From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Tofu was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
January 5, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article


I have substitued this template into the article. It is found in only this article, a practice which is deprecated. What the word is in other languages has also been removed, as it adds nothing whatsoëver of encyclopædic value to English wikipedia. The offending template {{Tofu Infobox}} has been blanked, since it is clearly no longer necessary, and should be deleted within a week. Meanwhile, I have replaced the template with a food infobox. For those looking to expand the infobox, please here, at what I took out of the foodbox in a separate edit, or look at other articles that have foodboxes, such as for Big Mac (where I got the foodbox for this article from) and concentrate on information about tofu, in English, rather than on what the word is in other languages. If people want to know about tofu in Burmese, they can visit the interwiki link on the lefthand side of the article. That is, after all, what the interwiki links are there for. Tomertalk 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you would have contributed here before blanking the template. The names in various languages are integral to an understanding of this widespread food of Asian origin. I think the editors who regularly work on Asian cuisine articles are in agreement about that. We are English Wikipedia but this does not preclude an explanation, in specific articles where this is of great importance, of the names in relevant languages? Why not join in a discussion of this before blanking? Thanks for your input. Badagnani 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how the Burmese word for "tofu" is "integral to an understanding ... of [tofu]". Tomertalk 03:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis are a fine reference to find non-English names, in an article like Door, which is not culturally specific. The foreign language names are essential to a complete, contextual understanding of this food, and the box provides a quick, encyclopedic way for our users to determine these various names in the cuisines in which this food is indigenous/integral. Badagnani 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a well-worded but completely vacuous argument. Tomertalk 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The box providing the names of this food in the East and Southeast Asian nations in which this food is integral (including Burma) is encyclopedic in itself, providing a ready reference for all of our users (including our users in Asia, as well as those in other nations). Badagnani 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

