Jump to content

Talk:Filipino cuisine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

NOTE: The article incorporated some info the little info that used to be in Philippine cuisine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seav (talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 February 2004 (UTC)


The photo "Pinoy Sweets" was returned since the user who had previously removed it failed to notice that it did have a source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.190.148 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Patis

Can someone please mention fish sauce (or patis as it is known in the Phillipines)? I'm a Filipino American and it's pretty prominent around my family at home and my other family members around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.29.132 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Regional Cuisine

The province of Negros is famous for its Chicken Inasal (marinated grilled chicken), Puto Manapla (anise-flavored rice muffin), dried squid, kinilaw (seafood ceviche), and different sweets like barquillos, piaya, barqueron, pinasugbo, pañolitos, pastellas de manga, empanaditas, polvoron, black sambo, señoritas, guapple pie, napoleones, lumpiang sariwa, dulce gatas (dulce de leche variation), KBL soup (kadios-baboy-langka) which means (black-eyed peas, pork, & jackfruit soup), laswa, and butterscotch.

The province of Iloilo is famous for its Pancit Molo, La Paz Batchoy, and pastries from Panaderia de Molo like biscochos, galletas, bañadas and barquillos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.9.62 (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where Is The TUYO

Nevermind the first reaction I posted, because to summarize: this article was very poorly written. For the author, I would be very careful in using the term "popular" so loosely with limited sources. The dishes mentioned are all "restaurant examples" or "coffee-table book examples" and hardly truly portray or identify Filipino cuisine. Either that or some information are actually false. To quote some examples:

"Sinigang (tom yam-like dish)" --I suggest extra care in comparing one international dish to the next.

"Halo-halo (a cold mixed fruit dessert)"; "deep-fried ("pinirito")" --Extra care also in translation.

"When cooked rice is fried with garlic, it creates Sinangag." --And also in sentence construction.

"Kesong puti - is a firm white cheese made from Carabao's milk." --Kesong Puti is anything but "firm".

"empanada/empanaditas, which are meat pies bursting with minced pork, peas and sweet raisins" --Other regions/provinces may have variations of certain dishes.

"Further south, dishes are filled with the scents of Southeast Asia..." --This is purely a lame description of cuisine in the Southern Region. It is entirely inappropriate to simply summarize cuisine from the region while trying to represent Filipino cuisine as a whole by identifying dishes from smaller-by-comparison areas.

This article also fails to mention the nuances of traditional cuisine among regions and/or provinces. The fact that the Philippines is composed of thousands of islands should be taken into serious consideration, with each island/region/province having its own history of various foreign influences. On this note, I would also like to point out that there have been no mention of various dialects and languages of different regions/provinces which may result in various names for a single dish.

Rewrite the whole thing.

Sandra5482 12:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You first. The article definitely needs polishing, but it's no use just criticizing. If you find something wrong, fix it. Gryphon Hall 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Added some information

Added some information, though I know a lot can still be done to clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.208.51 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Balut, Cordillera dog meat, Pinikpikan chicken

Should not these items be mentioned? -- Boracay Bill 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dog meat is mentioned in "unusual foods"

Cordillera dog meat? Dog meat is only a recent phenomenon in the Philippines. It's not just only in the Cordilleras nor more common in the Cordilleras, it is in the entire Philippines. It's bigoted and unfair to equate dog meat eating to the Cordilleran culture. In contrary to some articles on the net(especially those circulated by the animal rights activists), dog meat is NOT legal in Baguio. There are people who it dog meat in Baguio just as much as there are people who eat dog meat in other parts of the Philippines other than the Cordillera Region. Be careful in writing articles.
I believe that what this article says on this subject is accurate, but oversimplified. The level of detail provided is, IMHO, appropriate to the wider focus of this article. More detail regarding the eating of dog meat in the Phillipines is available in the at the provided wikilink to dog meat. If you can provide cites backing up your assertion that the eating of dog meat is only a recent phenomenon in the Philippines and that unfair to equate dog meat eating to the Cordilleran culture, that should probably be added over there.
I don't really think that the process of Pinikpikan is actually a violation of animal rights. If it were, then it would have been banned. Plus, the footnote link provided did not direct to the animal rights code of the Philippines. It may look brutal to non-Igorots but I'm sure the Igorots have explanation to this process. It's like saying that some people who cook lechon baboy violate animal rights too when they put a live pig on a boiling pot of water! People should be extremely careful in writing articles. It may create false notions toward other ethnic groups, particularly the Indigenous peoples. Gryphon Hall, Are you the author? If you are, please don't be sensitive if you get criticisms. Just try to improve it, okay? There's always room for improvement. Constructive criticism may actually help. (this unsigned comment was entered 10:38, 8 January 2007 by 61.9.55.131)
As I read RA8485, the practice is banned. The References section provides a link to RA8485, and quotes it as saying "In all the above mentioned cases, including those of cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabaos, horses, deer and crocodiles the killing of the animals shall be done through humane procedures at all times." I would not characterize the process of preparing Pinikpikan chicken as killing the chicken through a humane procedure. In a section not quoted, RA8485 goes on to say, "Sec. 8. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) months nor more than two (2) years or a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) or both at the discretion of the Court. If the violation is committed by a juridical person, the officer responsible therefor shall serve the imprisonment when imposed. If the violation is committed by an alien, he or she shall be immediately deported after service of sentence without any further proceedings." The prohibition seems clear, but enforcement is missing. -- Boracay Bill 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(further comment) 61.9.55.131, you complained above that the References section link did not direct to the animal rights code of the Philippines. AFAICT, no document entitled "Animal Rights Code of the Philippines" exists. The link did direct to Republic Act No. 8485, the short title of which is "The Animal Welfare Act of 1998." Also, regarding the statement, "It's like saying that some people who cook lechon baboy violate animal rights too when they put a live pig on a boiling pot of water! ", I can't comment regarding as animal rights, but putting a live pig into boiling water certainly does sound to me like a violation of the Animal Welfare Act of 1998. -- Boracay Bill 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Other food section seems to be unfitting and lacking focus

Well to me the "Other food" section of this article is not really surprising because every country does this. Chinese hosts their cuisines in the U.S. So called Chinese restaurants are found in the U.S. Same goes with Mexican Food, Italian Food... you guys get the point. Also, the Americans export McDonald to foreign countries. I think this section needs to either focus on indigenous cuisines from other tribes or foods not in the mainstream or of traditional style or it needs to be removed. Getonyourfeet 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem #1 The following sentences claim bias but do not attribute it.

