This is an archive of past discussions about National dish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Someone keeps changing Canada's national dish to kraft dinner. This is a brand name and not a type of food, and thus cannot be considered a national dish. This editor keeps referring to Canada as having the highest per capita consumption as justification for making it a national dish, but by that logic we'd Mcdonalds as America's national dish, and who knows what else. I would like people to stop patronizing Canadians by insisting that Kraft Dinner (which is absolutely disgusting, by the way) is our national dish. Macaroni and cheese is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.51.55 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Canada's national dish 2
The things listed are quintessentially Canadian foods - mostly regional - but apart from tourtiere, they aren't meals. I'd argue we don't have a national dish. Food is very regional (ie Nfld has loads of traditional foods - but they are very specific to Nfld). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.134.118 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I know people are trying to list different thinks than the U.S ...but totally wrong.
When was the last time you saw someone selling butter tarts on a street corner. Do people eat it regularly all the time. It it the first things new comers adopt when they move to Canada?
Since there seems to be some dispute over whether or not to include Hong Kong's dishes because of debate over Hong Kong's status as a nation, might I humbly suggest moving it to something like regional dish, regional dish, or regional cuisine? That would avoid the whole issue of whether or not Hong Kong is a nation and allow listing of Hong Kong's regional food and drinks. Many sub-national regions have trademark dishes not neccessarily representative of the entire nation, for example, fried chicken and the American South. I don't see what the big issue is though. If Quebec, England, and Scotland, both regions of a larger country can be included, why not Hong Kong? Galinha Portuguesa is a pretty well-known trademark Macanese dish, and might be considered Macau's national cuisine, but no one would consider it China's.--Yuje 01:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
For everybody's information, the discussion here is a result of the edit summary in this edit to the article. — Instantnood 18:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
The issue of HK status is just a "side dish" so to speak. The real issue is with the entries claimed to be "HK's national dish", both of which are dubious entries which need to be substantiated.--Huaiwei 13:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
National dishes as written are just as regional as national, e.g. poutine is regarded a Quebecois dish rather then as a Canadian dish. NB, England, Scotland & Wales are regarded as countries in their own right, despite being part of the United Kingdom. I would personly put Hong Kong (China) - Hong Kong milk tea 159753 16:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. The idea that a territory has a "national dish" does not necessarily imply or presuppose the existence of a separate subject of international law... :-) A national dish is a something quite unofficial and typically lacks any constitutional status. Many countries happen to have more than one national dish (which may or may not be regionally diversified), whereas others are not commonly associated with any national dish at all. The distinction of "regional" and "national" dishes appears somewhat arbitrary to me. --Thorsten1 18:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you 159753 and Thorsten1. How would you comment on "original"? Does a dish or a drink have to be "invented" in that country to be qualified as a national dish/drink? In my opinion it is as long as it represents the eating habits of the people of that place. — Instantnood 18:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
That being said, I have to wonder, when has cha siu been particularly regarded as a national dish in HK or particularly associated with Hong Kong? I can understand milk tea because it's a trademark of western-style Hong Kong resturants, but cha siu rice Cha siu is nowhere as strongly associated with Hong Kong as say xiaolongbao with Shanghai or goubuli with Tianjin. Maybe a more accurate example of Hong Kong food is dim sum? --Yuje 21:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yuje's concerns was precisely what occured to me when I first saw this claim that "Char siew rice" is suddenly the "national dish" of Hong Kong. When people are served sushi in any part of the world, they automatically associate it with Japan. Do people react in the same way when served char siew rice? But my concerns go further. Char Siew Rice, or Dim Sum itself, are widely known to be Cantonese cuisine, and not HK cuisine, if such a thing exists. Unlike tea, in which you could have "Chinese tea", "English tea", etc, we dont have "HK dim sum", "Guangzhou dim sum", etc. And if prevalance of a certain food is all it takes, then perhaps rice shall be a national dish for practically all of Asia? I would consider both "Cantonese dishes", and not "HK national dishes"--Huaiwei 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I questioned cha siu because I do know that many HKers would dispute cha siu rice as being HK's national or signature dish. That doesn't mean they can't have one. As stated in the article, national dishes can be shared by different regions, and are not necessarily exclusive. As also stated, national dishes can be attributed by outsiders, or part of that region's self-identity. But, if the majority of Hong Kongers feel that (for example) dim sum is an important part of their identity, what place does a German or a Singaporean have telling them no? The majority of Hong Kongers may or may not feel a strong cultural connection to dim sum, which is why I only suggested it for discussion.--Yuje 09:24, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Similar concerns when it comes to Char siew. Meanwhile, the obvious problem with "national dishes", is that they are usually unofficial, and can even change with the times. Yuje above insists that a national dish is so if the local populance consider it an important part of their self-identity. If that is the case, Rice shall indeed be the national dish of Asia. I would put this dismissal of outside views as a tad defensive and provincial in thought. Afterall, he himself quotes from the article, that "national dishes can be attributed by outsiders". An sub-national entry for Quebec and Scotland exists, because each attibutes to one significant dish unique from the rest of the world. Most other sub-national entities do not have an entry if they share culinary cultures with the rest of the country, or the region. Hong Kong's most signature dishes are squarely Cantonese cuisine, with little diffrentiation between it and the rest of the Cantonese speaking community, so in what way would it deserve its own entry? Shall we have an entry for Guangdong as well? Or Beijing, since it lays even greater claim to Peking duck? If we do this, I would strongly advise that fair treatment be accorded to all other possible entries such as this.--Huaiwei 14:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with provincialism as the point of this page is to list examples of food and drink strongly identitified with certain regions, either by the people of the region themselves or by others. Many countries do have regionally diversified national dishes. If someone wants to contribute about Beijing, they can do so. China does have many dishes strongly associated with region, as I mentioned, Shanghai and xiaolongbao. My own contributions will of course be based on areas corresponding with my knowledge and interests. Since you wrote about Singaporean drinks, why aren't you also adding information about the national drinks of Angola, Botswana, and Zimbabwe, so that "fair treatment be accorded"?--Yuje 20:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
What do you actually (mis)understand from my statement on "fair treatment"?--Huaiwei 20:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(response to Huaiwei's message at 20:32, 13 Jun 2005) I'm afraid you're falling into the same trap like westerners thinking satay as Thai cuisine, cannot tell the differences between cuisines alike. The same food in Hong Kong is not really the same as those in Guangzhou or Zhaoqing, as you might have imagined, though they're all predominantly Cantonese cuisine. And some popular dishes in Hong Kong have Hakka or Teochew origins, evolved separately in the past few decades. — Instantnood 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. And Hong Kong has a considerable number of people of Shanghai origins as well. Famous people I can think of include: Maggie Cheung, Tung Chee Hwa, Jin Yong, and Wong Kar-wai. This has influenced Hong Kong's cuisine as well. Not everything in Hong Kong is classical Cantonese cuisine. An example I can think of is 港式煎麵, or sometimes 香港煎麵 outside of Hong Kong. --Yuje 12:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Hong Kong food is a blend of these origins, and evolved over the past few decades into what Hong Kong eating culture now is. — Instantnood 13:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Yuje's message at 21:38, Jun 12, 2005) Once a friend of mine who came from Shanghai told me that she's not heard of Shanghai Xiaolongbao in Shanghai. :-) — Instantnood 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
A food does certainly not need to have been "invented" in a country in order to be elevated to the status of a national dish. In most cases, it is all but impossible to trace a food's exact origin anyway. E.g., in much of Europe, tea is considered something archetypically English, when in fact the English did not "import" the tea habit until, er, relatively recently. A national dish, as all other national attributes, is usually the result of an "invention of tradition", to use Eric Hobsbawm's term. In fact, one will hardly find any relationship between a dish and a nation that is geographically and historically unambiguous. Nonetheless, to account for Yuje's concerns, I reworded the definition of "national dish" somewhat - to stop this article from becoming yet another minefield of ethnic conflict in Wikipedia... ;-) --Thorsten1 19:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's what I have in mind. But I don't think this would satisfy Huaiwei, who removed Hong Kong from the article. He's perceiving it in a quite different way. — Instantnood 07:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Dim Sum
Several points I'd like to make to show that Dim Sum is a "national" dish to Hong Kong:
Many famous dishes are actually created by Hong Kong Dim SumSifu. Take Phoenix Talon as an example. A Hong Kong businessman was paid to treat chicken wastes from an Australian farm, and he found that the butchers would dump the chicken legs after they have slayed the fowls. So the businessman imported this ingredient at a extremely low price, and created the popular Phoenix Talon. (National Geographic, Dim Sum, 2003)
National Geographic Channel has produced a documentary about Dim Sum in Hong Kong, sugeesting that Dim Sum does play a central role in Hong Kong cuisine.