By what standard of encyclopædicity, precisely? Tomertalk 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you mistakenly assume I've got something against the template or against Asian languages and writing systems. As I said, first off, the use of such templates is deprecated. This has been discussed at great length elsewhere. As I said, second off, listing translations of a word in other languages within an English language encyclopædia adds nothing worthwhile to the article. This has also been discussed at great length elsewhere. Instead of admonishing me for "sweeping in", as you seem to think I did, and brutally assaulting "your" article without participating in discussion, perhaps you should consider reöpening the lengthy discussion that led to my doing what I did. Tomertalk 03:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This should clearly have been explained here, first, and should be done in the future in that manner. It's always good practice, when beginning to edit an article in a particular subject area, to get a feel for how editors in that particularly "community" do things, and why. In some cases such practices have been built up, by consensus, over a period of several years, and work quite well. Now that you've explained that single-page templates are not preferred (though you did not explain why), now we know something more about the area you have a specialization in. So it works both ways. That can only be a good thing. Badagnani 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the number of languages in the Tofu box is unusually large, and most templates used on Asian cuisine articles only have one, two, or three languages. Hence the need for the custom-designed box in Tofu. So it's a special case. Badagnani 03:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of explaining it and kept getting edit-conflicted by someone yelling at me :-p Tomertalk 03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As to translations or transliterations or inserting what a word is in other languages, is fine w/in English articles, as long as they are used in a relevant context. If there's a section about tofu in Burma, fine, you can say something like "In Burma, tofu (called Bscript pebya.png péprā: in Burmese)..." The rambling list, however, regardless of how pretty people think it is or how many people have worked on it, does not add anything of encyclopædic value. It is nothing more than "translationcruft". Otherwise, Japanese (with mention of < Chinese) only belong encyclopædically in this article. Please remove them and put back the foodbox I had in there, which is actually encyclopædic. Thank you. Tomertalk 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, there is probably room for the template in an article like Tofu in Asian cuisine or something, in which it might even warrant expansion. It categorically, however, does not belong in this article. Tomertalk 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The box providing the names provides an encyclopedic, ready reference to our users around the world regarding the names of this food in the East and Southeast Asian cuisines in which it is integral. Having them in one place (the box, right up top right) is equivalent to any other box we use in any other article, not necessitating that users hunt through the article to find those names. The list does not "ramble" because it is not in prose. It is simply an encyclopedic reference for our users, including those who are actively writing and researching about Asian cuisine topics. I am one of those, so if you want to call this reference "crfut" or whatever term you've made up, implying that it is of no use, I find that highly insulting and more revealing of your own character, attempting to prevent this integral information from appearing for our users (including myself). Badagnani 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the box provides the word for tofu in a number of languages. That is the function of interlanguage lexicons, not of encyclopædias. The fact that tofu plays a significant rôle in the cuisine of various countries is interesting, and should be covered in Tofu in Asian cuisine. That is encyclopædic. If you honestly believe people are coming to the English Wikipedia article on tofu in order to find out how to say tofu in Vietnamese, I can't help that, but you are incorrect.
Now for the rest of your response. (1) The word "ramble" has more meanings than you are apparently aware. (2) It is not a reference, it is a list of foreign language translations and transliterations in a template. That is not a reference, it is a list, and such lists have been banished where they are inappropriate, as this one quite clearly is in this article. Those users who are capable of writing and researching Asian cuisine topics and who are sufficiently sophisticated to care about what the food is called in various Asian languages, can refer to the interwiki links. Again, that is what they are there for. (3) "cruft" is not something I've made up, but you're right. In this article, the list is of no use. (4) If you find it insulting, you're taking your disagreement with wikipedia policy personally, which is unjustifiable. (5) I'm not sure what you think I've done is "revealing of [my] own character", other than that I came across a list of translations in a single-article template, and in accordance with WP policy, deleted them. (6) The information, again, is not "integral", it is marginal at best.
In other news, it appears that your attachment to this may be due to your having linked to this very article in an ongoing dispute here. As I said, the list may be appropriate in Tofu in Asian cuisine. It is still not appropriate here. When you've written that article, even in stub form, you can resurrect your list there. Tomertalk 03:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statement should be changed to "this information is not useful to me. I don't make it a practice, as you seem to do, to sweep into a subject in which I haven't previously contributed, and about which I don't know much, and prescribe/proscribe what should or shouldn't be deleted from that article. Consensus needs to first be developed, as community is important here at WP. The tenor of your last comment is unnecessarily and disruptively unilateral in its presumption and presumptuousness. Badagnani 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't need you putting words in my mouth. To your remarks about consensus, they're true, but inapplicable in this case. Consensus is that lists of translations are not encyclopædic, and that single-article templates are not to be used. As for the tenor of my remarks, after your remarks about my character, even if you were correct, instead of just full of rhetoric, my only response would have to be, "Hello pot, meet kettle"... Tomertalk 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Our practice does appear to be that lists of translations are not provided in articles. Perhaps a discussion before the move would have been better, but I am having trouble seeing what justifies us breaking that norm to create a huge list in this article. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, although I am admittedly commenting outside my area of expertise. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It's very simple. We use boxes for articles featuring Chinese (and other East Asian) subjects, when there are several languages/dialects in play. This is particularly the case for Cantonese cuisine articles which have names in Mandarin and Cantonese (and sometimes also Min Nan and/or Shanghainese). Occasionally the food will also be found in Korean and/or Japanese and/or some Southeast Asian cuisines, and in such a case these are placed in the box for quick reference. In the case of tofu, this food is so widespread, and though of Chinese origin we don't want to imply that it is only Chinese, thus the other Asian cuisines which surround China where this food is prevalent are added as well, for a global perspective and for quick reference. It's no different than any other box giving key information right up top. An article on tofu in Asian cuisine would be similar to an article on the hamburger in North American cuisine, in that the various Asian uses of tofu are well covered in this article, making up a sizable proportion of the article. Badagnani 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The "foreign names" should be kept. A distinction should be drawn between "translations of an English term" (non-encyclopaedic) and "foreign names of a foreign subject" (encyclopaedic).
To illustrate, a list of names in different languages for the "automobile" is uncyclopaedic, even though the automobile was invented outside the Anglosphere and imported from another language, because "automobile" is the natural and common term encountered by English-speaking users.
By contrast, the Hebrew name of Yitzhak Rabin is encyclopaedic, because he is a foreign subject matter, and the transliteration "Yitzhak Rabin" is not his actual name - but a transliteration of it. If we carry the "no transliterations" argument to its logical limit, Yitzhak Rabin should not have a title at all!
"Tofu" falls in the second category. While the word "tofu" is commonly used in English, it is a transliteration of the Japanese term. In respect of the English language, tofu is a foreign subject, predominantly produced by, found in, and consumed by non-English-speaking countries and expatriate or migrant communities in English-speaking countries. As such, the "foreign name" is not only relevant but essential in conveying a full understanding of the subject matter.
I am guessing that tofu attracted the wrath of the original deleter because it had such a long list of names. While I also have qualms about listing so many terms, some of which are obscure or clearly derivative from the Chinese, the list should not be deleted. This is because the subject matter (tofu) is encountered by the average English-speaking user in many different contexts, which can often mean a variation in naming. Thus, for example, tofu produced in LA is likely to be labelled "tofu", but tofu imported from China might be labelled "doufu", and in Korean cuisine it could well be identified as "tubu".
Also, because tofu is found in many different cultures and its English name is a transliteration, there is no "true" or "correct" English name - there will only be a "most common" one. Omitting all other transliterations would be like omitting "chips" from "'French fries". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The infobox is nothing but an expanded, illustrative version of what is common practise: the provision of equivalent names as spelt out in the Manual of Style. If anyone wishes to contest the encyclopedic value of equivalent names, kindly bring this up for wikipedia-wide discussions and seek concensus there, instead of attacking a single article like in this instance.--Huaiwei 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Are people done demonizing me yet, so that intelligent discussion can procede? Tomertalk 07:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the concern as raised above. The fact remains that an opinion is being made on a single article when it obviously has site-wide implications. My suggestion still remains very much valid indeed, irrespective of who it may be directed at.--Huaiwei 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Korean transliteration hidden[edit]

