Talk:Kimchi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fermentation debate Pt III

Quick Summary

Here's the debate, summarized as fast as possible:

1. Hkwon wants the article lead, and other points in the article, to say, approximately."kimchi is a traditional fermented Korean food."
   1. Hkwon has 17 reliable sources from academic journals using only the phrase "fermented food" or some variation thereof. As far as I know, no one disputes that those are reliable and thus acceptable evidence.

I have to interject here. None of these reference claim that kimchi is always fermented which is the claim they are being used to reference. We can't use citations to support claims that are not contained in the sources. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1. 1. In essence, Hkwon is insisting that kimchi is always fermented; that, perhaps, some people use the word casually to mean unfermented vegetables, but that this usage is not standard or correct; similarly, other countries (specifically Japan) are wrong to label unfermented vegetables as kimchi.
2. Myself, Melonbarmonster2, and Sennon goroshi want a lead that says, in short "kimchi is a traditional Korean food. It is usually fermented and made from...
   1. We have 3 reliable sources that refer to unfermented, or "fresh" kimchi.
   2. Hkwon disputes that--he claims that only 1 of those sources is reliable; we, however, hold that all 3 are reliable
   3. We concur that kimchi is usually fermented, but that there exist a small number of dishes (such as those in the article called "spring kimchi") are called kimchi and are unfermented.
3. One uninvolved editor, Martin Hogbin, expressed qualified support for the second option, saying, "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."
4. At this point, we seem to be at an impasse. This is the second page protection this month, revolving primarily but not exclusively around this issue.
5. So...now what?

P.S.: Hkwon, & everyone else, please add any further comments here. It's becoming unbelievably difficult to follow the discussion when you and I keep adding stuff in the middle of talk. I was wrong to keep responding in all the different sections above. Also, Hkwon, if I've misrepresented your opinions or summary, then please put a comment here, and then I'll strike my own comments above to reflect your thinking the way you want it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums it up pretty well, no one is denying that kimchi is usually fermented - and the lead proposed by everyone other than Hkwon seems to support the fact that kimchi is usually fermented.

I have a question for Hkwon, do you consider all forms of kimchi to be fermented? or are you aware that there are unfermented forms of kimchi, just you don't consider there to be any reliable sources regarding unfermented kimchi? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could we compromise by going for option 2 but having a sentence in the lead (and a paragraph or section in the body) saying that traditionally/officially/according-to-somebody kimchi is always a fermented product.

It is almost impossible to nail down something like this and say that kimchi is, or even should always be fermented. It is not the job of WP to set standards, we must describe it how it is. There may be a very significant body of opinion or even unstated understanding that kimchi must be fermented but even that does not mean that we should say here that kimchi must be fermented to be kimchi.

An alternative would be to go for option 1 (which does not actually claim that kimchi is always fermented) but with a statement that some people/authorities call some unfermented products kimchi. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when Hkwon claims "kimchi is unfermented" he means that kimchi is only a fermented food. He has said so many times in this talk section. When the references states "kimchi is unfermented" they mean the main popular varieties they used in their study such as napa cabbage kimchi is fermented. I think we've bent over backwards to compromise Hkwon's claims which is supported by himself and his friend and not even a single reference. Details about fermented and nonfermented varieties are dealt in the body of text. There's no reason to POV fork with ambiguous language in the intro.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be the 10th time that I say I want to say "kimchi is fermented food", not "kimchi is ONLY fermented food". I personally believe in the latter statement, but I only have reliable sources/evidences for the former. user:Melonbarmonster2 has recognized that there is pretty much no source to back up his/her claim, and is desperately trying to change the subject into "ALWAYS fermented food" vs "NOT ALWAYS fermented food".

To [User:Qwyrxian]]:

1) "Hkwon wants the article lead, and other points in the article, to say, approximately."kimchi is a traditional fermented Korean food."" - Yes.

2) "Hkwon has 17 reliable sources from academic journals using only the phrase "fermented food" or some variation thereof. As far as I know, no one disputes that those are reliable and thus acceptable evidence." - Yes. And I can provide dozens of more sources easily.

2)(1) As a response to User:Melonbarmonster2's unnecesarry interjection: Perhaps for the 11th times, I want to say "kimchi is fermented food", not "kimchi is ONLY fermented food".

4) "In essence, Hkwon is insisting that kimchi is always fermented; that, perhaps, some people use the word casually to mean unfermented vegetables, but that this usage is not standard or correct; similarly, other countries (specifically Japan) are wrong to label unfermented vegetables as kimchi." - Very close. My argument is pretty much equals the sentences "kimchi is...or correct". Although I don't insist the phrase "ALWAYS fermented" in the lead or anywhere in the main article. (Well, there's at least one semi-reliable source against that.)

As for the rest of sentences "other countries...as kimchi" - No. I don't insist that kind of phrases on a Wikipedia article, although I might personally belive it. Not enough sources and not very NPOV considering the ongoing disputes between Korean and Japanese users.

5) "Myself, Melonbarmonster2, and Sennon goroshi want a lead that says, in short "kimchi is a traditional Korean food. It is usually fermented and made from..." - Yes, I object it, unless there are some sources which can quantitatively and qualitatively overrule my sources which lead to the current definition.

6) "We have 3 reliable sources that refer to unfermented, or "fresh" kimchi."

7) "Hkwon disputes that--he claims that only 1 of those sources is reliable; we, however, hold that all 3 are reliable."

- I debunked 2 of them, three times already in this talk page. I can repeat that as many times if anyone wants. The saveur.com article is the only one I can admit.

8) "We concur that kimchi is usually fermented, but that there exist a small number of dishes (such as those in the article called "spring kimchi") are called kimchi and are unfermented" - It might be, as one can make kimchi any way he/she likes. But the encylopediac definition should be based on reliable and verifiable sources.

9) "One uninvolved editor, Martin Hogbin, expressed qualified support for the second option, saying, "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." - He/she might have done. Note that another uninvolved editor user:Cydevil38 supported my opinion with several of his/her own reliable evidences, and that we are still waiting for feedback on my draft on kimchi fermentation from user:Martin Hogbin and user:Knorrepoes.

10) "At this point, we seem to be at an impasse. This is the second page protection this month, revolving primarily but not exclusively around this issue. So...now what?" - I believe we should go with the encyclopediac definition which is supported by multiple authoritative academic sources and Encyclopedia Britannica, especially given the weight of reliable sources and physical evidences, against words of mouth. Hkwon (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Section draft of "Fermentation Process"

I have worked hard to write a section on fermentation on kimchi, based on reliable and verifiable sources. It was because uninvolved editors user:Martin Hogbin at 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC), and User:Knorrepoes at 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC) suggested me to do that. I sent my draft to them and User:Knorrepoes, saying them to revise anything they would like and upload it when you are they are done with their editings. Of course, user:sennen goroshi considered that my draft would s**k a** (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kimchi) at 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)) Is this a way to talk about a fellow Wikipedian's edit?

Since the main article is under full protection, the editors who recieved my writings has nothing they can do now. I haven't got the official response from them yet, and would like to get any feedback from editors who see this talk page. So I am uploading my draft for everyone to see. Please let me know if you see any problema.

As I said, I am not an expert on this field, but work hard to write this basing on multiple reliable sources. Probably better than some editors who just keep finding faults and never make any meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. Here it goes. Please let me know if the information has any problems.Hkwon (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The section content: The vegetables are sliced, highly seasoned with ingredients such as red pepper, onion, and garlic, and fermented in brine traditionally in large earthenware jars. Dried and salted shrimp, anchovy paste, and oysters are sometimes used as additional seasonings. The fermentation process is initiated by various microorganisms originally present in the raw materials, but is gradually dominated by lactic acid bacteria. Numerous physicochemical and biological factors influence the fermentation, growth, and sequential appearance of principal microorganisms involved in the fermentation. The early and intermediate phases of fermentation are considered crucial to the taste of kimchi. When optimally ripened, acidity increases with sourness and a unique flavor with refreshing and coolness results from ethanol and other products.

During fermentation, which takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions, the kimchi jars are stored totally or partially underground in cellars or sheds built expressly for this purpose. Recently, however, kimchi refrigerators have become very popular in South Korea. This household electronic device maintains the temperature for the proper fermentation of kimchi, saving the trouble of burying kimchi jars underground.

Just a thought

How about 'kimchi is primarily a fermented food'. I know so little about the subject that all I can do is suggest compromise wordings that both sides might accept as representing their version of reality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be totally acceptable as far as I am concerned. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would maybe be comfortable with that phrase, although see below for a bigger concern that I'm starting to get. I might consider something like the first one; maybe (and I do really mean maybe, I'm only theorizing here): "Kimchi is a Korean food that is traditionally made of fermented vegetables, although sometimes unfermented preparations are also called kimchi."

Actually, you know, the more I think about it, though, the less I like even that compromise. After reading some of the references for the 1996 kimchi debate, I'm beginning to think that we're actually making an error by regarding Korean kimchi as the only standard form of kimchi. As the article itself says (and the related Japan-Korea disputes article), Japan actually produces more kimchi for export than Korea does, and much of that is not fermented. As a comparison, look at the pizza and curry articles. Both of those address, in different ways, that the traditional form of the dish is not necessarily the only version of the dish. Martin's comment about that we shouldn't be trying to set a standard here, and instead only attempt to reflect reality. If Japanese kimchi is a reality, and it's a reality not just in Japan but in the rest of the world (since Japan is the larger exporter), then to act like only Korean kimchi is "real" kimchi is not to reflect reality. I hesitate to write this, because I know this actually further polarizes the discussion, rather than fixing it. But I figured that I might as well put it out there now, as long as we're practically deadlocked anyway. Maybe looking at the idea from a more radical perspective might help us see that we just cannot be so exclusive in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: Much of what I write now is already in the next section; Sorry for reposting then.

1) I would like to see some recent records that show Japan exported more kimchi than Korea did. I personally doubtly it, especially after 2006. Of course, there might be such records and I will look for them as soon as I finished answering questions from other editors.

2) I would gladly support sentences like "kimchi is originated from Korea, but Japan started to produce unfermented kimchi, exceeding Korean kimchi export", if there are any reliable source confirming that. I looked though a lot of related documents, but don't remember seeing any statements like that.

