Talk:Mole (sauce)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Lead citation

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed this citation from the lead (per WP:LEAD) because 1) in general, lead paragraphs don't need citations except in rare circumstances, which this was not, and 2) what it was appended to was cited later in the article. So here it is:

"Cocina Tradicional Mexicana: Patrimonio Inmaterial de la UNESCO" (PDF). Consulta Mitofsky. November 2010. Retrieved March 25, 2014.

Lazy Bastard Guy 23:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the popularity of Mole in the US

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I'm finally taking this out based on a citation here: "Whereas tacos and fajitas may have been exotic a few decades ago, Americans now want lesser known dishes and flavors -- such as mole sauce, which incorporates chocolate and a variety of spices, says Michael Sansolo, spokesman for the Food Marketing Institute." Highnumber (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

but the quote above does say that it is not as well known ... equal to the information you took out of the article.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not equal to the removed information. It says that mole is not as well known as tacos and fajitas which is not at all the same as saying that "mole is relatively unknown outside [Mexico], even in the United States..." The club sandwich is lesser known than the cheeseburger, the Who is lesser known than the Rolling Stones but these things are not relatively unknown. And so on. And "Americans now want..." also belies your point. Highnumber (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the 19 year old article used as the basis for the claim that mole is unknown in the US ends with quotes from Mexican mole producers stating that their eyes were on the US market. Perhaps that explains why so many supermarkets in the US now sell mole. (All of this is not to mention that the author of the original article offered nothing other than his assertion that mole was unknown in the US. I'm not even sure if this was true in 1995 and it certainly isn't true now.) Highnumber (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your own source says it is "lesser known" Hardly a counter to relatively unknown. Find a source to show that mole has become known in the US and the rest of the world and I have no problem with the deletion.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If I made an assertion about the popularity of mole in the US, your request would be valid. I am attempting to remove information about the popularity of something based on a citation that is contemporary to the first Clinton administration. Popularity is a transient condition. Shall I update the Hootie & the Blowfish article to say that they are "very-much-in-demand" based on this citation also from 1995?

Again, all of this is also not to mention that the writer's only evidence for his assertion were two artisanal mole producers he spoke to who did not sell their products in the US. He did not mention speaking to Doña Maria to see what their sales and distribution were. He didn't mention visiting any Mexican restaurants (not taco stands) in the US to check if mole was on their menu and how well it sold. It is out of date now but it was never a good source to begin with. Highnumber (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That a citation is old is not sufficient enough reason to eliminate the information. Again, before you elimate something, justify it. Just because 20 years has gone by, it does not mean that mole is any better known in the world or even the US.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

However, I did add a notation to the information that it needs a better citation.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It would render Wikipedia useless if it relied upon citations that were inherently out of date (not to mention simply poor sources) like that. In this case the "Needs better citation" tag is not useful. Highnumber (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Should this be in the opening paragraph? " The sauce is most popular in the central and southern regions of the country with those from Puebla and Oaxaca the best known, but 60% of the mole eaten in the country comes from San Pedro Atocpan near Mexico City. The popularity of the sauce, especially at major celebrations, is such that 99% of all Mexicans have tried at least one version of it. " I'm not sure how to present this information, or if it actually belongs in the lead. For such a broad claim I feel we should have not just one, but multiple reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 16:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

and the name has nothing to do with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molasses ? --Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Molee came from Arab Granada via Spain and not Native to Mexico

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a lot of people will find this hard to believe but Molee originate from pre Spanish Granada, Mooorish control of what became Spain and Portugal. Why would Indians from India have a dish called Molee which is also a sauce and Mexicans have a dish with the same name when there have never been interaction between the two. Because the Arabs traded with the South Indians for the longest time back in History. The Dish originated in India or with the Arabs. In this article it explains it, and a lot about the origins of some Mexican food especailly rice used in Pilaf used in India and West Asia which became Paella. https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200403/the.mexican.kitchen.s.islamic.connection.htm Starbwoy (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mole sauce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mole sauce. 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) 02:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mole be written Molé ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would seem to be more appropriate, and also align with https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/molé . Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be incorrect. See the wiktionary article: in English, molé is just an alternate spelling of mole; in Spanish, molé is an unrelated verb. 107.77.203.13 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)