Talk:Bánh mì

Add more Banh Mi variant descriptions, pictures?

There are only pictures of the classic sandwhich, i'm trying to find more dishes that fall within the "Banh mi" format. Search: "How many types of Banh mi are there in Danang? (P.1)" for some examples. Maybe we could add a list of major Banh mi varieties with pictures? if anyone can find pictures that is. This article is like a noodle soup article that only lists pho, you know? Banh mi is a blanket term for sandwich. varieties so far: banh mi thit cha, classic thit nguoi, really famous banh mi thit nuong, and banh mi que. Thanks guys. If any of you other foodies find any info, post to this thread. Also, maybe someone can do the same for the goi cuon, salad roll section, because theres a lot of famous variants of that dish too. Eomhrf (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Random comments

Just a quick note to talk about the correctness of Bánh mì trứng as being the sandwich w/ scrambled egg, the version I had repeatedly in Vietnam in October of 2009 was called Bánh mì Op la. They also do a very light scramble compared to the common American version in which the yolk and white are mixed completely before cooking. Here the yellow and white are still separate colors for the most part, just conjoined in one delicious mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.11.254 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Getitright 11:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a native speaker should edit this. I'm a native speaker living in Australia and I call it bánh mì thịt. I just came back from Vietnam and the signs on the shops say bánh mì thịt. Bánh mì just means bread. If you don't believe me search 'bread' then navigate to the Vietnamese translation wiki (Tiếng Việt). Xíu mại also isn't crushed pork meatballs, and what the heck is the eggs done sunny side up for breakfast comment doing in this article? For one, Vietnamese people call the eggs a 'western breakfast', so it's not even Vietnamese cuisine. For two, it's not even a sandwich.

There are some differences in pre-war and post war Vietnamese, yes, but saying "To some overseas Vietnamese, bánh mì can also mean bread" clearly shows a lack of understanding of the language. If you understood anything about the Vietnamese culture, you'd realise our language is implicit and that we never say anything explicitly in conversation, which is why you can ask someone in Vietnamese "Ăn ổ bánh mì không?", literally "Eat loaf bread no?", and they would understand that you are asking "Would you like to eat a bánh mì thịt sandwich?" and not to consume an entire loaf of bread with no contents. However, when one teaches vocabulary or in this case a wikipedia entry, explicitness is required for clarity. This is why a lot of the previous commenters noted they have never heard it referred to as anything else in conversation (unless of course it was referred to as such by other naive English speakers). And as the previous person pointed out, just like in English, we also call it by brand name. Like asking for a Kleenex.

Please fix this or at least ađd a note to say it's inaccurate. I'm sick of non-Vietnamese speakers telling me I'm wrong because wiki says differently.

Oh and another thing, don't call it a bánh mì sandwich either. The average Vietnamese person uses this term to describe the well known sandwich in the western world - that is two slices of bread with filling inside. We just use the words bánh mì to describe any dish that has bread in it. Like bread an' butter puđding.

Perhaps in some places the signs say bánh mì thịt, but for example in Toronto, they just say "bánh mì".

It's my understanding that "bánh mì" means bread or bun, as well as sandwich, in the same way that "baguette" in French, "broodje" in Dutch, or "brotchen" in German does. You know by the context, which one is meant. So no, no-one is going to be adding a note to say it's inaccurate, no matter how sick you are of being told you're wrong. That would be because, you're wrong.

by the way using an insulting tone and complaining that people know nothing of vietnamese culture, and then saying "please fix this" is not going to get you very far.

Also, "banh mi sandwich" is a perfectly ok term for an english speaking audience, meaning "a type of sandwich, known in the vietnamese language as bánh mì". Please also see the reference I added to the "Banh Mi Sandwich" recipe, which includes some detailed history, written by Vietnamese food expert and journalist Andrea Nguyen.

IamNotU (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

___________________________

Great sandwiches, here in Seattle you can get them some places for $1.50. Much healthier option than a hamburger

As far as I know, my family calls it Bánh mì Ba Le (with a dot underneath the e). Bánh mì is just the vietnamese word for "Bread".

Ba Le is one of the companies that make Bánh mì, but you can use either one.

All I'm saying is that the word Bánh mì can be used to mean other kinds of sandwiches than the one mentioned here.

