Talk:History of pizza/Archive 1

Modern-day pizza
It would really be nice to have more detail and information here. What does this mean that the classical Italian pizza is "not the same" as "modern-day" pizza? From where does this information come? --Robotech_Master 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this article is ridiculous, what does pizza have being eaten in the Neolithic age? does that mean dinosaurs ate pizza or that cave men ate pizza. I changed it to Pizza was invented by Raffaele Esposito of Naples. In 1889, Esposito who owned a restaurant called the Pizzeria di Pietro baked what he called "pizza" especially for the visit of Italian King Umberto I and Queen Margherita. Pizza originated in Naples and is a national food of the Italian nation and Italian people. Pizza is pizza, not science or a mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hallo, I reverted the article. The sentence that you would like to see commented makes no sense. Modern pizza - as we know it today - was born in Italy. If you want to know more about it, you can read for example the fundamental text about the history of the italian cooking, "L'arte della cucina in Italia", edited in 1987 by Einaudi, Turin. Or, if you don't know italian, read the diary of Alexandre Dumas (1835), where he writes about pizza in Naples at the beginning of XIX century. alex2006 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Modern pizza was born in New York City. Sources that link it to Italy are questionable refer to a food of a slightly different configuration. --Unsigned comment posted by 63.225.141.203


 * Oh? How about citing your source for this contention, please? --Robotech_Master 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the "Modern Day Pizza" section and moved some paragraphs around. The pizza as we know it today begins when tomato was first used as a topping for flat bread in Naples. I have taken this moment as the birth of modern pizza and have moved the paragraphs around accordingly. Some might argue that the birth of the modern pizza begins with the addition of cheese to the bread and tomato however, pizza Marinara, which does not contain cheese has been called a pizza since the 18th century and is still recognised as a "pizza" in all the pizzerias in Naples and many around the world. Not only that but it is also one of only 2 types of pizza recongnised by the Associazone Verace Pizza Napoletana. I have included more information on Neapolitan pizza, particularly as it is served today and have included a picture of a pizza Marinara.Shoebill 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed 'and basil' from the ingredients of the marinara. It normally doesn't have basil (see for example http://www.verapizzanapoletana.org/vpn/charter.html ). The illustration looks as though it has basil leaves on it, although I can't be sure they aren't just big oregano leaves. Cooke 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is rather confusing. I have regularly eaten pizza Marinara in most of the top pizzerias in Naples. I can absolutely assure you that Sorbillo, Port Alba, Di Matteo, Luigi Lombardi, Brandi and Trianon, all of whom are in the historical centre of Naples and all of whom are members of the Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana serve pizza Marinara with basil on it. I took that picture of a Marinara in Di Matteo - Oregano leaves are tiny - the leaves in the picture are basil - I ate them :-) The only place in Naples I have been served a Marinara without basil is Da Michele but they are not members of the association. The only one of these pizzerias I can find with a website with a picture is Sorbillo. They are members of the association and this page shows their marinara with basil on it: [] Shoebill2 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Shoebill2 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written to the Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana to ask for clarification on this matter. They say that pizzaioli in naples do "usually" add basil to a marinara for "green colour and freshness". They go on to say it is "not a wrong thing but an old habit" (sic). So, I have updated the article putting basil back on the list of ingredients for a marinara but stating that it is "usually" added rather than implying it is "always" added. I've also added a bit at the bottom of the section on the Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana "rules" to help clarify the situation. Shoebill2 12:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Modern' pizza certainly evolved in Italy. All existing pizzas grew out of theirs, after all. :) Jtrainor (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs
"It is also believed that eating the tip of the pizza slice last brings good luck to the eater. This can be achieved by starting at the crust, or cutting the tip off and setting it aside for later."

Why is that either not sourced, or then as an unsourced statement in this article at all anyway? Says who? Lsjzl 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely it does not come from Italy... ;-) alex2006 13:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions
In this article, the original Pizza was invented in Naples (by adding tomato to bread), but later it is told that pizza was invented in Lebanon?

The First Pizzeria?

You say "The world’s first true pizzeria, Antica Pizzeria Port’Alba in Naples, ... opened as a fully fledged pizzeria with chairs and tables in 1830..." , but also that "Esposito worked at the pizzeria "Pietro... e basta così" (literally "Peter... and that's enough" which was established in 1780..."

This clearly needs correction/clarification 91.104.252.59 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote the part about Port Alba but not the part about Brandi. This does need clarification and I will look into it. Port Alba is considered the first true pizzeria by most of the sources I've researched but Brandi do claim to have been a pizzeria in 1780 on their website. It may be that Brandi was a pizza bakery rather than a pizzeria in 1780 but it may not be possible to prove one claim or the other. If that is the case I will re-write the section to reflect the situation.Shoebill2 09:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look into this now. I think the apparent contradiction is caused by the word "pizzeria" - describing Pietro e Basta Cosi simply as a "pizzeria" in 1780 while Port'Alba is described as a "pizzeria" in 1738 but a "fully fledged" pizzeria in 1830. This is a false distiction. I have reserched the word "Pizzeria" and 3 main definitons are given: 1. A place where pizzas are made, 2. A place where pizzas are made and sold, 3. A pizza restaurant. These are 3 subtly different things however, the OED's definiton incorporates all 3 versions and as they are perhaps the leading authority on English I think it's the one we should go for. Port' Alba is still widely accepted as the first pizzeria in pretty much all the books and websites I've looked at so this needs to stand. The confusion can be removed by taking out the "fully fledged" part of the article and I have done this (with other minor re-writes). Brandi do not specify whether they were just a pizza bakery in 1780 as opposed to a pizza "restaurant" with chairs and tables and until some evidence is presented that they pre-dated Port'Alba on either of these respects then we must assume that they didn't. Shoebill2 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

American Pizza corrections
I removed the Frank Pepe claim to be the first pizzeria in the United States. Off the top of my head, I can name 4 establishments that opened before them: Lombardi's, Tottono's, Joe's Tomato Pies, and Papa's Tomato Pies (both in Trenton). Also, the dates given in the articles directly contradict any claim for Frank Pepe being the first. On a side note, I also removed the New Haven recipe used for decades comment. Frank Pepe's original pie was an anchovy pie. The New Haven pie that is famous is the Clam Pie and wasn't available until after the opening of Frank Pepe when he started putting clams sold by a local street vendor on it. Coumarin 20:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Pizza
I've asked for a citation here because I have not seen this idea for the etymology of the word before in any of the references I have read. Ideas about the word origin are quite mixed and it may even be Germanic. Could you let us know the source of this idea that the word "pizza" is derived from "Persia"? Also, what particular Persian dish is it that inspired the Italian travellers? Were they actually using tomato as a food before the Italians? Shoebill 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I have read pizza like dishes existed in the ancient world since the Egyptians and the Babylonians, before the Persians. Ancient Greeks who founded Naples in the 7th and 6th centuries BC were known for their pizza like dishes derived from popular ancient Greek cuisens such as the maza or plakuntos flat breads that were seasoned with herbs and various toppings such as fresh vegetables, olives, cheese, olive oil, garlic fish, fruit, and sweets; it was a popular dish with regular Greeks because the flat bread was used as an eatable plate loaded with toppings. In The Pizza Book; Everything There Is To Know About The World's Greatest Pie, published by Times Books states the Etruscans in northern Italy brought with them the ancestor of focaccia that was a pizza like bread with a topping but it was more bread than pizza. The Greeks who colonized Naples in the 7th century BC perfected techniques they picked up from the Egyptians and Babylonians and are responsible for the type of a pizza prototype that fostered the Neapolitan style pizza. The Greeks developed sophisticated ovens and levening for their "plakuntos" which means flatplate in Greek and used in the form of an eatable plate describe above. The concept of a topped bread as a meal is of Greek origin many dishes developed during the golden age in Greece were meant to be eaten while reclining--which was the accepted table manner of the day. The plakuntos was baked with toppings of cheese, herbs, onions and olives on a a round bread with a rim. Plato describes a Greek "pizza" like dish in his Republic: "They will provide meal from their barley and flour from their wheat and kneading and cook these ... they [the pies] will also have relishes—salt ... and of olives and cheese; and onions and greens." Around 600BC when the Greeks occupied southern Italy they brought with them the plakuntos, which was later named "placenta" by the Romans. The word pizza comes from an adjective that specifically describes the dark, tar bake on the bottom of the placenta--it was called "picea" and that's where the modern word pizza derives. ~The Pizza Book; Everything There Is To Know About The World's Greatest Pie by Evelyne Slomon Nex 18:09, 3 May 2007


