Talk:American Chinese cuisine/Archive 3

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


Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


American Chinese cuisine → Chinese cuisine in the United States — For clarity. Existing names are confusing in their scope (e.g. "Chinese Korean cuisine; the term "Chinese Korean" could refer to either Ethnic Chinese in Korea or Ethnic Koreans in China) or use non-standard terminology (e.g. "American Chinese" for Chinese American). Better to standardize them all along an "xxx by country" convention to avoid the mind-twisting. Also the template {{Cuisine of China}} should have its terminology adjusted if this move is agreed to. Note also the below pages included in this move request:

Thanks, cab 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support. Seems like a reasonable argument. I know I have often wondered when two ethnic or cultural adjectives appear in succession. "American Chinese cuisine" sounds like it could mean hot dogs in Beijing. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 11:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support withdrawn. I believe I have been overthinking -- the two-adjective confusion was influenced by a number of discussions a while ago re such things as "Chinese Mongolian" (a Mongolian in Beijing or a Chinese in Ulan Bator?) When I saw this, I think I stared at it long enough it started to lose its meaning, and I produced my own confusion. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose - The article Canadian Chinese cuisine is an article about a specific style of Chinese foods introduced in Canada, influenced primarily by the immigrants during the early infux of Chinese from specific regions of China rather than the more general topic implied by the title of Chinese cuisine in Canada. -- Whpq 13:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - the articles are about variant styles of Chinese cuisine that grew up in the diaspora lands. Certain dishes are known as 'Singaporean Chinese' or 'Indonesian Chinese' for example. 'Chop Suey' is an 'American Chinese cuisine' dish, not 'Chinese cuisine in America'. There's no confusion - the primary adjective modifying the noun appears next to that noun (hence 'chinese cuisine'), which are then both modified by the further adjective (hence 'american chinese cuisine'). InfernoXV 12:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how "Chinese cuisine in the United States" implies that it's the same and unmodified compared to Chinese cuisine in China. Chop suey, General Tso's Chicken, etc. form a part of the cuisine which is served at Chinese restaurants in the United States. cab 12:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but the articles are not primarily about the geographical location of the foods, but the cooking styles. Think of the larger picture - have you ever tried Japanese Curry? It's served in plenty of Japanese restaurants around the world, and it's thought of as 'Japanese Indian' - never as 'Indian cuisine in Japan'. What do we then make of restaurants in East Asia that have started specialising in American-Chinese cuisine, serving up things like Chop Suey and General Tso's Chicken for a laugh? Do we then refer to them as serving 'American-Chinese cuisine in Asia' or 'Chinese cuisine in America in Asia'? This seems to open up an entire can of worms. While we're at it, if those dishes grew up and developed in a a certain country, say the Philippines for example, that makes them Filipino-Chinese, not Chinese cuisine in the Philippines, particularly if they have no independent simultaneous existence elsewhere. InfernoXV 12:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I still maintain that having two cultural adjectives in a row is highly confusing. What do you think of the naming pattern "American-style Chinese cuisine", etc. cab 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.--Stemonitis 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Chef's Specialties/House Special X X

Chef's Specialties- the most expensive dishes, if the restaurant has pictures of food, it is usually these meals. Big meals with white rice that normally include multiple meats and vegetables.

Noticed this; around here (Vancouver BC, admittedly not in the US but I haven't ever really been in Chinese places in Seattle or Portland to compare...) it's usually "House Special Chow Mein", "House Special Chop Suey", "House Special B.B.Q. Pork", "House Special whatever". Typically each is at the end of their respective sections of the menu, and say in the case of the chow mein would be pork, prawns, chicken, veggies, mushrooms .... one place I know tops theirs off with squid and slices of sauteed liver, but that's downhome east-side Chinese eatery and not so much in the "Chinese & Western" vein; but even the latter will have a House Special Chow Mein/Chop Suey, maybe Foo Yung or something else, even if they've only got three or four single-meat versions on their menu (vs. the twenty-thirty or so in the other place with the squid and liver, which for the record is the Ho Tak Kee on Broadway at Main/Kingsway in Vancouver); their menu reads Ho Tak Kee Special Chowmein maybe, rather than House Special, or Ho Tak Kee House Special etc are all possible variations in various menus I've seen.Skookum1 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Name is backwards

Why is this article called "American Chinese cuisine" instead of "Chinese American Cuisine"? The title is completely backwards compared to normal expressions like African American or Irish American. Even the article itself has "Chinese American" a couple lines down in the first paragraph!

