Talk:Gumbo

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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 8, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
July 15, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Etymology[edit]

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 58.178.231.138 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I think the article has gone through various wordings over time, and I raised a problem with how it looked at one stage on this talk page, but due to the obstructive practice of archiving useful discussions you are unlikely to have seen it: Talk:Gumbo/Archive_1#Bantu_etymology:_clarification_needed. I am too far from this now to be sure whether the problem you mention still stands. I think the section is better at present than I've seen it in the past. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2017 (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 closed. 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.

Conflict[edit]

The Variations section states with reference, Any combination of either meat or seafood can be used, but not both, with the exception of the traditional New Orleans version that features both seafood and sausage., and this appears to be pretty definitive. The article also states "Today, most people are familiar with seafood gumbo and chicken and sausage gumbo.". On 11 January 2013, an editor questioned the content because of personal "knowledge" that it was wrong. A reply rightly explained about reliable sources and inclusion and the editor even gave personal knowledge as reasoning that the content should stay.
I live in a Cajun section of Louisiana, not far from the "self-professed" gumbo capital, influenced by Cajun speaking people, French cuisine, and the mother of my foster mom could not even speak English. We had family that owned shrimp boats in Hackberry, Louisiana, so seafood was plentiful and our freezer was always full of seafood. As with most country folks we did (and do) use squirrel, rabbit, and even deer (sometimes with sausage) in our gumbo but we never had seafood mixed with other meats. To this day (years later) I do not eat mixed dishes and think there might even be some possibly divine rule against it. We would also never use tomatoes in our gumbo. There were many people then (the early 70's) as well as now (even offered in restaurants) that do serve mixed dishes, possibly aliens (personal thoughts), but that personal knowledge would be considered original research without proof as in references.
That is an excellent idea and it seems there is some proof (not about aliens) offered right on the article page. Please notice that the info box has a great looking image of a bowl of gumbo (dated 2013-03-19) that not only appears to conflict the questioned content but the caption states "A bowl of shrimp, chicken and sausage gumbo, served over rice". I would offer that the picture is not some elaborate hoax, have notified the contributing editor, and think a solution needs to be forthcoming to resolve the conflict. Otr500 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What's the hubbub? I contributed the image but I don't believe I have contributed to the article's prose. Yes, the image is Gumbo (Zatarain's to be exact) and yes there is chicken, sausage and shrimp in the Gumbo and it is served over rice in this image. I don't know what else to say here so, someone might want to just ask me a question if there is a legitimate concern. I cooked it and photographed it as I often do as an image contributor to Wikipedia and a member of Project Food and Drink. I honestly don't understand the concern here.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh...and it was delicious. Also...looking closely...there's bacon in this. I love to add bacon to my Gumbo.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps what is needed is a photo request? Was there a version of Gumbo that there is a consensus, best represents the dish? I have no problem making it...and eating it....er, after I photograph it.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I really do not even know how to respond? I re-read my comments, that are in in English, and I actually thought I was pretty clear. Alright, I read it again and you know what? It still seems pretty clear. Either the content is misleading or the picture. I will type slow to make sure it is understood; The article, states Any combination of either meat or seafood can be used, but not both,..., and there is a reference to supposedly back this up. This, by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, means the information is valid, and since Wikipedia does not have to offer the truth, as long as information is referenced, it can be included by consensus. I do not have a problem with that but there is a picture right at the top of the article, that is in direct conflict with content in the article as it conflicts with Any combination of either meat or seafood can be used, but not both.
As a reply to I honestly don't understand the concern here.), I suppose some could say the essay's Verifiability not truth and Truth, not verifiability contradict each other but I was not thinking about that, nor do I care how many legs a horse has but conflicting information is confusing and does not help Wikipedia, and I imagine does not belong in a featured article. There is prose that states one thing and a picture (with some writing on it that may or may not be prose), that an editor took, that states and shows the opposite.
I sent a comment to the contributing editor of a picture on this article , as a courtesy because there is a conflict with prose content within the article, and that is all the hubbub is about. The last sentence of my above comments even states Please notice that the info box has a great looking image of a bowl of gumbo (dated 2013-03-19) that not only appears to conflict the questioned content (For added clarity that being "Any combination of either meat or seafood can be used, but not both.) but the caption states "A bowl of shrimp, chicken and sausage gumbo, served over rice" and I am trying to figure out how what is plainly stated can be confusing?
A confusion does come to light with the comment "Yes, the image is Gumbo (Zatarain's to be exact)...". My wife told me there is a boxed mix, that the seafood or meat must be added to, and frozen that are ready to thaw, heat, and eat. The contributor stated "Also...looking closely...there's bacon in this". I went to the web and found a recipe from Zatarain's here and apparently they don't mix meat and seafood separating the two, "Gumbo is a savory Cajun or Creole stew served with or over rice. Just add one pound of seafood (shrimp, crabs, or crawfish) or meat (chicken and sausage are very popular) for delicious nine cups gumbo in about 30 minutes.". Other recipes did not mix them either (even stating "This is a real SEAFOOD gumbo. No meat in here", but this may be an alien (from outer space?) because I "might" try a mixed gumbo, but a true Coonass would never put tomatoes in a gumbo. If that word is offensive to some please understand that the word is alive and well in Louisiana despite the ethnic word cleansing attempt (not banning) of the term by the Louisiana legislature and some other (possibly also aliens) "activists", and references state the ethnic group is protected.
Mark I guess two questions would be, 1)- Does Zatarain's package a gumbo mix that in fact mixes meat and seafood or do you have a published recipe that uses these?, or 2)- did you purchase a gumbo mix and add meat and seafood to it? I suppose a 3rd question would then be, 3)- IF the picture was taken of a gumbo mix provided by a company, but doctored by adding ingredients not provided by the company, would a picture of this editors semi-home brew constitute original research? I really don't care (see above about the horse thing) but when this picture is added to this article, with the writing that may or may not be considered prose, it presents evidence that there is in fact combinations of gumbo that mix meat and seafood. If a company does sell a package that in fact mixes meat then the article (and reference) MUST be wrong. IF an editor took a picture of a meal cooked using these "packaged" ingredients" it would be proof (a picture of the package to verify contents would too) that there are in fact instances when mixed meat (the added bacon is really OR) and seafood are used together.
  • The contributing editor stated "I contributed the image but I don't believe I have contributed to the article's prose.", and I submit that this statement is an error if the contributing editor of the picture also added the caption (certainly required on the article), that I am pretty certain would be considered prose, A bowl of shrimp, chicken and sausage gumbo, served over rice, then it contributes to misinformation. I will reiterate to help sway possible confusion:
  1. This article is listed as being a featured article. For any not familiar with this classification that would be Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria.
  2. There is referenced content in this article that states "Any combination of either meat or seafood can be used, but not both,...".
  3. There is a picture (are they really worth a thousand words?) that shows this content to be in error, with added (possible prose) wording that is 100% in conflict with # 1 above.
There does not need to be a consensus of if there is a "better" picture (Was there a version of Gumbo that there is a consensus, best represents the dish) to use. Within Wikipedia guidelines the picture (original research or not someone else can decide) can be 100% acceptable but in this instance and on this article, it is confusing. This boils down to validity and "verifiability" of references, and make no mistake (don't be confused) a picture "can be used" as a reference. This means that either the picture needs to be replaced or removed (regardless if a replacement is available) or the content in conflict deleted (if this reference is not valid). If an editor taking a picture of a bowl of gumbo personally made with a company supplied packaged mix but altered is more verifiable) or, if both the picture and the content are verifiable references the content needs to be corrected to reflect the two references, one stating one thing but another reference stating (and showing) another. I hope this cleared up any confusion and if not I can delete the picture (and tag as needing one), and a reverting editor, in light of the perplexing situation or in disregard of the policy that states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view ) can be saddled with the burden of proof to revert, remembering it is a featured article. However,
Pictures: According to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, the picture, as used on this article, is not in compliance. The picture does follow #1, #2, #3, #4, and #8.
  • #5 - "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.", with the two included provisions.
