Talk:Paella

Cleanup

This page is a mess, it needs reformatting. For this reason, I have nominated it for cleanup. skorpion 12:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's a mess. It was much better before the chorizos and the Asian paellas began to be introduced in the page.--Ploro 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: Progress

Please note all cleanup changes here and why you changed it - and don't forget to sign it

Paella Variations

• Changed the heading "Other Paellas" to "Paella Variations" as this more suits the contecnt of the section. skorpion 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Related paella traditions

• Added a citation needed tag. skorpion 05:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

• I have organised the external links at the bottom, removing that unsightly info box that had links to pictures from the university of valencia and putting the links on one line, to make it more organised. However I vote for the removal of those links entirely, we already have paella pictures and I believe these ones add little to the article. Please comment below this and vote. (remeber to tab in with a colon and sign your name) skorpion 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Changed the captions on some of the links to wikify them. skorpion 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Removed the advertisment for a spanish catering company. It was 1. in spanish and 2. spam. skorpion 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing this page

When editing the talk page please either start with a new heading if it is on a new topic or add to the bottom of a current topic. When starting a new topic pleasse add it to the bottom of the page, not the top as it interferes with the contents. Lastly please sign your comment with four tildes. All untitled talk that was on the page has been moved to the bottom. skorpion 12:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The external link

The external link on "mediterrasian.com" seems more an advert than really a good reference on how to cook a paella, or about paella, even with the most open-minded variations of the dish. I would remove it. A good source is "paella.net", although it is in Spanish. Unsigned.

I vote for removing the link! Unsigned.

mediterrasian.com is an excellent resource. I disagree with the removal of the link. Although their recipes at times may be a little bastardised, it still provides a good link with a paella recipe. Also please sign comments on talk pages. (this talk page has been reorganised to make more sense) skorpion 03:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I also vote for removing the link. It is not only bastardised, but it must be uneatable. There are so so many thing added to the paella, that I can't even see the rice. --Ploro 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I am out-voted! (link removed if it already hasnt been) skorpion 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Chorizo" and onions in a paella?

Please! I've seen peas in seafood paellas, but I've NEVER seen "chorizo" (not a typical valencian food) or onions in a paella. Please remove it from the definition; it's wrong.

P.S.: paella = Valencian paella. Unsigned.

Please sign comments on talk pages by using 4 tildes.skorpion 03:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the majority of the fake Spanish restaurants in the US, have paella with chorizo. It is a disgusting practice and a very clear tell-tale that the establishment is anything but Spanish.

==

Spelling

Fixed the spelling mistake in the 2nd paragraph, changed this:

In Valencia area, nevertheless, the name paella is commonly user for both, the pan and the dish.

to this:

In Valencia area, nevertheless, the name paella is commonly used for both, the pan and the dish.

skorpion 14:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the missing 'r' in 'saffron'.

Guillem

Toasting the bottom

I read somewhere that during the final stage of cooking the heat was turned up and the rice in the bpottom of the ban was toasted. Can someone verify this? skorpion 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The other way round. If you turn up the heat at the end, the rice will be burned. Low fire can make the rice toast a little bit to a point which is usually referred to as "caramelització" (like sugar is turned into candy).--Ploro 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Valencians distinguish three sorts of overtoasted rice at the bottom of the pan, namely arròs daurat (browned rice), arròs socarradet (slightly burnt rice)and arròs socarrat (burnt rice). While the first two are delicate, the last one is discarded.

Guillem

Moved Talk

All of the below talk was moved from the top of the page where it was interferring with the contents. In future please 1. Title your talk if it is on a new topic. 2. add new talk to the bottom not the top. skorpion 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What's meant by "non-rigorous" paella? Wouldn't "Rigorous Paella" be a great name for a rock band?

Stlemur

---

Please define sofrito. - Montréalais

The equivalence for 'sofreir' (verb 'to produce sofrito') provided by a dictionary is 'to fry lightly', which does not seem not much accurate. To make 'sofregit' (Catalan) or 'sofrito' (Spanish) is to fry-and-stir something (tipically onions, tomatoes, peppers, little bits of something, etc) in the frying pan over slow heat until it sort of melts or makes up a sauce.

