Talk:Wok

Stuff
What is the device used for stiring contents of wok called?
 * Are you looking for the word spatula? Actually professional chefs use a metal ladle instead of a spatula.  See the two pictures in the article.  The more professional stir frying (with flames) on the top is done with a ladle. The bottom picture is more homey with a spatula. The professional chefs do not rely on the spatula to pry the food off the bottom of the wok, they flip the wok upward and catch the food with a ladle before it falls down again.  The ladle is used to scoop up ingredients, seasoning, oil, water etc. before throwing into the stir.  Kowloonese 02:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

i would like some history about the wok. what is it made of?


 * This issue is now addressed in the text of this article.

what is the point of 'seasoning' a wok?


 * Also now addressed in the text of this article.

Hmmmm ... don't you think the detailed instructions on seasoning a wok are rather excessive? While useful information it sort of goes beyond the bounds of an encyclopedia article. Jberkus 05:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see a missing part in materials: brass. Brass woks were historically important and are still widely used today.

Wok for Huo, not for Guo
The word "wok" comes from Cantonese pronounciation of Chinese Character 镬, which reads Huo4 in Mandarin. "Guo1", which mentioned in the article, is the Mandarin pronouciation of 锅, not of 镬. I mean, they are different. The explanation in the article seems irreal.


 * Obviously Huo and Guo are two different Chinese writings and pronunciations. The English word "Wok" is based on the Cantonese word 镬.  镬 is not commonly used in Mandarin, the same item is called 锅 in Mandarin.  In Cantonese usage, 锅 (Wor) means a pot, not a wok.  In my opinion, the Chinese word 锅 does not belong to this English article because this term is not originated from Mandarin, so only the Cantonese term is native and relevant to this article.  In the Chinese wikipedia, it would be okay to include both 锅 and 镬 because they are both Chinese dialect.


 * Some people believe that Cantonese preserves many old usages of the Chinese language. I remember my highschool Chinese teacher once said, Cantonese is very literary because of several factors: 1. In ancient time, a lot of well educated government officials were exciled to various frontiers when the emporer was in a bad mood or after a power struggle in the empirial court.  2. When these officials were exciled North or West, they usually died quickly because of the harsh conditions of the tundra or desert. But those lucky ones who were exciled to the south like Canton or Vietnam etc. would survive very well.  These officials educated the local "southern barbarians" and their knowledge and a snap shot of the Chinese knowledge was preserved in the south.  It is true that both the southern and northern Chinese language usage had their separate developments and they diverged greatly over the ages.  Come to think of it, Mandarin is a very young language.  Bai Hua Wen was only standardized to the Chinese people for roughly one century.  Some legends said Cantonese was one of the candidates to become the official Chinese language.  Who is to say which is the gold standard for the long legacy of the original Chinese language???  Kowloonese 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * These legends about the Cantonese language are just that; unsubstantiated myths and legends. To say that Cantonese was one of the candidates to become the official Chinese language is a distortion of what actually happened. The debate was between Mandarin and Wu dialects, and it was about promoting a standard pronunciation. There are more Wu speakers than Cantonese, and Mandarin speakers outnumber Cantonese speakers ten to one. All the current Chinese dialects today developed from Old and Middle Chinese, and are different to languages spoken hundreds of years ago.