3) I don't see a deadlock. I see two stubborn editors keep pushing their unbased arguments, and other two editors, with absolutely no disrespect, reluctant to make a decision favoring one side, despite of overwhelming source/evidences. Hkwon (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I thing you have a good point. WP is not the place to right great wrongs. It may be that the kimchi came from Korea and was originally always fermented but Japan stole the idea and sold an inferior unfermented product round the world (I am not saying this is really what happened), passing it off as 'real' kimchi. Even in that case if it is recognised as kimchi in some places we should should reflect that here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why "Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented dish" should be a problem. Here are some definitions of Kimchi given in academic journals in Korea on the cultural and historical aspect of Kimchi.

• 윤서석, (1991). 한국 김치의 역사적 고찰(Historical consideration of Korean kimchi), Korean Journal of Dietary Culture v6 - 우리나라 김치는 여러 눈문에서 일관하여 말하고 있듯이 채소에 젓갈과 양념, 항신료를 가미한 특수 발효채소이다. In short, this passage says Kimchi is a special fermented dish with various seasonings. Throughout the article, fermentation is used as the central concept in explicating the history of kimchi.

• 김혜영, (2002). History and Food and Nutritional value of Kimchi', 한국식품조리과학회지 v4 - 김치는 일종의 발효식품이다. 그러나 단순히 채소를 발효한 것이 아니라 젓갈류, 양념, 향신료 등이 많이 가미된 우리 고유의 복합 발효식품으로, 세계 어느 나라에서도 찾아 볼 수 없는 우리 조상 대대로 만의 지혜와 슬기가 복합된 우수한 식품이다. In short, this passage says kimchi is a uniquely Korean fermented dish with various seasonings. Also in this article, fermentation is a central concept in defining kimchi among numerous cuisines eaten throughout Korean history.

• Jo, Jae-Sun, (1994). Historical Review of Kimchi, Journal of the East Asian Society of Dietary Life v4 - Kimchi is the traditional vegetable fermented food. This passage is straight from the abstract.

• Naver Encyclopedia - 무·배추 및 오이 등을 소금에 절여서 고추·마늘·파·생강·젓갈 등의 양념을 버무린 후 젖산 생성에 의해 숙성되어 저온에서 발효된 제품으로, 한국인의 식탁에서 빼놓을 수 없는 반찬이다. This passage also refers to kimchi as a fermented product.

• Korean Wikipedia - 김치는 배추·무 등을 굵은 소금에 절여 씻은 다음 고춧가루, 파, 마늘, 생강 등의 양념과 젓갈을 넣어 버무려 저장한 한국의 저장 발효식품이다. This passage also refers to kimchi as a fermented food.

Most reliable sources defines Kimchi as a traditional fermented dish, and I believe this should be the defining passage in this article as well. There are some exceptions of course, and these exceptions can be dealt with separately in the article. In the introductory part, perhaps something like, "Kimchi is a traditional fermented dish. Historical evidence of kimchi goes as far back as the Three Kingdoms of Korea period, and throughout its thousands of years of history kimchi has diversified to include various newly imported vegetables as well as non-fermented varieties." Cydevil38 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This recommendation is pretty close to what was suggested above, so I think still falls within the realm of reasonable. I would still rather have the first sentence say, "Kimchi is traditionally a dish of fermented vegetables...." I don't like the true but hyperbolic sounding "its thousands of years of history," nor is "diversified" the right word. But the spirit here seems good. Still waiting to hear from the most vocal opponent, Hkwon. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something more neutral like, 'Kimchi was originally a traditional fermented vegetable dish from Korea...the term was later expanded to include...although some authorities/sources still regard ....'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

About sources on "Unfermented Kimchi"

I approve the lead sentence in the current version of the article, "Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings".

1) It is a simple sentence cited with almost every word cited word-to-word reliable and verifiable sources.

2)The history of kimchi in Korea is probably better explained in further detail in a separate section I have some good source for that.

3) I sincerely don't belive that "Japan stole the idea and sold an inferior unfermented product round the world", because 1) there are many kinds of Koreanized Japanese foods in Korea today, and vice versa, but most people says who stole anything, 2) Unfermentation does not equal "inferior food". It is just the matter of personal tastes. But it is unquestionably true that the traditional Korean kimchi, which has been considered the origin of kimchi in all sources we could find, are fermented.

4) If anyone is to put some provisory clause to the word "fermented" in the lead, I would like to see some reliable source backing up that claim against the sources I provided, except for that saveur.com article.

5) I don't intent to argue with someone, but I would like see some records showing Japan exported more kimchi than Korea did, a recent record. It might be true, but I have not come across such information. I will do some research of my own as soon as I reply questions from everyone. Hkwon (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1) But lets assume you don't have that option (just pretend, 'kay)? How might a compromise be possible?

4) Can you please explain why you think the other 2 sources we found aren't reliable? I don't recall the details, but I remember being terribly unpersuaded by your claim. Oh, and another reference is found in the article itself: [1]; note that it states that Japanese kimchi is unfermented.

5) Sorry, that was my mistake--I misread the TED source. While that source isn't reliable, they copied stats directly from [http:www.kfri.re.kr KFRI], which I assume is reliable. Unfortunately, they didn't link the direct page on KFRI, and I can't find it, so I imagine it's in the Korean-language section. In any event, I misread the data. Assuming the case study wasn't lying about the data, as of 2007 Korea still exported more than Japan, although the numbers were close--about US$79 for Korea, and about US$77 for Japan. The correct number was that, at that time, the Japanese export market was growing faster than Korea. So my apologies again for misreading that. If one of you fluent in Korean can check and see if KFRI has more current data (not necessarily comparing Japan), that could be useful for the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(P.S.: One final note--I sent an email to the coordinator of TED, inquiring how the "journal" is prepared, and based on his response, I'm certain TED isn't reliable. I pasted the email to the Japan-Korea disputes talk page; we can go over that here if we need to later, once the lead is dealt with). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: The unreliability of two sources?

1) Handbook of fermented functional foods, defines kimchi as fermented food 4 times.

2) 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, which is already deleted.

3) The only source that remains is that saveur.com article.

4) The nytimes.com article, your new source, says "Many Japanese producers skip the fermentation and add artificial sour flavoring using citric acid and gum". So what?

5) Thank you for confirming my claim even before I checked. So $79 (Korean export, probably adds "million" or something") is more than $77(Japanese export), as of 2007. If I am not mistaken, the "ranking" would not have changed as of 2010.

6) Please don't think I am competing with you or something. I honestly respect you as a neutral, reasonable Wikipdia editor. And I don't mind to be defeated by you (if someone call that triumph/defeat). If I hurt your feelings during this debate on kimchi fermentation in any way, I apologize. Hkwon (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have listed them. The reliable sources for the existence of unfermented kimchi are as follows:

• the Saveur article (which I think you don't dispute, except for it's age)
• [2]: states that fermented kimchi was tested against unfermented kimchi
• [3]: same as above
• [4]: which states that Japanese kimchi is unfermented
• Handbook of fermented functional foods: you say it "defines" kimchi as fermented, but the extract on Google books ([5]) also refers to "raw (unfermented) kimchi." Your statement with this quote implies strong agreement with our compromise (kimchi = usually/generally fermented, but there are exceptions)
• [6]: talks about fresh kimchi made and served on the same day, thus (as biological fact) unfermented.

6 valid, reliable sources. Numerous unreliable sources not listed. To me, that sheds enough complication into the issue that the lead cannot be so one-sided. I don't think I'm competing with you to win, but I do kind-of feel like I'm competing with your insistence on one and only one point of view. I feel like we're offering a huge compromise (since I think that the article should be even more world-wide balanced), but I feel like you're stuck on there being only one possible way to write the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: No need to apoligize. I haven't demanded a list before either. But let's see your new list which is supposed to be include 6 reliable sources:

1) (O) the saveur.com article: No needs to talk any more about this, right?

2) (X) Journal of Food Science and Nutrition article: Let me just copy and paste my comment from 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC), because I don't think you have read it.

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.

3) (?) This link leads to an error message on the Wiley InterScience Webpage. Could you give me the full citation of the article, ,instead of a Web link, so that I can go to a library and check?

4) (X) a NYtimes.com article: It does not say anywhere that "Japanese kimchi is unfermented" or similar. And the article heavily relies on the CODEX standard on kimchi, refering to it 6 times. I thought you argued that the CODEX standard "does not state anything about the importance of kimchi, nor does it even mention the words Korea or Korean" at 05:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)?

5) (X) Handbook of fermented functional foods: As I said at 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC), the book defines kimchi as "FERMENTED food" 4 times. And the Google book "extract" (I believe you meant conclusion) does mention "raw (unfermented) kimchi". But the term was as a control group to measure antimutagenicity according to fermentation.

You said "Notice that the author does not state "unfermented ingredients" or "vegetables prior to fermentation."". But the author clearly states "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" (p.291), when he mentioned this control group. These are clearly "vegetables prior to fermentation", again used for an experimental purpose, and does not mean some kimchi is unfermented. For more detail, see my comments at 19:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC). I don't know how my "statement with this quote implies strong agreement with our compromise".

6) (X) Another NYtimes.com article: It talks about "fresh kimchi" aged less than a day the author tasted. I don't know how the word "fresh" can mean "unfermented". Did you see the picture of kimchi package I uploaded, which says "freshly fermented?" The article does not use "unfermented" or similar words, and kimchi fermentation can begin in 12-24 hours if the temperature is right.

So I think that's 5 out of 6. Even if all 6 sources were relevant and reliable, despite of my argument, I don't think they can match the sources I provided, quantitatively or qualitatively. Any questions?

Hkwon (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2)Then why didn't they say "unfermented vegetables?" The line explicitly states "unfermented kimchi."

3)Sorry, I included some unnecessary characters. The correct link is [7]. Of course, you'll probably use the same argument as for 2.

