Talk:Taiwanese cuisine

discussion redux

Okay I have self-reverted as you both requested. But I propose this: "According to the Taiwanese chef, Fu Pei-mei, like many others of her generation, argued that Taiwanese cuisine properly preserved authentic Chinese culinary traditions", then moving this section up and create a separate section under "History and Development". Do you both agree? I want to clarify that I DID NOT erase what you wrote. I used the same source, moved it up and expressed my reasoning. Can we reach consensus on this sentence?Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, in principle. As far as I'm concerned you can add this and create a section. I want to further discuss any removal of content, though. Let's wait for HEB to weigh in. valereee (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize that we got off the wrong start by reverting each other. I appreciate your patience during this whole discussion and glad that we came to a conclusion that is feasible. HEB, would you be okay with the proposed change?Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like a little expansion so that we can actually address the core issue of culinary nationalism but this is a good starting point and I think that a dedicated history section is a good idea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to thank you both for settling this like gentlemen. The requested edit has been made and I'm glad we came to consensus. HEB, I can help you with culinary nationalism and let's make this article better!Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

FTR, I'm not a man. valereee (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing your personal info. Let me rephrase: I thank you both for acting civilized. I hope you do not feel offended by the assumption of your gender, it was just figure of speech.Kazuha1029 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So interesting how many figures of speech assume maleness. :) Because of the assumption that people on the internet (and specifically administrators here on WP) are male, it can be perceived as a bit offensive. :) I try not to take offense. :) But, yeah, don't assume you're talking to a male. FWIW, you can in Preferences>Gadgets turn on Navigation popups, which will allow you to hover over a username and if the editor has specified their gender, it will say. valereee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Preserved" can be misleading as if they're the only place to have Chinese cuisine

The claim - "properly preserved authentic Chinese cuisine". What does it even mean? If people now make modern Chinese dishes with new ingredients not found in ancient China. Does that recipe no longer become 'authentic' Chinese? Culture is not static but always evolving and changing. I added in much needed context that the Taiwanese cooks argued it was authentic Chinese only because they had followed their ancestral Chinese cooking traditions. Also other states like Singapore, Thailand, China have also continued real Chinese culinary cultural traditions to this modern day as well. That opinion piece has a snobbish tone as if everybody else is doing it wrong. Opinion shouldn't mislead. When you give an opinion, it needs to NOT give the false impression that other countries don't have traditional Chinese cooking. If they are the only place in the entire world that still has traditional Chinese cooking. Then 'preserve" would be more deserving and less likely to mislead. Soyegg2417 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: This page has undergone some criticism and changes. I do not want to start another edit war, do you have any feedback here?Kazuha1029 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

My key take is that a singular Taiwanese cook isn't an authority on what can be termed as authentic Chinese food or can be the sole voice on what Taiwanese cuisine is. So her opinion shouldn't be here in the article. Also Taiwanese food in comparison to Mainland Chinese food, is a great deal more international (global fusions plus modern innovations like bubble tea). So it's a sweeping claim to say Taiwanese cuisine overall is authentic Chinese cuisine when a big portion of it, is actually partially Western fusion and more recent innovations. If you present someone who is not an expert and let them make a shoddy opinion. People will be misled into thinking that Taiwan is the only place that still has ancient practises on Chinese food when it's not that true and heavily outdated stereotyping. It makes it sound like every legit Taiwanese cooks are just stuck in the past and unwilling to create contemporary dishes and fusions. The opinion is just wrong at so many levels. https://www.taiwanembassy.org/se_en/post/1613.html Soyegg2417 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Her opinion gets feature coverage in a WP:RS so per WP:NPOV we can't exclude it. See if you like the new wording better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol that opinion is still factually wrong. And as per the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight - you are not supposed to give so much weight to a singular opinion especially when it's of a very large complex topic. You can put that paragraph into her own wiki article. That would be more appropriate. Also her opinion is highly political so it's not even a neutral pov and we already know that she can't be correct. Authentic Chinese food like Mapo Tofu is found in China. She is too sweepingly claiming that China doesn't have authentic Chinese food despite that is just factually pants on fire wrong.Soyegg2417 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have other opinions you are welcome to add them, I also think you need to review WP:POV and WP:NEUTRAL as you don't appear to understand how those concepts apply to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Taichung Sun Cake.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Japanese cuisine

The section that says Taiwan, in particularly Taipei, is regarded as having some of the best Japanese food outside of Japan. This is due to the legacy of Japanese colonialism as well as ongoing cultural and commercial exchange. So many things wrong with that edit. I disagree with the statement claiming that Taiwan is the place that has the best Japanese food outside Japan. It is puffery or peacock statement to make such a bold extreme claim particularly when it's being made by a single writer in a Taiwan business "promotional" magazine. According to a Japanese expert food subscription, Taiwan doesn't even make it to their top ten countries for Japanese food so it's not even that factual nor a food expert consensus. [1] so many things wrong with it - Undue, npov, unreliable source and puffery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleshooter999 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is fine. It says "some of the best", it didn't say "the best". - Kazuha1029 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported?

