Talk:Mexican cuisine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Divide into regions
Should not this article be divided into the diffrent regional cusines such as Oaxacan, etc... A lot of people seem to assume that Mexican is this monolithic cusine, when its more like Chinese or Italian, very much regional based. I think we need to disabuse people of that idea. --Weyoun6 07:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Paragraph 4 makes a mention of that, but it's obviously far too embryonic. A useful first step would be to indicate items strongly associated wth a particular region in the list at the bottom of the page: Cochinita pibil (Yucatán), for instance. –Hajor 12:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm also against splitting the article more simply because there's very little data available about specific dishes as it is. Also, "Cecina" is Spanish for beef jerky. --Lyojah 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dahlia
I am looking for traditional preparations of Dahlia. Is there already one written ? Like this it is hard to find, though i even found the refried beans. thank you. --217.184.138.154 15:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Further Classification
I think the list of foods should be divided into things like appetizers, main courses, desserts, etc. to make it more manageable for readers. Sykil 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Redirection of term "Mercado"
This word of course is Spanish for "market", but it does not occur in this article, neither as a description of a recipe nor of an ingredient. Wherefore art thou re-directing it unto this page? --69.16.84.5 23:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like it has been redirected for two years. The original Mercado article makes it pretty clear why it was redirected here. Do you think maybe marketplace would be a better, more literal redirect? Kuru talk 23:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done.--Rockero 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Very basic treatment
I was a bit disappointed at your treatment of Mexican cuisine which you recognize as one of the most varied in the world. I just read the article on Argenitean cuisine and it is much more elaborate and deep and Argentinean cuisine is nowhere, nowhere! near as rich, varied and complex as Mexican Cuisine. Maybe based on the Argentinean cuisine article something similar could be done for Mexican food with much more detail, historical placement, ingredients, traditions, innovations, regional differences, etc. Also, the comment at the beginning about some people considering it greasy and spicy I find unecessary because it is somewhat editorial a little of a negative image. Nothing like that is mentioned on the articles on Argentina or the US, for example.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.220.48.111 (talk • contribs).
In fact the article is mostly weak, getting weaker towards the end. What strikes me about that list of dishes is that several would appear to be slight Mexican variations or mere spanish translations of dishes which are common to many cuisines and cultures. The problem here is not that these dishes are innacurately claimed as Mexican, but that it is almost impossible from this list alone for the reader who is not already aquainted with Mexican cuisine to find which dishes are the ones which truly exemplify Mexican cuisine. --JamesTheNumberless 10:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding American Cuisines
At the risk of insulting somebody (which is not my intention) ...
The article briefly mentions American cuisines that are mistaken for Mexican cuisine. In particular it prominently mentions "Cal-Mex" cuisine. I have personally never heard the term. I used to live in California and what I found at virtually all of the "Mexican restaurants" was Tex-Mex. Searching around the web I see a few specific restaurants and chefs that serve foods that they refer to as "Cal-Mex" but these appear to be cases of chefs locally inventing new dishes, not a case of an established cuisine. As such using this term here seems inappropriate (i.e. misleading). "Tex-Mex," by contrast, is a cuisine that goes back to the 19th century and has become well established in American culture (even if the average American probably does not even recognize the term). Some may debate how "great" this cuisine is (compared to, say, Cajun cuisine) but it is, nevertheless, an established cuisine.
I realize this is not the main point of the article but it still seems worth correcting. Can anybody clarify if there is some point that I am missing? --Mcorazao 01:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