4)Quoting from the article: "What the Japanese are selling is nothing more than cabbage sprinkled with seasonings and artificial flavorings, said Robert Kim, assistant manager for the overseas sales team here at the Doosan Corporation." And, more explicitly: "Many Japanese producers skip the fermentation and add artificial sour flavoring using citric acid and gum. " As a side note, we can't have it both ways--if the article is eventually going to state kimchi is fermented, then the 1996 debate must come out 100%--because that would mean Japanese kimchi is fermented, too.

5)Once again, they use the phrase "unfermented kimchi." Obviously, the problem stems here from a lack of complete explicitness on the part of the articles/book, but I read all three of these articles as comparing the properties of two different kinds of kimchi--fermented and unfermented. I believe that, as scientists, if they had meant "kimchi ingredients prior to being prepared," they would have said so. But they didn't.

6)Now I am getting irritated. In a very technical sense, fermentation begins not within 12-24 horus, but within seconds--as soon as the first bacteria capable of fermentation hits a food source, it is immediately fermenting. Fresh = unfermented in any measurably important sense. Do we call grape juice that was exposed to natural yeast in the last day wine? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian:

2) I don't exactly get your point here, but my point is that when a "line explicitly states "unfermented kimchi" in this article, it means the "unfermented kimchi" is a control group to for a scientific experiment, not as a generally/even rarely available product, as the direct quotation from article abstract says, "The inhibitory effect of 3-week-fermented kimchi was higher than that of "FRESH KIMCHI" at the same test condition".

3) The first sentence of the article abstract is "Inoculation of kimchi, a Korean style fermented Chinese cabbage". And "the fresh, unfermented kimchi" is used as a control group to compare the amount of ascorbic acid and vitamin versus kimchi with 5 wk of fermentation. Anything different? I don't see how it shows that some kimchi is unfermented.

"Of course, you'll probably use the same argument as for 2". So what is wrong with that same argument?

4) "What the Japanese are selling is nothing more than cabbage sprinkled with seasonings and artificial flavorings". A sentence that has nothing to do with kimchi fermentation. "Many Japanese producers skip the fermentation and add artificial sour flavoring using citric acid and gum". Many other Japanese producers may not skip the fermentation. There are always deviations from normality for which cannot be accounted in an encyclopedia.

5)-(1) The phrase "unfermented kimchi" - Where was it used?

(2) "Well-ripened kimchi has a higher antimutagenicity than than raw (unfermented) kimchi". Conclusion, on P.300 available online.

(3) Why was the phrase used? - As a control group against ripened kimchi to measure antimutagenicity (whatever it is).

(4) On p.291: "Some of the raw vegetables used for kimchi, such as baechu, parsley, perilla leaf, green pepper leaf, garlic, and red pepper, have been TESTED and shown to be ANTIMUTAGENIC with an in vitro assay system."

(5) "Unfermented kimchi" mentioned in p.300 means "raw vegetables" used as control group against ripened kimchi

(6) The mentioning of "unfermented kimchi" was only as a experimental group, not a realistic/general statement, especially considering that the article abstract defines kimchi as fermented dish 4 TIMES in the book.

6) Don't blame me; it's what scholars said. "The pH values of Korean cabbage kimchi fermented at 20C for 24 hours/stored at -1C...decreased rapidly during the first week and then decreased slowly." Chung, H, G, Kang, S. H., Ahn, E. S., and Yoo, M. J. (2004). Effect of different combinations of fermentation temperature and time on the properties of Korean cabbage kimchi. Annual Meetings of Institute of Food Technologies. Does grape juice do that too? Hkwon (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Focusing on #3: This is the fundamental problem--there's a very very simple way to handle deviations from the norm--not use an absolute statement. Say "generally," "usually," "typically," or "traditionally." Problem. Solved. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: OK. Let's focus on #3. The first sentence of the article abstract says "Inoculation of kimchi, a Korean style FERMENTED Chinese cabbage". And like I've already said, "the fresh, unfermented kimchi" is used as a control group to compare the amount of ascorbic acid and vitamin versus kimchi versus kimchi fermented for 5 weeks. So what? I cannot understand what you said and what is that "very very simple way to handle deviations from the norm". I am not kidding. Please leave me an explanation if there is anything that you think I don't understand. Hkwon (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

In the spirit of compromise, I have made an edit to the lead of the article. I have kept the text intact and merely added the word "usually" along with a reference to support it. I hope this is OK. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And in the spirit of compromise, I suggest that if anyone has a good idea how to reword the lead, they do so. My rewording was just a suggestion and there might be better options. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting the edit by User:Sennen goroshi as his/her source does not say anything about kimchi being "usually fermented" food. User:Qwyrxian commented, and I agree, that "so far no one has pounced on the unprotecting of the article as a chance to change it". Well, User:Sennen goroshi finally did, and I feel obliged to revert such a behavior. Hkwon (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I did try. I guess compromise only works when all people involved are prepared to compromise. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "a traditional Korean dish that exists in both unfermented and fermented forms" ? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: I wonder which reliable source contains that kind of statement. Can you tell us about that source, or is it your original research? Hkwon (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both attempts at compromise have been reverted by Hkwon. With constant reverts to whatever I try to add to the article, I am finding it hard to improve the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I do approve of the edit made by SarekOfVulcan - the emphasis should be on fermented kimchi, but unfermented should be mentioned. However, primary or primarily ? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, earth is round and the fact cannot be compromised as "earth is semi-flat", or so. I wonder if any (few) editors who asserted "kimchi is SOMETIMES unfermened food" or so, provided any solid sources or evideces backing up their claims. Hkwon (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The source has been provided. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The biggest, lamest, most retarded waste of time ever.

Despite a million and one editors being against his (incorrect) opinion, Hkwon still insists that he is right - I am not about to dispute every single lame, petty point that this editor makes, not because he is right, but because I have a life. If we include the word fermented in one lame article, is not worth the time invested to debate with a wikilawyering troll. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"The biggest, lamest, most retarded waste of time ever"! Such big words to use. Could it be that User:Sennen goroshi could not provide any reliable sources or physical evidences to back up his/her claim against my sources, got frustrated, and finally had to resort on some big, emotional, and insulting words which does not contain any Wikipedia-worthy contents?

To User:Sennen goroshi: The discussion is still on, and it might be a waste of time to you, but not to us editors who worked hard to find sources and make meaningful contributions to this article. You can still work on finding sources and evidences supporting your claim. Before you call me a "wikilawyering troll", think about what you contributed to this article, more than that "wikilawyering troll" did, except for your opposition for opposition's sake. Hkwon (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

May an "outsider" make a few general comments? I haven't read every line of this discussion page (who could?) but I've read enough to get a general idea of what the problem is. Words unfortunately are often able to encompass contradictory meanings. So, look at the Wikipedia article on Tea. It correctly begins by defining tea as "a product...of the camellia sinensis plant." That's what tea is. But all around us are people who use the word "tea" to refer to almost any warm beverage--mint leaves steeped in hot water, chamomile, and a hundred other things. This causes confusion; some people hear "mint tea" and expect actual real tea--camellia sinensis--with mint leaves added; others are expecting a caffeine-free infusion of nothing but mint. If you ask people what "beer" is, surely almost all of them will say that it is an alcoholic beverage. They are not wrong, but then we make "non-alcoholic beer", and there is a tradition of "small beer" that contains very little or no alcohol.

Now, for kimchi--when I was first living in Korea, I often asked people what kimchi was, exactly, and how it was made. Just about everyone said that the kimchi had finally to be put in jars and stored for a time, traditionally underground, today usually in a kitchen. Now, this is a definition of fermentation--the food is sealed in a container and allowed to sit. And I can say that my own instinct, if someone had asked me (before I read this page) what kimchi was, would have been to say "a fermented vegetable dish." Yet it is true that pre-fermented kimchi is popular too and still called kimchi (fresh or raw kimchi). And Melon has a point when he says that most NYC Korean restaurants serve kimchi that doesn't taste very fermented.

I think an opening statement to the effect that kimchi is "generally" or "normally" or "usually" fermented would be appropriate. After all, the fact that there is some "Non-alcoholic beer" doesn't stop us from defining beer as an alcoholic beverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.50.214 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To user 66.234.50.214: I agree to most of your points, especially that encyclopediac definitions cannot include all possible exceptions. But I argue that the lead sentence should contain the phrase "fermented dish/food", as dozens of reliable, verifiable sources including Encyclopædia Britannica define, without any additional adjectives like "generally", "normally", or "usually". It is because no Food & Nutrition, Korean culture, or any related literature defines kimchi in that way, except for words from some editors' mouths that cannot be verifed in any way (reliable sources, physical evidence, etc). Hkwon (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave you 6 reliable sources above. Verifiable. Internet accessible. It's enough to require the absolute statement be shaded. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: Please see my comments at 12:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) where I explained why 5 of 6 sources you provided were not relevant/reliable. Hkwon (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It still seems as if every single editor involved apart from Hkwon wants one thing, while despite overwhelming consensus and reliable sources, he still wants something else. I agree with the statement made by Qwyrxian, the sources are valid and support the use of a term such as "usually" This continued bullshit is just annoying and disruptive. 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk)

It still seems that User:Sennen goroshi likes to use profanities like bulls**t, just for spite of other editors, despite overwhelming reliable sources and physical evidences. If this guy says the "sources are valid", I would like some explanations on that. Hkwon (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are offended by terms such as "bullshit" then I am sorry, they are not intended to offend, it's just that I consider the constant lame drama in relation to this article to be described perfectly by the term "bullshit" - I have had more than enough of your wikilawyering, I have a life that does not revolve around Wikipedia and I'm not going to devote time to answering every single lame point made by someone who is ignoring the opinions of everyone else. Wikipedia articles are not made by arguing every single point and continuing to do so, until other editors get bored and let you have your way, just to shut you up, wikipedia articles are made by editors gaining consensus - this process is something that you do not seem to have any respect for. The fact that you would waste so much of the other editors' time, ask for outside opinions and ask for more mediation - over the use of a single fucking word, shows how little respect you have for wikipedia and its editors. This belongs in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: Well, you could have at least used terms such as bullcrap, horsecrap, cowcrap, or any other less offending words than "bulls**t", whatever the lame drama you witnessed. And you just said "a single f**king word"...Do you feel like a grown man when you use that kind of language? There could be some children refering to Wikipedia for his/her homework, and I don't want them to learn foul languages here.

