Talk:Carbonara

message: I agree with Alex, please stop reverting. 83.67.217.254 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that if you look up Carbonara in an English cookbook it does include cream.  It is not our job to correct that, rather to report it, and then explain that the original Roman recipe does not include cream.  The first section of the article is the Introduction, not a history.  In a history section I would agree with you that older version of the recipe should come first.  What it boils down to is that there is Italian Carbonara and English Carbonara.  Neither version is the "correct" recipe.  Since this is the English Wikipedia the article should start with the English Carbonara. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original recipe first

message: Whether or not this is the English language version of Wikipedia seems immaterial to me when describing a traditional Italian recipe. As Alex has properly reported the recipe includes no cream, nor has it ever. There is an English language version now available of 'The Silver Spoon' - the Italian cookery bible - and even though it's written in English the recipe for carbonara is still without cream. Perhaps all that is needed to clarify this issue is a distinction between the traditional recipe and the later (and foreign) evolutions of it.
Paolo Tullio
That's funny, because my Italian girlfriend always cooks carbonara with cream, because "the real recipe say no but I think a little cream is not bad". Ergo; there are people in Italy who use cream in the recipe. What exactly constitutes the "correct" recipe is entirely subjective and as long as there are people using cream in carbonara, it should remain on Wikipedia. 86.161.201.248 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver Spoon 

message: Please let's revert the lead to 11th February 2008. From this edit, things went downhill. No Italian would ever use onion for this recipe, and I strongly doubt even garlic. I liked the earlier lead much better: original recipe first, then all the various bastardisations. 83.67.217.254 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussion about "original", "traditional", etc. and also Wikipedia policy about neutral point of view. You may believe that the "original" version doesn't use garlic, cream, etc., but where's the evidence? Some cookbooks published in Italy by Italians for Italians use them, some don't. I'd be happy to have more evidence about versions at different times and places, but just asserting based on personal experience or preference that one version is "original" doesn't advance our knowledge. --Macrakis (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, an editor had changed garlic to onion before onion was removed by another editor.  One could also argue that not mentioning other ingredients in the opening is taking a POV opinion on the validity of other ingredients. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Onion" non c'entra proprio niente

message: What does this mean? Can we please qualify further or move it away from the opening paragraph, or both? Thanks. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence presented in the article (Ada Boni cookbook), the footnoted source, and the various stories seem to point to the middle of the 20th century, perhaps after WWII. I have made the opening a bit more explicit. --Macrakis (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is a relatively recently invented dish." 

message: User:Buspar has re-added a "related articles" section (normally called "see also") which lists Bolognese sauce; he justifies this re-addition with the comment "Bolognese is the other major type of spaghetti sauce, as mentioned in the spaghetti article, so it's relevant".  Similarly, he has added Carbonara to the Bolognese article. There are innumerable recipes involving spaghetti, and linking from each of them to all the others isn't helpful. --Macrakis (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree that the link should be in the See also section, along with a link to alfredo etc.  If the number of such links gets large enough than maybe a small "Pasta sauce" template should be created that could be added to the end of each such article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a template would quickly become unwieldy, as there are far too many pasta dishes -- even too many Italian pasta dishes.  But how about a category, :Category:Pasta dishes? Currently, some pasta dishes are mixed into the :Category:Pasta category, but I think it would make more sense to have this as a separate category.  Also, I'd much prefer "pasta dishes" to "pasta sauces", because "pasta sauce" excludes things like pasta e fagioli, oven-baked lasagna, etc.  Besides, in Italy, one generally talks of the dish as a whole, not the sauce and dish separately. --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggested alfredo, not because of its history, but because there are people who think that carbonara is just alfredo with bacon bits added.  So whether it is justified or not culinarally speaking there is a connection. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The spaghetti article is wrong.  There are many pasta dishes based on spaghetti, and I see no reason to consider bolognese and carbonara as the "two major types of sauce". --Macrakis (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, ragù isn't typically enjoyed with spaghetti but rather with tagliatelle or short pastas. The whole ragù-spaghetti notion should be deleted. -jun.27.08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.150.152 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't speak to spaghetti & ragù's prevalence in Italy, but "spaghetti & meat sauce" is the very common in the United States. —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-reference to bolognese

message: this dish was mentioned by the star gate in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.58.200 (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference 

message: I have reverted an anon's edit, which I don't understand - there seemed to be nothing broken about the link referred to.  seglea (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Accademia recipe

