Talk:Ceviche/Archive 2

Ceviche
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)


 * I've made the change and removed the picture of Choros a la Chalaca and replaced it with a picture of Peruvian Ceviche that was already used in the article. It makes things look a bit more clean and it's the correct image for the article. Unknown Lupus  | T a l k 19:45, 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 | T a l k 03:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not required that you have an account to participate in discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Health risks - not to be consumed late in the day?
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 | T a l k 18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead
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 and remained there till now. However at the moment it was introduced the information didn't match correctly because the source reads:

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)

edit war cease fire in place
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)
 * I've made a few minor edits to the article that I think are not controversial, but since I edited through the protection it's probably best to detail them here. I fixed the image formatting to re-enable section editing using Template:Stack. I de-linked the word "fish" since that is a very common word that anyone with even a passing understanding of English would know, and I removed the name of a chef from the caption of the first image because there seemed no reason for it and we don't have an article on that person. I'm relly hoping there is some substantive discussion here soon about the issue of the origin of this dish, if edit warring resumes after the protection expires, I will not hesitate to re-protect the article and/or liberally hand out blocks to edit warriors. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I also hope that other interested contributors could add their perspective here in a constructive way as I'm not an expert on this issue. My observations are stated above, any comments are welcomed.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a more authoritative source on the origin of ceviche. The current "good" one is a lighthearted cooking site, and it reports that a nice lady told it about the source of ceviche. Kind of wobbly, I think. Lou Sander (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like so too, but so far I couldn't find any book that really go deep into the history of Ceviche, mostly recipes. However Douglas Rodriguez's The Great Ceviche Book page 4 tells a similar story and adds Polynesia and Arabia to the equation. I hope that this could help as invitation to others to bring what they got, let's see what happens.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  12:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Edit War About To Begin
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 | T a l k 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, am tired of seeing Mexico introduced without any verifiable citations. I will do my part by reverting it whenever I see it. Lou Sander (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to fully secure this article with protection for a longer period of time? I am simply tired of the many changes made by IPs.

Unknown Lupus | T a l k 03:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I added published sources with links on Google Books to the very page if you would like to verify. They clearly indicate the origin of ceviche is considered by some to be from Polynesia. Others claim it came from Spain. The origin of ceviche, like Pisco, is not a settled question. The Peruvian claims are all backed by fan web sites and not from any reputable published source. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool to promote Peruvian cuisine. 201.230.90.180 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Is dispute resolution and/or semi protection necessary? thoriyan 04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Origins section
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)