I do not know what this "wikilawyering" that I have supposed to be doing according to you. I only could find that it is a pejorative term. Could you explain to me, an ignorant user who is new to Wikipedia, that exactly what behavior of mine is "wikilawyering"?

Why do you have to say things like "just to shut you up", or "you would waste so much of the other editors' time"? You are hurting my feelings. It is uncalled for. I am a delicate, sensitive guy -_-.

"Wikipedia articles are made by editors gaining consensus - this process is something that you do not seem to have any respect for". - Have a look at the policy: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You say "this process is something that you do not seem to have any respect for", but notice that I am the one who officially started a consensus-gathering effort at 05:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC), and you have not even participated in it.

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars! What a valuable piece of information that I have not noticed. So what? I don't see this discussion included in that category. By saying that, you are not offending every editors who participated in and worked hard for this discussion, are you? Hkwon (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you are a sensitive guy, it does confuse me though, that while you are offended by my use of profane language, you were the one who was blocked from editing, due to personal attacks and a lack of civility. I feel sorry for every other editor who has worked on the highly important issue of "should we used fermented or usually fermented" - they have had to endure this boring, repetitive drama just as much as I have. Oh and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi: How did you manage to write a comment without profanity this time? I think you deserve a cookie. I was wondering when you would start talking about the 1-day block imposed on me, which has nothing to do with discussions concerning this article. I thought if you did that, it should be the time that you got most frustrated from not being able to make any logical arguments or provide a single reliable source.

Let me ask you...Why was I blocked, from whose report, and what does it have to do with this fermentation debate? It is easy to reveal some of your blocking records if I wanted, but your past records has nothing to do with this discussion, and I don't want to drag myself down to your level. One more thing...Why have you been so devoted to this "boring, repetitive drama", and yet keep complaining about it? Is someone twisting your arm or something? Hkwon (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, quit it. No personal attacks. I guess I was wrong to think that everyone could get along and stop the attacks; I should have said something sooner. SG, you're baiting, being uncivil, have previously made personal attacks, and aren't WP:AGF. Hkwon, you're, probably, at this exact moment, just a half a centimeter on the right side of the civility line, not all editors would see it that way, and you've certainly let SG bait you onto the dark side before. I'd prefer not to have to report the both of you, as I'd rather just try to edit the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: Sorry to show you the ugly quarrel between me and user:Sennen goroshi. Maybe we got carried away too much. Now that an administrator put a (temporary) stop to any further edit war, hopefully we can calm down a little for a while. Hkwon (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has placed Hkwon (talk · contribs) under a topic ban relating to Korean cuisine, so hopefully, we can get this resolved now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help from Mediation Cabal

Despite my RfC at 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC), it seems that debates in this article, in spite of neutral comments from uninvolved editors user:Martin Hogbin and user:Knorrepoes, show no sign of reasonable dipute solution so far. Therefore I request for the help from Mediation Cabal. Hkwon (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of the uninvolved editors recommended a compromise agreement. Knorrepoes suggested, "a traditional Korean (usually fermented) dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings." Martin Hogbin suggested, "kimchi is primarily a fermented food." I myself have recommended these and others ("generally," "usually," "typically," etc.). If you want to request informal Mediation, you are, of course, welcome to do so. I will even participate in that mediation. Personally, I think we've talked this to death, and, as Sennen Goroshi put it (albeit in words stronger than I would have used), we have consensus less one editor on the general plan for the lead. And I don't know what mediation will gain us, when you have shown yourself unwilling to accept any wording other than your own--mediation, at least to me, means parties need to be open to considering compromise with other parties. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: Well, the earth is round if 100 people against one say that the earth is flat. Kimchi is fermented even if 2 or 3 people assert otherwise, in spite of overwhelming reliable sources and physical evidences against their claims. It cannot be compromised to a definition such as "Earth is semi-round". Let's see what the outcome will be.Hkwon (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Cabal page, it doesn't look like you've requested mediation yet. Am I missing it on the list? If you're not going to request mediation, does that mean you've agreed not to edit war to block a consensus lead involving some sort of compromise phrase (as listed in my comment above)? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. Please take note that we still do not have a single reference that states kimchi must be fermented.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To User talk:Melonbarmonster2: If you don't agree, go reject my request like you rejected my RfC (and became a laughing stock). And wow. A comment from you since a week of silence, and all you had to say was "I also agree". How about answering my open questions to you, concerning your false accusation of other editors as liars? Hkwon (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Hkwon's edit history, it does appear that he requested mediation; however, I think s/he may have made a mistake in the way it was listed, because the "Cases Needing Mediators" list shows just the date, not the name (i.e., Kimchi). I don't know if there's a way to correct that without re=listing.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Qwyrxian: Don't need to use words like s/he. I am a male and have no intention to hide my gender. I recently clarified that on my user talk page, but I probably should have done it earlier to specify my gender to you and other editors, in case anyone was wondering. My request to the Wikipedia:mediation cabal is still in effect under the section "Cases needing mediators" as of now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-18/), so let's see what they have to say. Hkwon (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend, sorry if I did; I vaguely recall you might have mentioned that before, even. I tend to file away people's "gender" online, since in many non-WP places I visit, gender is a fiction anyway (plus, I actually write that way in real life, too, sometimes, except when I openly being feminist...anyway....) Just FYI, it looks like the Cabal can certainly take quite a while to work on projects. Now, I'm in no particular hurry, there is no deadline, after all. But perhaps we want to work on some of the rest of the article while we await mediation on the lead. I don't want to do that if tempers are too high (see above), or if doing that is going to be equally as contentious, but I think there are things we could do in the mean time. I'd say to wait on the new fermentation section, as that is directly related to the lead discussion, but tomorrow, if I feel up to it, I may revisit the 1996 kimchi debate pulling over the sources Melonbarmonster found and added to the Japan-Korea disputes page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I have everything arranged so that it's listed properly now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hkwon, can you not accept something like 'primarily a fermented food' with a later clarification that certain (named) authorities or cultures consider kimchi to be always fermented. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on fermentation debate in article Kimchi

Kimchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 1) In this article, I argue that Kimchi is feremented food, and User:Sennen goroshi and User:Melonbarmonster2 oppose. 2) The debate in the talk page has continued for about a month, and it started to become an edit war recently. 3) Currently the editors provided 10 peer-reviewed academic journal articles which define Kimchi as fermented food and 1 food magazine article saying otherwise as sources for their argument. Talk:Kimchi#Examples of academic journal articles defining Kimchi as fermented food Hkwon (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor Many reliable sources seem to refer to kimchi as a fermented food. What is the argument against this? Would some details ofthe fermentation process help? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are both fermented and unfermented varieties of kimchi. To explain which variety of kimchi is fermented is not a problem, to state that kimchi is exclusively fermented, seems to be the problem.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that confirm that fact? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly Korean language sources, well there are some English language, but the most reliable sources are Korean and perhaps it would be better to ask Melonbarmonster to provide Korean sources, as I will just have to rely on some dodgy online translation - but yeah, there are sources and they have been provided already. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you not then say that kimchi is a usually fermented, often fermented, sometimes fermented, or something similar? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It might make the article more stable, but it would be the wrong move. If there were several possible categories and kimchi fell into two, then perhaps it would make sense - but seeing as there are only two possibilities, it seems a little lame. Perhaps, the one, single, solitary, in a minority, editor could see some sense and stop this drama over something that really isn't that important. How much fucking time are we all supposed to waste on such a minor issue? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing whatever about the subject so perhaps you could tell me, is kimchi usually fermented? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The most common varieties of kimchi are fermented which is why in many articles and literature the term "kimchi" is used to refer to the napa cabbage fermented kimchi variety. That's a customary usage of the word but but there are literally hundreds if not thousands of varieties of kimchi and many of them are not fermented. "raw kimchi" called "seng kimchi" is not fermented and eaten before fermentation. Every batch of kimchi made is eaten without fermentation. Spring vegetables are made into kimchi and eaten fresh without fermentation. These are called "spring kimchi" and is explained further in the article. There's no sane reason to claim only fermented kimchi's are kimchi's and exclude unfermented varieties.

The reason why Hkwon is so hell bent on making this ridiculous claim is because of the trade war history of Japan trying to market unfermented salted Japanese version of kimchi and export it to other countries. The Korean food manufacturers fought the Japanese food manufacturers on this and had the Codex define usage of the term "kimchi" as being a fermented food. So that why guy is so crazy on trying to include the Codex definition in the article and then claiming that kimchi has to be fermented.

This has to be one of the most moronic edit wars I have ever seen even in wikipedia.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So what is the objection to saying in the lead that kimchi is usually/often/sometimes/occasionally/rarely fermented, whichever is the case? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to characterize how often kimchi is fermented in the intro is pointless since the details on fermented and unfermented varieties are already explained in the "kimchi varieties" section. And Hkwon's Hkwon's insistence is that kimchi is kimchi only when it's fermented. That's why he's trying to inject the Codex definition of kimchi for POV into the article by trying to claim kimchi has to be fermented.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely fermentation is an important part of some kimchi. This should be stated in the lead. You do not need to say it is always fermented. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do appreciate the input but I don't agree. The lead should have the most important and relevant facts, in part for readers who do not read the entire article. In a section related to varieties of kimchi, there should not be a problem explaining which varieties of kimchi are fermented and which are not. Don't forget this whole retarded drama has been caused by one disruptive editor, who is trying to push their own agenda - it would be easy to give up and let him have his own way, but that is not the way that wikipedia works - I would prefer to see sanctions put on this article and have anyone who adds the word fermented or references to Codex in the lead to be blocked.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to including an accurate mention of fermentation of kimchi in the intro, but only if it improves the article NOT if it's a POV ruse to inject the whole Codex crap in the intro again by claiming kimchi is only a fermented food which is what Hkwon's POV edit warring has been. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Martin Hogbin: Please ignore User:Melonbarmonster2 and User:Sennen goroshi's personal attacks on me such as "crazy", "moronic", "retarded" and "disruptive editor" and check this out, please.

