Talk:Soy milk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Links to manufacturers

Why? — Pekinensis 14:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually think we need links to more manufacturers because there's a distinct difference between western and eastern soymilk/drink. Can someone look up some Asian manufacturers? Janet13 9 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

I also question the usefulness of such a list. Even with the differences between western and eastern soy milk, how does a list serve anyone? If you go to a western market, you see the western brands. If you go to an asian market, you see the asian brands. That pretty much solves it for me. I'm going to remove the list -- revert if you really want it back. VanishingUser 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The current page contains photos of particular brands of soy milk to illustrate the article. This is inappropriate. These pages should not promote, explicitly or implicitly, any brand, expecially since there are hundreds of thousands of brands out there (from milti-nationals to local producers).

History

Could someone add a history section? I think this is actually a really old drink instead of a modern health food industry invention, as many might be percieving. --69.212.101.139 29 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)

There are very little information about soy cultivation history, from what I understanding is it was generally consumed by many Asians. Actually soymilk wasn't widely spread through out asia until very recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Soymilk production in asia wasn't very ancient, Korea widely producing soymilk during 1970s, while China started mass production begun in 1980s, even with this mass production, soymilk was not popular among milk drinkers. It's only in 1990s soymilk started become very popular in worldwide as cow milk was being accused of causing allergies due to many medical & health factors, and vegetarianism became major force behind as many governments around the world started pushing veggies over meats or fatty diets as fast food become increasing popular and increase of health risks due to fast food industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

New picture

That picture looks really gross and yellowed. Surely there's a better image of soymilk out there than that!

I agree. Also, why is there a branded can in the picture with a link to the manufacturer? It looks like an advertisement to me! AgarrateCatalina. Jan. 8, 07

Reference re-added

A reference was removed without explanation. It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on July 25, 2005. Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce." As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation. Uriah923 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I should like to intoroduce the oposing view on Soy & Health as presented at the following link .... http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

The page opens with the following....Italic text'"The Truth about Soy

Have you ever wondered about soy? It's promoted as the miracle food that will feed the world while at the same time prevent and cure all manner of diseases. But what if all you've read about soy is nothing but a multi-million dollar marketing strategy based on scanty facts, half-truths and lies?"......'

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Taste

Article: Soy milk can be used as a replacement for cow milk in most types of recipes.

Well, most soy milks don't taste close to cow milk at all, so i would say in most cases, soy milk isn't a good substitute for taste. Compared even to low-fat cow milk, soy milk tastes watery and hollow - someone disagree? --Abdull 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Only fat-free soymilk tastes watery. Regular soymilk can usually be used in recipes, unless you're using a lot, obviously. -QT314

Soy milk has a different pH than cow's milk, so the substitution in leavened baked goods is not straitforward. Taste otoh I think is very subjective. dikaiopolis 07:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Taste can vary dramatically between different brands of soy milk. (This might be a distinction with animal milk that's worth mentioning.) The brand I use is fine as a cow milk replacement, though obviously not if you "must have" that dairy cream flavor (which, of course, some people love and some find nauseating).--Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of brand, it is a matter of concentration, process, additional sugar or salt and milk. For example, a highly concentrated soy milk would give it a very soy bean like taste, to a point where a lot of people, especially children dislike. Yet soy milk with low concentration would be watery, but still are sold in a lot of stores with a lot of sugar added, this is probably a reason of it having an image of being watery taste. Also, most commercially packed product (instead of fresh brew) available obviously would have a burnt taste after the distillation process by heating it to a high temperature, just like cow's milk tastes different after you boil it. Since soy milk have a longer shelf life by itself, a lot of places serve it without the boiling process. MythSearcher^talk 09:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution, Mythsearcher, but my statement that the taste varies from brand to brand remains valid. I think it would be fairly obvious to most people that 'between different brands' implies the concept of 'different methods of manufacture'.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am only stating that even brandless items also have the same taste different as long as the ingredients used are of different proportion. MythSearcher^talk 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I agree with what you're saying, just not with the dismissive way you phrased your reply post. (I have made my own soy milk at home from scratch, as well as sampling several brands, so I know exactly what you mean.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If my post is in anyway offensive, I am sorry, I am not a very good writer, and is not good at words. I do not wish to offend you in anyway nor state that you are wrong or anything, simply trying to add in more info. MythSearcher^talk 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Mythsearcher. It's easy to come across as impolite on the internet, apparently. :) And English is a bugger of a thing to use for anyone, really. As I said, I still appreciated your contribution, the substance of which was perfectly valid.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Health arguments

An anonymous poster recently added a large number of negative health arguments without a reference. Is it justifiable to remove these until some sort of factual backing is provided? Uriah923 20:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The section on negative health effects is argumentative and biased, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There are also grammatical errors. This section should be rewritten by someone who isn't trying to convince the reader that soy is healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.58.184 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Taste and aftertaste

After drinking soy milk, I sometimes have an aftertaste which I can only describe as "grassy". I'm also pretty sure it aggravates my allergies, plugging up my nasal passageways. I can also feel my stomach becoming more acidic while it's in there. These are probably all side-effects of the vegetable nature of soy milk, which is not all good in all cases. Cow's milk, on the other hand, goes down very well for me, though I do feel guilty these days about how the milk is extracted from the poor cows. At any rate, I don't think it's a good substitute for cow's milk as far as chemical make-up is concerned, and my body can testify to that. Perhaps other people with similar reactions to soy milk can attest to this as well. --211.116.88.76 14:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps people with reactions to cow's milk or dairy products can attest to that. :-) -- 28 dec 2005

I drink soy milk and have not experienced the "grassy" taste you're talking about. Course, I get the vanilla flavor. Jwigton 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also drink soy milk and also don't get the "grassy" taste. When I drink cow milk, however, or eat dairy products, I get an unpleasant (like slightly off cream) smell around my mouth (the higher the fat content, the worse it is), and a runny nose. But I am not lactose-intolerant. So I guess that means my body is attesting to the fact that soy milk is fine for humans? (Or would that seem like a silly generalisation, perhaps?)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

Throughout our industry, and for the past 25 years, the standard spelling of this word in English has been "soymilk," not "soy milk." In fact the U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly prefers that spelling to further differentiate the product from "milk" (from cows or goats) 67.174.247.242 02:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC) William Shurtleff, founder of Soyinfo Center and author of five books on soymilk.

I am not opposed to changing the title to "Soymilk". However since you are basing this on a quote, please link to the source or provide a reference so that people don't arbitrarily change it back and forth. VanishingUser 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Flavoured Soy Milk

Article: In the United States, soy milk is commonly available in vanilla and chocolate flavors as well as its original unflavored form.

Just the United States?? In Australia it is available in many flavours, and surely many other countries besides.

I removed the nation-specific phrase altogether, because you can also find flavored soymilk in Asian countries or wherever else soymilk is sold. 67.169.183.167 03:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Protein?

"It naturally has about the same amount of protein as cow milk." -- Although it has about the same amount of protein as cow's milk, I assume that the proteins are not the same. Can anybody clarify this? -- 28 dec 2005

The proteins are definitely not considered the same. Soy protein and milk protein are made up of extremely different amino acids. That might lead some to argue that this article is biased a little in the sense that it is pro-soy milk. Unfortunately I can't seem to find reliable internet sources with the exact studies showing the results of people drinking soy versus cow milk, but at issue seems to be that people who drink soy have a greater incidence of mood imbalance, lower muscle mass, and higher estrogen production. -22 may 2006

---

These statements are completely untrue. The Proteins found in Soy Milk and Soy products are so close to Cows and other Bovines that people allergic to Milk Proteins are typically also allergic to Soy products. This even has a name (MSPI or BPI depending on the exact proteins you are allergic to). Google MSPI, Milk Soy Protein Intolerance and you will find plenty of references from Nutritionists and Doctors.

In fact, I greatly dis-agree with the statement "It is safe for people with lactose intolerance or milk allergy" in this article and wish it would be clarified as people have had many problems with their child due to this common mis-conception. --Jdarlingkc (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Invention of soy milk

"Soybean or "vegetable" milk is reported to have been developed and used in China by the philosopher Whi Nain Tze, who is credited also with the development of doufu or 'Tofu' in Japan." -- No Google hits for Whi Nain Tze. Liu An says, "Liu An (劉安, 179-122 BC) was an advisor to Emperor Wu of Han China and the inventor of tofu." More history info at http://www.soya.be/history-of-soy-milk.php

I believe that no matter the original development of vegetable milks, it was Dr Harry Miller, an Adventist missionary doctor in China, who tried to popularize and mass produce it as infant formula. I also think I read in a biography written for Adventist children (back when i was one, heh) that plaster of Paris (!) was one an additive. Mang 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The first citation about Soy Milk coming from China leads to a company's page that does not explain how they got their sources. Chinese sources are of course also among the most unreliable at times do to nationalist agenda. Swatpig 00:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think the People's Republic is going to begrudge you over bean juice. Here, it's your nationalist agenda that is showing. If you don't think the source is reliable, then find one that is. 67.169.183.167 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are very little information about soymilk being exclusively developed by Chinese, Chinese didn't really took interested in soymilk until modern times, and this is much same for other countries. Soymilk became popular after people were seeking alternative to milk from cow/sheep became popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong again consoleman, chinese NEVER DRANK COW MILK —Preceding unsigned comment added by .84.131.101 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecological Impact

I have removed the part about the ecological impact of soymilk because the link supplied WWF clearly states that "the main product is soy meal [...] much sought after as animal feed", so not for the production of soy milk (the paragraph seems to try to expose those soy milk drinking tree hugging hippies destroying the rainforest they love so much)

The reasoning seems off to me: "This however is not valid in many parts of the developing world where feed for cows and buffaloes is not cultivated separately but is often the by product of rice or other vegetable cultivation intended primarily for humans". This part suggests that you cant feed cows/buffaloes with soy by products, while rice and other vegetables is fine (And it also suggests that by products would be lost if you did not feed them to cows/buffaloes, but if you don't use them as animal food you will use them in cultivating other plants). So the claim that soy cultivation can be counterproductive compared to cow raisinig really needs to be backed up with some references. --Kiesa 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the doubtful part here for discussion:

This however is not valid in many parts of the developing world where feed for cows and buffaloes is not cultivated separately but is often the by

product of rice or other vegetable cultivation intended primarily for humans.

In fact, excessive soy cultivation is often counterproductive in such countries.

--Kiesa 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Huainanzi

A few edits back, there was a sentance that refrenced this in the second paragraph that made sense (at least in form--I can't vouch for it being factual). Since then it's been moved around at random ending up all by itself as a link at the end of the paragraph. In previous versions it never was clear exactly what it's relationship to the history of soy milk was, really. I solved this problem by removing the refrence entirely. If anyone wants to put it back, go ahead but at least fit it in w/ the paragraph rather than just tacking it on the end.Frank 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

defatting unsourced

"Lower fat varieties of soy milk are often significantly lower in protein than cow's milk because the defatting process is not one of skimming risen cream, rather it involves adding water." Deleted for lack of source. Jclerman 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

debate over the use of infant formula

There's substantial debate in the medical community currently over whether soy-milk baby formula should be used, as it commonly is, as a substitute for infants who are allergic to cow's milk. There is evidence that soy protein is a moderately sensitizing protein, especially in young infants, and even more especially so in infants who have already shown signs of cow-milk-protein allergy (there is debate over why that would be). Some evidence suggests that using soy milk as a substitute in that case puts such infants at a much higher risk of developing soy allergy than normal. As a result, some organizations now recommend against the use of soy milk as a substitute for cow-milk-sensitive infants, but this recommendation is not universally agreed upon. This paper has some details. --Delirium 05:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy and Dementia

This is apparently a widespread debate. I have no idea either way, but I'm very surprised that potential health risks aren't really mentioned in thier own section in this article. [unsigned]

The article that you are referencing brings up the question but pretty much shoots it down also. Expect this to happen a lot. Most of the health "risks" are from unsubstantiated reports or studies, most likely funded by certain interests in the dairy industry (do you really believe that you need 2-3 servings of dairy every day, as the USDA food pyramid claims?). Always keep in mind that there are millions if not billions of dollars at stake annually for dairy producers and they will do whatever they can to discredit soymilk. As your article states, there's a rather big discrepancy between the claims that soy consumption leads to mental deterioration, when much more comprehensive studies have shown that Asians suffer from these problems less than Western peoples do. 67.169.183.167 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Add more detail to "Ecological Impact"

It says the "explosion of soybean cultivation" in Brazil caused losses of large tracts of forest lands, but it didn't say how or why. I want details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.242.66 (talk • contribs)

{{citation needed}}

Section Origins states:

Soy milk originated in China

soymilk has a US patent around 1930. This would counterdict this information. --meatclerk 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it? Just because something is patented today doesn't mean it didn't exist yesterday. Or are you basing your statement on a Wikipedia-specific guideline? Paul Haymon 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation added. Soy milk, as well as its bi-product Doufu, appeared in China 2,000 years ago. In my opinion, a patent of less than one century is merely a modern stuff of making $$$. --supernorton 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Section Origins states:

Soy Milk comes from the depths of hell, where it squeezed from the bodies of vegetarians.

Errr...?

This is western arrogance again like when gunpowder, paper, compass and printing were invented 2,000 by the chinese the U.S. patents and steals other peoples inventions.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. See Hanlon's razor. —Viriditas | Talk 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading statement

I edited this, removing the implication that "dou nai" is more common in the west:

In Western nations, soy milk is more commonly sold under the term Dòu nǎi (豆奶; lit. "bean milk") than dòu jiāng (豆漿), although the two terms are often used interchangeably.

