" to include the Chinese equivanlent for every single article on Wikipedia. However, WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have to be selective about what information is suitable for inclusion on each article. And mere translations of each term in Chinese, by itself, is pointless. Sushi is apparently "壽司" in Chinese, "סושי" in Hebrew and "سوشي" in Arabic. So are these facts worthy of inclusion on English Wikipedia? By themselves, the answer is no. The Chinese term 日式烧肉 simply means "Japanese barbecue". In German it is probably "Japanisch gebratenes Fleisch". Why only Chinese? What's so special about the Chinese word? It is a Japanese dish. If you are to offer a translation, it has to be within context of something encyclopedic. And if you can explain why it is encyclopedic (and I think you can, if you give yourself a chance) then we can move onto how we can frame it in the article. All you have to do is state why it justifies an inclusion. So my question to you is, why? Phonemonkey 22:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I removed "日式烧肉" and corrected the article. We have been discussing for a long time, so please agree it. --220.210.175.47 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PhoneMonkeyさんが指摘したとおりで、2人は別人なんですね. 失礼ですが、もうすこし丁寧にコメントしていただけないでしょうか？目的は本当に合意なのであれば、対決姿勢を強調すべきじゃないと思いますが. -- Mackan talk 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 私はもとより特別に対決姿勢を強調しているつもりはないのですが. 当然の事ながら私が今こうして編集をしているのはもちろん互いの合意に基づくより良い記事の編集のためです（やや疲れていますが）. ただ議論とは無関係の、たとえば私の英語レベルとか反日とかを言及されて、私の方からは貴方様が強い対決姿勢でいらっしゃられる様に見えました. したがってこちらもやや感情的になってしまった部分があったかもしれません. もしも貴方様が不快な思いをされたならばこれまでの言動について謝罪をしたいと思います. もしも貴方様も合意が目的ならば、私もより良い議論を望んでいる次第にございます. --220.210.175.5 08:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 私が「反日じゃない」と一回述べときましたが、それで対決姿勢なのでしょうか？名無しさんは何回も英語で書かれたメッセージを誤解する上、英語版のWikipediaの記事を編集するには、英語レベルが無関係だとは思えません. 逆に非常に関係があると思います. あと、良い議論はもちろん望んでいますが、名無しさんはほとんど自分のバージョンの長所も私かPhoneMonkeyのバージョンの短所も述べていません. 「日式焼肉」の漢字が必要ではないと、私もPhonemonkeyも思うのですが、理由を述べると突然「You are crazy」と言われました. しかも、PhoneMonkeyの質問にはまだご返答していないままで、自分のバージョンと「Please agree」との要求だが、どういうことでしょうか？. 誠実な論議を期待しております. -- Mackan talk 09:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 英語の誤解云々といっていますが、貴方も相当いろいろ誤解をしていらっしゃいますよ. 提示した参照もAboutの参照も私が修正した記事もよくご理解されていたとは思いません. しかし私はそのような事を言っているのではありません. 「日本語はあまり書けないアメリカ人が日本語版にて、「こうすべきだ！そうすべきだ！反対するな！」のようなこと書いたらびっくりしませんか？」などと発言されたら、発言された方がどう思いになるでしょうか？