Talk:Chicken parmesan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Can I suggest an edit of the article. I struggle with some of the English - for instance what does "Size is considered to be a major part of the chicken parmigiana" mean?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Heavily slanted toward Australia / possible merge

I have tagged this article with {{Globalize/Australia}}. The current version is heavily slanted toward how the dish is prepared and consumed in that country, and does not adequately show how chicken parmigiana is prepared and consumed in various other regions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

An alternative is to merge this short-three paragraph article into the primary parmigiana page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there sources covering it outside of Australia? If so, I'd have no problems at all expanding the article. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the Chicken parmesan page was already merged into the primary parmigiana page in 2008. And there is already a parmigiana#International variations section. This page could easily merge into there. Unless there are more sources, I do not understand the need to have this seperate Aussie-centered article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess my main concerns would be weight and whether or not these are the same dish. Dropping in a chunk of text which isn't strictly about the same dish would potentially unbalance the other article, and there are enough sources to make this a valid article on its own. - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Chicken parmigiana can be considered a variation of the main parmigiana dish. As the the lead sentence says, "Chicken parmigiana ... is a chicken dish based on the Italian Parmigiana". In addition, the exact phrase "chicken parmigiana" is mentioned on two consecutive paragraphs of the parmigiana#International variations section. Australia is specifically mentioned in the third paragraph of that section (but is currently tagged with {{citations needed}}). Also, the number of citations needed is independent of the article size of the prose, or whether articles should be merged. As I said, this content could be condensed and put into that third paragraph of the parmigiana#International variations section. There is overlap between this Chicken parmigiana page and that third paragraph, and it is unlikely that the former is going to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My general rule is that I will support a merge of an article where it is logical and there is no loss of content, or where the merged article is unable to stand on its own. In this case I agree fully that it could do with more content to cover the dish outside of Australia, but merging will involve losing some of the material. So as the article is viable, I'd rather keep the two separate so as to avoid putting to much weight on one variation in parmigiana. - 09:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer trying to expand this article, I'll support that position for now. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeking to revive this discussion, as it seems to me that this is a recreation of an article that was previously merged by consensus on the grounds that it's really just a common variant of the dish. Looking at both articles, I think they should be remerged, as the two would really dovetail nicely. Not to mention that the common and logical redirects chicken parmesan (a common variant spelling that is a bit more phonetic in English) and chicken parm (an incredibly common colloquial abbreviation) both still point to the original parmigiana article. (Which is how I found out about this; looked up the article while enjoying a nice plate of eggplant parm).

Seems to me that this article is an unneeded WP:FORK and should be merged back in. That the fork was very Australian-centric doesn't help. (This is evidenced by the only link to this article from the parmigiana article being in the paragraph on Australia, despite the mention in the prior paragraph about the US, where chicken veal and eggplant parms are found in any Italian restaurant or even cheap diner; the dish may be common in Australia, but it is not an Australian dish in origin at all.) Really seems like readers would be better served by one stop shopping. oknazevad (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really for merging. My main concern is that this is a particular and very popular dish, notably different to the parmigiana. The second is an issue of weight - if this content was placed in parmigiana, the parmigiana would double in size, with most of the content being about a different recipe. If there weren't enough sources to support this in its own right I'd be inclined to find an alternative, but with sufficient sources and the problems that come with a merger, keeping only a small amount of content in the parmigiana article and the bulk in a separate one makes a lot more sense. - Bilby (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is notably different. The filling is different, but the preparation is mostly the same and the serving is essentially identical. The only real difference is whether the person is in the mood for veal, chicken or eggplant. People don't really eat one in ways they don't eat the others.

Let's put this another way. Broadly speaking, "Parmigiana" is not the name of a particular dish, but a method of preparation for a dish, regardless of the actual underlying filling. Taken that way, there's no substantial difference between the two worth separating. All parmigiana dishes are essentially the same, as they all follow the same preparation.