In Western nations, soymilk is sold as "Soymilk" not as either of the Chinese phrases. And I've never heard any Chinese people refer to the product as "dou nai". Do a Google search for both phrases, and "dou nai" doesn't even return any relevant hits. 67.169.183.167 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that "豆奶" is indeed an alternative Chinese term for 豆漿. If you want some corroboration from Google search results, use "豆奶" instead of "dou nai". A Google search on "豆奶" yielded (approx.) 494,000 hits. A quick check of the first 50 hits confirmed that they (i.e. the first 50 hits) were all true hits. --72.78.237.89 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because a lot of people are saying something it doesn't make it right. They could be absolute idiots, right? 121.94.38.75 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This statement is misleading: "Since soy doesn't contain galactose, a product of lactose breakdown, it can safely replace breast milk in children with Galactosemia." Soymilk is not a replacement for breast milk or infant formula. There are soy-based infant formulas (which was mentioned later in the article), however, an infant should not be fed Soymilk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.132.133 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Drinho spam?

Drinho is for some reason at the top of an otherwise alphabetized list of manufacturers, and a secondary picture features their product with the caption "A convenient pack" which isn't really relevant to the subject. 67.169.183.167 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nomenclature"

I don't actually get the point of this section. To a large part, this is just translations of the term "soymilk" into other languages. I think part of this should be integrated into other paragraphs, or renamed something like "Soymilk in other parts of the world". As a first step I deleted the parts referring to Spanish and Russian (which were really mere translations of the term, entirely pointless). Lodp 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole is largely disorganized, with information appearing under the wrong or unrelated section headers and such. If anyone has the time to do a major cleanup edit they are welcome to do so. I will try to lend some help when I can. VanishingUser 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims of negative health effects

I'd like to suggest a change to the point which begins with "Soy consumption has been linked to dementia and cognitive impairment in men." I feel that this wording does not reflect the cited study, which specifically comments on the effects of a phytoestrogen rich diet upon male rats. The linked source does not comment upon human males, as the current version would imply. So, unless there's any opposition--or a source that does address the effect of soy upon men--I'd like to remove the reference to men.

I also feel that the cited source does not support the claim that soy consumption has been linked to dementia, or if you apply a weak definition of dementia then it is insignificant to cite both dementia and cognitive impairment.

Given the controversy surrounding the subject, and that this is my first substantial edit, I'm proposing here the following version:

"Soy consumption has been linked to cognitive impairment in male rats. Although the cited studies are based on rats fed with concentrated phytoestrogens and not common soy beans, it is already well known that concentrated estrogens cause negative effects in males. The common amounts of phytoestrogens in soy beans are not to be compared to concentrated estrogen."

Would welcome suggestions.KGZotU (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of health effects?

This article doesn't seem especially neutral particularly as regards the health impact. The phrasing of the article is obviously biased, with section titles "health benefits" vs. "claims of negative health effects". The health benefits seem a bit of a stretch, as it simply mentions several of the compounds in soy milk and assigns a blanket label of "healthy" to them, although the wikipedia pages for those compounds are much more cautious about describing their net health impact as positive or negative. In particular, lecithin and monounsaturated fats are not described as especially healthy, and casein's negative health impacts are highly debatable. As is mentioned above, the statement "It is safe for people with lactose intolerance or milk allergy" overreaches as simultaneous intolerance to soy and milk proteins is not uncommon (MSPI); while it is generally safe for lactose-intolerants, would MSPI fall under a milk allergy? 66.27.121.188 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am certained that there are products which sell Soy Milk as an alternative to milk, but have no idea if this qualifies as Soy milk being a safe substitute of Milk. MythSearcher^talk 14:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just logged in to make this change, but first checked here to see if there was discussion about it. I agree with anonymous that prefixing the section with "claims" implies that the information below could be inaccurate. The fact is there are source studies that conclude negative effects, these are no "claims" anymore than the "claims of health benefits" above. Changing now.. Wikidan829 (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

Petition to change the name of this substance from soy milk to soy juice. To paraphrase Lewis Black, "if it doesn't come out of a tit then it isn't milk!"

Seriously, it's soy juice, live with it. -Inri

Technically, it is not squeezed out of soy beans and thus not juice. And Lewis Black is not an expert on the material, so it is out of the question to change the name after his joke comment. MythSearcher^talk 04:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Korea robber event

The quoted news cited that a Korea company claimed soy milk as an invention of Korea a few hundred years ago on their product sold in Japan, angered China since written record occurred 2000 years ago that soy milk is used in China. However, the Chinese government is well known for making up stories for political purposes. Along with a few other things stolen by Korea like Korea patterning Chinese characters and 端午節(dragon boat festival) as their own creation in a relatively recent time, making China officials stating North Korea as robbing historical festivals and inventions and creating hoaxes to confuse other countries about the origin of various things. Thus only stating China is accusing Korea is not faithful to the quote. The Japanese words there is the title of the news article, not a complete quote of the news. MythSearcher^talk 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion topic title is some what offensive, since when Chinese have been calling Koreans being robbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, I don't see anywhere in the cited article that "Korea" actually claims soy milk was invented by Korea. Accusation made by a Chinese official or Chinese internet users does not represent "Korea", and the article itself makes no confirmation whether "Korea" really did claim soy milk was invented by Korea. As for other issues regarding Chinese characters and duanwu festival, please take them to the relevant talk pages and don't bring it here where they are completely irrelevant. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim made was listed in the quote: 韓国は数百年前から家庭で豆乳を作っていた。韓国が豆乳の発源地. In which means Korea families made soy milk from a few hundred years ago. Korea is the origin of soy milk. If you say that a Korea soy milk company claim does not represent Korea, the sentence could be changed to A Korea food comapny claims soy milk being originated in Korea and advertised the claim in 14 countries including China, Japan and Germany, stating that Korea families had been producing it for a few hundred years, in which angered China and accuse Korea of stealing since soy milk had written record in China dated more than 2000 years old. MythSearcher^talk 06:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MythSearcher, the only fact that the article confirms is that a Korean company advertised such claims in Japan. Can you confirm based on reliable source whether such claims were advertised in countries other than Japan by this company? Cydevil38 (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got confused by the paragraph saying the company sold its products in 14 countries. I have stroke out the part saying the advertisement in other countries. MythSearcher^talk 08:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is fine by me, although I don't agree that it's an encyclopedic material. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to show all claims from all sides, thus the Korea company claim as well as opposing claims should be included to show that the article is not biased towards any source. MythSearcher^talk 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be specified as to who or what is making that kind of accusation, such as "Chinese official accuses Korea of...."

The fact is that a Korea company made an irresponsible claim, claiming soy milk is originated from Korea. Do not ignore this fact and try to make it sound like China made an irresponsible accussation. All your links did not comment on the fact that there is in fact Korean subjects claiming the originality of the inventions with no firm proof behind them, while trying to counter argue it by saying China made it all up or it is the problem of China, ignoring it is all started up because irresponsible Koreans made hoaxes claims. MythSearcher^talk 07:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think most Koreans would share my thoughts that this "Korea stole Chinese culture!" crap is completely lame and annoying. It is doubtful that Koreans give a <beep> about who "invented" soy milk. So a Korean company made an irresponsible claim to advertise its brand, but how does that reflect the opinion of all Koreans or the Korean government? If you haven't noticed, almost all the Korean articles covering this story, including the one you cited, have negative connotations towards the Chinese. If you want to bring this problem up, which is probably only derogatory to your own people to many others, be my guest. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The annoying part is that there are Korea subjects being irresponsible and Koreas being ignorant to the fact that these subjects are being irresponsible. It does not represent all of Korea, just like there are no Chinese source claiming all of China claim the invention of soy milk. A Korean company stated Korea as the origin of soy milk, then it is a fact that it claimed Korea as the origin. All of your sources ignore the fact that there ARE Koreans being irresponsible, and I do not even want to defend for the Taiwan reporters being irresponsible on other cases of falsely accusing Korean like the case a reporter falsely believed an internet rumour of Korean claiming a famous Taiwanese to be Korean, thus I did not remove the negative parts at all. Being irresponsible is annoying, being ignorant to the fact that irresponsible people exist is alos very annoying. Korea subjects are doing the first, you are doing the second. The parts you ask for sources are in the quoted source. MythSearcher^talk 12:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My sources may "ignore" Koreans being "irresponsible", but I clarify where the accusations are coming from and it's up to the readers to decide. Also, please give me a contemporary record of Liu An of using soy milk, because I have sources that tell me otherwise. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Japan is not totally irrelevant here, your sources claim China as being anti-Korean and is victimizing itself but the fact is that Japan views the irresponsible Koreans the same way, thus the source counters the Korean reporters irresponsible view points in ignoring the irresponsible Korea subjects. The source I have given states very clearly that Liu An used soy milk, and according to the first source, Liu An's mother is to be credited to give him the idea of making soy milk and for making bean curd, soy milk is also an essential factor thus he cannot create bean curd without an earlier soy milk invention. You have ignored all three of the sources and you cannot include your sources you are stating here, this is not very helpful. MythSearcher^talk 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a source where Japanese views are specifically made relevant related to the soy milk case. Also, you have failed to give a source that "Korea" is making this claim, nor have you given the source that the earliest record comes from Liu An. The earliest record of Liu An making soy milk was written in the 10th century. Please do not remove the fact/dubious tags until you have sufficiently proven your claims with reliable sources. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also please provide a source that soybeans were "tranplanted" to Japan from China, because cultivation of soybeans in Japan is pretty ancient. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are just disrupting this to make a point. Earliest written record comes from him using it as a medicine does not mean that he himself needs to write it, the sentence only means that the earliest record tells of him using it as a medicine. There are later records stating the idea comes from his mother, which his old and ill mother wanted to eat soy bean, but soy bean is too hard for an old and sick mother, Liu An was troubled by that and his mother suggested him to try grinding them. If your source claims of written record of Liu An came from 10th century, then go read the first source in the article. The Japanese cases are a counter argument for your irresponsible Korean reporters ignoring Korea subjects stating irresponsible things and blame it on Chinese people falsely accusing Korea, which is not true since Japan got the same issue against Korea, yet Wikipedia policy states that wikipedia does not need correctness but instead they want sources from all sides, so you sources could stay but a counter argument of how your sources are blaming on others irresponsibly by being ignorant and simply covering up the faults of your own country's irresponsible subject should also be there to let the readers know the true fact behind this. I have clearly made my point on Korea company does not represent Korea, but it claimed Korea to be the origin, so It is simply a fact that Korea subjects claimed it, and no Korean official or reporter made a statement about it being false. I am not going to argue on the transplantation part since it is not of my edit and I have no interest in finding a source for it. I would suggest changing it to Later on, the method of making soy milk was passed over to Japan. The article at the original state was perfectly fine before you came, it states no negative points and only display perfectly neutral points, China claimed the origin, and Korea also claim it, yet Korea claiming it makes China mad. You edits and sources further push on more irresponsible claims of Korea with ignorant reporters ignoring Korean faults on irresponsible claiming of origins. You could say all you want, but you just keep covering the fault of a Korean company which made a false claim and cannot directly face the fact that it has to be published. Listen, I don't even care if China is the origin of soy milk or not, by wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources., The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.. We cannot ignore the source from a Korean Company, at the same time we cannot ignore the source of China being angered by the claim. You can also include all the sources stating Korea in general does not share the view point of the company, and any news article stating how stupid Chinese people are, while I can also include Japanese also share the view point of China, that Koreans are sometimes irresonsible. MythSearcher^talk 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, I'm not trying to make a point. Contents in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, and I'm merely asking for it. The contents herein should also adhere to the cited reliable sources, but you constantly break this rule. Also, your addition of Japanense controversy to this article is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. None of them are about soy milk! If any such controversy can be added, all the China-related controversies can be relevant here as well, such as Chinese claims on Koguryo, Genghis Khan, Spaghetti, etc, as well as BS accusations made by Chinese, such as Koreans "stealing" Dragon Boat Festival, Chinese characters, Confucius, et cetera. You are making this aritcle a complete mess by adding irrelevant, controversial material. And I ask for the last time, do not remove dispute/fact/dubious tags. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The original citations are perfectly followed in the article, at least the part I added in is. Korea also claimed its origin of soy milk, and the source also given is that China is angered by that. Your sources given are simply blaming China instead of countering the fact that the company did claim the origin. You claim that the Japanese link is not relevant, in that view point, all the other false accusations of Korea is also irrelevant. I did not even try to cover up the fact that Chinese people did falsely accuse Korea, yet the soy milk issue is not the case and the Korea news articles are totally ignoring this fact. The one adding a complete mess is you, who tried to cover up for the Korean company. Look at the article before your edits, everything is in order and sources are correctly followed. If you think Korea did not claim it, change the sentence to a Korean company claimed it, everything would be fine, but no, you decided to add in more stuff to try to cover up the story, even go as far as trying to get sources to blame China for a factually sourced accusation as a false one. MythSearcher^talk 05:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No one can claim on foods that just recently became popular among asians, soymilk is also widely consumed by Americans and Europeans, and including Africans etc.., Chinese trying to claim soymilk being their invention is completely false unless both Chinese & Koreans come up with different flavor or different types of soybeans. If China is claiming soymilk then they need to provide that soybean was first cultivated by first Chinese civilization, considering both Chinese, Koreans and Japanese extensively use soy on many foods, China can not solely claim soymilk, soymilk became popular in China because it was easy & cheap for them than making their citizens to drink cow milks. Chinese aren't that vegetarian dieters; considering they consumed anything that lives on this planet. Chinese civilization was came from Yangtze River delta, anything that extends this area are conquered territories, therefore anything that Chinese taken from other tribes can not be claimed as Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

" Chinese aren't that vegetarian dieters; considering they consumed anything that lives on this planet. Chinese civilization was came from Yangtze River delta, anything that extends this area are conquered territories, therefore anything that Chinese taken from other tribes can not be claimed as Chinese. "

funny how you say this, yet exclude the fact that you guys eat raw octupussy, consolerman, plus all western historians say chinese civilization come from the yellow river, and you cant claim its chinese pov because its WESTERN research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by .84.131.101 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor?

