Talk:Neapolitan ragù

Does this make sense to anyone?

"It is interesting to note that Bolognese sauce (or, more often, a kind of tomato-and-ground-beef sauce named this way) is used outside Italy for spaghetti, a dry southern pasta, although it is used with tagliatelle, which is a fresh egg pasta, inside of Italy. In Italy the kind of ragù used with pasta types like spaghetti, bucatini, and ziti is always the Neapolitan one" 78.151.39.62 (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Italian-American Sunday Sauce = Ragu

It is clear to any Italian Americal kid that Sunday Gravy is in fact Ragu. While Mom was slaving over the hot stove browning the meats and saying, "This is going to be a good sauce", Grandma (Nonna in Italian), sitting at the kitchen table peeling and seeding tomatoes and generally managing the whole production, insisted on calling the sauce (in Italian), "Ragu"! --@Efrat (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section

Hi JacktheBrown, I noticed you removed a section comparing Neapolitan ragù with Bolognese sauce. The section banner at removal said "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." To be clear, are you challenging that this material is verifiable? Remember, per the lead of WP:V, only a few types of claims actually need inline citations, and it is against policy to remove information simply for not having the source available inline. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 23:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: wait, not all Italian IP addresses are mine. That said, I've checked the edit you've mentioned and I think if a source is added the section should be kept. In any case, your comment is correct. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Revert

Hi @~2025-32458-45, thanks for your edits. I've reverted some and I'm putting my reasoning here:

• Commons inline goes in external links per the documentation
• The source identifying an etymology in ragout does not contradict an origin in ragout, and even if it did, WP:YESPOV means we should describe the dispute.
• It appears braciole is the common name rather than braciolone in the context of this dish. Happy to see otherwise.
• Titles are produced in title case, please do not change per WP:CITEVAR. Per the same reasoning, please do not reorder references to be by year rather than by surname in accordance with your own preferences.
• I do not understand the rationalisation of the see also section. You removed relevant, specific links and introduced links already in the body against MOS:NOTSEEALSO.
• Added back in the in America section. "It has nothing to do with Neapolitan ragù. Spaghetti and meatbealla is made with tomato sauce, not Neapolitan ragù (wrong article to put in)" is your own opinion that directly contradicts a source credible for this information.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-32388-39 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks @~2025-32303-13: for your continuing edits; keep them coming. And sorry I missed the soffritto and BrE spellings, I tried to capture them all but missed those. I see you have tagged the origins sentence as disputed but have not disputed it on the talk page. Can you give your reasoning here? I am sure you would agree that having etymological origins and physical origins are not mutually exclusive, and indeed you would expect them to be related. Would your concerns be resolved if "originates" were switched for "evolves from"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.

Ordering of sources

An editor using a temporary account(s) would like the texts listed in the sources to be ordered by year, saying it's much more tidy in chronological order. I do not think this is any neater than sorting alphabetical, and an alphabetical order is more accessible for the sfn referencing style.

Per WP:CITEVAR: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. As such, I am opening this discussion on behalf of the temporary account to produce any such a consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 10:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Neapolitan ragù

I'm interested in taking this to FA, though I'm hoping to hear other's thoughts before I get there. Thanks! Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 16:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

Expect comments this or next week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Too kind Rie, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• As I've said on the talk page, foreign-language titles (in this case, Italian titles) should be translated and inserted in the |trans-title= parameter.  Done
• Most readers won't be familiar with ragù, therefore it would be good if we briefly explain what it is in the lede. E.g. → ragù, meat sauce served with pasta,... or something similar.
• The lede looks okay to me.
• ISBNs should be consistent. Use the Hyphenator.
  • A little unsure on handling this. Our article on ISBNs says "The ISBN is ten digits long if assigned before 2007, and thirteen digits long if assigned on or after 1 January 2007.", which the referencing style follows.
• Bibliography is usually sorted alphabetically.  Done
• What is the reliability of Italia Squisita and Taccuini Gastrosofici. Others look good.
  • The former is just being used for pronounciation, which it should easily be fine for. The other is perhaps more complex. The project is operated by a university, and one of the people running the website (Susanna Cutini) that we have a Wikipedia page for seems reputable, which goes toward selection of reputable content-writers. The actual article is written by a local, amateur food historian, though I believe they should easily and ably be competent in conveying what a local legend says around a famous dish. The same story is recounted in a few local newspapers, which seem equally as able if you prefer them as sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe wikilink gravy?  Done

That's it from me. The article is well-written and explained well. Could you in return review Sachertorte for me? I'm still looking for more sources, therefore there might be something missing that I have not covered in the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Vacant0, I'll get to these shortly. I can certainly review Sachertorte, though I have intentionally avoided doing so until now because I think without engaging with some of the German-language texts, it can't meet the comprehensiveness standard, and I don't want to tank it if no-one else thinks it's an issue. I can request those books via ILL if you would prefer, though it may take a few months to arrive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 18:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that. We need more German-language sources in the article. I will try to find some; when we find, we could always ask someone to get it for us at WP:RX (if the book is not available online) and WP:RESUP if we need full books. I'll also go through Austrian Newspapers Online to find something interesting, particularly the battle between Demel and Sacher. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sound good. I'll attend to this in the coming days. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey Vacant0, I stepped away from this for a while as I hoped for more information to arrive, but after some off-wiki discussions I am satisfied with the article as it stands. I've also defined ragù, to whatever extent it can be anyway. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: I don't really have anything more to add. I think that the article is in a good condition and I wish you luck at the FAC. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Poirot09