---

I reverted to the the previous version with the image. Why was it removed? --Vikingstad 20:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it does not match with any genuine variation of paella, the recipient is not flat, as it should be, the rice is not dry and it looks overdone. But the main reason is that the picture does not match with the recipe. The recipe given on the left is for a "paella de carn" (meat paella) and the picture is an "open-minded" "paella de marisc" (seafood paella) (with peas). It was removed because of coherence. -- Ploro, a Valencian

I agree. The photo is not very high quality and neither is the paella pictured. However, I think in general we should keep pictures until a better one comes along. I would highly encourage you to make a paella and take a picture and submit it to Wikipedia. If you're not sure how, see Wikipedia:Images. —Nohat 18:09, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

---

I would like to see some evidence that "true" paella doesn't include onion, garlic, chorizo, or peas. I couldn't verify that anywhere on the web. It sounds like someone's opinion to me. I'm qualifying the statement to make it more NPOV. --Nohat 02:27, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Of course, there are opinions on this and probably you can put frogs into a paella and that might taste good. But paella is not like pizza. Paella was originated in the lowlands of Valencia, and it's been done in the same way for centuries, at least from the times tomato was introduced in Valencia around the seventeenth century. There are no chorizos in a lowland. Dried sausages are typical of cold places, so it's difficult to understand how chorizo could become a typical ingredient in a lowland, full of marshes.

Of course, you can see peas and chorizo in some touristic places (not in Valencia, but maybe in Madrid or Barcelona), although if someone has visited Spain once in their life can corroborate that these ingredients are not usual.

Needless to say that you won't see these ingredients in a home-made paella, at least 200 kms around Valencia.

If a Danish or Russian or Mexican makes something similar to a paella and tastes good, congratulations, but that's not a paella, at least a Valencian paella, or a Spanish paella. -- Jose, a Valencian

Perhaps not, but this article is called "paella", not "Valencian paella" or "Spanish paella". —Nohat

---

I decided to look up "Paella" in the Larousse Gastronomique, widely considered one of the most authoritative culinary encyclopedias.

PAELLA A traditional Spanish rice dish garnished with vegetables, chicken and shellfish. Its name is derived from that of the container in which it is prepared (paellera).

Paella originated in the region of Valencia. Its three basic ingredients are rice, saffron and olive oil. The garnish, which is cooked with the rice in stock, originally consisted either of chicken, snails, French beans (green beans), and peas or of eel, frogs and vegetables, but it became considerably enriched and varied as it spread throughout Spain and even beyond (see jambalaya). The garnish may now include chicken, rabbit, duck, lobster, mussels, langoustines, prawns (shrimp), squid, chorizo, French beans, peas, red (bell) peppers and artichoke hearts; chicken, chorizo, mussels, langoustines and peas are essential ingredients. Paella may be a rustic dish, cooked in the open air and eaten straight from the paellera, traditionally accompanied by small onions (not bread), or a very elaborate preparation, presented with great care, the different-coloured ingredients contrasting with the saffron-flavoured rice and set off by the green peas.

(italic emphasis original, bold emphasis added)

A recipe follows that includes onions and garlic. —Nohat

Very authoritative, ok, but it's wrong. I've never seen frogs in a paella. Never tasted a paella with chorizo. Usually, we don't mix meat with seafood. Either it is a Valencian paella ("paella de carn") with chicken, rabbit and maybe pork, or it is a "paella de pescado/marisco". Mixed paellas are not good combinations. Garlic is only added to the "paella de pescado", which might be more touristic because tourists expect to taste seafood dishes when they are on the beach. There is also "arròs negre" and "fideuà", which are variations, but they're very well established variations, and they have a fixed set of ingredients. You can check, e.g. http://www.lapaella.net/. I'm sorry not to be able to refer to the Real Academia Española for this or to other international recipe source. Of course if you look in google you will even find recipes with alien's meat into a paella, but I can give these two sources.

