Talk:Bakmi

Potential edit warring

@Xcelltrasi: I would advise you to stop edit warring and discuss your disagreement with this article's contents here. For the record, I was not the one who initially added contents about the Thai equivalent of the dish into the article's contents. I simply located suitable reliable sources and added it to the article. The Indonesian sources cited in this article clearly acknowledge its Chinese origins. Wheat noodles served with chinese-style roast meats or ground meat sauces and the variations on that theme are a common sight all across Southeast Asia. Bakmi is not a uniquely adapted or localized dish like mie ayam or even mie goreng, but rather it describes a class of dishes which uses a specific type of noodle. The term bami is used in Thailand in much the same way. Even "bakmi" not heavily modified from the original Hokkien/Teochew spelling, as evidenced in Thailand's "bami" or in Singapore where the ubiquitous bak chor mee has a similar sounding name.

@Austronesier: What is your view on this, as I notice that you appear to have borne witness to a recurring series of culture wars and aggressive nationalist POV-pushing between multiple editors about topic areas in Maritime Southeast Asia/so-called Malay world/Nusantara etc? Haleth (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

My take on it: from a global perspective, Bakmi is an Indonesian dish. Unlike many other lesser-known dishes that are edit-warred over here in WP, it is well-known outside of SE Asia. From the Dutch East Indies, it has beomce is part of the Dutch "Indo" cuisine, and has spilled from the Netherlands to neighboring European countries (and the rest of the world) under the name "Bakmi (goreng)" or "Bami (goreng)" (although sometimes, the pitiful crap sold in Europe barely resembles real Bakmi). Since the Indonesian term originates from Hokkien, it is not suprising that dishes with a similar name are found all over SE Asia. But to equate them with bakmi is an etymological fallacy. For this reason, I think the Thai entries are also out of place. –Austronesier (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: As an addendum, this noodle dish is also known in the Philippines as bam-i, where there is a mostly Hokkien-speaking Chinese community. This article has yet to cover the dish from a Philippine perspective. See Google search for Bami Philippines

I don't think a "global perspective" is necessarily WP:NPOV and could even be a form of systemic bias if not interpreted correctly and with nuance. If that is the case, should we then prioritize coverage of possibly inauthentic versions of the dish from English or other European language sources, for what should be a serious encyclopedic article about a culturally significant dish? There is a clear link from its cultural and culinary origins in Fujian province, as established even in the cited Indonesian sources. Mie ayam and mie goreng from what I can tell are developed from the type of noodles (bakmi or bami) typically used in Indonesian Chinese cuisine, mie ayam especially seems to be localized version of bami noodles that is mostly found in Indonesia, and clearly recognized as uniquely Indonesian when encountered abroad.

So what do you propose then? Should we split the Thai bami and the Philippine Bam-i into their own separate articles? Or perhaps we can dig a bit deeper to build and consolidate a more comprehensive article about the history of Southern Chinese style wheat noodles with pork toppings, which found new leases life outside of its land of origin? Haleth (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a similar situation to articles like Kuy teav, where it's often unclear whether an article is supposed to be general coverage of an international dish or a specific regional variant. From the discussions on that case's talk page, the optimal course of action is probably to have a central overview article, separate from the existing article which is mainly presented as the regional variant. But few editors seem willing to take on such tasks. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia articles and their content generally revolve around the notability of a subject topic which is anchored by significant coverage in reliable secondary/independent sources per WP:GNG. I am not sure whether there are any SNG's which provides guidelines on how to treat parent articles or key ingredients of regional dishes as I have only relatively edited within the broad subject area of cultural foods on Wikipedia; if anyone knows of any, do link it for our benefit. That said, this is my overall take on the issue.

"Bakmi" based on my understanding from readings of multiple sources as well as personal experience (though it is potentially WP:OR), is not really a unique individual dish but refers to the concept of a specific type of noodles developed and brought into Indonesia by Min Nan Chinese immigrants, as indicated by the cited Indonesian sources in the article. Immigrants from the same region have also brought that type of noodle and its typical preparations to other countries they settled down in. It can also refers to a class of dishes made with that noodle type, which may or may not have "bakmi" in its name or have evolved from its original style of preparation. In that context, bakmi is no different from spaghetti which is clearly of Italian origin, but used in both authentic and not-so-authentic Italian contexts with several Wikipedia articles dedicated to specific spaghetti dishes, of which notability is not in dispute. For example, the Indonesian Chinese-developed bakmi ayam is no different to something like say, spaghetti and meatballs which is developed by Italian Americans to suit American tastes.

To reiterate the context of my argument, Austronesier brought up "bakmi" as an internationally renowned dish to justify steering this article towards being Indonesian-focused. What they really meant was bakmi goreng, which is another name for mie goreng, which is indeed well known internationally as a representative Indonesian dish. To say that "bakmi" as a concept is internationally renowned to be exclusively Indonesian is highly subjective, because in Indonesia it can also refer to lo mein-style dry dressed noodles topped with mince or Chinese-style roast meats which are very common Chinese-inspired street food in the region, and as the key ingredient for a dish like ifumi (which btw appears to be the Indonesian spelling of a broad class of Chinese-inspired dish widely eaten across SE Asia). It is part of an introduced food culture into Indonesia which also exists as an intrinsic aspect of the localized Chinese cuisine in at least two other SE Asian countries. With the exception of mie goreng, Indonesian-style bakmi dishes are certainly not as well known in North America, Oceania or parts of Europe which are not culturally influenced by the Dutch, simply because Indonesian cuisine is not as well known as Thai cuisine in these parts of the world, so that calls into question the objectivity of Austronesier's notion of what the global perspective is on the topic at hand.

I'll use satay as an example since diaspora immigrant restaurant cooking has been brought up. I can find a lot of sources which assert the prominence of chicken satay on Thai restaurant menus around the world and its popularity with dining customers that likely contributed to its global popularity to fulfill the requirement of no original research, but the truth is satay with peanut sauce is of much lower importance within Thai food culture and is in truth more of a niche dish culturally associated with an ethnic minority. If I were to rewrite the prose of the lede section of satay as a primarily Thai dish based on a subjective notion of what can be inferred from the well-documented familiarity of Thai restaurant cuisine within the English-speaking world as a "global perspective", that would not only be indicative of systemic bias from an Anglocentric perspective, but would also invite swift criticism from editors of at least three countries where satay has a culturally significant status and nationwide reach it simply lacks in Thailand.

Back to Paul_012's point, an overview article that covers kway teow is essential; it is to shahe fen what tagliatelle is to fettucine or papardelle. An article should cover its history (distinctly Min Nan in origin vs Cantonese shahe fen), its regional distribution due to the spread of diaspora populations, and its evolution outside of its original context (e.g. char kway teow as a dish, a broad generic term for noodles of all stripes in Thai food culture). I think I'm interested in working on such an article and it'll be on my to-do list. Haleth (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)