Cebu is popular for Lechon, sweets (like dried mangoes), mango, and caramel tarts.[citation needed]

Iloilo is popular for La Paz batchoy, pancit molo, dinuguan, puto, and biscocho. [citation needed]

Bulacan is popular for chicharon (pork rinds) and pastries like puto, kutsinta, and many more...[citation needed]

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy states:

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

The article is passing this off as fact and needs to justify claims with some verifiability in order to make it acceptable for Wikipedia.

Problem #2 Also, using the same example sentences with focus on this proposition "P is popular for Q" form of this statement is not surprising. Did you mean popular flavor? Or popular style? Or popular appearance? What exactly? Getonyourfeet 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Two national foods?

Both the Adobo and Lechon articles claim themselves to be the national food of the Philippines. That can't be right. Which one is the true national food? --'Ivan 12:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus as to which. The way Adobo is cooked and presented is also notoriously different depending on what region of the country. Gryphon Hall 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Adobo and Lechon are favorites in the Philippines but I've never encountered official documentation by any history book of a certain "national food". Adobo is the easiest to cook so its very common to be seen inside Philippine households while Lechon is rarely absent during Fiestas and other huge celebrations. Ventada de Manila 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sans Cutlery

I strongly object to the following paragraph found in the Cuisine of the Philippines page, as of October 7 2006:

"In addition, *though no longer a popular norm but is nevertheless practiced by some, food is eaten with the hands-- sans cutlery. The diner could use his soup (sabaw) or sauce to moisten his rice, scoop it from the plate together with a piece of vegetable or meat and slide it into his mouth. In normal circumstances, Filipinos use the spoon and fork to scoop the rice and dish."

Eating with the hands has always been and still is a part of Filipino tradition. I strongly object to identifying it or otherwise as a "popular norm". If anything, more Filipinos actually eat with their own hands as compared to the number of those who eat with cutlery. I challenge the author of this article to provide an accurate statistic of every social group in the country that would prove this* posted statement.

Also, the usage of the phrase "In normal circumstances," in context with Filipino choice, or absence, of cutlery, is totally insensitive and completely derogatory of Filipino culture and tradition.

The above quoted paragraph was very poorly written and completely demeans an otherwise helpful attempt in identifying what is real Filipino cuisine.

Sandra5482 12:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably ten or twenty years ago, it might be true that more people ate with their hands. But when dealing with soupy rice especially, it no longer is the case. It is part of Filipino tradition, naturally, but the variety of dishes that are eaten with hands is rapidly diminishing. As to demands for statistics, I think that this is an honest case of a person's word against another. A lot of Pinoys own a set of cheap cutlery and, even if they are not skillful in its use and prefer eating with hands, it is no longer seen as a sign of polish. Furthermore, the "normal circumstances" described here is about the way Pinoys eat with spoon and fork as opposed to eating with knife and fork in most places of the world, which is not shameful since the Italians and the Spanish also eat with spoon and fork.
So chill out. There was nothing demeaning or unhelpful in that snippet, but if you can rewrite it better, Wikipedia allows you to do so and we'll all be thankful. Gryphon Hall 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the phrase "normal circumstances" is dangerous because there becomes an assumption that eating with spoon and fork is "not normal". And I also think that it is politically incorrect to argue that it is not shameful simply because the Spanish and the Italians do it as well. There is a sense of colonial mentality in that train of thought. Lastly, we are not sure if most of the places in the world actually do eat with knife and fork. The orient uses chopsticks and I'm pretty sure that there are other countries eating with spoon and fork as well.

Etherealcamzy 11:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


This article is so focused on Northern Philippines. Much of the world and even folks from Northern Philippines are not very educated about the complex and deep cultures of Southern Philippines. As a former Cagayanon I can hardly identify my heritage on these entries. It seemed written by an author who visited Luzon and then wrote an article as if it represents the entire Filipino cuisine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.178.202.217 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Kamayan has long been the accepted traditional way of eating until it was realized that Filipinos eat more often with the spoon and fork. Quite a number of Philippine dishes cannot be eaten with fingers including sinigang, kare-kare, mechado, aftritada, kaldereta, and adobo (to name a few) due to the heavy content of broth or sauce.

It is not true that this practice is passe. Until now, even the upper classes eat with their hands during special out of town occassions such as fiesta, beach outings, out of town trips, and more.

I have lived in the Philippines since birth and I am puzzled as to how some practices here came about? I have never met a Filipino using his vegetable to scoop his rice nor one moistening his rice with broth as this makes it harder for the diner to use his hands. The traditional way, including the ones I have encountered since birth, is forming rice into a ball and shooting it into his mouth simultaneously taking a bite at dry dishes usually "inihaw" ... or vice-versa. Ventada de Manila 11:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping Context

I feel that some of the words should remain Filipino not so far as to water it down to English or another language like Spanish with similar spelling. Remember if someone is interested in buying Filipino food, they are likely going to encounter Filipino dish names. They are likely to encounter Kare-kare rather than oxtail soup.Getonyourfeet 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorbetes vs. "Dirty Ice Cream"

A recent edit to Sorbetes in the the Desserts and Snacks subsection caused me to look at this, and I think it needs some work.

  • This subsection describes a sorbet as "similar to ice cream but made primarily with coconut milk instead of a dairy products".
  • The Sorbet article says that a sorbet is a frozen dessert made from sweetened water flavored with iced fruit (typically juice or puree), chocolate, wine, and/or liqueur.
  • this source describes Filipino Dirty Ice Cream of various types, one of which is vanilla ice cream with chunks of cheese in it.
  • this article on the DOST website describes three formulations for Dirty Ice Cream.
    • butterfat, skim milk powder and Cremodan, a commercial brand of emulsifier-stabilizer - described as "the ideal commercial combination".
    • coconut cream, skim milk, and cassava starch - said to be the composition of the ubiquitous "dirty ice cream."
    • coconut cream, skim milk, cassava starch and Cremodan formulation - called "Pinoy ice cream" and said to cut cost and have the advantages of both ingredients

I note in passing that, according to my Tagalog-English dictionary, sorbetes is ice-cream and a sorbetero is an ice-cream vendor. -- Boracay Bill 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of cuisine

