Talk:Barbecued pork with rice

The same thing?

Are BBQ pork with rice and char siew rice the same thing, despite the same Chinese name? — Insta ntnood 08:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Char siew rice = 叉烧饭. Does "BBQ pork with rice" refer to another dish?--Huaiwei 12:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is called 叉燒飯 in Hong Kong, but I don't know if it is the same thing as those in Malaysia and Singapore. Some food or drink can be quite different despite having the same Chinese name, an example is 紅豆冰/红豆冰. — Insta ntnood 12:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Of coz regional differences can exist, and that is very much so for many dishes in fact. Nonetheless, how different can char siew rice be when they are usually simply rice with char siew? And what is 紅豆冰/红豆冰?--Huaiwei 12:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

紅豆冰 in Hong Kong and 红豆冰 in Malaysia and Singapore are different things, except that for both ice and beans are the ingredients. — Insta ntnood 18:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

What dish is called 红豆冰 in Singapore?--Huaiwei 21:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] :-D — Insta ntnood 07:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

And so whats the diff in HK?--Huaiwei 10:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, 紅豆冰 in Hong Kong an entirely different thing, except that ice and beans are used. It's a drink with syrup, red beans at the bottom and very often, but not always, with ice cream on top. — Insta ntnood 10:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but I dont see the article Ice kachang talking about Hong Kong, does it? And do we have an article called Hong Dou Bing?--Huaiwei 11:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Instantnood) Yes, the char siew in Malaysia and Singapore is indeed basically the same Cantonese fare that you can find elsewhere in the world. Char siew gets used differently in dishes many places in the world (char siew pizza, anyone?), but I suspect the actual char siew meat varies little from place to place.--Yuje 14:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Yuje. I looked for pictures on Google by searching with "char siew rice", and they look quite different from those in Hong Kong.. say in Hong Kong the pork is served with honey sauce (mixed with soya sauce I guess), and in those pictures the rice looks like oily rice that served with Hainanese chicken rice.. I guess they are basically variants of the same thing, don't know if they would taste differently.. :-P — Insta ntnood 19:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Once upon a time, you think it neccesary to remove Category:Singaporean cuisine because you insist all of its food are just variants of similar food elsewhere. You insist this is so, since every article in there is also appearing in somebody else's category. Now, you seem to be trying to dream up of enough reasons to create distinct articles for all food variants found in Hong Kong ever since the Milk tea episode. May I remind, that just as we have Hainanese chicken rice, Satay, Laksa etc talking about ALL variants of the same namesake, I do not see why exceptions should be made for anything related to Chinese cuisine. No double standards, please.--Huaiwei 10:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the exact wordings if I were " trying to dream up of enough reasons to create distinct articles for all food variants found in Hong Kong ". Or else please don't put your words in my mouth. — Insta ntnood 10:35, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but since when is the above supposed to mean that you made that statement? I was refering to your ACTION. Not your words, so who is "putting words in your mouth"? I dont think there is much space left in there anyway...--Huaiwei 11:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If you did not conclude that from my words, but your interpretation of my actions, state those actions and let others to decide. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 11:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Haha....Oh so you finally can comprehend a little more of what I say. You want evidence of actions? Didnt I already mention the debate over Milk tea?--Huaiwei 11:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who created that article, and you are so far the only person on English Wikipedia to contest its existence. — Insta ntnood 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contest its existence? Now how did I do that? :D--Huaiwei 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You contest over whether Hong Kong-style milk tea does exist. — Insta ntnood 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh is it? Show me how so in precise quotations.--Huaiwei 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed there's no Hong Kong-style milk tea, with your very own personal observation as evidence. The lengthy discussion at talk:Hong Kong-style milk tea and talk:national dish already tell. — Insta ntnood 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quote the precise words I said claiming no Hong Kong-style milk tea exists.--Huaiwei 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you now insist to deny that's what you've claimed. I would consider it a good sign showing your acceptance towards its listing on the list of national dishes. — Insta ntnood 18:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Existance as an article = existance on another particular article? Interesting logic there, but meanwhile, I am still demanding a quote from you, failing which I am going to take you to task for making a false accusation against others. Now dosent that sound familiar to you? :D--Huaiwei 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Char siew rice