1) Fact: At least 10 academic articles in Food & Nutrition journals, the most reliable sources in this subject IMO, define "Kimchi is traditional Korean FERMENTED food" or similarly, without any provisory clause. The phrase is contained in either article titles or abstracts so you don't even have to read the whole article. (You can just Google search the titles)

2) Fact: User:Melonbarmonster2 and User:Sennen goroshi keep making argument such as "there are both fermented and unfermented varieties of kimchi" or "many of kimchi are not fermented". But where is the reliable source that can back up their claim? "Mostly Korean language sources, well there are some English language"...So where are those sources (except for one food magazine article) and why didn't these two editors present them so far during this debate, while I worked hard to find reliable sources defining Kimchi as feremented food? Looks like their original research to me. Or do they have more experties in Food & Nutrition field than many scholars who wrote those academic articles?

3) Fact: According to User:Melonbarmonster2, Details on fermented and unfermented varieties are already explained in the "kimchi varieties" section. The source for the whole section leads to a broken link.

4) Fact: CODEX info issue is a completely different from this fermentation issue, which I intend to solve after this.

5) Fact: The fermentation is the main characteristic of Kimchi that defines the flavor and nutrition of the food, not a minor issue.

6) How can the fermentation of Kimchi be a POV issue? Is there a conflict going on between pro-fermentation and anti-fermentation groups or something?

7) We can't conclude Kimchi is always/sometimes fermented, since there is no reliable source found so far to confirm that. It is enough to state Kimchi as "fermented food" in accordance with vast majority of reliable sources on this subject for now. Hkwon (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saying "fermented food" suggests that kimchi is always fermented. From what you, and the reliable sources, say it would seem that kimch is usually fermented but sometimes not. Is that correct? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To me as an uninvolved editor (and food microbiologist), I see no problem really, if you make the sentence like a traditional Korean (usually fermented) dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings. This discussion will otherwise never end. It is very often with traditional foods that a name is applied to many different dishes. An example can also be 'salad' which normally contains lettuce, but not always, or 'curry' which usually contains turmeric, but again not always. There will always be exceptions...Knorrepoes (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not from a published source, but my friend, who is a professor in Food & Nutrition in South Korea, told me "If it is not fermented, it is not Kimchi". And I agree. I was born and raised in Korea, but have never heard of "unfermented kimchi". This is a different case from curry or salad. Above all, where is any reliable source, peer-reviewed academic articles or otherwise, talks about the existence of unfermented kimchi, except for a magazine article written by a non-Korean, non-kimchi expert? If a Wikipedia editor or a Korean family pickles some vegetable and say "this is unfermented kimchi", does that confirm the statement "some kimchi is unfermented"? And the statement "Kimchi is traditional fermented vegetable dish" is a direct quotation from multiple reliable sources" which does not necessarily imply "Kimchi is always fermented". Such interpretation is left to individuals. If we find some reliable sources which confirm that some kimchi is unfermented, maybe we can put that information in a footnote. If such sources overpowers sources claiming "Kimchi is fermented food", that is a different story. Hkwon (talk)

That is pretty well what I, as another uninvolved editor, have suggested above. So far, both sides seem to object. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the salad article states that green salad includes lettuce in the lead, while the curry article does not mention turmeric in the lead. The best choice is to leave the article in the current state, and not let one troublesome editor make hard work for everyone, in an attempt to push Codex into the article. Just let it stay as it is - it's fine. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Sennen goroshi from the "troublesome editor making hard work for everyone":

1) "Attempt to push Codex into the article"...Wow, you are like a broken record. Can you think of a different song to sing? How many times has it been shown that CODEX info and fermentation info are two different issues? It is not like the fermentation info is sourced from CODEX document or something.

2) "The best choice is to leave the article in the current state"...I think an even better choice is that you present those "Korean language sources, and some English language sources" that shows "(some) kimchi is unfermented" which you mentioned, for the sake of this discussion. I could not find one while I found 10 academic articles saying otherwise, but maybe you will have a better luck.

P.S. I have noticed that you include a Korean profanity "또라이" in your signature in every message left for me, after the meaning of the swearing word has been explained. How clever and mature....Did you think of the idea yourself or did you have a brainstorming section with a group of people? I just wonder...do you even understand the real meaning of the word, and have you actually tried kimchi even once? Hkwon (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Again Hkwon is claiming that kimchi is not kimchi if it's not fermented. And again, Hkwon's claiming this because he is hell bent on adding the Codex definition of kimchi in this article. I have already provided a maybe a dozen references above on this. Even Hkwon's Korean sources list unfermented kimchi varieties(such as the Doosan article although he will never admit it) or they simply state 'kimchi is fermented' which does not support the claim that kimchi is only kimchi if it's fermented. Note that NONE of Hkwon's "published" sources state that kimchi is only fermented. I think he means academic journal articles by "published". Here's some more references of unfermented kimchi varieties in English. There are countless more in Korean language:

• [8], a portion of every batch of kimchi made for fermentation is eaten fresh. This is called "seng kimchi". Some families eat all of their kimchi before fermentation.
• [9] this is a recipe for "Got-chorri" or "Geot Jeori" a type of kimchi made to be eaten fresh without fermentation.
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Melonbarmonster2:

A never ending song from you like a broken LP player...Hkwon loves CODEX...Is any information added in the lead from me and deleted by you, mentions a "C" of "CODEX"? How many times does it take to convince you that 1) kimchi fermentation and 2) CODEX information on kimchi are two different issues? It's like talking to a wall.

Yes. You have provided a dozen of references above which were kimchi recipes from personal blogs, none of which defines kimchi as an unfermented food. Doosan Encyclopedia article? It says that "김치 대신 이용하며" - translaed as "It is used as a SUBSTITUTE for kimchi" (http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=8607). If it is kimchi, how can it be used as a substitude for kimchi?

If there are countless more reliable sources, why don't you present them here? How about 10 sources as start like I did? I could not find any of such sources so far, but you might have had a better luck. Please share your findings with us fellow Wikipedians. Hkwon (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Melonbarmonster2:

Glad to see you making some efforts to find reliable sources like I told you, or have you finally realized name-calling on other editors is a immature thing? So why didn't you listened to me earlier? Unfortunately, you might need to work a little harder as the sources you presented are not reliable, with which most people will agree.

1) Your first source is the same Saveur.com article we have talked about in lengths. Did you think this is a new source you just found?

2) A recipe from Park.org...I could not find any information on this Website except for it was created for an event called "Internet 1996 World Exposition", never updated since 1996. No author and no publishing date either....Reliable?

3) Dailyfork.com...A New York City BLOG on food. It's not a blog? It even has a sister blog.

4) The article abstract says "Kimchi, a Korean style FERMENTED Chinese cabbage". It is a report about experiment to see the amount of ascorbic acid as the fermentation of kimchi goes on, starting from unfermented and pickled vegetables.

5) "The traditional kraut and kimchi is heavily salted and FERMENTED 7 to 14 days." (p.2) "Some of the kimchi DISHES are unfermented and seasoned with pasteurized tamari or fermented soy." Sure. I know a lot of unfermented kimchi DISHES, but not any unfermented kimchi. And what is this document, a term paper from a college student? I don't see any information that this document is ever published.

6) Another experiment report which observes arcinogen-induced cytotoxicity and transformation...Of course it should start from unfermented, pickled vegetable and go on to fully fermented kimchi. By the way, the article starts with a sentence "Kimchi is a traditional, FERMENTED Korean food". Did you even read the 1st page of the article? Hkwon (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for compromise

I have looked through the sources offered and it looks as though kimchi is generally considered a fermented dish, however there is evidence that there are unfermented versions. It is not the job of WP to lay down the law on such matters or to set or propagate standards on the subject. WP should inform readers of the current state of affairs, right or wrong.

I therefore propose that the lead should state that kimchi is generally/usually a fermented dish (leave the references to the later discussion) and that the body should have a section on fermentation, which certainly seems to be an important part of nearly all kimchi production. This section should inform the reader by giving some details of the fermentation process and maybe saying that some (official? traditional?) sources state that kimchi is a fermented dish, but pointing out that some versions are unfermented, maybe giving details of why and when.

Rather than fighting to push your POV, you should cooperate to inform readers about the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Martin Hogbin: I politely oppose your suggestion to solve this debate. The party opposing me has failed to present any reliable sources (except for one food magazine article) to back up their claims, other than the words from their mouths, while I worked hard to find 10 reliable academic articles supporting my claim.

1) Basing on the weight of reliable sources available, the lead sentence should say "most/almost all kimchi is fermented", instead of "kimchi is generally/usually fermented".

2) A section on fermentation....please leave it to me. I am confident that I can write another article, or a short book, explaining the importance and description of kimchi fermentation.

3) "Kimchi is traditional FERMENTED vegetable dish", as 10 reliable academic articles say, unless User:Melonbarmonster2 and User:Sennen goroshi, (who seems to be involved in this debate JUST for the spite of me as an editor. As a resident of Japan, not Korea, have you even tried kimchi once in your life, and how much do you know about kimchi?) find some source saying "(some) kimchi is unfermented food". In that case, that information can go to a footnote or something.

4) A curry dish might not include tumeric, and a salad might not include lettuce. But "if it is not fermented, it is not kimchi." Hkwon (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon, I understand your position. I know nothing whatever about kimchi except what I have learned from the article, the discussion page, and from reading the sources cited. I have seem some sources quoted by Melonbarmonster2 that show the existence of unfermented kimchi. You cannot deny that it exists even if it does not meet the definition that you consider correct for kimchi.

It is not the purpose of WP to create definitions or standards. You say, 'if it is not fermented it is not kimchi'. If you want to say this in the article you need to find a reliable source that makes that exact statement. Even then the statement may not be universally accepted. Have a look at the article on Beer. To me, beer is made from malted barley, hops, yeast, and water. In some places it is illegal to sell a product not made exclusively from these ingredients as beer, yet in the article, a much wider definition is used, simply because, in some other places and to some other people, other ingredients are used.

