Cookbook talk:Spaghetti alla Puttanesca

To avoid an reversal of a reversal
I contest that the need of state (and in practice use) a "large amount of water" should be removed, as having no value to the recipe and promote in general a bad practice. I never use large amounts of water. This is a response to Thenub314 reversal of my edit. This article How Much Water Does Pasta Really Need? cover the issue. --Panic (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well probably not surprisingly since I reverted the edit I disagree. This is an interesting blog entry, but it is far from convincing, particularly where one of the chefs mentions that his method, which includes starting off with cold water, leads to a poorer quality of  texture.  I would personally find Fine Cooking Fine Cooking to be a more reputable source.  But either way, I have a compromise to suggest.  The chef mentioned in the article above, as well as the fine cooking website seem to feel that 4 quarts of water per pound of pasta is a minimum.  Why don't we put this amount in explicitly? Thenub314 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object to stating a defined amount. I only expressed an objection to undefined statement of a "large amount of water". When I cook pasta I use boiling water and then put the pasta vertically in the water and as it softens and loses rigidity it is completely submerged, even if I realize that there are other methods, this one makes it also easier to determine when the pasta is al dente and is more economic, even taking less time. I also prefer to keep the pasta in its original size, some people prefer to break it in half or prefer it more cooked and without any residence to the byte, to me this removes any taste from the pasta. --Panic (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)