Talk:Tiramisu

message: Why should there be any mention of of its status as a food fad in austrailia? Two16
:You must be new around here.  This is Wikipedia, where everything is encyclopedic; rumors, fads, lame interpretations, anything goes.
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. " 
The result of the debate was don't move, sadly enough. —Nightstallion (?) 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: If the decision was made to leave the page title as "tiramisu", a decision I agree with, by the way, why is "tiramisù" being used throughout the article?
Incidentally, to counter the arguments put by the people supporting leaving the accent on the English word, yes, the stress is certainly on the last syllable, and that means that an accent is necessary in Italian (otherwise the stress would be on the penultimate syllable), but English does not use accents to mark stressed syllables.
Furthermore, whereas tiramisù is the correct Italian name, English tends to drop accents when adopting and naturalising foreign words when they are not necessary to understanding. "Cafe" is widely seen instead of "café"; the diaereses formerly seen in "zoölogy" and "coördinate" have long since gone. It is helpful to write "résumé", however, to avoid confusion with the verb "resume". — Paul G 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All accents now removed, except in the Italian usage of the word. — Paul G 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That accent 

message: Quick question: does tiramisu really metaphorically mean "make me happy"? Or is the word you're looking for literally? Artiste-extraordinaire 05:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it literally means "pull me up". ("Pick-me-up", as in the article, is close to literal, though not quite, but it has the advantage of conveying the idea better as an English idiom.) --Trovatore 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro

message: Does the recipe call for spiced or unspiced rum? 24.131.138.87 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type(s) of rum? 

message: I know it's very uncyclopedic, but I can assure you by personal experience that my mom made tiramisu at least since I can remember, that is the end of the Seventies... And since she's not a great inventor, I bet this wonderful masterpiec of our cuisine had at least some decades of history back then.
Basil II 01:09, 2 November 2007 (CEST)
: More authoritativly, Rick Stein says it originated in Italy in 1966 (in Venice, I think) Rick Stein: From Venice to Istanbul (BBC). Onanoff (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Dish history

message: Can we please move this article to the proper Italian spelling, since that's what we use in the lead? Alternatively we should use English spelling throughout. Thanks 83.67.217.254 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed above, and there is consensus not to use the accented spelling. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Tiramisù? 

message: Tiramisu has nothing to do with zabaglione. Time to get our references right please. 83.67.217.254 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, I'm Italian and there isn't any "zabaglione" in the Tiramisù -- Manuel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.40.36 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is most definitely zabaglione in tiramisu. For one source, see Rose's Heavenly Cakes by Rose Levy Beranbaum. Or The Best International Recipe from America's Test Kitchen. There are certainly some simplified recipes out there, and many people substitute dark rum for marsala, but the original definitely was made with zabaglione.Patrick Colvin (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but Carlo Campeol is more reliable than Rose Levy Beranbaum and there's no zabajone in the original recipe. ekerazha (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the correct, authentic, traditional ingredients, you need to go back in time to get closer to the original.  Rose may be a goddess, but she often puts her own spin on things, as do most chefs.  Citing her as an expert on an Italian recipe is just plain silly.  That said, she could be on the right track.  The recipe, whichever origin you prefer, was developed in an upscale Italian restaurant which probably would have used zabaglione as the "custard" portion.  But don't cite a contemporary recipe as automatically correct because the cook is famous.  And the less said about America's Test Kitchen, the better.  Zlama (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text:  That is the same as saying it's normal to put pineapple on pizza just because americans invented the (quite disgusting and offensive) "hawaii pizza". TheLazza (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marsala does not belong 

message: I'm fed up with wikipedia for the evening, I am unable to add my cite properly for the ingredients. 
There seems to be some confusion  in thsi article's recipe.  It looks like two different recipes mixed together.  Notice, for instance, how the liquor is added twice and the lady fingers are assembled twice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.160.208 (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I can't do a citation

message: The section "Origin" should be merged into "History", avoiding duplication and preferably without unsourceable statements. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and History 

message: "The original recipe called for the following ingredients: Savoiardi biscuits, eggs, sugar, rum and cocoa. In the original recipe, there was no liquor [...]"
So did it include rum or not? 84.246.155.101 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'original recipe' 