Even though many restaurants in the Guangdong province begin to make their own Dim Sum, they follow the cooking method of Hong Kong's Dim Sum more often than not; again, Phoenix Talon is a good example. -- Jerry Crimson Mann
I agree that if one were to be asked what dish he would think of which is "representative" of HK, Dim sum would very likely be the answer (and not "bbq pork with rice" which we simply call "char siew rice"). However, speaking from the pespective of an overseas Chinese who has more or less sampled Chinese food from the greater China region, I find it difficult to disassociate Dim Sum from Cantonese cuisine, and associate it more with HK. BTW, notice we still dont have an entry for China itself, probably because it is so hard to pinpoint one out of so many different Dcuisines within one country. If we are going to have Dim Sum representing HK, can we have Peking Duck representing Beijing? How shall we handle the whole issue of national foods in the Greater China region? Lets try to reflect and resolve on this issues, shall we?--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Ahyayayaya...that's a REALLY brain-boggling question, 'cos there're too many delicacies in the Chinese territory. ;-P -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
Hey back to the basic. Would a dish (or a drink) not the national dish of a country if it is also commonly found in another country? (It'd be just like hamburger is removed from the list as the national dish of the United States, because it's everywhere in Canada, and it's part of Canadian eating lifestyle.. blaa) :-D — Instantnood July 1, 2005 14:51 (UTC)
(response to Huaiwei's comment at 08:23, June 30) It's interesting you cannot dissociate dim sum from Cantonese cuisine. Many dishes that has been incorporated into the dim sum menus are actually from Chiuchow and Hakka. There are restaurants serving Chiuchow, and not as common, Hakka dim sums as their signatures. — Instantnood July 2, 2005 08:09 (UTC)
The real issue still seems to be whether or not Hong Kong is to be seen as a "nation" distinct from mainland China. However, as I've been trying to explain before, the "nation" component in "national dish" is a quite different concept than in "nationality", "nationalism" etc. It's a highly informal, unpolitical concept, and any attempt to formalise or politicise it is doomed to fail. If anything, "national dish" relates to a vague "tribal" or "community" understanding of the word "nation". Thus, while speaking of a "national dish" of a city, ethnic group or even a neighbourhood may not be exactly common, it is perfectly consistent with the semantics of the term "nation" in this particular context. After all, what else would you say - "city dish"? "ethnic dish"? Rather not, sounds totally artificial and compulsively PC. Even the semantics of "regional dish" is, in my opinion, not sufficiently different from "national dish" to warrant a separate article. --Thorsten1 2 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
Agree, consider the summary of User:Huaiwei's edit: [2]. And I'd say she/he's misunderstood the purpose of this list, and taken an entry here as claiming sole ownership: [3]. — Instantnood 11:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
So far User:Huaiwei was the only one to consider the entries of Hong Kong contentious. If there is no opposition from anybody other than her/him in a week's time I'd prefer to add the entries back. — Instantnood 18:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
You sure that everyone else thinks HK's "national food" are "BBQ pork with rice" and "wonton noodle"?--Huaiwei18:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure everyone opposes it, and therefore it shouldn't be included? — Instantnood 19:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
First, you made the claim that I am the only one who opposes the HK entries. This is obviously untrue. Pointing out this false statement does not swing the discussion to the other extreme. Still, we do not need 100% opposition for something to be excluded (or 100% support to be included). That was quite an immature statement. In fact, while I have seen fellow HK wikipedians here expressing doubt over the choice of the above two foods, I hadent seen anyone standing up and agreeing to them wholeheartedly and without question. (meanwhile, mind explaning the long string of small edits to this page?)--Huaiwei19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You are, until the present moment, the only person to have edited the article to remove the entries. You are also the only person to have expressed on this talk page your objection to include the entries in the article. Don't say I'm making false statement when I am not. Further, I never said it needs 100% support to be included, or 100% opposition to be excluded. Jerry is the only Hong Kong wikipedian (that I can tell) other than I myself to have participated in the discussions on this page. He has not expressed any comment, neither doubt nor support, over the foods and drinks I added to the article. — Instantnood 19:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Opposition towards the enties is not only expressed by their physical removal from the article. This entire page is evidence of the fact that I am not the only one objecting to those entries. I am amused by your ability to lie when the contradictory evidence is so close at hand. If you do not expect 100% support of objection, then may I know what is the comment timed 19:04, July 11, 2005 for? Trying to sound smart? It just looks childish to me at best. I said no one stood up to support your nominations. Precisely so. How is this possible when the moniker "National dish" are usually unopposed given their overwelming dominance and representation of national culture? I held suspicions that you are adding entries bases on what you personally think is public opinion, and even after repeated questioning, you have yet to verify this to us. I dont see how unverified data can deserve to stay?--Huaiwei20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
If this entire page is evidence of the fact you are not the only one, mind elaborate a little bit? I did try to verify it to you (e.g. at talk:Hong Kong-style milk tea and user talk:Huaiwei#National dish), but seems you were not satisfied, and I have given up to do so, for it is hopeless to convince you when you are so certain with what you believe. — Instantnood 20:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I cant be talking to myself, can I? Jerry proposed an alternative dish compared to yours, after yours was shot down. Yuje talked extensively about the same topic, including expressing his doubts over "BBQed pork with rice". The only other participant here is Thorsten1, who was mainly talking about what National dish is. I am pretty sure I can count, but I do count more than one person commenting on HK's food, and more than one expressing doubts over any part of it. I also count zero supporting it. I am pretty sure you can count this yourself? Yes, your so-called "verification" in all those related pages comes to nought because you simply fail to provide verifyable third-party evidence for anything. The closest anyone could get to that was some HK programme on hk milk tea which no one could name. Should I be the one to be blamed for your inadequate research skills? Take Jerry, who, realising the need for convincing evidence, wrote an elaborate piece explaning the nomination of Dim Sum. Have you done that at all for any of the dishes you try to promote? None. So who's fault is it now?--Huaiwei20:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You said " while I have seen fellow HK wikipedians here expressing doubt over the choice of the above two foods " in your comment at 19:17, July 11. Jerry, who has little experience in talking with you, has not expressed any opinion on the foods and drinks I added to the article. Yuje is not from Hong Kong, and his contributions to Wikipedia are not focused on Hong Kong, although he said he is interested in Hong Kong-related topics. If you want evidence, here you go. This is the TV programme on milk tea (starting from around 11:00 minutes of the video). I guess you'd be interested in this programme too. This blog article is interesting too. (based on my past experience in talking with you.. I don't have any confidence these can convince you tho... you only believe in what you believe..) — Instantnood 21:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
File:Lunchtimeproduction.pngI think it's high time to show my stance: Yes, I deeply believe that BBQ pork plus BBQ goose plus wonton are the national dishes of Hong Kong. Taking a glimpse at Yung Kee, the famous Chinese restaurant in Central, would perfectly confirm the truth: many westerners enjoy dishes of barbecued meat with forks and knives. The working class and studendts in Hong Kong would always have BBQ lunchboxes (fan hup) at cheaper prices. Even the Lunchbox Lunchtime Production, the producer of My life as McDull use a BBQ pork lunchbox as their corporation logo. I could find no reason why BBQ pork cannot represent the cream of the Hong Kong cuisine.
Furthermore, won ton is another well-known dish in Hong Kong. My neighbours are a Singaporean couple, and they said to me (no kidding) that won ton here is much tastier than those in other places on Earth. Two years ago I visited Malaysia. My family and I had a nice chat with a native tour guide. I asked him what would you like to have in your mouth promptly once you were in Hong Kong. He replied me without doubt: won ton. Won ton is also the collevtive memoery of the elder citizens in Hong Kong, who feel nostagic with the days where won ton noodles were sold at thirty cents or something. Restaurants like "Sun Chew Kei" and "Ho Hung Kei" has a very long history, more than a century, in making won ton noodles.
Finally, I like to re-accentuate that dim sum is the ethnic dish of Hong Kong and no mistake. Besides the evidence abovementioned that I've given, recently a documentary produced by NHK has given me some clues of the notability of dim sum in Japan. In the chinatowns of some Japanese cities like Harasuku and Tokyo, there are loads of restaurants selling Hong Kong dim sum. These restaurant are usually named "Foo Little Hong Kong", e.g. 池田小香港. -- Jerry Crimson Mann15:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That reminds me of the kaiten yum cha restaurant in Taipei near Ximen Station, which is named Mong Kok. :-) — Instantnood 15:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Jerry's comment at 15:28, 24 July 2005) Hah...finally someone initiates discussion on the two HK dishes. Well, I removed those two entries, because "Char Siew" and "Wonton" alone makes much better sense then "Char Siew Rice" and "Wonton noodle", which are a specific "application" of two very popular food units in HK. Char siew is also served with noodles, with lor mai gai/fan choy (depending on who's calling it), in bao, or in a western-styled bun, for example, so why is it specifically only char siew rice?--Huaiwei15:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
You have been changing your arguments, from challenging the definition of national to whether they represent Hong Kong, and now the specific application of BBQ pork and wonton.. But that doesn't matter as long as the problem can be resolved eventually. :-) — Instantnood 15:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
An age-old wonton noodles restaurant in Wan Chai, Hong Kong.Then? Char Siew itself can be a national dish. Let's see Stephen Chow's "God of Cookery"...Gum Yin Siu Won Fan is fact Cha Siew Fan with Sunny-side up! :) I did not mention won ton noodles only, my friend. (wonton + roosted goose) -- Jerry Crimson Mann15:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Haha agree. BBQ pork can be served with rice, noodles, rice vermicelli, noodles, whatever, you name it.. and as fillings of buns (well, of slightly different texture and preparation method), but they never enjoy the same status in the cuisine as it is with rice. Wonton with rice is almost unheard. :-) — Instantnood 15:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Jerry's comment at 15:44, 26 July 2005) I dont dispute the fact that chatr siew could be a national dish. Problem is...does it represent HK alone, or Cantonese cuisine? Ditto for wonton?--Huaiwei16:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
An entry on this list is not equal claiming sole ownership of the dish or drink to represent the cuisine of a place. — Instantnood 16:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Instantnood's comment at 15:40, July 26, 2005) Ney....I didnt change my arguments. At no point did I say Char siew or Wonton is out. I said "Char siew RICE" and Wonton Noodle is out. The only reason why you did not get to know this, is because instead of discussin it, you prefer to keep adding them back in when I delete them. Amusing, isnt it? ;) --Huaiwei16:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Alright.. I'll treat this as something you've never expressed before then.. The only reason that I did not get to know this, was because you preferred to keep deleting them instead of bringing the problem to discussion. — Instantnood 16:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
(In response to Jerry's first comment) I also agree that one of HK's identifying dishes is dim sum, and HK's dim sum is famous the world over. Resturants all over the world, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and Singapore advertise and serve Hong Kong-style dim sum. Dim sum is part of Cantonese cuisine, but HK is especially famous worldwide for its dim sum.--Yuje 02:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the inclusion of the entries, but my only position is that if included, it should be included under the name "cha siu" (or char siew or any of the other common romanizations) instead of "BBQ pork". BBQ is an inaccurate name for it, as cha siu is in fact baked instead of BBQed, and doesn't resemble what most people consider BBQ. --Yuje 19:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
It's called as such on menus in Hong Kong, for example, at Cafe de Coral.. (and Siu Mei are called BBQ items at Cafe de Coral) :-| — Instantnood 21:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it does get called BBQ pork, but I still think that's a horrid name. It's really ambiguous since dishes from so many cultures can be called BBQ, and the word "char siew" is hardly unknown in English. The word is used in many resturants overseas, and in English Chinese cookbooks. For example, Martin Yan, a famous cooking show host, prefers "cha siu" on his website. [8]. "cha siu" returns about 61,000 hits on google, and "cha siew" returns about 23,000, so I think the term is notable enough. (not sure where the second romanization comes from, is the "r" part of a tonal spelling?)--Yuje 02:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
My vote goes to cha siu, but it's really known as such in Hong Kong as BBQ pork (and "BBQ pork with rice"). :-) Char siew seems to be a Nanyang spelling. By the way, there's already a stub entry on Wikipedia based on the Japanese spelling chashu. — Instantnood 07:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Contended entries
If the entries I added are indeed contended, then raise the issues here. If a legitimate reason can't be raised for disputing their inclusion, I will re-add them. Huaiwei has said almost three months ago that he never disputed the inclusion of char siew or wonton. As for Hong Kong-style milk tea, his objection to this entry was based on the fact that he had never seen the drink before in Singapore, and that it bears similarities with Singaporean drinks.
Over half a year ago, I have already provided sources showing that this drink does in fact exist, and described that this drink is in fact an important part of Hong Kong food culture. I asked for some sources to support those objections and to support those claims that an exactly same drink exists in Singapore, and also extended an invitation to suggest changes or improvements. I reiterated that call three months ago, only to still have them unanswered with not even a single reply, source, or the name of this identical drink in Singapore.
