Talk:Bungeo-ppang

Translation of “bungeo”

Changed from “Crucian carp (Carassius carassius)” to “Goldfish (Carassius auratus)” per dictionary and wiktionary, neither of which is a reliable source. Please change back to “Crucian carp” if you think that's better. Wikipeditor 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to 'crucian carp' because according to the YBM-Shinsa Korean-English Digital Dictionary (and the personal testimony of several Korean native speakers)the Korean word for goldfish is 금붕어, whereas crucian carp is just 붕어. They are not quite synonymous.--Merkurix 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipeditor 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A'Fu seems to suggest the Chinese word for “red carp” is a homophone of “prosperity”. Is this about 鮒 fù and 福 fú? If there are hints that the whole fish shape thing is a prosperity symbol based on homophony, perhaps we should add it to the article. Wikipeditor 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning a change by User:Enni84:

As far as I understand, 鮒魚 is merely etymological. The word is not treated as a normal hanja word, so 鮒魚 shouldn't appear in the box as an alternative way of writing it – if it were, Korean hanja dictionaries would list 붕 bung as a pronunciation of 鮒. That's why I hid 鮒 and 魚 beneath piped links. Wikipeditor 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenation of title

Should the title be hyphenated as "Bung-eo-ppang"? It would be easy for non-Korean readers to confuse "Bung-eo" and "Bun-geo" without the hyphen. Kiersta 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Roots and the history of Bungeoppang

Bungeoppang is Japanese Taiyaki.

This is a cake very popular in Japan. Bungeoppang came from Japan. It knows all the Korean suppliers. However, it does not write one line either. There is a person to delete immediately when I write the history of this Bungeoppang. Do a correct, objective description. This is a Japanese cake.

The two articles already note that this particular dish has an analog in Korea and Japan. If you want to add content about where the food originated, you'll need to properly source that assertion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This article about Bungeoppang shows no source. It is only a sentence written in personal impression. It is because nothing has a document about Bungeoppang. And Koreans do not write the history about Bungeoppang for some reason. Why is it? It tells the history of Bungeoppang. The reason is because the history of Bungeoppang is new. As for the reason, this is Japanese taiyaki. And many Koreans know it. If there is a document about the history of Bungeoppang in Korea, it will be written on this article. On the other hand, there are a lot of book about taiyaki and documents in Japan. There are researchers, too. The history of taiyaki is very clear. There is a person deleting a sentence that Bungeoppang is Japanese taiyaki. However, he does not write it about the history of Bungeoppang.

This argument is silly. Nobody is disputing that bungeoppang may have been introduced by Japan into Korea (it is possible, hence there being lots of historical materials on the pastry within Japan but not Korea). But to say that it is not called bungeoppang, but called taiyaki is utter silliness. How about I go to Japan and utterly insist that a 自動車 should be called a car there, because it was made in America and it's not from Japan? You see the flaw in your logic? --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 08:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of taiyaki is clearly known; created by Naniwaya, Tokyo, in 1909. "to say that it is not called bungeoppang, but called taiyaki is utter silliness." < This argument itself is silly. we are not talking about the term "bungeoppang". "In Japan, bungeoppang is known as taiyaki." < This expression is wrong. bungeoppang is not known in Japan.

You continue to fail in your logic and you use circular reasoning on top of it. If I am to use your particular brand of logic, I can say that your expression is wrong because in Korea, taiyaki is not known. Therefore, because taiyaki is unknown in Korea, it is called bungeobbang. We can go around in circles with this issue all day and get nowhere. The point is that taiyaki has an article, bungeobbang has an article, and each one has a distinct history and meaning. At one point there was a proposal to merge the two articles, but it failed.

Earlier, you mentioned Naniwaya and a date. Now we are getting somewhere. If you can find a verifiable source, add it and reference it, you have something more informative. Otherwise, we cannot add information as the edits you are proposing are Japanese POV. Can you provide realiable and verifiable information while mantaining a neutral point of view? --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

see Korean wikipedia page on this issue, says "it came from Japanese taiyaki,which had been created in late 19c. it was imported in 1930s to Korea, and became bungeobbang". (i guess you can read the article in original language.) Though its explanation has some false (taiyaki is created in 1909,,, correct the Korean page if you can), Korean page clearly says its origin. I can add Naniwaya's HP address to the article, which says it was created in 1909, but it makes no differences. It is you who is boldly repeatedly insisting that "it needs reference, it needs reference"

A different language Wikipedia is not a valid source (unless that page is sourced properly, in which case the same source should be used). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese wikipedia has an article "taiyaki", which says "There is bungeobbang in Korea, which is a copy of taiyaki", and korea wikipedia has an article "bungeobbang", which says "it was imported from Japanese taiyaki". why does English wiki need both page? I can help merging both page if you hope. compare the both page, they are almost identical,,, well,,,because it descreibes the same thing. Making the "bungeobbang" page is just like making "JIDO-SHA(自動車)" page though it already exists the "CAR" page. (wildcop)

