This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Catalan-speaking countries Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spain Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

All of the previous content for this discussion page is in the archive. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that wasn't actually true until I made it so. Graham87 11:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these "international versions" really "well known" variants or just marketing gimmicks? Judging by the links provided, it looks like the latter in most cases: various national tourism marketing bodies coming up with versions as nothing more than gimmicks. Suggest this section be removed / reworded. Chris Martin (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. Trying rewording first. If you have a tough time with it then remove. I simply don't have the time. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. Chrisjwmartin is absolutely right, no need to rewrite anything (also: nobody objected to his proposal since April). --Trifi (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the dish comes from the name of pan in wich it is cooked, the correct name of the pan is PAELLA & not paellera; I know the last is more common, but Real Academia de la lengua dictionary has only in its latest versions both forms accepted, the original and traditional is Paella... --Elloza (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument that only Catalan speakers care about. Citations show that, in Spain, both words are correct when referring to the pan in Spanish. Throughout Latin America, however, paellera is the ONLY word used for the pan and there are many more Spanish speakers in Latin America than in Spain. This means that what's correct in this situation is a matter of perspective. Lechonero (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed several external links to recipes. I don't see any way they satisfy WP:EL (no evidence any one of them is the key example of authentic, notable, or historically original one. WP is not just a pile of external links. I have no objection to a good example recipe, especially one from a chef with a reputation in the genre or some other source beyond "here's yet another cook's recipe". In the article itself, I do see several good examples of recipe usage: consensus of good sources, well-known chef, etc. Since there are recipes with good sources, I don't see need to include additional recipes that don't have comparable sources. If there are variations that are notable (especially highlighted in reviews or by noted chefs, not just published in yet another cookbook--again WP:RS), definitely worth mentioning those variations with cites in the article. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, even despite outside Spain people adds very weird things into the Paella, not onion (and even less chorizo or sausages) are put in the recipe. It sounds surreal for any valencian to listed that such ingredients can be put into a paella. But if We want to have an encyclopedic article, We should go to the original recipe, and not to the international weird versions. --Coentor (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article thoroughly you'll notice it raises the very issue you've mentioned above. Also, it provides the original Valencian ingredient list from the mid-19th century. However, you must remember this article is as much about the evolution of paella as it as about its origins. Paella's popularity has spread far beyond Valencia and it has changed as a result. Ignoring that would make for an incomplete article. Lechonero (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the paella has spread beyond Valencia, but I believe it's a mistake to put the "international" versions at the same level at the "original recipe". As I understand it, its iternationalisation has not changed the result of the paella: has made new recipes with that name. Under the name paella We can find without exageration, more than 100 recipes. But in a enciclopedia We should have only the "canonical" ones. Even still, probably the mixed paella (which is, for sure the most famous between the "non canonical") should have it's recipe here. With time I'll take a look to see how a wide but with fidelity to the origins vision of the paella can be merged in the article. --Coentor (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You apparenlty haven't read through the entire article in some time. There are no international versions of paella mentioned. An editor deleted that information quite some time ago. Also, when it existed, there was no ranking system that placed those versions "on the same level" as the Valencian ones. That section simply stated their exsistence. Also, I don't understand your comment regarding canonical paella recipes. I'm not quite sure there's such a thing. I'm not aware of any Valencian organization that's registered an official paella recipe anywhere. I've noticed that even among prominent Valencian chefs the ingredient list for paella varies somewhat. Some include garlic and green peppers while others don't. Some use food coloring, while others avoid it. However the subsection entitled Valencian paella lists the ingredients used in the mid-19th century when historians agree the modern version of paella first emerged.

The most widely used complete ingredient list of this era was as follows: short-grain white rice, chicken, rabbit, snails (optional), duck (optional), butter beans, great northern beans, runner beans, artichoke (a substitute for runner beans in the winter), tomatoes, fresh rosemary, sweet paprika, saffron, garlic (optional), salt, olive oil and water.[18] (Poorer Valencians, however, sometimes used nothing more than snails for meat.) Valencians insist that only these ingredients go into making modern Valencian paella.

Finally, you insist that mixed paella should have its own section. The article already has a subsection by precisely this name under the section Basic cooking methods. Information on mixed paella is also covered in the subsection entitled Seafood and mixed paella.