Define minor, please, from WP:NPOV, all sources from all sides should be included, they gave a very clear claim of originality, then why not include it? Yes, there are sources claiming otherwise, then it is more suitable to include all sources. They claim it, and therefore it should be there. There is not WP:OR and the sources given are all verifiable as well as published sources. According to WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. They claimed the originality, we include it, without modifying the meaning of it. Not including it is against the WP:NPOV policy, stating only sources from one side is a selective process and is not acceptable. Saying it as minor is simply ignore the fact that it is a published claim that is even published overseas, it would be fairly irresponsible to just take the words from one side and not include other opposing views. Actually, I am also compiling a list of other Chinese legends that claimed the invention of soy milk, which would counter the sole biased view point on the rather late written record in China. BTW, a source even claimed the existing ancient Chinese written documentation where mostly copies from the 17th century, in which it would have been heavily modified and the claim of China invented paper, gun powder, etc. would not be completely reliable, thus including other sources are indeed following the WP:NPOV policy, while including points of counter argument is also doing so. MythSearcher^talk 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that claims made by a single company for commercial purposes qualify as encyclopedic material. Please explain how this helps readers understand origin of soy milk any better. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A published claim from a company specialized in soy milk related product and internationally sells its products in at least 14 countries does not seem very minor to me. At least it claims that soy milk is used in Korea for a few hundred years. Listen, you are viewing this as being against Korea or something and is not trying to think of it as a normal source. Claims of a single company for commercial purposes is different from a product clearly stating its originality, just like if a Nokia phone model uses an old style and claimed to be the origin of mobile phones, it would be significant enough to be listed in the article there. At least people who read the statement on the product might be interested in reading further and eventually will end up being here, and the article should be displaying all views form all sides. Of course if a small company or even a single person made the claim on its own publication with minimal sales figures would be minor, but the company in question here is not a small company. MythSearcher^talk 07:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though a large company, claims made on an advertisement targeting the Japanese market is not really encyclopedic material. Also, if your real intention was to really help reader understand about soy milk's origins, you wouldn't insist on mentioning "Korea" or "a Korean company", as nationality of the source is completely irrelevant in presenting sources from a NPOV. If your intentions were really genuine, it would be something like "Other sources suggest soy milk was originiated in Korea..." This material does not help readers understand the subject any better. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would accept Other sources suggests, I was trying to directly quote the source, it does not matter how it is presented. It is just simply a statement, and I tried to keep to the sources as much as possible, and it is from a Korea company. Listen, I hold no grudge against Korea, I use a lot of Korea products and read Korea comic, I have included the source just because it is there. If you do not want to mention what source it is directly in the article, it still sounds fine to me. MythSearcher^talk 07:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese quote is directly from the product it listed on, it seems like it would be reasonable to include it as a source as well. Also, the Chinese comment is also useful, it is claimed by a related Chinese official that the history is over 2000 years. You are being selective in your sources to just display the view from a Korea reporter. MythSearcher^talk 10:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Japanese" article you cited is in fact a Korean article translated into Japanese. Joongang Ilbo(www.joins.com) is a Korean newspaper company. I simply replaced the Japanese version with the original Korean article. As for the comments by the Chinese official, it is redundant material as the view that China originally developed soy milk is introduced in the first paragraph. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese news article after the Japanese article is not a translation of the Japanese article nor the Korean article. Also, the quoted Chinese official comment is different from the first paragraph, and I believe the original sentence of the claim should also be quoted in the article, that is the Japanese quote I am talking about, not the news article. MythSearcher^talk 06:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Distortion of sources

It would be very funny that you, Cydevil38, have accused me of distorting the source, yet the source stated clearly: The earliest reference to soymilk (doujiang) in China appeared in about A.D. 82 in the Lun Heng by Wang Ch'ung. In the chapter called "Four Taboos" ( Szu-Hui ) it is stated that makers of soymilk fear that thunder will spoil their product. thus using soy milk in the article is perfectly fine, and the edited version which changed the words to doujiang claiming I have distorted the source is a false accusation at the same time putting the word possibly into the sentence and altering the source. Also, the Chinese official claim of originality is a well quoted secondary source and obviously it is a reliable source fitting for wiki articles. The source stated bean curd as well, and thus bean curd is mentioned. Only bean curd was mentioned in the sources stating Liu An invented it, thus it is related material supporting the later claim of Later writers in both Asia and the West added soymilk development to Liu An's feats, reasoning that he could not have made tofu without first having made soymilk. The quote from the Japanese product is also a source stating where the source claim the commercial advertisement that soy milk was originated in Korea, it would be unreasonable to not quote it when the source is simply there. Chinese officials do not want to comment of the issue would be another reliable and related source since the claim would be debating for the originality, and China claimed the originality in a lot of sources yet the officials are not commenting on being the origin, which would mean that they did not counter argue the claim of origin in Korea, and it would make sense since no hard historical evidence point to China inventing soy milk other than early sources claiming China used it in early history. On the other hand, the popular usage of soy milk is totally irrelevant in the Origin section, because whether it is popular or not means nothing in the originality. It would be very reasonable that soy milk was listed as a medicine in old books and thus it is not drank normally in early history. MythSearcher^talk 13:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From the source, I'll highlight the parts that you are intentionally trying to hide and distort: Origin and Early Development . According to popular tradition, soymilk was developed in the second century B.C. by Liu An, king of Huai-nan, who is also said to have developed tofu at the same time. There is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis, however, for this legend, which first appeared in the late 1500s in the Pen-ts'ao kang-mu by Li Shih-chen. Actually, Li only attributed the development of tofu to Liu An, making no mention of soymilk. Later writers in both Asia and the West added soymilk development to Liu An's feats, reasoning that he could not have made tofu without first having made soymilk. For more about Liu An, see Chapter 13.

The earliest reference to soymilk (doujiang) in China appeared in about A.D. 82 in the Lun Heng by Wang Ch'ung. In the chapter called "Four Taboos" ( Szu-Hui ) it is stated that makers of soymilk fear that thunder will spoil their product. After that date there are a number of early references, as by the famous Taoist sage, Sun Szu-miao ( ), who left quite a few books on medicine and pharmacology. His comments on soymilk are quoted in the Sung dynasty pharmacopoeia, Pen ts'ao yen i , written in about 1116 by K'ou Tsung-shih.

It is interesting to note that the earliest mention of soymilk in China appears long before the first mention of tofu ( ). One might be tempted to conclude from this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu and that tofu evolved from soymilk. Yet neither of these deductions may be true: early travelers to China, who mention tofu frequently, never mention soymilk or its use as a drink until the mid 1900s; many Chinese work that discuss the various types of soyfoods in detail make no mention of soymilk; even as late as 1848, Wu, in his extensive treatise on the soybean and soyfoods, made no mention of soymilk; and tofu may have evolved from a thick soup made of fresh soybean puree rather than from filtered soymilk, as explained in Chapter 13. It is also possible that the term doujiang actually referred to this soybean puree soup or soy slurry rather than to a filtered soymilk. Evidence for this point of view is found in the fact that the most popular traditional way of serving soymilk is as a spicy hot breakfast soup (xian doujiang), to which many soup-like garnishes (such as bonito flakes, bits of shrimp, diced leeks, salt pickles, salt, and spices) are added at the table. It is also served as a warm sweetened beverage ( tian doujiang ) drunk early in the morning or late at night. Both preparations are typically accompanied by #yu-tiao taso-p'i , long and twisted deep-fried crullers wrapped in flaky sesame tortillas, which are dipped in the piping hot soymilk as they are enjoyed. We know nothing of when or where these soymilk-based souplike dishes were developed or how their popularity spread. Yet in 1928 Tso, an expert on soymilk, wrote: "Soybean milk is a native food used in certain parts of the country as a morning beverage but is little used as part of the diet for children."

And, again, how Chinese officials feel is completely irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That shows your selection in sources and being POV. I did NOT hide any of the facts you have bolded here, I have even found sources supporting the claim of Liu An not being the inventor, and did not remove the sentence stating that Liu An's legend does not have historical basis, you accusation is very funny and is not only trying to distort the facts and removing sources, but also used your own imagination in accusing what I have not done. I have even included that the naming of soy milk and the soup that could be used to create tofu is the same at the time. You have intentionally included words into the sentences where the source did not have, like you claimed It also appeared in a chapter called Four Taboos (Szu-Hui) in the A.D. 82 book called Lun Heng by Wang Ch'ung, possibly the first written record of soy milk, stating that makers of doujiang, possibly soy milk, is afraid of thunder since it will destroy their products., but the source clearly states The earliest reference to soymilk (doujiang) in China appeared in about A.D. 82 in the Lun Heng by Wang Ch'ung. In the chapter called "Four Taboos" ( Szu-Hui ) it is stated that makers of soymilk fear that thunder will spoil their product. and have no words of doubt in it. The later mention of the puree was stated later in the source, thus this article also follow that style and mentioned that might be not soy milk after all, the source actually showed doubt in having a product called doujiang and is no soy milk instead of doubting soy milk does not exist in early history. You have selected this source and deselected all other sources that claims otherwise, this is why you are now against the NPOV policy of wiki. This source said things about this, yet other sources could say otherwise, and all sources should be included to let the readers decide on which one to believe. For example, this source obviously states the existence of written record is in A.D. 82, thus should well be rendering the lower Korean source stating there is not historical evidence of soy milk existed in China false, yet both sources should be included to let the readers decide on which one to believe. Thus the Chinese official not wanting to comment on the issue is also a source that could alter the readers decision on where did soy milk originated, since Chinese officials did not want to comment on the soy milk origin. Another funny thing is that you were the one placing the fact tag after the medical use of soy milk behind Liu An's case, yet you are the one who blindly reverts the part leaving it there after I have removed it from the section. Removing the Chinese claim of 2000 years of history is also simply original research, we do not know if there really is historical background or not, you chose to only stick to sources claiming there are none and delete all of the sources claiming there are, is being selective and trying to deduce from sources your own version of the story instead of purely sticking to facts. MythSearcher^talk 17:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make my position clear for the last time before I take further steps.

• Fact is established that according to the source there is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis behind the myth that Liu An invented soy milk.
• Fact is established that according to the source it's possible that doujiang refers to soybean puree soup or soy slurry rather than filtered soy milk.
• Fact is established that according to the source it's unlikely for soy milk to have been in wide use in China prior to the 20th century.
• You have unilaterally edited out all of them in this edit.[1]
• You insist upon adding controversial claims made by a commercial advertisement. I believe this is unencyclopedic material. Even if this is added, whether or not Chinese officials have nothing to comment on this or what Japanese think about Koreans on other subjects are completely irrelevant.
• You consistently add irrelevant information that Liu An invented tofu without relating this material to the subject of this article.

Before any further steps are taken, I'll revert this edit to the one before your intervention. I'll add a dispute tag. Please work through consensus before you make any further changes. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will show your false accusation. this edit showed no removal of content but only addition of sources that counter argue the facts you have claimed, in which you have selectively chose your side of sources to be included and not include any other counter sources, which obviously violates WP:NPOV. MythSearcher^talk 09:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to go ahead and file multiple reports on the relevant noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and/or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'll notify those noticeboards of the current dispute and RfC. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I have not included anything claiming the Korean company stole soy milk from the Chinese in the article text, other than sources that are secondary sources of the company's claim, since the claim on the product is primary and I could not find a source not blaming Korea, the sources are also used for the Chinese claim on origin and history of over 2000 years, I have later only quoted that statement of claim and not quoted the whole news article about it, they have claimed the origin, thus it should be mentioned and quoted in the article since they are a relatively large company and their sources are rather significant in the field. However, the point of view from all sides should be included, thus the views of Chinese officials not wanting to comment (thus not stating Korean stole anything) should be included. If the article included a source stating the Chinese are self victimized by concerning Korean a stealer of culture, the Japanese source concerning Korean claiming various culture as their own should be included since it is a different party stating the same concern, which have also listed soy milk in it. The cited no historical and doujiang being not necessarily soy milk should be included, even if it is plainly wrong(it might well be correct, but it is obviously contradicting the other source stating the stone slab, and the stone slab source itself got no other supporting factor, not even Chinese sources mentioned anything like that so that might be false as well.), it is a verifiable and reliable source given, and WP:NPOV states that wiki requires no correctness but the important thing is sources that are reliable and verifiable. Tofu is the Japanese romanization of the product, bean curd is the correct English name for it, thus according to WP:UE, bean curd should be used unless it is a direct quote from a source stating tofu or any other name. Also, bean curd and soy milk are related to each other since present production method of bean curd requires soy milk, sources of not needing soy milk are present but it is still speculation and is only an alternative theory that should be included but not used for altering the rest of the section stating doubt in the soy milk used is not soy milk. All theories should be welcomed, as long as they exist. It is very common that ancient civilizations invented the same thing in different areas with no communication between them, it is very obvious that simple things could be created by different beings, just like the origin of hunting is not going to have hard evidence on who invented the method and is very likely to have multiple countries having legends of their own. MythSearcher^talk 06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to use "Doufu" (chinese pronunciation) or "Tofu" (japanese pronunciation) instead of "bean curd". The word doufu is quite ancient and has probably been around since the tang dynasty. It is believed to originate from the mongolian word "Rufu" which first appeared in chinese texts during the Sui dynasty. http://www.chinavoc.com.cn/ChineseCulture/ShowArticle.aspx?Id=10705 Cypoet (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for tofu, I must correct myself. After I have read the discussion on the tofu page, it appeared that tofu had been used as an English term for some time now(dated back to 1880s) and is much more common than bean curd, at least the google test showed a more than an order of magnitude result, tofu got a 8digit result while bean curd only has 6, and doufu goes all the way to only having 5 digits. Tofu is an English term as per WP:UE and WP:MOS standards. The origin I have read is a bit different though. according to a dictionary, [2] 豆腐は、中国から寺院の食物として伝来したもので、漢語の「豆腐」をそのまま借用した語。「腐」は「腐敗」の意味ではなく、中国でヨーグルトを「乳腐」と言うように、固体でも液体に近いものもさすことから、「豆腐」と書かれるようになった。The food comes from Chinese temples and word is Chinese, fu is not the fu in fubai, which means rottened, but more like the yogurt like yufu, a very liquidy solid. MythSearcher^talk 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No. 'Fu' in tofu is written 腐 (which means rotten) and is the same character used in rufu, a mongolian word. The etymology of the word tofu points towards a mongolian/tungusic/manchu origin Cypoet (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but the words are written the same way. I have never heard of that kind of usage either, but it is directly from a dictionary stating the word is also used for a liquid like solid. Another theory suggested tofu was called lai ki in the late Han dynasty. MythSearcher^talk 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if we look at page 2 of the source [3] it clearly states that in the 19th century there was European record of China having soy milk drank from tofu shops, thus the doubtful claim of no historical evidence before 20th century in page 1 is obviously taken to more weight than the source tried to insert.(The next reference to soymilk and the first to discuss its use as a beverage appeared in 1866 in an article by the Frechman Paul Champion on the production of tofu in China and Japan. Champion, who had lived for some time in China, noted that "The shops where tofu is made are generally filled with Chinese who bring cups to get some of the hot liquid, which is used to make tofu and which has not yet been coagulated; they drink this beverage, which has an insipid but not disagreeable taste, just like we enjoy coffee with tea. For many of the poor, the morning meal consists of a cup of this liquid, in which they dip various types of deep-fried crullers." Ritter (1874) a German, and Paillieux (1880) and Egasse (1888) both Frenchmen referred to soymilk in passing.) The only supporting evidence of doujiang not being soy milk mentioned in the source is that Chinese people don't drink it like westerners do but used it as a soup and added other ingredients in it, which is still practiced in China today using soy milk. From a person who persistently removes a source claiming Chinese origin of soy milk, while accusing me of removing a self doubtful source stating 20th century without reading the whole article, hmmm, this surely is disputed, someone trying to cover up facts by selectively choosing the source, and part of the source to be his perfectly comfortable article text, while ignoring and removing all counter arguments from all other sources. MythSearcher^talk 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said there is no historical evidence before the 20th century. This is the content I've added, which you edited out:

• Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and its popular usage before then is unlikely.

Also, there should be additional content that first evidence of soy milk being used as a drink was in 1866. You are adding redundant contents based on Chinese sources, NPOV of which is questionable, quite profusely. Take a look at your edit.[4] It is barely readable. You're using Chinese characters in an English encyclopedia. It's profuse with irrelevant information about tofu. It's important to keep Wikipedia articles concise and readable for the readers. But of course, you'll simply revert the changes if I remove extraneous contents, so I simply moved much of it down. I don't persistently remove sources claiming Chinese origin of soy milk. When reading my version of the edit, they already know that the oldest evidence of soy milk is from China, and it was used for thousands of years although its usage wasn't widely spread until the 20th century. What you're adding is profuse and extraneous information about soy milk originating in China, harping the readers that China invented soy milk. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the actual source and your deduction of rare is not an excuse, the source did not state rare in any part of it, it simply said no. However, it got a counter statement in a later paragraph, which listed 2 books, one clearly stating soy milk's existence, does not justify your deduction of rare. Notice the original sentence stated in the source is ONLY about travelers statements and NOT the historical evidence you are claiming. You have removed contents that are perfectly fitting as sources, that is why I have to revert your edits, you action of moving it down was a cover of you removal of sources, in which 3 sources are removed with one being a primary source of the company's claim on origin, and one being a secondary source stating soy milk was invented over 2000 years, and one being Chinese officials doesn't want to comment on who invented soy milk. Your claim of me adding extraneous information simply is false and covering your own selective nature of sources, I have added sources claiming Chinese sources might not be trust-worthy, yet you still falsely accuse me of harping readers that China invented soy milk, the origin section is about the origin of soy milk, not the wide spread usage of it. If you want to discuss about the wide spread usage of soy milk, it would be better to add it in a section called History. All of your edits are simply directly related to clearing the article to fit a one single source that you have deduced to be the only fact in the section, going as far as altering a source by using one single doubtful sentence and judge on your own that sources are rare. MythSearcher^talk 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

From the source: One might be tempted to conclude from this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu and that tofu evolved from soymilk. Yet neither of these deductions may be true: early travelers to China, who mention tofu frequently, never mention soymilk or its use as a drink until the mid 1900s; many Chinese work that discuss the various types of soyfoods in detail make no mention of soymilk; even as late as 1848, Wu, in his extensive treatise on the soybean and soyfoods, made no mention of soymilk

I am so sorry if rare is not an appropriate subsitute for the word scant. We have another source that tells us that there is no evidence of soy milk used as a drink until the 19th century. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your sentence and this source is different, according to your reworded sentence, the meaning have changed from the evidence of soy milk existed is rare, and it is unlikely that is it popular before then. The original source, however, states that the evidence of soy milk being popular before then is rare. The difference is that the source claims the popularity of soy milk is unlikely, your sentence, intentionally or not, made it sounded like both the existence and popularity is unlikely. The sentence structure of your reworded edit is totally misquoting the source and distorting the meaning of it. Since the original sentence in the source is about popularity, it should go to the history section instead of the origin section, and no matter your intentions of altering the sentence is good or not, it should not be there, thus I have removed it, understand? MythSearcher^talk 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The source says two things. The evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century. Because of this, it is unlikely for soy milk to have been popular. I don't know if it's you or me but someone here is certainly having trouble comprehending this material. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the source did not mention anything about evidence of soy milk is rare, it only mentioned early travelers to China that mentioned tofu never mentioned soy milk or its use as a drink until mid 1900s, which is obviously countered by the second page evidence that obviously it is NOT true that is never got mentioned before 1900s. By simple logic, it is only a fitting condition where travelers to China that have not mention tofu could have mentioned soy milk, or maybe not, but we do not know or we cannot give any further conclusion other than that. The whole thing only mentioned the popularity, I have no idea where did you get the idea of totally lack of evidence of its existence, but obviously you are reading between lines. We will look into this whole paragraph line by line, 1) It is interesting to note that the earliest mention of soymilk in China appears long before the first mention of tofu ( ) I think we don't have problem on this sentence, it clearly states the earliest mention of soy milk appears long before first mention of tofu. 2) One might be tempted to conclude from this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu and that tofu evolved from soymilk. It then mentioned that people might conclude from this little evidence that soy milk is popular before tofu. 3) Yet neither of these deductions may be true: early travelers to China, who mention tofu frequently, never mention soymilk or its use as a drink until the mid 1900s; many Chinese work that discuss the various types of soyfoods in detail make no mention of soymilk; even as late as 1848, Wu, in his extensive treatise on the soybean and soyfoods, made no mention of soymilk; As I have said in the above, here concerns travelers that have mentioned tofu, and talked about the lack of mentioning of soy milk. Yet there is still no mention of lacking evidence of soy milk's existence. 4) and tofu may have evolved from a thick soup made of fresh soybean puree rather than from filtered soymilk, as explained in Chapter 13. It is also possible that the term doujiang actually referred to this soybean puree soup or soy slurry rather than to a filtered soymilk. Here is where the source became doubtful about soy milk existence in using soy milk as an ingredient of tofu, thus that is why I have included a sentence in the article text where the early mention of soy milk might not be the soy milk we are talking about now. 5) Evidence for this point of view is found in the fact that the most popular traditional way of serving soymilk is as a spicy hot breakfast soup (xian doujiang), to which many soup-like garnishes (such as bonito flakes, bits of shrimp, diced leeks, salt pickles, salt, and spices) are added at the table. It is also served as a warm sweetened beverage ( tian doujiang ) drunk early in the morning or late at night. Both preparations are typically accompanied by #yu-tiao taso-p'i , long and twisted deep-fried crullers wrapped in flaky sesame tortillas, which are dipped in the piping hot soymilk as they are enjoyed. We know nothing of when or where these soymilk-based souplike dishes were developed or how their popularity spread. Yet in 1928 Tso, an expert on soymilk, wrote: "Soybean milk is a native food used in certain parts of the country as a morning beverage but is little used as part of the diet for children." I will shorten the last part's description, since it is obvious that it carried no evidence nor popularity claim about time in any part of it, this part only mentioned how soy milk was traditionally served and there is no trace of how it became popular. So can you tell me how did you comprehend this source to claim that there is rare evidence of soy milk before the 20th century? MythSearcher^talk 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

mythsearcher: I don't understand your rebute -- please be more concise and to the point. Personally, I do not see any problem with Cydevil38's input and fail to see how this is a distortion of the sources. Cypoet (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• One might be tempted to conclude from this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu and that tofu evolved from soymilk.

Again, this sentence says two things. Evidence is scant. One might be tempted to conclude from this that soymilk was popular.

• Yet neither of these deductions may be true: early travelers to China, who mention tofu frequently, never mention soymilk or its use as a drink until the mid 1900s; many Chinese work that discuss the various types of soyfoods in detail make no mention of soymilk; even as late as 1848, Wu, in his extensive treatise on the soybean and soyfoods, made no mention of soymilk;

What this sentence says is that early travelers to China mention tofu frequently, but never mention soymilk prior to the mid 1900s. Many Chinese work that discuss soyfoods in detail also make no mention of soymilk. This is further elaboration of the previous sentence that evidence of soymilk is rare.

And so on.

It doesn't say soy milk did not exist prior to the 20th century. It's simply saying that although there is evidence of soy milk prior to the 20th century, it is rare hence it is doubtful that it was in popular use. Its usage was so low that it didn't warrant mentioning in various works that described other soyfoods. Why is this so hard to understand and to admit? Cydevil38 (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that Cydevil is cutting a sentence into pieces and piecing words together to distort its meaning. this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu was cut into this scant evidence and soy milk was popular yet from a simple English sentence structure class, we can simply counter argue that the first part is only a description of the second part, in which the sentence only concerns the evidence of popularity and does not concern anything about the evidence of existence. It says 2 things, but it is about popularity of soy milk and tofu evolving from soy milk, the sentence itself act as a whole and evidence is scant is a description of soy milk was popular. and tofu evolved from soy milk, Yet from the edit of Cydevil, it is obviously changed to Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and its popular usage before then is unlikely., which in the sentence structure, it is pieced into 2 parts, Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and its popular usage before then is unlikely.. That is the main problem of the sentence, its structure is very misleading, and is like the sentence Prostitute appeals to pope, it can mean the prostitute goes through a law like process to appeal, or it could mean that the pope is interested in the prostitute(which is against his religious practice). If it must be there, the sentence should be changed to Soy milk might not be popular before 20th century, this point of view is supported by the little mention of soy milk compared to frequently mentioned tofu., without the troublesome and to separate the sentence into two parts, keeping it simple. Yet I still think that it is not the correct place to claim its popularity, if one really want to have this in the article, we could start a history section stating the popular usage in it. This section concerns the origin, not the popularity.

At the same time, the above comment of Cydevil Its usage was so low that it didn't warrant mentioning in various works that described other soyfoods. is totally original research and is not stated in the source, that is why I am saying reading between lines and seeing things that does not exist. And it is totally ignoring the second part of the source, The next reference to soymilk and the first to discuss its use as a beverage appeared in 1866 in an article by the Frechman Paul Champion on the production of tofu in China and Japan. Champion, who had lived for some time in China, noted that "The shops where tofu is made are generally filled with Chinese who bring cups to get some of the hot liquid, which is used to make tofu and which has not yet been coagulated; they drink this beverage, which has an insipid but not disagreeable taste, just like we enjoy coffee with tea. Yes, sources might be scant, but it would be very interesting to note that a european stating soy milk is popular in the 19th century. making it impossible to ignore and should not be left out from the article if the popularity is to be discussed. MythSearcher^talk 07:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, what do you think this in this scant evidence refers to? Cydevil38 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cydevil, what do you think this in this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu means? It only concerns popularity, but your restructure and placement of it in the origin section makes it look like it is taking about existence. It only means that tofu was popular before the popularity of soy milk at most. MythSearcher^talk 07:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, Your arguments in no way convinces me cydevil's contributions were distorting the sources. I would rather say it is the opposite, although frankly I still have problems understanding what you are trying to say. Don't take this the wrong way, but for the benefit of the readers of wikipedia, I would recommend you abstain from editing this article. Cypoet (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The sentence is placed in a wrong section. The section concerns about the origin, not popularity.
2. The sentence is misleading, given the structure and placement of it in the origin section. The sentence is written to sound like evidence of originality is rare, not popularity is rare. Especially by placing it in the origin section makes it way more like so.
3. Do not ignore my suggestion of the change of structure in the sentence that will make it less misleading, which Cydevil obviously ignores.
4. The source is being misused to focus on an unclear point, about evidence in popularity of soy milk as a whole, or only about soy milk being popular before tofu. The sentence in the source is unclear, which straight forward logic can only deduce that the source is talking about popularity before tofu, not being its usage as a whole.

