Talk:Hong Kong-style Western cuisine

I guess translitering as "western cuisine" rather than "American cuisine" would be more accurate. It is not just American, but also European and other western (to the west of China) and even Japanese / Korean elements. Would anyone consider a move of the article? -- December 9, 2003, UTC


 * I agree. It's a more accurate translation. Dyl 01:57, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed as "Chinese-style western cuisine", because this dish is not exactly confined to HK, and does have its rich history in Singapore (and Malaysia) too?--Huaiwei 07:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Perhaps the Singapore style can be a separate article.  港式西餐 is a name used widely in Hong Kong, and North America (in US and Canada's Chinese community.  I heard that even in Taiwan, it is called the same name) and it is displayed on the restaurant window to advertize to the customers what cuisine the restaurant serves. It has historical influence from the British colonization, and hence it is NOT generic Chinese style, it is Hong Kong style. If Singapore and Malaysia developed similar cuisine, there should be enough differences to warrant its own article.  For example, Vietnam was a French colony and you can still find many "Almost French" restaurants run by Vietnamese people in the US. This Vietnamese-style French cuisine should not be lumped together with other French cuisine.  Likewise, Hong Kong style western cuisine should not be renamed.  67.117.82.1 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree either. From my experience with Singaporean Hainanese food, it's not the same as HK food. Probably better to remove the link and write a seperate article about overseas Hainanese food than merging two traditions to the detriment of both. --Yuje 12:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * But we are not comparing "Singaporean Hainanese" food with "HK" food. Contemporary "Western Food" in Singapore has already evolved beyond merely being Hainanese, particularly with Teochew influences seeping in now. I do hope, for instance, that you are not assuming Hainanese chicken rice is a Hainanese dish despite its name?--Huaiwei 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize that Nanyang Hainanese food developed in Southeast Asia and not Hainan, which is why I didn't simply call it Hainanese food. What I meant is that the type of resturant described in the linked article isn't exactly the same as HK food. Confusing the issue also is that Singapore also has a lot of actual western food (not suprising considering the amount of westerners there). --Yuje 14:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would expect differences to exist, since the various cuisines seems to have developed quite distinctively from each other. But what do you think of an overal page to describe all Western-influenced Chinese food? Of coz..."actual" western food isnt in the picture.--Huaiwei 14:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As you've already suggested, they developed quite distinctively from each other. In my opinion we should work on an article for the Hainanese style first, before addressing the necessity of an article to generally discuss the several variants. &mdash; Instantnood 19:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * (response to 67.117.82.1's message at 19:24, August 10 2005) Hmmm...but it is also precisely the influence of British colonisation which produced Chinese-style Western food in Singapore, historically whipped up by Chinese of Hainanese decent in Singapore for their western masters. I believe the "Chinese" in Singapore and the "Chinese" in Hong Kong still belong to one ethnic group: Chinese. The Vietnamese analogy isnt exactly comparable, since I am not asking for this article to be merged together with western food. Rather, I see similar circumstances which created western-influenced Chiense food, and it might be great to have an article to discuss various forms of these dishes before branching into seperate discussions for each. How about retaining this page, and created one called Chinese-style western cuisine, and the having subpages like this one linked from it?--Huaiwei 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
Shouldn't "Western" be capitalized? --Dpr 04:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine?
So..the inevitable question comes...is this a cuisine?--Huaiwei 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What else would it be, a collective mass hallucination? A figment of your imagination?
 * No...a figment of the authors' imaginations, if we are to take your comment seriously. Why is there a resistance to accepting the existance of Cuisine of Hong Kong, yet an elevation of this into cuisine status?--Huaiwei 05:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's like the difference between "French language" and "languages in France". &mdash; Instantnood 17:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Languages? Cuisine = languages, even thou the former is moulded into local tastes, while the later essentially remains the same? Seriously, could you pick a more relevant analogy?