Why is the article titled Filipino cuisine and the opening sentence bold Philippine cuisine? Are there multiple alternative names that need to be included alongside all in bold? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I read WP:LEAD#First_sentence, the bolded description in the first sentence should match the title of the article. Alsi, the present first sentence doesn't seem to answer the question, "Why is this subject notable?", but then neither do the first sentences of the French cuisine Spanish cuisine, or German cuisine articles. The current initial

Philippine cuisine has evolved over several centuries from its Malayo-Polynesian origins to a cuisine of predominantly Hispanic base, due to the many Latin American and Spanish dishes brought to the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period.

sentence seems overly complex, though. I would suggest changing the bolded portion and breaking the sentence up into something like

Filipino cuisine is a style of cooking derived from the nation of the Philippines. It has evolved over several centuries from its Malayo-Polynesian origins to a cuisine of predominantly Hispanic base, due to the many Latin American and Spanish dishes brought to the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Revamping and Edits

I plan on revamping the page and possibly eliminating whole sections and consolidating them with others. There is a lot of duplication with some foods and dishes being repeated in four different sections. If anyone has a problem with such a planned revision or a preferred way of carrying it out please say so. As of right now I'm not sure how to proceed. I like the succinctness of the early parts but also appreciate the detail of the later sections. We'll see how it goes. More citations would be helpful so if any of you have Filipino cookbooks try citing or rewriting lines to incorporate them into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In general, WP:RS describes what are considered reliable sources. Because of the large number of available publications about food (both books and blogs), the best sources would be written by notable food experts or be reliable, tertiary sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked for your feedback because I was wondering if you'd reconsider your judgment of the matter. I've looked at some of the sources that's readily available online and the errors in some cases are pretty bad and miss subtleties even if they would fit verification criteria. Considering the subject in question is not exactly very technical in nature, more a matter of everyday familiarity, and not particularly controversial, I'm thinking this is one of those articles that might not benefit from a rigid application of Wikipedia guidelines and might actually hurt it. In any event if you have some excellent sources on the topic in mind that are better than the blog we seem to be at odds over I'd love to see the link. A source that gives a picture of the ingredients some commentary beyond simply a recipe and who is actually in the country — not to mention accurate — from what I've seen so far is pretty rare or not easily accessible. Lambanog (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've discussed what would be considered the best sources. There are many compromises we can make that would still improve the quality of sources we have. I'd hope that simple Google book searches (books.google.com) would turn up much better sources that what we currently have. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe someone else will have better luck than me in finding good sources from a Google book search. I've found some support here and there for statements I wished to make in the article but none of the books I've been able to browse are even remotely as good as that blog in terms of being a one-stop resource. Lambanog (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos Storage

Some of the photos used in the article could be better and I wish to remove some of them. Still a record of the photos related to the topic could be handy so I'll place references to those I've removed here. Lambanog (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Filipino cuisine photos
  • Maja, made from coconut milk, sweet milk, and creamed corn
    Maja, made from coconut milk, sweet milk, and creamed corn
  • Package of biko and pirurutong
    Package of biko and pirurutong
  • pitsi-pitsi
    pitsi-pitsi

Lambanog's edits

Will list here some of the more significant removals I will be making.

Dead link http://www.niu.edu/cseas/outreach/ricephilippines.htm Found another copy of the source and updated link to http://131.156.68.45/outreach/ricephilippines.htm

Lambanog (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed following paragraph:

Main dishes include sinigang (pork, fish, or shrimp and vegetables in a sour usually tamarind broth), bulalo (beef soup – commonly with marrow still in the beef bone – with vegetables), kare-kare (oxtail and vegetables cooked in peanut sauce), crispy pata (deep fried hog hoofs with hock sometimes included), mechado (pork cooked in tomato sauce), pochero (beef or pork cooked in tomato sauce with bananas and vegetables), kaldereta (beef or goat cooked in tomato sauce), fried or grilled chicken/porkchops/fish/squid/cuttlefish. Dinner may be accompanied by stir-fried vegetables, atchara (shredded and pickled papaya), bagoong (fish paste) or alamang (shrimp paste). Desserts are usually made only for special occasions. The most popular desserts include leche flan, buko pandan (slivers of young coconut with cream and pandan flavor) or gulaman (jello).

Comments: Information it contains is repeated elsewhere in the article except for maybe reference to buko pandan which I should remember to add back to the article. Lambanog (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

The opening paragraph of the main article is confusing and poorly written. It is grammatically incorrect to say that "Filipino cuisine is the foods...". Plus, "the style of cooking has evolved [...] from its Malayo-Polynesian origins to a mixed cuisine with many native [...] influences" is contradictory. Malayo-Polynesian is native. I will substitute this for a new paragraph based on the sentence suggested by Wtmitchel recently [1], and include the reference to other foreign influences:

Filipino cuisine is a style of cooking from the nation of the Philippines. It has evolved over several centuries from its Malayo-Polynesian origins to a cuisine of predominantly Hispanic base adapted to local ingredients and the local palate. This is due to many Latin American and Spanish dishes brought to the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. Filipino cuisine also has important Chinese, American and other Asian influences. JCRB (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure if the old paragraph is grammatically correct or not. Filipino cuisine is a group noun treated in a singular fashion but since the opening is enumerating the parts I can see why you might think "are" should be used. That can be easily rectified by simply changing is to are. The word "native" was inserted by someone else. The reversion to the old paragraph, however, is not that good because it is disputable. The Spanish may have left their names on many dishes and some cooking techniques but whether Filipino cuisine is really predominantly Spanish derived is questionable. Native and Chinese influences are probably just as strong or maybe even stronger. Soy sauce, patis, and calamansi are as ubiquitous in Filipino cuisine as tomatoes and onions and I doubt Italians credit the Spanish in their cookery simply for bringing them tomatoes. There is reason to believe adobo is a native preparation given a Spanish name. Asado and embutido refer to different things than what Hispanics elsewhere would expect. Dishes like sinigang and tinola rely strongly on native ingredients. Going by a survey I saw in a Filipino newspaper the most popular dishes are fried chicken and spaghetti. The survey was probably weighted towards young kids but still it would seem the American influence is pretty strong. In short I do not see a particular reason to give Hispanic influence greater prominence in regards to Filipino cuisine than other influences. Anyway the article is not only talking about the style of cooking alone, it also talks about the cultural milieu in which it is appreciated. Lambanog (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Some good comments Lambanog. I did not say Filipino cuisine is predominantly Spanish, but Hispanic, which means a cultural blend between indigenous and Spanish. For example, Mexican culture is Hispanic because it combines Aztec or Mayan elements with those of Spain. Filipino cuisine is largely Hispanic because it blends indigenous and Spanish (and Mexican) cooking elements. This includes ingredients, cooking methods and eating habits. There is also strong Chinese influence, as well as American. But the base of Filipino cuisine is clearly Hispanic because the combination of native and Spanish over centuries has resulted in a uniquely Filipino cuisine. The essence of this cuisine is predominantly Hispanic. Neither Chinese nor American can be considered the "base" of Filipino cuisine. The Adobo which you mentioned is not just a Spanish name, it is a Spanish and Latin American cooking method which consists of marinating or seasoning. This can be either with olive oil, spices and vinegar (in Spain) or with tomato, garlic and other ingredients (in Latin America). In the Philippines soy sauce is used. Adobo is a perfect example of cultural mix: a Spanish cooking method which uses an East Asian ingredient: soy sauce (soy beans).
Filipino cuisine is predominantly Hispanic because the predominant cooking methods were introduced during the Spanish period: the Guisa or Guisado (sautéed with onion and garlic), the Asado (stewed with potatoes, carrots, sweet peas or tomatoes), the Prito or Frito (fried or deep fried) though also a Chinese practice, the Relleno (stuffed), the Sarza or Sarciado (cooked in sauce), the Tostado or Tosta (toasted), the Embutido (dried meatloaf) and of course the Adobo (seasoned or marinated with soy sauce). Apart from the cooking methods themselves, there are hundreds of Filipino dishes and sweets that are Hispanic, including: lechon, longanissa, chorisso, paella, caldereta, callos, chicharon (from Mexico), tamal (from Mexico), ensaymada, biskocho, pastel de leche, polvoron and a very long etcetera. This proves that Filipino cuisine is predominantly Hispanic (a blend between indigenous and Spanish-Mexican) with other strong influences such as Chinese and American which also need mentioning. JCRB (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You are referring to the names which are no doubt Spanish or Hispanic in many cases but that does not necessarily mean the practice originated with the Spanish or are Hispanic. Spaghetti, macaroni, linguine, and fettuccine for example are Italian noodles but noodle making nonetheless originated in the Orient. In some cases in Filipino cuisine it's not even clear the Spanish were even as original as the Italians and may have done little more than attach their terms to some of the dishes. You should read the articles on adobo, asado, and embutido to see there are stark differences in the Filipino definition from the mainstream Hispanic definition of those terms. Indeed in a Filipino context it can be argued asado more often refers to a Chinese influence. How you can believe marinating with soy sauce as you describe adobo is a Spanish influence also escapes me. When talking of breads and sweets I see a very distinct Spanish influence if one does not include the use of coconut, but as we should all know Filipinos do not consider bread the staple nearly as much as rice. Lambanog (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not just refering to the Spanish names, but the actual cooking methods. If you read the above explanation you will understand this point. Many cooking methods were brought to the Philippines from Mexico or Spain, and were applied to the ingredients which were widespread here. There is no such thing as a "mainstream Hispanic definition" of any dish or cooking style as this varies across countries. The adobo is a good example. Everywhere it means a seasoning of foods, but in Spain, Latin America and the Philippines it uses different ingredients and spices (see above). I really don't see the difficulty in understanding this. JCRB (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the difficulty either. There are sources that say the adobo cooking process is indigenous therefore not Spanish at all. What you seem to be saying is that the very idea of marinating and seasoning in Filipino cuisine is a Spanish contribution. You're free to try citing a source but it seems more than a bit of a stretch to me. Lambanog (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you also cited the sources that say Adobo is indigenous. With that name it sounds improbable to me. But I am open to new reliable information. In any case, beyond adobo there are many dishes, cooking methods and even ingredients that were introduced during the colonial period and have continued to this day. Here are some more examples, apart from the ones listed above: afritada, pata, camaron, empanada, hamonada, mechado, torta, callos, menudo, puchero, arroz caldo, arroz a la valenciana, chicharon, empanada, pan de coco, pandesal, pastel, leche flan, maiz con hielo, nata de coco, sorbetes, turon, kesong, etcetera, etcetera. This makes Filipino cuisine Hispanic, more than anything else. Remember, "Hispanic" is not "Spanish", but the fusion of indigenous with Spanish. JCRB (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Hispanic, that is not the definition given in this online dictionary entry: "Hispanic". As for that list of of dishes you give offhand I can take issue with pata, arroz caldo, sorbetes, turon, menudo, and if I was being finicky in general I could question any dishes that incorporate soy sauce, coconuts, or bananas in them. As for a source regarding Filipino adobo here's one: Cooking Styles and Regional Variations. Lambanog (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a certain debate on the meaning of Hispanic, but there is obviously a difference bewteen "Hispanic" and "Spanish". Hispanic means "of Spanish origin". Therefore it incorporates the local or indigenous component. In the dictionary you quote, a "Hispanic" person (in the US) is an American citizen of Spanish or Latin American origin. A "Spanish" person or "Spaniard" is logically quite different. This applies to culture as well, be it customs, traditions, language, music, art, or cuisine. Hispanic is not "Spanish", but the fusion or combination of Spanish with the local. As for the dishes which incorporate soy sauce or coconut, they are excellent examples of Hispanic cuisine, as they combine the local ingredient with the Spanish (or Mexican) cooking method. I will admit there are exceptions, where a Spanish name was given to an entirely indigenous dish, but these are exceptions. Adobo could be an example and you have quoted a source that says so, but there is clearly an ongoing debate, and this is not the case with the majority of dishes I have listed. JCRB (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see much of a debate at all. If there is a debate it would seem to be whether the term Hispanic carries a negative implication or not. As for your claim that the fusion of the Spanish with the local results in Hispanic cuisine I must disagree. The result is Filipino cuisine. Do Spaniards consider cooking with tomatoes Latino cooking or simply Spanish cooking? A Spaniard would probably consider it silly to insist on calling cooking with tomatoes or potatoes Latino cooking. Likewise I consider it absurd to consider Filipino cuisine to be Hispanic in the manner you seem to define the term when it is first and foremost Filipino. I've eaten at a few Spanish restaurants and simply put it's not Filipino food. I doubt a Spaniard would feel that familiar with Filipino cuisine either. Lambanog (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer your questions and comments:
  • There is a certain debate on the meaning of "Hispanic" because it originally refered to "Hispania", the Roman province in present-day Spain. Later it evolved to mean "Spanish" as from the country "Spain", and later it incorporated the meaning of "countries and peoples with cultural influence from Spain". In the US, "Hispanic" means the "peoples or cultures from Spanish America". Therefore, different people have a different interpretation of the meaning of this term. In any case, the latest meaning is the most widespread today: "peoples or countries with cultural influence from Spain".
  • I do not understand however, your question about its "negative implications". Why should "Hispanic" carry a negative implication? This is an encyclopedia, not a political or ideological forum. Does "Anglo" carry a negative implication? Or "Saxon", or "Germanic" or "Lusitanian", or any other term that refers to a cultural origin? If in your mind "Hispanic" carries this meaning, then with all respect you should try to eliminate this bias before we go on.
  • You say that indigenous + Spanish is "Filipino", not "Hispanic". Well, of course it is Filipino. But Filipino is also Hispanic. All cultures which have indigenous and Spanish elements are Hispanic: "Mexican" is basically Aztec or Mayan + Spanish, "Colombian" is Tayrona or Muisca + Spanish, "Peruvian" is Inca + Spanish, "Cuban" is Taino and Afro + Spanish, and a long etcetera. "Filipino" is Tagalog or Cebuano or Ilocano or Bisaya with Spanish, therefore Hispanic. Filipino has other cultural components such as Chinese and American, but Filipino traditions, festivities, music, dances, and cuisine are Hispanic. In other words, the Filipino cultural essence is Hispanic. This is what I've been explaining all along.
  • Finally, Spaniards do not consider cooking with tomatoes "Latino" for various reasons. First because the term "Latino" is short for "Latinoamericano" meaning Latin American, not Latin as in Roman culture. They use the word "Latín", but it means the Latin language. Secondly, because cooking with tomatoes was not introduced by the Romans. There were no tomatoes in Europe until the 15th century. Tomatoes are native to South America, and they were actually introduced to Europe (and the Philippines) by the Spaniards themselves. You could say however, that cooking with olive oil is common to all Latin countries in Europe. The term would be "cocina mediterránea" or Mediterranean cuisine (not Latin cuisine). So yes, Spaniards use the term "Mediterranean" when they talk about olive oil, or wine, or the use of vegetables in many dishes, in the sense that it is "common to Latin countries". In the same way, Filipino cuisine can be accurately described as being "Hispanic" because it is full of dishes and cooking methods "common to Hispanic countries". JCRB (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Graffiti

