Talk:Cendol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Green palm worms"[edit]

What does "green palm worms" mean? Badagnani (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, and replaced with "starch noodles with green food coloring," until the term "green palm worms" is explained. Badagnani (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundanese Cendol[edit]

Cendol in Sunda is dark green pulpy dish of rice (or sago) flour worms with coconut milk and syrup of areca sugar. It used to be served without ice. Ciserayu (talk). --Serayu 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawet in Javanese Wedding Ritual[edit]

FYI, Dawet is also known as a part of traditional Javanese wedding ritual.
The ritual is called Dhodol Dawet.
This is the tradition where the bride parent selling dawet to the wedding guest and accept the Kereweng coin as payment.
The parent then would give all the Kereweng to the bride.
The whole Dhodol Dawet ceremony symbolizes how the bride parent work hard earning money and give all the money to their daughter for her future family.
andry (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

It seems that there is a dispute of the origin of cendol, I often see edits where the origin is constantly changed between Malaysia and Indonesia, so for now, I'm changing it to South East Asia AppuruPan (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cendol from chorn dooi meaning "Help!" ?[edit]

I find this etymology section is highly doubtful also probably false, thus set the claim that Cendol is originated from Thailand:

Etymology
The name "cendol" originates from southern Thailand, where the original word is chorn dooi meaning "Help!" in Thai, since the process of making cendol in old times was very difficult, and mutual help was often needed. In the past, South Thailand was a part of the Pattani Kingdom, so when the Thai government took over, many residents left to Malaya, thus introducing cendol there.

So I remove it. (Gunkarta (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I believed it's from a book, refer here. Next time put a tag {{fact}} instead. Yosri (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the product description of the book, it's source of information was from Wikipedia; to use the book as reference is ridiculous! Cendol is known as lotchong in Thai, where did this "chorn dooi" thing came from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.76 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

@Gunkarta: I see you selected "jendol" as the noun and replaced "it" with "jendol" in the Etymology section. That part is clearer now.

Regarding the second "it" (at which there is still the "clarification needed" tag), I put the tag for the following reasons:

  • Since it's Vietnam, "it" probably doesn't refer to "jendol", which is Indonesian, and
  • if "it means "cendol", I have a question for you. In the first line of the article it says, "Cendol is a dessert..." and, in the Etymology section it says,
"it is called "bánh lọt," or fall cake. Bánh lọt is a common ingredient in a Vietnamese dessert called chè, or more commonly chè ba màu."

If you replace this "it" with "cendol", which the article already says is a dessert, then you're saying:

"cendol is called "bánh lọt," or fall cake. Bánh lọt is a common ingredient in a Vietnamese dessert called chè, or more commonly chè ba màu."
"cendol [a dessert] is.....a common ingredient in a....dessert..."

and I didn't think that made sense. Either the noun has to be made more specific (so that it's just an ingredient) or the sentence has to be changed to "cendol is called "bánh lọt," or fall cake. Bánh lọt is a common ingredient in a Vietnamese dessert called chè, or more commonly chè ba màu." Or, maybe it does make sense but it would have to be explained how cendol, considered a dessert in one place, is considered an ingredient in a dessert in Vietnam. Do you see what I mean? CorinneSD (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means the worm-like rice flour cake/jelly, while the dessert drink is called chè. Gunkarta  talk  18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I think if the word "drink" is added in that sentence, it would clear it up. CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I added the word "drink", I saw your edit. I think the two edits make the sentence much clearer. CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worm-like[edit]

iFood.tv:

  • "green-worm like jellies are swallowed"
  • "Cendol is prepared using coconut milk and green worm-like jelly"
  • "The green worm- like jelly is prepared using the rice flour and green food coloring and the dish actually refers to the jelly."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd add that calling a food item "worm-like" is describing the shape and is not a negative term, especially if one enjoys the beverage that contains it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cendol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia vs Malaysia[edit]