As is, it seems to be refering to food made by American Chinese. This would be stuff like, say, the unique items that are served in the American-operated fast food franchises located in China.

The current title makes no sense at all and should be changed. 216.228.20.138 12:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this too, but here's the thing. Calling it "Chinese American" food implies that it is food made or eaten by Chinese Americans, which is (hopefully) not the case. At most of these restaurants that I've seen, neither the cooks nor the clientele are Chinese of any sort. I think it would do one better to make the title "Americanized Chinese cuisine". That way it's clear what the role of the "American" part is. Better yet, make it "Westernized" as I'm sure this phenomenon is not just in the US but in places like the UK as well. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Honey Walnut Prawns

This is probably of less importance than an all out rewrite, but there's one popular dish invented over in America that's been ommitted, which is the Honey Walnut Prawns, a dish that started being served in a San Francisco resturant in the 1980's before spreading everywhere else. From what I can tell though, it's strictly an American dish and has not spread back to China or HK in any reasonable degree, or at least, my relatives in HK have never heard of such a dish, so that's proof enough! 69.106.232.231 09:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

More pictures

I'd like it if there were more pictures showing restaurants and the food. A.Z. 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV.

Though this article has improved considerably in the last year, I can't believe some of its loaded statements are still standing. Rather than being an article about Chinese-American cuisine, it reads in places more like a fundamentally ignorant diatribe against the entire concept. It needs to focus on Chinese-American cuisine as it stands on its own, not on how it differs from and is therefore inferior to "Native Chinese Cuisine". Also, the cuisine of China is arguably the world's most diverse, and I find it difficult to believe that it would even be practical to compare it as a whole to any other national or ethnic style, especially if you're going to compare the extent to which oil and vegetables are used.

Americans don't eat Chinese-American food because they want desperately to emulate the lifestyle of the average Chinese person but are too stupid to read the "Western food" characters above the sign. I've never known any Westerner, American or otherwise, to be under the impression that in every Chinese household they sit down to pupu platters and scorpion bowls for dinner every night. Most people eat what they like for pleasure and for nourishment, not for a lesson in nutritional anthropology. I'd either like to see an expert capable of objectivity rewrite this article, or I'd be glad to go in myself and remove every statement that implies that Chinese-American cuisine is a failed attempt at imitating the (apparently monolithic) native cuisine of China, and that anyone who enjoys it is an ignorant American who would be outraged or mortified if they realised their crab rangoons were "inauthentic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.70.139 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

—I agree with what you are saying. Many paragraphs in this article comes with the disclaimer that the cuisine is "not authentic," especially in the opening paragraph, history, and types sections. It would appear someone has already flagged most of these statements with citation needed, which should lead the reader to question the NPOV of the preceding statement. Kyouryuu 01:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Not authentic" is a typically chauvinist comment, sadly reminiscent of "banana" for an "Americanized Chinese". Authentic in whose context. The "Chinese and Western" menu, chow mein and foo yung on one side of the page, liver and onions and burgers on the other, is very much authentic in its own milieu, and there are good ones and bad ones. Judging and redefining a North American "cuisine" on the basis of prejudices held about food in China is not the approach this article should have taken; now it seems to be about "Chinese cuisine as it is now served in the US", rather htan the historical meaning that "Chinese food" or "chinese take-out" has meant for well over a century. Inferior, perhaps, if one is from a superior culture; if so one's superiority should be sublime enough to not have to denigrate others, no? Ah, sweet'n'sour ribs and soggy-noodle chow mein...THAT's authentic, as far as Chinese'n'Western goes; all the fancy dishes now listed overleaf aren't. Sure you can get them in America now, but that's no American Chinese cuisine except in a very new sense; and, as it turns out, ultimately (for some) one based in chauvinism towards the "indigenous" variant. BTW most of the same issues on this apge are are on its Canadian equivalent.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Chinese_cuisine/Archive_3&oldid=1046608389"