Talk:Stir-fried ice cream

Requested move 11 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to a new name "Rolled ice cream". I have submitted this move twice and it worked; however, one other user will change it back to "Stir-fried ice cream". Now I can no longer move the article name to "Rolled ice cream". I received a notification from this user saying "Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Stir-fried ice cream." I am posting here because I believe that "Rolled ice cream" does in fact make more sense than "Stir-fried ice cream" and here is why.

An article/interview from 'The Splendid Table' written on July 24, 2018 refers to this type of ice cream as "Thai Rolled Ice Cream" in the title and throughout the article. The owner of a Thai Rolled Ice Cream parlor mentions that Stir-fried ice cream is a nickname to Thai Rolled Ice Cream as it is an analogy for how the rolls come to be made, but the actual end product is the rolls of ice cream. The Splendid Table From CBS News, an article from 2017 features a special, titled "Today's Special: Rolled Ice Cream". The article discusses what this style of ice cream is, the process to forming the end product and the craze of this trend that has expanded globally. This article from CBS News does not mention stir-fried ice cream, but does mention rolled ice cream and ice cream rolls. CBS News

Stores that have picked up on this trend refer to this style of ice cream and rolled ice cream. A restaurant in the DMV called "520 Ice Cream and Tea" refers to their ice cream as rolled ice cream, as does La Moo, a ice cream parlor in Arlington. This title for this ice cream stretches all the way across the country to California. A store named "Cold Rolled Ice Cream Company" refers to their ice cream as rolled or rolls, not stir-fried. 520 Ice Cream and Tea, La Moo , Cold Rolled Ice Cream

For these reasons listed above I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to the new name "Rolled ice cream". If anyone is able to help me make this move, I would appreciate it. Thank you! Latte2424 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this article has been at its original title since 2014 until September 2018. Although early versions laid claim to it as an American invention, it is reasonably certain that it came from south east Asia and was later imported into the US. There is no problem in having a redirect here from the common name in the US but I can see no valid reason for the article name to be changed. This is one of the problems of Wikipedia's domination by cultural norms of the West even to the extend of absorbing eastern invention and recasting them as Western (or specifically US) inventions. This smacks of cultural appropriation.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I am concerned that there is an undeclared WP:COI going on behind this level of advocacy for a food process that requires a proprietary piece of equipment, and ask the user advocating this change to advise whether they are receiving anything of value for this level of getting-close-to-disruptive editing by a brand-new user, per WP:PAID. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To ease your concern there is no COI here; I do not receive anything of value for my argument. I simply believe that "Rolled Ice Cream" makes more sense and would like to understand further the opposition against the name change. When one thinks of 'stir-fry' they think of ingredients being fried in hot oil. I am more than okay with having a paragraph or more in this article about the origin of this ice cream and the stir-fried aspect of this dessert and having the title of the article be "Thai Rolled Ice Cream". This does not smack of cultural appropriation, I do not wish for the process to change nor do I believe the US is trying to take this invention. I believe the title of the article should be the name of the end product. Can we compromise and have the name be "Thai Rolled Ice Cream" and add paragraphs throughout the text discussing the origin of this ice cream and the stir-fried aspect of this dessert? --Latte2424 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My concerns are not eased at all. You have recently tried to reinsert the spam link to a particular machine manufacturer as well as altering the lede so that it no longer matches the title. What is your particular interest in this company that makes these machines ? There are many other manufacturers, including several in China and the far east where this dessert originated. This reads very like paid editing and you are doing nothing to assuage that belief.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed that link about the machines. I have no interest with them, I believed that information was relevant but I suppose it was not. I took it back down. I am doing my best to compromise with you but I feel a little attacked. Please try harder to see my point of view instead of arguing with all of my beliefs. I am willing to compromise and I feel I have, but it is a two way street. I am sorry you feel I am getting paid for this, as I am not. I do not know what more to tell you, you have an opinion of me and I feel there is nothing more I can tell you to convince you otherwise, nor will I waste my time defending myself. This is Wikipedia, free for anyone to edit, therefore I will use that privilege within reason to make edits as I see fit. Feel free to do the same, that is the beauty of Wikipedia.