---

I can vouch for that. The person above me is right Starfox Pilot 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody call it anyting other Banh Mi, unless they were talking about a specific type of banh mi. And I've never heard banh mi used to refer to any other type of sandwich. Also, no mention of Bo (the butter / mayo-esque spread) in this article? Serpentes 08:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll revouch for the OP. I once ordered (something like) "chicken bánh mì" at a Vietnamese restaurant in Brooklyn and was surprised to get a curry and a hunk of bread. Bánh mì definitely does not exclusively refer to a particular kind of sandwich. Clconway 20:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the previous user comments, perhaps a disambiguation and/or change of title to "Bahn Mi sandwich" is in order? The situation with Banh Mi appears similar to the situation with cous-cous - in that the term may be used to simply refer to the plain, staple ingredient (cous-cous / bread) or any number of often elaborate dishes which include the same as an ingredient. In any event, good article on a fantastic sandwich! Drlegendre (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Availability

The following section strikes me as silly. The bottom line is: find a Vietnamese community anywhere in the world and you're likely to find a bánh mì shop. Clconway 20:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The sandwich can be found in small bánh mì shops around the world: in Saigon and throughout Vietnam; in the 13th district of Paris; various Vietnamese communities in Australia including Cabramatta and Footscray; and in many Vietnamese American communities throughout the United States, where Vietnamese food is available in almost every major city. In Canada, Vietnamese sandwiches are available in major cities like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg and anywhere else featuring diverse cultures. Bánh mì are served (often to-go) everywhere from humble mom-and-pop joints to trendy urban bistros.

The following is the same deal as above. This is ridiculous: you can get these sandwiches all over the place. We don't list every chain that sells fried chicken... Clconway 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bánh mì is generally served in small shops and at some phở noodle eateries. Chains offering bánh mì in California include Ba-Le Sandwiches, and Saigon Sandwiches. Lee's Sandwiches operates restaurants in California, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Texas. Several modern chains offer traditional Vietnamese bánh mì and Western-style baguette sandwiches. Mr. Baguette, a popular bánh mì café located in the Los Angeles suburb of Rosemead, California, is planning to expand to other areas in California. BanhMiBistro is the latest chain of gourmet banh mi stores originated from Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam featuring daily fresh-baked bread in its stores. Bánh mì was featured in San Jose in the 2002 PBS documentary Sandwiches That You Will Like.

In Canada Nguyen Huong has four locations in Toronto serving banh mi.

American nicknames

Can someone explain why this article should include text on the localised American names for banh mi? That's not encyclopaedia material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.130.202.205 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Regional Variations and Changes

I'm starting to notice that the style and recipe are changing, or there may be regional differences. Like at Mr. Baguette, I got a vegetarian one and it had the fake ham, American cheese, a pickle on the side, a hot yellow pepper on the side, and a mustard packet. Jalapeno and cilantro were at a condiment stand. It tasted fine, but the ingredients were unexpected. Also, in recipes online, everyone uses mayo. In the San Francisco shops, some used mayo and butter. I think Ba Le uses butter too. In the past, they seemed to be less full of fillings. Anyway, while there are variations in any kind of food, as this food becomes more widespread, and as the communities where they do business change, the food changes.

Yes, I know this is obvious, but I think it's important to track some changes. Right now, in the Los Angeles area, we're seeing the end of the combination Greek-Hamburger-Mexican-Pastrami-Teriyaki restaurant. It was a product of the LA eastside culture, and developed from the 1940s to the 1980s. Today, it's morphed into a Hamburger-Mexican restaurant, with fried chicken and Mexican charbroiled chicken, and the now ubiquitous breakfast burrito. The Hawaiian lunch plate is also big here, but with a shrinking islander population, it's morphing into something else that incorporates Chinese fast food, and is losing some signature dishes like musubi, lomi, and chili rice. This reflects changing populations and customers.

Likewise, you may be able to track changes to this dish as Vietnamese communities formed in specific cities like Houston, New Orleans, Westminister, Santa Ana, Rosemead, San Francisco, Oakland, Boston, etc. 99.93.192.139 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting we conduct original research and include it in this article. While it could be an interesting project, it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia until it was published in a separate reliable source. Jojalozzo 15:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Change title and clean up definition?