 * I will try to incorporate some of this into the article soon. The origins of the word are uncertain and widely disputed - I'll include an etymology section to include the main theories. I don't think it can be said for sure that the ancient Greeks were the first to top a flat bread - remember, flat breads go back to the neolithic and have been eaten right across Europe, the Middle East, China and the Indian subcontinent - I suspect topped flatbreads have appeared many times in many locations going back thousands of years. Shoebill 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now included "plakuntos" in the origins section and added an etymology section. I don't think the Plato reference is safe though - the part you quoted comes from 2 different paragraphs. Have a look at the full text here and you can see that there is not much in it to suggest he is talking about a pizza like dish: Shoebill 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the link. Nex 10 May 2007

I have removed the ridiculous, unsourced claim that Persians invented the Pizza or that it is in any way related to them. "It is said" is not a credible source, and it was probably from the mouth of your typical modern-day Persian trying to claim everything is invented by their ancestors. Like someone also said, Pizza existed in Mesopotamian with the Akkadians and Babylonians way before Persia, and the description of the supposed dish itself suggests a Semetic Near-East/Arab origin, as it was through the efforts and conquest of the Arabs that Dates and Cheese became common in Persia. To whatever self-delluding Iranian who wants to put similar claims up, provide sources for the existance of this ancient Persian dish, it's direct impact and contribution to the history of Pizza (etymology I guess in this case) and maybe the name of the common dish in Iran which derived from it. 78.86.135.49 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Expand
Please expand the article to include more information--Arceus fan 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

chinese beliefs about pizzas
I noticed that User:Aqwis boldly removed the text on pizzas being invented by the Chinese. I understand the boldness, as the then version of the article didn't actually clearly start off saying that this belief is false. This was due to another recent edit which removed this. I recalled reading a previous version that was more clear, and I restored that. I also added a few more citations that show the prevalence of this belief. I think the belief is common enough to warrant a section in this article. It also seems to be fairly well-established that this belief is considered false. So, I suggest we keep this bit. Martijn Faassen (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to sustain your argument, please provide better references. Blogs and web sites, however reliable, cannot substitute for review articles or books - they are not authoritative enough. Saying that pizza was invented by Marco Polo because "he missed Chinese food" (as one of your "references" reports) requires better evidence than hearsay. This is an encyclopedia - we do not report people's beliefs, even if they are common! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.70.234 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

pizza
who invented pizza

not sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.247.82 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to origins section
I have reverted all the recent edits by 70.241.76.161 and 129.2.147.96 and will explain:

1. The spelling in the quote from Virgil is correct - it may be archaic but it is the correct spelling. You can find this quote with this spelling convention from various academic sources on the internet.

2. I take your point that flatbreads flavoured with other ingredients are ubiquitous in human culture however, this article is not "the history of flavoured flatbreads" it is the history of a specific flavoured flatbread called "pizza". Although pizza is not always easy to define, there is a clear lineage of a tomato based flatbread originating in the Campania region of Italy and spreading throughout the world since the late 19th century. The belief that pizza originated in China as the green onion pancake is therefore "erroneous" because that is simply not the source of the dish we call pizza - I agree that it has similarities with pizza but a study of the history of pizza suggests that the similarity is coincidental.

3. Similarly, the fairly widespread belief that pizza was invented in the USA is also erroneous and it is clearly relevant to dispel such a myth in a history of pizza. Of course many variations on the pizza theme have indeed been invented in the USA but they still follow a direct lineage from the Italian dish - they are called "pizza" for example because they are based on the Italian dish called "pizza", brought to America by Italian immigrants in the late 19th century.

You say that "the concept of pizza has been international" but that is not correct: the concept of a flatbread with added ingredients is certainly international but the concept of the particular flatbread we call pizza is Italian in origin. Shoebill2 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shoebill2, I agree with your edit and thanks for the explanation on the talk page. It's important for the article to point out widespread but inaccurate beliefs, and not to leave this in the middle. Unless of course someone can come up with academic quality citations in favor of a Chinese or American origin. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

origins section again
There seems to be a little battle going on here so let me state my case for reverting these edits:

1: The use of the word "humankind". This is the word used originally in the article (by me) and should not be changed without good reason. Technically it means exactly the same thing as "mankind" so to that extent they are synonyms and therefore interchangeable, however, many writers (including myself) feel that "mankind" has sexist connotations and prefer "humankind" and that's why I used it. Wikipedia also encourages "Gender-neutral language" so, if you are going to use "mankind" instead of "humankind" please state clearly why you think it is preferable and how the article is improved by it. The most recent version of this sentence was "Bread is one of the oldest prepared foods of humans," - this is clearly a clumsy line.

2: The use of the word "flavoursome" instead of "flavorful". Again, they are synonyms or as "Swampfire" put it when swapping them: "flavorful and flavorsome [sic] mean exactly the same thing" which of course begs the question: "why change it then?" So, if you want to change it, please state clearly why you think "flovorful" is preferable to "flavoursome" and why you think the article is improved by the change. Also, if you are going to Americanise the spelling please make sure you do do consistently throughout the article. Shoebill2 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * read the edit, I did not mention it while changing it, I merely took the u out to reflect what this website states about wording. I could careless about wether it is flavorful or flavorsome, but the proper word should be the flavorsome not flavoursome even though the are similar, the same as if you spell aluminum on here and not aluminium. Actually this particular version of wiki says to use the american english version, which is why I took out the u. But check the history i did not change the (some to ful)Swampfire (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise - you are quite right, you didn't swap the words - I should pay more attention ;-) I'm not clear on the American-English thing though - I don't particularly object but just so I know, where does it say that it should be in American-English? If you could point me to that reference it might help me understand when to use American and when to Use British - thanks. Shoebill2 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Humankind" and "flavoursome" are both, to my eyes, awkward and self-conscious word choices. Rather than enhance the article, they get in the way -- when the little voice in your brain should be sating,  "hey, that's interesting about pizza!", instead it says, "huh; I wonder why the editor chose *those* words?"   I take the point about gender-neutral terms but - in my opinion - "humankind" is not a good solution.  I've substituted "civilization", which is accurate, neutral and familiar.  "Flavoursome" may be a common term in UK or other non-US English (I don't know) but it to the US reader at least, it is a clumsy choice.  I changed it to flavorful to avoid the problem.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some problems with your changes. The word "Civilisation" does not work if you consider the definition of the word. Here's the Wikipedia definition: "A civilization or civilisation is human society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities." The problem is that this article clearly states (in the same line) that bread dates back at least to the neolithic and therefore pre-dates civilisation. So, it is factually incorrect to say that bread is a product of civilisation.

The Wikipedia article on gender neutrality (which I just found) suggests the word "humanity" in place of "man" so how about we replace the words "mankind" or "humankind" with "humanity"? It sounds more awkward to me than "humankind" but it avoids the factually incorrect "civilisation" and has been pre-approved by Wikipedia.

You state that you have changed "flavorsome" to "flavorful" on the grounds that it sounds better to Americans but you have to bear in mind that you are looking at an international article with American eyes. If the article was about American pizza then specifically American terms would be appropriate. I would like to point out that English is spoken by up to a billion people according to some estimates and only 215 million of them are American. Have a look at this link which suggests that "flavorsome" is used in The US Canada and the UK while "flavorful" is only used in the US and Canada. This suggests that while "flavorsome" sounds awkward to you, it might sound fine to a a larger number of people than "flavorful" []Shoebill2 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia is international in scope, and of course American speakers of English are in the minority. I am guessing that UK speakers are an even smaller fraction.   Numbers though aren't the point - else we'd be writing these for Indian ears.  I was unaware that "flavorful" was an Americanism, so let's try to come up with a word or phrase that doesn't sound funny to any English speakers.  Maybe we can substitute "add flavor", something like that.  As for "civilization" - well, if that's wrong then I would take "mankind", baggage and all, over "humanity" (which carries confusing broader connotations - Wikipedia def:  "the human species, human nature (e.g.compassion, altruism) and the human condition (the totality of experience of existing as a human)") or "humankind" (for the reasons I gave above; no Wikipedia definition).  "Humanity" also goes too far back, I think - bread presupposes agriculture (right?), but humanity predates that.  We could of course duck the entire problem by simply saying, "Bread is one of the oldest foods prepared by humans, dating back at least to the neolithic."  JohnInDC (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "tasty" rather than "flavorful"? Bread does not necessarily presuppose agriculture and it certainly does no presuppose settlement in cities which is a key concept in the definition of "civilisation". As I said, I agree that "humanity" is awkward but it is on the Wikipedia gender neutral page. Clearly I prefer "Humankind" as I think this is simply a non-sexist version of "mankind" - perhaps it is good to encourage these words through use? "Humankind" is in the Merriam Webster American dictionary and has been around since 1594 so I struggle to see the objection. "Prepared by humans" sounds like a line from Star Trek to me - someone proposed a similar version quite recently. I will concede to "flavorful" but will resist sexist terminology. OK, how about this: "Bread is one of the oldest prepared foods and dates back at least to the neolithic. Records of people adding other ingredients to bread in order to make it more flavorful can be found throughout ancient history." It simply removes the problem - I don't think it flows quite so sweetly but it's not too bad. Or, even more concise: "Bread dates back at least to the neolithic and records of people adding other ingredients to bread in order to make it more flavorful can be found throughout ancient history." Shoebill2 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comma after neolithic and it's fine - well done! JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Have edited based on our discussion. Not sure about the comma so have not added one - please feel free to add it yourself as you feel appropriate. Shoebill2 (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing how parsimonious the speakers of British English are with commas I anticipated that. It's fine with me!  JohnInDC (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the template
I'm not sure if it is called a template but I am talking about the box at the top right of the page. I don't understand the separation of pizzas into "regional variations" and "ethnic variations". Why is New York style pizza a "regional" variation but Mexican pizza is an "ethnic" variation - they are all regional variations. I therefore feel that there should only be one box called "regional variations" and one of the regional variations should be "American pizza". To list all the American variations in their own section, separate from all other variations greatly exaggerates the importance of American pizza and biases the article. I would sort this out myself but I just can't see how you edit the template! Technically, if you want to have 2 boxes - one for "regional" and one for "ethnic" then Italian variations like Neapolitan, Roman and Sicilian pizzas should be in the regional box while Mexican, Greek and American should be in the ethnic box.Shoebill2 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Extensive edit of the infobox
I have made various changes to the infobox. I got rid of the picture at the bottom as it was of poor quality and added nothing useful. I have removed the "Ethnic variations" because this should not really be separate from "regional variations". It was also misleading to have only American pizzas under "regional variations". So all of these now come under the heading of "regional variations". There were also dishes under "regional variations" that were not variations on pizza at all but were coincidentally similar dishes - an example is Lamachun. It is also a little confusing having separate "Structural" and "Miscellaneous" categories so now, all these come under "Similar Dishes" along with the regional dishes that are similar to pizza but not technically variations of it. I have removed the ingredients section altogether as this covers such a huge amount of foods that it is not practical to include it. I have added some dishes like the Green onion pancake but removed some others which are too dissimilar to pizza to be included like Garlic knots. I have also added the Peel and Masonry oven to the newly named "Pizza Tools" section. I think that covers everything. Shoebill2 (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regional Pizzas
God knows how i ended up looking at an article on history of pizza :P but heres an idea, ive noticed you seem to have a lot of national variations on pizzas, ie greek, italian, american, etc, well how about a section either in the article or infobox with some of the national variations? Id like to see good ol "Aussie" Pizza, the best in the world, tomato, ham, cheese, bacon, onion, egg :P and sold in well, the vast majority of pizza shops here!

Oh and thank you.... THANK YOU, i havent yet seen any reference to that disgusting slop called Dominos in here. It may be international, but it aint food.

Squaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squadnleedah (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Aeneid.
This translation is unsourced. I believe this is the Dryden translation which is being quoted. For a start, it should be written clearly which translation it is.

The translation in rhyming couplets is perhaps not quite appropriate, as it is relatively loose. Surely, a more literal translation would be more adequate for the context?--HandGrenadePins (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

the "spread" of pizza
Where did pizza first become widespread, US or Italy? I'm not interested in the origins, I'm interested in the fad. There was some form of pizza in Naples, okay. There was some form of pizza in America's various Little Italys, okay. In post-WWII America, pizza spread out across the US. When did it spread all over Italy? And the rest of the world, that would be interesting too. It seems to me *that* is the history of pizza, and it's missing from this article.

Indeed, I heartily concur. Carlo Poni, the great microhistorian told me that he discovered pizza in New York just after WWII and was convinced it was American. Poni spent years shuttling back and forth between Italy and New York. When he returned to his home in Bologna (100m north of Florence) the first time in 1947 pizza had yet to arrive there. When it did arrive in the '50s he told his friends, 'see, this is that pizza thing I ate in New York.' He was convinced until the '60s that it was American, and is still convinced that the variety of toppings is American. This is a history that is yet to be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.4.87.118 (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is complete nonsense. All of its foolishness (neolithic pizza?) has already been touched on by others. I recommend the entire entry be deleted and rewritten. I will do some actual research, and I hope others will join me, so that we have a factual entry about the history of pizza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.181.234 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Cheese
This article contradicts itself about when cheese was added. In the lead paragraph, it says Raffaele Esposito first added cheese when he created the Margherita in 1889 - this is supported by a dead link. However, later it mentions that Alexandre Dumas ate observed pizza with cheese in Naples in 1830. I suspect that the first statement is incorrect.--ImizuCIR (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah they are contradictory. Can someone find an acceptable article for either?Cleanelephant (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The American Heritage article cited in this entry is like a large number of similar "sources" for the Queen Margherita--Raffaelo Esposito story: no documents are ever cited, and many details change. I have looked at over thirty of these variants: sometimes the Queen goes to Esposito's pizzeria, sometimes the pizzeria is called "Pizzeria Brandi" and sometimes "Pietro e basta così," sometimes Raffaelo's wife comes along and puts the basil one (she has three different names), sometimes Esposito makes "many" pizzas, sometimes just one. What ties all of these together is that there are absolutely no documents cited. Indeed, when one does look at reports of pizza before 1889--as Cleanelephant suggests, they do indeed mention cheese, and the same combination of ingredients. I have written an article which will come out in June about how this story is almost certainly false, and how the famous "thank you note" is a fake, and a pretty mediocre one at that. Pizzamancer has indicated that even after publication in a peer-reviewed journal, this article "would fail WP:NOR [...and] would also be a conflict of interest (WP:COI) to use your own work. You need to use the original sources, and build a consensus." To the contrary, the article is the only one of its kind that reviews the stories and compares them to documentary evidence. I have a hard time seeing why an American Heritage article with absolutely no sources and two very obvious untrue statements (about the cheese, and about the combination being original), not to mention a broken link (though the article is findable if you search) is acceptable when a peer-reviewed paper based on actual sources is not. I am fine with someone else posting the actual footnote to my paper if there is concern about conflict of interest, but other than that I'm unsure as to why there has to be a consensus about this story. It either is true, or not, whether the vast majority of people believe what cookbooks and travel guides say about the history of pizza. I'm open to other views on this, and you can review my exchange with Pizzamancer on his/her (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pg1945 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the following paragraph: "The first printed version of this story appeared in 1941, but another version, this time with the Bourbon king Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies and a pizzamaker named Domenico Testa, precedes it by almost thirty years. The veracity of the royal pizza is then in doubt, and a mention of a pizza in 1847 with “basil, muzzarella, and tomatoes” shows that this combination was in any event already in existence prior to 1889. " While it may be true, it is unfortunately plain original research based on WP:Primary sources. We will need reliable WP:Secondary sources for the historiography of the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean when my article, which is in a peer-reviewed journal, comes out in June, it will count? If so, does that mean that someone else will have to actually put up the citation? Apologies for the misunderstanding, but it does all seem a little backwards--that fairy tales like this story can remain even when there are citations in primary sources that clearly contradict them, and when the article that "supports" them is a 404, and in any event cites no sources (and therefore is, in my book, no not a reliable WP:Secondary sources. But heh, it's your sandbox, so I'll play by your rules.Pg1945 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be a reliable source as far as I can see. But you also have to consider policies regarding undue weight and fringe theories. It would likely be a source worthy of mention, but until your interpretation becomes the academic consensus, it will have to be added as a subscript to what is obviously the current consensus Margherita story as a "however according to ... there are several versions of the myth etc" or something like that. I am sorry, personally I think you have a good case, but Wikipedia is not the place for presenting new research. Our policies does restrict such ventures, even if it sometimes goes against all good sense, but it is necessary to ensure that the information presented in articles isn't skewed by various agendas. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Connecticut
"Pizza was mastered and created in Connecticut, all other states in the US have failed to reach a level of pizza making as incredible as Connecticut's." Seriously? Citation severely needed. Removing. Victory of the Burgh (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

