An anonymous user has insisted a couple of times that the fugu section is condescending, Orientalist (presumably in the Edward Said sense of the word), etc. — rather strong words to throw at the likes of a Simpsons reference. If he or she would care to elaborate, please do, but bear in mind Wikivoyage's emphasis on lively writing (and differences from Wikipedia-style encyclopedic writing). (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:08, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
- Changing "Fugu: so life-threatening, but so delicious" to "One of a great many varieties of fugu. Poison levels vary depending on species." is a clear violation of our Project:Tone policy. Furthermore, even if there is little to fear, that is no reason to de-emphasize the danger part of the meal. It is both more interesting reading, as well as a bit of insight into Japanese culture—that is, there is a clear element of bushido philosophy in the lack of regard for the poison of the fish, and the emphasis on the immediacy of now and unquestioning courage rather than the potential consequences of the meal involved. In any rate, I'd encourage the anon to stop being a wet blanket, and work on productive activity that does not involve simply watering down others' lively, creative prose with lifeless, boring platitudes. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:01, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
- It's not condescending; just a cute anecdote/pop culture reference off to the side. Being outside of the main text, it's not interrupting the flow or more travel-oriented description in the eat section. At worst, it's cheesy, but personally I think it's a nice example of lively writing that is also in good taste. In no way does it portray Japan, the Japanese, or Shimonoseki in a bad light; the joke is about Homer (or actually Mrs. Krabappel). Besides, the Japanese are also familiar with the Simpsons. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:52, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
- Hi, I'm the anonymous guy who's been editing. I apologize for coming across as heavy-handed; I honestly want what's best for the piece. Here's the deal: I really, seriously think it overstates the "daredevil" aspect of eating fugu. That is how FOREIGNERS think about it, but to the average Japanese, it is treated as a gourmet delicacy, not a test of machismo. There are nationwide chains serving fugu. You can get it at nearly any sushi restaurant worth its salt. People don't eat it as a "dare" but rather for special occasions. I actually enjoy the tone of your writing and once again apologize for coming across as a doink. But I don't think the Simpsons reference gives anyone any true understanding about the region, animal, or cuisine, and in general I think you are playing up this single aspect of the food too much for laughs -- unless you are silly enough to try preparing it yourself the chances of getting sick are so low as to be almost nonexistent. Japanese aren't crazy -- they wouldn't eat fugu as much as they do if there was a high chance of illness or death. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- Hmm... There are many Japanese who are afraid to eat fugu, and there are even certain fugu restaurants that are famous because a customer has not yet died by eating their fugu (and I haven't heard of very many of these!). Certainly if these things are true, then the danger exists and the Japanese are not immune to the feeling that it could kill them. Japanese die every year from fugu. Not in mass numbers, but enough to make many of them think twice before ordering it. While there is nothing wrong with your most recent changes, I would say that for the foreigner who will almost surely be unfamiliar with the different types of fugu, it is still best to err on the side of caution and not assume that they are eating a "safe" type of fugu. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:30, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
- "many Japanese who are afraid to eat fugu," ... "even certain fugu restaurants that are famous because a customer has not yet died by eating their fugu" Those are big claims -- can you cite any references for them? If "many" Japanese were afraid to eat fugu, I suspect the "Tecchiri Fugu" (玄品ふぐ） chain wouldn't have shops on seemingly every corner in Tokyo. Nor is there any mention of people eating fugu for sport in the Japanese Wikipedia page on the topic of fugu cuisine : http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ふぐ料理 —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
- ChubbyWimbus didn't say anything about eating for sport. Let's stick to what's actually been said. There are many Japanese who won't eat fugu — I've met several — and one rather famous Japanese who isn't allowed to eat it whether he wants to or not. The fact that fugu is poisonous is an enormous part of the fish's reputation and notability. (Yosa Buson didn't write that senryū because of the taste.) There's no harm in discussing the poisonous aspects as long as it's followed by sufficient detail about how and why fugu is safe to eat in restaurants.
