Talk:Lechon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CharcoalDePorkS[edit]

Your recent edits are poorly written, unsourced and unnecessary. You need not revert to them again, but you are welcome to write better. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bourdain[edit]

Where if, anywhere, does the statement by Anthony Bourdain belong in this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lechón, not Lechon[edit]

¿Why is the title of the article not properly spelled? the correct Spanish spelling is . Kintaro (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Edit: anyway, as it was suggested, the article should be merged into Suckling pig. A lechón is nothing else than a suckling pig.[reply]

! No! , Lechon and suckling pig is not the same thing all over the world. I've never had a lechon that was a suckling pig in the philippines. The only lechon's I've ever had has been rather large adult pigs. User:arcade

Actually the original term does in fact refer to a suckling pig (lechon from leche, the Spanish word for milk). The use of the term just probably evolved over the years to embrace not just suckling pigs but also adult pigs and became a default term for roast pig, even resulting in the superfluously named lechon de leche. As an aside, the term cochinillo is AFAIK what's used in Spain when referring to "roast suckling pig". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.131.14 (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lechon. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lechon. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Dish[edit]

@Obsidian Soul:, changing the language of the lead to say that the subject is an unofficial national dish that is not what the sources provided state:

  • The feast sizzling and crackling so deliciously is the Philippine national dish, called lechón (leh-CHOHN).

    — Geis, 1961

  • Lechon, roasted whole pig, is considered the national dish

    — Minahan, 2009

  • In his House Resolution 1887, Agham (Science) Party-list Rep. Angelo Palmones said the Philippines has already a number of national symbols, such as narra as national tree, sampaguita as national flower, mango as national fruit, milkfish as national fish and lechon (roast pig) as national dish.