--Latte2424 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. The usual English-language name is "Rolled ice cream" – 257 million Google hits, where "Stir-fried ice cream" has 33 million. The past history of the article, and the place of invention, are irrelevant. If the consensus is for Oppose, I suggest a hatnote to the similarly-named but different dessert Fried ice cream. Maproom (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - it is highly likely that a food preparation invented in the far east and recently introduced into the US on the back of a great deal of viral marketing would have far more Google hits from US sites than it would in the country of invention. This product seems to have been a street food in Asia and not supported by corporate marketing. This makes my earlier point that this appears to be cultural misappropriation by US corporate dessert interests and helping to maintain the great cultural imbalance and bias on Wikipedia that is very widely acknowledged. For the record which you can easily check, I am neither Asian nor do I live there, but I do resent corporate might taking over local inventiveness and imitative.  Velella  Velella Talk  17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization
There is no cognizable basis that I can think of to capitalize the adjective "Rolled" in the name of the product when used mid-sentence. It is either "stir-fried ice cream" or "rolled ice cream". I agree with Velella that, absent a compelling connection of this product with Thailand other than a desire by some marketer somewhere to impart the mystique of "Thai"-ness, "Thai rolled ice cream" is unsupportable and reflective of cultural appropriation.

I continue to be mightily suspicious of the ongoing insistence of a new user, who despite being new has figured out how to move pages (a thing that took me a year or so to puzzle my way around), on capitalizing/forcing the use of this name against obvious WP:MOS guidance and experienced editors' repeated corrections. Someone, somewhere, seems to be highly invested in Wikipedia's "endorsement" of a proprietary name, and Wikipedia is not here to do that. I like a lot of proprietary foods, and I am a stickler for typographical exactitude in names, but I don't spend all my Wikipedia editorial energy on forcing a trademark usage into one article to the exclusion of anything else. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

--Latte2424 (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - I figured out how to move pages by Googling "How to Change a Wikipedia Title", took me reading one article to figure out how, it was not hard. Try Googling next time to figure something out. I put my focus on a lot of different things, this just happens to be one of them. As you are assuming I am being paid for this I could easily assume you are as well in your persistence to keep Stir-fried ice cream, but I am not throwing accusations out like that simply when someone disagrees with me. Your argument seems that the title should not be changed mainly because you believe I am being paid for this. Other than that there does not seem to be a valid argument on your end nor is there any hard evidence you have provided me as to why Stir-fried ice cream should remain the name of the article. Please provide me with hard evidence as to why 'Stir-fried ice cream' should remain the title without using your go-to arguments of my character. If you can provide good, hard evidence supporting your claim that 'Stir-fried ice cream' is the best title for this article and that the majority of the world refer to it as stir-fried rather than any other name, I will lighten up.


 * For what little it may be worth, I do have concerns about any single purpose editor who comes along and is very persistent in trying to change an article in one particular direction, especially when that article has been relatively stable for some years. When the article was created, I did have doubts about its notability and I put it on my watch list, but my own research at that time showed that it was possible to assemble sources from south east Asian sites (mostly Malaysia but not Thai sites) to demonstrate just sufficient notability. On this basis I was content to leave it in peace. Your recent intervention certainly caused m,e to wonder about what your agenda is, but that wasn't my reason for objecting to the move. If you read my comments, that was never a given reason. I did raise a concern when you re-inserted a source from a manufacturer of a particular piece of machinery, but that was not about the issues relating to the move. It did however heighten my concerns that there was conflict of interest issues at work.  Velella  Velella Talk  13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

--Latte2424 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * comment - I am a new editor and yes I am persistent, and that can be a flaw of mine. I do not know how else to assure you that there is no conflict of interest here. If there is a way to ease your mind let me know. I see your concerns about the article relating to a particular piece of machinery and I removed it. When I first used that article I interpreted it as an overall outlook on the machines. I read that article wrong and that is on me, I am sorry. Is there any compromise we can come up with that we are all happy with?

Polite request to please be precise with units: "-20 degrees" I assume this refers to Fahrenheit, but -20C is also plausible. For the record degrees can also refer to other measures, including for example angles. Thank you 192.228.192.211 (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)