Talk:Buddha's delight

Celery?

Some Cantonese folks told me that Chinese celery is used in Buddha's delight. Is that correct? How about bean sprouts? Badagnani 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Other ingredients?

How about cloud ears and red jujubes? Badagnani 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about lotus root (ou)? Badagnani 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about other types of mushrooms beside shiitake, such as straw mushrooms or oyster mushrooms? Badagnani 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And how about shrimp and eggs? I found recipes online calling for shrimp and quail eggs. Badagnani 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about bok choy and dried or fried tofu?

I think in general people just put what vegetarian ingredients are around into Buddah's delight. If you buy the canned versions though, it usually contains, carrots, bamboo shoots, black ear fungus, fried gluten, rolled yuba, and mushrooms. Sjschen 04:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rice vermicelli

Can rice vermicelli be substituted for the cellophane noodles? Most recipes I have found say that cellophane noodles (fen si) should be used, but one or two recipes state that rice vermicelli could be substituted. Badagnani 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Other ingredients

Wow, a lot of questions about ingredients. Here's what I have seen in my experience:

• Yes - cloud ear fungus, jujubes, lotus root, bok choy, fried tofu, tofu skin, nappa cabbage, wheat gluten, black mushrooms, fat choy, ginkgo nuts, cellophane noodles, lily buds, dried oysters (breaks the vegetarian motif), water chestnuts, bamboo shoots, lotus seeds, bamboo piths.
• No - Chinese celery, bean sprouts, other types of mushrooms, carrots, snow peas, definitely NOT shrimp nor eggs (the dish is meant to be vegetarian).
• Don't Know - rice vermicelli vs. mung-bean cellophane noodles, arrowhead

It's probably true that every cook has their own recipe, I'm just listing what I have seen in restaurants and in people's homes. Dyl 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Three mushrooms, six ears

Can this be explained? 三菇六耳 This phrase appears in this Chinese article. Badagnani 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This (from this site) might help: " 用香菇、草菇、银耳、榆耳、桂花耳、竹荪、鲜莲子、白菌、银针（绿豆芽）、笋等蒸 "

10 / 18 / 35 ingredients

Can someone help translate what it says here in Chinese about the relative auspiciousness of having 10, 18, or 35 ingredients? Badagnani 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Please discuss recent changes here before implementing. We've already done extensive searching on Chinese-language websites about this (as well as English-language usage and spellings) and some of the information just deleted is correct and factual. Badagnani 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. It got moved into the template? Zaai is the pinyin, jai is the yale. Even in the wiktionary page for the character [[1]], it tells you the exact same thing. Jaai is yale. Benjwong 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Zaai" is not a possible hanyu pinyin spelling. Badagnani 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also do you need to revert all the changes at once? That seems quite excessive. Benjwong 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

羅漢菜 luohan coi is really not correct. 齋菜 is correct, but that's already in the buddhist cuisine page and accurately describe it. Benjwong 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot was deleted, and should be discussed first. "Luohan cai" may be wrong, but the term does appear as an alternate name for the dish in the Chinese-language sources. We really did work hard on this one. Badagnani 02:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect. I am not saying you didn't work hard. Believe me, I know you did. But the overwhelming number of software and websites showing the pinyin tells me there are incorrect info. And you are dictator-ing this page pretty bad. And I don't know why? Benjwong 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to use that sort of language. I do maintain, and the evidence is here, that "zaai" is not a possible spelling in Hanyu pinyin. Other issues, we can work out here as well. We have worked well together by "putting our heads together" on other articles and I have not objected to edits that you convinced me were accurate and improved the article, but the changes here (such as saying that it's commonly called "zaai" when the English sources use the spelling "jai") and the other deletions weren't good. Badagnani 03:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok why don't I put the template back and you can change all the zaai to jai, since this is the English wikipedia. Seems simple enough. I didn't mean any direct language, but it seems really strange that we are wiping out the entire template and more.... over a preferred spelling. Benjwong 03:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I also didn't understand why you were changing the hanzi for this dish name as well, because I thought we had them all totally accurate. Badagnani 03:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You just made all the same deletions again, without discussing first, as I'd asked THREE times. That's really bad. Badagnani 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What deletion??? "Luohan cai"??? Benjwong 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be best if you do a refresh on your browser. You must be seeing different things. Every z spelling has pretty muched changed to j. Luohan cai is the only thing deleted since it is bad. It should be used in the context of describing cai like a cuisine, as in shanghai cai, beijing cai. Benjwong 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. You removed several references without discussing first. If you don't even realize you've done it, that alone is proof of your failure to work with others before blanking their carefully checked text. Please restore the text and discuss here first, as I had asked THREE times, thanks. Deletions visible here. Badagnani 03:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Every page that I have been repairing today move the info from the main page itself to the template. This article is no different. With the exception of Luohan cai, nothing else was deleted. I have said that before politely. It is best if you tell me exactly what piece of info is completely gone and deleted from the article. Benjwong 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

