Talk:Baklava

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Baklava should move to Turkish baklava above-mentioned reasons. Maurice07 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Support, as proposer. Maurice07 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never once heard the name "Turkish baklava" and the links provided don't change my mind. Hot Stop 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - nationalist baker protests notwithstanding, the article lists regional variations throughout the Ottoman empire and "Lebanese baklava" "Greek baklava" are as much subtypes of the umbrella "baklava" as the Turkish type. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the generic name is baklava. Nobody goes to a sweet shop to ask for Turkish baklava, just baklava. If Turkish baklava has specific qualities, these can be expanded in a "Turkish baklava" section within baklava article. werldwayd (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the topic of the article is baklava in general, not Turkish baklava in particular. The original poster seems to be misinterpreting the EU registration of a PGI. What that registration says is that the name "Antep baklava" officially refers to baklava produced in a certain way in a certain place from certain ingredients. What it does not say is that Antep baklava is the standard for baklava. Nothing excludes the possibility of an additional PGI for, say, Aleppo baklava or Bursa baklava. --Macrakis (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Maurice07, how do you justify this in light of our policy at WP:COMMONNAME? It should simply be Baklava, which is how it is normally known. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous nationalism --Երևանցի ^talk 21:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I am unsure how to format my comment so apologies if this breaks the page. I am confused why the article has a description box saying the place of origin was the Ottoman Empire where as the article text explains the origin of Baklava is from Assyria. Can someone explain or fix this discrepancy? I do not have an account to do so since the article is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.117.241 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Yerevantsi, I'm looking your contribs so far and I don't need to take lessons from you on nationalism. Completely article related Armenia and Armenians. Best regards.. Maurice07 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Nice to know you can't see my edits unrelated to Armenia. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origins of Baklava

I am unsure how to format my comment so apologies if this breaks the page. I am confused why the article has a description box saying the place of origin was the Ottoman Empire where as the article text explains the origin of Baklava is from Assyria. Can someone explain or fix this discrepancy? I do not have an account to do so since the article is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.117.241 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

I don't think anyone knows for sure where phyllo dough was invented. We probably need to find several sources that meet WP:RS and attribute statements to the authors. I wouldn't normally do this, but I'm copying an old section from the archives below: Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

2007 discussion on credible sources

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)

It doesn't matter this article shouldn't state Turkic origin is the only possibility Perry is not the only scholar in the world who is reliable therefore changing it is necessary. Vryonis Speros who states that baklava has Greek origins. Vryonis is a Byzantine Professor who can read Ottoman Turkish and Medieval Greek. Source: The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century by Vryonis Speros Jr. also there is an excerpt taken from Delights from the Garden of Eden: A Cookbook and a History of the Iraqi Cuisine written by Nawal Nasrallah. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Nasrallah is not a serious academic, however, his ideas are interesting. It should also be noted that Perry has read and translated al-Baghdadi, which Nasrallah uses as a source. Nareklm 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

LMAO, Narek, copy pasting what I said from Myspace tsk tsk tsk :P :P :P HAHAHAH

Yeah man we need all the help we can get ;-) Nareklm 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

•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)

Please replace "The pre-Ottoman origin of the dish is unknown, but, in modern times, it is a common dessert of Turkish, Iranian and Arab cuisines, and other countries of the Levant and Maghreb, along with the South Caucasus, Balkans, Somalia and Central Asia." with the text that I have submitted above

. And replace "Place of origin:O

Ottoman Emp" with "Place of Origin: Mediterranean"ire

Ottoman Empire

Ottoman Empi" re 2A02:587:7615:B000:AD7F:46EC:E49B:8D96 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I want my changes to stay

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)

@93.200.105.234: When I said 'far too detailed', I was specifically talking about the lede (the introduction before the first subtitle). The lede of a Wikipedia article is supposed to present – in a succint form – the most important main points about the topic. Detailed discussions should be made further down in the body of the article. In this case the lede just mentions that the origin is 'unknown' (perhaps 'unclear' would be a better choice), and more details are given in the section 'History'. Your suggested addition actually says the same thing three times: 'the pre-Ottoman origin of the dish has many proposals', 'there are a few dishes that could be called the pre-Ottoman origin' and 'there is no consensus on which ... is the pre-Ottoman origin'. That is far too detailed.