また、「私が「反日」だとか全く関係ないのです（もちろん「反日」じゃないが、2ch上ではそういううわさが広がっているようですね）. 」とはどのようなおつもりで発言されされたのでしょうか？日本のサイトを見て私があなたに反感を持っているとでも言いたいのでしょうか？（私は非常に驚きました. ）ただあと、「You are crazy」とか発言したあたりの言動については先ほど述べたとおり、私も少し感情的になっていたところもありました. そのあたりの発言は撤回し謝罪をしたいと思います. どうかお許しください. --220.210.175.47 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * あと、私の修正をした文の件ですが、私も大幅に譲歩し、Phonemonkey様が一番問題にしておられる「日式焼肉」を取り除いた文となっています. 「日式焼肉」がこの議論の主題ですのでもうご不満な点はないかと思われるのですが. でもたしかに修正理由を書いてはいないですね. 返答を修正しておきます. --220.210.175.47 12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * うんと、誤解があればそれを解決したいですね. 私がどういう誤解をしたか（当然）わからないので、もう少し詳しく述べていただけますか？別に、貴方様が間違えた情報を入れたとかそういうようなことは言ってないと思いますが. 私が問題視したのは、参照のことと、あと記事のわかりやすさのことだけですね. 参照の問題をいうと、最初は「AllAbout」（＋RSじゃないGoogleのやつ）しか入れてくれへんかったので貴方様の主張（中国、アメリカで人気？でしたけ）はその参照だけでは100%カバーされてなかったと思ったのでその辺を修正しました. あと、その「日式焼肉」の漢字は必要がないんで、あと「中国、アメリカ、ヨーロッパでは･･･」のこと. 申し訳ないが、アメリカとヨーロッパでの焼肉をどういうのについての記事はいまだないと思いますよ. 大分のやつにはその情報が入ってない. DAILY TROJANの記事にも、アメリカでの一般的な言い方が焼肉だと書いてあるんじゃなくて、「牛角がLAに焼肉屋を3件オープンした」についての記事ですね. だから、なんで絶対にそういうふうに編集したいのか、よくわかりません. 私とPhonemonkeyのバージョンには、何が足りてないと思うのですか？それを、何よりも指摘していただきたいと思います. あと、2ちゃんねらーだとかってに思い込んでしまって申し訳ありませんでした. -- Mackan talk 17:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 私の主張は「日本以外にもyakinikuが広まっており、（それを裏付ける証拠として）日式焼肉やJapanese BBCという言葉が知られている. 」というものです. 前半部分の根拠はAboutの記事の「世界に広まっている. 」というものであり、後半の部分の根拠として実際にそのような言葉が使われている記事を持ってきました. 私が貴方様の文章を削除したのはその時はまだ「日式焼肉」について譲歩していませんでしたし、削除や移動した理由も貴方様はお書きになられていなかったからです. でももう私が「日式焼肉」について譲歩した現在、貴方様の文とほとんど私が修正した文とは変わらないですね. さらなる修正を加えましたが、貴方様が私の修正した文が気に入らないというならばどうぞご修正ください. それで私が合意したと解釈しても構いません. （もちろん、あまりにも内容がかけ離れていたり、完全に削除したりしたときはまたここで指摘したいと思います. おそらくそのようなことはないと思いますが. . . ）いろいろありましたが、最後には互いの非を認めあうことができ、貴方様とこうして議論できたことはうれしく思います. ありがとうございました. --219.111.79.71 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Korean origin
NOTHING TO DO WITH KOREAN NATIONALISM ITS A FACT. JAPAN OR JAPANESE FOOD NEVER HAD INDEPT BBQ HISTORY LIKE KOREAN FOOD. KALBI OR YAKINIKU ( FRIED MEAT IN JAPANESE) FOOD CULTURE CAME FROM KOREA. YAKINIKU IN CALIFORNIA OR HAWAII IT MEANS KOREAN GRILLED MEAT OR KOREAN BBQ. ITS A FACT. YAKINIKU MEANS " KOREAN BBQ" NOT JAPANESE BBQ. I HAVE NEVER HEAD OF JAPANESE BBQ. ITS KOREAN BBQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1BBQ (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As for this source, a big misinterpretation is done. To insist, "Yakiniku is Korean Origin". The edit based on Korean nationalism was detached.

