Talk:Ceviche/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why doesn't an independent professional edit this article?

For everyone discussing on this forum, the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarshalN20 is peruvian or comes from Peru. I don't believe his contribution is really unbiased and anyone who thinks otherwise is really gullible. Who are these "most historians" by the way? Can anyone list them? Once again WikiPedia demonstrates why it doesn't represent a reliable source, prohibited from colleges and academia in general. "Keep it up".

Hello! Welcome to Wikpedia. Making ad hominem attacks on my person does not strengthen your argument. Me being Peruvian does not prohibit my contributions to this article as long as they are reliably sourced. Regarding the "most historians" claim, this is something taken directly from the source cited. If you have reliable sources which can back up your claim, please feel free to present them. Wikipedia, as most encyclopedias, are generally not considered acceptable "sources" for papers in Academia, but they do serve a good purpose for reference. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider what I stated as an attack reveals your own personal opinion not the truth. However it is clearly evident that your contribution is a complete sophism. Perhaps the only thing you got right is the initial statement "according to some historic sources from Peru", the rest is very derivative and opened to interpretation. Ceviche does not have an exclusive origin from Peru and even if it is showed that it had an "early version" among the Moche civilization which dates back before Peru even came into existence it is logical to think that the first so called "ceviche" could have been incredibly similar to any other type of food found in other places. It is just common sense. Common people might be deceived by this article but more serious thinkers will find these rebuttals valid. Hopefully this will save some chauvinists the embarrassment.

Ceviche originated in Peru with the Moors. It's impossible for a plate to have originated at different places with the same name. Just because the plate has a Peruvian origin does not mean that the plate is exclusive to Peru. This is what seems to be your problem: you associate origin with exclusivity, but that is not the case. Reliable sources demonstrate that the origin of the plate is Peruvian.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As a simple example: Modern football originates in England, but that does not make football exclusively English. Everyone can play football, and all countries have their style of play. When we talk about Brazilian football, we don't say that Brazilians play English football. Similar, when we talk about Mexican Ceviche, we are not talking about Mexicans eating Peruvian Ceviche. However, in both cases the origin is single: Modern Football in England, and Ceviche in Peru. There is no reason to deny an invention from its place of origin just because others have made it their own version and style, just as there is no reason to claim that Ecuadorian or Mexican Ceviche are Peruvian. Origin does not signify exclusivity (unless a patent is involved, which is not the case with this international dish).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but writing extensively does not make your opinion a fact. The amount of documentation that convincingly PROVES that Modern Football had its origin in England cannot compare to the poor documentation that tries to prove that Ceviche had its origin in Peru. Again you commit a sophism. The rest is just a lot of verbosity, nothing more. It is not only exclusivity but origin and your story fails to prove both. (unsigned comments by 72.225.138.219

Football is a US invention, you're confusing it with soccer. Nationalistic pride gets in the way, and thus we follow sources. What do they say? 00:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not about nationalistic pride. The key issue here is confusing origin with exclusivity. Exclusivity is achieved either through patents or through domination of the production of a product. Ceviche is neither patented by nor exclusive to any single country. However, that does not mean the origin of the plate is a mystery, or that it should be "contested". It is illogical to claim that Ceviche originated simultaneously (with the same name) at different places; the original plate has to have originated at one place only. I have gathered the following sources (many recent) which state that Ceviche originated in Peru:

1. Daniel Hoyer and Marty Snortum, Culinary Mexico: Authentic Recipes and Traditions (Gibbs Smith, 2011), 59: "Reportedly originating in Peru, ceviche is served throughout Latin America in many forms".
2. The World and its peoples: Mexico (Greystone Press, 1968), 99: "Now found on both the Pacific and Gulf coasts of Mexico, ceviche originated in Peru".
3. Kate McGhie, Cook: recipes, stories & kitchen wisdom (Hardie Grant Publishing, 2006), 153: "Ceviche (also called cebiche or seviche) was thought to have originated in Peru where raw fish was eaten with dried chillies and local herbs. The Spanish added citrus and other seasonings".