In the "Pulutan" section, there are references to dishes called "betamax" and "adidas".

Could someone more knowledgeable replace these with the correct words? Thanks.drone5 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not as familiar with Philippine street foods as I am with formal dishes but I do think it is plausible that these are the real names of the food items. Further description for betamax is given in the Street food section further below in the article. Lambanog (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential references

These were initially in the Further reading section, moved to External links since they include external links, and were then moved here for consideration and comment as potential references moved 28 September 2010. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Alcuaz, N.T. (2005). Banana Leaves: Filipino Cooking and Much More. Victoria: Trafford. ISBN 1412053781. Retrieved 2009-12-12.
  • Aleson, Susana, Alice Gratil, Lota Ignacio, Mhila Baiyon, Gladys Moya, and Virginia Zarate. (1998). Cocina Filipina (in Spanish). Barcelona: Icaria. ISBN 8474263581. Retrieved 2009-12-12.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Rowthorn, Chris and Greg Bloom. (2006). Philippines (9th ed.). Lonely Planet. p. 47. ISBN 1741042895. Retrieved 2009-12-10.
WP:CITE#General reference says, "In under-developed articles editors sometimes add a general reference at the end, without using inline citations." Is this what you're suggesting? If so, and if these items aeren't actually needed to verify article content, they belong in either Further reading or External links, not in References. See WP:GTL#Standard appendices and footers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Errors and Inaccuracies

I've started doing a more thorough reading of the article and am finding many questionable assertions. Mechado and kaldereta are the same except one is a beef dish and the other is a goat dish? Sinigang when made with chicken is sinampalukang manok? These are just a couple statements that look erroneous. I am making my objection to these statements here before changing them to leave a record in case anyone was misled and to see if these statement can in anyway be justified. Lambanog (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sinampalukang Manok. It's one of the nuances of our culture. There is sinigang na baka and baboy, but manok is sinampalukan. Here's an article on the dish: http://www.recadosfilipinos.com/2008/12/sinampalukang-manok-chicken-and.html Lynyrdjym (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that sinampalukang manok is a specific kind of sinigang using chicken and tamarind leaves. There is also sinigang na manok a broader category that includes chicken cooked in the way other sinigang are cooked without the tamarind leaves. So chicken cooked in a tamarind broth but without the leaves or chicken using other pangpaasim like guava or calamondin. Recipes using those ingredients can be called sinigang too but would not be sinampalukang manok. Lambanog (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Mea culpa, and good point! I forgot that sinigang is also used in a broader context.Lynyrdjym (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of tapai and was only presuming it might be one of those less well known foods seen in the provinces. Now I'm thinking it's not a Filipino dish since looking at the article history, the original creator who included it appears to have been a foreigner who did not know the dishes that well and may have been guessing. Is there anyone who knows tapai and where to find it in the Philippines? Lambanog (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As a Filipino, I've never heard of it but based on the article Tapai, it's local name is Tapay or Bubod and according from this link, it is used as a starter to make a local variety of rice wine. E Wing (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information. Still I'm left with the impression it is a little known food in the Philippines. A search of tapai on the internet yields far more information relating it to Indonesia. Bubod and tapuy return inconsistent results. For comparison another food associated with Indonesia krupuk at least is something I can recognize in the locally named kropeck which does give consistent results on an internet search and is something I have had locally and have seen served in local restaurants. For these reasons I think it would be misleading to include tapai in this list of Filipino foods which isn't meant to be exhaustive. I will remove it. Lambanog (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Try googling instead for "Cassava Tapay". Though I've never actually seen or eaten this either, it seems to be more popular among the Maranao.--Obsidi♠nSoul 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Philippine cuisine in the United States

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#section idea. I have begun a discussion that editors who are intereted in this article maybe interested in joining. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