The most popular newspaper in the Valencia Region has a recipe site:

http://www.lasprovincias.es/valencia/ocio/recetas/

You can check this one:

http://www.lasprovincias.es/valencia/ocio/recetas/paellavalenciana.html

The most authoritative text on Valencian cuisine is J. Martí Dominguez "Els Nostres Menjars". I have it at home and it matches the recipe as it was, not like it has been changed afterwards.You can take a look at part of this book here: http://www.uv.es/~baldovi/cuina/index.html

Recipes are not laws, but cultural heritage. Hence, you won't see prohibitions or banned ingredients,but 'authoritative sources' must check the origins, history and customs of each recipe. It seems to me that the Larousse Gastronomique did a bad work on this. -- Jose, a Valencian

OK, I looked on lapaella.net, and it clearly says under Paella valenciana,

En temporada también admite alcachofa y guisantes.

Guisantes = peas, right?

It also says

Y aquí es donde empiezan las polémicas, porque los valencianos, por naturaleza, no nos ponemos de acuerdo en casi nada y con la paella no iba a ser de otra manera.

So you'll forgive me if I have trouble accepting an authoritative declaration of paella from just one or two Valencians. —Nohat

So clearly, according to an authoritative culinary encyclopedia, onions, garlic, chorizo, and peas are essential ingredients of paella, and I don't see any legitimate reason that the Wikipedia should say that they should be excluded. So, the photo stays, and the bit about how these ingredients are not part of "true" paella goes. —Nohat 06:00, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a war on this. The Larousse Gastronomique is wrong and it makes me sad to know that wikipedia will be wrong as well. I still think that Wikipedia must be an encyclopedia, not some form of organised google, so it should maintain the original and authentic recipes, and refer variations as what they are, variations. I would agree to put something milder such as "although purists won't agree, peas and chorizo can be seen on paellas all around the world (but very rarely in Spain)". I would also agree to create separate entries in wikipedia for all the variations, leaving paella for a "free or open-minded" paella, with links to specific paellas, starting from the Valencian and original one. We could work on this if you agree. Anyone wanting to work on this can contact me at "ploro@uv.es". -- Ploro, a Valencian

Nonetheless, I don't understand why foreigners have such an interest in instructing us what a paella is. I won't tell your recipes of paella to my grandma, she would die of a heart-attack. -- Jose, a Valencian

I think the fundamental problem here is the misguided belief that because paella originally came from Valencia, that somehow Valencians have dominion over defining what is and isn't paella. Valencians have no more authority to decide what is and isn't paella than the Neapolitans have in deciding what is and isn't pizza or in Texans declaring that "chili" can't have beans. They can only say "this is how we make it", but they really have no business telling others how to make it.

First of all, while I recognize that paella is originally a Valencian word, this is the English Wikipedia, and we write about the English meanings of words. In English there is a long tradition of words not meaning what some authority says they mean, but instead words mean what users mean them to mean. If the vast majority of English speakers mean by "paella" a dish that includes peas, then no matter how much some Valencian purists protest, "paella" means a dish with peas in English. I'll refrain from editing the article on the Spanish Wikipedia about "paella".

I guess it possible, likely even, given the franco-centric nature of the french writers who originally wrote the Gastronomique, that they are wrong about the traditional Valencian ingredients of paella.

Anyhow, I have removed the recipe to Wikibooks (a result of a discussion elsewhere about recipes on Wikipedia), so some of these details are no longer relevant. But it is important that the article be neutral in how it defines paella, without taking sides as to what is and isn't paella, but only what different people believe paella is or might not be.

— Nohat 16:48, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article now, and I think it better represents the traditional view of paella as well as the more liberal one, without taking sides. Please let me know if you still have problems with it. I think we should be able to fairly represent all views. —Nohat 18:06, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

I like the current solution very much and I agree with you on everything, including the peas and I'm sure Ploro will do as well. I'll put a better picture of the paella one of these days. Thank you. -- Jose, a Valencian.

Paella variations

I have had to continually edit this section as one user (both as an anonymous user and as a registered user) insists on modifying the last sentence, which mentions Vallencian rice. The change is from: "Portugal has a similar popular dish called Arroz à Valenciana (Valencian Rice)." to: "Portugal has a similar (and much better) popular dish called Arroz à Valenciana (Valencian Rice).

I have left an edit note within that section of the text and a message on that users talk page specifying that it was deleted for a reason (WP:NPOV) but if it happens for a 5th time I will be forced to seek administrator intervention. skorpion 10:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New picture

The new picture on the top is not a Valencian Paella. It might be a kind of freestyle paella but it is not a Valencian Paella. I don't know why every two or three months, someone changes the main picture to a picture which has nothing to do with an authentic paella. The text already says (and it was forced to say this) that "paella" is understood in many different ways around the globe, but "Valencian Paella" is a term which is still understood as those paellas which stick to tradition. I suggest to recover the original picture as in: (http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paella) -- A Valencian.

• I agree, but am not sure how to recover the picture. Can anyone help here? Fairsing 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Valencia, not Andalucía

Paella originated in Valencia, not Andalucía. Reverted. Tsk070 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added requests on the user's talk page for references or cites to support his position as well. Kuru ^talk 14:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but unfortunately right now the article says both that it originated there and that it didn't originate there. Can we choose a consistent point of view in one way or another until the issue is resolved? --ubiquity 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a missed uncited change[1] by the same editor - he hit the XO page with his standard change on Nov 20th[2] with the same University of Kent IP. Kuru ^talk 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm Valencian. And this article is quite unprecise. Paella is original from Valencia, that's sacred. And the one we eat here, the original, never has peas, nor chorizo. It must always be cooked on a "Paellera", thats the secret, it doesnt state the same when cooked on an ordinary frying pan.

The first paellas where done by the farmers from l'Albufera (where many rice is seeded). It was made with rests of other foods. The it evolved, at those times it was common to put rat meat on it too. Nowdays, of course we don't put rat on nit, but rabbit and maybe chicken. / But I heard that the Paella was from Catalonia, is it part from Valencia or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.225.41 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More inaccuracies

"Real paella rice is never stir-fried in oil, as pilaf."

This is plain wrong. The best paellas I've had all had the rice fried for a while before adding the water. It improves water absorption.

Besides, the word "real" is out of context, seeing the comments above about this document describing what "paella" means in English, rather than what a Valencian paella is.

69.181.148.6 07:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If only there were some way that you could update the article! Rogerborg (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Major ingredients are not 'Rice, saffron and olive oil'. Rice and chicken perhaps. But saffron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.128.201 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Saffron is a vital ingredient that gives the dish its unique flavor.

As well as its characteristic colour... --Gibmetal 77^talk 02:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Spain

Was Spain always monotheistic? Sure, Spain the nation may have been Christian since the end of the Roman era, but the indigenous Iberians were certainly pagans and the Romans living there were pagans as well until the Christian era. Or did the pre-Christian Iberians and Hispanics simply not exist? That needs to be revised without the seemingly Catholic bias.

To claim that people in that land were ALWAYS monotheistic strikes me as laughably implausible.

--'Course it's implausible, because it's not true. There have been people in Spain much longer than there has been Christianity or Islam, and I doubt the population was entirely Jewish in, say, the time of the Roman Empire. But anyway. The real problem here is an unsubstantiated anecdote about some "priest" having a vision and creating paella, inserted by an anonymous user with a dubious edit history and poor typing skills. I have chosen to be bold and remove the offending text. Anyone want to quote a reputable source?--Craigkbryant (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥>33♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.250.205 (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Broth vs water to cook the rice

Most of the paella recipes I've read say the rice should be cooked in a broth rather than plain water. The broths are usually made by boiling one or some combination of the following: chicken, rabbit, clam (and less commonly; lobster, shrimp, mussels, fish filets, vegetables).

I personally use a combination of chicken broth and clam broth. I therefore am going to change the paragraph describing how to cook paella to reflect this and I will provide at least one citation. Pasta4470 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the rice is not just cooked in plain water when making a paella. However, I would personally use the term stock rather broth to describe what the rice is cooked in. Does anyone else prefer this term? --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference to puela

I'm Hispanic and I've never heard of the word puela. However, I'm not from New Mexico, so I checked for sources on the Internet but I couldn't find any. Even if it does exist, it's extremely non-standard, so I'm not sure it belongs here. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There you are, a reference. In these cases it's far better to tag with templates Dubious, Refimprove or the like, instead of just removing. --Jotamar (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable references

I'm posting here as a reply to a request by JonCatalan to give advice on references for bringing this article up to FA standards. JonCatalan's question was whether there were enough online sources to support a high-quality history section on the paella. My guess is that it's highly doubtful that websites will be enough. If I came across a food history article I would be very skeptical to accpeting it as being of FA quality without print references. The current version of the article uses the website The Food Timeline as a reference, but the contents is really nothing but large snippets of text taken from print sources like The Oxford Companion to Food and The Food and Wines of Spain. If a website is nothing but a collection of quotes, then the reference might as well be directly to the books that are quoted.