Now, I have no problem with others' objections, but when a page is reverted while a call for comment has sat silent for months, that's just filibustering. If the talk page is inconclusive, then go and conclude them (notwithstanding you've already had months to do so) instead of reverting, or I'll add the entries again for lack of disputing evidence. --Yuje06:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe I did dispute the inclusion of "Roasted pork with rice". If "roasted pork" isnt "Char siew", then you are free to add that back. I removed both entries before because they are not even dishes. Roasted pork is hardly ever eaten on its own, and it is dishes served with wanton, not wanton alone. My objections over HK milk tea was hardly as simple as you allerged. Even up till now, no one seems capable of telling us just how different it is from milk tea sold all over the world, or if the "version" sold in HK is unique enough to warrant such a stature.
The reson why I decided not to reply? Because that talkpage has been reduced to an MSN/ICQ/blog-like discussion forum with hardly any verifiable evidence to show anything. I dont think months of silence amounts to filibustering, and I dont think my entries are particularly long either. If you are reverting only for the reason that you think you have the morale authority to do so instead of factual verificability (claiming a "local delights" page by a local tourism board amounts to "national dish" is as good as getting hawker stall owners to write in this page), then I will certainly resist the attempt to over-include entries to this page in an attempt to over-represent specific localities.--Huaiwei07:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I have also presented lots of sources showing BBQ pork rice w/ rice, wonton noodle and Hong Kong-style milk tea are important parts of Hong Kong culture, but Huaiwei has simply carried on his blatant objections without much considerations based on those sources. He simply disregard them and said they are not valid to justify the inclusion on this list. — Instantnood07:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats coz you still have not shown us if they are notable representations of Cantonese cuisine, or "national dishes" of HK. Char siew rice as a fixed dish actually evolved amongst Cantonese folks in Malaya (today's Malaysia and Singapore) with fusion elements from other cuisine, and obviously has greater establishment as a dish in its own right then a stall in hk merely selling the meat together with all other kinds of related meats and stuff with rice.
Wonton noodle? Wonton noodle to my understanding is a key Cantonese dish, and I certainly dont think people would think of HK when consuming it anywhere in the world. When someone eats Sushi, he thinks of Japan. When he eats kimchi, he thinks of Korea. What is the likelihood of someone thinking of HK when eating wonton noodle or char siew unless he is in some way related to HK?
This isnt the first time I have mentioned this concerns, but of coz as far as folks like instantnood are concerned, they are dismissed as "non-existant" quite readily.--Huaiwei07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It's time to explain very clearly why I think those entries belong as HK's national dishes. Huaiwei's been filibustering on this issue for months. While several HKers have come up in support of such entries, and there's been a non-objecting silent majority on this issue, Huawei's been a one-man revert show, yet refusing to discuss the issue while filling countless talk pages with his diatribes.
First, let's talk about a different place: Singapore. Singapore's famous for its food; food courts and hawker centers are widely available everywhere, offering a great variety of food, Malay, Indian, various types of Chinese food, and all for very cheaply. And yes, Singapore has wonton noodle as well. It's usually not too hard to find a nearby food stall that sells wonton noodles (usually called "wanton mee" in Singapore), often alongside a few different types of noodle dishes, like Fujian and Teochew noodles and laksa, all with colorful captioned pictures for easy of ordering. A typical food stall might sell as much as five or six different types of dishes that they specialize in. Typically, such a stall will take an order, boil up some noodles, start adding ingredients (like egg, shrimp, and vegetables) and then add some wonton to top off the dish. Some places that sell char siew or chicken rice might well offer options for adding a few boiled or fried wonton to the dish as well. Having seen wonton as such a common dish, Huaiwei might well reason, "What's so special about HK? Wonton's just wonton, we have it too in Singapore, and wonton noodles is just a Cantonese dish."
Huaiwei's probably never been to Hong Kong before. I asked my Hong Kong-born colleague in Singapore and he told me that when going to Hong Kong, there's two types of food that are must-try: dim sum and .... wonton noodle. Huaiwei's probably never seen the wonton noodle shops in the food courts in HK or the dai-pai dong food stands that sell wonton noodles there. In HK, the wonton shops are very much about the wonton; they're not simply an afterthought added on top of dishes. A typical wonton noodle shop at a food court might have a menu of over 30 different kinds of wonton noodles. Shanghai-style wonton, Chiuchow-style, wonton/shui jiao, large-style wonton, your choice of wonton meat filling, you name it. In other words, a single wonton resturant might offer as many different types of wonton noodle dishes as there are total dishes in a medium-sized food court in Singapore. The wonton noodle stands are often some of the busiest, and one can often see several wonton noodle shops competing head to head at the food areas. As Jerry has mentioned wonton noodles have a long history in HK, and HK wonton is quite famous in its own right. The fact that he's simply dismissing it as a simple staple Cantonese dish probably means he's never seen the wonton culture in Hong Kong. It's like someone who has a fair idea of what a hamburger is from only eating Big Macs at MacDonald's and has never seen or heard of the likes of the real, authentic, two-pound Annihilator cheeseburgers found in the United States.
Let's talk about pineapple buns and egg tarts. If snacks originating from Hong Kong don't qualify, then what does? I've already mentioned a source before, and these are two of the items played up and promoted by the HK tourism. They're carried by every bakery around in Hong Kong, even the ones at Hong Kong Disneyland. Do you see any other Disneylands in the world serve these in their bakeries? The McCafe's also sell pineapple buns and egg tarts. Where else in the world do they sell them? In fact, egg tarts are quite well known in HK as being the favorite food of former British HK's governor, Chris Patten. He even became a promotor for one of HK's most famous bakeries, Tai Cheong, I believe it was called, and stated before that his favorite was the famous egg tarts. And what were two of those bakery's most famous offerings? Why, pineapple bun and egg tarts, of course. When it closed down, it caused a bit of a stir, including mentions in the news. That bakery did eventually reopen, and was greeted by big crowds waiting for hours in line to get their hands on pineapple buns and egg tarts. One can say that other parts of the world, may perhaps have pineapple bun and egg tart, but has it reached the level of prominence there? There are certainly no incidents I know of of people in any other places waiting in line for hours for famous egg tart, which shows both the sentiment towards the food, and the fact that such a notability does exist. Of course, Huaiwei might have known this had he actually known anything about HK.
Char siu rice, both Instantnood and Jerry have already made their case for, and while it certainly never occurred to me, Jerry did make a convincing case for it. In the case of HK-style milk tea, Huaiwei has bitterly reverted it for months and yet still can't provide a single justification dispute many calls for him to do so on Talk:Hong Kong-style milk tea. This beverage is so common that anyone spending a week eating anywhere in HK would be silly to dispute it. It's ubiquitous, and probably more drunk by the population than coffee or water. Every single corner cafe, resturant, cha chaan teng, dai pai dong, etc, has it. Even the McDonald's has it as a standard menu item, and I haven't seen McDonald's in anywhere else in the world have it.
As for dim sum, it's really quite patently ridiculous to question that dim sum is an HK trademark. HK's tourism industry plays up on it heavily, and HK is quite known world-wide for having some of the best dim sum in the world. Yes, dim sum is a Cantonese food, but HK's dim sum isn't exclusively Cantonese, and in fact has innovated on many of its own, and has developed it to be famous in its own right. As others have noted, many dim sum sellers elsewhere in the world, Taiwan, and Japan among them, draw their inspiration from Hong Kong, styling themselves names like "Little Hong Kong" and so forth. I can say that's it's the same case in North America, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand.
Not that I'm accusing Huaiwei of being dishonest (yet), but I find dubious and difficult to believe Huaiwei's claim that he "finds it difficult to disassociate Dim Sum from Cantonese cuisine" and that "we dont have HK dim sum", when so many dim sum food stalls in his own country (Singapore) add words like "Hong Kong-style" to their dim sum for extra flair. It's true, I live in Singapore and I know. Having eaten at food courts all over the country (Lau Pa Sat at Raffles place, Chinatown, Marina Mall next to the steamboat resturants, Marina south, under Seiyu at Bugis Junction, Ang Mo Kio, Suntec City's basement, Orchard Road's many courts, Millenium Walk, Tampines Mall, Eunos Junction, Bedok Resevoir's food courts near Sheng Siong, Sim Lim Square, Geylang, the many Kopitiams scattered all over, etc), it's actually quite common for food stalls in Singapore to prominently label dim sum they sell as "Hong Kong-style", and quite a few specifically Hong Kong style food stands and resturants. On the other hand, I have yet to see a single one display "Guangzhou-style dim sum", "Guangdong-style dim sum", or any other consistant label. Let anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject and doubt the strong association with "Hong Kong" and "dim sum", use Google and beholdeth with thine own eyes. Huaiwei hasn't really tried to strongly dispute the inclusion of dim sum as HK's entry and has let it pass, but I felt the need to re-emphasize this point very clearly and strongly, in case this becomes an issue again.
Why is Huaiwei disputing inclusion of food so strongly? Well, one reason certainly is that he's looking at the situation through politically tinted glasses. He's already stated his extreme suspicion of "any attempt to undermine the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong", and he seems to view anything showing Hong Kong as a seperate economic and cultural entity (which it is) as advancing those goals. He has made it his goal to prevent "certain territories" (ie Hong Kong) from being "overrepresented", and of course that includes de-emphasizing the Hong Kong identity. One of his first objections noted on the pages bemoaned that HK was getting entries while China was not. Or, for example, his claims above on this page that a seperate HK cuisine doesn't exist, and of course, his attempts to cast doubt on the existence of Hong Kong-style western cuisine or Hong Kong-style milk tea. In his above talk page comments, he even made the claim that Hong Kong cuisine doesn't exist and is indistinguishible from Cantonese cuisine, until of course I popped in to correct him. I suppose he thinks that the fact that HK's culture isn't goosestepping in line with mainland China's is a subversive threat to the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.