If you cannot understand any logical deduction of the fact that Cydevil continuosly removing sources that are of different point of view than his view, at least try to understand that removal of a sentence that is both misleading and placed in a wrong section is not a disputive action. While removing sources that are of a different point of view is. I have removed a single sentence regarding popularity in the origin section, which is pretty unnecessary if you ask me, and I have placed a more relative info about soy milk might not exist before tofu which is cited in the same source. While Cydevil removes a source citing China used soy milk for over 2000 years and claim it to be extraous, news reports of relative arguments of originality, and falsely accuse me of hiding facts while s/he intentionally is selecting sources to be used to confuse the readers. MythSearcher^talk 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) BTW, the title of this section concerns about Cydevil's accusation of me in the edit summary. MythSearcher^talk 14:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's try to stick to one point for discussion at a time. Pick the most important point and focus only on that point. Use a heading to help zero in on it. Once we've finished addressing it, we can move on to the next one. Discussing a dozen points at once isn't helping anyone. And please, try to be civil towards your fellow editor and keep comments brief. Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 1 Sentence should be changed to be less misleading and should go into a section called History instead of in the middle of the Origin section, which makes it even more misleading. Point 2 Sources from all point of views should be added, not intepret by editors and selectively choose sources supporting a single side of argument, like picking a source and claim it as the fact while removing all instances of countering soures. Point 3 If it is claimed, sourced by third party reliable and verifiable sources like newspapers and books, it should be there, If the original primary source could be included as well, it would be also useful. This is all I am asking for. MythSearcher^talk 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose three points is better than a dozen. But please, pick just one and focus on it in the RFC under a subheading. That way we can all discuss one issue at a time, and as we reach agreement on each point, we can move on to the next one and resolve this dispute. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I supposed it should be picked by the side who is against point 2 and 3 by persistently removing sources, claiming them to be not significant and accuse me of distorting sources when I was applying point 1. MythSearcher^talk 10:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct Understanding of the Material

Mythsearcher, I believe we should first resolve the issue of whether or not the source claims that the evidence of soy milk prior to the 20th century is scant, attesting to the possibility that use of soy milk as a food was not wide-spread prior to the 20th century. I see this as a very fundemantal conflict in our understanding of the material and I don't believe the discussions can continue without settling this.

I think it's very obvious that this scant evidence refers to the evidence of soy milk's existense. From the source:

The earliest reference to soymilk (doujiang) in China appeared in about A.D. 82 in the Lun Heng by Wang Ch'ung. In the chapter called "Four Taboos" ( Szu-Hui ) it is stated that makers of soymilk fear that thunder will spoil their product. After that date there are a number of early references, as by the famous Taoist sage, Sun Szu-miao ( ), who left quite a few books on medicine and pharmacology. His comments on soymilk are quoted in the Sung dynasty pharmacopoeia, Pen ts'ao yen i , written in about 1116 by K'ou Tsung-shih.

It is interesting to note that the earliest mention of soymilk in China appears long before the first mention of tofu ( ). One might be tempted to conclude from this scant evidence that soymilk was popular before tofu and that tofu evolved from soymilk. Yet neither of these deductions may be true: early travelers to China, who mention tofu frequently, never mention soymilk or its use as a drink until the mid 1900s; many Chinese work that discuss the various types of soyfoods in detail make no mention of soymilk; even as late as 1848, Wu, in his extensive treatise on the soybean and soyfoods, made no mention of soymilk; and tofu may have evolved from a thick soup made of fresh soybean puree rather than from filtered soymilk, as explained in Chapter 13.

Here, we can see that the sentence in question comes after a list of evidence of soy milk in China, and there is no mention of popularity. The sentence in question means that the evidence of soy milk is rare and one might be tempted to conclude from this that soymilk was popular before tofu. The source further elaborates that evidence is rare prior to the 20th century in detail. This doesn't mean there is no evidence. It's as the source says. The evidence exists, but it's rare, which could mean that use of soymilk may have not been wide-spread prior to the 20th century. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice the wide range of words you have ignored in the sentence which the previous sentence is about soy milk appearing before tofu and the sentence itself concerns soy milk's popularity before tofu and tofu evolving from soy milk. The whole paragraph is about "did tofu evolved from soy milk", or more precisely, "did tofu evolved from a long predated drink called soy milk and is soy milk popular before tofu". The focus of the paragraph was not placed on evidence of soy milk's existence, instead it was mentioned over and over about the relation of tofu and soy milk. I have no idea why can it be developed to being the evidence of existence of soy milk being scant, I can only barely agree with the sentence being about popularity of soy milk if it is not only about soy milk being less popular than tofu. The paragraph obviously stated tofu being more popular than soy milk, I have no doubt about that at all, along with the evidence in bencao in the 16th century, it is obviously used as a medicine, and I think it could be safely assumed that people don't take medicine every other day. However, to further develop the idea to evidence being scant before the 20th century is going too far from the paragraph. In scientific research and English written language, we seldom see paragraphs that go into detail talking about one thing while the first sentence is totally talking about another. With that single sentence itself clearly stating conclude from X that Y happened, it is far more unlikely to be talking about something else. You don't explain a sentence like A piece of hair was found in the crime scene, concluding from "the DNA on this piece of evidence" that "the suspect is a male" and say that there is only a single piece of evidence found, there might be more evidence, we do not know, but this is the evidence concerning the suspect being a male, and the sentence is talking about the piece of hair, not about how much evidence was found. The sentence is placed in the middle of explaining the popularity of soy milk against tofu, and itself follows with "soymilk was popular before tofu", which means that the evidence we are concerning here is soy milk was popular before tofu, not the existence of soymilk as a whole. I can agree to use the paragraph of stating tofu is evolved from something that might not be soy milk, which carries the same name, but I would not shorten the whole paragraph talking about soy milk and tofu into a sentence claiming the existence of soy milk before 20th century having little evidence. MythSearcher^talk 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, I know that the paragraph in general is on whether or not tofu was developed from soy milk. However, the important premise of that claim is that the evidence of soy milk is rare, hence it's possible that soy milk was not wide spread. To establish this premise, the source goes into detail to further elaborate on it.

Also, on your "A piece of hair was found in the crime scene, concluding from "the DNA on this piece of evidence" that "the suspect is a male" analogy - what you are denying here is that there is DNA on this piece of evidence, as you are denying that evidence is scant in this scant evidence. It's simple. It's X is Y. It's conclude from "X is Y" that Z happened. A more proper analogy would be that you are denying that the evidence is DNA when discussing the phrase this DNA evidence. This isn't just about a single phrase. In the paragraph, there is further elaboration with details that evidence of soy milk prior to the 20th century is rare, as in this analogy there would be further elaboration with details that the evidence is DNA. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem of your analogy is that you assumed X is Y without any concern on Z, and what you are doing it to dis-relate the two and tried to look into X is Y by its own. There is DNA on this piece of evidence is different from a description of scant evidence, if scant is used to describe the number of evidence, the concerned evidence must be related to the rest of the sentence, and all other evidences that are not of this concern are not presented with it. Noticed that the whole paragraph addressed only 2 evidences about soy milk that predates tofu, and no any other evidence that we know of that presents soy milk and tofu at the same time, like the stone slab, ode to tofu and bencao found in the same source. Thus the sentence of scant evidence talks about these 2 evidences of soy milk being mentioned earlier than tofu are making some people conclude from them that soy milk is popular before tofu. And yes, it is very obvious that the evidence that could be used to support soy milk having been popular before the invention of tofu is quite rare since these 2 evidences did not even address the popularity. And it would be very simple logic that since the stone slab having the production of tofu and soy milk on it would be an obvious counter argument of soy milk existed before any mention of tofu. Thus one cannot conclude from those 2 evidence that soy milk is popular before tofu, and that is why the writer used that sentence to alert readers not to make the assumption either. That is why I keep telling you to not read a sentence by its own and look at the other parts of the article. MythSearcher^talk 07:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, Z being the possible conclusion of X is Y does not somehow negate X is Y. I am not attempting to dis-relate the two. Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and its popular usage before then is unlikely. Z is well associated with X is Y in that sentence. If you have SUCH a problem with the word and, then perhaps I can agree with using so or hence in its place. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that if you have read all of my comment above, your reply skips every major point in it. Look at the paragraph as a whole please, Noticed that the whole paragraph addressed only 2 evidences about soy milk that predates tofu, and not any other evidence that we know of that presents soy milk and tofu at the same time, like the stone slab, ode to tofu and bencao found in the same source. Thus the sentence of scant evidence talks about these 2 evidences of soy milk being mentioned earlier than tofu are making some people conclude from them that soy milk is popular before tofu., it is very obvious that the evidence that could be used to support soy milk having been popular before the invention of tofu is quite rare since these 2 evidences did not even address the popularity. And it would be very simple logic that since the stone slab having the production of tofu and soy milk on it would be an obvious counter argument of soy milk existed before any mention of tofu. Thus one cannot conclude from those 2 evidence that soy milk is popular before tofu, and that is why the writer used that sentence to alert readers not to make the assumption either. The scant evidence here is way more likely to only concerns those 2 in the previous paragraph than every single evidence given. It is a very simple deduction that the two paragraphs stayed away from other mention of soy milk and tofu. If you cannot understand the simple logic that any writer can pick only a few evidence from a long list of evidence that it different from the others and claim that they are the scant evidence that tells otherwise, at least try start thinking about it right now. Using the above DNA evidence metaphor, try thinking all other evidences like witnesses and security cameras, etc. points to the suspect being female, and by this single evidence pointing to the suspect being male, you are trying to conclude from that single sentence that there is only one piece of evidence. Like I said before, if you want to talk about popularity, start a history section, include all the other histories into it, and start the sentence stating popularity and not evidence being rare. I have no idea why can you not use a much more simple sentence like Soy milk might not be popular before 20th century as I have suggested above. MythSearcher^talk 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, matter of popularity is a possible conclusion that can be derived from the scant evidence of soy milk. The material elaborately details why it is unlikely for soymilk to have been popular before the 20th century. I think it is informative for the readers to know why it is believed that soymilk was not popular before the 20th century. I see no reason why we should hide it. In using the DNA evidence metaphor, what you're doing is that you're simply denying that the evidence is DNA. As for concerning this "history section", I think the problem can be simply resolved by renaming "Origins" to "History of Soy Milk" Cydevil38 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not trying to hide it, I only consider it to be not necessary for the Origin section, and should go into a section called History, along with other historical facts about it in other places. I would suggest renaming the section History but keep Origin as a sub section of it, like the source we kept quoting on. Origin is a part of history, yet it only concerns the origin of the subject, it does not matter if the origin light bulb is popular or not in the origin of light bulb. Also, I have suggested less speculative and less confusing way of saying that, which you have never commented on, making me very doubtful of your willingness and/or ability to read my comment. For the DNA metaphor, you did not get my point, try this: "First paragraph goes into detail of various evidences that a female suspect is to be charged for the crime, second paragraph states that a single piece of evidence, which is a piece of hair was found, and the DNA sampling give a result of suspect is a male, the third paragraph then states that one might conclude from this scant evidence that the crime is performed by a male, then goes into detail about how that is not the case." From this whole article, the suspect is a female, but from your analogy, it does not matter, you look at paragraph 3 and the first sentence only, and say that there is only 1 evidence and it is the DNA sample. This is the problem of your analogy, you have totally ignored the rest of the article and what it is talking about, and focused on that single sentence to give a conclusion while the article is talking about its concern of people might misjudged the case using that odd evidence. MythSearcher^talk 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What I've written is pretty straightfoward and explicit, not speculative or confusing. Also, I don't believe there is enough material to make subsections in the History section, and including the sentence there doesn't make it awkward or anything. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what you are writing, and that is why it does not sound confusing to you, and your habit of not reading a paragraph or an article as a whole will render it less confusing, too. The problem is from the other parts of the paragraph and previous sentences, you have added a sentence in the middle of origin that concerns not the origin but popularity, that is confusing enough. Also, the 4 page source contains more than enough material about history, you are only making excuses for not wanting to admit your own mistake on comprehending the source. MythSearcher^talk 06:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, what I've written is straightforward and clear. I doubt people will have difficulties understanding what I've written. And also, this material in the source was written in a section concerning the origin of soy milk. What I have written was basically a brief summary of that section on origin of soy milk in the source. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All you can do is insist your sentence is clear, in which you cannot have any prove of it and it is very obvious that it is not going to be clear that you are talking about popularity in the middle of sentences all talking about origin. You expect everyone is going to read like you, who does not read articles and paragraphs as a whole, and go by sentences and think that everything is not related to other parts of the paragraph. The source is about history of soy milk as a whole, and is taking about specific evidences that tells a different story like the other source. You have ignored all the other sections and made a summary on one section's single paragraph, no, actually it is a single sentence being rewrited into a confusing sentence and the relation to the previous paragraph and what it concerns is totally ignored, good job. MythSearcher^talk 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, you also cannot prove that my sentence is confusing. Again, I must emphasize, the material I've written is directly from a section about origin and early development of soy milk in the source. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you insist your sentence is clear, you need to provide evidences that it is clear. I have provided more than enough information about why it is not clear and in an incorrect position, with logical views from both research and grammar perspective, yet all you can do and did is simply persistently stating your own sentence by saying it is straightforward and clear, with no supportive argument in any logical sense. MythSearcher^talk 11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, this so-called "logical" view of yours is your personal opinion. It is not an evidence in itself. It is obvious that you and I have fundamental disagreements on this, and I hope you respect that my opinion matters as much as yours. Only then I believe we can have a meaningful discussion towards a consensus.

Again, I believe what I've written is straightforward and not confusing at all. It's easy for readers to understand what I mean. Seriously, take a look at it. I doubt even an elementary school kid would have a hard time understanding it.

Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and its popular usage before then is unlikely.

I mean, what's so hard about that sentence to understand?