Is the 叉烧饭 in Singapore and Malaysia so different from the 叉燒飯/叉烧饭 in Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong and the rest of southern China to merit separate articles? User:Huaiwei has so far been the only person having this view. A similar debate is around the Singapore-centric set up of the bakkwa article (see talk:bakkwa). — Insta ntnood 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to wonder if this exercise is to actually debate on the merits of each article, or merely to stem "Singapore-centricness" in a typical "You scratch my back I scratch yours" ethos of instantnood and friends. It wasent too long since there were arguments over the "HK-centricness" of Hong Kong-style milk tea, Hong Kong-style Western cuisine, Char siu, and even something as generic as fish balls?--Huaiwei 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come fish ball? There's even a kind from the Philippines. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any solid proof if there were any "Hong Kong-centricism"? I was in fact the person to remove the Hong Kong-centric elements in the fish ball article [2]. Who's scratching back on who? A request for an open apology isn't too demanding.. is it? — Insta ntnood 18:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An apology? Yes I would think an apology is neccesary when in fish ball, the original version before my intervention reads completely like a form of food in HK and nowhere else [3]. When I first edited the article to reduce this obvious bias [4], it was user:instantnood who re-introduced the HK-centricism back into the article [5]. I tweaked the article again [6], before instantnood re-introduces HK-bias into it [7]. It took a third edition on my part [8] before instantnood finally wakes up and "removes the Hong Kong-centric elements" in the next edit he quotes above. So was Instantnood the one who actually did the "removal of HK-bias"? Let the evidence prevail.

Need any other solid proof? I alreadly listed all the articles above. Please show me how their editing histories entails me to offer any apology to anyone, and if they show is instantnood's call for an "apology" was simply irresponsible, and plain uncalled for?--Huaiwei 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huaiwei that the fish ball article before he edited it was too HK-centric. Articles are either too HK centric or too Singapore centric. I would prefer both articles to be merged to Char siew rice. Evidence tells me it was Huaiwei, not Instantnood. Sorry :( --Ter e nc e Ong 09:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles should be merged, but where they should be merged to is another big headache. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had not edited the fish ball article before user:Huaiwei's first edit [9], and was therefore not responsible for the Hong Kong-centric content before that. Edit summary was lacking in his first edit to that article. I accept the changes, and futher improve them, when rationale of his edits were known [10]. For everyone's information, Huaiwei was the person who resisted removing Singapore-centricism in the bakkwa article [11] [12]. — Insta ntnood 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said many many times before, responsiblity is not the onus of the original content provider. Other users who attempt to restore edited material are sending a signal that they concur with the original content. Why else will they be reverting or editing here? My contention was with instantnood's two counts of reversions, and his attempts to counter my efforts to reduce bias in the article, and not merely on what was in the article prior to my first edit. If it was one reversion, I would perhaps pass it off as a case of a typical knee-jerk, mindless reaction on the part of instantnood as part of this daily "huaiwei edit reviewing exercise", but we are talking about two reversions here. Does he have any explaination for this behavior? Attempting to devert people's attention to bakkwa does not absolve you from your misbehaviors in Fish ball, does not indicate the lack of "HK-centricness" in various articles I highlighted, and does not show any lack of the "You scratch my back I scratch yours" ethos on your part (and that of your cronies?). In fact, your behavior in bakkwa supports what I said.--Huaiwei 01:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to fish ball was unexplained. The edits were kept as soon as evidence was available. — Insta ntnood 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy of reverting all edits in which no edit summary was filled in, even if the edit helps to improve the article? I would like to see you doing that throughout wikipedia if that is so. In addition, I suppose it is also perfectly alright for others to revert all of your "unexplained" edits?--Huaiwei 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I revert edits that are not sufficiently explained, and at the same time I myself can't justify. It's a natural limitation that I can only focus on the tip of the iceberg - I won't know what's happening with all articles on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that was not what you mentioned. You said "Your edits to fish ball was unexplained." as the sole reason for your reversion. So now you are saying you do so also if you "I myself can't justify", ie meaning "I cant agree with the edit". Now is that anything new? :D--Huaiwei 15:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???

Why on Earth does this have a page? Shall I create a page for barbecued pork with chips? Barbecued pork with pasta? Barbecued beef with rice? Craziness...Skittle 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Alanmak's suggestion to merge them all back to Char siu is actually quite reasonable, and I am beginning to see merits in doing so.--Huaiwei 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is ridiculous. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your solution is...?--Huaiwei 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! I've also made a Category Barbecued X with Y. Ewlyahoocom 08:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Protected

So I don't have to ban Instantnood and Huaiwei from another article I have decided to protect this page instead since a number of parties seem to be involved and this isn't a one on one with those two. First, let me say I cannot believe that such fighting occurs over a food dish!! This is absolutely ridiculous and some of you guys need to calm down, take a breath, and then discuss what you need to do on the talk page. Then, here's the fun part, step 2 is to wait a day or two to see what other people say about your proposal before you just institute it. It's called consensus building and if you folks can't build consensus on a food dish then we have some serious problems.

