Talk:Roti canai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Roti Prata and roti canai the same thing?

People who have tried both assure me they are different. Anyone know enough to elaborate?

They're extremely close to the same thing. Malaysian roti canai is generally less oily than the Singaporean type, and in Malaysia "roti prata" can refer to a type of roti canai with extra butter/oil added. I think the two articles really should be merged... Jpatokal 05:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm suggesting the merger. Before nationalists get their panties in a twist, I'd like to note that Google finds more hints for 'roti canai' than 'roti prata', and eg. pizza is in a single article despite there being way more regional variations than roti canai/prata will ever have. Jpatokal 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

disagree with idea of merger. they are just not the same thing, and we're not talking only in terms of semantics. Chensiyuan 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I support merger. I lived in Singapore for five years, and I've lived in Malaysia for ten, and I honestly can't tell you the difference between prata and roti canai. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Support for merger under Roti Canai. They're the same thing... maybe only better in Malaysia :) 06:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On principle, I disagree with the merger. Taste, form, presentation...all different. Although the person who mentions pizza as an example has a very good point, and the articles don't really explain the difference that well. july 2006

Personally, I think the dish referred to by the terms "roti canai" and "roti prata" are both identical, and this is simply a case of different people calling the same food by different names – a phenomenon that is neither surprising nor unprecedented. Consider, for instance, the word "biscuit", which is used in America to refer to something that the British might call a "muffin". But the British themselves use "biscuit" to refer to what the Americans call a "cookie". In those instances when "cookie" and "biscuit" are used to refer to the sweet, flat, round snack, no one would suggest that they are actually different foods (perhaps by retroactively assigning values to either, like, "Oh, cookies are different because they are 'sweeter'" – please!). Another example - just because New Yorkers refer to their Coca Cola as "soda" and those from the south call it "pop", does it mean they are different beverages? It is possible that people in Malaysia and Singapore came to refer to their well-loved roti by a different name simply out of habit and historical accident. As an avid consumer and lover of roti canai/prata myself, and having eaten it prepared on both sides of the Johor Strait countless times, I cannot honestly say that there is any significant and characteristic difference between the two. Nothing beyond the usual variations due to the cook's skill, or to its ancillary features, such as the type of condiment served with it, or the type of 'filling'. The plain bread itself tastes the same, feels the same, smells the same, looks the same, is prepared in the same way... As they say, if it walks like a duck... To those who contend that they refer to different dishes, please substantiate your claims by citing specific and concrete differences that are recognisable enough and characteristic enough to make it clear that they are different. I cannot agree with such 'factors' as "less/more oily" or "softer" or what have you... These are micro-variations that characterise an individual cook's rendition rather than an actual difference in dish. Consider an analogy, just because McDonald's french fries tend to be crispier and saltier than Burger King french fries, do we consider them different dishes? At this point I should add, just in case, that one must not confuse "roti prata" with "paratha". The latter is a kind of flat bread eaten in India and is recognisably different from "prata" in that it is made from different ingredients (unrefined wheat flour; less oil) and prepared and cooked differently (not spun and folded; sometimes baked rather than grilled). So, unless someone can come up with a better explanation for how roti canai and roti prata are different, I strongly support merging the articles and noting the variation as one of nomenclature.

that was a long discourse, but nothing more than a pedantic attempt to over extrapolate from distinguishable analogies -- try telling a prata seller he is actually a canai seller, or try doing the converse on a canai seller -- i don't think they will be too pleased. the fact of the matter is that why the 'same' dish is referred to by different names, remains unresolved. you can attribute it to 'historical accident' or whatever linguistic quirk, but in fact you are not attributing but speculating. at the very least, should the article be merged, what would it be called? roti prata with a canai redirect? even if a compromise can be reached, a substantial section should still be devoted to explaining the differences -- and stop saying there is none. 202.156.6.54 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that you consider my explanation pedantic, when in fact it strikes me as pedantry to maintain two separate articles for a dish that I (and probably others) would contend is the same. The strategy for such instances is usually to maintain a single article, but with appropriate redirects, as well as a note within the article to explain the issues surrounding the nomenclature. I do not claim to know 'why' different names might have arisen, and it would certainly be interesting to include such information, but that was not relevant to the particular point I was making. I was merely trying to demonstrate that it is not tenable to consider a single dish as two separate dishes just because they have different names. Along the way, I had used analogies in order to illustrate the type of reasoning used and to show that these are not esoteric lines of thought. If you consider this "pedantic", then contributing to encyclopedias is probably not your field. In the interest of maximum clarity, avoidance of misconstrual, and hopefully, brevity, details such as the one I have debated are important. I do not have an easy answer to the question as to whether a merged article should be roti canai or roti prata, but again, this wasn't the concern of my previous post. Indeed, this question might best be answered by someone who knows more about the origins of both terms. Asking the canai or prata seller is irrelevant. It is a truism that either will consider that the product be called by whichever name they are used to; like all language users, they've inherited the words but not their etymologies. (As an aside, I don't think they'd object to your calling it one way or another - I've on occasion made slips myself while ordering, and people still knew what was referred to, and I wasn't chased out of the store for 'insulting' their product with a different name.) Finally, I must say again, if there are indeed distinct differences between the two, then someone who knows and perceives them must explicate them. I'm perfectly open-minded and willing to entertain that there are indeed such differences, but so far no one has come up with them.