Also, it's not like either article is very long. In fact, both aren't really that far above stubs. Combining the article would allow a more thorough examination of the broad concept of all dishes prepared the same way. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Globalize

Since this article has survived AFD, I think we need to tone down the article's Australian bias and add more of the history of the dish as well as its prevalence in the United States. After all, chicken parmigiana (as well as veal parmigiana) was created by Italian immigrants who came to the United States (not Australia) as a variation of the traditional eggplant dish. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin

Currently we're claiming in the lede that the meal was invented in the US. The source doesn't really support this, but this is always a bit of a difficult call, as identifying the origins of more popular common meals can be tricky, and generally requires considerable work by food historians. Personally, unless we have a scholarly source making a claim one way or the other, it seems to make more sense not to make any claims about the specific origin, and simply refer to where it is available and the origins of the base Italian parmigiana. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above - according to CNN this is an Australian dish [1], and other sources list it as Australian or unknown [2]. To be honest, I don't think any of these are reliable enough to make a call one way or the other, so it seems better not to make a specific claim about the origin unless we have a really good source that has looked into the history of the meal. I don't want to say it is Australian - I just don't want to rely on unreliable sources to make any claim about what country it originated in. - Bilby (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The CNN article doesn't say anything about an Australian origin, just that it's commonly served in Australian pubs, which is pretty well established. The second source lists Australia with a half dozen other possible locations, and doesn't emphasize Australia over any of them; "Australia or unknown" isn't an accurate characterization.

Meanwhile, I can easily find dozens of articles with an American origin, including many print cookbooks (like my mother's classic Fannie Farmer Cookbook).. I just added the first couple web sources I found. Which, by virtue of their sites having an actual editorial policy (as opposed to personal blogs) are identifiably reliable sources. The tag is unneeded. There may be a case made for parallel development, but the preponderance of sources have it as originating in Italian-American enclaves, mostly on the east coast. Similar to New York-style pizza. oknazevad (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC).

You can dig up all the minor sites you like, but fundamentally, unless we can find evidence of real research looking at the origins, they're just opinions that can be just as easily countered by alternative opinions published in other sources. If there was something definitive I'd love to use it, but I haven't seen anything that makes a case. Accordingly, it seems much better for us to just not claim an origin until we get a solid source. I'm not arguing something stupid like describing it as Australian - just that when we lack sources of sufficient reliability to claim the origin, and when there are various sources claiming different things, it is just best if we don't make a claim about the origin at all. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance to take. - Bilby (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This topic is now getting more interesting. At the moment, citations supporting both point of view about the possible origins are rather weak. The Chow Hound ref is not very reliable, especially if one tries to fact the writer's statements (some of the given examples are pulled out of Wikipedia). The Revealed Rome ref is actually not as bad as one thinks. Even though it is a blog, it is a blog of an ex-pat American journalist living in Rome. I am surprised that the Wiki-editor that used this ref did not properly credit the author. Yes, the article is not professionally fact checked, but the author is not going to make a too great outlandish statement that would jeopardize her paid work. What I got out of her article is that chicken parmigiana cannot easily be found in a restaurant in Rome since it is not really an Italian dish. So far no one has yet to show a source that did not date any farther back than the early 21st century. So I challenge both American and Australian editors to find the earliest print reference to chicken parmigiana in their respective countries.

What is the most common cookbook to be found in most American homes during the 1950s and 1960s? The Betty Crocker Cookbook? The Fannie Farmer Cookbook? Which is the earliest edition that you can find at your local public library that list chicken parmigiana? What is the ISBN or WorldCat OCLC number so that the citation could be fact checked? What is the Australian equivalent for the same time period? Australian Woman's Weekly Cookbook?

What is the earliest newspaper reference in each country? In the United States, many university and public libraries have free access to historical newspaper on ProQuest and NewsBank. In Australia, the New South Wales State Library seems to have an online archive of many Australian newspapers that is available to most of its residents.

Americans need to look at the references given at the Food Timeline. According to Lynne Olver, the earliest mention in print for chicken parmigiana is a 1962 article in the New York Times.

"New Menus Are Offered Home Cook". New York Times. September 6, 1962. p. 33. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) Alternate Link via ProQuest.

Both the New York Public Library and Los Angeles Public Library have really nice online restaurant collections that go back to the 19th century. Has anyone bothered to look there? Unfortunate most of the interesting menus have yet to be text searchable.