 * Standard Mandarin (Putonghua/Guoyu) is a 20th Century development, but it is based on the Beijing variety of the Mandarin dialects, and can be traced back to at least to the Yuan Dynasty. LDHan 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chinese word 锅 Guo simply means a cooking pot, some examples of such usage include vacuum pot, flat bottom pan used in Guo Te, Nabemono, 火鍋 and 砂鍋 etc. do not resemble the wok. And of course, a Wok fits into the same Guo 鍋 category too.  The wok is one kind of guo. The statement about Cantonese Wok being the same as Mandarin Guo is incorrect, in the same way that "human being is the same as animal".  Kowloonese 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right, the word "wok" does come from the Cantonese pronounciation of 镬, ie 镬 is used to mean "wok" in Cantonese. However 镬 in Standard Mandarin is huo4 and according to my Chinese character dictionary (Xinhua Zidian)it means: "Wok" (the object) in Standard Mandarin is chao3cai4guo1 炒菜锅, not 锅 guō. 锅 guō in Standard Mandarin just means a cooking pan or pot in general. So I think the intro needs rewriting: LDHan 10:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1, (regional/local usage) cooking pan or pot
 * 2, large type of cauldron (ding) used in ancient times, often used for killing people
 * 镬 should not have Standard Mandarin pronounciation, as 镬 to mean "wok" is a regional/local usage
 * Standard Mandarin chao3cai4guo1 炒菜锅 should be mentioned as the Standard Mandarin word for the item
 * The sentence The Chinese character 鑊 is identical to 鍋 (guō (in Mandarin), wo1 (in Cantonese)) according to Chinese linguistic research. seems to be wrong and should be removed.
 * I agree on removing the erroneous sentence about Wok and Guo are the same. However, I am not too sure about bring Mandarin into this article.  The only reason why the native text 镬 is brought into this article is because it is the origin of the English word "Wok".  The information about 炒菜锅 and any Mandarin specific terminology could be part of the zh.wikipedia article, but they may or may not be useful to the English article.  See my user page regarding my opinion on using native text in English article, I strongly believe they are absolutely necessary especically for title terms of the articles, but I also strongly believe they should not be overused. There is a fine line between what is considered native or not.  Arguably Cantonese is native to this topic, but Mandarin is not when Mandarin speakers don't even use the word "wok" to describe the same thing. Kowloonese 20:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree Cantonese should be mentioned as the origin the the English word "wok".


 * But as this article is about the item not the word "wok", Cantonese is not "native" to it. The item is used all over China, it was not invented in or is exclusive to Guangdong or Hong Kong, well it’s actually used in other countries as well:-) I think it’s helpful to mention the standard Mandarin Chinese name as it would help Chinese learners precisely because wok comes from a regional Chinese word. They might see that wok comes from "wok6" (镬) and mistakely assume that "huo4" (镬) is the word for wok in Standard Mandarin, when in fact chao3cai4guo1 (炒菜锅) is. It seems the current confusion in the article might be because of this misunderstanding.


 * I think in discussions about Chinese language/dialects, particulary ones involving Cantonese, it can be misleading and inaccurate to use the term Mandarin speakers to mean non-Cantonese speaking Chinese or mainland Chinese, there are tens of million Cantonese speakers in Guangdong who speak Mandarin perfectly well. Nearly everyone in mainland China is a Mandarin speaker, but they also speak Shanghai, Shandong, Yunan, Hunan, Guangdong etc dialects. Many westerners are under the mistaken impression that there two Chinese languages; Mandarin and Cantonese, and that Mandarin is spoken in mainland China and Cantonese in Hong Kong, partly from from this use of Mandarin speakers.


 * Here's suggestion for the intro:


 * The wok is a versatile round-bottomed cooking utensil used especially in East Asia and Southeast Asia. The word "wok" comes from the Cantonese Chinese word for the item: "wok6" (鑊) (Standard Mandarin uses a different word: chao3cai4guo1 (炒菜锅)).


 * LDHan 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have amended the intro with the above. LDHan 21:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "wok" is an entirely Western concept. "Wok" just means "pan" or "pot", not the stereotypical "Chinese pan". Western pots and pans would be also called "wok" in Chinese. People just took the Chinese word for something different in English. --2.245.216.226 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Guo1 and chao3cai4guo1
In Standard Mandarin chao3cai4guo1 means wok, guo1 is any pan/pot in general. Obviously the wok can be refered to as guo1 as a shorthand when it is clear what type of guo refered to, just as frying pan can be refered to as "pan" eg “turn down the heat or the food will stick to the pan”, but “pan” and “frying pan” are not the names of the frying pan. LDHan 16:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know and I agree, but saying guo1 is not just a shorthand. Most chinese families have one main "cooking container", which is the wok and refer to it as gou1zi4 or guo1. I would go so far as to say that guo1 is to pots/pans as saying rou4 is to meat. Saying 锅 alone usually (if not always) refers to the chinese wok. It is only if you are referring to other types of pot/pan that you clarify it with extra words. Just like nu2rou4 -> beef and yang2rou4 -> lamb, with pots and pans you have 珐琅生铁锅 refering to frech style cast iron pots or 砂鍋 refering to the clay cooking pots. I just thought that the common reference should sit next to the more specific reference, and that both should be there. Sjschen 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have to do a bit more "research" (ask a few people) about the use of "guo1", but"zi3" 子 as a suffix is always "zi", neutral tone, in pinyin the neutral tone is always indicated, so it should be eg "gūozi" (锅子), "zhuōzi" (desk), "dízi" (flute) etc. LDHan 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that the sound type of 子 has always been a bit of an ambiguous issue. Everybody pronounces it differently, as you know from the extensive discussions in Talk:Standard Mandarin about similar matters. In this case I'll you be the judge since you seem to be more knowledgeable when it comes to sounds and stuff :) Sjschen 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked a few of my Chinese friends about the suffix 子 here. They tell me guozi is not correct, just guo is enough. My friends are from Hubei province and speak putonghua, so I tend to think they are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.208.44 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