As for your other changes, my comment was that the additions in several cases was redundant, that is repeating things that already are in the text. In the introduction to the section 'Regional variations', you added and expanded on some items from the text just below, so that the same thing is said in the introducion and in a slightly different way in the 'national' subsection. I have to admit that there already was some unnecessary repetitions of the same kind in that section, but it does certainly not help to add more redundancy. My suggestion would be to reduce the introduction to just mentioning a couple of regional variations and instead expand the subsections.

Since your edits contained so many changes at the same time, I may have been a bit rash with my wholesale revert. Some of your suggestions are certainly well worth considering. I will have a stab at it, but I will not reinsert your changes to the lede or expand the introduction to the section 'Regional variations'. If you want to go forward with them, I suggest that you make your specific proposals in new (separate) sections here in the talk page. Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Regional Variations part

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)

I tend to agree with you about the intro (and have already reduced it somewhat). I will try to find time later today to make a simplification. As for the Azerbaijan section, it really is very detailed, but I am not so sure I am the right person for that task, since I am unfamiliar with the Azeri baklava. I will take a look, though. --T*U (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Faas in Placenta Part

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)

Why were my edits reverted?

@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)

Who exactly is Caroline Meyer E. ? a food historian ? the Washington post is a newspaper, not an expert source about history. Not to mention, a random website (Jungle Jim's) which is all but what we would call a reliable source.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I didnt add the Caroline Meyer E. source, It existed before my edits and removing the junge jims source which I just added to show other sources saying the same which I wont do again you didnt name any other point for reverting my edits. Like one source that has nothing to do with all other edits I added doenst justify the reverting of all of my edits. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You added a Greek origin for the placenta cake, that's not covered by any reliable source in the article as far as i can see.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

No I didnt. The Homers odyssey part isnt my work. The Greek poem part aboit plakous also isnt my work, I just formulated it differently so things are more clear and more source orientated. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Greek poem stated originally comes from Antiphanes as stated in the reverted and unreverted version of this page and existed before I touched this page. Antiphanes lived in the 5-4th century BC, I put it at nearly the top, because in this article it is the second oldest mention/recipe of placenta/plakous. Its for structure. 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "Most claim" a Greek origin, if I'm not mistaken. Besides, I don't get well how your version improved this article.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Then leave th most out and let that part be reverted to the original part or reformulate, but why u revert the parts even though they give a better structure(from oldest to most recent) and have sources(like the edit on the beginning part of this page) 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Because some edits cannot be undone due to intermediate edits.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Change lost to many If u want, but there are literially sources stating what I said and why this structure is better, like one of the sources which are also in the unreverted version of this edit: Goldstein 2015, "ancient world": "The next cake of note, first mentioned about 350 B.C.E. by two Greek poets, is plakous. [...] At last, we have recipes and a context to go with the name. Plakous is listed as a delicacy for second tables, alongside dried fruits and nuts, by the gastronomic poet Archestratos. He praises the plakous made in Athens because it was soaked in Attic honey from the thyme-covered slopes of Mount Hymettos. His contemporary, the comic poet Antiphanes, tells us the other main ingredients, goat’s cheese and wheat flour. Two centuries later, in Italy, Cato gives an elaborate recipe for placenta (the same name transcribed into Latin), redolent of honey and cheese. The modern Romanian plăcintă and the Viennese Palatschinke, though now quite different from their ancient Greek and Roman ancestor, still bear the same name." 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reinstall the parts of your edits that are well-covered by reliable sources, but please, do not add "sources" like Jungle Jim's.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This means that my structure makes sense and calling catos recipe the earliest detailed recipe make more sense than calling Catos recipe which are in a Greek tradtion according to Cato himself(also literially stated in the part right after catos recipe) than calling it the earliest recipe in general 2003:EA:4F4F:CFA3:B921:8949:80FC:96A1 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)