Talk:Char siu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Barbecued pork = char siew?? 2 Undo page move 3 Merger of articles 4 Japanese Char Siu 5 Deletion of redirect 6 Page Name 7 Moving back to original location 8 Box 9 Proposed edits 10 Japanese name

[edit] Barbecued pork = char siew??

I am not sure about other places, but Barbecued pork in Singapore refers to 肉干 (Bakkwa), an entirely different meat preperation method!--Huaiwei 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Undo page move

I have reverted the move of Char siu to Barbecued pork. The move was never discussed, and I believe it is completely unwarranted. Char siu is not at all synonymous with "barbecued pork"; it may be a type of barbecued pork, but to a very large number of people "barbecued pork" means something else entirely, that is, pork (usually a pork shoulder) cooked in the barbecue style (smoked) as detailed in that article. On the other hand, char siu is a very specific item, and the name is well known even among non-Chinese people and non-speakers of Chinese languages. MCB 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that barbecued pork is a more frequently used term. In most restaurants in Hong Kong, like Café de Coral, Maxim's etc., you can find the short form BBQ pork in the menu on the wall. (Note that Hong Kong is bilingual with Chinese and English). But you would never see they use the term cha siu in the menu. Even in the United States, BBQ pork is the term used by Panda Express, a famous chain of Chinese restaurants. Perhaps some non-Chinese people know the term cha siu, but BBQ pork seems to be a more widely used term. American folks can barbecued a piece of pork in whatever way they want, but this is how "barbecued pork" like in Chinese cuisine. Furthermore, Google search gives 2,030,000 results for BBQ pork, but only 27,900 for char siew. This shows that the former one seems to be much more widely used than the latter one.

Actually, this kind of case already happened once before. A guy forced to use the term sai chaan for Hong Kong-styled western cuisine in Wikipedia. But in English-speaking countries, almost no one would use the "word" sai chaan. (See the discussion page of that article) Transliterations are sometimes a good idea. But if there already exists a widely accepted and more popular literal translation, please don't force Wikipedia to use a "word" that looks self-created.

By the way, please take care of the double redirects.

-Alanmak 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinion regarding BBQ pork. For sai chaan, Hong Kong-style western cuisine is merely a literal translation, which the subject matter is never known as such in English. — Instantnood 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hong Kong-style western cuisine" is a literal translation of the Chinese term "港式西餐". But the literal translation is how the subject matter is referred in English. A small number of restaurants in America have signs explicitly stating that they serve "Hong Kong-style western cuisine". Please don't confuse other Wikipedians by saying something like "the subject matter is never known as such in English" if you actually don't know. Perhaps you are, in your mind, still insisting that your self-created term "sai chaan" is the "correct" translation. But please note that in the discussion page of that article, a westerner already said: "As a Westerner who visited both Hong Kong and Singapore last year Sai chaan means nothing to me." Please stop pushing nonsense stuffs. Those kind of self-created translations maybe the way that you use to learn Cantonese, but not all of them are really a "translation" of Chinese terms in English. - Alanmak 06:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please kindly look up in the edit history [1] and see who actually started using sai chaan. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And the literal translation is the work of a wikipedian, practically amounting to a case of original research?--Huaiwei 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of articles

I think it would be good idea for the two articles "Barbecued pork with rice" and "Char siew rice" to be merged into the main article, "Barbecued pork." The main reason is that barbecued pork with rice is a deviation of barbecued pork. If barbecued pork with rice deserves a separated article, it would be reasonable to have more separated articles for a whole bunch of other deviations, such as "barbecued pork with rice noodles", "barbecued pork with hefen noodles", "barbecued pork and soy-sauced chicken with rice", "barbecued pork and goose with rice" etc. Moreover, merging "Barbecued pork with rice" and "Char siew rice" into the main article is a way to deal with the dispute over whether "barbecued pork with rice" exists. -Alanmak 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This makes sense to me. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. 叉燒飯 / BBQ pork w/ rice / whatever you call it is rather like an icon, let's say [2] (not quite understand why it comes on separate plates though :-\ , it's a bit uncommon). — Instantnood 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First, why is barbecued pork with rice an icon? Second, if it were an icon, so what? A small number of restaurants in Hong Kong do serve barbecued pork and rice in separate plates. But the barbecued pork and the rice are given to a customer all at the same time. So, the "two things" are still considered as "one set of food". Anyway, barbecued pork with rice is really a derivation of barbecued pork. I see no points for them to be in two separate articles. If you like to do that, you may consider writing some articles like "French fries", "French fires with Ketchup", "French fries in soy sauce" etc. :-) - Alanmak 06:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Spaghetti bolognese is just spaghetti with sauce made from meat, or perhaps sauce served with spaghetti. — Instantnood 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Char Siu

