Talk:Fish ball

HK bias in article

Anyone familiar with Southern Chinese cuisine will quickly notice the obvious bias in this article which appears to credit this highly common dish to the city of Hong Kong alone. I would call for more information on the food served in China as well as in Taiwan and Southeast Asian countries.--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

Please help add a section on how fish ball is served in Singapore, and possibly other parts of Southeast Asia. :-) — Instantnood July 6, 2005 11:34 (UTC)

What you just did is going to create lots of dedundancy. The so-called two types of fishballs detailed in the article are also found right here in Singapore or in Taiwan, so what would you do about it? If you have nothing to add, then I am going to bold soon. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Are you sure they are just the same thing in Taiwan and Singapore, as in Hong Kong? Do you have any evidence, like pictures? (I wish I could taste it too :-) ) I could tell the differences between those I had in Taipei and what I had in Hong Kong, though they are a bit alike. There're also some differences between the curry fish balls in Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 13:47 (UTC)

Abit alike? Haha...so how different are they? I would like some elaboration on that. Dosent this issue always appear to come about when anyone tries to claim territorial owneership over common food, eh? :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Double standard, huh? When it comes to a Singaporean dish somebody would say, nah.. the dish in Singapore is not the same as those in Malaysia.. When it comes to a Hong Kong one the same person would accuse others claiming "territorial owneership". Interesting. :-) I'd better take this as a sign of not willing to further on this discussion. Thanks so much for spending the time with me on the conversations above. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

lol! You are apparantly getting smarter, but sadly, still a few steps behind all the time. I specifically am using this discussion to force out this line from you. So you know what double standards is. So you know just how biased you are. Well, congratulations, but I am still expecting the above qns to be answered, because I dont think your claim of total HK owneership of fish balls is going to be comparable to how you try denying Singapore's claims to various dishes. You have a grossly uphill task ahead of you, and I wish you all the best. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Neither have I ever claimed Hong Kong "owneership" over fish balls, nor denied Singaporeans' claim to various dishes (though you'd always think I did). Please, kindly, stop making such accusations without concrete evidence. Whether I'm "getting smarter but still a few steps behind all the time" or not is plain personal. There's nothing to do with the discussion here on this talk page for fish balls. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 14:49 (UTC)

From the original author

I am sorry and surprised that my little contribution has caused such a fierce debate. I don't know it's such a controversial topic. I saw in the "Hong Kong Wiki Noticeboard" that a Fish Ball article is wanted; so I made one. I think why the article is wanted in the HK Wiki Noticeboard is because fishball is such a common food in Hong Kong; so I wrote the article only with a HK-perspective; of course there is fish ball in other parts of the world; it's my fault that I wrote with such a narrow view; and I apologize for that:-). - K.C. Tang 15:40, July 7, 2005 (UTC)

No you need not apologise to this extend with regards to the "fierce debate" which erupted. It became so heated because unlike yourself, who do not hesitate in admitting that fish balls are just as common in many places outside HK and its obvious lopsided bias which needs correction, I had great issues with the above user who takes it upon himself to simply revert all edits I made which he consider as "anti-HK", refusing to accept my efforts in expanding the article beyond the HK-realm (in a knee-jerk reaction so fast it appears it was done before he engages his grey matter), and when it becomes plain obvious after several rounds of counter reverts that fish balls are quite obviously common beyond HK, he then swings into "territorial" mode in a typical face-saving endeavour in his desperate attempt to preserve the HK bias in the article. How he came to associate all my actions as detrimental to HK that is beyond me...I dont quite understand the behavior of insecure, anal retentive individuals I suppose. As far as I am concerned, if I know something is biased towards any one city/place/territory, including my own, I wont hesitate to edit it to create better balance if need be. Can anyone tell me if this is against the good of wikipedia? So once again, K.C. Tang, I dont pin any blame on you at all with regards to the above affair. If basic common sense and goodwill may reign, I suppose everyone would be doing more productive things everytime they volunteer to contribute something to wikipedia?--Huaiwei 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever expressed any opinion that fish ball is a solely Hong Kong food. I reverted for the first time because somebody made it a Cantonese cuisine, which is obviously not true. I went ahead to rewrite the leading paragraph after the revert, but that somebody was faster than I do. I'd say his conclusion that I considered his behaviour anti-Hong Kong was plainly based on intuition and his past experience. — Instantnood July 7, 2005 18:23 (UTC)

"Intuition" and "past experience" indeed. lol. So if my "intuition" tells me that I am talking to a toad, and from "past experiences" of toad-like noises being made from this same creature who goes by the pen name "Instantnood", it has got to be true. Anyway, as I have already said. If you know full well that the wrong category has been assigned, then may I know why you would prefer a revert instead of editing the page to make that small change?--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

I undid your incorrect edit before carrying on to edit the article. (And please mind your language.) — Instantnood July 8, 2005 19:25 (UTC)