In the discussion held in the link above a number of editors have proposed that a new section of Cuisine outside of the Philippines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding removal by Lambanog, any reason for this? It is supposed to be U.S.-centric, given the subsection heading. Other countries can be filled in as available. Similar sections exist in Japanese cuisine, Chinese cuisine, and Italian cuisine for example.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there does not appear to be a good reason for removal, given precedence set forth by other cuisine articles, I shall revert the removal at once. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the neutrality of the section and the point of view that it adopts. If one compares with the sections on other cuisines one will not see the speculation and opinion set forth in the section here. In what ways is Philippine cuisine adapted in the United States? What is calamansi substituted with? How about native fish? Is it easy to recreate authentic Philippine dishes with ingredients commonly available in the United States? Are the dishes served in courses? Are Philippine stews presented and eaten like stews or like soups? Knife or spoon? The section does not deal with such basic factual issues. Instead it presents speculative (and dubious) theoretical sociological commentary. I do not see that in other cuisine sections, so I see no precedent. I will revert. Obsidian Soul can change it back if he truly believes the section satisfactory but I will protest it as not NPOV. Lambanog (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking at it now, I have to agree that undue weight is given to opinion in the sources. Can we just mention which foods are commonly found outside of the Philippines first as well as the eating habits of overseas Filipinos ('factual' as Lambanog says) before we mention the apparent absence of the cuisine in mainstream American consciousness? Even then I think it's best if the 'absence' of the cuisine in be relegated to one or two sentences at most. We should focus on the food, whether its accepted by non-Filipinos or eaten only by overseas Filipinos. Nostalgia cuisine is still pretty big among overseas communities.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The section text was based on the references that could be found about Philippine cuisine in the United States. Why must there be adaption? If there are references referring to adaption they would be provided, and if you find references showing common adaption, then please improve the section and make the changes with the citations. Removing well sourced content does not contribute to the article.
Are there places within the removed content that are not supported by the references provided? If not, then the section's content passes WP:VER. The content was written manor that gave due weight based on the references..
If there are references stating that Philippine cuisine has integrated into the mainstream of American pallet, then being the primary author of the section I would have provided so. If the weight of the references found indicate that substitution of ingredients is very common within the Filipino American community when creating Philippine cuisine, the section would be written given due weight to indicate that. However, the references that I did find do not indicate that. If there are references stating such, please provide them, and I will make the changes accordingly, or you can always assist in improving the article and make the changes yourself.
Furthermore, given that there are sociologist who have said that Filipino Americans have not created a distinct culture (see ref # 123), and the large percentage of the population who are born in the Philippines (a majority), it could explain why Philippine cuisine in the United States isn't markedly different from that in the Philippines. The section further expands upon the Asian American studies view that Filipino Americans are an "invisible minority", and is supported by weight of the references provided. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
If the weight of the reliable sources references indicate a lack of Philippine Cuisine, given the population size, compared to other Asian cuisine in the United States, the content actually does not give undue weight, but gives due weight to what the references states.
The sources maybe stating opinion, but said opinion is verified by the reliable sources, and is the weighted majority opinion of those sources. There is one references that indicate the fact that given the size of the Filipino American population, the number of Philippine cuisine restaurants are not proprietorial to that of other Asian American ethnicities.
If it is the opinion of other editors here, that my hard work be removed, then would it be better in the Filipino American article under cultural issues?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate, I am notifying that I shall use the pls see template at relevant talk pages to bring other editors into the discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The above conversation is about content removal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well.... exactly that. You set out to prove that assertion, which is not good I think. It's primarily a commentary on culture, and that makes it unsuitable for this page. When I first commented on your proposal in Tambayan, I thought you also will be mentioning which foods do make it there or at least the common filipino dishes that exist within overseas Filipino communities as well as outside it. I did suggest a global coverage after all.

And yeah not exactly haute cuisine or restaurant fare, but they're still quite prevalent in home cooking (mentioned in at least two of the sources you used, one of my own siblings abroad just had a birthday party for my niece with purely Philippine cuisine) which disagrees somewhat with the current assessment that they do not exist at all outside of the Philippines. The acceptance of the cuisine by other ethnicities is important, yes, but should not be the sole subject of the section. After all, we're not exactly cooking only for them, are we? :P