The Korean transliteration in the box should not be "hidden." It is primary information and should not be hidden. Please fix this, thanks. Badagnani 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan or Korea first?[edit]

With regard to this edit, I believe there may be two justifications for placing Korea before Japan: first, soft, traditional tofus made with seawater may be more typical of Korea than Japan; and second, many East Asian cultural elements that originated in China, spread first to the Korean peninsula, then from Korea to Japan. I am not saying that I know for certain that either of the above are true, these are simply two explanations why Korea might be placed before Japan in this instance. Badagnani 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted the initial edit because I don't think alphabetical order is a strong principle when you only have two items - hardly even a list. Often, its usage comes down to habit - for example, I often say "Spain and Portugal".
I also had in mind the possibility (not certain on my part either) that Tofu spread from China to Korea before Japan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a few links. It does appear that seawater is used for very special types of tofu in both Korea and Japan, and I can't determine which is more typical in its nation. Badagnani 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Tofu Infobox[edit]

Template:Tofu Infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Balloonguy 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC) fghdgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Okara is the well-known, standard name for the food described in the article. It's not anyone's fault that English has adopted the Japanese name, as with tofu or bonsai, even if it was probably originally developed in China. Google search result Badagnani 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(cross posted from your talk page)
Hey, I'm pretty sure tofu flakes are used in Chinese food too. This BBS post contains several recipes. And there's this thing called 小豆腐 which is made from 豆腐渣. I'll see if I can find any sources for it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This blog post says 小豆腐 is a north-eastern dish. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This article says it is eaten in Shandong. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As to standard English name -- I've never seen it referred to as "Okara". My opinion is that it's another instance of the North American tendency to adopt Japanese names for anything Asian. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get this obsession with using names on packages. Obviously ethnic foods will be labelled by the language used by the producer or the cultural background of the cookbook author. Just because you see more Japanese food packets where you are doe snot mean that this label becomes the "English" word. A fortiori, with something multi-ethnic like tofu products, the "most common" name seen will depend on the geographical location, and in particular the relative sizes of ethnic populations in those areas.
Like plum wine - you probably know it by its Japanese name, because you see more Japanese restaurants. I see more Korean restaurants where I live, and I know it by its Korean name. Please do try to be sensitive to other perspectives.
"Tofu" is different because it has become a common English word. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's widely known as "okara" in English in commercial products as well as simply being the widely understood name for this food in cookbooks, menus, etc. "Tofu flake" is incorrect and is not a name that is used in English. Badagnani 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okara is widely known in the natural foods/macrobiotic/health food community, much as tofu was known mainly among this community when it first started becoming known. Tofu was generally called "bean curd" on Chinese menus but the name "tofu" came to predominate probably due to the increasing prevalence of the macrobiotic diet in English-speaking areas. Badagnani 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see much evidence that this food is not a prominent part of Chinese cuisine, aside from the couple of mentions you found. Badagnani 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding plum wine, in the United States neither the Japanese (umeshu), Chinese (meijiu), nor Korean names (maesilju) are widely known or used by anyone outside those ethnic communities, so that's not a very good example. It's simply called "plum wine" on menus. Badagnani 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be "widely known" in English by that name when the product itself isn't even widely known. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there are enough instances to show that it is not "rarely found". It probably isn't as prominent as in Korean and Japanese - I think it is often tossed away. But it is certainly more than "rare". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's comparatively well known because the natural foods community is very large (as our population is so large), and growing. It's analogous to the way tofu was at first known primarily by the natural foods community. I wouldn't hesitate to state that okara is also known among this community in Canada, the UK, Australia/New Zealand, and South Africa. Badagnani 03:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you can find in Chinese about its use in China (including which regions throw it away and which treat it as a valuable part of their cuisine), will be greatly helpful! Badagnani 03:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Regards, OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is getting close to a "keep as GA" now. The main obstacle, IMO, is the "Miscellaneous" section. If this is reworked as a "Tofu and culture" section, with well written prose, I don't see any further issues. Geometry guy 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The article was ultimately delisted after remaining at GAR for almost 2 months. Though much work has been done on the article, and it is much improved, there are still several outstanding issues. There are several unreferenced sections in the article, for example, the Western Methods and Sales and Distribution sections, which contain a lot of information which begs referencing, but which lacks any inline citations to find exactly where this information comes from. These are NOT THE ONLY TWO SECTIONS THAT NEED THIS. Other outstanding issues also exist, and can be found at the archived discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 34. Please keep improving this article until it clearly meets all of the standards of the good articles criteria. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sales and distribution section is removed because I think it is irrelevant to Tofu definition, history and cooking ways. Also, the tofu brand and companies which are mentioned in this section should not be promoted in tone. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone fix the broken link (16), or provide another source for the composition of Tofu skin? Geometry guy 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Viral diseases[edit]

