Talk:Rainbow cookie

Real name?
In doing some preliminary (original) research, I've found that Italian bakeries never call these 'Rainbow Cookies', although Brooklyn area Jewish bakeries do call them that. Seeing that these are Italian cookies, it might make sense to have the title refer to a more traditional name. However, we definitely need some good sources. Any takers? Luminifer (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not entirely true. Doing some internet searching I have found some Italian bakeries calling them Rainbow Cookies. Don't want to add any commercial links here, but do a Google image search for Italian Rainbow Cookies and you'll find them. Also called Tri-colors. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are some - but I think that describing the Italian flag as a rainbow is kind of a strange thing to do. I wish there was a real source as to the original name of these cookies - if there is one - and how they were created. I have heard (local) Brooklyn rumors about how they were invented in the states. I'm going to move your sources to a different section since they describe the name but don't really go into the historical nature of the cookies or their name. Hope that's ok! Glad to find someone who's also interested in this! Luminifer (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i think here in wikiland comments posted on message boards are not considered 'reliable sources', and it looks like that's all you've got to back up some of the other names you've listed. adding back that "citation needed" tag -when a couple lines down there are four sources listed- just looks weird. i can appreciate your wanting to verify the "original name", but at the moment, we've got several published sources to back up "rainbow". (not to overlook the fact that it is the name of the article.)


 * right now the article reads, "rainbow cookies...also referred to by other names including rainbow cookies" -- that's just silly. but i don't want to get into an edit war over it. "italian flag cookie" is unsourced, as is the whole section about bakeries in bensonhurst.


 * i don't think it's the best form to get into a name list even before the description of the actual thing. see Wedding soup for a better example. but whatever. J. Van Meter (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not know about the 'dubious' tag - thanks for that! Regarding what is considered a reliable source in 'wikiland', I think it really depends on context. I don't have time to really find good sources, but I don't think the fact that I don't have time to find them means that this article should contain misinformation. :) Luminifer (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it feels to me like that last edit was a fairly hostile and unwarranted act - nowhere in those references that you supplied does it suggest that Rainbow Cookies is the original name - in fact, there is no history discussed at all. I thought you were being helpful in wanting to get to the truth of this matter; is that not the case? You just completely undid the efforts of two other wikipedians. Luminifer (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the concern over the dubious tag is warranted Lumin. There's not really any dispute that they're called Rainbow cookies, the dispute seems to be more about whether that should be the name of the article and whether that's the most notable name. I looked into it a little bit and Rainbow cookie seems to be the most prominent name for the cookies that I could find. I mentioned the issue on the food and drink project talk page, but unless someone takes an interest there may not be any response. How do you propose we sort out what name to use for the article and the first sentence? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly happy to let it sit there with a 'dubious' tag for a while, and see if anyone can find any concrete sources with historical information. I'll look myself if I have time - I suspect the internet won't supply much (I know that the area I grew up in is not entirely internet savvy so I'll have to try other means!). I was concerned with wikipedia continuing to spread what I think is the incorrect (and, seriously, to some people offensive) name for this cookie - as long as there is something showing that it's not clear what the name for the cookie is, I'll be happy. Also, it should be obvious, but just because something is the most common name for something, on the internet, does not mean it is the most accurate or original name for that thing. :) Thanks for your assisstance again! Luminifer (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this at all - do a google search on "Rainbow cookies" and you get over 4 million hits - this is what they are called. What's the issue? What is dubious? Tvoz / talk 04:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) a lot of those hits are talking about other things called rainbow cookies - look at the images. (2) they are called different things in the neighborhoods where they (likely) originate - rainbow cookie seems to be a name they picked up when leaving their 'native' areas. (3) they are connected to the Italian flag, which is not a rainbow flag. (4) you can look up any of the other names listed, on google, and find they are also called those things. In this case, I would argue that the most common name is not necessarily correct, since these are originally a regional cookie. is that enough? Luminifer (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, by the way, I have no idea what you think is offensive about "Rainbow cookies". As for what is "correct", that's not actually our standard here  - our standard is what is verifiable, and as for names, what is most commonly used, or what is mostly likely to be searched on.   But actually I think you should concentrate more on the quality of the article - right now there's not much more than a list of names.  Tvoz / talk 07:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where in WP that it states the corrent name is not the one that should be used? Luminifer (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (I don't find "rainbow cookies" offensive myself, but I know people who do) Luminifer (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said, but try reading WP:NAME for how we determine what the name of an article should be. I don't see anything there about the "correctness" of a name (nor do I know what that means - "correct" according to what?). I see the first section in the article on our naming conventions is called "Use the most easily recognized name". I said the standard is verifiability and the naming convention is what is most commonly used. If that happens to be what you perceive as "correct", all the better. I'm not going to continue debating this - it's not productive. Of more concern is the content of the article, and whether it has any value, not what the piece is called. You're free to set up redirects for the people who come here looking for "Italian flag cookies" or anything else that's legitimate - have those pages redirect to "Rainbow cookies" and there should be no problem for people to locate it. But when they get here they ought to have an actual article to read, which they don't now. Can we move on? Tvoz / talk 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My hope is that the sources that tell a 'real' name would also reveal more about the origins of these cookies (which I have ideas about, but since they are unsourced, if I put them I'm sure someone will immediately delete them). I'll do it myself if/when I have the time. An example of a less common name that is the actual name of the article: sicilian pizza, when the more common phrase undoubtedly is square pizza pie. Actually that's a very revelant comparison to what's going on here. All of this could easily be addressed by the suggestion below. And you can move on if you want, I'm sure this discussion can get along fine either way :) Luminifer (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we have a regional problem here: in New York (perhaps I should say "in the Bronx") it is always called Sicilian pizza - never "square pizza pie". So it is not true to a NYer that the more common phrase "undoubtedly" is square pizza pie. In fact it's usually referred to as just "Sicilian". Not "square", even though the slices are indeed square. So I'd say that article is correctly titled as the most common name. (And the photo on that page is incorrect for Sicilian, so I don't know why they've included it.) And - in NY they are rainbow cookies, often more than three layers which may or may not resemble the colors of the Italian flag, but I've never seen them advertised or sold as "Italian flag" cookies. Tvoz / talk 05:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are certainly pizzerias in Manhattan and Brooklyn that call them square slices. If you can find them outside of New York (their native habitat), like Boston, they are called square slices. Likewise, the "rainbow cookie", in its native habitat, has a different name (I have never heard Italian Flag Cookies - I grew up with seven layer myself) than elsewhere. So clearly there are regional issues - but you should realize that in one case, you are IN the region in question (I assume), and in the other, you are not. :) Luminifer (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, there is New York, and then there's everywhere else. I never claimed to be objective about that. Tvoz / talk 05:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, think about how you'd feel if the article _were_ called 'square pizza pie'. Luminifer (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Specificity
Another question - should this article refer to all cookies that are similar to the Italian flag-looking cookies (i.e. the ones without chocolate on top, the ones with different colors)? If so, maybe Rainbow Cookies is an appropriate title, and then the Italian flag ones should get a subsection... Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Best effort
i've decided to WP:BB, and i've given this my best effort. this article is titled rainbow cookie. i have provided five reliable sources to back up that name. i've removed some duplicate information, moved descriptions to the appropriate names, and removed the speculation. i have used wording based on the submarine sandwich article to address the name variety issue. hoagie, grinder, etc, are all re-directs to submarine sandwich, and i would suggest the same for the other cookie names listed here. if there are cookies with different names that are so different from the description of rainbow cookies here, then i would think that new articles should be created to describe them. hope this helps. J. Van Meter (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, before you make sweeping changes that undo other peoples' work, can you at least participate with the talk page? I had an outstanding request that I let sit a few days, which received no response, so I did the work - which you immediately undid. None of your sources provide any historical information about the cookie, and without that, we are just going on your feeling that it is the correct name for the cookie. Quite frankly, I thought you were trying to help but now it seems that you just want to "have it your way". Can you please explain why you removed the differentiaion between generic "Rainbow cookies", which can be any color, and the ones specific to the Italian Flag coloring? Luminifer (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone seems to mean well, I just think we're coming at it from different perspectives. Some of what was removed was unsourced. The issues that I saw removed that may need to be dealt with are:
 * 1) What about cookies called rainbow cookies that aren't these? Can we indicate that other cookies have this name? I know we would normally disambiguate, but I don't know if the other cookies are notable and I'm pretty sure there aren't other articles on them. Is there another way to deal with this issue?
 * 2) The colors connection to the [flag of Italy]] and the history. The sourcing wasn't great, but saying "It is not known whether these cookies were first made in Italy or in a predominently Italian neighborhood in the United States" doesn't seem like an off the wall phrasing, but it certainly needs some kind of independent sourcing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for playing "negotiator" here, CoM. :) I would really like to have people discuss things here first, rather than make sweeping changes to the page - I always try and do that myself on this site. I agree with your points -- I am not clear on what people generally like to do when an article is misinformed, but there are no easily obtained sources to back it up (in EITHER direction). I thought in this case, the idea was to add the material, and put a CN for later. I know that when I read articles, I will add citations for facts that I didn't put in, if I happen to know where to find it. Luminifer (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i have based all my edits on published recipes for these cookies and i have cited all sources. i did not add any information about what colors the layers are precisely to avoid  "controversy". if you read the lede you'll see that, in fact, no specific colors are mentioned.  i did not remove any differentiation between "generic" and "italian" - in fact, i added the description next to the (still un-referenced) italian flag cookie to further explain/differentiate the name. additionally, i made sure to keep the link to the flag of italy. i'm not trying to have anything my way. i answered a "citation needed" tag with several published sources documenting the name "rainbow cookie". you removed those and labeled the name dubious. two other editors above have concurred that there's no dispute over the name of this type of cookie. many/most of your references come from anonymous postings on messages boards and blogs which basically amount to "in my house we called them...."  i have removed none of those even though they are inappropriate here and not considered reliable third-party sources. once again, the title of this article is rainbow cookie. if you have in mind a different cookie, then by all means find sources for the name of that cookie and start a new article. we can then link the two articles in the 'see also' section. J. Van Meter (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am curious why you removed my sectioning - where I made a clear subsection for the rainbow cookies based on the Italian flag, had planned for a section for Venetians (different color scheme), and also addressed that many other cookies can also be called Rainbow cookies. I made considerable changes to the article and you basically completely undid them with no discussion. Luminifer (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed your headings and subheadings because they gave prominence to material that was completely unreferenced. notice though, i did not remove the information (venetian, etc): i simply restored the original format of the article. J. Van Meter (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think J.Van Meter's edits are valid and improve the article very much - and using the article about subs/hoagies/heros/po'boys/etc was a very good idea, as it is an analogous situation. This is a good base to work from - the previous version, while well-intended, was without form and had odd and unnecessary sectioning.  This is still  a stub, but now it has some form and gives a base on which to expand. While I agree that some of the citations are not really appropriate,  I think it was a good decision to leave them in for now, and hopefully we can find improved citations to replace them with.  Let's try to work with this version as a base. Tvoz / talk 20:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to pull a WP:BB as well and add the section in that was removed - but in the new page format. This is all I would have hoped that J. Van Meter would have done instead. Luminifer (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But by doing so you have just reinstated unnecessary repetition, and you've assumed that the varietal names are all subsets of "Italian Flag" instead of subsets of the more generic "rainbow". Sorry, but I don't think your edit is an improvement - it read better the way JVM had it, although all would agree still a stub in need of expansion. If indeed you have more information to add about "Venetian", that would be welcome - but instead you just removed any mention of it completely.  So  I'm still with JVM's basic edit. I'll say again - the effort being spent on the layout of this article would be better spent in hunting down actual information and better sourcing.  Tvoz / talk 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) if you were to do a google search for any of those regional names, you would see that they all generally refer to the Italian flag style of the cookie, so it is correct to have all of those names in that subheading. (b) all I did was move the section about regional names to the bottom, and explain the specific Italian flag style of the cookie - I didn't really modify any of his text, so could you explain how it "read way better", as you put it? Luminifer (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't say it "read way better" - I said it "read better the way JVM had it", which at least is grammatical. You apparently are very invested in the article being the way you want it, despite at least two editors disagreeing with you, so I give up. It's really not that important to me.  I think you're overemphasizing "Italian flag cookies" by separating them out, but so be it.  If I find sources or notable information I'll come back, but for now hasta la vista.  I have bigger fish to fry, or cookies to bake, or whatever.  Tvoz / talk 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am interesting it in having it the way I want it, because it happens to be more factually accurate. The original article was sorely lacking in, well, anything, and you must admit that the attention I've drawn to it has only been helpful. These sorts of discussions (or arguments) are exactly how - when done constructively - the best article will get created. FYI, your number game doesn't quite work, as there is another wikipedia editor on here who at least agrees that I have some points, so it's 2-for-2 -- but majority does not make right, in any case. The roots of these cookies, as far as I know, are in the Italian flag design, so it's important to emphasize that - and to emphasize the variations that have happened since their inception last century. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
I found a couple sources that may or may not be helpful. This one calls them Italian flag cookies and says "These pretty bars, featuring the colors of the Italian flag, are found in Italian bakeries." This source calls them Venetian cookies and says "These bar cookies are a staple for most Italian bakeries." Notes their bright red white and green colors and suggests they "remind us of the Italian flag or the vibrant colors of Murano glass in Venice". . My own original research suggests that the term seven-layer cookie also refers to other cookie types. And I think Napoleon cookie is fairly broad. Could there be a separate Italian flag cookie article (with see also links back and forth)? Would that end this feud? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Though, since the recipe for both the 'rainbow cookies' discussed here and the 'italian flag cookies' you mention is really the same - depending on how you view it, rainbow cookie was (historically) derived from the italian flag cookie, or italian flag cookie is a (logical) subset of the rainbow cookie. I could see people taking issue with this - that is why I created the subheading for the specific Italian Flag cookie - though that just got deleted. What do you think? Luminifer (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interests of advancing our original research, I asked the resident Italian user:Giano about the cookies. He seems to indicate that they may well be an Italian-American invention, for what that's worth. I agree with you that the cookies all seem closely related and should all be included in one article and dealt with as best we are able. I see no issue with discussing the Italian-American connection for the cookie as it seems to be fairly well sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One article - they are all the same. Much too much is being made of the slight differences in one variety to another. Tvoz / talk 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had text in there that suggested they may be Italian-American (as I was told where I grew up and where - I suspect - they originated), but J Van Meter removed that text. If I put it back with a CN (as it was originally) is someone going to remove it again? I thought it was common courtesy to leave CN's up for a little while if they aren't harming anyone. Luminifer (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not from Italy itself
I would be really happy if someone could find a source demonstrating these did not originate in Italy and are not an old invention (as discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_II there are too many anachronisms and such in the recipe). I can't find much evidence - or really any historical information on these at all. I will have to explore actual books once I am physically able, but here is the heads-up for anyone who wants to tackle this. I don't think the internet can help us here. Luminifer (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * in the book [ http://www.amazon.com/000-Italian-Recipes-Michele-Scicolone/dp/0764566768/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239789775&sr=8-1#reader 1,000 Italian Recipes] by Michele Scicolone, the recipe called "Rainbow Cookies" on page 566 says "Though I have never seen them in Italy, these "rainbow," or tricolored, cookies with a chocolate glaze are a favorite at Italian and other bakeries in the United States." J. Van Meter (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyn-centric
Luminifer, your contention here that these cookies "likely originated in Bensonhurst" is myopic, wildly speculative, and presumes that there were no other large Italian immigrant populations with bakers/bakeries anywhere else on the eastern seaboard. the good citizens of providence, boston (and lower manhattan), would, i'm sure, take issue with this. it's one thing to say the cookies are popular in bensonhurst, it's quite another to say they likely originated there. J. Van Meter (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. Even though people there claim that, there isn't evidence enough of that. I'll remove it... The other Italian communities aren't as hardcore patriotic as Bensonhurst (not the ones I've been to anyway), where you see Italian flags hanging outside every house, but that's hardly even vaguely evidence. Is the new wording better? Luminifer (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * um, no. i don't think it is -- for all the reasons Tvoz and I have already written above. your headings and re-writes are filling the article with original research and speculation and adding confusion:
 * there are six reliable, published citations for the name "rainbow", one for "venetian" and one for "italian tricolor". two sources say the cookies "remind" or "feature" the colors of the italian flag, but none say they are called that or ever were. there is not one source stating the name is italian flag cookie. so your "italian flag variation" sectional heading is original research. in that section you say there is a "particular variety" of the cookie called italian flag and then you repeat the description of the rainbow cookie. all that does is confuse the article.
 * I never say its name in the descriptive text, as you've stated here. The description of the rainbow cookie also has no description of the colors.
 * ALL the recipes call for the same ingredients - green and red food color and sometimes yellow. even with 12-15 drops of red color the batter, once baked, looks pink. and even without yellow coloring added, the number of egg yolks in the "white" batter makes it look yellow. so you end up with a green, yellow and pink layer.  the intention at some point may very well have been to re-create an italian flag, (i'm not disputing that) but that doesn't change the name (or the look) of the cookie.
 * you changed my wording about the chocolate icing in the preparation section, but then state in the flag section that the cookies can have chocolate on all sides. if you ice the cookie before you cut them, they won't have chocolate on the sides - the way you've describe them having. some home-bakers may ice only the tops for ease. but others, and the commercial bakeries, cut bars first, then ice, then cut the individual pieces; thus chocolate on more than one side. my wording allowed for those variations, yours does not.
 * That was deliberate - they ice the entire thing, THEN cut it, so that you have border pieces. Luminifer (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i found one cookbook author who claims the cookies aren't seen in italy -or at least not by that author (see above). and the conversation w/ user:Giano also referenced above squares with that. FWIW there is no entry in the italian wikipedia for rainbow, tricolor, flag, venetian, etc. cookies. so i think it would probably be safe to say they are an american invention, (but again that's based on only one source in one book and a lot of other original research.) in my opinion it's also clearly safe to say rainbow cookies are thought by some to reflect the colors of the italian flag - because you've got two sources for that provided above by ChildofMidnight. but that, and i'm just repeating myself here, does not create a need for a new section title.
 * "That does not create a need for a new section title" is your opinion - and that it does is my opinion. You shouldn't state it as fact here, it will rub people (like me) the wrong way. Luminifer (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * basically, you've chased me off. i've tried several times to clarify/improve by removing unsourced material and adding information that is referenced, but you've got other ideas. i sincerely appreciate your desire to track down the origins of this recipe; but food/recipe origins are incredibly complicated and difficult to ever verify with certainty. (who knows, maybe it was a swedish woman or a chinese guy working in an italian bakery. we'll probably never know.) it's quite a dangerous business to string together our assumptions to create an alleged history: we can't just add into articles here what we guess might be true, or what we've heard around a neighborhood to be true, then say that it's "likely" and tag it with . that's not appropriate procedure, that's just publishing rumors.


 * the research this exchange has created has resulted in the appearance of several more reliable third party sources - and that's great. use those here, not message board postings, and jettison the rest. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

All the terms are appropriate,depending on your demographic
If you are ....

A)American with little or zero Italian heritage, you'll probably say "Rainbow cookie" B)Italian-American with Italian roots so far back you're basically in category "A", then you'd probably call it an "Italian Flag cookie" C)Italian-American who at a minimum, had a grandfather or grandmother who you spoke with in Italian or more likely in Neapolitan or one of its many regional variations outside of Naples, then, perhaps, you may remember a little Italian history and call them "Tricolors" D)Either A,B,or C and you live in an area that still has pockets of people from "the old country" (i.e. Southern Italy) then you might call them "Tricolore" E)you actually ARE a real bonafide born in Napoli or Campania 100% authentic descendant of one of the ancient Samnite tribes (yes I'm being ludicrous:) then you will probably say, upon alighting to the Bronx or whatever, from your little mountaintop village, and looking in the pastry shop window "che cazz' sono questo??" (loosely translated: what the heck are these??)

So basically, why fight over what terms should be included? As someone whose life experiences encompasses A-E, I see ALL the terms as valid. Nuff said. I hope. But it being Wikipedia, I have a funny feeling that this talk page will be at least 40x longer than the actual article, without much traction being obtained, in any one direction. Cheers, and have a cookie. Whatever you want to call it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.176.112 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)