Talk:Rice and beans

I don't think rice & beans is at all unique to Brazil. It seems to me that it is popular throughout Latin America, much of the USA, as well as around the world. This article needs to be broadened in scope. NTK 02:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a major dish throughout Latin America, especially the Caribbean.Cheapestcostavoider 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was probably written by a Brazilian, it's a staple dish in Latin American cuisine, especially Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican Republic. It's also widely eaten in Spain. This articles needs to be updated, I'll research the origins of rice and beans and add additional information. Thanks MagicKnight 09:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I love rice and beans.

It's great that rice and beans has its own page. It's popular in Reunion island in the Indian Ocean except that the beans are called 'grains' and are often substituted by lentils (JJ (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

In Nepal rice and beans is a very common dish and is called "dalbat" -- I may have the spelling wrong. I was told that the combination of amino acids from the rice and beans makes protein.

It is true that rice and beans together contain all the essential amino acids71.225.83.159 (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding the unreferenced assertion that rice and beans was introduced to the Americas by slaves. Everything I have ever seen or read about chattel slavery in the Americas strongly implies that these unfortunate folks were NOT given the opportunity to schlep bags of groceries on their voyage. It makes perfect sense that this dish was introduced by the Spanish or Portuguese who were also doing their colonialist business in India and Africa. It may have been soon become associated with the slaves, but that's different. Please note that I am adding my conjecture to the talk page not to the article itself because conjecture is unencyclopedic. - Boston (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As a Dominican I am very aware of my history. Rice and beans was introduced to the carribean by the Africans. I'm pretty sure they were not allowed to "carry groceries" but when they got here there along with the crops the spanish and portuguese slaves traders got from places like Africa. They were able to create variants for their traditional dishes. It would be best if you did more research on the topic and stop your senseless ramble also try learning about the other types and varients of foods the African slave intoduced to the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.72.18 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Because rice isn't native to the Americas and because Europeans, not Africans, controlled transportation, to say "introduced by slaves" is an over-simplification that merits explanation. By the way, I'm not interested in your ethnic background nor in your original research. Please sign your comments, be civil, use references, and don't make personal attacks. In summary, please try to act like an educated and civilized adult who is familiar with and respects Wikipedia guidelines. --Boston (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've integrated a mention of the slave connection in the "history" section. There is no need to repeat that it is nutritious, ubiquitous, economical or culturally important as these facts are all mentioned in proper context elsewhere in the article. Please note also that reference indicates that it was Asian rice, not an African variety, that was adopted by slaves in the New World. This demonstrates why we use references and further highlights how inappropriate your comments were. Perhaps you should have followed your own advise: "It would be best if you did more research on the topic and stop your senseless ramble". --Boston (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you I was going by the ignorant comment you made about the slaves not being able to "carry gorceries". I am very well aware of where rice originated from and it wasn't the Americas, Europe or Asian as most think. It originated in Africa. You should research this also. It doen't matter who was incharge of transportation europeans did not introduce the dish to the region because it isn't their food. These africans has been making it and preparing it for centuries. And if you want to get deeper on the topic of rice and Africans it wasn't limited to the carrib or latin america. they brought rice cultivation to North and South Carolina and other place in the United States. You should do is stop going by what you think or what you feel and find research on the topicF.Y.I I did use references. and here is a very good ref you should look at:Carney, Judith A. Black Rice: The African Origins of Rice Cultivation in the Americas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001

I see the you have removed a large amount of the culture part and added your own opinion. i don't see the point of removing real information and citations. I am going to bring it back and if you do that again I will report you for vanderlism. This is not about what you want to see written this is about the fact of a matter, a subject you clearly don't know much about. The spanish did not introduce asian rice to the Americas. The Africans alreadly cultivated rice take a lookRice. Learn more on the topic and stop vanderlizing with you opinions 69.118.72.18 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be some disagreement about whether Asian or African rice was introduced. The article can reflect this debate very easily. Meanwhile, stop making me laugh with your comments about me "vanderlizing" Wikipedia. --Boston (talk)

No there is no disagreement on that, because europeans did not introduce Asian rice to the Americas.The only disagreement is you don't know what you are talking about. Removing source and citied information and placing it with your own opinion is call vandalizing and I am going to report you if you do it again. this is not about your opinions . What historic account claim that spanish explorers brought asian rice to the Americas, you can't given find refs to back up these claims, because its not facts your just stating what you feel If you want to contibute then learn more about the topic and stop your ramble.