So, having provided this, I am going to re-add those entries to the page again. Of course, I welcome comments from others, but if anyone simply tries to revert again, without a damn good justification, then he's simply being a vandalizing troll. If you dispute them, then justify the dispute, instead of reverting constantly without justification. --Yuje13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you need to realise that writting a personal essay like this does not accord you the right to revert the article, just as you insist that my failure to respond (to personal assumptions and unverified claims) in here is not justification to do the same. I find myself reading the first pragraph, yawning over its pitfull of assumptions, generalisations, and another recap of all that has been said before, and moved straight to the last paragraph. And that was where I foung interesting info over what seems to be driving your motives here. So you are aggressive due to my resistance in ""certain territories" (ie Hong Kong) from being "overrepresented", and of course that includes de-emphasizing the Hong Kong identity", based on my claims "above on this page that a seperate HK cuisine doesn't exist"? Interesting. How, then, do you explain the phenomena in Cuisine of Hong Kong, where I clashed with instantnood over how it should be named? And the debate continues to rage in several pages, including the on-going one in Hong Kong-style western cuisine, where he again claims that there is no such thing as Hong Kong cuisine, while I was arguing for the exact opposite? I questioned the existance of Hong Kong-style western cuisine? Oh did I? I questioned the existance of Hong Kong-style milk tea? Where's your proof? If you cannot even comprehend the underlying main arguments of what I was saying, then on what position do you have to question my motives? From which intellectual level do you have to reject my comments, when you appear to have problems grasping key points of opposting views, and allowing your own sense of insecurity cloud your judgement?--Huaiwei13:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Right on the above page, you stated doubts that HK cuisine even existed. Do people react in the same way when served char siew rice? But my concerns go further. Char Siew Rice, or Dim Sum itself, are widely known to be Cantonese cuisine, and not HK cuisine, if such a thing exists. Unlike tea, in which you could have "Chinese tea", "English tea", etc, we dont have "HK dim sum", "Guangzhou dim sum". You pointed me to Hong Kong-style western cuisine, where you in fact did cast doubt on its existence in the talk page, with the comment, So..the inevitable question comes...is this a cuisine?--Huaiwei 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC). The fact that you stated that HK cuisine was simply Cantonese cuisine, Hong Kong's most signature dishes are squarely Cantonese cuisine, with little diffrentiation between it and the rest of the Cantonese speaking community, shows that you know little about the subject of which you speak. The fact that you claim there's no such thing as "HK dim sum", despite the fact that your country happens to be full of it, further puts your claims into question.
In addition to addressing your questions, you have yet to put forth a valid reason for actually removing any of those entries, while I (and others) have given links, shown sources, and have firsthand knowledge of the subject. Again, if even dishes and drinks created by Hong Kong (like egg tarts) aren't national dishes, then what are? Until you can justify yourself, you're simply vandalising. --Yuje14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The obvious issue here, is you are choosing to interpret my words with hostility and great suspicion, to the point that they have reached unreasonable proportions. "Char Siew Rice, or Dim Sum itself, are widely known to be Cantonese cuisine, and not HK cuisine, if such a thing exists." Does this directly question the existance of HK cuisine, since I was posting in reaction to Instantnood's insistance that it dosent exist somewhere else? In Hong Kong-style western cuisine, my question of "So..the inevitable question comes...is this a cuisine" questions its status as a cuisine, and not of the food itself thus described in the article. How does this relate to the question over the existance of HK cuisine? How do you explain my efforts to list HK cuisine in Template:Cuisine_of_China and to remove the later, something which instantnood consistantly tried to undo? And come to think of it, I just discovered I listed the later back into the template yet again. Hmm....
My country is full of "Hk Dim sum"? Where? Come to think of it, is dim sum itself even proliferic in Singapore, compared to other kinds of food here?
Your continued pretence that I "did not put forth a valid reason for actually removing any of those entries" leaves me wondering if I somehow typed some of my words in white. I contiously demanded to know how "HK Milk tea" is a unique invention to HK, and that it bears no similarity to drinks found elsewhere. You provided lots of sources, no doubt, but I have long shown them to be non-conclusive. Constantly telling me you have provided the links, yet refusing to recognise that they add little value to verificability, probably sums up the impasse going on here. HK invented egg tarts? Can you offer a verified, researched source which says so, instead of constantly utilising third-party, badly writtern sources which appear about as speculative as you and I? Chilli Crabs are a known invention of Singapore, and are constantly cited as a favourite food amongst Singaporeans. Yet it is not listed in this page. Why? Because some of you apparantly got carried away and simply lists all kinds of popular local food, none of which carries the same overwelming notion of how Sushi is to Japan and Kimchi is to Korea. Care to comment on why this is so (and this isnt the first time I asked)?--Huaiwei18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's incredibly easy to find dim sum in Singapore that's labled "HK style", whether it be from hawker centers or resturants. Half the food hawkers in Chinatown label them as so, and many resturants do as well. Unfortunately, most of the food hawkers lack websites, but at least the resturants do. Here's a few I found during a five minute google search.
The Mouth Singapore's Best and Oldest Teahouse. The webpage, under Signature Dishes says, and I quote, "Our Dim Sum are traditionally handmade by Hong Kong Chefs daily".
River City Resturant I quote, "Experienced Hong Kong Master Chef takes pride in conjuring interesting menus that suit a variety of requirements and budget."
Xin Cuisine Chinese Restaurant "The team of chefs led by a master chef from Hong Kong, serves authentic Cantonese specialities, fresh seafood and delectable dian xin seven days a week."
Pine Court Chinese Restaurant "Feast on Cantonese cuisine that is more light than rich,and simply good cooking with the harmonious blending of flavours and versatile ingredients, prepared by our team of Hong Kong Chefs. For lunch, choose from a variety of traditional dian xin that will win your heart."
Harbour City Restaurant "Harbour City Restaurant has been well known for its authentic Hong Kong Dian Xin. The secret to serving these excellent bite size delicacies lies in the use of premium ingredients coupled with the deft hands of our Hong Kong Master Dian Xin Chef, Mr Philip Yiu. Mr Yiu hails from Hong Kong and has been preparing these mouth-watering delights for more than a quarter decade!"
Oh great. A "master chief from HK" constitutes what you consider as "HK styled food"? Restaurants advertise this for the brand name it carries, as HK is associated with some of the best quality dim sums around. Quality, of coz, does not equal to a different dish altogether. I do wonder how you interpret things when walking around cities you visit. So do the so-called "Singapore noodles" popular in the west indicate similar connotations (when Singaporeans know nothing about it?)--Huaiwei05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
And in another five minute google search, here's an article from China Daily [9] on HK-style tea cafes.
You may be delighted to know, that HK-style tea cafes (cha chan tengs) are also "mushrooming" all over Singapore [10]. But how does this (and tonnes of links your provided) contribute to the discussion here?--Huaiwei05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The origin of Hong Kong-style tea cafes, or cha can ting, dates back to the end of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), when the island was still a British colony.
People in Hong Kong, influenced by the British lifestyle, started drinking English black tea and coffee with milk.
Two styles of restaurant, the Chinese and Western, co-existed at the time. But as restaurants catering to the taste of Westerners tend to be expensive, a kind of restaurant combining the styles of Chinese and Western food appeared.
At first, these restaurants were called Coffee Houses or Ice Rooms. Later, they became known as cha can ting.
Some say all Hong Kong people grow up eating at such places.
Another five minute search, and here comes confirmation about egg tarts, from Asiaweek [11]
In the meantime, Asian societies are also struggling to absorb foreign tastes into their own cuisines. It's happened before. Take Hong Kong's famed egg tart. Long regarded as a traditional Chinese pastry, it actually has its origins overseas. "Hong Kong bakers borrowed the method and product from the British version of custard tarts," says Josephine Smart, a Canadian academic who specializes in Asian food. Now the import has morphed into a local cultural symbol. Just as in Japan, where curry is considered a local dish. It may be tasty, but no Indian digging into the hybrid stew would think that he was eating curry.
There you have it, it directly says that the egg tart developed in Hong Kong from British custard tarts, as if wasn't obvious enough already.
Thanks very much for that link, for it precisely explains why I feel the egg tart entry is ridiculous. Long regarded as a traditional Chinese pastry indeed, and not specifically to HK alone, even if it is famous for producing some of the finest tarts, or claims to have modified it to the present form. It is widely regarded as a Chinese food, not a HK food in particular (and that actually applies for Dim Sum as well, but oh well). And the comparison with Japanese curry just demonstrates it. Do you list Curry as a Japanese national dish just because they modified it to fit their tastes, and they consider it a local product?--Huaiwei04:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Because some of you apparantly got carried away and simply lists all kinds of popular local food, none of which carries the same overwelming notion of how Sushi is to Japan and Kimchi is to Korea. Care to comment on why this is so (and this isnt the first time I asked)?
A criteria like this is inherently subjective, but I would argue that that dim sum, milk tea, egg tart, etc are all overwhelmingly identified with Hong Kong, with you being the sole exception refusing to see it so. Dim sum is overwhelmingly associated with HK, such that dim sum resturants all around the world call themselves "HK-style", your very own country's dim sum resturants (which I listed above) hiring their top chefs from HK, people all around the world identifying Hong Kong with dim sum. Same with egg tarts, which are uniquely Hong Kong, one of Hong Kong's most well known foods because of Mr. Patten. Same with milk tea. Resturants in HK, HK-style resturants abroad (and elsewhere in China) have milk tea being one of their signature drinks, the milk tea itself having been developed in HK, the drink being one of the most consumed drinks of the population, foreign businesses such as McDonalds and Disneyland adapting their menus to include milk tea to cater to the HK populace, and so on. This drink is just as associated with Hong Kong cuisine as sushi is to Japan, perhaps even more so. Japanese resturants exist that don't serve sushi. I can't think of a single Hong Kong-style western cuisine resturant that doesn't serve milk tea.--Yuje00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If you failed to notice, I dont exactly refute the entry of Dim Sum for HK, did I (compared to my initial insistance that Dim Sum is associated more with Cantonese cuisine than HK in particular, which is still true in my books). I am willing to compromise if one just have to select a definitive dish for HK. Milk tea, egg tarts, etc, however, pales greatly in comparison. Since you have been in Singapore, have you ever tried quizzing others on where they associate these food items with? there is a far higher likelihood of people thinking of HK when they think of Dim Sum. Char siew rice? Wonton noodles? Pineaple bun?