A general recommendation for improving the article is to be careful about including too many curiosities, such as the largest paella ever made. It's bordering the trivial, but as long as it's incorporated in a wider context, it could work. (But it needs to be referenced.) The "Related dishes" list would also work better if it was converted to prose, preferably already in the lead. The etymology information in the lead work work better in a separate etymology-section where it could be fleshed out properly.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Recents edits of user 161.111.214.103

An editor who uses the above IP address has rewritten the lead with a very Valencian POV and has cited nothing to back up his/her claims. I'm going to restore it to its previous state. If he/she changes it back I suppose I'll have to put a neutrality tag on the article and seek the assistance of an administrator. LuisGomez111 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Language (comment)

You have made some very good changes on the article lately, LuisGomez111.

But I still think that the fact that Valencians speak Catalan is not easy to understand, when reading the the introduction of the article, since there is no informatiomn on that so that one may understand this fact.

It is mentioned in the introduction that

the dish is originating in the Valencian autonomous region of Spain.

And later

The two most popular types of paella are Valencian paella and seafood paella.

And later

This dish has become enormously popular throughout much of the Spanish-speaking world, including the Hispanic regions of the United States. It also enjoys moderate popularity throughout Western Europe.

When people have read the introduction, putting this all together, all this may give the wrong information or impression to someone who doesn't know or doesn't have the right knowlege about this that Valencians speak Spanish, or are Spanish. Unless they happen to know what language is used in the Valencian autonomous region of Spain. (the Catalan speaking region).

This sould be mentioned in the begining of the article, since half of the article is about Valencians and their paella.

I put this on the discussion page because it is about the improvement of the article.

Warrington (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the problem is fixed. Not everyboby is avare of the differences, you know. Added some pictures.

Warrington (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wording

We seem to have an editor (with multiple accounts) which does not fully understand the nature of wikipedia or has not read wp:own, or, most possibly, either.

He's chaging back to his version, and only his version, on the "grounds" that "there is nothing wrong with 'popularity' or 'enormously'"

No, indeed there is nothing wrong, but it can be improved. And there is nothing wrong either with removing "enormous" (an obvious peacock term) or with the word "acceptance".

As for "Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan" that is self-evident clumsy and improvable wording which can be easily and more aptly replaced by "Valencian speakers" (at the Valencian article it is well clear the language's status and filiation, it is in that article and not this one where it belongs)

Take it easy, LuisGomez aka the thin man who never leaves...you can stay as long as you deem necessary, but you'll have to get used to get your beloved wording removed by other users.

You seem to be very aware of the 3RR as to break it yourself [3]. Cool, but I won't mind breaking it myself despite your threats and lack of cooperation attitude for as many times as it takes. Sorry. Mountolive _{le déluge} 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia will temporarily or permanently block your IP address if you violate the 3RR. Therefore, breaking it repeatedly is impossible. LuisGomez111 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all you have to say about my reasons? Depressing dude.

Dont worry, other users will have their say. Mountolive _{le déluge} 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you've made yet another baffling change to this article. Apparently, you like to delete first and ask questions later. Regarding the usage of chorizo in paella: While, this may not be common in Spain it is very common throughout Latin America and in Hispanic communities throughout the United States. I know this through my extensive travels. While I'm aware this constitutes personal research, there are no studies proving it (who would study such a thing?), so I'm forced to rely on my personal experience. As far as the meaning of the phrase "non-Valencian recipe" is concerned, here's what I meant: A Non-Valencian paella recipe is a recipe different from the traditional Valencian paella recipe. In fact I addressed this very issue in the article. Valencians are very sensitive about how people refer to paella, not what they put in it. They restrict the traditonal recipe to the list I provided in the article. If the paella contains seafood, Valencians believe it no longer deserves the name paella Valencian. I would be rather foolish to believe Valencians never put seafood in their paella. However, when they do, they call it either paella mixta or paella de marisco but never paella valenciana. However, it's the seafood version that is most popular throughout the world. The mixed version is most popular in Spain.