message: This whole article is very uncyclopedic, and should be removed.  you cannot say you have no idea the origin of the dish, and then come back around and say the original ingredients dont have any liquor!!!!!  what Italian older than 30 doesnt remember Tiramisu?!?  Ridiculous.  First of all, it wasnt a dish aimed at children, it was an erotic dish...  'pick me up', meaning I need some help for round two in the bed.  What child do you want running around on a sugar and caffeine rush?  What child is spoiled enough to have such a special desert created for them? rice pudding and shut your mouth.  So that analysis on why their was no liquor is just ignorant. Its cognac people...  the liquor is cognac.  Nobody uses it because most restaurants are too cheap and cognac is expensive.  Brandy is your unsavory alternative...  wine?  yuk!  next, its mascropone cheese.  just taste the difference in the dishes, and that should be obvious.  besides, any old italian chef will tell you...  
71.195.233.157 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this being Wikipedia, if you don't like it, fix it. I don't mean that flippantly. I agree that this article could do with a bit of love and research. I was amazed to find that Tiramisu is such a recent invention, but it does seem to be so. It's a curious story that deserves a good write up. If you have the time and inspiration to do that, that'd be great. If you make a start, I'm sure some of us will try and help. But please, try to make the piece encyclopaedic - for some reason this page attracts lots of people who think they know the only Tiramisu recipe and everybody else is wrong - reliable references are a good thing ;-) And for the record, I prefer cognac. I didn't realise there was any question about mascarpone? GyroMagician (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between being uncyclopedic and being unencyclopedic. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're here to help improve the article? GyroMagician (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

text: All of the "brothel" story is complete fantasy, without any reliable source. Moreover, all of the "original" recipes (which tend to be the older ones, of course) do not mention alcohol. TheLazza (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedic 

message: Amongst a set of excellent edits, Patrick Colvin removed the reference to alcohol in the opening section. I put it back, because I always expect alcohol in Tiramisu, but I realise that I'm not even nearly a valid source ;-) So, we have two questions:
:# Should Tiramisu contain alcohol?
:# If it should, which one(s)?
I'm not asking for your personal opinion, even if your Italian great-great-great-great grandmother always made it that way - we need something approaching a reliable source. Yes, it is valid to say 'sometimes' or 'often', but we don't want to end up with a list of every type of booze that's ever entered a Tiramisu. 
And BTW Patrick, thanks, the page is looking much better! GyroMagician (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My copy of Larousse Gastronomique defines it including "spirits or liqueur". Where in the article ought this go? And not as much RS, but my Martha Stewart cookbook says liquor is optional; and my four recipes in Google Docs all view the liquor as mandatory. I have always perceived liquor as a defining component of the dish. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: That's very interesting. I've never heard of a tiramisu (or anything resembling one) containing a yeasted bread. I would think it would be very tough and unpleasant. I wonder where larousse was getting their info? Patrick Colvin (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay. I've found some online sources saying some people make tiramisu with leftover panettone. Which is technically a bread. I'm not sure if this variation belongs in the intro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickcolvin (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I have boldly decided that your reference to bread is very interesting but as it is an uncommon variation, it does not belong in the introduction. I've moved it, along with the citation, to the preparation section. What do you think?Patrick Colvin (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, Patrick. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 13:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. The whole article is looking good - well done. GyroMagician (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: In the original recipe there's not alcohol. The Italian article says that there's no alcohol in the original recipe . Here  you can find a video (in Italian language) where the son of the woman who owned the restaurant where the Tiramisu was born describes the recipe... and there's no alcohol. Of course, you can add some Marsala, but there's no Marsala in the original recipe. ekerazha (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol 

message: About the article on the new Yorker, if you see with attention the image of the page
http://books.google.it/books?id=uConAQAAIAAJ&q=tiramisu&dq=tiramisu&hl=it&ei=M2d7Ts2fHNKM4gTt9MSrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA
you can see it’s a review of an Italian restaurant in Brooklyn the Noodle Pudding.
Is an actual restaurant and in the article there is the telephone number (718-623-3737) this is the actual number not the number in the 1936.
More:  result the restaurant is opened in 1994 or 1995.
Could someone of New York confirm that? 
This question was object of an heavy discussion in the italian wikipedia too 
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Tiramisù
Post scriptum: sorry for my English  --217.203.171.136 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker 1936 

message: Another shite article in this so-called encyclopedia. Incomplete sentences, poor research and organization, etc, etc, etc. Every article should be required to pass a basic editorial process before being published. Every proposed edit should be required to be approved by an editor. This experiment is a massive failure. ~ 72.16.18.113 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, as the Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, you could fix problems you find (see the edit button at the top right of the page), rather than complaining about them. But maybe you prefer to complain? GyroMagician (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother polishing this turd? 