The Chinese and Japanese char siu are poles apart. Are they literally false friends? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This article actually started under the title chashu. I'd say Japanese chashu is a variation of the same food, just like 餃子/饺子/jiǎozi. — Instantnood 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you guys able to decide when to split and when to merge articles?--Huaiwei 03:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of redirect

I'm not going to delete the redirect in order for Barbecued pork to be moved back here as yet because it seems like consensus hasn't been reached amongst the involved editors. Thrash out a deal and then get back to me, or another admin. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Name

Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia for much of the last couple of weeks and have not had the time to participate properly here.

The proper name of this page is char siu (or an alternate spelling). Alternately, perhaps Chinese barbecued pork or Cantonese-style barbecued pork. I cannot stress more fully the point that among English-speaking people (and this is the English wikipedia), "barbecued pork" and "char siu" are NOT synonymous. Char siu is one type of barbecued pork that is common in East Asia, particularly in southern China. They may be synonyms to people living in Hong Kong or Singapore, but that is a tiny minority of the total population of English speakers.

I do believe that the Hong Kong-based editors or those of Chinese background are editing in good faith, but simply lack the language and cultural background to understand that in the vast majority of English-speaking places, barbecued pork and char siu are not at all the same. (I'm not trying to be insulting; your understanding of the English language and US/UK/etc. culture far outstrips any understanding I might have of Asian languages and culture!)

Barbecued pork is a much more often-used term (as per Google search cited above), but those uses are not all referring to the same dish. If you go to any non-Chinese restaurant anywhere in the English-speaking countries -- at least the US, UK, Canada or Australia -- and order "barbecued pork" you will not be served char siu. (I am a native of the US, and have traveled extensively in the UK, Canada, and Australia; I am also a food writer, and often write about barbecue.)

The page move to "barbecued pork" was simply wrong and indefensible. It is analogous to moving the article Toyota to Automobile and leaving a redirect. Imagine the confusion when people (the majority of whom do not have Toyotas) search for "automobile" and get sent to an article about Toyotas! It is this type of poor editing that causes the accuracy of Wikipedia to be doubted and criticized.

MCB 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

They may be synonyms to people living in Hong Kong or Singapore. Not quite true. Barbecued pork in Singapore is much more commonly used in reference to Bakkwa. Char Siew is the English spelling used to refer to this particular meat, and very rarely refered to as "BBQ meat"--Huaiwei 03:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think having it at "Char siu" is the best optioin - "Barbecued pork" is a little too ambiguous. enochlau (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the page (un-)move, redirects, etc. MCB 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving back to original location

It is confusing enough for the article and talk page to be referring to different places, so I have moved this back to "Char siu" so that this is consistent. --HappyCamper 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with Huaiwei that barbecued pork should not be a redirect to char siu, though, and will edit that page to include the form known in the U.S. as barbecue. MCB 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a disambiguation at the top of the page "barbequed pork" to direct readers to the page "cha siu"; or "barbequed pork" should even be a disambiguation page that allows readers to choose either the Chinese-style barbequed pork or the American-styled barbequed pork. It is kind of unfair to always stick to the American way of using a term, whenever there is a dispute. - Alanmak 17:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet :-) I like the disambiguation now. - Alanmak 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan, that's exactly what it is now. Please take a look. The page offers the choice of U.S. style barbecue, char siu, or bakkwa. MCB 17:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're making this sound like WikiRestaurant :) enochlau (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, that would be tasty! MCB 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box

There's nothing wrong with the infobox - granted it's a little uglier than your average template, but it's ok. Any way to remove the thick cell borders? enochlau (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The box format is only preferred by editors on Korean-related topics. For both Chinese- and Japanese-related topics inline style is actually more popularly preferred. — Instantnood 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Has there been any concensus on this? I dont recall ever giving my opinion on this one in a collective manner.--Huaiwei 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus the box on a large scale. The established convention is to use inline unless there are a lot of names to cover. --Jiang 08:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edits

Would anybody please kindly take a look at my edits ([3] [4]) and help upload? Thank you very much. — Instantnood 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese name

While the kanji is indeed 叉焼, my observation is that the katakana チャーシュー is by far the more popular written form for the food on e.g. restaurant menus (in contrast to, for example, 担々麺 (= Chinese 擔擔麵) which seems to tend to be written in kanji on menus). -- KittySaturn 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)