1. Mark Ainsworth and Culinary Institute of America, Fish and Seafood: Identification, Fabrication, Utilization (Cengage Learning, 2009), 249: "Thought to have originated in Peru, ceviche is a dish or technique used for marinating and denaturing seafood. Its name is possibly derived from the Spanish word escabeche meaning 'to marinate or pickle in vinegar'."
2. Velda Largen and Deborah Bence, Guide to Good Food (Goodheart-Willcox Co., 2000), 516-517: "Although it is Peruvian in origin, ceviche is enjoyed by people throughout South America".
3. Raymond A. Sokolov, The Cook's Canon: 101 Classic Recipes Everyone Should Know (HarperCollins, 2003), 31: "Ceviche is popular in Mexico. But the most elaborate ceviche cuisine is Peruvian. [...] It would seem probable, given its omnipresence and high state of development there, that ceviche originated in Peru and spread to Mexico during the early days of Spanish colonization in the New World".
4. Kathleen Dunning Fisher, Mexican cooking: classic dishes, regional specialities, and Tex-Mex favorites (Grosset & Dunlap, 1976), 15: "It is thought that cebiche originated with the ancient fishermen of Peru".
5. Maeve O'Meara, Food Safari: Glorious Adventures Through a World of Cuisines (Hardie Grant Publishing, 2011), 216: "Most South American countries now have their own version of ceviche but it's thought to be Peruvian in origin.
6. Joanne Smith, Cuisine, Texas: a multiethnic feast (University of Texas Press, 1995), 105: "Most Texans associate the marinated white fish called ceviche with Mexico, but the New World delicacy had its origin in the land of the Incas. Althought Peruvians never migrated from the Andes to Texas, indigenous corn and potatoes and other foods moved with various South American tribes in the direction of Mexico. Conceivably, the Peruvian way with fish followed the same path".
7. Thelma Barer-Stein, You eat what you are: people, culture and food traditions (Firefly Books, 1999), : "Ceviche: strips of raw fish marinated in lime juice and lemon juice with chilies, onions, and garlic. The flesh of the fish loses its translucency and turns white as if cooked. Delicious as an appetizer. Of ancient Peruvian origin".

The funny thing is that none of these sources are Peruvian. Based on these sources, which all support Peru in some way or another, the article should give proper weight to the origin of the plate in Peru. That is, unless equally strong evidence is provided to challenge these sources.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Other source do contest that origin, and some of the sources you've presented waffle (thought, probable, etc). How many of these sources are food anthropologists? Cooks and food writers are not experts in food origins and we shouldn't rely on cookbooks and the like. And no, the original plate does not have to have originated in one place only--the opposite is more likely true, as ceviche is ultimately a pickling technique, and most culture have those. Any areas with acidic fruit and access to fish would have likely come up with some variant, and it is very unlikely that what the ancient peruvians ate was similar to what we call cerviche today. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Nuujinn. And you can notice how this author is slowly committing a lot of errors. For example he asserts the following: "Ceviche today is a multinational plate with different styles and varieties, but that does not take out its origin in Peru (Viceroyalty of Peru being the political entity at the time)". Apparently he does not seem to acknowledge that the Viceroyalty of Peru is not the same as Independent Peru, since the Viceroyalty of Peru was a Spanish colonial administrative district, NOT INDEPENDENT from Spain. So he is in fact claiming that Ceviche had its origin in modern day:

1. Argentina 2. Bolivia 3. Brazil 4. Chile 5. Colombia 6. Ecuador 7. Paraguay 8. Peru 9. Uruguay

So even if it is proven (which has not happened yet but let's just assume for a second) that the exact location where ceviche was first pronounced was in modern day Peru that would not matter because the origin still belongs to the conglomerate of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.138.219 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible for the same dish with the name Ceviche to have originated at different places simultaneously. We can go all the way back to ancient Greece to find pickling techniques, but they did not call their plate ceviche. The dish is Peruvian in origin, and that cannot be denied. Just like the "Big Mac" originated in McDonald's regardless of all other previous versions of the Hamburger; the difference being that while "Big Mac" is a trademark, Ceviche is not.

Ceviche today is a multinational plate with different styles and varieties, but that does not take out its origin in Peru (Viceroyalty of Peru being the political entity at the time). The theory of the Amerindians making the dish exists, but the one that makes most sense is that of the Moors mixing their cuisine with the locals during colonial times.

The point here is to present reliable sources which support the claim being made, and I have provided these as the Wikipedia rules demand. All this IP address has done so far is insult both me and the project. How many sources has this IP address provided to support his position? Per WP:WEIGHT, the majority of authors support the Peruvian invention over the other theories. That is what should be presented.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The dish is Peruvian in origin, and that cannot be denied. And yet, we have sources that appear to be just as reliable as the ones you present which do throw that statement into question. If I throw thin slices of raw fish on rice and call it "spätzle", I've invented nothing, it's still sashimi. As you note, the Big Mac is a trademark, and I do not believe any one or any country holds a trademark on ceviche. We say in the article that the dish probably originated in Peru, but we mention other theories of origin, per WP:DUE. If you want to make wording suggestions, fine. If you want to say that the majority of sources say it originated in Peru, you need a source for that. And if you have a problem with how the IP is treating you, find an appropriate venue to bring that up--this isn't the right place for that. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1. How many sources do you have that "throw that statement into question"?
2. At no point am I suggesting to remove the other theories.
3. Per WP:WEIGHT, the majority of reliable sources support the Peruvian position.