Can I suggest that you start work in the fermentation section, taking care to have a neutral tone. For example, as well as describing the various fermentation processes, you could say things like, in a particular country kimchi is always fermented, or this authority states that kimchi is a fermented product or that some authority states that only fermented kimchi should be called kimchi (based on sources of course). You must also say that kimchi is eaten unfermented in some places. If this section is written properly and neutrally, what to write in the lead will be obvious. You could even get an independent editor to write edit the lead based on the rest of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To User:Martin Hogbin:

1) "If it is not fermented, it is not kimchi" This is not my word but a word from a friend of mine who is a professor in Food & Nutrion and has done several scientific researches on kimchi in South Korea. Like I already said above, this statement is not in Food & Nutrition literature so far to my knowledge, and I don't intend to include the statement in the main article until it is published as a reliable source.

If something as definitive as that is not published in a reliable source, you cannot say it or claim it here.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2) Do you want me to write a section about the fermentation of kimchi? It is a piece of cake as kimchi is unquestionably fermented food. Just give me a day or two starting from 19:44, July 8, when the protection on the main article expires. I already have more than enough sources I can refer to. However, I cannot write that kimchi is eaten unfermented in some places, as I haven't even heard about that kind of behavior, and no reliable source supports such a claim.

It is just a suggestion, you would obviously need some cooperation and agreement from other editors. It is just that it is sometimes easier to agree on the facts than on what to write in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

3) And I would like some kind of protection from content blanking by User:Melonbarmonster2 and User:Sennen goroshi, as they have reverted my edits numerous times. What is the point of working hard to write an article section if it gets quickly deleted anyway? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Would User:Melonbarmonster2 and User:Sennen goroshi object to a section on fermentation? It obviously forms an important part of producing most kimchi. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

4) Again, I surely don't mind writing that section. I just wonder...What will these two editors do except for yapping at me sitting down in front of their computers, while I work hard to find reliable sources and write a section on fermentation? I will do it anyway, but I am personally interested in seeing how they react. Hkwon (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as what you write is clearly neutral and supported by reliable sources, other editors should support you, but there are no guarantees on WP. It is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as major changes are discussed on the talk page, there should be no problems. We should really wait for Melonbarmonster to contribute, before discussing it further. Oh, and NO you don't have any special protection against me or any other editor from removing crap from the article, if it is relevant, reliably sourced and supported by consensus, then it can stay. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So let me ask now, do you have any objection to a neutral and properly sourced section in the article on fermentation? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

On principal, no. I do have reservations about Hkwon being the editor who writes that section though. His actions are often disruptive and against consensus, besides I don't want another drawn out drama, over such a trivial matter. Let melonbarmonster write it, he is very familiar with the topic and is seems more capable of writing a decent section than Hkwon. I can just see it leading to more problems if Hkwon writes a new section. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me give an illustration of Hkwon's dishonest claims throughout all of this discussion. That Doosan definition for "geotjeori" does state geotjeori is used as a substitute for kimchi. But the word "kimchi" in this instance is the colloquial use of the word commonly used to refer to the popular napa cabbage fermented variety. It is not meant to speak for all types of kimchi. How do I know this??? Because the info box of very Doosan article lists "geotseori" as a KIMCHI!!!! Please see for yourself at this link. Even nonKorean speakers should be able to see this using google translate. [14]. Instead of being honest about what Doosan article states, Hkwon will ignore the plain as day info box that states Geojeori as being a kimchi and nonsensically claim that "geotjeori used in place of kimchi" means geojeori is not a kimchi.

And can someone explain to me the logic behind online media articles being an invalid source for querying whether unfermented kimchi varieties exist but Hkwon's friend is an authoritative source????Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin, a write up of fermentation section would be great if someone were to write one up. Hkwon's weird insistence on his personal definition of kimchi would disqualify him IMO. However, I personally think adding "often fermented" to the intro would be a fine as long as Hkwon doesn't use that to continue his edit warring.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. User:Sennen goroshi and User:Melonbarmonster2 just hate so much to see me writing a section on fermentation and can't wait to blank any contents I upload, no matter how natural and well-sourced my edits will be, saying "I do have reservations about Hkwon being the editor" and eager to "remove crap from the article". And this is even before they see any of my edits or sources I will present. Is this a personal prejudice or what? User:Martin Hogbin. If you were me, would you be willing to work hard to write anything in this situation?

We are (at least I am) working to resolve a dispute. If those two editors agree with us to write a same section instead of me, I would not touch it for the sake of spirit of conflict resolution, no matter how much I hate it. I would at least put a cool-down period of a month or so, and only revise any problematic parts after I gather a consensus among other editors and enough reliable conter-evidences.

I fully expected those two editors will yap at me again this time, instead of cooperating. So let me answer their questions:

1) To User:Sennen goroshi: "Let melonbarmonster write it", "We should really wait for Melonbarmonster to contribute"...Why do you have to shift responsibility to another editor unless you don't know jack about kimchi and can't even write a section yourself, instead of studying a little more about the subject? User:Melonbarmonster2 "seems more capable of writing a decent section than Hkwon". I don't know who can make that kind of judgement. But let's see since you raised the issue...The editor you recommended failed to provide one reliable source on kimchi fermentation except for blog documents, and I worked my butt off to find, read, and present 11 journal articles and 5 book chapters on the subject.

2) To User:Melonbarmonster2: This record is beyond repair, repeating "geotjeori" and Doosan Encyclopedia. Even you admitted that the article states "geotjeori is used as a SUBSTITUTE for kimchi". How simple is that? If a encyclopedia article says "margarine is used as a substitude for butter", will you keep arguing that margarine is a kind of butter too? We already debated about this before on this discussion page, and I get tired of you repeating it over and over again. Hkwon (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC Comment Just a few notes: the Korean Kimchi article calls kimchi a fermented food in its first sentence (발효식품). The labeling of Kimchi as fermented seems to have caused no debate there. If we are worried that the Korean word "Kimchi" has a definition different from the English use of the word, then I refer you to English-language dictionaries that define Kimchi as: "a vegetable pickle seasoned with garlic, red pepper, and ginger that is the national dish of Korea". If you're opposed to the word "fermented", maybe the word "pickle" is more acceptable?

Still, while there may be thousands of variety of Kimchi, of which many are not fermented, I'd wager on a per-volume basis, the Kimchi being produced and eaten is overwhelmingly fermented (even if people are sometimes eating out of the pickle jar before fermentation is complete). Martin's compromise seems perfectly good to me. I'm puzzled how so much vitriol can be raised over this topic. I hope cooler minds will prevail. --RSLxii 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection...

Seriously, could the two of you (or anyone else who wants to join this edit war) just stop? We get that there's no agreement right now. Instead of making changes to the lead, we need to get agreement here first. If we can't get 100% agreement, then we're eventually going to have to move towards a vote. But repeatedly reverting each other doesn't do anything productive, it means no one can make changes to any part of the article, and it's eventually going to lead to blocks. While I disagreed with Fut.Perf.'s topic ban of Hkwon, I wholeheartedly support FP or anyone else handing out escalating blocks for edit warring (here or anywhere else). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I do apologize for getting roped into this again but I am failing to see how revert warring the "kimchi is fermented" line into the article again is acceptable or reasonable when we have a mediation cabal in session and Hkwon banned for a week over this exact issue not to mention the pages and pages of discussion above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New lead sentence by user:SarekOfVulcan

User:SarekOfVulcan Just edited the lead sentence to "kimchi is primary a fermented dish, it also appears in unfermented forms". I wholesomely oppose to this sentence as it does not account for the quality and quantity of reliable sources/evidences presented so far in discussions on this page. But I would not revert this edit as the user:SarekOfVulcan is an administrator who has been involved in this discussion and made efforts to solve conflicts before, including a 1-week protection on the main article.

I would just appreciate that if this user called for a consensus or provided some solid counter-evidences backing up his or her claim before making the edit. And I don't think it is an appropriate time for an involved admistrator to intervene, as 1) the neutral editors User:Martin Hogbin and user:Knorrepoes, who participated in this discussion per my RfC, are still reviewing my section draft on "Kimchi fermentation", which might change opinions of involved editors, and 2) the article is waiting for a decision from Wikipedia:mediation cabal per the request on July 18 (UTC). Hkwon (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So, Hkwon as you oppose this sentence, can you make any suggestions on a sentence that would be agreed on by everyone involved? I personally like the new lead, it does not give any undue weight to unfermented kimchi and is supported by reliable sources - but if you have any better suggestions that are likely to resolve this unwarranted drama, I'm sure we would all consider them with an open mind. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is honestly becoming farcical. Just stating "kimchi is a fermented food", is problematic because the statement on its own excludes existence of unfermented varieties. The opening statement has to be inclusive of ALL varieties of kimchi. I don't think anyone here cares passionately about how that is done.

Seriously we have multiple admins and neutral parties and involved editors here all on the same page except Hkwon. We need an arbitrator to just make some calls.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that's not how the mediation cabal works--they don't take sides, they try to help the different sides mediate their discussion. I somehow doubt that this issue is important enough to require formal mediation (unless other parts of the article also become contentious), although I've only glanced at formal mediation issues. As for Sarek's sentence, it's fine by me, of course; nonetheless, I am still more than happy to continue with the mediation process. I'm always hopeful (though not certain) that further help can somehow bring the parties together. I'll take a look at the rest of the article later today....Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is't the evidence pretty clear? Most varieties of kimchi are fermented and some unfermented varieties exist. We have two edit options: "kimchi is a fermented food" or a variation of "kimchi is a usually/normally/often/etc fermented food". This is an extremely simple, inane and lame point of contention of a dead horse that we are beating over and over again because of a single editor championing a view on kimchi and fermentation adopted from the irrelevant and non-applicable Codex definition of kimchi.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the evidence is clear. You think it's clear. In fact, Hkwon also thinks it's clear, it's just that he comes to a different conclusion. I think the article should read as it does right now, because 6 editors (myself, you, SG, Knorrepos, Martin Hogbin, and Sarek) agree, in principle if not exact words, on this reading, while only Hkwon person does not--to me, that's consensus (remembering that consensus neither equal 100% nor simple majority). However, Hkwon is certainly welcome and encouraged to continue to use the dispute process and/or independent processes like the Medaitation Cabal to try to persuade us that the article should be written otherwise (i.e., to shift consensus). I'd say that if Mediation should fail to produce any changes, then we're starting to approach WP:HORSE time, but I don't think we're there yet.