Please read the article again. You seem to be confused about what's in it. Lechonero (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not confused, I had read the article when I wrote that: If I said that " mixed paella should have its own section" I was only saying that I don't want to have the existent version deleted, as could have been understood in my text. There is not a canon version of Paella, but even the Valencian Government has pubished a version of the "Valencian one", but We were talking about the mixed. I'm not saying that is bad to put the recipe of the mixed paella in the article, I insist, but I believe that the mixed one should have a "warning" or something, should not be listed at the same level than the normal valencian/only meat or seafood paella. as one of the biggest rice producers in Spain says in its "History of the Paella "And nothing of mixed paella. The mixed paella is a later invention, one of those grotesque variations mentioned. Still, it has been imposed on almost every table, making the horrors of all Valencians." --Coentor (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I don't fully understand your post. Presuming that one paella recipe is better than another in a Wikipedia article constitutes taking a point of view. That's contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:NPOV. However, what you may say in an article is that VALENCIANS favor one recipe over another. But, the article already points this out. Regard the following quote:

Valencians insist that only these ingredients go into making modern Valencian paella.

Also, keep in mind you don't need my permission to change this article but then again I don't need yours to change it back, so it looks like we're going to have to reach a compromise. By the way, remember to indent each of your comments by using colons. Lechonero (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that now We have a good version. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Coentor (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was no problem at all. Lechonero (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like the "water rat" referred to in the Valencian Paella subsection is actually a nutria/coypu. I know that people in Louisiana eat these. Does anybody have a link confirming this? Let me know on my talk page. Lechonero (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that its name is Arvicola sapidus. Jotamar (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jotamar:

Your most recent changes to this article make no sense to me. Many modern mixed paella recipes call for chorizo even though this isn't a popular ingredient in Spain. This is well cited in the article:

[1] [2] [3]

Also, the "Valencian paella" section lists what ingredients Valencians consider authentic. Chorizo is conspicuously absent from this list.

Regarding marsh rats; it was you who suggested that the marsh rats referred to in the article were in fact water voles. I included a link to the article on water voles becauese of your comments above but then you changed it back.

I have replaced the references to chorizo given that it's well cited in the article. In the spirit of compromise, however, I left out the link to the water vole page. Lechonero (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume you are a bit stressed these days, because nothing of what you say makes much sense to me:

1. I reverted edits by user:Dug3241 which had all the typical style of a vandalization. You unreverted that, why?
2. The links you provide are not really serious. The fact that they include chorizo for paella proves the point.
3. Furthermore, most probably all those mentions of chorizo in recipes are mixing up Latinamerican and Spanish chorizo. In Latinamerica, chorizo can refer to any pork sausage, but not in Spain. I've seen salchicha in a paella, but never ever chorizo.
4. I linked the march rat to the page of the exact animal, Arvicola sapidus, and you deleted it. The water vole that you speak about is an American species, it does not even exist in Europe.

I'm waiting for an answer. Jotamar (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the edits and you'll see that it was user:96.237.195.51 that vandalized the page not user:Dug3421. I never replaced that vandalism. Also, Arvicola sapidus redirects to the Southwestern Water Vole page, the common name in English for this animal. I first asked on this talk page if the nutria (also known as the coypu) was the marsh rat, not the water vole.

