Talk:Ikan goreng

"is a generic term that refers to"
The use of "term that refers to" is a use/mention error. This error is explained in WP:REFERS. Unfortunately my fix was immediately reverted by an editor without assuming good faith. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination of Singaporean and Brunei Malays
Please don't be racist here, how about the Malays in Singapore and Brunei? Ikan Goreng is Malay language for fried fish, this dish belongs to the Malay people in Maritime Southeast Asia, not only limited to Malaysia.

for Indonesia, we have a different identity, there are 1,300 tribes and 700 regional languages ​​here, and we don't adopt Malayness concepts like in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

please put your selfishness aside. BangIjo (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all, please refrain from WP:personal attacks like using words like "racist" as a baseless weapon. I don't know if "please put your selfishness aside" counts as a personal attack too; in this context, it just looks like a pretty non-sequitur utterance.
 * As for the perennial chauvinist food wars: yes, Ikan goreng is also prepared and consumed in Singapore and Brunei. Not only by Malays, but also non-Malays, just like in Malaysia. Malaysia has lots of non-Malay indigenous ethnicities, especially in the eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak, and they also call their fried fish "ikan goreng" when speaking the national language. Replacing "Malaysian" with "Malay" obviously excludes them for no good reason.
 * So what the best solution here? Obviously, the best one would be just to talk about a Southeast Asian dish in the short description and opening sentence, and leave details to the rest of the text.
 * But this solution has proven to be hard to swallow for (generally ephemeral) Indonesian and Malaysian chauvinist WP:single-purpose accounts who contribute nothing to Wikipedia execpt for adding the words "Indonesia(n)" or "Malaysia(n)" (usually replacing one by the other) all over the place with highest visibility, but with little or no benefit for our readers.
 * So instead, the second best solution that was chosen: appeasement. Let them both explicitly claim "ikan goreng" (and also "ikan bakar", ayam goreng" and so on) for the everlasting pride and glory of their respective countries, but yes, with the price of leaving Malay-speaking Singapore and Brunei out in the dark.
 * Okay, even though your reasoning is a bit strange, but I accept it. BangIjo (talk)
 * Have I presented the basic facts about the folly that we have been witnessing here for years adequately, or have I missed something? –Austronesier (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have properly and adequately described the perpetual edit wars between single-purpose account of food chauvinists from both sides of Malacca strait.  Gunkarta  talk 15:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Southeast Asian dish in the short description and opening sentence, and leave details to the rest of the text" is perfectly adequate. If said dish has strong academic or anthropological evidence to prove that it originated from a specific region, i.e. "of Javanese/Minangkabau" origin, then it should be included. I find Bangljo's petulant behaviour to be unacceptable and it's not compatible with the norms and editing attitudes of the wider Wikipedia community. So, I disagree with your proposal of "appeasement". WP:NPOV is not up for discussion or compromise, in my opinion. Nationalist/chauvinist SPA's from both sides of the Malacca Strait should be reported and adequately dealt with by administrators whenever they step out of line. Haleth (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)