Sounds very pompous, condescending and presumptuous to me. Should sign off too! Chensiyuan 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, just so that I do not contribute nothing to the discussion, whoever that did the writeup on Roti Prata has highlighted some differences. If you are completely reductionist and perceive a Prata or Canai to be nothing more than a lump of dough - or something to that effect - then of course, they are one and the same. But both dishes have developed in their own ways, in their own countries. These are neither insignificant nor overwhelmingly similar nuances. Let us compare some characteristics of Prata first, to see if the same can be said of Canai:

1. Flavours/Ingredients - this is not as trivial as it sounds. Analogies can be helpful, although not all the time. For example, a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich is ultimately a sandwich, in the same way a Filet-o-Fish is no more than a burger. But I do not think it is inappropriate to do away with a cheesesteak article, simply because it is more than a sandwich (or simply because merely putting cheese and steak into a sandwich is not necessarily a cheeseteak sandwich). To me, what goes into the sandwich - and the how and why - have made the difference. In the case of prata, for Singaporeans it has gone beyond a simple knead of dough. We eat it with plenty of other ingredients and condiments. Even if Malaysians do the same, we must find out if they are indeed the same complements (e.g. do they call it icecream and cheese canai, are Milo dinosaurs and their equivalent also in the frame) Hence I feel that if subclasses of pratas have emerged as something distinctive, then we are slowly talking about Prata being different from Canai.

But there is no evidence that this has happened, as the people who contend that the two are different are unable to define the difference! Jpatokal 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I contend that the differences between prata and roti canai are nothing more than the differences between two variations of pizza. Pizza purists may contend that Hawaiian Pizza isn't real pizza, but few else would agree. Johnleemk | Talk 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Culture and Setting - eating Prata and Canai, I suspect, are subcultures in their own right in Singapore and Malaysia respectively. Prata eating connotes than just a dish or a meal, we are almost talking about a way of life ubiquitous to many young Singaporeans, who love to go out in throngs for a late night prata at 24 hour prata joints. It is a cultural melting pot in a number of ways, and it is also partly reflective of the nature of Singapore as a city-state. Some dishes in Singapore have become represntative of ideologies or quirks; prata, I suppose, symbolises a sort of lifestyle. Furthermore, you won't quite find prata served on the roadside or in the suburbs in Singapore: the former is illegal, the latter doesn't really exist.

Anyone else can elaborate from here. Chensiyuan 05:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the difference here -- in Malaysia too roti canai is most often eaten at 24-hour mamak joints and is an originally Indian dish that is now a national icon. And Singapore's "suburbs" (HDB districts?) most certainly do serve prata. Jpatokal 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

haha i dont think that arsehole understands english

I could replace "prata" with "roti canai" and "Singapore" with "Malaysia" and that whole paragraph would still make sense. Practically everyone in Malaysian urban areas consumes roti canai, and whenever fuel prices go up, the first complaint (even in the papers) is about corresponding price hikes in two things: roti canai and teh tarik. Johnleemk | Talk 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the article:

"The dish has evolved somewhat differently in Singapore and in Malaysia. In Singapore, economic affluence and cultural influences have created variations reflective of the cosmopolitan character of the city. For instance, it is common to find outlets serving roti with flavourings as varied as garlic, banana, chocolate, durian and cheese, the later of which is common in Singapore, but less so in Malaysia."