If you do not bring sources to support your position and thereby demonstrate your conclusion is correct, you cannot challenge the Peruvian position.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources convincingly prove through the use of verifiable EVIDENCE that Ceviche had its origin in Peru. Some of them rephrase or cite what others have stated. In fact one of your sources tries to be more honest by stating "Thought to have originated in Peru...". The assertion that ceviche had its origin in Peru is not a fact, unfortunately, but more a speculation or personal opinion. (unsigned comment from 72.225.138.219)

I agree, there are now new verifiable evidence that Ceviche or Kilawin actually originated in the Philippine Islands. Archaeological evidence points to the fact that in 10th Century Butuan on the island of Mindanao, the natives already use this technique. In 1987, they dug up fish bones similar to how Kilawin/ceviche was prepared. That evidence now sits in the National Museum of the Philippines as probably the oldest representation of Filipino cuisine. Kilawin was also documented by the Spaniards in the 15th and 16th centuries. The only reason how Ceviche reached Peru and the rest of Latin America was through the Galleon Trade between Manila and Acapulco. And through Mexico, ceviche spread throughout. The Peruvian claims look like it's only based on assumptions and not facts. Just because you have a Day for Ceviche doesn't mean you invented it. This wikipedia article is heavily biased. You might as well just publish this in Peru and not anywhere else. 175.139.77.246 (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC) xxxriainxxx

Citrus (lime, calamansi, etc) also originated from Southeast Asia, Burma, Yunnan in China, Northeast India, Another acidic, souring agent: the vinegar and all its derivatives either come from the Philippines, China, Middle East and Europe. None of which came from Peru and these acids are used to make Peru ceviche but none of which originated from Peru. . Point is cooking with acid is not a Peruvian invention. Ceviche is not Peruvian, and definitely not even Latin American/Carribean.175.139.77.246 (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC) xxxriainxxx

I have not really focused much on this article, so the current state of it is largely incomplete.

The name "ceviche" originates in Peru, and that is all I can assure at the moment. What you call "Kilawin" is a different plate from what is made in Peru.

Based on a quick search of sources, it seems Mexico's ceviche is actually directly related to Kilawin.

Mexican ceviche and Peruvian ceviche are different.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Kilawin entry reverts to Ceviche so I reckon that it is being assumed that Kilawin is Ceviche and Peruvian and Kilawin is of Peruvian origin which is definitely untrue. The majority of the ingredients for the Peruvian Ceviche (save for Potatoes and Chilli) originated from Asia Pacific: Onion, vinegar, lime, citrus, coriander are all Asia-Pacific in origin. Garlic is Egyptian in origin, Onions came to the Americas via North American Indias who traveled through from Mongolia and then all the way to Alaska. The use of potatoes for the Peruvian ceviche feels like just a localisation of this dish and that doesnt make it originally Peruvian. The assertion that the Peruvian ceviche could have came from the Moors isn't entirely untrue. Records show that the Spanish friars recorded this form of cooking in the Philippines and through the Manila-Acapulco trade (Filipinos who instead chose to stay in Mexico) brought this way of cooking and then spread to the New World. Even the distillation process of agave was influence by the tuba (arrack) distillation in the Asia Pacific but that's an entirely different thread altogether. I just hope that this entry will be edited properly. It's very biased and it has no historical research and proper grounding of facts. Thanks. 210.195.71.200 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)xxxriainxxx

The article Kilawin has its own page (which I created yesterday, prior to your post). Feel free to expand it.

That aside, your argument seems to be based on much WP:OR. The plates may be related, but Kilawin is not a parent plate to Ceviche.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Moorish Legend

The Moorish Women story is clearly legend. The source cited even has a title that says Leyends and Myths en Peruvian Gastronomy or in Spanish: "Leyenda y Folklore en la Gastronomía Peruana" The Peschiera book is a cookbook and cites no sources, simply presenting the ceviche myth as an introduction to the recipe.