message: Does there need to be actual instructions for how to prepare this dish included in this entry? It's a level of detail that is unusual for food entries and seems like asking for trouble to me. Similar point re claims as to what the "original recipe" contained or did not contain. Most dishes, however famous, have variations, and the account of the origin of the dish doesn't seem to allow for claims to what the definitive version is. There are plenty of other problems (grammatical etc) with this entry, as others have commented. I would be happy to straighten some of them out, but something like removing or "vaguing" the preparation section is a big call - what do others think? Faff296 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so specific? 

message: Luca.zentilin (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you may want to take a look at this given your involvement in food origins. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. I don't think there's any way to determine whether "most accounts" give a certain story. Moreover, many of the given sources are not neutral, third-party sources. A restaurant claims to have invented it -- clearly not third-party or neutral. A regional newspaper claims it for its own region -- not neutral. Unless we can find better sources, the History section needs to remain skeptical about all claims. As for the "acknowledgment from the Italian ministry", that sort of promotion of supposedly regional specialties isn't terribly meaningful either. The history section could be rewritten to be more skeptical of its sources and more neutral in evaluating them, but for now, I've just change the first few words. --Macrakis (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

text: PS I find it ridiculous that a recipe which is only documented back to the 1970s, and which appears to be a restaurant invention, and not coming from local tradition, is being called "traditional", which completely devalues that concept. That said, I see a lot of articles on Wikipedia calling dishes traditional without any evidence that they emerged from some tradition.... --Macrakis (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020 

message: Aldo Campeol .. not Ado Campeol 2A01:CB1D:6DD:4300:984C:4CD8:E08C:FEB4 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - FlightTime (open channel) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

text: and....   .  The restaurant's official Facebook account  here uses "Ado".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021 

message: Can anyone find the phrase "father of tiramisu" used to describe Campeol from before his death?
The phrase "father of tiramisu" or "papà del tiramisu" has been repeated in the recent obituaries of Ado Campeol. As I mentioned above, all these obituaries sound like they originally come from the same source. In any case, I haven't been able to find instances of the phrase in English or in Italian referring to Campeol earlier than the obituaries. I did find a recipe published in 2013 which calls Roberto Linguanotto (not Ado Campeol) the "father of tiramisu" and refers to Linguanotto's web site, tiramesu.it (the dessert was originally called Tiramesù). Linguanotto's site is no longer live, but the archived copy does not call him the father of tiramisu.
Is this "father of tiramisu" pure invention by some newspaper writer in Treviso (or the restaurant's publicist)? --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Father of Tiramisu"

message: Can someone add a link on "coffee" in the infobox? The page is semi-protected so I can't add it. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing link on coffee 

message: There are three words "Tara" "Me" "Sue". 24.148.76.83 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Google translate lists the Italian for "pick me up" as "tirami su".--Srleffler (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three words: "Tara" "Me" "Sue" 

message: the whole statement about "these are not considered true Tiramisu" is unsourced and silly, especially when it then says these desserts more closely resemble trifle.
Unless we have some authority that can be cited then the statement should be removed, as they no more resemble a trifle than a tiramisu (in being a layered dessert), as applying the same sort of strict definitions on trifles leads to them requiring ladyfingers (soaked in sherry), fruit (fresh or in jelly), custard, then cream, in that order and any dessert not fitting that should surely just be "another layered dessert". 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:39E0:6A95:A253:18CE (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed: "These, however, are not considered true Tiramisu as these variations only share the layered characteristic of Tiramisu; these examples more closely resemble variations of trifle." Expressions of opinion always require a source; Wikipedia does not express opinion in its own voice.--Srleffler (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I note, though, that the article mentions an application for European Union Protected Status, which if granted would create an official definition for what could be called tiramisu, at least in Europe. The article does not say whether that status was granted.--Srleffler (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "True Tiramisu" 

message: I propose the removal of the "Expand Italian" template and the addition of the "Refimprove" template; number of bytes of the Italian language Wikipedia page: 25,386 (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiramis%C3%B9), only 5,000 more (en.wiki: 20,209; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiramisu). As for references, it.wiki: 52 (while en.wiki: 37). JacktheBrown (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the expand Italian template. I do not think refimprove is appropriate here. At a quick glance, the article appears to have a satisfactory number of references for the amount of text. More is always better, of course, but the refimprove tag should be reserved for articles that are significantly deficient in references.--Srleffler (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Expand Italian" and "Refimprove" templates