Talk:Tofu

@Rathfelder: Including a sentence about Braverman's offhand comment in the history section is simply WP:UNDUE. Also WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Seriously though, why didn't you bring this to the talk page per WP:BRD? Are we to include every single mention of tofu in a headline or by a goofball politician in the article? Please do us all a favour and revert yourself. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Have there been any other mentions of tofu in headlines? This was an attempt to identify tofu with a socio-political group by a very significant British politician. That sort of thing doesnt happen very often. Its quite big news. I dont accept that WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS apply. Google gives me 12,000 results already, including editorials in quite a few mainline publications. Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

None of which were actually about tofu, and all of which had everything to do with her resignation. It was a single line in a political speech, where "tofu-eating" was used as an epithet. This is so trivial. You could easily add this "incident" to the articles for the Guardian and woke by that logic. Again, per BRD, why didn't you bring this to the talk page? gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

But it is all linked to the Animal Rebellion protests. Food is a political issue and tofu is in the front line. Not just in the UK. ^[1] Its not trivial. ^[2] There is already an article about it: Tofu Curtain - why is that not mentioned here? Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but still think it would be undue here. I would absolutely support an article for the politicisation of tofu, given the number of times politicians and demagogues have invoked tofu to make a point, but if we included every little mention in this article, it would get out of hand and detract from the main topic. Including her rant in the article for Tofu Curtain, however, seems much more palatable to me. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• When tofu makes the headlines why would we not want to notice it here? Bigwig7 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Its not a little mention. Its headlines all over the place. Why would you want a seperate article on politicisation of tofu. Food has politics just as everything else does. ^[1]

  Tofu itself is just a mention. The articles are invariably about Braverman. I'm sure there could be sources about the politics of tofu, and it might cover the Braverman comment, but the daily star source is not that. CMD (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• I was only showing you that to show how far it went, and I doubt if there is anything actually about tofu in any of the coverage. The interesting angle is the attempt to weaponise it - and how spectacularly it failed. I dont think there would be enough content for a whole article on politicisation of tofu, but I do think it should get a mention - and some consideration of different contexts.Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the basis for tofu arriving in Japan in the 8th century? Can't access the book being quoted. Considering tofu was poorly attested to in China before the 10th century, I'm skeptical that we know for sure that Japan had it before then. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Got access to the book. At least for the claim in the Japan section, the book doesn't support it. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It should have better sources. There are instances of the characters 唐府 for tofu being used, suggesting it's from the Tang Era. Based on when Tang dynasty had cultural exchanges with Japan (and when the Tang dynasty ended), the theories put the introduction at the 8th century.

Not a good source, but this is something I found: https://www.sohu.com/a/600136714_121095697 Dplre (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)