Regarding chorizo: I fully understand the difference between salchicha and chorizo. I've eaten both many times. Also, I've seen and eaten many mixed paellas, some with chorizo and some with salchicha. However, regardless of what you and I have eaten, we can't use that as the basis for this article because Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Also, I don't know what you mean by a "serious" website on paellas. The Food Channel certainly seems serious enough to me. The fact that a website has a paella recipe that includes chorizo can't possibly invalidate it as a source. This strikes me as very biased, a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This article already thoroughly explains the difference between the two Valencian paellas and mixed paella. Editing it further so that it's more agreeable to Valencians would only create bias. Lechonero (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to link the page again to the Arvicola sapidus/water vole article, given that we seem to be on agreement on this issue. Lechonero (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Jotamar: I saw your edit regarding chorizo. Your wording strikes me as a little POV but I'm not going to change it. Keep in mind, many people througout the world add chorizo to their paellas. The fact that Spaniards find this practice disgusting is a cultural opinion and nothing more. Many Americans find the Dutch habit of dipping french fries into mayonaisse as disgusting but I would never criticize the Dutch for doing that (nor would I remove that from a Wikipedia article). Sun Adder (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are exactly those people who add chorizo to their paellas? Jotamar (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics throughout Latin America. Sun Adder (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that proves my point, because as I said in many Latin American countries chorizo is a generic name for any pork sausage. Jotamar (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chorizo and sausage always come in clearly labeled packages, making it very easy to distinguish the two. Also, Spanish chorizo has a distinct flavor. So the only point you seem to be making is that Latin Americans are incapable of reading and tasting. Sun Adder (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chorizo and sausage always come in clearly labeled packages ... where? And what meaning of chorizo do they refer to? Sorry, I can't follow your reasoning. Jotamar (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm through discussing this issue with you. I can't make heads or tails of your arguments. I won't be responding to any more of your comments. Sun Adder (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has deleted part of the Etymology section. Even though the section can seem at first a little too large, the deleted part is correct and sourced, and was included in the first place because of the particular history of the making of the article. Therefore, a deletion of that part needs at least some consensus, which doesn't exist at present. Accordingly I revert the page to its former state. Jotamar (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I offered a compromise and you rejected it. I therefore am going to replace the edit offered as a compromise. If you violate the 3RR I will report you. Lechonero (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, precisely, is the objection to removing the long list of cognates to paella? A long accounting of other languages that derive their word for "pan" from Latin does not aid comprehension of the culinary dish "paella" and would seem suited for a dictionary, not Wikipedia. Vineviz (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it the other way around: What is the reason for removing information that is not challenged, well sourced and in the right section? You should consider that at some point in the making of the page several editors (I was just one) felt that more information about the etymology would help avoid misunderstandings that existed then. Behind any removal of content there is a certain disdain for the work of other editors, and I feel that some reasoning with more substance than excessive information must compensate for that. And to complete the picture, check Lechonero's edits in the last section of my talk page. Jotamar (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removing the cognates is that they do not aid in comprehending the subject of the article, thus makes the article unnecessarily verbose.I have no disdain for the work of prior editors, only a view that collectively they have made a mistake in placing the list of cognates in Wikipedia instead of in Wiktionary. Vineviz (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cognates take up one line of the visible text. Is that verbose? Other paragraphs in the page are far more verbose. Furthermore, the cognates are a part of the Etymologies section. Whoever is not interested in etymologies can easily skip the section. Jotamar (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if I don't agree about some deletion of content, I can see no reason to agree about the deletion of just half of it. Jotamar (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, such as that occurring in the Etymology section here, is not acceptable. I have therefore protected the article. Please reach agreement among yourselves about what content should be presented, and then unprotection can be considered. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I offered a compromise to user:Jotamar but he rejected it. I really don't what else I can do. Lechonero (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong attitude, if I may say so. Try again. Offer something else. Ask what would be acceptable. Keep working at it, assume good faith, and I'm sure there can be a positive outcome. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous and embarrassing for Wikipedia. You want to know why people don't respect Wikipedia? It's because of people like this who can't put their pride aside and are too presumptuous and pompous to develop a full and coherent piece of knowledge (an encyclopedia article). I think that the lock should be removed, Valencia Paella get it's own section, and then another section denoted "Other Forms" with various subtypes be created, after the Valencia section. Can a topic like paella really be that controversial? This is getting out of hand and it needs to stop. My two cents. Mar2194 (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about calling the 'Valencia' section 'Traditional Valencian Paella'?