Egg tarts invented in HK? The same egg tart is easily available in many Chinese eateries around Southeast Asia, and when I do a straw poll, hardly anyone could tell me where it "originates" from. I didnt know your governor's personal tastes have a bearing on what constitutes a national food. I wonder what Lee Hsien Loong likes now...hopefully it was not Chilli crab! :D Milk tea is freely available in every single coffeeshop and eatery outlet in Singapore, and Macdonalds serves it too. Even a Japanese chain like Mos Burger serves their tea with a option to add milk, a favourite amongst locals. So does this make milk tea a national drink for Singapore? Simply showing how prevalant something is cuts no water, for then, water would be the national drink for everyone. Its more closely associated with HK then Sushi is? Have you tried asking around in Malaysia and Singapore if they agree?--Huaiwei04:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The same article says that its regards as a traditional Chinese dish is mistaken, that it was invented in Hong Kong, and that it is a local (Hong Kong) cultural symbol. It can't be stated more clear-cut that that. "A local cultural symbol" in Hong Kong. I've told you before, shown you the Hong Kong government's claims that it's so, and now an independent newspaper confirms it. As for milk tea, Hong Kong's government says it's a Hong Kong development, China's government says it, actual published documentary films say it, the people and companies actually selling the product say it, vs. some guy named Huaiwei says it isn't (and without a single backed source). Sorry dude, no original research. And the reason why I'm not asking permission from and conducting polls among Malaysians and Singaporeans prior to making Wikipedia edits? For the simple reason that the world doesn't revolve around Singapore and Malaysia.--Yuje10:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, but a local governor's love for a particular local food = a local cultural symbol (btw he is gone. So by your logic, it is no longer so?)? If a statesman happens to like foreign food, that food becomes a local cultural symbol too? Do you have proof, that The Japanese PM's favourite food is Sushi, and apply the same logic for all entries in this article? China's government says milk tea is a HK cultural symbol, taking the state press as a known megaphone of the Beijing government to extraordinary proportions? Please get a quote from the Chinese president, or a Chinese governmental annoucement on this instead. You say I am claiming "otherwise". Actually, all I needed to do was to place your assertions into a global perspective, and tell you quote matter of factly, that your presumptions that some items are supposedly "HK cultural symbols" simply dont apply, nor does it work, even amongst the sizeable Chinese communities in other parts of the world, of which, quite unfortunately for you, refers to the Malaysians and Singaporeans who arent assimilated much into their adopted homeless, or are basically their own masters. It is only in these two places, where a rich mix of (southern) dialect communities exist. If all the food items you listed were symbols of HK, than the Cantonese communities in Singapore certainly arent giving HK much credit for it. If this happens even here, what more for the rest of the world?--Huaiwei05:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course I believe you, since all your assertions about HK food and foreign opinions on them, they are supported by which sources exactly? You're basing your entire argument against inclusion on the on the ignorance Malaysians and Singaporeans? Give me a break. Somehow, the dish's invention, place in local culture, cultural influence, and place in local cuisine is completely null if some person in Singapore is ignorant of it? And somehow, Malaysian and Singaporean opinions outweigh those of every other geographic region in the world, even on their own cuisine? Quite a nosy lot, those Singaporeans and Malaysians, aren't they? Someone notify the authorities, the United States government didn't ask Singapore for permission to use apple pie as a national dish! If that's your argument, I'd just as easily remove Hainan chicken rice, this being a ubiquitous dish in much of California (a geographic region larger in population and area than Malaysia and Singapore), and with almost none of the population, Chinese-speaking or otherwise, aware of its Nanyang origins. I'm pretty sure there are countless villagers in Bolivia who are ignorant of its status as Singapore's national dish, as well. Status in Hong Kong has already been verified, from its Hong Kong origins, to advocacy by Hong Kongers, to local government publications, national government publications, independent local press, independent foreign press, pop culture, and others.
Silly rabbit, trix are for kids. If you want anyone to believe you, you'd best provide a source, else you're vandalizing, and I will keep reverting. Have you a notable source showing otherwise? Have you a notable source on Malaysian and Singaporean public opinion on Hong Kong food? Have you a notable source on whether or not the populations of other countries in the world factor Singaporean and Malaysian public opinion into consideration before daring to take pride in their local cuisines? I demand the same level of verification and sourcing that you demanded of me. Also, drop your Singapore-centrism and realize that the world doesn't revolve around you. --Yuje07:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
If the rabbit may "speak", you are actually free to apply those theories the other way round. If you are asked what is the national dish of Singapore, what would you answer from the top of your head without checking? And for Malaysia, for instance? What do you think would be the dish most closely associated with Singaporean cuisine? That Singapore has a particular entry but not others demonstrates not just local notability, local tastes, local cultural impact, but also its reputation on the global stage. This has been my message from day one, and which you continue to reject based on your believe that "local viewpoints" take precedence over all others. Well, unfortunately, wikipedia isnt exactly your sole playground. If you want to play revert wars, be my guest.
To be honest, most people in the United States and Canada, when asked, would probably answer "Singapore chow mein" or "Singapore fried rice", even though such a dish doesn't actually exist there (except for one HK-style resturant located between Chinatown and Outram Park MRT stations). Hainanese chicken rice is ubiquitous enough in California that most people (including me) never realized its Singapore origins (I didn't till I actually started living there). Imagine the outrage in Singapore if, using your standards, this Singapore chow mein that doesn't exist in Singapore is listed as your country's entry? --Yuje09:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I would expect most brits to say Singapore noodles instead. Anyhow, you have a love for swining the extremes when analysising my statements. I clearly detailed the need to consider both local and international views. You could demonstrate this international believe of certain foods being associated with Singapore. Can you demonstrat it in Singapore, however? No. So on the flip side, if you cant show a highly popular local food isnt recognised was actually quite hesitant about the inclusion of Hainanese Chicken Rice in this list, and I wasent the one who added it. I only felt Singapore Sling qualifies as a famous beverage associated with Singapore (and I suspect some Singaporeans may disagree). This is the problem places which are literally food emporiums typically face. We cant pinpoint just what is representative of local food, and the rest of the world dont have much of a clue either. The only reason I relented in allowing Hainanese Chicken Rice to stay, is because a poll conducted by the Straits Times recently asking Singaporeans to vote for what they would consider Singapore's national dish showed that dish coming out tops overwelmingly. The same dish is being aggresively marketed around the world (even if its effects has yet to be felt), as a signature dish on Singapore Airlines, being prominently featured during the recent showcase of Singapore in London, and even come in instant pre-packed packages for sale on the international market now. There is an actual sense of govenment action in promoting this one dish (besides merely having tonnes of touristy articles or publications on local food), and that is perhaps the most striking example of just what constitudes a national dish as far as HCR and Singapore is concerned. Could you say the same for all of those dishes related to HK besides dim sum? Where is your national poll, for one?--Huaiwei10:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Heavy government and cultural promotion of listed dishes already shown (HK tourism being $10+ billion USD industry and accounting for ~40% of China's foreign tourists), linked, and listed. Hong Kong origins shown as well. All of which you seem to be ignoring.--Yuje10:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I do hope it's not anybody's communication problem. Yuje was trying to justify egg tart's status as a cultural icon by mentioning how the general public and the media respond to Patten's explicit expression of his love to the food. She/he is not saying it is a cultural icon just because a (former) political leader likes it. It's not a multilateral general consensus building process (like in the WTO) to decide whether a food is a cultural icon of a certain place. And being considered a cultural icon of a certain place doesn't mean that certain place is having sole claim to the food as a cultural icon that other place can't do the same. — Instantnood09:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
What I see, instead, is an apparant attempt in over-listing practically as many entries as possible for a certain locality, a phenomena noticable in many other similar lists, or in attempts to add hk-related entries in just about any applicable list. Shall we apply the same standards for all other entries in this list? If Japan cant claim Sashimi or Udon as their "national dish", why should HK claim something more commonly considered as general Chinese foodstuff as Egg tarts? Wikipedia, as I said before, it not an avenue for self-publicity, nor is it a scrapbook for children documenting their favourite foods.--Huaiwei10:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Two issues. Yuje has already mentioned egg tart is more a Hong Kong (or perhaps to a certain extent its environ in central southern Guangdong and Macao, i.e. the Delta) food rather than general Chinese. As for overlisting, I would expect some official guidelines or policies if that's truly a problem. I'd also wonder what constitutes overlisting.. its definition is inherently depending on POVs. — Instantnood10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
List of evidence
And just for the benefit of any readers who want a quick and dirty summary of all the sources showing the notability of those entries, here are the ones put forth so far (and I'll add more as they come):
[Discover Hong Kong] The Hong Kong's tourist promotional board, which heavily promotes Hong Kong's culture and local cuisine to tourists and lists among the notables, several of the entrees, including dim sum, milk tea, and egg tarts.
[12] Another link from Hong Kong's tourism industry promoting Hong Kong food, in this case, featuring two items: milk tea, wonton noodles
Sing Pao Daily News story on the Tai Cheong bakery which sells the famous egg tarts, which were even promoted by Hong Kong's last governor, Chris Patten
Thanks so much Yuje. I still recall in Zhuhai there were shops branding their 燒味/烧味 as 港式燒味/港式烧味, rather than 廣東/广东 or 粵式/粤式, as well as a shop named 旺角廻轉飲茶 near Ximen Station, Taipei, where it sells Hong Kong-style dim sum in steam cages on a kaiten sushi belt. — Instantnood18:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I enjoy frequenting an eatery near my workplace which sells HK cuisine, opened by a family which just migrated from HK. Based on their menu, I could not help but reflect hard on what exactly "HK milk tea" is.--Huaiwei18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Local-style restaurants in Hong Kong don't put "港式奶茶" on their menus. It's "奶茶" on menus, and everybody knows it's not the same tea one would expect from a restaurant serving European and American cuisine. — Instantnood12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and when I drank the 奶茶 they served me, I "could not help but reflect hard on what exactly "HK milk tea" is". I could get the exact same thing next door in a non-HK outlet.--Huaiwei13:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Lol oh yeah. So your personal experience counts, while that of others' dont just because they dont exactly support your POV. Enough said.--Huaiwei14:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So far nobody else on Wikipedia shares the same or similar personal experience with differentiating different tastes as you do. — Instantnood14:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Huaiwei has insisted mantou is a general Chinese food, all different kinds of baozi or bau are essentially similar that the remarkable differences among them are unimportant, and Chinese mitten crab is not a cuisine of eastern and southeastern China, but specifically Shanghai. — Instantnood11:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have difficulty trying to comprehend what you are saying. Mantou is unflavoured "buns", while Bau is basically "buns" with stuffed fillings. Or shall we just call them "flour" instead. The whole idea is these "buns" being central of Chinese cuisine is there, irrespective of which version we are refering to.--Huaiwei02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Are mantousbaozis? What about xiaolongbao? Baozi actually refers to almost anything that ends with bao in their names. — Instantnood19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What utter nonsense. Mantou is made from dough. Baozi is a more contemporary version which includes fillings into the otherwise plain dough. Xiaolongbao is a regional variant. I am sory, but are you Chinese, when something as basic as this is unknown to you?--Huaiwei12:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the lecture. I never know xiaolongbaos are also buns with fillings, like other baozis do. Are those xiaolongbaos I had in the past really authentic xiaolongbaos as according to user:Huaiwei? And, user:Huaiwei has so far not answered whether Chinese mitten crab is specific to Shanghai, or is it home to eastern and southeastern China and not Shanghai alone. — Instantnood12:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
lol! Show me how my statements indicates xiaolongbao are buns with fillings? You certainly need additional attention from your lecturers I suppose. ;) Chinese mitten crab is a famed Shanghainese cuisine dish. In the first place, the Chinese list is actually based on cuisine instead of strict geographic locality.--Huaiwei13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen people in Hangzhou eating Chinese mitten crab. So its not a dish specific to Shanghai. It should be to eastern and Southeastern China. The crab is not only to Shanghai alone, but to the region. --Terence OngTalk13:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
by this argument, you are introducing bias. Show us how Chinese mitten crab is less associated with Shanghai than Dim Sum is to HK, if "association" is to be used as criterion. I listed the entries based simply on their significance to regional cuisines. You want to list them based on your personal perceived notion of significance. Pretty obvious I have less need to verify than you.--Huaiwei14:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Few people in Hong Kong, where many of the crabs are exported around late autumn every year, would have associated it with Shanghai. It's more likely associated with Lake Yangqing (阳澄湖/陽澄湖). — Instantnood13:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So this time, Hong Konger's viewpoints count, while that of Singaporeans dont when discussing other food items?--Huaiwei14:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not merely a viewpoint, and this is not the only evidence. Your personal experience is not necessarily a true representative of a significant number of Singaporeans. — Instantnood14:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Xiaolongbaos are not baozi. They are dumplings. Agreed, people associate Dim Sum with Hong Kong more than Guangdong though it is of Guangdong origin. --Terence OngTalk14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparantly there is no definitive argument over whether it is a bao or a dumpling. No matter, for is it relevant to this discussion anyway?--Huaiwei14:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And rice was added as Greater China's national dish? Is there anything erroneous in arguing that various forms of Mantou/Baozi are found in most parts of China and for a long time in Chinese culinary history and social culture, enough to earn it a definitive place in Chinese cuisine on par with rice and noodles?--Huaiwei11:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit Wars
This does not concern me, and I'm sorry for coming into this discussion. I would really appericiate kindness and peace here. You may like to take a look here. --Terence OngTalk17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I have to reiterate the point that no one is claiming the term is commonly used beyond economic and business contexts. You attempted to remove it on the presumption that it was never used in that context, thus entailing its removal. The fact is it is used in some way or other, and it is not considered improper to use it here too. Meanwhile, do you have any evidence to show the term is not commonly used beyond economic and business contexts?-Huaiwei11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Deletion?