I think this article is flawed; in English, banh mi is written without accents, and refers to a style of sandwich, not bread. I do understand that the English word banh mi comes from the Vietnamese bánh mì, which means bread, but that discussion seems more appropriate for a etymological dictionary than a wikipedia page. The first paragraph sentence "It is sometimes metonymous with ..." is silly, it's not a metonym, it's just a word that has a different meaning in English than Vietnamese.

So I think we should change this article to remove the accents, and remove the discussion of the bread meaning, and instead use the phrase as it is normally used in English, to mean a type of sandwich. It will be clearer, more correct, and remove the dictionary aspect of the entry.

Shall I proceed? If you disagree, tell me why please.

2620:0:1004:A:28FD:7415:C305:3E3 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree, assuming English speakers elsewhere mirror the usage in the U.S, where English speakers do not use "banh mi" to mean "bread". If it's used to mean that in Vietnamese, then that info belongs in the etymology section, but shouldn't be part of the definition. The term in English refers to the baguette-based sandwich, period.

On top of that, we are saying that the phrase consists of ordinary Vietnamese vocabulary words—and then we say immediately after that it's from French. It can't be both, so which is it? Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Bánh mì means either "bread" or "sandwich" in Vietnamese. In context, it can imply the Saigon style of sandwich. English just happened to borrow one sense of bánh mì without borrowing the other. The closest analogy I can think of is the muffuletta. Pain de mie is a provably false etymology. It was inserted by someone who didn't bother citing a source or reading the surrounding text. Since various people keep inserting it into this article, it seems to be popular enough that I've added a good, explicit debunking in the article. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to rewrite the first half of the article to focus on the sandwich, since that's the main sense that English speakers need to know about. I also added a stub "Bread" section, taking inspiration from Muffuletta. There's still a lot of repetition in the article that impairs comprehension, but I think it's a start in the right direction. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Colonial history

This article mentions a couple of times the French influence in banh mi, but it might be productive to have a section on colonial influence on the sandwich and how its consumption is a post-colonial act? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishapganguly (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

spelling

mì (wheat, also spelt mỳ in northern Vietnam).

The alternate spelling was added on October 30, and changed 11 hours later (by someone in Vietnam with no other edits) to

mì (wheat, also spelt mì in northern Vietnam).

making it redundant. I know nothing of the language, so I won't change it back. —Tamfang (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:UE, current and previously found consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Bánh mì → Banh mi – In English we wouldn't normally use the diacritics from the Vietnamese script for this. In particular, see Google ngram's display at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=banh+mi%2Cb%C3%A1nh+m%C3%AC&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbanh%20mi%3B%2Cc0. In Google's English book corpus, there appear to be no uses of the phrase with the diacritics. I'm not sure this is at all controversial, but I wasn't sure about common practice so I've brought it up for discussion just in case. Largoplazo (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per long-established consensus. Yes this is controversial. We had a c-banned user trying to make English names out of the entire Vietnam-related article corpus a few years back. There's no need to target one language (or even one bread) for de-Unicode-ing. Apart from anything English recipe books use the tones, see Amazon.com: Minnesota Lunch: From Pasties to Bánh mì (2011) or Kathy Strahs The Ultimate Panini Press Cookbook (2013) "Vietnamese bánh mì sandwiches first began hitting the mainstream foodie consciousness, my husband must have sought out every bánh mì shop (and there are a lot of them) within a 20-mile radius, to taste what all the hype over a $3 sandwich was about." or Suzanne Pfefferle Vietnamese Cuisine in New Orleans (2014) "But even here, bánh mì sandwiches are prepared on light riceflour baguettes, rather than the “French” bread used for New Orleans' renowned po' boys. But the crisp bánh mì baguettes create a similar effect." and so on... In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that this decision be based on a cherry-picked sample of size 2? Well, I have a sample of size 3 ([1], [2], [3]) that supports me, so I win!!!