Any information about the origin should be referenced with a reliable source. If it's not, it will be reverted again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is the reason why do we need the second page "bungeobbang", though it already exist the original taiyaki page? Two things are identical, and it is just Japanese-Korean traslation matter. isn't it againt wiki rule? Also, this page incluses no "Reliable sources", except "carp" thing, though you insists its referencability. what is your thought? (wildcop)

There has already been an attempt to merge both pages before and it has failed. Taiyaki editors and bungeobbang editors both refused to merge them as both articles have more historical differences and meanings within their own respective cultures. It's like having two twins grow up in separate countries--they are the same substance, but have been viewed and brought up individually. Please be aware that both Korea and Japan have analogs of various types: geisha / kisaeng; sashimi / hoe; ddeok / mochi, this is just a patial list. If I wanted to do what you are doing, I could easily go into the yakiniku page and argue that yakiniku is Korean bulgogi, it comes from Korea and therefore should not be called as yakiniku. But I will not do that.--_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

okay, you say they have different history and cultural background, but i don't see it in this page. what is the difference between them? are you going to describe the historical/cultural backgroud of bungeobbang in the near future? Upto now, there seems only name bungeobbang/taiyaki difference to me. (wildcop)

Well for starters, if you read through each individual article, the type of fish represented has a special meaning and symbolism to each respective culture (sea bream / crucian carp respectively). To write the historical / cultural differences between them would be waste of time. This is why there are two separate articles. Japan has its own history of the confection; Korea has its own history with the confection. If you have additional information about the introduction of taiyaki in Korea from Japan, that would be wonderful, but it has to be a verifiable source. Few people outside of Japan know who Naniwaya is, as you claim, this name is common knowledge. If you have reliable information, please introduce it into the article. You won't get any argument from me if it's done this way. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statements, "Japan has its own history of the confection; Korea has its own history with the confection." and "To write the historical / cultural differences between them would be waste of time.",,,??? I still don't understand why you created this page. Let's say, A and B are different from each other, but article on A is almost identical to that on B. Describing the differences between A and B is waste of time,,, what kind of logic is this? what is this article is for? Your satisfaction? I hope not.

You still, absolutely, don't get it at all. You still miss the main point I am making. If you cannot understand two statements as plain as daylight I cannot help you anymore. Let me repeat this very simply for you again for you as I grow weary of debating in circles to no end with you:

In Korea, taiyaki is known as bungeobbang. In Japan, bungeobbang is known as taiyaki each one deserves its own article. End of story. The only person with this problem is you, no one else. Bungeobbang was probably introduced to Korea by Japan (no one doubts this at all, but the burden of verifiable proof lies on you) Long ago, someone proposed merging. Nobody wanted to merge them. And describing the differences between A and B IS a waste of time if done on a single page when A can have a page, and B can have a page. I indeed created this page for my satisfaction; my satisfaction is to contribute my knowledge of facts and information to the repository of human knowledge called WIkipedia. What's your satisfaction? To diminish knowledge and bend articles with a Japanese point-of-view? Just curious. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 04:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, now we have a source, a Korean source nonetheless to substantiate the argument. Now you are finally beginning to understand how we work around here. The source may still need to be verified by a Korean speaker for referential accuracy though. Thanks. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just when I thought there would be hope for you, there simply isn't. [1]. Anything you and your sock puppets touch can and will be reverted by myself and others, end of discussion. Please read this [2] so you can hopefully and someday understand how we work around here. It is written in a language you can probably understand well. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference point of Bungeoppang and Taiyaki

I think that Taiyaki and Bungeoppang are the same kind of cakes. Taiyaki is called Bungeoppang in Korean. Is this a mistake?　--Azukimonaka 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. And it is noted in the article. But if you keep insisting that there is nothing Korean about this and making such changes, they will be reverted. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Gyeranppang look like scallop? How come?

I've eaten many Gyeranppang, but I've never seen one that look like scallop or any kind of seashell. They usually look like this. http://cafe.naver.com/15668981.cafe?iframe_url=/ArticleRead.nhn%3Farticleid=339319 Unless someone can bring a picture of Gyeranppang that looks like seashell, I'll change the description of it.Stevefis 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have personally seen gyeranppang stalls in port cities such as Busan and Masan that sell them in the shape of scallops. I will admit however that I have not seen them in this form outside of these port cities. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

use of the word Imperial

despite some users complaining about the use of this word, I see it as NPOV, and merely a more formal way of writing, that is highly suitable for an encyclopedia. I think it should stay, if you don't agree, lets talk about it here, talk is better than reverting. thanksSennen goroshi 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)