I have been thinking long and hard over this list, and the underlying problems resulting in months of disputes, particularly over the Chinese entries. It is becoming rather apparant, that this list is developing into one based more on assumed entries instead of verifiable fact. The vast majority of entries here are actually simply the most well known or dominant food in a country or locality, given the obscure term "national dish" when few countries have ever legislated such an entity for their respective countries. And it is precisely this issue which has allowed some individuals to overwelm this page with all kinds of entries which are more representative of a local cuisine than fitting the tag of a "national dish". Is there much justification to keep this article than, unless a major revamp is done, or with the article renamed to simply reflect significant dishes by cuisine/location?--Huaiwei15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this should be deleted, a major revamp can be cone to this article. Maybe we should get sources from Tourism websites or anywhere to have evidence than having disputes. Can't think of a name to change it, but maybe we should change it since not many countries don't have a national dish and some are unofficial. Renaming it is the last resort in my opinion. --Terence Ong15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
A national dish is not neccesarily defined by a tourism brouchure, for if that is the case, most countries here will be listing countles entries. "not many countries don't have a national dish and some are unofficial"? Actually most countries do not have a formalised "national dish" so to speak. Meanwhile, you have not exactly stated your reason for disagreeing with a deletion.--Huaiwei16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
He does have a point, even if there has been no conclusive end to the HK debate. There is a reason why HK has no National flag, no National emblem, no National anthem, etc. This is the reason why the Chinese entries were actually presented as "regional dishes" rather than "national" ones.--Huaiwei05:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Usage of inferred sources
It does appear that User:Yuje continues to attempt in adding food and drink which has never been designated as a national dish in any reputable text, based on nothing more then inferred sources. From sources saying its a "favourite" food of a former governer, documentaries saying its a drink "invented" in HK, to even a stamp depicting milk tea. This continued practise is still a matter of original research so long that non of them specifically identifies these foods as national dishes.--Huaiwei14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The documentary says both on the text and in the show: "「絲襪奶茶」可以說是香港的一大特色但究竟為什麼會被稱為絲襪奶茶呢?". Translated: "Silk stocking milk tea is one of Hong Kong's major special features/characteristics, but why is it called "silk stocking tea", and then talks about its development in Hong Kong. If you want to criticize me for "nonreputable texts", let me ask you: How many have you added? I see you adding countless entries. I see not a single text, source, justification, or indeed, edit summary for you when you added your sources. --Yuje15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
My conduct doesnt vindicate similar actions by others. I did advance the notion of removing the entire list, including my own, considering the problems I point out above applies to the vast majority of entries here. What do you have to say about this proposal? You have apparantly ignored this proposal in the past.
The documentary you just cited once again demonstrates a perfect example of inferred sources. Highlighting that sentence dosent seem to contribute anything new here.--Huaiwei15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
National dish ≠ regional dish
Why are separate dishes being listed here by region under the different countries? Sfacets 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hong Kong tea culture stamp - Hong Kong milk tea.jpg
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
really typical is "Pea Soup with large Frankfurter" (german: "Erbsensuppe mit Bockwürstchen"), because its the typical German-army meal and for hard worker. Everybody in germany like it.
Currently there is debate whether chilli crab, laksa and hainanese chicken rice belong to either Singapore or Malaysia due to recent comments by Malaysia's tourism minister. As she said there will be an investigation to prove so or otherwise [15], I've reverted the food in contention to the version prior to her comments pending the results of the investigation.
"natural"?
"It is usually something that is naturally made or popular in that country."
I don't know what this rather important introductory sentence is referring to: what does "naturally made" mean? I suggest an alternative wording (if someone can explain what it means), or deletion.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Explanation of national dish is weak
I think that if this article is to remain in Wikipedia, it is absolutely essential that the concept of national dish is put into a historical and social context. In its current form, the reader has no idea about what it really means for a dish to be "national" except for what is in the very short and vague introduction. This would seem to be much more important than a list of foods for each country, since once the concept of a national dish is defined, individuals can make their own judgements about whether a particular food is a national dish of a certain country. As an aside, much of the argumentation on this discussion page at the moment is about whether or not one particular nation can claim a particular dish as "their own", which is frankly ridiculous. I propose that a discussion thread about what constitutes a "national dish" is the best way forward to improving this article.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is still not going anywhere without some proper discussion about what a national dish is. According to the current "definition", pretty much anything could be included. I still think that rather than being just a list of highly dubious "national dishes", this article should be far more concerned with the concept of the national dish.Jimjamjak (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If it can't be defined, it has no place in an encyclopaedia. I don't buy the argument (in the discussion on deletion) that because it couldn't practically be included in a traditional paper encyclopaedia, that makes it a candidate for an online one. I see no way that an acceptable definition can be established. For example, many of the dishes cited are regional, but this is far from the only problem 121.99.142.248 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty Funny
For Russia I was surprised to find tea amidst kvas and vodka. I think the maker/editor/s of the page forget to add "tea- but with a little vodka added"!!!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.245.247 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced
Are those proposing re-adding the unreferenced list of information planing to put any work into improving and citing it ? Gnevin (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that there is such a thing as a de jure national dish, certainly if there is it will be limited to a handful of countries at most. O Fenian (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The only ref here that supports the claim being made is Crepes and that needs more sources. When I have time I will review more Gnevin (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Too many recent addition of national dishs are unreferenced, too many "citation need" signs, should we start to delete the unreferenced ones? (Gunkarta (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)).
I agree with that. It was more of an attempt by Robin Cook to make some political points about social policy to say that it is a national dish. If Chinese fried rice or spaghetti bolognese suddenly become the most popular dish in the UK, it wouldn't make them a national dish. It doesn't qualify, therefore deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.9.201 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't help at all. The sources say Robin Cook claimed that it is a national dish, that doesn't make it a national dish. Hzh (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
We should also note that the claim was made in the run-up to the national election, it was specifically done to push for a point of view. Accepting it to be true would mean accepting political polemics as fact, which would violate Wikipedia's principle of staying neutral as well as not stating an opinion as fact. Hzh (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
It's good to be careful. I sympathize with what I think is your dissatisfaction with the article's vague criteria, but it is not good to apply your own subjective judgment and simply assert: "it doesn't make it a national dish." It also is not good to apply this subjective judgment to only one of the dishes on the list, many of which do not have any source at all.
Again, CTM meets the admittedly vague criterion at the head of the list: "a list of some foods that have been suggested to be national dishes." This says nothing about motives, campaign rhetoric, or who is a qualified suggester.
OK, let's now leave Cook out of it -- too many Cooks spoil the British national dish. Google search hits for British national dish, that is, without mentioning CTM, show that almost all of them mention TCM. That is, Cook may have started the idea, but it now is well established.ch (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The first one that isn't wikipedia or about Robin Cook says here - "some argue it is possibly Chicken Tikka Masala which is now Britain's true national dish." Does "some argue" sound like it is a generally accepted opinion? Or this one - "And does it deserve the moniker and right of place as Britain's National Dish?" Again it is questioning this claim. A blogger a two might claim that it is so, but it is not generally accepted to be true. You will find all kinds of claims of other food as national dish of one country or another, but that would not necessarily make it true. Hzh (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, please forgive me: I put in the wrong link when I said a Google search without too many Cooks. The hits for BND without "Cook" are here. A similar Cookless search of Google/Books British national dish, that is, without searching for CTM, on the first page finds only references to CTM.
But let's remember what we are discussing, that is, has anyone "suggested" CTM as a BND. That is, not "the" national dish, but one of them. I agree that this criterion is vague, but the whole concept is vague, as explained in the lead. The concept is not at base a culinary one, that is, it is not based on how delicious, nutritious, or historical the dish is. In the US there are officially designated national birds and national flowers, but there is no official national dish, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no official national dish in the UK. So if we allow "fish and chips" on the basis of a blog, a travel book, and a general history (which I don't have access to), then it's only reasonable to use the same level of evidence for CTM. You are right that Cook was speaking as a politician, but the concept is largely political. Again, Cook aside, the Google Book search establishes that CTM has at the very least met the criterion: it has been "suggested." The other searches go beyond the basic criterion to show that the suggestion has been taken up.ch (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
PS the Heston Blumenthal, In Search of Total Perfection reference is actually to p. 205, where he says Fish & Chips "has virtually become the national dish." Which is fine by me. Would you accept it? ch (talk)
This is not about mere suggestion, it requires some consensus. There is a a broad consensus that fish and chips is quintessentially British, and there are few who would question its inclusion as a national dish. There is simply no dispute about fish and chips. There is however no such consensus for Chicken Tikka Masala, there are plenty of websites that question its status as a national dish. I checked Google books and most appear to discuss it in terms of Robin Cook's assertion. It is just one person's opinion, since when has Wikipedia taken one person's opinion as fact? Hzh (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not "mere" suggestion, since "suggestion" is precisely the stated criterion for the list. I still do not accept that Cook's "suggestion" is not acceptable, especially since it was widely accepted. But, again, OK: There are many books which do not cite Cook, such as here, here, and here. Those are pretty good, but these are dispositive. One is a book by the same author who is used as a source for F&C, the other a recent scholarly publication from a major university press:
Heston Blumenthal, Further Adventures in Search of Perfection: CTM's "ascent to the status of British national dish" p. 100
“now that Indian food is, in the early twenty-first century, the most popular food in Britain (at least where opinion polls about public dining are concerned), and chicken tikka masala the British national dish…” Roy, Parama (2010). Alimentary Tracts: Appetites, Aversions, and the Postcolonial. Durham N.C.: Duke University Press. ISBN9780822347880. p. 3
It is used by people who want to push a particular social narrative, just following Robin Cook's footstep. That some people want to claim it is a national dish does not make it so, and has no real meaning because there is no consensus. Consensus is an important criteria. People make the claim about Chicken Tikka Masala because it suits their own political and social agenda, and that agenda is still disputed. The strong political and social bias of the claim (it's basically an argument about the nature of British society and how it should develop) should disqualify it from being considered.