    — Bartlet, 2011

Therefore it has been verified that it is a national dish of the Philippines. Thus, the change made does not meet what has been verified to multiple reliable sources. The previous wording did not say it was official or unofficial. None of the sources say that the subject is an unofficial national dish.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: I repeat, there is no official national dish of the Philippines, regardless of what websites say. Naming the lechon or the adobo as national dishes are common misconceptions, but it isn't true. Even if websites say so. The only WP:RS source for this would be a specific law (which does not exist). It's the same thing with the carabao, the mango, the jeepney, and the anahaw, commonly named as national symbols in textbooks and children's books, but has no basis in law. The only ones which have official status are listed in National symbols of the Philippines (read this article for the full explanation).
The closest to a national dish is adobo, which was proposed in House Bill 3926 in 2014. But that didn't pass yet, AFAIK. Please read this as well:
P.S. As for the source you are using. I can't find any other sources on House Resolution 1887 other than mirrors of Wikipedia, which likely means it failed or never existed. And apparently even the representative who proposed this doesn't know which symbols are official as he names milkfish and mango, neither of which have official status, along with lechon. Until laws exist which declare lechon or whatever as the national dish, none of the websites matter. They do not have the authority to declare national symbols and thus are not WP:RS. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that lechon is the official national dish, but it is a national dish as verified by multiple reliable sources, presently used in the article. None of those sources say that it is a "unofficial national dish". Therefore wording inserted by Obsidian Soul, saying that the subject of this article is a "unofficial national dish" is false. I am not arguing that there are not other dishes which are also verified to be a national dish of the Philippines, but the insertion of the word "unofficial" is including a non-verified context. It should be sufficient to say that it has been referred to as a national dish of the Philippines, and leave it at that.
There are no reliable sources that there must be only one national dish, therefore when there are reliable sources that say that there are multiple national dishes of the Philippines (CNN Philippines, Ling, 2012, etc.), there is no need to state in the article that Lechon is an unofficial national dish. Especially because there is, as was stated by Obsidian Soul, no single official national dish.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RightCowLeftCoast: Then it is unofficial, isn't it?
  • SCMP prefaces it by "many would consider"
  • CNN Philippines lists several dishes it clearly says are nominees for a national dish. Not national dishes.
  • Ling, 2012 puts the "national" in quotes.
Surely you can read between the lines. Everything else is hearsay. I could give you hundreds of other articles naming other dishes as THE national dish (not "one of", as you claiming), most of it is the adobo. These are misconceptions, and we should not be the vehicle for its spread. I repeat, show me a law, executive order, or proclamation declaring these as national dishes. Otherwise I will re-add the "unofficial" part. Post this discussion in WP:TAMBAYAN as well.
For context, even the article on José Rizal has a very prominent explanation that he is not an official national hero. Even though I can easily give you thousands of sources saying he is. Because in reality, he really isn't. There is no law, executive order, or proclamation declaring him as such, even though pretty much everyone believes he is. It's the same situation here. Picking and choosing the sources while disregarding others that say there is no national dish is not WP:RS-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO there is no need to state official or unofficial as no source says either. Inserting language one way or another (official or unofficial) is not verified. That it has been verified by multiple reliable sources as a national dish (just as other dishes has been described as a national dish) is sufficient to be included in this article. If Obsidian Soul, wants to seek a third opinion, or appropriately canvass, for additional opinions, I am not one to stop the other user/editor. I think we all agree that the subject of this article has been described as a national dish in multiple reliable dishes, that said I think we disagree whether the word "unofficial" should be included in the article.
Searching the internet for "unofficial national dish" and lechon, describes it as the "unofficial national dish" for Puerto Rico WSJ, but I have not seen a source which state it is an "unofficial national dish" for the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 15:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just because it does not say "unofficial" verbatim, doesn't mean you can not read between the lines. The words "national dish" connotes that it is official, which it is not. And you still haven't proven otherwise. This has precedence in the other articles which are also considered unofficial national symbols. Answer this simple question for me: is it an official national dish? If you can say yes to that I will remove the "unofficial" part. Otherwise, it's just adding confusion. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this takes any sides on the issue, but if we're talking about unofficial national dishes, and since there has been so much talk about Adobo, I feel I would be remiss in not mentioning the significant, scholar-supported (okay, Doreen Fernandez-supported) claim by sinigang]. :D - Alternativity (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some posts calling lechon as "unofficial national dish" of the Philippines but it seems to be coming from blogs and food websites. I think that putting that title would also open a gate to tagging other Philippine dishes as "unofficial national dish" such as sinigang, adobo, etc. — Emperork (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Emperork: We already do that. Beyond food even. I already linked to the example of José Rizal and a full article on the National symbols of the Philippines, none of which I had a hand in writing. As I've mentioned above, the sources being used to justify calling lechon a national dish (Ling, 2012; SCMP; CNN Philippines; Minahan, 2009) are themselves just as vague with regards to its legal basis. None of them outright calls it an official national dish. Even Minahan says it's "considered to be", and similarly labels other unofficial national symbols as "unofficial" where appropriate. I do not understand the insistence of following the vagueness of the sources. Are we deliberately making it sound official? Are we trying to obscure the fact that it has no legal basis? Because that's what this all amounts to. The question here seemingly isn't whether it is official or not (because it is unofficial, that is something we can all agree to), it's whether there is a need for us to clarify that it is unofficial. And I argue that yes, there is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All sources prove that lechon is often dubbed as ""national dish", nothing less, nothing more. Obsidian Soul's wording is one possible adequate description of this fact. Leaving out the word "unofficial", however, would be misleading, unless replaced with another qualifier which helps to explain that the designation as a "national dish" is arbitrary, subjective, and not sanctioned by any official institution. An ad hoc term like "national dish" can by no means equated with things like "national language", "national flag" or "national anthem". –Austronesier (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any qualifier will do, as long as it is made clear that it is not an official national symbol. This doesn't have the same legal basis as other official national symbols. "often dubbed" or "often considered" would work as well.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the reliable sources provided in this discussion, none of them have described lechon as an "unofficial national dish", the only one that does, does so for Puerto Rico.
What has been stated in at least one of the reliable sources used in this discussion (CNN Philippines), does state that there has been no official national dish. That can be included in a foot note, after it is stated that lechon has been described as a national dish. Such as:
Lechon has been describes as a national dish of the Philippines.<ref>sources</ref>{{efn|Multiple other dishes have also been described as a national dish of the Philippines<ref>sources</ref> However, there is no official national dish of the Philippines<ref>CNN Philippines source</ref>}}
--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 08:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal (only slightly different wording + piped link to "National symbols of the Philippines" + quotation marks)
Lechon is often called the "national dish" of the Philippines.<ref>sources</ref>{{efn|Multiple other dishes have also been called "national dish" of the Philippines<ref>sources</ref> However, there is no [[National symbols of the Philippines|official national]] dish of the Philippines.<ref>CNN Philippines source</ref>}}
–Austronesier (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: That would work as well. Again, my only concern here is that it must be clear that it is not an official national symbol. That's it. How it is worded isn't important to me.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: Does any of them describe it as official? You're still avoiding the question on whether its official or not. Because it's not. I've challenged you to show me sources of the law that declares it as such, instead you're choosing to ignore the sources I have that say the Philippines does not have a national dish. Let's look at your sources then:

  • Business Mirror, 2011 - passing mention, the subject matter is buko juice, not lechon. You're using his quote as evidence, even though it is demonstrably false as well. The mango is not the national fruit and the milkfish is not the national fish. (see Philippine Primer, 2017)
In his House Resolution 1887, Agham (Science) Party-list Rep. Angelo Palmones said the Philippines has already a number of national symbols, such as narra as national tree, sampaguita as national flower, mango as national fruit, milkfish as national fish and lechon (roast pig) as national dish.
  • Minahan, 2009 - error-ridden compendium of national symbols. It confuses Philippine adobo with Mexican adobo. It spells sinigang and mechado wrong, and thinks bangus (milkfish) is a dish. More importantly, it says "considered"
  • Geis, 1961 - no access, but this isn't a book. It's a series of slides.
  • Chan. 2017 (South China Morning Post) - explicitly says "virtually a Filipino national dish" and "many would consider". Which highlights the fact that it is not official.
  • Gardiner, 2017 (San Diego City beat) - is an ad for a restaurant. It says lechon is the national dish, then contradicts itself later by saying adobo would be the national dish. Non-Filipino source.