  • #6 - "Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.".
  • #7 - "Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English". If the main ingredients are going to be listed then it might be a stretch for "bacon" to be excluded or too minor to include.
Since I was actually just commenting on an obvious inconsistency within the article (and sent a courtesy message to the contributing editor of the picture), and not assuming or implying there is a sinister plot to deceive Wikipedia or readers, as I did note the article is listed as A featured article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, I assumed (the first three letters can be a bitch sometimes) that the article should actually deserve that classification, be demoted, or corrected (content, picture, or both) to reflect earning the classification.
There are still noted issues with in-line "citation needed" tags. I was not involved in the edits that resulted in a Featured article review and resulting article promotion in 2011. The article was tagged January 2014, and is still featured which means it has not been reviewed so far. According to the book (per reference in the article) "There are as many gumbo recipes as there are cooks.", so maybe someone still has interest in the article, and the feature article status, and these small issues can be resolved to maintain the status. These would include solving issues with the tags and resolving the conflict between the content and picture. These could include a)- Finding a recipe with the meat and seafood combination resulting in, b)- Adding the relevant information to the article, c)- Someone finding a replacement picture, or d)- The picture editor making another "politically correct" (for this article ) gumbo and submitting an updated picture. Timely solutions might keep the article as featured because the other result is a demoted article. Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The article text seems to identify a variant that does include both seafood and meat, though, which would make this image consistent (if not necessarily representative). Do you have any suggestions for alternative images? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm from Lake Charles LA and have had many different gumbos over the years. More than a few had seafood and meat. Here is a chicken, sausage and crab gumbo from Emeril Lagasse. http://emerils.com/121379/emerils-country-gumbo VaderSS (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
My entire point was, the article at the time made is clear that variants applied, I shared the pic here thinking it was an improvement on the one before it. There was a simple answer...replace the image and see if it consensus agreed. In the very discussion above...consensus was not with you but the image was still replaced eventually with enough silent consensus to hold but, nothing you posted above was needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"The picture does follow #1, #2, #3, #4, and #8" Uhm....number one says absolutely NOTHING about images.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"The article text seems to identify a variant that does include both seafood and meat, though, which would make this image consistent (if not necessarily representative" as is stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"There is a picture (are they really worth a thousand words?) that shows this content to be in error, with added (possible prose) wording that is 100% in conflict with # 1 above.
There does not need to be a consensus of if there is a "better" picture (Was there a version of Gumbo that there is a consensus, best represents the dish) to use. Within Wikipedia guidelines the picture (original research or not someone else can decide) can be 100% acceptable but in this instance and on this article, it is confusing. This boils down to validity and "verifiability" of references, and make no mistake (don't be confused) a picture "can be used" as a reference. This means that either the picture needs to be replaced or removed (regardless if a replacement is available) or the content in conflict deleted (if this reference is not valid). If an editor taking a picture of a bowl of gumbo personally made with a company supplied packaged mix but altered is more verifiable) or, if both the picture and the content are verifiable references the content needs to be corrected to reflect the two references, one stating one thing but another reference stating (and showing) another. I hope this cleared up any confusion and if not I can delete the picture (and tag as needing one), and a reverting editor, in light of the perplexing situation or in disregard of the policy that states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view ) can be saddled with the burden of proof to revert, remembering it is a featured article. However," Everything on Wikipedia requires a consensus. Period. " This boils down to validity and "verifiability" of references" Uhm...do you understand that a reference IS NOT REQUIRED FOR IMAGES. Images are original research. "I hope this cleared up any confusion" No...now I want to know why the image was replaced against the obvious consensus here regardless of the above? "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view". That has nothing to do with image use policy. I am reverting two years later based on this discussion and relying on others to revert if the silent consensus is enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to travel Louisiana[edit]