Also, Melonbarmonster2, I think it would help if you stop bringing up the Codex. Hkwon is not basing his arguments in any way on the Codex--he seems to have shifted his understanding of it at least partially towards ours. He's basing his arguments on the citations he has found, on his belief that all but one of our citations are unreliable or we're misinterpreting them, and, I assume, on his own real-life experience. Maybe once the Codex was part of the discussion, but it hasn't been for several weeks now, and you're returning to it just makes it look like you're the one who's not discussing in good faith and stuck on a single issue.

P.S.: To Hkwon--please stop asking things like "When was this consensus established? Which editors were in favor of it and which editors were not?" The list of editors above is exactly what we mean when we say that there is currently a consensus--the overwhelming majority of editors (now 6 out of 7) all agree that the lead should contain some sort of phrase or word that implies that not all kimchi is fermented. I don't mind that you still disagree, and, as I said, I'm still happy to go through mediation. But it doesn't make sense for you to keep asking why we're using the word consensus; my only guess is that you think consensus means something different than the way policy explains it at WP:CONSENSUS. You can try to change consensus, as you have been doing, but I don't understand why you won't accept that there is, at the moment, consensus among all editors who have worked on this issue except for yourself.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken but if Hkwon is willing to agree that unfermented kimchi varieties exist, then that should be stated per your proposal above and our dispute is resolved. If Hkwon is still insisting that unfermented kimchi varieties do not exist then I have to bring up the fact that I have been eating kimchi literally almost everyday of my life on three different continents and have scoured through all the literature I can find in English and Korean and the ONLY instance of the claim that kimchi is only fermented comes from the Codex as argued by Korean trade reps in the late 90's and early 00's. This is simply one relevant contextual factor to this edit dispute and I do not understand why it has to be ignored. I am not demanding it be the only thing we look at or even a major issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate to have the primary definitive sentence define Kimchi as a fermented dish, and then a sentence following it can mention that Kimchi has diversified to include non-fermented varieties. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cydevil38--sorry, I forgot about that option! I would actually say that position is emphasizes even more strongly the existence of unfermented varieties (possibly even overemphasizing them). Plus we run then run into the issue of trying to decide if it's an expansion, or if unfermented varieties have always existed, or when they came into being, or whatever. But a two sentence process is still certainly a possibility, in my book.

MB--I think my point is we don't need to look at the Codex at all anymore. No one wants to use it as a reference. The discussion is what to do with the fact that many sources explicitly state "kimchi is fermented food" (and, of course, what to do with sources that state that unfermented kimchi also exists). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to disagree with any sort of claim for any sort of 'diversification' from fermented kimchi. Vulcan's suggestion makes most sense.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence read like a POV fork with ref clusters in midsentence. I changed the sentence to a direct statement without having it sound like a qualifier.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to that particular phrasing, but there's nothing wrong with citing particular parts of a sentence, and "imparts a fermentation process" just isn't proper English. Also, "primarily" should stay; I think we've established here both that unfermented kimchi exists, and that this is the exception to the rule.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's better to not POV fork when the same information can be conveyed directly rather than as a qualifier. You can "impart" whatever you want. Let me know what grammatical rule is being violated here. Also, all of us have been using this talk page to explain edits. Please reciprocate instead of jumping in with reverts. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, you most certainly cannot "impart whatever you want" -- however, you can impart flavor through a process, so that fixes my objection to that wording. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Process can't be imparted? What English speaking country are you from?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus over the issue of fermentation?

Not sure how it happened but it seems Hkwon has been topic banned indefinitely which, I believe, leaves the rest of us in consensus over the issue of fermentation in the intro. Hope the current working is satisfactory to everyone.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that said topic ban is actually valid. I have just asked User:Future Perfect at Sunrise how his was able to unilaterally declare a topic ban on Hkwon, given that policy states they are supposed to be enacted only by ArbCom or by community consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is harsh and I feel it breaks protocol but Sunrise does that from time to time. It also doesn't help that Hkwon has been skating on thin ice after his ban resuming right back where he started as soon as his ban was over.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that fermentation is central to the concept of kimchi. I have presented multiple reliable sources that attest to this. I think it's better to define kimchi as a traditional fermented dish first, and later mention in a subsequent sentence that kimchi has diversified to include non-fermented varieties as well along with imported varieties of vegetables previously not available in Korea. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources state that many, most kimchi varieties are fermented and that unfermented varieties exist. That does not support claiming "kimchi is a traditionally fermented fish first". That's the same dead horse that got Hkwon banned.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources explicitly state that kimchi is fermented with no mention of varieties, and in anthropological/cultural/historical analyses fermentation is central to the concept of kimchi. And don't threaten me over my views, because it wasn't Hkwon's opinion that got him banned. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that my mentioning that Sunrise straight banned Hkwon for his edit warring over this exact issue sounds threatening to you. That wasn't my intention.

But to has the same dead horse arguments. Ref's mention both fermented and unfermented varieties. And yes fermentation is an important process in kimchi making. That's not in dispute.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cydevil's proposal

"Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings. Kimchi has later diversified to include unfermented varieties and various imported seasonings and vegetables previously not available in Korea"

• Oppose, Kimchi is a traditional fermented dish and traditional unfermented varieties also exist. No reference supports the claim that fermented kimchi later diversified to include unfermented varieties. We shouldn't introduce new claims that are unsupported by references. Also reintroducing Hkwon's dead horse claim is rather inexplicable.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Then how about this as a compromise - "Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented dish made of vegetables with varied seasonings. While Kimchi is primarily defined as a fermented dish, its meaning has diversified over time to include some non-fermented varieties as well."

May I remind you that the initial sentence has many reliable sources to back it up, whereas the article you cited made by an layman journalist has little understanding of kimchi, such as claiming that "it originated from northern China." A more proper description for this would be "Historical references suggest Kimchi(which is by the way is universally defined as fermented vegetables in these articles) was widely consumed in Goguryeo and Baekje, and archaeological evidence suggest the cuisine may trace back to neolithic ages." While I have yet to find sources that explicitly explain how unfermented vegetables came to be known as varieties of "Kimchis" today, but one can reasonably assume that the meaning of Kimchi itself has diversified over time to include any cuisines looking similar to it. For instance, 겉절이(Geojeori) is today often called a variety of Kimchi as you have suggested, but as Hkwon suggests, it is by strict definition not a Kimchi. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See my response below and accoring to Doosan, 겉절이 is a kimchi. The only time Koreans ever claimed 겉절이 as not being a kimchi was in response to Japanese claims during the Codex kimchi war. All the editors here have rejected injecting Codex claims in the intro already above.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Key sentence

"The most popular varieties of kimchi are aged to impart flavor through a fermentation process although unfermented varieties also exist." This is the key sentence in question. Feel free to propose variants for discussion.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have no issues with the above. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - From what I've read of the external links, and other searches, the above sentence seems right. A tweaked version: "Most popular varieties of kimchi are aged to impart flavor through a fermentation process, although unfermented varieties also exist." (Melonbarmonster2: I am not trying to curry favour over the dog meat image matter. I am NPOV on kimchi and just being a good Wikipedian by helping to settle disputes. P.S. still hate the dog sausage picture.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Although the key sentence will undoubtedly be the result of a compromise it should not read as though it is. The proposed sentence is rather unencylopedic as a result of the compromise that it embodies. I see two sensible options:

1. Say that traditional kimchi is fermented, immediately followed by a statement saying that kimchi has become diversified to include unfermented varieties.
2. Say that Kimchi is usually fermented, immediately followed by a statement that traditional (or whatever) kimchi is always a fermented variety.

In other word there are two things that I think everyone agrees on:

1. Not all kimchi is always fermented
2. Some subset of kimchi is always fermented

A fair lead should make each of these statements once only, both in close proximity to one another. Does anyone disagree with this concept?

I prefer the current lead which reads well and conforms to my suggestion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Gentlemen just to be clear traditional kimchi is both fermented and unfermented.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do like the idea of trying to find a way to avoid WP:HOWEVER. I don't like Cydevil38's idea, because it creates the notion that unfermented kimchi arose after fermented kimchi, something we don't have sourcing for. I especially know we can't use "kimchi diversified..." because that's not what diversify means (when used intransitively, it always has to do with either business or investing).

Here's a new thought: "There are hundreds of varieties of kimchi, made with a main vegetable ingredient such as napa cabbage, radish, green onion or cucumber. Both fermented and unfermented varieties exist, with fermented varieties being much more common and traditional."Qwyrxian (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Kimchi originated as fermented vegetables resulting from long-term storage in the ancient past when they had no refrigeration. Fermentation was the result of a functional purpose of long-term storage, not for imparting some flavor. Kimchi, by definition, is a fermented food since antiquity. Kimchi may very well have existed for more than two thousand years, and I don't doubt that many varieties can be derived from this dish, such as the unfermented varieties for many reasons, most recent one being mass production. Nonetheless, authentic kimchi goes through a fermentation process either in Gimjang pots or the new modern Kimchi refrigerator. Cydevil38 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • We can have our own guesses about kimchi derivations and purposes for fermentation(probably both taste and storage considerations rather than one or the other) but the sources support 2 things that we all agree on as Martin pointed out:

1. Not all kimchi is always fermented
2. Some subset of kimchi is always fermented

New proposition should be limited to agreed on claims resulting from all the reference checking and reading from above and refrain from any new unreferenced claims about derivation or what's traditional or not.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cydevil38, do you have sources to support your claim that that is the correct history of kimchi? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question: even if that is correct, isn't my or mbm2's statement still accurate? That is, it still asserts the same basic principle as yours, it just doesn't address any sort of chronological change, which I feel we're going to have significant difficulty sourcing. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I have provided many sources already, if you look up a few pages, that explicitly define Kimchi as fermented foods. I went through some more effort to only provide sources that is relevant to the history or culture of Kimchi. All these sources explicitly define Kimchi as a fermented food, and this definition is key to their historical and anthropological/cultural analyses. Now, I do acknowledge that there are unfermented varieties as well. Unfortunately, I have yet to find specific sources that address this discrepancy. So if you two must insist, I suggest another compromise - "Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented dish of vegetables of various seasonings. Kimchi primarily goes through some form of fermentation process, but there are some varieties that are unfermented." Or better, we can simply skip over the mention over these unfermented varities, and introduce them in a separate section dedicated to seasonal varieties saying - Although Kimchi primarily a fermented dish, there are some seasonal varieties that are not necessarily fermented." Cydevil38 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

While individual references may state kimchi is fermented, that does not support claiming kimchi as a fermented food in the intro in exclusion of unfermented varieties. Rather than trying to use select references to argue for a POV claim, all relevant references on the subject must be considered with the resulting article text reflecting informatio contained in the sum of the references. To that end, the references as a whole state that kimchi has many varieties that are fermented and unfermented.