From the numerous edits by MarshalN20 about Peru related articles, it is obvious that, like many Peruvians, he is nationalistic and is attempting to "promote" his country. Having lived in Peru for ten years, I can tell you from first hand experience that most Peruvian books cite sources erroneously and often attempt to distort the facts to make their country look better. They do this knowing that very few Peruvians will have access to books to double check their references as libraries do not lend out books here in Peru.190.236.169.240 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not attack other editors or disparage their nationality. However i will grant that one thing that has become abundantly clear over time is that nobody knows for sure where or when ceviche first came about. Kind of like the Italians and the Chinese endlessly debating who invented the noodle. To an outsider I have to tell you it all adds up to a lot of "who cares" since each nationality has a different take on it anyway they all have a valid claim on inventing one form of it or another. Where I live in Alaska we make it with halibut and Anaheim or jalapeno peppers with lime juice, and it is often left to marinate overnight instead of just a few minutes or hours. Probably not the most original recipe but who cares as long as it tastes good? Maybe this attitude comes from living in a country where we have integrated elements of dozens of different cultures into our own, I don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:IP,190.236.169.240 Let it first be stated that MarshalN20 is a professional historian. Next, your position that the "Moorish women story" is a legend is purely original research that holds no grounds either on Wikipedia or on actual Academia. Two sources cite the information being presented, with the Peschiera source explicitly stating that there is a consensus among historians that it Moorish women were the original creators of the plate.

In regards to your comments about my person and Peru, I consider them to be personal insults and without any substantial evidence or relevance to this article. Please refrain from such comments or face the consequences of your bad actions. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's please keep it civil all around. Beeblebrox is, I think, correct, and my guess is that pickled raw fish was pretty common. In North Carolina I started making it with catfish, garlic and cayenne with lime juice for 3-4 hours in a cooler in the car. We can certainly improve the sourcing, though, and I would suggest that the IP consider making an account and helping us out with this. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That made me hungry. I'm from Ohio originally, haven't had catfish for years, you can't get it fresh up here. Crawfish either. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but you can take consolation in the better salmon you get there, or so I hear. Last batch I made was salmon and tuna

I do sincerely hope we do not have an edit war brewing here, I suggest that folks slow down a bit and let's take one item at a time. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Peruvians are still bitter about the Spanish influence over their culture, food and language. Whatever evil they did do, the Spanish were masterminds in imposing their religion, culture and language on others. In order to avoid giving the Spanish any credit Peruvians automatically give credit to "Moors" which is absolutely absurb and ridiculous as there were never any Moors permitted in Spain's colonies and if they happened to land by some odd chance they were quickly dealt with by the Spanish Inquisition authorities.190.236.169.240 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

190.236.169.240, whether that might be true or not, its not really relevant here. We should concern ourselves only with what reliable sources say, please see WP:RS, if you'd like to discuss the reliability of a given source, we can do so, but not against a background of nationalistic concerns. I cannot gauge your level of expertise here, so please forgive me if you are already familiar with policy.

Now I'm thinking crawfish etouffé --Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the IP considers the source "The Fascinating History of Cebiche" to somehow demonstrate that the information is a "myth." The only mention of the word "myth" or "legend" in the source come from a name at the top of the page (which is not the name of the article). The article itself provides exact names of the people being cited. We could go look for the exact sources based on the information provided on the article; however, the article itself is not unreliable. It would be a waste of everyone's time, but if the IP is willing to do such a search then he is quite welcome to do so.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To be more exact (and to show the verifiability of the source), the name at the top of the article is that of a series by the Institute of the Andes; the article is written by a historian from that institute.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I cited two sources that clearly stated that Moors were not allowed into any of Spain´s colonies. You choose to call this "original research" which is absurd. It is obivious you don´t care about the truth. Here is one of numerous sources available on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=ombFxoqh1NQC&pg=PA170&dq=moros+peru+Inquisici%C3%B3n&hl=en&ei=qhJGTamDHoKSgQfZjqn_AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Censura, libros e inquisición en el Perú colonial, 1570-1754

By Pedro Guibovich Pérez; Universidad De Sevilla (June 30, 2003) Page 170

It clearly states even descendants of Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity were forbidden to enter Peru. It is clearly evident that if descendants of Moors who converted to Christianity and pretended to be Spanish were denied entry, that the Moors themselves were also as stated in my previous citations which have the pertinent Spanish laws. I could probably find them on Google Books but I have better things to do then talk to someone who will refused to believe books used and well known by all historians of Peruvian colonial history.190.236.169.240 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources you provide are out of context in this article. You are coming to your own personal conclusions based on the information provided by the sources, and that constitutes original research. I am not denying the existence of Spanish laws that prohibited the entrance of Moors and Jews into Peru; however, those sources mention nothing of the origin of cebiche.

While on the subject of immigration and laws, let us simply take an example on places such as France, Italy, Spain, and the United States. There are plenty of immigrants in those countries that technically should not be in there (they are not allowed by the laws of these countries). Yet, that does not mean we can conclude that these immigrants never existed. A similar situation takes place with your sources regarding Spanish law prohibiting Moorish and Jewish immigration. Obviously, if reliable sources present information that states that Moors in Peru were the "creators" of the plate later known as cebiche, then that means the Spanish laws you present were not any more effective than the immigration laws in place in the 21st century.