I've also noted that all of these sources, with the sole exception of Business Mirror, are from outside the country. Now let's see MY sources which contradict yours. Most of these are local sources, with far more knowledge of the symbols of the Philippines. Just as reliable if not more than yours. Also notice how most of them talk about adobo, which is the far more popular contender for the official national dish title, rather than lechon (although that is irrelevant, the point here is that there is no official national dish).

  • Pepper.ph, 2015 Explicity says the Philippines does not have a national dish and one congressman is proposing the Philippine National Symbols Act of 2014 to make adobo (not lechon) the official national dish.
  • CNN Philippines, 2015
The Philippines, on the other hand, has no official national dish.
“Adobo” which comes from the Spanish word “adobar” which means marinated in English, is listed on Taste Atlas as “the closest thing to a national dish in the Philippines.”
Did you know that the Philippines doesn’t have a national dish? While adobo may be one of the most popular Filipino dishes out there and has even gained international recognition, it isn’t actually our national dish – at least not officially.
Among these delectable meals, adobo best fits the title “The National Dish,” along with mango, milkfish (bangus) and carabao as other iconic symbols of the country. (again the implication that there is no national dish)
If the Philippines had an official national dish, it would probably be a sort of stew known as adobo. (emphasis on "if")
Bohol Rep. Rene Relampagos filed earlier this month House Bill 3926 which seeks to declare adobo as national food, claiming that the dish uses a cooking method "indigenous to the Philippines."
This lack of a national dish and a hard-to-define spice profile may add to the reasons why Filipino food has not been as popular until recently as other Asian cuisines
Adobo is commonly referred to as the national dish, but it hasn’t really been officially named that.
House Bill No. 3926 or the proposed National Symbols Act of 2014 filed by Bohol Rep. Rene Relampagos, seeks to declare and recognize several other items as the country’s official national symbols. In the category of “National Food” of the Philippines, it is adobo that is being pushed (shock of shocks! You mean it isn’t yet the national dish???). Relampagos cited the importance of passing the bill to boost national identity, and because of the 20 items often thought and taught to be national symbols, only 10 of these are, in fact, officially recognized in the Constitution, Republic Acts and Proclamations.

I've bolded the last sentence, which is exactly what I'm fighting for us here on Wikipedia to avoid - the continued spread of the misinformation that things like lechon, adobo, mango, etc. have any official status whatsoever as national symbols. I do not understand why you think it's a good idea to obscure that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: we have lots of good and undeniably reliable sources that prove that the Philippines officially have no national dish. This fact automatically renders every source simply not reliable which – counterfacually – calls lechon a "national dish" without further qualification. Chan (2017) is reliable because of the modifier "virtually". Therefore, we actually have good grounds to completely scrap any mention of the term "national dish". But then, some sources say that lechon "could be called" (etc.) the "national dish". So it might be worth a mention then. My compromise tries to accomodate RightCowLeftCoast wish to keep the word "national dish" in the article, but only with all due qualification (most importantly the quotation maks). Obsidian Soul accepts my compromise version (see above before the outdent), so what about RightCowLeftCoast? –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidian Soul: Reverting a reversion is against WP:BRD and can be considered uncivil and edit warring. Please revert yourself, and please stop. You do not own this article. The use of the term unofficial in the language of the Philippine section (let alone in the lead section, where you boldy included it and have so far insisted it being there) is still a matter of discussion. Let us reach a consensus on how to move forward before making changes.
I will read what has been typed since I last responded here, and respond as time allows.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted it based on the statement that we had reached no consensus, which is violating WP:BRD since you are an involved party. The discussion is still ongoing. I have never claimed ownership of the article, I've accepted both proposed compromises while you still ignore the sources I've provided that contradict you. Neither have you answered my direct questions at you as to whether it is official or not, instead simply repeating your original rationale that since your sources do not say it is unofficial verbatim (even though most of them imply it pretty strongly), we should follow their wording exactly to the exclusion of other sources that say otherwise. As I've said in the edit summary, let a third party decide what the consensus is, and I'll abide by whatever they decide. Not either of us. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Austronesier: The wording proposed above appears to be a decent compromise. I don't think the quotation is needed, as it is already wikilinked in the lead section (thus not needing to be linked again in the article per WP:OVERLINK).
I have never stated that any source which I have found has described Lechon as the official national dish. I am not arguing that any source says that, I have not argued that any soruce says that. I have never advocated that framing. Therefore, there is no need to defend it to Obsidian Soul. That said, Obsidian Soul has not provided any reliable sources that says that it is a "unofficial national dish". It has been described a either "a" or "the" national dish, it is what can be verified by reliable sources. Therefore, my wording keeps what can be verified directly from the sources, and does not attempt to spin it other than what the sources say. I am not including any original research.
Attacking sources just because they are not from the Philippines, given the large diaspora of Filipinos (many of whom remain Citizens of the Philippines), does not make the source(s) less reliable. Please remember that sources are not limited based on national origin to be considered reliable sources. In addition Obsidian Soul cited multiple sources to verify that other dishes have also been described as the/a national dish of the Philippines. I never argued that other dishes weren't also described as being a/the national dish of the Philippines. My initial version of the footnote states specifically that other dishes have been described as a national dish of the Philippines; it is what is verified to reliable source(s), and thus is included in the footnote, for both my version and the version proposed by Austronesier.
Additionally, the use of the term unofficial is not needed in the lead section, as it is already state in the body of the article in a footnote, that there is no official national dish for the Philippines.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This inclusion of additional language is new, and done by Obsidian Soul; it does not match language in the body of the article, that existed prior to the inclusion of additional language.
Here is the intial content dispute. The initial dispute being that