message: To user:MJBurrage:
This recipe is known throughout Italy as spaghetti alla carbonara, not carbonara. Also, Italians don't use this sauce for other recipes. I verified this by looking at the website for La Accademia della Cucina Italiana listed in citations for this article. The fact that some people substitute other types of pasta doesn't change this fact. That would be the same as insisting that there shouldn't be a separate Wikipedia article for Hamburger simply because there are now cheeseburgers, chicken burgers and turkey burgers. Also, the Italian word carbonara alone means either "female charcoal maker" or "charcoal maker's wife" depending on the context of the sentence. This is an obviously nonsensical name for a recipe.
I tried to rename the article by moving it to Spaghetti alla Carbonara but you moved it back. This now makes it impossible to move the article back to that name because a reference for it already exists. I must now ask an administrator to delete the reference.
Why was it so important for you to keep the article named Carbonara? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about just any one version of the recipe.  It is about the sauce.  While adding the sauce to hot pasta at the end is an important part of the preparation, the type of pasta is not important. Good sources—including the widely cited Food Lover's Companion list it under carbonara.  Listing the article under Spaghetti..., is editorializing one version as correct over others, in the same way as the past arguments over cream.  Our job is simply to describe what carbonara is, not advocate for one version as more correct than the others. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is written on the top of this section is absolutely funny. Carbonara is a sauce, and in Rome we prepare it not only with spaghetti, but also with other types of pasta (specially pasta corta, as rigatoni). Besides, when in Rome people says "Facciamoci una carbonara"  they don't mean certainly that they want to have a sexual intercourse with a female charcoal maker. :-) Therefore I think that the article should stay under the name "Carbonara", and the same is valid for the othersughi (Matriciana, etc.). Regards, Alex2006 (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Carbonara to Spaghetti alla Carbonara

message: Hi all,
as I wrote in the Italian talk, the Carbonara is simple another name for the receipt "Cacio (or cas) e ova", tipical for Rome, the southern Lazio and the northern Campania. Cacio e ova means cheese (pecorino), eggs, guanciale/pancetta/lardo/pieces of sausages. In other words: carbonara.
Instead of speaking about Carbonari, soldiers, aliens, reptilians etc. why just not say that:
"The Carbonara, also known as Cacio/cas e ova, it is a traditional receipt of Rome, southern Lazio and northern Campania". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.212.86 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cacio e ova 

message: Why is there a citation needed? I just at this tonight here in St Petersburg and I'm sick as a dog, but there was cream. 81.222.254.114 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cream in Russia 

message: Hallo,
the name of the restaurant "La Carbonara" in Campo dei Fiori originates from the nickname of the first (female) owner, whose father was a charcoal worker. Please see "La cucina romana e del Lazio" by Livio Jannattoni, sub voce, as reference. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but why is that inconsistent with the dish having been named for the La Carbonara restaurant?  Is there a chronology problem (e.g. the restaurant opened after the dish is first attested)? --Macrakis (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The original name of the restaurant was al carbonaro, but it was changed to the female version later, when the dish was already born. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbonara does not come from "la Carbonara" 

message: Hallo Enok,
I reverted again your edit about Carbonara. As I wrote in my previous revert, there is no original recept by Carbonara (as by 99% of all the other dishes), since this is not a recipe invented by some chef, where we can trace it back to the origin. We can register only different recipes cited by different sources. I am Roman, and would personally NEVER use cream in Carbonara, but among my sources, Luigi Carnacina, who was one of the most famous Roman chefs of the 20th century, uses it. Generally speaking, this means using WP:V and WP:RS, which are two pillars of Wikipedia. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Add your source in the article. --Enok (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is already there :-) Carnacina, Buonassisi, Roma in Cucina. Don't ask me why Carnacina used Cream, I think that this was an illness of the fifties-sixties (the mythical years of the "pennette alla wodka"... :-) . Anyway, I hope that now it is clear how  an article about a dish should be created and maintained. Alex2006 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Recipe 

message: It is written erroniously in this article that spaghetti alla carbonara was created in mid-20th century, but it's wrong. The tradition to cook "guanciale" (roman bacon) is very old in Rome and uniting it with eggs, which were very used by the very flourishing jewish community in that city, was kind of natural choice since eggs and bacon were largely available throughout the middle-ages in Rome with shepherds often coming down in winter from Sabina, considering that Rome has direct contact with shepherd tradition rather than with seaborn product, it was not uncommon to see sheeps grazing in the very centre of Rome till 19th century( you won't find ONE traditional roman dish made with seafood)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.96.195 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Pasta e broccoli con brodo d'Arzilla is a roman dish with fish. Alex2006 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the dish