Agreed that beef is rarely used in Gumbo, however pork is used in many places in Central and North Louisiana to aid the wild taste of a gumbo made with critters such as squirrel, deer, duck, and other wild game. In a lot of homes in North Louisiana a chicken and sausage gumbo is commonplace. As far as gumbo being rarely served in restaurants has the writer traveled in Louisiana or eaten at non-chain restaurants? I've had gumbo in a lot of restaurants especially in Acadiana.173.217.129.124 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, "regular" gumbo is often served in restaurants. gumbo z'herbes is not (and that's what the line was referring to). As for the rest, the article was written based on the sources that could be found - if you know of any reliable sources that talk about pork in gumbo, we can definitely add that. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

possible FAR[edit]

footnotes 5, 6, 10 & 37, Gutierrez (1992), quote 17 times, but there's no book or journal listed below.

check history, it should be

  • Gutierrez, C. Paige (1992), Cajun Foodways, University Press of Mississippi, ISBN 978087055630 Check |isbn= value: length (help) 

but indicate wrong isbn, should be 0878055630? Don't know why removed. section "Thickeners", why delete all footnotes? Also the last paragraph of section "Development".--Jarodalien (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted the article back to an older version. There's been a lot of vandalism over the last few years and it had degenerated pretty badly. It should be in much better shape now. Thanks for adding the cn tag - that made it pop up on my watchlist and I noticed the issues. Karanacs (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gumbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Beef In Gumbo[edit]

Beef is not often used in Gumbo today but prior to WWII it was often found in many (if not most) gumbo recipes. TourCreole (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Creole Trinity is 20th Century[edit]

The Creole Trinity (onion, celery, bell pepper) does not appear in Creole recipes until after WWII. Variations of it are often used - onion and bell pepper, onion and celery, etc., sometimes garlic, often thyme - and often no seasoning vegetables at all. One can see this in the very sources quoted in this article, as well as in The Christian Women's Exchange's "Creole Cookery"(1885) and in "La Cuisine Creole," attributed to Lafcadio Hearn (also 1885). TourCreole (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Chicken or Meat Along With Seafood[edit]

"La Cuisine Creole", published 1885, attributed to Lafcadio Hearn combines chicken, beef, ham and seafood in several recipes, including "REMARKS ON GOMBO OF OKRA OR FILEE" and in "GOMBO WITH CRABS OR SHRIMP", which contains ham and seafood; "OYSTER GOMBO WITH FILEE, NO. 1" contains chicken, ham and oysters; "GOMBO FILEE WITH OYSTERS, NO. 2" also uses ham and seafood; "CHICKEN GOMBO WITH OYSTERS" is exactly, that; "CRAB GOMBO, WITH OKRA" uses crabs, ham and beef or veal stock.

Celestine Eustis's COOKING IN OLD CREOLE DAYS" has several chicken/seafood gumbo recipes, as does The Christian Women's Exchange's 1885 "CREOLE COOKERY."

In 1951 Mary Land published "LOUISIANA COOKERY" and her recipes are either/or but not both. (Nor does it contain the Creole Trinity, only onions.) However, in "TO A KING'S TASTE (A CARNIVAL OF RECIPES) published by The National Society of the Colonial Dames Of America in the State of Louisiana in 1952, the Gumbo File' recipe contains chicken and oysters. (Also no Creole Trinity - seasoned with onion, thyme and parsley.)

To this day, many people in New Orleans use any and all combinations of poultry, sausage, meat and seafood in a pot of steaming gumbo.

We cannot look at a historic food such as gumbo with modern eyes. The historic cookbooks are plentiful and they tell a very different story. TourCreole (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)