All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

Let's take this one step at a time. 190.236.169.240, MarshalN20 is correct that we are not allowed to combine information from disparate sources to reach conclusions, so reliable sources that assert that moors were not allowed in Peru or elsewhere are not relevant here, unless they mention ceviche. Please see WP:SYNTH, and feel free to ask questions here or my or Beebelbrox's talk page. Now, in regard to this passage:

• Nevertheless, most historians agree that ceviche originated during colonial times in the area of present-day Peru.[1][14] They propose that the predecessor to the plate was brought to Peru by Moorish women from Granada who accompanied the Spaniards, and this dish eventually evolved into what nowadays is considered ceviche.[14][25] Peruvian chef Gastón Acurio further explains that the dominant position that Lima held through four centuries as the capital of the Viceroyalty of Peru allowed for popular plates such as ceviche to be brought to other Spanish colonies in the region, and that in time they became a part of local cuisine by incorporating regional flavors and styles.[16]

I've looked at the sources to which I have access, and I do not believe they support the notion that most historians agree the Peru is the source. In particular the Great Ceviche Book uses the word "many" and notes that "others" disagree. I do not have access to Cocina Peruana, can someone provide a translation of the relevant passage? The web site here uses what I take to be the word "several" and points to alternate origins of the word "ceviche" and doesn't really treat the origin of the dish itself. I'm not sure how much weight to accord a source from a Chef, however distinguished, but can someone provide a translation of the relevant passage? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cocina Peruana discusses various theories of invention, but specifies that "renown historians" support the Moorish proposal. The source from Historiacocina (which is the Institue of the Andes) is a secondary source, and it presents several origin theories (including the mention of specific historians). The source concludes with the following:

"Sea cualquiera la procedencia o la forma de llamarlo, lo cierto es que todos están de acuerdo que es un plato suculento, aromático, sabroso, chispeante, vigorizante y peruano."

"Whatever the origin or name, everyone [in reference to the mentioned historians/claims] agrees that the plate is tasty, spicy, [...] and Peruvian."

Both sources mention the Moorish claim.

What is your opinion?

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would say I have no doubt that whatever it's origin, ceviche could be considered a peruvian dish. I would say as a parallel that fried chicken and BBQ are "southern dishes" (South Eastern US) although neither originated there. The key issue I'm concerned with is the use of the word "most", since I don't think we have support for that. I think "many" would be a better choice, and we should consider expanding the article with some of the alternate theories to be more complete. Does that seem reasonable? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does seem reasonable. The problem with both "most" and "many" is that they may fall under the WP:PEACOCK situation. Perhaps, we could add strength to the sentence by writing "Juan José Vega, along with many other historians, agree that [...]". Vega is apparently one of the main investigators to the "Moorish origin proposal" of cebiche. I also agree that expanding the article with more alternate theories would improve it. We can also be more specific in regards to the Moorish proposal, because the Institute of the Andes source further explains that the Moors came to Peru with Francisco Pizarro as prisoners of war from Granada.

In regards to the origin, based on the sources Peru still stands out as the most prominent location of origin. However, I do not know in what scale it measures up according to WP:WEIGHT. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

False

Ceviche is not a dish native only Mexico o Peru.In the Pacific Coast every country different forms of ceviches.Indigenous in Mexico (Seris,Totorames,Guasaves) etc.Mochicas en Peru,Caribes in Venezuela having eaten for centuries ceviche,shrimp,fish,octopus etc.None know of the limon,oranges o lime.

According the sources, historians do not attribute the origin of cebiche to the indigenous people of the Americas. The plate is attributed as an evolution of Moorish cuisine in Peru (within Peruvian borders). The Moorish women came accompanying the conquistadores with Francisco Pizarro. As you mention, the natives already ate marinated fish. I would guess that this native plate influenced the Moorish plate (but that's just my guess, which is not in the article of course). However, what is sourced is that the Moorish plate eventually became what is now known as cebiche. Best regards, and hope that cleared up some of your doubts.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

¿Moorish?.¿Only in Peru Moorish?.In almost all America.CEVICHE PERUVIAN IS NOT SAME MEXICAN.CEVICHE MEXICAN IS NOT SAME PERUVIAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.36.159 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, please calm down. There exists a variety of different forms of ceviche nowadays. Even the ceviche of Ecuador is different from the one in Peru. Nobody is denying that Mexico has its own style of ceviche. However, the source clearly states that ceviche is not a dish native to Mexico. According to the source, the Moors (from Granada) came to Peru when Francisco Pizarro governed the area. At this time the place was called Nueva Castilla, and this colony is what eventually (under the Spanish crown) became the center of the Viceroyalty of Peru (Lima). The Moorish cuisine (not the Native American cuisine) is attributed as the antecedent of the ceviche. It just happens that the cuisine evolved within present-day Peruvian borders. I hope this clears it up. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Source falsification

The following two edits are falsifying sources:

• [1]
• [2]

These come from similar IP addresses, such as 201.166.46.116. If anymore of these (or other) source falsification edits are found, please list them here. Falsifying sources is not only bad for the Wikipedia project, but it also discredits the editor (or editors) making them. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Marshal, what do you think about the article in its current form using as a source (reference No 5, although the link is broken) the preference of "Cebiche" by the RAE as a justification of its choice of the word Ceviche, and in our very first ref? In other words, if we prefer Ceviche why do we refer to "Cebiche" as a source? Worse even, we do not bother to reflect correctly, in this article, how the three versions are treated by the RAE in its dictionary. Ah, please do not repeat the "English WP" argument; because it looks weird to use the Spanish source if we are so jealous about the "English WP" argument. --E4024 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The article, in its current form, is an absolute disaster. The policy being used towards the title is WP:COMMONNAME. The rest of the article falls under the "jurisdiction" of WP:RELIABLE, and this includes reliable Spanish sources. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexico is not part of Central America

I edited this:

In Mexico and other parts of Central America, it is served in cocktail cups with tostadas, or as a tostada topping and taco filling.

To read:

In Mexico and Central America, it is served in cocktail cups with tostadas, or as a tostada topping and taco filling.

Amendezg (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mexico is a part of Central America, according to the United Nations. In this case, combining Mexico with Central America is culturally correct, given that the cuisine/culture of both places is extremely similar.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mexico as a whole is NOT part of Central America, according to any decent geographical source. The United Nations does have some table or Geographical record in which the country is put in Central America, perhaps for political reasons, but as the corresponding article from the Wikipedia can tell you, with numerous sources and discussion about it, Mexico is in North America. Ask any Mexican and they will tell you the same thing, so please don't be changing the (sub)continents based on a single erroneous source (as there are many others, some quite respectable, that make the same mistake of putting Mexico in Central America when it is historically, politically and economically a North American Country). I will revert the change made to the subheading to match this soon.--Fermín F.M. 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferminmx (talk • contribs)

In the context of this article, Mexico is best placed in Central America & the Caribbean (both regions being part of North America).

Also, the North American region as a whole is connected based on "historical, economic, and political" matters.

Regardless, I honestly don't care. The improved version of the article won't even have these sub-sections.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin

Right now the article has a two somewhat contraditory statemens: in the text it says thet the origin is disputed but that the most likely origin is Peru, bt in the infobox it says outrght that Peru is the place of origin. Unless it can be shown that an academic consensus considers Peru the place of origin the infobox should state that its unknown or disputed.Chiton (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall the version I wrote for the article had the infobox information as "disputed (see text)". It seems the information has been changing overtime. I plan to make a sandbox of this article and begin its improvement there (akin to the Pisco Sour article). Would you like to work in it with me? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, tell the place of the sandbox. —Chiton (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

Too much technicalities for an outsider to step in and change, so I put it here: If the dish exists in Latin America, and can be spelled ceviche/cebiche there, the American Spanish pronunciation [se̞β̞itʃe̞] should also be given. If it's always spelled seviche in America, that difference should be mentioned. 83.253.228.202 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ceviche seems to be the most common spelling universally. However, the real issue here is that this food is a Latin American food. So why is the Peninsular Spanish pronunciation given as the primary one? 174.52.210.196 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ceviche→Cebiche