I have removed a paragraph that claims that meat-poor diets containing tofu predispose one to viral infections. I had a look on medline and google scholar and saw no evidence, but if someone has a solid citation, please go ahead. --Slashme (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View in question[edit]

"Nevertheless, this is a single study and by itself, does not show conclusively that soy isoflavones cause brain atrophy." This sentence in the Isoflavones sections sounds like original research and a violation to the NPOV policy. Anyway, it doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Will remove if no objection. --Farzaneh (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The following statement in the same section: "This study by L.R. White, et al., from the National Institute of Aging, NIH, was rejected as not credible by the Food and Drug Administration." cites a source that makes no reference to NIH or the study regarding midlife cerebral atrophy. I'd like to get to the bottom of the truth, but this doesn't appear to be it. (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference that de-credits Dr. Whites study is just the home page for the fda. There seems to be no evidence at all that the food and drug administration should have rejected that study. As such I'll remove that part. -- (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


It appears that yudofu (豆腐) needs to be added. Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Soy Isoflavones should be highlighted further[edit]

There were further study done on this issue More relevant abstracts can be found at that support the claims made in Dr White's paper. This is a serious matter that should be brought to the attention of those who consume Tofu regularly. I hope that someone will update the main article, and highlight the dangers that have been found appropriately, in an unbiased manner. I enjoyed soy products for many years, and hated giving them up, but the evidence against using soy now seems clear to me.

erw75.83.3.48 (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Japanese people consume tofu in moderation (not necessarily 3 times a day every day) and do not suffer from health problems. If tofu is so harmful and poses such high risks, then why are we not seeing massive health problems among the Japanese (and other Asian countries that consume it) due to tofu and soy product consumption in moderation in their lives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

First, the links presented by are defunct. Second,'s question is very appropriate. If soy products, especially tofu as discussed here, caused such cognitive deficients, we would expect them to be rampant in the countries where tofu is a staple, often-consumed, food like: China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Philippines, etc. Do the populations of these countries suffer from cognitive deficients above the rates in other, low tofu consuming, countries? I think commenters like must be able to illustrate that with references. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's an item from the Los Angeles Times that will enlighten one on the so-called importance of this lone study: "Don't Be Brainwashed by Tofu Study" - Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation 24 to FDA newsletter[edit]

Citation 24 to FDA newsletter claims that that citation rejected Dr. White's paper, when actually it does not mention the paper and is from the same year, which suggests that the newsletter writer could have been unaware of the paper. I'm also suspicious at the idea that the FDA would reject the finding. They might instead reject the generalizability of the key finding to all Americans, or the link between soy and cognitive function as causal. In fact, White et al. does not claim that they have established a causal link valid for all Americans either. (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What doubts?[edit]

It says under protein that ' a decade-long study of soy protein benefits cast doubt' on the Healthy heart claim, but then the excerpted quote only seems to support the claim. Huh? Why does it say it cast doubt? Full section as of this date - In January 2006 an American Heart Association review (in the journal Circulation) of a decade-long study of soy protein benefits cast doubt on the FDA allowed "Heart Healthy" claim for soy protein.[26] Among the conclusions the authors state, "In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat. Using these and other soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein that contain saturated fat and cholesterol may confer benefits to cardiovascular health."[27] - (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Burmese tofu, not technically tofu[edit]