This is supposedly a B-level article about food, but it's missing one essential component - the photo. Without a photo of what this looks like, nobody reading this who is new to this dish can even visualize what it looks like. Jon914 08:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this article, along with thousands of others, had its images deleted within the last few months due to a licensing crackdown.[2]. —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dried oysters, shrimp and oyster sauce?

funny sort of "vegetarians" they have in China. --217.43.206.250 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They are definitely listed in some recipes. Gandhi once sternly lectured to a group of Burmese (Theravada) Buddhists, saying that they weren't serious Buddhists if they ate meat and seafood. However, Burmese Buddhist fisherman claim they are simply "saving the fish from drowning." Never underestimate humans' ability to rationalize. Badagnani (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two "versions" of Buddha's delight: 1- the original vegetarian Buddhist delight which would exclude all non-vegetables (such as oysters, shrimp and oyster sauce) and pungent seasonings (such as garlic, leeks, onions, chives, etc.,) 2- the popular Buddhist delight that may or may not be entirely vegetarian and may or may not include the pungent seasonings. (BTW, there is such an ingredient as vegetarian oyster sauce.) A statement referring to the two existing versions of Buddha's delight would clear up some of this confusion. ShiHua (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As a native Hong-konger, I can say that the non-vegetarian ingredients listed on this page come from a different dish, Poon choi (盆菜). Poon-choi is commonly consumed as an auspicious dish during the Chinese New Year celebrations. The confusion arises because Poon-choi is prepared by the mixing of many cooked dishes (each prepared according to their individual recipes; the central theme is soy-sauce flavoring). One of the "component" of Poon-choi happens to be the soy-sauce flavored version of Buddha's Delight; hence the confusion. Other components of poon-choi contain a lot of meat (pork, chicken and duck) and seafood (such as oysters, abalones, prawns - some high-end variants might contain shark's fin.) Poon-choi is never considered a vegetarian preparation unless it is specifically labeled otherwise. 75.142.100.72 (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Removals

When editing in the future, try not to remove huge areas of text from an article without consensus, as in this edit. Even more important is to avoid WP:STALK, which is an important and fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Second request

When editing in the future, try not to remove huge areas of text from an article without consensus, as in this edit. Even more important is to avoid WP:STALK, which is an important and fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Third request

When editing in the future, try not to remove huge areas of text from an article without consensus, as in this edit. Even more important is to avoid WP:STALK, which is an important and fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth request

When editing in the future, try not to remove huge areas of text from an article without consensus, as in this edit. Even more important is to avoid WP:STALK, which is an important and fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is called cleanup. Now please stop with these nonsensical accusations. I'm just trying to fix articles up, and I haven't even LOOKED at your contribs list in the past few days. Your accusation is completely unfair as you obviously have just clicked the Undo button for every single edit I made to a Chinese cuisine article regardless of what I edited. It seems you are being hypocritical here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern here, GraYoshi2x, is the external links you removed, which were being used in the absence of references, and the ingredients material you deleted. This is not "cleanup" by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Which bits of WP:V and WP:NOR are unclear here? Much, if not most, of this article is unsourced, and fair game for removal - or at least moving to the Talk page to work on sourcing. It is not harassment to expect compliance with core policies, or to look across multiple articles where an editor is showing a consistent pattern of policy violations.