wok history
Can anyone add something about the history of the wok? - Cybergoth 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The first use of the wok was to make kadhai murgh afghani, and thus means that the wok is originally not of chinese origin, yet of afghan origin, after which it was adopted by the chinese.

Note: I read this in a cooking book, yet did not found any confirmation on the net

Cantonese wok slang
- Cybergoth 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "dai wok" = literally "a big wok", a situation too tricky to handle
 * "seen wok" = "sliding the wok" or "passing the buck"
 * These Cantonese slangs evolved from 孭鑊 (read as 咩鑊) which originally came from the equivalent Chinese saying 背黑鍋. The bigger it is, the bigger the trouble.  Kowloonese 01:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That said. What is the origin of the term 背黑鍋? Some says carrying a wok makes someone like like a turtle (which is insulting).  However being a turtle seems unrelated to being a scapegoat. Kowloonese 20:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

wok as a swear word
I reverted that edit because I could not find a reference to "wok" as a substitute for swear words. Cybergoth 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wok is indeed a sexual slang word in Hong Kong Cantonese. I have heard its usage personally back in the 1970. It is unknown if the slang still survives nowadays. See  in Chinese. The translation of this article said that one early reference of this slang usage came from a rape criminal case in Hong Kong's court of law in the 1950's.  During the testimony in court, the witness used the term 開鑊 "open the wok" to describe sexual intercourse where wok refers to the female genitalia.  The "quote" was of course publicized in the media.  It was unlikely that the witness invented a new slang on the spot.  This reference only illustrated one documented usage of the slang, but not the origin of the slang.  Kowloonese 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wok hei merge
Wok hei should be merged into this article. They are about the same thing and the wok hei article isn't much by itself. 71.250.60.232 13:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good idea since wok hei is the taste and essence imparted by a good hot stir-fry, and the wok is the thing that allows wok hay to be "released". The two are different concepts, and so merging is not a good idea. However, some cleanup is definitely in order. Sjschen 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pit" stove
Chinese restaurants use a special stove which have a raised lip where the wok is placed and a burner located a good 4-6 inches below the lip in a large opening. I don't know what to call it except a "pit stove". Does anyone know the formal name? Sjschen 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

History section needed
We desperately need a History section for the Wok article. Anyone know where to find the info? Sjschen 04:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Headings and Subheadings
WRT recent removal of subheadings - long expanses of unbroken text are hard to read on screen, something noted by the Guide to layout. That document does warn against single sentence paragraphs, and againt single short paragraphs being their own subsection, but this was not the case with this article. Please don't create style by fiat. FiveRings 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was exactly the case in this article. Subheadings for every paragraph. I don't regard four-sentence paragraphs as being overly long. Chris Cunningham 13:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't four-sentence paragraphs. It's four-paragraph sections. If an unbroken text section is longer than a laptop screen (which these are) it's too long. FiveRings 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in this particular case the best solution would be to remove or move some of the cruft / construction information from those sections so that they're shorter. There's quite a bit of room for improvement there, and that would keep us both happy :) As for resolution, isn't the rule based on 1024x768? Chris Cunningham 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking of bolding the relevant word at the beginning of the individual paragraph - this would break up the page without the heading stretch, and would match the format of the pots and pans page. Not sure about editing - would have to see what was taken out. Is there a reference page for the browser ratio? FiveRings 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising (link to Viking product page)
The article contains a link to as a citation for the statement that "Some high-end stoves now include a specially designed wok ring as part of their standard or special, optional equipment". This actually is quite a nice way of advertising through Wikipedia. I think we should get rid of it.

