From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Gumbo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2011.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Louisiana / New Orleans (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article could be improved. I'm only commenting as I noticed that this is supposedly a featured article. Using the UN definition of West Africa, there are NO Indigenous Bantu (Niger-Congo B) speaking people in West Africa. The proto-Bantu language most likely owes it's origin to Cameroon. American African slaves were additional to West African, acquired from Wene wa Kongo and it's satellite and tributary states in what is now modern day Angola and Congo. Therefore you should correct the article to specify that the word may be of Southern African or Angolan slave origin if you propose it being a Bantu word derivative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Toxic gumbo[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has recently been a series of attempts by an IP editor to force in a paragraph referring to the expression "toxic gumbo" used to describe water following Hurricane Katrina. While this might be relevant to the hurricane's article, it had nothing to do with the actual dish; the word was simply co-opted for use in another context. Despite having been reverted by a number of editors, the IP continues for force the edit with highly uncivil edit summaries. I'm opening this discussion in the hope that the IP editor and other involved editors will discuss and establish consensus in a civil matter. My position is already clear -- the paragraph has no place in this article; at best, it's trivia. --Drmargi (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

AS one of the targets of this editor insults, the toxic gumbo reference does not belong in the article. It is questionably sourced and irrelevant to the article. Unfortunately the editor in question will just change his IP address, as he has done multiple times in the past, look at the history. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 20:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The questionable sources are no longer an issue. I found several newspaper articles that were solely about the use of this term in precisely the context the anon was talking about, as well as several relevant instances in Google Books. They're not wrong that it was in fact a real colloquialism, and it's one of the several ways that gumbo has been used as a metaphor in New Orleans -- for instance, there were books that detailed how gumbo has been used throughout history as a metaphor for describing the mix of cultures that lead to New Orleans and Creole culture in general. I think it merits inclusion, described properly as a term that related to a fleeting situation. Steven Walling • talk 20:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad there are better sources, but I can't agree that it belongs in the article, and in fact think its inclusion opens a Pandora's box. Were it about gumbo, yes. But it's about a euphemism adopted during the events following Katrina, and belongs in the Katrina article, if anywhere. It doesn't pass WP:TRIVIA, doesn't fit into the overall flow of the article, and worse, opens the door for a compendium of every colloquial use of gumbo, which I'm sure your book makes clear are plentiful. I'd also add that it's a distasteful and somewhat insensitive reference to an unfortunate period of time, particularly given it is associated with, as you describe it, a fleeting situation. --Drmargi (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't think we have to let a big list in. I think the correct way of going about it is to write a one paragraph or less statement summarizing the uses of the word gumbo in a non-literal sense, and maybe use toxic gumbo as an example. As for distasteful: yes, as someone really enjoys gumbo I agree. :) But verifiability means that if there's a preponderance of sources about a mainstream view of a topic, we should probably include something about it, even if just in passing. Steven Walling • talk 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with its inclusion. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it needs to be included. This article is about the food product gumbo. It is not about Hurricane Katrina, and should not be included as such. If there are other meanings or usages for the word there should be a disambiguation page set up and a hat note placed at the top of the article. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh come on. It's a term with the word gumbo in it, directly related to the concept, but disambig pages are not for listing concepts which are unlikely to have an article. They're for disambiguating articles or likely articles. Verifiability and notability are in fact our primary tests for inclusion, and if you looked at the sources, you'd know this meets both requirements easily. At this point it seems like people are reacting negatively based on the IP who was being rude. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. When someone, even an anonymous editor, fights for inclusion of something, it's worth taking a second look at the sources and giving it a reasonable chance. This isn't the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here, it's just gumbo. Steven Walling • talk 04:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not against its inclusion due to an IP contributor with anger management issues, I am against it because it has nothing to do with the food dish known as gumbo besides a onetime trivial usage in another media. Because of this trivial use of the word, I feel that it does not warrant inclusion. Additionally, this usage is simply an example of WP:Recentism that has long passed its expiration. It is not an ongoing, common usage of the term. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 04:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Exactly! With all due respect for the work Steven did finding better sources, this is a big of linguistic trivia from a point in time long passed. It has nothing to do with the editor, odious as his behavior was -- how about a bit of assumption of good faith on that point? Were I to cruise along and read that paragraph in the article, my reaction would be so what? and to delete it. I'll suggest yet again; put it in the Katrina article and be done with it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the dish. --Drmargi (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see our behaviorally challenged IP is back, IP hopping around the ban. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 03:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw that, and let the blocking admin know earlier this evening. --Drmargi (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
We have a week until he comes back...--Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the same reasons the others have expressed, I agree that "toxic gumbo" should not be addressed in this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, no Toxic in this Gumbo. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Dlohcierekim 18:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "gumbo" can be used to describe some kind of soggy mess (where I live, the soil type is unofficially known as "gumbo"). So it's not surprising that has been extended to "toxic gumbo". I think that information likely belongs in the wiktionary entry for gumbo and but it not really significant in terms of this topic. In the grand scheme of references to the word "gumbo", this is a teeny-tiny percentage and thus is trivia. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to challenge the notion presented on multiple occasions in this article that gumbo is either fowl based or seafood based, but *never* both. This article cites a book that has been praised on its well researched data, but coming from the area of Louisiana known as Acadiana, I have to disagree with this statement. I am aware of restaurants commonly serving gumbo in the form of "Chicken (fowl) and Andouille (or 'Sausage')", or "Seafood" in an effort to be accessible to the eating habits of potential customers, but that does not imply that gumbo is prepared only in those two variations in a Cajun's home. How would I would go about removing these portions of the article for the sake of neutrality while getting the approval of the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdank (talkcontribs) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, a Wikipedia article should be based on reliable sources. Sometimes we may have first-hand knowledge of something, but if the sources don't discuss it, we can't put it in the article. Also, articles should be neutral point of view, which means the weight of coverage is given to what is most accepted. Per the sources, the two types of gumbo (chicken and seafood) are always separate. Per my Mamaw, who is as Cajun as they come, chicken and seafood are always separate, always have been, always should be or else. Karanacs (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Gumbo is traditionally served over rice"[edit]

Can this sentence be moved to the end of the first paragraph. Right now it is misleading. I thought it meant only some varieties have rice, due to the context of the second paragraph.