So how far back can chicken parmigiana be traced back in Australian books, magazine, and newspapers? 96.94.230.14 (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is probably worth checking the Green and Gold cookbook. The problem we face, though, is that we can't do our own research beyond referencing sources. It may end up like the Pavlova - the recipe evolved in several locations, and it is difficult to identify at what point the thing that we called chicken parmigiana came into existence, and where that happened. For example, I have a reference to the chicken parmigiana from 28 November 1953 in the Adelaide Advertiser. But is that the same meal, an early version of what would become the meal we're talking about here, or unrelated but for the name? If it is the same meal as what we're looking for, it predates the NYT by 9 years, but probably isn't the origin either. The Australian Women's Weekly lists a "scallopini parmigiana" in 26 August 1959, and that sounds very close, only with veal. But is it the same approach as the chicken parmigiana from the Advertiser? This confusion - and the need for real research - is why I'd rather not make a claim one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO someone seems to have an agenda to claim the dish as Australian, when the majority of sources state the dish is Italian-American in origin. The sources cited are reliable, and anything claiming otherwise is BS. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. :) The agenda is to be accurate - I don't know if it is Australian or otherwise. What I do know is it isn't clear, and thus I'm uncomfortable with making a claim of origin without sufficiently reliable sources to back it up. I'm not inclined to claim that it was invented in Australia, as I have no idea where it was invented, and the sources seem conflicted or not sufficient to be conclusive. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Found this interesting article from The New York Times from early this year. Two things jump out at me. First, note the specific mention of an Italian restaurant in New York that has been serving parm for at least a century, and secondly, that it really is like I said a few sections above: Parmigiana is a method of preperation, not a single dish. I still think this should be merged back in to the main article, and that it's an unneeded WP:FORK. Which is exactly what was decided years ago at Talk:Chicken parmesan in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue of merging this is kind of moot now, given that we've been through an AfD. Whatever the consensus was seven years ago, consensus can change. The restaurant claim in the NYT may well be correct, although it also only claims "half a century" earlier in the article, although that isn't aclaim of origin - just that it was available. My concern continues to be that determining the origin of any meal is incredibly difficult - the issues around lamingtons and pavlovas, for example, show how difficult this can be, and those should have been easier to identify. I'd feel much better making a claim of origin based on an authoritative study, rather than simply blogs or restaurants claiming to have served it forever. This becomes especially difficult when we can't be entirely sure if the meal described in one source is the same as that we're discussing - all we have is a name, and that may not be enough. (This is especially the problem with the pavlova, which evolved rather than just being invented, so the question of origin is tied up in discussions regarding what point the recipe became the particular one we refer to today). - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD is about whether to delete. While the discussion may conclude with a decision to merge, it's not the primary purpose of the discussion, and an AFD result is not final when it comes to a merge discussion. I still maintain that the arguments presented at the original merge discussion from 2008 were correct, and the decision there to merge was the correct one. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. The result of the AFD was that the consensus is that there is enough on this topic to warrant an article. It is possible that we could merge it, but I think that would suffer from undue weight in the parent article, as it would double its size in order to cover it. Certainly, we have lots of examples of variations of dishes with less difference than this one that are able to support stand along articles - the pizza varieties, such as New York-style pizza and Chicago-style pizza spring to mind. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of actual origin, are there any newspaper articles written on why chicken parms became popular in the Australian mainstream culture (or at least Australian pub culture) beyond the fact that some 21st century pub crawler decided to create a website that rated parms in their local neighborhood and the site went viral on a slow news day? If no one can even show that, maybe oknazevad is correct to say that Chicken Parmigiana is not significant enough to deserve its own article. On the Spanish Wikipedia, the Argentinians are able to demonstrate that es:Milanesa napolitana (beefsteak parmigiana in Argentina, Milanesa napolitana de pollo is chicken parmigiana in Argentina) is a significant enough topic to warranty its own page instead of being lumped together with the related Milanesa. They were able to track down an origin story and then some. BTW, the description of the dish in 28 November 1953 issue of the Adelaide Advertiser appears to be some sort chicken in wine dish with Parmesan cheese and not what is not considered to be "Parmigiana". 107.216.165.224 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the NYPL restaurant menus website

FYI, as of March 2016, the NYPL restaurant menu website is in a state of flux. There are times in which their server appears dead, but wait a day or so, the site works again. The NYPL is also in the process of changing the default image format for their restaurant menus from low resolution JPEG to high resolution JPEG 2000 image format, which some web browser are unable to render correctly. Since some of the images are also quite large (~10 mb), these images could take a long time to download on a slow net connection, which could be a problem for those persons who are outside of the USA or in rural communities. The NYPL does respond to reports of broken links and other access problems so please inform them of new problems.