If it is really true and notable that 'some high-end stoves now include a specially designed wok ring', it should should be easy to find a source which doesn't have a commercial interest in being listed here; in other words, one that doesn't have a huge "add to shopping cart" button. If such a source cannot be found, I doubt the notability of the innovation. In any case, I think the current link should be removed. &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd think! Bizarrely, I've actually got one of these high-end cookers (and a lovely piece of equipment it is, too), and yet it seems that there's no information anywhere online about them which doesn't involve selling them. Chris Cunningham 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I put in that link, and I have no connection to viking whatsoever. I chose it because it was the *least* obtrusive information on the product. FiveRings 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I believe you; I wasn't saying they added it themselves, or had someone add the link for them. I'm just saying that I don't think it belongs here anyway. If this special wok ring can only be found on a few sites that sell it as a proprietary extension to their own stuff, it's not notable and shouldn't be included. At least that's my reasoning. We really should avoid blatantly commercial links like that. &mdash; mark &#9998; 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh. I think the general point that accessories are sold which adapt Western stoves to wok use is worth including, and we're better having a poor ref than none at all. Doesn't HowStuffWorks have a bit on this? That's at least one step removed from direct product advertising. Chris Cunningham 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a minor point, but there shouldn't be a commercial link to a company website whether the article mentions it or not, it's not something that needs a reference. LDHan 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a minor point. Thanks anyway for agreeing that there shouldn't be a commercial link. &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Repetitions
Hi ! I like your paper. Only thing is that your introduction is nearly identical with your conclusions. jmak 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement on Using Woks on Certain Techniques
I have noticed not a few people, chiefly Westerners with minimal exposures to Chinese cuisine, claim that the Chinese way of deep frying and braising, using woks, is a bad idea because for deep frying, "Deep fryers generally have a larger capacity, and (assuming equal heating capacity) much better heat recovery because of the volume of oil (and the thickness of the cast iron, if done stove-top). ...woks use less oil...means less heat recovery. Low heat recovery means the oils cools quickly when you drop in the food, and food absorbs much more oil at lower temperatures ... resulting in oily food. Woks are, by definition, highly responsive to heat changes ... which is diametrically the opposite of what you want for frying, where heat retention and even heat distribution, is KING.", and for braising, "Classic braising requires a low pot with a tight fitting lid that can fit in the oven...". (Both taken from negative reviews by Westerners to Grace Young's The Breath of a Wok on Amazon.com). Western cuisine have specific deep frying pans for deep frying, and for braising I understand a pan is utilized to brown the ingredients first, and then transferred to a Dutch oven or a casserole dish and done in an oven.

The Western charges are never quite properly defended by Chinese cooks anywhere. Could someone post this snippet of information of Western complaints on using wok on the main article? Thanks. --JNZ 09:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the culinary world the wok is the one-size-fits-all cookware, something that is indispensable in the home kitchen. In that sense it is a very good generalist in that it does many thing rather well; deep frying and braising included. But as with all generalist, it cannot compete with things that are specialized for certain tasks. To the extent of heat retention and distribution, the larger oil capacity and temperature regulation of certain deep fryers do beat woks. But the sweeping criticism assumes two things; that only small woks are used for deep frying and that limited oil is used. A good sized home wok can easily hold a gallon of cooking oil and that amount of oil easily retains heat for good deep frying. That said, many Chinese restaurants do in fact use deep-fryers and limit the use of the wok to stir-frying and braising.


 * On the other hand, the criticisms to the wok's evenness of heat distribution, the lack of fitting lids, and their ill-suitedness for braising, are to put lightly, flawed. The wok distributes heat quite well and makes a good compromise to heat retention. As well ,there certainly are lids that fit woks nice and tightly, at least as good as most crock-pots. But fact is this, the long "classic braising" (> 1hr) done in the sense of Western cooking, in classic Chinese cooking is typically done using ceramics and porcelain vessels, not woks. For relatively short periods of braising (~20min) the wok is perfectly suited.


 * As for noting the required use of tight fitting lids in braising, these people need to become more informed in the culinary theory before speaking. Good braising allows for constant (albeit not too fast) dissipation of cooking liquids. If you seal the cooking vessel it's NO LONGER BRAISING, rather it becomes something called "stewing". It should be noted that Thomas Keller, chef of The French Laundry (to my knowledge the only 3-Michelin star winning restaurant in the US) even goes so far as to abandon the lid in braising, electing to use a circle of cut and fold parchment paper to cover the braising food.


 * So yes, woks are not necessarily the best thing out there for all cooking tasks. But really, when it comes done to culinary needs of most cooks (braising, stir-frying, sauteeing, pan frying, deep-frying, steaming, smoking, etc...) it more than suffices. Sjschen 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sport
wok is used for sport in Germany! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.79.75 (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

different terms for wok
should be in the article. there is no valid reason to not support searching for those terms. It is common in wikipedia to include other names for things, particularly when they are of foreign origin. FiveRings (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is particularly common for articles on East Asian culture in the English Wikipedia to contain exhaustive lists of terminology used throughout the region, but that's just because it's easy to add cruft to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a translation service, and half the terms given don't even point to this article. Please have a read at Manual of Style (Use of Chinese Language) and supporting material; non-English terminology should be used sparingly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone else has added the names back in, so clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this is relevant. I looked up the other terms, and only two didn't do the right thing (pop into search with wok as one of the results - often the only one). Those two are now fixed. If terms were sprinkled throughout the article I think we would have a "sparingly" problem. Not here. FiveRings (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with leaving it in if there's no consensus to remove it, but I'll certainly bring the issue back up if more trivia is added to that section. It is exceedingly unlikely that people will search Wikipedia for romanisations of random East Asian names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I frequently come across terms in recipes that I don't know, and I typically look them up in google or on wikipedia. Envision someone finding instructions to cook their ingredients in a kawali - this is the scenario I'm trying to support. As for the bold/italic/quotes issue, bolding helps in a fast visual scan, and is typically used for alternate names - look at Peanut or Dreidel. At the very least, it should be consistent. FiveRings (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of those intros are particularly good examples. They could both do with some extensive cleanups. I'm happy for all the alternative names to be italicised, but not bolded. They are minority terms with almost zero usage in English. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove "history" section
The current "history" section is no such thing. On casual reading you could get the impression that there were no woks before 1990. This is more a "trivia" section than anything else, and it's unsubstantiated. I think it should be removed, and I'll do so next time I come by unless somebody objects. Groogle (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. We very much need a history section, but the current version is probably counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommend an External Link
Chinese cooking skill with wok (video)

This link has good information about an important skill in doing stir-frying with wok, which is to wave the wok up and turn the food materials up side down as a whole. It is illustrated with video in the link. (Riyue (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Need a better picture
The top picture would be a great illustration for a hoak article, but it basically sucks as a lead illustration for the topic. You can't even see the wok in the pic! While I do like the idea of a "wok in action" subject for the lead pic, it must first clearly show a wok. Perhaps an 'in action' pic just won't be able to do that. Dmforcier (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Is anything in commons:Category:Wok an obvious choice for lead image, or should we search flickr for good CC shots to import? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for video of cooking noodles in a wok
I would suggest adding a video of using a wok for cooking.

I'm involved with the non-profit Global Lives Project, which has 30 seconds of video footage of a rural Chinese chef boiling noodles in a wok. Here is the detailed footage, in which you can find the noodles segment near the 3/4 mark of the video. The full video can be edited down to feature just that segment. -FefeGong (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wok. 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/20111021043753/http://www.wokhei.com/about.html to http://www.wokhei.com/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Asian Pans, India
This section currently contains the sentence "In South India, the Chinese wok became a part of South Indian cooking, where it is called the cheena chatti". Cheena chatti may be an alias for Karahi in the Dravidian languages of South India. The karahi article says that it is, but I've hesitated to wikilink as that article has severe problems, such as claiming that the karahi is of ancient Indian origin "mentioned in the Vedas as bharjanapatr". If anyone feels bolder than I do it could be worth updating this section and adding a link. Kiore (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Han Dynasty pottery stove.JPG

Many imprudent, ill-founded and false statements about the origin and history of Wok.
Current article seems to give readers a strong "impression" that the origin of Wok is derived from so-called "Kuali or "Karahi" in South Asia and Southeast Asia, especially in history section, but many related texts and sources here are either just based on speculative theory without solid evidence or obvious misinterpretation, misunderstanding of Chinese language and history. Here are the main issues I've noticed and tried to correct:

1.	Some passages keep emphasizing that "Most scholars believe wok is originated from in Kuali or Karahi…", but yet their sources seem to only cite few Western scholars whose theory is just speculation, hardly can be defined as "most scholars". And I've also read around dozens of Chinese articles about the origin of Wok since Wok is Chinese cooking utensil, but none of the Chinese scholars I've read has such claim, maybe I didn't research hard enough but so far I think such theory is mostly just purposed by Western scholars or Non-Chinese scholars. (I'm native Chinese speaker and can read Chinese.In case this matters to anyone).