It seems that someone is trying to keep changing Indonesia to Malaysia. It think it would help to word it differently, using South East Asian in the lead instead of specifying it being Indonesian. If we can find a source that shows that it originated in Indonesia, then we can add that in, otherwise the wording is going to cause endless reverts. Hzh (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not mind with a neutral tone in the lead. However, the recent vandalism has shed a light on a silly but sometimes vitriol food fight between Indonesia and Malaysia. Nevertheless, wikipedia is an open source that celebrates the quest of knowledge, and the question of origin is interesting (at least for me). I believe just like the question of origin of food plants domestication, the quest of food origin and its development can follow some simple wisdom of answering following questions; Where is the oldest/first place it was served? Where is the simplest manifestation of it exist? Where is the rich diversity of it exist? (as the sign of creativity and development). And try to follow the study of demographic composition and historic migration and the culture they brought. I believed the origin of cendol was in Java, Indonesia. In Java "cendol" refer to the green worm-like jelly, while the whole sweet dessert drink (including palm sugar syrup and coconut milk) is called "dawet" or "es cendol" (if served with ice). In Malaysia and Singapore, the whole bowl/package, plus the "bastard" addition of sweetened red beans is called "cendol". Examine an analogue; the term "lontong", in Java Indonesia lontong refer to the elongated banana-leaf packed rice cake, while in Malaysia "lontong" means the whole meal of rice cake including spicy vegetables soup that here we called as "lontong sayur" instead. The tendency of over-simplification of naming that bordering error, shows that it was introduced there from somewhere else. Secondly, also follow its simplicity; in Java traditional dawet was not served with ice, which shows that in Java this sweet beverage is an old traditional drink predates refrigeration technology. Yet, also follow its complexity; other than pandan green colored cendol, in Java there is also black colored cendol made with "merang" of burned rice stalk. Plus today cendol is made from rice flour as rice is more commonly and readily available, but traditional Javanese cendol was made from "sagu aren" or sagoo starch extracted from the trunk of arenga pinnata plant (sugar palm). Next, examine historical records, sure cendol is mentioned in writings in 1932 Malay concordance project, but old photographs of Dutch East Indies Java from 1935 shows dawet sellers in their traditional "pikulan" with earthenware jars. Lastly, study the demographic composition and migration history. Malaysia demographic today is mostly consists of historic migrant population came from elsewhere, more significantly from within the archipelago (Indonesia) to China and India. Indonesian Malays, Bugis, Minangs and Javanese has migrated to Malay peninsula for centuries. Given there is considerably Malaysian Malays has a somewhat Indonesian ancestry, it is more likely that the culture was brought from ancestral motherland to their new adopted land, not another way around. I will try to find references for this. Gunkarta  talk  04:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the initial sentence should be descriptive, but as general as it can rather than narrowed down to something very specific that does not represent the item as a whole. For food you will find that many different countries will have different versions of the same thing, or use the same word to describe different things in different countries. See for example muffin and biscuit, even with hamburger which is often regarded as American in origin, it does not say so in the first sentence as it is now so ubiquitous all over the world, rather it is explained later. I'm doubtful also about adding dawet in the first sentence as it appears to be a local usage that may not correspond entirely to cendol, and you can argue that other names in other languages can also be added, and it will make the lead sentence look messy. If the Malaysian version is different from the Indonesian one, then that can be in a separate paragraph in the lead because the ice version is the popular one in many places (I'm however not making any claim here, just suggesting that the lead can be expanded if there are valid reasons to do so, at the moment the lead is not informative enough).
Also that there might be some element of original research when we make assumption about word usage - that is the job of linguists, we can't really say which is the original one because word use can go in odd direction. It is for scholars to untangle, and not really our job. Hzh (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree the initial sentence should be descriptive about the actual food content instead of mentioning its cultural location or whereabout. I'll try to make this article in par with other food related articles. About word usage it was just an opinion, thus I will inserted only the well referenced sentences. Gunkarta  talk  12:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cendol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Associated national cuisine[edit]

December 2018 discussion[edit]

