![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The main picture in the article is NOT cebiche. In fact that dish doesn't even have fish: it's "choritos a la chalaca", not cebiche. I tried to edit the article but it's protected for some unrelated editwar. Also, the correct academic AND common name is ceBiche, not ceViche. The article should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpicon ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to add that I am Peruvian and that Gpicon is right, that is not ceviche, that is Choros a la Chalaca. Wikipedia is the most often referred source of information and leaving that picture up would be blatant misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polytheorist ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The ceviche wasn`t invented in Peru,spanish of origins arabs were invented this dishes.in Peru and all countries de America no known the lemon.In Mexico the ancients natives in the coast the Ocean Pacific,eat fish and shrimps with mochicas,totorames,seris o tahues etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.125.106 ( talk) 21:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ceviche is not from Mexico. It was in the coast of the Inca Empire (Peru, parts of Ecuador) in which natives were believed to have depended on seafood for nutrition. Here is a source that states Ceviche as Peuvian: http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/CevicheNotes.htm Now seriously if you wanna have discussion on this then by all means make an account so we can discuss this, I'm sure there is much we could learn from one another. Right now Ceviche is a dish of Peruvian cuisine with Spanish roots. There are many articles and evidence that support that, it's not just m saying it. So unless you provide some legit information and sources that state Ceviche as Mexican cuisine then i suggest at the article keep Ceviche as Peruvian cuisine. Unknown Lupus | Talk 03:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
While visiting Peru I was told by (many) locals not to eat ceviche after sunset, as it will likely make one sick. After having enjoyed ceviche many times during the day without any incident I once had ceviche for dinner (accompanied with Pisco Sour) and, after a night spent in the bathroom, took well over a week to fully recover. You will find that seafood restaurants in Peru are usually open during daytime only.
Perhaps the risks of eating ceviche late should be addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.214.143.158 ( talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are several restaurants in Peru, particularly Lima, that will sell perfectly safe ceviche. What matters is where you go buy the food. It's like in the United States, when you decide whether to go eat at a well-known restaurant (Taste of China or Golden Corral, for example) or to a local restaurant. Local establishments have a tendency to be more prone to health risks as they are not concerned with over-regulation, or they simply do not have the income to have the materials required to properly check what they sell. As this article mentions, ceviche has to be eaten fresh (in the sense of conservation) in order for it to not be contaminated; but even fresh there is a certain health risk associated with it as with all other foods (even those cooked). If anything, your experience only further supports the necessary "fresh" aspect of the dish, but it mainly brings out the necessity for you to eat at good reliable establishments (which, more than likely considering the recommendations provided to you by the locals, in the first place wouldn't even have provided you with the dish). Best of luck in future eating!-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been reviewing the history in the lead and it seems like there is a constant ip warring between Mexico, Ecuador and Peru about the birthplace of this dish, the source cited in the lead referring to its birthplace was introduced in October of last year [1] and remained there till now. However at the moment it was introduced the information didn't match correctly because the source reads:
Ceviche's birthplace is disputed between Peru and Ecuador, and as both countries have an amazing variety of fish and shellfish, it could easily have come from the ancient Inca civilizations of Peru and Ecuador. Every Latin American country has given seviche/ceviche its own touch of individuality by adding its own particular garnishes.
I believe that for the sake of neutrality the first line of the source cited should remain unaltered to avoid further edit warring. Erebedhel - Talk 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article for a week in order to try and force discussion here. If you cannot resolve these issues pursue some form of dispute resolution. And just to muddy the waters a bit further, this dish has actually become quite popular where I live in Alaska, although obviously it was not invented here. If you've never tried it with fresh halibut you are missing out. I'll try to find a source somewhere about that. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Lately there have been numerous edits by IPs which change the first line of the article so it reads that the dispute for the dish is between "Mexico and Ecuador" instead of "Peru and Ecuador" which is how it is stated in the source and has been before these edits started happening. Is there any way that we could have this article protected again? so if any changes are wished to be made they are discussed here instead of being edited every single other day by random IPs. It's getting to be quite frustrating, i wouldn't mind if the the person who wishes to change it states a reliable source but no it's just being edited in preference to Mexico, which is not even mentioned in the source, the only two countries mentioned are Peru, it's coast and Ecuador, again the lower part of the coast, so where is MExico being introduced into the source? That's what i don't understand about these edits, they seemed more like national preference edits rather than fact edits. Hopefully an edit war won't happen again and we can put some order. Unknown Lupus | Talk 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Unknown Lupus | Talk 03:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Is dispute resolution and/or semi protection necessary?
