Talk:Crema catalana

2007 comments

Is there a reason that a crema catalana should not be caramalised with a culinary torch? If there is I would be very interested and it should perhaps be added - thanks Gillers uk 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the iron is simply how traditional versions are made. The article is worded strongly - I'm sure crema catalana could be made with a culinary torch (as creme brulee can be made in the broiler of an over) but purists would never use anything but the special iron - AKeen 21:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval books

The crema catalana does not appear in the cited medieval books. The described recipe is quite different; it is called "Llet malcuita" in Catalan. I quote: "If you want to make thick curdled milk, put the milk on the fire, add eggs and a little bread, and bring it to a boil. And when it boils, remove it from the fire and serve in bowls." Yonasse (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Xiaomichel, see investigation)

Perhaps the text needed editing for clarity, but that is no reason to remove it wholesale. As indicated in the news sources you removed and in the history of the creme brulee too, the information never claimed the medieval recipes were the exact dish that is served today, but as the earliest origin of the type of dish (which is an important topic, with the differences between crema catalana and creme brulee). Edit rather than delete next time - actually, read first next time, since the sources explain what you just assumed was not accurate. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If indeed the recipe for "Llet malcuita" in the Llibre de Sent Soví is being used as the origin of crema catalana, there are several problems: 1) it doesn't have a caramel topping, so at most it is a crema, not a crema catalana; 2) it involves bread; 3) it is served hot; 4) it is not sweetened or flavored. Does the Llibre del Coch have a recipe which is more like crema catalana? In particular, does it include the burnt-sugar crust?

If that recipe is being used to prove that crema catalana predates crème brûlée by three centuries, there are surely earlier French recipes for custard (without caramel on top). And what about Apicius' recipe for tiropatinam, which antedates both of them by many centuries? It doesn't involve bread, it is sweetened, but it is not topped with caramel. --Macrakis (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have made changes to your edit. First, your edit removed the – factually sourced – statement that the Sent Soví recipe is considered an early precursor. Maybe you don't like it, but it's there. Second, you added judgment words based on your interpretation of a primary source (the primary source of the medieval recipe, which you compared to the modern recipe with a tone of criticism). Hopefully an editor of such tenure does not need to be reminded of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc? I was tempted to just remove the "but", but have also removed the "it doesn't include ..." as (obviously) a primary source not including them cannot be used as a source for its own non-inclusion. Also moved the ref back (the tertiary source of La Vanguardia mentions the details fine, the primary source is there as support for the specifics. There is no good reason to put a primary source that does not contain all the prose information before the tertiary source that does.)

And look, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. That you think there are "several problems" with the precursor recipe having differences (which, frankly, isn't unusual or anything to worry about. American football can be traced back to association football, its oldest analog is rugby union, and there are differences because things evolve over the years) is not something to debate unless you have a secondary or tertiary source to hand that disagrees with the tertiary source currently in the article. Then you start a source discussion, not a chat about what people think of the origins.

BTW, you make it sound like the article is trying to soapbox about whether crema catalana or creme brulee had earlier origins. That is not what I was suggesting, and hopefully not how the article appears. The history or evolution of the recipes is an important topic because of the differences in the recipes of each dish, not "to prove" anything. Kingsif (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In the Llibre del Coch, the recipe called let mal cuyta can be read here [[1]], and can be summarized as follows: "Crush almonds and bread, boil, add egg yolks."

In Juan de Altamiras' book, the recipe is called Leche asada, includes bread again, and is not burnt with an iron.

These two books are used to discuss the origin of crema catalana. However, the recipes shown are not named crema catalana, contain other ingredients, and do not include the final step of making a layer of caramel on the top.