I looked into this just a moment ago and found that Burmese tofu is not actually a type of tofu. While tofu is made from "bean-milk" coagulated with alkaline earth salts or enzyme, burmese tofu appears to be made in the manner of polenta, in which the bean is ground-up, cooked, and allowed to set. While the mention of Burmese tofu should not be eliminated from the article, I think some reorganization need to be done. Sjschen (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant and conflicting information[edit]

The fourth paragraph contains some irrelevant and conflicting information. In "...tofu may also be high in calcium (important for bone development and maintenance), and magnesium (especially important for athletes).", the information in parentheses is not relevant to the topic of the article and should probably be removed. The information about the effects of isoflavones in the sentence "Tofu also contains soy isoflavones, which can mimic natural human estrogens and may have a variety of harmful or beneficial effects when eaten in sufficient quantities." is not cited, ambiguous, and may conflict with information presented later in the article. The first section of the article also suffers from overuse of parentheses and could probably use to be cleaned up. I was going to make these changes myself, but am not yet an autoconfirmed user. Akigawa (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Tofu . . . may have a variety of harmful or beneficial effects when eaten in sufficient quantities." - So it may or may not be good or bad for you if you eat enough of it. Can't argue with that.

Keep the foreign langauge part.[edit]

Being a person who studies I very much enjoy when I see the Chinese character translations in articles. Okay, it's an English language encyclopedia, but what does that mean exactly. Should we stop calling it toufu in favor of bean curd then? Since toufu is a Japanese word. Articles who's purpose is to provide information, and a language translation is simply more information. The fact that the Chinese is included helps readers understand that the word is from Japanese origin, even if doufu itself is of Chinese origin. Is that not vital information for and encyclopedia. More information is always a good thing.

I'm not saying how you should change the article but don't be so quick to say why people come to an encyclopedia article I am at least one person who wants the Chinese characters, I'm sure there are others. And don't so quick to remove the Chinese, you never know what other importent information will get removed with it.

Also this article is slight biased towards southern Chinese food. Not much attention is paid to northern food. Add some stuff about dou fu chuanr 豆腐串儿,and rolled dou fu 卷干豆腐 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Tofu and Alzheimer's[edit]

I am concerned about the validity of this section. The article doesn't currently reference the original study. Instead it references a website called "". That websites reports the bit about aluminum. The article is implying that aluminum concentration in tofu is what is causing Alzheimer's. I found another website that also references this study by Dr. White. This article pokes holes in the study by Dr. White. Here it is:

As far as I can tell, Dr. White's study did not even mention aluminum, but another follow up study did. This section needs to be rewritten and should definitely cite the original study. It should also be made clear that the study did not, and COULD not find a causal link between tofu consumption and Alzheimer's disease, but only a correlation which is confounded by many other variables. The bit about aluminum should be clearly separated from the discussion of this study so as not to cause confusion. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the [citation needed] tag to the claim about Dr. White's study. I removed the reference to the other study which mentions aluminum since it only adds confusion. That article, in reference to Dr. White's study claims: " The lead author in the as yet unpublished recent study implicating tofu as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease in male Japanese living in Hawaii does not endorse the aluminum-Alzheimer's hypothesis and suggests that isoflavones in tofu are the etiologic factors." If someone feels the need to add this reference back to the article, they should make it clear that the other disagrees with Dr. White. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original article: Sorry I don't know hot to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalinusa (talkcontribs) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Researchers believe that this could be related to phytoestrogen and isoflavone in tofu." This line concerning at least the Javanese study of tofu would completely discredit the idea that phytoestrogen and isoflavones are the reason for the dementia as that same study found that (phytoestrogen and isoflavone rich) tempeh did not cause the dementia associated with tofu. Is there an explanation for this? Dean —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the human flesh flavored tofu?[edit]

I see nothing about it. -Vincetti (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Human Flesh Tofu" is an euphemism for prostitution and lewd sex in China, see Mandarin Chinese profanity#Prostitution. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of globalize template[edit]

I believe that the placement of the "globalize" template is utterly stupid; of course Tofu will be China-centric, what more detail can be added from other places? It is like saying that the article Big Mac is too US-centric, since they are also eaten in Australia, France and New Zealand. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Selective blanking by User:Phoenix7777 and contested reliability of a Japanese book[edit]

Since I added one edit to the article and left a comment to a discussion here last year, this page has been on my watchlist. When Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs) has selectively erased information from the article, his edit summaries made me check on how unreliable the blanked content would be.