It is, incidentally, not difficult to find cookbook sources for Buddha's Delight (see Google Books). The ingredients list needs trimming to only what is verifiable in identified sources; anything else is OR. 86.155.204.56 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran), using actual print cookbooks (in both Chinese and English) as well as multiple Internet sources (in both Chinese and English). No ingredient in the list was added without having appeared in these sources. Badagnani (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran)

Irrelevant. Citing sources is mandatory for anything beyond the generally known, and being a Wikipedia veteran doesn't absolve anyone from that. 86.155.204.56 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has been tagged, and we are waiting for input from the food and drink project. Repeated harassment from the usual IP suspects isn't helping. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The repeated, insistent, and aggressive removal of huge amounts of text was and is not helpful to the article, and the article itself was located via WP:STALK (a violation of Wikipedia policy). Kindly do not remove huge amounts of essential text from any WP article again without engaging in thoughtful, considered discussion, and reaching consensus to do so. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that the old Wikipedia way of doing things, such as using a list of general sources without inline references, is no longer applicable. Am I right in assuming that you are hankering after those Golden Years? Could this be the source of some of the conflict here? Remember, things are done differently these days. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? I did mention that I didn't add anything to this article (such as the various vegetable ingredients that are used in it) without having found it through careful research. At that time I didn't think it would be necessary to have a tiny reference number for every single ingredient. But that can of course be done. Badagnani (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. I don't mean to be rude, but rather somewhat blunt: Can you do it before another account shows up to edit war over unreferenced tags and starts removing material that lacks sources again? Does that sound reasonable? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding references, Badagnani. I have added the {{refimprove}} tag back in because I still think we need more sources. I will attempt to help out in the coming days. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise, Badagni: that's all anyone wants over this sourcing point. Two of the sources would need improving, though: www.taste.com.au and ginkgopages.blogspot.com. One's user-submitted, the other a personal blog, so these are not up to WP:RS. 86.139.229.74 (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language

I don't understand why we need anything but English in the list of ingredients. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons. First, many of the ingredients have names that Chinese people believe to sound auspiciously like other phrases related to luck, money, etc.; secondly, because not every ingredient has its own WP article; thirdly, to facilitate searching and finding references for this subject in Chinese (something very important when building an article on a Chinese cuisine item); and finally, to be as encyclopedic as possible. Badagnani (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how we write food and drink articles. Can you find someone to back you up on this or find a relevant source? Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From experience, writing articles on Chinese dishes does involve looking to Chinese-language sources. Often English-language sources get things wrong or only cover 10% of the topic. In creating this article I consulted innumerable recipes for this dish, both in print cookbooks as well as online. In order to search for Chinese-only websites, one must search for the dish name as well as ingredients, using Chinese characters. This actually facilitates future searching in order to improve the article even more. Thus, the inclusion of the Chinese names for the ingredients, in this case (though often not, in the case of other articles on Chinese dishes) proved very important and helpful, in finding more recipes for different versions of the dish. Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Can you show me any GA or FA food and drink articles that use this format? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would offer one rationale for keeping the foreign (Chinese) scripts on this article, as an interim mitigation measure. Currently, the two Chinese editions of these article (in Written Chinese and in Cantonese respectively) are both stubs, despite the popularity of the dish. Unless the situation on those two editions improves, it will be helpful to keep these foreign scripts on this article so that other Wikipedians can use them as a research aid. However, from an editing standpoint, the bilingual cross-reference need not be hosted on the main English article - it can be hosted anywhere, as long as (1) that alternative location is clearly linked from the article, (2) that alternative location is also freely-editable, in the spirit of Wikipedia, so that nobody can claim monopolistic control over the the cross-reference. 75.142.100.72 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Buddha's delight. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.fjnet.com/ryzy/ryzrcq/t20041010_2029.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buddha's delight. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217032040/http://www.killerplants.com:80/herbal-folklore/20050207.asp to http://www.killerplants.com/herbal-folklore/20050207.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210040452/http://news.fjnet.com/ryzy/ryzrcq/t20041010_2029.htm to http://news.fjnet.com/ryzy/ryzrcq/t20041010_2029.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)