Talk:Soto (food)

Saoto - Suriname

There's a relatively large Javanese community in Suriname (South-America, former Dutch-Guyana). Their take on "soto" -spelled as 'soato' - is definitely part of the Suriname cuisine. The Surinamese/Javanese twist consists of adding rice and egg on the side and 'gropessi' which is a miniature variant on longbeans. The peppers used are local "Madamme Jeanette" and/or "Adjuma" - very ruity and powerful, usually mixed into the black soy sauce. 81.99.219.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

Redundancy

In the origin section already mentioned the Chinese influence Caudo, (which was added by me). No need for redundancy on infobox. Gunkarta  talk  16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Again.., undo the User:Lee788 "kiasu-ness". Undo redundancy in infobox. Keep the theory of soto origin in "history" section. The Chinese chaudo theory already mentioned in "history" section, and this is only a theory suggested by Denys Lombard in his book Le Carrefour Javanais. This theory is quite unknown and not widely grasped among common Indonesians that might argue the authenticity of their soto recipes (influenced does not meant originated). It is common to present arguments in article sections, and not cluttering and overwhelming the infobox. For comparison, please examine Ramen article, the infobox shortly and sufficiently mentioned the origin in Japan, although in "history" section the argument of its Chinese origin is well-presented. Gunkarta  talk  13:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Fact is fact. Soto is a Chinese dish and derived from Chinese cuisine as you have mentioned in full artilce. Today, history already show to us that Chinese cuisine influence the Indonesian Cuisine. For examples, nasi goreng, bakso, kuey tiow goreng, mee goreng..etc derived from Chinese cuisine. Some of it (Bakso,soto and nasi goreng) already become Indonesian national favorites. What I am not satisfied is what you have written is based on wrong facts. Soto is not authentic dish from Indonesia. So, why you put in infobox that is Indonesian cuisine as creator even in history mentioned it was derived from Chinese cuisine. This is wrong and you show bad ethic as a writer. You already changed the facts unless you need to state in the Soto infobox it is a Indonesian dish that derived from Chinese Cuisine. My second opinion about infobox, infobox is a short information and also as summaries to the article. Sometime, the reader feel bored to read the whole article. So, infobox is an option for the reader to get know about the article. Infobox not as a decoration, but a summary of the article.That why infobox is very important such as full article, however it must be in short but clear. All the facts in the infobox should be adjusted as in the full article. So, in the infobox, we need to put all summaries into the infobox as what we had wrote in the full article. For me, there is nothing wrong in article writing as soon as it have a sources and facts. Nothing to hide facts or history. I think, many people will agree with me.talk

I will not stop until you receive a fact, User:Lee788 talk

Hmm.., a famed Singaporean kiasu-ness is in work I presume. I do not deny Chinese influence on Indonesian cuisine, but we must put it in balanced and well-proportion, not skewed or steered to over-crediting Chinese role. Correction, Soto is not a Chinese dish — initially influenced by Chinese caudo soup, maybe — but definitely not Chinese. It is Indonesian simply because you can't find Soto in China, it is in Indonesia we can find wide variety of soto. In history section, another referenced suggestion mentioned that the influences found in variety soto recipes is not solely Chinese, mostly local but some might demonstrate Indian influences. Listen, the suggestion of soto caudo origin is just one theory (which is might be true) and is not widely accepted as the fact (yet). Let me explain it thoroughly:

1. The soto caudo theory (which was added by me in spirit of balanced fact-check) already well-presented in the "history" section, no need for redundancy to clutter and overwhelmed the infobox.
2. Not all Indonesian-sotos are Chinese influenced, most of them are highly localized and developed from local recipes, some influenced by Indian or Arab influences, and named as "soto" only for category convenience.
3. It is only a theory suggested by Lombard in his book, which is influenced, not necessarily means originated from Chinese cuisine. Please be less-ignorant and learn the subtle differences. And as most of history opinions, it can be contested or approved in spirit of fact-check in history as social science.

# I suspect your motives is to boost your Chinese cuisine chauvinistic agenda, well.., get over it!

1. As comparison, please examine Ramen article, it seems that that article has not been invaded (yet) by Chinese cuisine chauvinist like someone I know, so its origin remain in Japan, the infobox is sufficiently concise as it need to be. The argument of ramen's Chinese origin theory is already well-presented in "history" section and not cluttering the infobox.

User:Lee788, your mistake is redundancy and the pushing of a theory in infobox, that need to be concise. Gunkarta  talk  10:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In "history" section I just add some well-referenced source to demonstrate eclectic nature of soto in Indonesian culinary history. Not solely crediting Chinese influence as User:Lee788 wish to be in infobox. Yes, it was meant to slap a suspiciously chauvinistic over-crediting Chinese cuisine agenda pushed by User:Lee788. Gunkarta  talk  16:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Gunkarta on the issues. The purpose of the infobox is not to write a miniature article. Details on which other cuisines gave influences are best discussed in the article's text, not in the infobox. On a rather unrelated note, the "creator=" parameter of the infobox is meant for an individual creator - compare Caesar salad, where the individual inventing the salad is known. I have used the "national_cuisine=" parameter instead. And the way I understand it, Soto, however it came to be, undoubtedly is not an item of Chinese cuisine, so mentioning that as an "associated national cuisine" would be incorrect. Huon (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend having information within the infobox that is predominantly backed by reliable sources, with content about theoretical or lesser-known potential origins of the dish in the article's body. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the origin

Again (sigh...), soto in common senses is perceived as Indonesian cuisine in many references. I think to add "Singapore" together with Indonesia in the infobox origin/country section is not correct. Despite soto is also served there. Sure, it was suggested that there are some Chinese influences in it, but nevertheless it was developed in Java. Even Japanese ramen and Thai pad thai demonstrates Chinese influence, nevertheless it was their respective cuisine afterall. I think soto for Indonesia is like tom yum for Thailand or laksa for Malaysia (and probably also Singapore). Soto was influenced by Chinese and combine it with native Indonesian cuisines (esp. Javanese). From there (northern coastal cities of Java) it spread all over the archipelago and undergone localization. Each regions in the archipelago adopt it, but suited to their palate and own taste, also local availability of ingredients. Example are Coto Makassar and Soto Bandung. Soto phenomena in neighboring Singapore and Malaysia is quite recent. Unlike laksa, I think soto served there was not created by Chinese Peranakans in Malaysia nor Singapore since hundreds of years ago, it was more likely due to Javanese migrations to Johor and Singapore in recent century. The soto in Malaysia and Singapore bears quite a lot similarities with Soto Lamongan or Soto Madura from East Java. That is why soto in Malaysia and Singapore is expected to have clear yellowish turmeric spiced colored broth soup, a trait of soto ayam Lamongan and Madura. Soto in Singapore and Malaysia seems to have a link to East Javanese chicken soto, highly possible introduced by East Javanese (possibly of Madura or Lamongan origin) immigrants to that country. Thanks to Zhanzhao I found a source from the Singaporean National Library Board that acknowledge of soto's Indonesian origin [1]. Gunkarta  talk  17:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No Worries. Ironically that you mention Laksa since I'm dealing with a similar situation there - there are sources that show conflicting claims of origin yet some editors keep cherry-picking to only one point of origin - and repeated attempts to engage the editors on the talk page is like talking to the wall - at least there's some discussion here - I might have to raise it to a resolution board.... Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)