That way the title reflects that Valencian Paella is the original form of the food and then frees up the rest of the article to mention alternative forms that are served in restuarants outside of Spain etc. --121.218.50.27 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that most paella chefs use Calasparra rice (by which I assume they mean the Balilla X Solana variety grown in the Calasparra region) and bomba rice. For all I know this might be true internationally, but this is certainly not the case within the Valencian and Murcian regions where the Senia and Bahía are preferred. http://revista.libertaddigital.com/gastronomia-una-paella-valenciana-1275318192.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.246.221 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right, but we cannot edit the page for the moment. Jotamar (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 'Calasparra' is the family name for many of the farms that grow the rice. It is also the name of the municipality in the Murca region of Spain. We just came back from Valencia and visited the Rice Museum there (very interesting). I had thought that Calasparra referred to a type of rice from Calasparra but they explained that it is a family name (i.e., brand name). There are approximately 10 families that dominate the rice business in Valencia and Calasparra is one of them. — Preceding User:Ned Levine comment added by (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't someone make a table of the different types of rice that are used in ALL paellas throughout the world (Paella has a similar standing in the world as fried rice for anyone editing this article who is in Spain and has not travelled much internationally.) and correlate each rice type to the region where it is typically used. There are countless variations on this dish including things that someone from Valencia or the rest of Spain might not recognize as an "official paella" (whatever that may be or even means). In order to avoid pretentiousness in this article, those advocating for a singular type of paella as being "true paella" should reevaluate the status of paella (through a global lens) and humble themselves by recognizing that paella holds no Protected Geographical Status in the European Union or abroad. Therefore, anything anyone calls "paella" is fair game for this article as long as substantial evidence/references can be found and cited for this article. This includes fusion foods and new age cuisine. Mar2194 (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About.com, listed as reference #1 is not a credible source. This should be looked into and deleted or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.82.86 (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A page on a rice dish has been locked for six months now because people can't stop fighting over it.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the article. Hopefully long enough has passed since the edit-warring episode that people can edit it constructively. If that proves not to be the case, the page will very likely be protected again. Regards, The Land (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to compromise with me or are you determined to continue this edit war? Lechonero (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already exposed my arguments to revert the deletions in the Etymology section. In exchange, User:Lechonero's only argument seems to be excessive information, which I've already dealt with. By the way, I wonder what could be the motivation to be a Wikipedia editor for someone who uses excessive and information in the same sentence. Lately, the same user has deleted some other statements, with the argumentation of uncited and confusing information. If it's uncited, there's a template for that, and I don't find the statements confusing at all, at most their wording could be improved. Jotamar (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of this edit war appears to be that the above-mentioned user thinks of Wikipedia as a place were things are settled merely by haggling and insistence. I prefer to think that it is a place to put forward reasoned arguments and discuss their relative value. Please tell me if I'm wrong about this. Jotamar (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about this. Read WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. I'm through talking to you, Jotamar. You can't bring yourself to compromise even over the smallest of issues. Don't expect me to engage you in conversation any more. Lechonero (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that the directive WP:BOLD is about being bold adding new information, not about deleting what I don't like or I don't understand. I proceed to revert the deletions, again. Jotamar (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened the etymology section in an effort to compromise with user:Jotamar. I removed all the references to non-Romance languages. Anything more strikes me as excessive. Lechonero (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd to claim that Old French is the origin; the word for 'cooking pan' descended directly from Latin everywhere else and it lacks the 'll' -> 'l' that French saw in the 6th century. This claim seems dubious, although often repeated. Wee Jimmy (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Academia Española doesn't offer an etymology of paella, saying only that it is a Valencian word, but Merriam-Webster says, "Catal, literally, pot, pan, from Middle French paelle, from Latin patella small pan." Both Catalan and Valencian were influenced by French, so it's not odd that some Valencian words might have a Latin derivation by way of French. Carlstak (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the starting sentence in this page (or any other) should not describe all possible meanings of the word paella, but just the one which is dealt with in the page. Any other meaning, and provided it is relevant for the page, should be clarified in a different sentence, not in the starting one. Jotamar (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editing policy

Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content in it anytime.

Instead of deleting text, consider:

• rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
• correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
• moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• requesting a citation by adding the ^{[citation needed]} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
• doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself

--Opus88888 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice quotation, but you don't follow those tips yourself. I have tried to get consensus with my last edition. Jotamar (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article already mentions the cooking pans in some detail in the "Etymology" section; we are not losing any information by removing the mention from the lede, we're just reducing its importance in comparison to everything else. --McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with McGeddon. Opus, I don't understand why you feel compelled to define paella as a "metal casing" in addition to being a recipe. By the way, "metal casing" strikes me as rather awkward phrasing. The word "pan" is a far better description and is already mentioned in the etymology section. I'm going to remove this description one more time but I would like another editor to do a revert if Opus insists on replacing it. That would help demonstrate consensus. Sun Adder (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paella come from Valencia -Its not a Catalan food / word- . Catalonia nationalism want get symbols for another countries in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.137.184 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that paella originated in Valencia but that the WORD paella comes from the Catalan language. There are plenty of citations for both of these facts. Lechonero (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paella is not a Catalan word but Valencian. The RAE (or Royal Spanish Academy, the language regulator) is very explicit on the etymology of the word "Paella" stating "(Del valenciano paella)." meaning it comes from the Valencian language. Source: http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=paella (Skmr2k (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Valencian language is the same as Catalan, so don't disorient people.--Coentor (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Spanish Academy, is the official institution responsible for regulating the Spanish language, it has notable linguists and historians, and the official etymology of "paella" as per the this official institution is the Valencian language. Valencian is linked to Catalan as it can be seen in the Wikipedia entry, nobody is debating that. The issue here is the official etymology given to "paella" by language regulators. Wikipedia editors need to reference any fact to its source, and to date "paella"'s etymology is Valencian backed by the DRAE source, no other official source says this word originates from the Catalan language. Deleting/changing content and then deleting its source and later not replacing that change with a new source is explicit distortion. Skmr2k (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the RAE says here is irrelevant, as paella is a Catalan word. Why don't you care about what does the Chinese Language Academy says about the word paella? Because the word has nothing to do with Chinese, nor with Spanish, therefore the RAE has nothing to say; let's read the IAE instead. --85.48.248.94 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Paella] symbolizes the union and heritage of two important cultures, the Roman, which gives us the utensil and the Arab which brought us the basic food of humanity for centuries.

