Talk:Mexican cuisine

reference the spanish wiki

use the spanish wikipedia as a reference. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comida_mexicana. this article has lots of history. the spanish one has a portion of this history.

mention of Rick Bayless

User:Ultimate Roadgeek has deleted this In addition, U.S. chefs like Rick Bayless believe that in order to cook the food properly, you need to understand the culture, if not be born into it. For this reason, Bayless takes employees of his Mexican restaurants to Mexico each year to experience the food firsthand in order to reproduce it more authentically back in Chicago. from the article. I reverted and he has deleted again. His first argument was that it was "promotional" and second that it is "anecdotal." I disagree on both counts. It is an example to support the idea that it is difficult to authentically reproduce Mexican food outside of Mexico. While Im sure Bayless doesnt mind the mention being there, the source is not his, but rather an academic book about Mexican cuisine. It does not say that Bayless's food is better than others, only that a notable chef in the US has a program to send chefs/cooks to Mexico to learn the cooking there. Anecdotes are stories. I would agree with Roadgeek if he sent people only once, but its an ongoing thing. I would like input from others. Thank you.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The deleted statement is problematic. Most significantly, it does not accurately represent the source: the passage makes a claim about "U.S. chefs like Rick Bayless" when in fact the cited pages in the book talk only about Bayless, not chefs like him or U.S. chefs in general. And then given that the claim is now scoped to just Bayless, it becomes a question of undue weight whether or not to include this particular claim. The book then claims that Bayless spoke of "the impossibility of making Mexican food in restaurants", which, to me, indicates that Bayless is speaking from a position of culinary aesthetics rather than a practical evaluation of Mexican cuisine. The more I read that section of the book, the less impressed I am by the encyclopedic nature of his opinions and statements. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Orange Suede Sofa, my point exactly. --Ultimate Roadgeek (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Tamales

Tamales are not differentiated only by it's filling, they are several types of them. The Mexico Central style ones are like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j6QQQOewacQ/TFT72PqRBmI/AAAAAAAACRc/T6iGBXmOOGc/s1600/tamales.jpg

Then, the southeast Yucatecan ones are quite different:

http://www.unionyucatan.mx/sites/default/files/union-inline/tamal%20colado%20INT.jpg

And so on, we can count lots of tamale styles, prepared with several ingredients and techinques. Soparamens (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

poor writing, no elucidation.

"While the Spanish initially tried to impose their own diet on the country, this was not possible and eventually the foods and cooking techniques began to be mixed, especially in colonial era convents. "

If you are going to suggest there is a reason for something in an encyclopedia entry, it makes sense to actually explain it. Saying "this was not possible" when you are referring to two nations is something you'd read in a third grade writing assignment.

In other words, if you are going to say something wasn't possible it makes sense to expand on WHY, especially considering this is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.147.112 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Chile peppers

The entire section on chile peppers needs revision. "Chili" is an American stew dish of beans and meat that can include tomatoes and peppers."Chile" is the proper spelling when referring to spicy peppers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.166.185 (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)