Note that I want it restored but with more balance to the POV. And I think Lambanog does as well. It isn't a criticism on your hard work, of course, so relax. heh. I think it's best if we wait on Lambanog's and other editors' (per your notification) opinions for the moment. Then we'll see what we can fix/add to restore it.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 17:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if it appears that the content appears to say that the cuisine doesn't exist at all; just that the weight of the references indicate that the cuisine is not common within the "public square", given the size of the Filipino American population. As indicated within the references, as you have indicated, home cooked Philippine cuisine, is much more common than store cooked/purchased cuisine, and that definitely needs to be added to the United States section.
Given the references that I have found, he weight of those references lead to the way the section was written. I could not write it without taken the weight of those references into account, as that itself would be giving certain views UNDUE WEIGHT. Believe me, I would prefer that Filipino Cuisine was much more prevalent, but that does not hold weight, and thus the article does not state it.
As for globalizing the section, I believe I mentioned in the past (if I didn't I am sorry) that as more references for Philippine cuisine in other nations becomes available that other such sections should be created, as keeping with the style precedents in other cuisine articles. All that being said, I am a Filipino American, and thus have researched my area the best, and thus write about what I have read, and based on my interest (self selection).
Removal of the section completely I think is wrong and I find appalling. Improving what is there, or tagging, I think would have been more appropriate. It's just my opinion that removing the content, referenced to verifiable reliable sources, is not good editing etiquette, especially as the content clearly passed the test of WP:BURDEN. But who am I to say, it's just one editors opinion.
It may appear that I am editing based on a POV, but I try not to, but being human I am fallible. In creating the content I did not think I was editing from a POV, irregardless of whether I am accused to do so or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You are taking this a bit too personally I think (it's not, so chill out a bit :P). Your choice of sources might have been affected by what you were specifically looking for, hence the POV. Take this source for example, it points out that Filipino food is not common in American mainstream but it also balances it out by pointing out chefs which do introduce Filipino food in the US. This and this, also show that it's not quite as absent as indicated. There's also this study on the prevalence of Filipino cuisine among the Filipino immigrant population. This is not my area of expertise or interest, however, so I can't really contribute to content much.
Anyway, I was not the one who removed it, so let's wait for Lambanog's comment or for any other editors who might decide to join the discussion. As for me, I still agree that it was less of a section about cuisine but more of a social commentary. And that would still be of undue weight in an article on cuisine, I would think.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 23:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry RightCowLeftCoast that I am compelled to object to your edit. You worked to add to the article. I understand that; look at the article history. But your addition isn't suitable for an encyclopedic article. Some of it is incidental maybe even irrelevant–Ms. Comerford's relation to Philippine cuisine is a stretch at best. Other bits are based on conjecture and come across as superficial stock answers. Lambanog (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The sources that I found are the ones that came up for "Philippine cuisine" and "United States"; as I said before, the way I wrote the article is due to the weight of the sources that I found.
Regarding the epilipinas article, I was unsure if it would be considered a reliable source therefore I did not use it.
Regarding the balitangamerica article, although there maybe prosperous restaurants, the references that were provided did not say there were none. What they did state was they were not as common given the size of the population of Filipino Americans when viewed against other Asian American populations and the commonality of those cuisines in the overall market. An article, or several, about prosperous Philippine cuisine restaurants, would still need to be balanced against the information taken from the book references that are more an overall view.
Regarding the dallasobserver blog, thank you for finding it, as having spent my High School Years on the San Francisco Peninsula I was trying to find books that show Filipino cuisine in the Bay Area, but as books were not as specific but more of a national view, this would help. That being said, how would the information there be best integrated into a section about Philippine cuisine at the national level?
Regarding the Masters thesis. There was a recent discussion on RSN that questioned the validity of Masters thesis, that are not connected towards work leading to a Doctoral thesis, as RSs. Having to leave for work shortly at the time of this edit, I question the size of the survey group of the study, and its make up. It is exclusively within a small geographical area, given the geographically dispersed population about a section that is suppose to be about the cuisine nationally, and is exclusively given to first-generation FilAms, who statistically make up about 60% of the population.
I am not against changing what I had written, I am for improving the article, after all Wikipedia is about collaborative work towards the best outcome. That being said the criticism of Wikipedia article itself, says that self selection is not always conducive, yet we continue to try.
@Lambanog. How is my work not encyclopedic, as it already passes BURDEN via VER by multiple RS? If the work can be improved, Great! However, I object towards direct, and complete deletion. As I suggested, tagging and discussing improvement, or being bold and adding improvements based on new content supported/verified by a RS or multiple RS would have been much better than what was done.
As for Comerford, being the White House Executive Chef, she is the most notable among FilAm chefs in the United States. Would an article about Philippine cuisine be more or less encyclopedic without noting her presence in the culinary sphere, and whether as a FilAm she brings Philippine cuisine into said sphere?
All this being said, given the differences of opinion how best would other active editors suggest in improving what was there. How about those other editors provide how they would write a section about Philippine cuisine in the United States, and given that there are three active editors, we can take the three versions (original, OS's and L's) and triangulate a mutually agreeable version that can be the outcome of consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The area your additions focus on is narrow and not well-tread. The references you cite are not particularly high quality and rely on supposition and speculation for some of their conclusions. Still my main objection is based on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Your addition seems to be going farther afield and is inconsistent with the rest of the article. For example you wish to mention an American chef—a Filipino-American true but with an emphasis on the American in terms of her professional career—yet the article otherwise doesn't mention Filipino chefs who specialize in Philippine cuisine. It seems forced as does the commentary attempting to determine the why behind the relatively low profile of Philippine cuisine in the U.S. which is full of holes. For starters is the rate of Filipino restaurants in the United States lower than the rate of Filipino businesses in the U.S. in general? Other international sections in other cuisine articles do not dwell on the topics you seem focused on. I object to this article about Philippine cuisine being turned into an article on Filipino-American hangups. Lambanog (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
To answer the question posed. The references provided do not go outside that of the culinary field, therefore, per VER I only added information provided in the RS, that being that other asian cuisines are far greater represented given their populations than Philippine cuisine when the population of Filipino Americans are taken into account.
I will add this "hang up" in the Filipino American article and be done with wanting to not give due weight to the sources provided or want to have this section all together. Attempts to create an improved section appears to face unreasonable objection and as suggested I am walking away. Good day. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Longanisa.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Longanisa.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Tinapa.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tinapa.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lechon, national dish

A recent, referenced change has been reverted due to a difference in interpretation of the referred article. The article in question is as follows:

  • Vicky B. Bartlet (17 December 2011). "Palmonas: Male 'buko' juice as national drink". Business Mirror. Retrieved 26 January 2012. In his House Resolution 1887, Agham (Science) Party-list Rep. Angelo Palmones said the Philippines has already a number of national symbols, such as narra as national tree, sampaguita as national flower, mango as national fruit, milkfish as national fish and lechon (roast pig) as national dish.

Per the quote, there are a number of official symbols.

As for official symbols, let me bring up an instance where the popular perception is different from the actual official item. Here in California, often, when asked what the state song is, many would answer that it is California, Here I Come; in actuality it is I Love You, California. This maybe the case with adobo, which maybe more popular, but not the official national dish.

All this being said, perhaps this is moot. As for my searches, I cannot find a government resolution that states the official national dish, and many references that also claim adobo to be the national dish. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, there is a reference that there is no official national dish:

  • Carlo Osi (26 March 2009). "Filipino cuisine on US television". Inquirer. Retrieved 27 January 2012. We can banner our adobo, sisig, lechon, and lumpia as our prominent dishes. We may not have one national dish that defines us, but that is who we are anyway. We are culturally dynamic and a product of many influences so our food should also be defined that way.

I guess until there is a resolution that can be referenced, then perhaps the consensus is that there is no national dish at all. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no official national dish of the Philippines. I can not stress that enough. If you have added this to other articles please remove them. What Palmones quotes as national symbols (which seems to be from memory) is not factual. The Sampaguita is the national flower, everything else is popular misconception. Like most Filipinos, he's confusing those proclaimed by law with those popularly taught in schools. We're not even sure if that is exactly what he said or just what the author of the article appended.
There are a lot of supposed "national symbols" here, yet very few of them are official. See National symbols of the Philippines. Even the "National Hero" Jose Rizal, has no official status. If you doubt what I'm saying, feel free to ask in Tambayan Philippines.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:ChicharronMixto.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

This photo is terribly inaccurate. I believe the photo shows a plate of fried squid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.31.127 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edit

Hi everyone, after reading all the comments, I've spent some time copy-editing. I've tried to provide a uniform format and an organised style. I also tried to keep all the content and the details of the content as accurate as possible. It's organised to try and help someone (like myself) who is new to the subject rather than an expert. It is so interesting - I really enjoyed working on it! I would be very grateful if, when anyone has a moment, they could take a look and let me know what you think? What is better from the previous version? What can still be improved? Hope you are having a good day. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I actually dislike it immensely. The list format is a cruft-magnet and messy. It also significantly diverges from the manual of style for articles. I know you spent a lot of time on it, but I have to revert it to its original form. We have a separate article for List of Philippine dishes, information lost in this revert may be transferred there instead.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Obsidian Soul. Sorry for not doing a more pleasing job and for causing any inconvenience. I don't mind the reversion - the article is reading very well. Thanks for your continuing work on it. Happy editing, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. :) The article still has a lot of problems, but the paragraph form is always preferred in articles which are not lists. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I will make some minor changes to the article...

