The contents of the Azerbaijani pakhlava page were merged into Baklava on 25 January 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Important note: Please do not modify any information as to the origins of baklava without first seeking consensus on the talk page. You might also try to peruse the archives on the right to get an idea of the discussions that have taken place on this subject in the past and the consensus reached. |
The result of the proposal was not moved. This is a non-starter for the reasons discussed and per the consensus below.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 16:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Baklava → Turkish baklava In 19 December 2013 Baklava became the first ever Turkish product registered list of Protected Geographical Indication by the European Commission. [1] Name of Antep Baklava or Gaziantep Baklava just used as local name in Gaziantep, it's recognized as Turkish Baklava from outside like Turkish delight.
Baklava should move to Turkish baklava above-mentioned reasons. Maurice07 ( talk) 23:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.It is my opinion that the "history" of this food need to be revised. The opening sentence is rather misleading: "there is evidence that its current form was developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul."
The above quote accounts for its "current form" but doesn't account for its actual 'origins' and is thus, extremely misleading. The Assyrians have a historical claim to the actual, 'original' food as do the Byzantines and subsequently the ancient Greeks.
It is highly misleading to suggest that it was the invading Ottomans who only in the latter half of the 2nd millennium CE started serving this food; who pioneered it.
There needs to be further discussion regarding the 'origins' and not just the modern form. The talk about "layered breads" is irrelevant and somewhat of a red herring, given that it is in the 'origin' section. The line about the Sultan serving baklava in the history section further demonstrates that which I am describing. It does not explain the origin but is explicitly circumstantial though it is used as evidence to support an origin argument. The 'origin' is important and it deserves more than one sentence at the start of that section. The Ottomans pioneered it, yes; but where did it originate.
Taking Perry's word - a single source - for this is not effective information propagation. I have noticed that Perry has been used on all of the relating pages such as the Filo page as well, as though Filo just appeared suddenly when in fact it is a Greek word meaning "thin;" as in 'thin pastry.'
This sentence further illustrates what I am talking about: "The thin phyllo dough used today was probably developed in the kitchens of the Topkapı Palace." --- This needs a citation and does not have one as it is very important. You can not just make things up and pass them off as fact to suit a circular argument; in this case proving that Filo is of Turkic origins. "Probably," is not encyclopedic.
This topic needs further discussion and research. ONE source to cover the entire page's origin section is certainly, not enough. - Eidetic Man ( talk) 14:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The quality of the sources used in the baklava article has often been discussed, so I thought I'd write down some thoughts on the subject....
The Wikipedia policies WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability require that we use WP:Reliable sources in articles (I'd strongly recommend editors read those policies carefully).
As with many subjects, this can be a challenge for food history. There are many legends about food history (see, e.g. Croissant), and a lot of national pride attached to many foods. The legends tend to be perpetuated in cookbooks, newspaper columns, Web pages, and other non-scholarly sources. Fortunately, for some foods at least, there are serious researchers who have looked into the history using good methods and sources and have published their results in reputable books and journals. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that their conclusions are correct or definitive, but it gives some degree of confidence. And if there are contradictory scholarly theories, WP policy says we report them.
The current baklava article contains all the scholarly theories that editors have found so far and reports on their conclusions. Some editors have wondered why we should consider Perry as credible. Well, he's a scholar who has studied at Princeton and Berkeley; he has published a translation of al-Baghdadi's cookbook; he reads many of the relevant languages (Arabic, Turkish, Greek). He publishes his work in reputable places, like Petits Propos Culinaires, the Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery History, the Oxford Companion to Food, and books edited by serious academics (like the one in question). He makes cogent arguments based on direct study of the documents in question. He references relevant secondary literature, even when it disagrees with him (like Vryonis and Koukoules, whom Vryonis references). Because he publishes in reputable places, he opens himself up to criticism, which means that there is an opportunity for rebuttal. His article on baklava is well-reasoned. He doesn't have any (obvious) axe to grind or conflict of interest (e.g. he is not working for the Uzbek Ministry of Culture). He is cited by other articles on the subject. (e.g. "The Westernization of Iranian Culinary Culture", Iranian Studies 36:1:43)
Of course, if any of us find other solid sources, we should integrate them into the article. -- Macrakis 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there misunderstanding of the origin of baklava. Baklava making was first invented in the middle east where the Levant, Mesopotamian and Arabia. Baklava perhaps was introduced to Turkish by Arabs. Just like kunafa, lokum, halva, halawa, Kadayif and many other desserts, with keeping in consideration that the mentioned desserts contain Arabic origin names and not related to the Turkish language or origin. (unsigned comment by User:86.132.195.97 2007-01-07T06:02:52)