--Huaiwei 03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles like French cuisine, Portuguese cuisine are classified by genre, although at most time it's stick with geography, considering the geographical limitations for centuries. Articles such as cuisine of Hong Kong talk about the food in certain places. Each of these articles does not necessarily focus on one genre. &mdash; Instantnood 09:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And so you are floating right back to another discourse yet again. Since when are you in the position to decide that "French cuisine" is a genre while "HK cuisine" is not? You are a world gourmet chief? A bananaman? Or a Frenchman lost somewhere in HK and turning your nose up at the food around you?--Huaiwei 14:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I consider calling others "banana" is a quite humiliating insult; that's obviously racial discrimination. Mind your words please. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * lol! I consider myself a bananaman too even thou I am Singaporean. So what if you think it is an insult? I dont give a damn about that, and I am still awaiting your delightfully knowledgeable replies.--Huaiwei 15:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please remember ATTACK when commenting. As for whether this is 'cuisine' or not, I think it is the best translation there is for 'chaan' to English.  novacatz 15:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ATTACK is only relevant if there is ample evidence that a personal attack is taking place. Is bananaman considered demeaning in this context? I will be pretty harsh on myself then, dont you think? 餐 is not neccesarily cuisine, the later of which connotes quite a different meaning. It means a meal or even food in general as well, so why use an obviously misleading term?--Huaiwei 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I do indeed see a trend here, this discussion very closely parallels Talk:Kung hei fat choi... enochlau (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh my! In what way, dear Enoch?--Huaiwei 17:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sai chaan
This article has been edited back and forth, around the term sai chaan. User:Alanmak thinks that there is no such term in English, and hence should be removed, whereas I find no problem to use a non-English term if italicised. So far there is no valid and reasonable argument justifying why a literal translation is so superior to a transliteration, that the transliterated variant cannot even be included and must be removed from the article. &mdash; Instantnood 17:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * and nobody cares, because it's not used by english speakers. SchmuckyTheCat 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be italicised, but with the (transliterated version) in brackets, Werdna648T/C\@ 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would you agree with the earlier version ? &mdash; Instantnood 14:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As a Westerner who visited both Hong Kong and Singapore last year Sai chaan means nothing to me. Hong Kong-style western cuisine is clunky but it conveys the idea. It's better than Hong Kong-style American cuisine because some dishes such as oxtail soup are very rare in the United States (except for tony East Coast hotels where one needs a French-English dictionary to order dinner). I don't see anything particularly wrong with sai chaan if it remains in italics and includes a descriptive definition. English is an inclusive language that welcomes new phrases - so long as this is the preferred terminology among locals in Hong Kong. BTW, I enjoyed the meals! Best wishes. Durova 00:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Glad to hear you enjoyed it.  Would you agree with the earlier version  of the article? &mdash; Instantnood 12:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were to use the Google test, with 24 hits suggests that it isn't really a term that is used; I'm quite happy with the version of the page that leaves out sai chaan, for it does include the Chinese characters with the pronunciation, so someone curious can still find out how residents of Hong Kong would say it. enochlau (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But then Hong Kong-style western cuisine is merely a description. It's not the name that anybody would call it . I've no comment towards what should be the title of the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to prefer Hong Kong-style western cuisine to a transliterated name for use within the article. &mdash; Instantnood 08:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem here, is descriptive titles arent always appriopriate for particular nouns, such as in this case, where people automatically assume it is the proper English name of the said dish. Hence my question of why this is called "cuisine" as thou it is the only known English reference to it, when chaan dosent neccesarily = cuisine. (unfortunately, some folks seem to think I am debating on the very existance of these dishes instead)--Huaiwei 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"sai chaan" is a neologism not used anywhere outside wikipedia/mirrors. This page should not have been moved. i see no consensus here to do so. i will move the page back unless there's a good reason not to.--Jiang 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And the same applies to "Hong Kong-style Western cuisine", which is a wikipedian self-construction.--Huaiwei 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