@Kazuha1029: are you sure thats[2] unsupported? The linked article talks a great deal about how politically contentious it is. "Taiwanese“Taiwanese food history is as murky as Taiwanese politics,” says Katy Hui-wen Hung, author of 2018’s A Culinary History of Taipei. Indeed, it’s hard to talk food without getting political around here." "Taiwan is at a political crossroads, one that makes for a unique cuisine that’s rich and complex, steeped in historical lore and brimming with political landmines." "Of course, like everything else in Taiwan, the force behind these recent movements is partly political." etc Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I just think the language was badly written and consisted of the editor's own words (whoever edited it). Hence you notice I replace word "Murky" with "diverse". I think you'd agree the word "murky" has negative connotation that should not be used on Taiwan's vibrant food history.

As for sentences regarding "Local and international Taiwanese cuisine, including its history, is a politically contentious topic." - it wasn't clear what's contentious about. The Eater article (which itself, is sort of a blog post) discussed Taiwan's political situation being contentious, which is fine, but did not specify how the food could be somehow "politically contentious". I have actually never heard of this theory to be honest. I also do not like the negative tone of the author.

If I had to guess, the "politically contentious" statement she might be referring to, could be how Taiwanese food is a diverse mix of all cultures, which include Japanese, Chinese (southern Fujian), Chinese (other provinces), and Western. Therefore, some people may claim Taiwanese food as unoriginal. However, we should instead word it as the fact Taiwanese food - is diverse with the best of every culture that has ever set foot on the island. This is all I am getting at, I am sure you will agree my edits really removed the negativity. This is ultimately a very minor edit. If you have other ideas I am willing to see how we could come to a consensus. Kazuha1029 (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Murky appears to be pulled directly from the source but "consisted of the editor's own words" is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to be... Directly copying from the source isn't allowed. Murky doesn't have negative connotations like that, there is absolutely no reason something can't be both vibrant and murky. If you've never come across the idea that food can be politically contentious I would suggest that you read Food Politics and The Politics of Food, both are good primers for the area. The authors tone doesn't appear to be negative and even if it were that wouldn't be a problem. The statement that Taiwanese food "is diverse with the best of every culture that has ever set foot on the island" wouldn't be supported by this source (or by basic logic, its not always the "best" part of a food culture which gets assimilated thats a really simplistic view of history). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I disagree. You will find I agree with most of your edits but this isn't one of them (I don't think you were the editor? Your edits are generally high quality). Calling a type of cuisine "politically contentious" is something that will require reliable and better sources (which Eater is not), and yes "murky" does have negative connotation in my opinion. I would not want to eat something that's considered murky. Again, Horse Eye, this is a very minor wording edit. I am not sure why you would want to call Taiwanese food politically contentious but I stand by my original statement. The latter paragraphs explained: "Some object to the politically fraught inclusion of Taiwanese cuisine under the banner of regional Chinese food and point out that it is inaccurate....Taiwanese American cuisine is emerging as a full cuisine in its own right." - This is much better written and written in a neutral, it also explained why there may be political elements, this is sufficient already. We literally had the first sentence calling Taiwanese food as politically controversial without any sort of explanations in such strong wording...and may I also say, bad grammar, which I fixed.

Secondly, note the author of the eater article purposely avoided discussing why and how Taiwanese food is "murky" or "political contentious", without proper justification of her statement and reasoning, it is inappropriate to directly source her opinion on Wikipedia as I whole heartedly disagree unless there is compelling reasons why such negative sentiment should be applied to the entire cuisine history.

Again, this is a very very very minor edit. I am willing to listen to your ideas and reach consensus, but it seems like even such a minor change could turn into a big debate here...Kazuha1029 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If you like, I can remove the Eater article and cite better sources on why Taiwanese food is vibrant, diverse, and full of history, I think this will allow us to reach consensus, as there will not be such strong language but also acknowledge Taiwanese food's roots from other cuisines (such as Japanese, Chinese, Western), do you agree with this solution? Kazuha1029 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The author the of the eater article doesn't need to provide justification, its not our place to question WP:RS. You can add sources or viewpoints, but removing them is a problem. Even if we personally consider them incorrect if a viewpoint is covered by WP:RS we should also be covering it... Thats what WP:NPOV means, both of those statements are neutral. The best you can hope for in terms of the Eater piece is that we attribute it so its no longer in Wikivoice. I also have the book (A Culinary History of Taipei) whose author is the start of the piece, I can review it if you'd like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV explains that we should avoid opinions and non-judgmental language, a quick search on the word "murky"'s meaning reveals: "dark and gloomy, especially due to thick mist", "(of liquid) dark and dirty; not clear". This violates WP:NPOV. NPOV also says to "Avoid stating opinions as facts." As such, I do not believe your argument stands.