(source) Yakiniku-ya specialize in Korean style barbecue, where small pieces of meat are broiled on a grill at the table. Other popular Korean dishes such as bibimba are usually also available at a yakiniku-ya.

(result) As there is a widespread belief that Japanese yakiniku originates from Korean dishes such as bulgogi and galbi, yakiniku is sometimes referred to as "Korean BBQ" --61.209.158.202 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate childish Korean nationalism as much as I hate childish Japanese nationalism. In fact, I hate nationalism in general because it evidently interferes with rational thought. Why does whenever Japan and Korea cross paths the debate drops to kindergarden level? English speakers, rightly or wrongly, sometimes refer to yakiniku as Korean BBQ (presumably because they don't care about the stylistic difference between yakiniku and galbi/bulgogi), and that is a fact. A fact you evidently dislike, but a fact nevertheless warrents a mention. Phonemonkey 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: if you read carefully, the paragraph in question is not saying:
 * "Yakiniku is Korean BBQ",

Rather, it is saying
 * "Yakiniku is sometimes called Korean BBQ in English although not strictly accurate"

Do you see the difference? Phonemonkey 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This information is unnecessary if it says concisely.
 * "Yakiniku is sometimes called Korean BBQ in English although not strictly accurate"　--220.212.98.30 11:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have three questions to ask.
 * Question one. Why is the information above unnecessary?
 * Question two. I don't believe yakiniku is "popular" anywhere outside of Japan apart from maybe Hawaii (maybe California? I don't know.) I may be wrong so if yakiniku fever is indeed sweeping through Singapore please do provide a source.
 * Question three. As already explained, wikipedia is not a language dictionary. Why the Chinese translation? Does every article need a Chinese translation? Why only Chinese?
 * Please answer the above three questions, explaining your answers in full. I am pleased that there is a discussion at least (in the past people said nothing, just reverted) - let's continue like this. I have refrained from reverting your edit, so that we can discuss first. This way, you have time to read carefully what I am saying, and explain carefully your counter-arguments, because I realise there is a language barrier here. I have already modified the paragraph many times, hoping to reach a consensus. Awaiting your response. Phonemonkey 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please stop accusing me of being a Korean nationalist who "wants to advertise Korea", because that would make you a mirror image of User:Pgdn963 on Talk:Koror-Babeldaob_Bridge who accused me of being a Japanese nationalist who wants to say ""KOREA IS WORST! JAPAN BANZAI!!!" Right now, you and User:Pgdn963 are on the same level. If you are better, then please engage in debate with a neutral mind. Thank you. Phonemonkey 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In this citation, yakiniku denotes grilled meat dishes as a general noun. This isn't appropriate citation.Log10000 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Yakiniku denotes grilled meat dishes as a general noun" - I don't understand what that means. My guess is that you are trying to say that "the article is referring to all grilled meat dishes", which it obviously doesn't, so maybe you mean something else. Anyway this is about whether the fact that yakiniku is often inaccurately referred to as Korean BBQ in English should be included on English wikipedia. Phonemonkey 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your citation isn't appropriate citation. It is Japan-guide and Yakiniku denotes grilled meat dishes as a class noun in Japan. Go and work to find appropriate catations. Log10000 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a quote from Honolulu Advertiser: "In most of America, yakiniku is more commonly referred to as Korean or Asian barbecue"..
 * Story in USA Today: "I had little expectation that he would enjoy a night of yakiniku - Korean barbecue."
 * 2007 World Championships in Athletics Official site: "Yakiniku is sometimes translated to Korean BBQ"
 * Aichi Expo official website: "There are also many popular..yakiniku (Korean barbecue) restaurants."
 * Tasmanian Government publication: "All Japan “YAKINIKU” (Korean barbecue) Association says that.."
 * Is that satisfactory? Phonemonkey 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But the fact as you say that yakiniku is often inaccurately referred to as Korean BBQ in English should be said directory that "it is also sometimes thought to be same as "Korean BBQ", " this is not true".Log10000 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand what that means. Please re-phrase. And any chance of answering the three questions I asked earlier? Phonemonkey 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, I see what you mean now - by "directory" you mean "directly", so I understand your comment. So you would rather say "people incorrectly think yakiniku is the same as Korean BBQ" than "people sometimes inaccurately refer to yakiniku as Korean BBQ", I take it? Small difference, but the latter is directly substantiated, whereas the former is your personal conclusion. As for the other sections in your edit I have already explained; namely, its supposed "popularity" in Europe, China, Taiwan and Singapore which I assume to be untrue until you can cite a reliable source; and the pointless Chinese translation which you haven't yet been able to justify despite many requests. As for your addition about yakiniku being influenced by yakitori, you're welcome to keep it as long as you can provide a source. Looking forward to your response. Phonemonkey 23:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, Korean grilled meal dishes were not made with direct heat from charcoal or gas burners, this fact was already written in this artcle and Yakitori. And Korean dishes were ifluenced by yakiniku after the 1945 by Korean residents in Japan. The influences are in both directions if you want to think so. So the Yakiniku, cooking by direct firing is clearly diffrent from Korean dishes. As you can read Japanese, as you have written in your page, you should read Japanese wiki, or 大好きな韓国　四方田犬彦 (NHK 人間講座).Log10000 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That "Korean grilled meal dishes were not made with direct heat from charcoal or gas burners" is not only untrue (see galbi), it has nothing to do with any of the points I have just raised. Phonemonkey 10:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Korean dishes were ifluenced by yakiniku after the 1945 by Korean residents in Japan. The food preparation method of galbi is one of them. To begin with, the yakiniku style is common characteristic with Nabemono, in which all men use one pot (or chicken wire for yakiniku). Korean traditional style isn't such style of DIY as you know. Log10000 12:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting your time, Log. It takes an admin roughly 2 clicks and say 3 seconds to permanently block you from Wikipedia. Don't go there. -- Mackan talk 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Log10000, you have forgotten to answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. Can I add question 5? According to your reasoning, hot pot and fondue also share the same characteristics as nabemono. What is your opinion on this? Looking forward to your responses. Phonemonkey 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Second source is already added. >Phonemonkey. And the reason we must say that Yakiniku isn't Korean BBQ is that yakiniku and "traditional" Korean BBQ have differences such as eating offal meat, etc, and "Korean" BBQ should be used to interpret as indicating traditional Korean BBQ, for preservation of Korean culture and style. Yakiniku was made with several cultual traditions, one of them is Korean residents in Japan. So many of them in USA who lived in Japan, made yakiniku in their shop but traditional Korean BBQ exists on the side. Do you think about the problem? >Phonemonkey Log10000 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the above post I do not understand. If you prefer, please post in Japanese and I will translate it into English (for you for the benefit of the others) on this page. But are they answers to questions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 above? They don't look like it. Phonemonkey 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am responding to a request for a Third opinion.