Seriously, now: Do you think your two examples override Google's entire corpus of books in English? (I acknowledge that the examples you've provided demonstrate that Google Books isn't 100% inclusive of all literature. However, it's a sample size greater than 2. Or 3.) I was hoping that whoever participated in this discussion would couch it either in terms of either what Wikipedia says to do or in terms of what's generally found in real life. Not "Here are two examples that use accents, therefore too bad for you." Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, "Hell, no" is also not a productive argument. Largoplazo (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not "targeting" anything. I was dealing with this one article, and the question came to my mind, so I pursued it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the "hell no" is because the entire corpus of the encyclopedia is based on using sources fit for purpose, which is why we have full Unicode titles and copy for everything from Maltese to Latvian, including Vietnamese. And the question why this article? So I ask you, why remove Vietnamese from this article and not from every article in Category:Vietnamese cuisine? Or indeed every article in the Vietnamese article corpus? Or in fact why not from Czech place names or Spanish bios? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you calm down? It was a frickin' question. If my question is already covered by a consensus that has been reached, then a constructive response would have been, "There's already been a general consensus for topics in (small-c) category X that we prefer the names with diacritics intact. See Wikipedia talk:(sample discussion) if you're interested in the details." (X could be Articles Related to Vietnam or Articles About Classical Musicians or whatever.) The hysterical, hyperconfrontational response—well, that's the one you gave me. Completely out of line. Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition, if every article at Category:Vietnamese cuisine has the diacritics because a consensus was reached to make them that way consistently, that's one thing. If there has been no such consensus and your argument is, "It has to be OK to have the diacritics, because look at all the articles that already do", then that could be a matter of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Without details, I don't know, because your responses have been long on handwaving and short on actual explanations rooted in policy, guidelines, and consensus. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It makes a difference whether a word or phrase is considered to have been fully absorbed into English. In any event, see WP:DIACRITICS and WP:ESTABLISHED. "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." I would guess that the common name for banh mi is more likely to fall [italics mine] No mention is made of needing to conform to the treatment of words from the same field of interest. If it's found that the common name among English speakers for beef noodle soup is "pho", it's immaterial that English speakers probably don't have an adopted diacritic-free common name for mực rang muối. It seems to me, anyway, that the degree of absorption of "banh mi" into English is much more similar to that of "pho" than that of "mực rang muối". Largoplazo (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Heck yes!. If and when diacritic use for a particular term can be shown to dominate in English reliable sources about the topic at issue, then we should use them as well. But not until then. A few cherry-picked examples hardly demonstrates dominance. --В²C ☎ 00:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:UE, the title should either be at the English name (Vietnamese baguette/Vietnamese po' boy) or the Vietnamese name, whichever is more common and/or is more precise. Removing diacritics does not make it English and Wikipedia does not face the technical or style manual limitations that require removal of diacritics. —  AjaxSmack  04:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would expect that some would describe banh mi as a Vietnamese po' boy or baguette sandwich for the benefit of someone who doesn't already know what one is, but does anybody really call them either of those? Also, it seems to me that Wikipedia's technical limits aren't the point so much as the means of the average English writer, no? After all, the article about 叉燒 is at Char siu, not 叉燒, even though Wikipedia has the technical ability to render "叉燒". Largoplazo (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That is because Lech Wałęsa uses the Unicode Latin font wheras ኃይለ ሥላሴ does not use the Unicode Latin font. Therefore a comparison between Lech Wałęsa which uses the Unicode Latin font wheras ኃይለ ሥላሴ does not, fails to address why en.wp uses Lech Wałęsa but not ኃይለ ሥላሴ. The difference between a Latin alphabet and a non-Latin alphabet should be visible to the naked eye. It is yes. So there is your answer. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

From the fact X and Y are different, it doesn't follow that because Z applies to X, Z automatically doesn't apply to Y. So your answer is inadequate. You didn't even bother answering my point, "Also, it seems to me that Wikipedia's technical limits aren't the point so much as the means of the average English writer, no?" Largoplazo (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