still more non-wikipedia references than "sai chaan". is there a better (not worse) alternative? --Jiang
 * Explain, then, the large number of instances in which the above phrase appears in non capital letters, suggesting this is hardly a proper noun. I would like to know how it came to be decided on capitalising this article as thou it is an accepted terminology in widespread usage? Both versions turns up a puny number of entries. Surely this means an alternative should be found, or is this dish devoid of an English name (or its existance as a "dictinct cuisine"?)--Huaiwei 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

yes, sai chaan is hardly a proper noun. i don't get your question. i'm not claiming it is. --Jiang 10:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to the old problem: Why is it inappropriate to say sai chaan (italicised) in the article, and any occurance of it must be removed? There's no academically proven absolute advantage with literal translations over pronunciation approximations. &mdash; Instantnood 16:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cha Chaan Teng
I removed the reference that Hong Kong style Western cuisine is served in Cha Chaan Tengs, because it just... isn't.  Even if you look at the Cha Chaan Teng wiki entry, the food listed there is not the same as the description of the dishes in this entry. Hong Qi Gong 18:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many cha chaan tengs do serve sai chaan. &mdash; Instantnood 19:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some dishes they serve are derived from western dishes. But the easiest qualifier is this:  do people go to a cha chan tang for sai chaan?  The answer is no.  To me, the defining thing about sai chaan or "Hong Kong-style Western cuisine" is the soup they serve and the fact that the main course is always on a plate and always eatened with a fork and knife.  Most of the food you eat at a cha chan tang, you eat with chopsticks.  Hong Qi Gong 20:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cha chaan teng actually refers to a pretty broad variety of restaurants, food served at these restaurants differ greatly. Some restaurants do exhibit many specific elements of cha chaan tengs, yet are mainly serving sai chaan. &mdash; Instantnood 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're qualifying "Hong Kong-style Western cuisine" as sai chaan, then I insist that we don't reference cha chaan tang. Simply because nobody goes to a cha chaan tang to have sai chaan.  They go to a sai chaan restaurant to have sai chaan, to eat their "red or white" soup, and to have a steak with fork and knives.  Hong Qi Gong 15:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And many of these sai chaan restaurants are in many ways qualified as cha chaan tengs. And sai chaan are served, tho not exclusively, at a lot of cha chaan tengs. &mdash; Instantnood 16:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, we must be going to different cha chaan tangs then, because the ones I've been to are nothing like the restaurants that people go to for sai chaan. :-P   Hong Qi Gong 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * :-P &mdash; Instantnood 17:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Romanizations
Removed zhuyin for the same reason given at Talk:District_Council_of_Hong_Kong. It is neither the original Chinese script nor a romanization system And according to Manual of Style (China-related articles), it is not necessary to repeat Chinese characters twice where they do not differ.--Jiang 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Cater to Chinese North Americans?
Are there actually any sources that claim that Hong Kong style Western cuisine catered to the taste of Chinese North Americans? If not, I'm going to delete that reference from the article. Why was it there in the first place? Hong Qi Gong 05:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Need more sources!
We need more sources for this article! Especially ones about the history of the subject matter. We might have to search for Chinese-language sources. Right now we only have one very short article and I don't think it's very informative. I doubt its accuracy, also. Hong Qi Gong 05:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
This page is not getting the proper attention. I am proposing this page become a redirect page to Cuisine of Hong Kong. The history will be kept. And if need be, we can expand the western cuisine to here. Until then, I am proposing a merge. Benjwong 05:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this page is not getting "proper attention". The information contained herein is sufficient to stand on its own as an article. There is no need to merge as "Hong Kong-style Western cuisine" is a distinct cuisine among the cuisines of Hong Kong. --Jiang 07:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Cuisine of Hong Kong? This page is not even distinguishing chaan and cuisine. Have you checked the reference links? How does sample san francisco hk-style food menu, which is essentially US chinese food get mixed up with Hong Kong's western style cuisine? Are you reading this page at all? The intro paragraphs are misleading enough. Unless the cuisine of Hong Kong page splits into a western styles and eastern styles page, I see absolutely no reason to keep this. At the moment, you are basically in favor of keeping misleading info around. Why would you not merge, when proper attention and info has already been provided elsewhere? Benjwong 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 餐=cuisine. Am I missing something? The Cuisine of Hong Kong is already too long. Use of Summary style means that details should go into this article. And not everything in this article has been replicated there.


 * I really don't see the distinction between the two sections of this article. This article should be reverted to what it was before someone tried to split it. If there's something wrong with this article, then let's edit it. That alone is not a justification for merge. see also article size--Jiang 04:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Chaan = meal. Cuisine = style of dishes.  The street terms are ok if you are discussing loosely.  By encyclopedia standard it is not the same.  Like I mentioned earlier, if anything is too long... is the eastern-cuisine section, which should have its own page instead. Keeping this page around adds confusion.  Benjwong 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion is here. If anything, it is a case to improve this article, not detroy it. We dont wait for things to become too long to split them into articles. We start articles that are not long enough and encourage people to expand on the topic.--Jiang 04:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)