Any significant (i.e. notable) confusion about the origin of the cuisine should be mentioned, but it should be a small portion of the article about the cuisine itself.

Note: If you have questions about this third opinion, please state them here rather than on my user talk page: this page is now on my watchlist. — Athaenara ✉  10:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Athaenara. I'm not sure where the focus of the disagreement has moved to, because it seems to me that the counterarguments being given above do not match the original reverts being made. If you have the patience to follow what's going on, then I would welcome any comments. Thanks. Phonemonkey 21:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is KoreanBBQ deserted?
He doesn't call Bulgogi of Korean cuisine KoreanBBQ. And, he calls Yakiniku of Japanese cuisine KoreanBBQ. I do not understand his insistence. --61.209.169.98 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's "he", me? I am not calling yakiniku Korean BBQ, and it is not my decision that other people do. You do what you like to the bulgogi article, I am not interested. And I am only "insisting" that the points I raised be addressed. Phonemonkey 16:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that citation one is correct, as it appears to be more Japan-oriented. Can we start a KOREAN BBQ page and delete the references to yakiniku, which is a mere interpretation of Korean BBQ (which we all know is the origin of yakiniku)? Administator, the citation to number one is superfluous and the reference does not support your viewpoint. Can we discuss deleting that reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azntokki (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Azntokki, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you search for korean barbecue you will see that there is already a seperate page for it (under bulgogi). Also, please sign your post with four tildes. Thanks. Phonemonkey 11:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

English and Chinese translations
With regards to the following sentence in question: "It is known as Japanese BBQ in Europe and America and is known as "日式烧肉(Japanese-style BBQ)" in China, Taiwan and Singapore." So the sentence is both unnecessary and not strictly accurate. I have removed it. Phonemonkey 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is sometimes referred to as Japanese BBQ in English is already in the article.
 * There is no reason to include a Chinese translation of a Japanese dish on English Wikipedia.
 * "Europe and America" does not mean the same thing as "the English speaking world".


 * To the anonymous user who keeps putting this sentence back in - please give a reasoning to your edit in light of my comment above. If you can't even discuss your edits then how the hell are we meant to come to a consensus? Phonemonkey 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarity to and difference from Korean cuisine - a draft

 * Galbi in Japanese cuisine solely means beef short rib and do not refer to the cuisine used in Korea such as Dwaeji galbi (돼지갈비 pork galbi), Dak galbi (닭갈비 chicken galbi), and thus there is no Galbi restaurant in Japan.
 * The most popular style of yakiniku in Japanese cuisine corresponds to sen galbi gui (생갈비구이) while not limited to beef short rib, and marinated yaknyeom galbi {약념갈비) (again not limited to beef short rib) is generally considered as Korean-style BBQ. Bulgogi etymologically consists of "fire" and "meat" and means a wider concept for cooked meat with strong heat compared to yakijiku (grilled meat) cooked preferably over direct flame (aburu, 炙, 자). Seoul-style bulgogi as well as bulgogi jeongol are considered close to sukiyaki or motsunabe, and are categorized as pan-fried (itamemono) or pot dishes (nabemono) rather than yakiniku categorized as a grilled dish (yakimono) in Japan.