That claim is anyway essentially ephemeral, here you'd find it claim that "Chinese stir-fry has now replaced chicken tikka masala as Britain’s favourite dish". Would that make Chinese stir fry a British national dish? Hell no. We have all these changing food trends, from Chicken Kiev to spaghetti Bolognese, that don't make them British national dishes. I don't even remember the last time I had Chicken Tikka Masala, even though I do buy a lot of Indian meals. Read some of the other discussions here on food in other countries, and you'd find books that make claim for particular dish as national dish that is not generally accepted to be true. Hzh (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if you can find reliable sources that say that Chicken Kiev and spaghetti are national dishes, you should include them. I will support you when you find those sources, just as I expect you to support CTM in light of the sources listed above.ch (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not about reliable sources. Reliable sources can be wrong, we should not put everything into Wikepedia just because some sources say so, otherwise you'd find plenty of contradictory information everywhere. In this instance this is about an opinion, and here are making a judgement as to whether the opinion warrant inclusion here. Since this list doesn't give qualification to information included, stating that it is a national dish would make it sound like a fact when there is no consensus that it is so. Hzh (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all this time and concern, hzh, but we seem to be at an impasse, and maybe we should ask for a WP:THIRDOPINION, though perhaps you have a better suggestion.
In preparation, here is my summary of the arguments on either side. Does this seem fair to you?
History
“Chicken Tikka Masala” (CTM) has been included as a British National Dish (BND) in the list of National dishes in this article since at least December 2006. The reference has been removed by Hzh a number of times over at least the last five years, then restored by other editors. Most recently CTM was removed here with the edit comment “a bit of nonsense came up by a politician during election time and now it is taken as fact by some people”; CTM was then put back on the list with the comment “chicken tikka masala; better reference; see Talk Page,” then removed with the comment “Just because someone claim it is doesn't make it so, especially when it was done as polemics during election time.”
Reference
The lead says: “A national dish is a culinary dish that is strongly associated with a particular country…. Furthermore, because national dishes are so interwoven in a nation's sense of identity, strong emotions and conflicts can arise when trying to choose a country's national dish.”
The section heading for the list of national dishes says: “This is not a definitive list of national dishes, but rather a list of some foods that have been suggested to be national dishes.”
The arguments in favor of keeping CTM on the list include
The burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to add or retain a fact. There are a great many reliable sources that CTM meets the criterion of being “suggested” as a national dish and a great many that is considered one. In addition to the Google searches above, a sample includes this, and this, and New World Encyclopedia which says “Chicken Tikka Masala is often hailed as 'Britain's national dish.”
That CTM was “suggested” as a BND by Robin Cook, a prominent figure. Even if we were to first concede that his motives were political (see below) and then assume that there is a way to designate a ND without getting political (which there is not), it is still true that he “suggested” CTM as a national dish and that his suggestion was endorsed by a wide variety of reliable sources, as shown in the Google searches above.
CTM as ND can be sourced to two reliable sources chosen from many possible ones: this, and this. But these are not so good as Lozada, Eriberto P (2011). "Understanding Contemporary Asia through Food"(PDF). Education About Asia. 16 (3): 1–8.. Heston Blumenthal, Further Adventures in Search of Perfection: CTM's "ascent to the status of British national dish" p. 100 or “now that Indian food is, in the early twenty-first century, the most popular food in Britain (at least where opinion polls about public dining are concerned), and chicken tikka masala the British national dish…” Roy, Parama (2010). Alimentary Tracts: Appetites, Aversions, and the Postcolonial. Durham N.C.: Duke University Press. ISBN9780822347880. p. 3
Other considerations: the article concerns “National dish,” which is not a well-defined concept. To remove CTM would be to apply criteria to it which are not applied to other dishes, which would violate of WP:DUEWEIGHT.
It is very true that there is opposition in the UK to CTM as a ND, as, for instance, explained in Jo Monroe, Star of India: The Spicy Adventures of Curry (Wiley: 2005 ISBN9780470091883) pp. 136-137. Monroe writes: “While it is undoubtedly a British institution, can we really be sure that is the national dish?” But 1) March does not deny it, only questions it and reports on why some people are skeptical. 2) More important, it is not part of the criterion whether CTM is “the” national dish (Monroe’s term), only whether it has been suggested as “a” national dish. In any case, I thank Hzh for finding this reference, which I have added to the article Chicken tikka masala.
No consensus in the UK? There is also not consensus (in the sense that there is no doubt or opposition) in home countries to other dishes on the list; there is no stated requirement that this sort of home country consensus is needed; and in most countries there is no mechanism for designating an official ND in any case. The list requires only that the dish be “suggested,” not that it even be most popular. I agree with Hzh that a “suggestion” should not be that of only one person or one group, but the Google searches establish that there is substantial support for it as a BND.
I do not favor opening the gates to any and all famous dishes. I would join Hzh in opposing the listing of dishes if there is no set of reliable sources suggesting them as national dishes.
Hzh suggests the criterion: “There is a broad consensus that fish and chips is quintessentially British, and there are few who would question its inclusion as a national dish. There is simply no dispute about fish and chips.” CTM is also “quintessentially British.”
The list of dishes for United Kingdom now includes only “Fish and chips,” which is referenced by Smith’s Encyclopedia (which says nothing of it’s being a national dish), Frommer’s travel guide; and a blog. The book by Heston Blumenthal has a sequel which calls CTM a “national dish.”
There is also a background question: Is there in fact any such thing as “a national dish”?
The arguments in favor of removing CTM from the list include
Robin Cook is a “politician who is pushing a social agenda.”
There is “no consensus in the United Kingdom” that CTM is a national dish.
“A blogger or two might claim that it is so, but it is not generally accepted to be true.”
“It is just one person's opinion, since when has Wikipedia taken one person's opinion as fact?”
“People make the claim about Chicken Tikka Masala because it suits their own political and social agenda, and that agenda is still disputed. The strong political and social bias of the claim (it's basically an argument about the nature of British society and how it should develop) should disqualify it from being considered.”
“The claim is essentially ephemeral. Other dishes are more popular. “We have all these changing food trends, from Chicken Kiev to spaghetti Bolognese, that don't make them British national dishes. I don't even remember the last time I had Chicken Tikka Masala.”
“This is not about reliable sources. Reliable sources can be wrong, we should not put everything into Wikepedia just because some sources say so, otherwise you'd find plenty of contradictory information everywhere. In this instance this is about an opinion, and here are making a judgement as to whether the opinion warrant inclusion here.”
How come India is missing from the list? I'm not Indian, so I don't know hot to fill this up myself (Nan bread? Chicken Tika? Tika Masala? Chai Masala? Samoussa? I don't know).
Actually, India is included here. It says that India has no officially designated national dish, that there is a referral to regional dishes with highly-associated dishes to each region, and that the closest to a national dish are various types of curry, especially butter chicken, rajma and dal (lentil) curries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.20.37 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Malaysian national dish
I'm not quite sure why people would insist on putting Nasi Dagang or Nasi Kerabu as a national dish. Neither of them can be considered national dish, even though you can get them in other parts of Malaysia, they are primarily famous regional dishes. The fact that one cite for Nasi Kerabu is from a web site called nasikerabu.com (hardly an independent source) does not suggest an unbiased viewpoint, while the other cite doesn't even mentioned Nasi Kerabu as a national dish (it merely says it is a favorite). That source also says Char Kway Teow is a national dish, which is also odd, so I'm not sure how trustworthy that source can be.