Until these problems get resolved, should a note about these access problems be added to the article? 96.94.230.14 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to. Strictly speaking, these aren't dead links, and it's not really a requirement that a reference be instantly accessible to every reader, just that it is verifiable in general (otherwise we'd never be able to use print sources). So I think it's okay to leave it as is. oknazevad (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Origins

According to the source we're using, https://www.chowhound.com/food-news/53553/fake-accent/, the meal is a "hybrid of dishes and ingredients". One of those is costelette Parmigiana, which provides the "Parmesan" name and the breaded meat. melanzane alla Parmigiana, in turn, was a "layered tomato-and-eggplant casserole dish covered with melted buffalo mozzarella", and thus provided the mozerella and tomato. Accordingly, I think we should mention both dishes in the lead, as that's what is claimed in the source, and does explain the breaded veal. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering Parmigiana is itself breaded and fried, that provided the breading. Again, this goes back to the idea that "X parmigiana", or alla Parmigiana in the full Italian, is a style of preparation (as indicated by the alla), and is the same regardless of filling. The idea that costelette Parmigiana is a specific and direct influence on chicken parmigiana is questionable when veal parmigiana exists. In short, I think we need more sources, and not take one as definitive. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you find it questionable, the source is very clear. It seems better to stick with the source. - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicken parmigiana. 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/20140517151454/http://www.abc.com.py/edicion-impresa/suplementos/gastronomia/el-origen-de-la-milanesa-557404.html to http://www.abc.com.py/edicion-impresa/suplementos/gastronomia/el-origen-de-la-milanesa-557404.html

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) 19:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Italian origin

The article seems to think that chicken parmigiana is an Australian or American invention, and even suggests that Carne pizzaiola is something similar in Italy, although that dish doesn't even have any breadcrumb coating. The Italian dish is Pollo alla parmigiana, and a simple search shows that it is very common in Italy, usually served with pasta. Unfortunately, I don't have time to correct it, but perhaps someone else can do it. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read the references in the article. You might be surprised to learn that the use of chicken (or other meats) instead of the original eggplant is not native to Italy. The article accurately reflects the sources. oknazevad (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: There aren't any references that say the Australian chicken parmigiana originates from America, it originates from the Italian diaspora in Australia. You should also explain why you replaced the infobox picture with a dish prepared by a Wikipedia editor rather than one created in a restaurant uninvolved with the article or with Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the Australian dish is a separate dish from the American dish? That's novel. And completely unsupported by the sources. While it could be argued that there was parallel development, the idea of Australian primacy has been discounted right on this very page, sorry. As for the image, an image of just chicken parm without any side dishes is superior, as it is just focuses on the actual item of food. What side dishes are included vary greatly, and one particular serving should not be shown as primary over the others. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

oknazevad, Onetwothreeip. These two references, [3] and [4], may be useful. I leave them to you to include as you see fit. Aoziwe (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There isn't really anything here, and they aren't reliable sources anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Chicken parmigiana includes chips and salad though, very rarely not pictured with them. Where is the evidence that the Australian parmigiana comes from the American "chicken parm" dish? There is none. As for the image, the current one in the infobox is blatantly WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, this was something created by a Wikipedia editor. The second image in the article looks like a more typical chicken parmigiana. Anything you're saying about "Australian primacy" can only be considered either a strawman of what I am saying, or a misunderstanding. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, the Australian dish and the American one are not different dishes. Chicken parm does not "include" chips and a salad; chips and a salad are typical side dishes in Australia. They would never be side dishes in the US. The idea that an Australian-style serving is universally normative is incorrect. You are the one fixated on how you're used to seeing the dish. But it is not universal. That's why using that as the lead image is plainly incorrect. Plus, please read the references. They clearly state that the dish originated in the northeast US. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never said either on the talk page or on the article that these are two different dishes, or that it is served with chips and a salad in the United States. They are two versions of the same food, and I stated in the article that it is usually served either with chips or with pasta, as it is often served with pasta in America but is uncommon in Australia. Please show in any reference where the Australian version originates from any American version - there is no such reference which says so.