  • Torta is not an egg wrap but rather an omelette.
  • Kare-kare is not always ox tail. Sometimes it has beef chunks or "tuwalya"(tripe) in it.
  • Sinigang is not a sour soup but rather a bouillabaisse-like dish.

I suppose you could make sinigang that way but, every Filipino I've known including my own family makes sinigang like a soup. Its also almost always sour and spicy from the tamarind and chillies.

Jos tri (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Longganisa is not "longanisa".
  • The syrup in taho is not particularly molasses, as many misinterpreted, as that syrup is made up of white sugar, brown sugar and water.
  • San Miguel Beer and Ginebra San Miguel are somewhat part of the Filipino cuisine but there are other local brands, and besides, it is somewhat an advertisement. I will just add the cocktails Filipinos made from them.

Thanks! - Obin 3391 11:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of mean to be saying that some of there dishes are Unusual.... It is like if someone called some of our foods unusual... They should rename that section and maybe call it Different foods or Other Foods or something nicer...thanks! Toodles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencils~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that stating that something is unusual when it comes to food is a value judgement and inappropriate. I could be that someone who deprecates their own culture or someone outside it would make such a statement.
Joemaza (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow editors. I have not edited these items, just bringing them to your attention:

The Song dynasty is AD, not BC

There is little confidence in the identity of the traders who brought Chinese trade items to what is now the Philippines prior to the 15th century or so. We are only certain that many of the wares (porcelain, for example) excavated at various archaeological sites around the Philippines are of Chinese origin. Evidence for the identity of the merchants, sailors, and others is fragmentary and mostly anecdotal.

Following on that, while the majority of those Chinese who sojourned and settled in the Philippines (mostly from the 16th century on) were indeed from Fujian ("Hokkien" should be used only to designate the dialect of those from southern Fujian, not the place, although "hok-kian" in fact is "Fujian" in southern Min/Fujian dialect...), we have no idea where those occasional earlier Chinese visitors came from. There is also less confidence, even among culinary historians, about when particular dishes appeared in regional Chinese cooking.

Many Chinese foods that have become part of Filipino cuisine such as pancit, lumpia, bihon, taho, tokwat, tikoy, etc.are shared with other regions where the southern Fujianese emigrated (notably Taiwan, Indonesia, and the Malay Peninsula). It is possible to correlate the flow of those foods out of China with the history of migration from that area, but it is not convincing to suggest that these foods were adopted into Filipino cuisine as soon as a few Chinese appeared on Filipino shores. It is much more likely that the Chinese influence only became apparent when there were sufficient numbers of Hokkien-speaking Chinese in the Philippines, and this was most certainly not in the Song period!

Thank you for reading, and I hope this contributed in some small way to the eventual improvement of this article on this important subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.189.38 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thankyou for your contribution. I'm wondering if you have some handy references? I'm sure we can incorporate the info. Regards, Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Greetings. It's quite evident that trading has happened with the pre colonial Filipinos and the Chinese during the Song period, and with trading also comes ideas, methods and other kinds of information that could of been adopted by the Filipnos whom have traded with the Chinese merchants. Did the Majapahit empire have to have large numbers in order to introduce the method of creating fermented fish paste? Or how about a large Arabic population in Mindinao in order for the Moros to learn and develop Damascus steel? I understand how you came up with your point of view but also consider that there doesn't have to be a large populace of a foreign people(s) in order for ideas and methods to be developed within the indigenous community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaxHendible (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Filipino cuisine. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Query

"In 3200 BCE," - Really?!

Also, it seems unreasonable to use "chopsuey" as an example of Filipino cuisine influenced by Chinese contact ~1000 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition

added to history section and introduction. I did this because the article seemed as if it was lacking a few specific details when it comes to the history and influences of Filipino cuisine. I added a brief section to the beginning of the article in order to provide it with specific statistics about the Filipino food demographic. In the history section, I explained how it may be confusing about what is considered actually Filipino and where the culture truly stands with its influences. When reading the article, when other cultures were concerned, it was very vaguely talked about. Therefore for each influence, I added my own paragraph. My citations were not added though, even if I copy pasted them. MannyT1629 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Move Filipino Cuisine to Philippine Cuisine

Move Filipino Cuisine to Philippine Cuisine. The title should be changed to "Philippine Cuisine" to comply with Wikipedia's Neutrality or NPOV standard.

Reason: 1. Neutrality in Article Titles - (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles)

2. Accepted naming convention, Manual of style - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Philippine-related_articles#Adjective_form_of_the_Philippines

- e.g. "List of Philippine dishes" (Not "List of Filipino Dishes"), First Philippine Republic, Philippine Revolution, Philippine Constitution, Philippine Army, Philippine Air Lines, Philippine Government, Philippine Gazette, to name but a few.

3. Philippine Government usage - the Philippine government uses the word "Philippine" as a prefix for any of their agencies, departments, and reference materials Juanmakabulos (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)juanmakabulos

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MannyT1629.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephen flry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pandaexpresslover1. Peer reviewers: Pandaexpresslover1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


Filipino cuisine → Philippine cuisine – 1. WP:NPOV Neutrality in Article Titles - (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles)

2. Accepted naming convention, Manual of style - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Philippine-related_articles#Adjective_form_of_the_Philippines

- "Philippine is generally used with inanimate nouns. Examples: List of Philippine dishes, the Philippine National Anthem, the Philippine Senate, etc.

- "Filipino may (not common) also be used with inanimate nouns, though it is more commonly applied to people.

3. WP:CONSISTENT: The country alone is called Republic of the Philippines, not Republic of Filipinos

4. WP:COMMONNAME: The article on Philippine dishes:"List of Philippine dishes" (Not "List of Filipino Dishes"), First Philippine Republic, Philippine Revolution, Philippine Constitution, Philippine Army (not Filipino army), Philippine Air Lines, Philippine Government, Philippine Gazette, to name but a few. Juanmakabulos (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filipino_cuisine/Archive_1&oldid=1192827609"