Some IPs keeps vandalising it, with sources already indicating the Malaysians having gazetted it as a a national heritage and with the Indonesians being the most likely of being the place of origin besides having the most variants. I have already inserted a note of warning to no avail and do not wish to edit war. Please, somebody else revert. A quick check on one of the IP's (175.156.220.135) talk page revealed that this particular user has a habit of ignoring warnings and insist on his/her edit (the user's same behaviour on the Hainanese Chicken Rice page eventually led to him/her being blocked). Jasonb28 (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is actually that the origins of the dish is unclear. Unfortunately the gazetting you mentioned does not really hold any weight on the argument of its source of origin. As I recall, the Tourism Minister at that point tried to list one whole bunch of foods that were famous in Malaysia as part of the tourism drive, and among the numerous entries, included Tau Hway/DouHua (bean curd dessert from China, Han Dynasty), Kek Lapis/Kuay Lapis (From Indonesia), Hainanese Chicken Rice (OBVIOUSLY from China) and many more. Gazetting is Malaysia's means of protecting the country's culture, and not necessarily correlated to its origins.
The source of an ingredient is also a weak argument for "origins". I.e. Japanese Curry is its own distinct dish, very different from other curries from around the world, and the spices are imported. Yet no one will deny that Japanese Curry is its own thing.
The ironic thing is, Singapore isn't even vocally laying claim to the dish. This was just something the CNN article said. Among other things on the list was the "Hong Kong Egg Tart", which actually has its origin from Portuguese roots. The only ones laying claim to it was the Malaysia netizens, while Indonesians just shrugged.
On the aside, how does the celebrities visiting "Penang Road Famous Teochew Cendol" even get a mention there? If some celebrity (which they have) visited "Babbo Pizzeria e Enotec" in America (arguably the best Pizza restaurant there), it doesn't mean pizza didn't originated from Italy. That point is pure editorializing. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is misreading the CNN article, including you. It doesn't say it is of Singaporean origin, nor does it say it is a national cuisine of Singapore, only that the version in Singapore is one of the best desserts in the world. We can't really take a single casual link like that as a valid source for assertion that it is part of the national cuisine. Hzh (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the link with Indonesia needs discussing. Cendol needs ice, and it is likely to have been invented in Malaya, while dawet does not need ice, and can be considered to be different and separate from cendol, even if cendol is likely to have originated from dawet. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the refrigerator units? Those would have been available in Singapore too. Arguably even more so, considering Singapore's status back then as a hub/port. But I digress. Ours is not to debate on the logic. It's to debate on the allowed content based on reliable sources. And one of the sources I removed as part of the content was a blog... I mean, seriously? I am only semi-active these days but we're accepting random blogs as "reliable sources" now? Zhanzhao (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore has good records of its history, and so far I haven't read of any substantiated claim that it originated there, therefore barring some historical sources turning up, we can assume that it did not originate there. And yes, some people have been using blogs as sources, therefore trim away. Hzh (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I find the whole situation ridiculous. Almost tabloidish. The article was clean til a few days ago. Though it did give me a good chance to do some research. We cannot deny that based on the origin of the name, that it has Javanese/Indonesian roots.
I've seen articles of food with multiple origins like Laksa, Bak Kut Teh and Hainanese Chicken Rice recently being hijacked til only 1 country owned them, to the point of removing well sourced content removed to support the bias. Sigh. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just takes one popular clickbait article and there's IP chauvinism "incoming!". William Avery (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone who has played a part in cleaning up the page! Hopefully there won't be any further attempts at vandalism. One thing that got me thinking though, is whether we are to link "Associated national cuisine" with the origin of the dish section? (Then, there would not be any point of having both the sections right since they would essentially be the same?) One example would be that the origin of the Hainanese Chicken Rice is quoted to be China, but on its page, it is SEA and its associated national cuisine is Singapore (which I completely agree with), but how do we determine when or when not to specify the national cuisine? For example, such as this very dessert, its origins are most likely to be either Indonesia and the variant with ice in Malaysia, yet we are unable(?) to consider it as an associated national cuisine in either case. Furthermore, cendol was also declared as among Malaysia's "Intangible Heritage Object" by their Ministry of Tourism, so if we are still unable to classify it as an associated national dish to either country despite all that, what situation would allow for it to be? Like what Zhanzhao has mentioned above, obviously in light of recent developments, there has been numerous vandalism on various pages related to some SEA cuisines, so maybe we could set or share some views on some precedent to tackle any similar issues that may arise? Jasonb28 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say cendol would be associated with Malaysia because an official body has given it some kind of status in the country, although personally I'm not fussed whether it is listed or not. Hainanese Chicken Rice is interesting because from what I can gather, although it is named Hainanese, the Hainanese original itself is different from the ones in Malaysia and Singapore. Entry for any kind of claim needs reliable source, and if the source not there, then just delete it. Hzh (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: because of changes in the mention of causing the loss of historical value on the drinks GA1015 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: Dawet and cendol itself are the same thing, I say changing the name "cendol" early 1930s has erased the historical value of the drink GA1015 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GA1015: If you see one as one with ice and one without, then they are different because dawet original did not have ice. One way to resolve this is to give it as disputed - you can see the article on Hamburger which gives its origin as disputed in the infobox. Even your source says that others have claimed Malaysia as the origin. Hzh (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: we are not talking about "variation" but the topic is directed to "cendol" only, the wikipedia page does not say "ice cendol” hot cendol" or "cendol without water" but instead talks about "Cendol". it may be true that cendol ice was created by people (peninsular) even though it does not have solid evidence, but the "ice" presentation is only part of the variation. as well like as "Rojak" comes from Java but has special variations that can only be found on the peninsula. And it is not correct to compare cendol which has historically strong with Hamburger. basically it's just a matter of variation but the object in question is the same.