Please discuss what you disagree with my changes specifically. I note that you have also reverted ordering paragraphs of the countries in alphabetical order and you have not explained that anywhere. It seems like you have this preconception that the meal as it is in Australia somehow comes from American or Italian-American cuisine. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I have the conception shown by the sources that the earliest version is from the US, yes. As such, it should be listed first. I mightily object to the idea that the side dishes are part of the dish. They may be part of how the meal is usually served, but they are not part of the dish. Also, there is no OR in using a homemade version as the lead image. That's ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction between whether it is part of the meal or the dish or how it's served, but I'm happy to just say that it's typically served in such a way. I didn't say anything about which version is earlier, I asked you if you have any sources which say that the entirety of the chicken parmigiana originates from America. I take it from what you are saying and what you are not saying that you admit these were created simultaneously, and that one does not come from the other. In that case, the characterisation of chicken parmigiana as Italian-American is as incorrect as saying every chicken parmigiana is served with chips. As for the image, it's not clearly a chicken parmigiana, it is simply something that someone is saying is so. This is simply not a good example of chicken parmigiana. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As ben said (multiple times) the sources in the article already plainly state an Italian-American origin, so the article accurately include some that info. How it got from there to Australia, I cannot say. Maybe it was parallel development, maybe it was just an idea passed along in letters among families. Don't claim to know, and without sources stating otherwise it's not something to put in the article. As for the image, I'd be fine if we can find a better free image with just a single chicken parm cutlet, but I don't think the lead image should have any side dishes in it considering the regional differences in how it's served. oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Which source says the dish as it exists in Australia originates from America? I agree that without sources saying how the dish came to be in Australia we shouldn't guess how, but we have no sources saying this is primarily an Italian-American dish. As for the infobox picture, we can simply say "chicken parmigiana, pictured served with X and Y", as we normally do for other infoboxes, see Arroz caldo, Pavlova (cake), hot dog and so on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, the sources already in the article explicitly say outright that it originated with Italian immigrants in the US. I don't know how much simpler I can put it. We do indeed have sources saying it's a primarily Italian-American dish, and they're already in the article. oknazevad (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That's just for the chicken parmigiana as it is in America though, not Australia. The article shows the chicken parmigiana in Australia predating any chicken parmigiana in America. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The sources state an origin no later than the 1930s in the US. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That source clearly says "chicken parmesan" and I don't know how reliable Chowhound is anyway, given that there are no further sources. It really seems like you are challenging yourself to make the chicken parmigiana seem primarily or particularly American, which it clearly isn't. That's the only conclusion I can gather for why you revert the alphabetical order of the list of countries, and refuse to show any sources that describe a providence from the American food to the Australian food. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Parmesean and parmigiana are just alternate spellings for the same dish. And you seriously dispute The New York Times? Because that's the primary reference there. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mention The New York Times at all, I said I am sceptical about the Chowhound website. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd agree that Italian diaspora would be a better term to first introduce in the lead as it is a dish popular in the U.S., Australia and Canada. I would also question Chowhound, therefore, the "place of origin" parameter should be empty until other sources are found. I'd also question the infobox photo as it isn't the best picture of the dish as the sauce is pretty oily, but I'd agree it is a tad more suitable than the dish served alongside the fries as it isn't how the dish is served in all parts of the world. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that how it's served in America isn't how it's served elsewhere either. It would be appropriate to caption the picture as "chicken parmigiana, pictured here served with xyz" as is common with other food articles that I have linked above. There's no need to have the picture be a purely default example without any variation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That's true. Since it's the only variation we have, I'd also add "chicken parmigiana, pictured here served with chips and salad, a common serving in Australia" to show that this is usually only in Australia. If we also had chicken parm served with pasta how it is commonly served in North America, I'd be less keen to use either variation as the infobox image. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times article is stating the same thing about an American origin, though, so it is sourced. Also, the use of an alternate spelling does not change what dish is being discussed, which is something else the Times article also does. And again you have referred to the Australian and American as being different dishes. That is not borne out by the sources, and is entirely mistaken. When two dishes have the same ingredients and the same name they're the same dish, even if the side dishes included are different. I'm still concerned by that.