It's important to note that La Vanguardia is not a reliable source on this topic. Yonasse (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Xiaomichel, see investigation)

La Vanguardia is "generally a reliable source", if you can point to any discussion that says "but not for food history", please do. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Yonasse that La Vanguardia is not generally a reliable source for food history. It seems that the story of the two cookbooks is widely repeated, even though it is at best misleading. Just because La Vanguardia is a secondary source doesn't make it reliable. As for the "soapbox" issue, surely the previous wording "published three centuries before recipes for the French crème brûlée" was precisely that.

As for WP:NOTAFORUM, I think you are misinterpreting that policy. I was discussing the evaluation of the sources and how we should report them, which is precisely what Talk pages are for. --Macrakis (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed the erroneous opinion that we can't trust a generally reliable source for this one thing because someone disagrees with them above. La Vanguardia is not established as an expert on food history, but that does not make it an unreliable source on the matter in Wikipedia terms.

As I understand it, the previous wording you quote was a translation from Catalan Wikipedia, so perhaps a source was not moved over - and you know editors can remove it without trying to mislead in the other direction.

When I mentioned FORUM, I mentioned that you could have discussed the sources at hand. What you were doing was bringing up Apicius, seemingly to make a WP:POINT that there are other recipes (it's got to be either pointy or genuinely asking if the article should have more SYNTH about historic recipes), instead of how reliable non-primary sources connect the history to the topic. That's all we can work with. I know Yonasse does not understand that, still going on analysing the recipes themselves, but I hope you do. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Yonasse is an WP:SPA who created an account specifically to edit this article, while exhibiting Wikipedia awareness far more mature than a day-old editor; this is behaviour not uncommon among people who wish to disrupt Wikipedia coverage of topics relating to Catalonia. And for the record, I know Macrakis has edited this article before, sporadically and among many others, and do not suggest the same of them. I think leaving this comment is better than tagging all of Yonasse's comments, but it must be noted. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the issue with creating an account to edit an article? Is it not the proper procedure? I am confused.

There are two sentences in the current article that contradict the reference: "The recipe was first referred to as crema catalana (Catalan cream) in the 1745 cookbook by the Spanish friar Juan de Altamiras, where the recipe was said to be of Catalan origin. The burnt sugar topping is documented in 1770.". These sentences refer to the book Nuevo arte de cocina: sacado de la escuela de la experiencia económica. I add the reference where we can all read it. The recipe for leche asada is on page 128. There is no recipe named crema catalana or crema de San José in this book, or at least I cannot find it. That's why I removed the sentence "The burnt sugar topping is documented in 1770" and rewrote the other one. Yonasse (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Xiaomichel, see investigation)

This is all lies? I have read the 1745 Altamiras book, which mentions cremas but no leche asada. There is a later cookbook by Altamiras which does contain leche asada, but the recipe is more like crème caramel/flan (which contemporary sources also acknowledge, e.g. https://www.noticiasdegipuzkoa.eus/cultura/2014/05/16/tembloroso-ahora-crujiente-4227332.html ). Maybe you're reading the wrong cookbook, maybe you're lying to disrupt. And generally, creating an account with the express purpose of editing one article multiple times is an indication of the disruption motive. Kingsif (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A random recipe article in a newspaper is certainly not a reliable source for food history, especially when it doesn't show any evidence of how it came up with its claims. It is certainly the case that a source which is reliable for (say) discussions about the Catalan constitution can be unreliable for (say) medicine or food history. Indeed, cookbooks and newspaper recipes are notoriously sloppy about history. For comments on sources for food history, see the Source list for food and drink (which I started many years ago).

Oh, and since the "10 errores" article doesn't mention the Llibre del Coch, presumably it should be removed.

As for your comment accusing Yonasse of wanting to "disrupt Wikipedia coverage of topics relating to Catalonia", that is a personal attack which does not assume good faith. I see no evidence that Yonasse has any animus against Catalonia. They may simply (like me) be interested in grounding our coverage of food history on solid sources. --Macrakis (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

First, perhaps you do need to revisit what constitutes a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. You can say it is not an ideal source, but you shouldn't be going around calling the biggest newspaper in Catalonia unreliable. Of course, as this subject is a matter of not just food history but Catalan history, and La Vanguardia undoubtedly got its information from what could be called local social historiography (i.e. it doesn't make it up), let's agree to disagree.