and other Austronesian regions, whose lechon traditions have native pre-colonial origins,

was not verified by the lone source used in the lead for that sentence, at that time.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? But just so you know, MOS:CITELEAD does not require sourcing, if it is sourced in the body of the article (and it is - I don't know if you even realized that I wrote most of the text on the section on the Philippines). You reverted without checking.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidian Soul: Thanks for this edit. I hope that we can come to an amicable consensus of improving this article, even though we currently disagree about specific wording at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RightCowLeftCoast: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS An article written by a non-Filipino with passing mention of the subject isn't as reliable as an actual Filipino source saying there is no official national dish. WP:NEWSORG itself specifies that the identity of the authors matters in considering whether their opinion is authoritative. Because they are opinions, given they do not identify the legal basis. Especially since one of your sources (the restaurant review) is quite obviously WP:SPONSORED.
After what I wrote above, you are still completely misunderstanding my sources as well. Whether they are talking about lechon or adobo or sinigang or some other dish (which your sources also do) is again irrelevant. My sources are purely there to demonstrate a fact (not original research, not opinion): that there is no official national dish of the Philippines. How many times must I say that before you acknowledge it? Which automatically makes all the dishes considered as "national dishes" to be unofficial. Do you dispute this? The defense that "this source doesn't say that" is nonsensical to me for foregoing clarification. We can verify that it is called a national dish. But we can also verify that it is not official (including by your own sources which use other ways of emphasizing this, like saying "considered to be" or putting "national dish" in quotes). So why deliberately hide this? Refusing to put it on the lead and hiding the actual clarification in a footnote. Just... why? I am getting frustrated because I'm basically repeating myself over and over and you still refuse to address why I object to your edit.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friends, consensus and compromise will always entail agreeing about the result, even though still disagreeing about each party's reasons and rationale. It may be helpful to be assured that my opponent has understood, digested and addressed my point (especially if there is a perspective for other future fields of debate) but it is not a conditio sine non qua for moving forward.

That said, I still want to help out with a clarification: "national dish" is a term, while "unofficial national dish" is a phrase. That puts the threshold for appearing verbatim in reliable sources on quite different levels. Referring to a "national dish" needs extra care especially in the Philippine context, where national symbols are sanctioned much more than in many other countries (most countries stop at flag, anthem, coat-of-arms, colors). People from other countries who wouldn't expect that there is something like a legislation-sanctioned "national flower" (etc.), are more likely prone to use the term "national dish" in a casual manner (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). Thus, we need reliable sources, and "reliable" here also includes "competent". On the other hand, "unofficial national dish" is one possible wording for the fact that something is called/considered etc. "national dish" in an unofficial, casual or metaphorical manner. We are thus entering the realm of paraphrasing, which is our daily bread on WP, because of copyvio and stylistic concerns (and it helps teachers to detect WP-based plagiarism). "Unofficial national dish" is one way of paraphrasing a fact for which we have numerous reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that consensus has been reached with the phrasing which the above user posted on 09:06, 19 December 2019. It makes use of the term which has been verified, while using a footnote to state it is not officially sanctioned by the national government of the Philippines. In addition it states that other dishes have also been verified to have been described as a national dish of the Philippines.
Therefore, lets go forward with the consensus language created by Austronesier (talk · contribs), and have that user implement it on the article page.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lechon&oldid=1124819610"