———but we in Java also have evidence of consuming "ice dawet" before the "cendol" claim in the 1930s GA1015 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GA1015: You are assuming that dawet is exactly the same as cendol, cendol simply isn't called ice cendol in Malaysia, because cendol has ice for very long time in Malaysia. Why would you have "ice dawet" if you think dawet is exactly the same cendol? You might conceivable create a separate article on dawet, possibly on the other variants in other countries as well under different names. Hzh (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: I dare say, not similar but the SAME. in Java now cendol is now called more than dawet (except for the deepening of Java). there is a note that many Javanese people immigrated to the peninsula as well as to Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, they also influenced every food and drink. in Indonesia cendol and dawet are the same (the object is 100% the same), the mention is cendol and dawet (although cendol is better known) and has many variants (such as toppings). I just emphasize, history clearly records cendol (dawet) as a drink originating from Java, cultural assimilation and language may influence the mention of the drink

like comparing the mention of sate in Java with Satay on the peninsula, but both are the SAME GA1015 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: history is clear, just the root of the problem in the mention of so (eliminating the identity of the drink) GA1015 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GA1015:I have no interest in your original research, or indeed those from Indonesian sources that claim everything is theirs. At the moment it is all Indonesian claim, and it is getting very tiresome that they claim to have originated everything on very little evidence on many articles. Most of the time it is just a lot of nationalistic nonsense. Now provide independent evidence (i.e. non-Indonesian sources) that cendol and dawet are 100% the same, or that cendol originated from dawet. Otherwise you might want to start a dawet article, and leave this one alone. Hzh (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: ok ... but certainly not Indonesian people who write GA1015 (talk) 21
02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Origin of cendol[edit]

@Hzh: some historical sources in Indonesia, claiming that there has been consumption of cendol (called "dawet") in the land of Java a thousand years ago, please note that Javanese culture has influenced many surrounding areas including in terms of food, besides that there have been established close relations between people in Java and Sumatra (including the peninsula), which influence each other in all kinds of culture GA1015 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GA1015: The discussion of the origin of Cendol is given in full in the text. The evidence given is for dawet, not cendol. If you want to see cendol as the version with ice, then the origin may be in Malaysia. Therefore give either both claims, or don't give either (it has also been claimed as Singaporean, although few accept that as true). Hzh (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://sea.mashable.com/culture/3213/5-things-we-love-about-southeast-asias-cendol-and-why-the-900-year-old-dessert-is-here-to-stay :::@Hzh:

What? Something that links to an Indonesian blog laying claim to cendol? The information in the website including the links in fact looks like it comes from this Wikipedia article, therefore entirely circular and cannot be considered reliable per WP:CIRCULAR. Hzh (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian sources[edit]