American Heritage source
In conducting research for another article, I found some references from this article. Particularly, the American Heritage article by Hanna Miller from April/May 2006 (also discussed above). This is not a suitable source, as it does not cite its sources, and was published well after the information (for which it is used as supporting evidence) first appeared in Wikipedia. That is, the article pizza was edited on 13 June 2002 by 166.90.230.10 to add "...did not begin until 1889, when Rafaele Esposito created pizza Margherita in the colors of the Italian flag, red sauce, white cheese, and green basil leaves..." (article as it appeared after that edit), four years before Miller's article was published. Without source information from Miller, her article should not be accepted as a reference. I've deleted the citation and added a citation needed tag to the statement. The earliest reference to this claim that I've found searching in Google Books is a cookbook from 2002, which provides no sources of its own and could still have used Wikipedia as a source. Mind matrix  19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A different search of Google Books does result in a few sources from the 1900s and none from the 1800s. Upon inspection, it seems the story first appeared in the 1980s (see this Google search). Of course, Google does not have an exhaustive inventory of digitized books or journals, so further research is required. Mind  matrix  20:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added references to several sources which support that the story exists, but none cite any primary documents (as stated in the previous discussion) to support the veracity of the story itself. In fact, going back through time, the trail runs cold in early 1989, the supposed centennial year for the event. Mind  matrix  15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Pizza
Poutine Pizza is not recognizably Canadian by any measure. It was created by Pizza Hut, an American chain with a marginal Canadian presence and it isn't even on their menu any more. It's also not on the menu of any Canadian pizza chains.72.39.209.177 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of pizza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090712030514/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/2/2006_2_30.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/2/2006_2_30.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Pizzaria Uno"
I'd change this myself, but it's a link and I don't want to damage it. I know "pizzaria" is a common English misspelling of "pizzeria", but in the linked article the spelling is consistently "Pizzeria Uno", and there's no indication that the name was at first misspelled (which would in any case be surprising, since one of the founders was evidently of Italian descent).213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ygplusplus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

TYPES OF BREAD
Types of bread 112.134.77.183 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)