Talk:Baozi

Xiaolongbao

Is Xiaolongbao really a baozi (bun)? Although it's called as such, it's really more of a jiaozi (dumpling). --Yuje 16:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Zhuge Liang

Is there a reason that this article does not link to Zhuge Liang? Zhuge Liang links to Baozi, stating that Zhuge Liang is the legendary inventor of the dish. It is obviously duplicative to put the fact in both places, but is there a reason not to? Surely if there is more to the legend, it should be placed in only one of the articles, but the simple fact, linking the two as it does, ought surely to be in both?

Need to reorder the names of the Baozi here.

When we look at

• Charsiu bau or Cha Siu Baau (Simplified: 叉烧包; Traditional: 叉燒包; Hanyu Pinyin: chāshāobāo) or manapua, filled with barbeque-flavoured char siu pork.
• naihuangbao (Chinese: 奶黃包; Hanyu Pinyin: nǎihuángbāo): filled with sweet yellow custard filling.
• pineapple bun or bo lo bao: a sweet and crispy baozi, though it does not actually contain pineapple.
• Xiaolongbao (Chinese: 小笼包; Hanyu Pinyin: xiǎolóngbāo) or tangbao: a soup-flavored baozi from Shanghai. Because it is succulent and prepared with a flour enclosing, it is considered different from other bao types, and more closely resembles a jiaozi
• Goubuli a baozi variety from Tianjin; its name literally means, "Dogs don't pay attention to it."
• Lingyoong bau is a bean-paste bun filled with sweetened lotus beans (the light brown filling).
• Taosa bau is a bean-paste bun filled with sweetened black beans (the black filling).

Charsiu baau is in Cantonese
naihuangbao is in Pinyin
pineapple bun is in English
Goubuli is in Pinyin or maybe become an English name for that kind of Baozi.

Shall we reorganize them in a more paralell structure?

Merge discussion: Pao

Being Cantonese, I've always heard it pronounced as "bao", and for the most part, "Pao" and "Bao" are the same thing. So I think they should be merged. 68.163.171.157 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)PhoenixSeraph

If they are describing the same thing, then yes; merge baozi and pao. But note the different names in the opening paragraph. Fourohfour 13:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But they are not describing the same thing. CSB is a subtype of Baozi, and the two should remain distinct articles 70.50.62.16 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They are probably different. Being Mandarin, I've never heard of the word Pao, but the fact that it the filling may be omitted differentiates itself from Baozi, which always has filling (the current article is kind of ambiguously worded on that subject). I would go for keeping them seperate. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion from Talk:Cha Siu Baau

• Cha siu baau is a different type of baozi and warrants its own article. As such I do not think it should not be merged. Sjschen 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• oppose merge as well Chensiyuan 04:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — Cha siu baau is considered to be a distinct dish, independent from the baozi. Also, it is famous worldwide, and is called manapua by the Hawaiians.--Endroit 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Cha siu baau is just a subset of baozi. It fits under the meaning of baozi which is a Chinese bun filled with meat or vegetables. Besides, there's so little content in this article. Can anyone give me good reasons why this baau can't be just a section of the bigger baozi article. I'll only agree to having an independent Cha siu Baau article if there's enough material.Wai Hong 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If Cha Siu Baau should be merge with baozi, then the article on VB beer should also be merge with every single type of beer to form a single article or just merge every single bun types in the world into a single mega article that is pages long. It is also as useful as merge every single vehicle types in the world into a single mega article as well. Don't you all think scrolling though all those pages on the internet is both easy and fun? Bloody Loser 22:29, 24th January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.23.253 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

There must be a connection between "bao" the English word "bun", the Spanish/Japanese "pan" and the French "pain". Does anyone know the etymologies?

Sorry, but there's no connection. The word is derived from the verb "bao" 包, meaning to enwrap, and the noun form "baozi" in the present sense is attested as early as the Song Dynasty (960-1279), before extensive contact with Western Europe. (There might be an even older monosyllabic form with this meaning, but I'm not sure.) The etymology of the word "bun" is doubtful according to the OED, but may be from the Old French bugne, meaning swelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.75.45 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese borrowed "pan" from Portuguese and Spanish. --24.211.242.80 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also bao in vietnamese (cover). Used for "banh bao" (similar food). Also, the english name column is full of pinyin, not english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.67.252 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardboard baozi

I added some important information about a new way using to make Baozi in Beijing. This method involves cardboard and pork and was reported on CNN. I found it very interesting, but I would prefer not to eat this type of Baozi. Pilotbob 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be just one fraudulent street trader in one city, who was caught trying to sell sub-standard/fake food, the fact it was baozi is not central to the story. It's ridiculous to say that it's "important information about a new way using to make baozi". LDHan 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The story is about baozi. It is one of the few recent news articles about a type of baozi. I have modified the article to reflect this information. Pilotbob 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute that it's "a type of baozi", baozi is a food, and if most of this sub-standard/fake "baozi" is not made from food then it is not "a type of baozi", it is no more a "a type of baozi" than banana made from wax is a type of banana. The story is not about baozi itself but rather it's about unregulated street traders, food hygiene laws, fradulent business practices, unregulated capitalism, or even the desparate economic situation of some migrant workers in China.

