Talk:Carbonara

Please, no cream in the carbonara

I think I can settle this cream or no cream problem with regard to Spaghetti alla Carbonara. The Accademia Italiana della Cucina is the MOST respected authority on authentic Italian cuisine. Its recipe book never mentions the use of cream for this dish. Therefore: NO CREAM.

Feel free to verify this by visiting the Academy's website at accademiaitalianacucina.it (which I have included in the external links section of the article). You should know, however, the recipes are all written in Italian. Fortunately, my knowledge of Spanish, coupled with an Italian/English dictionary, allows me to accurately translate the recipes.

However, for the benefit of the lazy, I have pasted below the recipe as it appears in the recipe book in the original Italian with a translation afterwards:

Ingredienti

• 600 gr di spaghetti
• 120 gr di guanciale (o pancetta)
• uno spicchio d’aglio
• due uova
• 100 gr di formaggio parmigiano misto a pecorino grattugiato
• olio extravergine d’oliva
• sale e pepe

Preparazione

Cuocere gli spaghetti in abbondante acqua salata. Intanto tagliare il guanciale a listarelle, metterlo in una grande padella con poco olio e l’aglio schiacciato; soffriggere finché il guanciale sarà ben rosato. Togliere l’aglio. A parte sbattere le uova con un pizzico di sale e un poco di pecorino. Quando la pasta sarà cotta, scolarla e passarla nella padella col guanciale, abbassare al minimo il fuoco ed unire le uova sbattute. Mescolare per un minuto, poi togliere dal fuoco, condire con il rimanente pecorino, mescolare ancora e servire caldo.

TRANSLATION

Ingredients:

• 600 grams of spaghetti
• 120 grams of guanciale (or pancetta)
• one clove of garlic
• two eggs
• 100 grams of a mixture of grated parmesan cheese and grated pecorino cheese
• extra virgin olive oil
• salt and pepper

Preparation

Cook the spaghetti in a large amount of salt water. Meanwhile, dice the guanciale and put it in a large skillet with a little oil and the crushed garlic. Fry the guanciale until it's red. Remove the garlic. On the side, beat the eggs with a pinch of salt and a little pecorino. When the pasta is cooked, drain it and put it in the skillet with the guanciale. Lower the flame to minimum and add the beaten eggs. Mix for one minute, take the skillet off the heat and add the remaining pecorino, continue mixing and serve hot.

I think I've made my point.

LuisGomez111 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To borrow a linguistic phrase, Wikipedia is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. It is not our job to pick a "correct" recipe, but rather describe what actually exists, without passing judgment. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Italic text==Recipe of the Academy of Italian cuisine== recipe from accademy of italian cousine is available online: http://www.accademiaitalianacucina.it/it/content/spaghetti-alla-carbonara-alluso-di-roma

no bacon but only guanciale

no parmigiano but only pecorino

here is the recipe in italian:

Ingredienti: 350 g di spaghetti, 120 g di guanciale, 1 spicchio d’aglio, 3 uova, 50 g di formaggio pecorino grattugiato, 1 cucchiaio di olio di oliva, pepe nero, sale

Preparazione: Tagliare il guanciale a listarelle alte ½ centimetro. Mettere il guanciale in una padella con l’olio di oliva, l’aglio schiacciato e farlo rosolare al punto giusto. Togliere l’aglio e la padella dal fuoco. In una terrina battere le uova con un pizzico di sale e il formaggio pecorino grattugiato. Portare a bollore abbondante acqua salata in una pentola capace, calare gli spaghetti e cuocerli al dente. Scolarli e versarli nella padella dove c’è il guanciale. Unire il composto di uova battute e formaggio pecorino grattugiato, mescolando bene gli ingredienti. Spolverare con il pepe nero macinato di fresco e servire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.72.98 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, thanks for writing. The Accademia Italiana della Cucina is a self declared "academy" which is not entitled at all to decide how a dish can be prepared and what is "authentic" and what is not. The fact that it is the "MOST respected authority on authentic Italian cuisine" is your POV. In gastronomy there are only reliable sources, and if some RS (in particular Luigi Carnacina, one of the most respected Roman chefs of the 20th century) says in a book of 1965 (much nearer to the origin of the dish than your "academy") that by carbonara pancetta can be used instead of guanciale, or that cream is an ingredient, we have to put it in the article. Bye, and don't forget to sign your contribution here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear alessandro57, you area the one with POV, i' ve just gave a respected source, way more relevant than a single chef opinion, read this:

″Minister for Cultural Affairs recognised the well documented cultural merits of the Accademia by granting it the denomination, “Cultural Institution”, thus placing it amongst the largest and most important Italian cultural organisations, often laden with over a century of experience, rich in past and present glories, bearers of experience and wisdom in the culture arena″. http://www.accademiaitalianacucina.it/en/content/golden-thread-between-history. Please do not be opinionated.

Ministry of Culture? Giancarlo Galan, Sandro Bondi, Rocco Buttiglione, just to name a few among the most illustrious among them...Of course each of them, because of his culture and erudition, is fully entitled to assign such a recognition. ;-) Jokes aside, maybe you didn't understand the message, so I will repeat it: for wikipedia (not me) unless you can find the inventor of a recipe, NO standard version of the dish can be defined: one can only define core ingredients and processes (for example amatriciana without guanciale cannot be defined amatriciana anymore), and then variations above them. These variations should be supported by reliable sources, but none is entitled to give the "right" recipe, and the fact that this Academy is pretending to do it, disqualifies it. Last but not least, I fully agree that using cream in carbonara is a blasphemy, but this is only my POV. Alex2006 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment later in this Talk page. The upshot is that there is no such thing as an authentic recipe for most dishes. Of course, lots of food writers, chefs, academies, and restaurants claim to be definitive, but that rarely reflects the reality on the ground. See also MJBurrage's various comments on this page. --Macrakis (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Carbonara, cream or no cream?

In the original Carbonara recipe there is no cream. Cream here is clearly a later addition. Carbonara originates from Latium (Rome and its region). In Rome, as in the whole central and southern Italy, the usage of cream in the pasta dishes is unknown. alex2006 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be true in Italy, I would have to ask a chef where I work (the New England Culinary Institute), but in the English speaking world Carbonara means cream, egg, cheese, and bacon.

The two books I cited are core books used in the culinary program at NECI, and the Food Lover's Companion is a standard in the field.

—MJBurrage • TALK • 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Look Michael, here we talk about an italian dish (the beginning of the article says "Carbonara is a traditional Italian pasta sauce"), not an american one. Since we are talking about a traditional sauce, I would start with the traditional recipe. Then I would suggest that you revert your edit and write a paragraph or a sentence about "Carbonara in the English speaking world". What do you think about it? And, talking about standard books, if you need to know something about italian cooking, please read the work of Anna Gossetti Della Salda, which is THE book on the subject.

By the way, it is already the fourth time here on the english wikipedia that someone who is not italian is trying to explain to me - roman, with roman parents and grandparents - how the roman cooking should be... ;-) Ciao, alex2006 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to tell you what Roman cooking should be, nor am I trying to tell you what this dish is like in Rome (I do not have knowledge in that area, and have not yet spoken to the chefs I know, who do have such knowledge)

But, this is the English language wikipedia, and much like other foods and recipes and pretty much anything else that American culture co opts for itself, this word (as used in English) does not necessarily mean what it might have in its source language.

In English cookbooks, carbonara is cream, eggs, cheese (preferably parmesan), and bacon (preferably Italian). Everything else is optional. Feel free to improve the paragraph on the original Roman recipe and how it varies from what one would expect in an Italian restaurant in an English speaking country (well the States, Canada, and Britain at least, I cannot speak for Australia and New Zealand)

—MJBurrage • TALK • 17:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's fine to me. It is important that the reader who wants to know how the original recipe is, is able to find it out. I added also a note citing the italian cooking bible. About your chefs, be careful! If they come from northern Italy, they also may well add cream to the sauce (in Milan they put it everywhere... ;-))...

alex2006 05:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in rome they dont use cream but i use panna in carbonara. i have seen ITALIANS (me and my family) as well as all my ITALIAN flatmates in Bologna. i know people who do not use panna when they make carbonara... ma fa cagare. -Daniele —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.119.33 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditional recipe please

I find it quite disgusting that in this article ingredients that are completely extraneous to the original recipe such as garlic are mentioned on par with a building block of this sauce, namely pepper. (black, by the way!) Can we first describe the original recipe and then spend some time explaining any other bastardised variants? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.254 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Given that this is the English language Wikipedia, I started with the most common Anglo-American version of the recipe (with sources). Another editor did just as detailed a job adding the notes about the original Roman recipe. If the ingredients listed in Anglo cookbooks bother you then check out pre-made carbonara at a grocery store, I have come across mushrooms as an ingredient more than once. (talk about ruining a dish.) —MJBurrage • TALK • 03:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be precise: you did not start with the Anglo-American version, you moved the original version - which was put first - down. ;-)

I agree with you, unnamed editor ;-), and I think too that the original recipe should always come first. Anyway, I think also that more important is that the reader can find the original recipe in the article, and understand the evolution (?) of the dish.

Alex2006 06:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I started the article, rather that I started my edits with the English carbonara recipe, and that you then provided the proper background which I had been unaware of. Now if this was the Italian Wikipedia I would put the Roman recipe first and then a non-POV note about the foolish Anglophones dousing it in cream. :-)
But this is the English Wikipedia, and like-it-or-not the English recipe does have cream. It would be POV for us to "correct" the English cookbooks by implying they are wrong rather than different. Much like the pizza article this article should start with the common local definition and then expand and inform. —MJBurrage • TALK • 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, is black pepper a standard ingredient according to Le Ricette regionali Italiane, or an optional one? —MJBurrage • TALK • 08:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think yes, but it's better to check at home, and I will confirm to you monday. Besides, I am on diet since 7th of January, Carbonara actually for me is just a future dream... ;-)

Alex2006 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked, and black pepper is one of the ingredients there . The others are: 400 gr. spaghetti, 3 eggs, 2 spoons of Parmigiano and 2 of Pecorino romano, some strutto (a kind of lard, which is the original fat of the roman cooking), and 100 gr. guanciale (NO pancetta, that is bacon ). She wrote too that lately (that is, in the fifties) strutto was more and more substituted by olive oil or butter.

Alex2006 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I just added it to the article, with some minor rearrangement of the existing text for emphasis. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Rome for six months with real born and bred Romans. Traditional carbonara has olive oil (not extra virgin!), cubed guanciale/pancetta, eggs, cream (optional), pecorino-romano cheese, salt and black pepper. Yes, I have witnessed real Romans putting cream in their carbonara (just a dash), it's not a myth. They specifically told me that it's an optional ingredient. Peergynt323 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)peergynt323

Original recipe first

I agree with Alex, please stop reverting. 83.67.217.254 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if you look up Carbonara in an English cookbook it does include cream. It is not our job to correct that, rather to report it, and then explain that the original Roman recipe does not include cream. The first section of the article is the Introduction, not a history. In a history section I would agree with you that older version of the recipe should come first. What it boils down to is that there is Italian Carbonara and English Carbonara. Neither version is the "correct" recipe. Since this is the English Wikipedia the article should start with the English Carbonara. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We must have a neutral point of view, and the language in which this Wikipedia is written has absolutely nothing to do with it. Your reasoning is often cause of systemic bias in Wikipedia. 83.67.217.254 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The modern cookbooks I have refer to the addition of cream as a no-no and very retro. Regardless of language, "English Carbonara" is like saying "Greek Champagne" :).Segat1 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

im italian and sorry for you but in 30 year of my live i never eat carbonara with cream here in italy non of the many restaurant that i visited do carbonara with cream non of the chef put cream or smoked bacon in it! so if in english or if all the restaurant in inglad cook carbonara with cream or bacon they shoul go back to college and lern how to cook! thanks : an italian food eater

(January 9/09) I agree that the original Italian recipe should go first. However, I just changed the heading for the variations to "International Variations of Carbonara." Before I changed it, it said "Westernized Carbonara recipes (Fusion Cuisine variations on carbonara)" which didn't make much sense. Italy is a western nation, so even the original is a "western" recipe. And "fusion" doesn't really apply either. It's not like adding cream or a bit of broccoli makes it "fuse" with some other well established tradition. Those are just variations that originated elsewhere. That's not the same as "fusion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blork-mtl (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Carbonara Tasmaniana

Sometime late last century, Maestra Signora Costa, my High School Italian teacher, told us ("i miei studentimbini moltissim' carei") that the ingredients of "pasta carbonara" were what i carbonari could scrounge up to cook on their camp-fires in il Risorgimento, and hence the title... --Shirt58 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (mmm: 'allievo/a/i/e'? Meh. Not in our manuale italiano.)

"i miei studentimbini moltissim' carei" ????? That's not Italian. At all. Gspinoza 13.32 6 mar 2007 CET

La Tasmania e l'Italia sono molto lontane... ;-) Alex2006 13:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver Spoon

Whether or not this is the English language version of Wikipedia seems immaterial to me when describing a traditional Italian recipe. As Alex has properly reported the recipe includes no cream, nor has it ever. There is an English language version now available of 'The Silver Spoon' - the Italian cookery bible - and even though it's written in English the recipe for carbonara is still without cream. Perhaps all that is needed to clarify this issue is a distinction between the traditional recipe and the later (and foreign) evolutions of it.

Paolo Tullio

That's funny, because my Italian girlfriend always cooks carbonara with cream, because "the real recipe say no but I think a little cream is not bad". Ergo; there are people in Italy who use cream in the recipe. What exactly constitutes the "correct" recipe is entirely subjective and as long as there are people using cream in carbonara, it should remain on Wikipedia. 86.161.201.248 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Original", "traditional", "authentic", and other distracting terminology

There are a few recipes which can safely be said to have "original" versions. These are mostly the ones that were invented at a precise time and place by a precise person or in a precise restaurant. Oh, yes, and where there is accurate contemporary documentation (no secret ingredients or techniques). There are not many recipes like this outside of haute cuisine. Caesar salad might qualify except that the recipe was only recorded years after it was created, so it is possible it had changed by then.

Most recipes are like folktales, which have many variants, some of which have become canonical because they were collected and published (e.g. by the Grimm brothers). But even there, there may be more than one "canonical" version (in, say, French and English or for that matter in two different editions of Grimm). And funnily enough, some folktales' "original" version turns out not to have been a folktale at all, but a literary creation which later become popular in a popular form.

Most recipes change over time, and change depending on the region, the cook, the cook's whims, the cook's budget, the eater's tastes, and what is available in the market. Some change radically. The oldest known version of profiterole, for example, seems to have been some sort of baked dumpling served in soup. The economics and technology of food changes over time, too. Vegetable oil as we know it (corn oil, rapeseed (canola) oil, etc. -- olive oil is in a different category...) has replaced animal fat (lard, sheep fat, and cooking butter) and sesame oil in many areas around the Mediterranean only in the past century, partly because technology has made it much cheaper, partly because more recently the animal fats have become considered unhealthy. Recipes change along with the economics. And with taste -- American recipes became far far sweeter between 1880 and 1960.

In most cases, the history of foods is poorly documented. Until one knows the detailed history, it is unsafe to make inferences like "cream is not a typical Roman ingredient, therefore carbonara cannot/should not/does not contain cream". Perhaps it was invented in some aristocratic household which loved French cuisine and always had cream on hand. Perhaps it actually originally comes from a region where cream is typical, but it has been forgotten in that region and become popular in Rome. There are also sorts of nice stories one can invent from 'common sense' about foods (e.g. that pesto alla genovese was invented to preserve basil for sea voyages) but for which there is no good evidence (ships' manifests are actually quite detailed about the foods they bring on board, and pesto isn't mentioned).

It is also unsafe to assume that just because something is well-known in a given region, and considered by the inhabitants of that region and promoted by the local tourist board as a traditional regional specialty, that it comes from a tradition lost in the mists of time. "Everyone knows" that baguettes are "traditionally Parisian", but they were invented in the late 19th century. In the case of carbonara, actually, all the sources seem to agree that it is not a "traditional" recipe, but a rather recent one, so why is anyone talking about "tradition" at all?

And the recipes passed down by our parents and grandparents are not necessarily any more "authentic" or "traditional" than any others. (Not to mention that they are original research and have no standing as reliable sources.) A few years ago, a Francophone Belgian radio station asked its readers to submit their favorite regional recipes from their family traditions, which were to be collected into a cookbook of authentic regional tradition. But many of the recipes turned out to be identical: copied verbatim from some long-ago magazine article or cookbook. (In the US, they may have been copied from the back of the cornflakes box, but let's not get into that....)

True, there are food academies and food writers who codify particular recipes, and chefs who make one version or another of a dish famous, but that does not make the codified versions more "authentic", more "original", or more "traditional".

Instead of trying to establish what the most "authentic", most "original", or most "traditional" version of various recipes is, let's try to follow Wikipedia's wise neutral point of view policy, which asks us to report on all reputable positions. If the Academy of Roman Gastronomy forbids the use of cream in carbonara, report it. If the oldest known recipe uses garlic (whether it is common nowadays or not), report it. If 5 out of 15 Italian cookbooks with good reputations use cream, report that cream is used by some Italian cooks, and shunned by others (especially if you can find the suitable horrified language). If most American versions use Wisconsin cheddar (I say "yuck!", but that is a Talk page comment...), report on it. And so on.

So let's just avoid the words "authentic", "original", "traditional", etc. and stick to reporting things that we can actually determine from good sources. --Macrakis (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to – "Spaghetti Carbonara alla Monferrina". Recipes and Cooking. Barilla Group.) – I would think that an Italian pasta multi-national would be a credible source. (as noted in their entry, they are half the Italian market, and {frac|4}} of the US market. They know what they are talking about.) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are a major producer, and the quality of their pasta is good. However, I don't think their recipes are particularly interesting. After all, the recipe you cited involves a prepared "BARILLA Garden Vegetable Sauce". In the spirit of reporting reality as it is and not as we would like it to be, we could certainly mention packaged sauces (Knorr Carbonara, anyone?) as their own category if they are in wide use (the fact that Barilla is trying to flog their BARILLA Garden Vegetable Sauce doesn't prove that they are succeeding...). --Macrakis (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that the full recipe name is Spaghetti Carbonara Monferrina Style with Asparagus (Spaghetti Carbonara alla Monferrina con Asparagi), I thought that the Barilla Veg. Sauce and asparagus were being added to a carbonara dish (in this case one with cream) As noted by another editor, northern Italy adds cream to many recipes. The Montferrat area is also the source of panna cotta, and so "alla Monferrina" for a cream sauce made perfect sense. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said Macrakis, this is a topic that we have discussed at length in my grad. classes, specifically with concerns to authentic cuisine. The terms "authentic", "traditional", and "original" are highly subjective. As you stated chefs have "codified" certain aspects of cuisines, such as dishes with Escoffier with writing Le Guide Culinaire, but. for example there is a recipe for cassoulet in the book that most Frenchmen would argue is not "authentic" or "traditional", however it is a recipe worth note as it contributes something to the cuisine and when written into the article one should note the difference between his interpretation and that of a peasant cook. Again though as you stated, even the peasant version should not be stated as "original", "authentic" or "traditional" because much like carbonara, there are regional influences and interpretations by professional chefs, home cooks and history.

The most important part of identifying these recipes is finding a quality recipe from a reliable source, a recipe off the side of a pasta box is clearly a poor choice to state as a mainstream recipe, but it would be good to note of the dishes popularity in a culture as it appears on a commercial product's package. Philadelphia Cream Cheese also comes to mind with their cheesecake recipe. Sorry for the long rant. --Chef Tanner, CEC (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Barilla and the like have a 'R&D department' where new recipes are produced every day, in order to boost the consumption of pasta, and marketing experts who have the job to find a suitable name for them. I known it for sure, because more than fiftteen years ago I had to 'baptise' a couple of dishes for one of these companies (based in Umbria), since a friend of mine who got this task had not enough fantasy/culture to do it. So, just forget the 'reliability' of such recipes. By the way, in Monferrato people eat above all rice, not pasta. If we talk about regional cooking and you want to act 'philologically', you can either read the couple of reference books which existes about Italian cooking - for Rome Boni (1920 c.a) and Gossetti (middle of the sixties) (and forget the rest), or go on the field (in Rome Perilli, Da Felice, Piperno (for roman jewish cooking), and few others). Ciao a tutti, Alex2006 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First, a belated thanks to Macrakis, for his work on the page. With regards to the Barilla recipe, wouldn't the following be accurate and meet the Wikipedia citation standards:

Barilla has published a carbonara recipe using cream that they call "Carbonara alla Monferrina", implying that cream is an ingredient in the eastern Piedmont.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it rises to the threshold of notability. If it becomes widely-known or iconic, like the Kraft cheesecake recipe that Chef Tanner mentions or Nestle's Toll-House chocolate chip cookies, that's another matter. Otherwise, as Alex2006 says, it's just marketing fluff. --Macrakis (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this exact recipe is notable, but I do think it's notable that Barilla attributes Carbonara with cream to northern Italy. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this I'll agree with how many times have you walked into a "Authentic" Restaurant & been served something that is not "Authentic"? It goes especially for Chinese Restaurants where they don't actually serve Chinese food they serve westernized variations at best adapted for our tastes. I have been to China I know what real Chinese food is like I had the chance to try Szechuan food & I really don't like it. I can say without a doubt in my mind that the Chinese Restaurants we have here are not serving real Chinese food! We have 3 Italian Restaurants in town 1 of them bashes the other 2 as being "American Italian" even though all 3 say there Authentic. The one that dose the bashing doesn't even serve Pasta there a place that serves alot of game. They have adaped things to sell better here & make more money that's all it boils down to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.153.68 (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

References

"Onion" non c'entra proprio niente

Please let's revert the lead to 11th February 2008. From this edit, things went downhill. No Italian would ever use onion for this recipe, and I strongly doubt even garlic. I liked the earlier lead much better: original recipe first, then all the various bastardisations. 83.67.217.254 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion about "original", "traditional", etc. and also Wikipedia policy about neutral point of view. You may believe that the "original" version doesn't use garlic, cream, etc., but where's the evidence? Some cookbooks published in Italy by Italians for Italians use them, some don't. I'd be happy to have more evidence about versions at different times and places, but just asserting based on personal experience or preference that one version is "original" doesn't advance our knowledge. --Macrakis (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you can't prove a negative. Rather, where's the evidence for onion? 170.148.198.156 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an editor had changed garlic to onion before onion was removed by another editor. One could also argue that not mentioning other ingredients in the opening is taking a POV opinion on the validity of other ingredients. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that removing unreferenced ingredients does not affect the "validity" of other (referenced) ingredients.

As for garlic, I would also like to point out that there is an enormous difference between using a clove of garlic in oil for the meat and then remove it and chopping garlic finely and putting it in the "sauce" - mind you I agree with whoever said that it is fundamentally wrong to call carbonara a sauce. 170.148.198.156 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is a relatively recently invented dish."

What does this mean? Can we please qualify further or move it away from the opening paragraph, or both? Thanks. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The evidence presented in the article (Ada Boni cookbook), the footnoted source, and the various stories seem to point to the middle of the 20th century, perhaps after WWII. I have made the opening a bit more explicit. --Macrakis (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross-reference to bolognese

User:Buspar has re-added a "related articles" section (normally called "see also") which lists Bolognese sauce; he justifies this re-addition with the comment "Bolognese is the other major type of spaghetti sauce, as mentioned in the spaghetti article, so it's relevant". Similarly, he has added Carbonara to the Bolognese article. There are innumerable recipes involving spaghetti, and linking from each of them to all the others isn't helpful. --Macrakis (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that the link should be in the See also section, along with a link to alfredo etc. If the number of such links gets large enough than maybe a small "Pasta sauce" template should be created that could be added to the end of each such article. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe a template would quickly become unwieldy, as there are far too many pasta dishes -- even too many Italian pasta dishes. But how about a category, Category:Pasta dishes? Currently, some pasta dishes are mixed into the Category:Pasta category, but I think it would make more sense to have this as a separate category. Also, I'd much prefer "pasta dishes" to "pasta sauces", because "pasta sauce" excludes things like pasta e fagioli, oven-baked lasagna, etc. Besides, in Italy, one generally talks of the dish as a whole, not the sauce and dish separately. --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Macrakis. Link to pasta dishes only. Fettuccine alfredo is not even an Italian dish and linking it would be systemic bias. 222.148.6.28 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested alfredo, not because of its history, but because there are people who think that carbonara is just alfredo with bacon bits added. So whether it is justified or not culinarally speaking there is a connection. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

İ agree too 100% with Macrakis. Anyway, Fettuccine Alfredo IS an italian (roman) dish, invented by Alfredo (Restaurant Alfredo alla Scrofa in Rome (see Carnacina-Buonassisi 'Roma in Cucina', sub Vocem) Alex2006 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the "Category:Pasta dish" idea. However, I don't understand the main objection. The spaghetti article clearly states that there are two major types of sauce for it, so why shouldn't they at least mention each other? It's in keeping with the overall style of good Wiki articles. Buspar (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The spaghetti article is wrong. There are many pasta dishes based on spaghetti, and I see no reason to consider bolognese and carbonara as the "two major types of sauce". --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, ragù isn't typically enjoyed with spaghetti but rather with tagliatelle or short pastas. The whole ragù-spaghetti notion should be deleted. -jun.27.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.150.152 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to spaghetti & ragù's prevalence in Italy, but "spaghetti & meat sauce" is the very common in the United States. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

reference

this dish was mentioned by the star gate in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.58.200 (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to Accademia recipe

I have reverted an anon's edit, which I don't understand - there seemed to be nothing broken about the link referred to. seglea (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Carbonara to Spaghetti alla Carbonara

To user:MJBurrage:

This recipe is known throughout Italy as spaghetti alla carbonara, not carbonara. Also, Italians don't use this sauce for other recipes. I verified this by looking at the website for La Accademia della Cucina Italiana listed in citations for this article. The fact that some people substitute other types of pasta doesn't change this fact. That would be the same as insisting that there shouldn't be a separate Wikipedia article for Hamburger simply because there are now cheeseburgers, chicken burgers and turkey burgers. Also, the Italian word carbonara alone means either "female charcoal maker" or "charcoal maker's wife" depending on the context of the sentence. This is an obviously nonsensical name for a recipe.

I tried to rename the article by moving it to Spaghetti alla Carbonara but you moved it back. This now makes it impossible to move the article back to that name because a reference for it already exists. I must now ask an administrator to delete the reference.

Why was it so important for you to keep the article named Carbonara? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about just any one version of the recipe. It is about the sauce. While adding the sauce to hot pasta at the end is an important part of the preparation, the type of pasta is not important. Good sources—including the widely cited Food Lover's Companion list it under carbonara. Listing the article under Spaghetti..., is editorializing one version as correct over others, in the same way as the past arguments over cream. Our job is simply to describe what carbonara is, not advocate for one version as more correct than the others. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is written on the top of this section is absolutely funny. Carbonara is a sauce, and in Rome we prepare it not only with spaghetti, but also with other types of pasta (specially pasta corta, as rigatoni). Besides, when in Rome people says "Facciamoci una carbonara" they don't mean certainly that they want to have a sexual intercourse with a female charcoal maker. :-) Therefore I think that the article should stay under the name "Carbonara", and the same is valid for the othersughi (Matriciana, etc.). Regards, Alex2006 (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cacio e ova

Hi all, as I wrote in the Italian talk, the Carbonara is simple another name for the receipt "Cacio (or cas) e ova", tipical for Rome, the southern Lazio and the northern Campania. Cacio e ova means cheese (pecorino), eggs, guanciale/pancetta/lardo/pieces of sausages. In other words: carbonara. Instead of speaking about Carbonari, soldiers, aliens, reptilians etc. why just not say that: "The Carbonara, also known as Cacio/cas e ova, it is a traditional receipt of Rome, southern Lazio and northern Campania".

Cream in Russia

Why is there a citation needed? I just at this tonight here in St Petersburg and I'm sick as a dog, but there was cream. 81.222.254.114 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Carbonara does not come from "la Carbonara"

Hallo, the name of the restaurant "La Carbonara" in Campo dei Fiori originates from the nickname of the first (female) owner, whose father was a charcoal worker. Please see "La cucina romana e del Lazio" by Livio Jannattoni, sub voce, as reference. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why is that inconsistent with the dish having been named for the La Carbonara restaurant? Is there a chronology problem (e.g. the restaurant opened after the dish is first attested)? --Macrakis (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The original name of the restaurant was al carbonaro, but it was changed to the female version later, when the dish was already born. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Original Recipe

Hallo Enok,

I reverted again your edit about Carbonara. As I wrote in my previous revert, there is no original recept by Carbonara (as by 99% of all the other dishes), since this is not a recipe invented by some chef, where we can trace it back to the origin. We can register only different recipes cited by different sources. I am Roman, and would personally NEVER use cream in Carbonara, but among my sources, Luigi Carnacina, who was one of the most famous Roman chefs of the 20th century, uses it. Generally speaking, this means using WP:V and WP:RS, which are two pillars of Wikipedia. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please use English, since this is Wikipedia in English.

Add your source in the article. --Enok (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The source is already there :-) Carnacina, Buonassisi, Roma in Cucina. Don't ask me why Carnacina used Cream, I think that this was an illness of the fifties-sixties (the mythical years of the "pennette alla wodka"... :-) . Anyway, I hope that now it is clear how an article about a dish should be created and maintained. Alex2006 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

History of the dish

It is written erroniously in this article that spaghetti alla carbonara was created in mid-20th century, but it's wrong. The tradition to cook "guanciale" (roman bacon) is very old in Rome and uniting it with eggs, which were very used by the very flourishing jewish community in that city, was kind of natural choice since eggs and bacon were largely available throughout the middle-ages in Rome with shepherds often coming down in winter from Sabina, considering that Rome has direct contact with shepherd tradition rather than with seaborn product, it was not uncommon to see sheeps grazing in the very centre of Rome till 19th century( you won't find ONE traditional roman dish made with seafood) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.96.195 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Pasta e broccoli con brodo d'Arzilla is a roman dish with fish. Alex2006 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Image of ingredients

@Pyrope: @Amin:. Frankly i do not think that this image should be included as it simply does not show the original ingredients. It is not bacon cubes from the supermarket put in the sauce and also not Parmesan cheese (usually-rarely it can). The native Roman Italians (by whom this dish originates from) would claim it is basically only Guanciale and Pecorino Romano. So either one makes an image with these ingredients or nothing. Also Black pepper as here [1] is a main ingredient. Unless the original ingredients are not taken, and also portrayed in a somewhat nicely arranged manner in the photo (as here [2]) I would take this image which is in this article right now out. It is no gain but makes this article less good.--Joobo (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The image is wrong and the ingredients are not the right ones. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)12:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, points taken, but... Artistic merit is a secondary concern to encyclopedic value so let's stick to that. As for whether these care the 'right' ingredients, that depends on your view of 'right'. Are they the ones that a high end Roman restaurant might use? Probably not. Are they the ones that an average person might use to create a weekday supper? Certainly. That they aren't a purist's choice is noted in the caption. The pasta and pepper are not shown, true, but does that detract much from the information communicated by the image that, in essence, carbonara is a cheese and bacon flavoured dish? For now, this image does that. If you think a better image can be created then do what Amin did: next time you make carbonara take five minutes before you start and produce a few images. Thus does Wikipedia grow. Pyrope 13:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. No image in this case is better than a wrong image. Yes it does not look good, but as you say it is only secondary. And now to the main point. This is an encyclopedia, so either one uses an image with the correct ingredients or not. Simple as that. I do not know if User:LuigiPortaro29 wants to keep this image in, i for sure not only think it looks pretty bad style and arrangement, but is simply false by its ingredients. Is Wiki a cookbook? No, so no need to include an image of flawed ingredients only to give an example for the average Joe in a "easy cooking -15minutes" book style in the english speaking world for people who can more easily get acces to some bacon cubes as some slices of Guanicale(or Pancetta). This is not an encyclopedic approach.--Joobo (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedic approach is to describe a subject in all its forms, not just some idealized, fundamentalist "correct" version. Is carbonara always made with guanicale? Absolutely not. Even in Italy, as this article describes, pancetta or bacon are sometimes used, and outside of Italy bacon is common. The image caption identifies this. Showing a picture of ingredients does not make this a cookbook. I have already pointed this out to you elsewhere. Pyrope 17:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment- I don't know about the authenticity of the ingredients in the picture, but as far as 'artisticness' goes, it's perfectly suitable and encyclopedic. If the image is left out it should be solely regarding the authenticity/accuracy of the image- which again, I will not comment on. But that's just my 2 cents. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It makes the article worse. Simple as that. The image itself looked aweful, and the original ingredients were not into it. If one would include images like that in all Wikipedia food and dishes articles or generally in all sorts of Wikipedia articles the quality would vanish. --Joobo (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It it certainly not a featured picture- but it is of similar quality and kind to many of the pictures on WP. It is an encyclopedia after all, not an art gallery- if a picture adds to the understanding of the subject and is not exceptionally poor quality, it should be included. The only issue here, in my opinion, is the accuracy. There is nothing otherwise wrong with the picture. But this is all I will say- because I don't want to get involved, just state my neutral view on quality. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as authenticity, and hence accuracy, is concerned, please see comments above in earlier discussions. In short, no such thing for this dish. Pyrope 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I find the Products not of a good quality, that is all.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Cacio e uova is not Carbonara

Hallo, I removed the assertion that cacio e uova can be the ancient name of Carbonara. The two recipes are quite different: in cacio e uova there is no pork, cheese and eggs are mixed together at the beginning of the preparation and - above all - the mixture is cooked several minutes. Maybe carbonara represents an evolution of cacio e uova, but for sure is not the same dish. Against this thesis there is also the fact that cacio e uova is a dish originating from Abruzzo and Campania, and was never attested in Rome, while Carbonara is for sure a dish from Lazio. Finally, he assertion that "old romans" named carbonara cacio e uova is more that suspect: I never read it on any italian source (and never heard it from any old roman, included (OR) my grandma, "classe" 1900, who preparing the carbonara (with bacon!) in the early sixties told me "questa ce l'hanno portata l'americani" :-)): cacio e uova is definitely not a dish belonging to the roman tradition. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I just read the whole article used as source: it is quite funny because the author - among tons of web sites and Betty Bossi (!) - cites as source wiki:it, but he confesses that he wasn't yet able to read the books written by Livio Jannattoni (among them: "Osterie e feste romane"; "La cucina romana e del lazio"), the most important historian of roman cooking of the last 60 years. I strongly doubt that this paper could withstand a peer review... Alex2006 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The wording is "may indeed have been the pre-war name of carbonara", which does not assert that it is true, only that it "may have been" the pre-war name. I will add "according to some researchers" to temper it even more.

The article was published in the Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, which is a well-regarded international symposium. I don't know exactly how they review papers, but it is surely a reliable source.

You may of course be right, but remember, on WP, our criterion is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. There are surely other researchers in this field who disagree with Buccini on many things, so why not add their positions to the article? --Macrakis (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Macrakis, I am talking about logic, not verifiability: cacio e uova is a quite different dish from carbonara: not the same ingredients and, above all, quite different preparation (and this is attested by the main food sources, for example Gossetti). Now, this guy is pretending that before WWII two different dishes had the same name! Moreover, for one of this two dishes (carbonara) there is absolutely no source (cookbook, newspaper) describing it before WWII: this dish before WWII is plainly non existent.

So, identifying it with cacio e uova is wrong. What you write about verifiability is true, but one source should be logically consistent: if it is easily confutable, as in this case, i don't use it. One can write that cacio e uova was a precursor of carbonara (this is reported by some source), but not that carbonara was the same as cacio e uova before the war. On the time axis, carbonara appears after 1944: before that time it is not attested. I don't think that if someone makes conjectures which cannot be proofed about something we should report them. Moreover, we are not speaking about some authors, but only one author (one author who cite blogs and at one point wiki:it - that's me :-) - among his sources), and this is undue weight. Alex2006 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Written attestation is great when you have it, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I just bought a new book relevant to the topic -- Karima Moyer-Nocchi, The Eternal Table: A Cultural History of Food in Rome [3] -- and am looking forward to seeing what it says about carbonara. Her last book, Chewing the Fat: An Oral History of Italian Foodways from Fascism to Dolce Vita [4], was fantastic, so I expect I'll learn new and interesting things from this one. --Macrakis (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the story of the origin of Carbonara is that this field became in recent years a religion war, fought among people of Abruzzi, Neapolitans (particularly aggressive), people from Romagna (!) and the Romans watching all of them. Unfortunately none of these people (writing on blogs or taking blogs as evidence) brings a ghost of a proof, a recipe, a restaurant menu, to support their hypotheses. I would be very glad if at least on Wikipedia we don't follow this mode, and we write our articles basing ourselves on facts, and not fried air. Remember what wrote here Andrew Dalby some years ago about the history of Baklava. About the new book, I strongly doubt that it will bring something new about Carbonara, above all if the authors won't have an Italian background/education: when a food historian wants to do research and not a mere compilation he/she should possess a multifaceted knowledge: he/she should know not only the food of a place, but also the people, the language, the geography, the food production, the customs of that place. When he/she does not, the risk is producing stuff like the article that you brought as source here (cacio e uova = carbonara is not the only mistake there: there are many others, occurring basically since the author does not know central Italy). However, the book with food interviews seems an exception, ;-) and looks quite interesting, I will buy it, thanks for suggesting it! Bye Alex2006 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Moyer-Nocchi has lived in Italy for 20+ years, and is a serious scholar. As you will see from Chewing the Fat, she encounters Italians speaking in various dialects. She is very skeptical of the mythology around carbonara and other dishes. So better to read her material before criticizing it. --Macrakis (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Variations

Variations aren't admitted. It's changing completely the dish. Carbonara with mushrooms or peas isn't carbonara anymore. If in America, they think that cooking a carbonara with peas or mushrooms or whatever it is, is cooking a carbonara, they're wrong. Variations of a carbonara are: adding only yolks or entire eggs, choosing between pecorino romano and parmigiano reggiano, not adding mushrooms or peas. GiuRos03 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

GiuRos03, that's something that would need attribution - eg 'According to such-and-such, a true carbonara can have no additional ingredients, but it may vary in whether whole eggs are used or just the yolks, and on the type of cheese used.' There is no global authority that we can rely on to support a definite assertion that a dish that millions of people call carbonara is not, in fact, a carbonara. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Da un rapporto dell'Accademia italiana della cucina, la ricetta originale della pasta alla carbonara risulta la più "falsificata" tra tutte le ricette italiane all'estero[14]. Nelle principali varianti, soprattutto di cucina internazionale, si usa sostituire il pecorino con il Parmigiano, o anche utilizzarli entrambi.[2] In alcune varianti si usa la panna[1]. Il composto risulta più denso, e di conseguenza anche più pesante. Frequente anche l'aggiunta di cipolla, anche se la ricetta tradizionale non la comprende.[15]

This is a paragraph from the page Pasta alla Carbonara on Wikipedia in Italian. Translate it. Just because millions of people call in a wrong way a dish, it doesn't mean that they're right. Eg. If there are many people, who, since they haven't studied, are ignorant, make a grammatical mistake, that mistake becomes correct? GiuRos03 (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I support removing variations from the infobox but keeping it in the article. I understand your reasoning (kind of) but just because you think it's not the 'true' dish doesn't mean that ingredients are not widely added and still referred to as Carbonara. That is why it is called a 'variation' - it varies from the pure definition of the dish. Does anyone oppose removal from the infobox? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've got no problem with removal from the infobox (I hadn't noticed they were in there actually) - but I agree that it needs to stay in the body of the text.

GiuRos03, what Italian Wikipedia says on the matter isn't really relevant here - each language version of Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines for content and sourcing. For our purposes, there is no authority to decide what is, and is not, carbonara - if enough people call something carbonara, that's what it is in their part of the world. (The same goes for grammar - what's right in America would often be wrong in England, and vice versa). GirthSummit _(blether) 15:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I also don't think the variations are necessary in the infobox either, but are needed in the body. But @Alessandro57: is removing any content that is coming to the page now, even if it is sourced by strong reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason to remove my sourced addition. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Reading some above discussions, it seems this user as it out with Accademia Italiana della Cucina, mostly based on his opinions. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Canon: this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia CANNOT be normative. The so called Accademia della Cucina are a couple of guys which try to decide what is "canonical" and what is not. We do something different, we work with the sources (in this case mainly cookbooks, but also witnesses, etc.), and for us the Accademia is only a source among the others. In other words, there cannot be any falsification here, since there is no canonical recipe. The canonical recipe can exist only for the dishes which have a certain origin and authors, but they are very very few. Variations: for me what unifies the variations of Carbonara is the processing of the egg cooking, the presence of fat and of a hard cheese, period. If someone wants to add peas, we as Italian can vomit, but this is a variation, and deserves its place in the text and in the infobox, if there is a field "variations" there. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

When there are several variations to a dish in several countries, the variations parameter can become less useful as it could go on and on (it had said "In the U.S. – peas..." what makes the U.S. special for inclusion in infobox but not other country's variations?) The list could go on and on as the variations seem more widespread than just the U.S. (unlike Fettuccine Alfredo). About Accademia Italiana della Cucina who are "are a couple of guys which try to decide what is "canonical" and what is not" seems like this is just your opinion. The organization, founded in 1953, has been recognized by the Italian government "dal 2003 Istituzione Culturale della Repubblica Italiana". Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, for me they can be also recognized by the pope, but they should explain according to which principle they consider a recipe version whose origin is unknown "canonical" with respect to another version. The first cookbooks which report the carbonara recipe mention guanciale or pancetta (and this makes sense, because in 1944 Rome Guanciale had disappeared, while there was plenty of american bacon): one can discuss what tastes better (I am on the guanciale side :-)), but none can come and without solid arguments decide that one is canonical and the other not. I repeat: for us this Accademia is a source like another, but we cannot give them a preference in this article (and in the others about Italian cuisine). I hope that you got my point. About the variations I got your point, I did not consider their explosion. Alex2006 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I see where you're coming from about the Accademia, (I haven't looked into it deeply), but you would assume to be recognized by the government, they would be basing their research and claims upon the original cook books and recipes of Italian cuisine. I'm not hard pressed on using the source in the article, but I do not think we should blanket everything from the Accademia as non-usable. For the variations, I suppose I'm not hard pressed on their removal; perhaps a main few ingredients can be listed that are used as a staple in several international variations (not only the U.S.). So for example: "Internationally: peas, mushrooms, and cream", if such ingredients can be agreed upon. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

About the ingredients I agree with you, and we should avoid being to U.S.-centric. About the academy, I have all possible italian books about the roman cuisine (Giaquinto, Carnacina-Buonassisi, Iannattoni, ecc. , and also a first edition of Ada Boni :-)))), and a good deal of those about the Italian one and, believe me, there is no way to give a patent of canonicity to this dish. Here one can just record the origins (that is, when it was first attested: Rome, end of WWII) and the evolution of the carbonara. The Accademia according to me in this respect has an important function, that is to testify the prevalent taste of the Italians today. The problem is that they say it in the wrong way: they should not say: "pancetta here is not canonical", but rather "in 2020 the use of pancetta here does not correspond to the taste of the italians anymore". Imagine if there had been an Academy of cuisine one thousand five hundred years ago: we would still eat garum, and dry pasta from Arabs would have been forbidden since it did not correspond to the late antiquity taste. :-) So, we could use the Accademia as source about today's taste, but not as the "tavole della legge (culinaria)". By the way, this "legislative" function is not even in their statute: "...promuove e favorisce tutte quelle iniziative che, dirette alla ricerca storica... ", apparently they don't research themselves. Alex2006 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alex2006 -- please see my comments from several years ago, above. WP is a descriptive, not a prescriptive encyclopedia. Even if Italian legislation does not allow (say) peas in carbonara, the WP approach to this is to say "In Italy, carbonara is legally defined to contain only pasta, pecorino romano and/or parmigiano-reggiano, guanciale, egg, and black pepper (GU L 314 del 15.9.2653)", and not to say that carbonara can only contain those ingredients, since in other jurisdictions the situation is different. Anyway, as far as I know, there is no such legislation. --Macrakis (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate removal from infobox, but I'd like to tell you all something: imagine you have a pizza Margherita (tomato sauce, mozzarella, basil): if you add mushrooms, it becomes a Capricciosa; if you remove mozzarella and you add oregano it becomes a Marinara. You can do whatever you want with a dish, but if you change it radically, it isn't that same dish anymore. Then, about the "Italian taste": we don't speak of taste, we speak of TRADITION. Italian cuisine is tradition and it can't be limited to a cookbook. And this means that we can rely on the grandmas of all Italian people, because they carry on tradition. And it doesn't matter if Jamie Oliver writes on his book that Carbonara is made with mushrooms, onions or peas, he's wrong because he's British and he does not know what a Carbonara is. I'm Italian and I'm from Rome, I know what a Carbonara is, like 60 millions of Italians do. I'm proud that our cuisine is appreciated all over the world and I don't discuss with you that you can't cook whatever you want, adding all the ingredients you want and changing the recipes in all the ways you desire, but a Carbonara with peas is not Carbonara, tradition says it. You CAN cook it, I'm not saying absolutely that you can't, but don't call it carbonara because where it is born, in Italy, there are rules that we follow to cook it. No Italian person needs a cookbook to know how a Carbonara is made, we know it thanks to tradition :-). Thank you all for the interesting discussion! Cheers! GiuRos03 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

GiuRos03, that's not how we roll. Words often mean different things in different parts of the world: words such as chips, biscuits and jelly mean completely different things on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Carbonara can mean one very specific thing in Rome, and have a more elastic meaning elsewhere - that isn't wrong, it's just different. Many words in English have come from other languages, and have changed their meaning over time - the provenance of the word (or the dish) doesn't invalidate a meaning that has developed differently elsewhere. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Girth Summit and Macrakis. P.S. I am also Roman (maybe a little bit more than others, since my family on mother's side has been living in the city since the 17th century); the problem is that most Romans today never put their noses beyond the ring road. Speaking about tradition: well, the original Carbonara has been prepared with pancetta and Powdered eggs. The reason behind that is that in Rome in 1944 this is what the romans got to eat (real eggs and guanciale could be bought only at the black market, and they were beyond the purchasing power of most of the population). And when in the sixties I asked to my granma (born in 1900) why she was preparing Carbonara with bacon, the answered me: "Perchè la Carbonara ce l'hanno portata l'americani." ("Because carbonara has been brought to us by the americans"). For her, it was an American recipe! Now, in 2020, the "evolved recipe" in Italy has been sadly confused with the original one (BTW, the same happened for the matriciana, which in Amatrice has been prepared without tomatoes until 50 years ago, while in Rome the version with tomatoes is attested since more than one century). It is clear that today's version tastes better to most of the people (included me), but this has nothing to do with "tradition"; cooking is evolution, contamination, and the attempt to crystallise and codify a national cuisine - as now is happening in Italy - is the best way to kill it, and another aspect of the decadence of a people and a nation. Alex2006 (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think if you have sources for that, that would be great info to include in the article. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that I read it in a book of Jannattoni, but unfortunately I have not them here, but in Rome. Next time that I head south (hopefully soon, given what's happening now in Italy :-() I can put it in the article (if there is consensus). Alex2006 (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, stay safe, and be WP:BOLD - I don't think anyone would object to that info if you can source it - seems like good historical info. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is a fine example why Wikipedia shouldn’t beludest as a reference

This article makes me cringe – as do the discussions here. There is one recipe for carbonara: Guanciale (no pancetta, no bacon, no ham), egg yolk (no whole eggs ever), Pecorino Romano (no parmesan or any other cheese), black pepper and pasta (preferably Spaghetti or big tubes like rigatoni). Anything else is not carbonara. So: no cream, no garlic, nothing else. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it should not reference to what some people in the US believe a carbonara is. The English Wikipedia is the only true international version of Wikipedia and thus should be free from national bias, culture or opinion. So for the sake of truth and respect, start with the original recipe and then add a section with international interpretations of the dish. Zitaneco (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool story. You'd have seen that there IS a "Variations" section that talks about those very things. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as the 'original' recipe was made using American GI ration bacon, I have to say that I find the frothy-mouthed Italian food nationalists that come here and demand we only refer to one, single, original recipe hilarious. A triumph of ignorance. They can go and make the Italian Wikipedia as biased and untruthful as they like, but yes, the rest of us will try to keep the English Wikipedia neutral and not bound by bigots. Pyrope 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh Carbonara, don't care of people all over the world who have cooked twice in their life and they kill you with these words. Poor you, poor Carbonara... Non ti curare di loro ma guarda e passa. (Divina Commedia, XXVI canto, Dante Alighieri). GiuRos03 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Place of origin is Italy not Italy or USA

Carbonara's creation has nothing to do with the american soil. I understand that one of the hypothesis is that americans contributed to its creation but even then it was in Italy. So please show respect and don't mention the US in Place of origin. Spaghetti with meatballs is american because it was invented in the US, let pasta alla carbonara to Italy because it was invented in Italy please. 148.66.102.101 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Again (see above): in the article there is nowhere an "American hypothesis". The Americans' contribution is (probably) limited to supplying large quantities of bacon and powdered eggs to the Roman people. Who made the first carbonara is unknown, but the place is definitely Italy. Cesari (the used source) writes that the 1952 recipe has been likely brought to Chicago by an American soldier or an Italian emigrant to the States:

It means that not only had carbonara already landed in the United States, but by 1952 it was already being served to customers in at least one restaurant in Chicago. How it got there is impossible to know, perhaps an American returned home after a stay in our country (presumably as a result of the military operations of World War II) or an Italian transplanted to the United States.

As a matter of fact, Carbonara is attested in Italy since 1950, and both cited sources in 1950 and 1951 speak of carbonara as an already very popular recipe in Rome at that time. Even in the 1951 source, a film (the youtube reference is in the article), Aldo Fabrizi, the most popular Roman actor at the time, uses carbonara as the first question of a test to see if a maid on trial knows Roman cuisine (the second question concerns amatriciana). Alex2006 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

carbanaes

how do u say it 174.88.15.129 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)