I boldly move the article to Cebiche, per source (Real Academia). --E4024 (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(RAE is not 100% authoritative on Wikipedia pagenames. move should be discussed first. This move might be controversial.) This is the "edit summary" of the user that reverted mine. Let us analyze it, although in reverse order: 1. "This move might be controversial." Reply: I did not see any controversy about this until you reverted my move. 2. "Move should be discussed first." Reply: It was me who opened this thread of discussion, before my move (request). Why did you not discuss? If you had written here some argument instead of simply reverting me I would have responded to you with my arguments. That is what we call "discussion" right? Or am I wrong? 3. "RAE is not 100% authoritative on Wikipedia pagenames". Reply: I left this to the end because it is the most interesting "argument". Now this is what is called "demagogy"! Who said we consider RAE as 100% authoritative on WP pagenames? Such an abstract claim would look clumsy even in Spanish Wikipedia. (So you are opposing a hypothetical assumption that you yourself introduced...) If we return to the "concrete", the article has, in its lead, reference to the RAE Dictionary. (In other words, the article takes RAE es reference for the name.) But doing this it "magically" avoids the fact that the RAE Dictionary has the word as "cebiche" and not "ceviche". Ceviche is only a "redirect in the RAE Dictionary to "cebiche". (In the article we say "Ceviche is also spelled cebiche" while the main source provided in the article says just the opposite...) You may like the word "ceviche" and dislike "cebiche". (This reminds me of a WP acronym on not liking something but forget it.) If I return to myself, "cebiche" (or "ceviche" for the said user) is one of the Chilean dishes that I like most and for that reason I wanted to contribute to this article. A correction (or "change" if you wish) of only one letter possibly did not deserve this much energy; but your attitude and the falsification within the argument (making a false reference to a source as the basic reasoning of the page name) now gives me more energy to work for this name change. Is it called MR or RM? I will pursue it. In the meantime I will continue editing the article. You were complaining of the lack of a discussion, right? Now you have more or less one. Do you like it? --E4024 (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Move request: September 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Move the page "Ceviche" to "Cebiche" as per my arguments at the above discussion thread. (I may add other arguments within the discussion if necessary.) The RAE Dictionary, as the primary universal source for Spanish lexicon is clear on this issue: Cebiche is the correct word although it may also be spelled as "ceviche" by some. The article in its present form not only uses the less common name but also distorts the RAE position on these two options. Please discuss. --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, because "ceviche" is the common English name for the plate. English name is given preference over the Spanish name in the English Wikipedia. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Marshal I hope you will support your position by some references (like book counts etc) on the issue, right? I am all ears...--E4024 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As the one making the proposal the onus is on you to present your evidence. For page titles we use what the majority of English sources use. A quick Googling of the two terms reveals that in English the spelling with the v is used about eight times more often than the on with the b.

• Ceviche=About 8,340,000 results
• Cebiche=About 1,640,000 results

A source that is authoritative about the Spanish language is obviously not relevant as to the title of an article in English. (Please note as well that I have indefinitely protected the page to prevent further moves. An uninvolved admin will be needed for any future moves of this page.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I also oppose the move. This is the enWP, and where there is an English name in common use, that is the name for the article in this WP. I was asked for assistance in this by the proposer of the move, but I agree with Beeetlebrox. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have seen "ceviche", "cebiche", and "seviche" all used as the English name for this dish, but "ceviche" seems to be the most commonly used spelling. The fact that "cebiche" may be the most correct Spanish spelling does not prove that the same spelling ought to be recognized as the correct English spelling. I think that no move is needed here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• @E4024: You wrote "I may add other arguments within the discussion if necessary." Yes, I think it is necessary to bring more arguments if you want this article to be renamed to version with B. (I was invited to leave comment here by RfC bot) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

@Antidiscriminator: Thanks and wellcome. Although I have some arguments (in addition to those ones in the discussion page section above this one) they are basically on the Spanish origins of the word; things like "escabeche" y "cebolla", all with b and not v. Hovewer, Beeblebrox left almost no margin for etymological discussion with the search results in English. However, I will continue to write (as the pronunciation is more or less identical) the name of this dish as Cebiche in English, Spanish and other languages. I respect the original word and appreciate the same from others, either for Spanish or for Turkish, my language... --E4024 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In Spanish, the term "Ceviche" is also an acceptable option. The long record of the dish's history, dating since the 1820s in Peru, also demonstrates that spelling variations are the norm (not the exception). As such, you would not be "disrespecting" the dish's name in any way. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not about respect,and frankly I find that whole line of argument ridiculously silly and a bit insulting. It is about the fact that we use whatever word is used by the majority of reliable sources in English to determine the name of articles on the English language Wikipedia. It really is a simple as that, as spelled out in the very first sentence of the relevant guideline, which is WP:ENGLISH. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Written in two ways in Spanish, mostly one way in English, there is absolutely no problem with using the common English spelling. There would be a problem with using the uncommon English spelling Ryan Vesey 21:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose move - per WP:COMMONNAME, the common spelling in English trumps any other. I don't know why the fuss, anyway: at least when I was a kid learning Spanish in the streets (and classrooms) of Habana del Norte, I was taught that those two names would be pronounced identically, as b and v are pronounced the same way. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (who is now hungry for some ceviche!)