This is the baklava article; the other foods you mention have their own history sections. If you have reliable sources for a Middle Eastern origin for baklava, please contribute them. Thanks. -- Macrakis 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, Narek, copy pasting what I said from Myspace tsk tsk tsk :P :P :P HAHAHAH
Of course Perry is not the only reliable scholar. Vryonis is already cited in the article for exactly the work you mention. Buell is also mentioned. I don't know anything about Nasrallah's book, but if she has solid research to present, why don't you discuss it here? -- Macrakis 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
•The dessert "Baklavas" has it's origins from the Mediterranean ,where it was firstly made.In the now time baklava is a greek traditional dessert , that's widely spread across the Balcans (Turkey , Albania etc.) 2A02:587:7615:B000:AD7F:46EC:E49B:8D96 ( talk) 12:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The reason @ TU-nor gave is that its far too detailed, but he could just have reformulated the sentence instead of teverting it as a whole and the Azerbaijani Baklava side is far more detailed than what I wrote, there is a whole cooking recipe with temperatures and all in the Azerbaijani Baklava part, while mine are way more simplistic and shorter formulated. So there is too detailed content in this page, but it are not my additions, I can reword my edits If you want. 93.200.105.234 ( talk) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Why do we need a introduction about what regional variations exist If we can get the exact same info by reading the section of each of these regional variations? I think there shouldnt be a introduction, It is just repeating some info that is already stated in the individual sections of the countrys. Also, the Azerbaijani style baklava section is far too detailedx it should be as simplistic as the other ones. Its kinda Peacock.. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFC7:DA1:BDD5:6C9D:3113 ( talk) 02:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Patrick Faas part claims placenta is of Latin origin, I know that we are just quoting him, but it doesnt fit in with any other information presented in this part. Everything else explains how Its of Greek origin and its warliest mention in greek. Cato named them recipes in Greek tradtion accprding to this article, so how can someone claim it being of Latin origin If cato himself names the recipes „Greek Tradition“ and If we got eatlier mentions of placenta? 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Wikaviani why dont u accept my edits? They are all sourced and the structure parts are logical. I also formulated the Placenta part way better and added new sources and context. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 ( talk) 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The contents of the Azerbaijani pakhlava page were merged into Baklava on 25 January 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Important note: Please do not modify any information as to the origins of baklava without first seeking consensus on the talk page. You might also try to peruse the archives on the right to get an idea of the discussions that have taken place on this subject in the past and the consensus reached. |
The result of the proposal was not moved. This is a non-starter for the reasons discussed and per the consensus below.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 16:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Baklava → Turkish baklava In 19 December 2013 Baklava became the first ever Turkish product registered list of Protected Geographical Indication by the European Commission. [1] Name of Antep Baklava or Gaziantep Baklava just used as local name in Gaziantep, it's recognized as Turkish Baklava from outside like Turkish delight.
Baklava should move to Turkish baklava above-mentioned reasons. Maurice07 ( talk) 23:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.It is my opinion that the "history" of this food need to be revised. The opening sentence is rather misleading: "there is evidence that its current form was developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul."
The above quote accounts for its "current form" but doesn't account for its actual 'origins' and is thus, extremely misleading. The Assyrians have a historical claim to the actual, 'original' food as do the Byzantines and subsequently the ancient Greeks.
It is highly misleading to suggest that it was the invading Ottomans who only in the latter half of the 2nd millennium CE started serving this food; who pioneered it.
There needs to be further discussion regarding the 'origins' and not just the modern form. The talk about "layered breads" is irrelevant and somewhat of a red herring, given that it is in the 'origin' section. The line about the Sultan serving baklava in the history section further demonstrates that which I am describing. It does not explain the origin but is explicitly circumstantial though it is used as evidence to support an origin argument. The 'origin' is important and it deserves more than one sentence at the start of that section. The Ottomans pioneered it, yes; but where did it originate.
Taking Perry's word - a single source - for this is not effective information propagation. I have noticed that Perry has been used on all of the relating pages such as the Filo page as well, as though Filo just appeared suddenly when in fact it is a Greek word meaning "thin;" as in 'thin pastry.'
This sentence further illustrates what I am talking about: "The thin phyllo dough used today was probably developed in the kitchens of the Topkapı Palace." --- This needs a citation and does not have one as it is very important. You can not just make things up and pass them off as fact to suit a circular argument; in this case proving that Filo is of Turkic origins. "Probably," is not encyclopedic.
This topic needs further discussion and research. ONE source to cover the entire page's origin section is certainly, not enough. - Eidetic Man ( talk) 14:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The quality of the sources used in the baklava article has often been discussed, so I thought I'd write down some thoughts on the subject....
The Wikipedia policies WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability require that we use WP:Reliable sources in articles (I'd strongly recommend editors read those policies carefully).
As with many subjects, this can be a challenge for food history. There are many legends about food history (see, e.g. Croissant), and a lot of national pride attached to many foods. The legends tend to be perpetuated in cookbooks, newspaper columns, Web pages, and other non-scholarly sources. Fortunately, for some foods at least, there are serious researchers who have looked into the history using good methods and sources and have published their results in reputable books and journals. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that their conclusions are correct or definitive, but it gives some degree of confidence. And if there are contradictory scholarly theories, WP policy says we report them.
The current baklava article contains all the scholarly theories that editors have found so far and reports on their conclusions. Some editors have wondered why we should consider Perry as credible. Well, he's a scholar who has studied at Princeton and Berkeley; he has published a translation of al-Baghdadi's cookbook; he reads many of the relevant languages (Arabic, Turkish, Greek). He publishes his work in reputable places, like Petits Propos Culinaires, the Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery History, the Oxford Companion to Food, and books edited by serious academics (like the one in question). He makes cogent arguments based on direct study of the documents in question. He references relevant secondary literature, even when it disagrees with him (like Vryonis and Koukoules, whom Vryonis references). Because he publishes in reputable places, he opens himself up to criticism, which means that there is an opportunity for rebuttal. His article on baklava is well-reasoned. He doesn't have any (obvious) axe to grind or conflict of interest (e.g. he is not working for the Uzbek Ministry of Culture). He is cited by other articles on the subject. (e.g. "The Westernization of Iranian Culinary Culture", Iranian Studies 36:1:43)
Of course, if any of us find other solid sources, we should integrate them into the article. -- Macrakis 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there misunderstanding of the origin of baklava. Baklava making was first invented in the middle east where the Levant, Mesopotamian and Arabia. Baklava perhaps was introduced to Turkish by Arabs. Just like kunafa, lokum, halva, halawa, Kadayif and many other desserts, with keeping in consideration that the mentioned desserts contain Arabic origin names and not related to the Turkish language or origin. (unsigned comment by User:86.132.195.97 2007-01-07T06:02:52)
This is the baklava article; the other foods you mention have their own history sections. If you have reliable sources for a Middle Eastern origin for baklava, please contribute them. Thanks. -- Macrakis 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
LMAO, Narek, copy pasting what I said from Myspace tsk tsk tsk :P :P :P HAHAHAH
Of course Perry is not the only reliable scholar. Vryonis is already cited in the article for exactly the work you mention. Buell is also mentioned. I don't know anything about Nasrallah's book, but if she has solid research to present, why don't you discuss it here? -- Macrakis 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
•The dessert "Baklavas" has it's origins from the Mediterranean ,where it was firstly made.In the now time baklava is a greek traditional dessert , that's widely spread across the Balcans (Turkey , Albania etc.) 2A02:587:7615:B000:AD7F:46EC:E49B:8D96 ( talk) 12:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The reason @ TU-nor gave is that its far too detailed, but he could just have reformulated the sentence instead of teverting it as a whole and the Azerbaijani Baklava side is far more detailed than what I wrote, there is a whole cooking recipe with temperatures and all in the Azerbaijani Baklava part, while mine are way more simplistic and shorter formulated. So there is too detailed content in this page, but it are not my additions, I can reword my edits If you want. 93.200.105.234 ( talk) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Why do we need a introduction about what regional variations exist If we can get the exact same info by reading the section of each of these regional variations? I think there shouldnt be a introduction, It is just repeating some info that is already stated in the individual sections of the countrys. Also, the Azerbaijani style baklava section is far too detailedx it should be as simplistic as the other ones. Its kinda Peacock.. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFC7:DA1:BDD5:6C9D:3113 ( talk) 02:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Patrick Faas part claims placenta is of Latin origin, I know that we are just quoting him, but it doesnt fit in with any other information presented in this part. Everything else explains how Its of Greek origin and its warliest mention in greek. Cato named them recipes in Greek tradtion accprding to this article, so how can someone claim it being of Latin origin If cato himself names the recipes „Greek Tradition“ and If we got eatlier mentions of placenta? 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Wikaviani why dont u accept my edits? They are all sourced and the structure parts are logical. I also formulated the Placenta part way better and added new sources and context. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 ( talk) 19:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)