And again, this comes straight from a section in the source that concerns origin of soy milk, hence I believe it is very relevant to this article's section on the origin of soy milk. Cydevil38 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cydevil, your view on your sentence being clear and straight forward is extremely personal and you did not even try to explain why on earth is it clear and straight forward. I have said before, you sentence is at a wrong place, yes, it would be clear if it is on its own, but in the middle of a paragraph listing soy milk's origin you have added a sentence suddenly stating about popularity, yet it starts with evidence. Also, I have added what you are talking about in the new version as well, I have no idea why on earth do you insist on using the way you have written it. What's so hard about it is that it gets the focus on Evidence from the very beginning of it and it is in the origin section, which makes it look like it is talking about there are only little evidence of soy milk, period. Also, there is this extreme misunderstanding of material where this sentence comes from, the paragraph concerns about evidences that precede tofu are rare, not evidences are rare. Read the italic words you have quoted in the top this discussion, the first paragraph specifically states 2 evidences of soy milk that did not mention tofu. And thus the second paragraph goes with saying soy milk is being mentioned earlier than tofu, but these two evidences are considered scant due to it being misleading, the paragraph goes on with foreign travelers. One can conclude that soy milk is not mentioned by foreign travelers to China, yet the paragraph did not say anything about other sources from within China. Also, the new version got everything you want in it, if you want to add anything, add it. If you want to remove anything, discuss. Do not blindly revert to a version that got as little info as possible in which suits your taste, at least follow guidelines in WP:NPOV. If you think sources are not reliable or contents are not encyclopedic, discuss about it as well. MythSearcher^talk 16:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I revert your edit, because the dispute is not settled down by you and the other, and your unilateral addition is not a result of consensus. I've watched this dispute more than one week, but can you just simply summarize "main topic" conscisely? I believe that's why other editors engaged in {{WPFOOD}} have not commented on this even if the RFC was requested. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The main point here is that the Origin and History of popularity should be separated, and all of the sources should be included in the article, instead of selectively choosing what to believe. If you would take the time to look at the next section, where all the sources are listed, it would be easier to understand. This article's dispute is way longer than a week, and every time when sources are found, it is just simply removed by Cydevil who persistently stating either the sources are not encyclopedic or with no reason at all. The current version is what Cydevil wanted, it is the one without any sources that is to his distaste. MythSearcher^talk 17:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've tried to read the whole dispute left on the page, and intend to take it to WT:WikiProject Food and drink to get more opinion, but couldn't due to the length. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, there is no "History of Popularity" in the source we're using. Separating it to a separate section is a unilateral decision on your part. What I did is I tried to summarize the origins section in the source as concise as possible to keep this article readable to users, not wasting their time too much with verbose material. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, I am not satisfied with the current version, nor do I agree with your edits. You are removing many sourced contents such as that Liu An's legend has no historical basis, that evidence of soy milk prior to the 20th century is rare hence its usage was unlikely to have been popular before then, and you persistently add this so-called "Korea robber event" that I believe is not encyclopedic material. You also add a verbose section on "legend", which I tolerated for the time being, but I believe is probably better placed in the article on Liu An than here. I disagree with your edits on many points, but right now I'm trying to focus on one by one, the current issue being whether or not evidnece of soy milk prior to the 20th century is rare hence its usage was unlikely to have been popular before then.

I'd like to focus on these issues one by one, and I'm trying to prevent an edit war by keeping this article in the state it was before you or I started to intervene. Don't assume that I am satisfied with the current version, because I am not.

Also, I may not be able to respond to you on a daily basis. Sometimes I may not respond for several days due to time constraints. I'm sorry but please be patient. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to add in more sources, do so. I worked on the article with a version that someone else removed the Liu An with no historical basis source, and I asked you to add it in after many of my edits. I have added a new section specially stating the popularity is unlikely in the new version, and I did not add in anything stating a Korea robber event, nor do I want to add in anything stating that in the article. The article only contains the disputed fact that both Korea and China claimed the origin, in which it would be very obvious that sources from both sides are displayed. The Chinese source currently attached there did not even contain anything saying Chinese accused Korea of anything, I have either removed those parts and only copy parts from the source as a quote, or chose sources that only neutrally stating about a disputive event had occured.

There is no History of Popularity, but the whole source on history mainly talks about popularity. Read the source, please, there are 4 pages of it, and the section in the source is Origin and Early Development and the 5 paragraphs are not only about origin but also early history of soy milk.

I do not intend to have a discussion everyday, but if you do not reply for over 5 days, and come back to revert immediately after any edits, with no contribution in between, it seems to be a good enough stimulant.

I hate to have the article as its current state, can we first focus on What sources are not disputed and could be included in the article? I am sure that there are sources that I have added that you never said anything to go against it, yet you blindly remove all of it every time. MythSearcher^talk 06:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, be honest. Your edit has changed very little from the previously disputed edits, and are you not the one who called this a "Korean robber event"? [5]

The section on Origin and Early Development consists of five paragraphs, but the one here consisted of only one or two. What I have written is basically a summary of that section, and if you have a problem with the title, we can simply change the title of the section here from Origin to Origin and Early Development. Simple, problem solved. Cydevil38 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I did not remove anything you added, you said that particular sentence is what I removed, thus I have included it in my newest edit. Like I said, all of my edits basically keep all of the sources as much as possible, the sentence I have removed is because your summary of a sentence from the paragraph is in a wrong place, and I have reflected why I think so and added it back in a more appropriate section, in which it is very reasonable to have and easy to expand since the rest of the source is basically talking about the development of popularity in all countries, including China. If you look at what I have added in the article, I did not add in anything about Korea robber event, I did not put in any of my point of view, I only neutrally added in the claim of origin from both sides. I called it the Korea robber event is what the sources said, it is even in one of the Korea sources you have added(and was removed by Cypoet who deleted the whole paragraph) stating it is what the Chinese called the series of events including the soy milk issue. I used the name not claiming Korea stole or rob anything, I called it that simply because the event itself concerns Chinese claiming Korea stealers/robbers of origin. Even if you change the title from Origin to Origin and Early Development, I see no point in having your sentence in the middle of the Origin part. It might not be popular, so what? What does the popularity have to do with origin and development? The main concern here is that it could be fully developed into a section itself, and if you insist it being in where you have placed it, I must insist having other parts of the paragraph from the source, quoting the evidence concerned is the two mentioned right before the sentence, not all of the origin claims.

Let's put this aside first, for now and discuss about which of the sources we do not have disputes on and can be added back into the article first. You seem to only oppose of including the Korea claim of origin and other related parts on counter arguments related to the event.

I see that you seem to have no problem in adding the parts in my listed points below 1~9, 11 and 11.1 and 14, and the points in my edits with sources claiming Liu An did not invent soy milk, but someone else in China did. Focus on these points on your next reply, you only have to object or accept the points, if you accept them(or any of them), there are no disputes on that particular point and it could be added into the article. You can reply to the rest of my reply up there after these. MythSearcher^talk 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, what you say in the discussion page is a good indication of your intentions in your edits. Calling this "Korea robber event" and a bunch of rants on "Koreans stealing Chinese culture" tells us much about your intentions.

No, I will not put this aside. I have problems with the points you have made in your lists, but I still would like to focus on issues one by one. This is by no means an expression of agreement.

Maybe you see no point in having this sentence, but the source obviously includes it, so these experts must have thought it's relevant information that people may be interested in. You may believe it's irrelevant, but to others it's very much relevant Cydevil38 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, First we have to find out which points we disagree in, and work on each one after that. However, for the ones that are not disagreed upon, it would be best to have them in the article earlier. I am suggesting a way to improve the article, and let you prove that you do not like the article in its current state. Due to your extremely slow reply, the article is already at this state for over half a month, and if you really want it to improve, instead of hiding all the sources, you should be interested on discussing which points you have no problem in adding into the article. I said to put this aside first, and focus on simple things we can immediately improve the article on, you denied, and thus making me more positive that you are not trying to improve the article, but simply trying to use discussion as a method to delay the sources being included into the article since they are not what you want to believe.

You are judging the edits by the discussion page quote from the source, which is obviously assuming bad faith. The edits in the article showed nothing about Korea robbing or stealing, later edits should no source saying so, and if you cannot judge by simply reading the article edits and keep on judging by your own perception on the discussion page and assume bad faith, we can get nowhere.

I said the sentence should be included only with the other parts of the sources that relates to it, not by its own. You keep ignoring the relationship of the sentence and the rest of the paragraph. This is going nowhere, I have decided not to talk about this for now and get to something that can improve the article faster. Answer my question in the first paragraph, first, and we can go to the disputed sources and sentences later. MythSearcher^talk 06:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, please do not divert the topic. Lets work one by one. And this is a very, very simple matter. If we can't agree on this, what makes you believe we can agree on other subjects? We've already had long discussions on other subjects with fruitless results.

Again, the sentence is very much relevant to the paragraph. It tells us an important fact about the origin and early development of soy milk. I think it's relevant, and the experts who wrote the source also think it's relevant. It's important enough for them to dedicate an entire paragraph to the subject. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to divert the topic, I am just trying to pause this one for a while and find things that we can easily agree on to improve the article immediately. Is simple English this hard to understand? We cannot agree on this, but I am trying to find things that could be easier to agree on in other sujects, like I have no objection to your addition of the Korean source stating soymilk's evidence in China before the 10th century, which is point 14 in my list below. And Yes, it is important enough for them to dedicate an entire paragraph to the subject, so in my newer version I DID give it a paragraph. I am not objecting the addition of it into the article, I am objecting it being only a part of the source picked out from the entire paragraph and making it confusing. MythSearcher^talk 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, I don't think you're getting the point of dispute. Look at your edit.[6] See the parts you have deleted and replaced. You constantly delete two sourced parts, one which is being discussed right now and the other about Liu An's myth having no historical evidence. Another point of dispute is that you constantly add the claim that soy milk originated from Korea based on a commercial advertisement, which is not encyclopedic. Yet another dispute is that you constantly add extraneous information, making the section verbose and tiresome to read. These are the main points in dispute, and unless you are confident that we can easily agree upon these, I say we just go through these one by one. Before then, we should both refrain from making edits.

Again, the sentence about rare evidence of soy milk and unlikeliness of its popularity prior to the 20th century is an important information about soy milk's origins and early development, hence it very much belongs to that section. Giving it a paragraph in entirely another section is rather meaningless. What's important is to place this information in its proper place and context in a concise manner for readability. It is not confusing, it is concise, readable and to the point. I doubt many users would have trouble understanding the material. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit removes two point, which I don't think is necessary, and I HAD added it back on later edits, even with MORE supporting evidence about Liu An not being the one who invented soy milk. Your edits removes multiple points, claiming it is irrelevant, which is pretty much worse than what you accuse me of. Your claim of me REMOVING sourced parts are obviously your one and only defense and method of keeping the article in the current state, which I have proposed clearly, twice, if not thrice, that parts that are NOT disputed should be added back into the article before further discussion, you simply pay no attention to that and keep on going saying nothing is not disputed, which is blatantly incorrect, you have added sources, and as long as I do not oppose them, they are not disputed (unless someone else has any problems) and we can add those in the article BEFORE the discussion on the disputed ones, since it is very obvious that we are not going to have any agreements soon.

So, the three points you have claimt that is disputed, which is my 'fault goes like this:

1. MythSearcher removal of sourced material about little evidence of popularity of soy milk in China before 20th century.
   1. I replied that it is not a necessary material, and is picked out from the source which have much more important information regarding it, see above.
   2. The source could be meaning little evidence about soy milk being popular before tofu, not necessarily soy milk's popularity in general.
   3. from this edit I have added the material back into the article with more information.
   4. I have suggested to expand the popularity, or history section, since the "4 page source" is mainly on that, which is kept being told that there are not enough material. I wonder if you have read the next 3 pages of the source or not.
2. MythSearcher removal of sourced material about Liu An's invention theory has no historical evidence.
   1. From the same edit the idea was not only included, more sources was given to support the claim.
3. MythSearcher is adding in irrelevant material and making the article hard to read
   1. Relevant or not is based upon discussion, and if the article is hard to read, one finds way to fix it, not removing everything and call it concise.
   2. Doubts of anyone will have trouble reading it or not is subjective, which should not be based upon your own decision.

MythSearcher^talk 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, you think it's not necessary material, but the source obviously puts much importance to it by dedicating an entire paragraph with details on the origins of soymilk. How can you unilaterally conclude that some parts are important, but other parts are not in the source? Why create an entirely new section when you can consicely include it in a single setence in the relevant section as deemed by the source?

As for removal of source material about the Liu An myth having no historical evidence, you replaced

According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who used it as a medicine, although there is no historical evidence for this legend.

with

According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who was clearly stated to have invented bean curd.

You say you included it it, but what you actually did was delete it from the origins section and added it to another section, just as you did to the dispute on usage of soymilk prior to the 20th century. If you read the source, you can very well see that these are made relevant information within the section on Origin and Early Development of Soy Milk, hence I disagree with your unilateral removal of these contents.

As for this section being verbose, I think the first step is simply to delete the entire section on the Liu An legend, and relegate it to the Liu An article. Not to say this will solve everything, but a necessary first step to make the section more concise.

As you can see, there is much disagreements on multiple points. Again, rather than arguing on all points at once, I think we should just focus one dispute once at a time. You can continue on any one of the disputed subjects as you wish, but please do so one at a time. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who is unilaterally conclude that most of the source is not important information and pick out half a sentence from 2 paragraphs and claim it to be concise, while I tried to work it out so that the whole 4 page source could be used to improve the article. Good argument there, you are talking about what you yourself had done, what you are accusing me here is exactly what you are doing.

Listen, you picked out an old edit from me and tried to accuse me of something that I tried to fix in newer edits, and all just because you are trying to employ a tactic in debate that keep claiming the other side of the table wrong, and totally ignore all the other facts. You cannot stick to discussions that try to improve the article, but all you are doing is just focused on saying I am wrong.

The problem is, I tried to add in more information in the article, with perfectly valid sources, your claim of me deleting the material is not even supported by your own arguments, you did say that I have moved it to another section, thus I did not delete the material, all you are disputing is only that I moved it, and all because YOUR edits are the only thing you are willing to accept. I have moved them to new sections because there are other sources regarding the info, the Liu An's legend is a good example, we do not need to follow the format the source is in, we are not picking one source and rewriting it here. We are having multiple sources and it is very obvious that we do not pick one, we should use them all. Liu An's legend is related to soy milk, and talks about soy milk, thus it should be in the soy milk article.