X and Y are both Latin alphabet. Lech Wałęsa and ኃይለ ሥላሴ are not both Latin alphabet. Char siu and 叉燒 are not both Latin alphabet. Bánh mì and croissant are both Latin alphabet. You asked "why the article about 叉燒 is at Char siu, not 叉燒, even though Wikipedia has the technical ability to render "叉燒"," and I answer that is because Lech Wałęsa uses the Unicode Latin font wheras ኃይለ ሥላሴ does not use the Unicode Latin font. Your answer is that 叉燒 is not Latin alphabet, so the article is at Char siu. Does this answer the question, '"why the article about 叉燒 is at Char siu, not 叉燒, even though Wikipedia has the technical ability to render "叉燒","'? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask why char siu is at char siu and not 叉燒. Furthermore, you're attempting to respond to my indication of the fallacy in your previous argument by committing the same fallacy again. Largoplazo (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Getting back to WP:UE, "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, Delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively)." I postulate that the anglicized form "banh mi" predominates in English language reliable sources. It predominates over "bánh mì". It certainly predominates over such descriptions as "Vietnamese baguette" and "Vietnamese po' boy". Let's check Google's corpus of books in English for those latter terms, shall we? https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=b%C3%A1nh+m%C3%AC%2Cbanh+mi%2CVietnamese+baguette%2CVietnamese+po%27+boy&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbanh%20mi%3B%2Cc0 Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Vietnamese po' boy" was poorly chosen anyway, because ov er 99.5% of the Google Books hit count for "vietnamese po boy" apparently associate that term with New Orleans. Alternative terminology essentially restricted to New Orleans is hardly going to be the common name of a thing in English. Largoplazo (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you raise 叉燒 is at Char siu, not 叉燒 if you were not interested in the subject? I'm sorry I really can't be bothered, the entire encyclopedia is Unicode. That's how many years of long discussion have left it. If you want to know more then look in the archives. The corpus of Vietnamese articles is the way it is, in Unicode, just like every other Latin language as the result of following the best sources as AjaxSmack explained above. We don't follow ASCII sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Every single thing you just wrote is a non sequitur or wrong.

• I raised char siu for the reason that ought to be clear, as a basis for comparison for the topic we're discussing here, banh mi. I did not raise it because I was questioning the placement of char siu. And, when I pointed out that that wasn't why I raised it, I was not then indicating a lack of interest in that subject. But, then I never did indicate an interest in that subject, it was an arbitrary example for comparison, as a I said, for banh mi. The imprecision with which you keep interpreting what I've written is mindblowing. The result is that, over and over, you respond to things I didn't say while failing to respond cogently to what I did say. This is nonproductive.
• I understand perfectly well that this encyclopedia is written in Unicode (of which diacritic-free characters are a subset—you talk as though the two are mutually exclusive). But simply pointing out that accented characters are available by no means leads automatically to the conclusion that the accented version is the version under which Wikipedia guidelines says we should have articles. In fact, WP:UE expressly says that isn't true. So, unless you believe that non sequiturs are a sound method for advancing your position, it is in your best interest not to bring up again the non sequitur that these accented characters can be used on Wikipedia.
• Your third sentence makes no sense.
• Your fourth sentence amounts to "Just believe my claims uncritically even though I've given you ample reason not to and my claims are manifestly not completely in accord with the guidelines you've already cited. I have no intention of actually pointing you to sources that back me up, I'm just going to wave my hands in their general direction. This is because, when someone begins a conversation with, 'Can someone show me whether there is any guidance on ...', an appropriate response is 'Find it yourself, and if you don't believe that it's there just because I've said so, I'm going to act really, really put out.'"
• Sentence 5: AjaxSmack pointed to WP:UE and, as I've just pointed out to you, it doesn't say what AjaxSmack said it does. And AjaxSmack's waving at fake "common names" like "Vietnamese po' boy" didn't help make their case.
• Then we come to your final sentence, "We don't follow ASCII sources." WP:UE says we do, under the circumstances it spells out. As a prime example, as I already pointed out, Pho does not have diacritics in its title. Nor does Hanoi. Nor Ho Chi Minh. Nor Vietnam. So you're wrong. And you will be as long as you fail to take into consideration the very crux of WP:UE, the question of whether a term is considered to have become anglicized or not. I'm interested to know whether there's a consensus here over whether "banh mi" can be considered to have become anglicized. In the absence of that determination, no one can determine the conclusion that WP:UE would have us reach. But continuing to bring up Wikipedia's capabilities doesn't override that. Bringing up handling of the terms of other but less commonly known Vietnamese dishes whose names cannot be said by anybody to have become anglicized also doesn't override that.