I would personnally like to hear a discourse on the evolution of Roti Canai in Malaysia and just how much it has adapted to local taste preferences, if at all. Otherwise, I too disagree with the merger. Anyhow, I arent sure if Malaysians hear of the term "Roti Prata", but "Roti Canai" is unheard of for the vast majority of Singaporeans.--Huaiwei 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to merger

So far in the discussion it looks like Huaiwei and Chensiyuan alone are objecting, and have presented the following to arguments:

While the dishes may seem identical, there are undefineable, metaphysical differences between the two. (This is just plain bizarre to me, but perhaps Chensiyuan would like to explain?)
While the dishes are identical, the culture of eating the two is different. (Johnleemk, and I, disagree.)
Singaporeans are not familiar with the term "roti canai". (Which is what redirects are for.)

Based on this, even the objectors are admitting that the key parts of the two — the ingredients, the history, the way it's made, the way it's eaten — are essentially the same thing, so IMHO two articles are not required. Any putative differences, cultural, metaphysical or otherwise, should be discussed in a section in the shared article. Jpatokal 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

strange that you say 'Huaiwei and Chensiyuan alone' when the number of people on the other side of the coin are right about the same, which means the move to merge has far from reached a consensus. And I think you missed out on one guy on the opposing merger side, I'm not sure who he/she is (signed off as an IP address), but he/she still counts. Chensiyuan 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

by the way, do not make a mockery of your summarising skills. i have stated my piece above; for you to consider the differences 'undefinable' and 'metaphysical', you are not achieving anything. Chensiyuan 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mocking you, but I genuinely don't understand what you think the differences are. Can you summarize them in a bullet point or two? Jpatokal 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate (as per reasons above) and cross-reference each other. Better still, create Category:Roti, for Roti prata, Roti canai, Roti Tissue (what's this?!), Goat roti, Roti john, Makki di roti, and Roti. If Pizza can have a category, why not roti? --Vsion 05:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you joking? Articles like Goat roti (= a type of murtabak) are worthless and should be deleted. Also, the term "roti" just means "bread" in Hindi and is way larger in scope than just prata/canai; there's already a Category:Indian breads for this. Jpatokal 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

erh ... as in "pizza" just means "pie" in Italian? --Vsion 00:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

cheers vsion! Bloody Hell roti prata is roti prata okay! dont anyhow mess around with what fricking canai.....

Y'know, one way out of this mess might be to just redirect both prata and canai to paratha... Jpatokal 16:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Merge

Lets get a consensus from users, hope it's more fair to all. (Dear all: Support or Oppose or give other suggestions, then sign)

Support merge - merge them both into a sub-section of paratha; as per Jpatokal. 130.194.13.106 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Support merge - merge them both into a sub-section of paratha. Jpatokal 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose --Vsion 21:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, our version of roti prata and across the causeway's roti canai is very different with paratha. If we have articles on various types of pizza, why not roti? Is there anything wrong? --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose seems an inappropriate compromise Chensiyuan 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose urm, like.... NO? Manderiko 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as above.--Huaiwei 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate suggestion on Merge

I have done some reading, and the original Paratha is different from Roti Canai/Singaporean Roti Prata (e.g. frying method, fillings and toppings of the roti, etc).

New suggestion - merge (Malaysian) roti canai with (Singaporean) roti prata into one article (since there is not much difference). Redirect roti prata -> roti canai (or vice versa).

Result: we have 2 articles, one with Singaporean+Malaysian roti canai/prata, one with the original Paratha (the Indian flatbread).

Note and clarifications: if this suggestion of the merge fails, then shall we remove all "merge suggestion" tags from the Roti canai and Roti prata pages? I think the "merge" tags have been here quite long and some kind of consensus needs to be reached. To reiterate: the real reason for this voting is just so that the "merge" tags can be removed once and for all, after so long.

No offense meant to anyone. :-)

Fellow editors, what do you think?

(Support/Oppose) this new merger, then sign...

Support new proposition. - 130.194.13.105 10:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support they really are the same thing... InfernoXV 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Jpatokal 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Support like what InfernoXV said, they are nearly the same. The merge will be great for everyone. - Acs4b 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A stub?

Is the Roti Canai article a stub? It can't be. That is because it has more than 3 paragraphs and each paragraph has about 2+ sentences. Is it alright if I or someone remove the stub? Acs4b 10:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/t/Talk%7ERoti_canai_88ca.html"

Categories: Unassessed India articles | Unassessed India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles