Talk:Bakkwa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singapore-centric[edit]

I've tried to make this article less Singapore-centric [1], but User:Huaiwei has reverted it [2]. — Instantnood 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And expanded on it.--Huaiwei 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help to make it less Singapore-centric. — Instantnood 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the point is Bakkwa is Singapore-centric. Are you able to show otherwise?--Huaiwei 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bakkwa is only one of the many names of the same food, which has some regional variations. — Instantnood 18:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So whats stopping you from creating articles on them?--Huaiwei 18:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be one article, unless you can show that bakkwa is remarkably different from other regional variations.. so different that it warrants its own article, and all materials of such an article are only specific to bakkwa and not the others. — Instantnood 19:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the person demanding other regional variations exists is you, so its your onus to show that they are remarkably similar to warrant one article. Are all materials on noodle dishes non existant in that of other noodle dishes? Who set that criteria?--Huaiwei 19:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my demand. It's a fact. — Instantnood 09:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Facts arent facts till they are proven. Your username is not a brandname for verificability.--Huaiwei 14:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Guess what you want me to do is to get a handful of air tickets, fly around, take a few pictures, and upload them. — Instantnood 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tickets are getting cheaper. Cathay Pacific has been giving even budget airlines a run for their money, and I flew with them for over 6 times now in 2 years.--Huaiwei 10:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.247.63 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this edit for the efforts that make the article less Singapore-centric. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How should that version be superior to the one currently in use? The use of Chinese characters only is obviously not acceptable for an English wikipedia. Could you show us more people in Fujian, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore now of this food as Jerky, more so than bakkwa (or its derivative spellings)?--Huaiwei 11:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said, it's known in English as "pork jerky" in Taiwan, as well as in Hong Kong and Macau. Only in Singapore, and perhaps in Malaysia too, is it known in English as "bakkwa". Using its Chinese name in the leading sentence is to avoid disputes around multiple English names, and multiple ways of transliterations based on multible spoken variants. — Instantnood 17:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but are you sure it is known in English as "bakkwa in Singapore? Is Bakkwa an English word? You appear to simply things into a "you use this, I use that" equation, but I await your sources to support these assumptions. Can you show us that the term Bakkwa has never popped up in English conversations outside Singapore, since you continue to claim it as such? Meanwhile, the naming convensions obviously do not support the useage of Chinese characters in this manner. What justification do you have to deviate from the said convention?--Huaiwei 00:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Google only has a few hundred hits. Definitely not an English word. enochlau (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, so why is instantnood seemingly suggesting any difference in usage in Singapore compared to that in Greater China? Meanwhile, bakkwa is also spelt as bak kwa, bak kua, bakkua. etc. Google search hits is obviously not a good source to check if a word is "English". You check an English dictionary, phrase book, or any other authoritative text.--Huaiwei 03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got more than 400 [4]. If it's not English, how do Singaporeans and Malaysians call it in English when they're speaking in English? — Instantnood 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English usage in Singapore regularly injects non-English words in everyday usage. This does not automatically make it an English term. Is kiasu an English word just because we regularly use it even in proper English conversations (and not just in Singlish)? For your information, Bee Cheng Hiang regularly promotes the term "Bakkwa", in perhaps a marketing gimmick to better connect with regular Singaporeans who refer to it as such in any language, yet if you pick up a box of prepacked Bakkwa from its shops, you still see the words "Barbecued Pork" on it. Other shops may call it by different names, including "Dried Pork", and this wide range of names reflect the fact that there is no standard English name or phrase for this food. Bakkwa is now chosen as a page title because it is clearly dictinctive from any other kind of Barbecued pork, has a respectable number of google hits, and has crept into everyday English usage where English is widely used, ie, in Singapore and Malaysia.--Huaiwei 03:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... I should have said it's not known as bakkwa in common English usage in Taiwan. — Instantnood 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is English usage common in Taiwan?--Huaiwei 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's beyond the discussion here. — Instantnood 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--Huaiwei 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What we've to consider is whether the name bakkwa is popularly used in English in these places. Whether English is commonly used in these places is irrelevant. — Instantnood 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? What wikipedia naming conventions has been doing, is to find the most commonly used word irregardless of location. This means, that if Singaporeans and Malaysians happen to use English more, and they use a particular phrase more, than yes, this phrase will become more established in English usage compared to another location with little usage of English and little usage of another phrase. Whether English is commonly used in these places is irrelevant? Demonstrate to us how this is so.--Huaiwei 10:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and Macao[edit]

These two places are also famous for their ruogan. This article is a bit Singapore-centric... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huaiwei actually claims bakkwa to be a Singapore-specific food. He said new entries can be created if there're other food of the kind. [5] [6] [7] [8] — Instantnood 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he should watch the movie I Not Stupid. The business of the Singaporean bakkwa-maker was originally overthrown by a Taiwanese competitor... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol~. I bet he did watch it, but still he believes they're certainly different. Who say bus routes can't be competitors of metro networks? ;-) — Instantnood 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this (the fourth paragraph). One thing worth noticing is that "ba gua" is used in the synopsis. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Hong Kong as well. [9] :-) — Instantnood 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read the book Sahara Desert of San Mao (三毛), a renowned Taiwanese writer, in which she lied her Spanish husband that "ba gua" was kinda medicine for sore throat. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence [10] from Yahoo! Taiwan. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The next thing is to show they're similar enough, or else Huaiwei would do something like what he did with char siew rice (history · [//en.wikipedia.org

/w/index.php?title=Char_siew_rice&action=watch watch]) and barbecued pork with rice (history · watch). — Instantnood 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha oh really? ;)--Huaiwei 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we merge them into one article called Char siew rice, it is very confusing to readers. Aji Ichiban in Singapore has since closed down, I've never saw this at the Sg shops here. Article can be improved with much much more on Taiwan. --Terence Ong Talk 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to merge Bakkwa with Char siew rice?--Huaiwei 10:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol..... No! My English is not very good and I can't express what I say well. Of course not I meant the BBQ pork with rice and Char siew rice. :P --Terence Ong Talk 10:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood & Huaiwei[edit]

Don't start (or resume I should say)....... --Wgfinley 05:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to?--Huaiwei 06:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder to not do that thing you do on this article since you both seem to be editing it. --Wgfinley 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red links in the article[edit]

I confess surprise that there are articles existing about a couple different bakkwa shops, but Lim Chee Guan still doesn't have an article. My understanding (from my Singaporean in-laws) is that this shop has the best bakkwa, and during one of my visits to Singapore I personally observed a line of customers winding round the block during Chinese New Year to buy Lim Chee Guan's bakkwa while ignoring the offerings of other nearby bakkwa shops. -Amatulic (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Recipe for Bak Kwa[edit]

Am a noob. I wanted to share a simple Bak Kwa recipe made by my wife. It is rare that people make Bak Kwa at home and normally they are bought from stores. I felt that the article will provide good info as a reference of this article. I had tried to post the link here a few days ago but it was removed -- maybe I did it the wrong way?--Bengyap (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please note[edit]

The term rougan simply means dried meat, and most of the variety found elsewhere is more jerky-like. This bakkwa is distinctly sweeter and juicier, and should not be associated with other types of dried meat snacks. Since it's originated in Fujian, it's unlikely to have been available in Hongkong until somebody imported it from Singapore. If you go to Hongkong, you'll see most of the stores carrying this product touting it as a Singaporean delicacy, not Fujian or Cantonese or anywhere else in the world. Please do some research before adding comments here. Hongkong may be where you first encountered this variety of dried meat, but it doesn't necessarily mean that's it's "style". Anywhere else where you can find such snacks, chances are it's sold in the open-packaged form, as this is how it's sold in Singapore.

It's not a matter of being this-centric or that-centric, it's a matter of facts. That's the spirit of wikipedia, not for some party to claim credit for whatever where credit is not due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.118.56 (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your statement is uncited.
Secondly, you are blanking sections, templates, and trying to give it a Singapore-POV while trying to supress others.
Thirdly, that image is not a bakkwa from Singapore.
If you continue this, I'll report you. --Cold Season (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I've no interest in making this singapore-centric or whatever. You claim that my info is not cited, what about others? If I have push-cart style dim sum in Toronto, can I claim that that's Toronto-style dim-sum?? I obviously cannot, because that's a style originally from Hong Kong. The same logic applies here. The title here is Bakkwa - nobody in Hong Kong calls this snack Bakkwa. Have you been to Hong Kong and seen how this snack was promoted -- as a Singapore "delicacy". And look at image 1 and image 3? Both have the product openly displayed and that's how it's sold in all the places that carry it. I advise that you do some research before accusing others of vandalism. You have no more authority than me, nor anyone else in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.118.56 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of the many sources available on the internet, if you'd only bother to do a google search

Please refrain from threats - otherwise, I will report you too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.118.56 (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider a threat is a warning per wikipedia policy for your actions (the blanking), which I gave after your second time you did it here. Which you repeated here. And here is the edit where you replaced the Malaysian template with a Singapore template, and here is the start of the blanking when you realized there was no Singapore template. You clearly kept blanking things you don't like for a point of view, even after I noted it in the edit summary. --Cold Season (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A threat is a threat by any other name. I find it interesting that you have problems with my editing but not others. I removed bits here and there because they were without basis, and clearly added by some people to lay claim to something not rightly theirs. I chanced upon this article and was disturbed by its inaccuracy and attempted to correct them, for the benefit of unsuspecting wikipedia readers.

I also question the authenticity of the image claiming to be taken in HK. Take a look at the originator of the picture, the owner is a Singaporean. I suggest she be contacted to confirm the origin of the photo. You appear to be certain where the picture was taken, even though it was not by you or from you. Your agenda has to be questioned too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.118.56 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What others and what does that have to do with anything except you reflecting? There have not been many edits since I have this article on my watchlist. You "question my agenda", ok, could it be more vague? I have provided a clear explanation with your actions and linked to the diffs to back it up. You blanking out templates, that's an agenda. And if you don't assume good faith of the wikipedia user that uploaded it, you go deal with it by adressing that user and not me, because you now made it clear that you editted the image description based on your own presumptions. -- Cold Season (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There not having been many edits does not mean all the info is correct. It could mean not many people have been here, and those who visited trusted what they read unquestioningly. Put it this way, people who knew much about the topic would not be reading this in the first place. Even those who noticed some of the misinformation would not necessarily be bothered to correct it. I stumbled upon it and happened to have some time to do some editing, and did so in the spirit of sharing. This is a one-off thing for me and I've no vested interest in keenly watching it. If the info continues to be misleading, no thanks to some partial party, it's the readers' loss, not mine. Why this would be on your watchlist, however, is interesting, the topic being "Bakkwa", not "rougan", or even yok gon. You kept reverting my edits but left others alone without question, even when some of them are also unsourced. Why so? Looking at the discussion thread, there apparently has been some disputes going on between 2 parties and one who used to be active on wikipedia has left. That says a lot about the impartiality, or the lack of, of the contributors who're still here. As for the picture, like I said, it shows how this particular snack is typically displayed and sold anywhere else, HK cannot lay claim to it, and the caption is therefore misleading. The owner of the original photo is a Singaporean and it's in all likelihood taken in Singapore. We will know soon. 174.115.118.56 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is... You did not edit the info. You replaced "Hong Kong" with "Singapore" in the image description without proof, rearranged countries to set Singapore first, and blanked all templates after you realized that the Singapore cuisine template didn't excist. As shown in the provided diffs. --Cold Season (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And captioning the image as Singapore style has nothing to do with presumptions, it's where it all started. To use my dim-sum example again, having an image of a dim-sum cart taken in a Toronto chinese restaurant doesn't make it toronto style, the caption would still be HK-style dim sum in Toronto. 174.115.118.56 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not where it "all started". It started in China, which there are references for. Even in your added external link here (which you gave the title "Bakkwa in Singapore", not even the actual title), it states that its a traditional food from southern China. --Cold Season (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "method" had its origins in China, all Chinese immigrants to Singapore being, naturally, from China. Put it this way, most people, even the Chinese from Fujian themselves, have hardly known this delicacy in their own city. Let's give credit where it's due.

As for the editing, it's my first attempts at it, naturally, it involved a series of trials and errors. If I was up to any mischief, surely I would be smart enough to hide behind a username, instead of letting my IP address known to the world. 174.115.118.56 (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take you for your word. Next time, however, please don't blank out templates repeatedly without good reason. Warning withdrawn. --Cold Season (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image 1[edit]

I've contacted the owner of the original photo via her flickr account. Lyna is a Singaporean and has confirmed that the picture in question was taken in Singapore. The original caption claiming the bakkwa in the photo to be displayed "Hong Kong style" was not hers and since the picture was taken in Singapore, and not Hong Kong, the caption is therefore misleading. I will modify it to give it a more generic touch. 174.115.118.56 (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the generic caption a good compromise. However, if you can give the exact link to the source of the image, so there's an actual description for editors to confirm, than that would be ideal. I can't find it between the photostream, and the photostream link as source is too vague. That way it doesn't have to be generic. --Cold Season (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, found it [11]. Tagged for deletion on commons per unsuitable license. --Cold Season (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bakkwa&oldid=1205647144"