thoriyan
04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The first three paragraphs lack sources, and thus appear as first blush to be wp:or original research. My intent is to delete these unless sources are found and added. Any objections? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 18:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I will try to do a major revision to this article and add as many sources as possible that bring some light into this situation. Up to now, the article is a mockery of random biased information (and original researched conclusions) from which users have decided to conclude a series of things without providing much of any sourced evidence.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
First thing is to settle the naming dispute. According to the Royal Spanish Language Academy, the "correct" name (which is the name all other names link to in their official site) is "Cebiche." However, it is important to note that there are regional variations to the name, just as there are various claims made on the plate's origin and style.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is certainly no problem with mentioning that the "b" spelling is the preferred Spanish spelling, but if the article title is at the "v" spelling then it should be the first one mentioned in the article's lead, otherwise it is confusing to the reader. Since there is whole section for discussing the etymology of the word there is ample opportunity to make it clear to the reader that this is not the spelling used by many Spanish speakers. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is important to keep the controversial aspect of the dish open. We cannot award the dish a definite origin because there are plenty of sources that bring up challenges to any specific origin claim. This is also especially difficult to develop as, apparently, cebiche has had several different roots in the various countries it is currently available. However, I have found various sources that point to the creation of the current name and style of the dish to have originated in Peru, which the sources also state is a theory supported by many historians. Since most historians (not all, mind you dear reader) agree that the origin of the dish is in Peru, it is important to present this weight into the article. However, I must once again state that this by no means awards Peru with any definitive origin position, though it does make their claim more favorable.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are the sources:
The evidence in favor of Peru cannot be denied, but once more this should not be used as a background to delete the other origin hypotheses. It is important to keep the reader informed that the orign of the plate is disputed.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to have added so many messy links into the article. I'm not particularly adamant at fixing them any time soon (it's a tedious process, but important), but if anyone is willing to properly format the sources, then by all means go ahead and do it. If you have any questions regarding the page numbers and whatnot, I could probably take the time to provide that information (feel free to ask!). Hopefully my edits will help clear up the matter regarding cebiche. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The main picture in the article is NOT cebiche. In fact that dish doesn't even have fish: it's "choritos a la chalaca", not cebiche. I tried to edit the article but it's protected for some unrelated editwar. Also, the correct academic AND common name is ceBiche, not ceViche. The article should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpicon ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to add that I am Peruvian and that Gpicon is right, that is not ceviche, that is Choros a la Chalaca. Wikipedia is the most often referred source of information and leaving that picture up would be blatant misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polytheorist ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The ceviche wasn`t invented in Peru,spanish of origins arabs were invented this dishes.in Peru and all countries de America no known the lemon.In Mexico the ancients natives in the coast the Ocean Pacific,eat fish and shrimps with mochicas,totorames,seris o tahues etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.125.106 ( talk) 21:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ceviche is not from Mexico. It was in the coast of the Inca Empire (Peru, parts of Ecuador) in which natives were believed to have depended on seafood for nutrition. Here is a source that states Ceviche as Peuvian: http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/CevicheNotes.htm Now seriously if you wanna have discussion on this then by all means make an account so we can discuss this, I'm sure there is much we could learn from one another. Right now Ceviche is a dish of Peruvian cuisine with Spanish roots. There are many articles and evidence that support that, it's not just m saying it. So unless you provide some legit information and sources that state Ceviche as Mexican cuisine then i suggest at the article keep Ceviche as Peruvian cuisine. Unknown Lupus | Talk 03:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
While visiting Peru I was told by (many) locals not to eat ceviche after sunset, as it will likely make one sick. After having enjoyed ceviche many times during the day without any incident I once had ceviche for dinner (accompanied with Pisco Sour) and, after a night spent in the bathroom, took well over a week to fully recover. You will find that seafood restaurants in Peru are usually open during daytime only.