You can remove Llibre del Coch if you want.

And lastly, I didn't accuse Yonasse of that, or anything, actually. I said (twice, now) that they have done something (created an SPA for a contentious topic) that is not uncommon among people who wish to disrupt Wikipedia coverage of topics relating to Catalonia, and said this as the explanation for my noting of their unusual behaviour. DO NOT spuriously accuse editors of attacks in attempts to stop them legitimately protecting articles. Because guess what, that can be constituted an attack. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers, especially cooking sections, are not reliable sources for food history as a general rule. Of course, if they're quoting a serious historian, that's another matter. It doesn't matter that it's the largest newspaper in Catalonia -- I would say the same of the Washington Post or Le Monde.

I don't know what you mean by "social historiography".

WP:NPA includes not just direct attacks ("George is dishonest") but also innuendo and indirect attacks ("George is acting like someone dishonest"). --Macrakis (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to care more about your own definition of "reliable" than Wikipedia's. That's what I am trying to point out to you. Be careful with how you throw the word around. "Social historiography" is the un-casual way of saying "stuff we just know"; I am sure there is an origin source somewhere, but it may be hard to find, and so instead we have a reliable newspaper reporting what is "just known".

If the fact I decided to leave a well-explained note rather than just tag all of that SPA's comments doesn't make you understand there was no insult intended, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe to critically assess context?

If you want to help and aren't happy with using a reliable source that you do not trust for the subject matter, you could spend time I don't have looking for origin sources about the dish's antecedents and introduction. I know there's a folk story about nuns burning a poorly-curdled custard that would be interesting to include, with the right sources. Kingsif (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Kingsif, you say:

...perhaps you do need to revisit what constitutes a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. You can say it is not an ideal source, but you shouldn't be going around calling the biggest newspaper in Catalonia unreliable. Of course, as this subject is a matter of not just food history but Catalan history

Please review WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (a section of WP:RS) (with my emphasis added):

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

...Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable;

Context relates to specific facts, not just the source. The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc.

As for

La Vanguardia undoubtedly got its information from what could be called local social historiography (i.e. it doesn't make it up), let's agree to disagree.

If by "local social historiography", you mean "common knowledge", that is precisely the sort of thing that the RS policy discourages. There is a lot of culinary mythology about many foods worldwide, which is why we need better sources than local conventional wisdom. (see also our article on misconceptions about food history). --Macrakis (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." --Macrakis (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You continue to focus on the fact I asked you not to outright called an RS unreliable (without yourself being contextual), even though I said (as you quote) that you can easily believe it isn't suitable for this information. We do not disagree. Get that? I never said take LV's word for it if you don't want to, never. You started off trying to undermine the source completely, contextlessly, and I said you shouldn't be so general. You can continue pointlessly showing how we agree (on policy at least, I am happy to use LV despite whatever), or you can find sources you trust, as I suggested already. I don't dictate how you spend your time, but I know what might actually help. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments. I never called La Vanguardia unreliable in general. I said that a recipe article in LV was unreliable "for food history". I am not sure I understand your comment that "we do not disagree". So do you agree that a recipe article in LV is unreliable for food history?

Your comment "I don't dictate how you spend your time, but I know what might actually help." is inappropriate. --Macrakis (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't disagree on all the policy you're repeating. You're apparently an expert in food history, if you think contextual the LV article isn't a good source, I don't fight you on it. I think it's fine, based on my experience with LV and Catalan history, but we are allowed to assess the context differently. That's what I meant about agree to disagree on the LV source above.