Not here for a full review, but I had a quick note on the lead. I feel that the sweeping statement "The people of Naples revere their local ragù" should be reworded to express the ragù's local popularity in a more neutral way, especially if the only reference supporting it is a cookbook and not scholarly work on the history/reception of the ragù. Cool article though! Poirot09 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Poirot09, thankyou for these comments. I recall seeing another source making the same claim quite credibly (I believe the words were "sacred cow") and I'll try to track it down to add in. Though, I think it is a mistake to take Schwartz 1998 as just a cookbook; the work is well-reviewed and the author writes even-handedly and insightfully on attitudes, see for instance his description of the Neapollitan lasagna: "Many Campanians themselves don't hold the dish in such high regard. Almost without fail, mention lasagna to a Neapolitan and he or she will tell you that "the really good lasagna is from Bologna." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't question the source just because it is a cookbook. I found little to no info on the author and his work in reliable sources upon a quick Google search, though I admit I didn't search through The Wikipedia Library for older non-digital sources that might mention him. I suggested a scholarly source just because it is more likely that it has been written by an expert and went through peer review. Poirot09 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, sorry for misunderstanding. I imagine it will be helpful for me to write up an article on the book to collate reviews before an FAC nom, as from the last time I checked it quite easily met WP:NBOOK. I don't believe there are any scholarly works on the popularity in the area. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that would be clearer! Poirot09 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Poirot09, I've now written Naples at Table up and reworked the claim to a less strong form. Hope this addresses your concerns. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah on all points, well done! Poirot09 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm now reading the pages referenced and I see that he does not write that the people of Naples "revere" the ragù, but simply quotes two food writers expressing their own opinion on the ragù and states that people dedicate a long time to preparing it. Maybe the sentence could just be attributed? Or reworded to say that people are dedicated to its preparation. Do correct me if there's something I'm missing. Poirot09 (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

From Tim riley

A few minor quibbles:

• "braising meat over several hours in tomato purée" but later "Tomato appears as paste and puree" – the Oxford English Dictionary insists on the acute accent; Chambers allows either form, but it's best to be consistent within the article.
  • Standardized these.
• "… far less well-known than ragù bolognese. The two differ in several respects: the Neapolitan ragù … always includes tomatoes" – but doesn't the Bolognese version always include them too?
  • I may have read Marlena Spieler and Gillian Riley too literally. Modified.
• "ragù evolved from the French ragout, from which it also derives its name" – sort of, but the modern French word has a circumflex on the u – ragoût – and according to the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française it was originally ragoust derived from ragoûter, to stew. (In English dictionaries the accent may be omitted, but that's not relevant here.)
  • Added the circumflex, but not sure how to integrate the terms it derived from. For our purposes, as the dish entered Italy it was under the name ragoût if that is relevant.
• "Around 1807, a second edition of Apicio moderno was published, and the recipe for Maccheroni alla Napolitana was updated – the spelling in the 1807 edition remained as "maccaroni".
  • Changed.
• I haven't got access to the 1790 first edition, but according to the Oxford Companion to Food "the first author who could claim to record the combination of pasta and tomato is Francesco Leonardi in his Apicio moderno of 1790", which makes me wonder if the tomatoes were after all included in that recipe for Maccheroni alla Napolitana.
  • Maybe he did, but looking at the 1790 edition, it doesn't appear to have been in his recipe for Maccaroni alla Napolitana.
• "Tomato appears as paste and puree – is there a difference between paste and purée? Is the former the (indispensable) stuff that comes in tubes and the latter something like cooked passata?
  • You've got it right, although I have seen recipes where whole, peeled tomatoes are milled from the can straight into the pot.
• "red wine, basil, and cinammon – cinnamon?
  • That's what Giuliano Bugialli says.

Yes, but he doesn't misspell cinnamon as cinammon. Tim riley talk 13:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Drats

• "as well as the ubiquitous presence of tomato – as above: I don't think I've ever encountered a Bolognese ragù that didn't contain tomatoes.
  • Changed here as well.
• "the term peppiare, meaning to 'lightly simmer' – is the adverb needed? The OED defines the verb "simmer" used transitively, as here, as "To maintain (a liquid, food cooking in a liquid, etc.) at a heat just below boiling point".
  • Done

I hope some of these points are helpful. If you feel like getting your own back for my nitpicking, I too have an article at peer review: Henry Irving; if you fancy looking in I'd be pleased to hear from you. Tim riley talk 10:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou greatly Tim, I was hoping you would come by. I've addressed these points, save the comment on the roots of ragoût, and if I'm not by in the next few days at the PR, I'll certainly be at the FAC. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks FAC-ready to me. Onwards! Tim riley talk 13:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Revert

@~2026-35909-0, not sure what this edit means. Can you elaborate and point to the part of the policies and guidelines you are referring to? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)