Having said all that, however, I can see that there is a larger issue at hand here. You have become obsessed with this article or perhaps obsessed with altering information I've written. Change it if you like. I will edit anything I see as unreasonable or incorrect later. However, if you violate Wikipedia policy, I will be quick to report you.

Also, I can't help but notice you never answered the comment I left for you on your talk page regarding Valencians speaking Catalan. Why not? Have you nothing left to say? By the way, don't call me "dude". I hate that. LuisGomez111 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So I "have become obsessed with this article"? Pay a look at the article history [4] and you'll see how ludicrous your claim is and who is actually obsessed. You have made (under your three different known identities) some 400 of the last 500 edits...so, obsessed who, you said?

As "obsessed with altering information you've written"...mate (is "mate" ok?) seriously...who do you think you are? are you having a bad week or you are always like that?

Your piece of text at my talk page is missing my point here. While you were asking to block me, I was giving reasoning here. So now you have to answer my reasoning, because instead of answering me, you wanted to use shortcuts (blocking people) so that no one "altered information you've written" (and, by the way, you did a poor job with that, so anxious you were to get a block...)

If you have any answer to my questions above, please go ahead. I'm willing to hear them. Mountolive _{le déluge} 02:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Your writing is very convoluted. LuisGomez111 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

International dish

Paella is also an International dish. Editors are focusing on Valencian paella, and use a lot of energy on discussing minor details, while missing out on the fact that paella like dishes are well-known in other countries, yet the article makes it sound like something inherently Valencian.

Could someone try to reduce the Valencian focus of the article a bit?

Bluee Mountain (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that could be easily solved if there was a section exclusively for Valencian paella (as made in the Valencian region) while the rest of the article was about the international dish and its variants. Mountolive _{le déluge} 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If I remember correctly I wrote a lead stating that paella is "an internationally famous" dish but other editors accused me of using a peacock phrase. So I'll change it back. Also, breaking the article in two, Mountolive, strikes me as excessive. The history for both articles would be exactly the same up until the 20th century. Therefore, they would be near mirrors of each other. I did my best to track the history of paella with citations from its inception as an Arab rice casserole to its present day form as a seafood and rice dish. I fail to see how that's unbalanced. However, if either of you (Mountolive or Bluee Mountain) have well-cited historical infomation about paella then, by all means, add it. I can't help but notice, however, that after I expanded this article editors have been quick to criticize its wording but have made no effort to add new information. LuisGomez111 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article history, and the discussion page, it is not easy to add anything to this article, mostly an effort in vain. Nevertheless, the aricle is not balanced and if there was a section exclusively for Valencian paella while the rest of the article was about the international dish and its variants, that would work nicely. Not necessarily "an internationally famous" dish, just an international dish. And I guess that you meant pea, in the paella , not pee. (Pee is a colloquial term for urine or the act of urination, from the first letter of piss). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluee Mountain (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Bluee Mountain (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Mountolive

Note LuisGomez111 has deleted his own comments after other users had responded to them. I am reinstating them below for the sake of conversation flow. Mountolive _{le déluge} 13:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the changes you've made. Your writing skills are so shockingly poor that it's comical. For instance, you may be surprised to learn that the word "recipe" is not spelled "recipee". Also, your sentence construction is often nonsensical. Here's one of your gems:

Also in the Albufera, there used to be a now nearly vanished recipee including a local rodent similar to the water vole.

First of all, as I stated earlier, there's no pee in the word recipe. Secondly there are two redundancies in the sentence: there used to be and now nearly vanished. Thirdly, you have no citations to back up your information. Finally instead of identifying the actual rodent Spaniards used to use in paella, you can only provide the name of one that’s similar to it: the water vole.

Here's another one of your monstrosities:

Later on, social life became more active with the sociological changes involved with the industrialization process.

