Talk:Moros y Cristianos (dish)

message: I do not believe Cuba has a national dish.  Google lists a blogger saying it is Ajiaco, beans and rice is a good choice for the national dish but the term "Moros y Cristianos" is mostly reserved for restaurant menus. - dmcmanam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcmanam (talk • contribs) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It says it can be Cuba's rice and beans. By whom? Is it actually considered this, or "can" it be considered this? Slipstick86 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility of statement 

message: "The name of the dish is likely a reference by early Cuban settlers to the Islamic Conquest of Spain (early 8th century) and subsequent Reconquista (15th c.) which both had a profound effect on the Spanish culture and language."
The name refers to the colour of the food and not any invasion or specific event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.124.12 (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Really 

message: I am Cuban period.
Moros y cristianos are cooked at almost every home I know, besides some restaurants. It is always rice and black beans. Due the fact that beans take longer to cook than rice, beans are soaked and pre-cooked until tender, but always less time than for bean soup (potaje). Also always uncooked rice is mixed with pre cooked beans. The beans cooking liquid is also used to cook the final mixture.
Congrí or arroz congo as long as I know is a recipe coming from Haiti and it means congo beans (red navy beans) and rice (cong-riz). Cooking process is similar, but tastes quite different.
I do not argue about seasoning as there are as many recipes as cookers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.69.142 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moros y Cristianos versus Congrí 

message: The current picture shows beans and rice cooked separately, which is not this dish. Jmbranum (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a new picture 

message: As worded, this sounds like the Moroccan conquest was legitimate, and the reconquest was somehow illegitimate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupelo the typo fixer (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the paragraph in an attempt to make it more neutral in tone. Please let me know if you think this reads better. Jmbranum (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording sounds biased 

message: I voice confusion at the inclusion of the deadend not to be confused with arroz congri, particularly because both terms refer to the same dish. Black beans and rice cooked in the same pot with the rice taking on the coloration of the beans. Unless there has been gastronomic development on these terms , I believe it should be mentioned “congrí” as a relevant alternate name. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming to the understanding that these two similar recipes are differentiated by the color beans used to prepare the dish and the traditional origin on either side of the island. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is also known as “congrí” 

message: Misleading as to the real dish. Rather dry rice and dry beans ought to describe the etymological origin of the dish. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate photo , depicts different dish “arroz con frijoles”