A lot of the information given in the articles are from Indonesian sources, but the information given in Indonesian sources appear to be contradictory and not supported by sources outside of the country, and the information given are dubious, poorly supported by the sources cited. For example, the article claims that cendol comes from dawet, one says dawet is recorded in 19th, but another claims that it was recorded in the 12th century, yet neither actually gives any proof that cendol is from dawet, and it is actually not clear if "dawet" is actually mentioned in the old writings (it seems that someone has inferred that dawet was meant in the old manuscripts rather than it being actually mentioned). One claimed that it is proven because it is based on rice flour, which is a bizarre claim, you might as well argue that people in Thailand made it first because rice farming had a long history there. Some of the sources appears to be self-published and therefore cannot be considered reliable. Even with books it is not clear that dawet is mentioned or has anything with cendol, for example in the book about Serat Centhini the only mention of dawet is a photograph of someone selling dawet. I'm highly dubious that these assertions can be accepted to be correct as they may be original research. Without independent reliable sources form outside Indonesia, I'm not sure that those information can be trusted, it looks to be attempts by Indonesians claiming things as theirs without clear evidence. If the information is to stay, then it has to be stated clearly they are Indonesian claims unless supported by sources outside the country, and better sourcing is required. It will need rewriting to tidy it up. Hzh (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently CNA publish comprehensive content on origin of Cendol, you can look up the video here. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNA simply interviewed some people, and accepted things without question. There is no analysis or examination of the claim that is required in academic study of a subject (it does that with other food, not just cendol). It doesn't present actual source of significant claim, for example, what is actually said in ancient Javanese text. In fact the one text it showed, a Dutch dictionary, suggests that the Javanese one is just one version - Google translate indicates that the Javanese version is black in colour, which is weird and the word green does not appear in the text (perhaps it's an error in translation, but it shows the problem with sources like the CNA which doesn't look closely at the claim). It is clear that there are different versions of cendol, and different versions emerged in different countries. Hzh (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Singaporean news source are generally considered as WP:RS unless it's about Singapore govt (cendol have nothing to do with govt). And what you're saying is pretty much WP:OR. Unless there are sources that disprove that claim there are no reason to reject that source and claim it as not reliable. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as saying that it comes from one country it is reliable, otherwise would make nonsense of the idea of examining the reliability of the source in RS board. All sources are examined individually and not by country (in that case, it relates to The Straits Times). In any case, this is about a claim that needed to be substantiate with academic sources, and that is not an academic source. And no, I did not do WP:OR (since that relates to what's written in the article), I'm simply pointing that source did not examine the claim, which it did not (it didn't even look at what the dictionary says closely). Would you like to explain what the dictionary means with the black cendol? Hzh (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources in this article of which their reliability are synonymous to blogs. Why are you not arguing against their removal, and are extremely defensive over CNA's analysis -- an established news outlet? 220.70.69.13 (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources in the article that say differently, one from CNN says it's Singaporean, one from The Guardian and the Lonely Planet says it's Malaysian. Where there are conflicting sources, then we need more authoritative source for the assertion. CNA is not more authoritative than any of the other sources (and I would say less). It's just one man's opinion taking a brief look at the claims without any analysis. BTW, if you are Ckfasdf, please do log in, so it does not appear as two different persons engaging in a dispute. Hzh (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, IP editor is not me. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of Singaporean source is part of the discussion The Straits Times, Today and Channel NewsAsia however are quite reputable, and they can be generally trusted.
While Guardian is generally considered WP:RS, Lonely Planet is not. Even Guardian source didn't explain the origin of Cendol. AFAIK only CNA have dedicated coverage to explain the origin of Cendol, hence it is better source than others. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, CNA is not explicitly part of the discussion, just mentioned in passing. CNA simply stated everything that's given in this wikipedia article, the only new information I can see is that it says it was introduced to Malacca by Indians and possibly originally Persian. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in the discussion. Anyway, aside of mentioning what's on the article, CNA also provide conclusion on the origin of cendol. Unless we can find other investigative content like CNA or academic publication. I don't see why we should reject CNA conclusion, esp. if your reason is only because you consider CNA as not WP:RS. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something else is mentioned in passing in a discussion on a subject, it does not make that mention the subject of discussion, nor does it form part of its conclusion. Anyway, the CNA piece have so much in common with this article that the suspicion is that the author used Wikipedia for research, and its conclusion is no more than "someone said this is the earliest, so this is the origin" (it's as trite as that from what I observed with the other pieces on food items). I would use another source rather than that even if it is just a brief statement - [1]. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened up discussion on reliability of CNA on RS noticeboard, it seems everyone agreed that it is as reliable as ST. How could brief statement on article/book X that said "A originated from B" is better than report that is dedicated to find out "where A originated from?". They are not even in the same quality. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book suggests that the issue has been studied somewhere and is probably in a source not directly available to us (the book is co-funded by the National Heritage Board, so I would assume the authors are people who have sources on which they can base their assertion). We can see how the author of the CNA piece approached the question, it does not fill me with confidence that his conclusion is sound. Hzh (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, CNA is WP:RS. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, .... And What you are saying on that book is going beyond what the sources express. Again, no reason to reject CNA. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just one person's opinion expressed without any intellectual rigour. The original complaint is that the sources are all opinions of Indonesians, his was also the same, he basically just talked to an Indonesian and it's "he said it, so this is the origin". If you read WP:RS, for example WP:NEWSORG, the reliability of the content in opinion or analysis pieces depend on the person and they are rarely reliable for statements of fact. We also need to be aware of circular sourcing; the book is older than a lot of the content here (much of the Indonesian stuff was written in the last few years), therefore independent. Hzh (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG also said The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and the interviewee (Fadly Rahman) is academic scholar in food history. At any case, CNA and this book pointed out the same origin of cendol, which is Java, So we can update the infobox then? Ckfasdf (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG refers to the opinion of the author of the opinion piece, not the interviewee. Given that I said days back already that it is preferable to use the book, why are you still asking this? (Would have saved you the trouble of trying to establish the reliability of the news organization that is irrelevant to this issue.) Hzh (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lotsobear555 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lotsobear555 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cendol&oldid=1206190747"