I had to read this sentence several times before understanding it. You obviously started out with something I wrote and finished off with something barely intelligible. Here's a much better rewrite.

Later on, social life became more active with the changes of the industrial age.

There are other glaring mistakes but I'm not your English teacher so I intend to give you no more instruction. In short, instead of improving this article you've ruined it by adding irrelevant, uncited information and by inserting poorly written prose.

For the time being, however, I'm going to resist the urge to revert. I want to see what other gargantuan mistakes you make. Because, frankly, I'm curious to see just how remedial your writing skills are. Later I can always revert and/or ask for the assistance of an administrator in this matter.

Seriously dude you need to learn how to write. LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Luis, you might want to read the these links Wikipedia:edit war, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:ownership of articles before this disagreement goes too far. Shinerunner (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes by Mountolive and my reaction

I'd like to apologize for the previous version of my reaction to Mountolive's changes. I was very angry when I wrote it and I lashed out. Below is a kinder version:

I just had a look at the changes you've made. Unfortunately, your writing skills need help. For instance, you spelled "recipe" as "recipee". Also, your sentence construction is clumsy. Here's an example of something you wrote.

Also in the Albufera, there used to be a now nearly vanished recipee including a local rodent similar to the water vole.

First of all, as I stated earlier, there's no pee in the word recipe. Secondly there are two redundancies in the sentence: there used to be and now nearly vanished. Thirdly, you have no citations to back up your information. Fourth, instead of identifying the actual rodent Spaniards formerly put in paella, you've provided the name of one that’s similar to it: the water vole. And last, but not least, why would you include uncited information on an ingredient Spaniards have stopped using?

Here's another example:

Later on, social life became more active with the sociological changes involved with the industrialization process.

I had to read this sentence several times before understanding it. You obviously started out with something I wrote and finished off with your own rewrite. Here's my improvement:

Later on, social life became more active with the changes of the industrial age.

There are other mistakes as well.

I was very disappointed when I read your changes because you added irrelevant, uncited information and inserted poorly written prose.

For the time being, however, I'm going to resist the urge to revert to give you time to make these corrections. If you fail to do this I can always revert and/or ask for the assistance of an administrator in this matter. LuisGomez111 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, in this case I will use the opportunity to create some sections. Bluee Mountain (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't chaanged what it was written in the article, just moved around some of it, in order to fit them into the new sections. You may correct it if I made some mistakes. These changes may make things more clear, so that Mr Mountolive will understand why sausage is used in certain paellas and not in others.

I'd like to apologize myself. After taking the time to study the changes made by Mr Mountolive, I have to say that I understand why Mr Gomez got angry. Bluee Mountain (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Present state of this article

I worked quite hard to improve this article when I first noticed it was slightly better than a stub. Frankly, I wish I had never touched it because I can see now all my work has gone to waste.

In two short days it has gone from being accurate and well written to its present state as a disorganized morass of unreliable information; thus my angry reaction to Mountolive's edits who is largely to blame for this article's demise.

I can see now that putting in any further time or effort would be pointless. Tear it apart, if you like, or delete it, for that matter. I no longer care. LuisGomez111 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, be serious Mr Gomez. Don't take it so hard. Ewerything is there, with some minor changes. I tried to restore some of it myself. You can go on working on it. Articles do change over the time, it is not a tragedy. Some changes are maybe for the better. I think giving the Valencians their own section may cause less conflicts in the future with stubborn Valencian editors. You can go on improving it, if you think that you disagree with some things. Thats Wikipedia is made for.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this nutrality thing is. --Texas Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.214 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is presenting a topic in a balanced way, from a general point of wiew, and not favoring one particular point of wiew or ideology.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: History of the development of Paella

I have added the above RfC tag as the first step in dispute resolution since several editors now seem to be in conflict over how to write the history section of this article.