As for the image, I agree that it's not the best image, but it's the only one on commons I could find that was of chicken parm only, without sides. Because the sides vary from place to place, a leaf image without any sides is preferable, so as not to bias the article one way or the other. oknazevad (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've shown, it's very common on Wikipedia for the infobox picture to have various optional ingredients or sides, as long as these are identified. Nowhere in the article from The New York Times used in this article mentions anything about the dish as it is known in Australia coming at all from the American dish. Likewise, Australian newspaper articles talk about how the meal originated in Australia and do not mention America. I haven't said whether they are different dishes or different versions of the same dish or whatever it may be, but clearly there are differences. As you have said, in America it is normally made with cutlets of chicken, whereas in Australia it is made with fillets. I continue with my suspicion that you really just want to take national ownership of this particular food. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: lol did you really go to a diner to get a new picture of chicken parm? The commitment; I like it! But since your image has pasta underneath as a side, how is it any different than the Australian image with fries and salad? Your whole argument was that it shouldn't have any distracting sides. However, now that there are two images from both countries, I'm more reluctant to have an infobox image; why should one be held of a higher precedent over the other? I think having both in their own sections with no infobox image is what this calls for right now. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I will neither confirm nor deny that one of my motivations for ordering that chicken parm while at a diner for my buddy's birthday dinner had anything to do with this article. It was very good, by the way, and rather large, with two cutlets in the dish, along with the linguine. As for said linguine, I tried to get an angle where it didn't show too much and thought it wasn't particularly forward in the image, being underneath (and almost completely obscured by) the chicken. We can't not have some sort of lead image, though. I mean, it's not like we don't have a source in the form of one of the world's most respected newspapers stating plainly as part of an article on the dish and it's variants that includes interviews with restauranteurs that the dish originated in the metro area where the image was taken or anything. But I digress. oknazevad (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see you tried not to get much of the pasta. I guess I do agree it would be better to have a lead image, and since this side doesn't distract much, I don't mind either way. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside from not being a generally high quality image, there are similar problems to any other photograph of a chicken parmigiana, not only regarding side dishes but also using cutlets of chicken, which aren't used in Australia. Let's be honest here, you're seeking to make the article appear as though the chicken parmigiana is of American origin, but that is only the American style of chicken parmigiana that originates in the New York area and not the Australian style, or other similar meals. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm reporting exactly what multiple sources including one of the world's most respected newspapers in a specific profile piece says plainly about the origin of he dish. You're engaging in WP:IDHT behavior. Stop. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Show us the source(s) that says the dish as it is known in Australia originates from America. You've alluded to sources saying that but you have not provided a single source that says so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've provided the only source I need to provide, one that plainly and clearly says that it originated in the US shortly after the turn of the 20th century. You're the one making claims that its a different dish, and that it has an entirely separate origin, without any proof. More importantly you're the one who keeps trying to force wholesale changes to the article without consensus. So you, as the one making unsourced claims, as opposed to the already-sourced facts in the article, are the one who needs to prove your point, which you have failed to do. Any further attempts to hijack the article without consensus will result in an ANI report. So bring sources to here on the talk page before editing the article. oknazevad (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Which source was that? You are the one making the claim that the Australian dish originates from the American dish without any evidence whatsoever. If you have no evidence of that then we should not be making that claim in the article, regardless of what I may or may not claim. If you don't have a source for what you claim and if I don't have a source for what I'm claiming (or what you think I'm claiming), then neither of our claims should be in the article. You keep saying that the sources back what you're saying, but I have checked several of them and none of them talking about the American dish mention Australia at all. Not only that, but you have reverted many of the changes I had made which have nothing to do with that, but you haven't at all mentioned that, and you are disingenuously pretending that the only thing you disagree with me about is the origin of the dish. For example there is no consensus for adding the photograph that you created into the infobox. I removed it from the infobox and another editor put it into the body of the article, which I agree with. Plainly you do not have a consensus