I don't object to this quote but it seems a bit odd the way it is left without context. It half reads: "Of these two important cultures, Romans gave us forks and Arabs brought us the basic food of humanity for centuries." Can someone at least verify the quote? I don't get any hits on Google. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the quote to a more suitable section. --Jotamar (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has said "A popular but inaccurate belief in Arabic-speaking countries is that the word paella derives from the Arabic word for leftovers, baqiyah, (Arabic script: بقية) because it was customary among the servants of Moorish kings to combine the leftovers of a banquet for royal guests, purportedly leading to a paella-like creation in Moorish Spain." for a while, the second half being sourced to a weak "some way" about.com piece, with nothing to support the "popular in Arabic-speaking countries" or "inaccurate". It had a "Please don't delete this paragraph without previous discussion" HTML comment, but I can't see that this has ever been discussed on these talk pages. Is there any better sourcing for the meaning, or any evidence at all for it being untrue? --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for it being untrue is that no serious etymological work contemplates that origin. For the simple reason that the word paella, that is, (frying) pan, is absolutely alive and there is no need for further explanations about its origin as name of a rice dish.

However, I put the hidden comment because previously every time the baqiyah theory was deleted someone would include it again in a short time. --Jotamar (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, that makes some sense. If the only sources we've got are a few "some say..." cookery blogs, though (which may have taken it from this article in the first place), then it really shouldn't be mentioned here at all - worst case, it could be a hoax. --McGeddon (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jotamar, the only person who included it recently is you. There seems to be no clamor to keep it. I'm going to remove it again. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll see if the theory pops up again or not. --Jotamar (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is one of the best dishes that i have ever tasted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.250.191 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paella. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://galbis.com/w/principal-paella-galbis-uk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so how long more are we going to pretend that this dish is not from Moor occupation of the area. Paella is just the developed of Pilaf. OH god I just realized somthing, ding dong.

Paella = The English term pilaf is borrowed directly from the Turkish pilav, which in turn comes from Persian polow (پلو), Hindi pulāo, from Sanskrit pulāka (meaning "a ball of rice"), which in turn, is probably of Dravidian origin.[7] The English spelling is influenced by the Modern Greek pilafi, which comes from the Turkish pilav

Is there any evidence that people of the area ate rice. Rice in this form originated in an area between India and China. Not even West Asia or middle east. Through the very early silk route were talking 400's AD it made its way to the middle east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilaf

It cant be more obvious.Starbwoy (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues you mention here are well cited and are included in this article. The citations state that paella emerged AFTER Christians drove out the Moors not before and the etymology for the word "paella" goes no further back than the Latin word for pan ("patella"). Therefore, the similarity between the words "pilaf" and "paella" is pure coincidence. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to more accurately reflect the Valencian description of paella. Valencians, after all, invented paella. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When your edits have been reverted, the bold, revert, discuss cycle WP:BRD is a suggested method of reaching consensus. The recent edits made by Moby-Dick4000 are the latest manifestation of a long-going history of arbitrary edits made to this article by users with an agenda, however limited that may be. These changes are subject to review by other editors, and I, for one, do not think the edits by Moby are an improvement. Carlstak (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An agenda? Really? Over an article about food? Are you kidding me? Would you care to explain what agenda you think I'm pushing? Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "...however limited". I just mean that this food article attracts a lot of attention from Spaniards, especially Valencians (understandably), and others who "know" what "true" paella consists of. The state of the article before your recent edits (not to say that it's the last word) reflects the general consensus that has been reached after much discussion over the years. Your bold edits were reverted twice, so rather than edit-warring, the changes you want should be discussed, and a consensus reached by editors invested in the article before your desired changes are made. Carlstak (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlstak: I'm neither a Spaniard nor a Valencian although I'm a Hispanic American. Also, I've been editing WP for a few years now so I'm aware of the process of consensus. Since I made my edits nobody has provided alternate ones. Also, you seem very quick to accuse me of things that aren't true and you've yet to suggest constructive edits for this article. My only purpose in editing the article was to provide an accurate description of the Valencian approach to paella, something that's perfectly reasonable given that it was their culture that invented it. Also, the picture at the top of the article is wrong. It's a picture of a seafood paella with a description of a non-seafood paella. How much sense does THAT make? Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moby, the alternate ones to your edits are simply how the page was before. Your sources are just 2 recipes (out of probably hundreds available on the internet) and don't contain any particular info to back your apparent claim that seafood paella is as old as meat paella. Plus you invent a new term, land-based paella, and advertise it with your edits. Plus you modify sourced text. Plus you delete pronunciation info just because you find it unnecessary. However, my main concern is that I'm unable to see even one single detail in your editions for which one could argue that it improves the page in some way. --Jotamar (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the consensus then there's no point in me editing this article. I thought my changes and links were self explanatory, especially the one from the Comunitat Valenciana. I will no longer attempt editing this article given the resistance I've run into. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paella. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151116111929/http://www.pacharan.com.uy/platos/paellas/ to http://www.pacharan.com.uy/platos/paellas/

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) 08:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to change the recipe or anything as such. But an article can't start with two several line walls of texts. It needs to focus on keypoints and needs to be accessible. And as such, I'm going format it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify

Also, there's no such thing as 'Valencian' or 'Valencian language', such words don't come in the Oxford dictionary. Spanglish needs to be avoided. If English words don't exist, then the original words must be used in italic, with a translation and/or a metalink. Also, the way to introduce foreign words items is not to make up the word in English and give the original word in Spanish\Valencià in parenthesis. Is the other way around. The article is very inconsistent in this way.

So:

NO Valencian Paella -> Paella Valenciana (traditional Valencia Paella)

Please be kind and use proper Wikipedia formatting and proper English.

With regards, --FernandoCornejo (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you say, English WP has an article called "Valencian" (or "Valencian" language). Also, commonly understood terms such as "frying pan" are not to be wikilinked, per MOS. Carlstak (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pronunciation note at the beginning of the article. Is that just the British pronunciation? (See Wiktionary:paella.) RJFJR (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apple changed their paella emoji to better reflect the Valencian paella, after proponents of the emoji complained on the ingredients depicted. This was reported at the emojipedia blog and some news sites also reported on it, but it seems the source they used was Emojipedia. Is it reliable and relevant to be mentioned in the article? 읏 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, but no, it is not a reliable source and the info is not relevant to the article. Carlstak (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor, 37.245.43.164, is stubbornly reverting one of my editions, and supporting the reversions with false claims, namely that my original edition was a revert and that the edition he reverts to is long-standing and consensual. It's also difficult guessing the anonymous editor motivations, since my edition is quite straightforward: it replaces the ambiguous name Valencia, which most often refers to the city of Valencia, with the unambiguous Valencian Community. Since the IP editor has not given any truthful or justified reason for the revert, I'll keep undoing it. Jotamar (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made this bold change originally. It is unnecessary and not terribly good English. Foods are often given geographical origins and there's no reason for paella to be given this clumsy construction. 2001:8F8:1B69:1BFF:78AC:41AC:FCAC:6C8F (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the autonomous community of Spain, particularly in non-political/administrative contexts, English-language sources often use the less idiomatic "Valencia region". This usage covers sources dealing about this topic: a dish [4][5].--Asqueladd (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what is exactly your proposal? --Jotamar (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am just bringing source-backed alternatives to a binary choice laid out in the thread title.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor's latest edition makes me think that he or she simply ignores everything about the matter, assuming that the dish is specifically from the city of Valencia, because he or she hasn't even bothered to read the rest of the page. And he or she also ignores that Valencian Community ("Comunitat Valenciana") is the official name of the region. --Jotamar (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address that originally reverted my edition (Special:Contributions/37.245.43.164) is now blocked. Therefore it makes no sense to go on with this discussion, I'm recovering my original edition, stating that the dish comes from the Valencian Community, not specifically from the city of Valencia. --Jotamar (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]