- Since you seem interested in elaborating on the different varieties that are served, perhaps you could focus on it from a diner's perspective — how do they differ, taste-wise? Should a traveler expect to have a choice between different varieties of fugu? If so, what should guide their choice? (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:38, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
- Going to a restaurant that serves a dish "many are afraid to eat... because a customer has not yet died there" sounds like sport to me, but focusing on my choice of words avoids the central point I am making: there is a lot of hyperbole and not much substance here. Rather than focusing on the minor taste differences of fugu subspecies, it's important to note that fugu is a generic term that covers a variety of fish, some poisonous, some not. As stated in the edit, the type most likely to be encountered in restaurants in Shimonoseki is torafugu. My biggest issue is that this piece can't seem to mention fugu without mentioning poison/death in the same breath: it comes up no less than six times, and that's AFTER I proposed some edits. Contrast this to the discussion of why people DO eat it: one lukewarm comment ("underwhelmed"). Devoting so much space to mayhem and so little to the fact that it is considered a gourmet dish strikes me as a missed opportunity. I don't find it underwhelming (the fugu meal I had in Shimonoseki was very eye-opening as to why people eat the dish, personally), and I think from the number of fugu restaurants in Japan that many Japanese don't find it underwhelming either. Have you actually eaten the dish? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- No, I'm a vegetarian, so I sat idly by while friends had some. You keep straying into hyperbole of your own, which makes it hard to come to any kind of consensus. Let's deal with the actual text. Yes, the dish gets introduced via its most famous aspect. Paragraph 2 then details how it's prepared and why it's safe to eat. Paragraph 3 details forms in which you can order it and where to find it. Paragraph 4 deals with the taste. With many of your edits incorporated, that's one paragraph out of four in the fugu section that has any degree of focus on the poison. So what's the problem? Some people do find the taste underwhelming. You claim that there's "one lukewarm comment" about the taste, but that's clearly false — your addition about maguro is there, the photo caption refers to it as delicious, and the lede calls it irresistible. If you feel the virtues of the taste are still underrepresented, why don't you add some more about the taste? Or add the restaurant at which you had your eye-opening meal?
- I don't know why you think that the number of fugu restaurants in Japan constitutes irrefutable evidence that the entire nation feels the same way about it. Many Americans think McDonalds is awful, and yet it actually is on almost every street corner of every major city. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 08:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
- Removed Bagdad Cafe, as they have moved and are no longer easy to get to without a car...not much good to tourists.
- The restaurant I had heard of that no one had been known to die from that chef's fugu was somewhere in Kyushu, but I didn't pay much attention to the name of the restaurant or even where in Kyushu. Japanese were the ones who shared this information, and as soon as one of them said it, the others there also knew of it (they had never eaten fugu because it kills).
- At any rate, you bring up a lot of general facts about fugu, but what type is Shimonoseki famous for? Is it all types or just the deadly kind? This is the Shimonoseki article, so it needs to stay on-topic rather than encyclopedic. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:15, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
- ChubbyWimbus, please scroll back several paragraphs and re-read. The answer to your question is there.
- I suspect your never having actually eaten the dish explains some of this, but I think we're talking past each other at this point. That said I acknowledge your comments about my heavy-handedness and hope you acknowledge that although you have chosen not to eat fugu, there are people who do, regularly, and for the flavor and not because its internal organs are poisonous. I think our fundamental disagreement is that I feel you are pandering to a stereotypical and largely foreign image of the cuisine (i.e., the Simpsons quote) where I want to de-mystify and explain a little bit. When we've all cooled off I will make some (conservative, I promise) revisions and hopefully we can find a happy balance then.
- I've had the fish, and it was quite tasty, albeit not enough to justify the expense (which is generated by the need for chefs who are highly trained to not kill their customers). Despite being a foodie to an extreme degree (read my work on Chicago or D.C.), I had tora fugu almost exclusively because of the mystique/novelty, and my Japanese friends and I had a great time joking about it the whole day long. In a (good) travel guide, the exciting aspects of exploring foreign cultures should be the emphasis, rather than de-mystification (dulling down). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:18, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
- Nobody is denying that mystique and novelty play a role in fugu cuisine. That said, this is a culinary tradition with hundreds of years of history. I feel that the original author (who's by his own admission never even eaten it!) plays up the poison aspects to the detriment of actual reporting about the flavor and/or experience of eating it. That's all I've been trying to say. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
Nice work with this latest revision! (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:37, 22 August 2010 (EDT)
- Thanks for the kind words, but I still have problems with the Simpsons quote. I could see it potentially appearing in an article about fugu cuisine, but am having a hard time fathoming its connection to Shimonoseki. Could you articulate what this reference brings to the Shimonoseki article, other than showcasing your wit? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- All things find their highest and most noble purpose as showcases of my wit. The hours and phone numbers of the restaurants, bars, and hotels I added to this article form an even more hilarious showcase of my wit, though the joke requires some familiarity with numerology.
- The Simpsons connection is to fugu, not Shimonoseki. Yosa Buson wasn't from Shimonoseki either. While someone could theoretically write an article dedicated to fugu tourism as a travel topic, it's not really in the scope of Wikivoyage. Cuisine is generally discussed in the article for the place most strongly associated with it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:07, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
Perhaps the Tokyu Inn hotel has closed or changed names? The company's website doesn't list it, neither does Google Maps. Well, if a person were passing through the city, they could look and we would know for sure. -Douglaspperkins (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)