2.The statements that claim “wok is originated from Kuali” seem to be largely based on speculation made by E.N. Anderson in his book The Food of China, a long passage in history section is directly quoted from him, other sources here also seem to be often based on his speculation. But his speculation is obviously misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Chinese language and historical, archeological knowledge.

Firstly, Anderson seems to think “Guo”(鍋) is the Mandarin variation of “Wok”(鑊), but this is already false. Wok(鑊) and Guo(鍋) are not the same word nor different pronounces of same word, this has already been discussed and clarified several times right on this talk page for over 15 years (since 2006). "Wok" is Cantonese pronunciation of a Chinese character “鑊” and “鑊” is actually pronounced as “Huò” in Mandarin,whereas “Guo” is Mandarin pronunciation of a different character ”鍋”. Moreover, Wok in modern Cantonese mainly refers to stir-fry pan, whereas Guo is a loose term which can refer to many different types of cooking vessels in Chinese, including pots and pans, this is really basic knowledge to any native Chinese speaker. Only "Chǎo Guo"(炒鍋) specifically refers to stir-frying pan when the word "鍋" is used in Chinese culinary context. And the word 鑊 was already appeared and used to call cooking utensils in the Zhou dynasty(1046 BC – 256 BC) record Rites of Zhou (周禮) which is long before Han dynasty and Ming dynasty.(Original texts quoted from Rites of Zhou :《周禮．天官．亨人》：「亨人掌共鼎鑊，以給水火之齊. 」) https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/周禮/天官冢宰#外饔

Secondly, Anderson further made comparison and deduction between "Guo" and the South Asian word “Kuali” based on his misinterpretation of Wok and Guo, then suspecting Guo is evolved from Kuali since he somehow thinks they sound similar. This conclusion is not only false but also rather far-fetch and subjective. Because Guo and Kuali(or Karahi) really do not sound alike, especially to native Chinese speaker like me, maybe that’s also partially why no Chinese research I’ve read ever connects them together. Guo is one syllable, whereas Kuali sounds like two syllables and Karahi sounds like three syllables. And Guo(鍋) doesn’t merely refer to round cooking pan like Kuali, it’s a loose term which can indicate many types of pans and pots like I stated before. The word “鑊”(wok or huo) also doesn’t sound like Kuali and Karahi regardless in Mandarin or Cantonese to me. And it's rather imprudent to judge the origins of cooking devices simply by the pronunciations of their names.

3.Some descriptions and sources here, including Anderson, claim metal woks only started to appear since Ming dynasty and clay pots in Han dynasty were only used to dry grains. These are also obviously false. Many Chinese researches already indicate that metal woks or similar metal cooking pans along with stir-fry technique already became popular during Song dynasty (960–1279), and clay pots were also used to cook foods in Han dynasty. Clay pots are one of the main cooking utensils in China since prehistorical era, they're still used to cook foods in modern-day China and often called “砂鍋” in Chinese. 

4.Descriptions in history section used 𡆇 rather than 鑊 as example to claim “Kuali and Karahi are etymon of Mandarin 𡆇”, this is another false conjecture and misused of Chinese language. “鑊” and “𡆇” are not the same Chinese characters, they may look similar but are not interchangeable, and they also pronounce differently in Mandarin, 鑊 is pronounced as “huò” in Mandarin while 𡆇 is pronounced as “mǒu “in Mandarin, both 𡆇(mǒu) and 鑊(huò) in Mandarin neither sound like Kuali nor Karahi, and no any actual evidence can prove these Chinese words are connected with Kuali and Karahi. I think it’s rather absurd to keep fabricating their connection based on ill-founded speculations and misinterpretation of these languages. I’ve already tried to revise these issues in the main article, but I’m not native English speaker, there are bound to be typos and grammar errors here and there despite I try to avoid them and correct them, so I welcome anyone to correct my errors, improve my texts or provide more sources, but please do not remove my texts completely. These are not small issues and need to be addressed. And I know there are also bound to be people refuse to acknowledge these issues and keep reverting my texts, hence I opened this discussion topic and left these words as record. Editthat1 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)