Dishes like Nasi Lemak and Satay are pretty much ubiquitous, and the great majority of Malaysians, if not all, would have eaten them, but the same thing cannot be said for Nasi Dagang and Nasi Kerabu (I'd say that a very significant number of Malaysians have never tasted Nasi Kerabu before). Whether Laksa is a national dish or not is debatable (I personally don't mind its inclusion), although one source given for that actually undermines its claim - it says that "Assam Laksa or Asam Laksa really ought to be Malaysia’s national dish", implying that it is not generally considered a national dish. There are plenty of dishes that people would like to claim to be national dishes, but you really need some kind of general consensus that it is actually one. Few for example would dispute that Nasi Lemak is a national dish (try googling "Malaysian national dish", and the overwhelming majority says Nasi Lemak), but I doubt there would be many who would consider Nasi Dagang and Nasi Kerabu national dishes. Hzh (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just for reference, here are the search results from Google Books, using search terms "malaysia national dish" and the particular dish (although search results might show many, most of them are irrelevant) -
Nasi Kerabu [16] (66 results, none says it is the national dish)
Nasi Dagang [17] (56 results, none says it is the national dish)
Nasi Lemak [18] (370 results, numerous state that it is the national dish, e.g. here, here and here)
Satay [19] (774 search results, although the great majority are not relevant, there are still many that say it is the national dish, here, here and here). Hzh (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that the person used a source that is not unbiased, and is also dubious in its content here, for example claiming that there is such as a thing as an official national dish of Malaysia. I have never heard of it, although that doesn't mean it is not true, it does need a better source than that. And if it is indeed an official national dish, you should find plenty of sources, but so far it is hard to find any other source for it. Hzh (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Also that there are plenty of claims for other dishes as a national dish, we can't include them all just because some websites or books claim that they are national dishes -
If people care to look, there are probably more that have been claimed to be Malaysia's national dishes. Many websites make claims, that does not make it true. Hzh (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Everyone here in Indonesia I think would not object that Malaysian national dish is Nasi Lemak and Laksa, although here in Indonesia we do have Nasi Lemak variants to in Riau Islands also Laksa regional recipe in Jakarta and Bogor, but Satay? I think it is more Indonesian than Malaysian or Thailand. As evidence in myriad satay recipes across Indonesian archipelago. The Satay article also pointed out its Javanese origin an more sources pointed out its Indonesian national dish status The Guardian, CNN and BBC. Plus the photography evidence of Satay seller from Dutch East Indies period. Satay seller in Klaten Java, circa 1870. Quoted source from NYT: "The national dish of Malaysia is satay. It has no official designation, and a few bothersome folks insist that it is actually Indonesian, and that you can find it anywhere in the region." notes that it has no official designation. In Indonesia we sees national dish as the dish that transcends the ethnics and cultural boundaries of Indonesian ethnicities, which means a type of dish that have myriad variants across nation among our people, sate and soto fits this description pretty well. Although we do have Nasi Lemak and Laksa variants too, I think Indonesians will never claim them as our national dishes, given they are not widespread in Indonesia (only considered as regional dishes) and far more prevalent in Malaysia. But Satay is definitely Indonesian.Gunkartatalk10:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think none of the dishes have official designation as Malaysia's national dish, not even Nasi Lemak, even though it is often claimed to be one. Also that if Satay is Indonesian it would not preclude it from being a Malaysian national dish since both people are closely related. People in Singapore for example would claim some popular Malaysian dishes as their national dish (Hainan Chicken Rice, Laksa, Chili Crab, etc.), and their origins are also disputed, see for example here. I think the point is that there are many sources for the claim that Satay is a national dish in Malaysia (you can find some the sources given above, more than you can find for Laksa), so there is a consensus that it is considered one of the national dishes of Malaysia. Hzh (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This again? I thought we are already way past the debate back in 2009 when the Malaysian Toursim Minister Ng Yen Yen tried to lay claim to a whole slew of dishes, to the disbelief of the other neighbouring countries.... [20][21]. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I hope it is clear from what I wrote that the fact there is a counterclaim does not preclude Singapore from declaring a dish as their national dish. Ditto for Satay and Malaysia. Hzh (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Granted there are counterclaims about, but for specific cases like Chilli Crab, considering that the Singapore creator actually voiced voiced out and explained its history, with no one to provide a credible counter-claim - unless we want to go into giving credibility to some generic anonymous/political claims as more credible.... Zhanzhao (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There are those who claimed that Chili Crab was invented in Port Klang - here. This discussion however is not about Chili Crab, it is merely an example of competing claims (for example, Bak Kut Teh is claimed to have been invented in both Klang and Singapore), so we are going off-topic discussing it. The issue here is about a user who kept adding Nasi Kerabu as a Malaysian national dish without good sources (the only source making the claim is dubious and not considered a reliable source). Hzh (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hzh, we're actually on the same page here regarding the validity of what constitutes as reliable sources. I was using Chilli Crab as an example to prove the point because the sources available and given FOR Singapore being the creator include CNN which quoted the actual creator, while counterclaim example you posted, is that of a blogger making an off-hand comment that it was created in Malaysia (the referenced book only mentions it was popular in Port Klang, without noting its origin). Pretty obvious, between CNN and the blog, which one would pass RSS. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Apple Pie
How can apple pie be a national dish of the USA? It fits none of the 3 criteria in the article. Apples are not exotic of course, and it is not prepared in a unique way or part of the cultural heritage, given that it is an English dish. <Karlww (contribs|talk)13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Bacon sandwich
Do we have any better sources for this being considered a national dish of the United Kingdom than the preamble to a Guardian recipe page where Felicity Cloake asks "Is the humble bacon sandwich the nation's favourite dish?" Cloake considers it a "bona fide national institution" which "unites the country", finding it "impossible to imagine any other dish which so reliably raises the national spirits". But she also considers its ingredients to be a "holy trinity" and paints a florid picture of the "church of brown sauce" fighting against the "disciples of toast" or something, so it's hard to know how much she's simply being dramatic to liven up a recipe for a sandwich. I assume we need more than an opinion piece for this kind of list? --McGeddon (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National dish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on National dish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National dish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Why does the citation (112) for Pierogis being a national dish for Poland talk about Bigos, a Sauerkraut/Vegetable/Meat dish? Where is evidence Pierogis are a Polish national dish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.246.8 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on National dish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on National dish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 9 external links on National dish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@AngusWOOF:Thanks for your concern. I would start to address your concern by saying that national drinks can be non-alcoholic. Examples include Coca-Cola for the US, boba/bubble tead for Taiwan, mango lassi for India, Thai iced tea for Thailand, etc. Second, alcoholic national drinks are often mixed, like caipirinhas in Brazil. Caipirinhas do include the national liquor of rum (cachaca), but also include lime and sugar. The "List of national liquors" page only includes base liquors, and so I feel there's ample justification for creating a Draft:National drinks page. In some cases, though, the base liquor will be the same as the national drink, such as vodka in Russia. I think it's OK to have a little/some overlap between national liquors and national drinks. BrieDeChevre (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
BrieDeChevre, are there websites or news articles of official national non-alcoholic/non-liquor drinks? Only official ones should be noted, not just what is popular. If it's going to be mostly liquors then it's going to be a content fork WP:CFORK of the liquored drinks, and then you might as well only list the non-liquored drinks in your table and rename it List of national non-liquor drinks. But as far as I see, they only list liquors, like these lists: [22][23][24] Business Insider has some non-alcoholic drinks [25] Food and Wine calls them officialish drinks [26] Daily Meal calls them "signature drinks" [27] So another option is to rename liquors to national drinks, and indicate which ones are non-alcoholic but classified as national. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: The references need not be specific lists. An article like the one at hand can cite sources that concern a specific drink, not a listing of several drinks. Is there a forum, that this issue can be addressed in? Specifically, one dealing with new article submissions. I don't see how the issue relates to this talk page. Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Regions within a country are not nations, thus signature dishes of these regions cannot be national dishes. It is not a surprise that there's no sources claiming these dishes to be national dishes. These entries thus need to be deleted, which of course does not impede anyone to describe them in detail in the respective national cuisine article. Kind regards, Grueslayer08:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Grueslayer: I was meaning to reply to this but I see that the material has already been reinstated. I agree with that reinstatement on the grounds that nation ≠ nation state. Our article defines nation as a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture; similar definitions can be found in most dictionaries, including the OED: A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. One obvious example of a nation within a nation state is the case of Québec, despite it being a province within the Canadian nation state, the Québécois are widely recognized as being "a nation within a united Canada". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Article removal
From this article a lot of dishes has been removed quite unnecessarily. Two of the removed dishes were commented that those were a drink rather than a dish - but the removed 2 items, not one of them was a drink, one of them is a barbecue, Puerco asado, and the other one was Yuca con mojo.Well Yuca con mojo is a Central American and Caribbean side dish made by marinading yuca root (cassava).
These facts are not controversial, but quite well know undisputed dishes. Please do not mass-remove every dish that doesn’t have a citation, just add a citation if indeed is needed and somebody will find those sources. Here,[28] this starts again. And also, some things removed were actually sourced. Hafspajen (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to remove those, WP:PRESERVE. This is not a not controversial topic, and references can be found. Before removing ANYTHING - make sure that there is no such reference for it you can find yourself. Otherwise it is just disruptive editing ->Wikipedia:Disruptive editing forcing other people to start working to find references, when the removed things have been just quite alright. Like why remove Pavlova ?Hafspajen (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
^Vicky B. Bartlet (17 December 2011). "Palmonas: Make 'buko' juice as national drink". Business Mirror. Retrieved 26 January 2012. In his House Resolution 1887, Agham (Science) Party-list Rep. Angelo Palmones said the Philippines has already a number of national symbols, such as narra as national tree, sampaguita as national flower, mango as national fruit, milkfish as national fish and lechon (roast pig) as national dish.[dead link]
^Penelope Paliani-Kamanga (29-03-2012). [VISITING BERLIN? TRY DÖNER KEBAB "For Germans, a Kebab Filled With Social Significance"]. The Maravi Post. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
I am sorry if you somehow feel distressed that I removed a lot of entries which I see as superflous or simply nonsensical. To give you an example, someone added an entry for a "chicken fillet roll", and the article in question does not even discuss anything about it being a "national dish" for the Irish. Ok, to tell you the truth, I spent hours googling up some of the more questionable additions to the article to fact check. Sometimes, I find a good source like the NY Times piece about the cultural significance of the empanada to the Chileans. Most of the time however, what I found are dubious claims made by people on their personal blogs (which under wikipedia policy is not considered a reliable source): not articles written by journalists, not culinary figures or experts discussing a particular national cuisine, not even politicians who extol the virtues of a particular dish as important to their national identities.
The goal, my goal at least, is to eventually include a credible source with just about every entry on this page. Some of the entries which are currently unsourced, is very unlikely to receive objections by anyone who knows anything about the cuisine of that nation and thus it is lower on the priority scale (like pavlova, which if you look closely, I did not remove). Compare to countries with national dishes which are more contentious in nature (e.g. Israel and its Arab neighbours claiming hummus, or Australia and New Zealand claiming pavlova) or simply does not officially recognize a national dish although its citizens might debate at length as to what their unofficial national dishes are. It is perfectly acceptable then for a country to have multiple "national dishes", but it becomes ridiculous when the list runs up to what, 7 or 8 entries.
And why should the onus be on other editors to slave away elsewhere and use up all their time just to find citations for entries you yourself want to keep? Basically it comes to this. You want an entry to stay, or you want to make a contribution? Go find a credible source yourself. Or it may be challenged or even removed from the page. Please note that removal from the page does not include deleting the articles themselves. Yuca con mojo still exists as a page and yes apparently its quite popular. I was involved with this page a long time ago. Some of the citations, a few of them have became dead links by now due to the passage of time, were the results of the time and energy myself and other editors have spent researching and looking for accurate information years ago. This page eventually became unwieldy because other editors, too many of them in fact, came by made up stuff as they go and almost always without referencing; this is not the way to go if this page is to become respectable. So someone did a mass cleanup and it's taken the form it now has today. It's too much for any one person to do, digging up respectable references for every single entry. If you want to help or contribute, you're welcome to do that, but please don't get in my way or others when there are editors who are simply trying to clean up and improve the article. If you have an objection or a different opinion, I'm happy to discuss it here. Haleth (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Sounds nice, in a way. Could you pleas add those back and I will try to find sources and we can work together on it. Now it is not there any more.
And some of it was like, do we really need to remove that? like Pavlova, that is widely know to be New Zealand national dish.Wikipedia:Verifiability states that any material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source using an inline citation. It doesn't mean that everything needs to be challenged, rather uncontroversial facts don't necessarily need a citation. But OK, here is maybe something. [30]Hafspajen (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you please discuss why did you think those food items needed to be removed? Why do you want to challenge them? Do you think thry were controversial or why? Hafspajen (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with you, both nasi lemak and and satay can be found all over Malaysia compared to nasi dagang and kerabu. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