Adding sources to the article
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 | T a l k 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
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 | T a l k 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If cebiche were an english word, I would not object to this, but apparently the english rendition is ceviche. English wikipedia uses english titles whenever possible. -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cebiche is not an English word, and therefore what must be taken into account is the official language's name acceptance. There are various English sources that mention the name "Cebiche," so there is no problem with it being the official title in the English wikipedia. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is most certainly a problem with the page move you did. As was stated above, the vast majority of English speakers know this as ceviche, and this is the English Wikipedia. That the sources mention the alternate spelling is a good reason to have that term as a redirect, but not a good reason to move the page. Also, you did a cut and paste move, moving the content but not the history of this page to the new title. Please do not move the page again without gathering a consensus to do so here. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Buddy, "the vast majority of English speakers" needs a source that verifies it. Otherwise it is nothing but an overstatement. I have provided sources from the Royal Spanish Language Academy (RAE) that present "Cebiche" as the official etymology of the term. Moreover, RAE also has mentions to Seviche and Ceviche as other spellings (Seviche classified as regional) of the term. To seek "consensus" in moving pages is a long process that I do not care to start. If you won't let the move go through, then I can't do much of anything about it. However, I do have sources that demonstrated the support of RAE to "Cebiche" rather than to the other regional terms.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK "buddy" perhaps you would care to explain why the Spanish language academy has any bearing on how the page is titled on the English Wikipedia? If you don't care about consensus then you are in the wrong place, it is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making. "Ceviche" isn't just a "regional term" every one of the sources except the ones you have just added prefers it as the spelling, and a Google search of ceviche produces 3,720,000 results, compared to 264,000 for cebiche. Relevant policy section is at WP:UE. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's all try to remain calm and civil, yes? MarshalN20, Beeblebrox is correct, and if you google for dictionaries containing cebiche, I think you'll find that it does not occur except in translation dictionaries, while ceviche is common in english dictionaries. The RAE doesn't address english usage, anymore than does the French Academy addresses spanish. If you like we can discuss it on the titles noticeboard. -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Buddy" is not an insult. However, the way "Beeblebrox" uses it shows a sign of distaste for the word, and also a starting sign of incivility/anger.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cebiche is a Spanish word, at least in modern terminology. The Royal Spanish Academy holds the official final word on the "correct" spelling for any term that is of Spanish origin. You still have not provided any source that verifies your claim that the "the vast majority of English speakers" use the term ceviche. In fact, I could probably make a stronger unsourced claim by stating that the "vast majority of English speakers" don't know a dish by the name of "cebiche" exists. Your search of google results is an absurd way of attempting to prove your point, especially when your claim is still unreferenced. Before you try to distort this logic, let me state that I am not claiming that "cebiche" is the most common English word usage of the term, but rather that it is the accepted word spelling/definition of the Royal Spanish Academy. As sourced evidence, it holds stronger weight than your probably biased (I assume good faith) and unsourced claim on the subject. If you cannot provide sources to back up your claims, then you are by all means in the wrong place. Wikipedia does not stand by consensus, it stands by verifiability (sp?). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. A google search is considered a valid means of determining such a thing, it's unlikely any source actually discusses which term is used more by English speakers. In any event the fact that the majority of the sources used in this very article prefer the term is evidence enough. I don't know why you would make a backhanded accusation that I am biased. I support using the word it is most known by to English speakers because that is the position supported by both policy and common sense. And again, the Spanish language academy is certainly a good source for finding out about the origin of the word, but not a good source for how it used by English speakers. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Google search numbers are by no means a reliable way of "proving" a point. The matter here is based on providing reliable sources that verify the information being presented. You still have failed to provide any source whatsoever that might even "hint" at your claim being correct. If you claim that the term is mostly used as "ceviche" in English, then you should easly find a source that verifies your claim.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) MarshalN20, where I come from, starting a sentence with "Buddy" addressed to someone you do not know is asking for confrontation. My suggestion is that you reconsider using it if you wish to not be misunderstood. Yes, cebiche is a spanish word, and not, as far as I know, used in english. Ceviche is both a word in spanish and in english, and if you will consider the policy Beeblebrox referred you to, I think you'll find that we should use the english term here. Spanish usage, while interesting, is not relevant. I also fixed your indent. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Buddy" is not a term of confrontation, and it is not of my interest to know that where you come from people take friendly terms such as "buddy" as a suggestion for confrontation. I have read the policy that Beeb kindly directed me to, thank you for asking. However, he still has failed to provide any source to back up his claim.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:23, 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)
 * I agree, and the etymology section is one of the more interesting aspects of the topic. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've applied full protection to the article for three days, per a request at WP:RFPP. Incidentally, my first thought is that the name of the dish in the article should match the article title, so WP:RFPM might be worth a try. If you kick that off, and it looks like you're all happy to wait for consensus and any resulting page move, I'd be happy to lift the protection early. TFOWR 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Invention: Controversial, but most historians point to Peru?!
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 | T a l k 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 | T a l k 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=dJcNQZi7_hQC&pg=PA3&dq=cebiche+origin+peru&hl=en&ei=4D1gTKW4LoT48AbI7J24DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=cebiche%20origin%20peru&f=false (Speaks of Most historians)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=TBlIsgmqA8AC&pg=PT35&dq=cebiche+origen+peru&hl=en&ei=OzVgTOa1MoGC8gaC7aC0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (speaks of Renown historians)
 * http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Peru/decreta/28/junio/Dia/Seviche/elpepuint/20080919elpepuint_3/Tes (archaeological roots of cebiche in Peru date back to more than a thousand years).

Messy References
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 | T a l k
 * Since you brought it up, I tagged the article with a GOCEinuse tag just a bit ago so I could do exactly that without editing conflicts, but you hadn't noticed I guess. Let me know when your done and I'll have a go. Nuujinn (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead. If you need help with the page numbers, just send me a message. I can't promise a quick reply, though.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)