I am interested in summarizing the similarity and the difference besides the origin dispute since common designation that yakiniku=galbi or bulgogi is not very accurate.--Jjok (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ventilated barbecue systems
"'Ventilated barbecue systems, invented by Korean immigrants in Nagoya in the mid 1970's,[citation needed]'"

I briefly summarize several references.


 * 1967　無煙ロースターの開発 名古屋のメーカー（シンポ）が無煙ロースターを開発 (In 1967, Shinpo Co., Ltd. in Nagoya developed a smokeless roaster.). この発明によって、今まで煙の臭いがつくなどと焼肉を敬遠してきた女性層なども開拓することとなり、客層を大きく広げた. ヤキニクテンゴク, 焼き肉の歴史
 * 昭和55年、名古屋の株式会社シンポが無煙ロースターの開発に成功しました(In 1980 (Showa 55), Shinpo Co., Ltd. in Nagoya developed a smokeless roaster.). これによって、それまでの煙の中でニオイがつくのを気にしながら食べていた焼き肉が、サラリーマンや女性にも敷居が低くなりました. 焼肉の罠, 焼肉の歴史
 * 1980年3月 無煙ロースター（モスマック）の販売を開始. (began to sell a smokeless roaster (Mosumakku) in March, 1980) Shimpo Co., Ltd. 会社概要－沿革
 * OGASAWARA SEIJI (小笠原静司)/SHINPO KK, ロースターの排気システム 特公昭57-052050 (EXHAUST SYSTEM OF ROASTER, JPB57075620 (1982)) applied in 1980.
 * YAMADA TAKESHI (山田武司)/SHINPO KK, ロースターの消煙装置 特開昭61-234822 (SMOKE DISTINCTING APPARATUS OF ROASTER, JPA61234822 (1986)) applied in 1985.
 * - YAMADA, TAKESHI is current CEO of Shinpo Co., Ltd.

Are there any sources that show OGASAWARA, SEIJI/YAMADA, TAKESHI are "Korean immigrants" or smokeless roaster was "invented in the mid 1970's"? Otherwise, I will change the text accordingly.--Jjok (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

no source

 * 1

As a compromise, the term yakiniku was adapted as an approximate translation of the Korean term bulgogi This is a personal site. this is not considered reliable source. It is not written in this source.
 * 焼き肉の歴史
 * Japanese Restaurants - Foreign Cuisine - Yakiniku-ya
 * 2

-and yakiniku became more popular in Japan (from 1988).
 * Please mention source.

--Wahtsay (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you're not a new user unlike your account creation today. The content seems to be added by, and I put back the deleted contents from your edit, given that you deleted the BBC source without any valid reason. The second source is not a blog, and you said "blogs". I already deleted the first source per your comment though. Anyway, the third source is interesting because it clearly states that yakiniku is Korean cuisine (foreign cuisine), but the article reduced the influence. Well, by your request, I will comply your request by adding sources tomorrow. I believe you will answer my question as well.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wait for your adding.--Wahtsay (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, be patient until I add source. And what about your answer on BBC?

BBC source is written about showbiz culture(Yon-sama).Is this source related to yakiniku?--Wahtsay (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not read the citation clearly. The citation backs up the claim that The Seoul Olympics in 1988 led to a surge of interest in Korea,. So you can't delete the reference.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Seoul Olympics in 1988 led to a surge of interest in Korea Is this sentence related to yakiniku?--Wahtsay (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, you pull my leg again (this will be my last answer for a while). The reference says that the Olympic leads Japanese getting interests in Korean culture. Do you think cuisine is not part of culture? Besides, the claim is only limited to that interest.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think so.BBC source says that A similar wave of interest swept the country during the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Is this similar wave of interest yakiniku? I want the source.--Wahtsay (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

 * Masonfamily - I'm much less proficient in Japanese than you are in English. But your English in this article needs work. You need help from Oda Mari and John Smith's, if they're willing to give it.
 * Oda Mari and John Smith's - I don't understand why you're insistent on leading off with two sentences that refer readers to something outside of Wikipedia. Please explain? And Mason is adding good/useful material, though it needs grammar cleanup.
 * Both sides - The article would be much better if you can compromise on a middle version. Neither of your chosen versions is the best; both are flawed. arimareiji (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Arimareiji, please search Modern Japanese Cuisine by Katarzyna on Google Book Search and read the chapter starting from page 24. I think you can see why I asked Masonfamily for the accuracy of his addition. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Arimareiji, see Masonfamily's and my talk page too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read through all the links you indicated. But even though Masonfamily has a long way to go as an editor and in English comprehension, he is making a good-faith effort.


 * If you want to replace his additions (which are poorly-nuanced to a troublesome extent) with the better-nuanced version you referred to in the above book, that would be totally acceptable. But as it stands right now, his version provides better background. If it's possible to tell the reader about the subject within Wikipedia, it's not acceptable to tell the reader to go elsewhere to find out about it (as your current version does). arimareiji (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment I completely disagree with his comments about meat/beef not being eaten in Japan prior to the Meiji era. One website that he lists does not mention this at all, whereas the other is some sort of informal website with no authority for its comments. That seems to be the only relevant source he has. I can assure you that even if there was a legal ban (which I haven't seen more evidence of), during times of war and famine four-legged animals would have been eaten.
 * He may appear to be making good-faith edits but that doesn't mean they can/should stand. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you want to replace Masonfamily's edits (which are poorly-nuanced to a troublesome extent) with a synopsis of the better-nuanced version referred to in Oda Mari's book, that would be totally acceptable. But as it stands right now, his version provides better background than the one you guys keep reverting to. If it's possible to tell the reader about the subject within Wikipedia, it's not acceptable to tell the reader to go elsewhere to find out about it.

Masonfamily has a long way to go as an editor. But he's correct in trying to remove sentences that tell the reader to go somewhere else. Per Wikipedia policy:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. arimareiji (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes (including grammar), though it would be useful to know when eating beef was prohibited and by whom. I don't agree that people did not eat beef, even if there was an official ban on it. We would certainly need a more reliable source to back that up. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arimareiji, I'm afraid I doubt Masonfamily's good faith. It started from here. I didn't understand Mf's edit. I thought it was a mistake by an editor who didn't understand Japanese language. User: Sennen goroshi reverted it and I added two ref. which said 'geisha are not prostitutes' in English. Mf restored his edit. So I judged his edit as vandalism and reverted and left a warning with my own message on his talk page. He replied on my talk page, saying his addition was sourced but didn't respond about the Japanese dic. pages I showed him the correct kanji and their reading. Sennengoroshi and John Smith's reverted Mf's edit but Mf was engaged in an edit war. I asked him about his deletion of correct kanji/reading on his talk page. But he just removed it. I read all the geisha reference he provided and found that Mf's edit was a C&P from page 3 line 7 and 8 in this ref, and besides, the sentence had nothing to do with geisha. But I didn't do anything at that point as Mf stopped restoring the geisha edit. Then I saw Mf edited yakiniku and checked the ref. Mf provided and found it was C&P from the first ref.'s the third paragraph and contradictory to the ref. next to his edit. So I reverted Mf's edit at 05:22, Nov. 7. Then Mf restored the geisha edit again at 5:50 Nov. 7.  I reverted and  asked Mf to ask for consensus on the talk page. But Mf still insisted that the edit was sourced material. So I pointed out what I found. As you can see on my talk page, Mf fully understands Japanese. I still don't understand why he removed the correct kanji/reading. Well, you know the rest. I think I've been doing right and reasonably. If I made any mistake, please point out.  Oda Mari (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * John Smith's - Its a good start to have a version which excludes the sentences pointing readers outside Wikipedia. It would be better to incorporate the facts Masonfamily alludes to and Oda Mari provides an excellent cite for. I'm recopying his reference to here, to make it easier and avoid confusion: "search Modern Japanese Cuisine by Katarzyna on Google Book Search and read the chapter starting from page 24." I thought it was an interesting read, aside from its value as a cite.
 * Oda Mari - Thank you, but I'm already aware that Masonfamily has issues as an editor - I looked at that before saying anything. That does call his edits into question, but it doesn't mean everything he says is automatically wrong. He was right in trying to replace those sentences with content, but I agree that he didn't go about it in the right way.
 * Masonfamily - If John Smith's and Oda Mari choose to work with you, I think you could all learn from each other. Your knowledge can be valuable for checking facts. But you need to work with people who can help you translate accurately. Copying and pasting is not allowed. Please remember that Wikipedia works on community and consensus - if you believe something is true, you need to explain why. If you try to overrule people, it will only make it harder to work with them.
 * arimareiji (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a good start to have a version which excludes the sentences pointing readers outside Wikipedia.
 * Sorry, what are you refering to? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A change you already made, and which I was glad to see - sorry for the ambiguity. arimareiji (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)