there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the claims in the article are fairly neutral now as the lead says it’s common in both countries and generally from the early Italian diaspora. The North America section says it first originated in the northeastern United States in the 50s, not that it’s where the dish originated as a whole. I also don’t see an issue with stating there are evident differences with how the dish is prepared with regards to the fillet vs cutlet situation (which is a difference that may be worth mentioning as that difference is very slight and may not be apparent to readers). A source actually claims to use fillets in United States but the quote from that source says cutlets? But to call them separate dishes wouldn’t be correct in my opinion. With regards to the order of the section, alpha order should be used. With regards to the image, to solve the issue we probably don’t even need an info box. The info that is in it right now is essentially stated in the first two lines of the lead. Similar to milanesa, both variations can be placed up top. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 04:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree they aren't different dishes, but they are different variants and neither variant originates from another. Our co-editor Oknazevad seems to think that the absence of a source saying that neither originates from the other means that the Australian must originate from the American. I hope I'm not the only one frustrated by the lack of sources presented, and I ask that my most recent changes be restored. I don't want to edit war so I appeal to someone else to carry that out, there were a lot of minor edits I made and there has been no attempt at refuting them on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one in this discussion that has actually read the New York Times article? I know they have a limit on the number of articles one can read without a subscription, but still the statement "Veal and chicken parmigiana, along with their cousins meatball, sausage and shrimp, are more recent adaptations, created by Italian immigrants in America who could afford to use meat in place of the vegetables they relied on in the Old Country." is pretty unambiguous. And it's supported in the article, too, with an interview with the owners of resturants in New York that have been in business for 115 years and have had chicken and veal parmigiana for almost the entire time. Being that other sources in the article state the same thing, and none refute that, it's pretty much required that we give that same info. (Also, the North American section does not say it originated in the 1950s, but that was widespread by the 1950s, which is not the same thing.) oknazevad (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that you can usually [legitimately] bypass article limits by googling the title a story to be granted access, although getting a subscription to NYT would allow access to the crossword and no doubt provides many other benefits that people are pleased to pay for (at least I don't have a source that suggests otherwise). cygnis insignis 13:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Good advice. I personally have no issue, as my mother is an avid crossword puzzle solver and I coattail-ride on my parents' subscription, but I digress. But it's a good point for those who can't see the actual source used in the article, not the supposed claims that have not. Even supported with sources. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I still get the mini, but not their references to US sports. I'm not sure it is legal to use another's subscription to access the crossword. What was sold in Australia in as chicken parmajana (various spellings) did not necessarily contain chicken, if that has a bearing on the discussion. cygnis insignis 15:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've read that article as well, and I have referred to it on this talk page. There is no mention of the parmigiana in Australia, it's only talking about the parmigiana in America. It was also widespread in the 1950s in Australia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Without any sources stating a sui generis Australian origin, however, it remains that the most reliable sources in the article state plainly that the dish originated in the US. The absence of proof of a connection is not proof of the absence of such a connection. How it got to Australia needs sources, I concur. But as the one positing a separate development, you're the one who needs to provide such sources. oknazevad (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with having the North American version displayed in the infobox. Majority of the sources are from there and it is the most widely known form as the population in North American is far larger than Australia. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Origin

Come on... It's Vienese Schnitzel covered in pasta sauce and cheese, sometimes with bacon. It has almost nothing to do with Italians or Italy. You will not find a single person in Italy that eats crumbed chicken with bacon, cheese and pasta sauce regularly with chips and salad let alone one from Parma, or anywhere else. The dish Pollo alla parmigiana is served with pasta for one and the experience is completely different for two. The origin of our Chicken Parmigiana is German/Austrian/Swiss it has almost nothing to do with Italians in its Western form. In fact if you go to a club and ask for one here in Australia a lot of the time they will ask whether you want it Vienna or Parmigiana. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Resd the actual article. Your opinion is in direct contradiction to cited facts. It is therefore utterly useless. oknazevad (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1