Well, this edit summary strongly indicates that the cited information is from an unreliable commercial cite. However it turns out the source is a "book" written in Japanese with ISBN. Morii, Gen ichi; Isshi, Haruo (2004), Tofumichi, Tokyo: Shinchosha, ISBN 978-4-10-471901-3. As far as I've known the publisher is not unreliable, and the original editor who cited the info is Sjschen (talk · contribs)(see the diff), who has faithfully contributed to food and drink-related articles for a long time. On the other hand, Phoenix7777 has a history of blanking of properly cited information that he seems to not like. Anyway, he misled as if the content and the book are unreliable because of the reason that the author is an owner of a tofu shop in Kyoto. Well, according to his view, Jamie Oliver's cookbooks should not be used as reference, or books written by renown food experts who have their specialized shops can not be resources at all. This can be compared to architectsor dentists who have their own firm or clinic, wrote books in their respective field. Then their books should be discredited? This is a ridiculous allegation. Moreover, the Japanese book has been used for other 7 passages in the article such as below. I can not access the content of book via Google book service, but if the book were unreliable, he should've blanked out all information cited by the book? This selective blanking just proves his POV.

I also added an English book written by a Japanese expert for the content. The two books share the same reference on the relation between tofu and Buddhism transmission. Either User:Sjschen's reconfirmation on the book or User:Phoenix7777's verification on how unreliable the "two books" written by the Japanese experts would resolve the allegation raised by Phoenix7777. --Caspian blue 05:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I went to the library and checked the book written by Morii.

I remember this opening sentence made also in Talk:Japanese cuisine#Repeated disruption and the incivility of this title remind me of Talk:Daikon#Phoenix7777's edit

To sum up I could not find the descriptions at all corresponding to the above mentioned seven descriptions citing this book. This book is a memoir written by an artisan tofu maker, an owner of tofu shop in Kyoto called Saga-tofu Morika. If you read this book, you can easily find the book is not the kind of book to be referenced by the encyclopedia.

This book consists of eight chapters;

  1. History of Morika
  2. A son of tofu shop
  3. Training of tofu making
  4. Age of disappearing tofu shop
  5. Is tofu matured?
  6. Soy beans and global environment
  7. Power of stone mill
  8. Tofu and water

I don't know how and why this book became a reference to this article, but probably User:Sjschen could explain the reason.

By the way I don't think the history described in a cookbook written by a cooking instructor reliable.

So I modified this article as follows;

  1. Removed a description about history citing a cookbook written by a cooking instructor.
  2. Rewrite a sentence with more reliable source by Dr. Keshun Liu a Research Chemist of US Department of Agriculture.
  3. Removed descriptions about history with this false citation.
  4. Removed a redundant description" Chinese origin". There is a detailed description in the next paragraph.
  5. Removed the same sentence as in history section.
  6. Removed non-native, non-common names from the lead per WP:EN#Include alternatives.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • So you're clearly admitting that you're always blanking information before you actually read and check sources without proving any explanation or justification. Such the faulty practices can be found as well in Talk:Japanese cuisine#Repeated disruption and Talk:Daikon#Phoenix7777's edit. Don't forget your absurd blanking from Red bean paste and Tonkatsu along with WP:POINT violation. Please build your credibility instead of blanking for your POV. Moreover, why do you think that you can discredit information by the "Japanese tofu specialist" that was published into the book? Your initial edit summary misled as if you read and analyzed the book without reading. Hmm.. the contents that you blanked out is not about the tofu hop that he has established, but about history and variants of tofu. Even Wikipedia allows personal websites of specialists in their respective fields. Please also provide "original" content written in Japanese concerning the tofu and Buddhism to Japan.