Lastly, there is no benefit to the article to claim kimchi as only a fermented food or using the term kimchi to mean only the fermented varieties when we all know unfermented varieites exist.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The introductory section is meant to give people a general idea of what a Kimchi is. And the general definition of Kimchi is traditional fermented food. This definition is widely used in the academic community. This definition can be backed by a myriad of academic references. So my suggestion is to give this primary definition first, and in the subsequent sentence, or in a more specific section dealing with unfermented varieties, give the readers that there are some exceptions to the rule. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Cydevil38--sorry, I forgot that you gave sources above. Let's look at your sentence: "Kimchi is a traditional Korean fermented dish of vegetables of various seasonings. Kimchi primarily goes through some form of fermentation process, but there are some varieties that are unfermented." Could I suggest a few small changes? "Kimchi is a traditional Korean dish made from vegetables and various seasonings. While the most common and traditional varieties are fermented, some varieties are unfermented." The reason I suggest the change is that it doesn't make sense in English to say "X has quality Y. Also, X primarily undergoes a process to get quality Y, but some varieties do not have quality Y." That is, it violates the rules of English/logic to say "Kimichi is fermented. Some kimchi is not fermented." We have to find a version that both settles a compromise and makes good sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Could I suggest that we make the second sentence into a more direct sentence rather than using "while" and take out traditional(they're all traditional)? Perhaps: "The most common varieties are fermented though some unfermented varieties exist".

And regarding sources, NONE of the sources state kimchi is fermented at the exclusion of unfermented varieties. We have to look at all the referenced information and be factually accurate and correct rather than cherry picking sources.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The change from "while" to "though" is fine by me (they're nearly equivalent). I don't mind taking out "traditional," but this was an attempt to forge a compromise (from Cydevil and presumably Hkwon) that would get us past the issue. To my thinking, even if you're "right" (in a real world "truth" kind of sense), no significant harm is done by including traditional in the second sentence. Furthermore I don't believe you have any way to conclusively "prove" that you're right--that is, I don't think that Cydevil38 can "prove" that kimchi was originally fermented and unfermented came along later, but neither do I think you can "prove" that unfermented kimchi has, for thousands of years, existed alongside fermented kimchi. So, we try to find a linguistic compromise. At least, I do. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this is that calling a variety of kimchi "traditional" or not is a substantive claim, one that's not supported by references.

On derivation, it is a mistake to try to introduce this new issue of derivation for the sake of compromise. The current text, nor previous versions for that matter, make claims of derivation. Compromise has to be made with elements contained in references. Anyone wanting to inject any claims regarding derivation needs citations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And the compromise is because many sources, as others have pointed out, state, without clarification, that kimchi is fermented food. Period. We have a problem--some sources claim it is fermented food. Some say unfermented varieties exist. We must build a compromise entry that attempts to account for both sets of contradictory sources. Traditional is a pretty vague word that has a lot of meanings; one of the advantages of using it here is that we allow it's vague meaning intentionally to satisfy all parties. If Cydevil38 is willing to use the sentence without traditional (using just "common"), then fine. If this is the final sticking point (and I don't know that it is, Cydevil38 hasn't responded yet), then are you now going to be the one to take the position that this is an absolute, unbreakable, impossible position? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject here (stepping aside from my role as admin just for a moment, and without voicing an opinion on what exactly the article should say): the concept this whole debate seems to be missing is the role of prototypicality. Beer is typically an alcoholic beverage, even though there are some variants that aren't alcoholic. Despite the exceptions, the property of being alcoholic is part of the prototypical concept of beer, and as such a legitimate part of its definition, without hedging and reservations. Any definition of what beer is will usually start with "Beer is an alcoholic beverage". In the same way, wine is prototypically made of grapes, although there are some things that are also called wine but are made of other things. Coffee is prototypically a beverage that contains caffeine, although there is also decaf. Properties can be legitimately part of the defining criteria of a concept, even though they are not strictly speaking necessary criteria. That's just how language works. I believe people have been too fixated on the notion of definitio in terms of strict necessary and sufficient criteria. Language doesn't work that way. There is no objective contradiction between mentioning a property as part of a definition, and then later acknowledging that there are also variants that lack that property. That's what the sources do, as some have observed, and in doing so they aren't being illogical or sloppy. Thus, in our case here, may I suggest the matter merely boils down to how important/prominent the non-fermented variants are. If consensus is they are relatively marginal, as the sources seem to be suggest, there is nothing wrong with a mere "... is a fermented food...". If consensus is they are important enough to qualify the definition, then the most appropriate word to use is not "traditionally", "primarily" or "most popular", but simply "typically". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Reference-wise, what is documented is just that both fermented and unfermented types exist with fermented varieties appearing at a higher frequency in the references. Being that this is a very unusual and rather esoteric claim being disputed, none of the refs deal with just how much kimchi is fermented and not. There simply are no references that address the issue of how prominent unfermented variants are. The ref's just state types of kimchi that exist or talk about properties of fermented baechu kimchi used in a particular research.

2. Background and analysis: please note that it is difficult to define "prototype" beyond a very basic concept of kimchi. What accounts for all the different types of kimchi are all the variables(ingredient, seasoning, fermentation, prep methods, etc). It is difficult to include a variable, no matter how important, into the base definition or concept of kimchi(which is why finding a reference to make this claim is even more impossible). In our case, fermentation in making kimchi is still a variable, albeit an important one but often left out just like any of the other variables. The fact is that depending on family origin, family tradition, personal preferences, etc., even napa cabbage kimchi, fermented by definition, are eaten by some families entirely before fermentation takes place. Even in Korea, majority of restaurants serve unfermented varieties of kimchi. Due to the labor, cost and expertise required the ones that serve properly fermented kimchi are famous for it. And as the article text already explains in the spring and summer, it is customary for Koreans to mainly eat unfermented kimchi made from spring herbs and fresh vegetables.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think fermentation very much fits into Future Perfect's prototypical definition. As I've said previously, there are a myriad of sources that explicitly define Kimchi as a fermented food. Out of these sources, I have purposefully picked out sources that specifically deal with historical, cultural and anthropological analyses of Kimchi, tracing back Kimchi's past. And in all these studies, fermentation is the fundamental concept by which Kimchi is defined. Kimchi had various names in the past and in archaeological remains no concurrent names are known, but these historical entities and archaeological remnants are defined as Kimchi because they are fermented vegetables. If they are not fermented, they are not considered to be Kimchi and they are excluded from the study. Thus, I argue that the meaning of Kimchi is best conveyed to the readers by simply stating that Kimchi is a traditional fermented dish. The non-fermented varities can be explained later in the introduction or more preferably in a seperate section in the article. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cydevil can you indent your comments like the rest of us?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beer article actually gives us a great example, and shows exactly what the problem is. In that article, beer is defined as an "alcoholic beverage," despite, as Fut.Perf. points out, not all beer is alcoholic. Later in the same paragraph, the article says "Most beer is flavored with hops, which add bitterness and act as a natural preservative, though other flavorings such as herbs or fruit may occasionally be included." So, in a certain sense, our question is to decide whether fermenting for kimchi is more like "alcoholic" (prototypical) or like hops-flavored (typical). Unfortunately, I don't think our sources tell us. And the opinions of mb2 and cd38 disagree--mb2 says both fermented and unfermented varieties have always existed (although he cites no sources to support that), while cyd38 says that reliable sources claim that historically kimchi was fermented, and only more recently have unfermented versions arisen. In my personal opinion, I actually think you're both correct--kimchi both was always fermented and was always consumed fermented and unfermented. I know, that's contradictory, but it has to do with the fact that this is a linguistic dispute, and in linguistic disputes contradictions are actually often correct (if that doesn't make sense, ignore it, with my apologies). As such, I don't think we can possibly get a sentence both of you fully agree with--instead, we need to get a sentence that you're each at least somewhat comfortable with. I'm going to make a new section where I list a number of the different options we've had so far, and if any one of them can get anything close to even, say, "grudging agreement" from the "opposing" party, then I think we're going to have to go with that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's similar but not the same. Most beer drinkers never encounter let alone purposely imbibe non-alcoholic beer or unhopped beer, unless they like drinking 40's. Most kimchi eaters regularly consume unfermented kimchi.

Again, we need to focus on the referenced information and convey it accurately instead of introducing editor theories about traditional kimchi being always fermented which Cydevil's source does not claim.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If a history text (not a scientific experiment) states "Kimchi is fermented food," that necessarily implies it is always fermented, or at least it was always historically fermented. He doesn't need a source that says it's always fermented. For example, for me to assert "water molecules are made from hydrogen and oxygen," I don't need a source that says "water molecules 'are always made from hydrogen and oxygen." You're trying to hold Cydevil38's sources to an unreasonable standard. Please look at the sentences below and try to find some sort of compromise. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's actually a bit different because we know(real life fact and ref if we look for it) water is without exception made up of hydrogen and oxygen. So it's easy to assume that the phrase "water molecules are made from hydrogen and oxygen" means water is always made from hydogen and oxygen. That's not the case with other similar statements which need to be understood within their own cotext. For the statement "kimchi is fermented" we know that kimchi is usually fermented and the most popular varieties are fermented(true in real life and as reflected in ref's). So when a reference states "kimchi is fermented", it has to be understood in context which is that kimchi widely known as fermented food but that it is not always fermented.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)