I'm really hoping to get some input here from people who are familiar with specific discussions that have reached consensus conclusions that are applicable here, rather than obvious misinterpretations and misapplications of guidelines, who don't imagine that two counterexamples overrides the entirety of the literature, and who discuss matters like this coolly and rationally instead of with the sort of sabre-rattling and dramatic generalizations that have been the hallmarks of your entire contribution here from your very first pair of words. Largoplazo (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The irony is that I don't have a strong feeling one way or another myself. I had an initial inclination, then I checked myself and brought the question here. But I do feel strongly about (a) being attacked for no reason and (b) being expected to respond amenably to a litany of baseless rationales, overgeneralizations, and non sequiturs. Largoplazo (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inconsistent article

The first paragraph defines "Bánh mì" primarily as the bread. The infobox defines it primarily as the sandwich. The infobox is correct. In English, "banh mi" refers almost exclusively to the sandwich. Likewise, "banh mi" (with no accents) is now a widely accepted English term (see any dictionary, e.g., [4], [5], [6]) Here's the definition from the dictionary built into macOS:

banh mi | ˈbɑːn miː |

noun (plural same)

(in Vietnamese cuisine) a sandwich consisting of a baguette (traditionally baked with both rice and wheat flour) filled with a variety of ingredients, typically including meat, pickled vegetables, and chilli peppers: along with classic banh mi, there are refreshing cold noodles and exceptional bowls of soup.

ORIGIN from Vietnamese bánh mì ‘bread’.

Therefore, the main headword of the article in English Wikipedia should be "banh mi", not "bánh mì". Just as we have an article for Hanoi, not an article for Hà Nội. And as a widely recognized loanword, "banh mi" should *not* be italicized in the article unless it is being used as part of a native Vietnamese term such as bánh mì thịt nguội. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Etymologies should not be the first paragraph of the lead. Merriam Webster as a source for moving it to an etymology section [7]. English language sources use bánh mì so no need to change the title [8][9][10]. Spudlace (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable information regarding rice flour in Vietnamese baguettes

The first source [17] after the paragraph stating that Vietnamese baguettes attribute their fluffy texture to rice flour explicitly states that rice flour is the worst thing for that purpose — the source says it hinders gluten development, prevents browning, and forms hard spots in the dough. It was used for a brief period of time ending with WWI, after which no further information is provided. The relevant paragraph, Google translated:

   The French were forced to add rice flour to the flour, to create the "pain de riz" cakes. And so, the culinary barrier that the first-generation colonists worked hard to establish was broken.  Interestingly, although the mixing of rice flour with wheat flour only lasted until the end of World War I, many people still believe that the light banh mi made in Vietnam is due to the addition of rice flour (?! ). “There are recipes out there for rice flour that makes up 50 percent of the bread dough, and as a result they create rock-hard lumps of dough that can be thrown and injured,” said Andrea Nguyen, head of the department. chef and food writer who lives in California, said. “Rice flour does not expand due to the lack of gluten. In addition, the rice flour does not turn a beautiful brown color. I have tried several recipes with rice flour and they are terrible.”

To my knowledge, Vietnamese baguettes are proofed within an inch of over-proofing and / or are enhanced with dough conditioner (which is readily available and has been since before the 1950s) in an attempt to make more bread with less flour. The second source [18] says nothing on the matter and the third source [16] says little more than “some recipes use rice flour”, which is far from something worthy of citing. I know it has other relevant information, but it does not provide any insight into the use of rice flour. Source [17] basically completely invalidates the point it is there to support. I imagine the prevalence of the rice theory is in part because a huge percentage of Vietnamese baguettes (in Vietnam) are made by commercial bakeries, so many people living there and even those selling banh mi’s still think the secret ingredient is rice flour. Because of the totally alien texture, more people are inclined to believe this as well. It’s a self-perpetuating myth based on truth. This is anecdotal evidence, but I've made Vietnamese baguettes countless times with nearly that many recipes -- rice flour, if called for, consistently results in a denser and less fluffy product. As a nod to the other side, rice flour is a very good non-stick coating for proofing bread, keeping it from sticking to the banneton / proofing basket (if making the kind of bread that warrants such a tool). I imagine a bakery trying to keep its flour waste as close to zero as possible would be using rice flour for this purpose. In that context, though, it contributes nothing to the fluffiness of the resultant bread. Banh myself (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)