Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-18/Kimchi

This debate would not come to an end despite efforts of User:Martin Hogbin and user:Knorrepoes, who provided third opinions responding to my RfC.

Kimchi, Talk:kimchi

• user:hkwon
• user:melonbarmonster2
• User:Sennen goroshi
• User:Qwyrxian
• User:Cydevil38
• User:Martin Hogbin
• user:Knorrepoes

The dispute is about whether the lead sentence of main article should say "kimchi is fermented food" or not.

I agree with the current version of main article, which is protected till 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC). But I am sure that there would be an edit war as soon as the protection expires.

I would like you to help make a decision whether to define kimchi, in the lead sentences, as "fermented food/dish" or not.

I'll be happy to take this one on. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noted the requesting user Hkwon has had a topic ban levied against him. That ban is between Hkwon and the admin who made the ban but I would hope if all parties could agree to mediate here that could be corrected. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided 10 articles in academic jounals and 6 published books in Food & Nutrition field which define kimchi as a "fermented" food as sources backing up my claim. In this debate, the editors user:sennen goroshi and User:Melonbarmonster2 has kept opposed my claims without any proper counter-evidences, except for one source based on an online trade magazine. These editors have had conflictive relationships with me before, reporting one another to Administrators' noticeboard. Hkwon (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree that there is likely to be some sort of edit war when the protection expires - however, I am not convinced that mediation is required over such a small point. There does not seem to be anyone who is against the use of the word "fermented" in the lead, and the only issue is if we state that kimchi is "fermented" or "(usually/normally) fermented" - there are no editors involved who share the desires of the above editors for the lead, and a little respect for wikipedia consensus would resolve this issue without wasting any further time. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:::: To User:Sennen goroshi:

:::: 1) There has been a lot of debates on "such a small point" since May 2010, with you as one of main participator. You oppose the intervention from mediation cabal. But now that RfC I requested on July 4 could not solve the issue, I wonder what other options you would suggest instead of mediation cabal.

:::: 2) You talks as if I am opposing to an established consensus. But there never has been such a consensus, and you even have not participated in the formal consensus-gathering effort I initiated, which User:Qwyrxian already did. If there existed a consensus according to your claims, I would like you to clarify when it was established, which editors were in favor of it, and which editors opposed to it. Hkwon (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I will be happy to participate in this mediation; I assume we're supposed to wait and see if the Cabal takes the case before posting discussion. Also, I believe this wasn't listed properly, because the title of the article in question (Kimchi) doesn't appear on the list. Do we need to re-list this? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

::::: To user:Qwyrxian: The title of the article in question was provided on the section "Where is the dispute?" when I filed this request, but the article title under "medcabstatus" was blank. I just put the title in the blank. Thank you for pointing that out; hopefully there is no need for re-listing. Hkwon (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::To Mediator User:Wgfinley: After the issue being raised at ANI, the "banning administrator" has since revoked the ban of Hkwon as consensus did not seem to support this. The ban was replaced by a 1 week block, although he noted that the block may be shortened if Hkwon demonstrates why that should be the case. Meanwhile, myself, Melonbarmonster2, and Cydevil38 have continued to try to talk through the issue on the talk page (Cydevil38's position is somewhat close to Hkwon's, although a bit closer to a compromise position). I feel like we're getting close, although during our discussion Mb2 and Cydevil managed to start-up another revert war and get the page protected for another week. Thus far, Hkwon has not made any contributions (anywhere on en-Wiki) since his "ban." I don't know if he's intentionally staying away, if he's given up, or if some real life event is preventing him from joining the "party." I believe the 1 week ban starts from July 25; perhaps after that time we will hear from him. Even if we don't, we may still need mediation, depending on what develops between myself, Cydevil38, Melonbarmonster2, based on the framework from Martin Hogbin. We've recently floated a few sentences back and forth that at least feel like they're driving closer to a compromise (see talk sections 14.2 and most especially 14.3). But I could be wrong; I'm unclear as to exactly how intractable the finer points are. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Wil leave this pending for now then until Hkwon is back from his block, if it's still needed and he wants to we can take a look at moving forward then. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, even though Hkwon is gone, we're actually still at the same sticking point. Essentially the same problem still exists--whether the lead should, as a paraphrase, read "Kimchi is a fermented food....Sometimes there's non-fermented kimchi, too." or "Kimchi is a food....It's both fermented and unfermented, but the first is more common." Based on a vote we just took, in which I explicitly asked people to consider some form of compromise or alternative, three of the main editors refused to give any possibility that the side their are opposed to could be used. Once Hkwon comes back, we'll have (unless Hkwon has had a change of heart while he's been gone) a 2-2 split (Hkwon & Cydevil38 vs. Melonbarmonster2 & Sennen Goroshi), with myself and Martin Hogbin straddling the middle. So, while the edit warring has stopped, the talk page seems to have reached the same impasse. Personally, I have no idea what to do next, and I'd like to request that this case be re-opened. Hkwon should be unblocked in less than 48 hours, so we might as well get this ball rolling...Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

:It's still open, need some other editors involved indicating they are interested in mediation to move forward with it. --WGFinley (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to try to clarify where we are now with the discussion. I'm pretty sure that everyone now accepts that there exist, at least to some degree, unfermented forms of kimchi, and thus agree that we need to account for this both in the lead and in the article. However, the question that remains is whether or not the quality of "fermentation" is essential or elemental to the definition of kimchi. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise helped us see this issue, I believe. He pointed out that, for example, the article beer defines it as an alcoholic beverage, despite the fact that everyone knows that there are non-alcoholic beverages that include the word "beer" (including both, say, beer that has had the alcohol removed, as well as things like ginger beer and root beer, that are not alcoholic at all). Nonetheless, being an alcohol is a fundamental part of the definition of most beers, and thus, the lead sentence reflects that. The question that we now have on the talk page is whether fermentation for kimchi is equally elemental/fundamental to the definition of kimchi. While I previously did not support this idea, over time Cydevil38 as well as a closer look at sources have led me to now support this idea.

What we need is a way to decide whether or not fermentation is a fundamental part of the definition of kimchi. I'll leave off for now my specific reasons for why I believe that it is, as it's kind-of pointless unless/until others join the mediation process. (from qwyrxian) 07:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A while ago (On July 4), Hkwon had called for an RfC to help resolve the difficulty (back under the old framing). This is what brought Marting Hogbin and I believe Knorrepoes to the discussion. At the time, the uninvolved editors were unable to bring about a compromise. Yesterday, Cydevil38 suggested a new RFC to bring in more uninvolved editors. Do you (Wgfinley) believe this is a good step at this point, or will it be potentially confusing to have both mediation and an RfC at the same time? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)