An editor with a 3 day old account has reverted back to an older version. --Boston (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see an "editor" with a 3 day old account. The only person I see reverting that article back to its correct form is me. I’m curious here Boston do you actually know what you are talking about? When did the Portuguese empire or Spanish explorers introduce rice and beans or Asian rice to the Americas? They did no such thing. I’m really puzzled where the references are and citations for these claims are. Jheiv it's funny how you wrote on his page "I hope you are right" if you didn't know or know anything about the topic why then are you changing the articleI thought Wiki was about providing facts and backing it up. Not a game of tattle tale and bullying people to accept someone opinion.Nillarse (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• User:jheiv, if you are going to revert the article you might want to revert to the version that includes the "history" section as you did before. That discusses the whole African rice vs. Asian rice thing with references that this editor ignores. At any rate, the whole matter will be settled eventually. Peace. --Boston (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is correct and I am going to contact administrators about it is you change it again, Boston you should really learn about this subject and stop with the petty nonsense. 1st you lie and put absolute crap in the article then you lie about my account when I correct it. What is your purpose? It's pathetic really. This article is not about the introduction of rice to the Americas (Another topic you know nothing of) this article is about a dish that was introduced by the African slaves who had been making the dish in African before they arrived in the Americas. Jhieve again I’m going to suggest you study the subject before you allow someone to use you to do their bidding…. Also Boston spare me the Bullshit and do not ever send me any foolish messages or warnings. Nillarse (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I really have no idea about rice and beans and the introduction to the Americas, but the sourced material that Boston added seems like a fine addition. I might be overlooking some hidden agenda that someone has, I don't know enough about the article to say either way, but I was just fixing what looked to me like a removal of decent, sourced content. I cleaned up the article as best I could without reverting the contentious content. Can this be discussed on the talk page rather than an edit war? I know I perpetuated it (I guess), but I just thought it was an unknown editor who kept reverting yesterday and now today. jheiv (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't know about the topic that is why you should not let someone use you to do their bidding. Boston did not add source he added his opinions. Again When did the Portuguese empire or Spanish explorers introduce rice and beans or Asian rice to the Americas? Its a lie thats why he can't back it up I saw to edits he made and it was abouslute crap. The other editors was right. That is why he has nothing to back up his claim. Honestly this is not how Wiki operates this is not about one editor bullying people to accept the crap he writes. I am going to report this. also the other editor was right on point Nillarse (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Jheiv, what we're seeing is a case of sockpuppetry that is being dealt with separately. I certainly don't have an agenda other than my reluctance to let scholarship about the introduction about African rice into South Carolina (!) replace the accepted scholarship about the introduction of Asian rice into Latin America. Nevertheless, as you can see, I have mentioned both trends in scholarship because it is interesting, informative, and encyclopedic to do so. Nillarse will almost certainly want to reply with some inappropriate rant. Let's sit back and enjoy. --Boston (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have come aross many editors like you 1st you lie about my account now this? Please free feel to report me for sockpuppetery if you like. Just like I am going to report you Also I don't know why yo keep going back to the another topic you don't know about the "introduction of rice to the americas" when it article is not about that but about the dish rice and beansNillarse (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• NB - Nillarse blocked for sockpuppetry and two requests for unblock denied. --Boston (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

the consumption of the two in tandem provides all the essential amino acids.

As far as I can tell most beans (e.g. black beans) provide all the essential amino acids in reasonable quantities. Which one is missing? --96.241.176.56 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Legumes are low on methionine, while rice is limited in lysine. Both complement each other pretty well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.252.32 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rice contains all essential amino acids. Beans contain all essential amino acids. I'm removing this non-scientific mumbo jumbo from the article. It's pure fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rice contains all the essential amino acids, but it does not contain them all in adequate quantities. As the commenter correctly said above, rice is deficient in lycine. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5812/2http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5709/2Based on USDA data. DM4242 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)