Please, for the sake of all concerned, calm down a minute, try to work together to make this a better article, that's the goal. When I think you've sufficiently calmed down or when you think you have then request unprotecting. --Wgfinley 10:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. Just because someone writes an article from their experience and thereby POV doesn't make it wrong. If I write an article on Pizza it's going to have an inherent Chicago bias because that's where I'm from. When someone comes along and adds info about New York style pizza or traditional Italian pizza I don't get upset that someone is trying to ruin my article. Nor do they accuse me of writing a "Chicago-centric article" that is in drastic need of correcting. I wrote an incomplete article that needed some additional contributions to make it a better one. Everyone here needs to take a good long look at assume good faith. --Wgfinley 10:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Guy. I'd say what somebody had done was like a Chicagoan spliting the material of Chicago-style pizza to a separate article, after the pizza article she/he started was expanded by people from Italy, New York, London, etc. Thanks God both Italian and English use roman alphabets with no diacritics, and the word pizza is spelt in the same way across the ocean, and in both languages. — Insta ntnood 20:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is justification for Chicago-style pizza to be in a seperate article, why not? I dont quite see the context there, and its relation to spellings or to this article.--Huaiwei 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any? — Insta ntnood 18:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any?--Huaiwei 06:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any not? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any not?--Huaiwei 16:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, Edmund? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??--Huaiwei 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the Edmund Teo I know? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Edmund Teo to you?--Huaiwei 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You of course silly~ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks!--Huaiwei 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said " [I]f there is any.. ", and I asked if there's any. — Insta ntnood 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And?--Huaiwei 18:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any justification? — Insta ntnood 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any justification for?--Huaiwei 10:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei Article Ban

Per the above, Huaiwei indicates he has no intention of stopping warring, in fact, he appears much more interesting in bringing up other arguments and other articles without any reference to this one. To me, this is the definition of "edit warring" when it's more about what happened on other articles than this article. So I am banning Huaiwei and unprotecting the article. I hope the remainder will work to produce a consensus on this article. --Wgfinley 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly protests this action on the part of Wgfinley. This is a discussion page, not the article page, and using my comments here as basis for a page ban is sending a message to everyone that perhaps all of us should stop using discussion pages least they be used as basis for administrative actions which are not fought over in the article itself? And I find it absolutely ridiculous for Wgfinley to say that I appear "much more interesting in bringing up other arguments and other articles without any reference to this one.", when the conversation he refers to was ignited by comments made by instantnood [13], which included the words "A similar debate is around the Singapore-centric set up of the bakkwa article (see talk:bakkwa)" That he considers this evidence of "edit warring" on my part alone is completely baseless. Impartiality on the part of Wgfinley is sorely missed here, and I am inclined to think he is also reacting based on discussions taking place in User talk:Huaiwei.--Huaiwei 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to just banning on this page I protected it to give the parties involved a chance to work out differences. Instead of trying to work out differences you ranted about two prior articles (not just one), one of which (Fish ball) the fight is well over 6 months old. This indicates to me that based on your warring on this article, and based on your comments here on the talk page and your own talk page that you are uninterested in stopping the edit warring. So, I have banned you from editing this article accordingly. --Wgfinley 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How then, would you consider Instantnood's efforts here as having "worked out differences"? How is it you have no comment on his initiation in bringing in the disputes over Bakkwa into this page and ranted on Singapore-centricism? A simple look at the edit histories shows that prior to your protection, instantnood was very active in revert warring. How is it that you could make this assumption that I will revert war, while assuming good faith in your advocacy? I am sorry, but if you are serious about showing your impartiality, is this the way you do it?--Huaiwei 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all due respects, I think we should ban Instantnood as well. I mean Huaiwei can't exactly edit war by himself; Instantnood clearly edit warred with him on 8/9 January. I think it is better if he doesn't edit this page without discussion here first. As an admin, I can impose such a ban, but I will defer to the opinion of Wgfinley. enochlau (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to cut them a break on this one, protect the page and see how it would go -- Instantnood stated on this page that he would try to comport his behavior, Huaiwei did not. I'm not looking to drag other articles. It's simple -- I gave them a break, one of them said he would try to comply (and I am AGF and assuming he intends to) and Huaiwei said he would not do likewise and brought other articles into it. Therefore, I banned Huaiwei on this one and not Instant. --Wgfinley 05:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said he will comply, while I failed to comment on it (I did not say I will). Based on this, you are presuming he will not revert war, while I will, and to actually ban me based on a prediction that I will revert war? Are you thus saying everyone must say in the respective talk pages that they will "not revert war", failing which a ban will be imposed? With all due respect, but since when is wikipedia administrative action based on such presumptions, verbal vows that mean nothing and curry-flavouring comments in your talkpages or anywhere else?--Huaiwei 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page render problem

this article does not render correctly in mozilla firefox. 9-20-2006

Already merged?

Looks like this article has already been merged into Char siu. I will create the redirect. -- Emana 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]