Given your contribution, that is true that you selectively blank information that you do not like, especially related to Korea. That was clearly shown at Red bean paste by completely blanking properly cited information that I added. Your blanking of the English book does not add up. Harvard Common Press is one of a reputable publishers in the U.S, and the article is about food, and every food has its own history. What ground do you think you can discredit the information? None. You also blanked out names without making the dedicated section. For the reason, I'll restored valuable information that you blanked out again. --Caspian blue 09:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You said the quoted information does not have any pertinent information, do you have any proof for the claim? I'm sorry, but your only assertion is "I went to the library and read the book" (I don't have a chance to know the library to which you has referred). Moreover, you did not blank out the allegedly uncited information on tofu's features which contrast your blanking of other information. You have contested the reliability of the book, so the tread's title reflects such the truth. --Caspian blue 10:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Please help improve this article, instead of completely blanking my legitimate edits.
The followings are changes I've made this time.
  1. Removed false citations referenced to a book by Morii.
  2. Removed non-common, redundant names per WP:EN#Include alternatives. They are already in infobox. Common English names are tofu, toufu(less common), and bean curd.
  3. Moved above citations to infobox.
  4. Removed a newly added description "and soybean". This description is deliberately added[1] only to legitimatized the citation added[2] which states "The transmission of soybeans from northern china or Manchuria to Japan, probably via Korea, may have taken place sometime between sixth and eighth centuries, concurrent with the spread of Buddhism." .
  5. Changed the page of above citation from p. 56(soybeans)[3] to p. 93(Tofu)[4] which states "Tofu reached Japan during eighth century and was probably brought from China by the numerous Buddhist monks and priests who were going back and force between the two countries".
  6. Added url to a book by Shurtleff 1998.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please try to improve the article instead of violating WP:POINT and prove how false the book may be. Although I try to assume good faith on your assertion on the book, you have not provided anything but the chapters that could be copied from commercial sites. While I left your citation, you have deliberately and repeatedly blanked. You were unhappy for the fact that one or two citations support for the transmission and Buddhism, so I added more sources with "accurate description". However, you think that my clarification on the soybean can be your ground to attack me? Absurd indeed.
If you have moved the four citations and names to the etymology section by changing the section to "Names", I may have somewhat understood your attempt. However, what I really don't get is your blanking of the Chinese and Philippines names at all. That first information is cited by the that I added. There are plenty of information that proves "doufu" in English. While toufu, another name from Japanese language has no citation, but you left it. So that's why you're indeed keeping selectively blanking information for your own taste. As for Philippines, they use English as their official language, so their usage is "English". That same goes to Singapore where many people of Chinese origin live. I hope you would not think that only Westerners' usages on the bean curd is acceptable to the article. I knew you would still attempt to blank out the Korean name and information that I add, given your rich history, I added sources from other than Korean sources published by Korean media. But well.. you moved the citations to the hidden infobox? Please prove that the article is only about tofu in Japanese cuisine because your edit is toward that WP:POINT making again. If not, I will restore your blanking of the name again. Please also see Halva and Hummus.--Caspian blue 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for your information, you appear to revert 3 times in the 24 hours while I reverted your blanking one time, so please remind of WP:3RR and try to use more discussion. Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Consumption rates[edit]

Can we have a little section about how many pieces are sold and eaten. Faro0485 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Glutton+ celiac[edit] (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I may have seen on an educational program that glutton is used as a binder in tofu.People with "celiac" disease need to avoid glutton. With the good reputation tofu has for health reasons if this "glutton" information is correct it should be more communicated.

Article is a whitewash[edit]

missing significant information related to criticism of the usage of tofu for containing plant estrogens, and their effects on humans, as well as questioning it's nutritional value. Please call in some non-pro-tofu sources immediately to clean up with article. (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice it see some negative effects of eating tofu. However, I'm not sure there are that many good source of citable information that show these effects. Perhaps you can direct us to a few? Sjschen (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jellyfish Tofu[edit]

I saw an article suggesting that tofu in Japan could aoso be made from Jellyfish. I'd never heard of this before. Does nayone else know anything about it? (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles indicated that student turned jellyfish in tofu and cookies, maybe this is done for novelty purposes but for the most part, tofu is still mainly from soybeans. However, Jellyfish is cured and eaten as an entree in many East Asian contries, along with tofu. Sjschen (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article on Jellyfish Tofu: "Students of a fisheries school have developed a kind of fruit jelly and tofu using powdered echizen jellyfish, a species that is a bane for fishermen but reportedly good for the skin. The Obama Fisheries High School in Obama, Fukui Prefecture, has received inquiries from around the country about putting the fruit jelly and tofu into commercial production." (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tofu in India[edit]

I think Tofu is also used in India for Vaishnava cuisine (for followers of Krishna, like Hare Krishnas for example) as well as at various Hindu temples and Indian Buddhist meditation retreats . I am a Westerner who lived in India for a year, and I think I ate lightly fried Indian-style Tofu a number of times in India (at ISKON Vaishnava food restaurants) and also at a two week Buddhist retreat in India for Indian and Western Buddhists. This was some of the healthiest food I ate in India, and it is prepared the Indian vegetarian way. Tofu seems to have some place in Indian cuisine, at least for these groups within India.

Does anyone know more about this?

Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese translation of the fried are based on the following...[edit]

-- (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What kind of stabilizers and thickeners are used for ....[edit]

  • Fried Beancurd branded by Tesco...???

-- (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
产品标准号: Q/VCBG07
made by -- (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Last para of the whole article:

There is also powdered Tofu from which you can make fresh silken tofu by yourself from powder. The product is supplied by House Foods Corporation and House Foods America Corporation under the brand name "HON TOFU". The shelf life is one year and can be kept in room tempurature. This might be the only powdered tofu you can buy in the retail stores.

This reads like an ad, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Info about rice tofu......[edit]

-- (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Red links are not allowed in "See also" section. See WP:ALSO. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


How much tofu and how much okara does 1kg of soy beans produce? Given that a great amount of water is added (I heard upto 10L), aswell as some coagulant, the produce will be much larger than the amount of beans used. This info would be useful to determine the amount of kcal that can be obtained from 1 kg of soy beans (not sure whether the kcal indication of 1kg of soy beans remain the same to the kcal indication of tofu + okara, given that chemical make-up changes). Also, it seems that there is variation in kcal's depending on the type of tofu (raw is indicated here as around 70 kcal/100gr, but I also saw tofu having 112-145kcal/100 grams, okara is around 77 kcal/100grams )

In addition, what does the to-nyuu mean at ?

Thanks (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Varieties section[edit]

The items are sometimes bold, and sometimes not. I'd like to format that aspect and others of the section for consistency. Any preferences? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

You don't HAVE to rehydrate kayadofu, it's delightful in its freeze-dried form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Korean invented TOFU[edit]

i think in the first paragraph, it should mention that korean invented tofu — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no historical evidence that the country that we now know as modern day Korea (and which? North? South?) invented tofu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


The article says, "The English word "tofu" comes from the Japanese tōfu (豆腐)...." How-ever, the Wik article on Japanese phonology indicates that there is no labiodental consonant [f] in the language. what gives?Kdammers (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look again at that Japanese phonology article, you will see that it uses the IPA symbol ɸ for the sound (a (voiceless bilabial fricative)) usually transcribed in English as "f". It occurs only before "u" but it is not exactly uncommon. Ever heard of Mount Fuji, for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote to Toffee[edit]

This section is about a discussion whether a headnote "Not to be confused with toffee" should be here, and whether a headnote "Not to be confused with tofu" should be in the article Toffee. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated here, I do not think the hatnote is needed. I will let others decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose for this item do be decided by native English speakers living in English-speaking countries (better from several such countries). They should estimate whether it is easy to confuse tofu with toffee (speaking in English and living in an English-speaking country). --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nutritional value[edit]

It is unclear, which kind of tofu is described in the table "Nutritional value". There are many kinds of tofu in , and I did not find any one with so great amount of calcium as in the table. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So, I have already corrected this. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


This article states "Soy isoflavones have not been shown to reduce post menopause hot flashes in women or to help prevent cancers of the breast, uterus or prostate" as if it were a fact. The article on Isoflavones states "Some isoflavones, in particular soy isoflavones, when studied in populations eating soy protein, have indicated that there is a lower incidence of breast cancer and other common cancers..." as if it were a fact. Encyclopedias should not contradict themselves. --Cowlinator (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Yushi tofu" in Okinawa[edit]

There is a type of soft tofu common in Okinawa called "yushi tofu" that's not mentioned in this article or anywhere on the English Wikipedia I can find. It is mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia tofu article, but that section doesn't translate well with Google Translate.

In Japanese it is usually written "ゆし豆腐" but I'm sure "ゆしどうふ", "油脂豆腐", and other spellings involving katakana also probably occur.

So far my Okinawan friends haven't been able to tell me what it is exactly. Anyway that would be original research so we really need to find a primary resource in English or somebody who can translate a Japanese primary resource. — Hippietrail (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fat content[edit]

It's very misleading to say that tofu has "little fat". Granted, it's only 3.5% fat by weight, but at 1.5 g carbohydrates, 3.5 g fat, and 8 g protein per 100 g tofu, 45% of its calories come from fat. This page states that a half-cup serving of tofu contains 5 g of fat; according to the FDA a food can only be called low-fat if it has less than 3 g of fat per serving, so tofu isn't "officially" low-fat in the U.S. at least. I tried to fix this before but got reverted. Pais (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the line in the lead that says "little fat" isn't correct. Elsewhere in the article tofu is described as low-calorie rather than low fat and that is an important distinction. We do need to source the facts suitably. The FDA website is a good source but isn't a reliable source. If you google a better source and then make the changes you want, it shouldn't get reverted. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a reliable source is required to remove the words "and little fat". Sources are required for what we do say, not for what we don't say. Pais (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources are not required to remove the "and little fat". I was assuming that you wanted to add the information given in your comment above about how much fat there is and whither that is considered high, low or otherwise, which would require a reference. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Nah, that sounds too much like it might be work. Pais (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tofu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


User:Jmk2392 we do not need a label of a specific tofu product - it is spammy and there are great academic/government sources on tofu nutrition analysis. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)