Obviously there aren't going to be many news articles about baozi, it's a common everyday food in China, as a comparsion are there many news articles about eg sandwiches in the west? Do you still claim it's "important information about a new way using to make baozi"? If not, what is your reason for it to be in the article? Just because there's a news story does not mean the article has to mention it, if someone had died after eating 300 baozi in 1 hour, should that be in the article? At best it is trivia. LDHan 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is important information that increases the reader's understanding of baozi in China. This article is specifically about baozi and speaks of one of the few current events related to baozi anywhere. A non-traditional preparation of this food is notable. Pilotbob 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is awkward to put that sentence in that place. Readers read this artical to understand what is Baozi, one of Chinese traditional food. But this is only one news about Baozi. It does not convey much infomation on Baozi itself. There are many other stories and news about Baozi, should we put all of them there??? 147.46.116.164 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Something made from cardboard or any other inedible substance is not food, so "non-traditional preparation of this food" is nonsense. No it is not "important information that increases the reader's understanding of baozi", does it tell you anything specifically about baozi itself, about its history, the different regional types found in China (actual types that are made and eaten by people) etc? How is it important? All it tells you is that one fraudulent street trader in one city was caught trying to sell sub-standard/fake food, and it is not "important information" but mere trivia. It is on the same level as e.g. putting in a news story about one French restaurant in France being closed down because rats were found in the kitchen in the wikipedia article about French cuisine. LDHan 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

_{(reducing indent)} Check this out. Doctorfluffy 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for opening a 6 year old topic, but I think it should be noted in this discussion that this was exposed as a hoax, see Chinese cardboard bun hoax. I don't think it is necessary to note in the article, as it seems like giving undue weight to the incident. Dforest (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Equivalents in other countries

I am a bit puzzled on whether Buuz are really the same as Baozi. Buuz are essentially meat wrapped up in (flour-) dough, i.e. quite similar to what is described at Jiaozi, with the exception that Buuz are always steamed. The text on this (the Baozi) page gives the impression that Baozi are basically mantou with some meat (or other stuff) inside, i.e. something rather different. Have I understood the meanings of Jiaozi vs. Baozi correctly? Yaan (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I personly have no idea what you guys is talking about, but to both buuz and baozi sound just like the same thing spelled in different way. Bloody Loser 22:38, 24th January 2008

Thanks a lot for that truly helpful and original contribution. But the question is not what buuz or baozi sound like, but what they are. Anyway, I think I sorted this out, with the help of someone who does have an idea. Yaan (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Buuz and baozi are not the only case of two slightly similar but ultimately very different foods having uncanny names between Mandarin Chinese and the language of a neighboring culture. “Mantou,” the plain steamed bun with no filling, sounds oddly similar to manti, manty, and manta, used in Central Asian Turkic languages such as Uyghur, Kazakh, Uzbek, and Kyrgyz to describe a stuffed bun that is often nearly identical to baozi (with a thin-skinned variant called pitar manta similar to big jiaozi). Mandu is a similarly-named Korean food that is more jiaozi-like. Finally there's momo, a food of Tibetan, Nepalese, and far eastern Indian origin that is now popular throughout India - It resembles Chinese jiaozi or guotie (potstickers) but sounds uncannily like momo, another name for plain steamed buns like mantou.

I think the relationship is there, in that all of these foods are wheat flour-based main foods that must be kneaded and cooked (steamed or boiled) with boiling water. The exact relationship has been lost in time. This kind of cultural diffusion could be compared to the English word noodle, which usually has a clear meaning, and the German word nudel, which has a broader meaning (such as in dampfnudel, which is more like mantou than noodles as we think of them). Also consider pierogi from Poland and other Central European cultures, which is similar to Russian vareniki but different from Russian pirogi and pirozhki. Compare Indian kulcha to Afghani koloocheh. -124.88.176.126 (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Need photo showing filling. Badagnani (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hum bow?"

I've seen this called hum bow / humbow / hum bao in quite a few local restaurants and bakeries. Although now that I Google it, it looks like this may be a name just used in the Pacific Northwest or even just Washington State. Any ideas on the meaning of this name or if there are other regional names for it? If there are, perhaps that could be a new section in the article. Lupusrex (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"bow" is clearly a respelling of "bao". Not sure where the "hum" comes from, but it could possibly be for some version of Mandarin "han" or "hen". Reminds me a little of 汉堡包: "hanbaobao" = hamburgers. 219.143.150.114 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do people really put Panda and "diaria" in Baozi?

So, according to the article, some baozi have Panda or "diaria" filling. Isn't Panda consumption illegal? And what is this "diaria"? I assume it's a corruption of the word diarrhea. In that case I believe it's quite unhealthy since diarrhea contains E-coli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.68 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably old vandalism, best forgotten. Reify-tech (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bakpau into Baozi

Unreferenced article without much to distinguish it from Baozi Spudlace (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Baozi → Bao – Although "baozi" is gramatically correct in Mandarin Chinese, English-language sources mostly refer to these as "bao buns" or simply "bao". Bao is an existing primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom—blindlynx 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Food and drink has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. My impression is that the English term bao most often refers to gua bao and similar dishes with clam-shaped buns, not baozi. A Google Image search for "bao restaurant" in quotation marks returns mostly photos of gua bao and similar, but also some photos of baozi. Based on this, I think the disambiguation page should be at "Bao" and this page should stay at "Baozi". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mx. Granger, Bao should be a disambiguation page. DankJae 17:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per all above. The term is too simple and may have meanings in other languages. Svartner (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.