• Comment: User Beeblebrox finds my arguments "ridiculously silly and a bit insulting". My arguments may be weak, as I see not many users joined me; but defining them with the above words, to say the least is more than a bit insulting. They are uncalled for, and just like every insult are also unnecessary. If any ordinary user insulted me, I would most possibly expect help from an admin; but what to do if an admin behaves that way? Anyhow, I would be quite happy if Beeblebrox did not respond to this and avoid insulting me again and am not waiting or hoping for an apology. On the other hand, as I see my position has no support at all, in this discussion, I kindly request an uninvolved admin to close this thread ASAP. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Concerning my recent intervention (renaming) on the Cebiche article, the references to the RAE Dictionary at the article are all dead ends. (Ref 5, 6, 7) I tried to fix them without any success. I kindly request anybody who could do that to correct all the three references (they are all in the RAE Dictionary; cebiche as the main term, ceviche as an alternative spelling and seviche as an alternative use -or variety- in some countries) to the Spanish word in the article. Thus we will be able to see -other than having the article more tidy- what the primary universal source for Spanish lexicon says exactly on these differing names. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you have chosen to open three separate threads on the same subject, see my reply above, this is the English Wikipedia. While the Spanish name is discussed in the article, it is irrelevant as far as the page title in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This one is not a discussion as you may understand from the section title. It is a request to correct (fix) the references, something I could not do by myself and asked help; help that I am still awaiting... --E4024 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(Added) Also problematic is ref No. 18. (Another broken link) --E4024 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the 3 refs to RAE. The other one is to a print publication. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It feels good to be understood and helped by others... --E4024 (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"cooked"

In the section on preparation, the wording keeps getting changed slightly, so we should probably discuss how it should be phrased. Caviche is obviously not cooked in the normally understood sense of the word, that is, by being exposed to heat. However the finished product is very similar to fish that has been cooked in that appearance and texture change in more or less the same manner, unlike other marinated fish dishes such as poke. It has variously been described in this article as "AKA Cooked" which is just awful, "in other words cooked" and now "appearing cooked". It seems to me that what is going on is that it is "chemically cooked" in that it is essentially lightly cooked without being heated. Maybe one of the sources has a better phrasing though. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Great question, but I honestly have no answer for it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

1960/70 influence of gov't promotion of fisheries resources on Peruvian ceviche

First of all, I can tell that editors here are invested in the accuracy of the Ceviche article. This contribution of mine is not intended to buttress or attack the association of ceviche with Peru, though I am sure that partisans could do one or the other. I believe the article could be strengthened by filling in the gap in ceviche history, within Peru, between the time of Colonial Peru and that of Dario MatsuFuji.

I have found a source (pp. 113-114) that claims despite the resources of the offshore fisheries, "the potential for rotting fish" caused it to be unpopular in Peruvian cuisine into the 1940s. At the top of desirability was beef. The author, Sasha Issenberg, suggests that even the Peruvian poultry, fattened on fishmeal, required strong marinating in citrus and vinegar to hide the otherwise-unpleasant fishy taste. In the 1950s and 60s, the national government tried to promote fish consumption, eventually by prohibiting beef for half the month. "Citizens were left with little choice but fish, and tried to marinate it, too, beyond recognition." Issenberg's bibliography cites the following as reference: <Balbi, Mariella. Sato's Cooking: Nikkei-Style Fish and Seafood. Lima, Peru: Universidad San MArtin de Porres, Facultdad de Turismo y Hoteleria, 1997.> Mang (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ceviche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130227120632/http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/ManagingFoodSafetyHACCPPrinciples/Regulators/ucm078283.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/ManagingFoodSafetyHACCPPrinciples/Regulators/ucm078283.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So what is fish cooked in lemon juice in the rest of the world?

And why isn't there a disambiguation up the top for a non-America's version? I mean the "fresh raw fish cured in citrus juices, such as lemon or lime" seasoned or unseasoned that is an Italian, French and Spanish and general Mediterranean cuisine since the Roman era and beyond. Is there a word for that if this is a 'Peruvian dish' only popular in 'coastal central America?' I'm lost, I thought that was a general Mediterranean and European food, I'm trying to find that food that is cooked exactly the same way, and precisely the same thing, but not invented in Peru or only eaten in coastal central America. If anyone can help it would be greatly appreciated. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 08:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Ceviche" is not just the plate in and of itself, but rather the name and additional condiments/sides. The name "ceviche" is first recorded in Peru, and the fact that the name is widespread in other parts of the Americas as "ceviche" indicates that there is a common history between them. I am sure that similar plates are eaten throughout the world, not just in the Mediterranean (Japan has a strong food culture based on seafood, for example); however, none of these plates are called "ceviche" and surely have their own unique distinctions. I suggest you ask the question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous board; the Wikipedians there will likely provide you with more information on the matter.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 08:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4