message: . Frankly i do not think that this image should be included as it simply does not show the original ingredients. It is not bacon cubes from the supermarket put in the sauce and also not Parmesan cheese (usually-rarely it can). The native Roman Italians (by whom this dish originates from) would claim it is basically only Guanciale and Pecorino Romano. So either one makes an image with these ingredients or nothing. Also Black pepper as here  is a main ingredient. Unless the original ingredients are not taken, and also portrayed in a somewhat nicely arranged manner in the photo (as here ) I would take this image which is in this article right now out. It is no gain but makes this article less good.--Joobo (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is wrong and the ingredients are not the right ones. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)12:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, points taken, but... Artistic merit is a secondary concern to encyclopedic value so let's stick to that. As for whether these care the 'right' ingredients, that depends on your view of 'right'. Are they the ones that a high end Roman restaurant might use? Probably not. Are they the ones that an average person might use to create a weekday supper? Certainly. That they aren't a purist's choice is noted in the caption. The pasta and pepper are not shown, true, but does that detract much from the information communicated by the image that, in essence, carbonara is a cheese and bacon flavoured dish? For now, this image does that. If you think a better image can be created then do what Amin did: next time you make carbonara take five minutes before you start and produce a few images.  Thus does Wikipedia grow. Pyrope 13:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. No image in this case is better than a wrong image. Yes it does not look good, but as you say it is only secondary. And now to the main point. This is an encyclopedia, so either one uses an image with the correct ingredients or not. Simple as that. I do not know if User:LuigiPortaro29 wants to keep this image in, i for sure not only think it looks pretty bad style and arrangement, but is simply false by its ingredients. Is Wiki a cookbook? No, so no need to include an image of flawed ingredients only to give an example for the average Joe in a "easy cooking -15minutes" book style in the english speaking world for people who can more easily get acces to some bacon cubes as some slices of Guanicale(or Pancetta). This is not an encyclopedic approach.--Joobo (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedic approach is to describe a subject in all its forms, not just some idealized, fundamentalist "correct" version. Is carbonara always made with guanicale? Absolutely not. Even in Italy, as this article describes, pancetta or bacon are sometimes used, and outside of Italy bacon is common. The image caption identifies this. Showing a picture of ingredients does not make this a cookbook. I have already pointed this out to you elsewhere. Pyrope 17:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text:  It makes the article worse. Simple as that. The image itself looked aweful, and the original ingredients were not into it.  If one would include images like that in all Wikipedia food and dishes articles or generally in all sorts of Wikipedia articles the quality would vanish. --Joobo (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It it certainly not a featured picture- but it is of similar quality and kind to many of the pictures on WP. It is an encyclopedia after all, not an art gallery- if a picture adds to the understanding of the subject and is not exceptionally poor quality, it should be included. The only issue here, in my opinion, is the accuracy. There is nothing otherwise wrong with the picture. But this is all I will say- because I don't want to get involved, just state my neutral view on quality. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as authenticity, and hence accuracy, is concerned, please see comments above in earlier discussions. In short, no such thing for this dish. Pyrope 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the Products not of a good quality, that is all.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of ingredients 

message: This article makes me cringe – as do the discussions here. There is one recipe for carbonara: Guanciale (no pancetta, no bacon, no ham), egg yolk (no whole eggs ever), Pecorino Romano (no parmesan or any other cheese), black pepper and pasta (preferably Spaghetti or big tubes like rigatoni). Anything else is not carbonara. So: no cream, no garlic, nothing else.
Since this is the English Wikipedia, it should not reference to what some people in the US believe a carbonara is. The English Wikipedia is the only true international version of Wikipedia and thus should be free from national bias, culture or opinion.
So for the sake of truth and respect, start with the original recipe and then add a section with international interpretations of the dish. Zitaneco (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool story. You'd have seen that there IS a "Variations" section that talks about those very things. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Seeing as the 'original' recipe was made using American GI ration bacon, I have to say that I find the frothy-mouthed Italian food nationalists that come here and demand we only refer to one, single, original recipe hilarious. A triumph of ignorance. They can go and make the Italian Wikipedia as biased and untruthful as they like, but yes, the rest of us will try to keep the English Wikipedia neutral and not bound by bigots. Pyrope 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a fine example why Wikipedia shouldn’t beludest as a reference 

message: how do u say it 174.88.15.129 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  carbanaes 

message: There is a description in the article which in effect says "Simple, just use some other meat instead of pork".
But cheese is one of the essential ingredients in carbonara. Isn't meat (any kind) a problem when there is cheese? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus one of the citations is just a recipe for mushroom carbonara which a) does not mention its kosher or halal status and b) isn't carbonara to begin with. 2001:4C4E:205C:7000:C56F:7680:7FF7:F5CB (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosher and halal