I will try to put this easier so you can understand, You list all the points you think should be included in the article. As long as I have no problem with the points, we will add those in first, before further discussion. This way the article would be improved immediately, not wait for you to pop up occasionally and follow a discussion that I see no end in with all your accusations, and have the article at its poor state. MythSearcher^talk 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, what you are doing right now is doing everything you can to remove any information that you do not like from the origins section, as if such information is not important or not relevant to that section. Also, this is the version[7] where you added "more information". I'm confident that most people would find that version to lack readability. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what YOU are doing. this edit shows everything you wanted to add in and is not one you are claiming to be not readable., and moving it from the origin section to other sections is not against the polices of wiki, selecting sources like you did is. Stop your accusations with old edits that is not supporting you at all. All you are doing for this past month is accusations after accusations and did not talk about anything useful at all. You did not even try to read the newer edits before you blindly revert them. And you don't want to talk about what sources are not disputed, showing no means of wanting to discuss, not even regularly editing other articles, your edits simply removes all of the information you don't like and accuse me of removing things that I only moved to other sections. MythSearcher^talk 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There are several issues currently disputed, and I'll organize them as follows.

• A Korean company has claimed that soymilk originated in Korea on a commercial advertisement in Japan.[8] This has generated controversy among Chinese, who believe Korea stole soy milk[9]. Is this encyclopedic material? Reliable sources, including Korean encyclopedias, do not support this claim.
• If the above is encyclopedic material, is it appropriate to add Korean[10] and Chinese[11] responses to this claim? Is it relevant that Chinese officials had nothing to comment on this claim?[12] Is it appropriate to add Japanese responses to other subjects not related to soy milk?[13]
• It has been suggested by a cited source that there is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis behind the myth that Liu An invented soy milk. Should this be mentioned in the article?[14]
• It is also suggested that it's possible that doujiang refers to soybean puree soup or soy slurry rather than filtered soy milk. Should this be mentioned in the article?[15]
• It is also suggested that it's unlikely for soy milk to have been in wide use in China prior to the 20th century. Should this be mentioned in the article?[16]
• Should tofu be referred to as tofu, or bean curd?[17]

Please add your comments to help ending this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns:

- There is no evidence that soy milk was drunk in China before 1866. Prior references to 'soy liquids' was in relation to tofu making http://www.soyinfocenter.com/chronologies_of_soyfoods-soymilk.php. I believe this should be stated.

This soymilk discussion never was problem until China started claiming everything from clothings to foods.

- The claim that a Korean company 'stole' soymilk from the chinese is not only 'childish' but also irrelevant -- there is no controversy within the scientific community on this point. The controversy is rather whether it originated from the nomadic tribes (Khitan, Mongol, Manchu, Mohe, Xibe, Turkic) or from China proper.

- We should focus our efforts on the history of soy milk and input more factual evidence on its possible tungu/mongol/turkic origins (rather than chinese).

(Cypoet (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

There is no such evidence that nomadic tribes in Northern China or Mongol/Turkic/Nomads of asia started making soymilk, why? because they have sheep in their backyard where they can easily access to milk.

Sources of concern:(long quotations in comment style)

1. Stone Slab dated around AD 25~220 showing production of soy milk and tofu.source 1 source 2
2. Written source stating people making soy milk dated in AD 82 is afraid of thunder(which would destroy their product) source
3. AD1116 written book mentioned soy milk. source
4. AD1578 Chinese published book Bencao Gangmu stating soy milk's medical effects.
5. Not clearly dated Chinese poem in the 16th Century. Know as the oldest written reference in 2 sources. source 1 source 2
6. AD1665, 1790 europeans stating soy milk as an ingredient of tofu. source 1 source 2
7. AD1793, earliest of European publication of soy milk. source
8. AD1866 detail mention of soy milk being a drink in Europe. source
9. Ritter (1874) a German, and Paillieux (1880) and Egasse (1888) both Frenchmen referred to soymilk in passing. (direct quote from source)
10. Popularity of soy milk is doubtful before 20th century. source
11. Soy milk's invention being credited to Liu An using it as a medicine. source in comment
    1. Counter source claiming this has no historical evidence. source 1
12. Claim of sources about soy milk and tofu being used over 2000 years. source in comment.
    1. Countering source claiming the doujiang, which means soy milk nowadays, might not be soy milk but a soup made from soy puree. source Also tofu could be made without soy milk but with soy bean soup. (source was once in article, removed and hard to find right now.)
13. Claim of Korean families using soy milk for a few hundred years and soy milk originating in Korea. Primary source in comment Secondary source supporting the first existed.
14. Claim of soy milk originating from nomadic tribes north of China, claiming no evidence of soy milk before 10th century. source

Thus according to this list of sources, the last one would be perfectly fitting to be supportive of the Korean company claim, even though it quote ignores the stone slab and AD82 evidence, which both did not clearly states soy milk as a drink and with no supporting historical evidence quoted in the source stating where s/he concluded that soy milk is from tribes north of China. I also have the concern of doujiang refers to soybean puree soup or soy slurry rather than filtered soy milk, wouldn't non-filtered soy milk also be considered soy milk? Soy milk nowadays is made by grounding soaked soy beans or grounding hard soy beans then adding water into it. The first method is pretty much the same as the soy puree soup, only with grounding, the composition of them would be the same and is not physically or chemically changed. MythSearcher^talk 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just mention all the claims for invention? Patent in US applied for in xxx, however Korea claims yyyy, and evidence of soy milks use in China since zzzz has been claimed.

Then you can all argue about which country gets named first in the sentence/paragraph.Yobmod (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I proposed. MythSearcher^talk 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nutritionalvalue

Any reason (other than my weak wiki-fu) this article doesn't have one of these: Template:Nutritionalvalue? --81.224.39.148 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Since the discussion was dead for 5 days, I have reverted and in addition rewritten to a version that includes all of the points listed above. MythSearcher^talk 10:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I cannot make responses on a daily basis. That said, what you've rewritten only includes the points yourself have made, but not of others. And those points you made are heavily disputed. Please try to reach consensus before making such controversial edits. Cydevil38 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder how can you accuse me of such. Point 14 is a source you have added, point 1, 4 and 11 was in the original article, point 10 is the point you wanted to add in. MythSearcher^talk 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just accepted the Mediation case and was wondering if I could get more information/summary about what has happend and about the dispute. See the mediation case here. Regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanonkas, thank you for accepting this case. This edit[18] pretty much sums it up on what's disputed here. Another contention not included in that edit is whether or not a commercial made by a Korean company is appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This really sums up everything, right, every time this link is posted shows Cydevil accusations ignore [newer edits and do not wish to discuss on which sources are not disputed. MythSearcher^talk 10:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So the problem is about having reliable sources in the ref? --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried my best to give sources I think is reliable, and wanted to include them in the article. Cydevil said some of them are not encyclopedic, but refuses to discuss and ignores anything I am saying. I understand that by itself, a commercial is not a reliable source, yet when it has been quoted by newspapers, it became reliable and verifiable along with the controversy introduced by it. MythSearcher^talk 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, see WP:NONENG, I don't believe the source is a reliable source. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. That is why I have included the original quote in the ref. Those are quoted from newspaper and the products directly, originally having its own link to the source, but the source seems to offend Cydevil since he thinks that it is against Korea, so I have only listed the part of the related to the origin instead of the link to the more controversial accusations of Korea stealing inventions from China. MythSearcher^talk 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanonkas, the problem is not just that the source is not verifiable. In the process of adding new material, Mythsearcher is deleting material or move them to another section. For example, Mythsearcher removes the part in bold in the following sentence:

• According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who used it as a medicine, although there is no historical evidence for this legend.

And replaces it with the following:

• According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who was clearly stated to have invented bean curd.

That there is no historical evidence for this legend is, I believe, important and relevant to this section, and there is no reason to delete or move it to another section. The sentence itself is a summarized version of this material from a well-written source[19]:

• According to popular tradition, soymilk was developed in the second century B.C. by Liu An, king of Huai-nan, who is also said to have developed tofu at the same time. There is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis, however, for this legend, which first appeared in the late 1500s in the Pen-ts'ao kang-mu by Li Shih-chen. Actually, Li only attributed the development of tofu to Liu An, making no mention of soymilk. Later writers in both Asia and the West added soymilk development to Liu An's feats, reasoning that he could not have made tofu without first having made soymilk. For more about Liu An, see Chapter 13.

I just don't see the reason why such information should be removed in place of another piece of information that is much less important and much less relevant. Just think about it. In an article on soy milk, which is more important and relevant? That the Liu An legend of inventing soy milk has no historical evidence, or that Liu An invented Tofu? Cydevil38 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you have totally ignored further edits. The whole edit concerns since Liu An being credited for inventing tofu, he is also credited for soy milk, in which tofu requires soy milk to produce, HOWEVER, soy milk may have other origins You keep reading everything by its own and totally ignore any other related material. MythSearcher^talk 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, concerning my belief that the following part is not encyclopedic:

• It was also suggested in a commercial advertisement that soy milk was originated in Korea.

I simply don't see how that is encyclopedic material. According to Wikipedia:reliable sources,

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

I simply do not see how a commercial advertisement can be credited with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially where it contradicts other reliable sources such as other encyclopedias. And it gets even better:

• Chinese officials did not want to comment on this issue.

Kanonkas, this is the stuff that Mythsearcher writes into this article, including his so-called "new" version[20]. I hope you understand the frustrations I'm going through. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am frustrated since you are ignoring every other sentences, and do not interpret paragraphs as a whole. There are newspapers concerning the ad, thus the source that is from a third party. The whole incident is encyclopedic, I never claimt the ad itself is. I have always claim that it is the whole incident, in which I have not interpret the primary source and only made a direct quote on the primary source because it is related to the incident. MythSearcher^talk 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know a user who can independently verify the validity of the source? I cannot understand it, so am not able to comment, but someone who can and is willing to provide the full details would be helpful. An independent user, independent of this case will clear it up. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Plugging it into an online translator should be sufficient, that is how I understand Cydevil's Korean language sources as well, Yet this may just be because the Chinese, Japanese and Korean language are pretty close to each other and would be easier to translate. Or you can try WP:China and WP:Japan for people who know Chinese and Japanese. Ability said, willingness is the only concern. MythSearcher^talk 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

MythSearcher, you are making mockery on Korean just because of some soymilk Ads? Since when Korean scholars made claims on soymilk? And please supply internationally recognized evidence that it was Chinese culture started making soymilk. Please note many Chinese evidence you have provided are not reputable sources considering Chinese media and government were making false accusations against to Korea since the Gojoseon & Koguryo case. Soy was one of main source of food within the East Asian cultre, China can not make solely make the originator claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to make mockery on Korean, it is one of the only claim that says soy milk did not originated in China, at least it is one that I can find, the Korean site Cydevil had included said it might have an origin from north of China, which it would be perfectly reasonable for a claim in an ad. I have no way of knowing it is just an ad or not, the fact is that the claim is on the product and it made reasonable claim that "Korean families had used in for a few hundred years and is the origin of soy milk". It carries pretty much same historical weight(which is none) compared to the Liu An claim, in which I highly suspect he did not invented it himself. MythSearcher^talk 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If soy was first cultivated and consumed by people in Northern China then considering sizable Koreans also came from Northern parts of China, Koreans were also one of biggest soy consuming people on earth. Besides there was no official claims from Korean governing bodies or scholars and Koreans generally consumed soybean pasted and soymilk for thousands of years, there really don't need for "who's your daddy" game. I really don't care if Chinese farmers were the first cultivators or not, besides Koreans consumed more soybean products than Chinese or Japanese today. I can't think of any Korean cuisine that don't use soybean product/sauce and soybean paste ( i.e. misou in Japanese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this [21] edit again, we need some verification that some newspaper have written that, as long as we can't we can't use it. Also the ref given in that edit isn't a reliable source. We can't use original research. --Kanonkas :  Talk  12:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be very convenient that there are Japanese and Korean Newspaper writings of this as well. It is in fact said by Cydevil up there, try searching the words "The "Japanese" article you cited is in fact a Korean article translated into Japanese. Joongang Ilbo(www.joins.com) is a Korean newspaper company. I simply replaced the Japanese version with the original Korean article. As for the comments by the Chinese official, it is redundant material as the view that China originally developed soy milk is introduced in the first paragraph" MythSearcher^talk 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Source material[22]:

• According to popular tradition, soymilk was developed in the second century B.C. by Liu An, king of Huai-nan, who is also said to have developed tofu at the same time. There is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis, however, for this legend, which first appeared in the late 1500s in the Pen-ts'ao kang-mu by Li Shih-chen. Actually, Li only attributed the development of tofu to Liu An, making no mention of soymilk. Later writers in both Asia and the West added soymilk development to Liu An's feats, reasoning that he could not have made tofu without first having made soymilk. For more about Liu An, see Chapter 13.

Cydevil38's version of the edit: According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who used it as a medicine, although there is no historical evidence for this legend.

Mythsearcher's alteration of the edit: According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who was clearly stated to have invented bean curd.

I'd like to ask other editors to be honest here - which one is more true to the source? Mine or Mythsearcher's?

Also, regarding Mytsearcher's edit about Liu An inventing tofu, this is other material from the source:

• Of the four theories, the Liu An Theory is by far the best known; unfortunately, it is probably the least likely to be true.

• However it is much more likely that he did not invent tofu, and that later generations merely ascribed its invention to him for various reasons.

• The legend of Liu An as the person who first developed tofu and soymilk was slow to take root. There was no mention of tofu or soymilk in any works commissioned by Liu An, nor in any works about him for more than 1,000 years after his death. As we will see later, the linking of his name with the development of tofu did not start until the 12th century AD and it was not firmly established until 1578.

Then again, tofu/bean curd isn't really the subject of the article, so mentioning its origins is not relevant in the first place. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you keep ignoring the rest of the sentences from my edit, and all your arguments from the very beginning to the end are all trying to separate paragraphs to sentences and interpret them separately just for the sake of making you WP:POINT.