Mountolive: As Bluee Mountain has pointed out, you have a habit of removing cited information without reason. Also, you include information that obviously constitutes personal research and you have a tendency to revert and delete without discussion. Most of this occurs in the history section of this article which baffles me because I did my best to provide accurate citations. Also, Texas Pete (anonymous user:169.139.19.214) has taken it upon himself to revert the article to a previous version I wrote. While flattering, it probably was not the most tactful course of action. I also noticed there is a conflict between Pete and Bluee involving a neutrality dispute. I have replaced Bluee's subsection divisions in an attempt to resolve this dispute and I removed the neutrality tag. However, Bluee, if you still feel the tag needs to be there then, by all means, put it back. I removed it because your complaint was that there should be a separate section for Valencian history. The dispute seems resolved now that the article has that. Pete, so far, has not objected.

Please give me your opinions. LuisGomez111 (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is resolved. The article is a very good one, compared to what it was 2006 and 2007. I think that is good that someone is keeping on eye on it, otherwise it would deteriorate rapidly, as it did before. Bluee Mountain (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would only like to add a few more words. I added before, “in which it is prepared” or “in wich is made in”, to this sentence:The word paella derives from the Latin word patella for pan.

I was reading the talk page, and the citation from the Larousse Gastronomique, “Its name is derived from that of the container in which it is prepared (paellera)”. And it was the first time I realized the connection between the name and the pan. There might be others too who are just as slow in understanding this, like me. Bluee Mountain (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

wording

"Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan" certainly sounds convoluted.

On the one hand, it is redundant "VALENCIANs speak the VALENCIAN dialect..." sure, we supposed that already. On the other hand is misleading, for it could lead someone to think that, reversely, some other Valencians speak some other dialect of Catalan.

Last and not least, it is an obvious wp:weasel expression: how many are "many"?

I would therefore replace "Valencians, many of whom speak the Valencian dialect of Catalan" by, simply, "Valencian speakers". Then, at the Valencian article the status of Valencian regarding Catalan and other philological questions are very clear, whereas philological questions do not belong in this particular article.

As for the claim to be removed being sourced, that is by and large irrelevant in this case. After all, we are not making philological comments on, say, this other claim "French poele", by adding something like "French is a Romanic language" line or similar. Even if it was properly cited, it would not belong in here. Besides, far better sources and quotes regardind the dialectological status of Valencian than those in here are provided at the Valencian article proving the status. All in all, these sources are just a click away in the relevant article.

In other words, the fact that some Valencian speak a dialect of Catalan is absolutely irrelevant to the substance of this article, while "Valencian speakers" keeps the sentence much more synthetic and neat while not affecting the sense of the sentence.

So, Luis, if you and your several alter egos loose your grip in this article at least with this one edit, which is meant as a minor after all, then I will be gone from here and willing to leave it for your next 500 great additions.

I'll be looking in here to see your answer. Mountolive _{le déluge} 23:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If removing that phrase is that important to you then I won't revert it. However, I originally included it at the insistence of user:Warrington (read his/her last entry on this talk page). I originally felt, as you do, that a discussion of language didn't belong in this article. I included it only out of a sense of compromise. However, if Warrington sees that you removed it, he may replace it. You then can argue with him/her, if you like, or any other editor who reverts you.

By the way, I just had a look at the revision stats. I've made a total of 51 edits to this article. I don't know how you reached the conclusion that I've made 500. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "alter egos". I operate three legitimate accounts and no others. The other editors making changes to this article are different people altogether. They are NOT my sock puppets. LuisGomez111 (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop insulting people, MOUNTOLIVE, will you! Behave yourself. And yes it is relevant for the article since it is one of its subjects. Guess you are a Catalan yourself, so these things are wery clear for you, in detail. But this is an encyclopedia and things need to be briefly explained, once you introduce a subject in the article, for other less informed ones. And not many people want or have the patience to read a whole article about Valencians, they just want to know about the paella.

AND IF THEY DO, THIS IS WHAT THEY FIND: Valencian (valencià) is the historical, traditional, and official name used in the Valencian Community of Spain to refer to the region's native language, known elsewhere as Catalan (català). And this is elswhere, namely the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish or the Valencian (the link goes to that Català ca:Paella) , like it or not.

Are the Valencians different fron the rest of Spain or not?

Answer the question!!!!

Otherwise the article is a high quality food and drink article (some of them are quite messy, I know because I a am working with them), and it is that thanks to Luis, so please be polite when you are addressing him! Warrington (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Warrington. LuisGomez111 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)