Sure, let's put it another way. Do you want to find sources you trust, or just talk about ones you don't? Because if it's the latter, this discussion has gone beyond the limits of utility. This article is not something I consider a priority to devote my time to, so I won't be looking for a source mentioning the likely expert who gave the brief history; if it's a priority for you, perhaps you can. Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained my edit using this reference. The recipe for leche asada is on page 128. There is no recipe named crema catalana or crema de San José in this book, or at least I cannot find it. That's why I removed the sentence "The burnt sugar topping is documented in 1770" and rewrote the other one.

Now, @Kingsif, you cancelled my edit saying that leche asada is not in the book and crema catalana is. Leche asada is described on page 128, you can easily open the link I am provinding instead of calling my action "vandalism". I am using the same book that is cited in the article, the edition is from 1758, you can also tell me in which page I can read a mention of crema catalana. Try to be constructive.

There is a clear problem with the last two sentences, as first the book is said to be from 1745 and after from 1770, using the same reference. Yonasse (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Xiaomichel, see investigation)

I have literally read this book and did so again yesterday. Stop lying, because I know I'm not. Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is easy to resolve. The book is available in full text on line. Kindly provide a link to the page where crema catalana is mentioned.

And again, please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. Instead of saying that Yonass is "lying", provide evidence that contradicts their claim. If you continue with personal attacks on other editors' good faith, you may be sanctioned (whether you are correct on the substance or not). --Macrakis (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop alleging I am making personal attacks when I am not, remember that itself is uncivil (by way of coming across as intimidation).

It is easy to resolve, though, the link Yonasse has provided (you can click it yourself) is to the later (it says 1758) cookbook. That's not the 1745 book being talked about. Quite simple really. Either they're lying or they're confused. Also quite simple. They say leche asada is on page 128 - it is, and as I said (in the comment they are replying to above) There is a later cookbook by Altamiras which does contain leche asada, but the recipe is more like crème caramel/flan - I acknowledge the book they are now talking about exists, and that the recipe they are talking about is in it.

They have the wrong book. Let's assume they're confused. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Instead of calling me a liar, you can simply provide a reference.

The two cookbooks are the same, but they belong to different editions. Do you think they removed the recipe for crema catalana in 1758?

I am curious to know where you can read the first edition as there is no preserved copy, read here: "Juan Altamiras, [...] escribió este mítico libro de recetas en 1745. De esta edición no se conserva ningun ejemplar, y por eso se ha tomado la segnda edición de 1758 para realizar el facsímil."

The second edition from 1758 is the oldest we can find and it is certified that it corresponds faithfully with the original version, read on page 10: "Certifico que el libro, Arte de cocina, [...], corresponde fielmente con el antiguo impresso, que sirve de original." Yonasse (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Xiaomichel, see investigation)

You'll appreciate that it really appears you seem to be bold-faced lying to try and get your way, or worse. Anyway, the ref in the article is to a book that discusses the content of various editions, I have read that (and, previously, the edition you cite) - and FWIW, that's probably why it is being used as a source for the 1770 one, too, which you were apparently confused about. And as I said extensively above, primary cookbooks cannot be used as sources for discussions, comparisons, etc, of their content. I am on mobile right now but a content search of that book used as ref in the article will show it talks about the recipes of cremas in the original, and there's no mention of leche asada. Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Previously, you clearly stated that you had read the 1745 edition: "This is all lies? I have read the 1745 Altamiras book, which mentions cremas but no leche asada"

I am fine with not using a primary source but the source cited in the article is the same I am using (Altamiras cookbook), and we can freely read the entire text online to see that Crema catalana is not part of this book. Yonasse (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Xiaomichel, see investigation)

My apologies for that misleading statement: I have read what is known of the 1745 book, from a critical source, and it mentions cremas but no leche asada. The source cited is a 2017 book which bears the title of the Altamires book but is an anthology of the work and critical commentary on it and its place in history. You can read more about it in English here, or at the link in article for a short Spanish blurb. Not even in Hayward's comments does leche asada appear. Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If that edition is the one that we are depending on, it should be cited in the article. --Macrakis (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)