That being said, I do acknowledge that Hui-wen Hung, author of 2018’s A Culinary History of Taipei, being a reliable source and the author did call it "murky". But aside from this, an internet search reveals the author being the only person to ever use the word, so to apply that this one specific individual's opinion/statement and directly cites it on Wikipedia is not fair nor comprehensive.

How about you let me re-write this? I will include the fact Taiwanese food has roots from other cuisines (such as Japanese, Chinese, Western), but I will not include strong languages per my points above. Do you agree with this solution? Just so you know, I generally respect and appreciate your edits, and you will find most of our edits are in alignment, I don't want this small wording edit to stop our collaboration. Kazuha1029 (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV explains that we should avoid opinions and non-judgmental language" not it doesn't. Again if you want to re-write this and attribute murky to Hui-wen Hung you can, if you want to attribute the politically controversial nature to eater you can... But you can't not cover those significant points of view just because you don't agree with them. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes it does, please see WP:NPOV, under "explanation", I literally copied it for you...I am a bit shocked as to why you are very insistent on this. It is a small wording change Horse Eye. And yes, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." first off, eater is not reliable, and given Hui-wen Hung is the only person to say "murky", it is not comprehensive and does not represent significant views form other reliable sources. Lastly, the statement is only the author's opinion and as per NPOV we must separate opinion from facts. Hope this makes sense. Do we have a consensus now?Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I will also mention under NPOV an example was given, "an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." This is exactly what was done by the editor by directly stating Taiwanese food as murky (which is what I was telling you in the first place). You cannot do that as specifically pointed out by WP:NPOV.Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You also did not reply regarding my argument that non-judgmental language is not allowed by Wikipedia. Upon the above reasons, I remain committed to my original stance and believe we should keep this version of edits. Please let me know if we reached consensus. Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

We prefer nonjudgemental langage, per NPOV "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct! Do we have consensus to leave this article the way it is now? Thank you for your understanding and the lively discussion. Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is nearly the exact opposite of what you've argued. We can follow WP:BRD but that would mean leaving the article as it originally was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I am going to re-write it. You may have your own views but you can't deny my arguments above were equally as valid. After that, you can review the edits, see if it meets your standards. However, please note BDR said:

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

I am going to let you revert because I will be making changes, but please note I am quite disappointed at your unilateral revert (as you have just violated BRD) and I thought we are generally aligned on Taiwanese-related issues. Guess not.Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Horse Eye, quick question: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/A_Culinary_History_of_Taipei/8RBqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

I did a search on "A Culinary History of Taipei", but I did not find the word "murky". Since you say you own the book, can you direct me which page it is? Kazuha1029 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, I reverted it based on a clearly explained policy based reason (NPOV). If you're accusing me of violating BRD it would suggest that you don't understand BRD. There is no "aligned" we are neither to sympathize with or disparage. Can you direct me to where I claimed the word "murky" appeared in A Culinary History of Taipei? I remember offering to review the text for relevance and that is all I appear to have done. You will find A Culinary History of Taipei make the claim that it is not possible to divorce history from politics in the context of Taiwanese cuisine, does that surprise you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"And because Taiwan's food history cannot be divorced from its political history, it is only natural that the cuisine's conventions and boundaries should be as fluid and blurry as the island's status." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back if the book does not reference the word "murky", then we must remove it. Like my original edit suggests, we can change it to diverse or other wording. I agree with your political view. But it seems to me "murky" is unsourced. I will make the change if you agree as Katy Hung never said it. Kazuha1029 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't use the book as a source, we use the Eater article which quotes Katy Hung directly: " “Taiwanese food history is as murky as Taiwanese politics,” says Katy Hui-wen Hung, author of 2018’s A Culinary History of Taipei. Indeed, it’s hard to talk food without getting political around here." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I am actually okay with the current version now. Notice after my edits, the introduction reads much better and neutral compared to its original state, it is further strengthened by more reliable source. I am glad we can come to consensus and thanks for a lively discussion.Kazuha1029 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If you say so, for me it looks more or less the same with perhaps a little less concision. I appreciate you finding the additional article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)