Would you mind learning how to 1. use the talk page, 2. edit the page, 3. use the revert tool with full compliance to the revert rules, which btw includes the rule Always explain your reverts, which is a Wikipedia policy. Using the revert tool because you think you are not going to get your way via a proper discussion is not a valid excuse at all to your current behavior.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson, but I believe I know as much as you do about all these (and as a matter of fact I did explain~ [1]). Please be reminded to make good use of talk pages before making possibly controversial edits. It is always better to proceed to discussion when your edits are being reverted, rather than reverting back, effectively beginning revert wars. — Instantnood July 8, 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Haha...you obviously still need more warnings despite claiming that you "know" your lesson. Category:Hong Kong literature, Flag of Macau, and Flag of Hong Kong are just some recent examples. Dont you think you should be the one to be reminded to make use of talk pages if you think it is "controversial" enough to be reverted? Somehow you do not seem to realise reverts are considered major and serious edits when they are not being used to counter vandalism. The rules clearly state that the person doing the revert must explain his revert. This can be done in the talk page, which you are obviously not using. But of coz, you are probably going to go all anal retentive and start whining that "no! you should be the one initiating the discussion there if you are molesting my precious pages, because any edit to MY edits ARE controversial!". Or are you?--Huaiwei 21:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I did explain for the reverts on category:Hong Kong literature, and I did explain and bring the issue to talk page for the reverts on Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of Macau. Please don't say something not true to accuse others. — Instantnood 07:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Did you explain revert timestamped at 03:53, 9 July 2005 for category:Hong Kong literature? And I did not see a single entry made by you in the talk pages of Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of Macau, so who are you trying to kid? I have showed concrete evidence above that you failed to explain all of your reverts and to use the talk page when making reverts. And I also showed that you lied by claiming your innocence when there was non. What else do you have to say for yourself?--Huaiwei 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not explain for every single revert, if the same explanation(s) of the previous revert(s) apply/ies. I did take the issue around the template and the flags to the talk page of template. Just that you (tho I can't actually tell if you're pretending or not) did not see it, and took this as an opportunity to accuse me for trying to kid and lying.
Please be reminded that this is the talk page for fish ball. You should not have got personal and debated on my edits on other articles, after you discovered I did not make the mistakes when editing this article that you accused. — Instantnood 08:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then you might be glad to know that each and every revert is considered a major edit in content disputes, and must be explained. A content dispute becomes clear if the revert reason is the same, so if you came to that point, you ought to realise the talk page is obviously needed, which you did not use. The rest of your points on my behavoir applies beautifully to yourself as well. If you dont want me to be personal, then quit being personal. Your constant reverts against my edits can actually be interpreted as a personal attack, especially when I am beginning to notice that they are being done without much thought or reason, with an avoidance of using the talk page since you dont have much valid reasons to make the revert in the first place I suppose? This discussion appears here, because you commited the same revert act in this page, and you lied by claiming your innocence. I am hardly surprised that you are uncomfortable about this, but you get what you sow.--Huaiwei 09:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not care whether the edits are yours, but rather, what I care is what you have edited. I never avoid using talk pages, and it is merely your own opinion whether my reasons are valid ones, which you never seems to be satisfied when they are presented by me. Please move to an appropriate page if you do want to continue this off-track discussion unrelated to fish balls. — Instantnood 11:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

fish ball girlies

In outdated Hong Kong slang, the term "fish ball girlies" (魚蛋妹) means young prostitutes, usually under the age of 18; and the brothel where these girls work is thus called "fish ball stall" (魚蛋檔). The etymology may be that the action of "stringing" fish balls (拮魚蛋 in Cantonese) resembles that of masturbation (in general, the "fish ball stalls" are not designed for sexual intercourse: the clients can only caress the prostitues and receive masturbation).

AFAIK the term "魚蛋妹" does not come from "stringing" fish balls (拮魚蛋 in Cantonese). The real origin was "making" fish balls "打魚蛋" or squeezing fish balls "擠魚蛋". In the old days before machines were used, fish balls were hand-made from fish pastes. To form a fish ball, put some fish paste in your hand, and squeeze a little bit out between your thumb and index finger to form a ball. (You may rent Steven Chow's old movie 食神 to see that action). This resembles the act of squeezing the tiny breasts of the under-aged girls in the 魚蛋檔. Also IMHO, "stringing" fish balls (拮魚蛋 in Cantonese) does not resemble masturbation at all. 24.205.90.226 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word "surimi"

Quote Fish balls are a type of food product made from surimi (Chinese: 魚漿). end quote.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Fish balls are a type of food product made from ground/minced fish meat or fish paste? Why use a specific Japanese word to refer to something that is used in many different cusines? User:Sjschen in a edit summary wrote that Surimi is a Japanese term more commonly known in English for Chinese 魚漿. I've never seen "Surimi" before until I read this article. On packets of fishballs the ingredients are listed as minced fish meat or fish paste etc. LDHan 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Surimi" is ground/minced fish meat. However simply saying "minced fish" or even "fish paste" is somewhat, well, ambiguious. Namely, these translated or "description" term does adaquately specify the substance; most fish can be minced or pureed without it becoming the 魚漿 or surimi that we know. I agree that one does not see the word "surimi" too often in the chinese/asian markets. But truth be told, most of the public really has no knowledge of "fish paste" either. I stand behind using the word "surimi" instead of "fish paste" because it is well known in both western and eastern food services industries, as well as the fact that students in cuilinary schools are often informed about its "existence". That fact that it is (1)more specific and (2)has been accepted by the food services industry, warrants calling "...ground/minced fish meat or fish paste..." as simply "surimi". Sjschen 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fish cake

If this text is correct: "魚饼 (yú bǐng) or "fish cake", which is made from the same substance as fish ball, are quite common too", it's worth mentioning. Badagnani 06:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fish balls in Sweden

This articel seems to say that fish balls are pretty much only eaten in east Asia, while here in Sweden they are a very common food. Some proof to this is that there's a swedish wiki article for fish balls (fiskbullar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.88.54 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They're commonly eaten in Norway, too. --Safe-Keeper (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

鱼丸

Is 鱼丸 an alternate name? Badagnani (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)