According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An, who was clearly stated to have invented bean curd. The medical use of soy milk most likely first appeared in 1578 in the Bencao Gangmu, it stated soy milk's medical use. and the origin of bean curd. Later writers in Asia and the West additionally attributed development of soy milk development to Liu An, assuming that he could not have made tofu without making soy milk, yet bean curd could be produced by a thick soup made of fresh soybean puree, which might have carried the same name as soy milk in early China, rather than from filtered soymilk

The whole paragraph showed the theory of Liu An was NEVER directly mentioned as the creator of soy milk in history, and only later researchers credited him for it, since most believed tofu cannot be made without soy milk. This edit is so old that I used bean curd in it and is even before I figured out tofu is a more common name for bean curd, you have to go search for an edit so old and still have to hold still to a single sentence instead of a whole paragraph just to claim what I did wrong, you showed no will of improving the article, all you are doing is only trying to claim I am wrong just because I have added in something you believed I used for mocking Korea, which I am not, I am only telling a fact, and it would be the only source around that would be reasonable enough to claim origin other than the Chinese legends, which actually supports the source you used that claimt tribes from north of China invented soy milk.(which I believe the researcher of that article should have sources backing up that claim) and Chinese officials not wanting to comment on it could also mean that they have no hard evidence on the Liu An's case, in which I find should also be presented along with these claims. MythSearcher^talk 08:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What's between: " although there is no historical evidence for this legend." and "who was clearly stated to have invented bean curd." is what I'm wondering on. Would be nice if we could get a compromise on this. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in stating there is no historical evidence for this legend, the compromise would have to come from Cydevil, he wanted the information to be in the article, I merely wanted to add in the whole claim from the source about why there is no historical evidence yet it came to common believe that he is the inventor. The source stated the reason behind this is because he was historically labeled as the inventor of tofu, and thus if he did not invented soy milk beforehand, he could not have invented tofu. I had the other sources added in to support this claim(stating the method was know before him), more sources to even discredit him for inventing tofu. S/he wanted none of those, and continuously accusing me of removing the point that I did not remove. MythSearcher^talk 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how and where this who was clearly stated to have invented bean curd could be relevant in context. What Mythsearcher explained is how a myth unlikely to be true became a popular belief, not why the Liu An legend has no historical evidence. Another article in the source gives reasons why the Liu An legend is unlikely to be true, and it has no historical evidence. According to the source, it is least likely for Liu An to have invented soy milk or tofu, and other theories of origin have relatively little evidence except for the theory that soy milk has been adapted from the Mongolians. This is backed by another source, in Korean, which goes to further details.

Hence, I propose this edit with some modifications:

• The oldest evidence of soy milk production is from China where a kitchen scene proving use of soy milk is incised on a stone slab dated around A.D. 25~220. It also appeared in a chapter called Four Taboos (Szu-Hui) in the A.D. 82 book called Lun Heng by Wang Ch'ung, possibly the first written record of soy milk. Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and widespread usage before then is unlikely.

• According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An for medicinal purposes, although there is no historical evidence for this legend. This legend appeared in the late 15th century in Bencao Gangmu, where Li was attributed to the development of tofu with no mention of soy milk. Later writers in Asia and the West additionally attributed development of soy milk development to Liu An, assuming that he could not have made tofu without making soy milk. However, it is likely that Liu An has been falsely attributed to the development of tofu by writers 1000 years later from his time.

Source material[23]:

• While the last three of these four theories all seem reasonable, there is, unfortunately, relatively little evidence to support any of them, except the Mongolian Import Theory. Yet it is important to note that, as explained in Chapter 33, there is written evidence to show that soymilk existed in China by 82 AD, and may have existed several centuries before that time. Of the four theories, the Liu An Theory is by far the best known; unfortunately, it is probably the least likely to be true. Who was Liu An and what evidence do we have that he developed tofu?
• However it is much more likely that he did not invent tofu, and that later generations merely ascribed its invention to him for various reasons: First, Chinese have traditionally liked to attribute the invention or development of good things to ancient characters of noble birth and/or high virtue. Second, a series of almost magical or alchemical transformations seem to take place in the processes of converting yellow or green soybeans into white soymilk, then the milk into cloudlike curds and pale yellow whey, and finally the delicate curds into firm cakes of tofu. And third, the Chinese have long considered tofu to be a food that promotes long life and good health--a good way to provide a rational explanation for Liu An's immortality. In fact, Sun Ta-ya (Jap. Sontaiga) of the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368) wrote that Liu An ate tofu, grew younger, eventually sprouted wings, and ascended to heaven, thus clearly linking the eating of tofu with immortality. Finally, since tofu later became a key protein source in the meatless diets of many Chinese (especially Buddhists) doing meditation or other spiritual practice, it might have been assumed that Liu An and his Taoist friends practice a similar diet, with tofu as their protein source.

I don't really see the need in mentioning that Liu An was falsely attributed for this invention by writers later in time. I think mentioning that it has no historical evidence is enough to inform readers that the legend is dubious. Cydevil38 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

cydevil, a myth not likely to be true is basically saying there is no historical evidence. I insist the reason of why he was credited for soy milk explain in detail in the section since it is from 2 different sources and clearly given in both, the one we were using, the English source stated clearly that the misconception is from the fact that he was stated to be the inventor of tofu, and later scholars based on that to make the assumption that he invented soy milk as well. While the other Chinese sources stated that the methods were taught by monks that lived with him, both tofu and soy milk predates Liu An, and if you wish, I have no objection in merging that with the Korean source stating soy milk might be from the Mongolians. However, note the controversial part of this theory about Mongolians is pretty much less creditable since it is a single source, with no referencing historical records and it is only a "I think" in the source with no supporting factors other than "because the northern nomadic tribes made cheese from milk and tofu is similar to that" which, if true, should be very easily verifiable with other sources claiming the same thing. From the soyinfocenter source, in turns tell a totally opposite story, placing the mongols as a nearby dairy consuming civilization, stating the soy based diet is chosen to distinguish themselves from the barbaric tribes of the north. It is not for me to interpret the sources, the soyinfo center source should be used, and it discredits the mongol import theory.

Your proposal has 2 flaws in it, it is not introduced by you, in fact, they are originally in the article. I see no actual source claiming Liu An developed soy milk for medical purposes, the legend/myth tells of him making it for his ill mother just because his mother wanted to consume soy beans, which is too hard for an old sick lady to digest.(It is fun that the legend tells of his mother suggested him to ground and soak the soy beans, so technically, the legends is Liu An's mother inventing soy milk, not Liu An.) Also, the legend was not first told by the 15th Century Bencao Gangmu, it was first in the 16th century poem, which the soy info center source and the soybe source both claimed.

Liu An's invention of tofu is pretty clearly stated in the historical records(not saying it got evidence, only got records), and that is why later scholars credited him. I think that is quite important to know since people reading the article is likely to encounter other sources telling them Liu An inverted both of those. Other sources I have included that discredits him for making soy milk and tofu should be kept in as well. MythSearcher^talk 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, why Liu An was credited for inventing soy milk is succinctly stated here:

• This legend appeared in the late 15th century in Bencao Gangmu, where Li was attributed to the development of tofu with no mention of soy milk. Later writers in Asia and the West additionally attributed development of soy milk development to Liu An, assuming that he could not have made tofu without making soy milk. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cydevil, the Bencao did not have the legend, it only stated the method of tofu originated from Liu An, period. All of the legend popped out in more modern time, without early historical records like Bencao. MythSearcher^talk 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for all the information. Now again I'm wondering can both of the parties tell me that we can get a compromise on this here? Less stressful then going into big debates, don't you both think? Let's try to think of something nice and then get back to editing? Then at least we aren't so much stressed (sorry if you aren't, but I am sometimes ;)) and that can help me out. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanonkas, I'm willing to make compromises within reasonable bounds. As for the legend appearing in Bencao Gangmu, excerpt from the source[24]:

• There is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis, however, for this legend, which first appeared in the late 1500s in the Pen-ts'ao kang-mu by Li Shih-chen.

Liu An's tale of inventing tofu is itself the legend in question. Soy milk deriving from Liu An's invention is an assumption made by later writers. The proposed text surmises this quite well. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Although wikipedia requires no correctness but only reliable sources, it would be plain wrong to ignore the original source and use an incorrect sentence from another. MythSearcher^talk 09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That was good to hear Cydevil. So Mythsearcher what would do you say to an agreement? --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the legend concerned here is about Liu An making tofu or not, the legend is about Liu An invented soy milk. Bencao did not say anything about that, thus the legend is not from Bencao, Bencao is only what the legend based on. I see no point in quoting an incorrect sentence from the source, especially the next sentence in the source is Actually, Li only attributed the development of tofu to Liu An, making no mention of soymilk. labeling very clearly that Bencao said nothing about the legend at all. It is very simple that the article should be made into "Liu An was credited for inventing soy milk by later scholars, which most assumed soy milk is the essential ingredient of tofu, and basing on the earliest record of tofu, the 15th century Bencao Gangmu statement of tofu originated from Liu An, with later legends told of how he invented both soy milk and tofu. However, there is no historical evidence and basis that Liu An invented soy milk.". The information is exactly the same, and is different from previous versions both of us proposed, which both of us think is confusing/missing information/misleading. I do not want to have the article falsely accusing Li Shih-chen for creating a legend. MythSearcher^talk 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanonkas, can you please kindly tell us what this legend refers to and its relation to Bencao Gangmu(Pentsao Kangmu) in this passage from the source? [25]

• According to popular tradition, soymilk was developed in the second century B.C. by Liu An, king of Huai-nan, who is also said to have developed tofu at the same time. There is no historical evidence and probably no historical basis, however, for this legend, which first appeared in the late 1500s in the Pen-ts'ao kang-mu by Li Shih-chen. Actually, Li only attributed the development of tofu to Liu An, making no mention of soymilk. Later writers in both Asia and the West added soymilk development to Liu An's feats, reasoning that he could not have made tofu without first having made soymilk. For more about Liu An, see Chapter 13.

Also, can you please tell us if this proposed version have any conflicts with the above passage?

• According to popular tradition in China, soy milk was developed by Liu An for medicinal purposes, although there is no historical evidence for this legend. This legend appeared in the late 15th century in Bencao Gangmu, where Li was attributed to the development of tofu with no mention of soy milk. Later writers in Asia and the West additionally attributed development of soy milk development to Liu An, assuming that he could not have made tofu without making soy milk. However, it is likely that Liu An has been falsely attributed to the development of tofu by writers 1000 years later from his time.

Cydevil38 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The reply from Kanonkas is taking way longer than what I can stand, so I will pass on that. I propose the following:

• We now used the version Cydevil proposed as the article, first, with no alteration or anything.
• I would add in extra information in this talk page in a new section to continue the discussion, with the promise of not removing information Cydevil wanted the article to have, nor editing the article until the discussion is over.
• If the discussion is dead for over 2 weeks, the latest version in the discussion would be used, and no one who have participated in this discussion before this post should object to it and revert the article.
• For a reply, Cydevil simply needs to change the section to what he proposed up there, and start a new section in this talk page stating s/he agreed.
• If this proposal was not replied in a month, I assume that Cydevil no longer cared about this and I will use my version before Cydevil's revert.

MythSearcher^talk 09:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I reserve my right to agree or disagree to any proposals for further changes. You can start the new section if you wish. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lactococcus lactis

Can lactococcus lactis be used to make tofu or other fermented soy products ? The reason why I pose this question is that lactococcus may alter the soy milk so the protein, ... can be more easily taken ip by the body, similar to buttermilk. Perhaps it may also increase the shelf-life of the milk. If so, it might be a good foodstuff for the developing world (eg to nourish weakened adult and children eg from malnutrition). Reason why soy milk should be used is offcourse because of the fact that animals as cows are inefficient, need grass adn destroy some of the environment (especially in desertifying areas) and produce more co² and some methane (increases greenhouse effect). If someone knows the answer, please add to my food production article (as a PS). Thanks 81.244.195.180 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin section discussion

As per the above proposal, There are a few modifications that I would like to propose.

1. Use more sources. The stone slab part is also supported by this source.
2. The sentence Evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and widespread usage before then is unlikely. should also mention more about having little foreign travelers tell of soy milk, and the possibly the only mention of soy milk usage from a foreigner is 1866 Frenchman Paul Champion. The sentence could be changed to Although early travelers often mention about tofu, soy milk was only mentioned once as a breakfast beverage by Frenchman Paul Champion in 1866, most of the other mentions of soy milk are only having it as the ingredient of tofu. One can speculate that evidence of soy milk is rare prior to the 20th century and widespread usage as a drink before then is unlikely.
3. This legend appeared in the late 15th century in Bencao Gangmu, should be changed to This legend probably began in the late 15th century in Bencao Gangmu, The book did not say anything about Liu An inventing soy milk, yet it did included soy milk in it.
4. Add the following sentence: Other research suggests that soy milk should have originated from nomadic tribes north of China, instead of China since there are no evidence of soy milk before 10th century.

Since the article is about soy milk, the history of it should also be mentioned.

1. A more recent history should be added into the article, the sources showed that the commercialized and patented in US is around 1909 to 1910.
2. Other history should also mention the popularity spread of it in the Asia area, Europe, America and Africa, which is detailed in source page 2~4.

MythSearcher^talk 16:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't object to adding more source to that particular part, as long as there is no modification to that part.
2. I disagree. The source does not support your claims. many Chinese work that discuss the various types of soyfoods in detail make no mention of soymilk
3. I disagree. The source refers to the Liu An legend itself.
4. I don't object to that.
5. I don't object to a more recent history.
6. I don't object to that. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not actively replying back to the discussion but I'm glad you two have taken this into your two hands. Which solved at least the agruments/dispute in this case! Kudos goes to both of you for doing a great job on resolving this in a civil way. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)