Perhaps the risks of eating ceviche late should be addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.214.143.158 ( talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are several restaurants in Peru, particularly Lima, that will sell perfectly safe ceviche. What matters is where you go buy the food. It's like in the United States, when you decide whether to go eat at a well-known restaurant (Taste of China or Golden Corral, for example) or to a local restaurant. Local establishments have a tendency to be more prone to health risks as they are not concerned with over-regulation, or they simply do not have the income to have the materials required to properly check what they sell. As this article mentions, ceviche has to be eaten fresh (in the sense of conservation) in order for it to not be contaminated; but even fresh there is a certain health risk associated with it as with all other foods (even those cooked). If anything, your experience only further supports the necessary "fresh" aspect of the dish, but it mainly brings out the necessity for you to eat at good reliable establishments (which, more than likely considering the recommendations provided to you by the locals, in the first place wouldn't even have provided you with the dish). Best of luck in future eating!-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been reviewing the history in the lead and it seems like there is a constant ip warring between Mexico, Ecuador and Peru about the birthplace of this dish, the source cited in the lead referring to its birthplace was introduced in October of last year [1] and remained there till now. However at the moment it was introduced the information didn't match correctly because the source reads:
Ceviche's birthplace is disputed between Peru and Ecuador, and as both countries have an amazing variety of fish and shellfish, it could easily have come from the ancient Inca civilizations of Peru and Ecuador. Every Latin American country has given seviche/ceviche its own touch of individuality by adding its own particular garnishes.
I believe that for the sake of neutrality the first line of the source cited should remain unaltered to avoid further edit warring. Erebedhel - Talk 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I have fully protected this article for a week in order to try and force discussion here. If you cannot resolve these issues pursue some form of dispute resolution. And just to muddy the waters a bit further, this dish has actually become quite popular where I live in Alaska, although obviously it was not invented here. If you've never tried it with fresh halibut you are missing out. I'll try to find a source somewhere about that. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Lately there have been numerous edits by IPs which change the first line of the article so it reads that the dispute for the dish is between "Mexico and Ecuador" instead of "Peru and Ecuador" which is how it is stated in the source and has been before these edits started happening. Is there any way that we could have this article protected again? so if any changes are wished to be made they are discussed here instead of being edited every single other day by random IPs. It's getting to be quite frustrating, i wouldn't mind if the the person who wishes to change it states a reliable source but no it's just being edited in preference to Mexico, which is not even mentioned in the source, the only two countries mentioned are Peru, it's coast and Ecuador, again the lower part of the coast, so where is MExico being introduced into the source? That's what i don't understand about these edits, they seemed more like national preference edits rather than fact edits. Hopefully an edit war won't happen again and we can put some order. Unknown Lupus | Talk 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Unknown Lupus | Talk 03:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Is dispute resolution and/or semi protection necessary?
thoriyan
04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The first three paragraphs lack sources, and thus appear as first blush to be wp:or original research. My intent is to delete these unless sources are found and added. Any objections? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 18:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I will try to do a major revision to this article and add as many sources as possible that bring some light into this situation. Up to now, the article is a mockery of random biased information (and original researched conclusions) from which users have decided to conclude a series of things without providing much of any sourced evidence.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
First thing is to settle the naming dispute. According to the Royal Spanish Language Academy, the "correct" name (which is the name all other names link to in their official site) is "Cebiche." However, it is important to note that there are regional variations to the name, just as there are various claims made on the plate's origin and style.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is certainly no problem with mentioning that the "b" spelling is the preferred Spanish spelling, but if the article title is at the "v" spelling then it should be the first one mentioned in the article's lead, otherwise it is confusing to the reader. Since there is whole section for discussing the etymology of the word there is ample opportunity to make it clear to the reader that this is not the spelling used by many Spanish speakers. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is important to keep the controversial aspect of the dish open. We cannot award the dish a definite origin because there are plenty of sources that bring up challenges to any specific origin claim. This is also especially difficult to develop as, apparently, cebiche has had several different roots in the various countries it is currently available. However, I have found various sources that point to the creation of the current name and style of the dish to have originated in Peru, which the sources also state is a theory supported by many historians. Since most historians (not all, mind you dear reader) agree that the origin of the dish is in Peru, it is important to present this weight into the article. However, I must once again state that this by no means awards Peru with any definitive origin position, though it does make their claim more favorable.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are the sources:
The evidence in favor of Peru cannot be denied, but once more this should not be used as a background to delete the other origin hypotheses. It is important to keep the reader informed that the orign of the plate is disputed.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to have added so many messy links into the article. I'm not particularly adamant at fixing them any time soon (it's a tedious process, but important), but if anyone is willing to properly format the sources, then by all means go ahead and do it. If you have any questions regarding the page numbers and whatnot, I could probably take the time to provide that information (feel free to ask!). Hopefully my edits will help clear up the matter regarding cebiche. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |